Volume 2000 — The Book of Ron Paul



2000 Ron Paul Chapter 1

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

Statement on OSHA Home Office Regulations

Submitted before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations

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

Statement of
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS


2000 Ron Paul 1:1
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to express my concerns regarding the possibility that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) will attempt to exercise regulatory authority over home-based worksites and hold employers responsible for accidents occurring in such worksites. Although OSHA has announced that it will only hold employers liable for conditions at home-based worksites if the employee is performing “hazardous manufacturing work,” this proposal still raises serious concerns. This is because any expansion of OSHAs regulatory authority in the homes represents a major expansion of federal authority far beyond anything intended by Congress when it created OSHA in the 1970s. Furthermore, OSHA regulation of any type of work in the private residence opens the door to the eventual regulation of all home worksites. In order to ensure home-based workers are protected from overzealous federal bureaucrats, Congressman J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ) and myself have introduced legislation, the Home Office Protection Enhancement (HOPE) Act, amending the Occupational Safety and Health Act to clarify that OSHA has no authority over worksites located in an employee’s residence.

2000 Ron Paul 1:2
Modern technology, such as e-mail and the Internet, allows employees to be productive members of the workforce without leaving their homes! The option of “telecommuting” is particularly valuable for women with young children or those caring for elderly parents. Using technology to work at home gives these Americans the chance to earn a living and have a fulfilling career while remaining at home with their children or elderly parents. Telecommuting also makes it easier for citizens with disabilities to become productive members of the job market. Any federal requirements holding employers liable for the conditions of a home office may well cause some employers to forbid their employees from telecommuting, thus shutting millions of mothers, persons caring for elderly parents, and disabled citizens out of the workforce!

2000 Ron Paul 1:3
Federal polices discouraging telecommuting will harm the environment by forcing American workers out of their home and onto America’s already overcrowded roads. It is ironic that an administration, which has claimed that “protecting the environment” is one of its top priorities, would even consider policies that could undermine a market-created means of protecting the environment. Employers who continue to allow their employees to telecommute will be forced by any OSHA regulations on home offices to inspect their employees’ homes to ensure they are in compliance with any and all applicable OSHA regulations. This is a massive invasion of employees’ privacy. What employee would want their boss snooping around their living room, den, or bedroom to make sure their “home-based worksite” was OSHA compliant?

2000 Ron Paul 1:4
Mr. Chairman, the fact that OSHA would even consider exercising regulatory authority over any part of a private home shows just how little respect OSHA has for private property. Private property, of course, was considered one of the bulwarks of liberty by our nation’s founding fathers, and has been seriously eroded in this country. While it is heartening that so many members of Congress have expressed their displeasure with OSHA over this issue, I am concerned that most of the debate has focused on the negative consequences of this regulation instead of on the question of whether OSHA has the constitutional authority to regulate any part of a private residence (or private business for that matter). The economic and social consequences of allowing federal bureaucrats to regulate home offices certainly should be debated. However, I would remind my colleagues that conceding the principle that the only way to protect worker safety is by means of a large bureaucracy with the power to impose a “one-size fits all” model on every workplace in America ensures that defenders of the free market will be always on the defensive, trying to reign in the bureaucracy from going “too far” rather than advancing a positive, pro-freedom agenda.
Furthermore, many companies are experiencing great success at promoting worker safety by forming partnerships with their employees to determine how best to create a safe workplace. This approach to worker safety is both more effective, and constitutionally sound, than giving OSHA bureaucrats the power to, for example, force landscapers to use $200 gas cans instead of $5 cans or fining a construction company $7,000 dollars because their employees jumped in a trench to rescue a trapped man without first putting on their OSHA-approved hard hats; or fine a company because it failed to warn employees not to eat copier toner!

2000 Ron Paul 1:5
Some may argue that occasional regulatory excess is a small price to pay for a safe workplace. However, there is no evidence that OSHAs invasiveness promotes workplace safety! While it is true that workplace accidents have declined since OSHAs creation, OSHA itself has had little effect on the decline. Workplace deaths and accidents were declining before OSHAs creation, thanks to improvements in safety technology and changes in the occupational distribution of labor. Workplace fatalities declined from 30 deaths per 100,000 in 1945 to 18 deaths per 100,000 in 1969, three years before OSHAs creation. In contrast to the dramatic drop in workplace fatalities in the 24 years before OSHAs creation, workplace fatalities only declined from 18 per 100,000 to eight in the 21 years after OSHAs creation.

