Volume 1999 — The Book of Ron Paul


1999 Ron Paul Chapter 1
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Freedom And Privacy Restoration Act 6 January 1999 HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, January 6, 1999

1999 Ron Paul 1:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act of 1999. This act forbids the federal government from establishing any national ID cards or establishing any identifiers for the purpose of investigating, monitoring, overseeing, or regulating private transactions between American citizens. This legislation also explicitly repeals those sections of the 1996 Immigration Act that established federal standards for state drivers’ licenses and those sections of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 that require the Department of Health and Human Services to establish a uniform standard health identifier.

1999 Ron Paul 1:2
The Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act halts the greatest threat to liberty today: the growth of the surveillance state. Unless Congress stops authorizing the federal bureaucracy to stamp and number the American people federal officials will soon have the power to arbitrarily prevent citizens from opening a bank account, getting a job, traveling, or even seeking medical treatment unless their “papers are in order!”

1999 Ron Paul 1:3
In addition to forbidding the federal government from creating national identifiers, this legislation forbids the federal government from blackmailing states into adopting uniform standard identifiers by withholding federal funds. One of the most onerous practices of Congress is the use of federal funds illegitimately taken from the American people to bribe states into obeying federal dictates.

1999 Ron Paul 1:4
Perhaps the most important part of the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act is the section prohibiting the use of the Social Security number as an identifier. Although it has not received as much attention as some of the other abuses this legislation addresses, the abuse of the Social Security number may pose an even more immediate threat to American liberty. For all intents and purposes, the Social Security number is already a national identification number. Today, in the majority of states, no American can get a job, open a bank account, get a drivers’ license, or even receive a birth certificate for one’s child without presenting their Social Security number. So widespread has the use of the Social Security number become that a member of my staff had to produce a Social Security number in order to get a fishing license! Even members of Congress must produce a Social Security number in order to vote on legislation.

1999 Ron Paul 1:5
One of the most disturbing abuses of the Social Security number is the congressionallyauthorized rule forcing parents to get a Social Security number for their newborn children in order to claim them as dependents. Forcing parents to register their children with the state is more like something out of the nightmares of George Orwell than the dreams of a free republic which inspired this nation’s founders.

1999 Ron Paul 1:6
Since the creation of the Social Security number in 1935, there have been almost 40 congressionally-authorized uses of the Social Security number as an identification number for non-Social Security programs! Many of these uses, such as the requirement that employers report the Social Security number of new employees to the “new hires data base,” have been enacted in the past few years. In fact, just last year, 210 members of Congress voted to allow states to force citizens to produce a Social Security number before they could exercise their right to vote.

1999 Ron Paul 1:7
Mr. Speaker, the section of this bill prohibiting the federal government from using identifiers to monitor private transactions is necessary to stop schemes such as the attempt to assign every American a “unique health identifier” for every American—an identifier which could be used to create a national database containing the medical history of all Americans. As an OB/GYN with more than 30 years in private practice, I know well the importance of preserving the sanctity of the physician- patient relationship. Oftentimes, effective treatment depends on a patient’s ability to place absolute trust in his or her doctor. What will happen to that trust when patients know that any and all information given to their doctor will be placed in a government accessible data base?

1999 Ron Paul 1:8
A more recent assault on privacy is a regulation proposed jointly by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the Federal Reserve, known as “Know Your Customer.” If this regulation takes effect in April 2000, financial institutions will be required not only to identify their customers but also their source of funds for all transactions, establish a “profile” and determine if the transaction is “normal and expected.” If a transaction does not fit the profile, banks would have to report the transaction to government regulators as “suspicious.” The unfunded mandate on financial institutions will be passed on to customers who would have to pay higher ATM and other fees and higher interest rates on loans for the privilege of being spied on by government-inspired tellers.

1999 Ron Paul 1:9
Many of my colleagues will claim that the federal government needs these powers to protect against fraud or some other criminal activities. However, monitoring the transactions of every American in order to catch those few who are involved in some sort of illegal activity turns one of the great bulwarks of our liberty, the presumption of innocence, on its head. The federal government has no right to treat all Americans as criminals by spying on their relationship with their doctors, employers, or bankers. In act, criminal law enforcement is reserved to the state and local governments by the Constitution’s Tenth Amendment.

1999 Ron Paul 1:10
Other members of Congress will claim that the federal government needs the power to monitor Americans in order to allow the government to operate more efficiently. I would remind my colleagues that in a constitutional republic the people are never asked to sacrifice their liberties to make the job of government officials a little bit easier. We are here to protect the freedom of the American people, not to make privacy invasion more efficient.

1999 Ron Paul 1:11
Mr. Speaker, while I do not question the sincerity of those members who suggest that Congress can ensure citizens’ rights are protected through legislation restricting access to personal information, the fact is the only solution is to forbid the federal government from using national identifiers. Legislative “privacy protections” are inadequate to protect the liberty of Americans for several reasons. First, federal laws have not stopped unscrupulous government officials from accessing personal information. Did laws stop the permanent violation of privacy by the IRS, or the FBI abuses by the Clinton and Nixon administrations?

1999 Ron Paul 1:12
Secondly, the federal government has been creating property interests in private information for certain state-favored third parties. For example, a little-noticed provision in the Patient Protection Act established a property right for insurance companies to access personal health care information. Congress also authorized private individuals to receive personal information from government data bases in last year’s copyright bill. The Clinton Administration has even endorsed allowing law enforcement officials’ access to health care information, in complete disregard of the fifth amendment. Obviously, “private protection” laws have proven greatly inadequate to protect personal information when the government is the one providing or seeking the information!

1999 Ron Paul 1:13
The primary reason why any action short of the repeal of laws authorizing privacy violation is insufficient is because the federal government lacks constitutional authority to force citizens to adopt a universal identifier for health care, employment, or any other reason. Any federal action that oversteps constitutional limitations violates liberty because it ratifies the principle that the federal government, not the Constitution, is the ultimate judge of its own jurisdiction over the people. The only effective protection of the rights of citizens is for Congress to follow Thomas Jefferson’s advice and “bind (the federal government) down with the chains of the Constitution.”

1999 Ron Paul 1:14
Mr. Speaker, those members who are unpersuaded by the moral and constitutional reasons for embracing the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act should consider the overwhelming opposition of the American people toward national identifiers. My office has been inundated with calls from around the country protesting the movement toward a national ID card and encouraging my efforts to thwart this scheme. I have also received numerous complaints from Texans upset that they have to produce a Social Security number in order to receive a state drivers’ license. Clearly, the American people want Congress to stop invading their privacy. Congress risks provoking a voter backlash if we fail to halt the growth of the surveillance state.

1999 Ron Paul 1:15
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I once again call on my colleagues to join me in putting an end to the federal government’s unconstitutional use of national identifiers to monitor the actions of private citizens. National identifiers are incompatible with a limited, constitutional government. I therefore, hope my colleagues will join my efforts to protect the freedom of their constituents by supporting the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act of 1999.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 2
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Honoring My Friend, Baseball Legend Nolan Ryan, On His Election To The Hall Of Fame 6 January 1999 HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, January 6, 1999

1999 Ron Paul 2:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay honor to my long-time friend, Nolan Ryan, on the announcement of his election to the Baseball Hall of Fame. I’ve known Nolan for many years, and I knew him as a kind, generous man who seeks to do what is right and just. It seems there are so few heroes for kids today, especially in athletics, but I can sincerely commend Nolan Ryan as a true hero of our times, a role-model for our youth, and a man worthy of honor and respect.

1999 Ron Paul 2:2
Nolan was born in Refugio, Texas, a historic town in my congressional district, but he was destined for the national stage. His successful career spanned 27 years, taking him from rural Texas to the dug-outs of the New York Mets, the California Angels, the Houston Astros and the Texas Rangers. He pitched a record seven no-hitter games, but his real fame comes from having pitched 5,714 strikeouts.

1999 Ron Paul 2:3
Nolan told newspaper reporters yesterday that he never viewed himself as a “hall of famer.” For once, I have to disagree with my friend. He is Hall of Fame material not only for his prowess on the field, but for his strong character and unwavering dedication to his family, his friends, his beliefs, and his God.

1999 Ron Paul 2:4
I trust all my colleagues join me in congratulating Nolan Ryan.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 3
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

How Long Will The War With Iraq Go On Before Congress Notices? 2 February 1999 The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker’s announced policy of January 19, 1999, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) is recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.

1999 Ron Paul 3:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I ask my fellow colleagues, how long will the war go on before Congress notices? We have been bombing and occupying Iraq since 1991, longer the occupation of Japan after World War II. Iraq has never committed aggression against the United States.

1999 Ron Paul 3:2
The recent escalation of bombing in Iraq has caused civilian casualties to mount. The Clinton administration claims U.N. resolution 687, passed in 1991, gives him the legal authority to continue this war. We have perpetuated hostilities and sanctions for more than 8 years on a country that has never threatened our security, and the legal justification comes from not the U.S. Congress, as the Constitution demands, but from a clearly unconstitutional authority, the United Nations.

1999 Ron Paul 3:3
In the past several months the airways have been filled with Members of Congress relating or restating their fidelity to their oath of office to uphold the Constitution. That is good, and I am sure it is done with the best of intentions. But when it comes to explaining our constitutional responsibility to make sure unconstitutional sexual harassment laws are thoroughly enforced, while disregarding most people’s instincts towards protecting privacy, it seems to be overstating a point, compared to our apathy toward the usurping of congressional power to declare and wage war. That is something we ought to be concerned about.

1999 Ron Paul 3:4
A major reason for the American Revolution was to abolish the King’s power to wage war, tax, and invade personal privacy without representation and due process of law. For most of our history our presidents and our Congresses understood that war was a prerogative of the congressional authority alone. Even minimal military interventions by our early presidents were for the most part done only with constitutional approval.

1999 Ron Paul 3:5
This all changed after World War II with our membership in the United Nations. As bad as it is to allow our presidents to usurp congressional authority to wage war, it is much worse for the President to share this sovereign right with an international organization that requires us to pay more than our fair share while we get a vote no greater than the rest.

1999 Ron Paul 3:6
The constitution has been blatantly ignored by the President while Congress has acquiesced in endorsing the 8- year war against Iraq. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 has done nothing to keep our presidents from policing the world, spending billions of dollars, killing many innocent people, and jeopardizing the very troops that should be defending America.

1999 Ron Paul 3:7
The continual ranting about stopping Hussein, who is totally defenseless against our attacks, from developing weapons of mass destruction ignores the fact that more than 30,000 very real nuclear warheads are floating around the old Soviet empire.

1999 Ron Paul 3:8
Our foolish policy in Iraq invites terrorist attacks against U.S. territory and incites the Islamic fundamentalists against us. As a consequence, our efforts to develop long-term peaceful relations with Russia are now ending. This policy cannot enhance world peace. But instead of changing it, the President is about to expand it in another no-win centuries-old fight in Kosovo.

1999 Ron Paul 3:9
It is time for Congress to declare its interest in the Constitution and take responsibility on issues that matter, like the war powers.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 4
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War 2 February 1999 The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. BIGGERT). Under the Speaker’s announced policy of January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.

1999 Ron Paul 4:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I have great concern for the future of the American Republic. Many Americans argue that we are now enjoying the best of times. Others concern themselves with problems less visible but smouldering beneath the surface. Those who are content point out that the economy is booming, we are not at war, crime rates are down, and the majority of Americans feel safe and secure in their homes and community. Others point out that economic booms, when brought about artificially with credit creation, are destined to end with a bang. The absence of overt war does not negate the fact that tens of thousands of American troops are scattered around the world in the middle of ancient fights not likely to be settled by our meddling and may escalate at any time.

1999 Ron Paul 4:2
Madam Speaker, the relinquishing of the power to wage war by Congress to the President, although ignored or endorsed by many, raises serious questions regarding the status of our Republic, and although many Americans are content with their routine activities, much evidence demonstrating that our personal privacy is routinely being threatened. Crime still remains a concern for many with questions raised as to whether or not violent crimes are accurately reported, and ironically there are many Americans who now fear that dreaded Federal bureaucrat and possible illegal seizure of their property by the government more than they do the thugs in the street. I remain concerned about the economy, our militarism and internationalism, and the systemic invasion of our privacy in every aspect of our lives by nameless bureaucrats. I am convinced that if these problems are not dealt with. The republic for for which we have all sworn an oath to protect will not survive.

1999 Ron Paul 4:3
Madam Speaker, all Members should be concerned about the war powers now illegitimately assumed by the President, the financial bubble that will play havoc with the standard of living of most Americans when it bursts and the systemic undermining of our privacy even in this age of relative contentment.

1999 Ron Paul 4:4
The Founders of this great Nation abhorred tyranny and loved liberty. The power of the king to wage war, tax and abuse the personal rights of the American colonists drove them to rebel, win a revolution and codify their convictions in a new Constitution. It was serious business, and every issue was thoroughly debated and explained most prominently in the Federalist Papers. Debate about trade among the States and with other countries, sound money and the constraints on presidential power occupied a major portion of their time.

1999 Ron Paul 4:5
Initially the Articles of Confederation spoke clearly of just who would be responsible for waging war. It gave the constitutional Congress, quote, sole and exclusive right and power of determining on peace and war. In the debate at the Constitutional Convention it was clear that this position was maintained as the power of the British king was not to be, quote, a proper guide in defining executive war powers, close quote, for the newly formed republic. The result was a Constitution that gave Congress the power to declare war, issue letters of mark and reprisal, call up the militia, raise and train an Army and Navy and regulate foreign commerce, a tool often used in international conflict. The President was also required to share power with the Senate in ratifying treaties and appointing ambassadors.

1999 Ron Paul 4:6
Let there be no doubt. The President, according to the Constitution, has no power to wage war. However it has been recognized throughout our history that certain circumstances might require the President to act in self-defense if Congress is not readily available to act if the United States is attacked.

1999 Ron Paul 4:7
Recent flagrant abuse of the power to wage war by modern-day Presidents, including the most recent episodes in Iraq, Afghanistan and Sudan, should prompt this Congress to revisit this entire issue of war powers. Certain abuses of power are obviously more injurious than others. The use of the FBI and the IRS to illegally monitor and intimidate citizens is a power that should be easy to condemn, and yet it continues to thrive. The illegal and immoral power to create money out of thin air for the purpose of financing a welfarewarfare state serving certain financial interests while causing the harmful business cycle is a process that most in Washington do not understand nor care about. These are ominous powers of great magnitude that were never meant to be permitted under the Constitution.

1999 Ron Paul 4:8
But as bad as these abuses are, the power of a single person, the President, to wage war is the most egregious of all presidential powers, and Congress deserves the blame for allowing such power to gravitate into the hands of the President. The fact that nary a complaint was made in Congress for the recent aggressive military behavior of our President in Iraq for reasons that had nothing to do with national security should not be ignored. Instead, Congress unwisely and quickly rubber stamped this military operation. We should analyze this closely and decide whether or not we in the Congress should promote a war powers policy that conforms to the Constitution or continue to allow our Presidents ever greater leverage to wage war any time, any place and for any reason.

1999 Ron Paul 4:9
This policy of allowing our Presidents unlimited authority to wage war has been in place since the end of World War II, although abuse to a lesser degree has occurred since the beginning of the 20th century. Specifically, since joining the United Nations congressional authority to determine when and if our troops will fight abroad has been seriously undermined. From Truman’s sending of troops to Korea to Bush’s Persian Gulf War, we have seen big wars fought, tens of thousands killed, hundreds of thousands wounded and hundreds of billions of dollars wasted. U.S. security, never at risk, has been needlessly jeopardized by the so-called peacekeeping missions and police exercises while constitutional law has been seriously and dangerously undermined.

1999 Ron Paul 4:10
Madam Speaker, something must be done. The cost of this policy has been great in terms of life and dollars and our constitutional system of law. Nearly 100,000 deaths occurred in the Vietnam and Korean wars, and if we continue to allow our Presidents to casually pursue war for the flimsiest of reasons, we may well be looking at another major conflict somewhere in the world in which we have no business or need to be involved.

1999 Ron Paul 4:11
The correction of this problem requires a concerted effort on the part of Congress to reclaim and reassert its responsibility under the Constitution with respect to war powers, and efforts were made to do exactly that after Vietnam in 1973 and more recently in 1995. Neither efforts were successful, and ironically the President emerged with more power, with each effort being undermined by supporters in the Congress of presidential authoritarianism and internationalism. Few objected to the Truman-ordered U.N. police actions in Korea in the 1950s, but they should have. This illegal and major war encouraged all subsequent Presidents to assume greater authority to wage war than was ever intended by the Constitution or assumed by all the Presidents prior to World War II. It is precisely because of the way we have entered in each military action since the 1940s without declaring war that their purposes have been vague and victory elusive, yet pain, suffering and long term negative consequences have resulted. The road on which this country embarked 50 years ago has led to the sacrifice of a lot of congressional prerogatives and citizen control over the excessive power that have fallen into the hands of Presidents quite willing to abuse this authority. No one person, if our society is to remain free, should be allowed to provoke war with aggressive military acts. Congress and the people are obligated to rein in this flagrant abuse of presidential power.

1999 Ron Paul 4:12
Not only did we suffer greatly from the unwise and illegal Korean and Vietnam wars, Congress has allowed a continuous abuse of military power by our Presidents in an ever increasing frequency. We have seen troops needlessly die in Lebanon, Grenada, invaded for questionable reasons, Libya bombed with innocent civilians killed, persistent naval operations in the Persian Gulf, Panama invaded, Iraq bombed on numerous occasions, Somalia invaded, a secret and illegal war fought in Nicaragua, Haiti occupied, and troops stationed in Bosnia and now possibly soon in Kosovo.

1999 Ron Paul 4:13
Even the Congressional permission to pursue the Persian Gulf War was an afterthought, since President Bush emphatically stated that it was unnecessary, as he received his authority from the United Nations.

1999 Ron Paul 4:14
Without an actual declaration of war and support from the American people, victory is unachievable. This has been the case with the ongoing war against Iraq. Without a legitimate concern for our national security, the willingness to declare war and achieve victory is difficult. The war effort becomes narrowly political, serving special interests, and not fought for the defense of the United States against a serious military threat. If we can win a Cold War against the Soviets, we hardly need a hot war with a third world nation, unable to defend itself, Iraq.

1999 Ron Paul 4:15
Great concern in the 1960’s over the excessive presidential war powers was expressed by the American people, and, thus, the interests of the U.S. Congress after Vietnam in the early 1970’s. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 resulted, but due to shrewd manipulation and political chicanery, the effort resulted in giving the President more authority, allowing him to wage war for 60 to 90 days without Congressional approval.

1999 Ron Paul 4:16
Prior to the Korean War, when the Constitution and historic precedent had been followed, the President could not and for the most part did not engage in any military effort not directly defensive in nature without explicit Congressional approval.

1999 Ron Paul 4:17
The result of the passage of the War Powers Resolution was exactly opposite to its authors’ intentions. More power is granted to the president to send troops hither and yon, with the various Presidents sometimes reporting to the Congress and sometimes not. But Congress has unwisely and rarely objected, and has not in recent years demanded its proper role in decisions of war, nor hesitated to continue the funding that the various presidents have demanded.

1999 Ron Paul 4:18
Approval of presidential-directed aggression, disguised as “support for the troops,” comes routinely, and if any member does not obediently endorse every action a President might take, for whatever reason, it is implied the member lacks patriotism and wisdom. It is amazing how we have drifted from the responsibility of the Founders, imagine, the Congress and the people would jealously protect.

1999 Ron Paul 4:19
It is too often and foolishly argued that we must permit great flexibility for the President to retaliate when American troops are in danger. But this is only after the President has invaded and placed our troops in harm’s way.

1999 Ron Paul 4:20
By what stretch of the imagination can one say that these military actions can be considered defensive in nature? The best way we can promote support for our troops is employ them in a manner that is the least provocative. They must be given a mission confined to defending the United States, not policing the world or taking orders from the United Nations or serving the special commercial interests of U.S. corporations around the world.

1999 Ron Paul 4:21
The 1995 effort to repeal the War Powers Resolution failed because it was not a clean repeal, but one still requiring consultation and reporting to the Congress. This led to enough confusion to prevent its passage.

1999 Ron Paul 4:22
What is needed is a return to the Constitution as a strict guide as to who has the authority to exert the war powers and, as has been scrupulously followed in the 19th century by essentially all political parties and presidents.

1999 Ron Paul 4:23
The effort to curtail presidential powers while requiring consultation and reporting to the Congress implies that that is all that is needed to avoid the strict rules laid out by the Constitution.

1999 Ron Paul 4:24
It was admitted in the House debate by the House leadership that the repeal actually gave the President more power to use troops overseas and therefore urged passage of the measure. This accurate assessment prompted antiwar pro-peace Republicans and Democrats to narrowly reject the proposal.

1999 Ron Paul 4:25
The message here is that clarification of the War Powers Resolution and a return to constitutional law are the only way presidential authority to wage war can be curtailed. If our presidents do not act accordingly, Congress must quickly and forcefully meet its responsibility by denying funds for foreign intervention and aggression initiated by the President.

1999 Ron Paul 4:26
The basic problem here is that there are still too many Members of Congress who endorse a presidency armed with the authority of a tyrant to wage war. But if this assumption of power by the President with Congress’ approval is not reversed, the republic cannot be maintained.

1999 Ron Paul 4:27
Putting the power in the hands of a single person, the president, to wage war, is dangerous and costly, and it destroys the notion that the people through their Congressional representatives decide when military action should start and when war should take place.

1999 Ron Paul 4:28
The sacrifice of this constitutional principle, guarded diligently for 175 years and now severely eroded in the past 50, must be restored if we hope to protect our liberties and avoid yet another unnecessary and, heaven-forbid, major world conflict, and merely changing the law will not be enough to guarantee that future presidents will not violate their trust.

1999 Ron Paul 4:29
A moral commitment to the principle of limited presidential war powers in the spirit of the republic is required. Even with the clearest constitutional restriction on the President to wage undeclared wars, buffered by precise legislation, if the sentiment of the Congress, the courts and the people or the President is to ignore these restraints, they will.

1999 Ron Paul 4:30
The best of all situations is when the spirit of the republic is one and the same, as the law itself, and honorable men are in positions of responsibility to carry out the law. Even though we cannot guarantee the future Congress’ or our president’s moral commitment to the principles of liberty by changing the law, we still must make every effort possible to make the law and the Constitution as morally sound as possible.

1999 Ron Paul 4:31
Our responsibility here in the Congress is to protect liberty and do our best to ensure peace and trade with all who do not aggress against us. But peace is more easily achieved when we reject the notion that some Americans must subsidize foreign nations for a benefit that is intended to flow back to a select few Americans. Maintaining an empire or striving for a world government while allowing excessive war powers to accrue to an imperial president will surely lead to needless military conflicts, loss of life and liberty, and a complete undermining of our constitutional republic.

1999 Ron Paul 4:32
On another issue, privacy, privacy is the essence of liberty. Without it, individual rights cannot exist. Privacy and property are interlocked and if both are protected, little would need to be said about other civil liberties. If one’s home, church or business is one’s castle, and the privacy of one’s person, papers and effects are rigidly protected, all rights desired in a free society will be guaranteed. Diligently protecting the right to privacy and property guarantees religious, journalistic and political experience, as well as a free market economy and sound money. Once a careless attitude emerges with respect to privacy, all other rights are jeopardized.

1999 Ron Paul 4:33
Today we find a systematic and pervasive attack on the privacy of all American citizens, which undermines the principle of private property ownership. Understanding why the attack on privacy is rapidly expanding and recognizing a need to reverse this trend is necessary if our republic is to survive.

1999 Ron Paul 4:34
Lack of respect for the privacy and property of the American colonists by the British throne was a powerful motivation for the American revolution and resulted in the strongly worded and crystal clear Fourth Amendment.

1999 Ron Paul 4:35
Emphatically, searches and seizures are prohibited except when warrants are issued upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, with details listed given as to place, person and things to be seized.

1999 Ron Paul 4:36
This is a far cry from the routine seizure by the Federal Government and forfeiture of property which occurs today. Our papers are no longer considered personal and their confidentiality has been eliminated. Private property is searched by Federal agents without announcement, and huge fines are levied when Federal regulations appear to have been violated, and proof of innocence is demanded if one chooses to fight the abuse in court and avoid the heavy fines.

1999 Ron Paul 4:37
Eighty thousand armed Federal bureaucrats and law enforcement officers now patrol our land and business establishments. Suspicious religious groups are monitored and sometimes destroyed without due process of law, with little or no evidence of wrongdoing. Local and state jurisdiction is rarely recognized once the feds move in.

1999 Ron Paul 4:38
Today, it is routine for government to illegally seize property, requiring the victims to prove their innocence in order to retrieve their property, and many times this fails due to the expense and legal roadblocks placed in the victim’s way.

1999 Ron Paul 4:39
Although the voters in the 1990’s have cried out for a change in direction and demanded a smaller, less intrusive government, the attack on privacy by the Congress, the administration and the courts has, nevertheless, accelerated. Plans have now been laid or implemented for a national I.D. card, a national medical data bank, a data bank on individual MDs, deadbeat dads, intrusive programs monitoring our every financial transaction, while the Social Security number has been established as the universal identifier.

1999 Ron Paul 4:40
The Social Security number is now commonly used for just about everything, getting a birth certificate, buying a car, seeing an MD, getting a job, opening up a bank account, getting a driver’s license, making many routine purchases, and, of course, a death certificate. Cradle-to-the-grave government surveillance is here and daily getting more pervasive.

1999 Ron Paul 4:41
The attack on privacy is not a coincidence or an event that arises for no explainable reason. It results from a philosophy that justifies it and requires it. A government not dedicated to preserving liberty must by its very nature allow this precious right to erode.

1999 Ron Paul 4:42
A political system designed as ours was to protect life and liberty and property would vigorously protect all citizens’ rights to privacy, and this cannot occur unless the property and the fruits of one’s labor, of every citizen, is protected from confiscation by thugs in the street as well as in our legislative bodies.

1999 Ron Paul 4:43
The promoters of government instruction into our privacy characteristically use worn out cliches to defend what they do. The most common argument is that if you have nothing to hide, why worry about it?

1999 Ron Paul 4:44
This is ludicrous. We have nothing to hide in our homes or our bedrooms, but that is no reason why big brother should be permitted to monitor us with a surveillance camera.

1999 Ron Paul 4:45
The same can be argued about our churches, our businesses or any peaceful action we may pursue. Our personal activities are no one else’s business. We may have nothing to hide, but, if we are not careful, we have plenty to lose, our right to be left alone.

1999 Ron Paul 4:46
Others argue that to operate government programs efficiently and without fraud, close monitoring is best achieved with an universal identifier, the Social Security number.

1999 Ron Paul 4:47
Efficiency and protection from fraud may well be enhanced with the use of a universal identifier, but this contradicts the whole notion of the proper role for government in a free society.

1999 Ron Paul 4:48
Most of the Federal programs are unconstitutional to begin with, so eliminating waste and fraud and promoting efficiency for a program that requires a violation of someone else’s rights should not be a high priority of the Congress. But the temptation is too great, even for those who question the wisdom of the government programs, and compromise of the Fourth Amendment becomes acceptable.

1999 Ron Paul 4:49
I have never heard of a proposal to promote the national I.D. card or anything short of this for any reasons other than a good purpose. Essentially all those who vote to allow the continual erosion of our privacy and other constitutional rights never do it because they consciously support a tyrannical government; it is always done with good intentions.

1999 Ron Paul 4:50
Believe me, most of the evil done by elected congresses and parliaments throughout all of history has been justified by good intentions. But that does not change anything. It just makes it harder to stop.

1999 Ron Paul 4:51
Therefore, we cannot ignore the motivations behind those who promote the welfare state. Bad ideas, if implemented, whether promoted by men of bad intentions or good, will result in bad results.

1999 Ron Paul 4:52
Well-intentioned people, men of goodwill, should, however, respond to a persuasive argument. Ignorance is the enemy of sound policy, every bit as much as political corruption.

1999 Ron Paul 4:53
Various management problems in support for welfarism motivates those who argue for only a little sacrifice of freedom to achieve a greater good for society. Each effort to undermine our privacy is easily justified.

1999 Ron Paul 4:54
The national I.D. card is needed, it is said, to detect illegal aliens, yet all Americans will need it to open up a bank account, get a job, fly on an airplane, see a doctor, go to school or drive a car.

1999 Ron Paul 4:55
Financial privacy must be sacrificed, it is argued, in order to catch money launderers, drug dealers, mobsters and tax cheats. Privacy for privacy’s sake, unfortunately for many, is a nonissue.

1999 Ron Paul 4:56
The recent know-your-customer plan was designed by Richard Small, Assistant Director of the Division of Banking Supervision Regulation at the Federal Reserve. He is not happy with all of the complaints that he has received regarding this proposal. His program will require that every bank keep a detailed profile on every customer, as to how much is deposited, where it comes from, and when and how the money is spent. If there is any deviation from the profile on record, the bank is required to report this to a half dozen government agencies, which will require the customer to do a lot of explaining. This program will catch few drug dealers, but will surely infringe on the liberty of every law-abiding citizen.

1999 Ron Paul 4:57
After thousands of complaints were registered at the Federal Reserve and the other agencies, Richard Small was quoted as saying that in essence, the complaints were coming from these strange people who are overly concerned about the Constitution and privacy. Legal justification for the program, Small explained, comes from a court case that states that our personal papers, when in the hands of a third party like a bank, do not qualify for protection under the Fourth Amendment.

1999 Ron Paul 4:58
He is accurate in quoting the court case, but that does not make it right. Courts do not have the authority to repeal a fundamental right as important as that guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment. Under this reasoning, when applied to our medical records, all confidentiality between the doctor and the patient is destroyed.

1999 Ron Paul 4:59
For this reason, the proposal for a national medical data bank to assure us there will be no waste or fraud, that doctors are practicing good medicine, that the exchange of medical records between the HMOs will be facilitated and statistical research is made easier, should be strenuously opposed. The more the government is involved in medicine or anything, the greater the odds that personal privacy will be abused.

1999 Ron Paul 4:60
The IRS and the DEA, with powers illegally given them by the Congress and the courts, have prompted a flood of seizures and forfeitures in the last several decades without due process and frequently without search warrants or probable cause. Victims then are required to prove themselves innocent to recover the goods seized.

1999 Ron Paul 4:61
This flagrant and systematic abuse of privacy may well turn out to be a blessing in disguise. Like the public schools, it may provide the incentive for Americans finally to do something about the system.

1999 Ron Paul 4:62
The disaster state of the public school system has prompted millions of parents to provide private or home schooling for their children. The worse the government schools get, the more the people resort to a private option, even without tax relief from the politicians. This is only possible as long as some remnant of our freedom remains, and these options are permitted. We cannot become complacent.

1999 Ron Paul 4:63
Hopefully, a similar reaction will occur in the area of privacy, but overcoming the intrusiveness of government into our privacy in nearly every aspect of our lives will be difficult. Home schooling is a relatively simple solution compared to avoiding the roving and snooping high of big brother. Solving the privacy problem requires an awakening by the American people with a strong message being sent to the U.S. Congress that we have had enough.

1999 Ron Paul 4:64
Eventually, stopping this systematic intrusion into our privacy will require challenging the entire welfare state. Socialism and welfarism self-destruct after a prolonged period of time due to their natural inefficiencies and national bankruptcy. As the system ages, more and more efforts are made to delay its demise by borrowing, inflating and coercion. The degree of violation of our privacy is a measurement of the coercion thought necessary by the proponents of authoritarianism to continue the process.

1999 Ron Paul 4:65
The privacy issue invites a serious discussion between those who seriously believe welfare redistribution helps the poor and does not violate anyone’s rights, and others who promote policies that undermine privacy in an effort to reduce fraud and waste to make the programs work efficiently, even if they disagree with the programs themselves. This opportunity will actually increase as it becomes more evident that our country is poorer than most believe and sustaining the welfare state at current levels will prove impossible. An ever-increasing invasion of our privacy will force everyone eventually to reconsider the efficiency of the welfare state, if the welfare of the people is getting worse and their privacy invaded.

1999 Ron Paul 4:66
Our job is to make a principled, moral, constitutional and practical case for respecting everyone’s privacy, even if it is suspected some private activities, barring violence, do not conform to our own private moral standards. We could go a long way to guaranteeing privacy for all Americans if we, as Members of Congress, would take our oath of office more seriously and do exactly what the Constitution says.

1999 Ron Paul 4:67
THE FINANCIAL BUBBLE On a third item, the financial bubble, a huge financial bubble engulfs the world financial markets. This bubble has been developing for a long time but has gotten much larger the last couple of years. Understanding this issue is critical to the economic security of all Americans that we all strive to protect.

1999 Ron Paul 4:68
Credit expansion is the root cause of all financial bubbles. Fiat monetary systems inevitably cause unsustainable economic expansion that results in a recession and/or depression. A correction always results, with the degree and duration being determined by government fiscal policy and central bank monetary policy. If wages and prices are not allowed to adjust and the correction is thwarted by invigorated monetary expansion, new and sustained economic growth will be delayed or prevented. Financial dislocation caused by central banks in the various countries will differ from one to another due to political perceptions, military considerations, and reserve currency status.

1999 Ron Paul 4:69
The U.S.’s ability to inflate has been dramatically enhanced by other countries’ willingness to absorb our inflated currency, our dollar being the reserve currency of the world. Foreign central banks now hold in reserve over $600 billion, an amount significantly greater than that even held by our own Federal Reserve System. Our economic and military power gives us additional license to inflate our currency, thus delaying the inevitable correction inherent in a paper money system. But this only allows for a larger bubble to develop, further jeopardizing our future economy.

1999 Ron Paul 4:70
Because of the significance of the dollar to the world economy, our inflation and the dollar-generated bubble is much more dangerous than single currency inflation such as Mexico, Brazil, South Korea, Japan and others. The significance of these inflations, however, cannot be dismissed.

1999 Ron Paul 4:71
The Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan, when the Dow was at approximately 6,500, cautioned the Nation about irrational exuberance and for a day or two the markets were subdued. But while openly worrying about an unsustained stock market boom, he nevertheless accelerated the very credit expansion that threatened the market and created the irrational exuberance.

1999 Ron Paul 4:72
From December 1996, at the time that Greenspan made this statement, to December 1998, the money supply soared. Over $1 trillion of new money, as measured by M–3, was created by the Federal Reserve. MZM, another monetary measurement, is currently expanding at a rate greater than 20 percent. This generous dose of credit has sparked even more irrational exuberance, which has taken the Dow to over 9,000 for a 30 percent increase in just two years.

1999 Ron Paul 4:73
When the foreign registered corporation long term capital management was threatened in 1998, that is, the market demanding a logical correction to its own exuberance with its massive $1 trillion speculative investment in the derivatives market, Greenspan and company quickly came to its rescue with an even greater acceleration of credit expansion.

1999 Ron Paul 4:74
The pain of market discipline is never acceptable when compared to the pleasure of postponing hard decisions and enjoying for a while longer the short-term benefits gained by keeping the financial bubble inflated. But the day is fast approaching when the markets and Congress will have to deal with the attack on the dollar, once it is realized that exporting our inflation is not without limits.

1999 Ron Paul 4:75
A hint of what can happen when the world gets tired of holding too many of our dollars was experienced in the dollar crisis of 1979 and 1980, and we saw at that time interest rates over 21 percent. There is abundant evidence around warning us of the impending danger. According to Federal Reserve statistics, household debt reached 81 percent of personal income in the second quarter of 1998. For 20 years prior to 1985, household debt averaged around 50 percent of personal income. Between 1985 and 1998, due to generous Federal Reserve credit, competent American consumers increased this to 81 percent and now it is even higher. At the same time, our savings rate has dropped to zero percent.

1999 Ron Paul 4:76
The conviction that stock prices will continue to provide extra cash and confidence in the economy has fueled wild consumer spending and personal debt expansion. The home refinance index between 1997 and 1999 increased 700 percent. Secondary mortgages are now offered up to 120 percent of a home’s equity, with many of these funds finding their way into the stock market. Generous credit and quasi-government agencies make these mortgage markets robust, but a correction will come when it is realized that the builders and the lenders have gotten ahead of themselves.

1999 Ron Paul 4:77
The willingness of foreign entities to take and hold our dollars has generated a huge current account deficit for the United States. It is expected a $200 billion annual deficit that we are running now will accelerate to over $300 billion in 1999, unless the financial bubble bursts.

1999 Ron Paul 4:78
This trend has made us the greatest international debtor in the world, with a negative net international asset position of more than $1.7 trillion. A significantly weakened dollar will play havoc when this bill comes due and foreign debt holders demand payment.

1999 Ron Paul 4:79
Contributing to the bubble and the dollar strength has been the fact that even though the dollar has problems, other currencies are even weaker and thus make the dollar look strong in comparison. Budgetary figures are frequently stated in a falsely optimistic manner. In 1969 when there was a surplus of approximately $3 billion, the national debt went down approximately the same amount. In 1998, however, with a so-called surplus of $70 billion, the national debt went up $113 billion, and instead of the surpluses which are not really surpluses running forever, the deficits will rise with a weaker economy and current congressional plans to increase welfare and warfare spending.

1999 Ron Paul 4:80
Government propaganda promotes the false notion that inflation is no longer a problem. Nothing could be further from the truth. The dangerous financial bubble, a result of the Federal Reserve’s deliberate policy of inflation and the Fed’s argument that there is no inflation according to governmentconcocted CPI figures, is made to justify a continuous policy of monetary inflation because they are terrified of the consequence of deflation. The Federal Reserve may sincerely believe maintaining the status quo, preventing price inflation and delaying deflation is possible, but it really is not.

1999 Ron Paul 4:81
The most astute money manager cannot balance inflation against deflation as long as there is continued credit expansion. The system inevitably collapses, as it finally did in Japan in the 1990s. Even the lack of the CPI inflation as reported by the Federal Reserve is suspect.

1999 Ron Paul 4:82
A CPI of all consumer items measured by the private source shows approximately a 400 percent increase in prices since 1970. Most Americans realize their dollars are buying less each year and no chance exists for the purchasing power of the dollar to go up. Just because prices of TVs and computers may go down, the cost of medicine, food, stocks and entertainment, and of course, government, certainly can rise rapidly.

1999 Ron Paul 4:83
One characteristic of an economy that suffers from a constantly debased currency is sluggish or diminished growth in real income. In spite of our so-called great economic recovery, two-thirds of U.S. workers for the past 25 years have had stagnant or falling wages. The demands for poverty relief from government agencies continue to increase. Last year alone, 678,000 jobs were lost due to downsizing. The new service sector jobs found by many of those laid off are rarely as good paying.

1999 Ron Paul 4:84
In the last 1 1/2 years, various countries have been hit hard with deflationary pressures. In spite of the IMF-led bailouts of nearly $200 billion, the danger of a worldwide depression remains. Many countries, even with the extra dollars sent to them courtesy of the American taxpayer, suffer devaluation and significant price inflation in their home currency.

1999 Ron Paul 4:85
But this, although helpful to banks lending overseas, has clearly failed, has cost a lot of money, and prevents the true market correction of liquidation of debt that must eventually come. The longer the delay and the more dollars used, the greater the threat to the dollar in the future.

1999 Ron Paul 4:86
There is good reason why we in the Congress should be concerned. A dollar crisis is an economic crisis that will threaten the standard of living of many Americans. Economic crises frequently lead to political crises, as is occurring in Indonesia.

1999 Ron Paul 4:87
Congress is responsible for the value of the dollar. Yet, as we have done too often in other areas, we have passed this responsibility on to someone else; in this case, to the Federal Reserve.

1999 Ron Paul 4:88
The Constitution is clear that the Congress has responsibility for guaranteeing the value of the currency, and no authority has ever been given to create a central bank. Creating money out of thin air is counterfeiting, even when done by a bank that the Congress tolerates.

1999 Ron Paul 4:89
It is easy to see why Congress, with its own insatiable desire to spend money and perpetuate a welfare and military state, cooperates with such a system. A national debt of $5.6 trillion could not have developed without a willing Federal Reserve to monetize this debt and provide for artificially low interest rates. But when the dollar crisis hits and it is clearly evident that the short-term benefits were not worth it, we will be forced to consider monetary reform.

1999 Ron Paul 4:90
Reconsidering the directives given us in the Constitution with regard to money would go a long way towards developing a sound monetary system that best protects our economy and guides us away from casually going to war. Monetary reform is something that we ought to be thinking about now.

1999 Ron Paul 4:91
Mr. Speaker, let me summarize. We in the Congress, along with the President, will soon have to make a decision that will determine whether or not the American republic survives. Allowing our presidents to wage war without the consent of Congress, ignoring the obvious significance of fiat money to a healthy economy, and perpetuating pervasive government intrusion into the privacy of all Americans will surely end the American experiment with maximum liberty for all unless we reverse this trend.

1999 Ron Paul 4:92
Too often the American people have chosen security over liberty. Allowing the President a little authority to deal with world problems under a U.N. banner has been easier than reversing the trend of the past 50 years. Accepting the financial bubble when on the short run, it helps everyone’s portfolio, helps to finance government spending, is easy, even if it only delays the day of reckoning when the bills come due, as they already have in so many other countries in the world.

1999 Ron Paul 4:93
Giving up a little privacy seems a small price to pay for the many who receive the generous benefits of big government, but when the prosperity comes to an end and the right to privacy has been squandered, it will be most difficult to restore the principles of a free society.

1999 Ron Paul 4:94
Materialistic concerns and complacency toward the principles of liberty will undo much of what has been built in America over the past 200 years, unless there is a renewed belief that our God-given rights to life and liberty are worth working for. False economic security is no substitute for productive effort in a free society, where the citizens are self-reliant, generous, and nonviolent. Insisting on a limited government designed to protect life and property, as is found in a republic, must be our legislative goal.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 5
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

President Should Get Authority From Congress To Send Troops 9 February 1999 The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) is recognized for 5 minutes.

1999 Ron Paul 5:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, since World War II, our presidents have been sending troops overseas without Congressional approval. Prior to World War II, it was traditional and constitutional that all presidents came to the Congress for authority to send troops.

1999 Ron Paul 5:2
Recently, the President has announced that he will most likely be sending thousands of American troops under NATO command to Kosovo. I think this is wrong. I have introduced legislation today that says that the President cannot send these troops without Congressional approval, merely restating what the Constitution says and how we followed the rules up until World War II.

1999 Ron Paul 5:3
Three years ago, the President sent troops into Bosnia and said they would be there for 6 months. They have been there now 3 years. We have spent over $20 billion. Nobody even asks hardly at all anymore when these troops will be coming home.

1999 Ron Paul 5:4
We have been bombing and interfering with the security of Iraq for now over 8 years, and that continues, and we do not give Congressional approval of these acts. My legislation is simple. It just denies funding for sending troops into Kosovo without Congressional approval.

1999 Ron Paul 5:5
This is not complicated. It is very precise and very clear and very important that we as a Congress restate our constitutional obligation to supervise the sending of troops around the world.

1999 Ron Paul 5:6
It would be much better for us to spend this money that is being wasted in Bosnia and Iraq on our national defense. We spend less and less money every year on national defense but we spend more and more money on policing the world. I think that policy ought to change and it is the responsibility of the Congress, the body that has control of the purse strings, to do something about this.

1999 Ron Paul 5:7
If the President is permitted to do this, he does it not because he has constitutional authority but because the Congress has reneged on their responsibility to supervise the spending.

1999 Ron Paul 5:8
It is a bit ironic now that we are sending or planning to send troops to Kosovo. We have all read about and heard the horrible stories about the Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic, and yet our troops going to Kosovo are going to be sent with the intention that Kosovo cannot be independent; that they will not be able to separate themselves from Serbia; that they cannot decide under what government they want to live.

1999 Ron Paul 5:9
It is also interesting that one of the jobs of the troops in NATO, if they go into Kosovo, will be to disarm the Kosovo Liberation Army. That is hardly good sense. First, it is not good sense for us to give the permission or renege on our responsibility, but it does not make good sense to get involved in a war that has been going on for many years, but it certainly does not make good sense for us to go in for the sole purpose of supporting Milosevic. He is the one that has been bombing the Kosovars and here we are, we want to disarm the liberation forces and at the same time prevent Kosovo from becoming independent.

1999 Ron Paul 5:10
The issue here is money, but there is also a bigger issue and that is the responsibility that we have to decide when troops should be sent. Once troops are sent into a foreign country, it is very difficult for us to bring our troops home.

1999 Ron Paul 5:11
Troops in Kosovo will not serve the interests of the United States. They will not help our national security. It will drain funds that should be spent on national defense. At the same time it will jeopardize our national security by endangering our troops and raising the possibility of us becoming involved in a war spreading through the Balkans. This should not occur.

1999 Ron Paul 5:12
So, Mr. Speaker, I am asking my fellow colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this legislation just to say that it is not the prerogative of the President to send troops around the world whenever he pleases. That is the prerogative of the Congress.

1999 Ron Paul 5:13
I do know that it has not been stated this clearly in the last 40 years, but it is about time we did. And besides, one thing more, the President has admitted, at least it has been in print, that he is likely to place these troops under a foreign commander, under a British general.

1999 Ron Paul 5:14
Mr. Speaker, we do not need this. We need to restrain the President’s ability to send troops.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 6
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Introducing Legislation To Prevent Expansion Of American Miliraty Intervention Without Congressional Approval 11 February 1999 (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)

1999 Ron Paul 6:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, we have troops in 144 countries of the world today. President Clinton has announced that he will now send troops to Kosovo. We are bombing in Iraq on a daily basis. We have been in Bosnia now for three years, although we were supposed to be there for six months. We should not go into Kosovo; we should not go there, absolutely, without congressional approval.

1999 Ron Paul 6:2
I have introduced legislation that will prevent the President from sending troops to further expand our intervention around the world without congressional approval. This is very, very important. We are spending so much money on intervention in so many countries around the world at the same time our national defense is being diminished. Worst of all, the President is planning to put these thousands of troops under a British commander.

1999 Ron Paul 6:3
It is time we took it upon ourselves to exert our authority to restrain the President in spreading troops around the world.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 7
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Introducing The Davis-Bacon Repeal Act 11 February 1999 HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, February 11, 1999

1999 Ron Paul 7:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Davis-Bacon Repeal Act of 1999. The Davis-Bacon Act of 1931 forces contractors on all federally-funded contraction projects to pay the “local prevailing wage,” defined as “the wage paid to the majority of the laborers or mechanics in the classification on similar projects in the area.” In practice, this usually means the wages paid by unionized contractors. For more than sixty years, this congressionally- created monstrosity has penalized taxpayers and the most efficient companies while crushing the dreams of the most willing workers. Mr. Speaker, Congress must act now to repeal this 61-year-old relic of an era during which people actually believed Congress could legislate prosperity. Americans pay a huge price in lost jobs, lost opportunities and taxboosting cost overruns on federal construction projects every day Congress allows Davis- Bacon to remain on the books.

1999 Ron Paul 7:2
Davis-Bacon artificially inflates construction costs through a series of costly work rules and requirements. For instance, under Davis- Bacon, workers who perform a variety of tasks must be paid at the highest applicable skilled journeyman rate. Thus, a general laborer who hammers a nail must now be classified as a “carpenter,” and paid as much as three times the company’s regular rate. As a result of this, unskilled workers can be employed only if the company can afford to pay the governmentdetermined “prevailing wages” and training can be provided only through a highly regulated apprenticeship program. Some experts have estimated the costs of complying with the paperwork imposed on contractors by Davis-Bacon regulations at nearly $200 million a year. Of course, this doesn’t measure the costs in lost job opportunities because firms could not afford to hire an inexperienced worker.

1999 Ron Paul 7:3
Most small construction firms cannot afford to operate under Davis-Bacon’s rigid job classifications or hire the staff of lawyers and accountants needed to fill out the extensive paperwork required to bid on a federal contract. Therefore, Davis-Bacon prevents small firms from bidding on federal construction projects, which, unfortunately, constitute 20 percent of all construction projects in the United States.

1999 Ron Paul 7:4
Because most minority-owned construction firms are small companies, Davis-Bacon keeps minority-owned firms from competing for federal construction contracts. The resulting disparities in employment create a demand for affirmative action, another ill-suited and illadvised big government program.

1999 Ron Paul 7:5
The racist effects of Davis-Bacon are no mere coincidence. In fact, many original supporters of Davis-Bacon, such as Representative Clayton Allgood, bragged about supporting Davis-Bacon as a means of keeping “cheap colored labor” out of the construction industry.

1999 Ron Paul 7:6
In addition to opening up new opportunities in the construction industry for smaller construction firms and their employees, repeal of Davis-Bacon would also return common sense and sound budgeting to federal contracting which is now rife with political favoritism and cronyism. An audit conducted earlier this year by the Labor Department’s Office of the Inspector General found that inaccurate data were frequently used in Davis-Bacon wage determination. Although the Inspector General’s report found no evidence of deliberate fraud, it did uncover material errors in five states’ wage determinations, causing wages or fringe benefits for certain crafts to be overstated by as much as $1.08 per hour!

1999 Ron Paul 7:7
The most compelling reason to repeal Davis-Bacon is to benefit to the American taxpayer. The Davis-Bacon Act drives up the cost of federal construction costs by as much as 50 percent. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office has reported that repealing Davis-Bacon would save the American taxpayer almost three billion dollars in four years!

1999 Ron Paul 7:8
Mr. Speaker, it is time to finally end this patently unfair, wildly inefficient and grossly discriminatory system of bidding on federal construction contracts. Repealing the Davis-Bacon Act will save taxpayers billions of dollars on federal construction costs, return common sense and sound budgeting to federal contracting, and open up opportunities in the construction industry to those independent contractors, and their employees, who currently cannot bid on federal projects because they cannot afford the paperwork requirements imposed by this act. I, therefore, urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting the Davis- Bacon Repeal Act of 1999.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 8
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

President Has No Authority To Wage War Without Congressional Approval 24 February 1999 (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)

1999 Ron Paul 8:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the threats of bombing did not bring a peace agreement to Kosovo. The President has no authority to wage war, and yet Congress says nothing.

1999 Ron Paul 8:2
When will Congress assume its war power authority to rein in the President? An endless military occupation of Bosnia is ignored by Congress, and the spending rolls on, and yet there is no lasting peace.

1999 Ron Paul 8:3
For 9 years, bombing Iraq and killing innocent Iraqi children with sanctions has done nothing to restore stability to Iraq, but it has served to instill an ever-growing hatred toward America. It is now clear that the threats of massive bombing of Serbia have not brought peace to Kosovo.

1999 Ron Paul 8:4
Congress must assume its responsibility. It must be made clear that the President has no funds available to wage war without congressional approval. This is our prerogative. Therefore, the endless threats of bombing should cease. Congress should not remain timid.

1999 Ron Paul 8:5
Merely telling the President to reconsider his actions will have little effect. We must be firm and deny the funds to wage war without our consent. We live in a republic, not a monarchy.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 9
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Federal Communications Commission 25 February 1999

1999 Ron Paul 9:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 514, and in support of the Wilson amendment. The passage of this legislation will, as does so much of the legislation we pass, move our nation yet another step close to a national police state by further expanding a federal crime and empowering more federal police—this time at the Federal Communications Commission. Despite recent and stern warnings by both former U.S. attorney general Edwin Meese III and current U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the Congress seems compelled to ride the current wave of federally criminalizing every human misdeed in the name of saving the world from some evil rather than to uphold a Constitutional oath which prescribes a procedural structure by which the nation is protected from totalitarianism.

1999 Ron Paul 9:2
Our federal government is, constitutionally, a government of limited powers. Article one, Section eight, enumerates the legislative areas for which the U.S. Congress is allowed to act or enact legislation. For every issue, the federal government lacks any authority or consent of the governed and only the state governments, their designees, or the people in their private market actions enjoy such rights to governance. The tenth amendment is brutally clear in stating “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Our nation’s history makes clear that the U.S. Constitution is a document intended to limit the power of central government. No serious reading of historical events surrounding the creation of the Constitution could reasonably portray it differently. Of course, there will be those who will hand their constitutional “hats” on the interstate commerce or general welfare clauses, both of which have been popular “headgear” since the plunge into New Deal Socialism.

