Volume 2001 — The Book of Ron Paul



2001 Ron Paul Chapter 1

Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]

INTRODUCTION OF THE IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION ACT — HON. RON PAUL

(Extensions of Remarks - January 03, 2001)
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, January 3, 2001


2001 Ron Paul Chapter 2

Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]

INTRODUCTION OF THE EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT TAX CUT ACT — HON. RON PAUL
(Extensions of Remarks - January 31, 2001)
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, January 31, 2001


2001 Ron Paul Chapter 3

Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]

INTRODUCTION OF THE FAMILY EDUCATION FREEDOM ACT — HON. RON PAUL
(Extensions of Remarks - January 31, 2001) 
---
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, January 31, 2001



2001 Ron Paul Chapter 4

Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]

Introduction Of The Teacher Tax Cut Act
31 January 2001
HON. RON PAUL
(Extensions of Remarks - January 31, 2001) 
---

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, January 31, 2001



2001 Ron Paul Chapter 5

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

India Disaster Relief
31 January 2001

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

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

2001 Ron Paul 5:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. I too want to express my deep sympathy and sorrow for those people in India who are suffering. It was truly a devastating natural disaster and certainly the concern of all Americans goes out to all these people.

2001 Ron Paul 5:2
I do have some concerns about how we respond so often to disasters like this because we believe that we can solve all our problems by just going to the taxpayers. I know that this does not seem like the appropriate time to raise the question, but there was a time in our history when we did not assume that it was a constitutional approach to tax poor people in America to help people in other parts of the world. We have always resorted to charities and volunteer approaches, and I still believe that is proper. I do not think there is evidence to show that aid to governments is necessarily the most efficient manner of helping other people.

2001 Ron Paul 5:3
There is also the moral question. We talk about what we are giving today, and it is substantial amounts, and we are substantially increasing it. It could be $10 million. It could be $100 million. But nobody talks about could it cost something. Well, there is a cost to it and it might hurt some innocent people in this country; the people who we do not know about. Somebody might not be able to build a house or get medical care. There may be somebody who will lose a job. There may be an increase in inflation. But we will never see those victims, so they are not represented. I think that if we were more determined to follow the rule of law and do this only in a voluntary manner we would not always place a burden on some innocent people in this country.

2001 Ron Paul 5:4
It was ironic that today, although there was talk earlier about sending some goods and surpluses, that actually the ambassador today sadly said he was not interested in any surpluses; he just wanted the dollars to come over there. And there may be a good reason for this, for efficiency sake or whatever. But in a way, I think if we have some surplus in food or something, we should be able to provide that.

2001 Ron Paul 5:5
Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to express my sympathy for victims of the recent earthquake in the State of Gujarat, India and, at the same time, my concern for American taxpayers who, once again, will see their constitution ignored and their pockets raided by their representatives in Washington — it is, of course, easy to express sympathy with other people’s money.

2001 Ron Paul 5:6
Without so much as a hearing in the International Relations committee, this bill comes to the floor and, while laudably expressing deep sympathy for victims of this terrible natural disaster in India, regrettably expresses support for (a) the World Bank; (b) “substantially” increasing the amount of U.S. taxpayerfunded, disaster assistance; and (c) future economic assistance to rebuild the state of Gujarat, India.

2001 Ron Paul 5:7
Setting aside for the moment that nowhere in Article I, Sec. 8 (the enumerated powers clause) of the Federal Constitution can authority be found to take money from U.S. taxpayers for this purpose, additional problems result from passage of this resolution as well as those actions certain to follow as a consequence of the bill’s passage.

2001 Ron Paul 5:8
First, the notion of taxing the fruits of financially struggling Americans with no constitutional authority only to send it to foreign governments is reprehensible. One of the problems with such aid is that it ultimately ends up in the hands of foreign bureaucrats who merely use it to advance their own foreign government agendas thus making it less likely to get to those most deserving. One need only compare the success of private charities in this country with those government relief efforts to clearly see government’s profound and inherently inept record.

2001 Ron Paul 5:9
Secondly, forced “contributions” erode any satisfaction that comes from being a charitable individual. Without the personal choice of giving or not giving to charitable relief efforts, the decision to be charitable and the moral reward of so doing is completely eroded by the forcebased government.

2001 Ron Paul 5:10
Lastly, as a result of such actions as these, participation dwindles worldwide for the most efficient means of dealing with such catastrophes, that is, private disaster insurance. When disaster costs are socialized, greater catastrophic results are encouraged as more people ignore the costs of living in riskier areas. At the same time, these same actors ignore the cost savings and other benefits of living in safer areas. Governments acting to socialize these costs actually stimulates the eventual death and destruction of more people and their property. (This, of course, is a lesson that the United States should learn to apply domestically, as well.)

2001 Ron Paul 5:11
While I truly do extend my heartfelt sympathy to those victims of the recent natural disaster in India, my duty remains to protect the U.S. taxpayer and uphold the constitutional limits of our Federal Government. For this reason and each of those detailed above, I must oppose this resolution.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 6

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Honoring The Success Of Catholic Schools
6 February 2001

2001 Ron Paul 6:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the sponsors of the H. Res. 28 in honoring the success of Catholic Schools in providing a quality education to millions of children around the country. However, I am concerned that this resolution also contains language that violates the sprit, if not the letter, of the establishment clause of the first amendment, thus insulting the millions of religious Americans who are struggling to educate their children free from federal control and endangering religious liberty.

2001 Ron Paul 6:2
The success of Catholic schools has been remarkable. Catholic schools operating in the inner-city have been able to provide an excellent education to students written off by the educational establishment as “unteachable.” Contrary to the claims of its critics, Catholic schools do not turn away large numbers of children in order to limit their enrollment to the “best and the brightest.” In fact, a few years ago the Archdiocese of New York offered to enroll all students who had been expelled from New York’s public schools! Mr. Speaker, I have introduced legislation, the Family Education Freedom Act (H.R. 368) which would help more parents afford to send their children to Catholic, or other religious schools, by providing them with a $3,000 tax credit for K–12 education expenses.

2001 Ron Paul 6:3
While I join with the sponsors of this legislation in praising Catholic schools, I am disturbed by the language explicitly endorsing the goals of the United States Catholic Conference. The Catholic Conference is an organization devoted to spreading and advancing Catholicism. While the Conference may advance other social goods through its work, those purposes are secondary to its primary function of advancing the Catholic faith. This is especially true in the case of Catholic schools which were founded and are operated with the explicit purpose of intergrating Catholic doctrine into K–12 education.

2001 Ron Paul 6:4
Therefore, even though Congress intends to honor the ways Catholic schools help fulfill a secular goal, the fact is Congress cannot honor Catholic schools without endorsing efforts to promulgate the Catholic faith. By singling out one sect over another, Congress is playing favors among religions. While this does not compare to the type of religious persecution experienced by many of the founders of this country, it is still an example of the type of federal favoritism among religions that the first amendment forbids.

2001 Ron Paul 6:5
What is the superintendent of a Baptist private school or a Pentecostal home schooler going to think when reading this resolution? That Congress does not think they provide children with an excellent education or that Congress does not deem their religious goals worthy of federal endorsement? In a free republic, the legislature should not be in the business of favoring one religion over another. I would also like to point out the irony of considering government favoritism of religion in the context of praising the Catholic schools, when early in this century Catholic schools where singled out for government-sanctioned discrimination because they were upholding the teachings of the Catholic Church.

2001 Ron Paul 6:6
Allowing Congress to single out certain religions for honors not only insults those citizens whose faith is not recognized by Congress, it also threatens the religious liberty of those honored by Congress. This is because when the federal government begins evaluating religious institutions, some religious institutions may be tempted to modify certain of their teachings in order to curry favor with political leaders. I will concede that religious institutions may not water down their faith in order to secure passage of “Sense of Congress resolutions,” however, the belief that it is proper to judge religious institutions by how effectively they fulfill secular objectives is at the root of the proposals to entangle the federal government with state-approved religions by providing taxpayer dollars to religious organizations in order to preform various social services. Providing taxpayer money to churches creates the very real risk that a church may, for example, feel the need to downplay its teaching against abortion or euthanasia in order to maintain favor with a future pro-abortion administration and thus not lose its federal funding.

2001 Ron Paul 6:7
Of course, the idea that politicians should bestow favors on religions based on how well they fulfill the aims of the politicians is one that should be insulting to all believers no matter their faith. After all, despite what a few of my colleagues seem to think, Mr. Speaker, we in Congress are neither omnipotent nor divine.

2001 Ron Paul 6:8
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I join the sponsors of H. Res. 28 in their admiration for the work of Catholic schools. However, I also have reservations about the language singling out the religious goals of one faith for praise.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 7

Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]

February 07, 2001
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
(House of Representatives - February 07, 2001)


2001 Ron Paul 7:1
The beginning of the 21st Century lends itself to a reassessment of our history and gives us an opportunity to redirect our country’s future course if deemed prudent.


 2001 Ron Paul 7:2
The main question before the new Congress and the Administration is: Are we to have gridlock or cooperation? Today we refer to cooperation as bipartisanship . Some argue that bipartisanship is absolutely necessary for the American democracy to survive. The media never mention a concern for the survival of the Republic. But there are those who argue that left-wing interventionism should give no ground to right-wing interventionism-that too much is at stake.


 2001 Ron Paul 7:3
The media are demanding the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress immediately yield to those insisting on higher taxes and more federal government intervention for the sake of national unity , because our government is neatly split between two concise philosophic views. But if one looks closely, one is more likely to find only a variation of a single system of authoritarianism, in contrast to the rarely mentioned constitutional, non-authoritarian approach to government.


 2001 Ron Paul 7:4
The big debate between the two factions in Washington boils down to nothing more than a contest over power and political cronyism, rather than any deep philosophic differences.


 2001 Ron Paul 7:5
The feared gridlock anticipated for the 107th Congress will differ little from the other legislative battles in recent previous congresses. Yes, there will be heated arguments regarding the size of budgets, local vs. federal control, and private vs. government solutions. But a serious debate over the precise role for government is unlikely to occur. I do not expect any serious challenge to the 20th Century consensus of both major parties-that the federal government has a significant responsibility to deal with education, health care, retirement programs, or managing the distribution of the welfare state benefits. Both parties are in general agreement on monetary management, environmental protection, safety and risks both natural and man-made. Both participate in telling others around the world how they must adopt a democratic process similar to ours, as we police our worldwide financial interests.

2001 Ron Paul 7:6
We can expect most of the media-directed propaganda to be designed to speed up and broaden the role of the federal government in our lives and the economy. Unfortunately, the token opposition will not present a principled challenge to big government, only an argument that we must move more slowly and make an effort to allow greater local decision-making. Without presenting a specific philosophic alternative to authoritarian intervention from the left, the opposition concedes that the principle of government involvement per se is proper, practical, and constitutional.

2001 Ron Paul 7:7
The cliche Third Way has been used to define the so-called compromise between the conventional wisdom of the conservative and liberal firebrands. This nice-sounding compromise refers not only to the noisy rhetoric we hear in the US Congress but also in Britain, Germany, and other nations as well. The question, though, remains: Is there really anything new being offered? The demand for bipartisanship is nothing more than a continuation of the Third-Way movement of the last several decades.

2001 Ron Paul 7:8
The effort always is to soften the image of the authoritarians who see a need to run the economy and regulate people’s lives, while pretending not to give up any of the advantages of the free market or the supposed benefits that come from a compassionate-welfare or a socialist government. It’s nothing more than political have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too deception. Many insecure and wanting citizens cling to the notion that they can be taken care of through government benevolence without sacrificing the free market and personal liberty. Those who anxiously await next month’s government check prefer not to deal with the question of how goods and services are produced and under what political circumstances they are most efficiently provided. Sadly, whether personal freedom is sacrificed in the process is a serious concern for only a small number of Americans.

2001 Ron Paul 7:9
The Third Way , a bipartisan compromise that sounds less confrontational and circumvents the issue of individual liberty, free markets, and production is an alluring, but dangerous, alternative. The harsh reality is that it is difficult to sell the principles of liberty to those who are dependent on government programs. And this includes both the poor beneficiaries as well as the self-serving wealthy elites who know how to benefit from government policies. The authoritarian demagogues are always anxious to play on the needs of people made dependent by a defective political system of government intervention while perpetuating their own power. Anything that can help the people to avoid facing the reality of the shortcomings of the welfare/warfare state is welcomed. Thus our system is destined to perpetuate itself until the immutable laws of economics bring it to a halt at the expense of liberty and prosperity.

2001 Ron Paul 7:10
Third Way compromise, or bipartisan cooperation, can never reconcile the differences between those who produce and those who live off others. It will only make it worse. Theft is theft, and forced redistribution of wealth is just that. The Third Way , though, can deceive and perpetuate an unworkable system when both major factions endorse the principle.

2001 Ron Paul 7:11
In the last session of the Congress, the Majority Party, with bipartisan agreement, increased the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations by 26% over the previous year, nine times the rate of inflation. The Education Department alone received $44 billion, nearly double Clinton’s first educational budget of 1993. The Labor, HHS, and Education appropriation was $34 billion more than the Republican budget had authorized.

2001 Ron Paul 7:12
Already the spirit of bipartisanship has prompted the new president to request another $10 billion, along with many more mandates on public schools. This is a far cry from the clear constitutional mandate that neither the Congress nor the federal courts have any authority to be involved in public education.

2001 Ron Paul 7:13
The argument that this bipartisan approach is a reasonable compromise between the total free-market or local-government approach and that of a huge activist centralized government approach may appeal to some, but it is fraught with great danger. Big government clearly wins; limited government and the free market lose. Any talk of a Third Way is nothing more than propaganda for big government. It’s no compromise at all. The principle of federal government control is fully endorsed by both sides, and the argument that the Third Way might slow the growth of big government falls flat. Actually, with bipartisan cooperation, government growth may well accelerate.

2001 Ron Paul 7:14
How true bipartisanship works in Washington is best illustrated by the way a number of former Members of Congress make a living after leaving office. They find it quite convenient to associate with other former Members of the opposing party and start a lobbying firm. What might have appeared to be contentious differences when in office are easily put aside to lobby their respected party Members. Essentially no philosophic difference of importance exists-it’s only a matter of degree and favors sought, since both parties must be won over. The differences they might have had while they were voting Members of Congress existed only for the purpose of appealing to their different constituencies, not serious differences of opinion as to what the role of government ought to be. This is the reality of bipartisanship. Sadly our system handsomely rewards those who lobby well and in a bipartisan fashion. Congressional service too often is a training ground or a farm system for the ultimate government service: lobbying Congress for the benefit of powerful and wealthy special interests.

2001 Ron Paul 7:15
It should be clearly evident, however, that all the campaign finance reforms and lobbying controls conceivable will not help the situation. Limiting the right to petition Congress or restricting people’s right to spend their own money will always fail and is not morally acceptable and misses the point. As long as government has so much to offer, public officials will be tempted to accept the generous offers of support from special interests. Those who can benefit have too much at stake not to be in the business of influencing government. Eliminating the power of government to pass out favors is the only real solution. Short of that, the only other reasonable solution must come by Members’ refusal to be influenced by the pressure that special-interest money can exert. This requires moral restraint by our leaders. Since this has not happened, special-interest favoritism has continued to grow.

2001 Ron Paul 7:16
The bipartisanship of the last 50 years has allowed our government to gain control over half of the income of most Americans. Being enslaved half the time is hardly a good compromise. But supporters of the political status quo point out that, in spite of the loss of personal freedom, the country continues to thrive in many ways.

2001 Ron Paul 7:17
But there are some serious questions that we as a people must answer:

2001 Ron Paul 7:24
As we move into the next Congress, some worry that gridlock will make it impossible to get needed legislation passed. This seems highly unlikely. If big government supporters found ways to enlarge the government in the past, the current evenly split Congress will hardly impede this trend and may even accelerate it. With a recession on the horizon, both sides will be more eager than ever to cooperate on expanding federal spending to stimulate the economy , whether the fictitious budget surplus shrinks or not.

2001 Ron Paul 7:25
In this frantic effort to take care of the economy, promote education, save Social Security, and provide for the medical needs of all Americans, no serious discussion will take place on the political conditions required for a free people to thrive. If not, all efforts to patch the current system together will be at the expense of personal liberty, private property, and sound money.

2001 Ron Paul 7:26
If we are truly taking a more dangerous course, the biggest question is: How long will it be before a major political-economic crisis engulfs our land? That, of course, is not known, and certainly not necessary if we as a people and especially the Congress understand the nature of the crisis and do something to prevent the crisis from undermining our liberties. We should, instead, encourage prosperity by avoiding any international conflict that threatens our safety or wastefully consumes our needed resources.

2001 Ron Paul 7:27
Congressional leaders have a responsibility to work together for the good of the country. But working together to promote a giant interventionist state dangerous to us all is far different from working together to preserve constitutionally protected liberties.

2001 Ron Paul 7:28
Many argue that the compromise of bipartisanship is needed to get even a little of what the limited-government advocates want. But this is a fallacious argument. More freedom can never be gained by giving up freedom, no matter the rationale.

2001 Ron Paul 7:29
If liberals want $46 billion for the Department of Education and conservatives argue for $42 billion, a compromise of $44 billion is a total victory for the advocates of federal government control of public education. “Saving” $2 billion means nothing in the scheme of things, especially since the case for the constitutional position of zero funding was never entertained. When the budget and government controls are expanding each year, a token cut in the proposed increase means nothing, and those who claim it to be a legitimate victory do great harm to the cause of liberty by condoning the process. Instead of it being a Third Way alternative to the two sides arguing over minor details on how to use government force, the three options instead are philosophically the same. A true alternative must be offered if the growth of the state is to be contained. Third-Way bipartisanship is not the answer.


2001 Ron Paul 7:30
However, if in the future, the constitutionalists argue for zero funding for the Education Department, and the liberals argue to increase it to $50 billion, and finally $25 billion is accepted as the compromise, progress will have been made.

2001 Ron Paul 7:31
But this is not what is being talked about in DC when an effort is made to find a Third Way . Both sides are talking about expanding government, and neither side questions the legitimacy of the particular program involved. Unless the moral and constitutional debate changes, there can be no hope that the trend toward bigger government with a sustained attack on personal liberty will be reversed. It must become a moral and constitutional issue.


2001 Ron Paul 7:32
Budgetary tokenism hides the real issue. Even if someone claims to have just saved the taxpayers a couple billion dollars, the deception does great harm in the long run by failure to emphasize the importance of the Constitution and the moral principles of liberty. It instead helps to deceive the people into believing something productive is being done. But it’s really worse than that, because neither party makes an effort to cut the budget. The American people must prepare themselves for ever-more spending and taxes.

2001 Ron Paul 7:33
A different approach is needed if we want to protect the freedoms of all Americans, to perpetuate prosperity, and to avoid a major military confrontation. All three options in reality represent only a variation of the one based on authoritarian and interventionist principles.

2001 Ron Paul 7:34
Nothing should be taken for granted, neither our liberties nor our material well being. Understanding the nature of a free society and favorably deciding on its merit are required before true reform can be expected. If, however, satisfaction and complacency with the current trend toward bigger and more centralized government remain the dominant view, those who love liberty more than promised security must be prepared for an unpleasant future. And those alternative plans will surely vary from one another. Tragically for some it will contribute to the violence that will surely come when promises of government security are not forthcoming. We can expect further violations of civil liberties by a government determined to maintain order when difficult economic and political conditions develop.

2001 Ron Paul 7:35
But none of this needs occur if the principles that underpin our Republic, as designed by the Founders, can be resurrected and re-instituted. Current problems that we now confront are government-created and can be much more easily dealt with when government is limited to its proper role of protecting liberty, instead of promoting a welfare-fascist state.

2001 Ron Paul 7:36
There are reasons to be optimistic that the principles of the Republic, the free market, and respect for private property can be restored. However, there remains good reason as well to be concerned that we must confront the serious political and economic firestorm seen on the horizon before that happens.

2001 Ron Paul 7:37
My concerns are threefold: the health of the economy, the potential for war, and the coming social discord. If our problems are ignored, they will further undermine the civil liberties of all Americans. The next decade will be a great challenge to all Americans.

2001 Ron Paul 7:38
The Economy

2001 Ron Paul 7:39
The booming economy of the last six years has come to an end. The only question remaining is how bad the slump will be. Although many economists expressed surprise at the sudden and serious shift in sentiment, others have been warning of its inevitability. Boom times built on central-bank credit creation always end in recession or depression. But central planners, being extremely optimistic, hope that this time it will be different; that a new era has arrived.


2001 Ron Paul 7:40
For several years, we’ve heard the endless nostrum of a technology and productivity-driven new paradigm that would make the excesses of the 1990s permanent and real. Arguments that productivity increases made the grand prosperity of the last six years possible were accepted as conventional wisdom, although sound free-market analysts warned otherwise. We are now witnessing an economic downturn that will, in all likelihood, be quite serious. If our economic planners pursue the wrong course, they will surely make it much worse and prolong the recovery.

2001 Ron Paul 7:41
Although computer technology has been quite beneficial to the economy, in some ways these benefits have been misleading by hiding the ill effects of central-bank manipulation of interest rates and by causing many to believe that the usual business-cycle correction could be averted. Instead, delaying a correction that is destined to come only contributes to greater distortions in the economy, thus requiring an even greater adjustment.

2001 Ron Paul 7:42
It seems obvious that we are dealing with a financial bubble now deflating. Certainly, most observers recognize that the NASDAQ was grossly overpriced. The question remains, though, as to what is needed for the entire economy to reach equilibrium and allow sound growth to resume.

2001 Ron Paul 7:43
Western leaders for most of the 20th Century have come to accept a type of central planning they believe is not burdened by the shortcomings of true socialist-type central planning. Instead of outright government ownership of the means of production, the economy was to be fine-tuned by fixing interest rates (FED Funds Rates), subsidizing credit (Government Sponsored Enterprises), stimulating sluggish segments of the economy (Farming and the Weapons Industry), aiding the sick (Medicaid and Medicare), federally managing education (Department of Education), and many other welfare schemes.

2001 Ron Paul 7:44
The majority of Americans have not yet accepted the harsh reality that this less-threatening, friendlier type of economic planning is minimally more efficient than that of the socialist planners with their five-year economic plans. We must face the fact that the business cycle, with its recurring recessions, wage controls, wealth transfers, and social discord are still with us and will get worse unless there is a fundamental change in economic and monetary policy. Regardless of the type, central economic planning is a dangerous notion.

2001 Ron Paul 7:45
In an economic downturn, a large majority of our political leaders believe that the ill effects of recession can be greatly minimized by monetary and fiscal policy. Although cutting taxes is always beneficial, spending one’s way out of a recession is no panacea. Even if some help is gained by cutting taxes or temporary relief given by an increase in government spending, they distract from the real cause of the downturn: previously pursued faulty monetary policy. The consequences of interest-rate manipulation in a recession-along with tax and spending changes-are unpredictable and do not always produce the same results each time they’re used. This is why interest rates of less than 1% and massive spending programs have not revitalized Japan’s economy or her stock market. We may well be witnessing the beginning of a major worldwide economic downturn, making even more unpredictable the consequence of conventional western-style central bank tinkering.

2001 Ron Paul 7:46
There’s good reason to believe the Congress and the American people ought to be concerned and start preparing for a slump that could play havoc with our federal budget and the value of the American dollar. Certainly the Congress has a profound responsibility in this area. If we ignore the problems, or continue to endorse the economic myths of past generations, our prosperity will be threatened. But our liberties could be lost, as well, if expanding the government’s role in the economy is pursued as the only solution to the crisis.

2001 Ron Paul 7:47
It’s important to understand how we got ourselves into this mess. The blind faith that wealth and capital can be created by the central bank’s creating money and credit out of thin air, using government debt as its collateral, along with fixing short-term interest rates, is a myth that must one day be dispelled. All the hopes of productivity increases in a dreamed-about new-era economy cannot repeal eternal economic laws.

2001 Ron Paul 7:48
The big shift in sentiment of the past several months has come with a loss of confidence in the status of the new paradigm. If we’re not careful, the likely weakening of the US dollar could lead to a loss of confidence in America and all her institutions. US political and economic power has propped up the world economy for years. Trust in the dollar has given us license to borrow and spend way beyond our means. But just because world conditions have allowed us greater leverage to borrow and inflate the currency than otherwise might have been permitted, the economic limitations of such a policy still exist. This trust, however, did allow for a greater financial bubble to develop and dislocations to last longer, compared to similar excesses in less powerful nations.

2001 Ron Paul 7:49
There is one remnant of the Bretton Woods gold-exchange standard that has aided US dominance over the past 30 years. Gold was once the reserve all central banks held to back up their currencies. After World War II, the world central banks were satisfied to hold dollars, still considered to be as good as gold since internationally the dollar could still be exchanged for gold at $35 an ounce. When the system broke down in 1971, and we defaulted on our promises to pay in gold, chaos broke out. By default the dollar maintained its status as the reserve currency of the world.


2001 Ron Paul 7:50
This is true, even to this day. The dollar still represents approximately 77% of all world central-bank reserves. This means that the United States has license to steal. We print the money and spend it overseas, while world trust continues because of our dominant economic and military power. This results in a current account and trade deficit so large that almost all economists agree that it cannot last. The longer and more extensive the distortions in the international market, the greater will be the crisis when the market dictates a correction. And that’s what we’re starting to see.


2001 Ron Paul 7:51
When the recession hits full force, even the extraordinary power and influence of Alan Greenspan and the Federal Reserve, along with all the other central banks of the world, won’t be able to stop the powerful natural economic forces that demand equilibrium. Liquidation of unreasonable debt and the elimination of the over-capacity built into the system and a return to trustworthy money and trustworthy government will be necessary. Quite an undertaking!


 2001 Ron Paul 7:52
Instead of looking at the real cost and actual reasons for the recent good years, politicians and many Americans have been all too eager to accept the new-found wealth as permanent and deserved, as part of a grand new era. Even with a national debt that continued to grow, all the talk in DC was about how to handle the magnificent budget surpluses.


2001 Ron Paul 7:53
Since 1998, when it was announced that we had a budgetary surplus to deal with, the national debt has nevertheless grown by more than $230 billion dollars, albeit at a rate less than in the early 1990s, but certainly a sum that should not be ignored. But the really big borrowing has been what the US as a whole has borrowed from foreigners to pay for the huge deficit we have in our current account. We are now by far the largest foreign debtor in the world and in all of history.

2001 Ron Paul 7:54
This convenient arrangement has allowed us to live beyond our means and, according to long-understood economic laws, must end. A declining dollar confirms that our ability to painlessly borrow huge sums will no longer be cheap or wise.

2001 Ron Paul 7:55
During the past 30 years in the post-Bretton Woods era, worldwide sentiment has permitted us to inflate our money supply and get others to accept the dollar as if it were as good as gold. This convenient arrangement has discouraged savings, which are now at an historic low. Savings in a capitalist economy are crucial for furnishing capital and establishing market interest rates. With negative savings and with the FED fixing rates by creating credit out of thin air and calling it capital, we have abandoned a necessary part of free-market capitalism, without which a smooth and growing economy is sustainable.


2001 Ron Paul 7:56
No one should be surprised when recessions hit or bewildered as to their cause or danger. The greater surprise should be the endurance of an economy fine-tuned by a manipulative central bank and a compulsively interventionist Congress. But the full payment for all past economic sins may now be required. Let’s hope we can keep the pain and suffering to a minimum.

2001 Ron Paul 7:57
The most recent new era of the 1990s appeared to be an answer to all politicians’ dreams: a good economy, low unemployment, minimal price inflation, a skyrocketing stock market, with capital gains tax revenues flooding the Treasury, thus providing money to accommodate every special-interest demand. But it was too good to be true. It was based on an inflated currency and massive corporate, personal, and government borrowing. A recession was inevitable to pay for the extravagance that many knew was an inherent part of the new era, understanding that abundance without a commensurate amount of work was not achievable.

2001 Ron Paul 7:58
The mantra now is for the FED to quickly lower short-term interest rates to stimulate the economy and alleviate a liquidity crisis. This policy may stimulate a boom and may help in a mild downturn, but it doesn’t always work in a bad recession. It actually could do great harm since it could weaken the dollar, which in turn would allow market forces instead to push long-term interest rates higher. Deliberately lowering interest rates isn’t even necessary for the dollar to drop, since our policy has led to a current-account deficit of a magnitude that demands the dollar eventually readjust and weaken.

2001 Ron Paul 7:59
A slumping stock market will also cause the dollar to decline and interest rates to rise. Federal Reserve Board central planning through interest-rate control is not a panacea. It is instead the culprit that produces the business cycle. Government and FED officials have been reassuring the public that no structural problems exists, citing no inflation and a gold price that reassures the world that the dollar is indeed still king.

2001 Ron Paul 7:60
The FED can create excess credit, but it can’t control where it goes as it circulates throughout the economy; nor can it dictate value either. Claiming that a subdued government-rigged CPI and PPI proves that no inflation exists is pure nonsense. It is well established that, under certain circumstances, new credit inflation can find its way into the stock or real estate market, as it did in the 1920s, while consumer prices remain relatively stable. This does not negate the distortion inherit in a system charged with artificially low interest rates. Instead it allows the distortion to last longer and become more serious, leading to a bigger correction.

2001 Ron Paul 7:61
If gold prices reflected the true extent of the inflated dollar, confidence in the dollar specifically and in paper more generally would be undermined. It is a high priority of the FED and all central banks of the world for this not to happen. Revealing to the public the fraud associated with all paper money would cause loss of credibility of all central banks. This knowledge would jeopardize the central banks’ ability to perform the role of lender of last resort and to finance/monetize government debt. It is for this reason that the price of gold in their eyes must be held in check.

2001 Ron Paul 7:62
From 1945 to 1971, the United States literally dumped nearly 500 million ounces of gold at $35 an ounce in an effort to do the same thing by continuing the policy of printing money at will, with the hopes that there would be no consequences to the value of the dollar. That all ended in 1971 when the markets overwhelmed the world central banks.


2001 Ron Paul 7:63
A similar effort continues today, with central banks selling and loaning gold to keep the price in check. It’s working and does convey false confidence, but it can’t last. Most Americans are wise to the government’s statistics regarding prices and the “no-inflation” rhetoric. Everyone is aware that the prices of oil, gasoline, natural gas, medical care, repairs, houses, and entertainment have all been rapidly rising. The artificially low gold price has aided the government’s charade, but it has also allowed a bigger bubble to develop. This policy cannot continue. Economic law dictates a correction that most Americans will find distasteful and painful. Duration and severity of the liquidation phase of the business cycle can be limited by proper responses, but it cannot be avoided and could be made worse if the wrong course is chosen.

2001 Ron Paul 7:64
Recent deterioration of the junk-bond market indicates how serious the situation is. Junk bonds are now paying 9% to 10% more than short-term government securities. The quality of business loans is suffering, while more and more corporate bonds are qualifying for junk status. The FED tries to reassure us by attempting to stimulate the economy with low short-term FED fund rates at the same time interest rates for businesses and consumers are rising. There comes a time when FED policy is ineffective, much to everyone’s chagrin.

2001 Ron Paul 7:65
Micromanaging an economy effectively for a long period of time, even with the power a central bank wields, is an impossible task. The good times are ephemeral and eventually must be paid for by contraction and renewed real savings.

2001 Ron Paul 7:66
There is much more to inflation than rising prices. Inflation is defined as the increase in the supply of money and credit. Obsessively sticking to the rising prices definition conveniently ignores placing the blame on the responsible party – the Federal Reserve. The last thing central banks or the politicians, who need a backup for all their spending mischief, want is for the government to lose its power to create money out of thin air, which serves political and privileged financial interests.

2001 Ron Paul 7:67
When the people are forced to think only about rising prices, government-doctored price indexes can dampen concerns for inflation. Blame then can be laid at the doorstep of corporate profiteers, price gougers, labor unions, oil sheikhs, or greedy doctors. But it is never placed at the feet of highly paid athletes or entertainers. It would be economically incorrect to do so, but it’s political correctness that doesn’t allow some groups to be vilified.

2001 Ron Paul 7:68
Much else related to artificially low interest rates goes unnoticed. An overpriced stock market, overcapacity in certain industries, excesses in real-estate markets, artificially high bond prices, general mal-investments, excessive debt, and speculation all result from the generous and artificial credit the Federal Reserve pumps into the financial system. These distortions are every bit, if not more, harmful than rising prices. As the economy soars from the stimulus effect of low interest rates, growth and distortions compound themselves. In a slump the reverse is true, and the pain and suffering is magnified as the adjustment back to reality occurs.

2001 Ron Paul 7:69
The extra credit in the 1990s has found its way especially into the housing market like never before. GSEs, in particular Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, have gobbled up huge sums to finance a booming housing market. GSE securities enjoy implicit government guarantees, which have allowed for a generous discount on most housing loans. They have also been the vehicles used by consumers to refinance and borrow against their home equity to use these funds for other purposes, such as investing in the stock market. This has further undermined savings by using the equity that builds with price inflation that homeowners enjoy when money is debased. In addition, the Federal Reserve now buys and holds GSE securities as collateral in their monetary operations. These securities are then literally used as collateral for printing Federal Reserve notes; this is a dangerous precedent.

2001 Ron Paul 7:70
If monetary inflation merely raised prices, and all prices and labor costs moved up at the same rate, and it did not cause dis-equilibrium in the market, it would be of little consequence. But inflation is far more than rising prices. Creating money out of thin air is morally equivalent to counterfeiting. It’s fraud and theft, because it steals purchasing power from the savers and those on fixed incomes. That in itself should compel all nations to prohibit it, as did the authors of our Constitution.

2001 Ron Paul 7:71
Inflation is socially disruptive in that the management of fiat money-as all today’s currencies are- causes great hardships. Unemployment is a direct consequence of the constantly recurring recessions. Persistent rising costs impoverish many as the standard of living of unfortunate groups erodes. Because the pain and suffering that comes from monetary debasement is never evenly distributed, certain segments of society can actually benefit.

2001 Ron Paul 7:72
In the 1990s, Wall Streeters thrived, while some low-income, non-welfare, non-homeowners suffered with rising costs for fuel, rent, repairs, and medical care. Generally one should expect the middle class to suffer and to literally be wiped out in a severe inflation. When this happens, as it did in many countries throughout the 20th Century, social and political conflicts become paramount when finger pointing becomes commonplace by those who suffer looking for scapegoats. Almost always the hostility is inaccurately directed.

2001 Ron Paul 7:73
There is a greater threat from the monetary mischief than just the economic harm it does. The threat to liberty resulting when economic strife hits and finger-pointing increases should concern us most. We should never be complacent about monetary policy.

2001 Ron Paul 7:74
We must reassess the responsibility Congress has in maintaining a sound monetary system. In the 19th Century, the constitutionality of a central bank was questioned and challenged. Not until 1913 were the advocates of a strong federalist system able to foist a powerful central bank on us, while destroying the gold standard. This banking system, which now serves as the financial arm of Congress, has chosen to pursue massive welfare spending and a foreign policy that has caused us to be at war for much of the 20th Century.


2001 Ron Paul 7:75
Without the central bank creating money out of thin air, our welfare state and worldwide imperialism would have been impossible to finance. Attempts at economic fine-tuning by monetary authorities would have been impossible without a powerful central bank. Propping up the stock market as it falters would be impossible as well.

2001 Ron Paul 7:76
But the day will come when we will have no choice but to question the current system. Yes, the FED does help to finance the welfare state. Yes, the FED does come to the rescue when funds are needed to fight wars and for us to pay the cost of maintaining our empire. Yes, the Fed is able to stimulate the economy and help create what appear to be good times. But it’s all built on an illusion. Wealth cannot come from a printing press. Empires crumble and a price is eventually paid for arrogance toward others. And booms inevitably turn into busts.

2001 Ron Paul 7:77
Talk of a new era the past five years has had many, including Greenspan, believing that this time it really would be different. And it may indeed be different this time. The correction could be an especially big one, since the Fed-driven distortion of the past 10 years, plus the lingering distortions of previous decades have been massive. The correction could be big enough to challenge all our institutions, the entire welfare state, Social Security, foreign intervention, and our national defense. This will only happen if the dollar is knocked off its pedestal. No one knows if that is going to happen soon or later. But when it does, our constitutional system of government will be challenged to the core.


2001 Ron Paul 7:78
Ultimately the solution will require a recommitment to the principles of liberty, including a belief in sound money- when money once again will be something of value rather than pieces of paper or mere blips from a Federal Reserve computer. In spite of the grand technological revolution, we are still having trouble with a few simple basic tasks – counting votes or keeping the lights on or understanding the sinister nature of paper money.

2001 Ron Paul 7:79
Potential for War

2001 Ron Paul 7:80
Foreign military interventionism, a policy the US has followed for over 100 years, encourages war and undermines peace. Even with the good intentions of many who support this policy, it serves the interests of powerful commercial entities. Perpetual conflicts stimulate military spending. Minimal and small wars too often get out of control and cause more tragedy than originally anticipated. Small wars like the Persian Gulf War are more easily tolerated, but the foolishness of an out-of-control war like Vietnam is met with resistance from a justifiably aroused nation. But both types of conflicts result from the same flawed foreign policy of foreign interventionism. Both types of conflicts can be prevented.

2001 Ron Paul 7:81
National security is usually cited to justify our foreign involvement, but this excuse distracts from the real reason we venture so far from home. Influential commercial interests dictate policy of when and where we go. Persian Gulf oil obviously got more attention than genocide in Rwanda. If one were truly concerned about our security and enhancing peace, one would always opt for a less militarist policy. It’s not a coincidence that US territory and US citizens are the most vulnerable in the world to terrorist attacks. Escalation of the war on terrorism and not understanding its cause is a dangerous temptation.


2001 Ron Paul 7:82
Not only does foreign interventionism undermine chances for peace and prosperity, it undermines personal liberty. War and preparing for war must always be undertaken at someone’s expense. Someone must pay the bills with higher taxes, and someone has to be available to pay with their lives. It’s never the political and industrial leaders who promote the policy who pay. They are the ones who reap the benefits, while at the same time arguing for the policy they claim is designed to protect freedom and prosperity for the very ones being victimized.

2001 Ron Paul 7:83
Many reasons given for our willingness to police the world sound reasonable: We need to protect our oil. We need to stop cocaine production in Colombia. We need to bring peace to the Middle East. We need to punish our adversaries. We must respond because we are the sole superpower and it’s our responsibility to maintain world order. It’s our moral obligation to settle disputes. We must follow up on our dollar diplomacy after sending foreign aid throughout the world. In the old days it was: we need to stop the spread of Communism. The excuses are endless!


 2001 Ron Paul 7:84
But it’s rarely mentioned that the lobbyists and proponents of foreign intervention are the weapons manufacturers, the oil companies, and the recipients of huge contracts for building infrastructures in whatever far corner of the earth we send our troops. Financial interests have a lot at stake, and it’s important for them that the United States maintains its empire. Not infrequently, ethnic groups will influence foreign policy for reasons other than preserving our security. This type of political pressure can at times be substantial and emotional.

2001 Ron Paul 7:85
We often try to please too many, and by doing so support both sides of conflicts that have raged for centuries. In the end, our efforts can end up unifying our adversaries while alienating our friends.

2001 Ron Paul 7:86
Over the past 50 years, Congress has allowed our presidents to usurp the prerogatives the Constitution explicitly gave only to the Congress. The term foreign policy is never mentioned in the Constitution and it was never intended to be monopolized by the president. Going to war was to be strictly a legislative function, not an Executive one.

2001 Ron Paul 7:87
Operating foreign policy by Executive Orders and invoking unratified treaties is a slap in the face to the rule of law and our republican form of government. But that’s currently being done.

2001 Ron Paul 7:88
US policy over the past 50 years has led to endless illegal military interventions, from Korea to our ongoing war with Iraq and military occupations in the Balkans. Many Americans have died and many others have been wounded or injured or have been forgotten. Numerous innocent victims living in foreign lands have died, as well, from the bombing and blockades we have imposed. They have been people with whom we have had no fight but who were trapped between the bad policy of their own leaders and our eagerness to demonstrate our prowess to the world. Over 500,000 Iraqi children have reportedly died as a consequence of our bombing and denying food and medicine by our embargo.

2001 Ron Paul 7:89
For over 50 years, there has been a precise move toward one-world government at the expense of our own sovereignty. Our presidents claim that authority to wage war can come from the United Nations or NATO resolutions, in contradiction of our Constitution and everything our Founding Fathers believed. US troops are now required to serve under foreign commanders and wear UN insignias. Refusal to do so prompts a court martial.

2001 Ron Paul 7:90
The past President, before leaving office, signed the 1998 UN Rome Treaty, indicating our willingness to establish an International Criminal Court. This gives the UN authority to enforce global laws against Americans if ratified by the Senate. Even without ratification, we have gotten to the point where treaties of this sort can be imposed on non-participating nations. Presidents have, by Executive Order, been willing to follow unratified treaties in the past. This is a very dangerous precedent.

2001 Ron Paul 7:91
We already accept the WTO and its international trade court. Trade wars are fought with this court’s supervision, and we are only too ready to rewrite our tax laws as the WTO dictates. The only portion of the major tax bill at the end of the last Congress to be rushed through for the President’s signature was the Foreign Sales Corporation changes dictated to us by the WTO.

2001 Ron Paul 7:92
For years the US has accepted the international financial and currency management of the IMF- another arm of one-world government.

2001 Ron Paul 7:93
The World Bank serves as the distributor of international welfare, of which the US taxpayer is the biggest donor. This organization helps carry out a policy of taking money from poor Americans and giving it to rich foreign leaders, with kickbacks to some of our international corporations. Support for the World Bank, the IMF, the WTO, and the International Criminal Court always comes from the elites and almost never from the common man.

2001 Ron Paul 7:94
These programs run by the international institutions are supposed to help the poor, but they never do. It’s all a charade, and if left unchecked, they will bankrupt us and encourage more world government mischief.


2001 Ron Paul 7:95
It’s the responsibility of Congress to curtail this trend by reestablishing the principles of the US Constitution and our national sovereignty. It’s time for the United States to give up its membership in all these international organizations.

2001 Ron Paul 7:96
Our foreign policy has led to an incestuous relationship between our military and Hollywood. In December, Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen used $295,000 of taxpayer money to host a party in Los Angeles for Hollywood bigwigs. Pentagon spokesman Kenneth Bacon said it was well worth it. The purpose was to thank the movie industry for putting the military in a good light . A similar relationship has been reported with TV stations licensed by the US government. They have been willing to accept suggestions from the government to place political messages in their programming. This is a dangerous trend, mixing government and the media. Now here’s where real separation is needed!


 2001 Ron Paul 7:97
Our policy should change for several reasons. It’s wrong for our foreign policy to serve any special interest, whether it’s for financial benefits, ethnic pressures, or some contrived moral imperative. Too often the policy leads to an unintended consequence, and more people are killed and more property damaged than was intended. Controlling world events is never easy. It’s better to avoid the chance of one bad decision leading to another. The best way to do that is to follow the advice of the Founders and avoid all entangling alliances and pursue a policy designed solely to protect US national security interests.

2001 Ron Paul 7:98
The two areas in the world that currently present the greatest danger to the United States are Colombia and the Middle East. For decades, we have been engulfed in the ancient wars of the Middle East by subsidizing and supporting both sides. This policy is destined to fail. We are in great danger of becoming involved in a vicious war for oil, as well as being drawn into a religious war that will not end in our lifetime. The potential for war in this region is great, and the next one could make the Persian Gulf War look small. Only a reassessment of our entire policy will keep us from being involved in a needless and dangerous war in this region.


2001 Ron Paul 7:99
It will be difficult to separate any involvement in the Balkans from a major conflict that breaks out in the Middle East. It’s impossible for us to maintain a policy that both supports Israel and provides security for Western-leaning secular Arab leaders, while at the same time taunting the Islamic fundamentalists. Push will come to shove, and when that happens in the midst of an economic crisis, our resources will be stretched beyond the limit. This must be prevented.

2001 Ron Paul 7:100
Our involvement in Colombia could easily escalate into a regional war. For over 100 years, we have been involved in the affairs of Central America, but the recent escalation of our presence in Colombia is inviting trouble for us.


2001 Ron Paul 7:101
Although the justification for our enhanced presence is the War on Drugs, protecting US oil interests and selling helicopters are the real reasons for last years’ $1.3 billion emergency funding. Already neighboring countries have expressed concern about our presence in Colombia. The US policymakers gave their usual response by promising more money and support to the neighboring countries that feel threatened.

2001 Ron Paul 7:102
Venezuela, rich in oil, is quite nervous about our enhanced presence in the region. Their foreign minister stated that if any of our ships enter the Gulf of Venezuela they will be expelled . This statement was prompted by an overly aggressive US Coast Guard vessel’s intrusion into Venezuelan territorial waters on a drug expedition. I know of no one who believes this expanded and insane drug war will do anything to dampen drug usage in the United States. Yet it will cost us plenty. Too bad our political leaders cannot take a hint. The war effort in Colombia is small now, but under current conditions it will surely escalate. This is a 30-year-old civil war being fought in the jungles of South America. We are unwelcome by many, and we ought to have enough sense to stay out of it. Recently new policy has led to the spraying of herbicides to destroy the coca fields. It’s already been reported that the legal crops in nearby fields have been destroyed as well. This is no way to win friends around the world.

2001 Ron Paul 7:103
There are many other areas of the world where we ought to take a second look, and then come home. Instead of bullying the European Union for wanting to have their own rapid deployment force, we should praise them and bring our troops home. World War II has been over for 55 years.

2001 Ron Paul 7:104
It’s time we look at Korea and ask why we have to broker, with the use of American dollars and American soldiers, the final settlement between North and South Korea.


2001 Ron Paul 7:105
Taiwan and China are now trading and investing in each other’s country. Travel restrictions have been recently liberalized. It’s time for us to let the two of them settle their border dispute.

2001 Ron Paul 7:106
We continue to support Turkey with dollars and weapons. We once supported Iraq with the same. Now we permit Turkey, armed with American weapons, to kill Kurds in Iraq, while we bomb the Iraqis if they do the same. It makes no sense.

2001 Ron Paul 7:107
Selling weapons to both factions of almost all the major conflicts of the past 50 years reveals that our involvement is more about selling weapons than spreading the message of freedom. That message can never be delivered through force to others over their objection. Only a policy of peace, friendship, trade, and our setting a good example can inspire others to look to what once was the American tradition of liberty and justice for all. Entangling alliances won’t do it. It’s time for Congress and the American people to wake up.

2001 Ron Paul 7:108
Social Discord

2001 Ron Paul 7:109
The political system of interventionism always leads to social discord. Interventionism is based on relative rights, majoritarianism, and disrespect for the Constitution. Degenerating moral standards of the people encourages and feeds on this system of special-interest favoritism, all of which contribute to the friction.

2001 Ron Paul 7:110
Thomas Jefferson was worried that future generations might squander the liberties the American Revolution secured. Writing about future generations, Jefferson wondered if; “in the enjoyment of plenty, they would, lose the memory of freedom.” He believed: “Material abundance without character is the path to destruction.”


 2001 Ron Paul 7:111
The challenge to America today is clearly evident. We lack character, and we also suffer from a loss of respect, understanding, and faith in the liberty that offers so much. The American Republic has been transformed and only a remnant remains. It appears that in the midst of plenty, we have forgotten about freedom.

2001 Ron Paul 7:112
We have just gone through a roaring decade with many Americans enjoying prosperity beyond their wildest dreams. Because this wealth was not always earned and instead resulted from borrowing, speculation, and inflation, the correction that’s to come will contribute to the social discord already inherent in a system of government interventionism. If, indeed, the economy enters a severe recession, which is highly possible, it will compound the problems characteristic of a system that encourages government supervision over all that we do.

2001 Ron Paul 7:113
Conflicts between classes, races, ethnic groups, and even generations are already apparent. This is a consequence of pitting workers and producers against moochers and the special-interest rich. Divvying up half of the GDP through a process of confiscatory taxation invites trouble. It is more easily tolerated when wealth abounds; but when the economy slips, quiescent resentment quickly turns to noisy confrontation. Those who feel slighted become more demanding at the same time resources are diminished.

2001 Ron Paul 7:114
But the system of government we have become accustomed to has, for decades, taken over responsibilities that were never intended to be the prerogative of the federal government under the Constitution. Although mostly well intended, the efforts at social engineering have caused significant damage to our constitutional Republic and have resulted in cynicism toward all politicians. Our presidents are now elected by less than 20% of those old enough to vote. Government is perceived to be in the business of passing out favors rather than protecting individual liberty. The majority of the people are made up of independents and non-voters.

2001 Ron Paul 7:115
The most dramatic change in 20th Century social attitudes was the acceptance of abortion. This resulted from a change in personal morality that then led to legalization nationally through the courts and only occurred by perverting our constitutional system of government. The federal courts should never have been involved, but the Congress compounded the problem by using taxpayer funds to perform abortions both here and overseas. Confrontation between the pro-life and the pro-abortion forces is far from over. If government were used only to preserve life, rather than act as an accomplice in the taking of life, this conflict would not be nearly so rancorous.

2001 Ron Paul 7:116
Once a society and a system of laws deny the importance of life, privacy and personal choice are difficult to protect. Since abortions have become commonplace, it has been easier to move the issue of active euthanasia to center stage. As government budgets become more compromised, economic arguments will surely be used to justify reasonable savings by not wasting vital resources on the elderly.

2001 Ron Paul 7:117
Issues like abortion and euthanasia don’t disappear in a free society but are handled quite differently. Instead of condoning or paying for such acts, the state is responsible for protecting life, rather than participating in taking it. This is quite a different role for government than we currently have.

2001 Ron Paul 7:118
We can expect the pro-life and pro-abortion and euthanasia groups to become more vocal and confrontational in time, as long as government is used to commit acts that a large number of people find abhorrent. Partial-birth abortion dramatizes the issue at hand and clearly demonstrates how close we are to legalizing infanticide. This problem should be dealt with by the states and without the federal courts or US Congress involvement.

2001 Ron Paul 7:119
The ill-conceived drug war of the past 30 years has caused great harm to our society. It has undermined privacy and challenged the constitutional rights of all our citizens. The accelerated attack on drug usage since the early 1970s has not resulted in any material benefit. Over $300 billion has been spent on this war, and we are all less free and poorer because of it. Civil liberties are sacrificed in all wars, both domestic and foreign. It’s clear that, even if it were a legitimate function for government to curtail drug usage, eliminating bad habits through government regulation is not achievable. Like so much else that government tries to do, the harm done is not always evenly distributed. Some groups suffer more than others, further compounding the problem by causing dissention and distrust.

2001 Ron Paul 7:120
Anthony Lewis of the New York Times reported last year: “The 480,00 men and women now in US prisons on drug charges are 100,000 more than all prisoners in the European Union, where the population is 100 million more than ours.”


 2001 Ron Paul 7:121
There are ten times the number of prisoners for drug offenses than there were in 1980, and 80% of the drug arrests are for non-violent possession. In spite of all the money spent and energy wasted, drug usage continues at a record pace. Someday we must wake up and realize the federal drug war is a farce. It has failed and we must change our approach.

2001 Ron Paul 7:122
As bad as drug addiction is and the harm it causes, it is miniscule compared to the dollar cost, the loss of liberty, and social conflict that results from our ill-advised drug war.

2001 Ron Paul 7:123
Mandatory drug sentencing laws have done a great deal of harm by limiting the discretion that judges could use in sentencing victims in the drug war. Congress should repeal or change these laws, just as we found it beneficial to modify seizure and forfeiture laws two years ago.

2001 Ron Paul 7:124
The drug laws, I’m sure, were never meant to be discriminatory, yet they are. In Massachusetts, 82.9% of the drug offenders are minorities, but they make up only 9% of the state population. The fact that crack-cocaine users are more likely to land in prison than powder-cocaine users, and with harsher sentences, discriminates against black Americans. A wealthy suburbanite caught using drugs is much less likely to end up in prison than someone from the inner city. This inequity adds to the conflict between races and between the poor and the police. And it’s unnecessary.

2001 Ron Paul 7:125
There are no documented benefits from the drug war. Even if a reduction in drug usage could have been achieved, the cost in dollars and loss of liberty would never have justified it. But we don’t have that to deal with, since drug usage continues to get worse; in addition we have all the problems associated with the drug war.


2001 Ron Paul 7:126
The effort to diminish the use of drugs and to improve the personal habits of some of our citizens has been the excuse to undermine our freedoms. Ironically we spend hundreds of billions of dollars waging this dangerous war on drugs while government educational policies promote a huge and dangerous over-usage of Ritalin.

2001 Ron Paul 7:127
Seizure and forfeiture laws, clearly in violation of the Constitution, have served as a terrible incentive for many police departments to raise money for law-enforcement projects outside the normal budgeting process. Nationalizing the police force for various reasons is a trend that should frighten all Americans. The drug war has been the most important factor in this trend.

2001 Ron Paul 7:128
Medicinal use of illegal drugs, in particular marijuana, has been prohibited and greater human suffering has resulted. Imprisoning a person who is dying from cancer and Aids for using his own self-cultivated marijuana is absolutely bizarre and cruel.

2001 Ron Paul 7:129
All addiction — alcohol and illegal drugs — should be seen as a medical problem, not a legal one. Improving behavior, just for the sake of changing unpopular habits, never works. It should never be the responsibility of government to do so. When government attempts to do this, the government and its police force become the criminals. When someone under the influence of drugs, alcohol (also a drug), or even from the lack of sleep causes injury to another, local law-enforcement officials have a responsibility. This is a far cry from the Justice Department using army tanks to bomb the Davidians because federal agents claimed an amphetamine lab was possibly on the premises.

2001 Ron Paul 7:130
An interventionist government, by its nature, uses any excuse to know what the people are doing. Drug laws are used to enhance the IRS agent’s ability to collect every dime owed the government. These laws are used to pressure Congress to spend more dollars for foreign military operations in places such as Colombia. Artificially high drug prices allow government to clandestinely participate in the drug trade to raise funds to fight the secret controversial wars with off-budget funding. Both our friends and foes depend on the drug war at times for revenue to pursue their causes, which frequently are the same as ours.

2001 Ron Paul 7:131
The sooner we wake up to this seriously flawed approach to fighting drug usage the better.

2001 Ron Paul 7:132
The notion that the Federal government has an obligation to protect us from ourselves drives the drug war. But this idea also drives the do-gooders in Washington to involve themselves in every aspect of our lives. American citizens cannot move without being constantly reminded by consumer advocates, environmentalists, safety experts, and bureaucratic busybodies what they can or cannot do.

2001 Ron Paul 7:133
Once government becomes our protector, there are no limits. Federal regulations dictate the amount of water in our commodes and the size and shape of our washing machines. Complicated USDA regulations dictate the size of the holes in Swiss cheese. We cannot even turn off our automobile airbags when they present a danger to a child without federal permission. Riding in a car without a seat belt may be unwise, but should it be a federal crime? Why not make us all wear rib pads and football helmets? That would reduce serious injury and save many dollars for the government health system.


2001 Ron Paul 7:134
Regulations on holistic medicine, natural remedies, herbs, and vitamins are now commonplace and continue to grow. Who gave the government the right to make these personal decisions for us? Are the people really so ignorant that only politicians and bureaucrats can make these delicate decisions for them?


 2001 Ron Paul 7:135
Today if a drug shows promise for treating a serious illness, and both patient and doctor would like to try it on an experimental basis, permission can be given only by the FDA- and only after much begging and pleading. Permission frequently is not granted, even if the dying patient is pleading to take the risk. The government is not anxious to give up any of its power to make these decisions. People in government think that’s what they are supposed to do for the good of the people .

2001 Ron Paul 7:136
Free choice is what freedom is all about. And it means freedom to take risks as well. As a physician deeply concerned about the health of all Americans, I am convinced that the government encroachment into health-care choices has been very detrimental.

2001 Ron Paul 7:137
There are many areas where the federal government has gotten involved when it shouldn’t have, and created more problems than it solved. There is no evidence that the federal government has improved education or medicine, in spite of the massive funding and mandates of the last 40 years. Yet all we hear is a call for increased spending and more mandates. How bad it will get before we reject the big-government approach is anybody’s guess.

2001 Ron Paul 7:138
Welfarism and government interventionism are failed systems and always lead to ever-more intrusive government. The issue of privacy is paramount. Most Americans and Members of Congress recognize the need to protect everyone’s privacy. But the loss of privacy is merely the symptom of an authoritarian government. Effort can and should be made, even under today’s circumstances, to impede the government’s invasion of privacy.


2001 Ron Paul 7:139
We must realize that our privacy and our liberty will always be threatened as long as we instruct our government to manage a welfare state and to operate foreign policy as if we are the world’s policemen.

2001 Ron Paul 7:140
If the trends we have witnessed over the past 70 years are not reversed, our economic and political system will soon be transposed into a fascist system. The further along we go in that direction, the more difficult it becomes to reverse the tide without undue suffering. This cannot be done unless respect for the rule of law is restored. That means all public officials must live up to their promise to follow the written contract between the people and the government: the US Constitution.

2001 Ron Paul 7:141
For far too long, we have accepted the idea that government can and should take care of us. But that is not what a free society is all about. When government gives us something, it does two bad things. First it takes it from someone else; second, it causes dependency on government. A wealthy country can do this for long periods of time, but eventually the process collapses. Freedom is always sacrificed and eventually the victims rebel. As needs grow, the producers are unable or unwilling to provide the goods the government demands. Wealth then hides or escapes, going underground or overseas, prompting even more government intrusion to stop the exodus from the system. This only compounds the problem.

2001 Ron Paul 7:142
Endless demands and economic corrections that come with the territory will always produce deficits. An accommodating central bank then is forced to steal wealth through the inflation tax by merely printing money and creating credit out of thin air. Even though these policies may work for a while, eventually they will fail. As wealth is diminished, recovery becomes more difficult in an economy operating with a fluctuating fiat currency and a marketplace overly burdened with regulation, taxes, and inflation.

2001 Ron Paul 7:143
The time to correct these mistakes is prior to the bad times, before tempers flair. Congress needs to consider a new economic and foreign policy.

2001 Ron Paul 7:144
Conclusion

2001 Ron Paul 7:145
Why should any of us be concerned about the future, especially if prosperity is all around us? America has been truly blessed. We are involved in no major military conflict. We remain one of the freest nations on earth. Current economic conditions have allowed for low unemployment and a strong dollar, with cheap purchases from overseas, further helping to keep price inflation in check. Violent crimes have been reduced, and civil disorder, such as we saw in the 1960s, is absent.


2001 Ron Paul 7:146
But we have good reason to be concerned for our future. Prosperity can persist, even after the principles of a sound market economy have been undermined, but only for a limited period of time.

2001 Ron Paul 7:147
Our economic, military, and political power, second to none, has perpetuated a system of government no longer dependent on the principles that brought our Republic to greatness. Private-property rights, sound money, and self-reliance have been eroded, and they have been replaced with welfarism, paper money, and collective management of property. The new system condones special-interest cronyism and rejects individualism, profits, and voluntary contracts.

2001 Ron Paul 7:148
Concern for the future is real, because it’s unreasonable to believe that the prosperity and relative tranquility can be maintained with the current system. Not being concerned means that one must be content with the status quo and that current conditions can be maintained with no negative consequences. That, I maintain, is a dream.

2001 Ron Paul 7:149
There is growing concern about our future by more and more Americans. They are especially concerned about the moral conditions expressed in our movies, music, and television programs. Less concern is expressed regarding the political and economic system. A nation’s moral foundation inevitably reflects the type of government and, in turn, affects the entire economic and political system.

2001 Ron Paul 7:150
In some ways I am pleasantly surprised by the concern expressed about America’s future, considering the prosperity we enjoy. Many Americans sense a serious problem in general, without specifically understanding the economic and political ramifications.

2001 Ron Paul 7:151
Inflation, the erosion of the dollar, is always worse than the government admits. It may be that more Americans are suffering than is generally admitted. Government intrusion in our lives is commonplace. Some unemployed aren’t even counted. Lower-middle-class citizens have not enjoyed an increase in the standard of living many others have. The fluctuation in the stock market may have undermined confidence.