2000 Ron Paul 1:6
OSHAs role in this decline was negligible! According to Richard Butler of the University of Minnesota, who studied National Safety Council data on workplace facility rates, OSHAs contribution to workplace fatality rates is “statistically insignificant.” This is not an isolated example; the vast majority of workplace studies show an insignificant role for OSHA in reducing workplace injuries.

2000 Ron Paul 1:7
This is why I have supported several legislative efforts to encourage more cooperative approach to workplace safety. I hope Congress will continue to work to replace the old “command-and control” model with one that respects the constitution and does not treat Americans like children in need of the protection of “big brother” government.

2000 Ron Paul 1:8
In conclusion, I wish to once again thank Mr. Hoesktra for holding this hearing on this important issue and urge my colleagues to join with Mr. Hayworth and myself to protect those who work at home from further over-regulation by cosponsoring the Home Office Protection Enhancement Act (HOPE) Act.




2000 Ron Paul Chapter 2

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


2000 Ron Paul Chapter 3

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

The Hillory J. Farias Date Rape Prevention Drug Act of 1999
31 January 2000

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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


2000 Ron Paul Chapter 4

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Adjounment
31 January 2000

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

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


2000 Ron Paul Chapter 5

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


2000 Ron Paul Chapter 6

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

February 10, 2000

ON INTRODUCTION OF THE PHARMACEUTICAL FREEDOM ACT OF 2000


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

Statement of
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS


[Page: E115]





2000 Ron Paul Chapter 7

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

February 10, 2000

REVIEW ARTICLE ON ‘NEW MATH’


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

Statement of
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS


[Page: E117]

(BY BILL EVERS)



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



2000 Ron Paul Chapter 8

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

February 15, 2000
ON PRESENTING CONGRESSIONAL GOLD MEDAL TO JOHN CARDINAL O’CONNOR


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




2000 Ron Paul 8:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3557. At the same time, I rise in total support of, and with complete respect for, the work of Cardinal O’Connor. Cardinal O’Connor is a true hero as he labors tirelessly on behalf of the most needy and vulnerable in our society; promotes racial and religious harmony; advocates the best education for all children regardless of race, religion, or financial status; ministers to the poor, sick, and disabled; all the while standing up for that which he believes even in the face of hostility.

2000 Ron Paul 8:2
I must, however, oppose the Gold Medal for Cardinal O’Connor because appropriating $30,000 of taxpayer money is neither constitutional nor, in the spirit of Cardinal O’Connor who dedicates his life to voluntary and charitable work, particularly humanitarian.

2000 Ron Paul 8:3
Because of my continuing and uncompromising opposition to appropriations not authorized within the enumerated powers of the Constitution, several of my colleagues felt compelled to personally challenge me as to whether, on this issue, I would maintain my resolve and commitment to the Constitution — a Constitution, which only last year, each Member of Congress, swore to uphold. In each of these instances, I offered to do a little more than uphold my constitutional oath.

2000 Ron Paul 8:4
In fact, as a means of demonstrating my personal regard and enthusiasm for the work of Cardinal O’Connor, I invited each of these colleagues to match my private, personal contribution of $100 which, if accepted by the 435 Members of the House of Representatives, would more than satisfy the $30,000 cost necessary to mint and award a gold medal to the well-deserving Cardinal O’Connor. To me, it seemed a particularly good opportunity to demonstrate one’s genuine convictions by spending one’s own money rather than that of the taxpayers who remain free to contribute, at their own discretion, to the work of Cardinal O’Connor as they have consistently done in the past. For the record, not a single Representative who solicited my support for spending taxpayer’s money, was willing to contribute their own money to demonstrate the courage of their so-called convictions and generosity.

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



2000 Ron Paul Chapter 9

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

February 16, 2000
THE PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION AND JUDICIAL LIMITATION ACT


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



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

2000 Ron Paul 9:2
One of the most egregious portions of the Roe v. Wade decision is that the ruling in that case served to substitute the opinions of unelected judges for those of state representatives when it comes to making abortion law. By doing this, judges have not merely taken on the role of legislators, they have also thrust the federal apparatus into an area that the founding fathers specifically and exclusively entrusted to state entities. Unfortunately, this aspect of Roe v. Wade has not received the attention that less critical portions of the decision have received.