1999 Ron Paul 9:3
Perhaps, more dangerous is the loss of another Constitutional protection which comes with the passage of more and more federal criminal legislation. Constitutionally, there are only three federal crimes. These are treason against the United States, piracy on the high seas, and counterfeiting (and, as mentioned above, for a short period of history, the manufacture, sale, or transport of alcohol was concurrently a federal and state crime). “Concurrent” jurisdiction crimes, such as alcohol prohibition in the past and eavesdropping today, erode the right of citizens to be free of double jeopardy. The fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifies that no “person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . .” In other words, no person shall be tried twice for the same offense. However, in United States v. Lanza, the high court in 1922 sustained a ruling that being tried by both the federal government and a state government for the same offense did not offend the doctrine of double jeopardy. One danger of unconstitutionally expanding the federal justice code is that it seriously increases the danger that one will be subject to being tried twice for the same crime. Despite the various pleas for federal correction of societal wrongs, a national police force is neither prudent nor constitutional.

1999 Ron Paul 9:4
The argument which springs from the criticism of a federalized criminal code and a federal police force is that states may be less effective than a centralized federal government in dealing with those who leave one state jurisdiction for another. Fortunately, the Constitution provides for the procedural means for preserving the integrity of state sovereignty over those issues delegated to it via the tenth amendment. Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2 makes provision for the rendition of fugitives from one state to another. While not self-enacting, in 1783 Congress passed an act which did exactly this. There is, of course, a cost imposed upon states in working with one another rather than relying on a national, unified police force. At the same time, there is a greater cost to centralization of police power.

1999 Ron Paul 9:5
It is important to be reminded of the benefits of federalism as well as the costs. There are sound reasons to maintain a system of smaller, independent jurisdictions—it is called competition and governments must, for the sake of the citizenry, be allowed to compete. We have obsessed so much over the notion of “competition” in this country we harangue someone like Bill Gates when, by offering superior products to every other similarly-situated entity, he becomes the dominant provider of certain computer products. Rather than allow someone who serves to provide values as made obvious by their voluntary exchanges in the free market, we lambaste efficiency and economies of scale in the private marketplace. Yet, at the same time, we further centralize government, the ultimate monopoly and one empowered by force rather than voluntary exchange.

1999 Ron Paul 9:6
As government becomes more centralized, it becomes much more difficult to vote with one’s feet to escape the relatively more oppressive governments. Governmental units must remain small with ample opportunity for citizen mobility both to efficient governments and away from those which tend to be oppressive. Centralization of criminal law makes such mobility less and less practical.

1999 Ron Paul 9:7
For each of these reasons, among others, I must oppose the further and unconstitutional centralization of police power in the national government and, accordingly, H.R. 514.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 10
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Introducing The Education Improvement Tax Cut Act 2 March 1999 HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, March 2, 1999

1999 Ron Paul 10:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Education Improvement Tax Cut Act of 1999. This act, a companion to my Family Education Freedom Act, takes a further step toward returning control over education resources to private citizens by providing a $3,000 tax credit for donations to scholarship funds to enable low-income children to attend private schools. It also encourages private citizens to devote more of their resources to helping public schools, by providing a $3,000 tax credit for cash or in-kind donations to public schools to support academic or extra curricular programs.

1999 Ron Paul 10:2
I need not remind my colleagues that education is one of, if not the top priority of the American people. After all, many members of Congress have proposed education reforms and a great deal of their time is spent debating these proposals. However, most of these proposals either expand federal control over education or engage in the pseudo-federalism of block grants. I propose we go in a different direction by embracing true federalism by returning control over the education dollar to the American people.

1999 Ron Paul 10:3
One of the major problems with centralized control over education funding is that spending priorities set by Washington-based Representatives, staffers, and bureaucrats do not necessarily match the needs of individual communities. In fact, it would be a miracle if spending priorities determined by the wishes of certain politically powerful Representatives or the theories of Education Department functionaries match the priorities of every community in a country as large and diverse as America. Block grants do not solve this problem as they simply allow states and localities to choose the means to reach federally-determined ends.

1999 Ron Paul 10:4
Returning control over the education dollar for tax credits for parents and for other concerned citizens returns control over the ends of education policy to local communities. People in one community may use this credit to purchase computers, while children in another community may, at last, have access to a quality music program because of community leaders who took advantage of the tax credit contained in this bill.

1999 Ron Paul 10:5
Children in some communities may benefit most from the opportunity to attend private, parochial, or other religious schools. One of the most encouraging trends in education has been the establishment of private scholarship programs. These scholarship funds use voluntary contributions to open the doors of quality private schools to low-income children. By providing a tax credit for donations to these programs, Congress can widen the educational opportunities and increase the quality of education for all children. Furthermore, privately- funded scholarships raise none of the concerns of state entanglement raised by publicly- funded vouchers.

1999 Ron Paul 10:6
There is no doubt that Americans will always spend generously on education, the question is, “who should control the education dollar—politicians and bureaucrats or the American people?” Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in placing control of education back in the hands of citizens and local communities by sponsoring the Education Improvement Tax Cut Act of 1999.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 11
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Introducing The Family Education Freedom Act 2 March 1999 HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, March 2, 1999

1999 Ron Paul 11:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Family Education Freedom Act of 1999, a bill to empower millions of workingand middle-class Americans to choose a nonpublic education for their children, as well as making it easier for parents to actively participate in improving public schools. The Family Education Freedom Act accomplishes its goals by allowing American parents a tax credit of up to $3,000 for the expenses incurred in sending their child to private, public, parochial, other religious school, or for home schooling their children.

1999 Ron Paul 11:2
The Family Education Freedom Act returns the fundamental principal of a truly free economy to America’s education system: what the great economist Ludwig von Mises called “consumer sovereignty.” Consumer sovereignty simply means consumers decide who succeeds or fails in the market. Businesses that best satisfy consumer demand will be the most successful. Consumer sovereignty is the means by which the free market maximizes human happiness.

1999 Ron Paul 11:3
Currently, consumers are less than sovereign in the education “market.” Funding decisions are increasingly controlled by the federal government. Because “he who pays the piper calls the tune,” public, and even private schools, are paying greater attention to the dictates of federal “educrats” while ignoring the wishes of the parents to an ever-greater degree. As such, the lack of consumer sovereignty in education is destroying parental control of education and replacing it with state control.

1999 Ron Paul 11:4
Loss of control is a key reason why so many of America’s parents express dissatisfaction with the educational system. According to a recent study by The Polling Company, over 70% of all Americans support education tax credits! This is just one of numerous studies and public opinion polls showing that Americans want Congress to get the federal bureaucracy out of the schoolroom and give parents more control over their children’s education.

1999 Ron Paul 11:5
Today, Congress can fulfill the wishes of the American people for greater control over their children’s education by simply allowing parents to keep more of their hard-earned money to spend on education rather than force them to send it to Washington to support education programs reflective only of the values and priorities of Congress and the federal bureaucracy.

1999 Ron Paul 11:6
The $3,000 tax credit will make a better education affordable for millions of parents. Mr. Speaker, many parents who would choose to send their children to private, religious, or parochial schools are unable to afford the tuition, in large part because of the enormous tax burden imposed on the American family by Washington.

1999 Ron Paul 11:7
The Family Education Freedom Act also benefits parents who choose to send their children to public schools. Although public schools are traditionally financed through local taxes, increasingly, parents who wish their children to receive a quality education may wish to use their credit to improve their schools by helping financing the purchase of educational tools such as computers or 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.

1999 Ron Paul 11:8
Greater parental support and involvement is surely a better way to improve public schools than funneling more federal tax dollars, followed by greater federal control, into the public schools. Furthermore, a greater reliance on parental expenditures rather than government tax dollars will help make the public schools into true community schools that reflect the wishes of parents and the interests of the students.

1999 Ron Paul 11:9
The Family Education Freedom Act will also aid those parents who choose to educate their children at home. Home schooling has become an increasingly popular, and successful method, of educating children. According to recent studies, home schooled children outperform their public school peers by 30 to 37 percentile points across all subjects on nationally standardized achievement exams. Home schooling parents spend thousands of dollars annually, in addition to the wages forgone by the spouse who forgoes outside employment, in order to educate their children in the loving environment of the home.

1999 Ron Paul 11:10
Ultimately, Mr. Speaker, this bill is about freedom. Parental control of child rearing, especially education, is one of the bulwarks of liberty. No nation can remain free when the state has greater influence over the knowledge and values transmitted to children than the family.

1999 Ron Paul 11:11
By moving to restore the primacy of parents to education, the Family Education Freedom Act will not only improve America’s education, it will restore a parent’s right to choose how best to educate one’s own child, a fundamental freedom that has been eroded by the increase in federal education expenditures and the corresponding decrease in the ability of parents to provide for their children’s education out of their own pockets. I call on all my colleagues to join me in allowing parents to devote more of their resources to their children’s education and less to feed the wasteful Washington bureaucracy by supporting the Family Education Freedom Act.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 12
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Introducing The Teacher Tax Cut Act 2 March 1999 HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, March 2, 1999

1999 Ron Paul 12:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Teacher Tax Cut Act. This bill provides every teacher in America with a $1,000 tax credit, thus raising every teacher’s take-home pay without increasing federal spending. Passage of this bill is a major first step toward treating those who have dedicated their lives to educating America’s children with the respect they deserve. Compared to other professionals teachers are underappreciated and underpaid. This must change if America is to have the finest education system in the world!

1999 Ron Paul 12:2
Quality education is impossible without quality teaching. If we want to ensure that the teaching profession attracts the very best people possible we must make sure that teachers receive the compensation they deserve. For too long now, we have seen partisan battles and displays of heightened rhetoric about who wants to provide the most assistance to education distract us from our important work of removing government-imposed barriers to educational excellence.

1999 Ron Paul 12:3
Since America’s teachers are underpaid because they are overtaxed, the best way to raise teacher take-home pay is to reduce their taxes. Simply by raising teacher’s take-home pay via a $1,000 tax credit we can accomplish a number of important things. First, we show a true commitment to education. We also let America’s teachers know that the American people and the Congress respect their work. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, by raising teacher take-home pay, the Teacher Tax Cut Act encourages high-quality professionals to enter, and remain in, the teaching profession.

1999 Ron Paul 12:4
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I once again ask my colleagues to put aside partisan bickering and unite around the idea of helping educators by supporting the Teacher Tax Cut Act.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 13
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

War Power Authority Should Be Returned To Congress 9 March 1999 The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker’s announced policy of January 19, 1999, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) is recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.

1999 Ron Paul 13:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the President has stated that should a peace treaty be signed between Serbia and Kosovo he plans to send in at least 4,000 American soldiers as part of a NATO peacekeeping force.

1999 Ron Paul 13:2
We, the Congress, have been informed through a public statement by the President that troops will be sent. We have not been asked to act in a constitutional fashion to grant the President permission to act. He is not coming to us to fully explain his intentions. The President is making a public statement as to his intentions and we are expected to acquiesce, to go along with the funding, and not even debate the issue, just as we are doing in Iraq.

1999 Ron Paul 13:3
That is not a proper constitutional procedure and it should be condemned. Silence in the past, while accommodating our Presidents in all forms of foreign adventurism from Korea and Vietnam to Iraq and Bosnia, should not be the standard the Congress follows.

1999 Ron Paul 13:4
The Constitution is clear: Our Presidents, from Washington to Roosevelt, all knew that initiating war was clearly the prerogative of the Congress, but our memories are flawed and our reading of the law is careless. The President should not be telling us what he plans to do, he should be giving us information and asking our advice. We are responsible for the safety of our troops, how taxpayers’ dollars are spent, the security of our Nation, and especially the process whereby our Nation commits itself to war.

1999 Ron Paul 13:5
Citing NATO agreements or U.N. resolutions as authority for moving troops into war zones should alert us all to the degree to which the rule of law has been undermined. The President has no war power, only the Congress has that. When one person can initiate war, by its definition, a republic no longer exists.

1999 Ron Paul 13:6
The war power, taken from the Congress 50 years ago, must be restored. If not, the conclusion must be that the Constitution of the United States can and has been amended by presidential fiat or treaty, both excluding the House of Representatives from performing its duty to the American people in preventing casual and illegal wars.

1999 Ron Paul 13:7
Some claim that the Kosovo involvement must be clarified as to where the money will come to finance it, the surplus or Social Security. This misses the point. We have and should exert the power of the purse, but a political argument over surpluses versus Social Security is hardly the issue.

1999 Ron Paul 13:8
Others have said that support should be withheld until an exit strategy is clearly laid out. But the debate should not be over the exit strategy. It is the entry process that counts.

1999 Ron Paul 13:9
The war powers process was set early on by our Presidents in dealing with the North African pirates in the early 19th century. Jefferson and Madison, on no less than 10 occasions, got Congress to pass legislation endorsing each military step taken. It has clearly been since World War II that our Presidents have assumed power not granted to them by the Constitution, and Congress has been negligent in doing little to stop this usurpation.

1999 Ron Paul 13:10
In the case of Kosovo, no troops should be sent without the consent of Congress. Vague discussion about whether or not the money will come out of Social Security or the budget surplus or call for an exit strategy will not suffice. If the war power is taken from the President and returned to the Congress, we would then automatically know the funds would have to be appropriated and the exit strategy would be easy: when we win the war.

1999 Ron Paul 13:11
Vague police actions authorized by the United Nations or NATO, and implemented by the President without congressional approval, invites disasters with perpetual foreign military entanglements. The concept of national sovereignty and the rule of law must be respected or there is no purpose for the Constitution.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 14
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Honoring The Victoria High School Varsity Cheerleaders Of Victoria, Texas 10 March 1999 HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, March 10, 1999

1999 Ron Paul 14:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay honor to the winners of the National High School Cheerleading Championship sponsored by the Universal Cheerleaders Association —the Victoria High School Varsity Cheerleaders from Victoria, Texas. Under the able leadership of Denise Neel and Terese Reese, the squad of teens took the title for 1999 following an impressive history of second place in 1998, and third place in 1997. Each year, the cheerleaders set their mark higher, worked harder, trained longer, and kept their eyes on their goal. Their training and perseverance paid off when they brought the national trophy home to their school.

1999 Ron Paul 14:2
The cheerleaders competed against a field of 74 squads in the Medium Varsity Division to reach the national trials. There, they competed against the thirteen regional finalists, coming out on top. The VHS cheerleading team is the first Texas squad to ever win the National Championship.

1999 Ron Paul 14:3
In addition to their cheerleading duties which include cheering at every sporting event held by their school and a rigorous practice schedule, each of these girls must maintain a grade of at least 80 in each class. They also participate in numerous community activities, such as the American Cancer Society’s Relay for Life and the March of Dimes Walk America. Additionally, they worked with the elementary and middle schools during TAAS testing and Red Ribbon Week, and the Gulf Bend Mental Health-Mental Retardation during Friendship Fest.

1999 Ron Paul 14:4
This group of students deserve the honor they have earned. I commend each one of them:

1999 Ron Paul 14:5
Liz Lasater and Kendra Serold—Co-Head Cheerleaders Natalie Cole Leah Green Melissa Myers Laurie Beck Lindy Burns Amy Reimann Amber Clemmons Sara Dickson Courtney Horecka Haley Kolle Amanda Rodriquez Karla Sterne Melissa Keefe Chelsie Luhn Sara Carville

1999 Ron Paul 14:6
I am proud to have these national champions in the 14th Congressional District of Texas, and trust all my colleagues join me in congratulating them on this impressive achievement.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 15
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Tribute To The Bay City Girls Softball Association 10 March 1999 HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, March 10, 1999

1999 Ron Paul 15:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, later this month I will attend the 40th anniversary celebration of the Bay City Girls Softball Association. The Association has a distinguished history of providing recreational opportunities to girls in Bay City, Texas.

1999 Ron Paul 15:2
Begun in 1959 with the fielding of the Delta Sparks by Lila Ray and Jerry Babik, currently the association serves youth ages 4 to 18. Among the honors received by the group are induction in 1975 of the Bay City VIPs led by Coach Ratliff into to the National Amateur Softball Association Hall of Fame, and the receipt of the National Association’s “Most Improved Award” in 1944.

1999 Ron Paul 15:3
With heroic community leaders like Jack Rice and Palmer Robbins and recent activists such as Mike Mariner, Judd Perry, J.B. Smith and Dennis Mueck the business of preparing and making available playing fields for the association has been a real community effort in Bay City.

1999 Ron Paul 15:4
And, with a storied history including legendary players like Patty Branagan, Diane Herreth, Carol Ray, Jeannie Mathis, Linda Babik, Diana Slliva and Connie Brooks and renowned coach Lila Ray the ladies have certainly made the most of these opportunities.

1999 Ron Paul 15:5
Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend and congratulate the Bay City Girls Softball Association and all the community activists who contribute to this association, on this the 40th Anniversary celebration of this important group.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 16
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Introducing The Clergy Freedom Of Choice Act 10 March 1999 HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, March 10, 1999

1999 Ron Paul 16:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the Clergy Freedom of Choice Act. Under current law, clergy may opt out of Social Security within 2 years of ordination. My legislation extends this provision, to allow clergy to opt out at any time in their career.

1999 Ron Paul 16:2
For some clergy, they will choose to opt out for religious reasons, while others will do so because their particular denomination, sect or organization makes other arrangements for their retirement. It is important to note that this opt-out will only apply to income derived from pastoral duties.

1999 Ron Paul 16:3
I expect this legislation to be non-controversial, as it simply extends the current opt-out option for our religious leaders, providing them with a way to exercise their freedom of choice.

1999 Ron Paul 16:4
I ask my colleagues to join me in giving our pastors, priests, rabbis, and other clergy this choice.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 17
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Opposing Authorization for Kosovo Intervention 11 March 1999 Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL). (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

1999 Ron Paul 17:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the leadership for allowing this debate to come to the floor. I have, for quite a few weeks, advocated that we talk about this and have urge that the troops never be sent to Kosovo without our consent. I do believe, though, that the process here is less than perfect. The fact that we are talking about a House Concurrent Resolution at the same time authorizing troop deployment raises serious questions.

1999 Ron Paul 17:2
Since World War II we have not been diligent here in the Congress to protect our prerogatives with respect to the declaration of war. Korean and Vietnam wars were fought without a declaration of war. And these wars were not won.

1999 Ron Paul 17:3
Since 1973, since the War Powers Resolution was passed, we have further undermined the authority of the Congress and delivered more authority to the President because the resolution essentially has given the President more power to wage war up to 90 days without the Congress granting authority. It is to our credit at least that we are bringing this matter up at this particular time.

1999 Ron Paul 17:4
We must remember that there are various things involved here. First, whether or not we should be the world policeman. That answer should be easy. We should not be. It costs a lot of money to do what we are doing, and it undermines our military strength. So we should consider that.

1999 Ron Paul 17:5
We should consider the law and the process in the War Powers Resolution and just exactly how we grant authority to the President to wage war. We should be more concerned about the Constitution and how we should give this authority. We should be concerned about this procedure.

1999 Ron Paul 17:6
The bigger question here, however, is if we vote for this, and I strongly oppose passing this, because if we vote for this, we authorize the moving of troops into a dangerous area. We should ask ourselves, if we are willing to vote for this resolution; are we ourselves willing to go to Kosovo and expose our lives on the front lines? Are we willing to send our children or our grandchildren; to not only be exposed to the danger, with the pretext we are going to save the world, but with the idea that we may lose our life? That is what we have to consider.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 18
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Kosovo War Resolution 11 March 1999

1999 Ron Paul 18:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

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

1999 Ron Paul 18:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Fowler amendment and in opposition to H. Con. Res. 42.

1999 Ron Paul 18:3
Today we are going to have a vote on whether or not troops should be authorized to go to Kosovo. If we vote in favor of this, we are voting for war. This is not a war resolution in the conventional sense of the Constitution, but in this day and age it is about as close as we are going to come to since we have ignored the Constitution with regards to war powers essentially since World War II. If we vote for troops to go to Kosovo, we are complicit in a potential war and the responsibility should be on the shoulders of those who vote to send the troops.

1999 Ron Paul 18:4
I strongly urge that we not send the troops. It is not our fight. We are not the policemen of the world. It weakens our national defense. There are numerous reasons why we do not need to send more troops into another country someplace around the world. Every time we do this it just leads to the next problem.

1999 Ron Paul 18:5
It is said that we should not have much to say about foreign policy because the Constitution has given responsibility to the President. The term “foreign policy” does not even exist in the Constitution. The President has been given the authority to be the Commander-in-Chief; to lead the troops after we direct him as to what he should do. He is the commander. We do not have a military commander, we have a civilian commander. But we do not forego our right to debate and be concerned about what is happening on issues of troop deployment and war.

1999 Ron Paul 18:6
A report put out by those who sponsor this resolution had this to say. “This measure does not address the underlying question of the merits or misgivings of sending U.S. forces into Kosovo.” We are not even supposed to debate the merits and misgivings of sending troops. Why not? “Instead, the purpose of this resolution” they go on to say, “is to give the House an opportunity to fulfill its constitutional responsibility of authorizing the deployment of U.S. troops into potentially hostile situations.” In other words, we are to do nothing more than rubber stamp what the President has asked for.

1999 Ron Paul 18:7
Where does the President claim he gets his authority? Does he come to us? Has he asked us for this? No, he assumes he has the authority. He has already threatened that what we do here will have no effect on his decision. He is going to do what he thinks he should do anyway. He does not come and ask for permission. Where does he get this authority? Sometimes the Presidents, since World War II, have assumed it comes from the United Nations. That means that Congress has reneged on its responsibility.

1999 Ron Paul 18:8
We do not just give it to the President, we give it to the President plus the United Nations or NATO. And when we joined NATO and the United Nations, it was explicitly said it was not to be inferred that this takes away the sovereignty and the decision-making powers of the individual countries and their legislative bodies. And yet we have now, for quite a few decades, allowed this power to gravitate into the hands of the President.

1999 Ron Paul 18:9
After Vietnam there was a great deal of concern about this power to wage war. First, we had Korea. We did not win that war. Next we had Vietnam. And with very sincere intent, the Congress in 1973 passed the War Powers Resolution. The tragedy of the War Powers Resolution, no matter how well motivated, is that it did exactly the opposite of what was intended.

1999 Ron Paul 18:10
What has actually happened is it has been interpreted by all our Presidents since then that they have the authority to wage war for 60–90 days before we can say anything. That is wrong. We have turned it upside down. So it is up to us to do something about getting the prerogative of waging war back into the hands of the Congress.

1999 Ron Paul 18:11
It is said that we do not have this authority; that we should give it to the President; that he has it under the Constitution based on his authority to formulate foreign policy. It is not there. The Congress has the responsibility to declare war, write letters of marks and reprisals, call up the militia, raise and train army and regulate foreign commerce. The President shares with the Senate treaty power as well as appointment of ambassadors. The President cannot even do that alone.

1999 Ron Paul 18:12
We have the ultimate power, and that is the power of the purse. If the power of the purse is given up, then we lose everything. Because we have not assumed our responsibilities up until this point, it is up to us to declare that the President cannot spend money in this manner. I have legislation that would take care of this; that the President cannot place troops in Kosovo unless he gets explicit authority from us to do so. If he does it, the monies should be denied to the President, unless we want to be complicit in this dangerous military adventurism.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 19
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Consumer Protection Legislation 11 March 1999 HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, March 11, 1999

1999 Ron Paul 19:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce my Consumer Protection Package—consisting of two pieces of legislation which will benefit consumers by repealing federal regulations. The first piece of legislation, the Consumer Health Free Speech Act, stops the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from interfering with consumers’ access to truthful information about foods and dietary supplements in order to make informed choices about their health. The second bill, the Television Consumer Freedom Act, repeals federal regulations which interfere with a consumers ability to avail themselves of desired television programming.

1999 Ron Paul 19:2
The Consumer Health Free Speech Act accomplishes its goal by making two simple changes in the Food and Drug Act. First, it adds the six words “other than foods, including dietary supplements” to the statutory definition of “drug,” thus allowing food and dietary supplement producers to provide consumers with more information regarding the health benefits of their products, without having to go through the time-consuming and costly process of getting FDA approval. This bill does not affect the FDA’s jurisdiction over those who make false claims about their products.

1999 Ron Paul 19:3
Scientific research in nutrition over the past few years has demonstrated how various foods and other dietary supplements are safe and effective in preventing or mitigating many diseases. Currently, however, disclosure of these well-documented statements triggers more extensive drug-like FDA regulation. The result is consumers cannot learn about simple and inexpensive ways to improve their health. Just last year, the FDA dragged manufacturers of Cholestin, a dietary supplement containing lovastatin, which is helpful in lowering cholesterol, into court. The FDA did not dispute the benefits of Cholestin, rather the FDA attempted to deny consumers access to this helpful product simply because the manufacturers did not submit Cholestin to the FDA’s drug approval process!

1999 Ron Paul 19:4
The FDA’s treatment of the manufacturers of Cholestin is not an isolated example of how current FDA policy harms consumers. Even though coronary heart disease is the nation’s number-one killer, the FDA waited nine years until it allowed consumers to learn about how consumption of foods and dietary supplements containing soluble fiber from the husk of psyllium seeds can reduce the risk of coronary heart disease! The Consumer Health Free Speech Act ends this breakfast table censorship.

1999 Ron Paul 19:5
The bill’s second provision prevents the FDA’s arbitrary removal of a product from the marketplace, absent finding a dietary supplement “presents a significant and unreasonable risk of illness or injury.” Current law allows the FDA to remove a supplement if it prevents a “significant or unreasonable” risk of disease. This standard has allowed the FDA to easily remove a targeted herb or dietary supplement since every food, herb, or dietary supplement contains some risk to at least a few sensitive or allergic persons. Under this bill, the FDA will maintain its ability to remove products from the marketplace under an expedited process if they determine the product causes an “imminent danger.”

1999 Ron Paul 19:6
Allowing American consumers access to information about the benefits of foods and dietary supplements will help America’s consumers improve their health. However, this bill is about more than physical health, it is about freedom. The first amendment forbids Congress from abridging freedom of all speech, including commercial speech.

1999 Ron Paul 19:7
My second bill, the Television Consumer Freedom Act, repeals federal regulations which interfere with a consumers ability to avail themselves of desired television programming. For the last several weeks, congressional offices have been flooded with calls from rural satellite TV customers who are upset because their satellite service providers have informed them that they will lose access to certain network television programs.

1999 Ron Paul 19:8
In an attempt to protect the rights of network program creators and affiliate local stations, a federal court in Florida properly granted an injunction to prevent the satellite service industry from making certain programming available to its customers. This is programming for which the satellite service providers had not secured from the program creator-owners the right to rebroadcast. At the root of this problem, of course, is that we have a so-called marketplace fraught with interventionism at every level. Cable companies have historically been granted franchises of monopoly privilege at the local level. Government has previously intervened to invalidate “exclusive dealings” contracts between private parties, namely cable service providers and program creators, and have most recently assumed the role of price setter. The Library of Congress, if you can imagine, has been delegated the power to determine prices at which program suppliers must make their programs available to cable and satellite programming service providers.

1999 Ron Paul 19:9
It is, of course, within the constitutionally enumerated powers of Congress to “promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” However, operating a clearing-house for the subsequent transfer of such property rights in the name of setting a just price or “instilling competition” via “central planning” seems not to be an economically prudent nor justifiable action under this enumerated power. This process is one best reserved to the competitive marketplace.

1999 Ron Paul 19:10
Government’s attempt to set the just price for satellite programming outside the market mechanism is inherently impossible. This has resulted in competition among service providers for government privilege rather than consumer- benefits inherent to the genuine free market. Currently, while federal regulation does leave satellite programming service providers free to bypass the governmental royalty distribution scheme and negotiate directly with owners of programming for program rights, there is a federal prohibition on satellite service providers making local network affiliate’s programs available to nearby satellite subscribers. This bill repeals that federal prohibition and allows satellite service providers to more freely negotiate with program owners for programming desired by satellite service subscribers. Technology is now available by which viewers will be able to view network programs via satellite as presented by their nearest network affiliate. This market-generated technology will remove a major stumbling block to negotiations that should currently be taking place between network program owners and satellite service providers.

1999 Ron Paul 19:11
Mr. Speaker, these two bills take a step toward restoring the right of free speech in the marketplace and restoring the American consumer’s control over the means by which they cast their “dollar votes.” In a free society, the federal government must not be allowed to prevent people from receiving information enabling them to make informed decisions about whether or not to use dietary supplements or eat certain foods. The federal government should also not interfere with a consumer’s ability to purchase services such as satellite or cable television on the free market. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to take a step toward restoring freedom by cosponsoring my Consumer Protection Package: the Consumer Health Free Speech Act and the Television Consumer Freedom Act.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 20
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

War Powers Resolution 17 March 1999

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

1999 Ron Paul 20:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, last week the House narrowly passed a watereddown House concurrent resolution originally designed to endorse President Clinton’s plan to send U.S. troops to Kosovo. A House concurrent resolution, whether strong or weak, has no effect of law. It is merely a sense of Congress statement.

1999 Ron Paul 20:2
If last week’s meager debate and vote are construed as merely an endorsement, without dissent, of Clinton’s policy in Yugoslavia, the procedure will prove a net negative. It will not be seen as a Congressional challenge to unconstitutional presidential war power. If, however, the debate is interpreted as a serious effort to start the process to restore Congressional prerogatives, it may yet be seen as a small step in the right direction. We cannot know with certainty which it will be. That will depend on what Congress does in the future.

1999 Ron Paul 20:3
Presently, those of us who argued for Congressional responsibility with regards to declaring war and deploying troops cannot be satisfied that the trend of the last 50 years has been reversed. Since World War II, the war power has fallen into the hands of our presidents, with Congress doing little to insist on its own constitutional responsibility. From Korea and Vietnam, to Bosnia and Kosovo, we have permitted our presidents to “wag the Congress,” generating a perception that the United States can and should police the world. Instead of authority to move troops and fight wars coming from the people through a vote of their Congressional representatives, we now permit our presidents to cite NATO declarations and U.N. resolutions.

1999 Ron Paul 20:4
This is even more exasperating knowing that upon joining both NATO and the United Nations it was made explicitly clear that no loss of sovereignty would occur and all legislative bodies of member States would retain their legal authority to give or deny support for any proposed military action.

1999 Ron Paul 20:5
Today it is erroneously taken for granted that the President has authority to move troops and fight wars without Congressional approval. It would be nice to believe that this vote on Kosovo was a serious step in the direction of Congress once again reasserting its responsibility for committing U.S. troops abroad. But the President has already notified Congress that, regardless of our sense of Congress resolution, he intends to do what he thinks is right, not what is legal and constitutional, only what he decides for himself.

1999 Ron Paul 20:6
Even with this watered-down endorsement of troop deployment with various conditions listed, the day after the headlines blared “the Congress approves troop deployments to Kosovo.”

1999 Ron Paul 20:7
If Congress is serious about this issue, it must do more. First, Congress cannot in this instance exert its responsibility through a House concurrent resolution. The President can and will ignore this token effort. If Congress decides that we should not become engaged in the civil war in Serbia, we must deny the funds for that purpose. That we can do. Our presidents have assumed the war power, but as of yet Congress still controls the purse.

1999 Ron Paul 20:8
Any effort on our part to enter a civil war in a country 5,000 miles away for the purpose of guaranteeing autonomy and/or a separate state against the avowed objections of the leaders of that country involved, that is Yugoslavia, can and will lead to a long-term serious problem for us.

1999 Ron Paul 20:9
Our policy, whether it is with Iraq or Serbia, of demanding that if certain actions are not forthcoming, we will unleash massive bombing attacks on them, I find reprehensible, immoral, illegal, and unconstitutional. We are seen as a world bully, and a growing anti-American hatred is the result. This policy cannot contribute to longterm peace. Political instability will result and innocent people will suffer. The billions we have spent bombing Iraq, along with sanctions, have solidified Saddam Hussein’s power, while causing the suffering and deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi children. Our policy in Kosovo will be no more fruitful.

1999 Ron Paul 20:10
The recent flare-up of violence in Serbia has been blamed on United States’ plan to send troops to the region. The Serbs have expressed rage at the possibility that NATO would invade their country with the plan to reward the questionable Kosovo Liberation Army. If ever a case could be made for the wisdom of non-intervention, it is here. Who wants to defend all that the KLA had done and at the same time justify a NATO invasion of a sovereign nation for the purpose of supporting secession? “This violence is all America’s fault,” one Yugoslavian was quoted as saying. And who wants to defend Milosevic?

1999 Ron Paul 20:11
Every argument given for our bombing Serbia could be used to support the establishment of Kurdistan. Actually a stronger case can be made to support an independent Kurdistan since their country was taken from them by outsiders. But how would Turkey feel about that? Yet the case could be made that the mistreatment of the Kurds by Saddam Hussein and others compel us to do something to help, since we are pretending that our role is an act as the world’s humanitarian policeman.

1999 Ron Paul 20:12
Humanitarianism, delivered by a powerful government through threats of massive bombing attacks will never be a responsible way to enhance peace. It will surely have the opposite effect.

1999 Ron Paul 20:13
It was hoped that the War Powers Resolution of 1973 would reign in our president’s authority to wage war without Congressional approval. It has not happened because all subsequent Presidents have essentially ignored its mandates. And unfortunately the interpretation since 1973 has been to give the President greater power to wage war with Congressional approval for at least 60 to 90 days as long as he reports to the Congress. These reports are rarely made and the assumption has been since 1973 that Congress need not participate in any serious manner in the decision to send troops.

1999 Ron Paul 20:14
It could be argued that this resulted from a confused understanding of the War Powers Resolution but more likely it’s the result of the growing imperial Presidency that has developed with our presidents assuming power, not legally theirs, and Congress doing nothing about it.

1999 Ron Paul 20:15
Power has been gravitating into the hands of our presidents throughout this century, both in domestic and foreign affairs. Congress has created a maze of federal agencies, placed under the President, that have been granted legislative, police, and judicial powers, thus creating an entire administrative judicial system outside our legal court system where constitutional rights are ignored. Congress is responsible for this trend and it’s Congress’ responsibility to restore Constitutional government.

1999 Ron Paul 20:16
As more and more power has been granted in international affairs, presidents have readily adapted to using Executive Orders, promises and quasi-treaties to expand the scope and size of the presidency far above anything even the Federalist ever dreamed of.

1999 Ron Paul 20:17
We are at a crossroads and if the people and the Congress do not soon insist on the reigning in of presidential power, both foreign and domestic, individual liberty cannot be preserved.

1999 Ron Paul 20:18
Presently, unless the people exert a lot more pressure on the Congress to do so, not much will be done. Specifically, Congress needs a strong message from the people insisting that the Congress continues the debate over Kosovo before an irreversible quagmire develops. The President today believes he is free to pursue any policy he wants in the Balkans and the Persian Gulf without Congressional approval. It shouldn’t be that way. It’s dangerous politically, military, morally, and above all else undermines our entire system of the rule of law.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 21
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Everybody Supports the Troops 24 March 1999

Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL). (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

1999 Ron Paul 21:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the committee as well as our leadership for bringing a resolution to the floor that is one that I can support. It is supporting of the troops but it does not go that one step further to rubber-stamp a foreign policy that is very questionable, so I appreciate that very much.

1999 Ron Paul 21:2
But in another sense, I think it is awful strange that every time we do find our troops in harm’s way that we need to come to the House floor to reassure ourselves that we support the troops. I have never been challenged, and I take controversial votes on occasion, and I have never seen another Member challenge anybody as being unpatriotic and not supportive of our troops. So it sort of bewilders me a little bit that we always have to say, “We support the troops.” I think that should go without saying.

1999 Ron Paul 21:3
Nevertheless, we do have this resolution on the floor, and I will support it. But I just wonder why that occurs, that we feel compelled to do so. I think sometimes it is because we have not met up to our responsibilities, because we have allowed our troops to be placed in harm’s way, and usually in an improper manner. We have not done this properly according to the Constitution. The President did not get permission from the House and the Senate. We may have a little bit of a guilt feeling about having these troops placed in harm’s way without the proper permission, and, therefore, we have to reassure ourselves that we are taking care of the troops.

1999 Ron Paul 21:4
Now, if we really want to support our troops, I think we would defend the sovereignty of this country, we should provide for a strong national defense and we certainly should avoid putting our troops in harm’s way. The real question that comes up is by putting the troops in this region right now, we are invading the sovereignty of a nation which is very questionable. This is not done very often. Yet Serbia is a sovereign nation. They are involved in a civil war, and there are bad guys on both sides. For us here in the Congress to decide who the good guys and who the bad guys are is not possible, nor is it our job.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 22
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

U.S. Military Action Taking Place in Serbia is Unconstitutional 24 March 1999

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

1999 Ron Paul 22:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, U.S. military forces are now bombing a foreign nation halfway around the world. This cannot be a proud moment for America. The reason given for doing so is that Serbian leaders have not done what we have told them to do.

1999 Ron Paul 22:2
Serbia has not invaded another country but is involved in a nasty civil war, with both sides contributing to the violence. There is no American security interest involved in Serbia. Serbia has not threatened us nor used any force against any American citizen.

1999 Ron Paul 22:3
As bad as the violence is toward the ethnic Albanians in Kosovo, our ability to police and stop all ethnic fighting around the world is quite limited and the efforts are not permitted under constitutional law. We do not even pretend to solve the problems of sub-Saharan Africa, Tibet, East Timor, Kurdistan, and many other places around the world where endless tragic circumstances prevail.

1999 Ron Paul 22:4
Our responsibility as U.S. Members of Congress is to preserve liberty here at home and uphold the rule of law. Meddling in the internal and dangerous affairs of a nation involved in civil war is illegal and dangerous. Congress has not given the President authority to wage war.

1999 Ron Paul 22:5
The House resolution regarding Kosovo was narrowly, reluctantly, and conditionally passed. It was a nonbinding resolution and had no effect of law. Even if it did, the resolution dealt with sending troops as a peacekeeping force to Kosovo only if a peace agreement was signed. There was no mention of endorsing an act of war against Serbia. Besides, the resolution was not the proper procedure for granting war powers to a president.

1999 Ron Paul 22:6
The Senate resolution, now claimed to be congressional consent for the President to wage war, is not much better. It, too, was a sense of Congress resolution without the force of law. It implies the President can defer to NATO for authority to pursue a war effort.

1999 Ron Paul 22:7
Only Congress can decide the issue of war. Congress cannot transfer the constitutional war power to the President or to NATO or to the United Nations. The Senate resolution, however, specifically limits the use of force to air operations and missile strikes, but no war has ever been won with air power alone. The Milosevic problem will actually get worse with our attacks, and ground troops will likely follow.

1999 Ron Paul 22:8
It has been argued we are needed to stop the spread of war throughout the Balkans. Our presence will do the opposite, but it will certainly help the military- industrial complex. Peaceful and cooperative relations with Russia, a desired goal, has now ended; and we have provoked the Russians into now becoming a much more active ally of Serbia.

1999 Ron Paul 22:9
U.S. and NATO policy against Serbia will certainly encourage the Kurds. Every argument for Kosovo’s independence can be used by the Kurds for their long-sought-after independence. This surely will drive the Turks away from NATO.

1999 Ron Paul 22:10
Our determination to be involved in the dangerous civil war may well prompt a stronger Greek alliance with their friends in Serbia, further splitting NATO and offending the Turks, who are naturally inclined to be sympathetic to the Albanian Muslims. No good can come of our involvement in this Serbian civil war, no matter how glowing and humanitarian the terms used by our leaders.

1999 Ron Paul 22:11
Sympathy and compassion for the suffering and voluntary support for the oppressed is commendable. The use of force and acts of war to pick and choose between two sides fighting for hundreds of years cannot achieve peace. It can only spread the misery and suffering, weaken our defenses and undermine our national sovereignty.

1999 Ron Paul 22:12
Only when those who champion our war effort in Serbia are willing to volunteer for the front lines and offer their own lives for the cause will they gain credibility. Promoters of war never personalize it. It is always some other person or some other parent’s child’s life who will be sacrificed, not their own.

1999 Ron Paul 22:13
With new talk of reinstituting the military draft since many disillusioned military personnel are disgusted with the morale of our armed forces, all Americans should pay close attention as our leaders foolishly and carelessly rush our troops into a no-win war of which we should have no part.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 23
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Peace 25 March 1999 HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, March 25, 1999

1999 Ron Paul 23:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today I rise and with gratitude to Edmund Burke and paraphrase words he first spoke 224 years ago this week. As it is presently true that to restore liberty and dignity to a nation so great and distracted as ours is indeed a significant undertaking. For, judging of what we are by what we ought to be, I have persuaded myself that this body might accept this reasonable proposition.

1999 Ron Paul 23:2
The proposition is peace. Not peace through the medium of war, not peace to be hunted through the labyrinth of intricate and endless negotiations; not peace to arise out of universal discord, fomented from principle, in all part of the earth; not peace to depend on juridical determination of perplexing questions, or the precise marking the shadowy boundaries of distant nations. It is simply peace, sought in its natural course and in it ordinary haunts.

1999 Ron Paul 23:3
Let other nations always keep the idea of their sovereign self-government associated with our Republic and they will befriend us, and no force under heaven will be of power to tear them from our allegiance. But let it be once understood that our government may be one thing and their sovereignty another, that these two things exist without mutual regard one for the other—and the affinity will be gone, the friendship loosened and the alliance hasten to decay and dissolution. As long as we have the wisdom to keep this country as the sanctuary of liberty, the sacred temple consecrated to our common faith, wherever mankind worships freedom they will turn their faces toward us. The more they multiply, the more friends we will have, the more ardently they love liberty, the more perfect will be our relations. Slavery they can find anywhere, as near to us as Cuba or as remote as China. But until we become lost to all feeling of our national interest and natural legacy, freedom and self-rule they can find in none but the American founding. These are precious commodities, and our nation alone was founded them. This is the true currency which binds to us the commerce of nations and through them secures the wealth of the world. But deny others of their national sovereignty and self-government, and you break that sole bond which originally made, and must still preserve, friendship among nations. Do not entertain so weak an imagination as that UN Charters and Security Councils, GATT and international laws, World Trade Organizations and General Assemblies, are what promote commerce and friendship. Do not dream that NATO and peacekeeping forces are the things that can hold nations together. It is the spirit of community that gives nations their lives and efficacy. And it is the spirit of the constitution of our founders that can invigorate every nation of the world, even down to the minutest of these.

1999 Ron Paul 23:4
For is it not the same virtue which would do the thing for us here in these United States? Do you imagine than that it is the Income Tax which pays our revenue? That it is the annual vote of the Ways and Means Committee, which provide us an army? Or that it is the Court Martial which inspires it with bravery and discipline? No! Surely, no! It is the private activity of citizens which gives government revenue, and it is the defense of our country that encourages young people to not only populate our army and navy but also has infused them with a patriotism without which our army will become a base rubble and our navy nothing but rotten timber.

1999 Ron Paul 23:5
All this, I know well enough, will sound wild and chimerical to the profane herd of those vulgar and mechanical politicians who have no place among us: a sort of people who think that nothing exists but what is gross and material, and who, therefore, far from begin qualified to be directors of the great movement of this nation, are not fit to turn a wheel in the machinery of our government. But to men truly initiated and rightly taught, these ruling and master principles, which in the opinion of such men as I have mentioned have no substantial existence, are in truth everything. Magnanimity in politics is often the truest wisdom, and a great nation and little minds go ill together. If we are conscious of our situation, and work zealously to fill our places as becomes the history of this great institution, we ought to auspiciate all our public proceedings on Kosovo with the old warning of the Church, Sursum corda! We ought to elevate our minds to the greatness of that trust to which the order of Providence has called us. By adverting to the dignity of this high calling, our forefathers turned a savage wilderness into a glorious nation, and have made the most extensive and the only honorable conquests, not by bombing and sabre-rattling, but by promoting the wealth, the liberty, and the peace of mankind. Let us gain our allies as we obtain our own liberty. Respect of self-government has made our nation all that it is, peace and neutrality alone will makes ours the Republic that it can yet still be.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 24
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Closer To Empire 25 March 1999

1999 Ron Paul 24:1
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, March 25, 1999

1999 Ron Paul 24:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise again today to consider the effect of our current actions in Kosovo, but this time I do not wish to address the folly of war, for attempts to prevent war measures against that nation are now futile. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to address a long term concern, a problem larger even than war. I am referring to the folly of empire.

1999 Ron Paul 24:3
Our involvement in Kosovo and in Iraq, and in Bosnia—when combined with America’s role in Korea, and in the Middle East and other places around the world, is now lurching our republic ever closer to empire. Empire is something that all Americans ought to oppose.

1999 Ron Paul 24:4
I remind those who believe in the Judeo- Christian tradition that opposition to empire is to be found in the warnings found in the book of Ezekiel, warnings against the empowerment of a king. And it is this same principle which is evident in the story of the Tower of Babel, and in that admonition of Christ, which reminds that those things which are of Caesar are not of God.

1999 Ron Paul 24:5
To pragmatists, agnostics and such, I point to the decline and fall which has historically attended every other empire. The Ottomans and Romans, the Spanish and the British, all who have tried empire have faltered, and at great costs to their own nations.

1999 Ron Paul 24:6
Mr. Speaker, to liberals I would remind that these interventions, however well-intended they may be, all require the use of forces of occupation, and this is the key step toward colonialism, itself always leading to subjugation and to oppression.

1999 Ron Paul 24:7
To conservatives, I want to recall the founding of our Republic, our nation’s breaking from the yoke of empire in order that we might realize the benefits of liberty and self-determination, and that we might obtain the blessings that flow naturally from limitations on centralized power. Empire reflecting the most perfect means yet devised to concentrate power in the fewest hands.

1999 Ron Paul 24:8
Now, Mr. Speaker, our own nation faces a choice and we may well be at the very precipice. Indeed, to move even one step further down the road to empire may mean that there will be no turning back short of the eventual decline and fall. Will we act now to restore our Republic?

1999 Ron Paul 24:9
It is oft repeated that we do not realize the import of our most critical actions at the time that we begin to undertake them. How true, Mr. Speaker, this statement is. Were Mr. Townshend, or the King in England the least contemplative of the true cost which would eventuate as a result of the tea tax or the stamp act?

1999 Ron Paul 24:10
Now we must ask, is our nation on the verge of empire? Some will say no, because, they say, we do not seek to have direct control over the governments of foreign lands, but how close are we to doing just that? And is it so important whether the dictates of empire come from the head of our government or from the Secretary General of some multilateral entity which we direct?

1999 Ron Paul 24:11
Today we attempt, directly or indirectly, to dictate to other sovereign nations who they ought and ought not have as leader, which peace accords they should sign, and what form of governments they must enact. How limited is the distinction between our actions today and those of the emperors of history? How limited indeed. In fact, one might suggest that this is a distinction without a substantive difference.

1999 Ron Paul 24:12
And where now are we willing to commit troops and under what conditions? If we are to stop all violations of human rights, what will we do of Cuba, which recently announced new crackdowns?

1999 Ron Paul 24:13
And what of communist China? Not only do they steal our secrets, but they violate their own citizens. Who should be more upset, for example, about forced abortion? Is it those who proclaim the inviolable right to life or those who argue for so-called reproductive rights? Even these polar opposites recognize the crimes of the Chinese government in forced abortion. Should we then stop this oppression of millions? Are we committed to lob missiles at this massive nation until it ceases this program?

1999 Ron Paul 24:14
Will the principle upon which we are now claiming to act lead us to impose our political solutions upon the nations that now contain Tibet, and Kurdistan, and should the sentiment rear, even Quebec and Chechnya?

1999 Ron Paul 24:15
The most dangerous thing about where we are headed is our lack of historical memory and our disastrous inattention to the effect of the principles upon which we act, for ideas do indeed have consequences, Mr. Speaker, and they pick up a momentum that becomes all their own.

1999 Ron Paul 24:16
I do believe that we are on the brink, Mr. Speaker, but it is not yet too late. Soon I fear the train, as it is said, will have left the station. We stand on the verge of crossing that line that so firmly distinguishes empire from republic. This occurs not so much by an action or series of actions but by the acceptance of an idea, the idea that we have a right, a duty, an obligation, or a national interest to perfect foreign nations even while we remain less than principled ourselves.

1999 Ron Paul 24:17
When will we, as a people and as an institution, say “we choose to keep our republic, your designs for empire interest us not in the least.” I can only hope it will be soon, for it is my sincerest fear that failing to do so much longer will put us beyond this great divide.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 25
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Crisis in Kosovo 14 April 1999

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

1999 Ron Paul 25:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to address the crisis that is ongoing now in Yugoslavia. For a war to be moral, we must have a reason to go in. National defense is a moral justification. If we are attacked, it is a moral war. Getting involved in any other kind of war is not considered to be moral.

1999 Ron Paul 25:2
A legal war in this country is one that is declared, declared by the Congress. Any other war is illegal. The war in Yugoslavia now pursued by our administration and with NATO is both immoral and illegal and it should not be pursued. We will be soon voting on an appropriation, probably next week. There may be a request for $5 billion to pursue the war in Yugoslavia. I do not believe that we should continue to finance a war that is both immoral and illegal.

1999 Ron Paul 25:3
It has been said that we are in Yugoslavia to stop ethnic cleansing, but it is very clear that the goal of the NATO forces is to set up an ethnic state.

1999 Ron Paul 25:4
It is totally contradictory. There is a civil war, and it is horrible, going on in Yugoslavia today, but this is no justification for outsiders, and especially United States of America, to become involved without the proper proceedings.

1999 Ron Paul 25:5
I believe that our colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. CAMPBELL), deserves to be complemented because he is making a determined effort to put the burden on the Members of Congress to vote one way or the other. Since World War II we have fought numerous wars, and they have never been fought with a declaration of war, and it is precisely for that reason, because they have not been fought for truly national security reasons, that we have not won these wars. If a war is worth fighting, it is worth declaring, and it is worth winning.

1999 Ron Paul 25:6
I am delighted that this effort is being made by the gentleman from California (Mr. CAMPBELL) and others here in the Congress because for so long, for 50 years now, we have permitted our Presidents to casually and carelessly involve our troops overseas. So I see this trend as putting more pressure on the Congress to respond to their responsibilities. I think this is a very, very good move and going in the right direction.

1999 Ron Paul 25:7
It has been asked why in the world might we be there if it is not a concern for the refugees, because obviously we have hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of refugees in many, many places around the world. We do not go to Rwanda to rescue the refugees, we did not go into Yugoslavia to rescue the Serbian refugees when they were being routed from Bosnia and Croatia, but all of a sudden the refugees seem to have an importance.

1999 Ron Paul 25:8
Most people know why we went to the Persian Gulf. It was not because we were attacked. It was because of a financial commercial interest: oil. But what is the interest in this area in Yugoslavia? I am not sure exactly what it is. There has been a lot of postulations about this, but I am not convinced that it is all of a sudden the concern for the refugees.

1999 Ron Paul 25:9
Yesterday in the Washington Post an interesting article occurred on this subject, but it was not in the news section; it was in the business section. There was a headline yesterday in the Washington Post that said: Count Corporate America Among NATO’s Staunchest Allies. Very interesting article because it goes on to explain why so many corporations have an intense interest in making sure that the credibility of NATO is maintained, and they go on to explain that it is not just the arms manufacturers but the technology people who expect to sell weapons in Eastern Europe, in Yugoslavia, and they are very interested in making use of the NATO forces to make sure that their interests are protected. I think this is not the reason for us to go to war.

1999 Ron Paul 25:10
There is talk now of calling up all our Reserves or many of our Reserves at the same time there are hints now that there may be the institution of the draft. So this is a major problem that this country is facing, the world is facing, and up until now we, the Congress, have not spoken.

1999 Ron Paul 25:11
On February 9 of this year I introduced a bill that would have prohibited this by prohibiting any funds being spent on a war in Yugoslavia. I say it is too bad we did not pass that legislation a long time ago.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 26
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

The Bombing in Serbia Must Stop 15 April 1999

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

1999 Ron Paul 26:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, the bombing in Serbia must stop immediately. Serbia has never aggressed against the United States. Serbia is involved in a bloody civil war of which we should have no part, and have not declared war, as the Constitution requires. That makes this war both immoral and illegal.

1999 Ron Paul 26:2
Not only has the bombing done no good, it has made the situation much worse and the world more dangerous. Serb troops are not dying; American troops are not dying, but innocent civilians are being killed by the hundreds on both sides.