2001 Ron Paul 7:152
Most Americans still believe everyone has a right to a free education, but they don’t connect this concept to the evidence: that getting a good education is difficult; that drugs are rampant in public schools; that safety in public schools is a serious problem; and that the cost is amazing for a system of free education if one wants a real education.

2001 Ron Paul 7:153
The quality of medical care is slipping, and the benefits provided by government are seen by more and more people to not really be benefits at all. This trend does not make America feel more confident about the future of health care.

2001 Ron Paul 7:154
Let there be no doubt, many Americans are concerned about their future, even though many still argue that the problem is only that government has not done enough.

2001 Ron Paul 7:155
I have expressed concern that our policies are prone to lead to war, economic weakness, and social discord. Understanding the cause of these problems is crucial to finding a solution. If we opt for more government benevolence and meddling in our lives, along with more military adventurism, we have to expect an even greater attack on the civil liberties of all Americans, both rich and poor.

2001 Ron Paul 7:156
America continues to be a great country, and we remain prosperous. We have a system of freedom and opportunities that motivate many in the world to risk their lives trying to get here.

2001 Ron Paul 7:157
The question remains: can we afford to be lax in the defense of liberty at this juncture in our history? I don’t think so.

2001 Ron Paul 7:158
The problems are not complex, and even the big ones can be easily handled if we pursue the right course. Prosperity and peace can be continued, but not with the current system that permeates Washington. To blindly hope our freedom will remain intact, without any renewed effort in its defense, or to expect that the good times will automatically continue, places our political system in great danger.

2001 Ron Paul 7:159
Basic morality, free markets, sound money, living within the rule of law, and adhering to the fundamental precepts that made the American Republic great are what we need. And it’s worth the effort.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 8

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Five Days To Revise And Extend Remarks
7 February 2001

2001 Ron Paul 8:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of the special order by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. PENCE) today.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. SIMPSON). Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas? There was no objection.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 9

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Adjournment
7 February 2001

2001 Ron Paul 9:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 12 o’clock and 25 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, February 8, 2001, at 10 a.m.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 10

Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]

February 08, 2001
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
(House of Representatives - February 08, 2001) 
---


2001 Ron Paul 10:1
   The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker’s announced policy of January 3, 2001, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL ) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.

2001 Ron Paul 10:2
   Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I have asked for this special order today to express my concerns for our foreign policy of interventionism that we have essentially followed throughout the 20th century.

2001 Ron Paul 10:3
   Mr. Speaker, foreign military interventionism, a policy the U.S. has followed for over 100 years, encourages war and undermines peace. Even with the good intentions of many who support this policy, it serves the interests of powerful commercial entities.

2001 Ron Paul 10:4
   Perpetual conflicts stimulate military spending. Minimal and small wars too often get out of control and cause more tragedy than originally anticipated. Small wars, like the Persian Gulf War, are more easily tolerated, but the foolishness of an out of-control war like Vietnam is met with resistance from a justifiably aroused Nation.

2001 Ron Paul 10:5
   But both types of conflicts result from the same flawed foreign policy of foreign interventionism. Both types of conflict can be prevented. National security is usually cited to justify our foreign involvement, but this excuse distracts from the real reason we venture so far from home. Influential commercial interests dictate policy of when and where we go. Persian Gulf oil obviously got more attention than genocide in Rwanda.

2001 Ron Paul 10:6
   If one were truly concerned about our security and enhancing peace, one would always opt for a less militaristic policy. It is not a coincidence that U.S. territory and U.S. citizens are the most vulnerable in the world to terrorist attacks.

2001 Ron Paul 10:7
   Escalation of the war on terrorism and not understanding its causes is a dangerous temptation. Not only does foreign interventionism undermine chances for peace and prosperity, it undermines personal liberty. War and preparing for war must always be undertaken at someone’s expense. Someone must pay the bills with higher taxes, and someone has to be available to pay with their lives.

2001 Ron Paul 10:8
   It is never the political and industrial leaders who promote the policy who pay. They are the ones who reap the benefits, while at the same time arguing for the policy they claim is designed to protect freedom and prosperity for the very ones being victimized.

2001 Ron Paul 10:9
   Many reasons given for our willingness to police the world sound reasonable: We need to protect our oil; we need to stop cocaine production in Colombia; we need to bring peace in the Middle East; we need to punish our adversaries; we must respond because we are the sole superpower, and it is our responsibility to maintain world order; it is our moral obligation to settle disputes; we must follow up on our dollar diplomacy after sending foreign aid throughout the world. In the old days, it was, we need to stop the spread of communism.

2001 Ron Paul 10:10
   The excuses are endless. But it is rarely mentioned that the lobbyists and the proponents of foreign intervention are the weapons manufacturers, the oil companies, and the recipients of huge contracts for building infrastructures in whatever far corners of the Earth we send our troops. Financial interests have a lot at stake, and it is important for them that the United States maintains its empire.

2001 Ron Paul 10:11
   Not infrequently, ethnic groups will influence foreign policy for reasons other than preserving our security. This type of political pressure can at times be substantial and emotional. We often try to please too many, and by doing so support both sides of conflicts that have raged for centuries. In the end, our effort can end up unifying our adversaries while alienating our friends.

2001 Ron Paul 10:12
   Over the past 50 years, Congress has allowed our Presidents to usurp the prerogatives the Constitution explicitly gave only to the Congress. The term “foreign policy” is never mentioned in the Constitution, and it was never intended to be monopolized by the President. Going to war was to be strictly a legislative function, not an executive one. Operating foreign policy by executive orders and invoking unratified treaties is a slap in the face to the rule of law and our republican form of government. But that is the way it is currently being done.

2001 Ron Paul 10:13
   U.S. policy over the past 50 years has led to endless illegal military interventions, from Korea to our ongoing war with Iraq and military occupation in the Balkans. Many Americans have died and many others have been wounded or injured or have just simply been forgotten.

2001 Ron Paul 10:14
   Numerous innocent victims living in foreign lands have died as well from the bombings and the blockades we have imposed. They have been people with whom we have had no fight but who were trapped between the bad policy of their own leaders and our eagerness to demonstrate our prowess in the world. Over 500,000 Iraqi children have reportedly died as a consequence of our bombing and denying food and medicine by our embargo.

2001 Ron Paul 10:15
   For over 50 years, there has been a precise move towards one-world government at the expense of our own sovereignty. Our Presidents claim that our authority to wage wars come from the United Nations or NATO resolution, in contradiction to our Constitution and everything our Founding Fathers believed.

2001 Ron Paul 10:16
   U.S. troops are now required to serve under foreign commanders and wear U.N. insignias. Refusal to do so prompts a court-martial.

2001 Ron Paul 10:17
   The past President, before leaving office, signed the 1998 U.N.-Rome treaty indicating our willingness to establish an international criminal court. This gives the U.N. authority to enforce global laws against Americans if ratified by the Senate. But even without ratification, we have gotten to the point where treaties of this sort can be imposed on non-participating nations.

2001 Ron Paul 10:18
   Presidents have, by executive orders, been willing to follow unratified treaties in the past. This is a very dangerous precedent. We already accept the international trade court, the WTO. Trade wars are fought with the court’s supervision, and we are only too ready to rewrite our tax laws as the WTO dictates.

2001 Ron Paul 10:19
   The only portion of the major tax bill at the end of the last Congress to be rushed through for the President’s signature was the foreign sales corporation changes dictated to us by the WTO.

2001 Ron Paul 10:20
   For years the U.S. has accepted the international financial and currency management of the IMF, another arm of one-world government.

2001 Ron Paul 10:21
   The World Bank serves as the distributor of international welfare, of which the U.S. taxpayer is the biggest donor. This organization helps carry out a policy of taking money from poor Americans and giving it to rich foreign leaders, with kickbacks to some of our international corporations.

2001 Ron Paul 10:22
   Support for the World Bank, the IMF, the international criminal court, always comes from the elites and almost never from the common man. These programs, run by the international institutions, are supposed to help the poor, but they never do. It is all a charade. If left unchecked, they will bankrupt us and encourage more world government mischief.

2001 Ron Paul 10:23
   It is the responsibility of Congress to curtail this trend by reestablishing the principles of the U.S. Constitution and our national sovereignty. It is time for the United States to give up its membership in all these international organizations.

2001 Ron Paul 10:24
   Our foreign policy has led to an incestuous relationship between our military and Hollywood. In December, our Secretary of Defense used $295,000 of taxpayers’ money to host a party in Los Angeles for Hollywood bigwigs. Pentagon spokesman Kenneth Bacon said it was well worth it. The purpose was to thank the movie industry for putting the military in a good light.

2001 Ron Paul 10:25
   A similar relationship has been reported with TV stations licensed by the U.S. Government. They have been willing to accept suggestions from the government to place political messages in their programming. This is a dangerous trend, mixing government and the media. Here is where real separation is needed.

2001 Ron Paul 10:26
   Our policy should change for several reasons. It is wrong for our foreign policy to serve any special interest, whether it is for financial benefits, ethnic pressures, or some contrived moral imperative. Too often the policy leads to an unintended consequence, and more people are killed and more property damaged than was intended.

2001 Ron Paul 10:27
   Controlling world events is never easy. It is better to avoid the chance of one bad decision leading to another. The best way to do that is to follow the advice of the Founders and avoid all entangling alliances, and pursue a policy designed solely to protect U.S. national security interests.

2001 Ron Paul 10:28
   The two areas in the world that currently present the greatest danger to the United States are Colombia and the Middle East. For decades we have been engulfed in the ancient wars of the Middle East by subsidizing and supporting both sides. This policy is destined to fail. We are in great danger of becoming involved in a vicious war for oil, as well as being drawn into a religious war that will not end in our lifetime.

2001 Ron Paul 10:29
   The potential for war in this region is great, and the next one could make the Persian Gulf War look small. Only a reassessment of our entire policy will keep us from being involved in a needless and dangerous war in this region.

2001 Ron Paul 10:30
   It will be difficult to separate any involvement in the Balkans from a major conflict that breaks out in the Middle East. It is impossible for us to maintain a policy that both supports Israel and provides security for western-leaning secular Arab leaders, while at the same time taunting the Islamic fundamentalists. Push will come to shove, and when that happens in the midst of an economic crisis, our resources will be stretched beyond the limit. This must be prevented.

2001 Ron Paul 10:31
   Our involvement in Colombia could easily escalate into a regional war. For over 100 years, we have been involved in the affairs of Central America, but the recent escalation of our presence in Colombia is inviting trouble for us. Although the justification for our enhanced presence is the war on drugs, protecting U.S. oil interests and selling helicopters are the real reasons for the last year’s $1.3 billion emergency funding.

2001 Ron Paul 10:32
   Already neighboring countries have expressed concern about our presence in Colombia. The U.S. policymakers gave their usual response by promising more money and support to the neighboring countries that feel threatened.

2001 Ron Paul 10:33
   Venezuela, rich in oil, is quite nervous about our enhanced presence in the region. Their foreign minister stated that if any of our ships enter the Gulf of Venezuela, they will be expelled. This statement was prompted by an overly aggressive U.S. Coast Guard vessel intrusion into Venezuela’s territorial waters on a drug expedition. I know of no one who believes this expanded and insane drug war will do anything to dampen drug usage in the United States, yet it will cost us plenty.

2001 Ron Paul 10:34
   Too bad our political leaders cannot take a hint. The war effort in Colombia is small now, but under current conditions, it will surely escalate. This is a 30-year-old civil war being fought in the jungles of South America. We are unwelcome by many, and we ought to have enough sense to stay out of it.

2001 Ron Paul 10:35
   Recently, new policy has led to the spraying of herbicides to destroy the coca fields. It has already been reported that the legal crops in the nearby fields have been destroyed, as well. This is no way to win friends around the world.

2001 Ron Paul 10:36
   There are many other areas of the world where we ought to take a second look and then come home. Instead of bullying the European Union for wanting to have their own rapid deployment force, we should praise them and bring our troops home.

2001 Ron Paul 10:37
   World War II has been over for 55 years. It is time we look at Korea and ask why we have to broker, with the use of American dollars and American soldiers, the final settlement between North and South Korea. Taiwan and China are now trading and investing in each other’s country. Travel restrictions have been recently liberalized. It is time for us to let the two of them settle their border dispute.

2001 Ron Paul 10:38
   We continue to support Turkey with dollars and weapons. We once supported Iraq with the same. Now, we permit Turkey, armed with American weapons, to kill Kurds in Iraq, while we bomb the Iraqis if they do the same. It makes no sense.

2001 Ron Paul 10:39
   Selling weapons to both factions of almost all the major conflicts of the past 50 years reveals that our involvement is more about selling weapons than spreading the message of freedom. That message can never be delivered through force to others over their objection. Only a policy of peace, friendship, trade, and our setting a good example can inspire others to look to what once was the American tradition of liberty and justice for all. Entangling alliances will not do it. It is time for Congress and the American people to wake up.

2001 Ron Paul 10:40
   The political system of interventionism always leads to social discord. Interventionism is based on relative rights, majoritarianism, and disrespect for the Constitution. Degenerating moral standards of the people encourages and feeds on this system of special interest favoritism, all of which contributes to the friction.

2001 Ron Paul 10:41
   Thomas Jefferson was worried that future generations might one day squander the liberties the American Revolution secured. Writing about future generations, Jefferson wondered if, in the enjoyment of plenty, they would lose the memory of freedom. He believed material abundance without character is the path to destruction.

2001 Ron Paul 10:42
   The challenge to America today is clearly evident. We lack character. And we also suffer from the loss of respect, understanding, and faith in the liberty that offers so much. The American Republic has been transformed and only a remnant remains. It appears that, in the midst of plenty, we have forgotten about freedom.

2001 Ron Paul 10:43
   We have just gone through a roaring decade with many Americans enjoying prosperity beyond their wildest dreams. Because this wealth was not always earned and instead resulted from borrowing, speculation and inflation, the correction that is to come will contribute to the social discord already inherent in a system of government interventionism.

2001 Ron Paul 10:44
   If indeed the economy enters a severe recession, which is highly possible, it will compound the problems characteristic of a system that encourages government supervision over all that we do.

2001 Ron Paul 10:45
   Conflicts between classes, races and ethnic groups and even generations are already apparent. This is a consequence of pitting workers and producers against the moochers and the special-interest rich. Divvying up half of the GDP through a process of confiscatory taxation invites trouble. It is more easily tolerated when wealth abounds. But when the economy slips, quiescent resentment quickly turns to noisey confrontation.

2001 Ron Paul 10:46
   Those who feel slighted become more demanding at the same time resources are diminished. But the system of government we have become accustomed to have has for decades taken over responsibilities that have never intended to be the prerogative of the Federal Government under the Constitution.

2001 Ron Paul 10:47
   Although mostly well-intended, the efforts at social engineering have caused significant damage to our constitutional republic and have resulted in cynicism toward all politicians.

2001 Ron Paul 10:48
   Our presidents now are elected by less than 20 percent of those old enough to vote. Government is perceived to be in the business of passing out favors rather than protecting individual liberty. The majority of the people are made up of independents and non-voters.

2001 Ron Paul 10:49
   The most dramatic change in the 20th century social attitudes was the acceptance of abortion. This resulted from a change in personal morality that then led to legislation nationally through the courts and only occurred by perverting our constitutional system of government.

2001 Ron Paul 10:50
   The Federal costs should never have been involved, but the Congress compounded the problem by using taxpayers’ funds to perform abortions both here and overseas. Confrontation between the pro-life and pro-abortion forces is far from over. If governments were used only to preserve life rather than act as an accomplice in the taking of life, this conflict would not nearly be so rancorous.

2001 Ron Paul 10:51
   Once a society and a system of laws deny the importance of life, privacy and personal choices are difficult to protect. Since abortions have become commonplace, it has been easier to move the issue of active euthanasia to center stage. As Government budgets become more compromised, economic arguments will surely be used to justify reasonable savings by not wasting vital resources on the elderly.

2001 Ron Paul 10:52
   Issues like abortion and euthanasia do not disappear in a free society but are handled quite differently. Instead of condoning or paying for such act, the State is responsible for protecting life rather than participating in taking it. This is quite a different role for Government than we currently have.

2001 Ron Paul 10:53
   We can expect the pro-life and pro-abortion and euthanasia groups to become more vocal and confrontational in time as long as Government is used to commit acts that a large number of people find abhorrent. Partial-birth abortion dramatize the issue at hand and clearly demonstrates how close we are to legalizing infanticide. This problem should be dealt with by the States and without the Federal courts or the U.S. Congress involvement.

2001 Ron Paul 10:54
   The ill-conceived drug war of the past 30 years has caused great harm to our society. It has undermined privacy and challenged the constitutional rights of all our citizens. The accelerated attack on drug usage seen since the early 1970s has not resulted in any material benefit. Over $300 billion has been spent on this war, and we are less free and poorer because of it. Civil liberties are sacrificed in all wars, both domestic and foreign.

2001 Ron Paul 10:55
   It is clear that even if it were a legitimate function for Government to curtail drug usage, eliminating bad habits through Government regulation is not achievable. Like so much else the Government tries to do, the harm done is not always evenly distributed. Some groups suffer more than others, further compounding the problem by causing dissention and distrust.

2001 Ron Paul 10:56
   Anthony Lewis of The New York Times reported last year, “The 480,000 men and women now in U.S. prisons on

2001 Ron Paul 10:57
   drug charges are 100,000 more than all prisoners in the European Union, where the population is 100 million more than ours.”

2001 Ron Paul 10:58
   There are 10 times the number of prisoners for drug offenses than there were in 1980, and 80 percent of the drug arrests are for nonviolent possession. In spite of all the money spent and energy wasted, drug usage continues at a record pace.

2001 Ron Paul 10:59
   Some day we must wake up and realize the Federal drug war is a farce, it has failed, and we must change our approach.

2001 Ron Paul 10:60
   As bad as drug addiction is and the harm it causes, it is minuscule compared to the dollar cost, the loss of liberty and social conflict that results from our ill-advised drug war.

2001 Ron Paul 10:61
   Mandatory drug sentencing have done a great deal of harm by limiting the discretion that judges could use in sentencing victims in this drug war. Congress should repeal or change these laws just as we found it beneficial to modify seizure and for forfeiture laws 2 years ago. The drug laws, I am sure, were never meant to be discriminatory. Yet they are.

2001 Ron Paul 10:62
   In Massachusetts, 82.9 percent of the drug offenders are minorities, but they make up only 9 percent of the State population. The fact that crack-cocaine users are more likely to land in prison than powder-cocaine users and with harsher sentences discriminates against black Americans.

2001 Ron Paul 10:63
   A wealthy suburbanite caught using drugs is much less likely to end up in prison than someone from the inner city. This inequity adds to the conflict between races and between the poor and the police. And it is so unnecessary.

2001 Ron Paul 10:64
   There are no documented benefits from the drug war. Even if reduction in drug usage could have been achieved, the cost in dollars and loss of liberty would never have justified it. But we do not have that to deal with since drug usage continues to get worse.

2001 Ron Paul 10:65
   In addition, we have all the problems associated with the drug war. The effort to diminish the use of drugs and to improve the personal habits of some of our citizens has been the excuse to undermine our freedoms.

2001 Ron Paul 10:66
   Ironically, we spend hundreds of billions of dollars waging this dangerous war on drugs while Government educational policies promote a huge and dangerous overusage of Ritalin. This makes no sense whatsoever.

2001 Ron Paul 10:67
   Seizure and forfeiture laws, clearly in violation of the Constitution, have served as a terrible incentive for many police departments to raise money for law enforcement projects outside the normal budgeting process. Nationalizing the police force for various reasons is a trend that should frighten all Americans. The drug war has been the most important factor in this trend.

2001 Ron Paul 10:68
   Medicinal use of illegal drugs, in particular, marijuana, has been prohibited and greater human suffering has resulted. Imprisoning a person who is dying from cancer and AIDS for using his own self-cultivated marijuana is absolutely bizarre and cruel.

2001 Ron Paul 10:69
   All addiction, alcohol and illegal drugs, should be seen as a medical problem, not a legal one. Improving behavior just for the sake of changing unpopular habits never works. It should never be the responsibility of government to do so. When government attempts to do this, the government and its police force become the criminals.

2001 Ron Paul 10:70
   When someone under the influence of drugs, alcohol, also a drug, or even from the lack of sleep, causes injury to another, local law enforcement officials have a responsibility. This is a far cry from the Justice Department using Army tanks to bomb the Davidians because Federal agents claimed an amphetamine lab was possibly on the premises.

2001 Ron Paul 10:71
   An interventionist government, by its nature, uses any excuse to know what the people are doing. Drug laws are used to enhance the IRS agent’s ability to collect every dime owed the government. These laws are used to pressure Congress to use more dollars for foreign military operations in places, such as Colombia. Artificially high drug prices allow governments to clandestinely participate in the drug trade to raise funds to fight the secret controversial wars with off-budget funding. Both our friends and foes depend on the drug war at times for revenue to pursue their causes, which frequently are the same as ours.

2001 Ron Paul 10:72
   The sooner we wake up to this seriously flawed approach to fighting drug usage, the better.

2001 Ron Paul 10:73
   The notion that the Federal Government has an obligation to protect us from ourselves drives the drug war. But this idea also drives the do-gooders in Washington to involve themselves in every aspect of our lives.

2001 Ron Paul 10:74
   American citizens cannot move without being constantly reminded by consumer advocates, environmentalists, safety experts and bureaucratic

2001 Ron Paul 10:75
   busybodies what they can or cannot do.

2001 Ron Paul 10:76
   Once government becomes our protector, there are no limits. Federal regulations dictate the amount of water in our commodes and the size and shape of our washing machines. Complicated USDA regulations dictate the size of the holes in Swiss cheese. We cannot even turn off our automobile air bags when they present a danger to a child without Federal permission.

2001 Ron Paul 10:77
   Riding in a car without a seatbelt may be unwise, but should it be a federal crime? Why not make us all wear rib pads and football helmets that would reduce serious injuries and save many dollars for the government health system.

2001 Ron Paul 10:78
   Regulations on holistic medicine, natural remedies, herbs and vitamins are now commonplace and continue to grow. Who gave the Government the right to make these personal decisions for us? Are the people really so ignorant that only the politicians and bureaucrats can make these delicate decisions for them?

2001 Ron Paul 10:79
   Today, if a drug shows promise for treating a serious illness and both patient and doctor would like to try it on an experimental basis, permission can be given only by the FDA and only after much begging. Permission frequently is not granted, even if the dying patient is pleading to take the risk.

2001 Ron Paul 10:80
   The Government is not anxious to give up any of its power to make these decisions. People in Government think that is what they are supposed to do for the good of the people. Free choice is what freedom is all about and it means freedom to take risks, as well.

2001 Ron Paul 10:81
   As a physician deeply concerned about the health of all Americans, I am convinced that the Government encroachment into the health care choices has been very detrimental.

2001 Ron Paul 10:82
   There are many areas where the Federal Government has been involved when they should not have and created more problems than it solved. There is no evidence that the Federal Government has improved education or medicine in spite of the massive funding and mandates of the last 40 years, yet all we hear is a call for increased spending and more mandates.

2001 Ron Paul 10:83
   How bad will it get before we reject the big government approach is anybody’s guess.

2001 Ron Paul 10:84
   Welfarism and government interventionism are failed systems and always lead to ever more intrusive government.

2001 Ron Paul 10:85
   The issue of privacy is paramount. Most Americans and Members of Congress recognize the need to protect everyone’s privacy. But the loss of privacy is merely the symptom of an authoritarian government.

2001 Ron Paul 10:86
   Effort can and should be made, even under today’s circumstances, to impede the Government’s invasion of privacy. But we must realize that our privacy and our liberty will always be threatened as long as we instruct our Government to manage a welfare state and to operate a foreign policy as if we are the world’s policemen.

2001 Ron Paul 10:87
   If the trends we have witnessed over the past 70 years are not reversed, our economic and political system will soon be transposed into a fascist system. The further along we go in that direction, the more difficult it becomes to reverse the tide without undue suffering. This cannot be done unless respect for the rule of law is restored. That means all public officials must live up to their promise to follow the written contract between the people and the Government, the U.S. Constitution.

2001 Ron Paul 10:88
   For far too long, we have accepted the idea that government can and should take care of us. But that is not what a free society is all about. When government gives us something, it does two bad things. First, it takes it from someone else; second, it causes dependency on government. A wealthy country can do this for long periods of time, but eventually the process collapses. Freedom is always sacrificed and eventually the victims rebel. As needs grow, the producers are unable or unwilling to provide the goods the government demands. Wealth then hides or escapes, going underground or overseas, prompting even more government intrusion to stop the exodus from the system. This only compounds the problem.

2001 Ron Paul 10:89
   Endless demands and economic corrections that come with the territory will always produce deficits. An accommodating central bank then is forced to steal wealth through the inflation tax by merely printing money and creating credit out of thin air. Even though these policies may work for awhile, eventually they will fail. As wealth is diminished, recovery becomes more difficult in an economy operating with a fluctuating fiat currency and a marketplace overly burdened with regulation, taxes and inflation.

2001 Ron Paul 10:90
   The time to correct these mistakes is prior to the bad times, before tempers flare. Congress needs to consider a new economic and foreign policy.

2001 Ron Paul 10:91
   Why should any of us be concerned about the future, especially if prosperity is all around us? America has been truly blessed. We are involved in no major military conflicts. We remain one of the freest nations on Earth. Current economic conditions have allowed for low unemployment and a strong dollar, with cheap purchases from overseas further helping to keep price inflation in check. Violent crimes have been reduced; and civil disorder, such as we saw in the 1960s, is absent.

2001 Ron Paul 10:92
   We have good reason to be concerned for our future. Prosperity can persist, even after the principles of a sound market economy have been undermined; but only for a limited period of time.

2001 Ron Paul 10:93
   Our economic, military, and political power, second to none, has perpetuated a system of government no longer dependent on the principles that brought our Republic to greatness. Private-property rights, sound money and self-reliance have been eroded; and they have been replaced with welfarism, paper money, and collective management of property. The new system condones special-interest cronyism and rejects individualism, profits and voluntary contracts.

2001 Ron Paul 10:94
   Concern for the future is real, because it is unreasonable to believe that the prosperity and relative tranquility can be maintained with the current system. Not being concerned means that one must be content with the status quo and that current conditions can be maintained with no negative consequences. That, I maintain, is a dream.

2001 Ron Paul 10:95
   There is growing concern about our future by more and more Americans. They are especially concerned about the moral conditions expressed in our movies, music and television programs. Less concern is expressed regarding the political and economic system. A nation’s moral foundation inevitably reflects the type of government and, in turn, affects the entire economic and political system.

2001 Ron Paul 10:96
   In some ways I am pleasantly surprised by the concern expressed about America’s future, considering the prosperity we enjoy. Many Americans sense a serious problem in general, without specifically understanding the economic and political ramifications.

2001 Ron Paul 10:97
   Inflation, the erosion of the dollar, is always worse than the government admits. It may be that more Americans are suffering than generally admitted. Government intrusion in our lives is commonplace. Some unemployed are not even counted. Lower middle-class citizens have not enjoyed an increase in the standard of living others have. The fluctuation in the stock market may have undermined confidence.

2001 Ron Paul 10:98
   Most Americans still believe everyone has a right to a free education, but they don’t connect this concept to the evidence: That getting a good education is difficult; that drugs are rampant in public schools; that safety in public schools is a serious problem; and that the cost is amazing for a system of free education if one wants a real education.

2001 Ron Paul 10:99
   The quality of medical care is slipping and the benefits provided by government are seen by more and more people to not really be benefits at all. This trend does not make Americans feel more confident about the future of health care. Let there be no doubt, many Americans are concerned about their future, even though many still argue that the problem is only that government has not done enough.

2001 Ron Paul 10:100
   I have expressed concern that our policies are prone to lead to war, economic weakness, and social discord. Understanding the cause of these problems is crucial to finding a solution. If we opt for more government benevolence and meddling in our lives, along with more military adventurism, we have to expect an even greater attack on the civil liberties of all Americans, both rich and poor.

2001 Ron Paul 10:101
   America continues to be a great country, and we remain prosperous. We
have a system of freedom and opportunities that motivate many in the world to risk their lives trying to get here.

2001 Ron Paul 10:102
   The question remains, though, can we afford to be lax in the defense of liberty at this juncture in our history? I do not think so.

2001 Ron Paul 10:103
   The problems are not complex, and even the big ones can be easily handled if we pursue the right course. Prosperity and peace can be continued, but not with the current system that permeates Washington. To blindly hope our freedom will remain intact without any renewed effort in its defense or to expect that the good times will automatically continue places our political system in great danger.

2001 Ron Paul 10:104
   Basic morality, free markets, sound money, and living within the rule of law, while clinging to the fundamental precepts that made the American Republic great, are what we need. And it is worth the effort. END

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 11

Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]

IDENTITY THEFT — HON. RON PAUL

(Extensions of Remarks - February 13, 2001)
 
---
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, February 13, 2001


2001 Ron Paul Chapter 12

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

H. Res 34
13 February 2001

2001 Ron Paul 12:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today I reluctantly rise in opposition to H. Res. 34. This resolution is unclear and, hence, leaves the ability for much mischief. As the resolution’s introductory sentence makes clear, this legislation is considered for “other purposes,” which is to say, unspecified purposes.

2001 Ron Paul 12:2
Certainly Israel has been a longstanding friend to the United States, sharing many of our interests including peace, open trade, and free movement across international borders. It is equally clear that the people of Israel and the Middle East have long been torn by violence and, as such, share our desire to seek peace. We should, in fact, call for an end to the violence and hope all parties will see why this must be achieved. We are also right to congratulate Mr. Sharon, as is customary to be done with the victor of any election. We have all fought those battles ourselves and rightly understand the commitment needed to succeed in that arena.

2001 Ron Paul 12:3
What then is the problem with this resolution? In fact, there are two problems and they are closely related. The substantive problem here is summed up in that last clause which “restates the commitment of the United States to a secure peace for Israel.” Certainly we wish peace upon all the people of the world, and in this sense, we are committed to peace. However, we must ask what other sorts of commitments are implied here. The vagary of this resolution leaves open the possibility that those who support it are endorsing unwise and constitutionally-suspect financial and military commitments abroad. Moreover, peace will not best be secured for Israel by the further injection of the United States into regional affairs; rather, it will come when Israel has the unfettered sovereignty necessary to protect its own security.

2001 Ron Paul 12:4
As written, this resolution can be interpreted as an endorsement of unconstitutional acts of aggression upon Israel’s sovereignty. In this I cannot engage. Thus, it is the less-than-clear nature of the resolution upon which we are voting that makes it necessary for me to object.

2001 Ron Paul 12:5
This brings me to the second problem, the procedural laxity involved here. This resolution was submitted by a number of distinguished members and referred to the Committee on International Relations. The highly-regarded chairman of that committee is the primary sponsor of this legislation and a number of other committee members are among its original cosponsors. Nonetheless, a number of other members of the committee and I were not included in the process. Perhaps, had this bill traveled through the commonly established processes of this institution we would have had the ability to clarify the “commitments” and “other purposes” to which this bill refers. In short, had the committee held a hearing and mark-up, the vagaries could’ve been removed in the markup process. In such an instance it would be likely that we could achieve the kind of unanimous support for these resolutions, for which I often hear personal appeals. In the future, those who are interested in gaining such unanimous support might consider these procedural concerns if they seek unanimity on this floor. In the instant case, however I must vote “no” for the reasons I have here expressed.

2001 Ron Paul 12:6
Hopefully these reasons will be considered so that in future instances the opportunity to make clarifications will be offered to those duly-elected members of the committees of this House.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 13

Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]

February 13, 2001
The Economy


2001 Ron Paul 13:1
Mr. Speaker: Many government and Federal Reserve officials have repeatedly argued that we have no inflation to fear. Yet those who claim this, define inflation as rising consumer and producer prices. Although inflation frequently leads to price increases we must remember that the free market definition of inflation is the increase in the supply of money and credit. Monetary inflation is seductive in that it can cause great harm without significantly affecting government price indices. The excess credit may well go into stock market and real estate speculation with consumer price increases limited to such things as energy, repairs, medical care and other services. One should not conclude, as so many have in the past decade, that we have no inflation to worry about. Imbalances did develop with the 1990’s monetary inflation but were ignored. They are now becoming readily apparent as sharp adjustments take place—such as we have seen in the past year in the NASDAQ.

2001 Ron Paul 13:2
When one is permitted to use “rising prices” as the definition for inflation it is followed by a nonsensical assumption that a robust economy is the cause for rising prices. Foolish conclusions of this sort lead our economic planners and Federal Reserve officials to attempt to “solve ” the problem of price or labor-cost inflation by precipitating an economic slowdown. Such a deliberate policy is anathema to a free market economy. It’s always hoped that the planned economic slowdown will never do serious harm, but this is never the case. The recession with rising prices still comes. And that’s what we are seeing today.

2001 Ron Paul 13:3
Raising interest rates 6 times in 1999-2000 has had an effect and the central planners are now worried. Falsely, they believe that if only the money spigot is once again turned on, all will be well. That will prove to be a pipe dream.

2001 Ron Paul 13:4
It is now recognized that indeed the economy has sharply turned downward—which is what was intended. But can the downturn be controlled? Not likely! And “inflation” by even the planner’s own definition is now raising its ugly head. For instance, in the fourth quarter of last year labor costs rose at an annualized rate of 6.6%, the biggest increase in 9 years.

2001 Ron Paul 13:5
And what’s happening to employment conditions? They’re deteriorating rapidly. Economist Ed Hyman, reported that 270,000 people lost their jobs in January, a 678% increase over a year ago. A growing number of economists are now doubtful that productivity growth will save us from the correction that many free market economists predicted would come as an inevitable consequence of the interest rate distortions that Federal Reserve policy causes.

2001 Ron Paul 13:6
Instead of blind faith in the Federal Reserve to run the economy, we should become more aware of Congress’s responsibility for maintaining a sound dollar and removing the monopoly power of our central bank to create money and credit out of thin air and fix short term interest rates—which is the real cause of all our economic downturns.

2001 Ron Paul 13:7
Between 1995 and today, the Greenspan Fed increased the money supply as measured by (MZM) by $1.9 trillion or a 65% increase. There is no reason to look any further for the explanation of why the economy is slipping with labor costs rising, energy costs soaring, and medical and education costs skyrocketing, while the stock market is disintegrating. Until we look at the unconstitutional monopoly power the Federal Reserve has over money and credit we can expect a continuation of our problems. Demanding lower interest rates is merely insisting the Federal Reserve deliberately create even more credit, which caused the problem in the first place. We cannot restore soundness to the dollar by debasing the dollar—which is what lowering interest rates is all about—printing more money.

2001 Ron Paul 13:8
When control is lost in a sharp downturn, dealing with it by massive monetary inflation, may well cause something worse than the stagflation that we experienced in the 1970s; an inflationary recession or depression could result.

2001 Ron Paul 13:9
This need not happen and won’t if we demand that our dollar not be casually and deliberately debased by our unaccountable Federal Reserve.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 14

Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]

February 14, 2001
The WAGE Act
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, February 14, 2001

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 15

Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]

February 27, 2001
Blame Congress for HMOs
BLAME CONGRESS FOR HMO’S — HON. RON PAUL (Extensions of Remarks - February 27, 2001)


2001 Ron Paul 15:1
[Page: E226] GPO’s PDF 
---
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, February 27, 2001

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 16

Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]

March 8, 2001
Opposing National Teacher Certification or National Teacher Testing
OPPOSING NATIONAL TEACHER CERTIFICATION OR NATIONAL TEACHER TESTING — HON. RON PAUL (Extensions of Remarks - March 08, 2001)


2001 Ron Paul 16:1
[Page: E321] GPO’s PDF

2001 Ron Paul 16:2
---
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, March 8, 2001

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 17

Ron Paul’s Congressional website March 8, 2001
Questions for Secretary of State Colin Powell before the House Committee on International Relations


2001 Ron Paul 17:1
Secretary Powell, thank you for your time and please answer the following questions:


 2001 Ron Paul 17:2
1. On the topic of the International Criminal Court, I have two questions. I am pleased that the administration, as well as the Chairman of this Committee, have spoken against the ICC treaty as an infringement upon U.S. sovereignty. As a policy matter, can you explain why the administration has not spoken similarly against the WTO, the International War Crimes Tribunal, or the idea of fighting wars based on UN or NATO resolutions and why these instrumentalities are any less threatening to our sovereignty? Also on the ICC topic, if the administration is not going to pursue ratification of the treaty, will you support my resolution, H Con Res 23, calling on the President to declare to all nations that the United States does not assent to the treaty and that the signature of former President Clinton should not be construed to mean otherwise?


2001 Ron Paul 17:3
2 . Since World War II, each of our Presidents have engaged in wars — both big and small, from Korea to the continued bombing of Iraq — without an explicit declaration of war from Congress. Yet, the Constitution clearly vests the decision to go to war (as opposed to its execution by the commander-in chief, once declared), with the Congress. If, however, the “war decision” is allowed to come from Presidential directives or UN resolutions, of what value to the American people is the Constitutional constraint upon a President who would otherwise wage war without Congressional approval? Do you believe the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional? If so, why? If not, why not?


2001 Ron Paul 17:4
3. Is it not clear that a U.S. treaty, although it is called the law of the land, was never intended to be used to amend our Constitution?


 2001 Ron Paul 17:5
4. Why do we trade and subsidize a country like China, pursue talks with Iran and North Korea, and act as a conduit for peace in the Middle East while all we seem to know what to do with Iraq is bomb, kill, and impose sanctions? Surely we are not expected to believe Saddam Hussein is the only totalitarian in power today?


2001 Ron Paul 17:6
5. Is not the continued bombing of Iraq an act of war? Where does the administration get its authority to pursue this war? Is this policy not in violation of our Constitution that says only Congress can declare war? There is not even a UN resolution calling for the US-British imposed no-fly zone over Iraq. Our allies have almost all deserted us on our policy toward Iraq. Is it not time to talk to the Iraqis? We talked to the Soviets at the height of the Cold War, surely we can do the same with Iraq today. We trade with and subsidize China and we talk to the Iranians, surely we can trade with Iraq . . . ?


2001 Ron Paul 17:7
6. If investors of a foreign nation had a stake in oil production in the Gulf of Mexico and their country was dependent on oil imports for subsistence, is that country justified in militarily dominating the Gulf and use of U.S. soil for basing operations? My guess is Americans would be furious even if done with our government official’s approval. Yet we expect the Arab world — a world quite different from ours — to accept our presence and domination. Is it not possible for our policy in the region to show more “humility” rather than pursue a policy that incites Islamic fundamentalists against us leading to what they see as acts of self defense and we see as acts of terrorism?


2001 Ron Paul 17:8
7. How would you, the U.S. government, and the American people respond if a foreign power subsidized subversive groups whose goal it was to overthrow our government as we are doing with the Iraqi National Congress?


2001 Ron Paul 17:9
8. In your earlier remarks before this committee you said that you regard the military as a vital component of U.S. foreign policy. I am wondering if you, as a former military officer, would comment on the antiquated idea of a military draft and selective service registration. I believe you have spoken against the draft in the past. Do you still hold that a draft is unwarranted? Would you support ending draft registration?

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 18

Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]

March 13, 2001
The Beginning of the End of Fiat Money


2001 Ron Paul 18:1
The golden new Era of the 1990s has been welcomed and praised by many observers. But I’m afraid a different type of new era is arriving-a dangerous one- heralding the end of 30 years of fiat money. If so, it’s a serious matter that deserves close attention by Congress.

2001 Ron Paul 18:2
There’s nothing to fear from globalism, free trade and a single worldwide currency. But a globalism where free trade is competitively subsidized by each nation, a continuous trade war is dictated by the WTO, and the single currency is pure fiat, fear is justified. That type of globalism is destined to collapse into economic despair, inflationism and protectionism, and managed by resurgent militant nationalism.

2001 Ron Paul 18:3
Efforts to achieve peaceful globalist goals are quickly abandoned when the standard of living drops, unemployment rises, stock markets crash and artificially high wages are challenged by market forces. When tight budgets threaten spending cuts, cries for expanding the welfare state drown out any expression of concern for rising deficits.

2001 Ron Paul 18:4
The effort in recent decades to unify government surveillance over all world trade and international financial transactions through the UN, IMF, World Bank, WTO, ICC, the OECD, and the Bank of International Settlements can never substitute for a peaceful world based on true free trade, freedom of movement, a single but sound market currency, and voluntary contracts with private property rights.

2001 Ron Paul 18:5
Great emphasis in the last six years has been placed on so-called productivity increases that gave us the new-era economy. Its defenders proclaimed that a new paradigm had arrived. Though productivity increases have surely helped our economy, many astute observers have challenged the extent to which improvements in productivity have actually given us a distinctly unique new era. A case can be made that the great surge in new technology of the 1920’s far surpassed the current age of fast computers, and we all know what happened in after 1929.

2001 Ron Paul 18:6
A truly new era may well be upon us-but one quite different than what is generally accepted today.

2001 Ron Paul 18:7
The biggest error in interpreting today’s events is totally ignoring how monetary policy in a fiat system affects the entire economy.

2001 Ron Paul 18:8
Politicians and economists are very familiar with business cycles with most assuming that slumps erupt as: 1.) A natural consequence of capitalism, 2.) An act of God, 3.) Or as a result of Fed driven high interest rates. That is to say, the Fed did not engage in enough monetary debasement, becomes the most common complaint by Wall Street pundits and politicians.

2001 Ron Paul 18:9
But today’s economy is unlike anything the world has ever known. The world economy is more integrated than ever before. Indeed, the effort by international agencies to expand world trade has had results- some good. Labor costs have been held in check, industrial producers have moved to less regulated, low cost, and low tax countries while world mobility has aided these trends with all being helped with advances in computer technology.

2001 Ron Paul 18:10
But the artificial nature of today’s world trade and finance being systematically managed by the IMF, the World Bank and WTO, and driven by a worldwide fiat monetary system, has produced imbalances that have already prompted many sudden adjustments. There have been eight major crisis in the past six years requiring a worldwide effort, led by the Fed, to keep the system afloat, all being done with more monetary inflation and bailouts.

2001 Ron Paul 18:11
The lynch pin to the outstanding growth of the 1990s has been the US dollar. Although it too is totally fiat, its special status has permitted a bigger bonus to the United States while it has been used to prop up other world economies. The gift bequeathed to us by owning the world reserve currency, allows us to create dollars at will- and Alan Greenspan has not hesitated to accommodate everyone despite his reputation as an inflation fighter. This has dramatically raised our standard of living, and significantly contributed to the new era psychology that has been welcomed by so many naive enough to believe that perpetual prosperity had arrived and the bills would never have to be paid.

2001 Ron Paul 18:12
One day it will become known that technological advances and improvements in productivity also have a downside. This technology hid the ill effects of the monetary mischief the Fed had enthusiastically engaged in over the past decade. Technological improvements, while keeping the CPI and the PPI prices in check, led many, including Greenspan, to victoriously declare that no inflation existed and that a new era had indeed arrived. Finally, it’s declared that the day has arrived that printing money is equivalent to producing wealth and without a downside. Counterfeiting works!

2001 Ron Paul 18:13
But the excess credit created by the Fed found its way into the stock market- especially the NASDAQ, and was ignored. This set the stage for the stock market collapse, now ongoing. Likewise ignored has been the excess capacity, mal-investment, and debt that permeates the world economy.

2001 Ron Paul 18:14
Could we indeed be facing a truly New Era, but one unanticipated by all the authorities and one much more dangerous?

2001 Ron Paul 18:15
The collapse of the Soviet system and the emergence of United States military and economic preeminence, throughout the world, have permitted the dollar-driven financial bubble to last longer than anticipated. But instead of a glorious New Era, as promised, we ended up with a huge financial bubble and an artificially integrated world economy dominated by an unstable dollar. But instead of a single commodity currency driving a healthy world economy, we have an economy that has numerous imbalances generated by the US dollar, unsustainable trade agreements and total instability in the currency markets.

2001 Ron Paul 18:16
Sure we have enjoyed cheap imports and they have raised our standard of living and our foreign debt. We have on the short run benefited from our trade and current account deficits since the world has been only too eager to gobble up our inflated dollars and loan them back to us. But soon the countries of the world will decide that enough is enough and they will recognize the bad deal it is for them to continue to accept our dollars. The mal-investment, already becoming apparent, will prompt even more radical adjustments in all markets.

2001 Ron Paul 18:17
There are many countries only too anxious to get back at the United States for our military and economic aggressiveness, and some unknown economic or military event will one day knock us off our pedestal and a dangerous New Era will be upon us, instead of the golden one dreamed about.

2001 Ron Paul 18:18
For thirty years the world has operated on a pure fiat monetary system and all the ill effects of such a system are now becoming apparent. Current adjustments will be different than all other previous currency adjustments, which were local or regional. This one is worldwide and may well be the biggest economic event in modern history.

2001 Ron Paul 18:19
It’s reasonable to assume a worldwide slump will ensue as a result of the worldwide monetary mischief our authorities have engaged in the past 30 years. Never before has the world gone so long without money having some tangible value attached to it. Trust in politicians and Central Bankers may have been a benefit in the inflationary part of the cycle but this trust will quickly dissipate in the corrected phase. Monetary heroes can quickly become villains as the price is paid for previous excesses and extravagance.

2001 Ron Paul 18:20
However, hope springs eternal, so no effort will soon be made to restore sound money. A giant worldwide slump will merely prompt massive monetary inflation and deficit financing. The Congress and the American people should anticipate this will happen even though it should not.

2001 Ron Paul 18:21
Conditions today could easily lead to rampant price inflation as the dollar depreciates. Trade chaos, already apparent, considering the number of complaints pending before the WTO, will surely worsen, leading to a greater cry for protectionism and militant nationalism which will then jeopardize international trade even more.

2001 Ron Paul 18:22
The ultimate solution will only come with the rejection of fiat money worldwide, and a restoration of commodity money. Commodity money if voluntarily and universally accepted could give us a single world currency requiring no money managers, no manipulators orchestrating a man-made business cycle with rampant price inflation. Real free trade without barriers or tariffs and a single sound currency is the best way to achieve international peace and prosperity.

2001 Ron Paul 18:23
When that day comes we will have a true New Era, unlike the fictitious New Era of Greenspan’s dreams and certainly opposite of the dangerous New Era that stares us in the face as the world fiat monetary system falters.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 19

Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]

March 15, 2001
The Medical Privacy Protection Resolution
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, March 15, 2001

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 20

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Earthquake Relief For El Salvador
20 March 2001

2001 Ron Paul 20:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, today I must vote against HCR 41. While I certainly offer my personal sympathy to the victims in El Salvador, and also join in encouraging relief agencies to increase their assistance to these individuals, I cannot support this resolution.

2001 Ron Paul 20:2
In the past I have complained that similar bills have come to the House Floor without going through the committee process. In this instance the committees were included and I applaud the Chairman for ensuring we had an opportunity to discuss this issue at committee. I am also grateful to the committee staff who worked with me in helping facilitate that discussion.

2001 Ron Paul 20:3
At the subcommittee I introduced an amendment for discussion purposes only. That amendment would have deleted the specific references to governmental assistance contained in this bill. Had that amendment been adopted I could have supported this resolution. Simply, I believe it is not proper for us to force taxpayers in this country to provide this kind of assistance by having the IRS collect these funds. Next, I believe that the Red Cross, for example, would not only be a more sympathetic entity for the purposes of collecting funds used for relief, but also that it would be a more efficient distributor of such funds than are the plethora of government agencies referenced in this resolution.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 21

Ron Paul’s Congressional website March 20, 2001
Congressman Paul’s Statement on Dietary Supplement Regulation and Research

2001 Ron Paul 21:1
Joint Statement from Congressman Ron Paul and Peter DeFazio (D-OR) submitted to the House Committee on Government Reform: “Six Years After the Enactment of DSHEA: The Status of National and International Dietary Supplement Regulation and Research”

2001 Ron Paul 21:2
Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the opportunity to submit comments regarding the need to protect consumers from intrusive regulations which interfere with the availability of dietary supplements. Today’s hearing is just the latest example of the leadership you have shown on this important issue.

2001 Ron Paul 21:3
Over the past decade the American people have made it clear that they do not want the federal government to interfere with their access to dietary supplements. In 1994, Congress responded to the American people’s desire for greater access to the truth about the benefits of dietary supplements by passing the Dietary Supplements and Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA), which liberalized the rules regarding the regulation of dietary supplements. Congressional offices received a record number of comments in favor of DSHEA.

2001 Ron Paul 21:4
Despite DSHEA, officials of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) continued to attempt to enforce regulations aimed at keeping the American public in the dark about the benefits of dietary supplements. However, in the case of Pearson v. Shalala, 154 F.3d 650 (DC Cir. 1999), reh’g denied en banc, 172 F.3d 72 (DC Cir. 1999) , the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit Court reaffirmed consumers’ first amendment right to learn about how using dietary supplements can improve their health without unnecessary interference from the FDA. The FDA has been forced to revise its regulations in order to comply with Pearson. However, members of Congress have had to intervene with the FDA on several occasions to ensure that they followed the court’s order. Clearly Congress must continue to monitor the FDA’s action in this area.

2001 Ron Paul 21:5
The freedom of consumers to use, or even obtain truthful information about, dietary supplements could also be threatened by the United States participation in the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex). Codex is a part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and the World Health Organization Food Standard Program operating under the authority of the Sanitary Phytosanitary Agreement and the Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement.

2001 Ron Paul 21:6
Codex is the vehicle through which the World Trade Organization (WTO) is working to “harmonize” (e.g. conform) food and safety regulations of WTO member countries. Codex is currently creating a guideline on the proper regulations for dietary supplements with the participation of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). We are concerned that the end result of this process will force the United States to adopt the same strict regulations of dietary supplements common in European countries such as Germany, where consumers’ cannot even examine a bottle of dietary supplements without a pharmacists permission. By participating in this process, the FDA is ignoring the will of Congress as expressed in DSHEA and in the FDA Modernization Act of 1997, which expressly forbid the FDA from participating in the harmonization process, as well as the will of the American people.

2001 Ron Paul 21:7
While Codex has no direct authority to force Americans to adopt stringent regulations of dietary supplements, we are concerned that the United States may be forced to adopt Codex standards as a result of the United States’ status as a member of the WTO. According to an August 199 report of the Congressional Research Service, “As a member of the WTO, the United States does commit to act in accordance with the rules of the multilateral body. It [the US] is legally obligated to ensure national laws do not conflict with WTO rules.” Thus, Congress may have a legal obligation to again change American laws and regulations to conform with WTO rules!

2001 Ron Paul 21:8
If Congress were to refuse to “harmonize” US laws according to strict Codex/WTO guidelines, a WTO “dispute resolution panel” could find that the United States is engaging in unfair trade because of our failure to “harmonize” our regulations with the rest of the world. In any such trade dispute, the scales are tipped in favor of countries using the Codex standards because of WTO rules presuming that a nation who has adopted Codex has not erected an unfair trade barrier. Therefore, in a dispute with a country that has adopted the Codex standards it is highly probable that America would lose and be subject to heavy sanctions unless Congress harmonized our laws with the other WTO countries. Harmonization may be beneficial for the large corporations and international bureaucrats that control the WTO but it would be a disaster for American consumers of dietary supplements!

2001 Ron Paul 21:9
In conclusion, we once again thank Chairman Burton for holding this hearing and for all his efforts to protect the freedom of American dietary supplement customers and for the opportunity to express our concerns regarding the threat to American consumers posed by the WTO and the Codex Alimentarius process. We also express our hope that Congress will act to protect the freedom of American consumers from overregulation of dietary supplements whether imposed by the FDA or through the back door by an international organization such as the WTO.




2001 Ron Paul Chapter 22

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Manipulation Of Interest Rates Cause Economic Problems
20 March 2001

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

2001 Ron Paul 22:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today the Federal Reserve lowered interest rates by a half a percentage point. They have been asked to lower this interest rates by just about everybody in the country. Whether they are investors or politicians, everybody literally has been screaming at the Fed and Alan Greenspan to lower the interest rates, lower the interest rates.

2001 Ron Paul 22:2
It was anticipated that he would, and he did. He lowered the interest rates by 50 basis points. The stock market promptly went down 236 points. So obviously just lowering interest rates is not the solution to the problems we face. As a matter of fact, I believe it is the problem.

2001 Ron Paul 22:3
Interest rates have been manipulated by the Federal Reserve as long as I can remember, especially in the last 30 years since we have had a total fiat monetary system. So it is the manipulation of interest rates that causes a problem.

2001 Ron Paul 22:4
In a free market economy, you do not have a central bank pretending it has knowledge it does not have, that it knows exactly what the money supply should be and what interest rate should be. That is a prescription for disaster; and it leads to booms and busts, speculations in the stock markets, crashes in the stock markets. This is a wellknown phenomenon. It has been with us since 1913, since we have had the Federal Reserve. We have seen it in the speculation in the 1920s and the depression of the 1930s. It is ongoing.

2001 Ron Paul 22:5
We have a responsibility here in the Congress to deal with this. We have a responsibility to maintain the integrity of the money. Yet we up that responsibility to a secretive body that works on its own, deliberating and deciding how much money supply we should have.

2001 Ron Paul 22:6
To lower interest rates, a central bank has to increase the money. That is debasement. That is devaluing the money deliberately. In the old days, when the king would do this, they would clip coins. Literally coin debasement, stealing value from coinage in the old days was a capital crime. Today, though, it is accepted practice in all economies of the world. We have had no linkage of any currency of the world in the last 30 years to anything of real value.

2001 Ron Paul 22:7
The economies have functioned relatively well. But just in the last 6 years, we have had eight financial international crises, all patched together by more inflation, more printing of more money. Let me tell my colleagues, I am convinced it will not last, it will not continue.

2001 Ron Paul 22:8
Take a look at what is happening in Japan today. Japan lowered their interest rates, too. They have been doing this for a long time. They are down to 0 percent, and nothing seems to be happening. Their stock market is at a level it was 16 years ago. We have to decide whether or not we may be moving into a similar situation. I think it is a very serious problem.

2001 Ron Paul 22:9
We talk about interest rates. We talk about stimulating the economy. But we really do not talk about the problem, and that is the monetary system and the nature of the dollar.

2001 Ron Paul 22:10
The money supply right now is currently rising at the rate of 20 percent, as measured by MZN. This is horrendous inflation. This is inflation. Everybody says no, there are reassurances. The Federal Reserve and all the statisticians say there is no inflation. The CPI is okay and the PPI is okay. But there is inflation. Because if one increases the supply of money, one is creating inflation.

2001 Ron Paul 22:11
The most important aspect of that is the instability it creates in the marketplace. It does not always lead to a CPI increasing at 10 or 15 percent. Our CPI is rising significantly. We have other prices going up significantly, like education costs and medical care costs, housing costs. So there is a lot of inflation even when one measures it by prices.

2001 Ron Paul 22:12
But the real problem with the inflation when one allows a central bank to destroy its money is twofold. One, it creates an overcapacity or overinvestment, excessive debt that always has to be wiped out and cleaned out of the situation, or economic growth cannot be resumed. Japan has not permitted this to happen, and economic growth has not resumed. That is the most important aspect because that causes the unemployment and that causes the harm to so many people.

2001 Ron Paul 22:13
Now, there is another aspect of inflation, that is the monetary debasement that I have great concern about. That is, when it goes to extremes, it inevitably wipes out the middle class. It destroys the middle class. We are just starting to see that happening in this country.

2001 Ron Paul 22:14
Low middle-income earners, individuals who are still not on the dole but willing to work, they are having a tough time paying their bills. That is the early stages of what happens when a currency is destroyed.

2001 Ron Paul 22:15
Last year, for the first time in our history of keeping this record since 1945, in 55 years, the wealth of the American people went down 2 percent.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 23

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Addressing Monetary Problems
22 March 2001

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

2001 Ron Paul 23:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the markets today are reeling. The financial markets are indeed in big trouble. This could mean a couple of things to all of us. First, it could mean economic hardship for many of our citizens. It also could mean that our budget figures will be completely changed here in the nottoo- distant future, and we should be paying attention.

2001 Ron Paul 23:2
Some people claim that they are not quite sure why markets go up and all of a sudden crash; and others say if only Alan Greenspan would just print more money, inflate the currency faster, lower the interest rates, all would be well. But I do not think it is that simple.

2001 Ron Paul 23:3
It is very clear that we have these cycles and these booms coming from a monetary system that is pure fiat. Fiat money means that the money is created out of thin air, and the characteristic of a fiat monetary system is that you have overspeculation, you have stock market booms, you have stock market crashes, and you have a business cycle. This comes from the mismanagement of money, mainly because man, in his efforts to plan, to have economic central planning through monetary policy, is incapable of providing the information necessary that a free market is supposed to have.

2001 Ron Paul 23:4
Only a free market can tell us what interest rates should be or what the money supply should be. But we have become dependent on a Federal Reserve system that pretends to know all these things, and we have allowed Alan Greenspan to believe that he can regulate the entire economy as well as the stock market by the Open Market Committee.

2001 Ron Paul 23:5
Inflation is nothing more than the creation of new money out of thin air. Sometimes it raises prices in certain areas, and other times in other places. But the whole principle of fiat money is when you create new money, you devalue/ lower the value of the dollar.

2001 Ron Paul 23:6
This is what is happening. Right now we are increasing the money supply as measured by MZM at the rate of 20 percent per year. This means that, ultimately, that dollar that we use to purchase goods and services will go down in value. And yet the only thing that we hear about is the cry to the Federal Reserve, just print more money, faster, because that will save us all. It will raise the stock market; it will make sure that the economy does not go down and go into a downturn.

2001 Ron Paul 23:7
This is not the case. Ultimately what we have to have is monetary reform, currency reform. We have to have a time when once again we have money that cannot be created out of thin air. We have to have money of value, something that governments and politicians cannot create out of thin air. Unless we address that, we are going to continue with these problems.

2001 Ron Paul 23:8
This can be very serious. Just in the last year there has been $4 trillion of value lost in the stock market. Of course, it was artificially high, and now it is going to be artificially low, and these sudden changes reflect the disequilibrium built into the system once we have a monetary system of this sort.

2001 Ron Paul 23:9
In 1996, the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board talked about the exuberance, the irrational exuberance in the stock market; and yet I think he knew, I certainly knew, and others knew, that there was irrational exuberance, because even at that time we were printing money like crazy. There was overspeculation.

2001 Ron Paul 23:10
If he had been seriously concerned about the exuberance getting out of control in 1996, he might have considered not inflating the currency quite so rapidly, not devaluing the money quite so rapidly. But what has he done since that time? The Federal Reserve has literally created $2.3 trillion of new money since 1996, further creating a bigger bubble, which eventually had to collapse, and that is what we are in the midst of. It can be tough. It is going to be tough for a lot of people. We can have this economic downturn, and this means jobs and a standard of living that will be threatened.

2001 Ron Paul 23:11
This type of a monetary system also encourages us to do things unwisely. When interest rates are lower than they are supposed to be, we borrow more money and we do not save as much money, so savings has a negative rate. Yet people are way in debt, business people are in debt, and then business people are actually encouraged to do things that are not wise. They overbuild; they build into the system overcapacity and mal-investment which eventually has to be cleansed out of the system.

2001 Ron Paul 23:12
So this mantra of saying all we need is more inflation will not work. Inflation caused the problem. The inflation of the monetary system is the problem. To believe that all we need is more inflation to solve the problem is a serious error. We need currency reform.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 24

Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]

April 24, 2001
Free Trade
FREE TRADE — HON. RON PAUL (Extensions of Remarks - April 24, 2001)


[Page: E619] GPO’s PDF 
  
---
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, April 24, 2001

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 25

Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]

April 25, 2001
A New China Policy


2001 Ron Paul 25:1
President Bush deserves much credit for the handling of the spy plane crisis. However, he has received significant criticism from some of his own political supporters for saying he was “very” sorry for the incident. This seems a “very” small price to pay for the safe return of 24 American military personnel. Trade with China though should be credited for helping to resolve this crisis. President Bush, in the diplomatic handling of this event, avoided overly strong language and military threats, which would have done nothing to save the lives of these 24 Americans.