2000 Ron Paul 9:3
The legislation I am introducing today is aimed at moving us toward correcting the federal judicial usurpation of constitutionally-identified state authority. This legislation is needed now more than ever as certain “lower federal courts” have taken it upon themselves to continue the error-ridden ways of Roe v. Wade by overturning legitimate state restrictions on partial birth abortion.

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


2000 Ron Paul Chapter 10

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

February 16, 2000
THE AGRICULTURE EDUCATION FREEDOM ACT

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



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

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

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

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


2000 Ron Paul Chapter 11

Ron Paul’s Congressional website

Congressional Record [.PDF]

March 1, 2000
SENIOR CITIZENS’ FREEDOM TO WORK ACT OF 1999

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



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

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

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

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

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


    2000 Ron Paul Chapter 12

    Ron Paul’s Congressional website

    Congressional Record [.PDF]

    March 1, 2000
    INTRODUCING LEGISLATION CALLING FOR THE UNITED STATES TO WITHDRAW FROM THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION

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



    2000 Ron Paul 12:1
    Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to announce my introduction of and request cosponsors for a privileged resolution to withdraw the United States from the World Trade Organization.

    2000 Ron Paul 12:2
    Last week, the Wall Street Journal reported that the United States was dealt a defeat in a tax dispute with the European Union by an unelected board of international bureaucrats. It seems that, according to the WTO, $2.2 billion of United States tax reductions for American businesses violates WTO’s rules and must be eliminated by October 1 of this year.


    2000 Ron Paul 12:3
    Much could be said about the WTO’s mistaken Orwellian notion that allowing citizens to retain the fruits of their own labor constitutes subsidies and corporate welfare. However, we need not even reach the substance of this particular dispute prior to asking, by what authority does the World Trade Organization assume jurisdiction over the United States Federal tax policy? That is the question.

    2000 Ron Paul 12:4
    At last reading, the Constitution required that all appropriation bills originate in the House, and specified that only Congress has the power to lay and collect taxes. Taxation without representation was a predominant reason for America’s fight for independence during the American Revolution. Yet, now we face an unconstitutional delegation of taxing authority to an unelected body of international bureaucrats.

    2000 Ron Paul 12:5
    Let me assure Members that this Nation does not need yet another bureaucratic hurdle to tax reduction. Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution reserves to Congress alone the authority for regulating foreign commerce. According to Article II, section 2, it reserves to the Senate the sole power to ratify agreements, namely, treaties, between the United States government and other governments.

    2000 Ron Paul 12:6
    We all saw the recent demonstrations at the World Trade Organization meetings in Seattle. Although many of those folks who were protesting were indeed rallying against what they see as evils of free trade and capitalist markets, the real problem when it comes to the World Trade Organization is not free trade. The World Trade Organization is the furthest thing from free trade.

    2000 Ron Paul 12:7
    Instead, it is an egregious attack upon our national sovereignty, and this is the reason why we must vigorously oppose it. No Nation can maintain its sovereignty if it surrenders its authority to an international collective. Since sovereignty is linked so closely to freedom, our very notion of American liberty is at stake in this issue.

    2000 Ron Paul 12:8
    Let us face it, free trade means trade without interference from governmental or quasi-governmental agencies. The World Trade Organization is a quasi-governmental agency, and hence, it is not accurate to describe it as a vehicle of free trade. Let us call a spade a spade: the World Trade Organization is nothing other than a vehicle for managed trade whereby the politically connected get the benefits of exercising their position as a preferred group; preferred, that is, by the Washington and international political and bureaucratic establishments.

    2000 Ron Paul 12:9
    As a representative of the people of the 14th District of Texas and a Member of the United States Congress sworn to uphold the Constitution of this country, it is not my business to tell other countries whether or not they should be in the World Trade Organization. They can toss their own sovereignty out the window if they choose. I cannot tell China or Britain or anybody else that they should or should not join the World Trade Organization. That is not my constitutional role.

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

    2000 Ron Paul 12:11
    We need to better explain that the Founding Fathers believed that tariffs were meant to raise revenues, not to erect trade barriers. American colonists even before the war for independence understood the difference.

    2000 Ron Paul 12:12
    When our Founding Fathers drafted the Constitution, they placed the treaty-making authority with the President and the Senate, but the authority to regulate commerce with the House. The effects of this are obvious. The Founders left us with a system that made no room for agreements regarding international trade; hence, our Nation was to be governed not by protection, but rather, by market principles. Trade barriers were not to be erected, period.