1999 Ron Paul 26:3
There are just too many uncanny accidents. The refugee problem, which was minimal before the bombing, is now catastrophic as a result. Congress should not fund this war and if we do, we have become an accomplice and morally responsible for the killing and the spread of this conflict that will surely occur if this bombing is not stopped.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 27
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Why Taxes Are High 15 April 1999

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL). (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

1999 Ron Paul 27:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me this time.

1999 Ron Paul 27:2
I would like to start off by saying that I admire political courage. I have been fascinated by the Members from the other side of the aisle who have been willing, in the light of day and before the American people, to stand up and tell us that they do like it to be easy to raise taxes, and they object to making it more difficult to raise taxes. So I admire them for that.

1999 Ron Paul 27:3
But we must ask, why are taxes high? Taxes are high because government is big. We are dealing with only one-half of the equation. As long as the American people want big government, as long as they want a welfare state, and as long as they believe we should police the world, taxes will remain high.

1999 Ron Paul 27:4
This is a token effort to move in the right direction of eliminating taxes. Big government is financed in three different ways. First, we borrow money. Borrowing is legal under the Constitution, although that was debated at the Constitutional Convention, and the Jeffersonians lost. Someday we should deal with that. We should not be able to borrow to finance big government.

1999 Ron Paul 27:5
Something that we do here in Washington which is also unconstitutional is to inflate the currency to pay for debt. Last year the Federal Reserve bought Treasury debt to the tune of $43 billion. This helps finance big government. This is illegal, unconstitutional, and is damaging to our economy.

1999 Ron Paul 27:6
But we are dealing with taxes today. Taxes today are at the highest peacetime level ever, going over 21 percent of the GDP. The problem is that taxes are too high.

1999 Ron Paul 27:7
I commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. BARTON) for bringing this measure to the floor. I would say this is a modest approach. Today we can raise taxes with a 50 percent vote. I and others would like to make it 100 percent. It would be great if we needed 100 percent of the people to vote to raise taxes. I see this as a modest compromise and one of moderation. So I would say that I strongly endorse this move to make it more difficult in a very modest way.

1999 Ron Paul 27:8
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute just for the purpose of asking the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) a question.

1999 Ron Paul 27:9
I take it that the gentleman believes that government is too big and that is a function of both what it takes in and what goes out, what it spends out.

1999 Ron Paul 27:10
So would it be fair to say that the gentleman would support a constitutional amendment requiring a twothirds vote for expenditures, too?

1999 Ron Paul 27:11
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, that sounds like a pretty good idea.

1999 Ron Paul 27:12
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thought that might be the case. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 28
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Opposing Congressional Medal of Honor for Rosa Parks 20 April 1999

1999 Ron Paul 28:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 573. At the same time, I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies. However, I oppose the Congressional Gold Medal for Rosa Parks Act because authorizing $30,000 of taxpayer money is neither constitutional nor, in the spirit of Rosa Parks who is widely recognized and admired for standing up against an overbearing government infringing on individual rights.

1999 Ron Paul 28:2
Because of my continuing and uncompromising opposition to appropriations not authorized within the enumerated powers of the Constitution, I must remain consistent in my defense of a limited government whose powers are explicitly delimited under the enumerated powers of the Constitution—a Constitution, which only months ago, each Member of Congress, swore to uphold.

1999 Ron Paul 28:3
Perhaps we should begin a debate among us on more appropriate processes by which we spend other people’s money. Honorary medals and commemorative coins, under the current process, come from allocated other people’s money. We should look for another way.

1999 Ron Paul 28:4
It is, of course, easier to be generous with other people’s money.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 29
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo 21 April 1999

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

1999 Ron Paul 29:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, supporters of internationalism celebrated NATO’s 50th anniversary with the Senate’s 1998 overwhelming approval for expanding NATO to include Eastern European countries. This year’s official inclusion of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic made all NATO’s supporters proud, indeed. But in reality, NATO now is weaker and more chaotic than ever.

1999 Ron Paul 29:2
In the effort to expand NATO and promote internationalism, we see in reaction the rise of ugly nationalism. The U.S. and NATO policy of threats and intimidation to establish an autonomous Kosovo without true independence from Serbia, and protected by NATO’s forces for the foreseeable future, has been a recipe for disaster.

1999 Ron Paul 29:3
This policy of nation-building and interference in a civil war totally contradicts the mission of European defense set out in the NATO charter.

1999 Ron Paul 29:4
Without the Soviet enemy to justify the European military machine, NATO had to find enemies and humanitarian missions to justify its existence. The centuries-old ethnic hatreds found in Yugoslavia and the militant leaders on all sides have served this purpose well. Working hard to justify NATO’s policy in this region has totally obscured any objective analysis of the turmoil now raging.

1999 Ron Paul 29:5
Some specific policy positions of NATO guaranteed that the ongoing strife would erupt into a full-fledged and dangerous conflict. Once it was determined in the early 1990s that outsiders would indict and try Yugoslavian war criminals, it was certain that cooperation with western negotiators would involve risks. Fighting to the end became a practical alternative to a mock international trial. Forcing a treaty settlement on Serbia where Serbia would lose the sovereign territory of Kosovo guaranteed an escalation of the fighting and the forced removal of the Kosovars from their homes.

1999 Ron Paul 29:6
Ignoring the fact that more than 500,000 Serbs were uprooted from Croatia and Bosnia with the encouragement of NATO intervention did great harm to the regional effort to reestablish more stable borders.

1999 Ron Paul 29:7
The sympathy shown Albanian refugees by our government and our media, although justified, stirred the flames of hatred by refusing to admit that over a half million Serbs suffered the same fate and yet elicited no concern from the internationalists bent on waging war. No one is calling for the return of certain property and homes.

1999 Ron Paul 29:8
Threatening a country to do what we the outsiders tell them or their cities will be bombed is hardly considered good diplomacy. Arguing that the Serbs must obey and give up what they see as sovereign territory after suffering much themselves as well as face war crimes trials run by the West makes no sense. Anyone should have been able to predict what the results would be.

1999 Ron Paul 29:9
The argument that, because of humanitarian concerns for the refugees, we were forced to act is not plausible. Our efforts dramatically increased the refugee problem. Milosevic, as he felt cornered by the Western threats, reacted the only way he could to protect what he considered Serbia, a position he defends with international law while being supported by unified Serb people.

1999 Ron Paul 29:10
If it is the suffering and the refugees that truly motivate our actions, there is no answer to the perplexing question of why no action was taken to help the suffering in Rwanda, Sudan, East Timore, Tibet, Chechnya, Kurdish, Turkey, and for the Palestinians in Israel. This is not a reason; it is an excuse.

1999 Ron Paul 29:11
Instead, we give massive foreign aid to the likes of China and Russia, countries that have trampled on the rights of ethnic minorities.

1999 Ron Paul 29:12
How many refugees, how many children’s death has U.S. policy caused by our embargo and bombing for 9 years of a defenseless poverty-ridden Iraq. Just as our bombs in Iraq have caused untold misery and death, so have our bombs in Serbia killed the innocent on both sides, solidified support for the ruthless leaders, and spread the war.

1999 Ron Paul 29:13
This policy of intervention is paid for by the U.S. taxpayer and promoted illegally by our President without congressional authority, as is required by the Constitution.

1999 Ron Paul 29:14
The United States Government has in the past referred to the Kosovo Liberation Army leaders as thugs, terrorists, Marxists, and drug dealers. This current fight was initiated by Kosovo’s desire for independence from Serbia.

1999 Ron Paul 29:15
The KLA took on the Serbs, not the other way around. Whether or not one is sympathetic to Kosovo’s secession is not relevant. I for one prefer many small independent governments pledged not to aggress against their neighbors over the international special interest authoritarianism of NATO, the CIA, and the United Nations.

1999 Ron Paul 29:16
But my sympathies do not justify our taxing and sending young Americans to fight for Kosovo’s independence. It is wrong legally and morally; and besides, the KLA is not likely to institute a model nation respecting civil liberties of all its citizens.

1999 Ron Paul 29:17
The biggest irony of this entire mess is to see the interventionists, whose goal is one world government, so determined to defend a questionable group of local leaders, the KLA, bent on secession. This action will not go unnoticed and will provide the philosophic framework for the establishment of a Palestinian state, Kurdistan, and independent Tibet, and it will encourage many other ethnic minorities to demand independence.

1999 Ron Paul 29:18
Our policy of intervention in the internal affairs of other nations, and their border disputes is not one that comes from American tradition or constitutional law. It is a policy based on our current leaders’ belief that we are the policemen of the world, something we have earnestly and foolishly pursued since World War II and in a more aggressive fashion since the demise of the Soviet Union.

1999 Ron Paul 29:19
Interventionism is done with a pretense of wisdom believing we always know the good guys from the bad guys and that we will ignore the corporate and political special interests always agitating for influence. Nothing could be further from the truth.

1999 Ron Paul 29:20
Instead of being lucky enough on occasions to pick the right side of a conflict, we instead end up supporting both sides of nearly every conflict. In the 1980s, we helped arm, and allied ourselves with, the Iraqis against Iran. Also in the 1980s we supported the Afghan freedom fighters, which included Osama Bin Laden. Even in the current crisis in Yugoslavia, we have found ourselves on both sides.

1999 Ron Paul 29:21
The United States, along with the United Nations, in 1992 supported an arms embargo against Kosovo essentially making it impossible for the Kosovars to defend themselves against Serbia. Helping the Albanian Muslims is interpreted by some as token appeasement to the Arab oil countries unhappy with the advantage the Serbs got from the arms embargo.

1999 Ron Paul 29:22
This balancing act between three vicious warring factions was doomed to fail and has only led to more instability and the spreading of the war in the region.

1999 Ron Paul 29:23
Instead of pretending to be everything to everyone, while shifting alliances and blindly hoping for good to come of it, we should reconsider the advice of the Founders and take seriously the strict restraints on waging war placed in the Constitution.

1999 Ron Paul 29:24
Not much long-term good can come of a foreign policy designed to meddle and manipulate in places where we have no business or authority. It cannot help the cause of peace.

1999 Ron Paul 29:25
Unfortunately, our policies usually backfire and do more harm than good. When weaker nations are intimidated by more powerful ones, striking back very often can be done only through terrorism, a problem that will continue to threaten all Americans as our leaders incite those who oppose our aggressive stands throughout the world.

1999 Ron Paul 29:26
War has been used throughout history to enhance the state against the people. Taxes, conscription and inflation have been used as tools of the state to pursue wars not popular with the people. Government size and authority always grows with war, as the people are told that only the sacrifice of their liberties can save the nation. Propaganda and threats are used to coerce the people into this careless giving up of their liberties.

1999 Ron Paul 29:27
This has always been true with military wars, but the same can be said of the war mentality associated with the war on drugs, the war on poverty, the war against illiteracy, or any other war proposed by some social do-gooder or intentional mischief maker.

1999 Ron Paul 29:28
But when a foreign war comes to our shores in the form of terrorism, we can be sure that our government will explain the need for further sacrifice of personal liberties to win this war against terrorism as well. Extensive preparations are already being made to fight urban and domestic violence, not by an enhanced local police force, but by a national police force with military characteristics.

1999 Ron Paul 29:29
Even the war against national disasters led by FEMA, usurps local authority while imposing restraints on movement and controlling recovery efforts that should be left to local police, private insurance, and voluntary groups.

1999 Ron Paul 29:30
Our overseas efforts to police the world implies that with or without success, resulting injuries and damage imposed by us and others will be rectified with U.S. tax dollars in the form of more foreign aid, as we always do. Nation building and international social work has replaced national defense as the proper responsibility of our government.

1999 Ron Paul 29:31
What will the fate of NATO be in the coming years? Many are fretting that NATO may dissolve over a poor showing in Yugoslavia, despite the 50th anniversary hype and its recent expansion. Fortunately for those who cherish liberty and limited government, NATO has a questionable future.

1999 Ron Paul 29:32
When our leaders sanctioned NATO in 1949, there were many patriotic Americans who questioned the wisdom and the constitutionality of this organization. It was by its charter to be strictly a defensive organization designed to defend Western Europe from any Soviet threat. The NATO charter clearly recognized the Security Council of the United Nations was responsible for the maintenance of international peace and security.

1999 Ron Paul 29:33
Likewise, the legislative history and congressional testimony maintained NATO could not usurp from Congress and the people the power to wage war. We have drifted a long way from that acknowledgment, and the fears expressed by Robert Taft and others in 1949 were certainly justified.

1999 Ron Paul 29:34
United States and NATO, while deliberately avoiding a U.N. vote on the issue, have initiated war against a sovereign state in the middle of a civil war. A Civil War that caused thousands of casualties and refugees on both sides has been turned into a war with hundreds of thousands of casualties and refugees with NATO’s interference. The not-so-idle U.S. threats cast at Milosevic did not produce compliance. It only expanded the violence and the bloodshed.

1999 Ron Paul 29:35
The foolishness of this policy has become apparent, but Western leaders are quick to justify their warmongering. It was not peace or liberty or national security they sought as they sent the bombs flying. It was to save face for NATO.

1999 Ron Paul 29:36
Without the Soviets to worry about, NATO needed a mission, and stopping the evil Serbs fit the bill. It was convenient to ignore the evil Croates and the Kosovars, and it certainly was easy to forget the United Nations’, NATO’s, and the United States’ policies over the past decade that contributed to the mess in Yugoslavia.

1999 Ron Paul 29:37
It was soon apparent that bombing was no more a successful diplomatic tool than were the threats of dire consequences if the treaty, unfavorable to the Serbs, was not quickly signed by Milosevic. This drew demands that policy must be directed toward saving NATO by expanding the war. NATO’s credibility was now at stake and how could Europe, and the United States war machine, survive if NATO were to disintegrate.

1999 Ron Paul 29:38
Hopes as expressed by Ron Brown and his corporate friends were not extinguished by the unfortunate and mysterious Air Force crash while on their way to Bosnia to do business deals. Nobody even bothers to find out what U.S. policy condones business trips of our corporate leaders in a war zone on an Air Force aircraft. Corporate interests and the military-industrial complex continues to play a role in our Yugoslavian war policy. Corporate America loves NATO.

1999 Ron Paul 29:39
Most politicians and the public do not know what NATO’s real mission is, and today’s policy cannot be explained by reading its mission statement written in 1949. Certainly our vital interests and national security cannot justify our escalation of the war in Yugoslavia.

1999 Ron Paul 29:40
The excuse that we are the only superpower is hardly a moral reason to justify bombing nations that are seen as uncooperative. Military strength gives neither a right to bully nor a monopoly on wisdom. This strength too often, when held by large political entities, is used criminally to serve the powerful special interests.

1999 Ron Paul 29:41
The Persian Gulf and Yugoslavia obviously are much more economically intriguing than Rwanda and Sudan. There are clearly no business benefits for taking on the Chinese over its policy toward Tibet. Quite the contrary, we do business with China and subsidize her to boot.

1999 Ron Paul 29:42
In spite of the powerful political and industrial leaders’ support behind NATO, and the budgets of 19 Western countries, NATO’s days appear numbered. We shall not weep when NATO goes the way of the Soviet Empire and the Warsaw Pact. Managing a war with 19 vetoes makes it impossible for a coherent strategy to evolve. Chaos, bickering, bureaucratic blundering, waste and political infighting will surely result.

1999 Ron Paul 29:43
There is no natural tendency for big government to enjoy stability without excessive and brute force, as was used in the Soviet system. But eventually the natural tendency towards instability, as occurred in the Soviet Empire, will bring about NATO’s well-deserved demise. NATO, especially since it has embarked on a new and dangerous imperialistic mission, will find using brute force to impose its will on others is doomed to fail.

1999 Ron Paul 29:44
It has been said that, in numbers, there is strength. But in politics, it can also be said that, in numbers, there is confusion as differences become magnified.

1999 Ron Paul 29:45
Nationalism is alive and well even within the 19-member NATO group. When nationalism is non-militaristic, peace loving, and freedom oriented, it is a force that will always undermine big government planners, whether found in a Soviet system or a NATO/ U.N. system.

1999 Ron Paul 29:46
The smaller the unit of government, the better it is for the welfare of all those who seek only peace and freedom. NATO no longer can hide its true intent behind an anti-communist commitment.

1999 Ron Paul 29:47
Some have wondered how a 1960s generation administration could be so proned to war. The 1960s were known for their rebellion against the Vietnam War and a preference for lovemaking and drugs over fighting, even Communists. In recent months four separate sovereign nations were bombed by the United States. This has to be some kind of a record. Bombing Belgrade on Easter has to tell us something about an administration that is still strangely seen by some as not having the determination to fight a real war. There is a big difference between being antiwar when one’s life is at risk as compared to when it is someone else’s. That may tell us something about character, but there is more to it than that.

1999 Ron Paul 29:48
Many who were opposed to the Persian Gulf and Vietnam Wars are now strongly supporting this so-called just and humanitarian war to punish those who are said to be totally responsible for the Yugoslavian refugee problem. The fact that Serbia is not Communist in the sense of North Vietnam may play a part for some in making the decision to support this war but not the war in Vietnam. But the Persian Gulf War was not at all about communism, it was about oil.

1999 Ron Paul 29:49
Some from the left, if strongly inclined toward internationalism, supported the Persian Gulf War, but for the most part the opposition came from those who chose not to support a president of the opposite party, while today, supporting one’s own party’s position to bomb the Serbs becomes politically correct.

1999 Ron Paul 29:50
The same can be said of those who are opposed to the Yugoslavian war. Where they supported the Persian Gulf War, this administration has not garnered their support for partisan reasons. The principle of interventionism, constitutionality and morality have not been applied consistently to each war effort by either political party, and there is a precise reason for this, over and above the petty partisanship of many.

1999 Ron Paul 29:51
The use of government force to mold personal behavior, manipulate the economy and interfere in the affairs of other nations is an acceptable practice endorsed by nearly everyone in Washington regardless of party affiliation. Once the principle of government force is acknowledged as legitimate, varying the when and to what degree becomes the only issue. It is okay to fight Communists overseas but not Serbs; it is okay to fight Serbs but not Arabs. The use of force becomes completely arbitrary and guided by the politician’s good judgment. And when it pleases one group to use constitutional restraint, it does, but forgets about the restraints when it is not convenient.

1999 Ron Paul 29:52
The 1960s crowd, although having a reputation for being anti-war due to their position on Vietnam, has never been bashful about its bold authoritarian use of force to mold economic conditions, welfare, housing, medical care, job discrimination, environment, wages and working conditions, combined with a love for taxes and inflation to pay the bills. When in general the principle of government force to mold society is endorsed, using force to punish Serbs is no great leap of faith, and for the interventionists is entirely consistent. Likewise, the interventionists who justified unconstitutional fighting in Vietnam, Panama, Nicaragua, Grenada, Libya and the Persian Gulf, even if they despise the current war in Yugoslavia, can easily justify using government force when it pleases them and their home constituency.

1999 Ron Paul 29:53
Philosophic interventionism is a politician’s dream. It allows arbitrary intervention, domestic or international, and when political circumstances demand opposition, it is easy to cite the Constitution which always and correctly rejects the use of government force, except for national self-defense and for the protection of life, liberty and property.

1999 Ron Paul 29:54
Politicians love interventionism and pragmatism, the prevailing philosophy of our age, a philosophy based on relative ethics. No rigid adherence to law or morality is required. Even the Constitution can be used in this delicate debate of just when and for whom we go to war. The trick is to grab the political moral high ground while rejecting the entire moral foundation upon which the law rests, natural rights, rejection of force and the requirement politicians be strictly bound by a contract for which all of us take an oath to uphold.

1999 Ron Paul 29:55
What does this hodgepodge philosophy here in the Congress mean for the future of peace and prosperity in general and NATO and the United Nations in particular? Pragmatism cannot prevail. Economically and socially it breeds instability, bankruptcy, economic turmoil and factionalism here at home. Internationally it will lead to the same results.

1999 Ron Paul 29:56
NATO’s days are surely numbered. That is the message of the current chaos in Yugoslavia. NATO may hold together in name only for a while, but its effectiveness is gone forever. The U.S. has the right to legally leave NATO with a 1-year’s notice. That we ought to do, but we will not. We will continue to allow ourselves to bleed financially and literally for many years to come before it is recognized that governance of diverse people is best done by diverse and small governments, not by a one-world government dependent on the arbitrary use of force determined by politically correct reasons and manipulated by the powerful financial interests around the world.

1999 Ron Paul 29:57
Our more immediate problem is the financing of the ongoing war in Yugoslavia. On February 9 of this year I introduced legislation to deny funds to the President to wage war in Yugoslavia. The Congress chose to ignore this suggestion and missed an opportunity to prevent the fiasco now ongoing in Yugoslavia.

1999 Ron Paul 29:58
The President, as so many other presidents have done since World War II, took it upon himself to wage an illegal war against Yugoslavia under NATO’s authority, and Congress again chose to do nothing. By ignoring our constitutional responsibility with regards to war power, the Congress implicitly endorsed the President’s participation in NATO’s illegal war against Yugoslavia. We neither declared war nor told the President to cease and desist.

1999 Ron Paul 29:59
Now we have a third chance, and maybe our last, before the war gets out of control. We are being asked to provide all necessary funding for the war. Once we provide funds for the war, the Congress becomes an explicit partner in this ill-conceived NATO-inspired intervention in the civil war of a sovereign nation, making Congress morally and legally culpable.

1999 Ron Paul 29:60
Appropriating funds to pursue this war is not the way to peace. We have been bombing, boycotting and killing thousands in Iraq for 9 years with no end in sight. We have been in Bosnia for 3 years, with no end in sight. And once Congress endorses the war in Yugoslavia with funding, it could take a decade, billions of dollars, and much suffering on both sides, before we put it to an end.

1999 Ron Paul 29:61
Bellicosity and jingoism associated with careless and illegal intervention can never replace a policy of peace and friendship whenever possible. And when it is not, at least neutrality. NATO’s aggressive war of destruction and vengeance can only make the situation worse. The sooner we disengage ourselves from this ugly civil war, the better. It is the right thing to do.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 30
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Round Top, TX Dedicates A New Post Office 22 April 1999 HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, April 22, 1999

1999 Ron Paul 30:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, dedication ceremonies will soon be held in Texas to mark the completion of a new postal facility in Round Top, TX. This is the first new post office in this city since the 1968 dedication of the old one.

1999 Ron Paul 30:2
The route this new post office took from blue print to completion expresses the basis of being a Texan and an American. The U.S. Postal Service approached Round Top with a pre-designed post office building that had apparently been designed in Washington without the input of the people of Round Top. In true Texas fashion the people of this city stood up to say this new building would be in their town for their use and therefore insisted that it reflect the city in which it would be built. As a result, they now have a beautiful new building that reflects their history as a community and as Texans. Since Round Top has had a post office since the days of the Republic of Texas, is only fitting that this new building points to the proud heritage of our great state.

1999 Ron Paul 30:3
Our Founding Fathers intended for decisions to be made as close to the people as possible. By rejecting plans that had no connection to their city, the people of Round Top continue to live up to this great tradition.

1999 Ron Paul 30:4
Mr. Speaker, Postmaster Carol Oritz and her community are deservingly proud of their new post office and the history behind it. As our great state continues to grow and our major cities get even larger, we would be wise to remember the people of Round Top and other such communities.

1999 Ron Paul 30:5
It is fitting that the new post office in the Texas town of Round Top today flies an American flag that very recently flew over our nation’s capitol building.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 31
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Environmental Regulatory Issues 22 April 1999 HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, April 22, 1999

1999 Ron Paul 31:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend the insight added to the policy debate on critical environmental regulatory issues by John McClaughry in an article he authored in yesterday’s Washington Times. Mr. McClaughry succinctly highlights the danger which occurs when, as happened in the United States in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, property rights are ignored in the name of “progress.”

1999 Ron Paul 31:2
Mr. McClaughry, president of Vermont’s Ethan Allen Institute, correctly explains that technological innovation is stunted when the legal system allows polluters to externalize their costs without allowing legal recourse by those whose property is polluted.

1999 Ron Paul 31:3
I commend the research of Mr. McClaughry and thank him for his important contribution to the policy debate regarding environmental regulation and recommend a careful reading of his article by everyone genuinely interested in both the proper moral and economic resolution of these issues.

1999 Ron Paul 31:4
CELEBRATING THE RESOURCEFUL EARTH

Tomorrow, many Americans will celebrate the 30th anniversary of Earth Day. The event was created in 1970 to call attention to humankind’s despoliation of our planet. It’s a good time to see what 30 years of Earth Day enthusiasm has given us.

1999 Ron Paul 31:5
The environmental awareness stimulated by the first Earth Day has had many beneficial results. Thanks to citizen awareness and ensuing state and national legislation, today the air is much cleaner, the water far purer, and risk from toxic and hazardous wastes sharply reduced. Polluters have been made to pay for disposal costs previously imposed on the public. Private groups like the Nature Conservancy have purchased and conserved millions of acres of land and natural resources.

1999 Ron Paul 31:6
But—and it always seems there is a but— like every promising new movement, the people who became leaders of the environmental movement stimulated by Earth Day soon found they could increase their political power (and staff salaries) by constantly demanding more command and control regulation. That heavyhanded government response has increasingly surpassed the boundaries of science and reason and severely strained the good will of millions of Americans who had eagerly responded to the initial call to clean up and protect our planet.

1999 Ron Paul 31:7
Here are just some of the “achievements” of an environmental movement that has flourished by promoting fantastic enviroscares, sending out millions of pieces of semihysterical direct mail fundraising letters, peddling junk science, and making ever-more-collusive legal deals.

1999 Ron Paul 31:8
A failed Endangered Species Act which, by substituting “ecosystem” control for species protection incentives, has caused thousands of landowners to drive off or exterminate the very species that were supposed to be protected.

1999 Ron Paul 31:9
A wetlands protection program that has gone from controlling real wetlands to regulating buffer zones around tiny “vernal pools” of spring snow melt, and even lands that have no water on them at all, but feature “hydric soils.”

1999 Ron Paul 31:10
An air quality program that denies permits to dry cleaning plants unless they can prove that their emissions will not cause 300,001 instead of the normal 300,000 cancer deaths among 1 million people who will live for 70 consecutive years next door to the plant.

1999 Ron Paul 31:11
A “superfund” bill which has sucked billions of dollars out of taxpayers to pay lawyers to pursue “potentially responsible parties” instead of actually cleaning up toxic waste sites.

1999 Ron Paul 31:12
An ozone depletion scare whose purported effect—increasing incidence of dangerous ultraviolet B at ground level—turned out to be unsupportable by evidence.

1999 Ron Paul 31:13
A global warming hysteria, based on speculative computer models instead of actual temperature data, to justify a treaty to impose federal and international taxes, rationing and prohibitions on all U.S. carbon-based energy sources.

1999 Ron Paul 31:14
Ludicrous requirements imposed on the nuclear energy industry, such as requiring massive concrete vaults for the storage of old coveralls and air filters whose radioactivity level a few feet from the container is less than the background radiation produced by ordinary Vermont granite.

1999 Ron Paul 31:15
Enforcing many of these unsupportable policies is a federal and state bureaucracy eager to deny defendants any semblance of fair play, secure sweetheart consent agreements, and measure their success by fines and jail time imposed—for example, on the Pennsylvania landowner who removed car bodies and old tires from a seasonal stream bed on his land without a federal permit (fined $300,000).

1999 Ron Paul 31:16
As Roger Marzulla, a former assistant U.S. attorney general for land and resources, recently put it, “Like the enchanted broomsticks in the story of ‘The Sorcerer’s Apprentice,’ the environmental enforcement program has gotten completely out of control.”

1999 Ron Paul 31:17
Fortunately, a common-sense, fair play, rights-respecting alternative environmental movement has begun to appear. On Earth Day 1999, its member groups—as many as a hundred state and national organizations— are celebrating “Resourceful Earth Day.” Their alternative is based on a remark made by Henry David Thoreau, who said, “I know of no more encouraging fact than the unquestionable ability of man to elevate his life by conscious endeavor.”

1999 Ron Paul 31:18
The astonishing growth of science and technology in the past 30 years has proven over and over again that human ingenuity can and will rise to overcome every environmental challenge. Today’s energy sources are far cleaner and more efficient than those of 1970, and even more pollution-free new energy devices are emerging from laboratories. New cars today, fueled with improved gasoline, produce 2 percent of the pollution of 1970 cars. Cost-effective resource recovery of everything from aluminum to methane, has made giant strides. Microsensors, global positioning satellites, and tiny computers allow farmers to dispense just the right concentration of fertilizer on every square yard of a field.

1999 Ron Paul 31:19
The friends of the “Resourceful Earth” believe in progress, not just to make and consume more stuff, but to protect our Earth as well. The tide is with them, and as their creative optimism prevails the better off Mother Earth—and its people—will be.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 32
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

On Regulating Satellite TV 27 April 1999

1999 Ron Paul 32:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today we are faced with an unfortunate and false choice between two evils. The false choice is whether the government should ban voluntary exchange or regulate it—as though these were the only two options. More specifically, today’s choice is whether government should continue to maintain its ban on satellite provision of network programming to television consumers or replace that ban by expanding an anti-market, anti-consumer regulatory regime to the entire satellite television industry.

1999 Ron Paul 32:2
H.R. 1554, the Satellite Copyright, Competition, and Consumer Protection Act of 1999, the bill before us today, repeals the strict prohibition of local network programming via satellite to local subscribers BUT in so doing is chock full of private sector mandates and bureaucracy expanding provisions. H.R. 1554, for example, requires Satellite carriers to divulge to networks lists of subscribers, expands the current arbitrary, anti-market, government royalty scheme to network broadcast programming, undermines existing contracts between cable companies and network program owners, violates freedom of contract principles, imposes anti-consumer “must-carry” regulations upon satellite service providers, creates new authority for the FCC to “re-map the country” and further empowers the National Telecommunications Information administration (NTIA) to “study the impact” of this very legislation on rural and small TV markets.

1999 Ron Paul 32:3
This bill’s title includes the word “competition” but ignores the market processes’ inherent and fundamental cornerstones of property rights (to include intellectual property rights) and voluntary exchange unfettered by government technocrats. Instead, we have a so- called marketplace fraught with interventionism at every level. Cable companies are granted franchises of monopoly privilege at the local level. Congresses have previously intervened to invalidate exclusive dealings contracts between private parties (cable service providers and program creators), and have most recently assumed the role of price setter—determining prices at which program suppliers must make their programs available to satellite programing service providers under the “compulsory license.”

1999 Ron Paul 32:4
Unfortunately, this bill expands the government’s role to set the so-called just price for satellite programming. This, of course, is inherently impossible outside the market process of voluntary exchange and has, not surprisingly, resulted instead in “competition” among service providers for government favor rather than consumer-benefiting competition inherent to the genuine market.

1999 Ron Paul 32:5
While it is within the Constitutionally enumerated powers of Congress to “promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries,” operating a clearinghouse for the subsequent transfer of such property rights in the name of setting a just price or instilling competition seems not to be an economically prudent nor justifiable action under this enumerated power. This can only be achieved within the market process itself.

1999 Ron Paul 32:6
I introduced what I believe is the most pro- consumer, competition-friendly legislation to address the current government barrier to competition in television program provision. My bill, the Television Consumer Freedom Act, would repeal federal regulations which interfere with consumers’ ability to avail themselves of desired television programming. It repeals that federal prohibition and allows satellite service providers to more freely negotiate with program owners for just the programming desired by satellite service subscribers. Technology is now available by which viewers will be able to view network programs via satellite as presented by their nearest network affiliate. This market-generated technology will remove a major stumbling block to negotiations that should currently be taking place between network program owners and satellite service providers. Additionally, rather than imposing the burdensome and anti-consumer “must- carry” regulations on satellite service providers to “keep the playing field level,” my bill allows bona fide competition by repealing the must- carry from the already over-regulated cable industry.

1999 Ron Paul 32:7
Genuine competition is a market process and, in a world of scarce resources, it alone best protects the consumer. It is unfortunate that this bill ignores that option. It is also unfortunate that our only choice with H.R. 1554 is to trade one form of government intervention for another—“ban voluntarily exchange or bureaucratically regulate it?” Unfortunate, indeed.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 33
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

On Debating War Resolution 28 April 1999

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to my friend from Surfside Beach, Texas (Mr. PAUL). (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

1999 Ron Paul 33:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise reluctantly to oppose the rule, and I do this hesitantly, because it is difficult to write fair rules and I generally support the rules. But today I have to oppose this rule, mainly because we are going to be debating war, a declaration of war, and a full hour is not adequate to debate an issue of that magnitude. I know there was an attempt to provide for a lot of debate today, but, for instance, on the one issue of declaration of war, only one hour was given; that is just not enough.

1999 Ron Paul 33:2
The other reason is that it does preclude a House Resolution coming up again under an expedited procedure. This is not right. This is undermining the whole purpose of the War Power Resolution of 1973, and we should not be doing this.

1999 Ron Paul 33:3
This is taking more authority away from the Congress and giving more authority to the President and to the administration and for us not to have a say. The whole issue of war should be decided here in this Congress, and we are here today because we have been negligent on assuming our responsibilities.

1999 Ron Paul 33:4
I saw this coming, and on February 9 of this year, I introduced a bill that would have prevented this whole problem by making certain that our President could not spend one penny on waging war in Kosovo. That is what we should have done. We have not, and now we are in this mess.

1999 Ron Paul 33:5
But we do not need to be once again taking more responsibility from the Congress and giving it to the President. We have a policy problem, we do not have a resolution problem. We have a foreign policy that endorses intervention any time, anyplace, assuming that our Presidents know when to insert troops around the world. That is our basic problem. Until we in the Congress take it upon ourselves to assume our responsibility with the issue of war, this problem will continue.

1999 Ron Paul 33:6
So I applaud the gentleman from California (Mr. CAMPBELL) for bringing these resolutions to the floor, but, unfortunately, I cannot support this rule today as written.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 34
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Whether, And How, To Go To War 28 April 1999

Mr. CAMPBELL. 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.)

1999 Ron Paul 34:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, there have clearly been set two goals among a group of us. We have been striving to make sure this Congress follows procedure, that is, if we go to war, that we do it properly. It is pretty difficult to achieve this, especially when a president is willing to go to war and then we have to do this as a second thought. I am pleased that, at least today, we are trying to catch up on this. The second issue is whether it is wise to go to war.

1999 Ron Paul 34:2
Certainly, under these circumstances, I think it is very unwise for the American people to go to war at this time. The Serbs have done nothing to us, and we should not be over there perpetuating a war.

1999 Ron Paul 34:3
Our problem has been that we are trying to accommodate at least a half century of a policy which is interventionism at will by our presidents. We have become the policemen of the world. As long as we endorse that policy, we will have a difficulty with the subject we are dealing with today.

1999 Ron Paul 34:4
Today we are trying to deal legally with a half a war. A half a war is something like a touch of pregnancy. You can’t have a half a war. If we do not declare war and if we do not fight a war because it is in our national interest and for national security reasons, we’ll inevitably will not fight to win the war. That has always been our problem, whether it was Korea, Vietnam, or even the Persian Gulf war.

1999 Ron Paul 34:5
To me, it is so important that you fight war for national security reasons only, you declare a war and you fight to win the war. We are not about to do that today. We are not going to declare war against Serbia. Serbia has done nothing to America. They have been close allies of ours, especially in World War II. We are not going to do that. Are we going to demand the troops be removed? Probably not.

1999 Ron Paul 34:6
So what are we going to do? We are going to perpetuate this confusion. But what we should do is vote down a declaration of war, vote to get the troops out of Yugoslavia, and vote to stop the bombing. The sooner we do that, the better. That is in America’s interests.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 35
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Moral And Constitutional Wars Must Be Fought In Self defense 28 April 1999

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

1999 Ron Paul 35:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, we have heard from several Members already about being unhappy with the legislative process today. The votes did not go exactly the way I wanted, but I am not all that unhappy with what happened because there was a serious effort for this House to restore some of the responsibility that they have allowed to gravitate to the administration and to our Presidents over the many years.

1999 Ron Paul 35:2
Today’s legislative process was chaotic, but I think it was chaotic for a precise reason. We are trying to rectify something that has been going on for more than 50 years, and it is not just this President. It is every President that we have had since World War II. We have in the Congress permitted our Presidents too much leeway in waging war.

1999 Ron Paul 35:3
This was an effort today to restore that responsibility to the House. It was done sloppily, but considering the alternative of doing nothing, this was much better.

1999 Ron Paul 35:4
So I am very pleased with what happened today. I am disappointed that there was such strong feelings about the outcome. But I suspect they were not unhappy with the process as much as they were unhappy with not winning the votes.

1999 Ron Paul 35:5
But nevertheless the votes were very important today. One of the most significant, if not the most significant: we on this House floor today voted up and down on a war resolution. This is not done very often and under the circumstances that exist today, probably the first time.

1999 Ron Paul 35:6
But that was an easy vote. The House overwhelmingly voted not to go to war. This makes a lot of sense. This is a very good vote. Why should we go to war against a country that has not aggressed against us?

1999 Ron Paul 35:7
So this was normal and natural and a very good vote. The problem comes with the other votes because they do not follow a consistent pattern.

1999 Ron Paul 35:8
I think there are too many Members in this House who have enjoyed the fact that they have delivered the responsibility to the President. They do not want war, but they want war. They do not want a legal war, they want an illegal war. They do not want a war to win, they want a war that is a half of a war. They want the President to do the dirty work, but they do not want the Congress to stand up and decide one way or the other.

1999 Ron Paul 35:9
Today we saw evidence that the Congress was willing to stand up to some degree and vote on this and take some responsibility. For this reason I am pleased with what happened. So voting against the war that has no significant national security interest makes a lot of sense to me.

1999 Ron Paul 35:10
Another vote, the vote to withhold ground troops unless Congress authorizes the funding for this; this is not micromanaging anything. This is just the Congress standing up and accepting their responsibilities. So this in many ways was very good. This means that the people in this country, as they send their messages to the Members of Congress, are saying that this war does not make a whole lot of sense. If the people of this country were frightened, if they felt like they were being attacked, if they felt like their liberties were threatened, believe me the vote would have been a lot different.

1999 Ron Paul 35:11
But I am very pleased that this House stood up and said:

1999 Ron Paul 35:12
Mr. President, you have overstepped your bounds already. Slow up. Do not get this notion that you should send in ground troops. It makes no sense to this House.

1999 Ron Paul 35:13
Now the interesting thing is that was a resolution, it was a House Resolution, that probably really does not have much effect other than a public relation effect because it would have to be passed by the Senate, it would be vetoed by the President, we would have to override his veto. So, in the practical legislative sense it does not mean a whole lot, but it means something in the fact that we brought it to the floor and we were required to vote on it.

1999 Ron Paul 35:14
Another resolution that was defeated unfortunately, and it was defeated by a two-to-one margin; this would have said that the President would have to cease, we should have told him to cease, because we have not given him the right to wage war. As a matter of fact, even today we said there will be no war, there will be no declaration of war, so we should consistently follow up and say what we should do is withdraw and not fight a war.

1999 Ron Paul 35:15
Likewise, when we come to the endorsement of the military bombing, fortunately it went down narrowly. But it in itself, too, does not have any legal effect. That is a House Concurrent Resolution that has no effect of law other than the public relations effect of what the Congress is saying.

1999 Ron Paul 35:16
But I think it is a powerful message that the American people have spoke through this House of Representatives today to not rubber stamp an illegal, unconstitutional and immoral war. The only moral war is a war that is fought in self-defense. Some claim that this is a moral war because there are people who have been injured. But that is not enough justification. The moral and constitutional war has to be fought in self-defense.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 36
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) 4 May 1999

1999 Ron Paul 36:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to express my opposition to H. Con. Res. 84, the resolution calling for full-funding of the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). My opposition to this act should in no way be interpreted as opposition to increased spending on education. However, the way to accomplish this worthy goal is to allow parents greater control over education resources by cutting taxes, thus allowing parents to devote more of their resources to educating their children in such a manner as they see fit. Massive tax cuts for the American family, not increased spending on federal programs should be this Congress’ top priority.

1999 Ron Paul 36:2
The drafters of this bill claim that increasing federal spending on IDEA will allow local school districts to spend more money on other educational priorities. However, because an increase in federal funding will come from the same taxpayers who currently fund the IDEA mandate at the state and local level, increasing federal IDEA funding will not necessarily result in a net increase of education funds available for other programs. In fact, the only way to combine full federal funding of IDEA with an increase in expenditures on other programs by state and localities is through massive tax increases at the federal, state, and/or local level!

1999 Ron Paul 36:3
This bill further assures that control over the education dollar will remain centered in Washington by calling for Congress to “meet the commitment to fund existing Federal education programs.” Thus, this bill not only calls on Congress to increase funding for IDEA, it also calls on Congress to not cut funds for any program favored by Congress. The practical effect of this bill is to place yet another obstacle in the road of fulfilling Congress’ constitutional mandate to put control of education back into the hands of the people.

1999 Ron Paul 36:4
Rather than increasing federal spending, Congress should focus on returning control over education to the American people by enacting the Family Education Freedom Act (H.R. 935), which provides parents with a $3,000 per child tax credit to pay for K–12 education expenses. Passage of this act would especially benefit parents whose children have learning disabilities as those parents have the greatest need to devote a large portion of their income toward their child’s education.

1999 Ron Paul 36:5
The Family Education Freedom Act will allow parents to develop an individualized education plan that will meet the needs of their own child. Each child is a unique person and we must seriously consider whether disabled children’s special needs can be best met by parents, working with local educators, free from interference from Washington or federal educrats. After all, an increase in expenditures cannot make a Washington bureaucrat know or love a child as much as that child’s parent.

1999 Ron Paul 36:6
It is time for Congress to restore control over education to the American people. The only way to accomplish this goal is to defund education programs that allow federal bureaucrats to control America’s schools. Therefore, I call on my colleagues to reject H. Con. Res. 84 and instead join my efforts to pass the Family Education Freedom Act. If Congress gets Washington off the backs and out of the pocketbooks of parents, American children will be better off.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 37
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Pell Grants 4 May 1999

1999 Ron Paul 37:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to explain why I oppose H. Con. Res. 88, which expresses the sense of the Congress that funding for the Pell Grant Program should be increased by $400 per grant and calls on Congress ton increase funding for other existing education programs prior to authorizing or appropriating funds for new programs. While I certainly do oppose creating any new federal education programs, I also oppose increasing funds for any programs, regardless of whether or not the spending is within the constraints of the so-called balanced budget agreement. Mr. Speaker, instead of increasing unconstitutional federal spending, Congress should empower the American people to devote more of their own resources to higher education by cutting their taxes. Cutting taxes, not increasing federal spending, should be Congress’ highest priority.

1999 Ron Paul 37:2
By taxing all Americans in order to provide limited aid to a few, federal higher education programs provide the federal government with considerable power to allocate access to higher education. Government aid also destroys any incentives for recipients of the aid to consider price when choosing a college. The result is a destruction of the price control mechanism inherent in the market, leading to everrising tuition. This makes higher education less affordable for millions of middle-class Americans who are ineligible for Pell Grants!

1999 Ron Paul 37:3
Federal funding of higher education also leads to federal control of many aspects of higher education. Federal control inevitably accompanies federal funding because politicians cannot resist imposing their preferred solutions for perceived “problems” on institutions beholden to taxpayer dollars. The prophetic soundness of those who spoke out against the creation of federal higher education programs in the 1960s because they would lead to federal control of higher education is demonstrated by examining today’s higher educational system. College and universities are so fearful of losing federal aid they allow their policies on everything from composition of the student body to campus crime to be dictated by the Federal Government. Clearly, federal funding is being abused as an excuse to tighten the federal noose around both higher and elementary education.

1999 Ron Paul 37:4
Instead of increasing federal expenditures, Mr. Speaker, this Congress should respond to the American people’s demand for increased support of higher education by working to pass bills giving Americans tax relief. For example, Congress should pass H.R. 1188, a bill I am cosponsoring which provides a tax deduction of up to $20,000 for the payment of college tuition. I am also cosponsoring several pieces of legislation to enhance the tax benefit for education savings accounts and pre-paid tuition plans to make it easier for parents to save for their children’s education. Although the various plans I have supported differ in detail, they all share one crucial element. Each allows individuals the freedom to spend their own money on higher education rather than forcing taxpayers to rely on Washington to return to them some percentage of their own tax dollars to spend as bureaucrats see fit.

1999 Ron Paul 37:5
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I call upon my colleagues to reject H. Con. Res. 88 and any other attempt to increase spending on federal programs. Instead, my colleagues should join me in working to put the American people in control of higher education by cutting taxes and thus allowing them to use more of their resources for higher education.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 38
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Honoring The Jack C. Hays High School Rebel Band 4 May 1999 HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, May 4, 1999

1999 Ron Paul 38:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the Jack C. Hays High School Rebel Band of Austin, Texas, recently earned the distinct honor of being selected for the 1999 Sudley “Flag of Honor” award from the John Philip Sousa Foundation. This award is the highest recognition of excellence in concert performance that a high school band can receive. During the 17 years the award has been in existence, only 39 bands from the entire United States and Canada have been selected for the Flag of Honor. Conductor Gerald Babbitt and his Rebel band deserve our praise and recognition on the occasion of receiving this prestigious award.

1999 Ron Paul 38:2
The John Philip Sousa Foundation designed this award to identify and recognize high school concert band programs of very special excellence at the international level. To be eligible for nomination, a band must have maintained excellence over a period of many years in several areas including concert, marching, small ensemble and soloists. The director must have been the conductor of the band for at least the previous seven consecutive years including the year of the award.

1999 Ron Paul 38:3
Each recipient receives a four-by-six foot “Flag of Honor” which becomes the property of the band, The flag is designed in red, white and blue and bears the logo of the John Philip Sousa Foundation. The conductor receives a personal plaque and each student in the band receives a personalized diploma.

1999 Ron Paul 38:4
Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honor to have such an outstanding high school band in the 14th Congressional District. I am delighted to extend my hearty congratulations to them. Their hard work and dedication is an inspiration to us all.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 39
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

We Must Not Fund This Senseless Bombing 5 May 1999

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

1999 Ron Paul 39:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, how many innocent civilians must die before we stop bombing Serbia? We rightfully cherish the lives of our three servicemen and rejoice in their return, but how many Serbs will never rejoice because of all the death and destruction we have rained down upon them by casually dismissing as necessary mistakes of war a war that is not real to us yet only too real to those who are needlessly killed.

1999 Ron Paul 39:2
Serb victims are people, too, who love their families and hate the war, yet become the victims of this ill-conceived policy of NATO aggression. It is a strange argument, indeed, that the capture of our three soldiers was illegal and yet our bombing of civilians is not. Violence, when not in one’s own selfdefense, can never be justified, no matter how noble the explanation. It only makes things worse.

1999 Ron Paul 39:3
The goal of peace and harmony can never be achieved by bombs and intimidation. That goal can only be achieved by honest friendship and trade when permissible and neutrality when armed conflict prevents it. We must not fund this senseless bombing.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 40
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Kosovo War Is Illegal 5 May 1999

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

1999 Ron Paul 40:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, it is time to stop the bombing. NATO’s war against Serbia left the Congress and the American people in a quandary, and no wonder. The official excuse for NATO’s bombing war is that Milosevic would not sign a treaty drawn up by NATO, which would have taken Kosovo away from the Serbs after the KLA demanded independence from Serbia.

1999 Ron Paul 40:2
This war is immoral because Serbia did not commit aggression against us. We were not attacked and there has been no threat to our national security. This war is illegal. It is undeclared. There has been no congressional authorization and no money has been appropriated for it. The war is pursued by the U.S. under NATO’s terms, yet it is illegal even according to NATO’s treaty as well as the U.N. charter. The internationalists do not even follow their own laws and do not care about the U.S. Constitution.

1999 Ron Paul 40:3
The humanitarian excuse for the war is suspect. Economic interests are involved, as they so often are in most armed conflicts. NATO’s vaguely stated goals have not been achieved. For the most part, the opposite has. Let me give my colleagues a few examples.

1999 Ron Paul 40:4
Number one. Milosevic is now more powerful than ever; the Serb’s more unified.

1999 Ron Paul 40:5
Number two. Russia is now alienated from the west. Their hold on a nuclear arsenal is ignored. Along with Russia’s economic desperation and political instability, NATO is pushing Russia into a new alliance against the west.

1999 Ron Paul 40:6
Number three. Innocent Serbs and Albanian citizens are routinely being killed by our bombs.

1999 Ron Paul 40:7
Number four. Civilian targets are deliberately hit, including water, power and sewer plants, fuel storage and TV stations.

1999 Ron Paul 40:8
Number five. An economic embargo is now being instituted to starve children and prevent medications from reaching the sick, just as we have been doing for a decade against Iraq.

1999 Ron Paul 40:9
Number six. This war institutionalizes foreign control over our troops. Tony Blair now tells Bill Clinton how to fight a NATO war, while the U.S. taxpayers pay for it.

1999 Ron Paul 40:10
Number seven. Greater instability in the region has resulted.

1999 Ron Paul 40:11
Number eight. We are once again supporting Osama bin Laden and his friends in the KLA.

1999 Ron Paul 40:12
Number nine. We have bombed Bulgaria. By mistake, of course. Sorry.

1999 Ron Paul 40:13
Number ten. Our weapons are being depleted, our troops spread too thin, resulting in further undermining of our national defense.

1999 Ron Paul 40:14
Number eleven. Billions of dollars are thrown down a rat hole and Congress is about to vote for more.

1999 Ron Paul 40:15
Number twelve. The massive refugee problem, which is essentially a result of NATO’s bombing, continues.

1999 Ron Paul 40:16
Up until now, general defense funds have been spent to wage this war without permission. The President wants to catch up and is asking for $6 billion, but Congress, in its infinite wisdom, wants to give him $13 billion for a war Congress rejects. Once we directly fund the war we will be partners in this misadventure. The votes last week were symbolic. They had no effect of law, but appropriations do.

1999 Ron Paul 40:17
Saying the new appropriations will be used to beef up a neglected defense does not make it so. Defense funds are fungible. The President has proven this by waging a war for a month without any authorization or appropriation. Congress will no more control the next $13 billion than the money the President has already spent on the war.

1999 Ron Paul 40:18
Appropriating funds to fight a war, even without a declaration, provides a much more powerful legal and political endorsement of the war than the public statements made against it by nonbinding resolutions passed by the House last week. Declaring war and funding war are two powerful tools of the Congress to restrain a president from waging an unwise and illegal war. If the President pursues an undeclared war and we fund it, we become partners, no matter what justification is given for the spending.

1999 Ron Paul 40:19
Only chaos can come from ignoring the strict prohibition by the Constitution of a president unilaterally waging war. If a president ignores the absence of a declaration, and we are serious, the only option left to Congress is the power of the purse, which is clearly the responsibility of the Congress. We should not fund this illegal and immoral NATO war.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 41
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Opposing National Teacher Certification Or National Teacher Testing 5 May 1999 HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, May 5, 1999

1999 Ron Paul 41:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation to forbid the use of federal funds to develop or implement a national system of teacher certification or a national teacher test. My bill also forbids the Department of Education from denying funds to any state or local education agency because that state or local educational agency has refused to adopt a federally-approved method of teacher certification or testing. This legislation in no way interferes with a state’s ability to use federal funds to support their chosen method of teacher certification or testing.

1999 Ron Paul 41:2
Having failed to implement a national curriculum through the front door with national student testing (thanks to the efforts of members of the Education Committee under the leadership of Chairman GOODLING), the administration is now trying to implement a national curriculum through the backdoor with national teacher testing and certification. National teacher certification will allow the federal government to determine what would-be teachers need to know in order to practice their chosen profession. Teacher education will revolve around preparing teachers to pass the national test or to receive a national certificate. New teachers will then base their lesson plans on what they needed to know in order to receive their Education Department-approved teaching certificate. Therefore, I call on those of my colleagues who oppose a national curriculum to join me in opposing national teacher testing and certification with the same vigor with which you opposed national student testing.

1999 Ron Paul 41:3
Many educators are already voicing opposition to national teacher cerification and testing. The Coalition of Independent Education Associations (CIEA), which represents the majority of the over 300,000 teachers who are members of independent educators associations, has passed a resolution opposing the nationalization of teacher certification and testing; I have attached a copy of this resolution for insertion into the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. As more and more teachers realize the impact of this proposal, I expect opposition from the education community to grow. Teachers want to be treated as professionals, not as minions of the federal government.