2001 Ron Paul 25:2
This confrontation, however, provides an excellent opportunity for us to reevaluate our policy toward China and other nations. Although trade with China, for economic reasons, encouraged both America and China to work for a resolution of the spy plane crisis, our trading status with China should be reconsidered. What today is called free trade is not exactly that. Although we engage in trade with China, it is subsidized to the tune of many billions of dollars through the Export/Import Bank- the most of any country in the world.

2001 Ron Paul 25:3
We also have been careless over the last several years in allowing our military secrets to find their way into the hands of the Chinese government. At the same time we subsidize trade with China, including sensitive military technology, we also build up the Taiwanese military while continuing to patrol the Chinese border with our spy planes. It’s a risky, inconsistent policy.

2001 Ron Paul 25:4
The question we must ask ourselves is how would we react if we had Chinese airplanes flying up and down our coast and occupying the air space of the Gulf of Mexico?? We must realize that China is a long way from the US and is not capable, nor is she showing any signs, of launching an attack on any sovereign territory of the United States.

2001 Ron Paul 25:5
Throughout all of China’s history she has never pursued military adventurism far from her own borders. That is something that we cannot say about our own policy. China traditionally has only fought for secure borders predominantly with India, Russia, Japan, and in Korea against the United States, and that was only when our troops approached the Yaloo River.

2001 Ron Paul 25:6
It should not go unnoticed that there was no vocal support from any of our allies for our spy missions along the Chinese coast. None of our allies bothered to condemn the action of the Chinese military aircraft, although it technically was the cause of the accident. Don’t forget that when a Russian aircraft landed in Japan in 1976, it was only after many months we returned the plane to Russia — in crates.

2001 Ron Paul 25:7
Although there is no doubt that we technically have legal grounds for making these flights, the question really is whether or not it is wise to do so or necessary for our national security. Actually a strong case can be made that our national security is more threatened by our patrolling the Chinese coast than if we avoided such flights altogether. After a half a century it’s time to reassess the need for such flights. Satellite technology today gives us the ability to watch and to listen to almost everyone on earth. If there is a precise need for this type of surveillance for the benefit of Taiwan, then the Taiwanese ought to be involved in this activity, not American military personnel. We should not feel so insecure that we need to threaten and intimidate other countries in order to achieve some vague psychological reassurance that we’re still the top military power in the world. This is unnecessary and may well represent a weakness rather than strength.

2001 Ron Paul 25:8
The Taiwan Relations Act essentially promises that we will defend Taiwan at all costs and should be reevaluated. Morally and constitutionally a treaty cannot be used to commit us to war at some future date. One generation cannot declare war for another. Making an open-ended commitment to go to war, promising troops, money and weapons, is not permitted by the Constitution.

2001 Ron Paul 25:9
It is clear that war can only be declared by a Congress currently in office. Declaring war cannot be circumvented by a treaty or agreement committing us to war at some future date. If a previous treaty can commit future generations to war, the House of Representatives, the body closest to the people, would never have a say in the most important issue of declaring war.

2001 Ron Paul 25:10
We must continue to believe and be confident that trading with China is beneficial to America. Trade between Taiwan and China already exists and should be encouraged. It’s a fact that trade did help to resolve this current crisis without a military confrontation.

2001 Ron Paul 25:11
Concern about our negative trade balance with the Chinese is irrelevant. Balance of payments are always in balance. For every dollar we spend in China those dollars must come back to America. Maybe not buying American goods, as some would like, but they do come back and they serve to finance our current account deficit.

2001 Ron Paul 25:12
Free trade, it should be argued, is beneficial even when done unilaterally, providing a benefit to our consumers. But we should take this opportunity to point out clearly and forcefully the foolishness of providing subsidies to the Chinese through such vehicles as the Export/Import Bank. We should be adamantly opposed to sending military technology to such a nation, or to any nation for that matter.

2001 Ron Paul 25:13
It is interesting to note that recent reports reveal that missiles, coming from Israel and financed by American foreign aid, were seen on the fighter plane that caused the collision. It should be equally clear that arming the enemies of our trading partners doesn’t make a whole lot of sense either. For American taxpayers to continue to finance the weaponry of Taiwan, and to maintain an open commitment to send our troops if the border dispute between Taiwan and China erupts into violence, is foolhardy and risky.

2001 Ron Paul 25:14
Don’t forget that President Eisenhower once warned that there always seems to be a need for a “monster to slay” in order to keep the military industries busy and profitable. To continue the weapons buildup, something we are always engaged in around the world, requires excuses for such expenditures- some of these are planned, some contrived, and some accidental.

2001 Ron Paul 25:15
When we follow only a military approach without trading in our dealings with foreign nations, and in particular with China, we end up at war, such as we did in the Korean War. Today, we are following a policy where we have less military confrontation with the Chinese and more trade, so relations are much better. A crisis like we have just gone through is more likely to be peacefully resolved to the benefit of both sides. But what we need is even less military involvement, with no military technology going to China and no military weapons going to Taiwan. We have a precise interest in increasing true free trade; that is, trade that is not subsidized nor managed by some world government organization like the WTO. Maintaining peace would then be much easier.

2001 Ron Paul 25:16
We cannot deny that China still has many internal moral, economic and political problems that should be resolved. But so do we. Their internal problems are their own. We cannot impose our views on them in dealing with these issues, but we should be confident enough that engaging in free trade with them and setting a good example are the best ways for us to influence them in coming to grips with their problems. We have enough of our own imperfections in this country in dealing with civil liberties, and we ought not to pretend that we are saintly enough to impose our will on others in dealing with their problems. Needless to say we don’t have the legal authority to do so either.

2001 Ron Paul 25:17
During the Cuban missile crisis a resolution was achieved under very dangerous circumstances. Quietly, President Kennedy had agreed to remove the missiles from Turkey that were pointed at the Soviets, making the point that American missiles on the Soviet borders was not unlike the Soviets missiles on the American borders. A few months later, quietly, the United States removed these missiles, and no one suffered. The Cold War was eventually won by the United States, but our national security was not threatened by the removal of those missiles.

2001 Ron Paul 25:18
It could be argued that the fact that our missiles were in Turkey and pointed at the Soviets was more of a threat to our national security because that motivated the Soviets to put their missiles in Cuba. It would do no harm to our national security for us to quietly, in time, stop the potentially dangerous and unnecessary spy missions that we have pursued for over 50 years along the Chinese border.

2001 Ron Paul 25:19
James Bamford recently wrote in The New York Times of an episode that occurred in 1956 when Eisenhower was president. On a similar spy mission off the Chinese coast the Chinese Air Force shot down one of our planes, killing 16 American crewmen. In commenting on the incident President Eisenhower said, “We seem to be conducting something that we cannot control very well. If planes were flying 20 to 50 miles from our shores we would be very likely to shoot them down if they came in closer, whether through error or not.”

2001 Ron Paul 25:20
We have been pursuing these missions near China for over 50 years. It’s time to reconsider the wisdom and the necessity of such missions, especially since we are now engaged in trade with this nation.

2001 Ron Paul 25:21
Bellicose and jingoistic demands for retaliation and retribution are dangerous, and indeed are a greater threat to our national security than relying on satellite technology for gathering the information that we might need. A policy of peaceful, non-subsidized trade with China would go a long way to promoting friendly and secure relations with the Chinese people. By not building up the military arsenal of the Taiwanese, Taiwan will be forced to pursue their trade policies and investments with China, leading to the day where the conflict between these two powers can be resolved peacefully.

2001 Ron Paul 25:22
Today, it looks like there’s a much better chance of North and South Korea getting together and solving their dispute than was the case in the 1950s, when we sent hundreds of thousands of troops and millions of bombs to resolve the conflict, which was unsuccessful.

2001 Ron Paul 25:23
We should have more confidence that peaceful trade is a much stronger weapon than all the military force that we can provide. That same argument can be made for our dealings with Vietnam today. We did not win with weapons of war in the 1960s, yet we are now much more engaged in a peaceful trade with the people with Vietnam. Our willingness over the past hundred years to resort to weapons to impose our will on others has generally caused a resentment of America rather than respect.

2001 Ron Paul 25:24
It is now time to reassess our entire foreign policy of military worldwide intervention. Staying neutral in world conflicts while showing a willingness to trade with all nations anxious to trade with us will do more to serve the cause of world peace than all the unnecessary and provocative spy missions we pursue around the globe.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 26

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

U.S. Intervention In South Korea
25 April 2001
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, April 25, 2001


2001 Ron Paul 26:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today I am placing into the record the attached article from yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, as I believe it accurately depicts the problem that many nations face in attempting to resolve their difference once our government decides to insert itself into internal or regional matters in other parts of the world. Instead of hindering peace in the ways pointed out by this article, we can play a constructive role in the world. However, to do so will require a change of policy. By maintaining open trade and friendly diplomatic relations with all countries we could fulfill that role as a moral compass that our founders envisioned. Unfortunately, as this article shows, our current policy of intervention is having the exact opposite effect.

2001 Ron Paul 26:2
SOUTH KOREA FEARS BUSH TEAM IS HINDERING DETENTE WITH NORTH (By Jay Solomon)

2001 Ron Paul 26:3
SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA — Amid heightened tension between the U.S. and China over the downing of an American spy plane, frustration is mounting inside President Kim Dae Jung’s government that President Bush’s Asia policies are undercutting ties between North and South Korea.

2001 Ron Paul 26:4
President Kim has made his peace initiative toward reclusive North Korea — with whom the South remains technically at war — a cornerstone of his administration. Mr. Bush’s advisers say they are still reviewing the merits of engaging the communist North, but a number of Mr. Kim’s aides fear time is running out since his term ends next year.

2001 Ron Paul 26:5
Fueling this unease among some in Mr. Kim’s government is their belief that the Bush administration views peace on the Korean Peninsula as working against its principal security interests. Central to this is Mr. Bush’s plans to build a national missiledefense shield, for which North Korea’s missile program is a primary justification. U.S. military and intelligence officials have played up in recent weeks both the military and nuclear threats posed by North Korea’s military, re-emphasizing the Pentagon’s need to maintain 37,000 troops in South Korea.

2001 Ron Paul 26:6
Now, the U.S.-China standoff over an American surveillance plane that landed on China’s Hainan island is fanning fears that a renewed Cold War will grip North Asia. “The U.S.’s dependence upon a Cold War strategy . . . is causing the detente mood (on the Korean Peninsula) to collapse,” says Jang Sung Min, a legislator with the Millennium Democratic Party and an aide to Mr. Kim. He fears the U.S.’s pursuit of missile defense will exacerbate this tension by leading to a renewed arms race between regional powers China, Japan and Russia.

2001 Ron Paul 26:7
The South Korean Foreign Ministry, while officially maintaining that it is too early to judge Mr. Bush’s policy vis-a-vis North Korea, also is expressing skittishness toward Washington’s intentions. Spokesman Kim Euy Taek says the ministry hopes “the Bush administration will rethink its skepticism” toward North Korea after completing its review of the Clinton team’s policies toward Pyongyang.

2001 Ron Paul 26:8
For its part, the Bush administration doesn’t accept the premise that its actions are undermining Seoul’s peace initiative. “We continue to strongly support President Kim’s policy of engagement with North Korea,” a State Department spokesman in Washington says. “We share a common concern about the nature and level of the military threat from North Korea, and we continue to discuss ways to deal with that.”

2001 Ron Paul 26:9
Just three months ago, expectations were high that a peace pact could be signed between allies South Korea and the U.S. and North Korea. Then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright had held an unprecedented meeting with North Korea’s supreme leader, Kim Jong II, after the North sent a senior envoy to Washington. President Clinton was seriously considering a deal in January where North Korea would scrap some weapons programs in exchange for financial aid.

2001 Ron Paul 26:10
Kim Dae Jung’s government followed up by scheduling a March summit with Mr. Bush in Washington in hopes of picking up where Mr. Clinton left off. Instead Mr. Bush voiced “skepticism” toward Kim Jong II’s intentions and placed all talks with North Korea on hold pending the Clinton-policy review.

2001 Ron Paul 26:11
This rebuke has fueled a marked deterioration in North-South relations. Last month, Pyongyang halted peace talks with the South, a sporting exchange has been cancelled, and Kim Jong II’s proposed trip to South Korea during the first half of the year has been delayed to the second half — at the earliest.

2001 Ron Paul 26:12
Now, President Kim and his supporters are left hoping Mr. Bush’s team will quickly wrap up their review of North Korea policy and sign on to new peace talks. If not, however, there is a helpless sense of what can actually be achieved without Washington’s imprimatur. Hahn Hwa Kap, a senior member of President Kim’s Millennium Democratic Party, says: “The longer this process takes, the longer it will take for North-South relations to improve.”

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 27

Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]

April 26, 2001
INTRODUCTION OF THE AGRICULTURE EDUCATION FREEDOM ACT — HON. RON PAUL
(Extensions of Remarks - April 26, 2001)


[Page: E645] GPO’s PDF 
---
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, April 26, 2001

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 28

Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]

April 26, 2001
Repeal of the Selective Service Act
INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION RELATIVE TO THE REPEAL OF THE SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT AND RELATED PORTIONS OF THE US CODE (APRIL 26, 2001) — HON. RON PAUL (Extensions of Remarks - April 26, 2001)


[Page: E647] GPO’s PDF

2001 Ron Paul 28:1 
---
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, April 26, 2001

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 29

Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]

Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
26 April 2001

2001 Ron Paul 29:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, while it is the independent duty of each branch of the Federal Government to act Constitutionally, Congress will likely continue to ignore not only its Constitutional limits but earlier criticisms from Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well.

2001 Ron Paul 29:2
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2001, H.R. 503, would amend title 18, United States Code, for the laudable goal of protecting unborn children from assault and murder. However, by expanding the class of victims to which unconstitutional (but already-existing) Federal murder and assault statutes apply, the Federal Government moves yet another step closer to a national police state.

2001 Ron Paul 29:3
Of course, it is much easier to ride the current wave of federalizing every human misdeed in the name of saving the world from some evil than to uphold a Constitutional oath which prescribes a procedural structure by which the nation is protected from what is perhaps the worst evil, totalitarianism. Who, after all, wants to be amongst those members of Congress who are portrayed as soft on violent crimes initiated against the unborn?

2001 Ron Paul 29:4
Nevertheless, our Federal Government is, constitutionally, a government of limited powers. Article one, section eight, enumerates the legislative areas for which the U.S. Congress is allowed to act or enact legislation. For every other issue, the Federal Government lacks any authority or consent of the governed and only the State governments, their designees, or the people in their private market actions enjoy such rights to governance. The tenth amendment is brutally clear in stating “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Our Nation’s history makes clear that the U.S. Constitution is a document intended to limit the power of central government. No serious reading of historical events surrounding the creation of the Constitution could reasonably portray it differently.

2001 Ron Paul 29:5
However, Congress does more damage than just expanding the class to whom Federal murder and assault statutes apply — it further entrenches and seemingly concurs with the Roe v. Wade decision (the Court’s intrusion into rights of States and their previous attempts to protect by criminal statute the unborn’s right not to be aggressed against). By specifically exempting from prosecution both abortionists and the mothers of the unborn (as is the case with this legislation), Congress appears to say that protection of the unborn child is not only a Federal matter but conditioned upon motive. In fact, the Judiciary Committee in marking up the bill, took an odd legal turn by making the assault on the unborn a strict liability offense insofar as the bill does not even require knowledge on the part of the aggressor that the unborn child exists. Murder statutes and common law murder require intent to kill (which implies knowledge) on the part of the aggressor. Here, however, we have the odd legal philosophy that an abortionist with full knowledge of his terminal act is not subject to prosecution while an aggressor acting without knowledge of the child’s existence is subject to nearly the full penalty of the law. (With respect to only the fetus, the bill exempts the murderer from the death sentence — yet another diminution of the unborn’s personhood status and clearly a violation of the equal protection clause.) It is becoming more and more difficult for congress and the courts to pass the smell test as government simultaneously treats the unborn as a person in some instances and as a non-person in others.

2001 Ron Paul 29:6
In his first formal complaint to Congress on behalf of the federal Judiciary, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said “the trend to federalize crimes that have traditionally been handled in state courts . . . threatens to change entirely the nature of our Federal system.” Rehnquist further criticized Congress for yielding to the political pressure to “appear responsive to every highly publicized societal ill or sensational crime.”

2001 Ron Paul 29:7
Perhaps, equally dangerous is the loss of another Constitutional protection which comes with the passage of more and more federal criminal legislation. Constitutionally, there are only three Federal crimes. These are treason against the United States, piracy on the high seas, and counterfeiting (and, because the constitution was amended to allow it, for a short period of history, the manufacture, sale, or transport of alcohol was concurrently a Federal and State crime). “Concurrent” jurisdiction crimes, such as alcohol prohibition in the past and federalization of murder today, erode the right of citizens to be free of double jeopardy. The fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifies that no “person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . .” In other words, no person shall be tried twice for the same offense. However, in United States v. Lanza, the high court in 1922 sustained a ruling that being tried by both the Federal Government and a State government for the same offense did not offend the doctrine of double jeopardy. One danger of unconstitutionally expanding the Federal criminal justice code is that it seriously increases the danger that one will be subject to being tried twice for the same offense. Despite the various pleas for federal correction of societal wrongs, a national police force is neither prudent nor constitutional.

2001 Ron Paul 29:8
Occasionally the argument is put forth that States may be less effective than a centralized Federal Government in dealing with those who leave one State jurisdiction for another. Fortunately, the Constitution provides for the procedural means for preserving the integrity of State sovereignty over those issues delegated to it via the tenth amendment. The privilege and immunities clause as well as full faith and credit clause allow States to exact judgments from those who violate their State laws. The Constitution even allows the Federal Government to legislatively preserve the procedural mechanisms which allow States to enforce their substantive laws without the Federal Government imposing its substantive edicts on the States. Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2 makes provision for the rendition of fugitives from one State to another. While not self-enacting, in 1783 Congress passed an act which did exactly this. There is, of course, a cost imposed upon States in working with one another rather than relying on a national, unified police force. At the same time, there is a greater cost to centralization of police power.

2001 Ron Paul 29:9
It is important to be reminded of the benefits of federalism as well as the cost. There are sound reasons to maintain a system of smaller, independent jurisdictions — it is called competition and, yes, governments must, for the sake of the citizenry, be allowed to compete. We have obsessed so much over the notion of “competition” in this country we harangue someone like Bill Gates when, by offering superior products to every other similarly-situated entity, he becomes the dominant provider of certain computer products. Rather than allow someone who serves to provide value as made obvious by their voluntary exchanges in the free market, we lambaste efficiency and economies of scale in the private marketplace. Curiously, at the same time, we further centralize government, the ultimate monopoly and one empowered by force rather than voluntary exchange.

2001 Ron Paul 29:10
When small governments becomes too oppressive with their criminal laws, citizens can vote with their feet to a “competing” jurisdiction. If, for example, one does not want to be forced to pay taxes to prevent a cancer patient from using medicinal marijuana to provide relief from pain and nausea, that person can move to Arizona. If one wants to bet on a football game without the threat of government intervention, that person can live in Nevada. As government becomes more and more centralized, it becomes much more difficult to vote with one’s feet to escape the relatively more oppressive governments. Governmental units must remain small with ample opportunity for citizen mobility both to efficient governments and away from those which tend to be oppressive. Centralization of criminal law makes such mobility less and less practical.

2001 Ron Paul 29:11
Protection of life (born or unborn) against initiations of violence is of vital importance. So vitally important, in fact, it must be left to the States’ criminal justice systems. We have seen what a legal, constitutional, and philosophical mess results from attempts to federalize such an issue. Numerous States have adequately protected the unborn against assault and murder and done so prior to the Federal Government’s unconstitutional sanctioning of violence in the Roe v. Wade decision. Unfortunately, H.R. 503 ignores the danger of further federalizing that which is properly reserved to State governments and, in so doing, throws legal philosophy, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the insights of Chief Justice Rehnquist out with the baby and the bathwater.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 30

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Inflation Is Still With Us
3 May 2001
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, May 3, 2001


2001 Ron Paul 30:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, almost on a daily basis, government officials reassure us there is no inflation to worry about. But, today’s definition of inflation of rising prices as measured by an artificial CPI and PPI is seriously flawed. Rising prices are but one of the many consequences of true inflation — which is an increase in the supply of money and credit.

2001 Ron Paul 30:2
To understand the perversities of inflation one must look to the money supply. The money supply, as measured by M3, rose an astounding $42 billion last week and is up a whopping $210 billion in the past ten weeks. MZM, another important measure of inflation, is rising at the rate of 27%. Now that’s monetary debasement!

2001 Ron Paul 30:3
But rising prices, a reflection of monetary inflation, should not be dismissed as so many government economists have done. The current first quarter GDP report shows a 3.3% rise in the personal consumption price index, well above the 1.9% recorded in last year’s fourth quarter.

2001 Ron Paul 30:4
And what about the record prices for gasoline? To pretend that gasoline prices pose little threat to American consumers is naive — not to mention the skyrocketing electricity bills they also face.

2001 Ron Paul 30:5
The most serious economic myth that Federal Reserve economists perpetuate is that a booming economy causes prices to rise and a slowing economy will hold “inflation” in check. Ever since 1971, when the fiat dollar was established, records show that during each of our economic slumps, prices rose even faster than they did during periods of economic growth, supporting the argument that rising prices are a consequence of monetary policy.

2001 Ron Paul 30:6
Although the economy is now slowing, and fuel prices are skyrocketing for the airlines, Delta pilots are receiving salary increases of between 24 and 34%. Other evidence of labor cost increases is now available even with the large and growing number of announced layoffs. Wage prices pressure is more often than not a consequence of monetary policy, not a tight labor market.

2001 Ron Paul 30:7
Rising prices and the economic slowdown must be laid at the feet of the Federal Reserve. Likewise, the existing financial bubble is a consequence of the same policy of monetary expansion and artifically low interest rates. Although the NASDAQ bubble has already partially deflated, the entire world financial system suffers from the same distortion; and a lot more adjustment is required. Merely re-inflating with monetary expansion and manipulating interest rates will not solve the problems of debt, mal-investment and overcapacity that plague the system.

2001 Ron Paul 30:8
Mismanaging world fiat currencies and working to iron out the trade imbalances that result, through a worldwide managed trade organization, will not suffice. We must one day address the subject of sound money and free market interest rates, where interest rates are not set by the central banks of the world.

2001 Ron Paul 30:9
A sad consequence of today’s conditions is that monetary policy encourages transfer of wealth and power to the undeserving. The victims of bad monetary policy then blame capitalism for the inequities. The leftist demonstrators at recent WTO, IMF, and World Bank meetings make a legitimate point that the current system has resulted in accumulation of wealth and power in the hands of some at the expense of others.

2001 Ron Paul 30:10
But this is an expected consequence of monetary debasement, which generally leads to social unrest. But, blaming capitalism and freedom for the harm done by inflationism, special interest corporatism, and interventionism presents a danger to us all, since the case for commodity money and individual liberty is lost in the shouting. Unless this message is heard and distinguished from the current system, freedom and prosperity will be lost. Leaders of the current worldwide system that has evolved since the collapse of the Soviet empire pay lip service to free trade and free markets, but tragically they are moving us toward a fascist system of partnerships with government, big businesss, and international banking at the expense of the middle class and the poor.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 31

Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]

May 10, 2001
AMERICA NOT GETTING FAIR SHAKE FROM UNITED NATIONS —
(House of Representatives - May 10, 2001) 
[Page: H2137] 

 
GPO’s PDF


  
---


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

2001 Ron Paul 31:1
   Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today, as we are getting ready to adjourn, we have left the foreign relations authorization bill unfinished. I serve on the Committee on International Relations, and I was anxious to present several amendments in dealing with especially the United Nations. Unfortunately, those amendments were not permitted.

2001 Ron Paul 31:2
   The amendments that we are dealing with I see as being very small token efforts to improve the bill, but not really dealing with the essence of whether or not we should be in the United Nations or further funding the peacekeeping missions and doing many of the things that I believe sincerely should not be engaged in if we followed the Constitution, and many Americans agree with this.

2001 Ron Paul 31:3
   I think we are at a point now where a growing number of Americans feel like we are not getting a fair shake from the United Nations. I have been preaching this message for quite a few years, but I believe the United Nations itself is starting to make my point.

2001 Ron Paul 31:4
   Just recently, in the last week, the United States was kicked off the Human Rights Commission, as well as the International Narcotics Control Board. This is an affront to our dignity and ought to point out to us that, although we pay the largest amount of money for peacekeeping missions and the largest amount of dues, here it is that, because there is disagreement, we are humiliated by being kicked off these commissions.

2001 Ron Paul 31:5
   I do not see the benefits of belonging to the United Nations. I see too many disadvantages. If it were just a discussion group and trying to bring people together, that would be one thing; but we have gone to an extreme. This is an extreme position, as far as I am concerned, to belong to the United Nations and deliver so much of our sovereignty to the United Nations today.

2001 Ron Paul 31:6
   Essentially since World War II, we have gone to war under U.N. resolutions. No longer does the President come to the Congress and ask for a declaration of war. U.N. resolutions are passed, and we send our troops throughout the world fighting and being engaged in war. That is not the way it is supposed to be. The Constitution is very clear on when we should be involved in war.

2001 Ron Paul 31:7
   The conditions are not improving at all. They are asking for more and more funding. At the same time we sacrifice more and more of our sovereignty. On occasion we will stand up and say no, we do not want to participate in the Kyoto treaty or the International Criminal Court, and that is good. But the whole idea of this world government under the United Nations I think is something we should really challenge.

2001 Ron Paul 31:8
   Just January of this past year, it was noted that the United Nations proposed for the first time, although not ready to be passed, that we have an international tax placed on currency transactions to raise billions of dollars to be spent for international activities. Now, you say well, that is probably just a proposal and it will never happen. But even today, in Bosnia, the United Nations peacekeepers over there are tax collectors. There are not enough revenues being collected for certain governments, and the UN peacekeepers are there collecting taxes. So it is already happening that we are involved in tax collecting.

2001 Ron Paul 31:9
   I think that is the wrong way to go, and certainly we should be considering slashing these funds. I would have liked to have seen the removal of all the funds for peacekeeping missions. There is no national sovereignty reasons why we should put American troops under U.N. command in areas like Bosnia. I think that is the wrong way to go, I do not think the American people support this, and that we should reconsider our position and our relationship in the United Nations.

2001 Ron Paul 31:10
   There are hundreds of millions of dollars here for population control around the world. Some would say, well, as long as we write some little sentence in here and say “please do not use any of the money for abortion,” that will alleviate their conscience about sending tax dollars over to do abortions in places like China and other places in the world. Well, that does not work, because all funds are fungible. Funds can be shifted around. If we send the money, it can be used. If we specifically say “do not use them,” they can just shift the funds around, so I see that as not being a very good idea.

2001 Ron Paul 31:11
   I would like to strike all the funds for population control. If we feel compelled to help other countries and teach them about birth control, it should be done voluntarily and through missionary work or some other way, but not to tax the American people and force them to subsidize events like abortion.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 32

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

H.R. 1646
10 May 2001

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

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

2001 Ron Paul 32:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. DIAZBALART) for yielding me this time.

2001 Ron Paul 32:2
Mr. Speaker, I rise as a member of the Committee on International Relations but I would like to express my disappointment that of my amendments that were offered to the Committee on Rules, none of them were approved. That was a great disappointment to me.

2001 Ron Paul 32:3
I will vote for the rule, recognizing the fact that it is hard to accommodate everyone, but nevertheless it is very clear that I have been an outspoken opponent of the United Nations, and the amendments that we will be discussing will really not deal with the essence of whether or not we should be involved as we are in foreign interventionism. I think we are tinkering on the edges and will not do much to improve the bill even if some of the amendments are passed, some of which I will support.

2001 Ron Paul 32:4
I do think there are some serious things that we must consider. One is the issue of national sovereignty. To support H.R. 1646, one has to vote to give up some of our national sovereignty to the United Nations. There is $844 million for peacekeeping missions. We know now that we live in an age when we go to war not by declaration of the U.S. Congress but we go to war under U.N. resolutions. When we vote for this bill, and if this bill is supported, that concept of giving up our sovereignty and going to war under U.N. resolutions is supported.

2001 Ron Paul 32:5
I would like to have struck from the bill all the money for population control. I will support the Mexican City language, but it really does not do that much. All funds are fungible, and if we provide hundreds of millions of dollars for population control and say please do not use it for abortion, it is just shifting some funds around. So there is no real prohibition on the use of American taxpayers’ money for abortion if we do not strike all of these funds.

2001 Ron Paul 32:6
The United Nations have already laid plans for an international tax. This January it was proposed that the U.N. would like to put a tax on all currency transactions to raise $1.5 billion. This is abhorrent. This should be abhorrent to all of us. It should be abhorrent to all Americans that we would have an international tax imposed by the United Nations.

2001 Ron Paul 32:7
Already the United Nations is involved in tax collecting. In Bosnia right now, in Serbia, the U.N. has as one of their functions collecting taxes on goods coming into the country. There was a demonstration not too long ago by the Serbs objecting to this. The idea that U.N. soldiers, paid by the American taxpayers, are now tax collectors in Bosnia should arouse our concern.

2001 Ron Paul 32:8
The only way, since we do not have the amendments to reject outright some of this wasteful and harmful funding, the only way we who believe that our sovereignty is being challenged is to reject 1646. I see no other way to address this subject, because it is not in our best interest to go along with this.

2001 Ron Paul 32:9
The way the bill is written right now, we will support the Kyoto Treaty, and the International Criminal Court is also something that we should be contending with.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 33

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

International Criminal Court
10 May 2001

2001 Ron Paul 33:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise to join Mr. DELAY in expressing serious concern over the subject matter of his amendment, that is, the International Criminal Court (ICC).

2001 Ron Paul 33:2
Considering the detestable substance of the balance of H.R. 1646, fortunately, the underlying bill is silent on the ICC other than to prohibit funds authorized for International Organizations from being used to advance the International Criminal Court. As such, I have some reservations with the amendment offered by Mr. DELAY because it singles out one class of American citizens for protection from ICC jurisdiction (thus violating the doctrine of equal protection), it supposes that if the Senate ratifies the ICC treaty, U.S. citizens would then be subject to the court it creates, and it illegitimately delegates authority over which U.S. citizens would be subject to the ICC to the U.S. president. Moreover, his amendment would authorize U.S. military actions to “rescue” citizens of allied countries from the grips of the ICC, even if those countries had ratified the treaty. It may be better to remain silent (as the bill does in this case) rather than lend this degree of legitimacy to the ICC.

2001 Ron Paul 33:3
It is certainly my view (and that of the 21 cosponsors of my bill, HCR 23), that the President should immediately declare to all nations that the United States does not intend to assent to or ratify the International Criminal Court Treaty, also referred to as the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and the signature of former President Clinton to that treaty should not be construed otherwise.

2001 Ron Paul 33:4
The problems with the ICC treaty and the ICC are numerous. The International Criminal Court Treaty would establish the International Criminal Court as an international authority with power to threaten the ability of the United States to engage in military action to provide for its national defense.

2001 Ron Paul 33:5
The term “crimes of aggression”, as used in the treaty, is not specifically defined and therefore would, by design and effect, violate the vagueness doctrine and require the United States to receive prior United Nations Security Council approval and International Criminal Court confirmation before engaging in military action — thereby putting United States military officers in jeopardy of an International Criminal Court prosecution. The International Criminal Court Treaty creates the possibility that United States civilians, as well as United States military personnel, could be brought before a court that bypasses the due process requirements of the United States Constitution.

2001 Ron Paul 33:6
The people of the United States are selfgoverning, and they have a constitutional right to be tried in accordance with the laws that their elected representatives enact and to be judged by their peers and no others. The treaty would subject United States individuals who appear before the International Criminal Court to trial and punishment without the rights and protections that the United States Constitution guarantees, including trial by a jury of one’s peers, protection from double jeopardy, the right to know the evidence brought against one, the right to confront one’s accusers, and the right to a speedy trial.

2001 Ron Paul 33:7
Today’s amendment, rather than be silent as is currently the case with the bill, supposes that ratification would subject U.S. citizens to the ICC but the Supreme Court stated in Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416, 433 (1920), Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), and DeGeofrey v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267 (1890) that the United States Government may not enter into a treaty that contravenes prohibitory words in the United States Constitution because the treaty power does not authorize what the Constitution forbids. Approval of the International Criminal Court Treaty is in fundamental conflict with the constitutional oaths of the President and Senators, because the United States Constitution clearly provides that “[a]ll legislative powers shall be vested in a Congress of the United States,” and vested powers cannot be transferred.

2001 Ron Paul 33:8
Additionally, each of the 4 types of offenses over which the International Criminal Court may obtain jurisdiction is within the legislative and judicial authority of the United States and the International Criminal Court Treaty creates a supranational court that would exercise the judicial power constitutionally reserved only to the United States and thus is in direct violation of the United States Constitution. In fact, criminal law is reserved to the states by way of the tenth amendment and, as such, is not even within the federal government’s authority to “treaty away.”

2001 Ron Paul 33:9
Mr. Chairman, the International Criminal Court undermines United States sovereignty and security, conflicts with the United States Constitution, contradicts customs of international law, and violates the inalienable rights of self-government, individual liberty, and popular sovereignty. Therefore, the President should declare to all nations that the United States does not intend to assent to or ratify the treaty and the signature of former President Clinton to the treaty should not be construed otherwise.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 34

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Adjournment
10 May 2001

2001 Ron Paul 34:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 2 o’clock and 36 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until Monday, May 14, 2001, at 2 p.m.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 35

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

16 May 2001

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL).

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

2001 Ron Paul 35:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hyde amendment. I do not think it is the strongest amendment that we could have, because ultimately, this debate will not end until we stop the Federal funding or taxpayer funding of population control overseas. But nevertheless, a vote for this amendment is a strong statement in opposition to tax-supported abortion.

2001 Ron Paul 35:2
I would like to address the subject of the gag rule. As many of my colleagues know, if there is any violation whatsoever of any civil liberties or the Constitution, no matter how well intended a piece of legislation is, I will vote against it. On occasion even though I’m strong pro-life, I have occassionally voted against pro-life legislation for that reason.

2001 Ron Paul 35:3
But let me tell my colleagues, this gag rule argument is a red herring if I have ever seen one. This has nothing to do with the first amendment. This would be like arguing that if we had a prohibition in this bill against passing out guns to civilians in some foreign nation, we would say, we cannot have a prohibition on that because of the second amendment, defending the right to own guns. It would be nonsense. So this has nothing to do with the first amendment; but it does have something to do with the rights of U.S. citizens, Mr. Chairman, in forcibly taking funds through taxes from people who believe strongly against abortion their rights are violated.

2001 Ron Paul 35:4
Someone mentioned earlier that this was a violation of the religious beliefs of people overseas. What about the religious beliefs of the people in this country who are at the point of a gun forced to pay for these abortions? That is where the real violation is. It is not an infraction on the first amendment.

2001 Ron Paul 35:5
As a matter of fact, I think this is a bad choice and bad tactics for those who support abortion, because this is like rubbing our nose into it when the people who feel so strongly against abortion are forced to pay for abortion, to pay for the propaganda and to pay for the lobbying to promote abortion. Ultimately, the solution will only come when we defund overseas population control.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 36

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Demands Recorded Vote
16 May 2001

2001 Ron Paul 36:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 37

Ron Paul’s Congressional website May 22, 2001

Hearing before the House Ways and Means Social Security Subcommittee
Protecting Privacy and Preventing Misuse of Social Security Numbers


2001 Ron Paul 37:1
I wish to thank the subcommittee on Social Security of the Ways and Means Committee for holding this hearing on the misuse of the Social Security number. The transformation of the Social Security number into a de facto uniform identifier is a subject of increasing concern to the American people. This is, in large part, because the use of the Social Security number as a standard identifier facilitates the crime of identity theft. Today, all an unscrupulous person needs to do is obtain someone’s Social Security number in order to access that person’s bank accounts, credit cards, and other financial assets. Many Americans have lost their life savings and have had their credit destroyed as a result of identity theft.

2001 Ron Paul 37:2
The responsibility for the misuse of the Social Security number and the corresponding vulnerability of the American people to identity crimes lies squarely with the Congress. Since the creation of the Social Security number, Congress has authorized over 40 uses of the Social Security number. Thanks to Congress, today no American can get a job, open a bank account, get a professional license, or even get a drivers’ license without presenting their Social Security number. So widespread has the use of the Social Security number become that a member of my staff had to produce a Social Security number in order to get a fishing license!

2001 Ron Paul 37:3
Because it was Congress which transformed the Social Security number into a national identifier, Congress has a moral responsibility to address this problem. In order to protect the American people from government-mandated uniform identifiers which facilitate identity crimes, I have introduced the Identity Theft Prevention Act (HR 220). The major provision of the Identity Theft Prevention Act halts the practice of using the Social Security number as an identifier by requiring the Social Security Administration to issue all Americans new Social Security numbers within five years after the enactment of the bill. These new numbers will be the sole legal property of the recipient and the Social Security Administration shall be forbidden to divulge the numbers for any purposes not related to the Social Security program. Social Security numbers issued before implementation of this bill shall no longer be considered valid federal identifiers. Of course, the Social Security Administration shall be able to use an individual’s original Social Security number to ensure efficient transition of the Social Security system.

2001 Ron Paul 37:4
This act also forbids the federal government from creating national ID cards or establishing any identifiers for the purpose of investigating, monitoring, overseeing, or regulating private transactions between American citizens, as well as repealing those sections of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 that require the Department of Health and Human Services to establish a uniform standard health identifier. By putting an end to government-mandated uniform IDs, the Identity Theft Prevention Act will prevent millions of Americans from having their liberty, property and privacy violated by private-and-public sector criminals.

2001 Ron Paul 37:5
In addition to forbidding the federal government from creating national identifiers, this legislation forbids the federal government from blackmailing states into adopting uniform standard identifiers by withholding federal funds. One of the most onerous practices of Congress is the use of federal funds illegitimately taken from the American people to bribe states into obeying federal dictates.

2001 Ron Paul 37:6
Many of our colleagues will claim that the federal government needs these powers to protect against fraud or some other criminal activities. However, monitoring the transactions of every American in order to catch those few who are involved in some sort of illegal activity turns one of the great bulwarks of our liberty, the presumption of innocence, on its head. The federal government has no right to treat all Americans as criminals by spying on their relationship with their doctors, employers, or bankers. In fact, criminal law enforcement is reserved to the state and local governments by the Constitution’s Tenth Amendment.

2001 Ron Paul 37:7
Other members of Congress will claim that the federal government needs the power to monitor Americans in order to allow the government to operate more efficiently. I would remind my colleagues that in a constitutional republic the people are never asked to sacrifice their liberties to make the job of government officials a little bit easier. We are here to protect the freedom of the American people, not to make privacy invasion more efficient.

2001 Ron Paul 37:8
Mr. Chairman, while I do not question the sincerity of those members who suggest that Congress can ensure citizens’ rights are protected through legislation restricting access to personal information, the only effective privacy protection is to forbid the federal government from mandating national identifiers. Legislative “privacy protections” are inadequate to protect the liberty of Americans for several reasons. First, it is simply common sense that repealing those federal laws that promote identity theft is a more effective in protecting the public than expanding the power of the federal police force. Federal punishment of identity thieves provides old comfort to those who have suffered financial losses and the destruction of their good reputation as a result of identity theft.

2001 Ron Paul 37:9
Federal laws are not only ineffective in stopping private criminals, they have not even stopped unscrupulous government officials from accessing personal information. Did laws purporting to restrict the use of personal information stop the well-publicized violation of privacy by IRS officials or the FBI abuses by the Clinton and Nixon administrations? !

2001 Ron Paul 37:10
The primary reason why any action short of the repeal of laws authorizing privacy violation is insufficient is because the federal government lacks constitutional authority to force citizens to adopt a universal identifier for health care, employment, or any other reason. Any federal action that oversteps constitutional limitations violates liberty because it ratifies the principle that the federal government, not the Constitution, is the ultimate judge of its own jurisdiction over the people. The only effective protection of the rights of citizens is for Congress to follow Thomas Jefferson’s advice and “bind (the federal government) down with the chains of the Constitution.”

2001 Ron Paul 37:11
Mr. Chairman, those members who are unpersuaded by the moral and constitutional reasons for embracing the Identity Theft Prevention Act should consider the overwhelming opposition of the American people toward national identifiers. The overwhelming public opposition to the various “Know-Your-Customer” schemes, the attempt to turn drivers’ licenses into National ID cards, HHS’s misnamed “medical privacy” proposal, as well as the numerous complaints over the ever-growing uses of the Social Security number show that American people want Congress to stop invading their privacy. Congress risks provoking a voter backlash if we fail to halt the growth of the surveillance state.

2001 Ron Paul 37:12
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I once again thank you and the other members of the subcommittee for holding a hearing on this important issue. I hope this hearing would lead to serious Congressional action to end to the federal government’s unconstitutional use of national identifiers which facilitate identity theft by passing Hr 220, the Identify Theft Prevention Act.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 38

Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]

May 22, 2001
Statement on the Congressional Education Plan


2001 Ron Paul 38:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, thirty-six years ago Congress blatantly disregarded all constitutional limitations on its power over K-12 education by passing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). This act of massive federal involvement in education was sold to the American people with promises that federal bureaucrats had it within their power to usher in a golden age of education. Yet, instead of the promised nirvana, federal control over education contributed to a decline in education quality. Congress has periodically responded to the American people’s concerns over education by embracing education “reforms,” which it promises are the silver bullet to fixing American schools. “Trust us,” proponents of new federal edcation programs say, we have learned from the mistakes of the past and all we need are a few billion more dollars and some new federal programs and we will produce the educational utopia in which “all children are above average.” Of course, those reforms only result in increasing the education bureaucracy, reducing parental control, increasing federal expenditures, continuing decline in education and an inevitable round of new “reforms.”

2001 Ron Paul 38:2
   Congress is now considering whether to continue this cycle by passing the national five-year plan contained in H.R. 1, the so-called “No Child Left Behind Act.” A better title for this bill is “No Bureaucrat Left Behind” because, even though it’s proponents claim H.R. 1 restores power over education to states and local communities, this bill represents a massive increase in federal control over education. H.R. 1 contains the word “ensure” 150 times, “require” 477 times, “shall” 1,537 and “shall not” 123 times. These words are usually used to signify federal orders to states and localities. Only in a town where a decrease in the rate of spending increases is considered a cut could a bill laden with federal mandates be considered an increase in local control!

2001 Ron Paul 38:3
   H.R. 1 increases federal control over education through increases in education spending. Because “he who pays the piper calls the tune,” it is inevitable that increased federal expenditures on education will increase federal control. However, Mr. Chairman, as much as I object to the new federal expenditures in H.R. 1, my biggest concern is with the new mandate that states test children and compare the test with a national normed test such as the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP). While proponents of this approach claim that the bill respects state autonomy as states’ can draw up their own tests, these claims fail under close observation. First of all, the very act of imposing a testing mandate on states is a violation of states’ and local communities’ authority, protected by the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution, to control education free from federal interference.

2001 Ron Paul 38:4
   Some will claim that this does not violate states’ control because states are free to not accept federal funds. However, every member here knows that it is the rare state administrator who will decline federal funds to avoid compliance with federal mandates. It is time Congress stopped trying to circumvent the constitutional limitations on its authority by using the people’s own money to bribe them into complying with unconstitutional federal dictates.

2001 Ron Paul 38:5
   Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1 will lead to de facto, if not de jure, national testing. States will inevitably fashion their test to match the “nationally-normed” test so as to relieve their students and

2001 Ron Paul 38:6
   teachers of having to prepare for two different tests. Furthermore, states will feel pressure from employers, colleges, and perhaps even future Congresses to conform their standards with other national tests “for the children’s sake.” After all, what state superintendent wants his state’s top students denied admission to the top colleges, or the best jobs, or even student loans, because their state’s test is considered inferior to the “assessments” used by the other 49 states?

2001 Ron Paul 38:7
   National testing will inevitably lead to a national curriculum as teachers will teach what their students need to know in order to pass their mandated “assessment.” After all, federal funding depends on how students perform on these tests! Proponents of this approach dismiss these concerns by saying “there is only one way to read and do math.” Well then what are the battles about phonics versus whole language or new math versus old math about? There are continuing disputes about teaching all subjects as well as how to measure mastery of a subject matter. Once federal mandatory testing is in place however, those arguments will be settled by the beliefs of whatever regime currently holds sway in DC. Mr. Chairman, I would like my colleagues to consider how comfortable they would feel supporting this bill if they knew that in five years proponents of fuzzy math and whole language could be writing the NAEP?

2001 Ron Paul 38:8
   Proponents of H.R. 1 justify the mandatory testing by claiming it holds schools “accountable.” Of course, everyone is in favor of holding schools accountable but accountable to whom? Under this bill, schools remain accountable to federal bureaucrats and those who develop the state tests upon which participating schools performance is judged. Even under the much touted Straight “A”s proposal, schools which fail to live up to their bureaucratically-determined “performance goals” will lose the flexibility granted to them under this act. Federal and state bureaucrats will determine if the schools are to be allowed to participate in the Straight “A”s programs and bureaucrats will judge whether the states are living up to the standards set in the state’s education plan — yet this is the only part of the bill which even attempts to debureaucratize and decentralize education!

2001 Ron Paul 38:9
   Under the United States Constitution, the federal government has no authority to hold states “accountable” for their education performance. In the free society envisioned by the founders, schools are held accountable to parents, not federal bureaucrats. However, the current system of imposing oppressive taxes on America’s families and using those taxes to fund federal education programs denies parental control of education by denying them control over their education dollars.

2001 Ron Paul 38:10
   As a constitutional means to provide parents with the means to hold schools accountable, I have introduced the Family Education Freedom Act (H.R. 368). The Family Education Freedom Act restores parental control over the classroom by providing American parents a tax credit of up to $3,000 for the expenses incurred in sending their child to private, public, parochial, other religious school, or for home schooling their children.

2001 Ron Paul 38:11
   The Family Education Freedom Act returns the fundamental principle of a truly free economy to America’s education system: what the great economist Ludwig von Mises called “consumer sovereignty.” Consumer sovereignty simply means consumers decide who succeeds or fails in the market. Businesses that best satisfy consumer demand will be the most successful. Consumer sovereignty is the means by which the free society maximizes human happiness.

2001 Ron Paul 38:12
   When parents control the education dollar, schools must be responsive to parental demands that their children receive first-class educations, otherwise, parents will find alternative means to educate their children. Furthermore, parents whose children are in public schools may use their credit to improve their schools by purchasing of educational tools such as computers or extracurricular activities such as music programs. Parents of public school students may also wish to use the credit to pay for special services for their children.

2001 Ron Paul 38:13
   According to a recent Manhattan Institute study of the effects of state policies promoting parental control over education, a minimal increase in parental control boosts the average SAT verbal score by 21 points and the student’s SAT math score by 22 points! The Manhattan Institute study also found that increasing parental control of education is the best way to improve student performance on the NAEP tests.

2001 Ron Paul 38:14
   I have also introduced the Education Quality Tax Cut Act (H.R. 369), which provides a $3,000 tax deduction for contributions to K-12 education scholarships as well as for cash or in-kind donations to private or public schools. The Education Quality Tax Cut Act will allow concerned citizens to become actively involved in improving their local public schools as well as help underprivileged children receive the type of education necessary to help them reach their full potential. I ask my colleagues: “Who is better suited to lead the education reform effort: parents and other community leaders or DC-based bureaucrats and politicians?”

2001 Ron Paul 38:15
   If, after the experience of the past thirty years, you believe that federal bureaucrats are better able to meet children’s unique educational needs than parents and communities then vote for H.R. 1. However, if you believe that the failures of the past shows expanding federal control over the classroom is a recipe for leaving every child behind then do not settle for some limited state flexibility in the context of a massive expansion of federal power: Reject H.R. 1 and instead help put education resources back into the hands of parents by supporting my Family Education Freedom Act and Education Improvement Tax Cut Act.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 39

Ron Paul’s Congressional website May 23, 2001
Letter to HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson Regarding Proposed Medical Privacy Regulation


2001 Ron Paul 39:1
Thank you for your interest in revising the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) medical privacy regulations. I respectfully urge HHS to revise those sections of the bill that reduce medical privacy by allowing the government increased access to medical records.

2001 Ron Paul 39:2
According to a Gallop survey commissioned by the Institute for Health Freedom, 92% of Americans oppose allowing government agencies to have access to medical records without patient consent. The American people are more opposed to government agencies having unfettered access to medical records than they are to any private party, with the exception of financial institutions, having access to their medical history. Yet HHS’s rule increases the power of government agencies to seize medical records without consent!

2001 Ron Paul 39:3
HHS should ensure that the regulation complies with the letter and spirit of the fourth amendment by requiring that law enforcement officials obtain a valid search warrant before seizing private medical records. The requirement that law enforcement officials obtain a warrant from a judge before searching private documents is one of the fundamental protections against abuse of the government’s power to seize an individual’s private documents. While the fourth amendment has been interpreted to allow warrantless searches in emergency situations, it is hard to conceive of a situation where law enforcement officials would be unable to obtain a warrant before electronic medical records would be destroyed.

2001 Ron Paul 39:4
HHS should also eliminate those sections which require physicians to provide the federal government with personal medical records for purposes of monitoring compliance with the rule. HHS should only collect information if the physicians or the federal government has obtained written permission from the patient allowing HHS to obtain their records.

2001 Ron Paul 39:5
HHS should also repeal those sections of the regulations that provide private parties with a right to access private medical records for reasons unrelated to treatment. Particularly offensive are those sections which allow medical researchers to access private records without individual consent. While researchers claim to be able to protect the autonomy of their unwilling subjects, the fact is that allowing third parties to use medical records for research purposes runs the risk of inadvertent identification of personal medical information. I am aware of at least one incident where a man had his identity revealed when his medical records were used without his consent. As a result, many people in his community discovered details of his medical history that he wished to keep private!

2001 Ron Paul 39:6
I am also aware that some will make the argument that there is a “social good” in medical research that outweighs the individual’s right to privacy. As a physician, I certainly recognize the value and importance of medical research. However, as a legislator, I also recognize that because people have a property interest in their medical information, forcing individuals to divulge medical information without their consent runs afoul of the fifth amendment’s taking clause, which was designed to prevent sacrifices of individual liberty and property for the “common good.”

2001 Ron Paul 39:7
In a free society, such as the one envisioned by the drafters of the Constitution, the federal government should never force a citizen to divulge personal information to advance “important social goals.” Rather, it should be up to the individuals, not the government, to determine what social goals are important enough to warrant allowing others access to their personal property, including their personal information. To the extent these regulations sacrifice individual rights in the name of a bureaucratically-determined “common good,” they are incompatible with a constitutional government that respects individual liberty.

2001 Ron Paul 39:8
Finally, Secretary Thompson, if HHS is going to collect private medical records, the medical privacy rule should then explicitly forbid the federal government from permanently storing any medical information on a federally maintained or funded database. Previous experience with federal collection of information demonstrates the need for an explicit ban on creating a database. For example, despite repeated assurances they would not do so, the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms is using their authority to conduct background checks under the Brady Law to compile a database of every gun owner in America!

2001 Ron Paul 39:9
In conclusion, I once again respectfully request that the Department of Health and Human Services amend the medical privacy rule to require a search warrant before government officials may seize medical records. I also request that HHS remove all sections of the rule that give private parties (particularly researchers) a federal right to access medical records without consent for purposes unrelated to treatment. Furthermore, if HHS is going to continue to allow the Federal Government to collect medical information for any reason, HHS must explicitly provide that none of the information collected under the authority given HHS, or any other federal agency, will be stored in a federally maintained or funded database. Thank you for your consideration of my views, which, according to the Gallup poll, are shared by the vast majority of Americans.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 40

Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]

Sudan Peace Act
13 June 2001

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL), a member of the Committee on International Relations.

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

2001 Ron Paul 40:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill, although I do not contest for 1 minute the sincerity and the good intentions of the many, many cosponsors. I do not question the problems that exist in Sudan. There is no doubt that it is probably one of the most horrible tales in human history.

2001 Ron Paul 40:2
But I do question a few things. First, I question whether this is a proper function for our government. I raised this question in the committee, suggesting that it could not be for national security reasons, and it more or less was conceded this has nothing to do with national security but it had to do with America’s soul. I was fascinated that we are in the business of saving souls these days.

2001 Ron Paul 40:3
But I do have serious concerns about its effectiveness, because we have a history of having done these kinds of programs many times in the past, and even in Africa. It was not too many years ago that we were in Somalia and we lost men. Our soldiers were dragged in the streets. It was called nationbuilding. This is, in a way, very much nation-building, because we support one faction over the thugs that are in charge.

2001 Ron Paul 40:4
I certainly have all the sympathy and empathy for those individuals who are being abused, but the real question is whether or not this will work. It did not work in Somalia. We sent troops into Haiti. Haiti is not better off. How many men did we lose in Vietnam in an effort to make sure the people we want in power were in power?

2001 Ron Paul 40:5
So often these well-intended programs just do not work and frequently do the opposite by our aid ending up in the hands of the supposed enemy. I seriously question whether this one will, either. Maybe in a year or 2 from now we will realize that this is an effort that did not produce the results that we wanted. It is a $10 million appropriation, small for what we do around here, but we also know that this is only the beginning, and there will be many more tens of millions of dollars that will be sent in hopes that we will satisfy this problem.

2001 Ron Paul 40:6
Members can look for more problems to solve, because right now there are 800,000 children serving in the military in 41 countries of the world. That is another big job we would have to take upon ourselves to solve considering our justification to be involved in Sudan.

2001 Ron Paul 40:7
Mr. Chairman, with HR 2052, the Sudan Peace Act, we embark upon another episode of interventionism, in continuing our illegitimate and ill-advised mission to “police” the world. It seemingly matters little to this body that it proceeds neither with any constitutional authority nor with the blessings of such historical figures such as Jefferson who, in his first inaugural address, argued for “Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none.” Unfortunately, this is not the only bit of history which seemingly is lost on this Congress.

2001 Ron Paul 40:8
Apparently, it is also lost on this Congress that the Constitution was a grant of limited power to the federal government from the citizens or, in other words, the Constitution was not designed to allow the government to restrain the people, but to allow the people to restrain the government. Of course, the customary lip service is given to the Constitution insofar as the committee report for this bill follows the rule of citing Constitutional authority and cites Art. I, Section 8, which is where one might look to find a specific enumerated power. However, the report cites only clause 18 which begs some further citation. While Clause 18 contains the “necessary and proper” clause, it limits Congress to enacting laws “necessary and proper” to some more specifically (i.e. foregoing) enumerated power. Naturally, no such “foregoing” authority is cited by the advocates of this bill.

2001 Ron Paul 40:9
Without Constitutional authority, this bill goes on to encourage the spending of $10 million of U.S. taxpayers hard-earned money in Sudan but for what purpose? From the text of the bill, we learn that “The United States should use all means of pressure available to facilitate a comprehensive solution to the war in Sudan, including (A) the multilateralization of economic and diplomatic tools to compel the Government of Sudan to enter into a good faith peace process; [note that it says “compel . . . good faith peace”] and (B) the support or creation of viable democratic civil authority and institutions in areas of Sudan outside of government control.” I believe we used to call that nation-building before that term became impolitic. How self-righteous a government is ours which legally prohibits foreign campaign contributions yet assumes it knows best and, hence, supports dissident and insurgent groups in places like Cuba, Sudan and around the world. The practical problem here is that we have funded dissidents in such places as Somalia who ultimately turned out to be worse than the incumbent governments. Small wonder the U.S. is the prime target of citizen-terrorists from countries with no real ability to retaliate militarily for our illegitimate and immoral interventions.

2001 Ron Paul 40:10
The legislative “tools” to be used to “facilitate” this aforementioned “comprehensive solution” are as frightening as the nation-building tactics. For example, “It is the sense of the Congress that . . . the United Nations should be used as a tool to facilitate peace and recovery in Sudan.”

2001 Ron Paul 40:11
One can only assume this is the same United Nations which booted the United States off its Human Rights Commission in favor of, as Canadian Sen. Jerahmiel S. Grafstein, called them recently, “those exemplars of human rights nations . . . Algeria, China, Saudi Arabia, Uganda, Armenia, Pakistan, Syria and Vietnam.”

2001 Ron Paul 40:12
The bill does not stop there, however, in intervening in the civil war in Sudan. It appears that this Congress has found a new mission for the Securities and Exchange Commission who are now tasked with investigating “the nature and extent of . . . commercial activity in Sudan” as it relates to “any violations of religious freedom and human rights in Sudan.” It seems we have finally found a way to spend those excessive fees the SEC has been collecting from mutual fund investors despite the fact we cannot seem to bring to the floor a bill to actually reduce those fees which have been collected in multiples above what is necessary to fund this agencies’ previous (and again unconstitutional) mission.

2001 Ron Paul 40:13
There is more, however. Buried deep within the bill in Section 9 we find what may be the real motivation for the intervention — Oil. It seems the bill also tasks the Secretary of State with generating a report detailing “a description of the sources and current status of Sudan’s financing and construction of infrastructure and pipelines for oil exploitation, the effects of such financing and construction on the inhabitants of the regions in which the oil fields are located.” Talk about corporate welfare and the ability to socialize the costs of foreign competitive market research on the U.S. taxpayer!

2001 Ron Paul 40:14
Yes, Mr. Chairman, this bill truly has it all — an unconstitutional purpose, the morally bankrupt intervention in dealings between the affairs of foreign governments and their respective citizens in our attempt to police the world, more involvement by a United Nations proven inept at resolving civil conflicts abroad, the expansion of the SEC into State Department functions and a little corporate welfare for big oil, to boot. How can one not support these legislative efforts?

2001 Ron Paul 40:15
Mr. Chairman, I oppose this bill for each of the above-mentioned reasons and leave to the ingenuity, generosity, and conscience of each individual in this country to make their own private decision as to how best render help to citizens of Sudan and all countries where human rights violations run rampant.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 41

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Internationalizing SEC
13 June 2001

2001 Ron Paul 41:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

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

2001 Ron Paul 41:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, mainly because I do not think it is a good move to have the SEC internationalized to begin with, and to further internationalize it does not seem to make a whole lot of sense.

2001 Ron Paul 41:3
For one thing, cracking down more on foreign oil companies that are doing business in Sudan will not necessarily prohibit the benefits that may flow to the American oil companies if there is a change in government. We should not ignore that. We go to war over oil. We went to war over oil in the Persian Gulf, and certainly we had oil as an influence to send in many dollars and much equipment down into Colombia.

2001 Ron Paul 41:4
But just let me read from the bill. It says the Secretary of State will report back on a description of the sources and the current status of Sudan’s financing and construction of infrastructure and pipelines for oil exploitation; the effects of such financing and construction of the inhabitants of the region. It goes on, which in a way does a lot of research and benefit for our oil companies that may benefit. So I think oil is involved, but in quite a different way than I think we should be involved in dealing with the foreign oil companies today. So I am not going to support this amendment.

2001 Ron Paul 41:5
I would like to take another moment to mention something which is considered an esoteric point, but I consider very important, and that has to do with the authority to do these kinds of things that we are doing today, no matter how well intended. The committee report explains the authority, and the supporters of the bill says the authority comes from article one, section 8, clause 18. And they look to the right place. Article one, section 8 gives us our 18 enumerated powers that we are permitted to do. The clause 18 is the necessary and proper clause: to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers.

2001 Ron Paul 41:6
The foregoing powers were those 18 issued. To use this in a generalized sense means there is no constitution left. That means any power we want, we can do whatever we want. That was specifically designed to pass laws to enforce those 18 enumerated powers. So this bill, in spite of all the good intentions that we hope it will do, really undermines the whole concept of the Doctrine of Enumerated Powers.