    2000 Ron Paul 12:13
    A revenue tariff was to be a major contributor to the U.S. Treasury, but only to fund the limited and constitutionally authorized responsibilities of the Federal government. Thus, the tariff would be low.

    2000 Ron Paul 12:14
    The colonists and Founders clearly recognized that these are tariffs or taxes on American consumers, they are not truly taxes on foreign corporations. This realization was made obvious by the British government’s regulation of trade with the colonies, but it is a realization that has apparently been lost by today’s protectionists.

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


    2000 Ron Paul Chapter 13

    Ron Paul’s Congressional website

    Congressional Record [.PDF]

    March 2, 2000
    TRIBUTE TO THE VICTORIA HIGH SCHOOL VARSITY CHEERLEADERS OF VICTORIA, TEXAS

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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


    2000 Ron Paul Chapter 14

    Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

    Congressional Record [.PDF]

    Removal Of Name Of Member As Cosponsor Of House Joint Resolution 89 And House Joint Resolution 90
    9 March 2000

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


    2000 Ron Paul Chapter 15

    Ron Paul’s Congressional website

    Congressional Record [.PDF]

    March 9, 2000

    MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE ACT


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

    Statement of
    HON. RON PAUL
    OF TEXAS


    [Page: H891]








    2000 Ron Paul Chapter 16

    Ron Paul’s Congressional website

    Congressional Record [.PDF]

    March 9, 2000

    PRAISING PARENTS AND TEACHERS DURING TEXAS PUBLIC SCHOOLS WEEK


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

    Statement of
    HON. RON PAUL
    OF TEXAS







    2000 Ron Paul Chapter 17

    Ron Paul’s Congressional website

    Congressional Record [.PDF]

    March 22, 2000

    NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2000


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

    Statement of
    HON. RON PAUL
    OF TEXAS


    [Page: H1197]







    2000 Ron Paul Chapter 18

    Congressional Record [.PDF]

    March 28, 2000

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


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

    Statement of
    HON. RON PAUL
    OF TEXAS


    [Page: H1433]







    2000 Ron Paul Chapter 19

    Ron Paul’s Congressional website

    Congressional Record [.PDF]

    March 29, 2000

    TRIBUTE TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OF HAYS COUNTY, TEXAS


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

    Statement of
    HON. RON PAUL
    OF TEXAS


    [Page: E444]







    2000 Ron Paul Chapter 20

    Ron Paul’s Congressional website

    Congressional Record [.PDF]

    March 29, 2000

    UNNECESSARY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS AND UNWISE MILITARY ADVENTURISM IN COLOMBIA


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

    Statement of
    HON. RON PAUL
    OF TEXAS


    [Page: H1484]




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



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



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



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





    2000 Ron Paul Chapter 21

    Ron Paul’s Congressional website

    Congressional Record [.PDF]

    March 29, 2000

    2000 EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT


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

    Statement of
    HON. RON PAUL
    OF TEXAS


    [Page: H1507]




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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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




    2000 Ron Paul Chapter 22

    Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

    Congressional Record [.PDF]

    Amendment No. 5 Offered By Mr. Paul
    30 March 2000

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

    The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


    2000 Ron Paul Chapter 23

    Ron Paul’s Congressional website

    Congressional Record [.PDF]

    Fiscal 2000 Supplemental Appropriations/DEA Funding Cuts Amendment
    30 March 2000

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


    2000 Ron Paul Chapter 24

    Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

    Congressional Record [.PDF]

    Demanding Recorded Vote
    30 March 2000

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


    2000 Ron Paul Chapter 25

    Ron Paul’s Congressional website

    Congressional Record [.PDF]

    April 3, 2000

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


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

    Statement of
    HON. RON PAUL
    OF TEXAS


    [Page: H1655]







    2000 Ron Paul Chapter 26

    Ron Paul’s Congressional website

    Congressional Record [.PDF]

    April 5, 2000

    PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN ACT OF 2000


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

    Statement of
    HON. RON PAUL
    OF TEXAS


    [Page: H1772]




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



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



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



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



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



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



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


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





    2000 Ron Paul Chapter 27

    Ron Paul’s Congressional website

    Congressional Record [.PDF]

    April 6, 2000

    AMERICAN HOMEOWNERSHIP AND ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 2000


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

    Statement of
    HON. RON PAUL
    OF TEXAS


    [Page: H1917]

    AMENDMENT NO. 9 OFFERED BY MR. PAUL




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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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



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

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

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

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

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



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



    2000 Ron Paul 27:17
    Mr. PAUL. I yield to the gentlewoman from Michigan, the coauthor.

    Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I stand as a cosponsor of this amendment, and it is a good amendment. We have had several calls in our office today wondering what it is, and we took the opportunity to explain it to them.