1999 Ron Paul 41:4
Legislation has already been introduced in the Texas State Legislature prohibiting the use of any national certification or national examination to determine if someone is qualified to teach in Texas. While I applaud this legislation, I wonder if Texas would change its’ policies if the Department of Education threatened to deny Texas federal funds if Texas failed to adopt the Department’s chosen method of teacher certification and testing. It is up to Congress to see that the Department of Education does not bully the states into adopting the method of teacher certification and testing favored by DC-based bureaucrats.

1999 Ron Paul 41:5
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I once again urge my colleagues to join me in opposing national teacher certification or national teacher testing. Training and certification of classroom teachers is the job of state governments, local school districts, educators, and parents; this vital function should not be usurped by federal bureaucrats and/or politicians. Please stand up for America’s teachers and students by signing on as a cosponsor of my legislation to ensure taxpayer dollars do not support national teacher certification or national teacher testing.

1999 Ron Paul 41:6
COALITION OF INDEPENDENT EDUCATION ASSOCIATIONS —STATEMENT ON NATIONAL TEACHER LICENSURE, FEBRUARY 26, 1999

1999 Ron Paul 41:7
The licensure of teachers should remain the responsibility of each state’s Board of Education and any attempt to authorize the federal government to govern this process should be opposed.

1999 Ron Paul 41:8
Secretary of Education Richard Riley’s proposal (February 16, 1999) to empower a teacher panel to grant licenses for teaching would remove the separate state’s authority to protect the welfare of the general public.

1999 Ron Paul 41:9
Teaching is a public enterprise and not a private profession.

1999 Ron Paul 41:10
Such high stakes licensure decisions must be controlled by a body that is responsible to the public and has accountability for the quality of the decision.

1999 Ron Paul 41:11
The current education reform movement has compelled states’ Boards of Education to revamp and improve teacher licensure programs. This right should be left to the states to best determine how they license state teachers.

1999 Ron Paul 41:12
Congress should oppose any movement toward federalizing educator licensure, teacher appraisal, and employment contracts.

1999 Ron Paul 41:13
The undersigned representatives of the Coalition of Independent Education Associations strongly urge our members of the Congress and the Senate to vigorously defend the rights of states to control their educational destiny.

1999 Ron Paul 41:14
Arizona Professional Educators, Association of American Educators, Association of Professional Educators of Louisiana, Association of Professional Oklahoma Educators, Association of Texas Professional Educators, Kentucky Association of Professional Educators, Keystone Teachers Association, West Virginia Professional Educators, Mississippi Professional Educators, National Association of Professional Educators, Palmetto State Teachers Association, Professional Educators Network of Florida, Professional Educators of Iowa, Professional Educators of North Carolina, Professional Educators of Tennessee.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 42
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

More Money For War Not The Answer 6 May 1999

Mrs. MYRICK. 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.)

1999 Ron Paul 42:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me.

1999 Ron Paul 42:2
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. The rule is far from perfect, but it allows adequate debate, and it will certainly allow us who think that it is unwise to increase the spending to vote against the spending. It certainly allows an opportunity for those who think that we should double the spending to explain why we should spend so much money on a war that we have not declared.

1999 Ron Paul 42:3
Mr. Speaker, we have to realize that this war has been pursued for over a month. We have not appropriated the funds, so whether or not we act today, the war will continue, unfortunately. The war has not been declared, but if we go ahead and fund it, we become partners in this war. I do not think that is a wise policy. We should not provide the funding.

1999 Ron Paul 42:4
Mr. Speaker, there is a fallacy, that floats around this House that says that if we increase the funding for the military, we will have greater defense. That reminds me of the accusation from the right that always challenges the left that says, if there is a social problem, all you want ever to do is throw more money at it. The worse the problem gets, the more money they want to spend on the social problem.

1999 Ron Paul 42:5
It seems like the worse our defense gets and the more we get into quagmires around the world and the more we accept the policy of policing the world, all we seem to do is come back and say, well, if we just put more money in it, everything is going to be okay.

1999 Ron Paul 42:6
But if we are in a quagmire, if we are following a policy that is unwise, the money might just make conditions much worse. I think this is why we must defeat the spending on this program, because the problems with what is happening in Bosnia and Kosovo and Iraq will be compounded as long as the administration has the money to fund the war.

1999 Ron Paul 42:7
Yes, I am for a strong national defense, but if the policy is wrong, it will undermine all the spending. The money will actually be wasted. Funding encourages a policy that is in error. Funding is an endorsement of the war. We must realize that it is equivalent to it. We have not declared this war. If we fund it, we essentially become partners in this ill-advised war.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 43
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Supporting Istook Amendment 6 May 1999

1999 Ron Paul 43:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

1999 Ron Paul 43:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Istook amendment. I think that this would send a strong message that we do not endorse this war. It was said that this is the same vote that we had last week, but last week’s vote is sitting on the table and it is going to sit there.

1999 Ron Paul 43:3
This one may well go someplace and have an effect. So this is a much more important vote that we had last week. It is very important that we vote the same way as we did last week.

1999 Ron Paul 43:4
I think it is interesting, I think we have an interesting constitutional question here, because I agree with the chairman of the committee and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. OBEY) that it is not the prerogative of the Congress to micromanage a war. That is correct. It is the job of the Congress to declare the war. But here we have a Congress involved in diplomacy and micromanaging a war that has not been declared. That is the issue. The issue is not the micromanaging.

1999 Ron Paul 43:5
I can support this amendment because the war has not been declared. The issue is how do we permit the President to wage a war without us declaring the war. Once we declare the war, it is true, we should not be talking about whether or not we use airplanes or foot soldiers or whatever. We do not micromanage. We do not get involved in diplomacy maneuvers.

1999 Ron Paul 43:6
But today we have things turned upside down. We have the President declaring where and we say nothing and the Congress micromanaging the war that should not exist. We need to consider that. And we can straighten this mess out by rejecting these funds.

1999 Ron Paul 43:7
It is suggested that this amendment would go a long way to doing it. I am not all that optimistic. For us to say to the President “thou shalt not use these funds for the ground war,” well, he has not had the authority to wage his air war. Why would he listen to us now?

1999 Ron Paul 43:8
Can we trust him and say that he is going to listen to what we tell him? Of course not. He is already fighting his air war and he will continue to. And he has set the standard, and not he alone, all our Presidents from World War II have set the standard that they will do what they darn well please.

1999 Ron Paul 43:9
This is why I have been encouraged in the last couple weeks that this debate has been going on, because it is an important debate. I have finally seen this Congress at least addressing the subject on whether or not they should take back the prerogatives of war and not allow it to remain in the hands of the President.

1999 Ron Paul 43:10
This is very, very good. I have come to the House floor on numerous occasions since February, taking this position that we should not be involved. As a matter of fact, we had a couple dozen, maybe three dozen Members in this Congress who signed on a bill in February, a month or so before we even saw the bombs dropping in Yugoslavia, that would have prevented this whole mess if we would have stood up and assumed our responsibilities.

1999 Ron Paul 43:11
It is said that we must move in now to help the refugees. Have we looked at the statistics? How many refugees did we have before the bombing started? Others say, well, we must move in because Milosevic is so strong. Prior to the bombing, Milosevic was weak.

1999 Ron Paul 43:12
Talk about unintended consequences. They are so numerous. What about the unintended consequence of supporting the KLA who are supported by Osama Bin Laden? How absurd can it get? Osama Bin Laden was our good friend because he was a freedom fighter in Afghanistan and we gave him our weapons and supported him. But then we found out he was not quite so friendly, so we captured a few of his men and he retaliated by bombing our embassies. Of course, we retaliated by bombing innocent chemical plants as well as people in Afghanistan that had nothing to do with it.

1999 Ron Paul 43:13
So where are we now? We are back to supporting and working hard and just deliberating over whether we should give weapons to the KLA. I mean, the whole thing is absurd.

1999 Ron Paul 43:14
There is only one thing that we should do, and that is stop this funding and stop the war. My colleagues say, oh, no, we are already too far in that we cannot. It is not supporting the troops. Well, who wants to get down here and challenge me and say that I do not support our troops? I support our troops. I served in the military for 5 years. That is not a worthwhile challenge. We all support our troops.

1999 Ron Paul 43:15
They say, well, no, they are in a quagmire and we have to help them and this is the only way we can do it. So the President comes and asks us for $6 billion and then, in Congress’s infinite wisdom, we give him $13 billion. And yet, we do not declare war.

1999 Ron Paul 43:16
This appropriation should be defeated.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 44
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Tribute To Teachers 6 May 1999 HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, May 6, 1999

1999 Ron Paul 44:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate National Teacher Appreciation week by expressing my appreciation for the valuable work of America’s teachers and to ask my colleagues to support two pieces of legislation I have introduced to get the government off the backs, and out of the pockets, of America’s teachers. Yesterday I introduced legislation to prohibit the expenditure of federal funds for national teacher testing or certification. A national teacher test would force all teachers to be trained in accordance with federal standards, thus dramatically increasing the Department of Education’s control over the teaching profession.

1999 Ron Paul 44:2
I have also introduced the Teacher Tax Cut Act (HR 937) which provides every teacher in America with a $1,000 tax credit. The Teacher Tax Cut Act thus increases teachers’ salaries without raising federal expenditures. It lets America’s teachers know that the American people and the Congress respect their work. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, by raising teacher take-home pay, the Teacher Tax Cut Act encourages high-quality people to enter, and remain in, the teaching profession.

1999 Ron Paul 44:3
Mr. Speaker, these two bills send a strong signal to America’s teachers that we in Congress are determined to encourage good people to enter and remain in the teaching profession and that we want teachers to be treated

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 45
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Honoring Jack C. Hays High School Rebel Band 6 May 1999 HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, May 6, 1999

1999 Ron Paul 45:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the Jack C. Hays School Rebel Band of Buda, Texas, recently earned the distinct honor of being selected for the 1999 “Sudler Flag of Honor” award from the John Philip Sousa Foundation. This award is the highest recognition of excellence in concert performance that a high school band can receive. During the 17 years the award has been in existence, only 39 bands from the entire United States and Canada have been selected for the Flag of Honor award. Conductor Gerald Babbitt and his Rebel band deserve our praise and recognition on the occasion of receiving this prestigious award.

1999 Ron Paul 45:2
The John Philip Sousa Foundation designed this award to identify and recognize high school concert band programs of very special excellence at the international level. To be eligible for nomination, a band must have maintained excellence over a period of many years in several areas including concert, marching, small ensemble and soloists. The director must have been the conductor of the band for at least the previous seven consecutive years including the year of the award.

1999 Ron Paul 45:3
Each recipient receives a four-by-six foot “Flag of Honor” which becomes the property of the band. The flag is designed in red, white and blue and bears the logo of the John Philip Sousa Foundation. The conductor receives a personal plaque and each student in the band receives a personalized diploma.

1999 Ron Paul 45:4
Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honor to have such an outstanding high school band in the 14th Congressional District. I am delighted to extend my hearty congratulations to them. Their hard work and dedication is an inspiration to us all.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 46
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

No Billions In Appropriations Can Make Our Foreign Policy Effective 13 May 1999 HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, May 13, 1999

1999 Ron Paul 46:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I have come forward in the past to suggest that the history of this century has shown us that the foreign policy of so-called “pragmatic interventionists” has created a disastrous situation. Specifically, I have pointed to the unintended consequences of our government’s interventions. Namely, I have identified how World War One helped create the environment for the holocaust and how it thus helped create World War Two and thermonuclear war. And, I’ve mentioned how the Second World War resulted in the enslavement of much of Europe behind an iron curtain setting off the cold war, and spread the international communism and then our own disastrous foray into Vietnam. Yes, all of these wars and tragedies, wars hot and cold, were in part caused by the so-called “war to end all wars.”

1999 Ron Paul 46:2
Today I do not wish to investigate yet again the details of this history but rather to examine, at a deeper level, why this sort of policy is doomed to fail.

1999 Ron Paul 46:3
The base reason is that pragmatism is illogical and interventionism does not work. The notion that we can have successes without regard to the ends to be sought is absurd.

1999 Ron Paul 46:4
It should be obvious to practical people that you cannot have “progress,” for example, without progressing toward some end. Equally as apparent ought to be the fact that human effectiveness cannot occur without considering the ends of human beings. Peace, freedom and virtue are ends toward which we ought to progress, but all reference to ends is rejected by the so-called pragmatists.

1999 Ron Paul 46:5
Because of this lack of clarity of purpose we come to accept an equally unclear contortion of our language. Our military is “too thin,” it has been “hollowed out” and it is “unprepared.” But for what are we unprepared? And what policy is our army “too hollow” to carry out?

1999 Ron Paul 46:6
If we remain unprepared to conduct total warfare across the globe, we should be thankful of this fact. If we are unprepared to police the world or to project power into every civil war, or “to win two different regional conflicts,” this is good.

1999 Ron Paul 46:7
We are distracted by these dilemmas which result from unclear thought and unclear language. We convince ourselves that we need to be effective without having a goal in mind. Certainly we have no just end in mind because our pragmatic interventionists deny that ends exist.

1999 Ron Paul 46:8
“Preparedness” is a word that has been thrown around a lot recently, but it begs the question “prepared for what?” No nation attacked ours, no nation has threatened ours, no sane leader would do so as it would be the death warrant of his own nation, his own people, and likely his own self. We are prepared to repel an attack and meet force with force but not necessarily to protect our nation and the populace. We are still vulnerable to a missile attack and have done little to protect against such a possibility.

1999 Ron Paul 46:9
Thus or contortions and distortions that have led to dilemmas in our thoughts and dilemmas in our policy have led also to real paradoxes. Because our policy of globaloney is so bad, so unprincipled and so bound up with the notions of interventionism, we now face this strange truth: we ought to spend less on our military but we should spend more on defense. Our troops are underpaid, untertrained and poorly outfitted for the tasks we have given them. We are vulnerable to missile attack, and how do we spend our constituents money? What priorities have we set in this body? We vote to purchase a few more bombs to drop over Serbia or Iraq.

1999 Ron Paul 46:10
Our policy is flawed. Our nation is at risk. Our defenses are weakened by those people who say they are “hawks” and those who claim they “support the troops.” Our policy is the end to which we must make ourselves effective, and currently our policy is all wrong. Our constitution grants us the obligation to defend this nation, and the right to defend only this nation. I should hope that we will never be prepared to police the world. We should not be militarily prepared nor philosophically prepared for such a policy. We need to refocus our military force policy and the way to do that is clear. It is to return it to the constitutionally authorized role of defending our country. Again, this is not simply a question of policy, and not merely a political question. No Mr. Speaker, the source of our quandary is the minds and hearts of human beings. Bad philosophy will always lead to bad policy precisely because ideas do have consequences.

1999 Ron Paul 46:11
Here the bad idea to be found at the source of our malady is absurd pragmatism, a desire to be “effective” without having any idea what the end is that we trying to affect. It becomes evident in our policy and in our language.

1999 Ron Paul 46:12
“Now we are in it we must win it.” But we know not what “win” means, other than “be effective.” But we are “unprepared,” but unprepared for what? Unprepared to be effective! But what is it, we are ineffective at achieving? “Well, winning,” is the reply. Without ends our policies become tautological. And with the wrong policy, our execution becomes disastrous. We must reject this absurd pragmatism and reestablish a military policy based on the defense of our nation. Only then we will be able to take the steps necessary for effectiveness, and preparedness. No billions in appropriations can make our present policy effective.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 47
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Supplemental Appropriations 18 May 1999



1999 Ron Paul 47:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, we will later today vote on the conference report to H.R. 1141, the bill to further fund NATO’s aggression in Yugoslavia. The President has requested $7.9 billion but Congress has felt compelled to give him $15 billion.

1999 Ron Paul 47:2
Congress does not endorse the war. We voted overwhelmingly against declaring war and yet we are giving the President twice the amount he requested to wage the war. It does not make any sense.

1999 Ron Paul 47:3
We are asking the President to seek reimbursement from NATO members since we have assumed the financial burden for fighting this war. This has tremendous appeal but cannot compensate for the shortsightedness of spending so much in the first place. The money may well never be recouped from our allies, and even if some of it is it only encourages a failed policy of military adventurism. If this policy works, the United States, at Congress’ urging, becomes a hired gun for the international order, a modern day government mercenary. This is not constitutional and it is a bad precedent to set.

1999 Ron Paul 47:4
Reimbursement for the Persian Gulf War has helped to perpetuate that conflict now going on for nearly a decade. It is time to think about a more sensible foreign policy.

1999 Ron Paul 47:5
We should not encourage the senseless and immoral NATO aggression against Serbia. The funding of this war should not be approved, no matter what special interest appropriations have been attached to the initial request to gain support for this special spending measure.

1999 Ron Paul 47:6
Our bombing continues to complicate the mess we helped create in Yugoslavia. Just about everyone concedes that the war cannot be won without massive use of ground troops, which fortunately no one is willing to commit. So the senseless bombing continues while civilian casualties mount. And whom are we killing? It looks like we are killing as many innocent Albanians for whom we have gone to war as innocent Serbs.

1999 Ron Paul 47:7
Why are we killing anybody? There has been no aggression against the United States and no war has been declared. It is time to stop this senseless bombing.

1999 Ron Paul 47:8
The U.S. has become the world’s bully. In recent months we have bombed Serbia, Bulgaria, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Sudan, Iraq and China; and in recent years, many others.

1999 Ron Paul 47:9
The fetish we have with bombing anybody who looks cross-eyed at us has preoccupied our leaders for several decades regardless of which party has been in power.

1999 Ron Paul 47:10
We may not be willing to admit it, but it is hardly the way to win friends and influence people. It is lousy diplomacy. It must stop. The only reason we get away with it is because we are the military and economic superpower, but that only leads to smoldering resentment and an unsustainable financial commitment that will in due time come to an end. Our superiority is not guaranteed to last.

1999 Ron Paul 47:11
NATO, through their daily briefings, has been anxious to reassure us that its cause is just. Yet NATO cannot refute the charge that the refugee problem was made much worse with the commencement of the bombing.

1999 Ron Paul 47:12
Yesterday it was reported in the Los Angeles Times by Paul Watson, in stark contrast to NATO’s propaganda, that in Svetlje, Yugoslavia, 15,000 Albanians displaced by the bombing remain near their homes in north Kosovo, including hundreds of young military age men, quote, strolling along the dirt roads or lying on the grass on a sunny day. There were no concentration camps, no forced labor and no one serving as human shields according to an Albanian interviewed by the Los Angeles Times. Many admitted they left their homes because they were scared after the bombing started. Some of the Albanians said the only time they saw the Serb police was when they came to sell cigarettes to the Albanians.

1999 Ron Paul 47:13
We should not be in Yugoslavia for obvious constitutional and moral reasons, but the American people should not believe the incessant propaganda that is put out by NATO on a daily basis. NATO’s motives are surely suspect. I meet no one who can with a straight face claim that it was NATO’s concern for the suffering of the refugees that prompted the bombing and demands by some to escalate the war with the introduction of ground troops.

1999 Ron Paul 47:14
Even with NATO’s effort to justify its aggression, they rarely demonstrate a hit on a military target. All this fine star wars technology and we see reruns of strikes with perfect accuracy hitting infrastructures like bridges and buildings. I have yet to see one picture of a Serbian tank being hit, and I am sure if they had some classy film like that we would have seen it many times on the nightly television.

1999 Ron Paul 47:15
NATO must admit its mistake in entering this civil war. It violates the NATO treaty and the U.N. Charter, as well as the U.S. Constitution. The mission has failed. The policy is flawed. Innocent people are dying. It is costing a lot of money. It is undermining our national security and there are too many accidents.

1999 Ron Paul 47:16
I am sick and tired of hearing NATO’s daily apologies.

1999 Ron Paul 47:17
There’s nothing America can be proud of in this effort and if we don’t quickly get out of it, it could very well escalate and the getting out made impossible. The surest and quickest way to do this is for Congress today to reject the funding for this war.

1999 Ron Paul 47:18
The only answer to senseless foreign intervention is a pro-American constitutional policy of non-intervention in the affairs of other nations; a policy of friendship and trade with those who are willing and neutrality with others who are involved in conflict. This is the only policy that makes sense and can give us the peace and prosperity all Americans desire.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 48
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Opposing Supplemental Appropriation 18 May 1999 Mrs. MYRICK. 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.)

1999 Ron Paul 48:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule but in strong opposition to the supplemental appropriation.

1999 Ron Paul 48:2
The President came to us and asked us to fund the NATO war, asked for $7.9 billion, but we in the conservative Congress have decided that not only would we give it to him, but we would bump that up to $15 billion, which does not make a whole lot of sense, especially if Congress has spoken out on what they think of the war.

1999 Ron Paul 48:3
And Congress has. We have had several votes already. We have voted and said that we did not think that ground troops should be sent in. And most military people tell us that the only way we are going to win the war is with ground troops. So we have taken a strong position. We have had a chance to vote on declaration of war and make a decision one way or the other. We have strongly said we are not going to declare war.

1999 Ron Paul 48:4
We have spoken out on the air war. We did not even endorse the air war. And the President has spent a lot of money. They are hoping to get a lot of this money back from the European nations, but all that makes us are professional mercenaries fighting wars for other people, which I do not agree with.

1999 Ron Paul 48:5
But here we are getting ready to fund Europe, fund a war that is undeclared. It does not make any sense. We are giving more money to the President than he asked for in a war that cannot be won and a war that we are not even determined to fight. It just does not make any sense. So in order to get enough votes to pass the bill, of course we put a little bit of extras on there to satisfy some special interests in order to get some more votes.

1999 Ron Paul 48:6
But the real principle here today that we are voting on is whether or not we are going to fund an illegal, unconstitutional war. It does not follow the rules of our Constitution. It does not follow the rules of the United Nations Treaty. It does not follow the NATO Treaty. And here we are just permitting it, endorsing it but further funding it. This does not make any sense.

1999 Ron Paul 48:7
We have to finally say, “enough is enough.” This is how we get into trouble. This is how we make mistakes. And every day we hear of another mistake and apologies being made, innocent people dying. We should not vote for this supplemental funding.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 49
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Introduction of H.R. 1789 18 May 1999
INTRODUCTION OF H.R. 1789
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, May 18, 1999

1999 Ron Paul 49:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to enlist support for a bill I have introduced to repeal statutes which have now resulted in more than one hundred years of government intervention in the marketplace. In 1890, at the behest of Senator Sherman, the Sherman Antitrust Act was passed allowing the federal government to intervene in the process of competition, inter alia, whenever a firm captured market share by offering a better product at a lower price. The Market Process Restoration Act of 1999, H.R. 1789, will preclude such intervention.

1999 Ron Paul 49:2
Antitrust statutes governmentally facilitate interference in the voluntary market transactions of individuals. Evaluation of the antitrust laws has not proceeded from an analysis of their nature or of their necessary consequences, but from an impressionistic reaction to their announced gain.

1999 Ron Paul 49:3
Alan Greenspan, now Chairman of the Federal Reserve, described the “world of antitrust” as “reminiscent of Alice’s Wonderland: Everything seemingly is, yet apparently isn’t, simultaneously.” Antitrust is, according to Greenspan “a world in which competition is lauded as the basic axiom and guiding principle, yet, ‘too much’ competition is condemned as ‘cutthroat’. * * * A world in which actions designed to limit competition are branded as criminal when taken by businessmen, yet praised as ‘enlightened’ when initiated by government. A world in which the law is so vague that businessmen have no way of knowing whether specific actions will be declared illegal until they hear the judge’s verdict —after the fact.” And, of course, obscure, incoherent, and vague legislation can make legality unattainable by anyone, or at least unattainable without an unauthorized revision which itself impairs legality.

1999 Ron Paul 49:4
The Sherman Act was a tool used to regulate some of the most competitive industries in America, which were rapidly expanding their output and reducing their prices, much to the dismay of their less efficient (but politically influential) competitors. The Sherman Act, moreover, was used as a political fig leaf to shield the real cause of monopoly in the late 1880’s—protectionism. the chief sponsor of the 1890 tariff bill, passed just three months after the Sherman Act, was none other than Senator Sherman himself.

1999 Ron Paul 49:5
One function of the Sherman Act was to divert public attention from the certain source of monopoly—Government’s grant of exclusive privilege. But, as George Reisman, Professor of Economics at Pepperdine University’s Graziadio School of Business and Management in Los Angeles, explains “everyone, it seems, took for granted the prevailing belief that the essential feature of monopoly is that a given product or service is provided by just one supplier. On this view of things, Microsoft, like Alcoa and Standard Oil before it, belongs in the same category as the old British East India Company or such more recent instances of companies with exclusive government franchises as the local gas or electric company or the U.S. Postal Service with respect to the delivery of first class mail. What all of these cases have in common, and which is considered essential to the existence of monopoly, according to the prevailing view, is that they all represent instances in which there is only one seller. By the same token, what is not considered essential, according to the prevailing view of monopoly, is whether the sellers position depends on the initiation of physical force or, to the contrary, is achieved as the result of freedom of competition and the choice of the market.”

1999 Ron Paul 49:6
Microsoft, Alcoa,and Standard Oil represent cases of a sole supplier, or at least come close to such a case. However, totally unlike the cases of exclusive government franchises, their position in the market is not (or was not) the result of the initiation of physical force but rather the result of their successful free competition. That is, they became sole suppliers by virtue of being able to produce products profitably at prices too low for other suppliers to remain in or enter the market, or to produce products whose performance and quality others simply could not match.

1999 Ron Paul 49:7
Even proponents of antitrust prosecution acknowledge this. In the Standard Oil case, the U.S. Supreme Court declared in its 1911 decision breaking up the company: “Much has been said in favor of the objects of the Standard Oil Trust, and what it has accomplished. It may be true that it has improved the quality and cheapened the costs of petroleum and its products to the consumer.”

1999 Ron Paul 49:8
It is the dynamic model of competition under which only “free” entry is required that insures maximization of consumer welfare within the nature-given condition of scarcity and reconciles the ideal of pure liberty with that of economic efficiency. The free market in the world of production may be termed “free competition” or “free entry”, meaning that in a free society anyone is free to compete and produce in any field he chooses. “Free competition” is the application of liberty to the sphere of production: the freedom to buy, sell, and transform one’s property without violent interference by an external power.

1999 Ron Paul 49:9
As argued by Alan Greenspan, “the ultimate regulator of competition in a free economy is the capital market. So long as capital is free to flow, it will tend to seek those areas which offer the maximum rate of return.”

1999 Ron Paul 49:10
The purpose of my bill is to restore the inherent benefits of the market economy by repealing the Federal body of statutory law which currently prevents efficiency-maximizing voluntary exchange.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 50
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Honoring The Victoria High School Victoriadores, Victoria, TX 19 May 1999 HONORING THE VICTORIA HIGH
SCHOOL VICTORIADORES, VICTORIA,
TX
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, May 19, 1999

1999 Ron Paul 50:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay honor to the best drill team in the nation and in the world: the Victoria High School Victoriadores from Victoria, Texas. Under the exemplary leadership of D.J. Jaynes, Victoriadore Director, assisted by Laura Klimist, Choreographer, this outstanding group of ladies and gentlemen won many national honors at the marching Auxiliaries/Seaworld National Championship Competition. Their awards include the Choreography Award for all dances—jazz, high kick, military, lyrical and show production; Winner’s Circle (all dances scored 95 or above from all judges); named Best in Class for having the highest overall scores in the competition; and the National Champion Jacket Winners for earning the highest score from all categories and all dances.

1999 Ron Paul 50:2
After this impressive victory, the Victoriadores aimed for the championship at the Miss Dance/Drill Team USA Pageant and Competition. They easily took first place in military, high kick and show production and second place in lyrical, and they earned the Producers Award for the best overall presentation.

1999 Ron Paul 50:3
The taste of victory was so sweet, the Victoriadores decided to take the International Championship, competing against Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Channel Islands, Mexico and South America. The team won first and second place in Military and High Kick, with New Zealand placing third.

1999 Ron Paul 50:4
This group of students deserves the honors it has earned. I commend each one of them to you:

Brooke Adams Chelsea Akin Andrea Alvarez Jennifer Alvarez Pia Arifiles Iza Arifiles Rachel Barber Samantha Bernal April Blackwell Liz Boldt Meredyth Bryant Lisa Buckler Monica Canchola Misty Cavazos Stephanie Cernosek Krysta Chacon Melissa Chavez Cody Cole Kyra Coleman Cari Collett Kristin Creech Carrie Dahlstrom Nichol Dally Katie Dayoc D’Lisa DeLuna Joey Dominquez Cash Donahoe Wendy Dry Carly Dunnam Jamie Dybala Dyann Erwin Bianca Estrada Nicole Garcia Michelle Garcia Mandy Gaskamp Clarisa Gonzales Valarie Gonzales Amber Grunewald Lacey Hall Erin Hanzelka Megan Hearn Theresa Hernandez Brandy Hill Blair Hunt Amy Innocenti Melissa Jecker Laura Jecker Eric Jentsch Ida Jimenez Kelly Johnson Allison Jones Morgan Kallus Jill Kauffman Lindsey Klein

Hilary Koenig Emily Loeb Amanda Lott Aimee Lovik Waverly Lynch Tara Marek Kelly Martin Ashley Martin Erin Martin Nina Martinez Stacy McCants Sarah McKay Taysha McKibbon Tyler Meador Valerie Medina Corie Meinke Garrett Middleton James Miller Lori Monclova Tammy Newbern Jamie O’Quinn Jennifer Padilla Dusty Patek Aaron Pearson Matina Pflaum Sara Quitta Melissa Ragsdale Katie Reimann Natalie Ricks Brandi Roth Jennifer Salinas Brianne Schmidt Penny Schumacher Sara Schweke Jamie Sedlacek Tenille Shafer Loren Shafer Heather Shannon Justin Sheppard Brett Shoemaker Amanda Stewart Stacey Talley Juli Teeters Bianca Tilley Amanda Trevino Lauren Tuso Elane Urbano Pam Urbish Jessica Vaughan Whitney Wilkinson Lindsey Williams Laura Windwehen Melanie Winston

D.J. Jaynes, Victoriadore Director/ Choreographer Laura Klimist, Choreographer

1999 Ron Paul 50:5
I am proud to have these national and international championships in the 14th Congressional District of Texas. I am proud of the commitment to excellence and perserverance shown by each student which was necessary to reach these goals. I am proud of the support shown by the parents and guardians of these students which helped them reach their goals.

1999 Ron Paul 50:6
I trust all my colleagues join me in congratulating the Victoria High School Victoriadores on these impressive achievements.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 51
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

National Center For Missing And Exploited Children 25 May 1999

1999 Ron Paul 51:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, organizations like the Center for Missing and Exploited Children should be commended and supported for their work on this critical issue. However, I must oppose this legislation as it is outside the proper Constitutional role for the federal government to spend money in this way; such spending is more appropriate coming from the states and private donations. As always, I am amazed that Members of Congress are so willing to be generous with their constituent’s tax dollars, yet do not seem willing to support such causes out of their own pockets.

1999 Ron Paul 51:2
This legislation would spend more than $268 million on issues that are simply outside the constitutional jurisdiction of the federal government. In addition, legislation like this blurs the lines between public and private funds, and opens good organizations to needless regulatory control for Congress. The legislation even opens the door to public money being used to support sectarian organizations, in direct violation of the First Amendment.

1999 Ron Paul 51:3
The moral decay of our nation is a serious issue that must be addressed. However, after some forty years of federal meddling in education and other social issues, it is clear politicians on Capitol Hill have made matters worse for our children, not better.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 52
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

The Mailbox Privacy Protection Act 25 May 1999 THE MAILBOX PRIVACY
PROTECTION ACT
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, May 25, 1999

1999 Ron Paul 52:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce H.J. Res. 55, the Mailbox Privacy Protection Act, a joint resolution disapproving a Postal Service Regulation which tramples on the privacy of the two million Americans who rent mailboxes from Commercial Mail Receiving Agencies. Under this regulation, any American currently renting, or planning to rent, a commercial mailbox will have to provide the receiving agency with personal information, including two items of valid identification, one of which must contain a photograph of the applicant and one of which must contain a “serial number—traceable to the bearer.” Of course, in most cases that number will be today’s de facto national ID number—the Social Security number.

1999 Ron Paul 52:2
The receiving agency must then send the information to the Post Office, which will maintain the information in a database. Furthermore, the Post Office authorizes the Commercial Mail Receiving Agencies to collect and maintain photocopies of the forms of identification presented by the box renter. My colleagues might be interested to know that the Post Office is prohibited from doing this by the Privacy Act of 1974. I hope my colleagues are as outraged as I am by the Post Office’s mandating that their competitors do what Congress has forbidden the Post Office to do directly.

1999 Ron Paul 52:3
Thanks to the Post Office’s Federal Government- granted monopoly on first-class delivery service, Americans cannot receive mail without dealing with the Postal Service. Therefore, this regulation presents Americans who wish to receive mail at a Commercial Mail Receiving Agency with a choice: either provide the federal government with your name, address, photograph and social security number, or surrender the right to receive communications from one’s fellow citizens in one’s preferred manner.

1999 Ron Paul 52:4
This regulation, ironically, was issued at the same time the Post Office was issuing a stamp honoring Ayn Rand, one of the twentieth century’s greatest champions of liberty. Another irony connected to this regulation is that it comes at a time when the Post Office is getting into an ever increasing number of enterprises not directly related to mail delivery. So, while the Postal Service uses its monopoly on first-class mail to compete with the private sector, it works to make life more difficult for its competitors in the field of mail delivery.

1999 Ron Paul 52:5
This regulation also provides the Post Office with a list of all those consumers who have opted out of the Post Office’s mailbox service. Mr. Speaker, what business in America would not leap at the chance to get a list of their competitor’s customer names, addresses, social security numbers, and photographs? The Post Office could even mail advertisements to those who use private mail boxes explaining how their privacy would not be invaded if they used a government box.

1999 Ron Paul 52:6
Coincidentally, this regulation will also raise the operating cost on the Post Office’s private competitors for private mailbox services. Some who have examined this bill estimate that it could impose costs as high as $1 billion on these small businesses during the initial sixmonth compliance period. The long-term costs of this rule are incalculable, but could conceivably reach several billion dollars in the first few years. This may force some of these businesses into bankruptcy.

1999 Ron Paul 52:7
During the rule’s comment period, more than 8,000 people formally denounced the rule, while only 10 spoke generally favor of it. However, those supporting this rule will claim that the privacy of the majority of law-abiding citizens who use commercial mailboxes must be sacrificed in order to crack down on those using commercial mailboxes for criminal activities. However, I would once again remind my colleagues that the Federal role in crime, even if the crime is committed in “interstate commerce,” is a limited one. The fact that some people may use a mailbox to commit a crime does not give the Federal Government the right to treat every user of a commercial mailbox as a criminal. Moreover, my office has received a significant number of calls from battered women who use these boxes to maintain their geographic privacy.

1999 Ron Paul 52:8
I have introduced this joint resolution in hopes that it will be considered under the expedited procedures established in the Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996. This procedure allows Congress to overturn onerous regulations such as the subject of this bill. Mr. Speaker, the entire point of this procedure to provide Congress with a means to stop federal actions which pose an immediate threat to the rights of Americans. Thanks to these agency review provisions, Congress cannot hide and blame these actions on the bureaucracy. I challenge my colleagues to take full advantage of this process and use it to stop this outrageous rule.

1999 Ron Paul 52:9
In conclusion Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring the Mailbox Privacy Protection Act, which uses the Agency Review Procedures of the Contract with America Advancement Act to overturn Post Office’s regulations requiring customers of private mailboxes to give the Post Office their name, address, photographs and social security number. The Federal Government should not force any American citizen to divulge personal information as the price for receiving mail. I further call on all my colleagues to assist me in moving this bill under the expedited procure established under the Congressional Review Act.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 53
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Quietly Restoring Funding For War In Kosovo 27 May 1999

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL). (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

1999 Ron Paul 53:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. I would like to point out that this is a rule of which I do not believe the authors should be proud. This rule, I believe, strictly limits a serious debate with regards to our national defense and our involvement in war at this particular time.

1999 Ron Paul 53:2
Today, the International War Crimes Tribunal decided to indict Milosevic. Milosevic is obviously a character that deserves severe criticism, but at this particular junction in the debate over this erroneous and ill-gotten war in Yugoslavia, this indicates to most of the world that there is no attempt whatsoever on the part of NATO to attempt any peace negotiations. This is a guarantee of the perpetuation of war.

1999 Ron Paul 53:3
Milosevic is going to be further strengthened by this. He will not be weakened. It was said the bombing would weaken Milosevic, and yet he was strengthened. This same move, this pretense that this kangaroo court can indict Milosevic and carry this to fruition indicates only that there are some who will enjoy perpetuating this war, because there is no way this can enhance peace. This is a sign of total hypocrisy, I believe, on the part of NATO. NATO, eventually, by history, will be indicted.

1999 Ron Paul 53:4
But today we are dealing with this process, and this is related to the bill that is about to be brought to the floor because, specifically, as this bill came out of committee, it said that monies in this bill should be used for defense, not for aggressive warfare in Kosovo, and yet that was struck in the Committee on Rules. That is a serious change in the bill. I think all our colleagues must remember this when it comes time to vote for the final passage.

1999 Ron Paul 53:5
We could have had a bill that made a statement against spending this money to perpetuate this illegal NATO war, and yet it was explicitly removed from the bill. I think this is reason to question the efforts on this rule. Certainly it should challenge all of us on the final passage of this bill, because much of this money will not be spent on the national defense, but to perpetuate war, which is a direct distraction from our national defense because it involves increasing threats to our national security. It does not protect our national security.

1999 Ron Paul 53:6
It might be well to also note that this bill does not do much more for fiscal conservatives. The President asked for a certain amount for the defense of this country, but we have seen fit to raise him more than $8 billion, spend more money, more money that is so often not spent in our national defense. At the same time, we must also remember that when we vote on this bill, and this rule allows it, more than $10 billion will be in excess of the budget agreement of 1997.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 54
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

A Positive Spin On An Ugly War 7 June 1999

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

1999 Ron Paul 54:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the Yugoslavian civil war, now going on for years, was near ending until NATO chose to enter on the side of the KLA seeking independence. Aggressively entering the fray by invading a foreign nation, in direct opposition to its charter, NATO has expanded the war and multiplied the casualties. The impasse now reached, although predictable, prompts only more NATO bombing and killing of innocent civilians on both sides. It is difficult to see how any good can come from this continuous march of folly, but I am going to try.

1999 Ron Paul 54:2
Number one, the U.N. has suffered a justified setback in its effort to be the world’s governing body of the new world order, and that is good. By NATO refusing to seek a U.N. resolution of support for its war effort, it makes the U.N. look irrelevant. Now NATO is using the U.N. to seek a peace settlement by including the Russians, who agree to play the game as long as additional American tax dollars flow to them through the IMF. The U.N. looks weak, irrelevant, ignored, and used. The truth is winning out.

1999 Ron Paul 54:3
Number two, NATO is on the verge of self-destruction. Since the purpose of NATO to defend against a ruthless Soviet system no longer exists, that is good, NATO, in choosing to break its own rules looks totally ineffective and has lost credibility. The U.S. can get out of NATO, come home, save some money and let Europe tend to its own affairs, and we can then contribute to peace, not war.

1999 Ron Paul 54:4
Number three, Tony Blair’s true character has now become known to the world. He has not only annoyed many Americans, but many Germans, French, Italians and Greeks as well. By Blair demanding more American bombs, money and the introduction of ground troops, many have become skeptical of his judgment. It is much easier now to challenge his influence over Bill Clinton and NATO, and that is not only good, but necessary.

1999 Ron Paul 54:5
Number four, more Americans every day are discovering that military spending is not equivalent to defense spending. This is a good start. It is clearly evident that when useless immoral wars are pursued, money is wasted, weapons are consumed, and national security is endangered, opposite to everything that is supposed to be achieved through defense spending. A foolish policy of foreign interventionism, no matter how much money is spent on the military, can never substitute for a sensible, pro-American policy of friendship and trade with all those countries willing to engage.

1999 Ron Paul 54:6
Number five, the ill-gotten war has shown once again that air power alone, and especially when pursued without a declaration of war and a determination to win, serves no useful purpose. Although most military experts have stated this for years, it is now readily apparent to anyone willing to study the issue. Many more Americans now agree that war not fought for the defense of one’s country and for the preservation of liberty is immoral and rarely brings about victory. If we remember that in the future, that would be good.

1999 Ron Paul 54:7
Number six, NATO’s war against Yugoslovia has made it clearly apparent that world leaders place relative value on human life. This is valuable information that should be helped to restore U.S. national sovereignty. According to NATO’s policy, the lives of the Kosovars are of greater value than the Serbs, Rwandans, Kurds, Tibetans, or East Timorans. Likewise, oil and European markets command more bloodshed in support of powerful financial interests than the suffering of millions in Asia and Africa. This knowledge of NATO’s hypocrisy should some day lead to a fair and more peaceful world.

1999 Ron Paul 54:8
Number seven, the issue of whether or not a President can initiate and wage an unconstitutional war without declaration and in violation of the War Powers Resolution has prompted a positive and beneficial debate in the Congress and throughout the Nation. This is a necessary first step to get Congress to regain its prerogatives over the issue of war.

1999 Ron Paul 54:9
Number eight, interventionism in the affairs of other nations when our national security is not threatened serves no benefit and causes great harm. Our involvement with NATO and Yugoslovia has once again forcefully shown this. Although our Founders knew this and advised against it, and American Presidents for over 100 years acted accordingly, this rediscovery of a vital truth can serve us well in future years.

1999 Ron Paul 54:10
Number nine, NATO’s arrogance has once again restated another truth worth remembering: Might does not make right.

1999 Ron Paul 54:11
Number ten, the 19 nations’ military actions against a tiny state shows that alliances to promote aggression do not work. The moral high ground is not achieved because despite the pronouncements of concerns for the suffering of the innocent, when survival is not at stake and when the defense against an aggressor is not an issue, war by committee is doomed to fail. This is a lesson that needs restating.

1999 Ron Paul 54:12
Number 11: NATO’s blundering policy ironically will leave a legacy that will allow rebuilding after the new world order disintegrates.

1999 Ron Paul 54:13
To the bewilderment of their own leaders NATO has forcefully supported the notion of autonomy and independence for ethnic states. Instead of huge governments demanding ethnic diversity, the goal of establishing Kosovo’s independence provides the moral foundation for an independent Kashmir Kurdistan, Palestine, Tibet, East Timor, Quebec, and North Ireland and anyone else that believes their rights as citizens would be better protected by small local government. This is in contrast to huge nation states and international governments that care only about controlling wealth, while forgetting about the needs and desires of average citizens.

1999 Ron Paul 54:14
12. Another lesson that will be learned from this misadventure, but unfortunately not soon enough, is that empires self-destruct out of their own weighty arrogance and blindness to the truth. Inevitably powerful empires—and it is said we are the only super power left and have great world-wide responsibilities—pursue a march of folly, a course upon which we inextricably find ourselves.

1999 Ron Paul 54:15
If these lessons are remembered, we will have a much better chance of achieving peace and prosperity throughout the world.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 55
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

H.J. Res. 55, The Mailbox Privacy Protection Act 7 June 1999 H.J. RES. 55, THE MAILBOX
PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Monday, June 7, 1999

1999 Ron Paul 55:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, because this is small business appreciation week I would like to remind my colleagues of the importance of enacting HJ Res 55, the Mailbox Privacy Protection Act. HJ Res 55 repeals recently enacted Post Office regulations requiring Commercial Mail Receiving Agencies (CMRAs) to collect personal information about their customers, such as their name, address, social security number, and photograph. These regulations not only force small businesses to intrude into their customer’s privacy, they could impose costs as high as $1 billion on small businesses during the initial six-month compliance period. The long term costs of this rule are incalculable, but could conceivably reach several billion dollars in the first few years. Some small businesses may even be forced into bankruptcy.

1999 Ron Paul 55:2
Businesses like Mailboxes, etc., must turn the collected information over to the Post Office. Mr. Speaker, what business in America would not leap at the chance to force their competitors to provide them with their customer names, addresses, social security numbers, and photographs? The Post Office could even mail advertisements to those who use private mail boxes explaining how their privacy would not be invaded if they used a government box.

1999 Ron Paul 55:3
It is ironic that this regulation comes at a time when the Post Office is getting into an ever increasing number of enterprises not directly related to mail delivery. So, while the Postal Service uses its monopoly on first-class mail to compete with the private sector, it works to make life more difficult for its competitors in the field of mail delivery.

1999 Ron Paul 55:4
Mr. Speaker, Congress must do more than talk about how it appreciates small business, it must work to lift the burden of big government from America’s job-creating small businesses. Passing HJ Res 55 and protecting Commercial Mail Receiving Agencies from the Post Offices’ costly and anti-competitive regulations would be a great place to start.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 56
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Opposing Endless War In Kosovo 10 June 1999

Mr. RILEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL). (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

1999 Ron Paul 56:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. This is a very important amendment, and what we do on it will be with us for a long time.

1999 Ron Paul 56:2
We are endorsing, if we vote in favor of this amendment, a policy of occupation of Kosovo for an endless period of time. We have now been fighting an undeclared war for more than 70 days. We have endlessly bombed a country the size of Kentucky killing many, many civilians.

1999 Ron Paul 56:3
It is an undeclared war. It is an immoral, illegal war. It violates the Constitution. It violates the War Powers resolution.

1999 Ron Paul 56:4
It is claimed now that we have had a great victory. But what we are doing now, after bombing a country to smithereens, is laying plans to occupy it. We are asking the American people to make an endless commitment to occupying this country.

1999 Ron Paul 56:5
A few years back, we were going to occupy Bosnia for a short period of time. We are still occupying Bosnia, spending between $10 billion, $20 billion already, depending on the estimate.

1999 Ron Paul 56:6
A few years back it was in our national interests to be involved in the Persian Gulf. We had to do a lot of bombing there and a lot of fighting. We are still bombing in the Persian Gulf. I mean, when will it end? Where do our borders end? What are the limits to our sovereignty? Where is our responsibility? It seems like it is endless anyplace, anywhere we have to go. We are now supporting an empire.

1999 Ron Paul 56:7
No wonder there is anti-American hostility existing around the world, because we believe that we can tell everybody what to do. We can deliver an ultimatum to them. If they do not do exactly what we say, whether it is under NATO or the United Nations or by ourselves stating it, what happens, we say, “If you do not listen to us, we are going to bomb you.”

1999 Ron Paul 56:8
I think that policy is a bad policy. If we vote for this amendment, we endorse this policy, and we should not. This is not the end of the Kosovo war; it’s only the beginning of an endless occupation and the possibility of hostilities remain. The region remains destabilized and dangerous. Only a policy of non-intervention and neutrality can serve the interest of the American people. The sooner we quit accepting the role of world policemen, the better. We cannot afford to continue our recent policy of intervention to satisfy the power special interest that influences our foreign policy.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 57
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Increasing The Minimum Wage Decreases Opportunities For Our Nation’s Youth 10 June 1999 HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, June 10, 1999

1999 Ron Paul 57:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I highly recommend Bruce Bartlett’s “Minimum Wage Hikes Help Politicians, Not the Poor”, which recently appeared in The Wall Street Journal, to all of my colleagues. Mr. Bartlett’s article provides an excellent overview of the evidence that an increase in the federally-mandated minimum wage reduces teenage employment. Since those shut out of entry-level work are unlikely to obtain higher-paying jobs in the future, an increase in the minimum wage reduces employment opportunities for millions of Americans. This point was also highlighted by Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan in testimony before the Senate in January when he pointed out that “All the evidence that I’ve seen suggests that the people who are the most needy of getting on the lower rungs of the ladder of our income scales, develop skills, getting the training, are unable to earn the minimum wage. As a consequence, they cannot get started. And I think we have to be very careful about thinking that we can somehow raise standards of living by mandating an increase in the minimum wage rate.” I hope all of my colleagues will carefully consider how increasing the minimum wage decreases opportunities for our nation’s youth and refrain from reducing economic opportunity for those at the bottom of the economic ladder by raising the minimum wage.

1999 Ron Paul 57:2
Bruce Bartlett is senior fellow at the NCPA. He was Deputy Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy in the Treasury Department from 1988 to 1993, and Senior Policy Analyst at the White House from 1987 to 1988. He is an expert commentator on taxes and economic policy, the author of two books and, a syndicated columnist. His articles have appeared in many papers including The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times. He regularly appears on national television and radio programs.

1999 Ron Paul 57:3
MINIMUM WAGE HIKES HELP POLITICIANS, NOT THE POOR

(By Bruce Bartlett)

It now appears likely that the Republican Congress will soon raise the minimum wage for the second time in three years. In 1996 the minimum increased to the present $5.15 an hour from $4.25; the increase now being considered would bring the figure up to $6.15 by 2002. This is bad news, for as many as 436,000 jobs may disappear as a result of the increase.

1999 Ron Paul 57:4
During the last debate, two arguments were advanced in favor of raising the minimum wage. The first claimed that the minimum wage had fallen sharply in real (inflation- adjusted) terms since the previous increase in 1991. But with inflation having all but vanished in the 19 months since the last increase, this argument does not hold true today.

1999 Ron Paul 57:5
The second argument, based almost exclusively on a 1995 study by economists David Card and Alan Krueger, was that raising the minimum wage actually reduced unemployment. Since then, however, virtually every study done on the subject has confirmed longstanding research showing that raising the minimum wage invariably has a negative impact on employment, particularly among teenagers and minorities.

1999 Ron Paul 57:6
The federal minimum wage was first enacted in 1938, but applied only to the small minority of workers who were engaged in interstate commerce. The first data we have on teenage unemployment are from 1948. From then until a significant expansion of the minimum wage in 1956, teenage unemployment was quite low by today’s standards and was actually lower for blacks than whites. Between 1948 and 1955 unemployment averaged 11.3% for black teenage males and 11.6% for whites.

1999 Ron Paul 57:7
Beginning in 1956, when the minimum wage rose from 75 cents to $1, unemployment rates between the two groups began to diverge. By 1960, the unemployment rate for black teenage males was up to 22.7%, while the white rate stood at 14.6%.

1999 Ron Paul 57:8
Despite such evidence, supporters continued to push for ever higher and more inclusive minimum-wage rates, which were raised almost yearly between 1961 and 1981. At each point the unemployment rate for black teenagers tended to ratchet higher. By 1981, the unemployment rate for black teenage males averaged 40.7%—four times its early 1950s level, when the minimum wage was much lower and its coverage less extensive. That year, the federally-mandated Minimum Wage Study Commission concluded that each 10% rise in the minimum wage reduces teenage employment by between 1% and 3%.

1999 Ron Paul 57:9
Subsequent research, based on the effects of the previous two minimum-wage increases, continues to confirm this estimate. A study of the 1990–91 increases, which raised the rate by 27%, found that it reduced overall teenage employment by 7.3% and black teenage employment by 10%. Similarly, a study of the 1996 increases found a decline in employment of between 2% and 6% for each 10% increase in the minimum wage.

1999 Ron Paul 57:10
In a study published by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, economist Kenneth Couch Translated these percentages into raw numbers. At the low end of the range, at least 90,000 teenage jobs were lost in 1996 and another 63,000 jobs lost in 1997. At the higher end, job losses may have equaled 268,000 in 1996 and 189,000 in 1997. He estimates that a $1 rise in the minimum wage will further reduce teenage employment by between 145,000 and 436,000 jobs.

1999 Ron Paul 57:11
The fact is that the vast bulk of economic research demonstrates that the minimum wage has extremely harmful effects on the very people it is designed to aid—the poor:

1999 Ron Paul 57:12
The minimum wage unambiguously reduces employment. The September 1998 issue of the Journal of Economic Literature, an official publication of the American Economic Association, contains a survey of labor economists on the employment effects of the minimum wage. When asked to estimate the impact of raising the minimum wage, the average effect was estimated at minus 0.21%, meaning that a 10% rise in the minimum wage will reduce overall youth employment by 2.1%. This puts to rest any notion that economists have changed their view that in general higher minimum wages reduce employment.

1999 Ron Paul 57:13
Increases in the minimum wage have a disproportionate impact on teenagers and the poor. The minus 2.1% figure cited above is an overall impact. For those currently earning less than the new minimum wage, the impact is much greater. For example, prior to the 1996 increase, 74.4% of workers between the ages of 16 and 24 already earned more than $5.15, and 4.3% were legally exempt from the minimum wage law. Thus the employment losses were concentrated among the 21.3% of workers making the minimum wage or slightly more. When one attributes total employment losses entirely to this group, it turns out that the employment loss figure is minus 1%, according to economists David Neumark, Mark Schweitzer and William Wascher. This means a 10% rise in the minimum wage reduces employment among this group by 10%.