2001 Ron Paul 41:7
And we should not take that lightly, although this generally is not of much interest to so many people because we do so much and we have such great hopes that it will always do so much good. From just observing history, recent history, the last 20, 30, 40 years since World War II, so often when we get involved and we send money to help the good guys, it is not infrequent the good things that we send in, goods and services and weapons, end up in the hands of the opposition and the enemy. So that is always a possibility once again. These commodities and services and the things that we send and the money may well end up literally being used against the people we are trying to help.

2001 Ron Paul 41:8
The other thing that we tend to ignore here is we concentrate on the good things that we are going to accomplish. Miraculously, we are going to solve this problem by putting $10 million in today and $100 million in the next 5 years, and everything is going to be solved. We do not think about it failing, because that would be a negative, and we do not want to think about that. We do not think about the Constitution, and we do not think about who pays. Somebody always has to pay. This is token. Who cares about $10 million? When we take $10 million out of the economy, there is somebody who suffered; somebody did not get a house or somebody lost a job. But they are not identifiable. They do not have a lobbyist. They are lost. But they are penalized. There is always a cost.

2001 Ron Paul 41:9
And even if we assume we have a surplus and the money is already in the budget, we still should be concerned because we are making a choice. We are saying that we are going to take this money and take the risk of sending it over there. Maybe it will help. Maybe I am right, maybe it will not do quite as much good as we think, but we make a trade-off. We say today that we will send this money with the hope that it will do good at the expense of a domestic program. Do my colleagues think every poor person in this country has been taken care of, their medical care needs or housing? So we do make choices continuously, but we forget about that.

2001 Ron Paul 41:10
We never really think about the choices that we make, and there is always a trade-off. And we generally always forget about finding the point in the Constitution that gives us authority. In this case, this is the wrong authority, and it is not a proper interpretation of the Constitution as described in the committee report.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 42

Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]

Conscription Policies
13 June 2001
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, June 13, 2001


2001 Ron Paul 42:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I highly recommend to my colleagues the attached article “Turning Eighteen in America: Thoughts on Conscription” by Michael Allen. This article was published in the Internet news magazine Laissez Faire Times. Mr. Allen forcefully makes the point that coercing all young men to register with the federal government so they may be conscripted into military service at the will of politicians is fundamentally inconsistent with the American philosophy of limited government and personal freedom. After all, the unstated premise of a draft is that individuals are owned by the state. Obviously this belief is more consistent with totalitarian systems, such as those found in the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Red China or Castro’s Cuba, than with a system based on the idea that all individuals have inalienable rights. No wonder prominent Americans from across the political spectrum such as Ronald Reagan, Milton Friedman, Gary Hart, and Jesse Ventura oppose the draft.

2001 Ron Paul 42:2
Selective Service is not even a good way of providing an effective military fighting force. As Mr. Allen points out (paraphrasing former Senator Mark Hatfield), the needs of the modem military require career professionals with longterm commitments to the service, not shortterm draftees eager to “serve their time” and return to civilian life. The military itself recognizes that Selective Service serves no useful military function. In 1993), the Department of Defense issued a report stating that registration could be stopped “with no effect on military mobilization, no measurable effect on the time it would take to mobilize, and no measurable effect on military recruitment.” Yet the American taxpayer has been forced to spend over $500 million dollars on a system “with no measurable effect on military mobilization!”

2001 Ron Paul 42:3
I have introduced legislation, H.R. 1597, which repeals the Selective Service Act, thus ending a system which violates the rights of millions of young Americans and wastes taxpayer dollars for no legitimate military reason. I urge my colleagues to read Mr. Allen’s article then cosponsor HR 1597 and join me in ending a system which is an affront to the principles of liberty our nation was founded upon.

2001 Ron Paul 42:4
TURNING EIGHTEEN IN AMERICA: THOUGHTS ON CONSCRIPTION
(By Michael R. Allen)
In March of 1967, Senator Mark Hatfield (R–Oregon) proposed legislation that would abolish the practice of military conscription, or the drafting of men who are between 18 and 35 years old. Despite its initial failure, it has been reintroduced in nearly every Congress that has met since then, and has been voted upon as an amendment at least once.

2001 Ron Paul 42:5
This bill was an excellent proposal that should have never been needed. The dovish Hatfield’s arguments in promotion of the bill constituted what is actually the conservative position on the item. In its defense, Hatfield asserted that we need career military men who can adapt to system changes within the context of weaponry. Short-term draftees, maintained Hatfield, would not be particularly adept at utilizing modern technology. More recent efforts to overturn the Selective Service Act have similarly stressed efficiency.

2001 Ron Paul 42:6
This basic logic is the driving force behind the political anti-draft movement. Others oppose the draft because it represents another governmental intrusion into the lives of America’s young adults. Those lacking skill or ambition to serve will be greatly humiliated once drafted, and those without developed skill in search of an alternative career will be denied an opportunity to choose that direction. The draft also is a blatant attack on the Thirteenth Amendment, which prohibits involuntary servitude. If the federal government fought individual states over the legalization of private-sector slavery, then should it not also be equally compelled to decry public-sector servitude? Of course it should, but an elastically interpreted “living Constitution” makes all sorts of public schemes safe from legal reproach.

2001 Ron Paul 42:7
Recruiting students and vagrants is of no use to a competitive military, since both groups are uninterested in active duty. By contrast, a volunteer army — assuming the country needs any army at all — will yield those with an interest in serving their country and those who seek the military as a place to get that necessary step up into a better life. A primary partner to draft reform would be to offer an alternative for those who request not to serve militarily. Non-combatant positions, such as field doctors and radio operators, might be made civilian positions. Then, those who wish not to engage in battle will be able to serve the nation for as long as they need.

2001 Ron Paul 42:8
Additionally, the government can save some money, albeit not much, by not having to buy uniforms for these civilians.

2001 Ron Paul 42:9
Yet the most compelling reason for having volunteer military forces is the right of a person to own his or her body. The right to self-ownership must be supreme in a free nation, since without it there is no justification for government or laws at all. If one does not own his body, then why should murder be a crime? Why should there be money for the individual to spend? The self must own itself for there to be any liberty. And clearly one does have self-ownership. A man controls his own actions, and efforts to force him to do what he desires not to do are nugatory. The best the State can do is arrest him after he has disobeyed the law. It cannot prevent a willful person from committing illegal acts. The draft ignores the concept of self-ownership and proceeds to diminish the available benefits of a free society for young men.

2001 Ron Paul 42:10
Issues of cost and unfairness can sway those not seeing a moral reason to oppose conscription. The government spends a lot of money that might be used in armory for war in order to draft a number of men that would be similar to the number who might otherwise volunteer. In this way, the draft is a redundant method that consumes entirely too much money.

2001 Ron Paul 42:11
It is unfair because those who do not get called remain free while those called into duty must serve or face charges that will haunt them for the rest of their lives. This practice, while through chance, is unjust because it targets those Americans with low draft numbers. Through the archaic, unjust draft process America once more is embracing authoritarianism. If the government chose, National Guard forces could be utilized to alleviate the costs of draft, recruitment, and salary. The savings could then be used to properly compensate a volunteer army, which would attract more skillful persons if the pay scale were better.

2001 Ron Paul 42:12
Draft proponents employ some arguments that would be acceptable if they had purchased every male aged 18 to 35. However, the United States of America has not bought — bought off, tricked and fooled, yes — any of her citizens at this time. Some of the stentorian arguments side-step the question of rights and look at other issues, such as mobility, emergency readiness, and social outcome.

2001 Ron Paul 42:13
Former Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia, a Democrat, said in a 1980 US News and World Report article that “Middle and upper-class America are not sufficiently participating in the defense of the country today except in the officer corp. That’s one of the tragedies of the volunteer force . . .”

2001 Ron Paul 42:14
Nunn’s provocative statement is not only designed to evoke resentment towards the “privileged” upper classes, it is also not sound from a practical point of view. Certainly, the classes with a statistically higher amount of college education should be involved in positions in which education can be put to best use. It is apparent that the Nunn argument involves some sort of “duty” the upper classes have to live the life of the foot soldier, and amounts to no less than a feeble attempt at egalitarian blurring of class distinction.

2001 Ron Paul 42:15
Proponents of the draft continue to ignore their weakest point: namely, that wars which had the support of the American public would not require conscription but instead would have a full supply of eager volunteers. People not only own their own bodies, but a free society also grants people final say over government policy. War is an area where the voice of the people is very important, as their security is at stake. And where else can the people exercise their voice than in the decision on registering to serve? Denying this decision is in effect creating a government that does not respect the people’s wishes, and instead dictates to them.

AMERICORPS


 2001 Ron Paul 42:16
There was an effort in June 1997 by President Clinton to use the Selective Service System to recruit potential volunteers in his AmeriCorps program. Such a move is a twofold intrusion on civil liberties: it violates the right of those who were forced to register for the draft to avoid having their addresses and other private information released to another agency; and, of course, it is costly to the taxpayer to pay for a joint system that serves two unconstitutional agencies. Ultimately, though, the administration deferred its plans. This issue has not gone away, as national service plans have considerable support from those people who think that everyone has a duty to the government.

2001 Ron Paul 42:17
Free people can resist the draft easily. They need not register at all, or they can flee the country when they are called to serve. After all, they still own their bodies regardless of what the law says. But the change of life necessary to avoid the government allows the government some control of ones life, even when one does not openly submit. One does not need to recognize the right of the government to conscript its citizens for any purpose in order to be disrupted by the institution. If one pays income taxes and expects to get that money back in the form of college aid, he must register for Selective Service. If one wishes to collect the money stolen through the payroll tax for so-called “Social Security,” he must register. Most people are not able to forgo paying taxes if they wish to work, so if they hope to see their tax dollars again they must register for the draft.

2001 Ron Paul 42:18
As a young man of draft age, I could sleep easier if I knew that my life would never have to be disrupted by a government which has given itself the legal ground on which it may attempt to violate my right to own myself. Even as I refuse to recognize the government’s powers, the Selective Service System/ AmeriCorps/Department of Education bloc does not care. To them I am their property, regardless of my feelings. The military and charity draft is indeed one of the most evil institutions in the United States government.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 43

Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]

June 13, 2001

2001 Ron Paul 43:1
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, June 13, 2001
Faith Based Initiatives


2001 Ron Paul Chapter 44

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Resolution Condemning The Taliban
13 June 2001

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL), a member of our Committee on International Relations.

(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. It gives us an opportunity to at least condemn the Taliban in forcing the wearing of these symbols.

2001 Ron Paul 44:1
Sometimes I think, though, that this type of legislation is more feel-good legislation, makes us feel better, but does not do a whole lot to solve our problems. I think it would be more important to take this opportunity to think about our policy of foreign interventionism.

2001 Ron Paul 44:2
We have been involved in Afghanistan now for more than two decades, and have spent over $1 billion. Last year we spent $114 million in humanitarian aid. This year it is already $124 million.

2001 Ron Paul 44:3
It is said that it is not sent to the Taliban, but the gentleman from California (Mr. ROHRABACHER), who is a bit of an expert on Afghanistan, just revealed to us earlier that indeed some of this money and some of this aid was designated to go to the Taliban-controlled areas.

2001 Ron Paul 44:4
I think more important is that regardless of the intention of where we send the aid, the aid is beneficial to the government in charge. The Taliban is in charge. They can get control of aid, of food and other commodities, and use it as weapons, and they do.

2001 Ron Paul 44:5
The point that I would like to make is after these many, many millions of dollars and over $1 billion have been spent, we have come to this. They are in worse shape than ever. Yes, we can condemn what they are doing, but we should question whether or not our policy in Afghanistan has really served us well, or served the people well. It may well be that when we send aid, that it literally helps the Taliban, because they do not have to then buy food. They can take their money and use it to enforce these rules and to be a more authoritarian society, to buy weapons.

2001 Ron Paul 44:6
We do know that when we sent weapons in the eighties, those weapons actually ended up in the hands of the violent Taliban, and they are still in their hands to some degree. Yes, our policy is well-intended. We would like to do good and save all the suffering that is happening in this country. But quite frankly, it has not worked very well.

2001 Ron Paul 44:7
We should question this. I believe we should assume some responsibility in the sense that our aid does not always do what it was supposed to do and actually ends up helping the very people that we detest. I think that is exactly what has happened here. It has been specifically pointed out that some of this aid has gone into the area where the Taliban has been helped and strengthened.

2001 Ron Paul 44:8
All I am suggesting is, why not question this a little bit? Why should we go on decade after decade after decade expanding aid and getting these kinds of results that we all detest?

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 45

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Not Isolationism
13 June 2001

2001 Ron Paul 45:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

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

2001 Ron Paul 45:2
Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, we do not have time to get into the Marshall Plan, but there is a pretty strong case to indicate that the major part of the rebuilding of Europe came from private capital and not specifically from the immigration plan.

2001 Ron Paul 45:3
But the point that I would like to answer to is the term “isolationism.” I am not a protectionist. I am not an isolationist. I am for openness, travel, trade. I vote consistently that way, so the term “isolationist” does not apply to the policies that I am talking about, because I am probably for more openness in trade and travel than most anybody in this body.

2001 Ron Paul 45:4
So the term is not isolationism.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 46

Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]

June 21, 2001
INTRODUCTION OF FOODS ARE NOT DRUGS ACT — HON. RON PAUL
(Extensions of Remarks - June 21, 2001)


[Page: E1175] GPO’s PDF 
---
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, June 21, 2001

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 47

Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]

“Postal Service Has Its Eye On You”
27 June 2001
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, June 27, 2001


2001 Ron Paul 47:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take this opportunity to draw my colleagues’ attention to the attached article “Postal Service Has Its Eye On You” by John Berlau of Insight magazine, which outlines the latest example of government spying on innocent citizens. Mr. Berlau deals with the Post Office’s “Under the Eagle’s Eye” program which the Post Office implemented to fulfill the requirements of the Nixon-era Bank Secrecy Act. Under this program, postal employees must report purchases of money orders of over $3,000 to federal law enforcement officials. The program also requires postal clerks to report any “suspicious behavior” by someone purchasing a money order. Mr. Speaker, the guidelines for reporting “suspicious behavior” are so broad that anyone whose actions appear to a postal employee to be the slightest bit out of the ordinary could become the subject of a “suspicious activity report,” and a federal investigation!

2001 Ron Paul 47:2
As postal officials admitted to Mr. Berlau, the Post Office is training its employees to assume those purchasing large money orders are criminals. In fact, the training manual for this program explicitly states that “it is better to report many legitimate transactions that seem suspicious than let one illegal one slip through.” This policy turns the presumption of innocence, which has been recognized as one of the bulwarks of liberty since medieval times, on its head. Allowing any federal employee to assume the possibility of a crime based on nothing more than a subjective judgment of “suspicious behavior” represents a serious erosion of our constitutional rights to liberty, privacy, and due process.

2001 Ron Paul 47:3
I am sure I do not need to remind my colleagues of the public’s fierce opposition to the “Know Your Customer” proposal, or the continuing public outrage over the Post Office’s proposal to increase monitoring of Americans who choose to receive their mail at a Commercial Mail Receiving Agency (CMRA). I have little doubt that Americans will react with the same anger when they discover that the Post Office is filing reports on them simply because they appeared “suspicious” to a postal clerk.

2001 Ron Paul 47:4
This is why I will soon be introducing legislation to curb the Post Office’s regulatory authority over individual Americans and small business (including those who compete with the Post Office) as well as legislation to repeal the statutory authority to implement these “Know Your Customer” type policies. I urge my colleagues to read Mr. Berlau’s article and join me in protecting the privacy and liberty of Americans by ensuring law-abiding Americans may live their lives free from the prying “Eagle Eye” of the Federal Government.

POSTAL SERVICE HAS ITS EYE ON YOU
(By John Berlau)


 2001 Ron Paul 47:5
Since 1997, the U.S. Postal Service has been conducting a customer-surveillance program, ‘Under the Eagle’s Eye,’ and reporting innocent activity to federal law enforcement.

2001 Ron Paul 47:6
Remember “Know Your Customer”? Two years ago the federal government tried to require banks to profile every customer’s “normal and expected transactions” and report the slightest deviation to the feds as a “suspicious activity.” The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. withdrew the requirement in March 1999 after receiving 300,000 opposing comments and massive bipartisan opposition.

2001 Ron Paul 47:7
But while your bank teller may not have been snooping and snitching on your every financial move, your local post office has been (and is) watching you closely, Insight has learned. That is, if you have bought money orders, made wire transfers or sought cash cards from a postal clerk. Since 1997, in fact, the window clerk may very well have reported you to the government as a “suspicious” customer. It doesn’t matter that you are not a drug dealer, terrorist or other type of criminal or that the transaction itself was perfectly legal. The guiding principle of the new postal program to combat money laundering, according to a U.S. Postal Service training video obtained by Insight, is: “It’s better to report 10 legal transactions than to let one illegal ID transaction get by.”

2001 Ron Paul 47:8
Many privacy advocates see similarities in the post office’s customer-surveillance program, called “Under the Eagle’s Eye,” to the “Know Your Customer” rules. In fact, in a postal-service training manual also obtained by Insight, postal clerks are admonished to “know your customers.”

2001 Ron Paul 47:9
Both the manual and the training video give a broad definition of “suspicious” in instructing clerks when to fill out a “suspicious activity report” after a customer has made a purchase. “The rule of thumb is if it seems suspicious to you, then it is suspicious,” says the manual. “As we said before, and will say again, it is better to report many legitimate transactions that seem suspicious than let one illegal one slip through.”

2001 Ron Paul 47:10
It is statements such as these that raise the ire of leading privacy advocates on both the left and right, most of whom didn’t know about the program until asked by Insight to comment. For example, Rep. RON PAUL, RTexas, who led the charge on Capitol Hill against the “Know Your Customer” rules, expressed both surprise and concern about “Under the Eagle’s Eye.” He says the video’s instructions to report transactions as suspicious are “the reverse of what the theory used to be: We were supposed to let guilty people go by if we were doing harm to innocent people” when the methods of trying to apprehend criminals violated the rights of ordinary citizens. PAUL says he may introduce legislation to stop “Under the Eagle’s Eye.”

2001 Ron Paul 47:11
The same sort of response came from another prominent critic of “Know Your Customer,” this time on the left, who was appalled by details of the training video. “The postal service is training its employees to invade their customers’ privacy,” Greg Nojeim, associate director of the American Civil Liberties Union Washington National Office, tells Insight. “This training will result in the reporting to the government of tens of thousands of innocent transactions that are none of the government’s business. I had thought the postal-service’s eagle stood for freedom. Now I know it stands for, ‘We’re watching you!’ ”

2001 Ron Paul 47:12
But postal officials who run “Under the Eagle’s Eye” say that flagging customers who do not follow “normal” patterns is essential if law enforcement is to catch criminals laundering money from illegal transactions. “The postal service has a responsibility to know what their legitimate customers are doing with their instruments,” Al Gillum, a former postal inspector who now is acting program manager, tells Insight. “If people are buying instruments outside of a norm that the entity itself has to establish, then that’s where you-start with suspicious analysis, suspicious reporting. It literally is based on knowing what our legitimate customers do, what activities they’re involved in.”

2001 Ron Paul 47:13
Gillum’s boss, Henry Gibson, the postalservice’s Bank Secrecy Act compliance officer, says the anti-money-laundering program started in 1997 already has helped catch some criminals. “We’ve received acknowledgment from our chief postal inspector that information from our system was very helpful in the actual catching of some potential bad guys,” Gibson says.

2001 Ron Paul 47:14
Gillum and Gibson are proud that the postal service received a letter of commendation from then-attorney general Janet Reno in 2000 for this program. The database system the postal service developed with Information Builders, an information-technology consulting firm, received an award from Government Computer News in 2000 and was a finalist in the government/nonprofit category for the 2001 Computerworld Honors Program. An Information Builders press release touts the system as “a standard for Bank Secrecy Act compliance and antimoney- laundering controls.”

2001 Ron Paul 47:15
Gibson and Gillum say the program resulted from new regulations created by the Clinton-era Treasury Department in 1997 to apply provisions of the Bank Secrecy Act to “money service businesses” that sell financial instruments such as stored-value cash cards, money orders and wire transfers, as well as banks. Surprisingly, the postal service sells about one-third of all U.S. money orders, more than $27 billion last year. It also sells stored-value cards and some types of wire transfers. Although the regulations were not to take effect until 2002, Gillum says the postal service wanted to be “proactive” and “visionary.”

2001 Ron Paul 47:16
Postal spokesmen emphasize strongly that programs take time to put in place and they are doing only what the law demands.

2001 Ron Paul 47:17
It also was the Bank Secrecy Act that opened the door for the “Know Your Customer” rules on banks, to which congressional leaders objected as a threat to privacy. Lawrence Lindsey, now head of the Bush administration’s National Economic Council, frequently has pointed out that more than 100,000 reports are collected on innocent bank customers for every one conviction of money laundering. “That ratio of 99,999-to-1 is something we normally would not tolerate as a reasonable balance between privacy and the collection of guilty verdicts,” Lindsey wrote in a chapter of the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s book The Future of Financial Privacy, published last year.

2001 Ron Paul 47:18
Critics of this snooping both inside and outside the postal service are howling mad that the agency’s reputation for protecting the privacy of its customers is being compromised. “It sounds to me that they’re going past the Treasury guidelines,” says Rick Merritt, executive director of Postal Watch, a private watchdog group. The regulations, for example, do not give specific examples of suspicious activity, leaving that largely for the regulated companies to determine. But the postal-service training video points to lots of “red flags,” such as a customer counting money in the line. It warns that even customers whom clerks know often should be considered suspect if they frequently purchase money orders.

2001 Ron Paul 47:19
The video, which Gibson says cost $90,000 to make, uses entertaining special effects to illustrate its points. Employing the angeland- devil technique often used in cartoons, the video presents two tiny characters in the imagination of a harried clerk. Regina Goodclerk, the angel, constantly urges the clerk to file suspicious-activity reports on customers. “Better safe than sorry,” she says. Sam Slick, the devil, wants to give customers the benefit of the doubt.

2001 Ron Paul 47:20
Some of the examples given are red flags such as a sleazy-looking customer offering the postal clerk a bribe. But the video also encourages reports to be filed on what appear to be perfectly legal money-order purchases. A black male teacher and Little League coach whom the female clerk, also black, has known for years walks into the post office wearing a crisp, pinstriped suit and purchases $2,800 in money orders, just under the $3,000 daily minimum for which the postal service requires customers to fill out a form. He frequently has been buying money orders during the last few days.

2001 Ron Paul 47:21
“Gee, I know he seems like an okay guy,” Regina Goodclerk tells the employee. “But buying so many money orders all of a sudden and just under the reporting limit, I’d rather be sure. He’s a good guy, but this is just too suspicious to let go by.”

2001 Ron Paul 47:22
Gillum says this is part of the message that postal clerks can’t be too careful because anyone could be a potential money launderer. “A Little League coach could be a deacon in the church, could be the most upstanding citizen in the community, but where is that person getting $2,800 every day?” Gillum asks. “Why would a baseball coach, a schoolteacher in town, buy [that many money orders]? Our customers don’t have that kind of money. If he’s a schoolteacher, if he’s got a job on the side, he’s going to have a bank account and going to write checks on it, so why does he want to buy money orders? That’s the point.”

2001 Ron Paul 47:23
Despite the fact that the Little League coach in the video was black, Gillum insists that the postal service tells its employees not to target by race or appearance.

2001 Ron Paul 47:24
One thing that should set off alarms, the postal service says, is a customer objecting to filling out an 8105–A form that requests their date of birth, occupation and driver’s license or other government-issued ID for a purchase of money orders of $3,000 or more. If they cancel the purchase or request a smaller amount, the clerk automatically should fill out Form 8105–B, the “suspicious-activity” report. “Whatever the reason, any customer who switches from a transaction that requires an 8105–A form to one that doesn’t should earn himself or herself the honor of being described on a B form,” the training manual says.

2001 Ron Paul 47:25
But the “suspicious” customers might just be concerned about privacy, says Solveig Singleton, a senior analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. And a professional criminal likely would know that $3,000 was the reporting requirement before he walked into the post office. “I think there’s a lot of reasons that people might not want to fill out such forms; they may simply think it’s none of the post office’s business,” Singleton tells Insight. “The presumption seems to be that from the standpoint of the post office and the Bank Secrecy regulators every citizen is a suspect.”

2001 Ron Paul 47:26
Both Singleton and Nojeim say “Under the Eagle’s Eye” unfairly targets the poor, minorities and immigrants — people outside of the traditional banking system. “A large proportion of the reports will be immigrants sending money back home,” Nojeim says. Singleton adds, “It lends itself to discrimination against people who are sort of marginally part of the ordinary banking system or who may not trust things like checks and credit cards.”

2001 Ron Paul 47:27
There’s also the question of what happens with the information once it’s collected. Gillum says that innocent customers should feel secure because the information reported about “suspicious” customers is not automatically sent to the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) to be shared with law enforcement agencies worldwide. Although he says FinCEN wants the postal service to send all reports along to it, the postal authorities only will send the clerks’ reports if they fit “known parameters” for suspicious activity. “We are very sensitive to the private citizenry and their rights,” Gillum insists. “For what it’s worth, we have every comfort level that, if we make a report, there are all kinds of reasons to believe that there is something going on there beyond just a legitimate purchase of money orders.”

2001 Ron Paul 47:28
But Gillum would not discuss any of the “parameters” the postal service uses to test for suspicious activity, saying that’s a secret held among U.S. law-enforcement agencies. And if a clerk’s report isn’t sent to the Treasury Department, it still lingers for some time in the postal-service database. Gillum says that by law the postal service will not be able to destroy suspicious-activity reports for five years.

2001 Ron Paul 47:29
Gillum says the postal service is very strict that the reports only can be seen by law-enforcement officials and not used for other purposes such as marketing. A spokeswoman for the consulting company Information Builders stated in an e-mail to Insight, “Information Builders personnel do not have access to this system.”

2001 Ron Paul 47:30
Observers say problems with “Under the Eagle’s Eye” underscore the contradiction that despite the fact that the postal service advertises like a private business and largely is self-supporting, it still is a government agency with law-enforcement functions.

2001 Ron Paul 47:31
Gibson says his agency must set an example for private businesses on tracking, money orders. “Being a government agency, we feel it’s our responsibility that we should set the tone,” he said. The Treasury Department “basically challenged us in the midnineties to step up to the plate as a government entity,” Gillum adds.

2001 Ron Paul 47:32
In fact, Gillum thinks Treasury may mandate that the private sector follow some aspects of the postal-service’s program. He adds, however, that the postal service is not arguing for this to be imposed on its competitors.

2001 Ron Paul 47:33
In the meantime, the private sector is getting ready to comply with the Treasury regulations before they go into effect next January. But if 7-Eleven Inc., which through its franchises and company-owned stores is one of the largest sellers of money orders, is any guide, private vendors of money orders probably will not issue nearly as many suspicious- activity reports as the postal service. “’Our philosophy is to follow what the regulations require, and if they don’t require us to fill out an SAR [suspicious-activity report] . . . then we wouldn’t necessarily do it,” 7-Eleven spokeswoman Margaret Chabris tells Insight. Asked specifically about customers who cancel or change a transaction when asked to fill out a form, Chabris said, “We are not required to fill out an SAR if that happens.” So why does the U.S. Postal Service?

2001 Ron Paul 47:34
That’s one of the major issues raised by critics such as Postal Watch’s Merritt. He says that lawmakers and the new postmaster general, Jack Potter, need to examine any undermining of customer trust by programs such as “Under the Eagle’s Eye” before the postal service is allowed to go into new businesses such as providing e-mail addresses. “Let’s hope that this is not a trend for the postal service, because I don’t think the American people are quite ready to be fully under the eagle’s eye,” he says.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 48

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Brown V. Board Of Education 50th Anniversary Commission
27 June 2001
SPEECH OF
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, June 27, 2001


2001 Ron Paul 48:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues in encouraging Americans to commemorate the 40th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education and the end of legal segregation in America. However, I cannot support the legislation before us because it attempts to authorize an unconstitutional expenditure of federal funds for the purpose of establishing a commission to provide federal guidance of celebrations of the anniversary of the Brown decision. This expenditure is neither constitutional nor in the sprit of the brave men and woman of the civil rights moment who are deservedly celebrated for standing up to an overbearing government infringing on individual rights.

2001 Ron Paul 48:2
Mr. Speaker, any authorization of an unconstitutional expenditure of taxpayer funds is an abuse of our authority and undermines the principles of a limited government which respects individual rights. Because I must oppose appropriations not authorized by the enumerated powers of the Constitution, I therefore reject this bill. I continue to believe that the best way to honor the legacy of those who fought to ensure that all Americans can enjoy the blessings of liberty and a government that treats citizens of all races equally is by consistently defending the idea of a limited government whose powers do not exceed those explicitly granted it by the Constitution.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 49

Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]

June 28, 2001
INTRODUCTION OF EDUCATION BILLS -- HON. RON PAUL
(Extensions of Remarks - June 29, 2001)
[Page: E1262] GPO’s PDF ---
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, June 28, 2001

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 50

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Re-Importation of Pharmaceuticals
11 July 2001

2001 Ron Paul 50:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont. As I am sure I need not remind my colleagues, many Americans are concerned about the high prices of prescription drugs. The high prices of prescription drugs particularly effect low-income senior citizens since many seniors have a greater than-average need for prescription drugs. One of the reasons prescription drug prices are high is because of government policies which give a few powerful companies a monopoly position in the prescription drug market. One of the most egregious of those policies are those restricting the importation of quality pharmaceuticals. If members of Congress are serious about lowering prescription drug prices they should support this amendment.

2001 Ron Paul 50:2
As a representative of an area near the Texas-Mexican border I often hear from constituents angry that they cannot purchase inexpensive quality pharmaceuticals in their local drug store. Many of these constituents regularly travel to Mexico on their own in order to purchase pharmaceuticals. Mr. Chairman, where does the federal government get the Constitutional or moral right to tell my constituents they cannot have access to the pharmaceuticals of their choice?

2001 Ron Paul 50:3
Opponents of this amendment have been waging a hysterical campaign to convince members that this amendment will result in consumers purchasing unsafe products. I dispute this claim for several reasons. Unlike the opponents of this amendment I do not believe that consumers will purchase an inferior pharmaceutical simply to save money. Instead, consumers will carefully shop to make sure they are receiving the highest possible quality at the lowest possible price. In fact, the experience of my constituents who are currently traveling to Mexico to purchase prescription drugs shows that consumers are quite capable of ensuring they only purchase safe products without interference from Big Brother.

2001 Ron Paul 50:4
Furthermore, if the supporters of the status quo were truly concerned about promoting health, instead of protecting the special privileges of powerful companies, they would consider how our current policies endanger safety by artificially raising the cost of prescription drugs. Oftentimes lower income Americans will take less than the proper amount of a prescription medicine in order to save money or forgo other necessities, including food, in order to afford their medications.

2001 Ron Paul 50:5
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to show they are serious about lowering the prices of prescription drugs and that they trust the people to know what is in their best interest by voting for the Sanders amendment to the Agricultural Appropriations bill.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 51

Ron Paul’s Congressional website July 17, 2001
REIMPORTATION OF FDA-APPROVED PHARMACEUTICALS -- HON. RON PAUL
(Extensions of Remarks - July 17, 2001)


[Page: E1345] GPO’s PDF 
---
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, July 17, 2001

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 52

Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]

July 17, 2001
A BAD OMEN
-- (House of Representatives - July 17, 2001)
[Page: H4021] GPO’s PDF ---


2001 Ron Paul 52:1
   The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker’s announced policy of January 3, 2001, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL ) is recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.

2001 Ron Paul 52:2
   Mr. PAUL . Mr. Speaker, the trial of Slobadon Milosevic threatens U.S. sovereignty. The fact that this trial can be carried out, in the name of international justice, should cause all the Americans to cast a wary eye on the whole principal of the U.N. War Crimes Tribunal. The prosecution of Milosevic , a democratically elected and properly disposed leader of a sovereign country, could not be carried out without full U.S. military and financial support. Since we are the only world superpower, the U.N. court becomes our court under our control. But it is naive to believe our world superpower status will last forever. The precedence now being set will 1 day surely come back to haunt us.

2001 Ron Paul 52:3
   The U.S. today may enjoy dictating policy to Yugoslavia and elsewhere around the world, but danger lurks ahead. The administration adamantly and correctly opposes our membership in the permanent International Criminal Court because it would have authority to exercise jurisdiction over U.S. citizens without the consent of the U.S. government. But how can we, with a straight face, support doing the very same thing to a small country, in opposition to its sovereignty, courts, and constitution. This blatant inconsistency and illicit use of force does not go unnoticed and will sow the seeds of future terrorist attacks against Americans or even war.

2001 Ron Paul 52:4
   Money, as usual, is behind the Milosevic’s extradition. Bribing Serbian Prime Minister Zoran Djindjic, a U.S.-sponsored leader, prompted strong opposition from Yugoslavian Prime Minister Zoran Zizic and Yugoslavian President Vojislaw Kostunica.

2001 Ron Paul 52:5
   A Belgrade historian, Aleksa Djilas, was quoted in The New York Times as saying: “We sold him for money, and we won’t really get very much money for it. The U.S. is the natural leader of the world, but how does it lead? This justifies the worst American instincts, reinforcing this bullying mentality.”

2001 Ron Paul 52:6
    Milosevic obviously is no saint but neither are the leader of the Croates, the Albanians or the KLA. The NATO leaders who vastly expanded the death and destruction in Yugoslavia with 78 days of bombing in 1999 are certainly not blameless. The $1.28 billion promised the puppet Yugoslavian government is to be used to rebuild the cities devastated by U.S. bombs. First, the American people are forced to pay to bomb, to kill innocent people and destroy cities, and then they are forced to pay to repair the destruction, while orchestrating a U.N. kangaroo court to bring the guilty to justice at the Hague.

2001 Ron Paul 52:7
   For all this to be accepted, the press and internationalists have had to demonize Milosevic to distance themselves from the horrors of others including NATO.

2001 Ron Paul 52:8
   NATO’s air strikes assisted the KLA in cleansing Kosovo of Serbs in the name of assisting Albanian freedom fighters. No one should be surprised when that is interpreted to mean tacit approval for Albanian expansionism in Macedonia. While terrorist attacks by former members of the KLA against Serbs are ignored, the trial of the new millennium, the trial of Milosevic , enjoys daily support from the NATO-U.S. propaganda machine.

2001 Ron Paul 52:9
   In our effort to stop an independent-minded and uncooperative with the international community president of a sovereign country, U.S. policy was designed to support an equally if not worse organization, the KLA.

2001 Ron Paul 52:10
   One of the conditions for ending the civil war in Kosovo was the disbanding of the KLA. But the very same ruthless leaders of the KLA, now the Liberation Army of Presovo, are now leading the insurrection in Macedonia without NATO lifting a finger to stop it. NATO’s failed policy that precipitated the conflict now raging in Macedonia is ignored.

2001 Ron Paul 52:11
   The U.N. War Tribunal in the Hague should insult the intelligence of all Americans. This court currently can only achieve arrest and prosecution of leaders of poor, small, or defeated nations. There will be no war criminals brought to the Hague from China, Russia, Britain, or the United States no matter what the charges. But some day this approach to world governing will backfire. The U.S. already has suffered the humiliation of being kicked off the U.N. Human Rights Commission and the Narcotics Control Commission. Our arrogant policy and attitude of superiority will continue to elicit a smoldering hatred toward us and out of sheer frustration will motivate even more terrorist attacks against us.

2001 Ron Paul 52:12
   Realizing the weakness of the charges against Milosevic the court has quietly dropped the charges for committing genocide. In a real trial, evidence that the British and the United States actually did business with Milosevic would be permitted. But almost always, whoever is our current most hated enemy, has received help and assistance from us in the past. This was certainly the case with Noriega and Saddam Hussein and others, and now it’s Milosevic .

2001 Ron Paul 52:13
    Milosevic will be tried not before a jury of his peers but before a panel of politically appointed judges, all of whom were approved by the NATO countries, the same countries which illegally bombed Yugoslavia for 2 1/2 months. Under both U.N. and international law the bombing of Serbia and Kosovo was illegal. This was why NATO pursued it and it was not done under a U.N. resolution.

2001 Ron Paul 52:14
   Ironically, the mess in which we’ve been engaged in Yugoslavia has the international establishment supporting the side of Kosovo independence rather than Serbian sovereignty. The principle of independence and secession of smaller government entities has been enhanced by the breakdown of the Soviet system. If there’s any hope that any good could come of the quagmire into which we’ve rapidly sunk in the Balkans, it is that small independent nations are a viable and reasonable option to conflicts around the world. But the tragedy today is that no government is allowed to exist without the blessing of the One World Government leaders. The disobedience to the one worlders and true independence is not to be tolerated. That’s what this trial is all about. “Tow the line or else,” is the message that is being sent to the world.

2001 Ron Paul 52:15
   NATO and U.S. leaders insist on playing with fire, not fully understanding the significance of the events now transpiring in the Balkans. If policy is not quickly reversed, events could get out of control and a major war in the region will erupt.

2001 Ron Paul 52:16
   We should fear and condemn any effort to escalate the conflict with troops or money from any outside sources. Our troops are already involved and our money calls the shots. Extricating ourselves will get more difficult every day we stay. But the sooner we get out the better. We should be listening more to candidate George Bush’s suggestion during the last campaign for bringing our troops home from this region.

2001 Ron Paul 52:17
   The Serbs, despite NATO’s propaganda, will not lightly accept the imprisonment of their democratically elected (and properly disposed) president no matter how bad he was. It is their problem to deal with and resentment against us will surely grow as conditions deteriorate. Mobs have already attacked the American ambassador to Macedonia for our inept interference in the region. Death of American citizens are sure to come if we persist in this failed policy.

2001 Ron Paul 52:18
   Money and power has permitted the United States the luxury of dictating terms for Milosevic’s prosecution, but our policy of arbitrary interventions in the Balkans is sowing the seeds of tomorrow’s war.

2001 Ron Paul 52:19
   We cannot have it both ways. We cannot expect to use the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia when it pleases us and oppose the permanent International Criminal Court where the rules would apply to our own acts of aggression. This cynical and arrogant approach, whether it’s dealing with Milosevic , Hussein, or Kadafi, undermines peace and presents a threat to our national security. Meanwhile, American citizens must suffer the tax burden from financing the dangerous meddling in European affairs, while exposing our troops to danger.

2001 Ron Paul 52:20
   A policy of nonintervention, friendship and neutrality with all nations, engagement in true free trade (unsubsidized trade with low tariffs) is the best policy if we truly seek peace around the world. That used to be the American way.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 53

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Flag Burning Amendment
17 July 2001

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL).

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

2001 Ron Paul 53:1
Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

2001 Ron Paul 53:2
Mr. Speaker, I do not think what we are doing here today is a contest between who is the most patriotic. I do not think that is it at all. Nobody here in the debate is unpatriotic. But I think the debate is possibly defining patriotism.

2001 Ron Paul 53:3
But I am concerned that we are going to do something here today that Castro did in Cuba for 40 years. There is a prohibition against flag burning in Cuba. And one of the very first things that Red China did when it took over Hong Kong was to pass an amendment similar to this, to make sure there is no desecration of the Red Chinese flag. That is some of the company that we are keeping if we pass this amendment.

2001 Ron Paul 53:4
A gentleman earlier on said that he fears more of what is happening from within our country than from without. I agree with that. But I also come down on the side that is saying that the threat of this amendment is a threat to me and, therefore, we should not be so anxious to do this. I do not think you can force patriotism.

2001 Ron Paul 53:5
I also agree with the former speaker who talked about responsibility. I agree it is about responsibility. But it also has something to do with rights. You cannot reject rights and say it is all responsibility and therefore we have to write another law. Responsibility implies a voluntary approach. You cannot achieve patriotism by authoritarianism, and that is what we are talking about here.

2001 Ron Paul 53:6
I think we all agree with respect to the flag and respect for our country. It is all in how we intend to do this. And also this idea about veterans, because you are a veteran that you have more wisdom. I do not think so. I am a veteran, but I disagree with other veterans. Keith Kruel, who was a past national commander of the American Legion had this to say:

2001 Ron Paul 53:7
“Our Nation was not founded on devotion to symbolic idols, but on principles, beliefs, and ideals expressed in the Constitution and its Bill of Rights. American veterans who have protected our banner in battle have not done so to protect a ‘golden calf.’ A patriot cannot be created by legislation.”

2001 Ron Paul 53:8
He was the national commander of the American Legion. So I am not less patriotic because I take this different position.

2001 Ron Paul 53:9
Another Member earlier mentioned that this could possibly be a property rights issue. I think it has something to do with the first amendment and freedom of expression. That certainly is important, but I think property rights are very important here. If you have your own flag and what you do with it, there should be some recognition of that. But the retort to that is, oh, no, the flag belongs to the country. The flag belongs to everybody. Not really. If you say that, you are a collectivist. That means you believe everybody owns everything. Who would manufacture the flags? Who would buy the flags? Who would take care of them? So there is an ownership. If the Federal Government owns a flag and you are on Federal property, even, without this amendment, you do not have the right to go and burn that flag. If you are causing civil disturbances, that is handled another way. But this whole idea that there could be a collective ownership of the flag, I think, is erroneous.

2001 Ron Paul 53:10
The first amendment, we must remember, is not there to protect noncontroversial speech. It is to do exactly the opposite. So, therefore, if you are looking for controversy protection it is found in the first amendment. But let me just look at the words of the amendment. Congress, more power to the Congress. Congress will get power, not the States. That is the opposite of everything we believe in or at least profess to believe in on this side of the aisle.

2001 Ron Paul 53:11
To prohibit. How do you prohibit something? You would need an army on every street corner in the country. You cannot possibly prevent flag burning. You can punish it but you cannot prohibit it. That word needs to be changed eventually if you ever think you are going to get this amendment passed.

2001 Ron Paul 53:12
Physical desecration. Physical, what does it mean? If one sits on it? Do you arrest them and put them in jail? Desecration is a word that was used for religious symbols. In other words, you are either going to lower the religious symbols to the state or you are going to uphold the state symbol to that of religion. So, therefore, the whole word of desecration is a word that was taken from religious symbols, not state symbols. Maybe it harks back to the time when the state and the church was one and the same.

2001 Ron Paul 53:13
I urge a “no” vote on this amendment. Mr. Speaker, loyalty and conviction are admirable traits, but when misplaced both can lead to serious problems.

2001 Ron Paul 53:14
More than a decade ago, an obnoxious man in Dallas decided to perform an ugly act: the desecration of an American flag in public. His action violated a little-known state law prohibiting desecration of the flag. He was tried in state court and found guilty.

2001 Ron Paul 53:15
As always seems to be the case, though, the federal government intervened. After winding through the federal system, the Supreme Court — in direct contradiction to the Constitution’s 10th Amendment — finally ruled against the state law.

2001 Ron Paul 53:16
Since then Congress has twice tried to overturn more than 213 years of history and legal tradition by making flag desecration a federal crime. Just as surely as the Court was wrong in its disregard for the Tenth Amendment by improperly assigning the restrictions of the First Amendment to the states, so are attempts to federally restrict the odious (and very rare) practice of Americans desecrating the flag.

2001 Ron Paul 53:17
After all, the First Amendment clearly states that it is Congress that may “make no laws” and is prohibited from “abridging” the freedom of speech and expression. While some may not like it, under our Constitution state governments are free to restrict speech, expression, the press and even religious activities. The states are restrained, in our federal system, by their own constitutions and electorate.

2001 Ron Paul 53:18
This system has served us well for more than two centuries. After all, our founding fathers correctly recognized that the federal government should be severely limited, and especially in matters of expression. They revolted against a government that prevented them from voicing their politically unpopular views regarding taxation, liberty and property rights. As a result, the founders wanted to ensure that a future monolithic federal government would not exist, and that no federal government of the United States would ever be able to restrict what government officials might find obnoxious, unpopular or unpatriotic. After all, the great patriots of our nation — George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and Benjamin Franklin — were all considered disloyal pests by the British government.

2001 Ron Paul 53:19
Too often in this debate, the issue of patriotism is misplaced. This is well addressed by Keith Kruel, an Army veteran and a past national commander of the American Legion. He has said that, “Our nation was not founded on devotion to symbolic idols, but on principles, beliefs and ideals expressed in the constitution and its Bill of Rights. American veterans who have protected our banner in battle have not done so to protect a ‘golden calf.’ . . . A patriot cannot be created by legislation.”

2001 Ron Paul 53:20
Our nation would be far better served that if instead of loyalty to an object — what Mr. Kruel calls the “golden calf” — we had more Members of Congress who were loyal to the Constitution and principles of liberty. If more people demonstrated a strong conviction to the Tenth Amendment, rather than creating even more federal powers, this issue would be far better handled.

2001 Ron Paul 53:21
For more than two centuries, it was the states that correctly handled the issue of flag desecration in a manner consistent with the principle of federalism. When the federal courts improperly intervened, many people understandably sought a solution to a very emotional issue. But the proposed solution to enlarge the federal government and tread down the path of restricting unpopular political expression, is incorrect, and even frightening.

2001 Ron Paul 53:22
The correct solution is to reassert the 10th Amendment. The states should be unshackled from unconstitutional federal restrictions.

2001 Ron Paul 53:23
As a proud Air Force veteran, my stomach turns when I think of those who defile our flag. But I grow even more nauseous, though, at the thought of those who would defile our precious constitutional traditions and liberties.

2001 Ron Paul 53:24
Loyalty to individual liberty, combined with a conviction to uphold the Constitution, is the best of what our flag can represent.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 54

Ron Paul’s Congressional website July 17, 2001
STATEMENT FOR WE THE PEOPLE PRESS CONFERENCE


07/17/01
 

2001 Ron Paul 54:1
My office has received hundreds of phone calls, faxes, emails, and letters supporting Mr. Schulz and Mr. Croteau. I think they are sincere in their beliefs, even though I strongly disagree with their hunger strike. I believe we can work with the IRS, the administration, and Congress to get answers to their questions, and I know that Congressman Bartlett and I are willing to assist them in their efforts. However, it is imperative that these gentleman end their fast immediately. No cause is served by their needless suffering.

2001 Ron Paul 54:2
The validity of their claims about the tax laws and the 16th Amendment is uncertain. Yet I support Mr. Schulz’s right to petition his government, to have his petition heard and taken seriously. The IRS should meet with him, and respond formally to his questions. His First Amendment petition should not be dismissed simply because his viewpoint is not shared by IRS officials. Indeed, the right to a formal response is inherent in the constitutional right to petition the government.

2001 Ron Paul 54:3
The attention generated by Mr Schulz and his organization shows that many Americans are fed up with the tax system. It’s an outrage that most tax professionals, much less typical taxpayers, cannot understand the incredibly complex tax code. It’s an outrage that so many have had their lives destroyed by the IRS. One thing is clear: The Founding Fathers never intended a nation where citizens pay nearly half of everything they earn to government. Congress needs to address the tax mess legislatively, by drastically simplifying and drastically reducing taxes. My own legislation would repeal the 16th Amendment and put an end to individual income taxes.

2001 Ron Paul 54:4
Mr. Schulz and thousands of other Americans have very strong feelings about our tax system, and it needs to be fixed. Their voices should not be ignored. Mr. Schulz and his supporters can make their voices heard at the ballot box, by electing candidates who sincerely believe in changing the tax system.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 55

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Prosecuting Milosevic
18 July 2001

2001 Ron Paul 55:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

2001 Ron Paul 55:2
Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that the case of Milosevic is a case that will come back to haunt us for two reasons: one, we are setting a precedent. This has never happened before. He was democratically elected in a country and democratically disposed. The country there was willing to prosecute him.

2001 Ron Paul 55:3
The second part is that this stirs up tremendous anti-American sentiment. This is the reason why we are the greatest target in the world for terrorism, because of our intrusion into these areas, pretending that we always know best and that we will trample the law because it serves our self-interests. But I believe our national security and our interests are not best served in this manner. This policy is very dangerous.

2001 Ron Paul 55:4
Likewise, we have had many examples of U.N. intervention. Rwanda, can we be proud of that? Can we be proud of what the U.N. and what our troops had to go through with the humiliation in Mogadishu in Somalia? I mean, this was horrible, what happened there. So good intentions will not suffice. Just because there are good intentions, it does not mean that good will come of it.

2001 Ron Paul 55:5
There is an alternative to a single world government, and that is individual governments willing to get along; open and free trade as much as possible, free travel, people having a unified free market currency where we do not have currency devaluations and poverty throughout the world. There is a lot that can be done with freedom, rather than always depending, whether it is here in the United States or at the international level, on more government.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 56

Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]

July 18, 2001
Statement Paul Amendment to Defund the UN
   Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. PAUL :

2001 Ron Paul 56:1
    SEC. 801. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be used for any United States contribution to the United Nations or any affiliated agency of the United Nations.

2001 Ron Paul 56:2
   The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).

2001 Ron Paul 56:3
   Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

2001 Ron Paul 56:4
   Let me just read the amendment because it is just three lines. It says, “None of the funds appropriated in this act may be used for any United States contribution to the United Nations or any affiliated agency of the United Nations.” It would defund the United Nations. It would take away the dues that we pay the United Nations as well as the amount of money that we are paying to pay our back dues.

2001 Ron Paul 56:5
   I think this is an appropriate time to discuss the reasonableness for our support for the United Nations. The government of the United States has continued to grow as our state sovereignty has gotten much smaller, but now we are losing a lot of sovereignty to an international government which is the United Nations. Just recently, the United States was humiliated by being voted off by secret ballot from the U.N. Human Rights Commission and Sudan was appointed in our place. How could anything be more humiliating. So democracy ruled, our vote counted as one, the same value as the vote of Red China or Sudan. But the whole notion that we would be put off the Human Rights Commission and Sudan, where there is a practice of slavery, is put on the Human Rights Commission should be an insult to all of us.

2001 Ron Paul 56:6
   In committee, we dealt with this problem and we said, “Well, if the U.N. straightens up, then we’ll pay our dues this year; but maybe we’ll withhold our dues next year.” That is very, very weak; and it does not show any intent or show any rejection of what is going on in the United Nations.

2001 Ron Paul 56:7
   It was mentioned earlier in debate on the gun issue that the U.N. is currently meeting up in New York dealing with the gun issue. There have been explicit proposals made at the United Nations to have worldwide gun control. No, they are not taking guns away from the government. They are taking guns away from civilians.

2001 Ron Paul 56:8
   If anybody understands our history, they will know that taking guns from civilians is exactly opposite of what the Founders intended. In a nation like Afghanistan, they were able to defend the invasion of the Soviet Union because individuals had guns. Likewise, when the Nazis were murdering the Jews, the Jews had been denied the right to own guns. Now we are talking about the United Nations having international gun laws. There have been proposals made for an international tax on all financial transactions. Yes, it is true, it has not been passed, but these are the plans that have been laid and they are continued to be discussed and they are moving in that direction.

2001 Ron Paul 56:9
   Today we have international government that manages trade through the WTO. We have international government that manages all international financial transactions through the IMF. We have an international government that manages welfare through the World Bank. Do these institutions really help the poor people of the world? Hardly. They help the people who control the hands of power in these international institutions and generally they help the very wealthy, the bankers, and the international corporations.

2001 Ron Paul 56:10
   It was said the United Nations may have been set up to help preserve peace and help poor people, but it just does not happen. The poor pay the taxes and the international corporations gain the benefit.

2001 Ron Paul 56:11
   The U.S. has taken a very strong position against endorsing the International Criminal Court. The argument is legitimate. It says that, oh, someday the International Criminal Court may arrest Americans because it just may be that Americans may pursue illegal acts of war, like bombing other countries and killing innocent people.

2001 Ron Paul 56:12
   No, we do not want the international court to apply to us, but it is okay with our money, our prestige and our pressure to endorse the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia, so that we can go in there and arrest the leaders that we have decided were the bad guys and leave the good guys alone, as if there were not bad guys on both sides in Yugoslavia.

2001 Ron Paul 56:13
   But this presumption on our part that we can control the United Nations and arrest only those individuals that we do not like and allow the other ones to go free and that this will never apply to us, I think we are missing the point and it is a dangerous trend. Because you say, well, yes, we are powerful, we have the money and we have the weapons and we can dictate to the United Nations. They will not arrest us or play havoc with us. Yet at the same time we have already recognized that the U.N. Human Rights Commission which was voted on by a democratic vote kicked us in the face and kicked us off.

2001 Ron Paul 56:14
   I think this is a time to think very seriously about whether this is wise to continue the funding of the United Nations. I think that a statement ought to be made. We should say, and the American people, I think, agree overwhelmingly that it is about time that we quit policing the world and paying the bills at the United Nations way out of proportion to our representation and at the same time being humiliated by being kicked off these commissions by majority vote.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 57

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Banning U.S. Contributions To United Nations
18 July 2001

2001 Ron Paul 57:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) will be postponed.

AMENDMENT NO. 7 OFFERED BY MR. PAUL

2001 Ron Paul 57:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. PAUL: Page 108, after line 22, insert the following:

TITLE VIII — ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

SEC. 801. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be used for any United States contribution for United Nations peacekeeping operations.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House today, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) and a Member opposed each will control 10 minutes.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. WOLF) will control 10 minutes in opposition. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL).

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

2001 Ron Paul 57:3
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

2001 Ron Paul 57:4
Mr. Chairman, quite possibly we will not have to take a long time on this. In many ways this is a similar amendment, but different with respect to as how the money would be spent after we send it to the United Nations. The amendment says, “None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be used for any United States contribution for the United Nations peacekeeping operations.”

2001 Ron Paul 57:5
This is getting more specifically into the militarization of the United Nations and the unfairness of our bill that we get sent every year. We pay 31.7 percent of the peacekeeping missions. A lot of times we pay up front and pay in advance, and we do not get reimbursed. Then we hear a lot of complaints when we do not pay our dues.

2001 Ron Paul 57:6
But back to what I said earlier, I just think the approach of using a United Nations standing army, which is what we are getting closer to, to go around and police the world in areas that we do not have justification based only on our national security, I see this money as being dangerously used and it invites trouble for us.

2001 Ron Paul 57:7
It is not beyond comprehension that one day in the not-too-distant future that we may be in a much hotter war in the Yugoslovia area. Things are not very peaceful in Macedonia, and they are actually demonstrating against Americans in Macedonia. The same people that we supported in Kosovo, the KLA, now they have changed their name and they are the radical Albanians playing havoc in Macedonia. And it is with our money.

2001 Ron Paul 57:8
And what do we do? We ask the American people to cough up. We tax them. We go over, and for 78 days, with the claim that we are bringing peace to the area, for 78 days we bombed that area, and now we are asking the American people to rebuild it. So first we tax them to bomb and destroy then we insist we rebuild the area.

2001 Ron Paul 57:9
We did not bring peace by 78 days of bombing. As matter of fact, most of the death and destruction and hostility toward America was developed during those 78 days. It did not occur prior to that. There were few deaths in comparison. And who were the people killed with our bombs dropping from 30,000 feet? Were they military people? No. Innocent people, as they are in Iraq as well.

2001 Ron Paul 57:10
It is out of control. It is out of our hands. We have lost control of our destiny when it comes to military operations. We now go to war under U.N. resolutions, rather than this Congress declaring war and fighting wars to win.

2001 Ron Paul 57:11
We have given up a tremendous amount, and I believe it is time we stood up for the American people and the American taxpayer and say we ought to defend America, but we can deal with the problems of the world in a much different manner; not by militarizing and controlling it the best we can, the military operations of the United Nations, but pursuing the spreading of our values and our beliefs and the free market in a much different manner than by further taxation of the American people.

2001 Ron Paul 57:12
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

2001 Ron Paul 57:13
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

2001 Ron Paul 57:14
Let me just close by saying that I urge a “yes” vote to stop the funding for the peacekeeping missions of the United Nations, believing very sincerely that they do not do much good and they do harm and potentially a great deal of harm in the future. They do not serve our national self-interests. We have the United Nations now involved in the Middle East, Sierra Leone, East Timor, Cambodia, West Sahara, and Yugoslavia. It requires a lot of money. The most likely thing to come of all of this will be more hostility toward America and more likelihood that we will be attacked by terrorists.

2001 Ron Paul 57:15
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate having expired, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL).

The question was taken, and the Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it.

2001 Ron Paul 57:16
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 58

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Quasquicentennial Of The Texas State Constitution Of 1876
18 July 2001
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, July 18, 2001


2001 Ron Paul 58:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the year 2001 marks the quasquicentennial of the Constitution of the great State of Texas.

2001 Ron Paul 58:2
The Lone Star State’s highest legal document has served Texans since 1876 and — to commemorate this important milestone in Texas history — the recent Regular Session of the 77th Texas Legislature adopted House Concurrent Resolution No. 319, which the Governor signed on June 15, 2001. I would like to share with my colleagues the full text of the Legislature’s H.C.R. No. 319 as follows:

2001 Ron Paul 58:3
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 319
Whereas, The year 2001 marks the quasquicentennial of the Texas Constitution, and the 125th anniversary of this foundation document is indeed worthy of special recognition; and

2001 Ron Paul 58:4
Whereas, On August 2, 1875, Texas voters approved the calling of a convention to write a new state constitution; the convention, held in Austin, began on September 6, 1875, and adjourned sine die on November 24, 1875; then its draft was ratified in a statewide referendum on February 15, 1876, by a vote of 136,606 to 56,652; and

2001 Ron Paul 58:5
Whereas, The more than 90 delegates to the 1875 Constitutional Convention were a diverse group — most were farmers and lawyers; some were merchants, editors, and physicians; some were legislators and judges; some had fought in the Civil War armies of the South as well as of the North; at least five were African-American; 75 were Democrats; 15 were Republicans; and 37 belonged to the Grange, a non-partisan and agrarian order of patrons of husbandry; one delegate had even served nearly four decades earlier as a delegate to the 1836 Constitutional Convention; and

2001 Ron Paul 58:6
Whereas, The Constitution of 1876, a richly detailed instrument, reflects several historical influences; the Spanish and Mexican heritage of the state was evident in such provisions as those pertaining to land titles and land law, as well as to water and mineral law, and remains evident in judicial procedures, legislative authority, and gubernatorial powers; and

2001 Ron Paul 58:7
Whereas, Sections aimed at monied corporate domination together with protection of the rights of the individual and others mandating strong restrictions upon the mission of state government in general and upon the role of specific state officials grew out of the Jacksonian agrarianism and frontier philosophy that first infused the thinking of many Texans during the mid-1800’s; and

2001 Ron Paul 58:8
Whereas, Other sections, such as those providing for low taxation and decreased state spending, were aimed at creating a government quite different from the centralized and more expensive one that had existed under the Constitution of 1869, which was itself a product of the post-Civil War Reconstruction Era in Texas; and

2001 Ron Paul 58:9
Whereas, Notwithstanding its age, Texas voters have been reluctant to replace this charter, which is the sixth Texas constitution to have been adopted since independence from Mexico was gained in 1836; and

2001 Ron Paul 58:10
Whereas, The Constitution of 1876 has been the organic law of Texas for 125 years, and this document, which still bears the imprint of the region’s long and dramatic history, has had — and continues to have — a profound influence on the development of the Lone Star State; now, therefore, be it

2001 Ron Paul 58:11
Resolved, That the 77th Legislature of the State of Texas, Regular Session, 2001, hereby commemorate the quasquicentennial of the Texas constitution.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 59

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Tribute To Tom Phillips And William Rusher
19 July 2001
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, July 19, 2001


2001 Ron Paul 59:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, August 4th Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) will hold its National Convention in Newport Beach, California. At this event the organization will honor two fine people. Mr. Tom Phillips, Chairman of Phillips International, will receive the organization’s highest award, the Guardian of Freedom. Mr. Phillips has been a strong supporter of YAF and is involved in various other entities engaged in the fight for liberty. As publisher of “Human Events,” he has helped to further a publication steeped in the tradition of freedom. Mr. Phillips has also shown a particular interest in the kind of private preservation activities I so frequently advocate. Rather than leave it to the taxpayers to fund and the federal government to manage, Mr. Phillips has personally helped to fund the preservation of President Reagan’s Ranch by the Young America’s Foundation so that it might be used as a training ground for young people dedicated to the individual liberty which President Reagan spoke of so often.