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

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

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


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


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


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


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

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



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


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



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


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



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


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


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

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

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






    2000 Ron Paul Chapter 28

    Ron Paul’s Congressional website

    Congressional Record [.PDF]

    April 6, 2000

    TRIBUTE TO BASTROP HIGH SCHOOL ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE


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

    Statement of
    HON. RON PAUL
    OF TEXAS


    [Page: E513]







    2000 Ron Paul Chapter 29

    Ron Paul’s Congressional website

    Congressional Record [.PDF]

    May 2, 2000

    WHAT IS FREE TRADE?


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

    Statement of
    HON. RON PAUL
    OF TEXAS


    [Page: H2393]




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



    2000 Ron Paul Chapter 30

    Ron Paul’s Congressional website

    Congressional Record [.PDF]

    Adjournment
    2 May 2000

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


    2000 Ron Paul Chapter 31

    Ron Paul’s Congressional website

    Congressional Record [.PDF]

    May 4, 2000

    Statement on the Death of John Cardinal O’Connor


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

    Statement of
    HON. RON PAUL
    OF TEXAS




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

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

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

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


    2000 Ron Paul Chapter 32

    Ron Paul’s Congressional website

    Congressional Record [.PDF]

    May 4, 2000

    TEXAS HOME SCHOOL APPRECIATION WEEK


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

    Statement of
    HON. RON PAUL
    OF TEXAS


    [Page: E636]







    2000 Ron Paul Chapter 33

    Ron Paul’s Congressional website

    Congressional Record [.PDF]

    May 4, 2000

    IDEA FULL FUNDING ACT OF 2000


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

    Statement of
    HON. RON PAUL
    OF TEXAS


    [Page: E634]







    2000 Ron Paul Chapter 34

    Ron Paul’s Congressional website

    Congressional Record [.PDF]

    SENSE OF THE HOUSE IN SUPPORT OF AMERICA’S TEACHERS
    May 9, 2000



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

    Statement of
    HON. RON PAUL
    OF TEXAS


    [Page: H2732]






    2000 Ron Paul Chapter 35

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

    Statement of Ron Paul on the Misuse of the Social Security Number

    Before the Social Security Subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee

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

    Statement of
    HON. RON PAUL
    OF TEXAS




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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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





    2000 Ron Paul Chapter 36

    Ron Paul’s Congressional website

    Congressional Record [.PDF]

    May 15, 2000

    Manipulating Interest Rates


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

    Statement of
    HON. RON PAUL
    OF TEXAS


    [Page: H3034]






    2000 Ron Paul Chapter 37

    Ron Paul’s Congressional website

    Congressional Record [.PDF]

    May 16, 2000

    The Dollar And Our Current Account Deficit


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

    Statement of
    HON. RON PAUL
    OF TEXAS


    [Page: H3150]






    2000 Ron Paul Chapter 38

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

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

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

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

    Statement of
    HON. RON PAUL
    OF TEXAS




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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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






    2000 Ron Paul Chapter 39

    Ron Paul’s Congressional website

    Congressional Record [.PDF]

    May 23, 2000

    INTERNATIONAL TRADE


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

    Statement of
    HON. RON PAUL
    OF TEXAS


    [Page: H3530]



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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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






    2000 Ron Paul Chapter 40

    Ron Paul’s Congressional website

    Congressional Record [.PDF]

    Permanent Normal Trade Relations
    May 24, 2000



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

    Statement of
    HON. RON PAUL
    OF TEXAS


    [Page: H3720]






    2000 Ron Paul Chapter 41

    Ron Paul’s Congressional website

    Congressional Record [.PDF]

    June 13, 2000

    Medical Privacy Amendment


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

    Statement of
    HON. RON PAUL
    OF TEXAS



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

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

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

    Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Paul:


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


    2000 Ron Paul Chapter 42

    Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

    Congressional Record [.PDF]