1999 Ron Paul 57:14
Increases in the minimum wage add almost nothing to the incomes of poor families. There are two reasons for this. First, employment losses reduce the incomes of some workers more than the higher minimum wage increases the incomes of others. Second, the vast bulk of those affected by the minimum wage, especially teenagers, live in families that are not poor. Thus a study by economists Richard Burkhauser and Martha Harrison found that 80% of the net benefits of the last minimum-wage increase went to families well above the poverty level; almost half went to those with incomes more than three times the poverty level. (The poverty level is about $17,000 for a family of four.)

1999 Ron Paul 57:15
The minimum wage reduces education and training and increases long-term unemployment for low-skilled adults. Messrs. Neumark and Wascher found that higher minimum wages cause employers to reduce on-the-job training. They also found that higher minimum wages encourage more teenagers to drop out of school, lured into the labor force by wages that to them seem high. These teenagers often displace lowskilled adults, who frequently become semipermanently unemployed. Lacking skills and education, these teenagers pay a price for the minimum wage in the form of lower incomes over their entire lifetimes.

1999 Ron Paul 57:16
A raise in the minimum wage has always been an easy sell in Washington. But whatever the political realities may be, it’s still a bad idea.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 58
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Campaign Finance Reform 14 June 1999

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

1999 Ron Paul 58:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, campaign finance reform is once again being painted as the solution to political corruption in Washington. Indeed, that is a problem, but today’s reformers hardly offer a solution. The real problem is that government has too much influence over our economy and lives, creating tremendous incentive to protect one’s own interest by investing in politicians.

1999 Ron Paul 58:2
The problem is not a lack of Federal laws or rules regulating campaign spending. Therefore, more laws will not help. We hardly suffer from too much freedom. Any effort to solve the campaign finance problem with more laws will only make things worse by further undermining the principles of liberty and private property ownership.

1999 Ron Paul 58:3
There is tremendous incentive for every special interest group to influence government. Every individual, bank or corporation that does business with government invests plenty in influencing influencing government. Lobbyists spend over $100 million per month trying to influence Congress. Taxpayers’ dollars are endlessly spent by bureaucrats in their effort to convince Congress to protect their own empires. Government has tremendous influence over the economy and financial markets through interest rate controls, contracts, regulations, loans and grants. Corporations and others are forced to participate in the process out of greed, as well as self defense, since that is the way the system works.

1999 Ron Paul 58:4
Equalizing competition and balancing powers such as between labor and business is a common practice. As long as this system remains in place, the incentive to buy influence will continue.

1999 Ron Paul 58:5
The reformers argue only that the fault is those who are trying to influence government and not the fault of the members who yield to the pressure of the system that generates the abuse. This allows Members of Congress to avoid assuming responsibility for their own acts and instead places the blame on those who exert pressure on Congress through the political process, which is a basic right bestowed on all Americans.

1999 Ron Paul 58:6
The reformers’ argument is to stop us before we capitulate and before we capitulate to the special interest groups. Politicians unable to accept this responsibility clamor for a system that diminishes the need for politicians to persuade individuals and groups to donate money to their campaigns. Instead of persuasion, they endorse coercing taxpayers to finance campaigns. This only changes the special interest groups that control government policy. Instead of voluntary groups making their own decisions with their own money, politicians and bureaucrats dictate how political campaigns will be financed and run.

1999 Ron Paul 58:7
Not only will politicians and bureaucrats gain influence over elections, other nondeservers will benefit. Clearly incumbents will greatly benefit by more controls over campaign spending, a benefit to which the reformers will never admit.

1999 Ron Paul 58:8
The quasi two-party system will become more entrenched by limiting the huge expenditures required to oust an incumbent. Alternative choices and third party candidates will be further handicapped if all the reforms proposed are passed. The media become a big winner. Their influence grows as the private money is regulated. It becomes more difficult to refute media propaganda, both print and electronic, when directed against a candidate if funds are limited. The wealthy gain a significant edge since it is clear candidates can spend unlimited personal funds in elections. This is a big boost for the independently wealthy candidates over the average challenger who needs to raise and spend large funds to compete.

1999 Ron Paul 58:9
Celebrities will gain an even greater benefit than they already enjoy. Celebrity status is money in the bank, and by limiting the resources to counterbalance this advantage works against the noncelebrity who might be an issue-oriented challenger. The current reform effort ignores the legitimate and moral Political Action Committees that exist only for good reasons and do not ask for any special benefit from government.

1999 Ron Paul 58:10
More regulation of political speech through control of private money without addressing the subject of influential government only drives the money underground, further giving a select group an advantage over the honest candidate who only wants smaller government.

1999 Ron Paul 58:11
True, reform probably is not possible without changing the role of government, which now exists to regulate, tax, subsidize and show preferential treatment.

1999 Ron Paul 58:12
Only changing the nature of government will eliminate the motive for so many to invest so much in the political process, but we should not make a bad situation worse by passing more laws. We should demand disclosure so voters can decide if their representatives in Congress are duly influenced or unduly influenced, but the best thing we could do is to encourage competition, which will be made worse if the reformers have their way.

1999 Ron Paul 58:13
The majority of Americans are turned off with the system and do not vote because they do not believe they have a real choice. Signature requirements, filing fees and rules written by the two major parties make it virtually impossible for alternative parties to compete if not independently rich or a celebrity. We should change these obstructive rules to encourage the majority of Americans who now sit out the elections to participate in the electoral process.

1999 Ron Paul 58:14
Campaign finance reform is once again being painted as the solution to political corruption in Washington. Indeed, that is a problem, but today’s reformers hardly offer a solution. The real problem is that government has too much influence over our economy and lives, creating a tremendous incentive to protect one’s own interests by “investing” in politicians. The problem is not a lack of federal laws, or rules regulating campaign spending, therefore more laws won’t help. We hardly suffer from too much freedom. Any effort to solve the campaign finance problem with more laws will only make things worse by further undermining the principles of liberty and private property ownership.

1999 Ron Paul 58:15
The reformers are sincere in their effort to curtail special interest influence on government, but his cannot be done while ignoring the control government has assumed over our lives and economy. Current reforms address only the symptoms while the root cause of the problem is ignored. Since reform efforts involve regulating political speech through control of political money, personal liberty is compromised. Tough enforcement of spending rules will merely drive the influence underground since the stakes are too high and much is to be gained by exerting influence over government—legal or not. The more open and legal campaign expenditures are, with disclosure, the easier it is for voters to know who’s buying influence from whom.

1999 Ron Paul 58:16
There’s tremendous incentive for every special interest group to influence government. Every individual, bank or corporation that does business with government invests plenty in influencing government. Lobbyists spend over a hundred million dollars per month trying to influence Congress. Taxpayers dollars are endlessly spent by bureaucrats in their effort to convince Congress to protect their own empires. Government has tremendous influence over the economy, and financial markets through interest rate controls, contracts, regulations, loans, and grants. Corporations and others are “forced” to participate in the process out of greed as well as self defense— since that’s the way the system works. Equalizing competition and balancing power such as between labor and business is a common practice. As long as this system remains in place, the incentive to buy influence will continue.

1999 Ron Paul 58:17
Many reformers recognize this and either like the system or believe that it’s futile to bring about changes and argue that curtailing influence is the only option left even if it involves compromising political speech through regulating political money.

1999 Ron Paul 58:18
It’s naive to believe stricter rules will make a difference. If enough honorable men and women served in Congress and resisted the temptation to be influenced by any special interest group, of course this whole discussion would be unnecessary. Because Members do yield to the pressure, the reformers believe that more rules regulating political speech will solve the problem.

1999 Ron Paul 58:19
The reformers argue that it’s only the fault of those trying to influence government and not the fault of the Members who yield to the pressure or the system that generates the abuse. This allows Members of Congress to avoid assuming responsibility for their own acts and instead places the blame on those who exert pressure on Congress through the political process which is a basic right bestowed on all Americans. The reformer’s argument is “stop us before we capitulate to the special interest groups.”

1999 Ron Paul 58:20
Politicians unable to accept this responsibility clamor for a system that diminishes the need for politicians to persuade individuals and groups to donate money to their campaign. Instead of persuasion they endorse coercing taxpayers to finance campaigns. This only changes the special interest groups that control government policy. Instead of voluntary groups making their own decisions with their own money, politicians and bureaucrats dictate how political campaigns will be financed.

1999 Ron Paul 58:21
Not only will politicians and bureaucrats gain influence over elections, other nondeservers will benefit. Clearly, incumbents will greatly benefit by more controls over campaign spending—a benefit to which the reformers will never admit.

1999 Ron Paul 58:22
The quasi-two party system will become more entrenched by limiting the huge expenditures required to oust an incumbent. Alternative choices and third-party candidates will be further handicapped if all the reforms proposed are passed. They will never qualify for equal treatment since all campaign laws are written by Republicans and Democrats. The same will be true when it comes to divvying up taxpayer’s money for elections.

1999 Ron Paul 58:23
The media becomes a big winner. Their influence grows as private money is regulated. It becomes more difficult to refute media propaganda, both print and electronic, when directed against a candidate if funds are limited. Campaigns are more likely to reflect the conventional wisdom and candidates will strive to avoid media attacks by accommodating their views.

1999 Ron Paul 58:24
The wealthy gain a significant edge since it’s clear candidates can spend unlimited personal funds in elections. This is a big boast for the independently wealthy candidates over the average challenger who needs to raise and spend large funds to compete.

1999 Ron Paul 58:25
Celebrities will gain even a greater benefit than they already enjoy. Celebrity status is money in the bank and by limiting the resources to counter-balance this advantage, works against the non-celebrity who might be an issue-oriented challenger.

1999 Ron Paul 58:26
This current reform effort ignores the legitimate and moral Political Action Committees that exist only for good reasons and do not ask for any special benefit from government. The immoral Political Action Committees that work only to rip-off the taxpayers by getting benefits from government may deserve our condemnation but not the heavy hand of government anxious to control this group along with all the others. The reformers see no difference between the two and are willing to violate all personal liberty. Since more regulating doesn’t address the basic problem of influential government, now out of control, neither groups deserves more coercive government rules. All the rules in the world can’t prevent Members from yielding to political pressure of the groups that donate to their campaigns. Regulation cannot instill character.

1999 Ron Paul 58:27
More regulation of political speech through control of private money, without addressing the subject of influential government only drives the money underground, further giving a select group an advantage over the honest candidate who only wants smaller government.

1999 Ron Paul 58:28
True reform probably is not possible without changing the role of government, which now exists to regulate, tax, subsidize, and show preferential treatment. Only changing the nature of government will eliminate the motive for so many to invest so much in the political process. But we should not make a bad situation worse by passing more bad laws.

1999 Ron Paul 58:29
We should demand disclosure so voters can decide if their Representatives in Congress are unduly influenced. But the best thing we could do is to encourage competition, which will be made worse if the reformers have their way. The majority of Americans are turned off with the system and don’t vote because they don’t believe they have a real choice. Signature requirements, filing fees, and rules written by the two major parties make it virtually impossible for alternative parties to compete if not independently rich or a celebrity. We should change these obstructive rules to encourage the majority of Americans, who now sit out the elections, to participate in the electoral process. Restricting political money and speech will only further hamper competition and discourage citizens from voting.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 59
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Flag Day 1999 14 June 1999 HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Monday, June 14, 1999

1999 Ron Paul 59:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I wish to pay tribute to a great symbol of our nation, the flag of the United States of America on this Flag Day 1999. I wonder how frequently we take for granted this symbol, how often we fail to consider what it is and indeed what it represents.

1999 Ron Paul 59:2
The flag contains 13 stripes and 50 stars. Those 13 stripes represent the first thirteen states, each of which emanating from colonies of British America. These 13 colonies came together because they were opposed to continued oppression by the British executive and the British parliament. After numerous and significant entreaties seeking reconciliation, the British American came to understand that political independence and local self-government was the only way to insure against the most dangerous of tyrannies.

1999 Ron Paul 59:3
Was this eternal truth forgotten immediately upon the founding of our nation? Hardly. From the Articles of Confederation through to the original U.S. Constitution a clear understanding of the necessity of the separation of powers was maintained. And the genius of that division of powers lay only so partially in the three federal branches, each reliant upon some different direct authority but all resting government finally on the consent of the governed. Indeed, it has rightly been said that “the genius of the constitution is best summed up in that clause which reserves to the states or to the people those powers which are not specifically delegated to the federal government.”

1999 Ron Paul 59:4
So those states came together to form a compact, indeed to form a nation and, they gave specific but limited powers to the federal government. From those original thirteen stars and stripes, representing the individual states, came one. E pluribus unum. And this is what the flag and those stripes represent.

1999 Ron Paul 59:5
Today the flag contains 50 stars to represent the 50 current states. From 13 came 50 and in this way “E pluribus pluribum” is also true. From many came more.

1999 Ron Paul 59:6
Yes, Mr. Speaker, our flag is a symbol of our nation. It is a symbol but certainly not the sum. America means so much more to us than symbol devoid of substance. It means those rights, inalienable and indivisible, which are life, liberty and property. Property not just as an object of ownership but as an idea. Private property is indeed the bedrock of all privacy. And private enjoyment of property is not simply exemplified by the right to hold, but to use and dispose of as the owner sees fit. This is at the very essence of property, and it is in fact the meaning of the pursuit of happiness.

1999 Ron Paul 59:7
And those stars and stripes represent an idea about how it is that we should hope to actually realize the protection of all these rights that we as Americans hold so dear. Namely, we the people vest in those very states that formed this union, the power to legislate for the benefit of the residents thereof.

1999 Ron Paul 59:8
This is the idea of federalism and of local self-government. This idea is sacrosanct because it is the necessary precursor to all of those things which we hold dear, most specifically those rights I have enunciated above. Our nation is based on federalism, and state governments, indeed the nation is created by the states which originally ratified our constitution.

1999 Ron Paul 59:9
Now confusion has come upon us. We are far removed from the days of the constitution’s ratification and hence it seems we have lost that institutional memory that points to the eternal truths that document affirms.

1999 Ron Paul 59:10
Today there are calls to pass federal laws and even constitutional amendments which would take from the states their powers and grant them to the federal government. Some of these are even done in the name of protecting the nation, its symbol, or our liberties. How very sad that must make the founding fathers looking down on our institutions. Those founders held that this centralization of power was and ought always remain the very definition of “unAmerican” and they understood that any short term victory an action of such concentration might bring would be paid for with the ultimate sacrifice of our very liberties.

1999 Ron Paul 59:11
To do what is right we must understand and honor the symbol and the sum of our nation. We must contemplate the flag and the constitution, both of which point us to the key basis of liberty that can be found only in local self-government. Our flag and our constitution both honor and symbolize federalism and when we undermine federalism we dishonor our flag, our constitution and our heritage.

1999 Ron Paul 59:12
The men who founded our nation risked the ultimate price for freedom. They pledged “their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor” to the founding of a republic based on local selfgovernment. We should honor them, our republic and its most direct symbol, our U.S. flag by taking a stand against any rule, law or constitutional amendment which would expand the role of our federal government.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 60
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Only A Moral Society Will Make Our Citizens And Their Guns Less Violent 15 June 1999

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

1999 Ron Paul 60:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, we will this week fully debate the issue of school violence. If we had remained a constitutional republic, this debate would not be going on. I sincerely believe this kind of violence would be greatly reduced, and for the violence that did occur, it would be dealt with as a local and school issue. Responding emotionally with feel-good legislation in the Congress serves no worthwhile purpose, but makes the politician feel like he is doing something beneficial.

1999 Ron Paul 60:2
In dealing with the problem of violence, there is a large group here in the Congress quite willing to attack the first amendment while defending the second. Likewise, there is a strong contingency here for attacking the second amendment while defending the first.

1999 Ron Paul 60:3
My question is this: Why can we not consistently defend both? Instead, we see plans being laid to appease everyone and satisfy no one. This will be done in the name of curbing violence by undermining first amendment rights and picking away at second amendment rights.

1999 Ron Paul 60:4
Instead of protecting the first and second amendment, we are likely in the name of conciliation to diminish the protections afforded us by both the first and second amendment. It does not make a lot of sense.

1999 Ron Paul 60:5
Curbing free expression, even that which is violent and profane, is un- American and cannot solve our school problem. Likewise, gun laws do not work, and more of them only attack the liberties of law-abiding citizens. Before the first Federal gun law in 1934, there was a lot less gun violence, and guns were readily accessible to everyone. However, let me remind my colleagues, under the Constitution, gun regulations and crime control are supposed to be State issues.

1999 Ron Paul 60:6
There are no authentic anti-gun proponents in this debate. The only argument is who gets the guns, the people or the Federal bureaucrats. Proponents of more gun laws want to transfer the guns to the 80,000 and growing Federal Government officials who make up the national police force.

1999 Ron Paul 60:7
The argument made by these proponents of gun control is that freedom is best protected by the people not owning guns in that more BATF and other agency members should have them and become more pervasive in our society.

1999 Ron Paul 60:8
It is disingenuous by either side to imply that those who disagree with them are unconcerned about violence. Everyone wants less violence. Deciding on the cause of the hostile environment in our public schools is the key to solving this problem.

1999 Ron Paul 60:9
A few points I would like to make. Number one, private schools are much safer than public schools.

1999 Ron Paul 60:10
Number two, public school violence has increased since the Federal government took over the public school system.

1999 Ron Paul 60:11
Number three, discipline is difficult due to the rules, regulations, and threats of lawsuits as a consequence of Federal Government involvement in public education.

1999 Ron Paul 60:12
Number four, reading about violence throughout history has not been a cause of violence.

1999 Ron Paul 60:13
Number five, lack of gun laws has not been a cause of violence.

1999 Ron Paul 60:14
Number six, the government’s practice of using violence to achieve social goals condones its use. All government welfare is based on the threat of government violence.

1999 Ron Paul 60:15
Number seven, Star Wars technology, casually displayed on our TV screens showing the blowing up of bridges, trains, sewer plants, and embassies all in the name of humanitarianism glibly sanctions violence as a proper tool for bringing about change.

1999 Ron Paul 60:16
Number eight, the Federal government’s role in Waco and the burning alive of innocent children in the name of doing good sends a confused message to our youth.

1999 Ron Paul 60:17
Number nine, government’s role in defending and even paying to kill a half-born child cannot but send a powerful message to our young people that all life is cheap, both that of the victims and the perpetrators of violence.

1999 Ron Paul 60:18
More gun laws expanding the role of the Federal government in our daily lives while further undermining the first and second amendment will not curb the violence. Understanding the proper constitutional role for government and preventing the government itself from using illegal force to mold society and police the world would go a long way in helping to diminish the violence.

1999 Ron Paul 60:19
Ultimately, though, only a moral society, with the family its key element, will make the citizens and the government less violent.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 61
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Don’t Undermine First And Second Amendment 16 June 1999

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 4 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL). (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

1999 Ron Paul 61:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me the time.

1999 Ron Paul 61:2
Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the rule. I believe 2 days of debate on this very important issue is about as fair as we can get. I know a lot of people are not satisfied with the rule. But I think under the circumstances it is fair, and I will support the rule.

1999 Ron Paul 61:3
However, I am not optimistic that much good will come out of the next days of debate. I think there is a lot of mischief going on here. I see that onehalf of this Congress is quite capable and anxious to defend the First Amendment, and I think that is good. I see the other half of the Congress is quite anxious and capable of defending the second amendment, and I think that is good. But it seems strange because see these two groups coming together in a coalition to pass a bill that will undermine the first amendment and undermine the second amendment.

1999 Ron Paul 61:4
That does not make a whole lot of sense to me because I think that we are obligated here in the Congress to defend both the first and the second amendment and were not here for the purpose of undermining both amendments.

1999 Ron Paul 61:5
We should be reminded, though, that traditionally, up until the middle part of this century, crime control was always considered a local issue. That is the way the Constitution designed it. That is the way it should be. But every day we write more laws here in the Congress building a national police force. We now have more than 80,000 bureaucrats in this country carrying guns. We are an armed society, but it is the Federal Government that is armed.

1999 Ron Paul 61:6
So I think we should think seriously before we pass more laws whether they undermine the first amendment or whether we pass more laws undermining the second amendment. We do not need more Federal laws.

1999 Ron Paul 61:7
Recently there was a bipartisan study put out and chaired by Ed Meese, and he is not considered a radical libertarian. He was quoted in an editorial in the Washington Post as to what we here in the Congress are doing with nationalizing our police force. The editorial states: “The basic contention of the report, which was produced by a bipartisan group headed by former Attorney General Edward Meese, is that Congress’ tendency in recent decades to make Federal crimes out of offenses that have historically been State matters has dangerous implications both for the fair administration of justice and for the principle that States are something more than mere administrative districts of a national government.”

1999 Ron Paul 61:8
Along with this, we have also heard Supreme Court Justice Rehnquist say the same thing. “The trend to federalize crimes that traditionally have been handled in State courts threatens to change entirely the nature of our Federal system.”

1999 Ron Paul 61:9
We are unfortunately bound and determined to continue this trend. It looks like we are going to do so today. We are going to place a lot more rules and regulations restricting both the first and second amendment.

1999 Ron Paul 61:10
We are bound and determined to write more rules and regulations dealing with the first and the second amendment, and I do not see this as a good trend. It is said today that those who want to undermine the first amendment, that it is already established that pornography is not protected under the first amendment. And today the goal is to make sure that the depiction of violence is not protected under the first amendment. But do my colleagues know that the major cause of violence in the world throughout history have been abuse of religion and the abuse of philosophy?

1999 Ron Paul 61:11
So, therefore, the next step will be, if we can limit the depiction of pornography and then violence, be the limitation of the depiction of a philosophy that deals with religion or political systems such as Communism or other fascism.

1999 Ron Paul 61:12
I say, today we should move carefully and not undermine either the first or the second amendment.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 62
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Consequences Of Gun Control 16 June 1999 HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, June 16, 1999

1999 Ron Paul 62:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I recommend that my colleagues read today’s Washington Times article entitled “Disarming Good People” before voting on unconstitutional and counter-effective gun legislation. Outlined within, are some of the disastrous consequences of enacting more gun control. While the lawmakers demand even more restrictions on the sale, ownership, and the use of firearms, we currently have the highest level of gun control in our Nation’s history. Yet only 50 years ago, there were no violent incidents in schools like the recent tragedy. Instead of rushing to disarm the law-abiding, let us first examine the current 20,000 gun laws already on the books for their effectiveness.

1999 Ron Paul 62:2
DISARMING GOOD PEOPLE
Editor’s note: The following is an open letter from 287 economists, law-school professors and other academics to Congress, regarding gun-control legislation before the House of Representatives. Some but not all of the names of the signatories appear here.

1999 Ron Paul 62:3
After the tragic attacks at public schools over the last two years, there is an understandable desire to “do something.” Yet, none of the proposed legislation would have prevented the recent violence. The current debate focuses only on the potential benefits from new gun control laws and ignores the fact that these laws can have some very real adverse effects. Good intentions don’t necessarily make good laws. What counts is whether the laws will ultimately save lives, prevent injury, and reduce crime. Passing laws based upon their supposed benefits while ignoring their costs poses a real threat to people’s lives and safety.

1999 Ron Paul 62:4
These—gun control laws will primarily be obeyed by law-abiding citizens and risk making it less likely that good people have guns compared to criminals. Deterrence is important and disarming good people relative to criminals will increase the risk of violent crime. If we really care about saving lives we must focus not only on the newsworthy events where bad things happen, but also on the bad things that never happen because people are able to defend themselves.

1999 Ron Paul 62:5
Few people would voluntarily put up a sign in front of their homes stating, “This home is a gun-free zone.” The reason is very simple. Just as we can deter criminals with higher arrest or conviction rates, the fact that would-be victims might be able to defend themselves also deters attacks. Not only do guns allow individuals to defend themselves, they also provide some protection to citizens who choose not to own guns since criminals would not normally know who can defend themselves before they attack.

1999 Ron Paul 62:6
The laws currently being considered by Congress ignore the importance of deterrence. Police are extremely important at deterring crime, but they simply cannot be everywhere. Individuals also benefit from being able to defend themselves with a gun when they are confronted by a criminal.

1999 Ron Paul 62:7
Let us illustrate some of the problems with the current debate.

1999 Ron Paul 62:8
The Clinton administration wants to raise the age at which citizens can posses a handgun to 21, and they point to the fact that 18- and 19-year-olds commit gun crimes at the highest rate. Yet, Department of Justice numbers indicate that 18- and 19-year-olds are also the most likely victims of violent crimes including murder, rape, robbery with serious injury, and aggravated assault. The vast majority of those committing crimes in this age group are members of gangs and are already breaking the law by having a gun. This law will primarily apply to law-abiding 18- to-21-year-olds and make it difficult for them to defend themselves.

1999 Ron Paul 62:9
Waiting periods can produce a cooling-off period. But they also have real costs. Those threatened with harm may not be able to quickly obtain a gun for protection.

1999 Ron Paul 62:10
Gun locks may prevent some accidental gun deaths, but they will make it difficult for people to defend themselves from attackers. We believe that the risks of accidental gun deaths, particularly those involving young children, have been greatly exaggerated. In 1996, there were 44 accidental gun deaths for children under age 10. This exaggeration risks threatening people’s safety if it incorrectly frightens some people from having a gun in their home even though that is actually the safest course of action.

1999 Ron Paul 62:11
Trade-offs exist with other proposals such as prison sentences for adults whose guns are misused by someone under 18 and rules limiting the number of guns people can purchase. No evidence has been presented to show that the likely benefits of such proposals will exceed their potential costs.

1999 Ron Paul 62:12
With the 20,000 gun laws already on the books, we advise Congress, before enacting yet more new laws, to investigate whether many of the existing laws may have contributed to the problems we currently face. The new legislation is ill-advised.

1999 Ron Paul 62:13
Sincerely, Terry L. Anderson, Montana State University; Charles W. Baird, California State University Hayward; Randy E. Barnett, Boston University; Bruce L. Benson, Florida State University; Michael Block, University of Arizona; Walter Block, Thomas Borcherding, Claremont Graduate School; Frank H. Buckley, George Mason University; Colin D. Campbell, Dartmough College; Robert J. Cottrol, George Washington University; Preston K. Covey, Carnegie Mellon University; Mark Crain, George Mason University; Tom DiLorenzo, Loyola College in Maryland; Paul Evans, Ohio State University; R. Richard Geddes, Fordham University; Lino A. Graglia, University of Texas; John Heineke, Santa Clara University; David Henderson, Hoover Institution, Stanford University; Melvin J. Hinich, University of Texas, Austin; Lester H. Hunt, University of Wisconsin- Madison; James Kau, University of Georgia; Kenneth N. Klee, UCLA; David Kopel, New York University; Stanley Liebowitz, University of Texas at Dallas; Luis Locay, University of Miami; John R. Lott, Jr., University of Chicago; Geoffrey A. Manne, University of Virginia; John Matsusaka, University of Southern California; Fred McChesney, Cornell University; Jeffrey A. Miron, Boston University; Carlisle E. Moody College of William and Mary; Craig M. Newark, North Carolina State University; Jeffrey S. Parker, George Mason University; Dan Polsby, Northwestern University; Keith T. Poole, Carnegie-Mellon University; Douglas B. Rasmussen, St. John’s University; Glenn Reynolds, University of Tennessee; John R. Rice, Duke University; Russell Roberts, Washington University; Randall W. Roth, Univ. of Hawaii; Charles Rowley, George Mason University; Allen R. Sanderson, University of Chicago; William F. Shughart II, University of Mississippi; Thomas Sowell, Stanford University; Richard Stroup, Montana State University; Robert D. Tollison, University of Mississippi; Eugene Volokh, UCLA; Michael R. Ward, University of Illinois; Benjamin Zycher, UCLA; Todd Zywicki, George Mason University.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 63
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

What We Would Be Doing By Amending The Constitution To Make It Illegal To Desecrate The American Flag 22 June 1999

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

1999 Ron Paul 63:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we have on our schedule the debate and the vote on a constitutional amendment, the amendment that would make the desecration of the flag illegal. Many who support this amendment imply that those of us who oppose it for some reason might be unpatriotic. That, of course, is not true.

1999 Ron Paul 63:2
I would like to call attention to my fellow colleagues just exactly what I see us doing by amending the Constitution.

1999 Ron Paul 63:3
The very first thing that Communist China did after it took over Hong Kong was to pass legislation to make sure that it was illegal to desecrate the Chinese flag. Now let me say that one time again. As soon as Red China took over Hong Kong, that was the very first thing they did. One of the first pieces of legislation was to make sure that the people of Hong Kong knew it was illegal to do anything to desecrate the Chinese flag.

1999 Ron Paul 63:4
Now another interesting thing about the Chinese and their flag is that we monitor human rights in China. As a matter of fact, the State Department is required to come before the House and the Senate and report to us about the violations of human rights in China. The purpose is to find out whether or not they qualify for full trade with us, and the argument comes up every year. Some say, well, they violate civil rights and human rights all the time; therefore, we should not be trading with Red China, which is an argument that can be presented.

1999 Ron Paul 63:5
But in this report that came out in April to summarize last year, our government lists as a violation of human rights that we are holding them accountable for that we want to use against them so that we do not trade with them is the fact that two individuals last year were arrested because they desecrated the Communist Chinese flag.

1999 Ron Paul 63:6
I think that is pretty important. We should think about that. First, the Chinese Government makes it illegal to desecrate a flag in Hong Kong, and then they arrest somebody and they convict them, and they want to hold it against them and say we do not want to give them Most Favored Nation status because they are violating somebody’s human rights.

1999 Ron Paul 63:7
Mr. Speaker, my point is obviously that why do we want to emulate them? There are other countries around the world that have similar laws: Iraq, Cuba, Haiti, Sudan; they all have laws against desecration of the flag. But in this country we have not had this. We have never put it in the Constitution. This debate would dumbfound our Founders to think that we were contemplating such an amendment to the Constitution.

1999 Ron Paul 63:8
We have existed now for 212 years since the passage of our Constitution, and we have not had laws like this, but all of a sudden we feel compelled. What is the compulsion? Do we see on the nightly news Americans defying our flag and defying our principles of liberty? I cannot recall the last time I saw on television an American citizen burning an American flag or desecrating our flag. So all of a sudden now we decide it is a crisis of such magnitude that we have to amend the Constitution; at the same time, challenging the principles of freedom of expression.

1999 Ron Paul 63:9
There is one State in this country that has a law which they have the right to, a law against desecration of the flag. And the flag police went to a house to find out what was going on because they were flying their flag upside down. What is going to happen when we try to define “desecrate”? Desecrate is usually something held for religious symbol. Have we decided to take the flag and make it a holy symbol? But will a towel that is in the shape and the color of a flag that somebody is lying on at the beach, is that going to be a reason to call the FBI and call the flag police in to arrest someone for this desecration? Because we do not define the desecration, we just say we will write the laws to police this type of activity.

1999 Ron Paul 63:10
Mr. Speaker, in recent weeks we have had many Members in this Congress cite the Constitution. As a matter of fact, the Constitution is cited all the time. Sometimes I see it inconsistently cited, because when it pleases one to cite the Constitution, they do; and when it does not, they forget about it. But just recently we have heard the citing of the Constitution quite frequently. In the impeachment hearings: We have to uphold the Constitution, we have to live by our traditions and our ideals. Just last week we were citing the Constitution endlessly over the second amendment which I strongly support, and which I said the same thing. We must uphold the Constitution to defend the second amendment. But all of a sudden here we have decided to change the Constitution that we are in some way going to restrict the freedom of expression.

1999 Ron Paul 63:11
We say, well, this is bad expression. This is ugly people. These are people that are saying unpopular things, and they are being obnoxious. But, Mr. Speaker, the first amendment and the freedom of expression was never put there for easygoing, nice, conventional, noncontroversial speech. There is no purpose to protect that. Nobody cares. The purpose of freedom of expression is to protect controversy, and if somebody is upset and annoyed, the best thing we can do with people like that is to ignore them. If we pass a constitutional amendment and people are so anti-American that they want to display their anti-Americanism, they will love it. They will get more attention because we will be sending in the Federal flag police to do something about it.

1999 Ron Paul 63:12
Some will argue the Constitution does not protect freedom of expression; it protects freedom of speech, and this is not speech, this is ugly expression. But the Constitution does, does protect freedom of expression. That is what speech is. What about religion? To express one’s religious beliefs. What about one’s property, the right to go in and express what one believes? That is what freedom is all about is the freedom of expression and belief. I do not see how this country can become greater by having an amendment written that is in some ways going to curtail the freedom of Americans to express themselves. We have not had it for 212 years, and here we are going to change it.

1999 Ron Paul 63:13
It is expected that this will be passed overwhelmingly, and in the Senate possibly as well, and then throughout the country, but I do not see this as a positive step. We here in the Congress should think seriously before we pass this amendment.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 64
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

National Identification Card Bad Idea For America 23 June 1999

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

1999 Ron Paul 64:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the American people strongly oppose the instituting of a national identification card. The authority was given for a national I.D. card in 1996. I have been working very hard to try to repeal this authority.

1999 Ron Paul 64:2
Today, we would have had an opportunity under the transportation bill to repeal this authority and to prevent a national I.D. card from coming into existence.

1999 Ron Paul 64:3
Unfortunately, that will not be permitted, due to the rule that is coming up for the transportation bill. I think this is a serious mistake. It is not just 30 or 40 or 50 percent of the American people who reject a national I.D., but almost all Americans reject this idea. I find it a shame that we are not able to vote on the repeal authority.

1999 Ron Paul 64:4
It was never intended that the Social Security number would be the universal, national identifier. It is given to a child at birth and one cannot even be buried without it. So the national I.D. card, when instituted, will be used for everything: To get on an airplane, to get a job, open up a bank account; whatever we want to do, we will have to show our papers.

1999 Ron Paul 64:5
This is un-American. It is something that we should not be doing, and unfortunately, we will not get to vote on it today.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 65
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Opposing Flag Burning Amendment 23 June 1999

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL). (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

1999 Ron Paul 65:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from California earlier that said that those of us who oppose this amendment should not be challenged on our patriotism. That certainly should be true. But I do rise in support of the rule because obviously it is constitutional to amend the Constitution; that we cannot object to. But I do have questions about what we are doing to the spirit of America, the spirit of the Constitution in a desire to protect a symbol.

1999 Ron Paul 65:2
Not too long ago Hong Kong was taken over by Red China. The very first law that Red China passed on Hong Kong was to make it illegal to burn a flag. The first time Hong Kong ever had that law, the British do not have a law like this. Red China, as soon as they took over Hong Kong, they pass a law to make it illegal to burn a flag.

1999 Ron Paul 65:3
But it does not stop there. On an annual basis we, the Congress, require the State Department to report to us any human rights violations around the world. The human rights violations in Red China are used specifically to decide whether or not they will get Most Favored Nation status. Last year, in 1998, the report came to the Congress in April of this year, and it reported that indeed there were violations of human rights. What were the human rights violations that we are condemning by this report and we are going to use against the Red Chinese? Two individuals burned the Hong Kong or the Red Chinese flag.

1999 Ron Paul 65:4
I think it is just a little bit hypocritical if we want to claim the Red Chinese are violating human rights because somebody there burned the flag at the same time we intend to pass that law here.

1999 Ron Paul 65:5
The spirit of the Constitution did not require this. We have had 212 years of our history since the Constitution was passed. We have not had this pass. We have not required this. Where is the epidemic? I cannot remember ever seeing, and of course I am sure it has been on television where an American citizen burned the flag. It must happen; it will happen again. As a matter of fact, it will probably happen more often because there will be more attention given to it once this law is passed.

1999 Ron Paul 65:6
Where I see the burning of the American flag, where I get outraged is when the foreigners are doing it because they are so defiant about our policies around the world. But that is a lot different. We are not dealing with that hatred toward America that we are dealing with here.

1999 Ron Paul 65:7
We are dealing with a few deranged individuals that were willing to challenge the spirit of the Constitution. They say this is not free speech, but it is indeed expression, just as religion is, just as the study of philosophy is, just as our personal convictions. To say that this is not protected under the Constitution, the current Constitution, I think is quite wrong. I think we do protect that.

1999 Ron Paul 65:8
And, yes, one would say this is egregious, this is horrible, to burn this flag. But that is the purpose of the first amendment, to protect obnoxious and uncomfortable speech.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 66
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Opposing Flag Burning Amendment 23 June 1999

Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL). (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

1999 Ron Paul 66:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.

1999 Ron Paul 66:2
Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I have myself served 5 years in the military, and I have great respect for the symbol of our freedom. I salute the flag, and I pledge to the flag. But I served my country to protect our freedoms and to protect our Constitution. I believe very sincerely that today we are undermining to some degree that freedom that we have had all these many years.

1999 Ron Paul 66:3
We have not had a law against flag desecration in the 212 years of our constitutional history. So I do not see where it is necessary. We have some misfits on occasion burn the flag, which we all despise. But to now change the ability for some people to express themselves and to challenge the First Amendment, I think we should not do this carelessly.

1999 Ron Paul 66:4
Let me just emphasize how the first amendment is written. “Congress shall write no law.” That was the spirit of our Nation at that time. “Congress shall write no laws.”

1999 Ron Paul 66:5
We have written a lot of laws since then. But every time we write a law to enforce a law, we imply that somebody has to arrive with a gun, because if you desecrate the flag, you have to punish that person. So how do you do that? You send an agent of the government to arrest him and it is done with a gun. This is in many ways patriotism with a gun. So if you are not a patriot, you are assumed not to be a patriot and you are doing this, we will send somebody to arrest them.

1999 Ron Paul 66:6
It is assumed that many in the military who fought, but I think the gentleman from North Carolina pointed out aptly that some who have been great heroes in war can be on either side of this issue. I would like to read a quote from a past national commander of the American Legion, Keith Kreul. He said:

1999 Ron Paul 66:7
Our Nation was not founded on devotion to symbolic idols, but on principles, beliefs and ideals expressed in the Constitution and its Bill of Rights. American veterans who have protected our banner in battle have not done so to protect a golden calf. Instead, they carried the banner forward with reverence for what it represents, our beliefs and freedom for all. Therein lies the beauty of our flag. A patriot cannot be created by legislation.

1999 Ron Paul 66:8
I think that is what we are trying to do. Out of our frustration and exasperation and our feeling of helplessness when we see this happen, we feel like we must do something. But I think most of the time when we see flag burning on television, it is not by American citizens, it is done too often by foreigners who have strong objection to what we do overseas. That is when I see it on television and that is when I get rather annoyed.

1999 Ron Paul 66:9
I want to emphasize once again that one of the very first laws that Red China passed on Hong Kong was to make flag burning illegal. The very first law by Red China on Hong Kong was to make sure they had a law on the books like this. Since that time they have prosecuted some individuals. Our State Department tallies this, keeps records of this as a human rights violation, that if they burn the flag, they are violating human rights. Our State Department reports it to our Congress as they did in April of this year and those violations are used against Red China in the argument that they should not gain most-favored-nation status. There is just a bit of hypocrisy here, if they think that this law will do so much good and yet we are so critical of it when Red China does it.

1999 Ron Paul 66:10
We must be interested in the spirit of our Constitution. We must be interested in the principles of liberty. We should not be careless in accepting this approach to enforce a sense of patriotism.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 67
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Drug Asset Forfeiture 24 June 1999

AMENDMENT NO. 15 IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE OFFERED BY MR. PAUL AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR AMENDMENT NO. 25 IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE OFFERED BY MR. HUTCHINSON

1999 Ron Paul 67:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substiute as a substitute for amendment the in the nature of a substitute. The Clerk read as follows:

1999 Ron Paul 67:2
Amendment No. 15 in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. PAUL as a substitute for amendment No. 25 in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. HUTCHINSON:

1999 Ron Paul 67:3
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following:

1999 Ron Paul 67:4
SECTION 1. FORFEITURE CONDITION. No property may be forfeited under any civil asset forfeiture law unless the property’s owner has first been convicted of the criminal offense that makes the property subject to forfeiture. The term “civil forfeiture law” refers to any provision of Federal law (other than the Tariff Act of 1930 or the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) providing for the forfeiture of property other than as a sentence imposed upon conviction of a criminal offense. (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

1999 Ron Paul 67:5
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer a substitute amendment for the Hutchinson amendment. My understanding is that the Hyde amendment would improve current situations very much when it comes to seizure and forfeiture, and I strongly endorse the motivation of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. HYDE) in his bill. I have a suggestion in my amendment to make this somewhat better.

1999 Ron Paul 67:6
But I rise in strong opposition to the Hutchinson amendment, because not only do I believe that the Hutchinson amendment would undo everything that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. HYDE) is trying to do, but I sincerely believe that the Hutchinson amendment would make current law worse. I think it is very important that we make a decision here on whether or not we want to continue the effort to build an armed police force out of Washington, D.C.

1999 Ron Paul 67:7
The trends have been very negative over the last 20 or 30 years. It has to do a lot with the exuberance we show with our drug laws. I know they are all wellintended, but since 1976, when I recall the first criminal law that we passed here, they always pass nearly unanimously. Everyone is for law and order. But I think this is a perfect example of unintended consequences, the problems that we are dealing with today, because it is not the guilty that suffer. So often it is the innocent who suffer.

1999 Ron Paul 67:8
I guess if Members are for a powerful national police and they want to be casual about the civil liberties of innocent people, I imagine they could go along and ruin this bill by passing the Hutchinson amendment.

1999 Ron Paul 67:9
I think it is very important to consider another alternative. Mine addresses this, because in spite of how the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. HYDE) addresses this, which is in a very positive way, I really would like to go one step further. My bill, my substitute amendment, says this: “No property may be forfeited under any Federal civil asset forfeiture law unless the property owner has first been convicted of the criminal offense that makes the property subject to forfeiture.”

1999 Ron Paul 67:10
Is that too much to ask in America, that we do not take people’s property if they are not even convicted of a crime? That seems to be a rather modest request. That is the way it used to be. We used to never even deal with laws like this at the national level. It is only recently that we decided we had to take away the State’s right and obligation to enforce criminal law.

1999 Ron Paul 67:11
I think it is time we thought about going in another direction. That is why I am very, very pleased with this bill on the floor today in moving in this direction. I do not think we should have a nationalized police force. I think that we should be very cautious in everything that we do as we promote law.

1999 Ron Paul 67:12
This bill of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. HYDE) could be strengthened with my amendment by saying that no forfeiture should occur, but the Hutchinson amendment makes it just the preponderance of evidence that they can take property. This is not right. This is not what America is all about. We are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, but property is being taken from the American people with no charge of crime.

1999 Ron Paul 67:13
They lose their property and they never get it back. They cannot afford to fight the courts, and there is a lot of frustration in this country today over this. This is why this bill is on this floor today. I am delighted it is here on this floor.

1999 Ron Paul 67:14
I ask people to vote for my amendment, which would even make this better bill, but certainly I think it would be wise not to vote for the Hutchinson amendment to make it much worse. I certainly think that on final passage, we certainly should support the Hyde bill.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 68
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Privacy Project Act 24 June 1999 HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, June 24, 1999

1999 Ron Paul 68:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Privacy Protection Act, which repeals those sections of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 authorizing the establishment of federal standards for birth certificates and drivers’ licenses. This obscure provision, which was part of a major piece of legislation passed at the end of the 104th Congress, represents a major power grab by the federal government and a threat to the liberties of every American, for it would transform state drivers’ licenses into national ID cards.

1999 Ron Paul 68:2
If this scheme is not stopped, no American will be able to get a job; open a bank account; apply for Social Security or Medicare; exercise their Second Amendments rights; or even take an airplane flight unless they can produce a state drivers’ license, or its equivalent, that conforms to federal specifications. Under the 1996 Kennedy-Kassebaum health care reform law, Americans may even be forced to present a federally-approved drivers’ license before consulting their physicians for medical treatment!

1999 Ron Paul 68:3
Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government has no constitutional authority to require Americans to present any form of identification before engaging in any private transaction such as opening a bank account, seeing a doctor, or seeking employment. Any uniform, national system of identification would allow the federal government to inappropriately monitor the movements and transactions of every citizen. History shows that when government gains the power to monitor the actions of the people, it eventually uses that power to impose totalitarian controls on the populace.

1999 Ron Paul 68:4
Any member who is reluctant to support this legislation should consider the reaction of the American people when they discover that they must produce a federally-approved ID in order to get a job or open a bank account. Already many offices are being flooded with complaints about the movement toward a national ID card. If this scheme is not halted, Congress and the entire political establishment could drown in the backlash from the American people. In fact, I am holding in my hand a letter from almost all citizens’ groups from across the political spectrum, representing thousands of Americans, opposing the plans to implement a national ID.

1999 Ron Paul 68:5
Although the Transportation Appropriations bill restricts the Department of Transportation from implementing a final rule regarding this provision, the fact is that unless the House acts this year to repeal the provision, states will begin implementing the law so as to be in compliance with the mandate. Therefore, Congress must repeal Section 656 in order to comply with the Constitution and the wishes of the vast majority of the American people who do not want to be forced to carry a national ID card.

1999 Ron Paul 68:6
National ID cards are a trademark of totalitarianism and are thus incompatible with a free society. In order to preserve some semblance of American liberty and republican government I am proud to introduce the Privacy Protection Act. I urge my colleagues to stand up for the rights of American people by cosponsoring the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act.

1999 Ron Paul 68:7
NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES [NCSL]; AND AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION [ACLU]; ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER [EPIC]; NATIONAL COUNCIL OF LA RAZA [NCLR]; EAGLE FORUM; ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION; FREE CONGRESS FOUNDATION/COALITION FOR CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTIES; AND AMERICANS FOR TAX REFORM

1999 Ron Paul 68:8
We represent a broad-based coalition of state legislators, county officials, public policy groups, civil libertarians, privacy experts, and consumer groups from across the political spectrum. We urge the Congress to repeal Section 656 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibilities Act of 1996 that requires states to collect, verify and display social security numbers on stateissued driver’s licenses and conform with federally-mandated uniform features for driver’s license. The law preempts state authority over the issuance of the state driver’s licenses, violates the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1994 (UMRA) and poses a threat to the privacy of citizens. Opposition to the law and the preliminary regulation issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has been overwhelmingly evidence by the more than 2,000 comments submitted by individuals, groups, state legislators, and state agencies to NHTSA.

1999 Ron Paul 68:9
THE LAW IS COUNTER-DEVOLUTIONARY, PREEMPTIVE AND VIOLATES THE UNFUNDED MANDATE REFORM ACT

1999 Ron Paul 68:10
The law and the proposed regulation run counter to devolution. The law preempts the traditional state function of issuing driver’s licenses and places it in the hands of officials at NHTSA while imposing tremendous costs on the states that have been vastly underestimated in the Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation. The actual cost of compliance with the law and the regulation far exceeds the $100 million threshold established by UMRA. In addition, the law and proposed regulation require states to conform their drivers’ licenses and other identity documents to a detailed federal standard. Proposals for a national ID have been consistently rejected in the United States as an infringement of personal liberty.

1999 Ron Paul 68:11
THE LAW RAISES SERIOUS PRIVACY CONCERNS The law raises a number of privacy concerns relating to the expanded use and dissemination of the Social Security Number (SSN), the creation of a national ID cared, and the violation of federal rules of privacy. The law and proposed rule require that each license contain either in visual or electronic form the individual’s SSN unless the state goes through burdensome and invasive procedures to check each individuals’s identify with the Social Security Administration. This will greatly expand the dissemination and misuse of the SSN at a time that Congress; the states, and the public are actively working to limit its dissemination over concerns of fraud and privacy. Many states are taking measures to reduce the use of SSNs as the driver’s identify number. Only a few states currently require the SSN to be used as an identifier on their driver’s licenses.

1999 Ron Paul 68:12
While the impact of Section 656 may not been fully comprehended in 1996, we urge the Congress now to act swiftly to repeal this provision of law that has been challenged by many diverse groups. If you or your staff have any further questions, please contact Dawn Levy of the National Conference of State Legislatures at (202) 624–8687.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 69
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Child Custody Protection Act 30 June 1999 SPEECH OF
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, June 30, 1999

1999 Ron Paul 69:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, in the name of a truly laudable cause (preventing abortions and protecting parental rights), today the Congress could potentially move our nation one step closer to a national police state by further expanding the list of federal crimes and usurping power from the states to adequately address the issue of parental rights and family law. Of course, it is much easier to ride the current wave of criminally federalizing all human malfeasance in the name of saving the world from some evil than to uphold a Constitutional oath which prescribes a procedural structure by which the nation is protected from what is perhaps the worst evil, totalitarianism carried out by a centralized government. Who, after all, wants to be amongst those members of Congress who are portrayed as trampling parental rights or supporting the transportation of minor females across state lines for ignoble purposes.

1999 Ron Paul 69:2
As an obstetrician of more than thirty years, I have personally delivered more than 4,000 children. During such time, I have not performed a single abortion. On the contrary, I have spoken and written extensively and publicly condemning this “medical” procedure. At the same time, I have remained committed to upholding the Constitutional procedural protections which leave the police power decentralized and in control of the states. In the name of protecting states’ rights, this bill usurps states’ rights by creating yet another federal crime.

1999 Ron Paul 69:3
Our federal government is, constitutionally, a government of limited powers. Article one, Section eight, enumerates the legislative areas for which the U.S. Congress is allowed to act or enact legislation. For every other issue, the federal government lacks any authority or consent of the governed and only the state governments, their designees, or the people in their private market actions enjoy such rights to governance. The tenth amendment is brutally clear in stating “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Our nation’s history makes clear that the U.S. Constitution is a document intended to limit the power of central government. No serious reading of historical events surrounding the creation of the Constitution could reasonably portray it differently.

1999 Ron Paul 69:4
Nevertheless, rather than abide by our constitutional limits, Congress today will likely pass H.R. 1218. H.R. 1218 amends title 18, United States Code, to prohibit taking minors across State lines to avoid laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions. Should parents be involved in decisions regarding the health of their children?? Absolutely. Should the law respect parents rights to not have their children taken across state lines for contemptible purposes?? Absolutely. Can a state pass an enforceable statute to prohibit taking minors across State lines to avoid laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions?? Absolutely. But when asked if there exists constitutional authority for the federal criminalizing of just such an action the answer is absolutely not.

1999 Ron Paul 69:5
This federalizing may have the effect of nationalizing a law with criminal penalties which may be less than those desired by some states. To the extent the federal and state laws could co-exist, the necessity for a federal law is undermined and an important bill of rights protection is virtually obliterated. Concurrent jurisdiction crimes erode the right of citizens to be free of double jeopardy. The fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifies that no “person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . .” In other words, no person shall be tried twice for the same offense. However, in United States v. Lanza, the high court in 1922 sustained a ruling that being tried by both the federal government and a state government for the same offense did not offend the doctrine of double jeopardy. One danger of the unconstitutionally expanding the federal criminal justice code is that it seriously increases the danger that one will be subject to being tried twice for the same offense. Despite the various pleas for federal correction of societal wrongs, a national police force is neither prudent nor constitutional.

1999 Ron Paul 69:6
Most recently, we have been reminded by both Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and former U.S. Attorney General Ed Meese that more federal crimes, while they make politicians feel good, are neither constitutionally sound nor prudent. Rehnquist stated in his year-end report “The trend to federalize crimes that traditionally have been handled in state courts . . . threatens to change entirely the nature of our federal system.” Meese stated that Congress’ tendency in recent decades to make federal crimes out of offenses that have historically been state matters has dangerous implications both for the fair administration of justice and for the principle that states are something more than mere administrative districts of a nation governed mainly from Washington.

1999 Ron Paul 69:7
The argument which springs from the criticism of a federalized criminal code and a federal police force is that states may be less effective than a centralized federal government in dealing with those who leave one state jurisdiction for another. Fortunately, the Constitution provides for the procedural means for preserving the integrity of state sovereignty over those issues delegated to it via the tenth amendment. The privilege and immunities clause as well as full faith and credit clause allow states to exact judgments from those who violate their state laws. The Constitution even allows the federal government to legislatively preserve the procedural mechanisms which allow states to enforce their substantive laws without the federal government imposing its substantive edicts on the states. Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2 makes provision for the rendition of fugitives from one state to another. While not self-enacting, in 1783 Congress passed an act which did exactly this. There is, of course, a cost imposed upon states in working with one another rather than relying on a national, unified police force. At the same time, there is a greater cost to centralization of police power.