2001 Ron Paul 59:2
Also, at this event, Mr. William Rusher will receive a lifetime achievement award. Mr. Rusher was instrumental in the founding of YAF in 1960 around those set of principles enunciated in the Sharon Statement, a great document explicating the philosophy of freedom. In addition, Mr. Rusher was instrumental in many other important activities such as the Draft Goldwater Committee and the National Review Magazine.

2001 Ron Paul 59:3
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to take this opportunity to honor YAF as it prepares for its 41st year of training young men and women in the philosophy of freedom and holds its National Convention, as well as to offer my congratulations to these honorees.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 60

Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]

July 19, 2001
Statement on the Community Solutions Act of 2001


2001 Ron Paul 60:1
   Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, no one familiar with the history of the past century can doubt that private charities, particularly those maintained by persons motivated by their faith to perform charitable acts, are more effective in addressing social needs than federal programs. Therefore, the sponsors of HR 7, the Community Solutions Act, are correct to believe that expanding the role of voluntary, religious-based organizations will benefit society. However, this noble goal will not be accomplished by providing federal taxpayer funds to these organizations. Instead, federal funding will transform these organizations into adjuncts of the federal government and reduce voluntary giving on the part of the people. In so doing, HR 7 will transform the majority of private charities into carbon copies of failed federal welfare programs.

2001 Ron Paul 60:2
   Providing federal funds to religious organizations gives the organizations an incentive to make obedience to federal bureaucrats their number-one priority. Religious entities may even change the religious character of their programs in order to please their new federal paymaster. Faith-based organizations may find federal funding diminishes their private support as people who currently voluntarily support religious organizations assume they “gave at the (tax) office” and will thus reduce their levels of private giving. Thus, religious organizations will become increasingly dependent on federal funds for support. Since “he who pays the piper calls the tune” federal bureaucrats and Congress will then control the content of “faith-based” programs.

2001 Ron Paul 60:3
   Those who dismiss these concerns should consider that HR 7 explicitly forbids proselytizing in “faith-based’ programs receiving funds directly from the federal government. Religious organizations will not have to remove religious icons from their premises in order to receive federal funds. However, I fail to see the point in allowing a Catholic soup kitchen to hang a crucifix on its wall or a Jewish day care center to hang a Star of David on its door if federal law forbids believers from explaining the meaning of those symbols to persons receiving assistance. Furthermore, proselytizing is what is at the very heart of the effectiveness of many of these programs!

2001 Ron Paul 60:4
   H.R. 7 also imposes new paperwork and audit requirements on religious organizations, thus diverting resources away from fulfilling the charitable mission. Supporters of HR 7 point out that any organization that finds the conditions imposed by the federal government too onerous does not have to accept federal grants. It is true no charity has to accept federal grants. It is true no charity has to accept federal funds, but a significant number will accept federal funds in exchange for federal restrictions on their programs, especially since the restrictions will appear “reasonable” during the program’s first few years. Of course, history shows that Congress and the federal bureaucracy cannot resist imposing new mandates on recipients of federal money. For example, since the passage of the Higher Education Act the federal government has gradually assumed control over almost every aspect of campus life.

2001 Ron Paul 60:5
   Just as bad money drives out good, government-funded charities will overshadow government charities that remain independent of federal funding. After all, a federally-funded charity has the government’s stamp of approval and also does not have to devote resources to appealing to the consciences of parishioners for donations. Instead, government-funded charities can rely on forced contributions from the taxpayers. Those who dismiss this as unlikely to occur should remember that there are only three institutions of higher education today that do not accept federal funds and thus do not have to obey federal regulations.

2001 Ron Paul 60:6
   We have seen how federal funding corrupts charity in our time. Since the Great Society, many organizations which once were devoted to helping the poor have instead become lobbyists for ever-expanding government, since a bigger welfare state means more power for their organizations. Furthermore, many charitable organizations have devoted resources to partisan politics as part of coalitions dedicated to expanding federal control over the American people.

2001 Ron Paul 60:7
   Federally-funded social welfare organizations are inevitably less effective than their counterparts because federal funding changes the incentives of participants in these organizations. Voluntary charities promote self-reliance, while government welfare programs foster dependency. In fact, it is in the self-interests of the bureaucrats and politicians who control the welfare state to encourage dependency. After all, when a private organization moves a person off welfare, the organization has fulfilled its mission and proved its worth to donors. In contrast, when people leave government welfare programs, they have deprived federal bureaucrats of power and of a justification for a larger amount of taxpayer funding.

2001 Ron Paul 60:8
   Accepting federal funds will corrupt religious institutions in a fundamental manner. Religious institutions provide charity services because they are commanded to by their faith. However, when religious organizations accept federal funding promoting the faith may take a back seat to fulfilling the secular goals of politicians and bureaucrats.

2001 Ron Paul 60:9
   Some supporters of this measure have attempted to invoke the legacy of the founding fathers in support of this legislation. Of course, the founders recognized the importance of religion in a free society, but not as an adjunct of the state. Instead, the founders hoped a religious people would resist any attempts by the state to encroach on the proper social authority of the church. The Founding Fathers would have been horrified by any proposal to put churches on the federal dole, as this threatens liberty by subordinating churches to the state.

2001 Ron Paul 60:10
   Obviously, making religious institutions dependent on federal funds (and subject to federal regulations) violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the first amendment. Critics of this legislation are also correct to point out that this bill violates the first amendment by forcing taxpayers to subsidize religious organizations whose principles they do not believe. However, many of these critics are inconsistent in that they support using the taxing power to force religious citizens to subsidize secular organizations.

2001 Ron Paul 60:11
   The primary issue both sides of this debate are avoiding is the constitutionality of the welfare state. Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to level excessive taxes on one group of citizens for the benefit of another group of citizens. Many of the founders would have been horrified to see modern politicians define compassion as giving away other people’s money stolen through confiscatory taxation. After all, the words of the famous essay by former Congressman Davy Crockett, that money is “Not Yours to Give.”

2001 Ron Paul 60:12
   Instead of expanding the unconstitutional welfare state, Congress should focus on returning control over welfare to the American people. As Marvin Olaksy, the “godfather of compassionate conservatism,” and others have amply documented, before they were crowded out by federal programs, private charities did an exemplary job at providing necessary assistance to those in need. These charities not only met the material needs of those in poverty but helped break many of the bad habits, such as alcoholism, taught them “marketable” skills or otherwise engaged them in productive activity, and helped them move up the economic ladder.

2001 Ron Paul 60:13
   Therefore, it is clear that instead of expanding the unconstitutional welfare state, Congress should return control over charitable giving to the American people by reducing the tax burden. This is why I strongly support the tax cut provisions of H.R. 7, and would enthusiastically support them if they were brought before the House as a stand alone bill. I also proposed a substitute amendment which would have given every taxpayer in America a $5,000 tax credit for contributions to social services organizations which serve lower-income people. Allowing people to use more of their own money promotes effective charity by ensuring that charities remain true to their core mission. After all, individual donors will likely limit their support to those groups with a proven track record of helping the poor, whereas government agencies may support organizations more effective at complying with federal regulations or acquiring political influence than actually serving the needy.

2001 Ron Paul 60:14
   Many prominent defenders of the free society and advocates of increasing the role of faith-based institutions in providing services to the needy have also expressed skepticism regarding giving federal money to religious organizations, including the Reverend Pat Robinson, the Reverend Jerry Falwell, Star Parker, Founder and President of the Coalition for Urban Renewal (CURE), Father Robert Sirico, President of the Action Institute for Religious Liberty, Michael Tanner, Director of Health and Welfare studies at the CATO Institute, and Lew Rockwell, founder and president of the Ludwig Von Misses Institute. Even Marvin Olaksy, the above-referenced “godfather of compassionate conservatism,” has expressed skepticism regarding this proposal.

2001 Ron Paul 60:15
   In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, because H.R. 7 extends the reach of the immoral, unconstitutional welfare state and thus threatens the autonomy and the effectiveness of the very faith-based charities it claims to help, I urge my colleagues to reject it. Instead, I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting a constitutional and compassionate agenda of returning control over charity to the American people through large tax cuts and tax credits.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 61

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Export-Import Bank
24 July 2001

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair requests Members follow regular order.

2001 Ron Paul 61:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

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

2001 Ron Paul 61:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. This is a token amount of money being cut from the Export-Import Bank. The President asked for a $120 million cut. This is only $18 million. There was $120 million added over the present request. This is not a project that is a favorite of the President, and he has referred to this as a form of corporate welfare.

2001 Ron Paul 61:3
This is just a small effort to rein in the power of the special interests, the powerful special interests. It has been mentioned that jobs could be lost. In the debate, there has been emphasis on jobs, and the truth is that it may happen. Jobs could be lost. But what Members fail to realize is that the jobs lost are special interest jobs. If my colleagues take that same funding, and we never talk about what would happen to that $75 billion line of credit of the Export- Import Bank if it were allowed to remain in the economy. Other jobs would be created, so my colleagues cannot argue half of the case. We have to look at the whole picture. Special interest jobs would be lost. True market jobs would be increased.

2001 Ron Paul 61:4
Mr. Chairman, last week we had a vote on trade with China. I supported that vote. I believe in free trade and low tariffs. I believe in the right of people to spend their money where they please, and I believe it is best for countries to be trading with each other. But the very same people today arguing for these corporate subsidies claim they are for free trade. If my colleagues are for free trade, they should not be for corporate subsidies. They are not one and the same. They are different.

2001 Ron Paul 61:5
Free trade means there are low tariffs, but we do not subsidize any special interests. To me it is rather amazing, the paragraph that we are dealing with is called Subsidy Authorization. There is no pretension anymore. We just advertise, this as a subsidies. When did we get into the business of subsidies? A long time ago, unfortunately. I do not think that the Congress should be in the business of subsidies.

2001 Ron Paul 61:6
Mr. Chairman, this amendment has something to do with campaign finance reform. I am in favor of some reforms, that is, less control. People have the right to spend their own money the way they want; and when we have the problem of big corporations coming here and lobbying us, that is a secondary problem.

2001 Ron Paul 61:7
If my colleagues look at the corporations that get the biggest subsidies from the Export-Import Bank, they really lobby us.

2001 Ron Paul 61:8
Mr. Chairman, what I say is let us have some real campaign finance reform and let us get rid of the subsidies and the motivation for these huge corporations to come here and influence our vote. That is what the problem is. We do not need to get the money out of politics, we need to get the money out of Washington and out of the business of subsidizing special interests. That is where our problem is.

2001 Ron Paul 61:9
Last week we voted to trade with China, and I said I supported that. But anybody who voted against that bill because they do not like what is happening in China should vote for this amendment and also my amendment that is likely to come up.

2001 Ron Paul 61:10
China gets $6.2 billion, the largest subsidy to any country in the world from the Export-Import Banks. China gets it. So why do we first want to trade with China, then subsidize them as well, and then complain? I would suggest that those who claim they believe in free trade, they need to support this amendment because we are getting into the interference and manipulation of trade, the subsidy to big corporations.

2001 Ron Paul 61:11
Those who do not like China should vote for this because there is a suggestion that the Export-Import Bank serves the interest of China. So to me it should be an easy vote. The only problem with this amendment is that it is so small. It does not really address the big subject on whether or not the Congress should be in this business. Obviously they should not be. Where do you find the authorization to give subsidy appropriations in the Constitution? It is not there.

2001 Ron Paul 61:12
This is a charade. This is fiction when it comes to looking at constitutional law.

2001 Ron Paul 61:13
I would strongly urge a yes vote on this amendment and do not support this effort to benefit the big companies and hurt the little guys. The little guys are the ones who lose this line of credit and push their interest rates up.

2001 Ron Paul 61:14
Who gets the risk under this situation? The taxpayer. There is a lot of insurance in the Export-Import Bank. The risk goes to the taxpayer, but the profits go to the corporations. What is fair about that? The big corporation cannot lose. So why would the banks not loan to the big special interest corporations?

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 62

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Export-Import Bank Amendment
24 July 2001

AMENDMENT NO. 56 OFFERED BY MR. PAUL

2001 Ron Paul 62:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment No. 56 offered by Mr. PAUL: Page 2, strike line 21 and all that follows through line 17 on page 3.

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

2001 Ron Paul 62:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, my amendment strikes the paragraph on page 2, line 21 entitled “subsidy appropriation.” I do not believe this Congress should be in the business of subsidizing anyone. We should be protecting the American taxpayer, and we should be protecting the individual liberty of all American citizens, not dealing in subsidies.

2001 Ron Paul 62:3
This paragraph is found in the bill which is called “foreign operations.” It is a subsidy to large corporations, and it is a subsidy to foreign entities and foreign governments. The largest foreign recipient of the foreign aid from this bill is Red China, $6.2 billion. So if one is for free trade, as I am, and as I voted last week to trade with China, one should be positively in favor of my amendment, because this is not free trade. This is subsidized, special interest trade, and I think that is wrong.

2001 Ron Paul 62:4
There has been a lot of talk today on the previous amendment dealing with jobs, and jobs are important. We have an economy now that is turning downwards and jobs are being lost. In this bill, this particular paragraph and the Export-Import Bank does deal with jobs.

2001 Ron Paul 62:5
Those in opposition to my amendment make the point that jobs are enhanced in the big corporations like Boeing. That is true, to a degree, but there is a net loss of jobs because the same entity, the Export-Import Bank, literally exports jobs by subsidizing and loaning money to foreign entities that compete with us. Not only does some of this money end up in the hands of our competitors and hurt us here at home, but it ends up in the hands of our potential enemies. This is the reason why we should be out of the business of the Export-Import Bank.

2001 Ron Paul 62:6
It has been said that this is a benefit to so many small corporations. In the last 2 years, more than half of the Export- Import Bank money went to Boeing. So it is not surprising that the gentleman early on mentioned that yes, he would not mind it if all of it went to Boeing. It is said that 85 percent of the money in the individual loans goes to smaller corporations. That is true, but 86 percent of the money goes to the giant corporations. So the big bucks serve the big interests who lobby us and spend a lot of time influencing Washington.

2001 Ron Paul 62:7
There is a lot of mal-investment in the economy, misappropriation of money and investments that generates overcapacity, which is a consequence of monetary policy. It is a serious problem; and we are today facing the consequence, because we are now moving into a rather severe recession. But at the same time, export financing compounds that problem. It adds on to it because it is an allocation of credit.

2001 Ron Paul 62:8
This argument that we create jobs is fictitious. We do not create jobs; we shift jobs, from the weak to the powerful. We do not create a new job by stealing, taking out $75 billion worth of a line of credit from the banks and giving it to special interests. Yes, it looks like they are getting a benefit, but the little guy does not have access to that amount of money. Why should the banks not loan Export-Import Bank money to the large corporations. They are protected. They are insured. Who insures them? The taxpayer. It is a ripoff. The taxpayer suffers all of the risks.

2001 Ron Paul 62:9
Now, if the deal is successful and there is no economic calamity in the country where we go and there is no political crisis, then who makes the profits? Corporations make the profits. It is the best deal going for large corporations.

2001 Ron Paul 62:10
If we oppose corporate welfare and think we ought to address it on principle and decide whether or not the Congress and the U.S. Government and the taxpayers should be in this type of business, we have to vote for my amendment to get us out of this business. This does not serve the interests of the general welfare of the people. This is antagonistic toward the general welfare of the people. It costs the taxpayers money, it puts the risk on the taxpayer, it serves the interests of the powerful special interests. Why else would they come with their lobbying funds? Why else would they come with their huge donations to the political action committees, unless it is a darn good deal for them?

2001 Ron Paul 62:11
They say it is a good deal for Boeing workers, but in 1995 there was a strike by the machinists against Boeing because Boeing agreed to buy the tail portion of the 737 from Red China.

2001 Ron Paul 62:12
We are certainly losing jobs to Red China, Mexico, and other places. I do not mind it if that is a market consequence, but when it is done at the expense of the American taxpayer and it hurts us, we should not do it.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 63

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Export-Import Bank
24 July 2001

2001 Ron Paul 63:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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

2001 Ron Paul 63:2
Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentleman for yielding, Mr. Chairman. The gentleman makes the point that we fund in our Export-Import Bank less compared to other nations. That possibly is true.

Mr. BEREUTER. In absolute terms.

2001 Ron Paul 63:3
Mr. PAUL. The gentleman argues for an increase. But is it not true that the United States has had a healthier economy in the last 10 years than most of our competitors, indicating that it probably has not done us that much harm by not doing the same things that other countries do by penalizing their people with high taxation and making these subsidies?

Mr. BEREUTER. Reclaiming my time, our economic health relies on a lot of things, but we cannot confuse cause and effect. If we lost our export sector, we would be in deep trouble.

Take my own home State, for example, agriculture being one of the two major largest exporters. One-third, maybe even more, of everything we grow, like the rest of this country, is export. If we lose that base, if we would write off 95 percent of the world’s people, we are in a hopeless condition.

I would say to the gentleman, I understand his ideological reasons for offering this. I happen to dramatically disagree. I think American citizens do not support the unilateral disarmament.

2001 Ron Paul 63:4
Mr. PAUL. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Chairman, why is it assumed that there would be no export funds available to export goods if we did not subsidize the exports?

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 64

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Iran/Libya Sanctions Act
24 July 2001

2001 Ron Paul 64:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, there are a number of problems with this move to extend the Iran/ Libya Sanctions Act.

2001 Ron Paul 64:2
First, the underlying Act places way too much authority both to make determinations and to grant waivers, in the hands of the President and the Executive Branch. As such, it is yet another unconstitutional delegation of authority which we ought not extend. Moreover, as the Act applies to Libya, the authority upon which the bill depends is a resolution of the United Nations. So, any member who is concerned with UN power should vote against this extension.

2001 Ron Paul 64:3
Furthermore, the sanctions are being extended from a period of five years to ten years. If the original five year sanction period has not been effective in allaying the fears about these governments why do we believe an extra five years will be effective? In fact, few companies have actually been sanctioned under this Act, and to the best of my knowledge no oil companies have been so sanctioned. Still, the sanctions in the Act are not against these nations but are actually directed at “persons” engaged in certain business and investments in these countries. There are already Executive Orders making it illegal for US companies to undertake these activities in these sanctioned countries, so this Act applies to companies in other countries, mostly our allied countries, almost all of whom oppose and resent this legislation and have threatened to take the kinds of retaliatory action that could lead to an all out trade war. In fact, the former National Security Advisor Brent Scrowcroft recently pointed out how these sanctions have had a significant adverse impact upon our Turkish allies.

2001 Ron Paul 64:4
Mr. Speaker, I support those portions of this bill designated to prohibit US financing through government vehicles such as the Export-Import Bank. I also have no problem with guarding against sales of military technology which could compromise our national security. Still, on a whole, this bill is just another plank in the failed sanctions regime from which we ought to loosen ourselves.

2001 Ron Paul 64:5
The Bush Administration would prefer this legislation to expire and, failing that, they prefer taking a first step by making the extension last for a shorter period. In this I believe the Administration has taken the correct position. For one thing, there have been moves, particularly in Iran, to liberalize. We harm these attempts by maintaining a sanctions regime.

2001 Ron Paul 64:6
I also have to point out the inconsistency in our policy. Why would we sanction Iran but not Sudan, and why would we sanction Libya but not Syria? I hear claims related to our national security but surely these are made in jest. We subsidize business with the People’s Republic of China but sanction Europeans from helping to build oil refineries in Iran.

2001 Ron Paul 64:7
There has been a real concern in our country regarding the price of gasoline. Since these sanctions are directly aimed at preventing the development of petroleum resources in these countries, this bill will DIRECTLY RESULT IN AMERICANS HAVING TO PAY A HIGHER PRICE AT THE GASOLINE PUMP. These sanctions HURT AMERICANS. British Petroleum and others have refused to provide significant investment for petroleum extraction in Iran because of the uncertainty this legislation helps to produce. The tiny nation of Qatar has as much petroleum related investment as does Iran since this legislation went into effect. Again, this reduces supply and raises prices at the gas pump.

2001 Ron Paul 64:8
Will the members of this body return to their district and tell voters “I just voted to further restrict petroleum supply and keep gas prices high”? I doubt that.

2001 Ron Paul 64:9
Mr. Speaker, I am fully aware of the legislative realities as regards this legislation and the powerful interests that want it extended. However, it is not just myself and the Bush Administration suggesting this policy is flawed. The Atlantic Council is a prestigious group cochaired by Lee Hamilton, James Schlesinger and Brent Scowcroft that has suggested in a recent study that we ought to end sanctions upon Iran.

2001 Ron Paul 64:10
Mr. Speaker, I believe the time has come for us to consider the U.S. interest and the benefits of friendly commerce with all nations. We are particularly ill-advised in passing this legislation and hamstringing the new Administration at this time. I must oppose any attempt to extend this Act and support any amendment that would reduce the sanction period it contemplates.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 65

Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]

July 24, 2001
THE PATIENT PRIVACY ACT -- HON. RON PAUL
(Extensions of Remarks - July 24, 2001)


[Page: E1417] GPO’s PDF 
---
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, July 24, 2001

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 66

Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]

July 26, 2001
LIFT THE UNITED STATES EMBARGO ON CUBA — HON. RON PAUL
(Extensions of Remarks - July 26, 2001)
[Page: E1451] GPO’s PDF

2001 Ron Paul 66:1
---
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, July 26, 2001


2001 Ron Paul Chapter 67

Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]

July 26, 2001
A NEWSPAPER ARTICLE ON THE LIFE OF FREDERIC BASTIAT -- HON. RON PAUL
(Extensions of Remarks - July 26, 2001)
[Page: E1453] GPO’s PDF

2001 Ron Paul 67:1
---
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, July 26, 2001


2001 Ron Paul Chapter 68

Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]

July 31, 2001
Stem Cell Research and Human Cloning


2001 Ron Paul 68:1
   Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today we’re being asked to choose between two options dealing with the controversies surrounding cloning and stem cell research.

2001 Ron Paul 68:2
   As an obstetrician gynecologist with 30 years of experience with strong pro-life convictions I find this debate regarding stem cell research and human cloning off-track, dangerous, and missing some very important points.

2001 Ron Paul 68:3
   This debate is one of the most profound ethical issues of all times. It has moral, religious, legal, and ethical overtones.

2001 Ron Paul 68:4
   However, this debate is as much about process as it is the problem we are trying to solve.

2001 Ron Paul 68:5
   This dilemma demonstrates so clearly why difficult problems like this are made much more complex when we accept the notion that a powerful centralized state should provide the solution, while assuming it can be done precisely and without offending either side, which is a virtual impossibility.

2001 Ron Paul 68:6
   Centralized governments’ solutions inevitably compound the problem we’re trying to solve. The solution is always found to be offensive to those on the losing side of the debate. It requires that the loser contribute through tax payments to implement the particular program and ignores the unintended consequences that arise. Mistakes are nationalized when we depend on Presidential orders or a new federal law. The assumption that either one is capable of quickly resolving complex issues is unfounded. We are now obsessed with finding a quick fix for this difficult problem.

2001 Ron Paul 68:7
   Since federal funding has already been used to promote much of the research that has inspired cloning technology, no one can be sure that voluntary funds would have been spent in the same manner.

2001 Ron Paul 68:8
   There are many shortcomings of cloning and I predict there are more to come. Private funds may well have flowed much more slowly into this research than when the government/taxpayer does the funding.

2001 Ron Paul 68:9
   The notion that one person, i.e., the President, by issuing a Presidential order can instantly stop or start major research is frightening. Likewise, the U.S. Congress is no more likely to do the right thing than the President by rushing to pass a new federal law.

2001 Ron Paul 68:10
   Political wisdom in dealing with highly charged and emotional issues is not likely to be found.

2001 Ron Paul 68:11
   The idea that the taxpayer must fund controversial decisions, whether it be stem cell research, or performing abortion overseas, I find repugnant.

2001 Ron Paul 68:12
   The original concept of the republic was much more suited to sort out the pros and cons of such a difficult issue. It did so with the issue of capital punishment. It did so, until 1973, with the issue of abortion. As with many other issues it has done the same but now unfortunately, most difficult problems are nationalized.

2001 Ron Paul 68:13
   Decentralized decision making and privatized funding would have gone a long way in preventing the highly charged emotional debate going on today regarding cloning and stem cell research.

2001 Ron Paul 68:14
   There is danger in a blanket national prohibition of some questionable research in an effort to protect what is perceived as legitimate research. Too often there are unintended consequences. National legalization of cloning and financing discredits life and insults those who are forced to pay.

2001 Ron Paul 68:15
   Even a national law prohibiting cloning legitimizes a national approach that can later be used to undermine this original intent. This national approach rules out states from passing any meaningful legislation and regulation on these issues.

2001 Ron Paul 68:16
   There are some medical questions not yet resolved and careless legislation may impede legitimate research and use of fetal tissue. For instance, should a spontaneously aborted fetus, non-viable, not be used for stem cell research or organ transplant? Should a live fetus from an ectopic pregnancy removed and generally discarded not be used in research? How is a spontaneous abortion of an embryo or fetus different from an embryo conceived in a dish?

2001 Ron Paul 68:17
   Being pro-life and pro-research makes the question profound and I might say best not answered by political demagogues, executive orders or emotional hype.

2001 Ron Paul 68:18
   How do problems like this get resolved in a free society where government power is strictly limited and kept local? Not easily, and not perfectly, but I am confident it would be much better than through centralized and arbitrary authority initiated by politicians responding to emotional arguments.

2001 Ron Paul 68:19
   For a free society to function, the moral standards of the people are crucial. Personal morality, local laws, and medical ethics should prevail in dealing with a subject such as this. This law, the government, the bureaucrats, the politicians can’t make the people more moral in making these judgments.

2001 Ron Paul 68:20
   Laws inevitably reflect the morality or immorality of the people. The Supreme Court did not usher in the 60s revolution that undermined the respect for all human life and liberty. Instead, the people’s attitude of the 60s led to the Supreme Court Roe vs. Wade ruling in 1973 and contributed to a steady erosion of personal liberty.

2001 Ron Paul 68:21
   If a centralized government is incapable of doing the right thing, what happens when the people embrace immorality and offer no voluntary ethical approach to difficult questions such as cloning?

2001 Ron Paul 68:22
   The government then takes over and predictably makes things much worse. The government cannot instill morality in the people. An apathetic and immoral society inspires centralized, rigid answers while the many consequences to come are ignored. Unfortunately, once centralized government takes charge, the real victim becomes personal liberty.

2001 Ron Paul 68:23
   What can be done? The first step Congress should take is to stop all funding of research for cloning and other controversial issues. Obviously all research in a free society should be done privately, thus preventing this type of problem. If this policy were to be followed, instead of less funding being available for research, there would actually be more.

2001 Ron Paul 68:24
   Second, the President should issue no Executive Order because under the Constitution he does not have the authority either to promote or stop any particular research nor does the Congress. And third, there should be no sacrifice of life. Local law officials are responsible for protecting life or should not participate in its destruction.

2001 Ron Paul 68:25
   We should continue the ethical debate and hope that the medical leaders would voluntarily do the self-policing that is required in a moral society. Local laws, under the Constitution, could be written and the reasonable ones could then set the standard for the rest of the nation.

2001 Ron Paul 68:26
   This problem regarding cloning and stem cell research has been made much worse by the federal government involved, both by the pro and con forces in dealing with the federal government’s involvement in embryonic research. The problem may be that a moral society does not exist, rather than a lack of federal laws or federal police. We need no more federal mandates to deal with difficult issues that for the most part were made worse by previous government mandates.

2001 Ron Paul 68:27
   If the problem is that our society lacks moral standards and governments can’t impose moral standards, hardly will this effort to write more laws solve this perplexing and intriguing question regarding the cloning of a human being and stem cell research.

2001 Ron Paul 68:28
   Neither option offered today regarding cloning provides a satisfactory solution. Unfortunately, the real issue is being ignored.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 69

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Crazy For Kazakhstan
1 August 2001
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, August 1, 2001


2001 Ron Paul 69:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of my colleagues to the Op Ed article “Crazy for Kazakhstan — Asian nation of vital interest” by former Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson published in “The Washington Times” on July 30, 2001. Mr. Richardson has been working with countries of Central Asia, particularly with oil rich Kazakhstan, for a long time and has an extensive expertise in the region. I think we can rely on his assessments. In the article he outlines achievements of Kazakhstan and defines this country one of the promising “of all the countries rising from the ashes of the Soviet Union”.

2001 Ron Paul 69:2
Indeed, Kazakhstan, despite the difficulties of its transition period, has carried out large scale economic and political reforms, especially when compared to the rest of the newly independent states.

2001 Ron Paul 69:3
Kazakhstan is a young country located in a critically strategic region with “rough” neighbors and it is crucial for the U.S. to work with this country both politically and economically to ensure their security, independence and progressive development.

2001 Ron Paul 69:4
This year is the 10th anniversary of Kazakhstan’s independence and during this period Kazakhstan has shown its commitment to work with the U.S. in many areas, including sensitive ones, and has proven to be our reliable partner.

2001 Ron Paul 69:5
Mr. Speaker, I agree with Mr. Richardson that this key Central Asian country is of great importance to U.S. interests. Kazakhstan in many ways should be seen as our natural ally in the region. The time has come for the U.S. to pay closer attention to this country and be more engaged with it. For this reason I cosponsored the legislation (H.R. 1318) that would grant permanent trade relations to Kazakhstan.

2001 Ron Paul 69:6
I submit the full text of this article from “The Washington Times” to be placed in the RECORD.

2001 Ron Paul 69:7
[From the Washington Times, July 30, 2001]
CRAZY FOR KAZAKHSTAN
(By Bill Richardson)
As secretary of energy and ambassador to the United Nations during the Clinton administration, I traveled three times to Kazakhstan to underscore the importance of this key Central Asian country to U.S. interests. Of all the countries rising from the ashes of the Soviet Union, few offer the promise of Kazakhstan. In terms of both economic potential and political stability, Kazakhstan is critical to the long-term success of the Central Asian nations. The Bush administration should continue our policy of engaging Kazakhstan to ensure that this key country moves towards the Western orbit and adopts continued market and political reforms.

2001 Ron Paul 69:8
From its independence from the Soviet Union in 1991 to the Present, Kazak leaders have made the difficult and controversial decisions necessary to bring their country into the 21st century. In May 1992, President Nursultan Nazarbayev announced that Kazakhstan would unilaterally disarm all of its nuclear weapons. In the aftermath of the Soviet Union’s collapse, Kazakhstan was left with the fourth-largest nuclear arsenal in the world, a tempting target for terrorists and other extremists. Mr. Nazarbayev’s courageous decision to disarm in the face of opposition from Islamic nationalists and potential regional instability was one of the fundamental building blocks that have allowed Kazakhstan to emerge as a strong, stable nation and a leader in Central Asia. Then-President George Bush hailed the decision as “a momentous stride toward peace and stability.”

2001 Ron Paul 69:9
Since that time, Central Asia has become an increasingly complex region. Russia is reemerging from its post-Soviet economic crises and is actively looking for both economic opportunities in Central Asia as well as to secure its political influence over the region. China is rapidly expanding its economic power and political influence in the region. Iran, despite recent progress made by moderate elements in the government, is still a state sponsor of terrorism and is actively working to develop weapons of mass destruction. Many of the other former Soviet republics have become havens for religious extremists, terrorists, drug cartels and transit points for smugglers of all kind.

2001 Ron Paul 69:10
In the center of this conflict and instability Kasakhstan has begun to prosper by working to build a modern economy, developing its vast natural resources and providing a base of stability in a very uncertain part of the world. With the discovery of the massive Kashagan oil field in the Kazak portion of the Caspian Sea, Kazakhstan is poised to become a major supplier of petroleum to the Western World and a competitor to Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). It is critical that we continue to facilitate western companies’ investment in Kazakhstan and the establishment of secure, east-west pipeline routes for Kazak oil. This is the only way for Kazakhstan to loosen its dependence on Russia for transit rights for its oil and gas and secure additional, much needed, oil for the world market.

2001 Ron Paul 69:11
American policy in the region must be based on the complex geopolitics of Central Asia and provide the support required to enable these countries to reach their economic potential. We must continue to give top priority to the development of Kazakhstan’s oil and gas industries and to the establishment of east-west transportation corridors for Caspian oil and gas. We must also remain committed to real support for local political leadership, fostering rule of law and economic reforms and to helping mitigate and solve the lingering ethnic and nationalistic conflicts in the region. Only through meaningful and substantial cooperation with Kazakhstan, will we be able to realize these goals.

2001 Ron Paul 69:12
There are many challenges ahead for Kazakhstan, but there are enormous opportunities for economic and political progress. Mr. Nazarbayev has taken advantage of Kazakhstan’s stability to begin transforming its economy from the old Soviet form giant, state-owned industries and collective grain farms into a modern, market-based economy. We have much at stake in this development. Will Kazakhstan become a true market- oriented democracy, or will it slip into economic stagnation and ethnic violence like so many of its neighbor? The stability of Central Asia and the Caucasus depends on how Kazakhstan chooses to move forward. The United States must do its part to enhance U.S.-Kazakhstancooperation and encourage prosperity and stability for the entire region.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 70

Ron Paul’s Congressional website
LEGISLATION WHICH ENHANCES SENIOR CITIZENS’ HEALTH CARE -- HON. RON PAUL
(Extensions of Remarks - August 03, 2001)
[Page: E1537] GPO’s PDF ---
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, August 2, 2001



2001 Ron Paul Chapter 71

Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]

TRUTH IN EMPLOYMENT ACT -- HON. RON PAUL
(Extensions of Remarks - August 03, 2001)
[Page: E1540] GPO’s PDF ---
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, August 2, 2001



2001 Ron Paul Chapter 72

Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]

PRESCRIPTION DRUG AFFORDABILITY ACT -- HON. RON PAUL
(Extensions of Remarks - August 03, 2001)


2001 Ron Paul 72:1
[Page: E1542] GPO’s PDF

2001 Ron Paul 72:2
---
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, August 2, 2001




2001 Ron Paul Chapter 73

Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]

August 2, 2001
Patient’s Bill of Rights Undermines Individual Rights


2001 Ron Paul 73:1
   Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

2001 Ron Paul 73:2
   Mr. Speaker, as you know, I am a physician. I practiced medicine for more than 30 years, and I can certainly vouch for the fact that medicine is a mess, managed care is not working very well; and, hopefully, we do something good to improve it. Unfortunately, I am not all that optimistic.

2001 Ron Paul 73:3
   I support this rule because it is dealing with a very difficult subject and it brings the Democratic base bill to the floor. I do not see why we should not be able to amend that bill, so I do support the rule.

2001 Ron Paul 73:4
   But the IRS code has 17,000 pages of regulation. The regulations that we as physicians have to put up with are 132,000 pages. Most everything I see that is happening today is we are going to increase those pages by many more thousands. So I am not optimistic that is going to do a whole lot of good.

2001 Ron Paul 73:5
   I think we went astray about 30-some years ago in the direction of medical care when the government, the Federal Government, got involved. The first thing is we changed our attitude and our definition of what “rights” are. We call this a Patients’ Bill of Rights. It has very little to do with rights, because most of what we do in medicine, we undermine individual rights.

2001 Ron Paul 73:6
   We have a right in society, in a free society, to our life and our liberty, and we have a right to use that liberty to pursue our happiness and provide for our own well-being. We do not have a right to medical care. One has no more right to a service than one has a right to go into someone else’s garage and steal an automobile. So the definition of “rights” has been abused for 30 years, but the current understanding is that people have a right to services. So I think that is a serious flaw and it has contributed to our problem today.

2001 Ron Paul 73:7
   The other serious flaw that we have engaged in now for 30 years is the dictation of contract. For 30 years now under ERISA and tax laws, we have forced upon the American people a medical system where we dictate all the rules and regulations on the contracts; and it causes nothing but harm and confusion. Today’s effort is trying to clear this up; and, unfortunately, it is not going to do much good.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 74

Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]

Patients’ Bill Of Rights
2 August 2001

2001 Ron Paul 74:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to explain why I oppose all versions of the Patients’ Bill of Rights. Once again Congress is staging a phony debate over which form of statism to embrace, instead of asking the fundamental question over whether Congress should be interfering in this area at all, much less examine how previous interferences in the health care market created the problems which these proposals claim to address.

2001 Ron Paul 74:2
The proper way to examine health care issues is to apply the same economic and constitutional principles that one would apply to every other issue. As an M.D., I know that when I advise on medical legislation that I may be tempted to allow my emotional experience as a physician to influence my views. But, nevertheless, I am acting in the role as legislator and politician.

2001 Ron Paul 74:3
The M.D. degree grants no wisdom as to the correct solution to our managed-care mess. The most efficient manner to deliver medical services, as it is with all goods and services, is through the free market. Economic principles determine efficiencies of markets, even the health care market, not our emotional experiences dealing with managed care.

2001 Ron Paul 74:4
The fundamental economic principle is that true competition assures that the consumer gets the best deal at the best price possible by putting pressure on the providers. This principle applies equally to health care as it does to other goods and services. However, over the past fifty years, Congress has systematically destroyed the market in health care. HMOs themselves are the result of conscious government policy aimed at correcting distortions in the health care market caused by Congress. The story behind the creation of the HMOs is a classic illustration of how the unintended consequences of government policies provide a justification for further expansions of government power. During the early seventies, Congress embraced HMOs in order to address concerns about rapidly escalating health care costs.

2001 Ron Paul 74:5
However, it was previous Congressional action which caused health care costs to spiral by removing control over the health care dollar from consumers and thus eliminating any incentive for consumers to pay attention to prices when selecting health care. Because the consumer had the incentive to monitor health care prices stripped away and because politicians were unwilling to either give up power by giving individuals control over their health care or take responsibility for rationing care, a third way to control costs had to be created. Thus, the Nixon Administration, working with advocates of nationalized medicine, crafted legislation providing federal subsidies to HMOs and preempting state laws forbidding physicians to sign contracts to deny care to their patients. This legislation also mandated that health plans offer an HMO option in addition to traditional fee-for-service coverage. Federal subsidies, preemption of state law, and mandates on private business hardly sound like the workings of the free market. Instead, HMOs are the result of the same Nixon-era corporatist, big government mindset that produced wage-and-price controls.

2001 Ron Paul 74:6
I am sure many of my colleagues will think it ironic that many of the supporters of Nixon’s plan to foist HMOs on the American public are today among the biggest supporters of the “patients’ rights” legislation. However, this is not really surprising because both the legislation creating HMOs and the Patients’ Bill of Rights reflect the belief that individuals are incapable of providing for their own health care needs and therefore government must control health care. The only real difference between our system of medicine and the Canadian “single payer” system is that in America, Congress contracted out the job of rationing health care resources to the HMOs.

2001 Ron Paul 74:7
No one can take a back seat to me regarding the disdain I hold for the HMO’s role in managed care. This entire unnecessary level of corporatism that rakes off profits and undermines care is a creature of government interference in health care. These non-market institutions and government could have only gained control over medical care through a collusion of organized medicine, politicians, and the HMO profiteers in an effort to provide universal health care. No one suggests that we should have universal food, housing, TV, computer and automobile programs; and yet, many of the poor to much better getting these services through the marketplace as prices are driven down through competition.

2001 Ron Paul 74:8
We all should become suspicious when it is declared we need a new Bill of Rights, such as a Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights, or now a Patients’ Bill of Rights. Why do more Members not ask why the original Bill of Rights is not adequate in protecting all rights and enabling the market to provide all services? In fact, if Congress respected the Constitution we would not even be debating this bill, and we would have never passed any of the special-interest legislation that created and empowered the HMOs in the first place!

2001 Ron Paul 74:9
Mr. Chairman, the legislation before us is flawed not only in its effect but in the very premise that individuals have a federally-enforceable “right” to health care. Mixing the concept of rights with the delivery of services is dangerous. The whole notion that patient’s “rights” can be enhanced by more edicts by the federal government is preposterous.

2001 Ron Paul 74:10
Disregard for constitutional limitations on government, ignorance of the basic principles of economics combined with the power of special interests influencing government policy has brought us this managed-care monster. If we pursue a course of more government management in an effort to balance things, we are destined to make the system much worse. If government mismanagement in an area that the government should not be managing at all is the problem, another level of bureaucracy, no matter how well intended, will not be helpful. The law of unintended consequences will prevail and the principle of government control over providing a service will be further entrenched in the Nation’s psyche. The choice in actually is government-provided medical care and its inevitable mismanagement or medical care provided by a market economy.

2001 Ron Paul 74:11
Many members of Congress have convinced themselves that they can support a “watered-down” Patients’ Bill of Rights which will allow them to appease the supporters of nationalized medicine without creating the negative consequences of the unmodified Patients’ Bill of Rights, while even some supporters of the most extreme versions of this legislation say they will oppose any further steps to increase the power of government over health care. These well-intentioned members ignore the economic fact that partial government involvement is not possible. It inevitably leads to total government control. A vote for any version of a Patients’ Bill of Rights is a 100 percent endorsement of the principle of government management of the health care system.

2001 Ron Paul 74:12
Those who doubt they are endorsing government control of medicine by voting for a modified Patients’ Bill of Rights should consider that even after this legislation is “watered- down” it will still give the federal government the power to control the procedures for resolving disputes for every health plan in the country, as well as mandating a laundry list of services that health plans must offer to their patients. The new and improved Patients’ Bill of Rights will still drive up the costs of health care, causing many to lose their insurance and lead to yet more cries for government control of health care to address the unintended consequences of this legislation.

2001 Ron Paul 74:13
Of course, the real power over health care will lie with the unelected bureaucrats who will implement and interpret these broad and vague mandates. Federal bureaucrats already have too much power over health care. Today, physicians struggle with over 132,000 pages of Medicare regulations. To put that in perspective, I ask my colleagues to consider that the IRS code is “mere” 17,000 pages. Many physicians pay attorneys as much as $7,000 for a compliance plan to guard against mistakes in filing government forms, a wise investment considering even an innocent mistake can result in fines of up to $25,000. In case doctors are not terrorized enough by the federal bureaucracy, HCFA has requested authority to carry guns on their audits!

2001 Ron Paul 74:14
In addition to the Medicare regulations, doctors must contend with FDA regulations (which delay the arrival and raise the costs of new drugs), insurance company paperwork, and the increasing criminalization of medicine through legislation such as the Health Insurance Portability Act (HIPPA) and the medical privacy regulations which could criminalize conversations between doctors and nurses.

2001 Ron Paul 74:15
Instead of this phony argument between those who believe their form of nationalized medicine is best for patients and those whose only objection to nationalized medicine is its effect on entrenched corporate interests, we ought to consider getting rid of the laws that created this medical management crisis. The ERISA law requiring businesses to provide particular programs for their employees should be repealed. The tax codes should give equal tax treatment to everyone whether working for a large corporation, small business, or self employed. Standards should be set by insurance companies, doctors, patients, and HMOs working out differences through voluntary contracts. For years it was known that some insurance policies excluded certain care. This was known up front and was considered an acceptable practice since it allowed certain patients to receive discounts. The federal government should defer to state governments to deal with the litigation crisis and the need for contract legislation between patients and medical providers. Health care providers should be free to combine their efforts to negotiate effectively with HMOs and insurance companies without running afoul of federal anti-trust laws — or being subject to regulation by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

2001 Ron Paul 74:16
Of course, in a truly free market, HMOs and pre-paid care could and would exist — there would be no prohibition against it. The Kaiser system was not exactly a creature of the government as it the current unnatural HMO-government- created chaos we have today.

2001 Ron Paul 74:17
Congress should also remove all federallyimposed roadblocks to making pharmaceuticals available to physicians and patients. Government regulations are a major reason why many Americans find it difficult to afford prescription medicines. It is time to end the days when Americans suffer because the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) prevented them from getting access to medicines that where available and affordable in other parts of the world!

2001 Ron Paul 74:18
While none of the proposed “Patients’ Bill of Rights” addresses the root cause of the problems in our nation’s health care system, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kentucky does expend individual control over health care by making Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs) available to everyone. This is the most important thing Congress can do to get market forces operating immediately and improve health care. When MSAs make patient motivation to save and shop a major force to reduce cost, physicians would once again negotiate fees downward with patients — unlike today where the reimbursement is never too high and hospital and MD bills are always at the maximum levels allowed. MSAs would help satisfy the American’s people’s desire to control their own health care and provide incentives for consumers to take more responsibility for their care.

2001 Ron Paul 74:19
There is nothing wrong with charity hospitals and possibly the churches once again providing care for the needy rather than through government paid programs which only maximizes costs. States can continue to introduce competition by allowing various trained individuals to provide the services that once were only provided by licensed MDs. We don’t have to continue down the path of socialized medical care, especially in America where free markets have provided so much for so many.

2001 Ron Paul 74:20
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject the phony Patients’ Bill of Rights which will only increase the power of the federal government, cause more Americans to lose their health care or receive substandard care, and thus set the groundwork for the next round of federal intervention. Instead. I ask my colleagues to embrace an agenda of returning control over health care to the American people by putting control over the health care dollar back into the hands of the individual and repealing those laws and regulations which distort the health care market. We should have more faith in freedom and more fear of the politicians and bureaucrats who think all can be made well by simply passing a Patients’ Bill of Rights.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 75

Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]

September 6, 2001
The US Dollar and the World Economy


2001 Ron Paul 75:1
Congress has a constitutional responsibility to maintain the value of the dollar by making only gold and silver legal tender and not to “emit bills of credit.”

2001 Ron Paul 75:2
This responsibility was performed relatively well in the 19 th Century, despite the abuse the dollar suffered during the Civil War and despite repeated efforts to form a central bank. This policy served to maintain relatively stable prices, and the shortcomings came only when the rules of the gold standard were ignored or abused.

2001 Ron Paul 75:3
In the 20 th Century, however we saw the systematic undermining of sound money, with the establishment of the Federal Reserve System in 1913, and the outright rejection of gold, with the collapse of the Bretton Woods Agreement in 1971.

2001 Ron Paul 75:4
We are now witnessing the effects of the accumulated problems of thirty years of fiat money-not only the dollar but also all the world currencies-something the world has never before experienced. Exactly how it plays out is yet unknown. Its severity will be determined by future monetary management- especially by the Federal Reserve. The likelihood of quickly resolving the deeply ingrained and worldwide imbalances built up over thirty years is remote. Yielding to the addiction of credit creation (as has been the case with every market correction over the past thirty years) remains irresistible to the central bankers of the world. Central planners, who occupy the seats of power in every central bank around the world, refuse to accept the fact that markets are more powerful and smarter than they are.

2001 Ron Paul 75:5
The people of the United States, including the US Congress, are far too complacent about the seriousness of the current economic crisis. They remain oblivious to the significance of the US dollar’s fiat status. Discussions about the dollar are usually limited to the question of whether the dollar is now too strong or too weak. When money is defined as a precise weight of a precious metal, this type of discussion doesn’t exist. The only thing that matters under that circumstance is whether an honest government will maintain convertibility.

2001 Ron Paul 75:6
Exporters always want a weak dollar, importers a strong one. But no one demands a stable sound dollar, as they should. Manipulation of foreign trade through competitive currency devaluations has become commonplace and is used as a form of protectionism. This has been going on ever since the worldwide acceptance of fiat money thirty years ago. Although some short-term advantage may be gained for certain manufacturers and some countries by such currency manipulation, it only adds fuel to the economic and financial instability inherent in a system of paper money.

2001 Ron Paul 75:7
Paper money helps the strong and hurts the weak before it self-destructs and undermines international trade. The US dollar, with its reserve-currency status, provides a much greater benefit to American citizens than that which occurs in other countries that follow a similar monetary policy. It allows us to export our inflation by buying cheap goods from overseas, while our dollars are then lent back to us to finance our current account deficit. We further benefit from the confidence bestowed on the dollar by our being the economic and military powerhouse of the world, thus postponing the day of reckoning. This permits our extravagant living to last longer than would have otherwise occurred under a gold standard.

2001 Ron Paul 75:8
Some may argue that a good deal like that shouldn’t be denied, but unfortunately the piper must eventually be paid. Inevitably the distortions, such as our current account deficit and foreign debt, will come to an end with more suffering than anyone has anticipated.

2001 Ron Paul 75:9
The monetary inflation of the 1900s produced welcomed profits of $145 billion for the NASDAQ companies over the five years between 1996 and 2000. Astoundingly this entire amount was lost in the past year. This doesn’t even address the trillions of dollars of paper losses in stock values from its peak in early 2000. Congress has expressed concern about the staggering stock-market losses but fails to see the connection between the bubble economy and the monetary inflation generated by the Federal Reserve.

2001 Ron Paul 75:10
Instead, Congress chooses to blame the analysts for misleading investors . The analysts may not be entirely blameless , but their role in creating the bubble is minimal compared to the misleading information that the Federal Reserve has provided, with artificially low interest rates and a financial market made flush with generous new credit at every sign of a correction over the past ten years.

2001 Ron Paul 75:11
By preventing the liquidation of bad debt and the elimination of mal-investment and overcapacity, the Federal Reserve’s actions have kept the financial bubble inflated. Of course it’s an easy choice on the short run. Who would deliberately allow the market tendency to deflate back to stability? That would be politically unacceptable.

2001 Ron Paul 75:12
Talk of sound money and balanced budgets is just that. When the economy sinks, the rhetoric for sound policy and a strong dollar may continue but all actions by the Congress and the Fed will be directed toward re-inflation and a congressional spending policy oblivious to all the promises regarding a balanced budget and the preservation of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds.

2001 Ron Paul 75:13
But if the Fed and its chairman, Alan Greenspan, have been able to guide us out of every potential crisis all the way back to the stock market crash of 1987, why shouldn’t we expect the same to happen once again? Mainly because there’s a limit to how long the monetary charade can be perpetuated. Now it looks like the international financial system built on paper money is coming to an end.

2001 Ron Paul 75:14
Modern-day globalism, since gold’s demise thirty years ago, has been based on a purely fiat US dollar, with all other currencies tied to the dollar. International redistribution and management of wealth through the IMF, the World Bank, and the WTO have promoted this new version of globalism. This type of globalism depends on trusting central bankers to maintain currency values and the international institutions to manage trade equitably, while bailing out weak economies with dollar inflation. This, of course, has only been possible because the dollar strength is perceived to be greater than it really is.

2001 Ron Paul 75:15
Modern-day globalists would like us to believe they invented globalism. Yet all they are offering is an unprecedented plan for global power to be placed in the hands of a few powerful special interests.

2001 Ron Paul 75:16
Globalism has existed ever since international trade started thousands of years ago. Whether it was during the Byzantine Empire or the more recent British Empire, it worked rather well when the goal was honest trade and the currency was gold. Today, however, world government is the goal. Its tools are fiat money and international agencies that believe they can plan globally, just as many others over the centuries believed they could plan domestically, ignoring the fact that all efforts at socialism have failed.

2001 Ron Paul 75:17
The day of reckoning for all this mischief is now at hand. The dollar is weakening, in spite of all the arguments for its continued strength. Economic law is overruling political edicts. Just how long will the US dollar and the US taxpayer be able to bail out every failed third-world economy and pay the bills for policing the world with US troops now in 140 nations around the world? The answer is certainly not forever and probably not much longer, since the world economies are readjusting to the dislocations of the past thirty years of mismanagement and misallocation of capital, characteristic of fiat money.

2001 Ron Paul 75:18
Fiat money has been around for a long time off and on throughout history. But never has the world been so enthralled with the world economy being artificially structured with paper money and with a total rejection of the anchor that gold provided for thousands of years. Let there be no doubt, we live in unprecedented times, and we are just beginning to reap what has been sown the past thirty years. Our government and Federal Reserve officials have grossly underestimated this danger.

2001 Ron Paul 75:19
Current concerns are expressed by worries about meeting the criteria for a government-declared recession and whether a weaker dollar would help. The first is merely academic, because if you are one of the many thousands who have been laid off, you’re already in a recession. The second doesn’t make a lot of sense unless one asks “compared to what?” The dollar has been on a steady course of devaluation for thirty years, against most major currencies and against gold. Its purchasing power in general has been steadily eroded. The fact that the dollar has been strong against third-world currencies and against most major currencies for the past decade doesn’t cancel out the fact that the Federal Reserve has systematically eroded the dollar’s value by steadily expanding the money supply. Recent reports of a weakening dollar on international exchange markets have investment implications but do not reflect a new policy designed to weaken the dollar. This is merely the market adjusting to thirty years of systematic monetary inflation.

2001 Ron Paul 75:20
Regardless of whether the experts demand a weak dollar or a strong dollar, each inevitably demands lower interest rates, hoping to spur the economy and save the stock market from crashing. But one must remember that the only way the Federal Reserve can lower interest rates is to inflate the currency by increasing the money supply and by further debasing the currency. In the long term, the dollar is always weakened, even if the economy is occasionally stimulated on a short-run basis.

2001 Ron Paul 75:21
Economic growth can hide the ill effects of monetary inflation by holding some prices in check. But it can’t prevent the over-capacity and mal-investment which causes the economic downturn. Of course, the central bankers cling to the belief that they can somehow prevent the ugly corrections known as recessions. Economic growth, when artificially stimulated by monetary growth and low interest rates, generates the speculation we’ve seen in the stock, bond and real estate markets, along with excessive debt. Once the need for rectifying the over-capacity is recognized by the market, these imbalances are destined to be wiped out. Prolonging the correction phase with the Fed’s efforts to re-inflate by diligently working for a soft landing, or even to prevent a recession, only postpones the day the economy can return to sustained growth. This is a problem the United States had in the 1930s and one that Japan has experienced for more than a decade, with no end in sight.

2001 Ron Paul 75:22
The next recession, from which I’m sure we’re already suffering, will be even more pervasive worldwide than the one in the 1930s due to the artificial nature of modern globalism, with world paper money and international agencies deeply involved in the economy of every nation. We have witnessed the current and recent bailouts in Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, Turkey and the Far East. While resisting the market’s tendency for correction, faith in government deficits and belief in paper money inflation will surely prolong the coming worldwide crisis.

2001 Ron Paul 75:23
Alan Greenspan made a concerted effort to stave off the 1991-1992 recession with numerous reductions in the Fed funds rate to no avail. The recession hit, and most people believe it led to George Bush’s defeat in the 1992 election. It wasn’t that Greenspan didn’t try, and in many ways the Bush people’s criticism of Greenspan’s effort is not justified. Greenspan, the politician, would have liked to please the elder Bush, but was unable to control events as he had wished. This time around, however, he’s been much more aggressive with the half-point cuts along with seven cuts in just eight months, for a total of a three-point cut in the Fed funds rate. But guess what? So far it hasn’t helped. Stocks continue to slide, and the economy is still in the doldrums. It is now safe to say that Greenspan is pushing on a string. In the year 2000, bank loans and commercial paper were growing at an annualized rate of 23%. In less than a year, in spite of this massive influx of new credit, these loans have crashed to a rate of minus 5%.

2001 Ron Paul 75:24
But where is the money going? Some of it probably has helped to prop up the staggering stock market, but that can’t last forever. Plenty went into consumption and to finance extravagant living.

2001 Ron Paul 75:25
The special nature of the dollar, as the reserve currency of the world, has permitted the bubble to last longer and to be especially beneficial to American consumers. But in the meantime, understandable market and political forces have steadily eroded our industrial base, while our service sector has thrived. Consumers enjoyed having even more funds to spend as the dollars left manufacturing. In a little over a year, one million industrial production jobs were lost while saving rates sank to zero and capital investments plummeted. Foreigners continue to grab our dollars, permitting us to raise our standard of living, but unfortunately it’s built on endless printing of fiat money and self -limiting personal debt.

2001 Ron Paul 75:26
The Federal Reserve credit created during the last eight months has not stimulated economic growth in technology or the industrial sector, but a lot of it ended up in the expanding real-estate bubble, churned by the $3.2 trillion of debt maintained by the GSEs.

2001 Ron Paul 75:27
The GSEs, made up of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Bank, have managed to keep the housing market afloat, in contrast to the more logical slowdown in hotel and office construction. This spending through the GSEs has also served as a vehicle for consumption spending. This should be no surprise, considering the special status that GSEs enjoy, since their implied line of credit to the US Treasury keeps interest rates artificially low. The Clinton administration encouraged growth in housing loans that were financed through this system.

2001 Ron Paul 75:28
In addition, the Federal Reserve treats GSE securities with special consideration. Ever since the fall of 1999, the Fed has monetized GSE securities, just as if they were US Treasury bills. This message has not been lost by foreign central banks, which took their cue from the Fed and now hold more than $130 billion of United States GSE securities. The Fed holds only $20 billion worth, but the implication is clear. Not only will the Treasury loan to the GSEs if necessary, since the line of credit is already in place, but, if necessary, Congress will surely accommodate with appropriations as well, just as it did during the Savings and Loan crisis. But the Fed has indicated to the world that the GSEs are equivalent to US Treasury bills, and foreign central banks have enthusiastically accommodated, sometimes by purchasing more than $10 billion of these securities in one week alone. They are merely recycling the dollars we so generously print and spend overseas.

2001 Ron Paul 75:29
After the NASDAQ collapsed last year, the flow of funds into real estate accelerated. The GSEs accommodated by borrowing without restraint to subsidize new mortgages, record sales and refinancing. It’s no wonder the price of houses are rising to record levels.

2001 Ron Paul 75:30
Refinancing especially helped the consumers to continue spending even in a slowing economy. It isn’t surprising for high credit-card debt to be frequently rolled into second mortgages, since interest on mortgage debt has the additional advantage of being tax-deductible. When financial conditions warrant it, leaving financial instruments (such as paper assets), and looking for hard assets (such as houses), is commonplace and is not a new phenomenon. Instead of the newly inflated money being directed toward the stock market, it now finds its way into the rapidly expanding real-estate bubble. This, too, will burst as all bubbles do. The Fed, the Congress, or even foreign investors can’t prevent the collapse of this bubble, any more than the incestuous Japanese banks were able to keep the Japanese “miracle” of the 1980s going forever.

2001 Ron Paul 75:31
Concerned Federal Reserve economists are struggling to understand how the wealth effect of the stock market and real estate bubble affect economic activity and consumer spending. It should be no mystery, but it would be too much to expect the Fed to look to itself and its monetary policy for an explanation and assume responsibility for engineering the entire financial mess we’re in.

2001 Ron Paul 75:32
A major problem still remains. Ultimately the market determines all value including all currencies. With the current direction of the dollar certainly downward, the day of reckoning is fast approaching. A weak dollar will prompt dumping of GSE securities before treasuries, despite the Treasury’s and the Fed’s attempt to equate them with government securities. This will threaten the whole GSE system of finance, because the challenge to the dollar and the GSEs will hit just when the housing market turns down and defaults rise. Also a major accident can occur in the derivatives markets where Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are deeply involved in hedging their interest-rate bets. Rising interest rates that are inherent with a weak currency will worsen the crisis.

2001 Ron Paul 75:33
The weakening dollar will usher in an age of challenge to the whole worldwide financial system. The dollar has been the linchpin of economic activity, and a severe downturn in its value will not go unnoticed and will compound the already weakening economies of the world. More monetary inflation, even if it’s a concerted worldwide effort, cannot solve the approaching crisis. The coming crisis will result from fiat money and monetary inflation; therefore, more of the same cannot be the solution.

2001 Ron Paul 75:34
Pseudo-free trade, managed poorly and driven by fiat money, is no substitute for true free trade in a world with a stable commodity currency, such as gold. Managed trade and fiat money, historically, have led to trade wars, which the international planners pretend to abhor. Yet the trade war is already gearing up. The WTO, purported to exist to lower tariffs, is actually the agency that grants permission for tariffs to be applied when complaints of dumping are levied. We are in the midst of banana, textile, steel, lumber, and tax wars, all managed by the WTO. When cheap imports hit our markets, it’s a good deal for consumers, but our manufacturers are the first to demand permission to place protective tariffs on imports. If this is already occurring in an economy that has been doing quite well, one can imagine how strong the protectionists’ sentiments will be in a worldwide slowdown.

2001 Ron Paul 75:35
Congress is starting to realize that the budget forecast based on an overly optimistic growth rate of 3% is way off target, and even the pseudo-surpluses are soon to be eliminated. Remember the national debt never went down with the “surpluses.” The national debt is currently rising at more than $120 billion at an annualized rate and is destined to get worse.