    Yield
    13 June 2009

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



    2000 Ron Paul Chapter 43

    Ron Paul’s Congressional website

    Congressional Record [.PDF]

    June 14, 2000

    TRIBUTE TO THE ROUND TOP, TEXAS, INDEPENDENCE DAY PARADE


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

    Statement of
    HON. RON PAUL
    OF TEXAS


    [Pages: E1003]







    2000 Ron Paul Chapter 44

    Ron Paul’s Congressional website

    Congressional Record [.PDF]

    U.S. Membership In The Wprld Trade Organization
    June 19, 2000


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

    Statement of
    HON. RON PAUL
    OF TEXAS


    [Pages: H4657]



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

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

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

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

    2000 Ron Paul 44:5
    Mr. Speaker, let me just point out the importance of whether or not this actually attacks our sovereignty. The CRS has done a study on the WTO, and they make a statement in this regard. This comes from a report from the Congressional Research Service on 8-25-99. It is very explicit. It says, as a member of the WTO, the United States does commit to act in accordance with the rules of the multilateral body. It is legally obligated to ensure national laws do not conflict with WTO rules. That is about as clear as one can get.

    2000 Ron Paul 44:6
    Now, more recently, on June 5, the WTO director, General Michael Moore, made this statement and makes it very clear: the dispute settlement mechanism is unique in the international architecture. WTO member governments bind themselves to the outcome from panels and, if necessary, the appellate body. That is why the WTO has attracted so much attention from all sorts of groups who wish to use this mechanism to advance their interests.

    2000 Ron Paul 44:7
    Interestingly enough, in the past, if we dealt with trade matters, they came to the U.S. Congress to change the law; they came to elected representatives to deal with this, and that is the way it should be under the Constitution. Today, though, the effort has to be directed through our world trade representative, our international trade representative, who then goes to bat for our business people at the WTO. So is it any surprise that, for instance, the company of Chiquita Banana, who has these trade wars going on in the trade fights, wants somebody in the administration to fight their battle, and just by coincidence, they have donated $1.5 million in their effort to get influence?

    2000 Ron Paul 44:8
    So I think that the American people deserve a little bit more than this.

    2000 Ron Paul 44:9
    The membership in the WTO actually is illegal, illegal any way we look at it. If we are delivering to the WTO the authority to regulate trade, we are violating the Constitution, because it is very clear that only Congress can do this. We cannot give that authority away. We cannot give it to the President, and we cannot give it to an international body that is going to manage trade in the WTO. This is not legal, it is not constitutional, and it is not in our best interests. It stirs up the interest to do things politically, and unelected bureaucrats make the decision, not elected officials. It was never intended to be that way, and yet we did this 5 years ago. We have become accustomed to it, and I think it is very important, it is not paranoia that makes some of us bring this up on the floor.

    2000 Ron Paul 44:10
    Mr. Speaker, we will be discussing this either tomorrow or the next day. We will make a decision, and it is not up to the World Trade Organization to decide what labor laws we have or what kind of environmental laws we have, or what tax laws.


    2000 Ron Paul Chapter 45

    Ron Paul’s Congressional website

    Congressional Record [.PDF]

    June 21, 2000

    WITHDRAWING APPROVAL OF UNITED STATES FROM AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION


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

    Statement of
    HON. RON PAUL
    OF TEXAS


    H.J. Res. 90




    2000 Ron Paul 45:1
    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Congress withdraws its approval, provided under section 101(a) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, of the WTO Agreement as defined in section 2(9) of that Act.


    2000 Ron Paul 45:2
    Mr. Speaker, it is true that I believe in low tariffs, because it means low taxes. When we had that problem facing us at the time of the constitutional convention, we were able to correct that problem in one sentence, no tariff barriers between the States, and it has been very successful. That is not what we are talking about here today.

    2000 Ron Paul 45:3
    We are talking about a very complex treaty, an illegal treaty, an unconstitutional treaty. This is the size of the treaty. This is the size of the agreement. This has nothing to do with trying to reduce taxes. As a matter of fact, when this was passed in 1994, the thought was and the statement was made on the House floor that it would lower taxes; and that I would support.

    2000 Ron Paul 45:4
    The truth is, there was an offset for every tax that was lower. Even with NAFTA, one gentleman told me that he immediately benefitted from NAFTA, because the tariff barriers went down. But do you know what happened, there was a reclassification of his product, and his tax went back on because he was a little guy, but the big guys got the benefits.