1999 Ron Paul 69:8
It is important to be reminded of the benefits of federalism as well as the costs. There are sound reasons to maintain a system of smaller, independent jurisdictions. An inadequate federal law, or an “adequate” federal law improperly interpreted by the Supreme Court, preempts states’ rights to adequately address public health concerns. Roe v. Wade should serve as a sad reminder of the danger of making matters worse in all states by federalizing an issue.

1999 Ron Paul 69:9
It is my erstwhile hope that parents will become more involved in vigilantly monitoring the activities of their own children rather than shifting parental responsibility further upon the federal government. There was a time when a popular bumper sticker read “It’s ten o’clock; do you know where your children are?” I suppose we have devolved to point where it reads “It’s ten o’clock; does the federal government know where your children are.” Further socializing and burden-shifting of the responsibilities of parenthood upon the federal government is simply not creating the proper incentive for parents to be more involved.

1999 Ron Paul 69:10
For each of these reasons, among others, I must oppose the further and unconstitutional centralization of police powers in the national government and, accordingly, H.R. 1218.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 70
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

“Know Your Customer” Rules 1 July 1999

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL). (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

1999 Ron Paul 70:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule. I am known to be very concerned about the privacy of all Americans and am tenacious in protecting the privacy of everyone.

1999 Ron Paul 70:2
I believe I am a well-known civil libertarian. But I do believe this bill adequately protects privacy, except in one area. It has not eliminated the potential Know Your Customer regulations. My amendment permits this. It is the regulations such as Know Your Customer that is the motivation for banks to collect so much information.

1999 Ron Paul 70:3
So I rise in support of the rule, but also mention that the Paul-Campbell– Barr amendment will allow us to bring to the floor an amendment that will eliminate once and for all the availability of Know Your Customer regulations by the various regulators.

1999 Ron Paul 70:4
I am in strong support of this rule, believing very sincerely this bill does protect privacy. But we can make it better by passing my amendment.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 71
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Improving Privacy 1 July 1999

Mr. LEACH. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL), one of the most thoughtful philosophers of the United States Congress. (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

1999 Ron Paul 71:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Chairman, I will take my one minute to address the subject of privacy, because I do have an amendment that I think would improve the protection of privacy.

1999 Ron Paul 71:2
We have had a lot of talk and indication on this side of the aisle about protecting privacy. But I believe the understanding of what our role is in protecting privacy, if it applied across the board, would mean that politicians and political action committees could never rent a list from the Sierra club or the American Civil Liberties Union.

1999 Ron Paul 71:3
But I am addressing the subject of Know Your Customer. At the same time we hear these declarations for protection of privacy, we hear from the same people that we cannot get rid of Know Your Customer.

1999 Ron Paul 71:4
Now, if one wants to really find something where one invades the privacy of the individual citizen, it is this notion that the Federal Government would dictate a profiling of every bank customer in this country; and then, if that customer varied its financial activities at any time, it could be reported to the various agencies of the Federal Government. Now, that is privacy. That is what we have to stop. I ask for support for my amendment.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 72
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

“Know Your Customer” Rules 1 July 1999

Mr. BARR of Georgia. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL). (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

1999 Ron Paul 72:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. BARR) for yielding this time to me.

1999 Ron Paul 72:2
Madam Chairman, if my colleagues are opposed to Know Your Customer regulations they must support this amendment because this does away with Know Your Customer regulations, the profiling of every single customer in this country. This notion that it is going to ruin law enforcement is just not valid. There is estimated $100 million cost for one conviction by the reports that are sent in, and this does not prohibit the banks from sending in reports. If there is a suspicious character, they can still do this.

1999 Ron Paul 72:3
So it will not hinder law enforcement. What it does, Madam Chairman: It protects the consumer, it protects the citizen, it protects the right of all Americans. We cannot rationalize and justify the abuse of liberty for the pretense that on occasion we might catch a criminal. But the fact that it could cost $100 million per conviction is sort of what I would call overkill.

1999 Ron Paul 72:4
What we must do is protect the American citizen. Law enforcement will not be hindered. If my colleagues are opposed to Know Your Customer regulation, they must vote for this amendment.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 73
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Salute To The City Of Yoakum, Texas 13 July 1999 HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, July 13, 1999

1999 Ron Paul 73:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the City of Yoakum, Texas, which will celebrate its 112th birthday on Wednesday, July 28, 1999, with a festival at the city’s Heritage Museum.

1999 Ron Paul 73:2
Yoakum is located partially in western Lavaca County and partially in eastern DeWitt County. Today, the city is known as the “Leather Capital of the World,” due primarily to the economic impact of 12 leather goods manufacturing firms and some 16 factory locations in Yoakum.

1999 Ron Paul 73:3
In its early years, Anglo-Americans used Yoakum as a gathering site for thousands of bawling Texas Longhorns that were grouped into cattle drives and driven along the Chisolm Trail to market. Yoakum’s townsite was established in 1887 with the arrival of the San Antonio & Aransas Pass Railroad—the railroad of Yoakum’s history.

1999 Ron Paul 73:4
Once, Yoakum was the “Green Wrap” tomato capita of the world and still commemorates this heritage with the annual “Tom Tom Festival.” As that industry faded, the community leaders—namely Mr. C. C. Welhausen— fostered the idea that Yoakum needed another industry as a base to its economy. The result: a leather industry era that now employs some 1,500 and produces millions of dollars of the Yoakum area economy.

1999 Ron Paul 73:5
Beef production is also huge in Yoakum, and both Lavaca and DeWitt Counties rank in the top five counties in the State of Texas in cow-calf operations. A true cowboy culture exists in the Yoakum area due to the thousands of head of cattle grown on area ranches.

1999 Ron Paul 73:6
I am proud to represent a city so full of rich, Texas heritage. Mr. Speaker, I hope you will join me sending happy birthday wishes to the City of Yoakum, Texas.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 74
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

H.R. 1691 And Religious Freedom 15 July 1999

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 31/2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL). (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

1999 Ron Paul 74:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule but in opposition to the bill.

1999 Ron Paul 74:2
Mr. Speaker, as a legislature of enumerated powers, Congress may enact laws only for constitutionally authorized purposes. Despite citing the general welfare and commerce clause, the purpose of H.R. 1691 is obviously to “protect religious liberty.” However, Congress has been granted no power to protect religious liberty. Rather, the first amendment is a limitation on congressional power. The first amendment of the United States Constitution provides that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion, yet H.R. 1691 specifically prohibits the free exercise of religion because it authorizes a government to substantially burden a person’s free exercise if the government demonstrates some nondescript, compelling interest to do so.

1999 Ron Paul 74:3
The U.S. Constitution vests all legislative powers in Congress and requires Congress to define government policy and select the means by which that policy is to be implemented. Congress, in allowing religious free exercise to be infringed using the least restrictive means whenever government pleads a compelling interest without defining either what constitutes least restrictive or compelling interest delegates, to the courts legislative powers to make these policy choices constitutionally reserved to the elected body.

1999 Ron Paul 74:4
Nowhere does H.R. 1691 purport to enforce the provisions of the fourteenth amendment as applied to the States. Rather, its design imposes a national uniform standard of religious liberty protected beyond that allowed under the United States Constitution, thereby intruding upon the powers of the State to establish their own policies governing protection of religious liberty as preserved under the tenth amendment. The interstate commerce clause was never intended to be used to set such standards for the entire Nation.

1999 Ron Paul 74:5
Admittedly, instances of State government infringement of religious exercise can be found in various forms and in various States, most of which, however, occur in government-operated schools, prisons and so-called government enterprises and as a consequence of Federal Government programs. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to believe that religious liberty will be somehow better protected by enacting national terms of infringement, a national infringement standard which is ill-defined by a Federal legislature and further defined by Federal courts, both of which are remote from those whose rights are likely to be infringed.

1999 Ron Paul 74:6
If one admires the Federal government’s handling of the abortion question, one will have to wait with even greater anticipation to witness the Federal government’s handiwork with respect to religious liberty.

1999 Ron Paul 74:7
To the extent governments continue to expand the breadth and depth of their reach into those functions formally assumed by private entities, governments will continue to be caught in a hopeless paradox where intolerance of religious exercise in government facilities is argued to constitute establishment and, similarly, restrictions of religious exercise constitute infringement.

1999 Ron Paul 74:8
Mr. Speaker, our Nation does not need an unconstitutional Federal standard of religious freedom. We need instead for government, including the courts, to respect its existing constitutional limitations so we can have true religious liberty.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 75
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Mail Receiving Agencies 15 July 1999

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Surfside, Texas (Mr. PAUL). (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

1999 Ron Paul 75:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise with some bit of ambivalence with this rule, but I will support the rule. I was concerned about a special issue with the Post Office and was hoping that we could address this in detail, and that has to do with the regulations that I consider very onerous and very maliciously placed on private mailboxes, the Commercial Receiving Agencies. I was very hopeful that we could deal with that. But it appears we will have another chance to do that at a later date.

1999 Ron Paul 75:2
I have a House joint resolution under the Congressional Review Act, H.J. Res. 55. If that were to pass, we could rescind all those regulations. Currently, it is my understanding that these regulations have been put on hold. They will not go into effect soon. But the problem still exists, and I see it as a serious problem.

1999 Ron Paul 75:3
First, let me talk about the Post Office. The Post Office is a true monopoly. In the free market, there are no true monopolies. Only government can allow a true monopoly.

1999 Ron Paul 75:4
We do have enough freedom in this country to some degree to offer competition to even this monopoly of the Post Office. By doing this, the private post offices have been set up to give additional service and privacy to many of our citizens, and they are well used.

1999 Ron Paul 75:5
But now the Post Office sees this as a competition because they are providing services that the Post Office cannot or will not provide. So instead of dealing with this, either providing legalized competition in the Post Office or providing these same services, instead, the Post Office has issued these onerous regulations to attack these customers.

1999 Ron Paul 75:6
They are forcing these private mailbox operators to develop profiles on every customer, have double identification, and then make this information available to the public and to the Post Office for no good reason.

1999 Ron Paul 75:7
When I first got involved in this, I did not know which constituencies would be interested in this issue. But one thing that I have discovered is that many of those women who need privacy will use private post offices to avoid the husband or some other individual who may be stalking them. They have been writing to me with a great deal of concern about what these regulations will do.

1999 Ron Paul 75:8
Also, it is a great cost to these operators as well as to all the customers. The Post Office would mandate that a special address be placed on each piece of mail, indicating that they are receiving mail at one of these private post offices. This costs a lot of money. There will be a lot of mail returned. If these regulations had gone into effect this week, as had been planned, a lot of mail, to the tune of hundreds of thousands of pieces, if not millions, would have been returned to the senders, and they would not have been permitted to be delivered.

1999 Ron Paul 75:9
I think this is tragic. I think it has to be dealt with. I am disappointed that we cannot do much with it today, but I know there is a growing support in this country and in this Chamber for doing something about this problem.

1999 Ron Paul 75:10
We as a Congress have the ability, and the authority, to undo regulations. For too long, we have allowed our regulatory bodies to write law, and we do nothing about it. Since 1994, we have had this authority, but we never use it. This is a perfect example of a time that we ought to come in and protect the people, try to neutralize this government monopoly and help these people who deserve this type of protection and privacy.

1999 Ron Paul 75:11
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. HOYER).

1999 Ron Paul 75:12
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the gentleman from Texas that I think he raises the question that is a good question; and it should be raised, should be looked at.

1999 Ron Paul 75:13
It will not come as a surprise to him that we do not agree on all the aspects of what he has said, but he certainly raises an issue that ought to be focused on. I know in talking to the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman KOLBE) that he shares that concern. I want to assure the gentleman that both the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. KOLBE) and myself will be looking at this.

1999 Ron Paul 75:14
Furthermore, as the gentleman may know, the Postal Department has made very substantial changes to its initially sponsored resolution through the efforts of the organizations that the gentleman from Texas talked to and himself and others who raised these issues with the department, so that they are moving to ensure greater privacy and protection to the individuals of which the gentleman spoke.

1999 Ron Paul 75:15
The gentleman from Texas raises a legitimate issue. I certainly intend to, along with the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. KOLBE), look at that further. I thank the gentleman for his comments.

1999 Ron Paul 75:16
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from Maryland.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 76
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Exchange Stabilization Fund 15 July 1999

1999 Ron Paul 76:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

1999 Ron Paul 76:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, and I thank the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. SANDERS) for bringing this amendment to the floor.

1999 Ron Paul 76:3
I would like to clarify one thing about the original intent of the Exchange Stabilization Fund. It was never meant to be used to support foreign currencies. It should not be so casually accepted that that is the proper function of the Exchange Stabilization Fund.

1999 Ron Paul 76:4
The Exchange Stabilization Fund was set up, I think in error; but it was set up for the purpose of stabilizing the dollar in the Depression. How did that come about? Well, it started with an Executive order. It started with an Executive order to take gold forcefully from the people. And then our President then revalued gold from $20 an ounce to $35 an ounce, and there was a profit and they took this profit and used some of those profits to start the Exchange Stabilization Fund. They set it up with $200 million. It does not seem like a whole lot of money today. How did it come about over these many years that this fund has been allowed to exist without supervision of this Congress, and now has reached to the size of $34 billion and we give it no oversight? It is supposed to send reports to us, very superficial reports to the Congress. We don’t know how they got $34 billion. They earned interest on some of the loans, and all the loans are paid back because the countries who get the loans borrow more money.

1999 Ron Paul 76:5
Mr. Chairman, the Mexico bailout did not solve the Mexico problem. It is ongoing. The peso is in trouble again. They are in more debt than before. We only encourage the financial bubble around the world. This is a dangerous notion that we can take something that was set up to stabilize the dollar, and now we are pretending we can stabilize all the currencies in the world and use it as foreign aid to boot without the congressional approval. There is something seriously flawed with this.

1999 Ron Paul 76:6
It has also been suggested by many who know a lot more about the details of the Exchange Stabilization Fund than I do, and it has been suggested that possibly, quite possibly, what happens is Treasury deals in currencies all the time and there are profits to be made. And when there is a profit, it goes into the Exchange Stabilization Fund. When there is a loss. It is sent over to the Treasury and then recorded as a loss.

1999 Ron Paul 76:7
This is a magnificent thing, but in a free society, in a democracy, in a republic where we are supposed to have the rule of law, we are not supposed to have a slush fund that is run by our Treasury without supervision to be doing things that was never intended. This is a serious problem. And I think economically it is serious because it is contributing to the bubble. It is contributing to a financial bubble.

1999 Ron Paul 76:8
So, yes, we tide Mexico over for a year or two, but what are we going to say next year when there is another peso crisis? Are we going to close our eyes and say we will do whatever we want, it is a major crisis? Our obligation here in the Congress is to have a sound dollar, not to dilute the value of the dollar without our permission and for our President and our Treasury Department and the IMF and the World Bank and the internationalists to destroy the value of the dollar. That is not permissible under the rule of law, and yet we have casually permitted this to happen and we do not even ask the serious questions.

1999 Ron Paul 76:9
We should make it certain that all loans, all use of that is reviewed by the Congress. This is a very, very modest request by the gentleman from Vermont. It should be absolutely approved. But then some day we ought to give a serious study about how we as a Congress allow these kind of things to happen without our supervision.

1999 Ron Paul 76:10
What is the purpose of having a Congress? What is the purpose of the Constitution if we have an obligation to guarantee the value of the dollar and if we permit somebody not under our control to do whatever they want to the dollar under the pretense that we are going to protect the value of all the currencies of Asia?

1999 Ron Paul 76:11
Mr. Chairman, are we going to protect the Euro now? The Euro is getting pretty weak. I guess we are going to bail out the Euro. When it drops down under a dollar, we will expect the Exchange Stabilization Fund to come and bail out the Euro. This has to be looked at. This is the first very modest, very minimal step that we are making tonight. It should be overwhelmingly supported.

1999 Ron Paul 76:12
It is up to us to assume our responsibility to protect the dollar, have the rule of law, make sure that we assume the responsibilities that have been delegated to us and not close our eyes and let this slush fund of $34 billion that has existed for now these many decades and have allowed the Treasury Department to run it without us caring. So I plead with my colleagues, support the amendment.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 77
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Africa Growth And Opportunity Act 16 July 1999

1999 Ron Paul 77:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, once again Congress demonstrates that it has no fundamental understanding of free trade or the best interests of the taxpayer. The Africa Growth & Opportunity Act is heavy-laden with the Development Assistance (foreign aid), debt forgiveness (so much for the balanced budget), OPIC expansion (thus putting the taxpayers further at risk), and of course a new international regulatory board to be funded with “such sums as may be necessary.” Additionally, the costs of this bill are paid by raising taxes on charity. Free trade, Washington style, is evidently not free for the taxpayer!

1999 Ron Paul 77:2
So what exactly is “free trade” and how far removed from this principle have those in Washington and the world drafted? Free trade, in its purest form, means voluntary exchange between individuals absent intervention by the coercive acts of government. When those individuals are citizens of different political jurisdictions, international trade is he term typically applied in textbook economics. For centuries, economists and philosophers have debated the extent to which governments should get in the way of such transactions in the name of protecting the national interest (or more likely some domestic industry). Obviously, both parties to exchange (free of intervention) expect to be better off or they would not freely engage in the transaction. It is the parties excluded (i.e. government and those out-competed) from the exchange who might have benefitted by being a party to it who can be relied upon to engage in some coercive activity to prevent the transaction in the hopes that their trading position will become more favorable by “default.”

1999 Ron Paul 77:3
Because governments have for so long engaged in one variety of firm-or-industry-benefitting protectionism or another, my “trade free of intervention” definition of free trade is currently quite out of favor with beltway-dominant pundits. Such wrongheaded thinking is not limited to government. In academia, a widelyused undergraduate economics text, authorized by David C. Colander, describes a “free trade association” as a “group of countries that allows free trade among its members and puts up common barriers against all other countries’ goods”—thus here we have free trade associations putting up barriers. (An economic textbook only Orwell could love.)

1999 Ron Paul 77:4
An example of what now constitutes “free trade” Washington style can be found within the US ENGAGE Congressional Scorecard. It is insightful to consider what USA ENGAGE regards as pro-free trade against the backdrop of the non-interventionist notion of free trade outlined above.

1999 Ron Paul 77:5
China Most Favored Nation (MFN), while politically charged, is perhaps the cleanest genuine free trade vote chosen by USA ENGAGE. The question posed by this legislation is whether tariffs (taxes on U.S. citizens purchasing goods imported from China) should be lower or higher. In other words, when American and Chinese citizens engage in voluntary exchanges, should Americans be taxed. Clearly the free trade position here is not to raise taxes on Americans and interfere with trade.

1999 Ron Paul 77:6
The Vietnam Waiver vote classification as a pro-free trade position is particularly indicative, however, of what now constitutes free trade in the alleged minds of the beltway elite. When government forces through taxation, citizens to forego consumption of their own choosing (in other words forego voluntary exchanges) so that government can send money to foreign entities (i.e. trade promotion), this in the mind of Washington insiders constitutes “free trade.” In other words, when demand curves facing the corporate elite are less than those desired, government’s help is then enlisted to shift the demand curve by forcing taxpayers to send money to various government and private entities whose spending patterns more favorably reflect those desired by those “engineering” such “free trade” policies in Washington. Much like tax cuts being a “cost to government” and “free trade associations” whose purpose it is to erect barriers, free trade has become government-coerced, taxpayer- financed foreign aid designed to result in specific private spending and private gains.

1999 Ron Paul 77:7
The Fast Track initiative highlighted in USA ENGAGE’s Congressional scorecard has its own particular set of Constitutional problems, but the free-trade arguments are most relevant and illustrative here. The fast-track procedure bill sets general international economic policy objectives, re-authorizes “Trade Adjustment Assistance” welfare for workers who lose their jobs and for businesses which fail (a gentler, kinder “welfarist” form of protectionism), and creates a new permanent position of Chief Agriculture Negotiator within the office of the United States Trade Representative. Lastly, like today’s legislative mishap, the bill “pays” the government’s “cost” of free trade by increasing taxes on a set of taxpayers further removed from those corporatists who hope to gain by engineering favorable international trade agreements.

1999 Ron Paul 77:8
Constitutional questions aside, like today’s H.R. 434, the fast track bill contained provisions which would likely continue our country down the ugly path of internationally-engineered, “managed trade” rather than that of free trade. As explained by the late economist Murray N. Rothbard, Ph.D.:

1999 Ron Paul 77:9
[Genuine free trade doesn’t require a treaty (or its deformed cousin, a ‘trade agreement’; NAFTA is called an agreement so it can avoid the constitutional requirement of approval by two-thirds of the Senate). If the establishment truly wants free trade, all it has to do is to repeal our numerous tariff, import quotas, anti-dumping laws, and other American-imposed restrictions of free trade. No foreign policy or foreign maneuvering in necessary.

1999 Ron Paul 77:10
In truth, the bipartisan establishment’s fanfare of “free trade” fosters the opposite of genuine freedom of exchange. Whereas genuine free traders examine free markets from the perspective of the consumer (each individual), the mercantilist examines trade from the perspective of the power elite; in other words, from the perspective of the big business in concert with big government. Genuine free traders consider exports a means of paying for imports, in the same way that goods in general are produced in order to be sold to consumers. The mercantilists want to privilege the government business elite at the expense of all consumers—be they domestic or foreign.

1999 Ron Paul 77:11
Fast track is merely a procedure under which the United States can more quickly integrate an cartelize government in order to entrench the interventionist mixed economy. In Europe, this process culminated in the Maastricht Treaty, the attempt to impose a single currency and central bank and force relatively free economies to ratchet up their regulatory and welfare states. In the United States, it has instead taken the form of transferring legislative and judicial authority from states and localities and to the executive branch of the federal government. Thus, agreements negotiated under fast track authority (like NAFTA) are, in essence, the same alluring means by which the socialistic Eurocrats have tried to get Europeans to surrender to the super-statism of the European Union. And just as Brussels has forced low-tax European countries to raise their taxes to the European average or to expand their respective welfare states in the name of “fairness,” a “level playing field,” and “upward harmonization,” so too will the international trade governors and commissions be empowered to “upwardly harmonize,” internationalize, and otherwise usurp laws of American state governments.

1999 Ron Paul 77:12
The harmonization language in the last Congress’ Food and Drug Administration reform bill constitutes a perfect example. Harmonization language in this bill has the Health and Human Services Secretary negotiating multilateral and bilateral international agreements to unify regulations in this country with those of others. The bill removes from the state governments the right to exercise their police powers under the tenth amendment to the constitution and, at the same time, creates a corporatist power elite board of directors to review medical devices and drugs for approval. This board, of course, is to be made up of “objective” industry experts appointed by national governments. Instead of the “national” variety, known as the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 (enacted for the “good reason” of protecting railroad consumers from exploitative railroad freight rates, only to be staffed by railroad attorneys who then used their positions to line the pockets of their respective railroads), we now have the same sham imposed upon worldwide consumers on an international scale soon to be staffed by heads of multinational pharmaceutical corporations.

1999 Ron Paul 77:13
The late economist Ludwig von Mises argued there is a choice of only two economic systems—capitalism or socialism. Intervention, he would say, always begets more interventionism to address the negative consequences of the prior intervention: thus, necessarily leading to yet further intervention until complete socialism is the only possible outcome. This principle remains true even in the case of intervention and free trade.

1999 Ron Paul 77:14
To the extent America is non-competitive, it is not because of a lack of innovation, ingenuity, or work ethic. Rather, it is largely a function of the overburdening of business and industry with excessive taxation and regulation. Large corporations, of course, greatly favor such regulation because it disadvantages their smaller competitors who either are not in a position to maintain the regulatory compliance department due to their limited size or, equally important, unable to “capture” the federal regulatory agencies whose regulation will be written to favor the politically adept and disfavor the truly productive. The rub comes when other governments engage in more laissez faire approaches thus allowing firms operating within those jurisdictions to become more competitive. It will be the products of these less-taxed, less-regulated firms which will be the consumers’ only hope to maintain their standard of living in a climate of domestic production burdened by regulation and taxation. The consumers’ after-tax income becomes lower and lower while relative prices of domestic goods become higher and higher. Free trade which provides the poor consumer an escape hatch, of course, is not the particular brand of “free trade” espoused by the international trade organizations whose purpose it is to exclude the more efficient competitors internationally in the same way federal regulatory agencies have been created and captured to do the equivalent task domestically.

1999 Ron Paul 77:15
Until policy makers can learn enough about trade and voluntary exchange to distinguish them from taxpayer-funded aid to bolster corporate revenues, OPIC, Export-Import funding, Market Access Program, and other forms of market intervention (each of which are quite the opposite of genuine free trade), the free trade discussion will remain at worst, a delusional discussion, and, at best, a hollow one.

1999 Ron Paul 77:16
For these reasons and others, I oppose the so-called free-trade-enhancing Africa Growth and Opportunity Act.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 78
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

On The United Nations And Embassy Security 19 July 1999

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL). (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

1999 Ron Paul 78:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

1999 Ron Paul 78:2
Mr. Chairman, my amendment strikes the authorizations in section 106 for all U.N.-related operations. We have a bill here tonight dealing with embassy security, U.S. embassy security, and we are all very concerned about it.

1999 Ron Paul 78:3
But in typical fashion, about all we have been offered so far has been just to put more money into our embassies and never raising the question about why our embassies might be more vulnerable. My amendment deals with that, because I would like to deal with the foreign policy involved with our commitment to the United Nations.

1999 Ron Paul 78:4
There are many in this Congress who readily admit they are internationalists. I readily admit that I am not an internationalist when it comes to political action and warmongering. Therefore, I think much of what we do in foreign policy makes ourselves more vulnerable. If we look at the two most recent bombings in Africa, these were brought about by our own foreign policy.

1999 Ron Paul 78:5
Those supporters of internationalism generally accuse those of us who are opposed to it by saying that we are isolationists. This is not true. I am not an isolationist. But I do believe in national sovereignty. I happen to sincerely believe that one cannot become an endorser of some form of internationalism without some sacrifice of our own sovereignty. I think this is the subject that we must address.

1999 Ron Paul 78:6
I believe in free trade. I do not believe in protectionism. I am not a protectionist. I think people, goods, and services and ideas should flow across borders freely. But when it comes to our armaments, under the guise of the U.N. orders or NATO orders, I do not believe this should be called something favorably as internationalism and those who oppose that as being isolationists.

1999 Ron Paul 78:7
I object to imposing our will on other people. I believe this is what we so often do. When we do that, we build hatreds around the world. That is why our embassies are less secure than many other nations. This is why we are bombed. We bomb Iraq endlessly. No wonder they hate us.

1999 Ron Paul 78:8
Iran right now, they have dissidents in the street; but they are blaming America, because there was a time when we put our dictator in charge of Iran as we have done so often around the world. Yet they only can come back by making our embassies vulnerable. It might be wiser for those countries that we cannot protect our embassies to put in a computerized operation because, in this day and age, we do not have to have embassies in the countries that are so dangerous.

1999 Ron Paul 78:9
But it is not the lack of security that is the problem, it is our type of policy that prompts the hatred toward America. I suggest we should look at some of this U.N. activity.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 79
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

On The United Nations And Embassy security 19 July 1999

1999 Ron Paul 79:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

1999 Ron Paul 79:2
Mr. Chairman, I am not addressing the imperfections of the United Nations. I am addressing the imperfection of our policy with the United Nations, which is a lot different.

1999 Ron Paul 79:3
We ignore the rule of law; we ignore international law when it pleases us. We did not accept the United Nations role when it came to Kosovo. We did not even accept NATO when it came to Kosovo. What we did, we just totally ignored it.

1999 Ron Paul 79:4
We invaded a sovereign nation. We did not abide by the rules of the United Nations. Then when we needed rescue from our policy, then we go limping to the United Nations to come in and please save our policy in Kosovo.

1999 Ron Paul 79:5
That is what I object to. I think that we should not renege and turn over our sovereignty to these international bodies. I believe there is motivation for this. When our commercial interests and financial interests are at stake, yes, we do get involved in the Persian Gulf; yes, we do get involved in Eastern Europe. But do we get involved in Rwanda? No, we do not. We ignore it.

1999 Ron Paul 79:6
So I say that we should have a policy that is designed for the sovereignty of this Nation; that we should not have troops serving under the United Nations; that we should not pretend to be a member of the United Nations and pretend to be a member of NATO and then not even follow the rules that have been laid down and that we have agreed to.

1999 Ron Paul 79:7
Generally, we always make our problems worse. Our wars are endless, and our occupations are endless. Someday we are going to have to wake up and design a new policy because this will not stop as long as we capitulate to the use of the United Nations and try to sacrifice our sovereignty to these international parties.

1999 Ron Paul 79:8
Now, this does not get us out of the United Nations. It is a step in that direction, obviously. But it is a step in the right direction because I think it is the proper use of our military if we do not capitulate and put it under NATO and put it in the United Nations. We need to use our military strictly in the defense of U.S. sovereignty.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 80
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Demanding Recorded Vote 19 July 1999

1999 Ron Paul 80:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 81
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Teacher Empowerment Act 20 July 1999

1999 Ron Paul 81:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise reluctantly to express my opposition to the Teacher Empowerment Act (H.R. 1995). Although H.R. 1995 does provide more flexibility to states than the current system or the Administration’s proposal, it comes at the expense of increasing federal spending on education. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that if Congress appropriates the full amount authorized in the bill, additional outlays would be $83 million in Fiscal Year 2000 and $6.9 billion over five years.

1999 Ron Paul 81:2
H.R. 1995 is not entirely without merit. The most important feature of the bill is the provision forbidding the use of federal funds for mandatory national teacher testing or teacher certification. National teacher testing or national teacher certification will inevitably lead to a national curriculum. National teacher certification will allow the federal government to determine what would-be teachers need to know in order to practice their chosen profession. Teacher education will revolve around preparing teachers to pass the national test or to receive a national certificate. New teachers will then base their lesson plans on what they needed to know in order to receive their Education Department-approved teaching certificate. Therefore, all those who oppose a national curriculum should oppose national teacher testing. I commend Chairman GOODLING and Chairman MCKEON for their continued commitment to fighting a national curriculum.

1999 Ron Paul 81:3
Furthermore, this bill provides increased ability for state and local governments to determine how best to use federal funds. However, no one should confuse this with true federalism or even a repudiation of the modern view of state and local governments as administrative agencies of the Federal Government. After all, the very existence of a federal program designed to “help” states train teachers limits a state’s ability to set education priorities since every dollar taken in federal taxes to fund federal teacher training programs is a dollar a state cannot use to purchase new textbooks or computers for students. This bill also dictates how much money the states may keep versus how much must be sent to the local level and limits the state government’s use of the funds to activities approved by Congress.

1999 Ron Paul 81:4
In order to receive any funds under this act, states must further entrench the federal bureaucracy by applying to the Department of Education and describing how local school districts will use the funds in accordance with federal mandates. They must grovel for funds while describing how they will measure student achievement and teacher quality; how they will coordinate professional development activities with other programs; and how they will encourage the development of “proven, innovative strategies” to improve professional development—I wonder how much funding a state would receive if their “innovative strategy” did not meet the approval of the Education Department! I have no doubt that state governments, local school districts, and individual citizens could design a less burdensome procedure to support teacher quality initiatives if the federal government would only abide by its constitutional limits.

1999 Ron Paul 81:5
Use of the funds by local school districts is also limited by the federal government. For example, local schools districts must use a portion of each grant to reduce class size, unless it can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the state that it needs the money to fund other priorities. This provision illustrates how this bill offends not just constitutional procedure but also sound education practice. After all, the needs of a given school system are best determined by the parents, administrators, community leaders, and, yes, teachers, closest to the students—not by state or federal bureaucrats. Yet this bill continues to allow distant bureaucrats to oversee the decisions of local education officials.

1999 Ron Paul 81:6
Furthermore, this bill requires localities to use a certain percentage of their funds to meet the professional development needs of math and science teachers. As an OB–GYN, I certainly understand the need for quality math and science teachers, however, for Congress to require local education agencies to devote a disproportionate share of resources to one particular group of teachers is a form of central planning—directing resources into those areas valued by the central planners, regardless of the diverse needs of the people. Not every school district in the country has the same demand for math and science teachers. There may be some local school districts that want to devote more resources to English teachers or foreign language instructors. Some local schools districts may even want to devote their resources to provide quality history and civics teachers so they will not produce another generation of constitutionallyilliterate politicians!

1999 Ron Paul 81:7
In order to receive funding under this bill, states must provide certain guarantees that the state’s use of the money will result in improvement in the quality of the state’s education system. Requiring such guarantees assumes that the proper role for the Federal Government is to act as overseer of the states and localities to ensure they provide children with a quality education. There are several flaws in this assumption. First of all, the 10th amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the Federal Government from exercising any control over education. Thus, the Federal Government has no legitimate authority to take money from the American people and use that money in order to bribe states to adopt certain programs that Congress and the federal bureaucracy believes will improve education. The prohibition in the 10th amendment is absolute; it makes no exception for federal education programs that “allow the states flexibility!”

1999 Ron Paul 81:8
In addition to violating the Constitution, making states accountable in any way to the federal government for school performance is counter-productive. The quality of American education has declined as Federal control has increased, and for a very good reason. As mentioned above, decentralized education systems are much more effective then centralized education systems. Therefore, the best way to ensure a quality education system is through dismantling the Washington-DC-based bureaucracy and making schools more accountable to parents and students.

1999 Ron Paul 81:9
In order to put the American people back in charge of education, I have introduced the Family Education Freedom Act (H.R. 935) which provides parents with a $3,000 tax credit for K–12 education expenses and the Education Improvement Tax Cut Act (H.R. 936), which provides all citizens with a $3,000 tax credit for contributions to K–12 scholarships and for cash or in-kind donations to schools. I have also introduced the Teacher Tax Cut Act, which encourages good people to enter and remain in the teaching profession by providing teachers with a $1,000 tax credit. By returning control of the education dollar to parents and concerned citizens, my education package does more to improve education quality than any other proposal in Congress.

1999 Ron Paul 81:10
Mr. Chairman, the Teacher Empowerment Act not only continues the federal control of education in violation of the Constitution and sound education principles, but it does so at increased spending levels. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to reject the approach of this bill and instead join me in working to eliminate the federal education bureaucracy, cut taxes, and thus return control over education to America’s parents, teachers, and students.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 82
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Free Trade 27 July 1999

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL). (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

1999 Ron Paul 82:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in opposition to this resolution and in support of free trade.

1999 Ron Paul 82:2
Mr. Speaker, the reason a country engages in free trade is not altruism—we do not encourage trade and low tariffs for the benefit of a trading partner. Even if the reciprocal country does not lower its tariffs we can still benefit.

1999 Ron Paul 82:3
Open and free trade with all nations, short of war, should be pursued for two specific reasons. One, it’s a freedom issue; the right of the citizens of a free country to spend their money any way they see fit, anywhere in the world. And two, free trade provides the best deal for consumers allowing each to cast dollar votes with each purchase respecting quality and price. The foreign competition is a blessing in that it challenges domestic industries to do better. The Japanese car industry certainly resulted in American car manufacturers offering more competitive products.

1999 Ron Paul 82:4
In setting trade policy we must not assume that it is our job to solve any internal political problems of our trading partners any more than it is their responsibility to deal with our internal shortcomings.

1999 Ron Paul 82:5
Our biggest problem here in the Congress is that we seemingly never have a chance to vote for genuine free trade. The choice is almost always between managed-plus-subsidized trade or sanctions-plus-protectionism. Our careless use of language (most likely deliberate) is deceitful.

1999 Ron Paul 82:6
Genuine free trade would involve low tariffs and no subsidies. Export-Import Bank funding, OPIC, and trade development subsidies to our foreign competitors would never exist. Trading with China should be permissible, but aid should never occur either directly or through multilateral banking organizations such as the IMF or World Bank. A true free trade policy would exclude the management of trade by international agencies such as the WTO and NAFTA. Unfortunately, these agencies are used too frequently to officially place restrictions on countries or firms that sell products “too cheaply”—a benefit to consumers but challenging to politically-favored domestic or established “competitors.” This is nothing more than worldwide managed trade (regulatory cartels) and will eventually lead to a trade war despite all the grandiose talk of free trade.

1999 Ron Paul 82:7
Trade policy should never be mixed with the issue of domestic political problems. Dictatorial governments trading with freer nations are more likely to respect civil liberties if they are trading with them. Also, it is true that nations that trade are less likely to go to war with one another.

1999 Ron Paul 82:8
If all trade subsidies are eliminated, there is less temptation on our part to impose conditions on others receiving our grants and loans.

1999 Ron Paul 82:9
Before we assume that we can improve the political liberties of foreign citizens, we must meet the responsibility of protecting all civil liberties of our own citizens irrespective of whether it is guaranteeing first and second amendment protections or guaranteeing the balance of power between the states and the federal government as required by the ninth and tenth amendments.

1999 Ron Paul 82:10
Every argument today for trading with China is an argument for removing all sanctions with all nations including Cuba, Libya, Iran and Iraq. None of these nations come close to being a threat to our national sovereignty. If trade with China is to help us commercially and help the cause of peace, so too would trade with all countries.

1999 Ron Paul 82:11
I look forward to the day that our trade debate may advance from the rhetoric of managed trade versus protectionism to that of true free trade, without subsidies or WTO-like management; or better yet, free trade with an internationally accepted monetary unit recognizing the fallacy of mismanaged fiat currencies.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 83
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

OPIC 2 August 1999

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL). (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

1999 Ron Paul 83:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support for this amendment. If it were true that this agency is profitable, we would not be here. They would be making profit, and OPIC would not need to come here every year.

1999 Ron Paul 83:2
They are asking for $55 million. Where does the profit come from? It was stated earlier very clearly; from the interest they earn. They have a portfolio of $3 billion of U.S. securities.

1999 Ron Paul 83:3
But these did not reduce the national debt. That is part of the national debt. We pay interest on that $3 billion. And this agency gets $194 million from it, four times the amount of the requested appropriation.

1999 Ron Paul 83:4
No wonder on paper it looks profitable. And they say, well, the private companies will not insure some of these projects. That means it is probably risky. Why should the taxpayer assume the risk? Why should these corporations be protected with this corporate welfare?

1999 Ron Paul 83:5
This is the reason why jobs are exported at a cost to the American taxpayer. It is bad economics. And it is a lot of twisting of the facts if we call this agency profitable at the same time they are getting $194 million that we barely talk about.

1999 Ron Paul 83:6
How many other agencies of government get interest like this? This is almost a government unto itself, the fact that it has that much financing without even a direct appropriation because it is paid out of the interest budget.

1999 Ron Paul 83:7
This is indeed a very important amendment. I believe that we should definitely vote for this. If we care at all about the taxpayer of this country, we should expose what is happening with corporate welfare.

1999 Ron Paul 83:8
The little people are not coming to us today begging us to vote against this amendment. It is the corporations, the giant corporations, not our small mom-and-pop businesses. They are not coming and saying, please, please protect OPIC. No, it is the giant corporations that have been able to manipulate and get benefits from programs like this.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 84
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Population Control 2 August 1999

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) is recognized for 5 minutes. (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

1999 Ron Paul 84:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

1999 Ron Paul 84:2
Mr. Chairman, the amendment is straightforward. It prohibits the use of any money for population control, family planning, or abortion of any funds authorized in this bill, appropriated in this bill.

1999 Ron Paul 84:3
Mr. Chairman, the question really is this: Should the American taxpayer be required to pay for birth control pills, IUDs, Depo-Provera, Norplant, condom distribution, as well as abortion in foreign countries. Those who believe this is a proper and legitimate function will vote against the amendment. Those who believe that it is not a proper function for us to be doing these things around the world would vote for my amendment.

1999 Ron Paul 84:4
Mr. Chairman, I mention abortion because although this bill does not authorize funds directly for abortion, any birth control center that is involved that receives funds from us and are involved with abortion, all they do is shift the funds. All funds are fungible, so any country that we give money to that is involved with abortion, for whatever reason, or especially in a family planning clinic, can very easily shift those funds and perform abortions. So this is very, very clear-cut.

1999 Ron Paul 84:5
I would like to spend a minute though on the authority that is cited for doing such a thing. Under the House rules, the committee is required to at least cite the constitutional authority for doing what we do on each of our bills. Of course, I was curious about this, because I was wondering whether this could be general welfare. This does not sound like the general welfare of the U.S. taxpayer, to be passing out condoms and birth control pills and forcing our will on other people, imposing our standards on them and forcing our taxpayers to pay. That does not seem to have anything to do whatsoever with the general welfare of this country.

1999 Ron Paul 84:6
Of course, the other clause that is generally used in our legislation is the interstate commerce clause. Well, it would be pretty tough, pretty tough, justifying passing out condoms in the various countries of the world under the interstate commerce clause.

1999 Ron Paul 84:7
So it was very interesting to read exactly what the justification is. The Committee on Appropriations, quoting from the committee report, the Committee on Appropriations bases its authority to report this legislation from clause 7, section 9 of Article I of the Constitution of the United States of America, which states “no money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of appropriation made by law.” “Appropriations contained in this act,” the report says, “are made pursuant to this specific power granted by the Constitution.”

1999 Ron Paul 84:8
That is not a power. That was a prohibition. It was to keep us from spending money without appropriation. If this is true, we can spend money on anything in the world, and the Constitution has zero meaning. This cannot possibly be.

1999 Ron Paul 84:9
So all I would suggest is this: Be a little more creative when we talk about the Constitution. There must be a more creative explanation on why we are spending these kinds of monies overseas.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 85
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Fungible Birth Control Funds 2 August 1999

1999 Ron Paul 85:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

1999 Ron Paul 85:2
Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman makes the point that we should not use the abortion issue to talk about fungibility and I believe that she is correct. I think it should apply to everything.

1999 Ron Paul 85:3
This is the reason I do strongly oppose Export-Import Bank money going to Red China. Their violations of civil liberties and abortions are good reasons why we should not do it, and yet they are the greatest recipient of our foreign aid from the Exim Bank. $5.9 billion they have received over the years.

1999 Ron Paul 85:4
So I would say, yes, the gentlewoman is correct. All of these programs are fungible. And I agree that the wording in the bill says that our funds cannot be used. But when we put our funds in with other funds, all of the sudden they are in a pool and they can shift them around and there is a real thing called fungibility.

1999 Ron Paul 85:5
So once we send money to a country for any reason, we endorse what they do. Therefore, we should be rather cautious. As a matter of fact, if we were cautious enough we would not be in the business of taking money at the point of a gun from our American taxpayer, doing things that they find abhorrent around the world and imposing our will and our standards on them.

1999 Ron Paul 85:6
Mr. Chairman, birth control methods are not perfectly safe. As a gynecologist, I have seen severe complications from the use of IUDs and Depo- Provera and Norplant. Women can have strokes with birth control pill. These are not benign.

1999 Ron Paul 85:7
And my colleagues say we want to stop the killing and abortions, but every time that the abortion is done with fungible funds, it is killing a human being, an innocent human being. So for very real reasons, if we were serious about stopping this and protecting the American taxpayer, there is nothing wrong with some of these goals. I agree. As a gynecologist, I would agree with the goals, but they should not be done through coercion. They should be done through voluntary means through churches and charities. That is the way it should be done.

1999 Ron Paul 85:8
Mr. Chairman, we do not have the authority to coerce our people to work hard, pay their taxes, and then take the money into foreign countries and impose our will on them.

The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate has expired.

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

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

1999 Ron Paul 85:9
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

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

The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 86
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Export-Import Bank, Overseas Private Investment Corp. and Trade And Development Agency 2 August 1999

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. PAUL

1999 Ron Paul 86:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

1999 Ron Paul 86:2
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. PAUL: Page 116, after line 5, insert the following: LIMITATION ON FUNDS FOR EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE UNITED STATES, OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT CORPORATION, AND THE TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT AGENCY SEC. . None of the funds made available pursuant to this Act for the Export-Import Bank of the United States, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, or the Trade and Development Agency, may be used to enter into any new obligation, guarantee, or agreement on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.

1999 Ron Paul 86:3
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, July 29, 1999, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. CALLAHAN) each will control 5 minutes.

1999 Ron Paul 86:4
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) is recognized for 5 minutes. (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

1999 Ron Paul 86:5
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

1999 Ron Paul 86:6
Mr. Chairman, this amendment provides that no funds for new obligations, guarantees, or agreements can be issued under the Export-Import Bank under OPIC or under the Trade Development Agency. This again is an attempt to try to slow up the amount of dollars that flow into corporations and for their benefit specifically as well as our foreign competitors.

1999 Ron Paul 86:7
China, for instance, receives the largest amount of money from the Export- Import Bank. Outstanding liabilities for the Export-Import Bank is now $55 billion. There is $5.9 billion that have been granted to the Chinese.

1999 Ron Paul 86:8
Last week we had a very important vote on trade. It was hotly debated over human rights issues. I voted to trade with China because I believe it is proper to trade with people. We are less likely to fight with them. And in this institution, too often we use our terms carelessly and we talk about free trade as being something which is managed trade. Free trade here generally means that we will have the NAFTA people managing trade, the World Trade Organization managing trade, and we will subsidize our businesses.

1999 Ron Paul 86:9
Just this past week we had the World Trade Organization rule against us saying that we grant $2 billion worth of tax benefits to our own corporations and they ruled that that was illegal. This is all done in the name of free trade.

1999 Ron Paul 86:10
I say that we should have free trade. We should trade with our friends and with anybody who would trade that we are not at war with. We should really, really be careful about issuing sanctions. But here we are, last week we had the great debate and a lot of people could not stand the idea of trading with Red China because of their human rights record and I understand that, although I did not accept that position. But this is the time to do something about it.

1999 Ron Paul 86:11
Trading with Red China under true free trade is a benefit to both of us. It is a benefit to our consumers and it benefits both countries because we are talking with people and we are not fighting with them. But it gets to be a serious problem when we tax our people in order to benefit those who are receiving the goods overseas. b 2245

1999 Ron Paul 86:12
Now, if there is a worldwide downturn, this $55 billion of liabilities out there could be very significant in how it is going to be paid back. The Chinese right now, their economy is not all that healthy. They are talking about a devaluation.

1999 Ron Paul 86:13
So this is a liability that the American taxpayers are exposed to. If we do have a concern about Red China and the Chinese, yes, let us work with them, let us trade with them, but let us not subsidize them.

1999 Ron Paul 86:14
This is what I am trying to do. I am trying to stop this type of subsidies. So my bill, my amendment would stop any new obligation. It does not close down Export-Import Bank. It allows all the old loans to operate and function, but no new obligations can be made, no new guaranties, and no agreement, with the idea that someday we may truly move to free trade, that we do not recognize free trade as being subsidized trade as well as internationally managed trade with organizations such as NAFTA and World Trade Organization.

1999 Ron Paul 86:15
Those institutions are not free trade institutions. They are managed trade institutions for the benefit of special interests. That is what this type of funding is for is for the benefit of special interests, whether it is our domestic corporation, which, indeed, I would recognize does receive some benefit.

1999 Ron Paul 86:16
Sixty-seven percent of all the funding of the Export-Import Bank goes to, not a large number of companies, to five companies. I will bet my colleagues, if they look at those five companies in this country that gets 67 percent of the benefit and look at their political action records, my colleagues might be enlightened. I mean, I bet my colleagues we would learn something about where that money goes, because they are big corporations and they benefit, and they will have their defenders here.

1999 Ron Paul 86:17
It is time we look carefully at these subsidies.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 87
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Foreign Subsidies 2 August 1999

1999 Ron Paul 87:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

1999 Ron Paul 87:2
Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that it is truly a subsidy to a foreign corporation, a foreign government. For Red China, corporations and governments are essentially identical. They are not really quite in the free market yet.

1999 Ron Paul 87:3
But the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. CALLAHAN) points out that, no, that is not true. The money does not go to Red China and they buy things; we just give it directly. We do not even send it round trip. This is true.

1999 Ron Paul 87:4
We take taxpayers’ money. We take taxpayers’ guarantee. We give them to those huge five corporations that do 67 percent of the business. We give them the money. But where do the goods go? Do the goods go to the American taxpayers? No. They get all of the liabilities. The subsidies help the Chinese.

1999 Ron Paul 87:5
So, technically, yes, we do not send the money there. But who is going to pay it back? The Chinese pays the loan back. If they default, who pays the bill if the Chinese defaults? Who pays the bill if they default? It is obviously the taxpayers.

1999 Ron Paul 87:6
What I am pointing out is that $5.9 billion that the Chinese now had borrowed from us, from the Export-Import Bank, is a significant obligation that, too, is on the backs of the American taxpayer.

1999 Ron Paul 87:7
So I urge support for the amendment because, if we are serious about free trade, just please do not call it free trade anymore. Call it managed trade. Call it subsidized trade. Call it special interest trade. But please do not call it free trade anymore, because it is not free trade.

1999 Ron Paul 87:8
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 88
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Demanding Recorded Vote 2 August 1999

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL). The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it.

1999 Ron Paul 88:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 89
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Selective Service System 5 August 1999

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul). (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

1999 Ron Paul 89:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me.

1999 Ron Paul 89:2
Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my support for this rule. It is a fair rule. There is plenty of room for debate and room for amendment.

1999 Ron Paul 89:3
I would like to congratulate the Committee on Appropriations for doing something very important in this bill by deleting all the funding for the Selective Service System. I think that is very important.

1999 Ron Paul 89:4
As was described by the gentlewoman earlier, there will be an attempt early on. The first amendment that will come to the floor will be to put that money back in.

1999 Ron Paul 89:5
I would like my colleagues to consider very seriously not to do that, because there is no need for the Selective Service System. There is only one purpose for the Selective Service System. That is to draft young 18-year-olds. That is unfair.

1999 Ron Paul 89:6
There is no such thing as a fair draft system. It is always unfair to those who are less sophisticated, who either avoid the draft or are able to get into the National Guard, or as it was in the Civil War, pay to get their way out.

1999 Ron Paul 89:7
The draft is a 20th century phenomenon, and I am delighted to see and very pleased that the Committee on Appropriations saw fit to delete this money because this, to me, is reestablishing one of the American traditions, that we do not believe in conscription. Conscription and drafting is a totalitarian idea.

1999 Ron Paul 89:8
I would like to remind many of my conservative colleagues that, if we brought a bill to this floor where we would say that we would register all of our guns in the United States, there would be a hue and cry about how horrible it would be. Yet, we casually accept this program of registering 18- year-old kids to force them to go and fight the political wars that they are not interested in. This is a very, very serious idea and principle of liberty.

1999 Ron Paul 89:9
So when the time comes in September to vote for this, I beg that my fellow colleagues will think seriously about this, the needlessness to spend $25 million to continue to register young people to go off to fight needless wars. They are not even permitted to drink beer; and, yet, we expect them to be registered and to use them to fight the wars that the older generation starts for political and narrow-minded reasons.

1999 Ron Paul 89:10
So when the time comes in September, please consider that there are ways that one can provide for an army without conscription. We have had the reinstitution of registration of the draft for 20 years. It has been wasted money. We can save the $25 million. We should do it. We should not put this money back in. We do not need the Selective Service System.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 90
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

The Appropriation For The Selective Service System Should Not Be Reinstated 8 September 1999

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

1999 Ron Paul 90:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, later today we will be dealing with the VA HUD bill; and I want to compliment the Committee on Appropriations for deleting the $24.5 million for the selective service system. There will be an attempt to put that money back into the bill. I think that is a serious mistake.

1999 Ron Paul 90:2
The military has not asked for the selective service to continue. We do not need it. It is a serious abuse of civil liberties of all 18- and 19-year-old to continue this registration. The registration is totally unnecessary. This $24.5 million could be better spent on veterans’ affairs or some other worthy cause, but to put the money back in is a serious mistake.

1999 Ron Paul 90:3
I would like to remind my conservative colleagues that Ronald Reagan had a very strong position on the draft and selective service. He agreed that it was a totalitarian notion to conscript young people and strongly spoke out against the draft whenever he had the opportunity.

1999 Ron Paul 90:4
I also would like to remind my conservative colleagues that if somebody came to the House floor and asked that we register all the guns of America, there would be a hue and cry about why this would be unconstitutional and unfair, and yet they are quite willing to register their 18- and 19-yearolds. I do not understand why there is less respect given for 18- and 19-yearolds than they give for their own guns.