2001 Ron Paul 75:36
Our dollar problem, which affects our financial and budgetary decisions, originated at the Fed with our country’s acceptance of paper money thirty years ago. Federal Reserve officials and other government leaders purposely continue to mislead the people by spouting the nonsense that there is no evidence of inflation, as measured by government-rigged price indices. Even though significant price increases need not exist for monetary inflation to place a hardship on the economy, stock prices, housing prices, costs of medical care and education, and the cost of government have all been rising at very rapid rates. But the true inflation, measured by the money supply, is rising at a rate of greater than 20%, as measured by MZM. This fact is ignored.

2001 Ron Paul 75:37
The deception regarding price increases is supposed to reassure us and may do so for a while. The Fed never admits it, and the Congress disregards it out of ignorance, but the serious harm done by artificially low interest rates--leading to mal-investment, overcapacity, excessive debt and speculation causes the distortions that always guarantee the next recession.

2001 Ron Paul 75:38
Serious problems lie ahead. If the Fed continues with the same monetary policy of perpetual inflation, and the Congress responds with more spending and regulations, real solutions will be indefinitely delayed.

2001 Ron Paul 75:39
The current problems, hopefully, will cause us as a nation and, in particular, Congress to reassess the policies that have allowed the imbalances to develop over the last thirty years.

2001 Ron Paul 75:40
Someday, stable money based on the gold standard must be reconsidered. Stable money is a constitutional responsibility of Congress. The Federal Reserve Board’s goal of stable prices, economic growth and low interest rates, through centralized economic planning by manipulating money and credit, is a concoction of 20 th Century Keynesian economics. These efforts are not authorized by the Constitution, and are economically detrimental.

2001 Ron Paul 75:41
Economic adjustments wouldn’t be so bad, as many mild recessions have proven, except that wealth is inexorably and unfairly transferred from middle class and poor to the rich. Job losses and the rising cost of living hurt some more than others. If our course is not changed, the entire middle-class prosperity can be endangered, as has happened all too often in other societies that pursued a false belief that paper money could be satisfactorily managed.

2001 Ron Paul 75:42
Even the serious economic problems generated by a flawed monetary system could be tolerated, except for the inevitable loss of personal liberty that accompanies government’s efforts to centrally plan the economy through a paper monetary policy and ever-growing welfare state.

2001 Ron Paul 75:43
Likewise, an imperialistic foreign policy can only be supported by inflation and high taxation. This policy compounds the threat to liberty, because all too often our leaders get us involved in overseas military adventurism in which we should have no part. Today that danger is greater than ever before, as we send our dollars and troops hither and yon to areas of the world most Americans have no knowledge or interest in. But the driving force behind our foreign policy comes from our oil corporations, international banking interests and the military-industrial complex, which have high-stake interests in the places our troops and foreign aid, are sent.

2001 Ron Paul 75:44
If, heaven forbid, the economy sinks as low and for as long as many free market economists believe, what policy changes must we consider? Certainly the number one change ought to be to reject the ideas that created the crisis. But rejecting old ways that Congress and the people are addicted to is not easy. Many people believe that government programs are free. The clamor for low interest rates, (more monetary inflation) by virtually all public officials and prominent business and banking leaders is endless. And, the expectation for government to do something for every economic malady-even if ill-advised government policy has created the problem-drives this seductive system of centralized planning that ultimately undermines prosperity. A realization that we cannot continue our old ways may well be upon us, and, the inflating, taxing, regulating, and centralized planning programs of the last thirty years must come to an end.

2001 Ron Paul 75:45
Only reining in the welfare-warfare state will suffice. This eliminates the need for the Fed to monetize the debt that politicians depend on to please their constituents and secure their reelection. We must reject our obsession with policing the world by our endless foreign commitments and entanglements. This would reduce the need for greater expenditures while enhancing our national security. It would also remove pressure on the Federal Reserve to continue a flawed monetary policy of monetizing endless government debt.

2001 Ron Paul 75:46
But we must also reject the notion that one man, Alan Greenspan, or any other chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, can know what the proper money supply and interest rates ought to be- only the market can determine that. This must happen if we ever expect to avoid continuous and deeper recessions and to get the economy growing in a healthy and sustainable fashion. It also must happen if we want to preserve free-market capitalism and personal liberty.

2001 Ron Paul 75:47
The longer the delay in establishing a free market and a commodity currency, even with interrupted blips of growth, the more unstable the economy and the moredifficult the task becomes. Instead it will result in what no one wants- more poverty and political turmoil.

2001 Ron Paul 75:48
There are no other options if we hope to remain a free and prosperous nation. Economic and monetary meddling undermines the principles of a free society. A free society and sound money maximize production and minimize poverty. The responsibility of Congress is clear: avoid the meddling so engrained in our system and assume the responsibility, all but forgotten, to maintain a free society while making the dollar once again as good as gold.

2001 Ron Paul 75:49
In the words of James Madison in The Federalist Papers :

2001 Ron Paul 75:50
The extension of the prohibition to bills of credit must give pleasure to every citizen in proportion to his love of justice and his knowledge of the true springs of public prosperity. The loss which America has sustained since the peace, from the pestilent effects of paper money on the necessary confidence between man and man, on the necessary confidence in the public councils, on the industry and morals of the people, and on the character of republican government, constitutes an enormous debt against the States chargeable with this unadvised measure.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 76

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Defense Production Act
10 September 2001
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Monday, September 10, 2001


2001 Ron Paul 76:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, when the Defense Production Act was enacted in 1950, considerable damage was done. Some of the worst damage occurred as a result of wage and price controls and the improper delegation of economic powers to the President (much of which economic power even Congress itself didn’t have).

2001 Ron Paul 76:2
This bill’s entire existence rests on the presumption that its supporters have absolutely no confidence whatsoever in either freedom or the market process. In a time of crisis, you don’t need an “industrial policy” and you don’t need some fascist or corporatist variety of socialism. What one needs more than ever in a time of crisis is the market — deviation from the market process is the worst thing an economy can do. Oftentimes, it’s the “industrial policy” which is the very cause of the economic crisis one hopes to remedy with yet another round of “industrial policy” intervention.

2001 Ron Paul 76:3
We have an energy crisis in California created by the bureaucrats and the politicians. As prices skyrocket and a crisis is declared, it is later said that prices are now down and there’s less of a shortage or crisis. But it’s the market process that worked because the prices skyrocketed rather than skyrocketing prices becoming the justification for abandoning the market process.

2001 Ron Paul 76:4
Of course, if one likes socialism and rejects the notion that freedom works, this type of an Act and improper of delegating and centralizing such powers is ideal. But why accept the notions of socialism when you really need an economy to provide products and services in the nation’s time of most dire need? This whole notion that the powers in this bill should be illegitimately granted to a President and then turned over to the head of FEMA is potentially one of the most dangerous things this body will ever do (or continue doing).

2001 Ron Paul 76:5
Mr. Speaker, I encourage the members of this body to begin thinking about the amount of false hope they place in the centralization of power in the hands of a central-planners and reconsider their apparent lack of confidence in the market process and a free society. I encourage a strict adherence to market principles and strongly oppose H.R. 2510.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 77

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Sometimes The Economy Needs A Setback
10 September 2001
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Monday, September 10, 2001


2001 Ron Paul 77:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I encourage each and every one of my colleagues to read and heed the insights contained in James Grant’s Sunday New York Times article entitled “Sometimes the Economy Needs a Setback.” Mr. Grant explores the relationship of technology to the business cycle and identifies the real culprit in business cycles, namely “easy money.” Grant explains:

2001 Ron Paul 77:2
Booms not only precede busts; they also cause them. When capital is so cheap that it might as well be free, entrepreneurs make marginal investments. They build and hire expecting the good times to continue to roll. Optimistic bankers and steadily rising stock prices shield new businesses from having to show profits any sooner than “eventually.”

2001 Ron Paul 77:3
Those genuinely interested in understanding the most recent economic downturn will do well to read and contemplate Mr. Grant’s article.

2001 Ron Paul 77:4
[From the New York Times, Sept. 9, 2001]
SOMETIMES THE ECONOMY NEEDS A SETBACK
(By James Grant)


 2001 Ron Paul 77:5
The weak economy and the multi-trilliondollar drop in the value of stocks have raised a rash of recrimination. Never a people to suffer the loss of money in silence, Americans are demanding to know what happened to them. The truth is simple: There was a boom.

2001 Ron Paul 77:6
A boom is a phase of accelerated prosperity. For ignition, it requires easy money. For inspiration, it draws on new technology. A decade ago, farsighted investors saw a glorious future for the personal computer in the context of the more peaceful world after the cold war. Stock prices began to rise — and rose and rose. The cost of financing new investment fell correspondingly, until by about the middle of the decade the money became too cheap to pass up. Business investment soared, employment rose, reported profits climbed.

2001 Ron Paul 77:7
Booms begin in reality and rise to fantasy. Stock investors seemed to forget that more capital spending means more competition, not less; that more competition implies lower profit margins, not higher ones; and that lower profit margins do not point to rising stock prices. It seemed to slip their minds that high-technology companies work ceaselessly to make their own products obsolete, not just those of their competitors — that they are inherently self-destructive.

2001 Ron Paul 77:8
At the 2000 peak of the titanic bull market, as shares in companies with no visible means of support commanded high prices, the value of all stocks as a percentage of the American gross domestic product reached 183 percent, more than twice the level before the crash in 1929. Were investors out of their minds? Wall Street analysts were happy to reassure them on this point: No, they were the privileged financiers of the new economy. Digital communications were like the wheel or gunpowder or the internal combustion engine, only better. The Internet would revolutionize the conveyance of human thought. To quibble about the valuation of companies as potentially transforming as any listed on the Nasdaq stock market was seen almost as an act of ingratitude. The same went for questioning the integrity of the companies’ reports of lush profits.

2001 Ron Paul 77:9
In markets all things are cyclical, even the idea that markets are not cyclical. The notion that the millennial economy was in some way “new” was an early portent of confusion. Since the dawn of the industrial age, technology has been lightening the burden of work and industrial age, technology has been lightening the burden of work and driving the pace of economic change. In 1850, as the telegraph was beginning to anticipate the Internet, about 65 percent of the American labor force worked on farms. In 2000, only 2.4 percent did. The prolonged migration of hands and minds from the field to the factor, office and classroom is all productivity growth — the same phenomenon the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board rhapsodizes over. It’s true, just as Alan Greenspan says, that technological progress is the bulwark of the modern economy. Then again, it has been true for most of the past 200 years.

2001 Ron Paul 77:10
In 1932 an eminent German analyst of business cycles, Wilhelm Ro¨pke, looked back from amid the debris of the Depression. Citing a series of inventions and innovations — railroads, steelmaking, electricity, chemical production, the automobile — he wrote: “The jumpy increases in investment characterizing every boom are usually connected with some technological advance. * * * Our economic system reacts to the stimulus. * * * with the prompt and complete mobilization of all its inner forces in order to carry it out everywhere in the shortest possible time. But this acceleration and concentration has evidently to be bought at the expense of a disturbance of equilibrium which is slowly overcome in time of depression.”

2001 Ron Paul 77:11
Röpke, wrote before the 1946 Employment Act, which directed the United States government to cut recessions short — using tax breaks, for example, or cuts in interest rates — even if these actions stymie a salutary process of economic adjustment. No one doubts the humanity of this law. Yet equally, no one can doubt the inhumanity of a decade-long string a palliatives in Japan, intended to insulate the Japanese people from the consequences of their bubble economy of the 1980’s. Rather than suppressing the bust, the government has only managed to prolong it, for a decade and counting.

2001 Ron Paul 77:12
Booms not only precede busts; they also cause them. When capital is so cheap that it might as well be free, entrepreneurs make marginal investments. They build and hire expecting the good times to continue to roll. Optimistic bankers and steadily rising stock prices shield new businesses from having to show profits any sooner than “eventually.” Then, when the stars change alignment and investors decide to withhold new financing, many companies are cash-poor and must retrench or shut down. It is the work of a bear market to reduce the prices of the white elephants until they are cheap enough to interest a new class of buyers.

2001 Ron Paul 77:13
The boom-and-bust pattern has characterized the United States economy since before the railroads. Growth has been two steps forward and one step back, cycle by cycle. Headlong building has been followed by necessary tearing down, which has been followed by another lusty round of building. Observing this sequence from across the seas, foreigners just shake their heads.

2001 Ron Paul 77:14
Less and less, however, are we bold and irrepressible Americans willing to suffer the tearing-down phase of the cycle. After all, it has seemed increasingly unnecessary. With a rising incidence of federal intervention in financial markets, expansions have become longer and contractions shorter. And year in and year out, the United States is allowed to consume more of the world’s goods than it produces (the difference being approximately defined as the trade deficit, running in excess of $400 billion a year).

2001 Ron Paul 77:15
We have listened respectfully as our financial elder statesmen have speculated on the likelihood that digital technology has permanently reduced the level of uncertainty in our commercial life — never mind that last year the information technology industries had no inkling that the demand for their products was beginning to undergo a very old-fashioned collapse.

2001 Ron Paul 77:16
Even moderate expansions produce their share of misconceived investments, and the 90’s boom, the gaudiest on record, was no exception. In the upswing, faith in the American financial leaders bordered on idolatry. Now there is disillusionment. Investors are right to resent Wall Street for its conflicts of interest and to upbraid Alan Greenspan for his wide-eyed embrace of the so-called productivity miracle. But the underlying source of recurring cycles in any economy is the average human being.

2001 Ron Paul 77:17
The financial historian Max Winkler concluded his tale of the fantastic career of the swindler-financier Ivar Kreguer, the “Swedish match king,” with the ancient epigram “Mundus vult decipi; ergo decipiatur”: The world wants to be deceived; let it therefore be deceived. The Romans might have added, for financial context, that the world is most credulous during bull markets. Prosperity makes it gullible.

2001 Ron Paul 77:18
James Grant is the editor of Grant’s Interest Rate Observer.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 78

Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]

September 12, 2001
Statement on the New York City and Washington, DC Terrorist Attacks

2001 Ron Paul 78:1
Yesterday, Americans were awakened to find ourselves in a war, attacked by barbarians who targeted innocent civilians. This despicable act reveals how deep-seated is the hatred that has driven this war.

2001 Ron Paul 78:2
Though many Americans have just become aware of how deeply we are involved in this war, it has been going on for decades. We are obviously seen by the terrorists as an enemy.

2001 Ron Paul 78:3
In war there is no more reprehensible act than for combatants to slaughter innocent civilian bystanders. This is what happened yesterday.

2001 Ron Paul 78:4
If there is such a thing, a moral war is one that is only pursued in self-defense. Those who initiate aggression against others for the purpose of occupation or merely to invoke death and destruction are unforgivable and serve only to spread wanton killing.

2001 Ron Paul 78:5
In our grief, we must remember our responsibilities. The Congress’ foremost obligation in a constitutional republic is to preserve freedom and provide for national security. Yesterday our efforts to protect our homeland came up short. Our policies that led to that shortcoming must be reevaluated and changed if found to be deficient.

2001 Ron Paul 78:6
When we retaliate for this horror we have suffered, we must be certain that only the guilty be punished. More killing of innocent civilians will only serve to flame the fires of war and further jeopardize our security. Congress should consider its constitutional authority to grant letters of marque and reprisal to meet our responsibility.

2001 Ron Paul 78:7
Demanding domestic security in times of war invites carelessness in preserving civil liberties and the right of privacy. Frequently the people are only too anxious for their freedoms to be sacrificed on the altar of authoritarianism thought to be necessary to remain safe and secure. Nothing would please the terrorists more than if we willingly give up some of our cherished liberties while defending ourselves from their threat.

2001 Ron Paul 78:8
It is our job to wisely choose our policies and work hard to understand the root causes of the war in which we find ourselves.

2001 Ron Paul 78:9
We must all pray for peace and ask for God’s guidance for our President, our congressional leaders, and all America- and for the wisdom and determination required to resolve this devastating crisis.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 79

Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]

September 14, 2001
Statement on the Congressional Authorization of the Use of Force


2001 Ron Paul 79:1
Mr, Speaker, Sadly we find ourselves today dealing with our responsibility to provide national security under the most difficult of circumstances.

2001 Ron Paul 79:2
To declare war against a group that is not a country makes the clear declaration of war more complex.

2001 Ron Paul 79:3
The best tool the framers of the Constitution provided under these circumstances was the power of Congress to grant letters of marque and reprisals, in order to narrow the retaliation to only the guilty parties. The complexity of the issue, the vagueness of the enemy, and the political pressure to respond immediately limits our choices. The proposed resolution is the only option we’re offered and doing nothing is unthinkable.

2001 Ron Paul 79:4
There are a couple of serious points I’d like to make.

2001 Ron Paul 79:5
For the critics of our policy of foreign interventionism in the affairs of others the attack on New York and Washington was not a surprise and many have warned of its inevitability.

2001 Ron Paul 79:6
It so far has been inappropriate to ask why the U.S. was the target and not some other western country. But for us to pursue a war against our enemies it’s crucial to understand why we were attacked, which then will tell us by whom we were attacked.

2001 Ron Paul 79:7
Without this knowledge, striking out at six or eight or even ten different countries could well expand this war of which we wanted no part. Without defining the enemy there is no way to know our precise goal nor to know when the war is over. Inadvertent or casual acceptance of civilian deaths by us as part of this war I’m certain will prolong the agony and increase the chances of even more American casualties. We must guard against this if at all possible.

2001 Ron Paul 79:8
Too often over the last several decades we have supported both sides of many wars only to find ourselves needlessly entrenched in conflicts unrelated to our national security. It is not unheard of that the weapons and support we send to foreign nations have ended up being used against us. The current crisis may well be another example of such a mishap.

2001 Ron Paul 79:9
Although we now must fight to preserve our national security we should not forget that the founders of this great nation advised that for our own sake we should stay out of entangling alliances and the affairs of other nations.

2001 Ron Paul 79:10
We are placing tremendous trust in our president to pursue our enemies as our commander-in-chief but Congress must remain vigilant as to not allow our civil liberties here at home to be eroded. The temptation will be great to sacrifice our freedoms for what may seem to be more security. We must resist this temptation.

2001 Ron Paul 79:11
Mr. Speaker we must rally behind our president, pray for him to make wise decisions, and hope that this crisis is resolved a lot sooner than is now anticipated.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 80

Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]

September 25, 2001
Foreign Interventionism


2001 Ron Paul 80:1
Ron Paul speech in the House of Representatives

2001 Ron Paul 80:2
Mr. Speaker:

2001 Ron Paul 80:3
Last week was a bad week for all Americans. The best we can say is that the events have rallied the American spirit of shared love and generosity. Partisanship was put on hold, as it well should have been. We now, as a free people, must deal with this tragedy in the best way possible. Punishment and prevention is mandatory. We must not, however, sacrifice our liberties at the hand of an irrational urgency. Calm deliberation in our effort to restore normalcy is crucial. Cries for dropping nuclear bombs on an enemy not yet identified cannot possibly help in achieving this goal.

2001 Ron Paul 80:4
Mr. Speaker, I returned to Congress 5 years ago out of deep concern about our foreign policy of international interventionism, and a monetary and fiscal policy I believed would lead to a financial and dollar crisis. Over the past 5 years I have frequently expressed my views on these issues and why I believed our policies should be changed.

2001 Ron Paul 80:5
This deep concern prompted me to seek and receive seats on the Financial Services and International Relations Committees. I sought to thwart some of the dangers I saw coming, but as the horrific attacks show, these efforts were to no avail. As concerned as I was, the enormity of the two-prong crisis that we now face came with a ferocity no one ever wanted to imagine. But now we must deal with what we have and do our best to restore our country to a more normal status.

2001 Ron Paul 80:6
I do not believe this can happen if we ignore the truth. We cannot close our eyes to the recent history that has brought us to this international crisis. We should guard against emotionally driven demands to kill many bystanders in an effort to liquidate our enemy. These efforts could well fail to punish the perpetrators while only expanding the war and making things worse by killing innocent non-combatants and further radicalizing Muslim peoples.

2001 Ron Paul 80:7
It is obviously no easy task to destroy an almost invisible, ubiquitous enemy spread throughout the world, without expanding the war or infringing on our liberties here at home. But above all else, that is our mandate and our key constitutional responsibility- protecting liberty and providing for national security. My strong belief is that in the past, efforts in the US Congress to do much more than this, have diverted our attention and hence led to our neglect of these responsibilities.

2001 Ron Paul 80:8
Following the September 11th disasters a militant Islamic group in Pakistan held up a sign for all the world to see. It said: AMERICANS, THINK! WHY YOU ARE HATED ALL OVER THE WORLD. We abhor the messenger, but we should not ignore the message.

2001 Ron Paul 80:9
Here at home we are told that the only reason for the suicidal mass killing we experienced on September 11th is that we are hated because we are free and prosperous. If these two conflicting views are not reconciled we cannot wisely fight nor win the war in which we now find ourselves. We must understand why the hatred is directed toward Americans and not other western countries.

2001 Ron Paul 80:10
In studying history, I, as many others, have come to the conclusion that war is most often fought for economic reasons. But economic wars are driven by moral and emotional overtones.

2001 Ron Paul 80:11
Our own revolution was fought to escape from excessive taxation but was inspired and driven by our desire to protect our God-given right to liberty.

2001 Ron Paul 80:12
The War between the States, fought primarily over tariffs, was nonetheless inspired by the abhorrence of slavery. It is this moral inspiration that drives people to suicidally fight to the death as so many Americans did between 1861 and 1865.

2001 Ron Paul 80:13
Both economic and moral causes of war must be understood. Ignoring the importance of each is dangerous. We should not casually ignore the root causes of our current fight nor pursue this fight by merely accepting the explanation that they terrorize us out of jealously.

2001 Ron Paul 80:14
It has already been written that Islamic militants are fighting a “holy war”- a jihad. This drives them to commit acts that to us are beyond comprehension. It seems that they have no concern for economic issues since they have no regard even for their own lives. But an economic issue does exist in this war: OIL!

2001 Ron Paul 80:15
When the conflict broke out between Iraq and Iran in the early 1980s and we helped to finance and arm Iraq, Anwar Sadat of Egypt profoundly stated: “This is the beginning of the war for oil.” Our crisis today is part of this long lasting war over oil.

2001 Ron Paul 80:16
Osama bin Laden, a wealthy man, left Saudi Arabia in 1979 to join American- sponsored so-called freedom fighters in Afghanistan. He received financial assistance, weapons and training from our CIA, just as his allies in Kosovo continue to receive the same from us today.

2001 Ron Paul 80:17
Unbelievably, to this day our foreign aid continues to flow into Afghanistan, even as we prepare to go to war against her. My suggestion is, not only should we stop this aid immediately, but we should never have started it in the first place.

2001 Ron Paul 80:18
It is during this time bin Laden learned to practice terror; tragically, with money from the US taxpayers. But it wasn’t until 1991 during what we refer to as the Persian Gulf War that he turned fully against the United States. It was this war, said to protect our oil that brought out the worst in him.

2001 Ron Paul 80:19
Of course, it isn’t our oil. The oil in fact belongs to the Arabs and other Muslim nations of the Persian Gulf. Our military presence in Saudi Arabia is what most Muslims believe to be a sacred violation of holy land. The continuous bombing and embargo of Iraq, has intensified the hatred and contributed to more than over 1,000,000 deaths in Iraq. It is clear that protecting certain oil interests and our presence in the Persian Gulf help drive the holy war.

2001 Ron Paul 80:20
Muslims see this as an invasion and domination by a foreign enemy which inspires radicalism. This is not new. This war, from their viewpoint, has been going on since the Crusades 1000 year ago. We ignore this history at our own peril.

2001 Ron Paul 80:21
The radicals react as some Americans might react if China dominated the Gulf of Mexico and had air bases in Texas and Florida. Dominating the Persian Gulf is not a benign activity. It has consequences. The attack on the USS Cole was a warning we ignored.

2001 Ron Paul 80:22
Furthermore, our support for secular governments in the moderate Arab countries is interpreted by the radicals as more American control over their region than they want. There is no doubt that our policies that are seen by the radicals as favoring one faction over another in the long lasting Middle East conflict add to the distrust and hatred of America.

2001 Ron Paul 80:23
The hatred has been suppressed because we are a powerful economic and military force and wield a lot of influence. But this suppressed hatred is now becoming more visible and we as Americans for the most part are not even aware of how this could be. Americans have no animosity toward a people they hardly even know. Instead, our policies have been driven by the commercial interests of a few. And now the innocent suffer.

2001 Ron Paul 80:24
I am hopeful that shedding light on the truth will be helpful in resolving this conflict in the very dangerous period that lies ahead. Without some understanding of the recent and past history of the Middle East and the Persian Gulf we cannot expect to punish the evildoers without expanding the nightmare of hatred that is now sweeping the world.

2001 Ron Paul 80:25
Punishing the evildoers is crucial. Restoring safety and security to our country is critical. Providing for a strong defense is essential. But extricating ourselves from a holy war that we don’t understand is also necessary if we expect to achieve the above-mentioned goals. Let us all hope and pray for guidance in our effort to restore the peace and tranquility we all desire.

2001 Ron Paul 80:26
We did a poor job in providing the security that all Americans should expect. This is our foremost responsibility. Some members have been quick to point out the shortcomings of the FBI, the CIA and the FAA and claim more money will rectify the situation. I’m not so sure. Bureaucracies by nature are inefficient. The FBI and CIA records come up short. The FBI loses computers and guns and is careless with records. The CIA rarely provides timely intelligence. The FAA’s idea of security against hijackers is asking all passengers who packed their bag.

2001 Ron Paul 80:27
The clamor now is to give more authority and money to these agencies. But, remember, important industries like as our chemical plants and refineries do not depend on government agencies for security. They build fences and hire guards with guns. The airlines have not been allowed to do the same thing. There was a time when airline pilots were allowed and did carry weapons, and yet this has been prohibited by government regulation set to go into effect in November.

2001 Ron Paul 80:28
If the responsibility had been left with the airlines to provide safety they may have had armed pilots or guards on the planes just as our industrial sites have. Privatizing the FAA, as other countries have, would also give airlines more leeway in providing security. My bill, HR 2896, should be passed immediately to clarify that the federal government will never place a prohibition on pilots being armed.

2001 Ron Paul 80:29
We face an enormous task to restore the sense of security we have taken for granted for so long. But it can be done. Destroying the evildoers while extricating ourselves from this unholiest of wars is no small challenge. The job is somewhat like getting out of a pit filled with venomous snakes. The sooner we shoot the snakes that immediately threaten us, the sooner we can get safely away. If we’re not careful though, we’ll breed more snakes and they’ll come out of every nook and cranny from around the world and little will be resolved.

2001 Ron Paul 80:30
It’s no easy task, but before we fight we’d better be precise about whom we are fighting and how many there are and where they are hiding, or we’ll never know when the war is over and our goals are achieved. Without this knowledge the war can go on for a long, long time, and the war for oil has already been going on for more than 20 years. To this point, our President and his administration have displayed the necessary deliberation. This is a positive change from unauthorized and ineffective retaliatory bombings in past years that only worsened various conflicts.

2001 Ron Paul 80:31
If we can’t or won’t define the enemy, the cost to fight such a war will be endless. How many American troops are we prepared to lose? How much money are we prepared to spend? How many innocent civilians, in our nation and others, are we willing to see killed? How many American civilians will we jeopardize? How much of our civil liberties are we prepared to give up? How much prosperity will we sacrifice?

2001 Ron Paul 80:32
The founders and authors of our Constitution provided an answer for the difficult tasks that we now face. When a precise declaration of war was impossible due to the vagueness of our enemy, the Congress was expected to take it upon themselves to direct the reprisal against an enemy not recognized as a government. In the early days the concern was piracy on the high seas. Piracy was one of only three federal crimes named in the original Constitution.

2001 Ron Paul 80:33
Today, we have a new type of deadly piracy, in the high sky over our country. The solution the founders came up with under these circumstances was for Congress to grant letters of marque and reprisal. This puts the responsibility in the hands of Congress to direct the President to perform a task with permission to use and reward private sources to carry out the task, such as the elimination of Osama bin Laden and his key supporters. This allows narrow targeting of the enemy. This effort would not preclude the president’s other efforts to resolve the crisis, but if successful would preclude a foolish invasion of a remote country with a forbidding terrain like Afghanistan- a country that no foreign power has ever conquered throughout all of history.

2001 Ron Paul 80:34
Lives could be saved, billions of dollars could be saved, and escalation due to needless and senseless killing could be prevented. Mr. Speaker, we must seriously consider this option. This answer is a world apart from the potential disaster of launching nuclear weapons or endless bombing of an unseen target. “Marque and reprisal” demands the enemy be seen and precisely targeted with minimal danger to others. It should be considered and, for various reasons, is far superior to any effort that could be carried out by the CIA.

2001 Ron Paul 80:35
We must not sacrifice the civil liberties that generations of Americans have enjoyed and fought for over the past 225 years. Unwise decisions in response to the terror inflicted on us may well fail to destroy our enemy, while undermining our liberties here at home. That will not be a victory worth celebrating. The wise use of marque and reprisal would negate the need to undermine the privacy and rights of our citizens.

2001 Ron Paul 80:36
As we work through this difficult task, let us resist the temptation to invoke the most authoritarian of all notions that, not too many years ago, tore this nation apart; the military draft. The country is now unified against the enemy. The military draft does nothing to contribute to unity nor, as the Pentagon again has confirmed, does it promote an efficient military.

2001 Ron Paul 80:37
Precise identification of all travelers on all our air flights is a desired goal. A national ID issued by the federal government would prove to be disastrous to our civil liberties and should not be considered. This type of surveillance power should never be given to an intrusive overbearing government, no matter how well intentioned the motives.

2001 Ron Paul 80:38
The same results can be better achieved by the marketplace. Passenger IDs voluntarily issued by the airlines could be counterfeit-proof; and loss or theft of an ID could be immediately reported to the proper authorities. An ID, fingerprints, birth certificates, or any other information can be required without any violations of anyone’s personal liberty. This delicate information would not be placed in the hands of the government agents but could be made available to law enforcement officers like any other information obtained with probable cause and a warrant.

2001 Ron Paul 80:39
The heat of the moment has prompted calls by some of our officials for great sacrifice of our liberties and privacy. This poses great danger to our way of life and will provide little help in dealing with our enemies. Efforts of this sort will only punish the innocent and have no effect on a would-be terrorist. We should be careful not to do something just to do something- even something harmful.

2001 Ron Paul 80:40
Mr. Speaker, I fear that some big mistakes could be made in the pursuit of our enemies if we do not proceed with great caution, wisdom, and deliberation. Action is necessary; inaction is unacceptable. No doubt others recognize the difficulty in targeting such an elusive enemy. This is why the principle behind “marque and reprisal” must be given serious consideration.

2001 Ron Paul 80:41
In retaliation, an unintended consequence of a policy of wanton destruction without benefit to our cause, could result in the overthrow of moderate Arab nations by the radicals that support bin Laden. This will not serve our interests and will surely exacerbate the threat to all Americans.

2001 Ron Paul 80:42
As we search for a solution to the mess we’re in, it behooves us to look at how John F. Kennedy handled the Cuban missile crisis in 1962. Personally, that crisis led to a 5-year tour in the US Air Force for me.

2001 Ron Paul 80:43
As horrible and dangerous as the present crisis is, those of us that held our breath during some very tense moments that October realized that we were on the brink of a world-wide nuclear holocaust. That crisis represented the greatest potential danger to the world in all of human history.

2001 Ron Paul 80:44
President Kennedy held firm and stood up to the Soviets as he should have and the confrontation was resolved. What was not known at the time was the reassessment of our policy that placed nuclear missiles in the Soviet’s back yard, in Turkey. These missiles were quietly removed a few months later and the world became a safer place in which to live. Eventually, we won the cold war without starting World War III.

2001 Ron Paul 80:45
Our enemy today, as formidable as he is, cannot compare to the armed might of the Soviet Union in the fall of 1962.

2001 Ron Paul 80:46
Wisdom and caution on Kennedy’s part in dealing with the crisis was indeed “a profile in courage.” But his courage was not only in his standing up to the Soviets, but his willingness to re-examine our nuclear missile presence in Turkey, which if it had been known at the time would have been condemned as an act of cowardice.

2001 Ron Paul 80:47
President Bush now has the challenge to do something equally courageous and wise. This is necessary if we expect to avert a catastrophic World War III. When the President asks for patience as he and his advisors deliberate, seeking a course of action, all Americans should surely heed his request.

2001 Ron Paul 80:48
Mr. Speaker, I support President Bush and voted for the authority and the money to carry out his responsibility to defend this country, but the degree of death and destruction and chances of escalation must be carefully taken into consideration.

2001 Ron Paul 80:49
It is only with sadness that I reflect on the support, the dollars, the troops, the weapons and training provided by US taxpayers that are now being used against us. Logic should tell us that intervening in all the wars of the world has been detrimental to our self-interest and should be reconsidered.

2001 Ron Paul 80:50
The efforts of a small minority in Congress to avoid this confrontation by voting for the foreign policy of George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and all the 19 th century presidents went unheeded. The unwise policy of supporting so many militants who later became our armed enemies makes little sense whether it’s bin Laden or Saddam Hussein. A policy designed to protect America is wise and frugal and hopefully it will once again be considered. George Washington, as we all know, advised strongly, as he departed his presidency, that we should avoid all entangling alliances with foreign nations.

2001 Ron Paul 80:51
The call for a non-interventionist foreign policy over past years has fallen on deaf ears. My suggestions made here today may meet the same fate. Yet, if truth is spoken, ignoring it will not negate it. In that case something will be lost. But, if something is said to be true and it is not and is ignored, nothing is lost. My goal is to contribute to the truth and to the security of this nation.

2001 Ron Paul 80:52
What I have said today is different from what is said and accepted in Washington as conventional wisdom, but it is not in conflict with our history or our constitution. It’s a policy that has, whenever tried, generated more peace and prosperity than any other policy for dealing with foreign affairs. The authors of the Constitution clearly understood this. Since the light of truth shines brightest in the darkness of evil and ignorance, we should all strive to shine that light.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 81

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Intelligence Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2002
5 October 2001
SPEECH OF
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Friday, October 5, 2001


The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union had under consideration the bill. (H.R. 2883) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2002 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes:

2001 Ron Paul 81:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, HR 2883, the Intelligence Authorization Act, is brought before us today under a process which denies members of Congress our constitutional right as elected officials to be informed on crucial aspects of the programs we are asked to authorize. Information about this bill is limited to dollars amounts and personnel ceilings for the individual intelligence programs and even that information is restricted to viewing in a classified annex available to members during regular business hours for “security reasons.”

2001 Ron Paul 81:2
Given the many questions the American people have about the performance of the intelligence agencies prior to September 11, and the many concerns as to whether the intelligence agencies can effectively respond to the challenges of international terrorism, I believe that the American people would be well served by a full debate on the ways the intelligence community plans to respond to these challenges. I also believe the American people would be well-served if members of Congress could debate the prudence of activities authorized under this bill, such as using taxpayer monies for drug interdiction, is an efficient use of intelligence resources or if those resources could be better used to counter other, more significant threats. Perhaps the money targeted for drug interdiction and whether it should be directed to anti-terrorism efforts. However, Mr. Speaker, such a debate cannot occur when members are denied crucial facts regarding the programs authorized in this bill or, at a minimum, are not free to debate in an open forum. Therefore, Congress is denied a crucial opportunity to consider how we might improve America’s intelligence programs.

2001 Ron Paul 81:3
We are told that information about this bill must be limited to a select few for “security reasons.” However, there are other ways to handle legitimate security concerns than by limiting the information to those members who happen to sit on the Intelligence Committee. If any member were to reveal information that may compromise the security of the United States, I certainly would support efforts to punish that member for violating his office and the trust of his country. I believe that if Congress and the Executive Branch exercised sufficient political will to make it known that any member who dared reveal damaging information would suffer full punishment of the law, there would not be a serious risk of a member leaking classified information.

2001 Ron Paul 81:4
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, it is inexcusable for members to be denied crucial facts regarding the intelligence program authorized by this bill, especially at a time when the nation’s attention is focused on security issues. Therefore, I hope my colleagues will reject HR 2883 and all other intelligence authorization or funding bills until every member of Congress is allowed to fully perform their constitutional role of overseeing these agencies and participating in the debate on this vital aspect of America’s national security policy.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 82

Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]

October 9, 2001
Counter-Terrorism and Homeland Security


2001 Ron Paul 82:1
The CIA has a budget of over $30 billion. The FBI has a budget of $3 billion. In addition, $10 to $12 billion are specifically designated to fight terrorism. Yet, with all this money and power, we were not warned of the events that befell us on September 11th.

2001 Ron Paul 82:2
Since the tragic attacks, our officials have located and arrested hundreds of suspects, frozen millions of dollars of assets, and received authority to launch a military attack against the ringleaders in Afghanistan. It seems the war against the terrorists, or guerillas if one really believes we’re in an actual war, has so far been carried out satisfactorily, and under current law. The question is, do we really need a war against the civil liberties of the American people? We should never casually sacrifice any of our freedoms for the sake of perceived security.

2001 Ron Paul 82:3
Most security, especially in a free society, is best carried out by individuals protecting their own property and their own lives. The Founders certainly understood this and is the main reason we have the Second amendment. We cannot have a policeman stationed in each of our homes to prevent burglaries, but owners of property with possession of a gun can easily do it. A new giant agency for Homeland Security cannot provide security but it can severely undermine our liberties. This approach may well in the long run make many American feel less secure.

2001 Ron Paul 82:4
The principle of private property ownership did not work to prevent the tragedies of September 11th, and there’s a reason for that. The cries have gone out that due to the failure of the airlines to protect us, we must nationalize every aspect of aviation security. This reflects a serious error in judgment, and will lead us further away from the principle of property ownership and toward increasing government dependency and control, with further sacrifice of our freedoms. More dollars and more federal control over the airline industry are not likely to give us the security we all seek.

2001 Ron Paul 82:5
Industrial plants in the United States enjoy reasonably good security. They are protected, not by the local police, but by owners putting up barbed wired fences, hiring guards with guns, and requiring identification cards to enter-all this without any violation of anyone’s civil liberties. And in a free society, private owners have a right, if not an obligation, to engage in “profiling” if it enhances security. This technique of providing security through private property ownership is about to be rejected, in its entirety, for the airline industry.

2001 Ron Paul 82:6
The problem was that the principle of private property was already undermined for the airlines by the partial federalization of security by FAA regulations. Airports are all owned by various government entities.

2001 Ron Paul 82:7
The system that failed us prior to September 11th not only was strictly controlled by government regulations, it specifically denied the right of owners to defend their property with a gun. At one time guns were permitted on airlines to protect the US mail, but for more than 40 years airlines have not been allowed to protect human life with firearms.

2001 Ron Paul 82:8
Some argue that pilots have enough to do worrying about flying the airplane and have no time to be concerned about a gun. Yet why do we allow drivers of armored vehicles to handle both? Why do we permit more protection for money being hauled around the country in a truck than we do for passengers on an airline? If government management of airline security has already failed us, why should we expect expanding the role of government in this area to be successful? One thing is for sure, we can expect it to get very expensive and the lines to get a lot longer. The government’s idea of security is asking, “Who packed your bag,” or “Has the bag been with you since you packed it?” and requiring plastic knives to be used on all flights while taking fingernail clippers from the pilots.

2001 Ron Paul 82:9
Pilots overwhelmingly support their right to be armed, with some even threatening not to fly if they are not permitted to do so. This could be done quickly and cheaply by merely removing the prohibition against it, as my bill HR 2896 would do. We must not forget that four well-placed guns could have prevented the entire tragedy of September 11th.

2001 Ron Paul 82:10
This is a crucial time in our history. Our policy of foreign interventionism has contributed to this international crisis. How we define our enemies will determine how long we fight and when the war is over. The expense will be worth it if we make the right decisions. Targeting the forces of bin Laden makes sense, but invading 8 to 10 countries without a precise goal will prove to be a policy of folly. Indefinite war, growing in size and cost in terms of dollars and lives, is something for which most Americans will eventually grow weary. Our prayers are with our president, and we hope that he continues to use wise judgment in accomplishing this difficult task- something that he has accomplished remarkably well under very difficult circumstances.

2001 Ron Paul 82:11
But here at home it is surely a prime responsibility of all members of Congress to remain vigilant and not, out of fear and panic, sacrifice the rights of Americans in our effort to maximize security.

2001 Ron Paul 82:12
Since the President has already done a good job in locating, apprehending, and de-funding those associated with the September 11th attacks while using current existing laws, we should not further sacrifice our liberties with a vague promise of providing more security. We do not need a giant new national agency in order to impose a concept of homeland security that challenges our civil liberties. This is an idea whose time has not yet come.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 83

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Safe Act
9 October 2001
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, October 9, 2001


2001 Ron Paul 83:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Securing American Families Effectively (SAFE) Act. The SAFE Act makes commonsense changes to federal law that will enhance the government’s ability to prevent terrorist incidents. Unlike other proposals, my legislation in no way threatens the constitutional liberties of the American people. In fact, the only people threatened under the SAFE Act are terrorists.

2001 Ron Paul 83:2
The SAFE Act repeals regulations preventing agencies who deal with terrorism from sharing information among themselves. Currently, there are limits on sharing data with policy makers and there is a nearly unanimous agreement on lifting these restrictions. Removing the restrictions on data sharing is a good step which provides more — not less — openness and governmnent transparency.

2001 Ron Paul 83:3
Hard as it may be to believe, there are actually existing directives in the law enforcement and intelligence communities which grant suspects “extra-legal” rights. These “special” rights could, and should, be clarified without changing existing law. This is why the SAFE Act adopts several of the administration’s proposals to change the procedures regarding prosecutions of terrorism, such as eliminating the statute of limitations for terrorist offenses.

2001 Ron Paul 83:4
Perhaps the most significant change made to procedures is codifying that probable cause is the maximum standard for an investigation of terrorism. According to information received by my office some federal agencies actually have to meet a higher standard than the constitutional standard of probable cause in order to launch an investigation of suspected terrorists. It is absurd to make the FBI meet a higher standard to initiate an investigation of a terrorist than to initiate an investigation of an insider trader!

2001 Ron Paul 83:5
Finally, the SAFE Act drastically reduces immigration from countries on the State Department’s terrorist list and countries which refuse to provide assistance in the battle against terrorists. Whatever one’s feelings on other questions connected with immigration, I would hope we all could agree that the United States has an obligation to keep those who may be threats to the security of United States citizens outside the country. This is especially true considering that the programs I proposed limiting allow immigrants to take advance of taxpayer- funded educational programs and provide other special privileges for immigrants from terrorist countries. It is the height of absurdity to allow immigrants from countries involved in terrorist activities against American citizens special preferences denied to immigrants from America’s closest allies.

2001 Ron Paul 83:6
I would also hope that we could all agree that this is far preferable to systems of nationwide “surveillance,” which could threaten the liberty of all immigrants and eventually all citizens. This is an instance where the interests of liberty and security coincide entirely.

2001 Ron Paul 83:7
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in taking these commonsense steps to protecting the liberty and the security of the American people from terrorists by cosponsoring the Securing American Families Effectively (SAFE) Act.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 84

Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]

October 10, 2001
AIR PIRACY REPRISAL AND CAPTURE ACT OF 2001 -- HON. RON PAUL
(Extensions of Remarks - October 10, 2001)
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, October 10, 2001

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 85

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Sponsored The Amendment
11 October 2001

2001 Ron Paul 85:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman will the gentleman yield?

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

2001 Ron Paul 85:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I am pleased that the amendment will be approved because I am a cosponsor of this amendment. I compliment the gentleman for bringing this to the floor.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 86

Ron Paul’s Congressional website October 11, 2001
Ron Paul statement on HR 3004 before the House Financial Services committee


2001 Ron Paul 86:1
Mr. Chairman, the so-called Financial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001 (HR 3004) has more to do with the ongoing war against financial privacy than with the war against international terrorism. Of course, the federal government should take all necessary and constitutional actions to enhance the ability of law enforcement to locate and seize funds flowing to known terrorists and their front groups. For example, America should consider signing more mutual legal assistance treaties with its allies so we can more easily locate the assets of terrorists and other criminals.

2001 Ron Paul 86:2
Unfortunately, instead of focusing on reasonable measures aimed at enhancing the ability to reach assets used to support terrorism, HR 3004 is a laundry list of dangerous, unconstitutional power grabs. Many of these proposals have already been rejected by the American people when presented as necessary to “fight the war on drugs” or “crackdown on white-collar crime.” Even a ban on Internet gambling has somehow made it into this “anti-terrorism” bill!

2001 Ron Paul 86:3
Among the most obnoxious provisions of this bill are: expanding the war on cash by creating a new federal crime of taking over $10,000 cash into or out of the United States; codifying the unconstitutional authority of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCeN) to snoop into the private financial dealings of American citizens; and expanding the “suspicious activity reports” mandate to broker-dealers, even though history has shown that these reports fail to significantly aid in apprehending criminals. These measures will actually distract from the battle against terrorism by encouraging law enforcement authorities to waste time snooping through the financial records of innocent Americans who simply happen to demonstrate an “unusual” pattern in their financial dealings.

2001 Ron Paul 86:4
HR 3004 also attacks the Fourth Amendment by authorizing warrantless searches of all mail coming into or leaving the country. Allowing government officials to read mail going out of or coming into the country at whim is characteristic of totalitarian regimes, not free societies.

2001 Ron Paul 86:5
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject this package of unconstitutional expansions of the financial police state, most of which will prove ultimately ineffective in the war against terrorism. Instead, I hope this Committee will work to fashion a measure aimed at giving the government a greater ability to locate and seize the assets of terrorists while respecting the constitutional rights of American citizens.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 87

Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]

October 12, 2001
Statement on Counter-Terrorism Proposals and Civil Liberties


2001 Ron Paul 87:1
   Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the shocking attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon have reminded us all that the primary responsibility of the federal government is to protect the security and liberty of our nation’s citizens. Therefore, we must do what we can to enhance the ability of law enforcement to prevent future terrorist attacks. For example, the federal government can allow enhanced data-sharing among federal agencies that deal with terrorism. The federal government should also forbid residents of countries which sponsor terrorism from receiving student visas as well as prohibit residents of terrorist countries from participating in programs which provide special privileges to immigrants. In fact, I have introduced my own anti-terrorism legislation, the Securing American Families Effectively (SAFE) Act, which strengthens the ability of law enforcement to track down and prosecute suspected terrorists as well as keep potential terrorists out of the country.

2001 Ron Paul 87:2
   There is also much the federal government can do under current existing law to fight terrorism. The combined annual budgets of the FBI, the CIA and various other security programs amount to over $30 billion. Perhaps Congress should consider redirecting some of the money spent by intelligence agencies on matters of lower priority to counter-terrorism efforts. Since the tragic attacks, our officials have located and arrested hundreds of suspects, frozen millions of dollars of assets, and received authority to launch a military attack against the ring leaders in Afghanistan. It seems the war against terrorism has so far been carried our satisfactorily under current law.

2001 Ron Paul 87:3
   Still, there are areas where our laws could be strengthened with no loss of liberties, and I am pleased that HR 3108 appears to contain many common sense provisions designed to strengthen the government’s ability to prevent terrorist attacks while preserving constitutional liberty.

2001 Ron Paul 87:4
   However, other provisions of this bill represent a major infringement of the American people’s constitutional rights. I am afraid that if these provisions are signed into law, the American people will lose large parts of their liberty--maybe not today but over time, as agencies grow more comfortable exercising their new powers. My concerns are exacerbated by the fact that HR 3108 lacks many of the protections of civil liberties which the House Judiciary Committee worked to put into the version of the bill they considered. In fact, the process under which we are asked to consider this bill makes it nearly impossible to fulfill our constitutional responsibility to carefully consider measures which dramatically increase government’s power.

2001 Ron Paul 87:5
   Many of the most constitutionally offensive measures in this bill are not limited to terrorist offenses, but apply to any criminal activity. In fact, some of the new police powers granted the government could be applied even to those engaging in peaceful protest against government policies. The bill as written defines terrorism as acts intended “to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.” Under this broad definition, should a scuffle occur at an otherwise peaceful pro-life demonstration the sponsoring organization may become the target of a federal investigation for terrorism. We have seen abuses of law enforcement authority in the past to harass individuals or organizations with unpopular political views. I hope my colleagues consider that they may be handing a future administration tools to investigate pro-life or gun rights organizations on the grounds that fringe members of their movements advocate violence. It is an unfortunate reality that almost every political movement today, from gun rights to environmentalism, has a violent fringe.

2001 Ron Paul 87:6
   I am very disturbed by the provisions centralizing the power to issue writs of habeas corpus to federal courts located in the District of Columbia. Habeas corpus is one of the most powerful checks on government and anything which burdens the ability to exercise this right expands the potential for government abuses of liberty. I ask my colleagues to remember that in the centuries of experience with habeas corpus there is no evidence that it interferes with legitimate interests of law enforcement. HR 3108 also codifies one of the most common abuses of civil liberties in recent years by expanding the government’s ability to seize property from citizens who have not yet been convicted of a crime under the circumvention of the Bill of Rights known as “asset forfeiture.”

2001 Ron Paul 87:7
   Among other disturbing proposals, H.R. 3108 grants the President the authority to seize all the property of any foreign national that the President determines is involved in hostilities against the United States. Giving the executive branch discretionary authority to seize private property without due process violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the fifth amendment to the Constitution. Furthermore, given that one of the (unspoken) reasons behind the shameful internment of Americans of Japanese ancestry in the 1940s was to reward favored interests with property forcibly taken from innocent landowners, how confident are we that future, less scrupulous executives will refrain from using this power to reward political allies with the property of alleged “hostile nationals?”

2001 Ron Paul 87:8
   H.R. 3108 waters down the fourth amendment by expanding the federal governments ability to use wiretaps free of judicial oversight. The fourth amendment’s requirement of a search warrant and probable cause strikes a balance between effective law enforcement and civil liberties. Any attempt to water down the warrant requirement threatens innocent citizens with a loss of their liberty. This is particularly true of provisions which allow for nationwide issuance of search warrants, as these severely restrict judicial oversight of government wiretaps and searches.

2001 Ron Paul 87:9
   Many of the questionable provisions in this bill, such as the expanded pen register authority and the expanded use of roving wiretaps, are items for which law enforcement has been lobbying for years. The utility of these items in catching terrorists is questionable to say the least. After all, terrorists have demonstrated they are smart enough not to reveal information about their plans when they know federal agents could be listening.

2001 Ron Paul 87:10
   This legislation is also objectionable because it adopts a lower standard than probable cause for receiving e-mails and Internet communications. While it is claimed that this is the same standard used to discover numbers dialed by a phone, it is also true that even the headings on e-mails or the names of web sites one visits can reveal greater amounts of personal information than can a mere telephone number. I wonder how my colleagues would feel if all of their e-mail headings and the names of the web sites they visited were available to law enforcement upon a showing of mere “relevance.” I also doubt the relevance of this provision to terrorist investigation, as it seems unlikely that terrorists would rely on e-mail or the Internet to communicate among themselves.

2001 Ron Paul 87:11
   Some defenders of individuals rights may point to the provisions establishing new penalties for violations of individual rights and the provisions “sunsetting” some of the government’s new powers as justifying support for this bill. Those who feel that simply increasing the penalties for “unauthorized” disclosure of information collected under this act should consider that existing laws did not stop the ineffectiveness of such laws in preventing the abuse of personal information collected by the IRS or FBI by administrations of both parties. As for “sunsetting,” I would ask if these provisions are critical tools in the fight against terrorism, why remove the government’s ability to use them after five years? Conversely, if these provisions violate American’s constitutional rights why is it acceptable to suspend the Constitution at all?

2001 Ron Paul 87:12
   As Jeffrey Rosen pointed out in the New Republic, this proposal makes even the most innocuous form of computer hacking a federal offense but does not even grant special emergency powers to perform searches in cases where police have reason to believe that a terrorist attack would be imminent. Thus, if this bill were law on April 24, 1995 and the FBI had information that someone in a yellow Ryder Truck was going to be involved in a terrorist attack, the government could not conduct an emergency search of all yellow Ryder Trucks in Oklahoma City. This failure to address so obvious a need in the anti-terrorism effort suggests this bill is a more hastily cobbled together wish list by the federal bureaucracy than a serious attempt to grant law enforcement the actual tools needed to combat terrorism.

2001 Ron Paul 87:13
   H.R. 3108 may actually reduce security as private cities may not take necessary measures to protect their safety because “the government is taking care of our security.” In a free market, private owners have great incentives to protect their private property and the lives of their customers. That is why industrial plants in the United States enjoy reasonably good security. They are protected not by the local police but by owners putting up barbed wire fences, hiring guards with guns, and requiring identification cards to enter. All this, without any violation of anyone’s civil liberties. In a free society private owners have a right, if not an obligation, to “profile” if it enhances security.

2001 Ron Paul 87:14
   The reason this provision did not work in the case of the airlines is because the airlines followed federal regulations and assumed they were sufficient. This is often the case when the government assumes new powers or imposes new regulations. Therefore, in the future, once the horror of the events of September 11 fade from memory, people will relax their guard, figuring that the federal government is using its new powers to protect them and thus they do not need to invest their own time or money in security measures.

2001 Ron Paul 87:15
   In conclusion, I reiterate my commitment to effective ways of enhancing the government’s powers to combat terrorism. However, H.R. 3108 sacrifices too many of our constitutional liberties and will not even effectively address the terrorist menace. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and instead support reasonable common-sense measures that are aimed at terrorism such as those contained in my SAFE Act.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 88

Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]

October 17, 2001
Statement on HR 3004


2001 Ron Paul 88:1
Mr. Speaker, the so-called Financial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001 (HR 3004) has more to do with the ongoing war against financial privacy than with the war against international terrorism. Of course, the federal government should take all necessary and constitutional actions to enhance the ability of law enforcement to locate and seize funds flowing to known terrorists and their front groups. For example, America should consider signing more mutual legal assistance treaties with its allies so we can more easily locate the assets of terrorists and other criminals.

2001 Ron Paul 88:2
Unfortunately, instead of focusing on reasonable measures aimed at enhancing the ability to reach assets used to support terrorism, HR 3004 is a laundry list of dangerous, unconstitutional power grabs. Many of these proposals have already been rejected by the American people when presented as necessary to “fight the war on drugs” or “crack down on white-collar crime.” For example, this bill facilitates efforts to bully low tax jurisdictions into raising taxes to levels approved by the tax-loving, global bureaucrats of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development!

2001 Ron Paul 88:3
Among the most obnoxious provisions of this bill: codifying the unconstitutional authority of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCeN) to snoop into the private financial dealings of American citizens; and expanding the “suspicious activity reports” mandate to broker-dealers, even though history has shown that these reports fail to significantly aid in apprehending criminals. These measures will actually distract from the battle against terrorism by encouraging law enforcement authorities to waste time snooping through the financial records of innocent Americans who simply happen to demonstrate an “unusual” pattern in their financial dealings.

2001 Ron Paul 88:4
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this package of unconstitutional expansions of the financial police state, most of which will prove ultimately ineffective in the war against terrorism. Instead, I hope Congress will work to fashion a measure aimed at giving the government a greater ability to locate and seize the assets of terrorists while respecting the constitutional rights of American citizens.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 89

Ron Paul’s Congressional website October 17, 2001
Statement on International Relations committee hearing featuring Secretary of State Colin Powell


2001 Ron Paul 89:1
MR PAUL: Mr. Chairman: It is an honor to have Secretary of State Colin Powell here to brief the committee on the progress of the war on terrorism. I strongly support the administration’s efforts to seek out and punish those who attacked the United States on 9/11 and those who supported and assisted them. I fully recognize the difficult challenges inherent in this effort, and that no real solution will be easily attained. With that said, I must admit that several of the secretary’s points have troubled me.

2001 Ron Paul 89:2
Secretary Powell has stated that “our fight does not end with the al-Qaida and the Taliban regime,” going on to quote President Bush, that “our war begins with the al-Qaida, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated.” Mr. Chairman, that is a tall order. Does this Administration really mean to undertake eradicating terrorism from every nation before we can declare victory? Every war must have an exit-strategy, a point where victory can be declared and our troops can be brought home. I fear that the objectives as defined are sufficiently vague as to prevent us from doing so in the foreseeable future. In fact, the secretary’s statement suggests that once our immediate objectives -- ridding the world of the al-Qaida network and the Taliban government- are met, we intend to actually widen the war.

2001 Ron Paul 89:3
Because I am concerned about winning this war at the least possible cost in American life and treasure, I have introduced legislation to authorize the president to issue letters of marque and reprisal. This legislation would give the president a powerful tool to root out Osama bin Laden and his supporters. The legislation would allow the United States to narrow the retaliation to only the guilty parties, thus providing a political as well as military victory. It would also address the increasingly complex problem of asymmetrical warfare using a solution that had been employed successfully in the past against a similar threat. I am disappointed to see that this legislation has not been considered by Congress, and that the Administration has not yet expressed its support for this bill.

2001 Ron Paul 89:4
I am also concerned about the emerging nation-building component of our activities in Afghanistan. If, as it appears, our military action in Afghanistan is to benefit the Northern Alliance opposition group, what assurances do we have that this group will not be every bit as unpopular as the Taliban, as press reporting suggests? Not long ago, it was the Taliban itself that was the recipient of U.S. military and financial support. Who is to say that Afghanistan might not benefit from a government managed by several tribal factions with a weak central government and little outside interference either by the U. S. or the UN? Some have suggested that a western-financed pipeline through Afghanistan can only take place with a strong and “stable” government in place- and that it is up to the U.S. government to ensure the success of what is in fact a private financial venture. Whatever the case, my colleagues in Congress and those in the administration openly talk of a years-long post-war UN presence in Afghanistan to “build institutions.”

2001 Ron Paul 89:5
The problem with nation-building is simple: it does not work. From Bosnia to Kosovo to Somalia and points beyond, have we seen even one successful example of UN nation-building? Foreign nation-building results in repressive, unpopular regimes that are seen by the population as Western creations. As such they are inherently unstable, which itself leads to all the more oppression. Indeed, many of our problems in the Middle East began when the CIA placed the Shah in charge of Iran. It took 25 years before he was overthrown, but when it finally happened the full extent of Iranian resentment toward U.S. nation-building exploded into the headlines with the kidnaping of more than 50 American citizens. It is a lesson we seem to have forgotten.

2001 Ron Paul 89:6
Mr. Chairman, many Arabs believe we “saved” Saddam Hussein in the Gulf War in order to justify our continued presence there- to, in turn, keep Saudi Arabia and Kuwait “safe.” In a recent interview, President George Bush’s father, President Bush, told CBS that he did not regret not going after Saddam Hussein because “what would have happened if we’d done that is we would have been alone. We would have been an occupying power in an Arab land...And we would have seen something much worse than we have now, because we would have had the enmity of all the gulf.” These are thoughtful words from the former president, however it appears to many that this is exactly what we have done. And the result has been as President Bush warned: we have earned the enmity of many on the Arab streets, who regard our military presence on what they consider sacred ground in Saudi Arabia as an open wound in the Middle East. Those who say our policies have somehow justified the attacks against us are terribly mistaken. It is a fact, however, that our policies have needlessly alienated millions in the Arab world.

2001 Ron Paul 89:7
Our interventionist policies have not only made enemies around the globe. Our own troops are spread so thin defending foreign peoples and foreign lands, that when a crisis hit our own shores we were forced to bring in foreign AWACs surveillance planes to defend our country. That, more than anything else, underscores the folly of our interventionist foreign policy: our own defense establishment is unable to protect our citizens because it is too busy defending foreign lands. We must focus our efforts on capturing and punishing those who committed this outrageous act against the United States. Then, if we are to be truly safe, we need a national debate on our foreign policy; we need to look at interventionism and the enmity it produces. We need to return to the sadly long-lost policy of peaceful commerce and normal relations with all nations and entangling alliances with none.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 90

Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]

October 25, 2001
A SAD STATE OF AFFAIRS --
(House of Representatives - October 25, 2001)

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker’s announced policy of January 3, 2001, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL ) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.