    2000 Ron Paul 45:5
    So there is something very unfair about the system. It is an unconstitutional approach to managing trade. We cannot transfer the power to manage trade from the Congress to anyone. The Constitution is explicit. ‘Congress shall have the power to regulate foreign commerce.’ We cannot transfer that authority. Transferring that authority to the WTO is like the President transferring his authority as Commander in Chief to the Speaker of the House.

    2000 Ron Paul 45:6
    Mr. Speaker, today we have the opportunity to vote to get out of the WTO. We joined the WTO in 1994 in a lame-duck session hurried up because it was fearful that the new Members would not capitulate and go along with joining the WTO. The WTO was voted by the House and the Senate as an agreement, and yet it is clearly a treaty. It involves 135 countries. It is a treaty. It has been illegally implemented, and we are now obligated to follow the rules of the WTO.

    2000 Ron Paul 45:7
    This is the size of the agreement that we signed and voted on in 1994. Now, if that is not an entangling alliance, I do not know what could be. It is virtually impossible to go through this and understand exactly what we have agreed to. But this is it, and this is what we are voting on today. If my colleagues vote against the resolution, they are rubber stamping this. That is what they are doing.

    2000 Ron Paul 45:8
    Some argue that, yes, indeed the WTO is not quite perfect. But we need it. We need the WTO to manage this trade. But at the same time, they have no options. We cannot change the WTO. This is our only opportunity to vote and dissent on what is happening.

    2000 Ron Paul 45:9
    The people of this country are being galvanized in opposition to this. They never opposed GATT. GATT did not have the same authority as WTO. But now the WTO is being found to be very offensive to a lot of people around this country.

    2000 Ron Paul 45:10
    It is said that the WTO has no control over our sovereignty. That is like saying the U.N. has no control of our sovereignty. Yet what body in the world directs our foreign policy? Where do we send troops around the world? Why do we put our troops under U.N. command? Where do we get authority to march into Kosovo and Somalia? From the United Nations. The WTO is the same.

    2000 Ron Paul 45:11
    It is said that we do not have to listen to the WTO, but they threaten us with sanctions. They do not give us incentives. It is a threat, and we capitulate.

    2000 Ron Paul 45:12
    Mr. Speaker, let me remind those who would like to reform the WTO that we are helpless, Congress cannot do that. We need a unanimous consent vote from the WTO members. So that is not going to happen. Even the committee describes what we are talking about as a system of fair trade administered by the WTO. Fair trade, fine, we are all for fair trade, but who decides the WTO? That is not fair to the American citizens.

    2000 Ron Paul 45:13
    This is not an issue of trade. This is an issue of who gets to manage and decide whether it is fair trade or not. It is the issue of power, whether it is by the environmental bureaucrats or by the U.S. Congress. The one thing under this arrangement, the little farmer has very little say. He cannot get into the WTO and make a complaint. The great meat packers of the country may well.

    2000 Ron Paul 45:14
    The Financial Times does support the WTO, but this is what they said after NTR was passed. ‘Already, many Washington trade lawyers are smacking their lips at the thought of the fees to be earned from bringing dispute cases in the WTO against Chinese trade practices. Says one, what will China be like in the WTO? It is going to be hell on wheels.’

    2000 Ron Paul 45:15
    Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that the giant meat packers may well be represented at the WTO, but the small rancher and farmer is not. The same people who promote this type of international managed trade where we lose control and it is delivered to an international bureaucracy are the same ones who fight hard to prevent us trading with Cuba and selling our products there.

    2000 Ron Paul 45:16
    Essentially no one here advocating trade, as managed through the WTO, supports me in my efforts to open the Cuban markets to our farm products. There’s a lot of talk regarding free trade and open markets but little action. The support by the WTO advocates is for international managed trade along with subsidies to their corporate allies.

    2000 Ron Paul 45:17
    Let me say that reforms are not permissible. The Congress cannot reform the WTO. Only they can reform themselves. But they work in secret, and they have to have a unanimous vote. Our vote is equal to the country of Sudan. So do not expect it to ever be reformed. The only way we can voice our objection is with this resolution. And there will never be another chance to talk about the WTO for 5 more years.