1999 Ron Paul 90:5
I strongly urge that we not fund the selective service system today.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 91
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Selective Service System 8 September 1999

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL). (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

1999 Ron Paul 91:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. WALSH) for yielding me this time.

1999 Ron Paul 91:2
Mr. Chairman, I would like to compliment the committee, as well as the chairman of the subcommittee, for deleting the $24.5 million for the selective service system. That was a good move. To me it was a heroic step in the direction of more liberty for the individual.

1999 Ron Paul 91:3
There is no place in a free society to have a program of conscription and drafting of young people to fight unconstitutional wars. It saves $24 million, and I urge my colleagues not to support the funding for the selective service.

1999 Ron Paul 91:4
Ronald Reagan was a strong opponent of the draft. He spoke out against it. We do not need it. It is wasted money. It is absolutely unnecessary. The Department of Defense has spoken out clearly that it is not necessary for national security reasons to have a selective service system, and yet we continually spend $24.5 million annually for this program. So I urge all Members, all my colleagues, to oppose putting this money back in for the Selective Service System.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 92
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Selective Service System 8 September 1999

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL). The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.

1999 Ron Paul 92:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

1999 Ron Paul 92:2
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much this opportunity to address this amendment. I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. I compliment the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. WALSH), for deleting these funds, in this bill.

1999 Ron Paul 92:3
This to me is a heroic step in the right direction. We have an agency of Government spending more than $24 million a year accomplishing nothing. We live in an age when we do not need a draft. We live in an age of technology that makes the draft obsolete. Not only is it unnecessarily militarily to have a draft, it is budgetarily not wise to spend this type of money.

1999 Ron Paul 92:4
More importantly, I rise in strong objection on moral principles that the draft is wrong. In most of our history we did not have a draft. The gentleman from California early on pointed out that essentially since World War I we have had a draft, and that is true. Since in this century we have seen a diminished respect for personal liberty with the growth of the state we have seen much more willingness to accept the idea that young men belong to the state.

1999 Ron Paul 92:5
That is what the registration is all about. I have a young grandson that had to register not too long ago, and he came to me and said, You know, “they sent me a notice that I better go register. Why do I have to register, if they already know where I am and how old I am?” That is the case. The purpose of registration is nothing more than putting an emphasis on the fact that the state owns all 18-year-olds.

1999 Ron Paul 92:6
The unfortunate part about a draft is that too often draftees are used in wars that are not legitimate. This is so often the case. If this country faced an attack, we should have volunteers. We should all volunteer. But, unfortunately, the generation of politicians who declare the wars too often never serve. Some of them have not even served in the past. But they are willing to start wars that are not legitimate, and yet they depend on the draft. They depend on the draft for the men to go out and fight and die.

1999 Ron Paul 92:7
The one really strong reason we should all reject the idea of the draft is it is so unfair.

1999 Ron Paul 92:8
Let us say an argument is made that it is necessary. I happen to believe it is never necessary to violate somebody’s liberty, but let us say there is a sincere belief that it is necessary to impose a draft.

1999 Ron Paul 92:9
There is no such thing as a fair draft. This is why the sixties were in such turmoil in this country, because the elite frequently evaded the draft. If they are smart enough to get a deferment, they got off. Who suffers from the draft? The poor and the less educated, the inner city teenagers. They end up getting the draft, and they do not get the deferments. They cannot avoid it.

1999 Ron Paul 92:10
It is very important that we consider not only this vote on fiscal reasons and where we are taking the money. Quite frankly, I would much rather see this money stay in the programs where, as a fiscal conservative, I would not have otherwise voted for those funds nay. But any funding of that sort is so much better on principle than voting to perpetuate a system that has no purpose other than to conscript.

1999 Ron Paul 92:11
Conscription is not part of the American dream. It is not part of the American philosophy. It is not part of liberty. It is a totalitarian notion. Congress has the authority to raise an army, but it does not have the constitutional authority to enslave a certain group to bear the brunt of the fighting. A society that cherishes liberty will easily find its volunteer defenders if it is attacked. A free society that cannot find those willing to defend itself without coercion cannot survive, and probably does not deserve to.

1999 Ron Paul 92:12
A free society that depends on the vicious totalitarian principle of conscription is, by its very nature, no longer free.

1999 Ron Paul 92:13
We gradually lost our love for individual liberty throughout the 20th century as the people and the Congresses capitulated to the notion of the military draft. The vote on the Selective Service System funding will determine whether or not we are willing to take a very welcome, positive step in the direction of more liberty by rejecting the appropriations for the Selective Service System.

1999 Ron Paul 92:14
There is no other vote that a Member of Congress can cast that defines one’s belief and understanding regarding the principle of personal liberty than a vote supporting or rejecting the draft. This vote gives us a rare opportunity to reverse the trend toward bigger and more oppressive government.

1999 Ron Paul 92:15
Yes, preserving liberty is worth fighting and even dying for, but conscription is incompatible with that goal. We cannot make men free by first enslaving them and forcing them to sacrifice their lives and liberty for the policies conceived by misdirected politicians and international warmongers.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 93
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Consistency In Voting 8 September 1999

1999 Ron Paul 93:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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

1999 Ron Paul 93:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. The gentleman has called attention to my voting record. I would say that if I could show the gentleman that I voted 100 percent for the Constitution, would the gentleman still complain about my voting record being 90 percent, 99 percent in opposition? Being for liberty is not a negative position.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 94
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Recognizing The Brazosport RehabCare Center And National Rehabilitation Awareness Week 8 September 1999 HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, September 8, 1999

1999 Ron Paul 94:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize and join with the Brazosport RehabCare Center in Lake Jackson, Texas, in observing and celebrating National Rehabilitation Awareness week beginning September 12 through September 18, 1999.

1999 Ron Paul 94:2
The Brazosport RehabCare Center opened its doors on December 31, 1992. Construction was completed at the end of April, 1993, for a total of 14 acute rehabilitation beds.

1999 Ron Paul 94:3
The Brazosport RehabCare Center is located in Brazosport Memorial Hospital in Lake Jackson, Texas. The primary service areas include the cities of Lake Jackson, Clute, Freeport, Angleton, Danbury and Brazoria. This service area has a combined population of approximately 95,000. The secondary service area includes the cities of Sweeny, West Columbia and Old Ocean with a population of approximately 16,000. The RehabCare Center has also attracted patients from Bay City and Alvin.

1999 Ron Paul 94:4
Comprehensive impatient rehabilitation services are provided to individuals with orthopedic, neurological and other medical conditions of recent onset or regression. These patients have experienced a loss of function in activities of daily living, mobility, cognition or communication. Types of patients admitted into the Brazosport RehabCare Center may include those with a diagnosis of stroke, spinal cord injury or dysfunction, brain injury, amputation, multiple trauma, hip fracture or joint replacement, arthritis, congenial deformity, burns or other progressive neuralgic syndromes such as Parkinson’s Disease, Multiple Sclerosis and Gullian Barre.

1999 Ron Paul 94:5
The services Brazosport RehabCare Center provides include rehabilitation medicine, rehabilitation nursing, physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech/language pathology, social work, psychology and recreational activities. In addition, prosthetics/orthodics, vocational rehabilitation, audiology and driver education are provided when necessary through affiliate agreements with external organizations. The goal of each service is to maximize the individual’s potential in the restoration of function or adjustment by integrating with other services.

1999 Ron Paul 94:6
By addressing the multiple effects that disability has on the patient and family and by integrating the combined resources of patient, family and interdisciplinary rehabilitation team, comprehensive rehabilitation programming can maximize the abilities and esteem of the patient and family and foster a healthy re-integration into the community. At the Brazosport RehabCare Center, patient outcomes are exceptionally positive. Eighty-six percent of their patients are able to return home and lead an independent lifestyle.

1999 Ron Paul 94:7
I am proud and honored to have the Brazosport RehabCare rehabilitation facilities at Brazosport Memorial Hospital, Lake Jackson, Texas. Please join me in recognizing the Brazosport RehabCare Center for its outstanding services and remarkable accomplishments as we celebrate National Rehabilitation Awareness week.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 95
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Recognizing The Brazosport RehabCare Center And National Rehabilitation Awareness Week 8 September 1999 HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, September 8, 1999

1999 Ron Paul 95:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize and join with the Brazosport RehabCare Center in Lake Jackson, Texas, in observing and celebrating National Rehabilitation Awareness week beginning September 12 through September 18, 1999.

1999 Ron Paul 95:2
The Brazosport RehabCare Center opened its doors on December 31, 1992. Construction was completed at the end of April, 1993, for a total of 14 acute rehabilitation beds.

1999 Ron Paul 95:3
The Brazosport RehabCare Center is located in Brazosport Memorial Hospital in Lake Jackson, Texas. The primary service areas include the cities of Lake Jackson, Clute, Freeport, Angleton, Danbury and Brazoria. This service area has a combined population of approximately 95,000. The secondary service area includes the cities of Sweeny, West Columbus and Old Ocean with a population of approximately 16,000. The RehabCare Center has also attracted patients from Bay City and Alvin.

1999 Ron Paul 95:4
Comprehensive inpatient rehabilitation services are provided to individuals with orthopedic, neurological and other medical conditions of recent onset or regression. These patients have experienced a loss of function in activities of daily living, mobility, cognition or communication. Types of patients admitted into the Brazosport RehabCare Center may include those with a diagnosis of stroke, spinal cord injury or dysfunction, brain injury, amputation, multiple trauma, hip fracture or joint replacement, arthritis, congenial deformity, burns or other progressive neuralgic syndromes such as Parkinson’s Disease, Multiple Sclerosis and Gullian Barre.

1999 Ron Paul 95:5
The services Brazosport RehabCare Center provides include rehabilitation medicine, rehabilitation nursing, physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech/language pathology, social work, psychology and recreational activities. In addition, prosthetics/orthodics, vocational rehabilitation, audiology and driver education are provided when necessary through affiliate agreements with external organizations. The goal of each service is to maximize the individual’s potential in the restoration of function or adjustment by intergrating with other services.

1999 Ron Paul 95:6
By addressing the multiple effects that disability has on the patient and family and by integrating the combined resources of patient, family and interdisciplinary rehabilitation team, comprehensive rehabilitation programming can maximize the abilities and esteem of the patient and family and foster a healthy re-integration into the community. At the Brazosport RehabCare Center, patient outcomes are exceptionally positive. Eighty-six percent of their patients are able to return home and lead an independent lifestyle.

1999 Ron Paul 95:7
I am proud and honored to have the Brazosport RehabCare rehabilitation facilities at Brazosport Memorial Hospital, Lake Jackson, Texas. Please join me in recognizing the Brazosport RehabCare Center for its outstanding services and remarkable accomplishments as we celebrate National Rehabilitation Awareness week.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 96
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Recognizing The Brazosport RehabCare Center And National Rehabilitation Awareness Week 9 September 1999 HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, September 9, 1999

1999 Ron Paul 96:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize and join with the Brazosport RehabCare Center in Lake Jackson, Texas in observing and celebrating National Rehabilitation Awareness Week beginning September 12 through September 18, 1999.

1999 Ron Paul 96:2
The Brazosport RehabCare Center opened its doors on December 31, 1992. Construction was completed at the end of April 1993, for a total of 14 acute rehabilitation beds. The Brazosport RehabCare center is located in Brazosport Memorial Hospital in Lake Jackson, Texas. The primary service areas include the cities of Lake Jackson, Clute, Freeport, Angleton, Danbury and Brazoria. This service area has a combined population of approximately 95,000. The secondary service area includes the cities of Sweeny, West Columbia and Old Ocean with a population of approximately 16,000. The RehabCare Center has also attracted patients from Bay City and Alvin.

1999 Ron Paul 96:3
Comprehensive inpatient rehabilitation services are provided to individuals with orthopedic, neurological and other medical conditions of recent onset or regression. These patients have experienced a loss of function in activities of daily living, mobility, cognition or communication. Types of patients admitted into the Brazosport RehabCare Center may include those with a diagnosis of stroke, spinal cord injury or dysfunction, brain injury, amputation, multiple trauma, hip fracture or joint replacement, arthritis, congenial deformity, burns or other progressive neuralgic syndromes such as Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis and Gullian Barre.

1999 Ron Paul 96:4
The services Brazosport RehabCare Center provides include rehabilitation medicine, rehabilitation nursing, physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech/language pathology, social work, psychology and recreational activities. in addition, prosthetics/orthodics, vocational rehabilitation, audiology and driver education are provided when necessary through affiliate agreements with external organizations. The goal of each service is to maximize the individual’s potential in the restoration of function or adjustment by integrating with other services.

1999 Ron Paul 96:5
By addressing the multiple effects that disability has on the patient and family and by integrating the combined resources of patient, family and interdisciplinary rehabilitation team, comprehensive rehabilitation programming can maximize the abilities and esteem of the patient and family and foster a healthy re-integration into the community. At the Brazosport RehabCare Center, patient outcomes are exceptionally positive. Eighty-six percent of their patients are able to return home and lead an independent lifestyle.

1999 Ron Paul 96:6
I am proud and honored to have the Brazosport RehabCare rehabilitation facilities at Brazosport Memorial Hospital, Lake Jackson, Texas. Please join me in recognizing the Brazosport RehabCare Center for its outstanding services and remarkable accomplishments as we celebrate National Rehabilitation Awareness Week.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 97
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Campaign Finance Reform 14 September 1999

1999 Ron Paul 97:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, campaign finance reform is once again being painted as the solution to political corruption in Washington. Indeed, political corruption is a problem, but today’s reformers hardly offer a solution. The real problem is that government has too much influence over our economy and lives, creating a tremendous incentive to protect one’s own interests by ‘investing’ in politicians. The problem is not a lack of federal laws, or rules regulating campaign spending, therefore more laws won’t help. We hardly suffer from too much freedom. Any effort to solve the campaign finance problem with more laws will only make things worse by further undermining the principles of liberty and private property ownership.

1999 Ron Paul 97:2
The reformers are sincere in their effort to curtail special interest influence on government, but this cannot be done while ignoring the control government has assumed over our lives and economy. Current reforms address only the symptoms while the root cause of the problem is ignored. Since reform efforts involve regulating political speech through control of political money, personal liberty is compromised. Tough enforcement of spending rules will merely drive the influence underground since the stakes are too high and much is to be gained by exerting influence over government—legal or not. The more open and legal campaign expenditures are, with disclosure, the easier it is for voters to know who’s buying influence from whom.

1999 Ron Paul 97:3
There’s tremendous incentive for every special interest group to influence government. Every individual, bank or corporation that does business with government invests plenty in influencing government. Lobbyists spend over a hundred million dollars per month trying to influence Congress. Taxpayers dollars are endlessly spent by bureaucrats in their effort to convince Congress to protect their own empires. Government has tremendous influence over the economy, and financial markets through interest rate controls, contracts, regulations, loans, and grants. Corporations and others are ‘forced’ to participate in the process out of greed as well as self-defense—since that’s the way the system works. Equalizing competition and balancing power such as between labor and business is a common practice. As long as this system remains in place, the incentive to buy influence will continue.

1999 Ron Paul 97:4
Many reformers recognize this and either like the system or believe that it’s futile to bring about changes and argue that curtailing influence is the only option left even if it involves compromising the liberty of political speech through regulating political money.

1999 Ron Paul 97:5
It’s naive to believe stricter rules will make a difference. If enough honorable men and women served in Congress and resisted the temptation to be influenced by any special interest group, of course this whole discussion would be unnecessary. Because Members do yield to the pressure, the reformers believe that more rules regulating political speech will solve the problem.

1999 Ron Paul 97:6
The reformers argue that it’s only the fault of those trying to influence government and not the fault of the Members who yield to the pressure or the system that generates the abuse. This allows Members of Congress to avoid assuming responsibility for their own acts and instead places the blame on those who exert pressure on Congress through the political process which is a basic right bestowed on all Americans. The reformer’s argument is “stop us before we succumb to the special interest groups.”

1999 Ron Paul 97:7
Politicians unable to accept this responsibility clamor for a system that diminishes the need for politicians to persuade individuals and groups to donate money to their campaign. Instead of persuasion they endorse coercing taxpayers to finance campaigns.

1999 Ron Paul 97:8
This only changes the special interest groups that control government policy. Instead of voluntary groups making their own decisions with their own money, politicians and bureaucrats dictate how political campaigns will be financed. Not only will politicians and bureaucrats gain influence over elections, other nondeservers will benefit. Clearly, incumbents will greatly benefit by more controls over campaign spending—a benefit to which the reformers will never admit.

1999 Ron Paul 97:9
The media becomes a big winner. Their influence grows as private money is regulated. It becomes more difficult to refute media propaganda, both print and electronic, when directed against a candidate if funds are limited. Campaigns are more likely to reflect the conventional wisdom and candidates will strive to avoid media attacks by accommodating their views.

1999 Ron Paul 97:10
The wealthy gain a significant edge since it’s clear candidates can spend unlimited personal funds in elections. This is a big boost for the independently wealthy candidates over the average challenger who needs to raise and spend large funds to compete.

1999 Ron Paul 97:11
Celebrities will gain even a greater benefit than they already enjoy. Celebrity status is money in the bank and by limiting the resources to counter-balance this advantage, works against the non-celebrity who might be an issue-oriented challenger.

1999 Ron Paul 97:12
This current reform effort ignores the legitimate and moral “political action committees” that exist only for good reasons and do not ask for any special benefit from government. The immoral “political action committees” that work only to rip-off the taxpayers by getting benefits from government may deserve our condemnation but not the heavy hand of government anxious to control this group along with all the others. The reformers see no difference between the two and are willing to violate all personal liberty. Since more regulating doesn’t address the basic problem of influential government, now out of control, neither groups deserves more coercive government rules. All the rules in the world can’t prevent members from yielding to political pressure of the groups that donate to their campaigns. Regulation cannot instill character.

1999 Ron Paul 97:13
Additionally, the legislative debate over campaign finance reform has seemingly focused upon the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech, as interpreted and applied by the courts. The constitutional issues, however, are not limited to the First Amendment. To the contrary, pursuant to their oaths of office, members of Congress have an independent duty to determine the constitutionality of legislation before it and to decide, before ever reaching the First Amendment, whether they have been vested by the Constitution with any authority, at all, to regulate federal election campaigns. Congress has no authority except that which is “granted” in the Constitution. Thus, the threshold question concerning H.R. 417 is whether the Constitution has conferred upon Congress any authority to regular federal election campaigns. The authority to regulate such campaigns is not found among any enumerated power conferred upon Congress.

1999 Ron Paul 97:14
More regulation of political speech through control of private money, without addressing the subject of influential government only drives the money underground, further giving a select group an advantage over the honest candidate who only wants smaller government.

1999 Ron Paul 97:15
True reform is not possible without changing the role of government, which now exists to regulate, tax, subsidize, and show preferential treatment. Only changing the nature of government will eliminate the motive for so many to invest so much in the political process. But we should not make a bad situation worse by passing more bad laws.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 98
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Preserving Housing for Senior Citizens and Families into the 21st Century 27 September 1999

1999 Ron Paul 98:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 202. “Preserving Housing for Senior Citizens and Families into the 21st Century.” While my views on respecting our Constitution limitations regarding Federal issues are well known and need not be repeated here now, I have other concerns regarding this bill specifically.

1999 Ron Paul 98:2
That the House of Representatives would consider any bill authorizing about a billion dollars of taxpayer funds annually on the suspension calendar (an expedited procedure reserved for “non controversial” bills) show how far we have moved from our posturing that we claim to respect the concerns of taxpayers.

1999 Ron Paul 98:3
The consideration of this bill succumbs to the misperception that the best course of action to any perceived problem is further (Federal) governmental response. Clearly, that is not the case. Recently, John Stossel hosted an ABC television special, “Is America Number One!” In that show, he examined the premise of governmental solutions to problems always being best and concluded:

1999 Ron Paul 98:4
Intuition would suggest that countries with the most government planning, places where you’re taken care of, would be the best places to live. But in fact the opposite is true, countries with the most planning are the most poor. Several organizations rank countries by economic freedom. At one end are places with lots of government planning. Invariably, these are the worst places to live. At the other end on the list—Hong Kong, New Zealand, Switzerland, and the United States. The best places to live are places with the fewest rules. Freedom isn’t everything. Climate matters. Religion, geography, even luck can make a difference. But nothing matters as much as . . . Liberty.

1999 Ron Paul 98:5
In the show, Peter Jennings said that “Nearly 37 million Americans now live below the official poverty line.” Federal Reverse economist Machael Cox explained, “The government says now 13.3 percent of households are in poverty. Let’s go see what households in poverty have. Ninety-seven percent of households in poverty have color televisions. Two thirds have microwave ovens and live in air-conditioned buildings. Seventy-five percent have one or more cars.”

1999 Ron Paul 98:6
Unfortunately, H.R. 202 makes the situation worse by diluting our current policy of helping the truly needy in favor of creating a middle class entitlement by expanding eligibility for occupancy to as high as 80% of the area median income for existing housing developments for seniors. I commend Mr. Stossel for illustrating clearly that choosing liberty is the best path for making a difference. I wish more of my colleagues heeded his advise.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 99
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

East Timor 28 September 1999

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL). (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

1999 Ron Paul 99:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution, not because I lack concern for the serious problems that the East Timorese are undergoing, and not for lack of humanitarian concerns for this group of people or anybody in the world. It is just that there is another side to the argument for us intervening. And, besides, we helped create the problem in Indonesia.

1999 Ron Paul 99:2
In the 1970’s, we were very supportive of the Indonesian Government in their takeover of East Timor after it became independent from Portugal. So once again, here we are intervening.

1999 Ron Paul 99:3
I would like to advise my colleagues that we are not just endorsing a humanitarian effort to help people who are suffering. We are literally giving the President carte blanche to go and commit war in this area. We are committing ourselves to troops, and it is an open-ended policy.

1999 Ron Paul 99:4
We complained a whole lot about what was happening in Kosovo. And that operation has not ended. It is continuing. This is just another example of being involved, although with good intentions, but with unintended consequences just hanging around the corner.

1999 Ron Paul 99:5
I would like to point out that some of those unintended consequences can be rather serious. I would like to call my colleagues’ attention to number 11 under the resolve clause, making these points. Number 11 says it “expresses support for a rapid and effective deployment throughout East Timor of the United Nations Security Council-endorsed multilateral force.” This means troops.

1999 Ron Paul 99:6
Our Security Council has already decided to send troops to East Timor. What we are doing today is rubber stamping this effort to send troops into another part of the world in a place where we have no national security interests. We do not know what victory means. We do not know what lies ahead.

1999 Ron Paul 99:7
In addition, under number 13, it “expresses approval of United States logistical and other technical support for deployment of a multinational force for East Timor.” Troops, that is what it means, endangerment and risk that this could escalate.

1999 Ron Paul 99:8
Under number 13, there is another part that concerns me a great deal. In the 1970s, we passed the War Powers Resolution. Both conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats endorsed the notion that Presidents should be restrained in their effort to wage war without declaration.

1999 Ron Paul 99:9
Once again, we are endorsing the concept that, if we just subtly and quietly endorse a President’s ability and authority to go into a foreign country under the auspices of the United Nations, we do not have to deal with the real issue of war. But under 13(B), it explicitly restates the fact that a President in this situation can at least wage war for 60 days before we have much to say about it.

1999 Ron Paul 99:10
I think this is dangerous. We should be going in the other direction. This is certainly what was expressed many, many times on the floor during the Kosovo debates. But we lost that debate, although we had a large number of colleagues that argued for non-involvement. We are now entrenched in Kosovo, and we are about to become entrenched in East Timor, not under the auspices of the United States, but under the United Nations.

1999 Ron Paul 99:11
I do not see that the sanctity and the interests of the United States will be benefitted by what we are getting ready to do.

1999 Ron Paul 99:12
Number 16 under the resolved clause, “recognizes that an effective United States foreign policy for this region requires both an effective near-term response to the ongoing humanitarian violence in, and progress toward independence for, East Timor.”

1999 Ron Paul 99:13
If we decide that we have to fight for and engage troops for everybody who wants to be independent, we have a lot of work ahead of us. And, in addition, in the same clause, “and a long-term strategy for supporting stability, security and democracy.”

1999 Ron Paul 99:14
This is a major commitment. This is not just a resolution that is saying that we support humanitarian aid. This is big stuff. The American people ought to know it, the Members of Congress ought to know it.

1999 Ron Paul 99:15
This resolution became available to me just within the last 20 minutes. It has been difficult to know exactly what is in it, and yet it is very significant, very important; and we in the Congress should not vote casually and carelessly on this issue. This is a major commitment. I think it is going in the wrong direction, and we should consider the fact that there are so often unintended consequences from our efforts to do what is right.

1999 Ron Paul 99:16
I understand the motivation behind this, but tragically this type of action tends to always backfire because we do not follow the rule of law. And the rule of law says if we commit troops, we ought to get the direct and explicit authority from the Congress with a war resolution. This, in essence, is a baby war resolution, but it is a war resolution.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 100
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Humanitarian Aid 28 September 1999

1999 Ron Paul 100:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. LANTOS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

1999 Ron Paul 100:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. The gentleman makes a good case for the humanitarian needs of the people. My point is that sometimes our efforts do not do what we want.

1999 Ron Paul 100:3
For instance, the gentleman talks about the thugs that are in Indonesia, those who are violating the rights of the East Timorese. We have to realize that they have been our allies and we helped set up the situation. So our interventions do not always do what we want.

1999 Ron Paul 100:4
Also, the gentleman talks about the Soviets. We supported the Soviets.

Mr. LANTOS. Reclaiming my time, if I may, Mr. Speaker. If I may remind my colleague of history, it was President Ford and under President Ford’s tenure that we acquiesced in the occupation of East Timor by the Indonesian military.

1999 Ron Paul 100:5
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I think the gentleman is absolutely correct. But I happen to see these things in a very nonpartisan manner. So to turn this into a Republican versus Democrat issue, I think, is in error. I would like to suggest that the careless use of the word isolationism does not apply to me because I am not a protectionist. I believe in openness. I want people and capital and goods and services to go back and forth. When we trade with people, we are less likely to fight with them.

1999 Ron Paul 100:6
So the proposal and the program I am suggesting is a constitutional program. I believe it is best for the people. It has nothing to do with isolating ourselves from the rest of the world. It is to isolate ourselves from doing dumb things that get us involved in things like Korea and Vietnam, where we do not even know why we are there and we end up losing. That is what I am opposed to.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 101
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

War On East Timor 28 September 1999

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

1999 Ron Paul 101:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond. To try to tie in World War II is not quite fair. I think the gentleman has to admit that we are not talking about that. Besides, I am talking as much about procedure as I am talking about the policy itself.

1999 Ron Paul 101:2
In World War II there was a serious problem around the world. It was brought to this Congress. We voted on a war resolution. We went to war. The country was unified, and we won. That is what I endorse, that procedure. What I do not endorse is us getting involved the back-door way; getting involved carelessly and casually. Not realizing what we are doing.

1999 Ron Paul 101:3
I come to the floor only to try to warn my colleagues of what they are voting on today; that this is not just a simple humanitarian resolution. It is the process I’m concerned about. If we bring a war resolution to the floor and say, look, we need to go to war to defend the East Timorese, we can vote it up and down and decide to go over and settle it in 2 or 3 months. But we should not do what we are doing now, to endorse internationalism, or interventionism that inevitably fails.

1999 Ron Paul 101:4
I think there is a better way to proceed, and it is written in the Constitution.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 102
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Unborn Victims Of Violence Act 30 September 1999

1999 Ron Paul 102:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, pro-life Members of Congress are ecstatic over the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, touting it as a good step toward restoring respect for life, and once again criminalizing abortion. This optimism and current effort must be seriously challenged.

1999 Ron Paul 102:2
As a pro-life obstetrician-gynecologist, I strongly condemn the events of the last third of the 20th century in which we have seen the casual acceptance of abortion on demand.

1999 Ron Paul 102:3
The law’s failure to protect the weakest, smallest and most innocent of all the whole human race has undermined our respect for all life, and therefore for all liberty. As we have seen, once life is no longer unequivocally protected, the loss of personal liberty quickly follows.

1999 Ron Paul 102:4
The Roe v. Wade ruling will in time prove to be the most significantly flawed Supreme Court ruling of the 20th century. Not only for its codification, through an unconstitutional court action, of a social consensus that glorified promiscuity and abortion of convenience and for birth control, but for flaunting as well the constitutional system that requires laws of this sort be left to the prerogative of the states alone. A single “Roe v. Wade” ruling by one state would be far less harmful than a Supreme Court ruling that nullifies all state laws protecting the unborn.

1999 Ron Paul 102:5
Achieving the goal of dehumanizing all human life, by permitting the casting aside all pre-born life, any time prior to birth, including partially born human beings, Roe v. Wade represents a huge change in attitudes toward all life and liberty. Now pro-life Members are engaged in a similar process of writing more national laws in hopes of balancing the court’s error. This current legislative effort is just as flawed.

1999 Ron Paul 102:6
Traditionally, throughout our history, except for the three constitutional provisions, all crimes of violence have been—and should remain —state matters. Yet this legislation only further undermines the principle of state jurisdiction, and our system of law enforcement, which has served us well for most of our history.

1999 Ron Paul 102:7
Getting rid of Roe v. Wade through a new court ruling or by limiting federal jurisdiction would return this complex issue to the states.

1999 Ron Paul 102:8
Making the killing of an unborn infant a federal crime, as this bill does, further institutionalizes the process of allowing federal courts to destroy the constitutional jurisdiction of the states. But more importantly, the measure continues the practice of only protecting some life, by allowing unborn children to be killed by anyone with an “M.D.” after his name.

1999 Ron Paul 102:9
By protecting the abortionist, this legislation carves out a niche in the law that further ingrains in the system the notion that the willful killing of an innocent human being is not deserving of our attention. With more than a million children a year dying at the hands of abortionists, it is unwise that we ignore these acts for the sake of political expediency.

1999 Ron Paul 102:10
Pro-abortion opponents of this legislation are needlessly concerned regarding its longterm meaning, and supporters are naively hoping that unintended consequences will not occur.

1999 Ron Paul 102:11
State laws have already established clearly that a fetus is a human being deserving protection; for example, inheritance laws acknowledge that the unborn child does enjoy the estate of his father. Numerous states already have laws that correctly punishes those committing acts of murder against a fetus.

1999 Ron Paul 102:12
Although this legislation is motivated by the best of intentions of those who strongly defend the inalienable rights of the unborn, it is seriously flawed, and will not achieve its intended purpose. For that reason I shall vote against the bill and for the sanctity of life and the rights of the states, and against the selected protection of abortionists.

1999 Ron Paul 102:13
Mr. Chairman, today Congress will vote to further instill and codify the ill-advised Roe versus Wade decision. While it is the independent duty of each branch of the federal government to act Constitutionally, Congress will likely ignore not only its Constitutional limits but earlier criticisms from Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well.

1999 Ron Paul 102:14
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 1999, H.R. 2436, would amend title 18, United States Code, for the laudable goal of protecting unborn children from assault and murder. However, by expanding the class of victims to which unconstitutional (but already-existing) federal murder and assault statutes apply, the federal government moves yet another step closer to a national police state.

1999 Ron Paul 102:15
Of course, it is much easier to ride the current wave of federalizing every human misdeed in the name of saving the world from some evil than to uphold a Constitutional oath which prescribes a procedural structure by which the nation is protected from what is perhaps the worst evil, totalitarianism. Who, after all, wants to be amongst those members of Congress who are portrayed as soft on violent crimes initiated against the unborn?

1999 Ron Paul 102:16
Nevertheless, our federal government is, constitutionally, a government of limited powers. Article one, section eight, enumerates the legislative areas for which the U.S. Congress is allowed to act or enact legislation. For every other issue, the federal government lacks any authority or consent of the governed and only the state governments, their designees, or the people in their private market actions enjoy such rights to governance. The tenth amendment is brutally clear in stating “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Our nation’s history makes clear that the U.S. Constitution is a document intended to limit the power of central government. No serious reading of historical events surrounding the creation of the Constitution could reasonably portray it differently.

1999 Ron Paul 102:17
However, Congress does more damage than just expanding the class to whom federal murder and assault statutes apply—it further entrenches and seemingly concurs with the Roe versus Wade decision (the Court’s intrusion into rights of states and their previous attempts to protect by criminal statute the unborn’s right not to be aggressed against). By specifically exempting from prosecution both abortionists and the mothers of the unborn (as is the case with this legislation), Congress appears to say that protection of the unborn child is not a federal matter but conditioned upon motive. In fact, the Judiciary Committee in marking up the bill, took an odd legal turn by making the assault on the unborn a strict liability offense insofar as the bill does not even require knowledge on the part of the aggressor that the unborn child exists. Murder statutes and common law murder require intent to kill (which implies knowledge) on the part of the aggressor. Here, however, we have the odd legal philosophy that an abortionist with full knowledge of his terminal act is not subject to prosecution while an aggressor acting without knowledge of the child’s existence is subject to nearly the full penalty of the law. (The bill exempts the murderer from the death sentence—yet another diminution of the unborn’s personhood status.) It is becoming more and more difficult for Congress and the courts to pass the smell test as government simultaneously treats the unborn as a person in some instances and as a non-person in others.

1999 Ron Paul 102:18
In this first formal complaint to Congress on behalf of the federal Judiciary, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said “the trend to federalize crimes that have traditionally been handled in state courts . . . threatens to change entirely the nature of our federal system.” Rehnquist further criticized Congress for yielding to the political pressure to “appear responsive to every highly publicized societal ill or sensational crime.”

1999 Ron Paul 102:19
Perhaps, equally dangerous is the loss of another Constitutional protection which comes with the passage of more and more federal criminal legislation. Constitutionally, there are only three federal crimes. These are treason against the United States, piracy on the high seas, and counterfeiting (and, because the constitution was amended to allow it, for a short period of history, the manufacture, sale, or transport of alcohol was concurrently a federal and state crime). “Concurrent” jurisdiction crimes, such as alcohol prohibition in the past and federalization of murder today, erode the right of citizens to be free of double jeopardy. The fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifies that no “person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . .” In other words, no person shall be tried twice for the same offense. However, in United States v. Lanza, the high court in 1922 sustained a ruling that being tried by both the federal government and a state government for the same offense did not offend the doctrine of double jeopardy. One danger of unconstitutionally expanding the federal criminal justice code is that it seriously increases the danger that one will be subject to being tried twice for the same offense. Despite the various pleas for federal correction of societal wrongs, a national police force is neither prudent nor constitutional.

1999 Ron Paul 102:20
Occasionally the argument is put forth that states may be less effective than a centralized federal government in dealing with those who leave one state jurisdiction for another. Fortunately, the Constitution provides for the procedural means for preserving the integrity of state sovereignty over those issues delegated to it via the tenth amendment. The privilege and immunities clause as well as full faith and credit clause allow states to exact judgments from those who violate their state laws. The Constitution even allows the federal government to legislatively preserve the procedural mechanisms which allow states to enforce their substantive laws without the federal government imposing its substantive edicts on the states. Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2 makes provision for the rendition of fugitives from one state to another. While not self-enacting, in 1783 Congress passed an act which did exactly this. There is, of course, a cost imposed upon states in working with one another rather than relying on a national, unified police force. At the same time, there is a greater cost to centralization of a police power.

1999 Ron Paul 102:21
It is important to be reminded of the benefits of federalism as well as the costs. There are sound reasons to maintain a system of smaller, independent jurisdictions—it is called competition and, yes, governments must, for the sake of the citizenry, be allowed to compete. We have obsessed so much over the notion of “competition” in this country we harangue someone like Bill Gates when, by offering superior products to every other similarly-situated entity, he becomes the dominant provider of certain computer products. Rather than allow someone who serves to provide value as made obvious by their voluntary exchanges in the free market, we lambaste efficiency and economies of scale in the private marketplace. Curiously, at the same time, we further centralize government, the ultimate monopoly and one empowered by force rather than voluntary exchange.

1999 Ron Paul 102:22
When small governments become too oppressive with their criminal laws, citizens can vote with their feet to a “competing” jurisdiction. If, for example, one does not want to be forced to pay taxes to prevent a cancer patient from using medicinal marijuana to provide relief from pain and nausea, that person can move to Arizona. If one wants to bet on a football game without the threat of government intervention, that person can live in Nevada. As government becomes more and more centralized, it becomes much more difficult to vote with one’s feet to escape the relatively more oppressive governments. Governmental units must remain small with ample opportunity for citizen mobility both to efficient governments and away from those which tend to be oppressive. Centralization of criminal law makes such mobility less and less practical.

1999 Ron Paul 102:23
Protection of life (born or unborn) against initiations of violence is of vital importance. So vitally important, in fact, it must be left to the states’ criminal justice systems. We have seen what a legal, constitutional, and philosophical mess results from attempts to federalize such an issue. Numerous states have adequately protected the unborn against assault and murder and done so prior to the federal government’s unconstitutional sanctioning of violence in the Roe v. Wade decision. Unfortunately, H.R. 2436 ignores the danger of further federalizing that which is properly reserved to state governments and, in so doing, throws legal philosophy, the Constitution, the bill of rights, and the insights of Chief Justice Rehnquist out with the baby and the bathwater. For these reasons, I must oppose H.R. 2436, The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 1999.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 103
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Health Care Reform: Treat The Cause, Not The Symptom 4 October 1999

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

1999 Ron Paul 103:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, as an M.D. I know that when I advise on medical legislation that I may be tempted to allow my emotional experience as a physician to influence my views. But, nevertheless, I am acting the role as legislator and politician.

1999 Ron Paul 103:2
The M.D. degree grants no wisdom as to the correct solution to our managedcare mess. The most efficient manner to deliver medical services, as it is with all goods and services, is determined by the degree the market is allowed to operate. Economic principles determine efficiencies of markets, even the medical care market, not our emotional experiences dealing with managed care.

1999 Ron Paul 103:3
Contrary to the claims of many advocates of increased government regulation of health care, the problems with the health care system do not represent market failure. Rather, they represent the failure of government policies which have destroyed the health care market.

1999 Ron Paul 103:4
In today’s system, it appears on the surface that the interest of the patient is in conflict with the rights of the insurance companies and the Health Maintenance Organizations. In a free market, this cannot happen. Everyone’s rights are equal and agreements on delivering services of any kind are entered into voluntarily, thus satisfying both sides.

1999 Ron Paul 103:5
Only true competition assures that the consumer gets the best deal at the best price possible by putting pressure on the providers. Once one side is given a legislative advantage in an artificial system, as it is in managed care, trying to balance government-dictated advantages between patient and HMOs is impossible. The differences cannot be reconciled by more government mandates, which will only make the problem worse. Because we are trying to patch up an unworkable system, the impasse in Congress should not be a surprise.

1999 Ron Paul 103:6
No one can take a back seat to me regarding the disdain I hold for the HMO’s role in managed care. This entire unnecessary level of corporatism that rakes off profits and undermines care is a creature of government interference in health care. These non-market institutions and government could have only gained control over medical care through a collusion through organized medicine, politicians, and the HMO profiteers in an effort to provide universal health care. No one suggests that we should have universal food, housing, TV, computer and automobile programs; and yet, many of the poor do much better getting these services through the marketplace as prices are driven down through competition.

1999 Ron Paul 103:7
We all should become suspicious when it is declared we need a new Bill of Rights, such as a taxpayers’ bill of rights, or now a patients’ bill of rights. Why do more Members not ask why the original Bill of Rights is not adequate in protecting all rights and enabling the market to provide all services? If over the last 50 years we had had a lot more respect for property rights, voluntary contracts, State jurisdiction, and respect for free markets, we would not have the mess we are facing today in providing medical care.

1999 Ron Paul 103:8
The power of special interests influencing government policy has brought us to this managed-care monster. If we pursued a course of more government management in an effort to balance things, we are destined to make the system much worse. If government mismanagement in an area that the Government should not be managing at all is the problem, another level of bureaucracy, no matter how well intended, cannot be helpful. The law of unintended consequences will prevail and the principle of government control over providing a service will be further entrenched in the Nation’s psyche. The choice in actuality is government- provided medical care and its inevitable mismanagement or medical care provided by a market economy.

1999 Ron Paul 103:9
Partial government involvement is not possible. It inevitably leads to total government control. Plans for all the so-called patients’ bill of rights are 100 percent endorsement of a principle of government management and will greatly expand government involvement even if the intention is to limit government management of the health care system to the extent necessary to curtail the abuses of the HMO.

1999 Ron Paul 103:10
The patients’ bill of rights concept is based on the same principles that have given us the mess we have today. Doctors are unhappy. HMOs are being attacked for the wrong reasons. And the patients have become a political football over which all sides demagogue.

1999 Ron Paul 103:11
The problems started early on when the medical profession, combined with the tax code provisions making it more advantageous for individuals to obtain first-dollar health care coverage from third parties rather than pay for health care services out of their own pockets, influenced the insurance industry into paying for medical services instead of sticking with the insurance principle of paying for major illnesses and accidents for which actuarial estimates could be made.

1999 Ron Paul 103:12
A younger, healthier and growing population was easily able to afford the fees required to generously care for the sick. Doctors, patients and insurance companies all loved the benefits until the generous thirdparty payment system was discovered to be closer to a Ponzi scheme than true insurance. The elderly started living longer, and medical care became more sophisticated, demands increased because benefits were generous and insurance costs were moderate until the demographics changed with fewer young people working to accommodate a growing elderly population—just as we see the problem developing with Social Security. At the same time governments at all levels became much more involved in mandating health care for more and more groups.

1999 Ron Paul 103:13
Even with the distortions introduced by the tax code, the markets could have still sorted this all out, but in the 1960s government entered the process and applied post office principles to the delivery of medical care with predictable results. The more the government got involved the greater the distortion. Initially there was little resistance since payments were generous and services were rarely restricted. Doctors like being paid adequately for services than in the past were done at discount or for free. Medical centers, always willing to receive charity patients for teaching purposes in the past liked this newfound largesse by being paid by the government for their services. This in itself added huge costs to the nation’s medical bill and the incentive for patients to economize was eroded. Stories of emergency room abuse are notorious since “no one can be turned away.”

1999 Ron Paul 103:14
Artificial and generous payments of any service, especially medical, produces a wellknown cycle. The increased benefits at little or no cost to the patient leads to an increase in demand and removes the incentive to economize. Higher demands raises prices for doctor fees, labs, and hospitals; and as long as the payments are high the patients and doctors don’t complain. Then it is discovered the insurance companies, HMOs, and government can’t afford to pay the bills and demand price controls. Thus, third-party payments leads to rationing of care; limiting choice of doctors, deciding on lab tests, length of stay in the hospital, and choosing the particular disease and conditions that can be treated as HMOs and the government, who are the payers, start making key medical decisions. Because HMOs make mistakes and their budgets are limited however, doesn’t justify introducing the notion that politicians are better able to make these decisions than the HMOs. Forcing HMOs and insurance companies to do as the politicians say regardless of the insurance policy agreed upon will lead to higher costs, less availability of services and calls for another round of government intervention.

1999 Ron Paul 103:15
For anyone understanding economics, the results are predictable: Quality of medical care will decline, services will be hard to find, and the three groups, patients, doctors and HMOs will blame each other for the problems, pitting patients against HMOs and government, doctors against the HMOs, the HMOs against the patient, the HMOs against the doctor and the result will be the destruction of the cherished doctor-patient relationship. That’s where we are today and unless we recognize the nature of the problem Congress will make things worse. More government meddling surely will not help.

1999 Ron Paul 103:16
Of course, in a truly free market, HMOs and pre-paid care could and would exist—there would be no prohibition against it. The Kaiser system was not exactly a creature of the government as is the current unnatural HMO-government- created chaos we have today. The current HMO mess is a result of our government interference through the ERISA laws, tax laws, labor laws, and the incentive by many in this country to socialize medicine “American style”, that is the inclusion of a corporate level of management to rake off profits while draining care from the patients. The more government assumed the role of paying for services the more pressure there has been to managed care.

1999 Ron Paul 103:17
The contest now, unfortunately, is not between free market health care and nationalized health care but rather between those who believe they speak for the patient and those believing they must protect the rights of corporations to manage their affairs as prudently as possible. Since the system is artificial there is no right side of this argument and only political forces between the special interests are at work. This is the fundamental reason why a resolution that is fair to both sides has been so difficult. Only the free market protects the rights of all persons involved and it is only this system that can provide the best care for the greatest number. Equality in medical care services can be achieved only by lowering standards for everyone. Veterans hospital and Medicaid patients have notoriously suffered from poor care compared to private patients, yet, rather than debating introducing consumer control and competition into those programs, we’re debating how fast to move toward a system where the quality of medicine for everyone will be achieved at the lowest standards. Since the problem with our medical system has not been correctly identified in Washington the odds of any benefits coming from the current debates are remote. It looks like we will make things worse by politicians believing they can manage care better than the HMO’s when both sides are incapable of such a feat.

1999 Ron Paul 103:18
Excessive litigation has significantly contributed to the ongoing medical care crisis. Greedy trial lawyers are certainly part of problem but there is more to it than that. Our legislative bodies throughout the country are greatly influenced by trial lawyers and this has been significant. But nevertheless people do sue, and juries make awards that qualify as “cruel and unusual punishment” for some who were barely involved in the care of the patient now suing. The welfare ethic of “something for nothing” developed over the past 30 to 40 years has played a role in this serious problem. This has allowed judges and juries to sympathize with unfortunate outcomes, not related to malpractice and to place the responsibility on those most able to pay rather than on the ones most responsible. This distorted view of dispensing justice must someday be addressed or it will continue to contribute to the deterioration of medical care. Difficult medical cases will not be undertaken if outcome is the only determining factor in deciding lawsuits. Federal legislation prohibiting state tort law reform cannot be the answer. Certainly contractual arrangements between patients and doctors allowing specified damage clauses and agreeing on arbitration panels would be a big help. State-level “loser pays” laws, which discourage frivolous and nuisance lawsuits, would also be a help.

1999 Ron Paul 103:19
In addition to a welfare mentality many have developed a lottery jackpot mentality and hope for a big win through a “lucky” lawsuit. Fraudulent lawsuits against insurance companies now are an epidemic, with individuals feigning injuries in order to receive compensation. To find moral solutions to our problems in a nation devoid of moral standards is difficult. But the litigation epidemic could be ended if we accepted the principle of the right of contract. Doctors and hospitals could sign agreements with patients to settle complaints before they happen. Limits could be set and arbitration boards could be agreed upon prior to the fact. Limiting liability to actual negligence was once automatically accepted by our society and only recently has this changed to receiving huge awards for pain and suffering, emotional distress and huge punitive damages unrelated to actual malpractice or negligence. Legalizing contracts between patients and doctors and hospitals would be a big help in keeping down the defensive medical costs that fuel the legal cost of medical care.

1999 Ron Paul 103:20
Because the market in medicine has been grossly distorted by government and artificially managed care, it is the only industry where computer technology adds to the cost of the service instead of lowering it as it does in every other industry. Managed care cannot work. Government management of the computer industry was not required to produce great services at great prices for the masses of people. Whether it is services in the computer industry or health care all services are best delivered in the economy ruled by market forces, voluntary contracts and the absence of government interference.

1999 Ron Paul 103:21
Mixing the concept of rights with the delivery of services is dangerous. The whole notion that patient’s “rights” can be enhanced by more edicts by the federal government is preposterous. Providing free medication to one segment of the population for political gain without mentioning the cost is passed on to another segment is dishonest. Besides, it only compounds the problem, further separating medical services from any market force and yielding to the force of the tax man and the bureaucrat. No place in history have we seen medical care standards improve with nationalizing its delivery system. Yet, the only debate here in Washington is how fast should we proceed with the government takeover. People have no more right to medical care than they have a right to steal your car because they are in need of it. If there was no evidence that freedom did not enhance everyone’s well being I could understand the desire to help others through coercive means. But delivering medical care through government coercion means not only diminishing the quality of care, it undermines the principles of liberty. Fortunately, a system that strives to provide maximum freedom for its citizens, also supports the highest achievable standard of living for the greatest number, and that includes the best medical care.

1999 Ron Paul 103:22
Instead of the continual demagoguery of the issue for political benefits on both sides of the debate, we ought to consider getting rid of the laws that created this medical management crisis.

1999 Ron Paul 103:23
The ERISA law requiring businesses to provide particular programs for their employees should be repealed. The tax codes should give equal tax treatment to everyone whether working for a large corporation, small business, or is self employed. Standards should be set by insurance companies, doctors, patients, and HMOs working out differences through voluntary contracts. For years it was known that some insurance policies excluded certain care and this was known up front and was considered an acceptable provision since it allowed certain patients to receive discounts. The federal government should defer to state governments to deal with the litigation crisis and the need for contract legislation between patients and medical providers. Health care providers should be free to combine their efforts to negotiate effectively with HMOs and insurance companies without running afoul of federal anti-trust laws—or being subject to regulation by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Congress should also remove all federally-imposed roadblocks to making pharmaceuticals available to physicians and patients. Government regulations are a major reason why many Americans find it difficult to afford prescription medicines. It is time to end the days when Americans suffer because the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) prevented them from getting access to medicines that where available and affordable in other parts of the world!

1999 Ron Paul 103:24
The most important thing Congress can do is to get market forces operating immediately by making Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs) generously available to everyone desiring one. Patient motivation to save and shop would be a major force to reduce cost, as physicians would once again negotiate fees downward with patients—unlike today where the government reimbursement is never too high and hospital and MD bills are always at maximum levels allowed. MSAs would help satisfy the American’s people’s desire to control their own health care and provide incentives for consumers to take more responsibility for their care.

1999 Ron Paul 103:25
There is nothing wrong with charity hospitals and possibly the churches once again providing care for the needy rather than through government paid programs which only maximizes costs. States can continue to introduce competition by allowing various trained individuals to provide the services that once were only provided by licensed MDs. We don’t have to continue down the path of socialized medical care, especially in America where free markets have provided so much for so many. We should have more faith in freedom and more fear of the politician and bureaucrat who think all can be made well by simply passing a Patient’s Bill of Rights.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 104
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Quality Care For The Uninsured Act 6 October 1999 SPEECH OF
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, October 6, 1999

1999 Ron Paul 104:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, as an MD, I know that when I advise on medical legislation I may be tempted to allow my emotional experience as a physician to influence my views, but nevertheless I am acting the role of legislator and politician. The MD degree grants no wisdom as to the correct solution to our managed care mess. The most efficient manner to deliver medical services, as it is with all goods and other services, is determined by the degree the market is allowed to operate. Economic principles determine efficiency of markets, even the medical care market; not our emotional experiences dealing with managed care.

1999 Ron Paul 104:2
Contrary to the claims of many advocates of increased government regulation of health care, the problems with the health care system do not represent market failure, rather they represent the failure of government policies which have destroyed the health care market. In today’s system, it appears on the surface that the interest of the patient is in conflict with rights of the insurance companies and the Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs). In a free market this cannot happen. Everyone’s rights are equal and agreements on delivering services of any kind are entered into voluntarily, thus satisfying both sides. Only true competition assures that the consumer gets the best deal at the best price possible, by putting pressure on the providers. Once one side is given a legislative advantage, in an artificial system, as it is in managed care, trying to balance government dictated advantages between patient and HMOs is impossible. The differences cannot be reconciled by more government mandates which will only makes the problem worse. Because we are trying to patch up an unworkable system, the impasse in Congress should not be a surprise.

1999 Ron Paul 104:3
No one can take a back seat to me regarding the disdain I hold for the HMOs’ role in managed care. This entire unnecessary level of corporatism that rakes off profits and undermines care is a creature of government interference in health care. These non-market institutions and government could have only gained control over medical care through a collusion among organized medicine, politicians, and the HMO profiteers, in an effort to provide universal health care. No one suggests that we should have “universal” food, housing, TV, computer and automobile programs and yet many of the “poor” do much better getting these services through the marketplace as prices are driven down through competition.

1999 Ron Paul 104:4
We all should become suspicious when it is declared we need a new “Bill of Rights” such as a Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, or now a Patient’s Bill of Rights. Why don’t more Members ask why the original Bill of Rights is not adequate in protecting all rights and enabling the market to provide all services. If over the last fifty years we had a lot more respect for property rights, voluntary contracts, state jurisdiction and respect for free markets, we would not have the mess we’re facing today in providing medical care.