2001 Ron Paul 90:1
   Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, it breaks my heart to see what is happening to our country today. All Americans have grieved over the losses suffered on 9-11. The grief for those who lost loved ones is beyond description. These losses have precipitated unprecedented giving to help the families left behind. Unless one has suffered directly, it is difficult to fully comprehend the tragic and sudden loss of close friends and family.

2001 Ron Paul 90:2
   There are some who, in addition to feeling this huge sense of personal loss that all Americans share, grieve for other serious and profound reasons. For instance, many thoughtful Americans are convinced that the tragedy of 9-11 was preventable. Since that might be true, this provokes a tragic sadness, especially for those who understand how the events of 9-11 needlessly came about.

2001 Ron Paul 90:3
   The reason why this is so sad and should be thoroughly understood is that so often the ones who suggest how our policies may have played a role in evoking the attacks are demonized as unpatriotic and are harshly dismissed as belonging to the “blame America crowd.”

2001 Ron Paul 90:4
   Those who are so anxious to condemn do not realize that the policies of the American Government, designed by politicians and bureaucrats, are not always synonymous with American ideals. The country is not the same as the Government. The spirit of America is hardly something for which the Government holds a monopoly on defining.

2001 Ron Paul 90:5
   America’s heart and soul is more embedded in our love of liberty, self-reliance, and tolerance than by our foreign policy, driven by powerful special interests with little regard for the Constitution.

2001 Ron Paul 90:6
   Throughout our early history, a policy of minding our own business and avoiding entangling alliances, as George Washington admonished, was more representative of American ideals than those we have pursued for the past 50 years. Some sincere Americans have suggested that our modern interventionist policy set the stage for the attacks of 9-11, and for this, they are condemned as being unpatriotic.

2001 Ron Paul 90:7
   This compounds the sadness and heartbreak that some Americans are feeling. Threats, loss of jobs, censorship and public mockery have been heaped upon those who have made this suggestion. Freedom of expression and thought, the bedrock of the American Republic, is now too often condemned as something viciously evil. This should cause freedom-loving Americans to weep from broken hearts.

2001 Ron Paul 90:8
   Another reason the hearts of many Americans are heavy with grief is because they dread what might come from the many new and broad powers the Government is demanding in the name of providing security. Daniel Webster once warned, “Human beings will generally exercise power when they can get it, and they will exercise it most undoubtedly in popular governments under pretense of public safety.”

2001 Ron Paul 90:9
   A strong case can be made that the Government regulations, along with a lack of private property responsibility, contributed to this tragedy, but what is proposed? More regulations and even a takeover of all airport security by the Government.

2001 Ron Paul 90:10
   We are not even considering restoring the rights of pilots to carry weapons for self-defense as one of the solutions. Even though pilots once carried guns to protect the mail and armored truck drivers can still carry guns to protect money, protecting passengers with guns is prohibited on commercial flights. The U.S. Air Force can shoot down a wayward aircraft, but a pilot cannot shoot down an armed terrorist.

2001 Ron Paul 90:11
   It will be difficult to solve our problems with this attitude toward airport security.

2001 Ron Paul 90:12
   Civil liberties are sure to suffer under today’s tensions, with the people demanding that the politicians do something, anything. Should those who object to the rapid move toward massively increasing the size and scope of the Federal Government in local law enforcement be considered un-American because they defend the principles they truly understand to be American?

2001 Ron Paul 90:13
   Any talk of spending restraint is now a thing of the past. We had one anthrax death, and we are asked the next day for a billion dollar appropriations to deal with the problem.

2001 Ron Paul 90:14
   And a lot more will be appropriated before it is all over. What about the 40,000 deaths per year on government-run highways and the needless deaths associated with the foolish and misdirected war on drugs? Why should anyone be criticized for trying to put this in proper perspective?

2001 Ron Paul 90:15
   Countless groups are now descending on Washington with their hands out. As usual with any disaster, this disaster is being parlayed into an “opportunity,” as one former Member of the Congress phrased it. The economic crisis that started a long time before 9-11 has contributed to the number of those now demanding Federal handouts.

2001 Ron Paul 90:16
   But there is one business that we need not fear will go into a slump: The Washington lobbying industry. Last year, it spent $1.6 billion lobbying Congress. This year, it will spend much more. The bigger the disaster, the greater the number of vultures who descend on Washington. When I see this happening, it breaks my heart, because liberty and America suffers, and it is all done in the name of justice, equality and security.

2001 Ron Paul 90:17
   Emotions are running high in our Nation’s capital, and in politics emotions are more powerful tools than reason and the rule of law. The use of force to serve special interests and help anyone who claims to be in need unfortunately is an acceptable practice. Obeying the restraints placed in the Constitution is seen as archaic and insensitive to the people’s needs. But far too often the claims of those responding to human tragedies are nothing more than politics as usual. While one group supports bailing out the corporations, another wants to prop up wages and jobs. One group supports federalizing tens of thousands of airport jobs to increase union membership, while another says we should subsidize corporate interests and keep the jobs private.

2001 Ron Paul 90:18
   Envy and power drive both sides- the special interests of big business and the demands of the welfare/redistribution crowd.

2001 Ron Paul 90:19
   There are many other reasons to be sad about all that is going on today. In spite of the fact that our government has done such a poor job protecting us and has no intention of changing the policy of meddling overseas (which has contributed to our problems), the people are more dependent on and more satisfied with government than they have been in decades- while demanding even more government control and intrusion in their daily lives.

2001 Ron Paul 90:20
   It is aggravating to listen to the daily rhetoric regarding liberty and the Constitution while the same people participate in their destruction. It is aggravating to see all the money spent and civil liberties abused while the pilot’s right to carry guns in self-defense is denied. It is even more aggravating to see our government rely on foreign AWACS aircraft to provide security to U.S. territory. A $325 billion military budget, and we cannot even patrol our own shores. This, of course, is just another sign of how little we are concerned about U.S. sovereignty and how willing we are to submit to international government.

2001 Ron Paul 90:21
   It is certainly disappointing that our congressional leaders and administration have not considered using letters of marque and reprisal as an additional tool to root out those who participated in the 9-11 attacks. The difficulty in finding bin Laden and his supporters make marque and reprisal quite an appropriate option in this effort.

2001 Ron Paul 90:22
   We already hear of plans to install and guarantee the next government of Afghanistan. Getting bin Laden and his gang is one thing, nation-building is quite another. Some of our trouble in the Middle East started years ago when our CIA put the Shah in charge of Iran.

2001 Ron Paul 90:23
   It was 25 years before he was overthrown, and the hatred toward America continues to this day. Those who suffer from our intervention have long memories.

2001 Ron Paul 90:24
   Our support for the less-than-ethical government of Saudi Arabia, with our troops occupying what most Muslims consider sacred land, is hardly the way to bring peace to the Middle East. A policy driven by our fear of losing control over the oil fields in the Middle East has not contributed to American Security. Too many powerful special interests drive our policy in this region, and this does little to help us preserve security for Americans here at home.

2001 Ron Paul 90:25
   As we bomb Afghanistan, we continue to send foreign aid to feed the people suffering from the war. I strongly doubt if our food will get them to love us or even be our friends. There is no evidence that the starving receive the food. And too often it is revealed that it ends up in the hands of the military forces we are fighting. While we bomb Afghanistan and feed the victims, we lay plans to install the next government and pay for rebuilding the country. Quite possibly, the new faction we support will be no more trustworthy than the Taliban, to which we sent plenty of aid and weapons in the 1980s. That intervention in Afghanistan did not do much to win reliable friends in the region.

2001 Ron Paul 90:26
   It just may be that Afghanistan would be best managed by several tribal factions, without any strong centralized government and without any outside influence, certainly not by the U.N. But then again, some claim that the proposed Western financed pipeline through northern Afghanistan can only happen after a strong centralized pro-Western government is put in place.

2001 Ron Paul 90:27
   It is both annoying and sad that there is so little interest by anyone in Washington in free market solutions to the world’s economic problems. True private ownership of property without regulation and abusive taxation is a thing of the past. Few understand how the Federal Reserve monetary policy causes the booms and the busts that, when severe, as now, only serve to enhance the prestige of the money managers- while most politicians and Wall Streeters demand that the Fed inflate the currency at an even more rapid rate. Today’s conditions give license to the politicians to spend our way out of recession, they hope.

2001 Ron Paul 90:28
   One thing for sure, as a consequence of the recession and the 9-11 tragedy, is that big spending and deficits are alive and well. Even though we are currently adding to the national debt at the rate of $150 billion per year, most politicians still claim that Social Security is sound and has not been touched. At least the majority of American citizens are now wise enough to know better.

2001 Ron Paul 90:29
   There is plenty of reason to feel heartbroken over current events. It is certainly not a surprise or illogical for people working in Washington to overreact to the anthrax scare. The feelings of despondency are understandable, whether due to the loss of lives, loss of property, fear of the next attack, or concerned at our own frantic efforts to enhance security will achieve little. But broken or sad hearts need not break our spirits nor impede our reasoning.

2001 Ron Paul 90:30
   I happen to believe that winning this battle against the current crop of terrorists is quite achievable in a relatively short period of time. But winning the war over the long term is a much different situation. This cannot be achieved without a better understanding of the enemy and the geopolitics that drive this war. Even if relative peace is achieved with a battle victory over Osama bin Laden and his followers, other terrorists will appear from all corners of the world for an indefinite period of time if we do not understand the issues.

2001 Ron Paul 90:31
   Changing our current foreign policy with wise diplomacy is crucial if we are to really win the war and restore the sense of tranquility to our land that now seems to be so far in our distant past. Our widespread efforts at peacekeeping and nation-building will only contribute to the resentment that drives the fanatics. Devotion to internationalism and a one-world government only exacerbates regional rivalries. Denying that our economic interests drive so much of what the West does against the East impedes any efforts to diffuse the world crisis that already has a number of Americans demanding nuclear bombs to be used to achieve victory. A victory based on this type of aggressive policy would be a hollow victory indeed.

2001 Ron Paul 90:32
   I would like to draw analogy between the drug war and the war against terrorism. In the last 30 years, we have spent hundreds of billions of dollars on a failed war on drugs. This war has been used as an excuse to attack our liberties and privacy. It has been an excuse to undermine our financial privacy while promoting illegal searches and seizures with many innocent people losing their lives and property. Seizure and forfeiture have harmed a great number of innocent American citizens.

2001 Ron Paul 90:33
   Another result of this unwise war has been the corruption of many law enforcement officials. It is

2001 Ron Paul 90:34
   well known that with the profit incentives so high, we are not even able to keep drugs out of our armed prisons. Making our whole society a prison would not bring success to this floundering war on drugs. Sinister motives of the profiteers and gangsters, along with prevailing public ignorance, keeps this futile war going.

2001 Ron Paul 90:35
   Illegal and artificially high priced drugs drive the underworld to produce, sell and profit from this social depravity. Failure to recognize that drug addiction, like alcoholism, is a disease rather than a crime, encourage the drug warriors in efforts that have not and will not ever work. We learned the hard way about alcohol prohibition and crime, but we have not yet seriously considered it in the ongoing drug war.

2001 Ron Paul 90:36
   Corruption associated with the drug dealers is endless. It has involved our police, the military, border guards and the judicial system. It has affected government policy and our own CIA. The artificially high profits from illegal drugs provide easy access to funds for rogue groups involved in fighting civil wars throughout the world.

2001 Ron Paul 90:37
   Ironically, opium sales by the Taliban and artificially high prices helped to finance their war against us. In spite of the incongruity, we rewarded the Taliban this spring with a huge cash payment for promises to eradicate some poppy fields. Sure!

2001 Ron Paul 90:38
   For the first 140 years of our history, we had essentially no Federal war on drugs, and far fewer problems with drug addiction and related crimes was a consequence. In the past 30 years, even with the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on the drug war, little good has come of it. We have vacillated from efforts to stop the drugs at the source to severely punishing the users, yet nothing has improved.

2001 Ron Paul 90:39
   This war has been behind most big government police powers of the last 30 years, with continual undermining of our civil liberties and personal privacy. Those who support the IRS’s efforts to collect maximum revenues and root out the underground economy, have welcomed this intrusion, even if the drug underworld grows in size and influence.

2001 Ron Paul 90:40
   The drug war encourages violence. Government violence against nonviolent users is notorious and has led to the unnecessary prison overpopulation. Innocent taxpayers are forced to pay for all this so-called justice. Our drug eradication project (using spraying) around the world, from Colombia to Afghanistan, breeds resentment because normal crops and good land can be severely damaged. Local populations perceive that the efforts and the profiteering remain somehow beneficial to our own agenda in these various countries.

2001 Ron Paul 90:41
   Drug dealers and drug gangs are a consequence of our unwise approach to drug usage. Many innocent people are killed in the crossfire by the mob justice that this war generates. But just because the laws are unwise and have had unintended consequences, no excuses can ever be made for the monster who would kill and maim innocent people for illegal profits. But as the violent killers are removed from society, reconsideration of our drug laws ought to occur.

2001 Ron Paul 90:42
   A similar approach should be applied to our war on those who would terrorize and kill our people for political reasons. If the drug laws, and the policies that incite hatred against the United States, are not clearly understood and, therefore, never changed, the number of drug criminals and terrorists will only multiply.

2001 Ron Paul 90:43
   Although this unwise war on drugs generates criminal violence, the violence can never be tolerated. Even if repeal of drug laws would decrease the motivation for drug dealer violence, this can never be an excuse to condone the violence. In the short term, those who kill must be punished, imprisoned, or killed. Long term though, a better understanding of how drug laws have unintended consequences is required if we want to significantly improve the situation and actually reduce the great harms drugs are doing to our society.

2001 Ron Paul 90:44
   The same is true in dealing with those who so passionately hate us that suicide becomes a just and noble cause in their effort to kill and terrorize us. Without some understanding of what has brought us to the brink of a worldwide conflict, and reconsideration of our policies around the globe, we will be no more successful in making our land secure and free than the drug war has been in removing drug violence from our cities and towns.

2001 Ron Paul 90:45
   Without an understanding of why terrorism is directed towards the United States, we may well build a prison for ourselves with something called homeland security while doing nothing to combat the root causes of terrorism. Let us hope we figure this out soon.

2001 Ron Paul 90:46
   We have promoted a foolish and very expensive domestic war on drugs for more than 30 years. It has done no good whatsoever. I doubt our Republic can survive a 30-year period of trying to figure out how to win this guerilla war against terrorism. Hopefully, we will all seek the answers in these trying times with an open mind and understanding.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 91

Ron Paul’s Congressional website October 31, 2001
Statement on Funding for the Export- Import Bank


2001 Ron Paul 91:1
Mr. Chairman, the Financial Services committee should reject HR 2871, the Export-Import Reauthorization Act, for economic, constitutional, and moral reasons. The Export-Import Bank (Eximbank) takes money from American taxpayers to subsidize exports by American companies. Of course, it is not just any company that receives Eximbank support- rather, the majority of Eximbank funding benefits large, politically powerful corporations.

2001 Ron Paul 91:2
Proponents of continued American support for the Eximbank claim that the bank “creates jobs” and promotes economic growth. However, this claim rests on a version of what the great economist Henry Hazlitt called “the broken window” fallacy. When a hoodlum throws a rock through a store window, it can be said he has contributed to the economy, as the store owner will have to spend money having the window fixed. The benefits to those who repaired the window are visible for all to see, therefore it is easy to see the broken window as economically beneficial. However, the “benefits” of the broken window are revealed as an illusion when one takes into account what is not seen: the businesses and workers who would have benefited had the store owner not spent money repairing a window, but rather had been free to spend his money as he chose.

2001 Ron Paul 91:3
Similarly, the beneficiaries of Eximbank are visible to all; what is not seen is the products that would have been built, the businesses that would have been started, and the jobs that would have been created had the funds used for the Eximbank been left in the hands of consumers.

2001 Ron Paul 91:4
Some supporters of this bill equate supporting Eximbank with supporting “free trade,” and claim that opponents are “protectionists” and “isolationists.” Mr. Chairman, this is nonsense, Eximbank has nothing to do with free trade. True free trade involves the peaceful, voluntary exchange of goods across borders, not forcing taxpayers to subsidize the exports of politically powerful companies. Eximbank is not free trade, but rather managed trade, where winners and losers are determined by how well they please government bureaucrats instead of how well they please consumers.

2001 Ron Paul 91:5
Expenditures on the Eximbank distort the market by diverting resources from the private sector, where they could be put to the use most highly valued by individual consumers, into the public sector, where their use will be determined by bureaucrats and politically powerful special interests. By distorting the market and preventing resources from achieving their highest valued use, Eximbank actually costs Americans jobs and reduces America’s standard of living!

2001 Ron Paul 91:6
The case for Eximbank is further weakened considering that small businesses receive only 12-15% of Eximbank funds; the vast majority of Eximbank funds benefit large corporations. These corporations can certainly afford to support their own exports without relying on the American taxpayer. It is not only bad economics to force working Americans, small business, and entrepreneurs to subsidize the exports of the large corporations: it is also immoral. In fact, this redistribution from the poor and middle class to the wealthy is the most indefensible aspect of the welfare state, yet it is the most accepted form of welfare. Mr. Chairman, it never ceases to amaze me how members who criticize welfare for the poor on moral and constitutional grounds see no problem with the even more objectionable programs that provide welfare for the rich.

2001 Ron Paul 91:7
The moral case against Eximbank is strengthened when one considers that the government which benefits most from Eximbank funds is communist China. In fact, Eximbank actually underwrites joint ventures with firms owned by the Chinese government! Whatever one’s position on trading with China, I would hope all of us would agree that it is wrong to force taxpayers to subsidize in any way this brutal regime. Unfortunately, China is not an isolated case: Colombia, Yemen, and even the Sudan benefit from taxpayer-subsidized trade courtesy of the Eximbank!

2001 Ron Paul 91:8
There is simply no constitutional justification for the expenditure of funds on programs such as Eximbank. In fact, the drafters of the Constitution would be horrified to think the federal government was taking hard-earned money from the American people in order to benefit the politically powerful.

2001 Ron Paul 91:9
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, Eximbank distorts the market by allowing government bureaucrats to make economic decisions in place of individual consumers. Eximbank also violates basic principles of morality, by forcing working Americans to subsidize the trade of wealthy companies that could easily afford to subsidize their own trade, as well as subsidizing brutal governments like Red China and the Sudan. Eximbank also violates the limitations on congressional power to take the property of individual citizens and use them to benefit powerful special interests. It is for these reasons that I urge my colleagues to reject HR 2871, the Export-Import Bank Reauthorization Act.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 92

Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]

Foolishness Of Fiat
31 October 2001

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

2001 Ron Paul 92:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the world’s politicians, special interests, government bureaucrats, and financiers all love fiat money because they all benefit from it. But freedom-loving, hardworking, ethical and thrifty individuals suffer.

2001 Ron Paul 92:2
Fiat money is paper money that gets its value from a government edict and compulsory legal tender laws. Honest money, something of real value, like a precious metal, gets its value from the market and through voluntary exchange. The world today is awash in fiat money like never before, and we face a financial crisis like never before, conceived many decades before the 9–11 crisis hit.

2001 Ron Paul 92:3
Fiat money works as long as trust in the currency lasts. But eventually trust is always withdrawn from paper money. Fiat money evolves out of sound money, which always originates in the market, but paper money inevitably fails no matter how hard the beneficiaries try to perpetuate the fraud. We are now witnessing the early stages of the demise of a worldwide financial system built on the fiction that wealth can come out of a printing press or a computer at our central banks.

2001 Ron Paul 92:4
Japan, failing to understand this, has tried for more than a decade to stimulate her economy and boost her stock market by printing money and increasing government spending, and it has not worked. Argentina, even with the hopes placed in its currency board, is nevertheless facing default on its foreign debt and a crisis in confidence. More bailouts from the IMF and U.S. dollar may temper the crisis for a while, but ultimately it will only hurt the dollar and the U.S. taxpayers.

2001 Ron Paul 92:5
We cannot continually bail out others with expansion of the dollar money supply, as we have with the crisis in Turkey, Argentina, and the countries of Southeast Asia. This policy has its limits, and confidence in the dollar is the determining factor. Even though, up until now, confidence has reigned, encouraged by our political and economic strength, this era is coming to an end. Our homeland has been attacked, our enemies are not easily subdued, our commitments abroad are unsustainable, and our economy is fast slipping into chaos.

2001 Ron Paul 92:6
Printing money is not an answer, yet that is all that is offered. The clamor for low-interest rates by all those who benefit from fiat money has prompted the Fed to create new money out of thin air like never before. Driving the Fed funds rate down from 6.5 percent to 2.5 percent, a level below the price inflation rate, represents nothing short of panic and has done nothing to recharge the economy. But as one would expect, confidence in the dollar is waning.

2001 Ron Paul 92:7
I am sure, due to the crisis, a faith in fiat and a failure to understand the business cycle, the Fed will continue with the only thing it knows to do: credit creation and manipulation of interest rates.

2001 Ron Paul 92:8
This policy reflects the central bank’s complete ignorance as to the cause of the problem: Credit creation and manipulation of interest rates.

2001 Ron Paul 92:9
Since the Federal Reserve first panicked in early January, it has created $830 billion of fiat money out of thin air. The country is no richer. The economy is weaker. The stock market has continued downward, and unemployment has skyrocketed. Returning to deficit spending, as we already have, will not help us any more than it helped Japan, which continues to sink into economic morass.

2001 Ron Paul 92:10
Nothing can correct the problems we face if we do not give up on the foolishness of fiat.

2001 Ron Paul 92:11
Mr. Speaker, a dollar crisis is quickly approaching. We should prepare ourselves.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 93

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Airport Security Federalization Act
1 November 2001

2001 Ron Paul 93:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I must oppose H.R. 3150, the Airport Security Federalization Act. As the short title of the bill suggests, this legislation is a bureaucracy-laden approach. While the approach of this legislation is marginally preferable to the complete federalization of the workforce being offered by the House Minority, the bill is otherwise strikingly similar to the Senate’s approach. Regrettably, I think portions of the manager’s amendment actually make the legislation worse. For example, the deputization of private security forces is clearly a step in the wrong direction.

2001 Ron Paul 93:2
I have offered an alternate bill which would accomplish security goals without expanding the federal government. My bill would not create new federal spending nor new federal bureaucracies.

2001 Ron Paul 93:3
Mr. Chairman, the bill before us, while a slight improvement over the Senate version, is still a step in the wrong direction. By authorizing a new airline ticket tax, by creating new federal mandates and bureaucracies, and by subsidizing the airline industry to the tune of another $3 billion, this bill creates a costly expense that the American people cannot afford. We appropriated $40 billion in the wake of September 11, and I supported that measure as legitimate compensation for individuals and companies harmed by the failure of the federal government to provide national defense. Soon thereafter we made another $15 billion available to the airlines, and now we have a House bill that further victimizes the taxpayers by making them pay for another $3 billion worth of subsidies to the airline industry.

2001 Ron Paul 93:4
We need to stop this spending spree. I oppose this new taxation and spending, as well as the steps taken in this bill, the substitute, and unfortunately in the manager’s amendment as well. Each of these items moves further down the road of nationalizing air travel in this country and, as such, must be rejected.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 94

Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]

November 1, 2001
Statement on Air Safety Legislation


2001 Ron Paul 94:1
Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Securing America For Effective Transportation, or Safety, Act. This legislation is in stark contrast to the bureaucracy laden approaches of other bills. My bill would not create new federal spending nor new federal bureaucracies. The actions taken by this legislation fit into a few broad categories. First, it would give airline pilots the right to defend themselves, their aircraft, and their passengers by permitting them to bear arms. Second, it would clearly define the act of skyjacking as an act of piracy and provide appropriate punishment for any such act, up to and including capital punishment. Next, this legislation would provide appropriate strengthening of regulation of airline security in a fashion consistent with our constitutional framework. This would be done by requiring, for example, that law enforcement personnel be posted at screening locations rather than simply in the confines of an airport, and by requiring the production of passenger manifests for international flights. Finally, this bill would give airlines a strong incentive to improve passenger security, not by giving them taxpayer funded grants nor by creating new bureaucracies tasked with making administrative law, but rather by providing a tax incentive to airlines and other companies performing screening and security duties.

2001 Ron Paul 94:2
One example of my approach is how it treats employees. Rather than the Senate approach federalizing the work force or the House approach of subsidizing private security firms via federal contracts, my bill raises the take-home pay of airline security personnel by exempting their pay from federal income taxes.

2001 Ron Paul 94:3
Mr. Speaker, the House bill, while a slight improvement over the Senate version, is still a step in the wrong direction. By authorizing a new airline ticket tax, by creating new federal mandates and bureaucracies, and by subsidizing the airline industry to the tune of another $3 billion dollars, this bill creates a costly expense that the American people cannot afford. We appropriated $40 billion dollars in the wake of September 11, and I supported that measure as legitimate compensation for individuals and companies harmed by the failure of the federal government to provide national defense. Soon thereafter we made another $15 billion available to the airlines, and now we have a House bill that further victimizes the taxpayers by making them pay for another $3 billion dollars worth of subsidies to the airline industry.

2001 Ron Paul 94:4
We need to stop this spending spree. President Bush correctly has indicated that the best way to deal with economic stimulus is not to spend more federal dollars but rather to engage in tax cuts. Yet, by creating this new airline ticket tax, we are going in the opposite direction. I oppose this new tax and it is not included in my bill. Instead, the approach taken in my bill uses tax reductions to ensure airline safety and promote further economic growth. By granting tax incentives for safety initiatives, we gain the advantages of new security precautions without creating onerous new regulations or costly and burdensome new bureaucracies. I proudly offer this bill for consideration.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 95

Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]

November 7, 2001
Expansion of NATO is a Bad Idea


2001 Ron Paul 95:1
   Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me.

2001 Ron Paul 95:2
   Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. The rule is noncontroversial, but the bill itself, the bill to expand NATO and the foreign aid involved in it, is controversial from my viewpoint. It may not be controversial here in Washington, but if we go outside of Washington and talk to the people who pay the bills and the people who have to send the troops, they find this controversial. They think we are taken for saps as we go over and extend our sphere of influence throughout the world, and now extending into Eastern Europe.

2001 Ron Paul 95:3
   I, too, was a friend of Jerry Solomon. We came into the Congress together in 1978. One thing for sure that Jerry understood very clearly was the care that we must give to expanding our influence as well as sacrificing our sovereignty, because he was strongly opposed to the United Nations.

2001 Ron Paul 95:4
   As chairman of the Committee on Rules, he would permit my amendment to come up and at least debate the effectiveness of belonging to the United Nations, so I have fond memories of Jerry, especially in his support of my efforts to try to diminish the United Nations’ influence and the taking away of our sovereignty.

2001 Ron Paul 95:5
   Mr. Speaker, this is one reason why I do oppose NATO. I believe that it has a bad influence on what we do. We want to extend our control over Eastern Europe, and as has been pointed out, this can be seen as a threat to the Russians.

2001 Ron Paul 95:6
   NATO does not have a good record since the fall of the Soviets. Take a look at what we were doing in Serbia. Serbia has been our friend. They are a Christian nation. We allied ourselves with the KLA, the Kosovo Muslims, who have been friends with Osama bin Laden. We went in there and illegally, NATO illegally, against their own rules of NATO, incessantly bombed Serbia. They had not attacked another country. They had a civil war going on, yet we supported that with our money and our bombs and our troops, and now we are nation-building over there. We may be over there for another 20 years because of the bad policy of NATO that we went along with.

2001 Ron Paul 95:7
   Mr. Speaker, I think we should stop and think about this, and instead of expanding NATO, instead of getting ready to send another $55 million that we are authorizing today to the Eastern European countries, we ought to ask: Has it really served the interests of the United States?

2001 Ron Paul 95:8
   Now that is old-fashioned, to talk about the interests of the United States. We are supposed to only talk about the interests of internationalism, globalism, one-world government. To talk about the interests of the United States in this city is seen as being very negative, but I would say if we talk about U.S. security, security of the United States of America and our defense around the country, it is very popular.    Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I sincerely appreciate the fact that I have brought together bipartisanship here and got time from both sides. I deeply appreciate that, especially since I am taking the opposition to this bill. I do rise in opposition to expanding NATO. I do not think it is in the best interests of the United States. The one thing that I would concede, though, is that everyone in this Chamber, I believe, every Member agrees that our country should be strong; that we should have a strong national defense; and that we should do everything conceivable to make our country safe and secure. I certainly endorse those views. It just happens that I believe that membership in organizations like NATO tends to do the opposite, tends to weaken us and also makes us more vulnerable. But that is a matter of opinion, and we have to debate the merits of the issue and find out what is best for our country.

2001 Ron Paul 95:9
   I think the bill is motivated for two reasons. One is to increase the sphere of influence into Eastern Europe, who will be the greatest influence on the commercial aspects of Eastern Europe, and so there is a commercial interest there, as well as in this bill there is $55 million of foreign aid which I think a lot of Americans would challenge under these circumstances whether or not we should be sending another $55 million overseas.

2001 Ron Paul 95:10
   We have this debate now mainly because we have had the demise of the Soviet system, and there is a question on what the role of NATO should be and what the role of NATO really is. It seems that NATO is out in search of a dragon to slay. It appeared that way during the Kosovo and Serbian crisis, where it was decided that NATO would go in and start the bombing in order to help the Kosovars and to undermine the Government of Serbia. But our own rules under NATO say that we should never attack a country that has not attacked a member nation. So this was sort of stretching it by a long shot in order to get us involved. I think that does have unintended consequences, because it turns out that we supported Muslims, the KLA, in Kosovo who were actually allies of Osama bin Laden. These things in some ways come back to haunt us, and I see this as an unintended consequence that we should be very much aware of.

2001 Ron Paul 95:11
   But overall I oppose this because I support a position of a foreign policy of noninterventionism, foreign noninterventionism out of interest of the United States. I know the other side of the argument, that United States interests are best protected by foreign intervention and many, many entangling alliances. I disagree with that because I think what eventually happens is that a country like ours gets spread too thin and finally we get too poor. I think we are starting to see signs of this. We have 250,000 troops around the world in 241 different countries. When the crisis hit with the New York disaster, it turned out that our planes were so spread out around the world that it was necessary for our allies to come in and help us. This is used by those who disagree with me as a positive, to say, “See, it works. NATO is wonderful. They’ll even come and help us out.” I see it as sad and tragic that we spent last year, I think it was over $325 billion for national defense, and we did not even have an AWACS plane to protect us.

2001 Ron Paul 95:12
   During that time when we had our tragedy in New York, we probably had cities that we paid to protect better than our own cities. If planes went awry or astray in Korea or Haiti or wherever, I think that they probably would have been shot down. I see this as a tragedy.

2001 Ron Paul 95:13
   I hope we will all give some consideration for nonintervention.

2001 Ron Paul 95:14
   Mr. Speaker, more than a decade ago one of history’s great ideological and military conflicts abruptly ended. To the great surprise of many, including more than a few in own government, the communist world and its chief military arm, the Warsaw Pact, imploded. The Cold War, which claimed thousands of lives and uncountable treasure, was over and the Western Alliance had prevailed.

2001 Ron Paul 95:15
   With this victory, however, NATO’s raison d’etre was destroyed. The alliance was created to defend against a Soviet system that as of 1991 had entirely ceased to exist. Rather than disbanding, though, NATO bureaucrats and the governments behind them reinvented the alliance and protected its existence by creating new dragons to slay. No longer was NATO to be an entirely defensive alliance. Rather, this “new” NATO began to occupy itself with a myriad of non-defense related issues like economic development and human rights. This was all codified at the Washington Summit of 1999, where the organization declared that it would concern itself with “economic, social and political difficulties ..... ethnic and religious rivalries, territorial disputes, inadequate or failed efforts at reform, the abuse of human rights, and the dissolution of states.” The new name of the NATO game was “interventionism”; defense was now passé.

2001 Ron Paul 95:16
   Nowhere was this “new NATO” more starkly in evidence than in Yugoslavia. There, in 1999, NATO became an aggressive military force, acting explicitly in violation of its own charter. By bombing Yugoslavia, a country that neither attacked nor threatened a NATO member state, NATO both turned its back on its stated purpose and relinquished the moral high ground it had for so long enjoyed. NATO intervention in the Balkan civil wars has not even produced the promised result: UN troops will be forced to remain in the Balkans indefinitely in an ultimately futile attempt to build nations against the will of those who will live in them.

2001 Ron Paul 95:17
   Mr. Speaker, we are now called on to endorse the further expansion of a purposeless alliance and to grant $55.5 million dollars to former Soviet Bloc countries that have expressed an interest in joining it. While expanding NATO membership may be profitable for those companies that will be charged with upgrading the militaries of prospective members, this taxpayer subsidy of foreign governments and big business is not in the interest of the American people. It is past time for the Europeans to take responsibility for their own affairs, including their military affairs.

2001 Ron Paul 95:18
   According to the Department of Defense’s latest available figures, there are more than 250,000 U.S. military personnel deployed overseas on six continents in 141 nations. It is little wonder, then, that when a crisis hit our own shores--the treacherous attacks of September 11--we were forced to call on foreign countries to defend American airspace! Our military is spread so thin meddling in every corner of the globe, that defense of our own homeland is being carried out by foreigners.

2001 Ron Paul 95:19
   Rather than offer our blessings and open our pocketbooks for the further expansion of NATO, the United States should get out of this outdated and interventionist organization. American foreign policy has been most successful when it focuses on the simple principles of friendship and trade with all countries and entangling alliances with none.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 96

Ron Paul’s Congressional website November 8, 2001
Statement on Preventing Identity Theft by Terrorists and Criminals


2001 Ron Paul 96:1
Madam Chairwoman, thank you for holding this timely hearing on the important topic of identity crimes committed against the victims of the September 11 attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center. I would also like to thank the Social Security Subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee for participating in this hearing. It is hard to imagine a more shocking exploitation of the September 11 tragedy than targeting the victims of the terrorist attacks for identity theft.

2001 Ron Paul 96:2
I would also like to thank the Chairwoman for leading the effort to ensure the Social Security Administration is making full use of the “Death Master File” in order to help reduce the incidence of identity theft. It is long-past time we recognized the ways in which Congress’ transformation of the Social Security number into a de facto uniform identifier facilitates identity crimes. Since the creation of the Social Security number, Congress has authorized over 40 uses of the Social Security number as an identifier. Thanks to Congress, today no American can get a job, open a bank account, get a professional license, or even get a drivers’ license without presenting their Social Security number. Federal law even requires Americans to produce a Social Security number to get a fishing license!

2001 Ron Paul 96:3
Because of the congressionally-mandated abuse of the Social Security number, all an unscrupulous person needs to do is obtain someone’s Social Security number in order to access that person’s bank accounts, credit cards, and other financial assets. As supportive as I am of efforts to ensure that the Social Security Administration minimizes the risk of identity theft, the only way to ensure the federal government is not inadvertently assisting identity criminals is to stop using the Social Security number as a uniform ID. I have introduced legislation to address the American people’s concerns regarding the transformation of the Social Security number into a national ID, the Identity Theft Prevention Act (HR 220). The major provision of the Identity Theft Prevention Act halts the practice of using the Social Security number as an identifier by requiring the Social Security Administration to issue all Americans new Social Security numbers within five years after the enactment of the bill. These new numbers will be the sole legal property of the recipient, and the Social Security Administration shall be forbidden to divulge the numbers for any purposes not related to the Social Security program. Social Security numbers issued before implementation of this bill shall no longer be considered valid federal identifiers. Of course, the Social Security Administration shall be able to use an individual’s original Social Security number to ensure efficient transition of the Social Security system.

2001 Ron Paul 96:4
Madam Chairwoman, while I do not question the sincerity of those members who suggest that Congress can ensure citizens’ rights are protected through legislation restricting access to personal information, legislative “privacy protections” are inadequate to protect the liberty of Americans for several reasons. First, it is simply common sense that repealing those federal laws that promote identity theft is more effective in protecting the public than expanding the power of the federal police force. Federal punishment of identity thieves provides cold comfort to those who have suffered financial losses and the destruction of their good reputation as a result of identity theft.

2001 Ron Paul 96:5
Federal laws are not only ineffective in stopping private criminals, they have not even stopped unscrupulous government officials from accessing personal information. Did laws purporting to restrict the use of personal information stop the well-publicized violation of privacy by IRS officials or the FBI abuses by the Clinton and Nixon administrations?

2001 Ron Paul 96:6
My colleagues should remember that the federal government lacks constitutional authority to force citizens to adopt a universal identifier for health care, employment, or any other reason. Any federal action that oversteps constitutional limitations violates liberty because it ratifies the principle that the federal government, not the Constitution, is the ultimate judge of its own jurisdiction over the people. The only effective protection of the rights of citizens is for Congress to follow Thomas Jefferson’s advice and “bind (the federal government) down with the chains of the Constitution.”

2001 Ron Paul 96:7
In conclusion, Madam Chairwoman, I once again thank you and the other members of the subcommittee for holding a hearing on this important issue, and for your efforts to take steps to protect the American people from government-facilitated identity theft. However, I would ask my colleagues to remember that efforts to protect the American people from identity crimes will not be effective until Congress addresses the root cause of the problem: the transformation of the Social Security number into a national identifier.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 97

Ron Paul’s Congressional website November 16, 2001
Statement for the Government Reform Committee Hearing on National ID Card Proposals


2001 Ron Paul 97:1
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this important hearing examining the question of whether national ID cards would enhance security. Protecting the security of the American people from foreign threats is the most important responsibility of the federal government, and there is much the government needs to do in this area. Among the steps the federal government should take is to restrict immigration from countries which support or harbor terrorists, and implement policies to effectively enforce existing immigration laws. Moreover, private property owners certainly can take steps to protect their property from terrorists and other criminals. For example, it is perfectly legitimate for airlines to issue private ID cards to passengers and perform background checks as a condition of selling them a ticket.

2001 Ron Paul 97:2
However, Congress should reject proposals which provide only the illusion of security, while in reality simply eroding constitutional government and individual liberty. Perhaps the most onerous example of a proposal that creates the illusion of security (yet really promotes servitude) is the plan to force all Americans to carry a national ID card. A uniform national system of identification would allow the federal government to inappropriately monitor the movements and transactions of every citizen. History shows that when government gains the power to monitor the actions of the people, it inevitably uses that power in harmful ways.

2001 Ron Paul 97:3
A national ID card threatens liberty, but it will not enhance safety. Subjecting every citizen to surveillance actually diverts resources away from tracking and apprehending terrorists toward needless snooping on innocent Americans! This is what has happened with “suspicious activity reports” required by the Bank Secrecy Act. Thanks to BSA mandates, federal officials are forced to waste time snooping through the private financial transactions of innocent Americans merely because their banking activities seem suspicious to a bank clerk.

2001 Ron Paul 97:4
Furthermore, the federal government has no constitutional authority to require law-abiding Americans to present any form of identification before engaging in private transactions (e.g. getting a job, opening a bank account, or seeking medical assistance). As we consider how best to enhance the federal government’s ability to ensure the safety of the people, it is more important then ever that Congress remain mindful of the constitutional limitations on its power.

2001 Ron Paul 97:5
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I once again express my gratitude to the committee for holding this important hearing. I also would remind my colleagues that national ID cards are a trademark of totalitarianism that contribute nothing to the security of the American people. I therefore urge my colleagues to reject all proposals for a national ID, and focus instead on measures that will effectively protect both security and liberty.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 98

Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]

The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001

Congressman Ron Paul, House of Representatives, November 29, 2001

2001 Ron Paul 98:1
Mr. Speaker: We have been told on numerous occasions to expect a long and protracted war. This is not necessary if one can identify the target – the enemy – and then stay focused on that target. It’s impossible to keep one’s eye on a target and hit it if one does not precisely understand it and identify it. In pursuing any military undertaking, it’s the responsibility of Congress to know exactly why it appropriates the funding. Today, unlike any time in our history, the enemy and its location remain vague and pervasive. In the undeclared wars of Vietnam and Korea, the enemy was known and clearly defined, even though our policies were confused and contradictory. Today our policies relating to the growth of terrorism are also confused and contradictory; however, the precise enemy and its location are not known by anyone. Until the enemy is defined and understood, it cannot be accurately targeted or vanquished.

2001 Ron Paul 98:2
The terrorist enemy is no more an entity than the “mob”or some international criminal gang. It certainly is not a country, nor is it the Afghan people. The Taliban is obviously a strong sympathizer with bin Laden and his henchmen, but how much more so than the government of Saudi Arabia or even Pakistan? Probably not much.

2001 Ron Paul 98:3
Ulterior motives have always played a part in the foreign policy of almost every nation throughout history. Economic gain and geographic expansion, or even just the desires for more political power, too often drive the militarism of all nations. Unfortunately, in recent years, we have not been exempt. If expansionism, economic interests, desire for hegemony, and influential allies affect our policies and they, in turn, incite mob attacks against us, they obviously cannot be ignored. The target will be illusive and ever enlarging, rather than vanquished.

2001 Ron Paul 98:4
We do know a lot about the terrorists who spilled the blood of nearly 4,000 innocent civilians. There were 19 of them, 15 from Saudi Arabia, and they have paid a high price. They’re all dead. So those most responsible for the attack have been permanently taken care of. If one encounters a single suicide bomber who takes his own life along with others without the help of anyone else, no further punishment is possible. The only question that can be raised under that circumstance is why did it happen and how can we change the conditions that drove an individual to perform such a heinous act.

2001 Ron Paul 98:5
The terrorist attacks on New York and Washington are not quite so simple, but they are similar. These attacks required funding, planning and inspiration from others. But the total number of people directly involved had to be relatively small in order to have kept the plans thoroughly concealed. Twenty accomplices, or even a hundred could have done it. But there’s no way thousands of people knew and participated in the planning and carrying out of this attack. Moral support expressed by those who find our policies offensive is a different matter and difficult to discover. Those who enjoyed seeing the U.S. hit are too numerous to count and impossible to identify. To target and wage war against all of them is like declaring war against an idea or sin.

2001 Ron Paul 98:6
The predominant nationality of the terrorists was Saudi Arabian. Yet for political and economic reasons, even with the lack of cooperation from the Saudi government, we have ignored that country in placing blame. The Afghan people did nothing to deserve another war. The Taliban, of course, is closely tied to bin Laden and al-Qaeda, but so are the Pakistanis and the Saudis. Even the United States was a supporter of the Taliban’s rise to power, and as recently as August of 2001, we talked oil pipeline politics with them.

2001 Ron Paul 98:7
The recent French publication of bin Laden, The Forbidden Truth revealed our most recent effort to secure control over Caspian Sea oil in collaboration with the Taliban. According to the two authors, the economic conditions demanded by the U.S. were turned down and led to U.S. military threats against the Taliban.

2001 Ron Paul 98:8
It has been known for years that Unocal, a U.S. company, has been anxious to build a pipeline through northern Afghanistan, but it has not been possible due to the weak Afghan central government. We should not be surprised now that many contend that the plan for the UN to “nation build” in Afghanistan is a logical and important consequence of this desire. The crisis has merely given those interested in this project an excuse to replace the government of Afghanistan. Since we don’t even know if bin Laden is in Afghanistan, and since other countries are equally supportive of him, our concentration on this Taliban “target” remains suspect by many.

2001 Ron Paul 98:9
Former FBI Deputy Director John O’Neill resigned in July over duplicitous dealings with the Taliban and our oil interests. O’Neill then took a job as head of the World Trade Center security and ironically was killed in the 9-11 attack. The charges made by these authors in their recent publication deserve close scrutiny and congressional oversight investigation- and not just for the historical record.

2001 Ron Paul 98:10
To understand world sentiment on this subject, one might note a comment in The Hindu, India’s national newspaper- not necessarily to agree with the paper’s sentiment, but to help us better understand what is being thought about us around the world in contrast to the spin put on the war by our five major TV news networks.

2001 Ron Paul 98:11
This quote comes from an article written by Sitaram Yechury on October 13, 2001:

2001 Ron Paul 98:12
The world today is being asked to side with the U.S. in a fight against global terrorism. This is only a cover. The world is being asked today, in reality, to side with the U.S. as it seeks to strengthen its economic hegemony. This is neither acceptable nor will it be allowed. We must forge together to state that we are neither with the terrorists nor with the United States.

2001 Ron Paul 98:13
The need to define our target is ever so necessary if we’re going to avoid letting this war get out of control.

2001 Ron Paul 98:14
It’s important to note that in the same article, the author quoted Michael Klare, an expert on Caspian Sea oil reserves, from an interview on Radio Free Europe: “We (the U.S.) view oil as a security consideration and we have to protect it by any means necessary, regardless of other considerations, other values.” This, of course, was a clearly stated position of our administration in 1990 as our country was being prepared to fight the Persian Gulf War. Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction only became the issue later on.

2001 Ron Paul 98:15
For various reasons, the enemy with whom we’re now at war remains vague and illusive. Those who commit violent terrorist acts should be targeted with a rifle or hemlock- not with vague declarations, with some claiming we must root out terrorism in as many as 60 countries. If we’re not precise in identifying our enemy, it’s sure going to be hard to keep our eye on the target. Without this identification, the war will spread and be needlessly prolonged.

2001 Ron Paul 98:16
Why is this definition so crucial? Because without it, the special interests and the ill-advised will clamor for all kinds of expansive militarism. Planning to expand and fight a never-ending war in 60 countries against worldwide terrorist conflicts with the notion that, at most, only a few hundred ever knew of the plans to attack the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The pervasive and indefinable enemy- terrorism- cannot be conquered with weapons and UN nation building- only a more sensible pro-American foreign policy will accomplish this. This must occur if we are to avoid a cataclysmic expansion of the current hostilities.

2001 Ron Paul 98:17
It was said that our efforts were to be directed toward the terrorists responsible for the attacks, and overthrowing and instituting new governments were not to be part of the agenda. Already we have clearly taken our eyes off that target and diverted it toward building a pro-Western, UN-sanctioned government in Afghanistan. But if bin Laden can hit us in New York and DC, what should one expect to happen once the US/UN establishes a new government in Afghanistan with occupying troops. It seems that would be an easy target for the likes of al Qaeda.

2001 Ron Paul 98:18
Since we don’t know in which cave or even in which country bin Laden is hiding, we hear the clamor of many for us to overthrow our next villain — Saddam Hussein — guilty or not. On the short list of countries to be attacked are North Korea, Libya, Syria, Iran, and the Sudan, just for starters. But this jingoistic talk is foolhardy and dangerous. The war against terrorism cannot be won in this manner.

2001 Ron Paul 98:19
The drumbeat for attacking Baghdad grows louder every day, with Paul Wolfowitz, Bill Kristol, Richard Perle, and Bill Bennett leading the charge. In a recent interview, U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, made it clear: “We are going to continue pursuing the entire al Qaeda network which is in 60 countries, not just Afghanistan.” Fortunately, President Bush and Colin Powell so far have resisted the pressure to expand the war into other countries. Let us hope and pray that they do not yield to the clamor of the special interests that want us to take on Iraq.

2001 Ron Paul 98:20
The argument that we need to do so because Hussein is producing weapons of mass destruction is the reddest of all herrings. I sincerely doubt that he has developed significant weapons of mass destruction. However, if that is the argument, we should plan to attack all those countries that have similar weapons or plans to build them- countries like China, North Korea, Israel, Pakistan, and India. Iraq has been uncooperative with the UN World Order and remains independent of western control of its oil reserves, unlike Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. This is why she has been bombed steadily for 11 years by the U.S. and Britain. My guess is that in the not-too-distant future, so-called proof will be provided that Saddam Hussein was somehow partially responsible for the attack in the United States, and it will be irresistible then for the U.S. to retaliate against him. This will greatly and dangerously expand the war and provoke even greater hatred toward the United States, and it’s all so unnecessary.

2001 Ron Paul 98:21
It’s just so hard for many Americans to understand how we inadvertently provoke the Arab/Muslim people, and I’m not talking about the likes of bin Laden and his al Qaeda gang. I’m talking about the Arab/Muslim masses.

2001 Ron Paul 98:22
In 1996, after five years of sanctions against Iraq and persistent bombings, CBS reporter Lesley Stahl asked our Ambassador to the United Nations, Madeline Albright, a simple question: “We have heard that a half million children have died (as a consequence of our policy against Iraq). Is the price worth it?” Albright’s response was “We think the price is worth it.” Although this interview won an Emmy award, it was rarely shown in the U.S. but widely circulated in the Middle East. Some still wonder why America is despised in this region of the world!

2001 Ron Paul 98:23
Former President George W. Bush has been criticized for not marching on to Baghdad at the end of the Persian Gulf War. He gave then, and stands by his explanation today, a superb answer of why it was ill-advised to attempt to remove Saddam Hussein from power — there were strategic and tactical, as well as humanitarian, arguments against it. But the important and clinching argument against annihilating Baghdad was political. The coalition, in no uncertain terms, let it be known they wanted no part of it. Besides, the UN only authorized the removal of Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. The UN has never sanctioned the continued U.S. and British bombing of Iraq — a source of much hatred directed toward the United States.

2001 Ron Paul 98:24
But placing of U.S. troops on what is seen as Muslim holy land in Saudi Arabia seems to have done exactly what the former President was trying to avoid- the breakup of the coalition. The coalition has hung together by a thread, but internal dissention among the secular and religious Arab/Muslim nations within individual countries has intensified. Even today, the current crisis threatens the overthrow of every puppet pro-western Arab leader from Egypt to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

2001 Ron Paul 98:25
Many of the same advisors from the first Bush presidency are now urging the current President to finish off Hussein. However, every reason given 11 years ago for not leveling Baghdad still holds true today- if not more so.

2001 Ron Paul 98:26
It has been argued that we needed to maintain a presence in Saudi Arabia after the Persian Gulf War to protect the Saudi government from Iraqi attack. Others argued that it was only a cynical excuse to justify keeping troops to protect what our officials declared were “our” oil supplies. Some have even suggested that our expanded presence in Saudi Arabia was prompted by a need to keep King Fahd in power and to thwart any effort by Saudi fundamentalists to overthrow his regime.

2001 Ron Paul 98:27
Expanding the war by taking on Iraq at this time may well please some allies, but it will lead to unbelievable chaos in the region and throughout the world. It will incite even more anti-American sentiment and expose us to even greater dangers. It could prove to be an unmitigated disaster. Iran and Russia will not be pleased with this move.

2001 Ron Paul 98:28
It is not our job to remove Saddam Hussein- that is the job of the Iraqi people. It is not our job to remove the Taliban- that is the business of the Afghan people. It is not our job to insist that the next government in Afghanistan include women, no matter how good an idea it is. If this really is an issue, why don’t we insist that our friends in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait do the same thing, as well as impose our will on them? Talk about hypocrisy! The mere thought that we fight wars for affirmative action in a country 6,000 miles from home, with no cultural similarities, should insult us all. Of course it does distract us from the issue of an oil pipeline through northern Afghanistan. We need to keep our eye on the target and not be so easily distracted.

2001 Ron Paul 98:29
Assume for a minute that bin Laden is not in Afghanistan. Would any of our military efforts in that region be justified? Since none of it would be related to American security, it would be difficult to justify.

2001 Ron Paul 98:30
Assume for a minute that bin Laden is as ill as I believe he is with serious renal disease, would he not do everything conceivable for his cause by provoking us into expanding the war and alienating as many Muslims as possible?

2001 Ron Paul 98:31
Remember, to bin Laden, martyrdom is a noble calling, and he just may be more powerful in death than he is in life. An American invasion of Iraq would please bin Laden, because it would rally his troops against any moderate Arab leader who appears to be supporting the United States. It would prove his point that America is up to no good, that oil and Arab infidels are the source of all the Muslims’ problems.

2001 Ron Paul 98:32
We have recently been reminded of Admiral Yamamoto’s quote after the bombing of Pearl Harbor in expressing his fear that the event “Awakened a sleeping giant.” Most everyone agrees with the prophetic wisdom of that comment. But I question the accuracy of drawing an analogy between the Pearl Harbor event and the World Trade Center attack. We are hardly the same nation we were in 1941. Today, we’re anything but a sleeping giant. There’s no contest for our status as the world’s only economic, political and military super power. A “sleeping giant” would not have troops in 141 countries throughout the world and be engaged in every conceivable conflict with 250,000 troops stationed abroad.

2001 Ron Paul 98:33
The fear I have is that our policies, along with those of Britain, the UN, and NATO since World War II, inspired and have now awakened a long-forgotten sleeping giant- Islamic fundamentalism.

2001 Ron Paul 98:34
Let’s hope for all our sakes that Iraq is not made the target in this complex war.

2001 Ron Paul 98:35
The President, in the 2000 presidential campaign, argued against nation building, and he was right to do so. He also said, “If we’re an arrogant nation, they’ll resent us.” He wisely argued for humility and a policy that promotes peace. Attacking Baghdad or declaring war against Saddam Hussein, or even continuing the illegal bombing of Iraq, is hardly a policy of humility designed to promote peace.

2001 Ron Paul 98:36
As we continue our bombing of Afghanistan, plans are made to install a new government sympathetic to the West and under UN control. The persuasive argument as always is money. We were able to gain Pakistan’s support, although it continually wavers, in this manner. Appropriations are already being prepared in the Congress to rebuild all that we destroy in Afghanistan, and then some- even before the bombing has stopped.

2001 Ron Paul 98:37
Rumsfeld’s plan, as reported in Turkey’s Hurriyet newspaper, lays out the plan for the next Iraqi government. Turkey’s support is crucial, so the plan is to give Turkey oil from the northern Iraq Karkuk field. The United States has also promised a pipeline running from Iraq through Turkey. How can the Turks resist such a generous offer? Since we subsidize Turkey and they bomb the Kurds, while we punish the Iraqis for the same, this plan to divvy up wealth in the land of the Kurds is hardly a surprise.

2001 Ron Paul 98:38
It seems that Washington never learns. Our foolish foreign interventions continually get us into more trouble than we have bargained for- and the spending is endless. I am not optimistic that this Congress will anytime soon come to its senses. I am afraid that we will never treat the taxpayers with respect. National bankruptcy is a more likely scenario than Congress adopting a frugal and wise spending policy.

2001 Ron Paul 98:39
Mr. Speaker, we must make every effort to precisely define our target in this war and keep our eye on it.

2001 Ron Paul 98:40
It is safe to assume that the number of people directly involved in the 9-11 attacks is closer to several hundred than the millions we are now talking about targeting with our planned shotgun approach to terrorism.

2001 Ron Paul 98:41
One commentator pointed out that when the mafia commits violence, no one suggests we bomb Sicily. Today it seems we are, in a symbolic way, not only bombing “Sicily,” but are thinking about bombing “Athens” (Iraq).

2001 Ron Paul 98:42
If a corrupt city or state government does business with a drug cartel or organized crime and violence results, we don’t bomb city hall or the state capital- we limit the targets to those directly guilty and punish them. Could we not learn a lesson from these examples?

2001 Ron Paul 98:43
It is difficult for everyone to put the 9-11 attacks in a proper perspective, because any attempt to do so is construed as diminishing the utter horror of the events of that day. We must remember, though, that the 3,900 deaths incurred in the World Trade Center attacks are just slightly more than the deaths that occur on our nation’s highways each month. Could it be that the sense of personal vulnerability we survivors feel motivates us in meting out justice, rather than the concern for the victims of the attacks? Otherwise, the numbers don’t add up to the proper response. If we lose sight of the target and unwisely broaden the war, the tragedy of 9-11 may pale in the death and destruction that could lie ahead.

2001 Ron Paul 98:44
As members of Congress, we have a profound responsibility to mete out justice, provide security for our nation, and protect the liberties of all the people, without senselessly expanding the war at the urging of narrow political and economic special interests. The price is too high, and the danger too great. We must not lose our focus on the real target and inadvertently create new enemies for ourselves.

2001 Ron Paul 98:45
We have not done any better keeping our eye on the terrorist target on the home front than we have overseas. Not only has Congress come up short in picking the right target, it has directed all its energies in the wrong direction. The target of our efforts has sadly been the liberties all Americans enjoy. With all the new power we have given to the administration, none has truly improved the chances of catching the terrorists who were responsible for the 9-11 attacks. All Americans will soon feel the consequences of this new legislation.

2001 Ron Paul 98:46
Just as the crisis provided an opportunity for some to promote a special-interest agenda in our foreign policy efforts, many have seen the crisis as a chance to achieve changes in our domestic laws, changes which, up until now, were seen as dangerous and unfair to American citizens.

2001 Ron Paul 98:47
Granting bailouts is not new for Congress, but current conditions have prompted many takers to line up for handouts. There has always been a large constituency for expanding federal power for whatever reason, and these groups have been energized. The military-industrial complex is out in full force and is optimistic. Union power is pleased with recent events and has not missed the opportunity to increase membership rolls. Federal policing powers, already in a bull market, received a super shot in the arm. The IRS, which detests financial privacy, gloats, while all the big spenders in Washington applaud the tools made available to crack down on tax dodgers. The drug warriors and anti-gun zealots love the new powers that now can be used to watch the every move of our citizens. “Extremists” who talk of the Constitution, promote right-to-life, form citizen militias, or participate in non-mainstream religious practices now can be monitored much more effectively by those who find their views offensive. Laws recently passed by the Congress apply to all Americans- not just terrorists. But we should remember that if the terrorists are known and identified, existing laws would have been quite adequate to deal with them.

2001 Ron Paul 98:48
Even before the passage of the recent draconian legislation, hundreds had already been arrested under suspicion, and millions of dollars of al Qaeda funds had been frozen. None of these new laws will deal with uncooperative foreign entities like the Saudi government, which chose not to relinquish evidence pertaining to exactly who financed the terrorists’ operations. Unfortunately, the laws will affect all innocent Americans, yet will do nothing to thwart terrorism.

2001 Ron Paul 98:49
The laws recently passed in Congress in response to the terrorist attacks can be compared to the effort by anti-gun fanatics, who jump at every chance to undermine the Second Amendment. When crimes are committed with the use of guns, it’s argued that we must remove guns from society, or at least register them and make it difficult to buy them. The counter argument made by Second Amendment supporters correctly explains that this would only undermine the freedom of law-abiding citizens and do nothing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals or to reduce crime.

2001 Ron Paul 98:50
Now we hear a similar argument that a certain amount of privacy and personal liberty of law-abiding citizens must be sacrificed in order to root out possible terrorists. This will result only in liberties being lost, and will not serve to preempt any terrorist act. The criminals, just as they know how to get guns even when they are illegal, will still be able to circumvent anti-terrorist laws. To believe otherwise is to endorse a Faustian bargain, but that is what I believe the Congress has done.

2001 Ron Paul 98:51
We know from the ongoing drug war that federal drug police frequently make mistakes, break down the wrong doors and destroy property. Abuses of seizure and forfeiture laws are numerous. Yet the new laws will encourage even more mistakes by federal law-enforcement agencies. It has long been forgotten that law enforcement in the United States was supposed to be a state and local government responsibility, not that of the federal government. The federal government’s policing powers have just gotten a giant boost in scope and authority through both new legislation and executive orders.

2001 Ron Paul 98:52
Before the 9-11 attack, Attorney General Ashcroft let his position be known regarding privacy and government secrecy. Executive Order 13223 made it much more difficult for researchers to gain access to presidential documents from previous administrations, now a “need to know” has to be demonstrated. This was a direct hit at efforts to demand openness in government, even if only for analysis and writing of history. Ashcroft’s position is that presidential records ought to remain secret, even after an administration has left office. He argues that government deserves privacy while ignoring the 4 th Amendment protections of the people’s privacy. He argues his case by absurdly claiming he must “protect”the privacy of the individuals who might be involved — a non-problem that could easily be resolved without closing public records to the public.

2001 Ron Paul 98:53
It is estimated that approximately 1,200 men have been arrested as a consequence of 9-11, yet their names and the charges are not available, and according to Ashcroft, will not be made available. Once again, he uses the argument that he’s protecting the privacy of those charged. Unbelievable! Due process for the detainees has been denied. Secret government is winning out over open government. This is the largest number of people to be locked up under these conditions since FDR’s internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. Information regarding these arrests is a must, in a constitutional republic. If they’re terrorists or accomplices, just let the public know and pursue their prosecution. But secret arrests and silence are not acceptable in a society that professes to be free. Curtailing freedom is not the answer to protecting freedom under adverse circumstances.

2001 Ron Paul 98:54
The administration has severely curtailed briefings regarding the military operation in Afghanistan for congressional leaders, ignoring a long-time tradition in this country. One person or one branch of government should never control military operations. Our system of government has always required a shared-power arrangement.

2001 Ron Paul 98:55
The Anti-Terrorism Bill did little to restrain the growth of big government. In the name of patriotism, the Congress did some very unpatriotic things. Instead of concentrating on the persons or groups that committed the attacks on 9-11, our efforts, unfortunately, have undermined the liberties of all Americans.

2001 Ron Paul 98:56
“Know Your Customer” type banking regulations, resisted by most Americans for years, have now been put in place in an expanded fashion. Not only will the regulations affect banks, thrifts and credit unions, but also all businesses will be required to file suspicious transaction reports if cash is used with the total of the transaction reaching $10,000. Retail stores will be required to spy on all their customers and send reports to the U.S. government. Financial services consultants are convinced that this new regulation will affect literally millions of law-abiding American citizens. The odds that this additional paperwork will catch a terrorist are remote. The sad part is that the regulations have been sought after by federal law-enforcement agencies for years. The 9-11 attacks have served as an opportunity to get them by the Congress and the American people.

2001 Ron Paul 98:57
Only now are the American people hearing about the onerous portions of the anti-terrorism legislation, and they are not pleased.

2001 Ron Paul 98:58
It’s easy for elected officials in Washington to tell the American people that the government will do whatever it takes to defeat terrorism. Such assurances inevitably are followed by proposals either to restrict the constitutional liberties of the American people or to spend vast sums of money from the federal treasury. The history of the 20th Century shows that the Congress violates our Constitution most often during times of crisis. Accordingly, most of our worst unconstitutional agencies and programs began during the two World Wars and the Depression. Ironically, the Constitution itself was conceived in a time of great crisis. The founders intended its provision to place severe restrictions on the federal government, even in times of great distress. America must guard against current calls for government to sacrifice the Constitution in the name of law enforcement.

2001 Ron Paul 98:59
The“anti-terrorism” legislation recently passed by Congress demonstrates how well-meaning politicians make shortsighted mistakes in a rush to respond to a crisis. Most of its provisions were never carefully studied by Congress, nor was sufficient time taken to debate the bill despite its importance. No testimony was heard from privacy experts or from others fields outside of law enforcement. Normal congressional committee and hearing processes were suspended. In fact, the final version of the bill was not even made available to Members before the vote! The American public should not tolerate these political games, especially when our precious freedoms are at stake.

2001 Ron Paul 98:60
Almost all of the new laws focus on American citizens rather than potential foreign terrorists. For example, the definition of “terrorism,” for federal criminal purposes, has been greatly expanded A person could now be considered a terrorist by belonging to a pro-constitution group, a citizen militia, or a pro-life organization. Legitimate protests against the government could place tens of thousands of other Americans under federal surveillance. Similarly, internet use can be monitored without a user’s knowledge, and internet providers can be forced to hand over user information to law-enforcement officials without a warrant or subpoena.

2001 Ron Paul 98:61
The bill also greatly expands the use of traditional surveillance tools, including wiretaps, search warrants, and subpoenas. Probable-cause standards for these tools are relaxed, or even eliminated in some circumstances. Warrants become easier to obtain and can be executed without notification. Wiretaps can be placed without a court order. In fact, the FBI and CIA now can tap phones or computers nationwide, without demonstrating that a criminal suspect is using a particular phone or computer.

2001 Ron Paul 98:62
The biggest problem with these new law-enforcement powers is that they bear little relationship to fighting terrorism. Surveillance powers are greatly expanded, while checks and balances on government are greatly reduced. Most of the provisions have been sought by domestic law-enforcement agencies for years, not to fight terrorism, but rather to increase their police power over the American people. There is no evidence that our previously held civil liberties posed a barrier to the effective tracking or prosecution of terrorists. The federal government has made no showing that it failed to detect or prevent the recent terrorist strikes because of the civil liberties that will be compromised by this new legislation.

2001 Ron Paul 98:63
In his speech to the joint session of Congress following the September 11th attacks, President Bush reminded all of us that the United States outlasted and defeated Soviet totalitarianism in the last century. The numerous internal problems in the former Soviet Union- its centralized economic planning and lack of free markets, its repression of human liberty and its excessive militarization- all led to its inevitable collapse. We must be vigilant to resist the rush toward ever-increasing state control of our society, so that our own government does not become a greater threat to our freedoms than any foreign terrorist.

2001 Ron Paul 98:64
The executive order that has gotten the most attention by those who are concerned that our response to 9-11 is overreaching and dangerous to our liberties is the one authorizing military justice, in secret. Nazi war criminals were tried in public, but plans now are laid to carry out the trials and punishment, including possibly the death penalty, outside the eyes and ears of the legislative and judicial branches of government and the American public. Since such a process threatens national security and the Constitution, it cannot be used as a justification for their protection.

2001 Ron Paul 98:65
Some have claimed this military tribunal has been in the planning stages for five years. If so, what would have been its justification?

2001 Ron Paul 98:66
The argument that FDR did it and therefore it must be OK is a rather weak justification. Roosevelt was hardly one that went by the rule book- the Constitution. But the situation then was quite different from today. There was a declared war by Congress against a precise enemy, the Germans, who sent eight saboteurs into our country. Convictions were unanimous, not 2/3 of the panel, and appeals were permitted. That’s not what’s being offered today. Furthermore, the previous military tribunals expired when the war ended. Since this war will go on indefinitely, so too will the courts.

2001 Ron Paul 98:67
The real outrage is that such a usurpation of power can be accomplished with the stroke of a pen. It may be that we have come to that stage in our history when an executive order is “the law of the land,” but it’s not “kinda cool,” as one member of the previous administration bragged. It’s a process that is unacceptable, even in this professed time of crisis.

2001 Ron Paul 98:68
There are well-documented histories of secret military tribunals. Up until now, the United States has consistently condemned them. The fact that a two-thirds majority can sentence a person to death in secrecy in the United States is scary. With no appeals available, and no defense attorneys of choice being permitted, fairness should compel us to reject such a system outright.

2001 Ron Paul 98:69
Those who favor these trials claim they are necessary to halt terrorism in its tracks. We are told that only terrorists will be brought before these tribunals. This means that the so-called suspects must be tried and convicted before they are assigned to this type of “trial” without due process. They will be deemed guilty by hearsay, in contrast to the traditional American system of justice where all are innocent until proven guilty. This turns the justice system on its head.

2001 Ron Paul 98:70
One cannot be reassured by believing these courts will only apply to foreigners who are terrorists. Sloppiness in convicting criminals is a slippery slope. We should not forget that the Davidians at Waco were “convicted” and demonized and slaughtered outside our judicial system, and they were, for the most part, American citizens. Randy Weaver’s family fared no better.

2001 Ron Paul 98:71
It has been said that the best way for us to spread our message of freedom, justice and prosperity throughout the world is through example and persuasion, not through force of arms. We have drifted a long way from that concept. Military courts will be another bad example for the world. We were outraged in 1996 when Lori Berenson, an American citizen, was tried, convicted, and sentenced to life by a Peruvian military court. Instead of setting an example, now we are following the lead of a Peruvian dictator.

2001 Ron Paul 98:72
The ongoing debate regarding the use of torture in rounding up the criminals involved in the 9-11 attacks is too casual. This can hardly represent progress in the cause of liberty and justice. Once government becomes more secretive, it is more likely this tool will be abused. Hopefully the Congress will not endorse or turn a blind eye to this barbaric proposal. For every proposal made to circumvent the justice system, it’s intended that we visualize that these infractions of the law and the Constitution will apply only to terrorists and never involve innocent U.S. citizens. This is impossible, because someone has to determine exactly who to bring before the tribunal, and that involves all of us. That is too much arbitrary power for anyone to be given in a representative government and is more characteristic of a totalitarian government.

2001 Ron Paul 98:73
Many throughout the world, especially those in Muslim countries, will be convinced by the secretive process that the real reason for military courts is that the U.S. lacks sufficient evidence to convict in an open court. Should we be fighting so strenuously the war against terrorism and carelessly sacrifice our traditions of American justice? If we do, the war will be for naught and we will lose, even if we win.

2001 Ron Paul 98:74
Congress has a profound responsibility in all of this and should never concede this power to a President or an Attorney General. Congressional oversight powers must be used to their fullest to curtail this unconstitutional assumption of power.

2001 Ron Paul 98:75
The planned use of military personnel to patrol our streets and airports is another challenge of great importance that should not go uncontested. For years, many in Washington have advocated a national approach to all policing activity. This current crisis has given them a tremendous boost. Believe me, this is no panacea and is a dangerous move. The Constitution never intended that the federal government assume this power. This concept was codified in the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. This act prohibits the military from carrying out law-enforcement duties such as searching or arresting people in the United States, the argument being that the military is only used for this type of purpose in a police state. Interestingly, it was the violation of these principles that prompted the Texas Revolution against Mexico. The military under the Mexican Constitution at that time was prohibited from enforcing civil laws, and when Santa Anna ignored this prohibition, the revolution broke out. We should not so readily concede the principle that has been fought for on more than one occasion in this country.

2001 Ron Paul 98:76
The threats to liberty seem endless. It seems we have forgotten to target the enemy. Instead we have inadvertently targeted the rights of American citizens. The crisis has offered a good opportunity for those who have argued all along for bigger government.

2001 Ron Paul 98:77
For instance, the military draft is the ultimate insult to those who love personal liberty. The Pentagon, even with the ongoing crisis, has argued against the reinstatement of the draft. Yet the clamor for its reinstatement grows louder daily by those who wanted a return to the draft all along. I see the draft as the ultimate abuse of liberty. Morally it cannot be distinguished from slavery. All the arguments for drafting 18-year old men and women and sending them off to foreign wars are couched in terms of noble service to the country and benefits to the draftees. The need-for-discipline argument is the most common reason given, after the call for service in an effort to make the world safe for democracy. There can be no worse substitute for the lack of parental guidance of teenagers than the federal government’s domineering control, forcing them to fight an enemy they don’t even know in a country they can’t even identity.

2001 Ron Paul 98:78
Now it’s argued that since the federal government has taken over the entire job of homeland security, all kinds of jobs can be found for the draftees to serve the state, even for those who are conscientious objectors.

2001 Ron Paul 98:79
The proponents of the draft call it “mandatory service.” Slavery, too, was mandatory, but few believed it was a service. They claim that every 18-year old owes at least two years of his life to his country. Let’s hope the American people don’t fall for this “need to serve” argument. The Congress should refuse to even consider such a proposal. Better yet, what we need to do is abolish the Selective Service altogether.

2001 Ron Paul 98:80
However, if we get to the point of returning to the draft, I have a proposal. Every news commentator, every Hollywood star, every newspaper editorialist, and every Member of Congress under the age of 65 who has never served in the military and who demands that the draft be reinstated, should be drafted first — the 18-year olds last. Since the Pentagon says they don’t need draftees, these new recruits can be the first to march to the orders of the general in charge of homeland security. For those less robust individuals, they can do the hospital and cooking chores for the rest of the newly formed domestic army. After all, someone middle aged owes a lot more to his country than an 18-year old.

2001 Ron Paul 98:81
I’m certain that this provision would mute the loud demands for the return of the military draft.

2001 Ron Paul 98:82
I see good reason for American citizens to be concerned- not only about another terrorist attack, but for their own personal freedoms as the Congress deals with the crisis. Personal freedom is the element of the human condition that has made America great and unique and something we all cherish. Even those who are more willing to sacrifice a little freedom for security do it with the firm conviction that they are acting in the best interest of freedom and justice. However, good intentions can never suffice for sound judgment in the defense of liberty.

2001 Ron Paul 98:83
I do not challenge the dedication and sincerity of those who disagree with the freedom philosophy and confidently promote government solutions for all our ills. I am just absolutely convinced that the best formula for giving us peace and preserving the American way of life is freedom, limited government, and minding our own business overseas.

2001 Ron Paul 98:84
Henry Grady Weaver, author of a classic book on freedom, The Mainspring of Human Progress , years ago warned us that good intentions in politics are not good enough and actually are dangerous to the cause. Weaver stated:

2001 Ron Paul 98:85
“Most of the major ills of the world have been caused by well-meaning people who ignored the principle of individual freedom, except as applied to themselves, and who were obsessed with fanatical zeal to improve the lot of mankind-in-the-mass through some pet formula of their own. The harm done by ordinary criminals, murderers, gangsters, and thieves is negligible in comparison with the agony inflicted upon human beings by the professional do-gooders, who attempt to set themselves up as gods on earth and who would ruthlessly force their views on all others — with the abiding assurance that the end justifies the means.”

2001 Ron Paul 98:86
This message is one we should all ponder.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 99

Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]

November 30, 2001
Statement on Terrorism Reinsurance Legislation


2001 Ron Paul 99:1
Mr. Speaker, no one doubts that the government has a role to play in compensating American citizens who are victimized by terrorist attacks. However, Congress should not lose sight of fundamental economic and constitutional principles when considering how best to provide the victims of terrorist attacks just compensation. I am afraid that HR 3210, the Terrorism Risk Protection Act, violates several of those principles and therefore passage of this bill is not in the best interests of the American people.

2001 Ron Paul 99:2
Under HR 3210, taxpayers are responsible for paying 90% of the costs of a terrorist incident when the total cost of that incident exceeds a certain threshold. While insurance companies technically are responsible under the bill for paying back monies received from the Treasury, the administrator of this program may defer repayment of the majority of the subsidy in order to “avoid the likely insolvency of the commercial insurer,” or avoid “unreasonable economic disruption and market instability.” This language may cause administrators to defer indefinitely the repayment of the loans, thus causing taxpayers to permanently bear the loss. This scenario is especially likely when one considers that terms such as “likely insolvency,” “unreasonable economic disruption”, and “market instability” are highly subjective, and that any administrator who attempts to enforce a strict repayment schedule likely will come under heavy political pressure to be more “flexible” in collecting debts owed to the taxpayers.

2001 Ron Paul 99:3
The drafters of HR 3210 claim that this creates a temporary government program. However, Mr. Speaker, what happens in three years if industry lobbyists come to Capitol Hill to explain that there is still a need for this program because of the continuing threat of terrorist attacks? Does anyone seriously believe that Congress will refuse to reauthorize this “temporary” insurance program or provide some other form of taxpayer help to the insurance industry? I would like to remind my colleagues that the federal budget is full of expenditures for long-lasting programs that were originally intended to be temporary.

2001 Ron Paul 99:4
HR 3210 compounds the danger to taxpayers because of what economists call the “moral hazard” problem. A moral hazard is created when individuals have the costs incurred from a risky action subsidized by a third party. In such a case individuals may engage in unnecessary risks or fail to take steps to minimize their risks. After all, if a third party will bear the costs of negative consequences of risky behavior, why should individuals invest their resources in avoiding or minimizing risk?

2001 Ron Paul 99:5
While no one can plan for terrorist attacks, individuals and businesses can take steps to enhance security. For example, I think we would all agree that industrial plants in the United States enjoy reasonably good security. They are protected not by the local police, but by owners putting up barbed wire fences, hiring guards with guns, and requiring identification cards to enter. One reason private firms put these security measures in place is because insurance companies provide them with incentives, in the form of lower premiums, to adopt security measures. HR 3210 contains no incentives for this private activity. The bill does not even recognize the important role insurance plays in providing incentives to minimize risks. By removing an incentive for private parties to avoid or at least mitigate the damage from a future terrorist attack, the government inadvertently increases the damage that will be inflicted by future attacks!

2001 Ron Paul 99:6
Instead of forcing taxpayers to subsidize the costs of terrorism insurance, Congress should consider creating a tax credit or deduction for premiums paid for terrorism insurance, as well as a deduction for claims and other costs borne by the insurance industry connected with offering terrorism insurance. A tax credit approach reduces government’s control over the insurance market. Furthermore, since a tax credit approach encourages people to devote more of their own resources to terrorism insurance, the moral hazard problems associated with federally-funded insurance are avoided.

2001 Ron Paul 99:7
The version of HR 3210 passed by the Financial Services committee took a good first step in this direction by repealing the tax penalty which prevents insurance companies from properly reserving funds for human-created catastrophes. I am disappointed that this sensible provision was removed from the final bill. Instead, HR 3210 instructs the Treasury department to study the benefits of allowing insurers to establish tax-free reserves to cover losses from terrorist events. The perceived need to study the wisdom of cutting taxes while expanding the federal government without hesitation demonstrates much that is wrong with Washington.

2001 Ron Paul 99:8
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, HR 3210 may reduce the risk to insurance companies from future losses, but it increases the costs incurred by American taxpayers. More significantly, by ignoring the moral hazard problem this bill may have the unintended consequence of increasing the losses suffered in any future terrorist attacks. Therefore, passage of this bill is not in the long-term interests of the American people.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 100

Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]

Let Privateers Troll For Bin Laden
4 December 2001
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, December 4, 2001


2001 Ron Paul 100:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I recommend my colleagues read the attached article “Let Privateers Troll for Bin Laden” by Larry Sechrest, a research fellow at the Independent Institute in Oakland, California, and a professor of economics at Sul Ross State University. Professor Sechrest documents the role privateers played in the war against pirates who plagued America in the early days of the Republic. These privateers often operated with letters of marque and reprisal granted by the United States Congress.

2001 Ron Paul 100:2
Professor Sechrest points out that privateers could be an effective tool in the war against terrorism. Today’s terrorists have much in common with the pirates of days gone by. Like the pirates of old, today’s terrorists are private groups seeking to attack the United States government and threaten the lives, liberty, and property of United States citizens. The only difference is that while pirates sought financial gains, terrorists seek to advance ideological and political agendas through violence.

2001 Ron Paul 100:3
Like the pirates who once terrorized the high seas, terrorists today are also difficult to apprehend using traditional military means. We have seen that bombs and missiles can effectively and efficiently knock out the military capability, economy and technological infrastructure of an enemy nation that harbors terrorists. However, recent events also seem to suggest that traditional military force is not as effective in bringing lawless terrorists to justice.

2001 Ron Paul 100:4
When a terrorist stronghold has been destroyed by military power, terrorists simply may move to another base before military forces locate them. It is for these reasons that I believe the drafters of the Constitution would counsel in favor of issuing letters of marque and reprisal against the terrorists responsible for the September 11 attacks.

2001 Ron Paul 100:5
Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld recently acknowledged the role that private parties, when provided sufficient incentives by government, can play in bringing terrorists to justice. Now is the time for Congress to ensure President Bush can take advantage of every effective and constitutional means of fighting the war on terrorism. This is why I have introduced the Air Piracy Reprisal and Capture Act of 2001 (HR 3074) and the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001 (HR 3076). The Air Piracy Reprisal and Capture Act of 2001 updates the federal definition of “piracy” to include acts committed in the skies. The September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001 provides Congressional authorization for the President to issue letters of marque and reprisal to appropriate parties to seize the person and property of Osama bin Laden and any other individuals responsible for the terrorist attacks of September 11. I encourage my colleagues to read Professor Sechrest’s article on the effectiveness of privateers, and to help ensure President Bush can take advantage of every available tool to capture and punish terrorists by cosponsoring my Air Piracy Reprisal and Capture Act and the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act.

2001 Ron Paul 100:6
LET PRIVATEERS TROLL FOR BIN LADEN (by Larry J. Sechrest) In the wake of the Sept. 11th attacks, a group of American businessmen has decided to enlist the profit motive to bring the perpetrators to justice. Headed by Edward Lozzi of Beverly Hills, California, the group intends to offer a bounty of $1 billion — that’s billion with a “b” — to any private citizens who will capture Osama bin Laden and his associates, dead or alive.

2001 Ron Paul 100:7
Paying private citizens to achieve military objectives seems novel but is hardly untried. Recall Ross Perot’s successful use of private forces to retrieve his employees from the clutches of fundamentalist Muslims in Iran in 1979.

2001 Ron Paul 100:8
We are all familiar with bail bondsmen, who employ bounty hunters to catch bailjumping fugitives. Less familiar are two U.S. companies, Military Professional Resources Inc. and Vinnell Corporation, which provide military services to governments and other organizations worldwide.

2001 Ron Paul 100:9
Historically, private citizens arming private ships, appropriately called “privateers,” played an important role in the American Revolution. Eight hundred privateers aided the seceding colonists’ cause, while the British employed 700, despite having a huge government navy.

2001 Ron Paul 100:10
During the War of 1812, 526 American vessels were commissioned as privateers. This was not piracy, because the privateers were licensed by their own governments and the ships were bonded to ensure that their captains followed the accepted laws of the sea, including the humane treatment of those who were taken prisoner. Congress granted privateers “letters of marque and reprisal,” under the authority of Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.

2001 Ron Paul 100:11
Originally, privateering was a method of restitution for merchants or shipowners who had been wronged by a citizen of a foreign country. Privateers captured the ships flying the flag of the wrongdoers’ nation and sailed them to a friendly port, where a neutral admiralty court decided whether the seizure was just. Wrongful seizures resulted in the forfeiture of the privateers’ bond to the owners of the seized ship.

2001 Ron Paul 100:12
If the seizure was, just, the ship and cargo were sold at auction, with the bulk of the proceeds going to the privateer’s owners and crew. The crews were volunteers who shared in the profits, and the investors viewed the venture as remunerative — albeit risky,

2001 Ron Paul 100:13
Privateering soon evolved into a potent means of warfare. Self-interest encouraged privateers to capture as many enemy ships as possible, and to do it quickly. Were privateers successful in inflicting serious losses on the enemy? Emphatically, yes. Between 1793 and 1797, the British lost 2,266 vessels, the majority taken by French privateers.

2001 Ron Paul 100:14
During the War of the League of Augsburg (1689–1697) French privateers captured 3,384 English or Dutch merchant ships and 162 warships, and during the War of 1812, 1,750 British ships were subdued or destroyed by American privateers. Those American privateers struck so much fear in Britain that Lloyd’s of London ceased offering maritime insurance except at ruinously high premiums. No wonder Thomas Jefferson said, “Every possible encouragement should be given to privateering in time of war.”

2001 Ron Paul 100:15
If privateering was so successful, why has it disappeared? Precisely because it worked so well. Government naval officers resented the competitive advantage privateers possessed, and powerful nations with large government navies did not want to be challenged on the seas by smaller nations that opted for the less-costly alternative — private ships of war.

2001 Ron Paul 100:16
In sum, the armed forces of the U.S. government are not the only option for President Bush to defeat bin Laden, his al Qaeda network, and “every terrorist group with a global reach.” The U.S. military is not necessarily even the best option.

2001 Ron Paul 100:17
Let’s bring back the spirit of the privateers. By letting profits and justice once more go hand-in-hand, victims and their champions can have an abundance of both, rather than a paucity of either.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 101

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Hispanic Chamber Of Commerce
4 December 2001

2001 Ron Paul 101:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I want today to address my resolution, H. Con. Res. 277 to recognize the important contributions of the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Speaker, the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce was founded in New Mexico in 1979. Headquartered in Washington, DC the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce currently has a network of more than 200 chapters in the United States and its territories. One of those active chapters is in my district, in fact the San Marcos Hispanic Chamber of Commerce just held its successful Turkey Trot Golf Tournament during our Thanksgiving break.

2001 Ron Paul 101:2
The importance of this national organization cannot be overstated, Hispanics have an annual purchasing power of approximately $500 billion and the Chamber effectively represents the more than 1 million Hispanic-owned businesses. The organization’s recent growth has shown its influence in communities not traditionally considered centers for Latino development, locations such as Richmond, Virginia; Charlotte, North Carolina and Minnesota’s Twin Cities area.

2001 Ron Paul 101:3
The Hispanic Chamber of Commerce provides important recognition to its members and supporters through an annual awards program. Moreover, the organization furnishes its membership with a host of critical services, ably guided by the leadership of its President and CEO George Herrera, Chair Ms. Elizabeth Lisboa-Farrow, who also chairs the DC Chamber of Commerce; and Vice Chairman J.R. Gonzales, President of a communications firm in Austin, Texas.

2001 Ron Paul 101:4
Importantly, the Chamber has maintained international trade as one of its top long term priorities, even maintaining an office in Mexico City. The Hispanic Chamber of Commerce provides and promotes the kind of private sector trade initiatives and assistance that I believe all of us can support.

2001 Ron Paul 101:5
Mr. Speaker, I am gratified to be able to bring to the Floor today this resolution to recognize the important contributions of the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce and ask for the support of members in passing this item.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 102

Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]

December 5, 2001
Ongoing Violence in Israel and Palestine


2001 Ron Paul 102:1
   Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

2001 Ron Paul 102:2
   Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution and not, obviously, because it condemns violence. We all condemn the violence. But there is more to this resolution than just condemning the violence. I have a problem with most resolutions like this because it endorses a foreign policy that I do not endorse, and it does that by putting on unecessary demands. So the demands part of this resolution is the part that I object to, not the condemnation of violence.

2001 Ron Paul 102:3
   By doing this, we serve to antagonize. We hear today talk about having solidarity with Israel. Others get up and try in their best way to defend the Palestinians and the Arabs. So it is sort of a contest: Should be we pro-Israel or pro-Arab, or anti-Israel or anti-Arab, and how are we perceived in doing this? It is pretty important.

2001 Ron Paul 102:4
   But I think there is a third option to this that we so often forget about. Why can we not be pro-American? What is in the best interests of the United States? We have not even heard that yet.

2001 Ron Paul 102:5
   I believe that it is in the best interests of the United States not to get into a fight, a fight that we do not have the wisdom to figure out.

2001 Ron Paul 102:6
   Now, I would like to have neutrality. That has been the tradition for America, at least a century ago, to be friends with everybody, trade with everybody, and to be neutral, unless somebody declares war against us, but not to demand that we pick sides in every fight in the world. Yet, this is what we are doing. I think our perceptions are in error, because it is not intended that we make the problem worse. Obviously, the authors of the resolution, do not want to make the problem worse. But we have to realize, perceptions are pretty important. So the perceptions are, yes, we have solidarity with Israel. What is the opposite of solidarity? It is hostility. So if we have solidarity with Israel, then we have hostility to the Palestinians.

2001 Ron Paul 102:7
   I have a proposal and a suggestion which I think fits the American tradition. We should treat both sides equally, but in a different way. Today we treat both sides equally by giving both sides money and telling them what to do. Not $1 million here or there, not $100 million here or there, but tens of billions of dollars over decades to both sides; always trying to buy peace.

2001 Ron Paul 102:8
   My argument is that it generally does not work, that there are unintended consequences. These things backfire. They come back to haunt us. We should start off by defunding, defunding both sides. I am just not for giving all of this money, because every time there are civilians killed on the Israeli side or civilians killed on the Palestinian side, we can be assured that either our money was used directly or indirectly to do that killing.

2001 Ron Paul 102:9
   So we are, in a way, an accomplice on all of this killing because we fund both sides. So I would argue we should consider neutrality, to consider friendship with both sides, and not to pretend that we are all so wise that we know exactly with whom to have solidarity. I think that is basically our problem. We have a policy that is doomed to fail in the Middle East; and it fails slowly and persistently, always drawing us in, always demanding more money.

2001 Ron Paul 102:10
   With the Arabs, we cannot tell the Arabs to get lost. The Arabs are important. They have a lot of oil under their control. We cannot flaunt the Arabs and say, get lost. We must protect our oil. It is called “our oil.” At the same time, there is a strong constituency for never offending Israel.

2001 Ron Paul 102:11
   I think that we cannot buy peace under these circumstances. I think we can contribute by being more neutral. I think we can contribute a whole lot by being friends with both sides. But I believe the money is wasted, it is spent unwisely, and it actually does not serve the interests of the American people.

2001 Ron Paul 102:12
   First, it costs us money. That means that we have to take this money from the American taxpayer.

2001 Ron Paul 102:13
   Second, it does not achieve the peace that we all hope to have.

2001 Ron Paul 102:14
   Therefore, the policy of foreign noninterventionism, where the United States is not the bully and does not come in and tell everybody exactly what to do, by putting demands on them, I think if we did not do that, yes, we could still have some moral authority to condemn violence.

2001 Ron Paul 102:15
   But should we not condemn violence equally? Could it be true that only innocent civilians have died on one side and not the other? I do not believe that to be the care. I believe that it happens on both sides, and on both sides they use our money to do it.

2001 Ron Paul 102:16
   I urge a no vote on this resolution.

2001 Ron Paul 102:17
   Mr. Speaker, like most Americans, I was appalled by the suicide bombings in Israel over the weekend. I am appalled by all acts of violence targeting noncombatants. The ongoing cycle of violence in the Middle East is robbing generations of their hopes and dreams and freedom. The cycle of violence ensures economic ruin and encourages political extremism; it punishes, most of all, the innocent.

2001 Ron Paul 102:18
   The people of the Middle East must find a way to break this cycle of violence. As Secretary of State Colin Powell told the House International Relations Committee in October, “You have got to find a way not to find justifications for what we are doing, but to get out of what we are doing to break the cycle.”

2001 Ron Paul 102:19
   Mr. Speaker, I agree with our Secretary of State. The Secretary also said that we need to move beyond seeing the two sides there as “just enemies.” I agree with that too. But I don’t think this piece of legislation moves us any closer to that important goal. While it rightly condemns the senseless acts of violence against the innocent, it unfortunately goes much further than that--and that is where I regrettably must part company with this bill. Rather than stopping at condemning terrorism, this bill makes specific demands in Israel and the Palestinian areas regarding internal policy and specifically the apprehension and treatment of suspected terrorists. I don’t think that is our job here in Congress.

2001 Ron Paul 102:20
   Further, it recommends that the President suspend all relations with Yasir Arafat and the Palestinian Authority if they do not abide by the demands of this piece of legislation. I don’t think this is a very helpful approach to the problem. Ceasing relations with one side in the conflict is, in effect, picking sides in the conflict. I don’t think that has been our policy, nor is it in our best interest, be it in the Middle East, Central Asia, or anywhere else. The people of the United States contribute a substantial amount of money to both Israel and to the Palestinian people. We have made it clear in our policy and with our financial assistance that we are not taking sides in the conflict, but rather seeking a lasting peace in the region. Even with the recent, terrible attack. I don’t think this is the time for Congress to attempt to subvert our government’s policy on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

2001 Ron Paul 102:21
   Finally, the bill makes an attempt to join together our own fight against those who have attacked the Untied States on September 11 and Israel’s ongoing dispute with the Palestinians. I don’t think that is necessary. We are currently engaged in a very difficult and costly effort to seek out and bring to justice those who have attacked us and those who supported them, “wherever they may be,” as the president has said. Today’s reports of the possible loss of at least two our servicemen in Afghanistan drives that point home very poignantly. As far as I know, none of those who attacked us had ties to Palestine or were harbored there. Mr. Speaker, I think we can all condemn terrorism wherever it may be without committing the United States to joining endless ongoing conflicts across the globe.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 103

Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]

December 6, 2001
Statement Opposing Unconstitutional “Trade Promotion Authority”


2001 Ron Paul 103:1
Mr. Speaker, we are asked today to grant the President so-called trade promotion authority, authority that has nothing to do with free trade. Proponents of this legislation claim to support free trade, but really they support government-managed trade that serves certain interests at the expense of others. True free trade occurs only in the absence of interference by government, that’s why it’s called “free”- it’s free of government taxes, quotas, or embargoes. The term ”free-trade agreement“ is an oxymoron. We don’t need government agreements to have free trade; but we do need to get the federal government out of the way and unleash the tremendous energy of the American economy.

2001 Ron Paul 103:2
Our founders understood the folly of trade agreements between nations; that is why they expressly granted the authority to regulate trade to Congress alone, separating it from the treaty-making power given to the President and Senate. This legislation clearly represents an unconstitutional delegation of congressional authority to the President. Simply put, the Constitution does not permit international trade agreements. Neither Congress nor the President can set trade policies in concert with foreign governments or international bodies.

2001 Ron Paul 103:3
The loss of national sovereignty inherent in government-managed trade cannot be overstated. If you don’t like GATT, NAFTA, and the WTO, get ready for even more globalist intervention in our domestic affairs. As we enter into new international agreements, be prepared to have our labor, environmental, and tax laws increasingly dictated or at least influenced by international bodies. We’ve already seen this with our foreign sales corporation tax laws, which we changed solely to comply with a WTO ruling. Rest assured that TPA will accelerate the trend toward global government, with our Constitution fading into history.

2001 Ron Paul 103:4
Congress can promote true free trade without violating the Constitution. We can lift the trade embargo against Cuba, end Jackson-Vanik restrictions on Kazakhstan, and repeal sanctions on Iran. These markets should be opened to American exporters, especially farmers. We can reduce our tariffs unilaterally- taxing American consumers hardly punishes foreign governments. We can unilaterally end the subsidies that international agreements purportedly seek to reduce. We can simply repeal protectionist barriers to trade, so-called NTB’s, that stifle economic growth.

2001 Ron Paul 103:5
Mr. Speaker, we are not promoting free trade today, but we are undermining our sovereignty and the constitutional separation of powers. We are avoiding the responsibilities with which our constituents have entrusted us. Remember, congressional authority we give up today will not be restored when less popular Presidents take office in the future. I strongly urge all of my colleagues to vote NO on TPA.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 104

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Too Many Federal Cops
6 December 2001
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, December 6, 2001


2001 Ron Paul 104:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am inserting in the RECORD a copy of an article by former cabinet member Joseph Califano that appeared in today’s Washington Post. I call this article entitled “Too Many Federal Cops,” to the attention of Members. It presents a balanced and even-handed assessment of how successive administrations over the decades have expanded Federal police powers at considerable cost to our endangered civil liberties.

2001 Ron Paul 104:2
I wholeheartedly agree with the points raised by Mr. Califano, having spoken in this House concerning the same topic on many occasions. I wish to commend Mr. Califano for his timely and important piece, and recommend it to Members and others concerned with preserving civil liberties.

2001 Ron Paul 104:3
TOO MANY FEDERAL COPS
(By Joseph A. Califano Jr.)


As defense lawyers and civil libertarians huff and puff about Attorney General John Ashcroft’s procedural moves to bug conversations between attorneys and their imprisoned clients, hold secret criminal military trials and detain individuals suspected of having information about terrorists, they are missing an even more troubling danger: the extraordinary increase in federal police personnel and power.

2001 Ron Paul 104:4
In the past, interim procedural steps, such as the military tribunals Franklin Roosevelt established during World War II to try saboteurs, have been promptly terminated when the conflict ended. Because of its likely permanence, the expansion and institutionalization of national police power poses a greater threat to individual liberties. Congress should count to 10 before creating any additional police forces or a Cabinet-level Office of Homeland Security.

2001 Ron Paul 104:5
Pre-Sept. 11, the FBI stood at about 27,000 in personnel; Drug Enforcement Administration at 10,000; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms at 4,000; Secret Service at 6,000; Border Patrol at 10,000; Customs Service at 12,000; and Immigration and Naturalization Service at 34,000. At the request of the White House, Congress is moving to beef up these forces and expand the number of armed air marshals from a handful to more than a thousand. Despite the president’s objection, Congress recently created another security force of 28,000 baggage screeners under the guidance of the attorney general.

2001 Ron Paul 104:6
In 1878 Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act to prohibit the military from performing civilian police functions. Over Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger’s opposition, President Ronald Reagan declared drug trafficking a threat to national security as the rationale for committing the military to the war on drugs. (Weinberger argued that “reliance on military forces to accomplish civilian tasks is detrimental to . . . the democratic process.”) Reagan’s action gives George Bush a precedent for committing the military and National Guard to civilian police duty at airports and borders.

2001 Ron Paul 104:7
Given the president’s candor about the likelihood that the war on terrorism will last many years, the administration and a compliant Congress are in clear and present danger of establishing a national police force and — under either the attorney general, director of homeland security or an agency combining the CIA and State and Defense intelligence (or some combination of the above) — a de facto ministry of the interior.

2001 Ron Paul 104:8
The fact that George Bush has no intention of misusing such institutions is irrelevant. You don’t have to be a bad guy to abuse police power. Robert Kennedy, a darling of liberals, brushed aside civil liberties concerns when he went after organized crime and trampled on the rights of Jimmy Hoffa in his failed attempt to convict the Teamsters boss of something. He bugged and trailed Martin Luther King Jr., even collecting information on the civil rights leader’s private love life, until Lyndon Johnson put a stop to it.

2001 Ron Paul 104:9
Bureaucratic momentum alone can cross over the line. After President John F. Kennedy privately berated the Army for being unprepared to quell the riots when James Meredith enrolled at the University of Mississippi, we (I was Army general counsel at the time) responded by collecting intelligence information on individuals such as civil rights leaders, as well as local government officials in places where we thought there might be future trouble. We were motivated not by any mischievous desire to violate privacy or liberties of Americans but by the bureaucratic reflex not to be caught short again.

2001 Ron Paul 104:10
In the paranoia of Watergate, the CIA followed a Washington Post report for weeks, even photographing him through the picture window of his home, because he had infuriated the president and the agency with a story containing classified information. Faced with our discovery (I was The Post’s lawyer at the time), CIA Director William Colby readily admitted that “someone had gone too far.”

2001 Ron Paul 104:11
All 100 members of the Senate voted to create the newest federal police force under the rubric of airport security. In its rush to judgment, the Senate acted as though a federal force was the only alternative to using the airlines or private contractors. Quite the contrary, policing by the individual public airport authorities, guided by federal standards, would be more in line with our tradition of keeping police power local.

2001 Ron Paul 104:12
It’s time for the executive and Congress to take a hard look at the police personnel amassing at the federal level and the extent to which we are concentrating them under any one individual short of the president. Congress should turn its most skeptical laser on the concept of an Office of Homeland Security and on any requests to institutionalize its director beyond the status of a special assistant to the president. We have survived for more than 200 years without a ministry of the interior or national police force, and we can effectively battle terrorism without creating one now.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 105

Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]

December 13, 2001

Congressman Ron Paul, House of Representatives, December 13, 2001
Introduction of the ”Human Cloning Prevention Act of 2001“


2001 Ron Paul 105:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation prohibiting federal funding for any organization that engages in human cloning or human cloning techniques. Moral and legal questions surrounding human cloning are among the most contentious and divisive facing America today. However, I hope we can all agree that no American should be forced to subsidize this activity.

2001 Ron Paul 105:2
Some believe the current prohibition on the use of federal funds for cloning and cloning research is sufficient protection for those taxpayers who object to cloning. However, this argument is flawed for two reasons. First, the current ban is not permanent- and thus could be changed at will by a future Congress or administration. Second, because money is fungible, current law does not necessarily prevent federal funds from subsidizing cloning. After all, whenever a company that engages in cloning research receives federal dollars for any project, the company obviously then has more dollars available to use for cloning. Therefore, any federal funding for companies that engage in human cloning forces taxpayers to subsidize those activities. Thus, the only way to ensure that no American is forced to pay for cloning research is to eliminate all federal funding of such companies or organizations.

2001 Ron Paul 105:3
Thomas Jefferson said ”To compel a man to furnish contributions for the promulgation of ideas he disbelieves is both sinful and tyrannical.“ I hope my colleagues will embrace the spirit of Jefferson and join me in ending the sinful and tyrannical practice of forcing taxpayers to subsidize a practice so many find abhorrent. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and forbid federal funds from going to any company which engages in human cloning.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 106

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

H.R. 3054
16 December 2001

2001 Ron Paul 106:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3054. At the same time, I rise in great respect for the courage and compassion shown by those who gave their lives attempting to rescue their fellow citizens in the aftermath of the World Trade Center attacks. I also rise in admiration and gratitude to the passengers of Flight 93 who knowingly sacrificed their lives to prevent another terrorist attack. However, I do not believe that an unconstitutional authorization for Congressional Gold Medals is in the true spirit of these American heros. After all, this legislation purports to honor personal sacrifices and acts of heroism by forcing others to pay for these gold medals.

2001 Ron Paul 106:2
Mr. Speaker, money appropriated for gold medals, or any other unconstitutional purpose, is, in the words of Davy Crockett, “Not Yours to Give.” It is my pleasure to attach a copy of Davy Crockett’s “Not Yours to Give” speech for the record. I hope my colleagues will carefully consider its’ message before voting to take money from American workers and families to spend on unconstitutional programs and projects.

2001 Ron Paul 106:3
Instead of abusing the taxing and spending power, I urge my colleagues to undertake to raise the money for these medals among ourselves. I would gladly donate to a Congressional Gold Medal fund whose proceeds would be used to purchase and award gold medals to those selected by Congress for this honor. Congress should also reduce the federal tax burdened on the families of those who lost their lives helping their fellow citizens on September 11. Mr. Speaker, reducing the tax burden on these Americans would be a real sacrifice for many in Washington since any reduction in taxes represents a loss of real and potential power for the federal government.

2001 Ron Paul 106:4
H.R. 3054 violates fundamental principles of fiscal responsibility by giving the Secretary of the Treasury almost unquestioned authority to determine who can and cannot receive a gold medal. Official estimates are that implementation of this bill will cost approximately 3.9 million dollars, however the terms of the bill suggest that the costs incurred by the United States taxpayer could be much higher. Furthermore, unlike previous legislation authorizing gold medals, H.R. 3054 does not instruct the Secretary of the Treasury to use profits generated by marketing bronze duplicates of the medal to reimburse the taxpayer for the costs of producing the medal. Unfortunately, because this bill was moved to the suspension calender without hearings or a mark-up there was no opportunity for members of the Financial Services Committee such as myself to examine these questions.

2001 Ron Paul 106:5
Because of my continuing and uncompromising opposition to appropriations not authorized within the enumerated powers of the Constitution, I must remain consistent in my defense of a limited government whose powers are explicitly delimited under the enumerated powers of the Constitution — a Constitution which each Member of Congress swore to uphold. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I must oppose this legislation and respectfully suggest that perhaps we should begin a debate among us on more appropriate processes by which we spend other people’s money. Honorary medals and commemorative coins, under the current process, come from other people’s money. It is, of course, easier to be generous with other people’s money, but using our own funds to finance these gold medal is true to the sprit of the heros of September 11.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 107

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Saddam Hussein
19 December 2001

2001 Ron Paul 107:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

2001 Ron Paul 107:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, first I would like to start off by thanking the chairman for having made some changes in this bill. The bill is not nearly as bad as it was at the beginning. However, I obviously cannot support it. But changing the tone was helpful in talking about Saddam Hussein versus Iraq, “Iraq” suggesting the people of Iraq, who are hardly enemies of the American people. Saddam Hussein is a different subject. Also changing the word “aggression” to “a mounting threat.” Aggression means that we have to immediately retaliate, I would suppose. Even “a mounting threat” is a bit threatening to me, but at least it is better and moving in the direction of less confrontation with a nation 6,000 miles from our shore that I hardly see as a threat to our national security.

2001 Ron Paul 107:3
One of the reasons why I take an approach on foreign policy where we are less involved overseas is mainly because I feel that the number one obligation for us in Congress and for the people of this country is to preserve liberty and defend it from outside threats. The authors of this resolution, I am sure, have the same goals, but, over the years, I think those goals have been undermined. We as a Nation are now probably weaker rather than stronger and we are more threatened because of what we do overseas.

2001 Ron Paul 107:4
For instance, just this week, we had Stinger Missiles fired at our airplanes. Fortunately, they did not hit our airplanes. But we paid for those Stinger Missiles. And this week there was an attack in India by allies, supposedly, in Pakistan, who are receiving billions of dollars from us at the current time. This vacillation, shifting, on and off, friends one time, enemies the next time, this perpetual war seems to me not to be in the best interests of the United States.

2001 Ron Paul 107:5
Take, for instance, one of the whereas’s in this resolution. “Whereas the Iraq attacked the Islamic Republic of Iran.” We keep hearing this all the time. It was horrible. But they were our allies at the time. We were financing them, giving them money, helping them with technology.

2001 Ron Paul 107:6
So I see this as a perfect example of us always flip-flopping. Not only do we frequently have those weapons that we sell and give to support a so-called friend turn against us, we so often have the opponents in the wars around the world fighting each other with our weapons.

2001 Ron Paul 107:7
My idea of national defense is minding our own business, being strong, and making sure our borders are secure. After 9/11, we had to go to Germany and ask them for help for AWACS airplanes to patrol our shores. I understand our ports are not necessarily secure, and yet we have Coast Guard cutters down in Colombia and in the Mediterranean Sea. I think if we learn anything it is that we ought to work harder to protect our country and not make us so vulnerable, yet we continue along this way.

2001 Ron Paul 107:8
We criticize the possibility or suggest the possibility of what might be happening in Iraq, and, out of frustration, this amendment came up because there has been no evidence that Iraq is connected. Not that Saddam Hussein can be construed as any type of a good guy, but there has been no connection, so there had to be some new reason given to go into Iraq.

2001 Ron Paul 107:9
I tend to agree with the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman HYDE) that if there was evidence, we probably have, under the authority we have given the President, to go in to Iraq. But that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about the perpetuation, the continuation of the Persian Gulf War, which at the time was designed as a fight for our oil. I think that is what this is all about.

2001 Ron Paul 107:10
Its been suggested that the anthrax came from Iraq. The mounting evidence today, sadly, suggests that it may well be coming from our CIA. Here we are almost ready to go to war against Iraq at the suggestion that our carelessness and our development of anthrax here in this country may have been a contributing factor to this anthrax being spread in this country.

2001 Ron Paul 107:11
It is suggested that it will be easy to overtake Iraq because we have had this tremendous success in Afghanistan, and we will have this uprising and the Kurds will be a reliable ally in this uprising. The plain truth is, the Kurds will not be the salvation of our securing Iraq. As a matter of fact, most of our allies, the Turks, although they may be bought and allow us to use their bases, they are very nervous about this plan to invade Iraq.

2001 Ron Paul 107:12
The whole idea that Iraq is the one that we have to be addressing, when you look at the problems throughout the world, when you look at what is happening in Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabia has not cooperated, and yet we have troops on their soil antagonizing the people over there, and at the same time, people are saying that all we have to do is invade Iraq, get rid of Saddam Hussein, and everything is going to be okay.

2001 Ron Paul 107:13
Another “whereas,” mentioning UN Resolution 678 it was declared that under Resolution 687, we have authority to go back in today. That is not true. As a matter of fact, 687 gave us the authority to get Saddam Hussein to withdraw from Kuwait. That does not mean that we can perpetuate war forever under that resolution.

2001 Ron Paul 107:14
As a matter of fact, if you want to go into Iraq and follow the rules and you are pretending you are following the rules, you ought to do a couple of things. If you believe in the United Nations, you have to go back to the United Nations, if you believe in the rule of law. Also you have to answer the question, why does this resolution need to be enforced versus other resolutions that have never been enforced? Why is it assumed that the United States has to enforce UN resolutions? When did it come to the point where the UN dictates foreign policy to us?

2001 Ron Paul 107:15
So, there are a lot of questions to answer about this desire to immediately go into Iraq. I think it actually poses a threat to our security, more than it helps us. So I am suggesting that we go more cautiously.

2001 Ron Paul 107:16
I am glad this resolution has been toned down a little bit, but it does represent those individuals who think that we should be at war with Iraq today, and I disagree with that. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 108

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Yes, IAEA Inspected Iraq
19 December 2001

2001 Ron Paul 108:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

2001 Ron Paul 108:2
It has been said that there have been no inspections in Iraq; and yet the International Atomic Energy Agency was in Iraq this very year and this was the report: I am pleased to confirm that between 20 and 23 January 2001, a 4-person IAEA team carried out a physical inventory verification of the declared nuclear material remaining in Iraq under IAEA seal. For its part, Iraq provided the necessary cooperation for the inspection team to perform its activities effectively and efficiently. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. MCDERMOTT).

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 109

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Yields Time To Mr. Rohrabacher
19 December 2001

2001 Ron Paul 109:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman’s time has expired.

2001 Ron Paul 109:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

2001 Ron Paul 109:3
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman was to find out that China was much more involved in the Taliban and the terrorist attacks on 9–11 than anything Saddam Hussein has done, would the gentleman be willing to do to China what the gentleman is willing to do to Iraq?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, let me put it this way. The answer is yes, but I would not right away. Like the President says, we must do things sequentially, and we must be absolutely committed to the job. If we do things sequentially, the next order of business is taking care of the threat in Iraq. And if China is, yes, helping terrorists murder thousands of Americans, yes, we should help the Chinese people overthrow their dictatorship as well.

2001 Ron Paul 109:4
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, would the gentleman do the same thing to Pakistan and Syria and Saudi Arabia and Egypt?

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 110

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Opposing Resolution For War With Iraq
19 December 2001

2001 Ron Paul 110:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

2001 Ron Paul 110:2
Mr. Speaker, the emphasis in this H.J. resolution is that resolutions have been passed, and one in particular, a U.N. resolution against Iraq, must be enforced. I made the point earlier that there are many resolutions that are not enforced, so this one is special and has to be enforced; and the assumption is that it is the responsibility of the United States to do the enforcing.

2001 Ron Paul 110:3
Everybody knows that I am not too keen on the United Nations, but I am not too keen on the idea that we can use the United Nations as we please. Sometimes we follow the rules, and sometimes we do not. I think if we are participating, the argument should be that we should follow the rules.

2001 Ron Paul 110:4
There is no U.N. authority for us to use force against Saddam Hussein without a new U.N. resolution. It would be very difficult to legally mount another invasion of Iraq right now without a U.N. resolution. It would not go along with UN rules.

2001 Ron Paul 110:5
The other question I have about the rule of law and trying to follow the rules of the United Nations would be: Where have we gotten the authority to enforce the no-fly zones? The no-fly zones are really a contention in the Middle East, and have been a contention for a long time, because that, in combination with the embargoes and the sanctions against the Iraqi people is what the Arabs believe to be so detrimental to the children who have died in Iraq.

2001 Ron Paul 110:6
Whether Members agree with that or not, or they want to put all the blame on Saddam Hussein, is beside the point. Millions if not billions of Muslims and Iraqis happen to wonder about that policy: Where did we get the authority to continue bombing for now going on 12 years?

2001 Ron Paul 110:7
This legislation says that we know exactly what is going on in Iraq. I pointed out that the International Atomic Energy Agency has been in Iraq this year and found out that there is no evidence of nuclear weapons being built.

2001 Ron Paul 110:8
But there is one gentleman who has been in Iraq many times under the U.N., as a U.N. inspector, Scott Ritter. He has been there 30 times. Probably even the best junketeer in Congress I will bet has not been over there 30 times, but he has been there 30 times inspecting.

2001 Ron Paul 110:9
He was on a television interview the other day, and had an opinion as to what is going on in Iraq. I do not think Members can jump up and say Scott Ritter is not a true American, that he is not a true internationalist, that he does not know what he is talking about. But this is what he said on television when they asked about whether or not he thought Saddam Hussein and Iraq was a threat to our national security.

2001 Ron Paul 110:10
He said, “In terms of military threat, absolutely nothing. His military was devastated in 1991 in Operation Desert Storm, and Iraq has not had the ability to reconstitute itself in terms of weapons of mass destruction. We know that we achieved a 90 to 95 percent level of disarmament. Diplomatically, politically, Saddam is a little bit of a threat. In terms of a real national security threat to the United States, no, none.”

2001 Ron Paul 110:11
Because he is a little bit of a political and a diplomatic threat, we are making these plans to pursue war or in reality continue the war because the Persian Gulf war has not really ended.

2001 Ron Paul 110:12
So once again, I ask my colleagues who are going to be voting on this shortly to think about it. If it is unnecessary and does not have any effect, why bring it to the floor? There would be no purpose. If Hussein is aligned with the terrorists, the President already has authority to do something about it. So what really is the reason for this, especially when it was first announced that this would be an act of aggression, which is really what they feel in their hearts, in their minds, what they want this to be? It has been toned down a little bit. But this resolution is a support for expanding the war and continuing what has been going on for 12 years.

2001 Ron Paul 110:13
Quite frankly, I think there is a better diplomatic way to handle things. I think it is a shame that our Secretary of State has not been given more authority to have his way on this issue, rather than being overruled by those and encouraged by many Members here in the Congress who want to prepare for war against Iraq, because of this fantastic success in Afghanistan, a country, probably the poorest country in the world that did not even have an airplane; and now, because of this tremendous success, we are ready to take on the next country.

2001 Ron Paul 110:14
But one thing that we have to realize is that there is a great chance, and there is some evidence, and I may get a chance to quote this later, that China may well have been involved. Now, the gentleman from California said, OK, so let us go after China. Everyone knows we are not going to go after China in the same manner we are planning to go after Iraq.

2001 Ron Paul 110:15
We are going into Iraq for other reasons, other than reasons of national security. That is my firm belief. It has a lot to do with the announcement when our government propagandized to go to war in the Persian Gulf War and it was to go to defend our oil. I still believe that is a major motivation that directs our foreign policy in the Middle East.

2001 Ron Paul 110:16
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

2001 Ron Paul Chapter 111

Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]

19 December 2001

2001 Ron Paul 111:1
Mr. PAUL. I object, Mr. Speaker.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.

The gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) has 30 seconds remaining on his time. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. HYDE) has the right to close.

2001 Ron Paul 111:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time.

2001 Ron Paul 111:3
Mr. Speaker, very quickly, borders are important because that is what our Constitution gives us the authority to defend. Our Constitution does not give us the authority to defend Europe or anybody else. Also we have a moral authority to defend ourselves and not to pretend that we are the policemen of the world. What would Americans say if China were in the Gulf of Mexico and said it was their oil and had troops stationed in Texas. That is the equivalent of us having our Navy in the Persian Gulf and saying it is our oil and placing troops in Saudi Arabia.

2001 Ron Paul 111:4
Using gas on our own people? I understand a few people died at Waco, and it happened that illegal war gasses were used during that operation.

2001 Ron Paul 111:5
Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose House Joint Resolution 75 because it solves none of our problems and only creates new ones. Though the legislation before us today does wisely excise the most objectionable part of the original text of H.J. Res. 75 — the resolution clause stating that by not obeying a U.N. resolution Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein has been committing an “act of aggression” against the United States — what remains in the legislation only serves to divert our attention from what should be our number one priority at this time: finding bringing to justice those who attacked the United Stats on September 11, 2001.

2001 Ron Paul 111:6
Saddam Hussein is a ruthless dictator. The Iraqi people would no doubt be better off without him and his despotic rule. But the call in some quarters for the United States to intervene to change Iraq’s government is a voice that offers little in the way of a real solution to our problems in the Middle East — many of which were caused by our interventionism in the first place. Secretary of State Colin Powell underscored recently this lack of planning on Iraq, saying, “I never saw a plan that was going to take [Saddam] out. It was just some ideas coming from various quarters about, ‘let’s go bomb.’ ”

2001 Ron Paul 111:7
Mr. Speaker, House Joint Resolution 64, passed on September 14 just after the terrorist attack, states that, “The president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.” From all that we know at present, Iraq appears to have had no such role. Indeed, we have seen “evidence” of Iraqi involvement in the attacks on the United States proven false over the past couple of weeks. Just this week, for example, the “smoking gun” of Iraqi involvement in the attack seems to have been debunked: The New York Times reported that “the Prague meeting (allegedly between al-Qaeda terrorist Mohamad Atta and an Iraqi intelligence agent) has emerged as an object lesson in the limits of intelligence reports rather than the cornerstone of the case against Iraq.” The Times goes on to suggest that the “Mohamad Atta” who was in the Czech Republic this summer seems to have been Pakistani national who happened to have the same name. It appears that this meeting never took place, or at least not in the way it has been reported. This conclusion has also been drawn by the Czech media and is reviewed in a report on Radio Free Europe’s Newsline. Even those asserting Iraqi involvement in the anthrax scare in the United Stats — a theory forwarded most aggressively by Iraqi defector Khidir Hamza and former CIA director James Woolsey — have, with the revelation that the anthrax is domestic, had their arguments silenced by the facts.

2001 Ron Paul 111:8
Absent Iraqi involvement in the attack on the United States, I can only wonder why so many in Congress seek to divert resources away from our efforts to bring those who did attack us to justice. That hardly seems a prudent move. Many will argue that it doesn’t matter whether Iraq had a role in the attack on us, Iraq is a threat to the United States and therefore must be dealt with. Some on this committee have made this very argument. Mr. Speaker, most of us here have never been to Iraq, however those who have, like former UN chief Arms Inspector Scott Ritter — who lead some 30 inspection missions to Iraq — come to different conclusions on the country. Asked in November on Fox News Channel by John Kasich sitting in for Bill O’Reilly about how much of a threat Saddam Hussein poses to the United States, former Chief Inspector Ritter said, “In terms of military threat, absolutely nothing . . . Diplomatically, politically, Saddam’s a little bit of a threat. In terms of real national security threat to the United States, no, none.” Mr. Speaker, shouldn’t we even stop for a moment to consider what some of these experts are saying before we move further down the road toward military confrontation?

2001 Ron Paul 111:9
The rationale for this legislation is suspect, not the least because it employs a revisionist view of recent Middle East history. This legislation brings up, as part of its indictment against Iraq, that Iraq attacked Iran some 20 years ago. What the legislation fails to mention is that at that time Iraq was an ally of the United States, and counted on technical and military support from the United States in its war on Iran. Similarly, the legislation mentions Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait more than 10 years ago. But at that time U.S. foreign policy was sending Saddam Hussein mixed messages, as Iraq’s dispute with Kuwait simmered. At the time, U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie was reported in the New York times as giving very ambiguous signals to Saddam Hussein regarding Kuwait, allegedly telling Hussein that the United States had no interest in Arab-Arab disputes.

2001 Ron Paul 111:10
We must also consider the damage a military invasion of Iraq will do to our alliance in this fight against terrorism. An attack on Iraq could destroy that international coalition against terrorism. Most of our European allies — critical in maintaining this coalition — have explicitly stated their opposition to any attack on Iraq. German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer warned recently that Europe was “completely united” in opposition to any attack on Iraq. Russian President Valdimir Putin cautioned recently against American military action in Iraq. Mr. Putin urged the next step to be centered around cutting off the financial resources of terrorists worldwide. As for Iraq, the Russian president said. “. . . so far I have no confirmation, no evidence that Iraq is financing the terrorists that we are fighting against.” Relations with our European allies would suffer should we continue down this path toward military conflict with Iraq.

2001 Ron Paul 111:11
Likewise, U.S. relations with the Gulf states like Saudi Arabia could collapse should the United States initiate an attack on Iraq. Not only would our Saudi allies deny us the use of their territory to launch the attack, but a certain backlash from all gulf and Arab states could well produce even an oil embargo against the United States. Egypt, a key ally in our fight against terrorism, has also warned against any attack on Iraq. Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher said recently of the coalition that, “If we want to keep consensus . . . we should not resort, after Afghanistan, to military means.”

2001 Ron Paul 111:12
Mr. Speaker, I do not understand this push to seek out another country to bomb next. Media and various politicians and pundits seem to delight in predicting from week to week which country should be next on our bombing list. Is military action now the foreign policy of first resort for the United States? When it comes to other countries and warring disputes, the United States counsels dialogue without exception. We urge the Catholics and Protestants to talk to each other, we urge the Israelis and Palestinians to talk to each other. Even at the height of the Cold War, when the Soviet Union had missiles pointed at us from 90 miles away in Cuba, we solved the dispute through dialogue and diplomacy. Why is it, in this post Cold War era, that the United States seems to turn first to the military to solve its foreign policy problems? Is diplomacy dead?

2001 Ron Paul 111:13
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, this legislation, even in its watered-down form, moves us closer to conflict with Iraq. This is not in our interest at this time. It also, ironically enough, could serve to further Osama bin Laden’s twisted plans for a clash of civilizations between Islam and the West. Invading Iraq, with the massive loss of life on both sides, would only forward bin Laden’s hateful plan. I think we need to look at our priorities here. We are still seeking those most responsible for the attacks on the United States. Now hardly seems the time to go out in search of new battles.