1999 Ron Paul 104:5
The power of special interests influencing government policy has brought us this managed care monster. If we pursue the course of more government management—in an effort to balance things—we’re destined to make the problem much worse. If government mismanagement, in an area that the government should not be managing at all, is the problem, another level of bureaucracy—no matter how well intended—cannot be helpful. The law of unintended consequences will prevail and the principle of government control over providing a service will be further entrenched in the nation’s psyche. The choice in actuality is government provided medical care and it’s inevitable mismanagement or medical care provided by a market economy.

1999 Ron Paul 104:6
Partial government involvement is not possible. It inevitably leads to total government control. Plans for all the so-called Patient’s Bill of Rights are a 100% endorsement of the principle of government management and will greatly expand government involvement, even if the intention is to limit government management of the health care system to the extent “necessary” to curtail the abuses of the HMOs. The Patients’ Bill of Rights concept is based on the same principles that have given us the mess we have today. Doctors are unhappy, HMOs are being attacked for the wrong reasons, and the patients have become a political football over which all sides demagogue.

1999 Ron Paul 104:7
The problems started early on when the medical profession, combined with tax code provisions making it more advantageous for individuals to obtain first-dollar health care coverage from third-parties rather than pay for health care services out of their own pockets, influenced the insurance industry into paying for medical services instead of sticking with the insurance principle of paying for major illnesses and accidents for which actuarial estimates could be made. A younger, healthier and growing population was easily able to afford the fees required to generously care for the sick. Doctors, patients and insurance companies all loved the benefits until the generous third-party payment system was discovered to be closer to a Ponzi scheme than true insurance. The elderly started living longer, and medical care became more sophisticated, demands because benefits were generous and insurance costs were moderate until the demographics changed with fewer young people working to accommodate a growing elderly population—just as we see the problem developing with Social Security. At the same time governments at all levels become much more involved in mandating health care for more and more groups.

1999 Ron Paul 104:8
Even with the distortions introduced by the tax code, the markets could have still sorted this all out, but in the 1960s government entered the process and applied post office principles to the delivery of medical care with predictable results. The more the government got involved the greater the distortion. Initially there was little resistance since payments were generous and services were rarely restricted. Doctors liked being paid adequately for services that in the past were done at discount or for free. Medical centers, always willing to receive charity patients for teaching purposes in the past liked this newfound largesse by being paid by the government for their services. This in itself added huge costs to the nation’s medical bill and the incentive for patients to economize was eroded. Stories of emergency room abuse are notorious since “no one can be turned away.”

1999 Ron Paul 104:9
Artificial and generous payments of any service, especially medical, produces a wellknown cycle. The increase benefits at little or no cost to the patient leads to an increase in demand and removes the incentive to economize. Higher demands raises prices for doctor fees, labs, and hospitals; and as long as the payments are high the patients and doctors don’t complain. Then it is discovered the insurance companies, HMOs, and government can’t afford to pay the bills and demand price controls. Thus, third-party payments leads to rationing of care, limiting choice of doctors, deciding on lab tests, length of stay in the hospital, and choosing the particular disease and conditions that can be treated as HMOs and the government, who are the payers, start making key medical decisions. Because HMOs make mistakes and their budgets are limited however, doesn’t justify introducing the notion that politicians are better able to make these decisions than the HMOs. Forcing HMOs and insurance companies to do as the policitians say regardless of the insurance policy agreed upon will lead to higher costs, less availability of services and calls for another round of government intervention.

1999 Ron Paul 104:10
For anyone understanding economics, the results are predictable: Quality of medical care will decline, services will be hard to find, and the three groups, patients, doctors and HMOs will blame each other for the problems, pitting patients against HMOs and government, doctors against the HMOs, the HMOs against the patient, the HMOs against the doctor and the result will be the destruction of the cherished doctor-patient relationship. That’s where we are today and unless we recognize the nature of the problem Congress will make things worse. More government meddling surely will not help.

1999 Ron Paul 104:11
Of course, in a truly free market, HMOs and pre-paid care could and would exist—there would be no prohibition against it. The Kaiser system was not exactly a creature of the government as is the current unnatural HMO-government- created chaos we have today. The current HMO mess is a result of our government interference through the ERISA laws, tax laws, labor laws, and the incentive by many in this country to socialize medicine “American style,” that is the inclusion of a corporate level of management to rake off profits while draining care from the patients. The more government assumed the role of paying for services the more pressure there has been to managed care.

1999 Ron Paul 104:12
The contest now, unfortunately, is not between free market health care and nationalized health care but rather between those who believe they speak for the patient and those believing they must protect the rights of corporations to manage their affairs as prudently as possible. Since the system is artificial there is no right side of this argument and only political forces between the special interests are at work. This is the fundamental reason why a resolution that is fair to both sides has been so difficult. Only the free market protects the rights of all persons involved and it is only this system that can provide the best care for the greatest number. Equality in medical care services can be achieved only by lowering standards for everyone. Veterans hospital and Medicaid patients have notoriously suffered from poor care compared to private patients, yet, rather than debating introducing consumer control and competition into those programs, we’re debating how fast to move toward a system where the quality of medicine for everyone will be achieved at the lowest standards.

1999 Ron Paul 104:13
Since the problem with our medical system has not been correctly identified in Washington the odds of any benefits coming from the current debates are remote. It looks like we will make things worse by politicians believing they can manage care better than the HMO’s when both sides are incapable of such a feat.

1999 Ron Paul 104:14
Excessive litigation has significantly contributed to the ongoing medical care crisis. Greedy trial lawyers are certainly part of the problem but there is more to it than that. Our legislative bodies throughout the country are greatly influenced by trial lawyers and this has been significant. But nevertheless people do sue, and juries make awards that qualify as “cruel and unusual punishment” for some who were barely involved in the care of the patient now suing. The welfare ethic of “something for nothing” developed over the past 30 to 40 years has played a role in this serious problem. This has allowed judges and juries to sympathize with unfortunate outcomes not related to malpractice and to place the responsibility on those most able to pay rather than on the ones most responsible. This distorted view of dispensing justice must someday be addressed or it will continue to contribute to the deterioration of medical care. Difficult medical cases will not be undertaken if outcome is the only determining factor in deciding lawsuits. Federal legislation prohibiting state tort law reform cannot be the answer. Certainly contractual arrangements between patients and doctors allowing specified damage clauses and agreeing on arbitration panels would be a big help. State-level “loser pays” laws, which discourage frivolous and nuisance lawsuits, would also be a help.

1999 Ron Paul 104:15
In addition to a welfare mentality many have developed a lottery jackpot mentality and hope for a big win through a “lucky” lawsuit. Fraudulent lawsuits against insurance companies now are an epidemic, with individuals feigning injuries in order to receive compensation. To find moral solutions to our problems in a nation devoid of moral standards is difficult. But the litigation epidemic could be ended if we accepted the principle of the right of contract. Doctors and hospitals could sign agreements with patients to settle complaints before they happen. Limits could be set and arbitration boards could be agreed upon prior to the fact. Limiting liability to actual negligence was once automatically accepted by our society and only recently has this changed to receiving huge awards for pain and suffering, emotional distress and huge punitive damages unrelated to actual malpractice or negligence. Legalizing contracts between patients and doctors and hospitals would be a big help in keeping down the defensive medical costs that fuel the legal cost of medical care.

1999 Ron Paul 104:16
Because the market in medicine has been grossly distorted by government and artificially managed care, it is the only industry where computer technology adds to the cost of the service instead of lowering it as it does in every other industry. Managed care cannot work. Government management of the computer industry was not required to produce great services at great prices for the masses of people. Whether it is services in the computer industry or health care all services are best delivered in the economy ruled by market forces, voluntary contracts and the absence of government interference.

1999 Ron Paul 104:17
Mixing the concept of rights with the delivery of services is dangerous. The whole notion that patient’s “rights” can be enhanced by more edicts by the federal government is preposterous. Providing free medication to one segment of the population for political gain without mentioning the cost is passed on to another segment is dishonest. Besides, it only compounds the problem, further separating medical services from any market force and yielding to the force of the tax man and the bureaucrat. No place in history have we seen medical care standards improve with nationalizing its delivery system. Yet, the only debate here in Washington is how fast should we proceed with the government takeover. People have no more right to medical care than they have a right to steal your car because they are in need of it. If there was no evidence that freedom did not enhance everyone’s well being I could understand the desire to help others through coercive means. But delivering medical care through government coercion means not only diminishing the quality of care, it undermines the principles of liberty. Fortunately, a system that strives to provide maximum freedom for its citizens, also supports the highest achievable standard of living for the greatest number, and that includes the best medical care.

1999 Ron Paul 104:18
Instead of the continual demagoguery of the issue for political benefits on both sides of the debate, we ought to consider getting rid of the laws that created this medical management crisis.

1999 Ron Paul 104:19
The ERISA laws requiring businesses to provide particular programs for their employees should be repealed. The tax codes should give equal tax treatment to everyone whether working for a large corporation, small business, or is self employed. Standards should be set by insurance companies, doctors, patients, and HMOs working out differences through voluntary contracts. For years it was known that some insurance policies excluded certain care and this was known up front and was considered an acceptable provision since it allowed certain patients to receive discounts. The federal government should defer to state governments to deal with the litigation crisis and the need for contract legislation between patients and medical providers. Health care providers should be free to combine their efforts to negotiate effectively with HMOs and insurance companies without running afoul of federal anti-trust laws—or being subject to regulation by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Congress should also remove all federally-imposed roadblocks to making pharmaceuticals available to physicians and patients. Government regulations are a major reason why many Americans find it difficult to afford prescription medicines. It is time to end the days when Americans suffer because the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) prevented them from getting access to medicines that were available and affordable in other parts of the world!

1999 Ron Paul 104:20
The most important thing Congress can do is to get market forces operating immediately by making Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs) generously available to everyone desiring one. Patient motivation to save and shop would be a major force to reduce cost, as physicians would once again negotiate fees downward with patients—unlike today where the government reimbursement is never too high and hospital and MD bills are always at maximum levels allowed. MSAs would help satisfy the American’s people’s desire to control their own health care and provide incentives for consumers to take more responsibility for their care.

1999 Ron Paul 104:21
There is nothing wrong with charity hospitals and possibly the churches once again providing care for the needy rather than through government paid programs which only maximizes costs. States can continue to introduce competition by allowing various trained individuals to provide the services that once were only provided by licensed MDs. We don’t have to continue down the path of socialized medical care, especially in America where free markets have provided so much for so many. We should have more faith in freedom and more fear of the politician and bureaucrat who think all can be made well by simply passing a Patient’s Bill of Rights.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 105
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Paul-Doolittle Amendment To H.R. 3037 14 October 1999 HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, October 14, 1999

1999 Ron Paul 105:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today I am placing in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD an amendment I, along with my colleague, Mr. DOOLITTLE of California, are offering to H.R. 3037, the Labor/HHS/Education Appropriations bill, to reduce funding for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) by $30,000,000, increase funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) by $25,000,000 and apply $5,000,000 toward debt reduction. Our amendment provides an increase in financial support to help local schools cope with the federal IDEA mandates by reducing funding for an out-of-control bureaucracy that is running roughshod over the rights of workers, and even defying the Supreme Court!

1999 Ron Paul 105:2
The NLRB has repeatedly proven itself incapable of acting as an unbiased arbiter for individual employees. Most recently the NLRB established a new nationwide rule that union officials may force employees to pay for union organizing drives as a condition of employment —directly contradicting several Supreme Court rulings!

1999 Ron Paul 105:3
It is an outrage that the tax dollars of working men and women are wasted on an agency that flaunts Supreme Court rulings in support of its forced-dues agenda—especially when local schools are struggling with the IDEA mandate that they provide a “free and appropriate” public education to children with disabilities.

1999 Ron Paul 105:4
Congress must make funding for schools and disabled children a greater priority than funding for a rogue federal agency. Therefore, hope all my colleagues will support the Paul- Doolittle amendment to H.R. 3037.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 106
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

No Neeed for Federal Animal Cruelty Laws 19 October 1999

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL). (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

1999 Ron Paul 106:1
Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. If ever there were a bill unnecessary, this is one. It is an example of us here in the Congress looking for dragons to slay. This is absolutely unnecessary. There is no real purpose in passing this legislation. As has been said, all 50 States have laws against violence and cruelty to animals. That should be adequate. But the way this bill is written really opens up a Pandora’s box. It is a can of worms.

1999 Ron Paul 106:2
Take, for instance, it says, “whoever knowingly possesses a depiction of animal cruelty with the intention of placing that depiction in interstate commerce.” That, you can get 5 years for. How do you prove intention? This is subjective, purely subjective. This is not narrowly written, this is very broadly written. This is a first amendment concern to many, but it is also so unnecessary.

1999 Ron Paul 106:3
Chief Justice Rehnquist, along with Ed Meese, has stated recently, there is just no need for more Federal laws. We do not need more Federal laws. We cannot even enforce the ones that we have. And besides, this is strictly a State matter.

1999 Ron Paul 106:4
Now, if they want to use the interstate commerce clause, they should be reminded, up until this century at least, the interstate commerce clause was used in its original intent to open up trade between the States. It was never the excuse to regulate everything between the States. That is a 20th century distortion of the interstate commerce clause. So that is not even a real good excuse for this.

1999 Ron Paul 106:5
Now, cruelty to animals, nobody is going to come and defend cruelty to animals. But quite frankly there will be times it will be difficult to define. The motivation for most cruelty to animals is because people are sick. This is a mental illness. We are dealing with mental illness here and we are going to write a Federal law against it. So if somebody, and it was even mentioned by the proponents of this bill, that people like Ted Bundy delight in this. Yes. These people are psychopaths. They are nuts. It is an illness. We cannot pass a law to deal with mental illness. I strongly object to this approach. We should be thinking not only about the process but of the unintended consequences of passing legislation like this.

1999 Ron Paul 106:6
I have seen some pretty violent ads on television of killing cockroaches. I know that is not their intention. I went fishing one time and it was rather ghastly. I am not a very good fisherman nor a hunter. I cannot see the killing of animals. But to see the hook pulled up on a kingfish and have the fish thrown on the deck and the fish suffocate, we make movies of this. This is on television. They say this will not be affected. How do we know? There are hunting films on television. Animals are shot. Maybe people are delighting in looking at the cruelty or the killing of animals on television even though they are sporting or fishing shows.

1999 Ron Paul 106:7
Yes, I agree that is not what is intended, but so often our legislation gets carried away and is misinterpreted. I would ask my colleagues not to pass this legislation. This legislation does not have any redeeming value whatsoever. It is well-intended in the sense that people object to cruelty to animals but quite frankly I have not had one single request from my 595,000 constituents in my district for this bill, and I would like to see how many others who would honestly get up here and say, oh, I have had dozens or hundreds or thousands of people.

1999 Ron Paul 106:8
The only people that I have heard that have requested this piece of legislation are law enforcement officials, not the judges who have to deal with this, not the people in the country, not the State legislative bodies, not the governors, but people who may want to have a lot more activity to do things they are not doing well enough anyway. Federal law enforcement is lagging. So to put another law on the books which is not well written, and it is subjective in that we have to decide whether or not the person who possesses this material is intending to sell it to somebody.

1999 Ron Paul 106:9
This bill really is something that we need to just reject, vote down. We do not need it. The States will take care of this. We do not need to be bashful and say that if we do not vote for this bill for some reason that we endorse the idea of animal cruelty. That is not the case. Nobody endorses this. I just think that the qualifications in here to exempt certain people like journalistic and historical and artistic, these categories, quite frankly, who will be the judge? It will be very difficult to do.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 107
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Stop Federal Funding for Schools 20 October 1999

Mr. GOODLING. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL), another member of our committee. (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

1999 Ron Paul 107:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

1999 Ron Paul 107:2
Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to this legislation. I know that the goal of everyone here is to have quality education for everyone in this country. I do not like the approach. The approach has been going on for 30 years with us here in the Congress at the national level controlling and financing education. But the evidence is pretty clear there has been no success. It is really a total failure. Yet the money goes up continuously. This year it is an 8 percent increase for Title I over last year.

1999 Ron Paul 107:3
In 1963, the Federal Government spent less than $900,000 on education programs. This year, if we add up all the programs, it is over $60 billion. Where is the evidence? The scores keep going down. The violence keeps going up. We cannot keep drugs out of the schools. There is no evidence that our approach to education is working.

1999 Ron Paul 107:4
I just ask my colleagues to think about whether or not we should continue on this same course. I know the chairman of the committee has made a concerted effort in trying to get more local control over the schools, and I think this is commendable. I think there should be more local control. But I am also convinced that once the money comes from Washington, you really never can deliver the control back to the local authorities. So that we should give it serious thought on whether or not this approach is correct.

1999 Ron Paul 107:5
Now, I know it is not a very powerful argument, but I might just point out that if Members read carefully the doctrine of enumerated powers, we find that it does not mention that we have the authority, but I concede that we have gotten around that for more than 35 years so we are not likely to reconsider that today. But as far as the practicality goes, we should rethink it.

1999 Ron Paul 107:6
If we had a tremendous success with our educational system, if everybody was being taken care of, if these $60 billion were really doing the job, if we were not having the violence and the drugs in the school, maybe you could say, well, let us change the Constitution or let me reassess my position. But I think we are on weak grounds if we think we can continue to do this.

1999 Ron Paul 107:7
There are more mandates in this bill. Even though we like to talk about local control, there are more mandates, and this bill will authorize not only the $8 billion and an 8 percent increase this year, but over the next 5 years there will be an additional $28 billion added to the budget because of this particular piece of legislation.

1999 Ron Paul 107:8
I ask my colleagues, give it serious thought. This does not deserve passage.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 108
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Elementary and Secondary Education Act (SEA) 21 October 1999

1999 Ron Paul 108:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, Congress is once again preparing to exceed its constitutional limits as well as ignore the true lesson of the last thirty years of education failure by reauthorizing Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (SEA). Like most federal programs, Title I was launched with the best of intentions, however, good intentions are no excuse for Congress to exceed its constitutional limitations by depriving parents, local communities and states of their rightful authority over education. The tenth amendment does not contain an exception for “good intentions!”

1999 Ron Paul 108:2
The Congress that created Title I promised the American public that, in exchange for giving up control over their schools and submitting to increased levels of taxation, federallyempowered “experts” would create an educational utopia. However, rather than ushering in a new golden age of education, increased federal involvement in education has, not coincidently, coincided with a decline in American public education. In 1963, when federal spending on education was less than nine hundred thousand dollars, the average Scholastic Achievement Test (SAT) score was approximately 980. Thirty years later, when federal education spending ballooned to 19 billion dollars, the average SAT score had fallen to 902. Furthermore, according to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 1992 Survey, only 37% of America’s 12th graders were actually able to read at a 12th grade level!

1999 Ron Paul 108:3
Supporters of a constitutional education policy should be heartened that Congress has finally recognized that simply throwing federal taxpayer money at local schools will not improve education. However, too many in Congress continue to cling to the belief that the “right federal program” conceived by enlightened members and staffers will lead to educational nirvana. In fact, a cursory review of this legislation reveals at least five new mandates imposed on the states by this bill; this bill also increases federal expenditures by $27.7 billion over the next five years—yet the drafters of this legislation somehow manage to claim with a straight face that this bill promotes local control!

1999 Ron Paul 108:4
One mandate requires states to give priority to K–6 education programs in allocating their Title I dollars. At first glance this may seem reasonable, however, many school districts may need to devote an equal, or greater, amount of resources to high school education. In fact, the principal of a rural school in my district has expressed concern that they may have to stop offering programs that use Title I funds if this provision becomes law! What makes DC-based politicians and bureaucrats better judges of the needs of this small East Texas school district than that school’s principal?

1999 Ron Paul 108:5
Another mandate requires teacher aides to be “fully qualified” if the aides are to be involved in instructing students. Again, while this may appear to be simply a matter of following sound practice, the cost of hiring qualified teaching assistants will add a great burden to many small and rural school districts. Many of these districts may have to go without teachers aides, placing another burden on our already overworked public school teachers.

1999 Ron Paul 108:6
Some may claim that this bill does not contain “mandates” as no state must accept federal funds. However, since obeying federal educrats is the only way states and localities can retrieve any of the education funds unjustly taken from their citizens by oppressive taxation, it is the rare state that will not submit to federal specifications.

1999 Ron Paul 108:7
One of the mantras of those who promote marginal reforms of federal education programs is the need to “hold schools accountable for their use of federal funds.” This is the justification for requiring Title I schools to produce “report cards” listing various indicators of school performance. Of course, no one would argue against holding schools should be accountable, but accountable to whom? The Federal Government? Simply requiring schools to provide information about the schools, without giving parents the opportunity to directly control their child’s education does not hold schools accountable to parents. As long as education dollars remain in the hands of bureaucrats not parents, schools will remain accountable to bureaucrats instead of parents.

1999 Ron Paul 108:8
Furthermore, maximum decentralization is the key to increasing education quality. This is because decentralized systems are controlled by those who know the unique needs of an individual child, whereas centralized systems are controlled by bureaucrats who impose a “one-size fits all” model. The model favored by bureaucrats can never meet the special needs of individual children in the local community because the bureaucrats have no way of knowing those particular needs. Small wonder that students in states with decentralized education score 10 percentage points higher on the NAEP tests in math and reading than students in states with centralized education.

1999 Ron Paul 108:9
Fortunately there is an alternative educational policy to the one before us today that respects the Constitution and improves education by restoring true accountability to America’s education system. Returning real control to the American people by returning direct control of the education dollars to America’s parents and concerned citizens is the only proper solution. This is precisely why I have introduced the Family Education Freedom Act (HR 935). The Family Education Freedom Act provides parents with a $3,000 per child tax credit for the K–12 education expenses. I have also introduced the Education Tax Credit Act (HR 936), which provides a $3,000 tax credit for cash contributions to scholarships as well as any cash and in-kind contribution to public, private, or religious schools.

1999 Ron Paul 108:10
By placing control of education funding directly into the hands of parents and concerned citizens, my bills restore true accountability to education. When parents control education funding, schools must respond to the parents’ desire for a quality education, otherwise the parent will seek other educational options for their child.

1999 Ron Paul 108:11
Instead of fighting over what type of federal intervention is best for education, Congress should honor their constitutional oath and give complete control over America’s educational system to the states and people. Therefore, Congress should reject this legislation and instead work to restore true accountability to America’s parents by defunding the education bureaucracy and returning control of the education dollar to America’s parents.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 109
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Academic Achievement for All Students Freedom and Accountability Act (STRAIGHT “A’s”) 21 October 1999

1999 Ron Paul 109:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, those who wish to diminish federal control over education should cast an unenthusiastic yes vote for the Academic Achievement for All Students Freedom and Accountability Act (STRAIGHT “A’s”). While this bill does increase the ability of state and local governments to educate children free from federal mandates and regulations, and is thus a marginal improvement over existing federal law, STRAIGHT “A’s” fails to challenge the federal government’s unconstitutional control of education. In fact, under STRAIGHT “A’s” states and local school districts will still be treated as administrative subdivisions of the federal education bureaucracy. Furthermore, this bill does not remove the myriad requirements imposed on states and local school districts by federal bureaucrats in the name of promoting “civil rights.” Thus, a school district participating in STRAIGHT “A’s” will still have to place children in failed bilingual education programs or face the wrath of the Department of Education’s misnamed Office of Civil Rights.

1999 Ron Paul 109:2
The fact that this bill increases, however marginally, the ability of states and localities to control education, is a step forward. As long as the federal government continues to levy oppressive taxes on the American people, and then funnel that money back to the states to use for education programs, defenders of the Constitution should support all efforts to reduce the hoops through which states must jump in order to reclaim some of the people’s tax monies.

1999 Ron Paul 109:3
However, there are a number of both practical and philosophical concerns regarding this bill. While the additional flexibility granted under this bill will be welcomed by the ten states allowed by the federal overseers to participate in the program, there is no justification to deny this flexibility to the remaining forty states. After all, federal education money represents the return of funds illegitimately taken from the American taxpayers to their states and communities. It is the pinnacle of arrogance for Congress to pick and choose which states are worthy of relief from federal strings in how they use what is, after all, the people’s money.

1999 Ron Paul 109:4
The primary objection to STRAIGHT “A’s” from a constitutional viewpoint, is embedded in the very mantra of “accountability” stressed by the drafters of the bill. Talk of accountability begs the question: accountable to whom? Under this bill, schools remain accountable to federal bureaucrats and those who develop the state tests upon which a participating school’s performance is judged. Should the schools not live up to their bureaucratically-determined “performance goals,” they will lose the flexibility granted to them under this act. So federal and state bureaucrats will determine if the schools are to be allowed to participate in the STRAIGHT “A’s” programs and bureaucrats will judge whether the states are living up to the standards set in the state’s five-year education plan—yet this is supposed to debureaucratize and decentralize education!

1999 Ron Paul 109:5
Under the United States Constitution, the federal government has no authority to hold states “accountable” for their education performance. In the free society envisioned by the founders, schools are held accountable to parents, not federal bureaucrats. However, the current system of leveling oppressive taxes on America’s families and using those taxes to fund federal education programs denies parental control of education by denying them control over the education dollar. Because “he who pays the piper calls the tune,” when the federal government controls the education dollar schools will obey the dictates of federal “educrats” while ignoring the wishes of the parents.

1999 Ron Paul 109:6
In order to provide parents with the means to hold schools accountable, I have introduced the Family Education Freedom Act (H.R. 935). The Family Education Freedom Act restores parental control over the classroom by providing American parents a tax credit of up to $3,000 for the expenses incurred in sending their child to private, public, parochial, other religious school, or for home schooling their children.

1999 Ron Paul 109:7
The Family Education Freedom Act returns the fundamental principal of a truly free economy to America’s education system: what the great economist Ludwig von Mises called “consumer sovereignty.” Consumer sovereignty simply means consumers decide who succeeds or fails in the market. Businesses that best satisfy consumer demand will be the most successful. Consumer sovereignty is the means by which the free society maximizes human happiness.

1999 Ron Paul 109:8
When parents control the education dollar, schools must be responsive to parental demands that their children receive first-class educations, otherwise, parents will find alternative means to educate their children. Furthermore, parents whose children are in public schools may use their credit to improve their schools by helping to finance the purchase of educational tools such as computers or extracurricular activities such as music programs. Parents of public school students may also wish to use the credit to pay for special services for their children.

1999 Ron Paul 109:9
It is the Family Education Freedom Act, not STRAIGHT “A’s”, which represents the education policy best suited for a constitutional republic and a free society. The Family Education Freedom Act ensures that schools are accountable to parents, whereas STRAIGHT “A’s” continues to hold schools accountable to bureaucrats.

1999 Ron Paul 109:10
Since the STRAIGHT “A’s” bill does give states an opportunity to break free of some federal mandates, supporters of returning the federal government to its constitutional limits should support it. However, they should keep in mind that this bill represents a minuscule step forward as it fails to directly challenge the federal government’s usurpation of control over education. Instead, this bill merely gives states greater flexibility to fulfill federally-defined goals. Therefore, Congress should continue to work to restore constitutional government and parental control of education by defunding all unconstitutional federal programs and returning the money to America’s parents so that they may once again control the education of their children.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 110
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Introduction Of Public Safety Tax Cut Act 21 October 1999 HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, October 21, 1999

1999 Ron Paul 110:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Public Safety Tax Cut Act. This legislation will achieve two important public policy goals.

1999 Ron Paul 110:2
First, it will effectively overturn a ruling of the Internal Revenue Service which has declared as taxable income the waiving of fees by local governments who provide service for public safety volunteers.

1999 Ron Paul 110:3
Many local governments use volunteer firefighters and auxiliary police either in place of, or as a supplement to, their public safety professionals. Often as an incentive to would-be volunteers, the local entities might waive all or a portion of the fees typically charged for city services such as the provision of drinking water, sewerage charges, or debris pick up. Local entities make these decisions for the purpose of encouraging folks to volunteer, and seldom do these benefits come anywhere near the level of a true compensation for the many hours of training and service required of the volunteers. This, of course, not even to mention the fact that these volunteers could very possibly be called into a situation where they may have to put their lives on the line.

1999 Ron Paul 110:4
Rather than encouraging this type of volunteerism, which is so crucial, particularly to America’s rural communities, the IRS has decided that the provision of the benefits described above amount to taxable income. Not only does this adversely affect the financial position of the volunteer by foisting new taxes about him or her, it has in fact led local entities to stop providing these benefits, thus taking away a key tool they have used to recruit volunteers. That is why the IRS ruling in this instance has a substantial deleterious impact on the spirit of American volunteerism. How far could this go? For example, would consistent application mean that a local Salvation Army volunteer be taxed for the value of a complimentary ticket to that organization’s annual county dinner? This is obviously bad policy.

1999 Ron Paul 110:5
This legislation would rectify this situation by specifically exempting these types of benefits from federal taxation.

1999 Ron Paul 110:6
Next, this legislation would also provide paid professional police and fire officers with a $1,000 per year tax credit. These professional public safety officers put their lives on the line each and every day, and I think we all agree that there is no way to properly compensate them for the fabulous services they provide. In America we have a tradition of local law enforcement and public safety provision. So, while it is not the role of our federal government to increase the salaries of these, it certainly is within our authority to increase their take-home pay by reducing the amount of money that we take from their pockets via federal taxation, and that is something this bill specifically does as well.

1999 Ron Paul 110:7
Mr. Speaker I am proud to introduce the Public Safety Tax Cut Act, and I request that my fellow Members join in support of this key legislation.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 111
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999 (H.R. 2260) 27 October 1999

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from south Texas (Mr. PAUL). (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

1999 Ron Paul 111:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding me this time.

1999 Ron Paul 111:2
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule, but I would like to make a couple of comments about why I do not think we should support this bill.

1999 Ron Paul 111:3
I am strongly pro-life. I think one of the most disastrous rulings of this century was Roe versus Wade. I do believe in the slippery slope theory. I believe that if people are careless and casual about life at the beginning of life, we will be careless and casual about life at the end. Abortion leads to euthanasia. I believe that.

1999 Ron Paul 111:4
I disagree with the Oregon law. If I were in Oregon, I would vote against that law. But I believe the approach here is a legislative slippery slope. What we are doing is applying this same principle of Roe versus Wade by nationalizing law and, therefore, doing the wrong thing.

1999 Ron Paul 111:5
This bill should be opposed. I think it will backfire. If we can come here in the Congress and decide that the Oregon law is bad, what says we cannot go to Texas and get rid of the Texas law that protects life and prohibits euthanasia. That is the main problem with this bill.

1999 Ron Paul 111:6
Also, I believe it will indeed dampen the ability of doctors to treat dying patients. I know this bill has made an effort to prevent that, compared to last year, but it does not. The Attorney General and a DEA agent will decide who has given too much medication. If a patient is dying and they get too much medicine, and they die, the doctor could be in big trouble. They could have criminal charges filed against them. They could lose their license or go to jail.

1999 Ron Paul 111:7
Just recently, I had a member of my family pass away with a serious illness and required a lot of medication. But nurses were reluctant to give the medicine prescribed by the doctor for fear of lawsuit and fear of charges that something illegal was being done. With a law like this, it is going to make this problem much, much worse.

1999 Ron Paul 111:8
Another thing is this sets up a new agency. For those conservative colleagues of mine who do not like the nationalization of medical care, what my colleagues are looking at here is a new agency of government setting up protocols, educating doctors and hospitals, and saying this is the way palliative care must be administered. My colleagues will have to answer with reports to the Federal Government.

1999 Ron Paul 111:9
As bad as the Oregon law is, this is not the way we should deal with the problem. This bill applies the same principle as Roe versus Wade.

1999 Ron Paul 111:10
I maintain that this bill is deeply flawed. I believe that nobody can be more pro-life than I am, nobody who could condemn the trends of what is happening in this country in the movement toward euthanasia and the chances that one day euthanasia will be determined by the national government because of economic conditions. But this bill does not deal with life and makes a difficult situation much worse.

1999 Ron Paul 111:11
Mr. Speaker, the Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999 (H.R. 2260) is designed for one purpose. It is to repeal the state of Oregon’s law dealing with assisted suicide and euthanasia.

1999 Ron Paul 111:12
Being strongly pro-life, I’m convinced that the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision of 1973 is one of the worst, if not the worst, Supreme Court ruling of the 20th century. It has been this institutionalizing into our legal system the lack of respect for life and liberty that has and will continue to play havoc with liberty and life until it is changed. It has been said by many since the early 1970s that any legalization of abortion would put us on a slippery slope to euthanasia. I agree with this assessment.

1999 Ron Paul 111:13
However, I believe that if we are not careful in our attempt to clarify this situation we also could participate in a slippery slope unbeknownst to us and just as dangerous. Roe vs. Wade essentially has nationalized an issue that should have been handled strictly by the states. Its repeal of a Texas State law set the stage for the wholesale of millions of innocent unborn. And yet, we once again are embarking on more nationalization of law that will in time backfire. Although the intention of H.R. 2260 is to repeal the Oregon law and make a statement against euthanasia it may well just do the opposite. If the nationalization of law dealing with abortion was designed to repeal state laws that protected life there is nothing to say that once we further establish this principle that the federal government, either the Congress or the Federal Courts, will be used to repeal the very laws that exist in 49 other states than Oregon that prohibit euthanasia. As bad as it is to tolerate an unsound state law, it’s even worse to introduce the notion that our federal congresses and our federal courts have the wisdom to tell all the states how to achieve the goals of protecting life and liberty.

1999 Ron Paul 111:14
H.R. 2260 makes an effort to delineate the prescribing of narcotics for alleviating pain from that of intentionally killing the patient. There is no way medically, legally, or morally to tell the difference. This law will serve to curtail the generous use of narcotics in a legitimate manner in caring for the dying. Claiming that this law will not hinder the legitimate use of drugs for medical purposes but not for an intentional death is wishful thinking. In fear that a doctor will be charged for intentionally killing a patient, even though the patient may have died coincidentally with an injection, this bill will provide a great barrier to the adequate treatment of our sick and dying who are suffering and are in intense pain.

1999 Ron Paul 111:15
The loss of a narcotic’s license, as this bill would dictate as punishment, is essentially denying a medical license to all doctors practicing medicine. Criminal penalties can be invoked as well. I would like to call attention to my colleagues that this bill is a lot more than changing the Controlled Substance Act. It is involved with educational and training programs to dictate to all physicians providing palliative care and how it should be managed. An entirely new program is set up with an administrator that “shall” carry out a program to accomplish the developing and the advancing of scientific understanding of palliative care and to disseminate protocols and evidencebased practices regarding palliative care.

1999 Ron Paul 111:16
All physicians should be concerned about a federal government agency setting up protocols for medical care recognizing that many patients need a variation in providing care and a single protocol cannot be construed as being “correct”.

1999 Ron Paul 111:17
This program is designed to instruct public and private health care programs throughout the nation as well as medical schools, hospices and the general public. Once these standards are set and if any variation occurs and a subsequent death coincidentally occurs that physician will be under the gun from the DEA. Charges will be made and the doctor will have to defend himself and may end up losing his license. It will with certainty dampen the enthusiasm of the physician caring for the critically ill.

1999 Ron Paul 111:18
Under this bill a new program of grants, cooperative agreements and contracts to help professional schools and other medical agencies will be used to educate and train health care professionals in palliative care. It is not explicit but one can expect that if the rules are not followed and an institution is receiving federal money they will be denied these funds unless they follow the universal protocols set up by the federal government. The bill states clearly that any special award under this new program can only be given if the applicant agrees that the program carried out with the award will follow the government guidelines. These new programs will be through the health professional schools, i.e. the medical schools’ residency training programs and other graduate programs in the health professions. It will be a carrot and stick approach and in time the medical profession will become very frustrated with the mandates and the threat that funds will be withheld.

1999 Ron Paul 111:19
The Secretary of Health and Human Services in charge of these programs are required to evaluate all the programs which means more reports to be filled out by the institutions for bureaucrats in Washington to study. The results of these reports will be to determine the effect such programs have on knowledge and practice regarding palliative care. Twenty four million dollars is authorized for this new program.

1999 Ron Paul 111:20
This program and this bill essentially nationalizes all terminal care and opens up Pandora’s box in regards to patient choices as well as doctor judgment. This bill, no matter how well intended, is dangerously flawed and will do great harm to the practice of medicine and for the care of the dying. This bill should be rejected.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 112
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999. 27 October 1999

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 11/2 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL). (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

1999 Ron Paul 112:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time.

1999 Ron Paul 112:2
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. This will improve the bill. I am very concerned, as a physician, that this bill will do great harm to the practice of medicine. This is micromanaging the palliative care of the dying.

1999 Ron Paul 112:3
So I strongly support this amendment because it will remove the severe penalties and the threats. Physicians are accustomed to practicing with lawyers over their shoulders. Now we are going to add another DEA agent over our shoulders to watch what we do.

1999 Ron Paul 112:4
It is said, well, there is not going to be any change in law. Well, if there is not, why the bill? Certainly there is a change in law. This bill does not state that it is dealing with euthanasis. It says it is a pain relief promotion act.

1999 Ron Paul 112:5
Generally speaking, I look at the names of bills and sometimes intentionally and sometimes just out of the way things happen here, almost always the opposite happens from the bill that we raise up. So I would call this the pain promotion act. I really sincerely believe, as a physician, that this will not help.

1999 Ron Paul 112:6
Too often physicians are intimidated and frightened about giving the adequate pain medication that is necessary to relieve pain. This amendment will be helpful. This is what we should do. We should not intimidate. The idea of dealing with the issue of euthanasis, euthanasia is killing. It is murder.

1999 Ron Paul 112:7
I am pro-life. I am against abortion. I am absolutely opposed to euthanasis. But euthanasis is killing. Under our Constitution, that is a State issue, not a congressional issue.

1999 Ron Paul 112:8
I strongly urge the passage of this amendment.

1999 Ron Paul 112:9
Mr. Chairman, today Congress will take a legislative step which is as potentially dangerous to protecting the sanctity of life as was the Court’s ill-advised Roe versus Wade decision.

1999 Ron Paul 112:10
The Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999, H.R. 2260, would amend Title 21, United States Code, for the laudable goal of protecting palliative care patients from the scourge of “assisted” suicide. However, by preempting what is the province of States—most of which have already enacted laws prohibiting “assisted suicide” —and expanding its use of the Controlled Substances Act to further define what constitutes proper medical protocol, the federal government moves yet another step closer to both a federal medical bureau and a national police state.

1999 Ron Paul 112:11
Our federal government is, constitutionally, a government of limited powers. Article one, section eight, enumerates the legislative areas for which the U.S. Congress is allowed enact legislation. For every other issue, the federal government lacks any authority or consent of the governed and only the state governments, their designees, or the people in their private market actions enjoy such rights to governance. The tenth amendment is brutally clear in stating “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Our nation’s history makes clear that the U.S. Constitution is a document intended to limit the power of central government. No serious reading of historical events surrounding the creation of the Constitution could reasonably portray it differently.

1999 Ron Paul 112:12
In his first formal complaint to Congress on behalf of the federal Judiciary, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said “the trend to federalize crimes that have traditionally been handled in state courts . . . threatens to change entirely the nature of our federal system.” Rehnquist further criticized Congress for yielding to the political pressure to “appear responsive to every highly publicized societal ill or sensational crime.”

1999 Ron Paul 112:13
However, Congress does significantly more damage than simply threatening physicians with penalties for improper prescription of certain drugs—it establishes (albeit illegitimately) the authority to dictate the terms of medical practice and, hence, the legality of assisted suicide nationwide. Even though the motivation of this legislation is clearly to pre-empt the Oregon Statute and may be protective of life in this instance, we mustn’t forget that the saw (or scalpel) cuts both ways. The Roe versus Wade decision—the Court’s intrusion into rights of states and their previous attempts to protect by criminal statute the unborn’s right not to be aggressed against—was quite clearly less protective of life than the Texas statute it obliterated. By assuming the authority to decide for the whole nation issues relating to medical practice, palliative care, and assisted suicide, the foundation is established for a national assisted suicide standard which may not be protective of life when the political winds shift and the Medicare system is on the verge of fiscal collapse. Then, of course, it will be the federal government’s role to make the tough choices of medical procedure rationing and for whom the cost of medical care doesn’t justify life extension. Current law already prohibits private physicians from seeing privately funded patients if they’ve treated a Medicaid patient within two years.

1999 Ron Paul 112:14
Additionally, this bill empowers the Attorney General to train federal, state, and local law enforcement personnel to discern the difference between palliative care and euthanasia. Most recently, though, it was the Attorney General who specifically exempted the physicians of Oregon from certain provisions of Title 21, the very Title this legislation intends to augment. Under the tutelage of the Attorney General, it would thus become the federal police officer’s role to determine at which point deaths from pain medication constitute assisted suicide.

1999 Ron Paul 112:15
To help the health care professionals become familiar with what will become the new federal medical standard, the bill also authorizes $24 million dollars over the next five years for grant programs to health education institutions. This is yet another federal action to be found nowhere amongst the enumerated powers.

1999 Ron Paul 112:16
Like the unborn, protection of the lives of palliative care patients is of vital importance. So vitally important, in fact, it must be left to the states’ criminal justice systems and state medical licensing boards. We have seen what a mess results from attempts to federalize such an issue. Numerous states have adequately protected both the unborn and palliative care patients against assault and murder and done so prior to the federal government’s unconstitutional sanctioning of violence in the Roe versus Wade decision. Unfortunately, H.R. 2260 ignores the danger of further federalizing that which is properly reserved to state governments and, in so doing, ignores the Constitution, the bill of rights, and the insights of Chief Justice Rehnquist. For these reasons, I must oppose H.R. 2260, The Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 113
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Conference Report On S. 900, Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act 4 November 1999 SPEECH OF
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, November 4, 1999

1999 Ron Paul 113:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, today we are considering a bill aimed at modernizing the financial financial services industry through deregulation. It is a worthy goal which I support. However, this bill falls short of that goal. The negative aspects of this bill outweigh the benefits. Many have already argued for the need to update our financial laws. I would just add that I agree on the need for reform but oppose this approach.

1999 Ron Paul 113:2
With the economy more fragile than is popularly recognized, we should move cautiously as we initiate reforms. Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan (in a 1997 speech in Frankfurt, Germany and other times), Kurt Richebacher, Frank Veneroso and others, have questioned the statistical accuracy of the economy’s vaunted productivity gains.

1999 Ron Paul 113:3
Federal Reserve Governor Edward Gramlich today joined many others who are concerned about the strength of the economy when he warned that the low U.S. savings rate was a cause for concern. Coupled with the likely decline in foreign investment in the United States, he said that the economy will require some potentially “painful” adjustments—some combination of higher exports, higher interest rates, lower investment, and/or lower dollar values.

1999 Ron Paul 113:4
Such a scenario would put added pressure on the financial bubble. The growth in money and credit has outpaced both savings and economic growth. These inflationary pressures have been concentrated in asset prices, not consumer price inflation—keeping monetary policy too easy. This increase in asset prices has fueled domestic borrowing and spending.

1999 Ron Paul 113:5
Government policy and the increase in securitization are largely responsible for this bubble. In addition to loose monetary policies by the Federal Reserve, government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have contributed to the problem. The fourfold increases in their balance sheets from 1997 to 1998 boosted new home borrowings to more than $1.5 trillion in 1998, two-thirds of which were refinances which put an extra $15,000 in the pockets of consumers on average —and reduce risk for individual institutions while increasing risk for the system as a whole.

1999 Ron Paul 113:6
The rapidity and severity of changes in economic conditions can affect prospects for individual institutions more greatly than that of the overall economy. The Long Term Capital Management hedge fund is a prime example. New companies start and others fail every day. What is troubling with the hedge fund bailout was the governmental response and the increase in moral hazard.

1999 Ron Paul 113:7
This increased indication of the government’s eagerness to bail out highly-leveraged, risky and largely unregulated financial institutions bodes ill for the post S. 900 future as far as limiting taxpayer liability is concerned. LTCM isn’t even registered in the United States but the Cayman Islands!

1999 Ron Paul 113:8
Government regulations present the greatest threat to privacy and consumers’ loss of control over their own personal information. In the private sector, individuals protect their financial privacy as an integral part of the market process by providing information they regard as private only to entities they trust will maintain a degree of privacy of which they approve. Individuals avoid privacy violators by “opting out” and doing business only with such privacy-respecting companies.

1999 Ron Paul 113:9
The better alternative is to repeal privacy busting government regulations. The same approach applies to Glass-Steagall and S. 900. Why not just repeal the offending regulation? In the banking committee, I offered an amendment to do just that. My main reasons for voting against this bill are the expansion of the taxpayer liability and the introduction of even more regulations. The entire multi-hundred page S. 900 that reregulates rather than deregulates the financial sector could be replaced with a simple one-page bill.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 114
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Good Time For Congress To Reassess Antitrust Laws 8 November 1999

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

1999 Ron Paul 114:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, by now, the Microsoft antitrust case should have caught every Member’s attention. This is a good time for Congress to reassess the antitrust laws.

1999 Ron Paul 114:2
Under current law, collusion, negotiations, or even discussions about markets may be enough to find someone guilty of breaking these laws. Prices in one industry that are too high, too low, or all the same are suspect and could be used as evidence of monopoly practices.

1999 Ron Paul 114:3
We must remember bigness in a free market is only achieved by the vote of consumers, supporting a company that gives them a good product at a low price.

1999 Ron Paul 114:4
It is an economic truism that the only true monopoly is government protected, such as the Post Office or a public utility. There is nothing more annoying than a government bureaucrat or Federal judge gleefully condemning a productive enterprising capitalist for doing a good job. These little men filled with envy are capable of producing nothing and are motivated by their own inadequacies and desires to wield authority against men of talent.

1999 Ron Paul 114:5
In a free market, the consumer is king, not the businessman. The regulators hate both and relish their role of making sure the market is fair according to their biased standards.

1999 Ron Paul 114:6
Antitrust suits are rarely, if ever, pursued by consumers. It is always a little disgruntled competitor, a bureaucrat who needs to justify his own existence.

1999 Ron Paul 114:7
Judge Jackson condemned Microsoft for being a “vigorous protector of its own self-interests.” Now this is to be a crime in America. To care for oneself and do what corporations are supposed to do, that is, maximize profits for stockholders by making customers happy, is the great crime committed in the Microsoft case.

1999 Ron Paul 114:8
Blind to the fact that there is no conflict between the self-interest of a capitalist and the consumers’ best interests, the trust busters go their merry way without a complaint from the Congress which could change these laws.

1999 Ron Paul 114:9
Only blind resentment drives the economic planners and condemns business success, good products, low prices, and consumer satisfaction while undermining the system that has provided so much for so many.

1999 Ron Paul 114:10
Many big companies have achieved success with government subsidies, contracts, and special interest legislation. This type of bigness must be distinguished from bigness achieved in a free market by providing consumer satisfaction.

1999 Ron Paul 114:11
To help rectify the situation, Congress should first stop all assistance to business, no more corporate welfare, no bailouts like we saw to Lockheed, Chrysler, Long-Term Capital Management and many others.

1999 Ron Paul 114:12
Second, we ought to repeal the archaic and impossible-to-understand antitrust laws.

1999 Ron Paul 114:13
Next, we should crown the consumers king and let them vote with their money on who should succeed and who should fail.

1999 Ron Paul 114:14
We should then suppress the envy which drives the anticapitalist mentality.

1999 Ron Paul 114:15
The Bill Gateses of the world can only invest their money in job-creating projects or donate it to help the needy. The entrepreneurial giants are not a threat to stability or prosperity. Government bureaucrats and Federal judges are. But strict enforcement of all the ill-inspired antitrust laws does not serve the consumer, nor the cause of liberty.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 115
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

U.S. Foreign Policy of Military Interventionism Brings Death, Destruction and Loss of Life 17 November 1999

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

1999 Ron Paul 115:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, demonstrators are once again condemning America in a foreign city. This time, it is in Kabul, Afghanistan. Shouting “Death to America,” burning our flag, and setting off bombings, the demonstrators express their hatred toward America.

1999 Ron Paul 115:2
The United States has just placed sanctions on yet another country to discipline those who do not obey our commands. The nerve of them. Do they not know we are the most powerful Nation in the world and we have to meet our responsibilities? They should do as we say and obey our CIA directives.

1999 Ron Paul 115:3
This process is not new. It has been going on for 50 years, and it has brought us grief and multiplied our enemies. Can one only imagine what the expression of hatred might be if we were not the most powerful Nation in the world?

1999 Ron Paul 115:4
Our foreign policy of military interventionism has brought us death and destruction to many foreign lands and loss of life for many Americans. From Korea and Vietnam to Serbia, Iran, Iraq and now Afghanistan, we have ventured far from our shores in search of wars to fight. Instead of more free trade with our potential adversaries, we are quick to slap on sanctions that hurt American exports and help to solidify the power of the tyrants, while seriously penalizing innocent civilians in fomenting anti-America hatred.

1999 Ron Paul 115:5
The most current anti-American demonstrations in Kabul were understandable and predictable. Our onetime ally, Osama bin Laden, when he served as a freedom fighter against the Soviets in Afghanistan and when we bombed his Serbian enemies while siding with his friends in Kosovo, has not been fooled and knows that his cause cannot be promoted by our fickle policy.

1999 Ron Paul 115:6
Sanctions are one thing, but seizures of bank assets of any related business to the Taliban government infuriates and incites the radicals to violence. There is no evidence that this policy serves the interests of world peace. It certainly increases the danger to all Americans as we become the number one target of terrorists. Conventional war against the United States is out of the question, but acts of terrorism, whether it is the shooting down of a civilian airliner or bombing a New York City building, are almost impossible to prevent in a reasonably open society.

1999 Ron Paul 115:7
Likewise, the bombings in Islamabad and possibly the U.N. plane crash in Kosovo are directly related to our meddling in the internal affairs of these nations.

1999 Ron Paul 115:8
General Musharraf’s successful coup against Prime Minister Sharif of Pakistan was in retaliation for America’s interference with Sharif’s handling of the Pakistan-India border war. The recent bombings in Pakistan are a clear warning to Musharraf that he, too, must not submit to U.S.-CIA directives.

1999 Ron Paul 115:9
I see this as a particularly dangerous time for a U.S. president to be traveling to this troubled region, since so many blame us for the suffering, whether it is the innocent victims in Kosovo, Serbia, Iraq, or Afghanistan. It is hard for the average citizen of these countries to understand why we must be so involved in their affairs, and resort so readily to bombing and boycotts in countries thousands of miles away from our own.

1999 Ron Paul 115:10
Our foreign policy is deeply flawed and does not serve our national security interest. In the Middle East, it has endangered some of the moderate Arab governments and galvanized Muslim militants.

1999 Ron Paul 115:11
The recent military takeover of Pakistan and the subsequent anti- American demonstration in Islamabad should not be ignored. It is time we in Congress seriously rethink our role in the region and in the world. We ought to do more to promote peace and trade with our potential enemies, rather than resorting to bombing and sanctions.

1999 Ron Paul Chapter 116
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Allow Hi-Tech Supervision of Home Health Agency Branch Offices 18 November 1999

1999 Ron Paul 116:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I wish to take this opportunity to express my agreement with language contained in the report accompanying H.R. 3075, which was included in the Omnibus Appropriations bill, encouraging the Secretary of Health and Human Services to allow home health agencies to use technology to supervise their branch offices. This language also calls on the government to allow home health agencies to determine the adequate level of on-site supervision of their branch offices based on quality outcomes. I need not remind my colleagues that Congress is expecting home health agencies to operate efficiently under greatly reduced Interim Payment System (IPS) and Prospective Payment System (PPS) reimbursement. It is therefore necessary that home health agencies be allowed the flexibility to establish and serve large service areas by utilizing cost efficient branch offices.

1999 Ron Paul 116:2
My district includes many rural areas which are experiencing access problems due to the Health Care Financing Administration’s (HCFA’s) home health branch office policies affecting time/distance limitations and on-site supervision requirements. In many cases, these requirements do not recognize technology advances. In order to ensure that senior citizens in rural areas have access to quality home care, it is vital that any regulations on home health care branch offices promulgated by the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) evaluate the offices by quality of outcome instead of arbitrary administration requirements and restrictions.

1999 Ron Paul 116:3
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I reiterate my support for the report language accompanying H.R. 3075 urging the use of outcome instead of arbitrary requirements and restrictions, to determine a home health care agency’s ability to establish and supervise branch offices.