    2000 Ron Paul 45:18
    Let me state that the Congress is required to state a constitutional justification for any legislation. The Committee on Ways and Means amazingly used article I, section 8 to justify their position on this bill. And let me state their constitutional justification. It says, ‘The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises.’ But the Constitution says the Congress. But what we are doing is allowing the WTO to dictate to us.

    2000 Ron Paul 45:19
    Even those on the Committee on Ways and Means said that they endorse this system of ‘fair trade administered by the WTO’. Who is going to decide what is fair? The WTO does. And they tell us what to do.

    2000 Ron Paul 45:20
    ‘Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none, I deem one of the essential principles of our government and consequently one of those which ought to shape its administration.’ Thomas Jefferson.

    2000 Ron Paul 45:21
    Thomas Jefferson, I am sure, would be aghast at this WTO trade agreement. It is out of the hands of the Congress. It is put into the hands of unelected bureaucrats at the WTO. I would venture to guess even the Hamiltonians would be a bit upset with what we do with trade today. I am pro-trade. I have voted consistently to trade with other nations, with lowering tariffs. But I do not support managed trade by international bureaucrats. I do not support subsidized trade. Huge corporations in this country like the WTO because they have political clout with it. They like it because they have an edge on their competitors. They can tie their competitors up in court. And they can beat them at it because not everybody has access. One has to be a monied interest to have influence at the World Trade Organization.

    2000 Ron Paul 45:22
    Earlier today I predicted that we would win this debate. There is no doubt in my mind that we and the American people have won this debate. We will not win the votes, but we will do well. But we have won the debate because we speak for the truth and we speak for the Constitution and we speak for the American people. That is why we have won this debate. It is true there are a lot of complaints about the WTO from those who endorse it. I think the suggestion from the gentleman from Oregon is a good suggestion. Those who are uncomfortable with the WTO and they do not want to rubber-stamp it, and they do not think it is quite appropriate to vote ‘yes’ on this resolution, vote ‘present.’ Send a message. They deserve to hear the message. We have no other way of speaking out. Every 5 years, we get a chance to get out of the WTO--that’s it.

    2000 Ron Paul 45:23
    We cannot control the WTO. None of us here in the Congress has anything to say. You have to have a unanimous vote with WTO to change policy. Our vote is equal to all the 134 other countries; and, therefore, we have very little to say here in the U.S. Congress.

    2000 Ron Paul 45:24
    Why is it that I have allies on the other side of the aisle where we may well disagree on the specifics of labor law and environmental law. We agree that the American people have elected us, we have taken an oath of office to obey the Constitution, that we have a responsibility to them and we should decide what the labor law ought to be, we should decide what the environmental law should be, we should decide what the tax law should be. That is why we have an alliance.

    2000 Ron Paul 45:25
    But let me remind my colleagues, the American people are getting frustrated. They feel this sense of rejection and this loss of control. Why bother coming to us? We do not have control of the WTO and they feel like they are being hurt. This is the reason we are seeing demonstrations. They say if we did not have the WTO we would have anarchy? I predict chaos. I predict eventual chaos from WTO mismanagement. The trade agreement is unmanageable. They would like to do it in secrecy, and they like to wheel and deal; but it is unmanageable.

    2000 Ron Paul 45:26
    Let me say there is another reason why we expect chaos in the economy and in trade. It has to do with the trade imbalances. Today we are at record highs. The current account deficit hit another record yesterday. It is 4.5 percent of the GDP, and it is significant. But unfortunately the WTO can do nothing about that because that is a currency problem. It too causes chaos. Yet there will be an attempt by the WTO to share the problem of imbalances. Just think of how NAFTA came to the rescue of the Mexican peso immediately after NAFTA was approved; a $50 billion rescue for the politicians and the bankers who loaned money to Mexico.

    2000 Ron Paul 45:27
    Quite frankly, I have a suspicion that when the Chinese currency fails, that will be one of the things that we will do. China will be our trading partner. They are in the family of countries, so therefore we will bail out their currency. That is what I suspect will happen. Why else would the Chinese put up with the nonsense that we pass out about what we are going to do, investigate them and tell them how to write their laws? They have no intention of doing that. I think they are anxious to be with WTO because they may well see a need for their currency to be supported by our currency, which would be a tax on the American people.

    2000 Ron Paul 45:28
    This is a sovereignty issue. We do not have the authority in the U.S. House of Representatives to give our authority to the President. We do not have the authority and we should never permit the President to issue these executive orders the way he does, but this is going one step further. We have delivered this sovereignty power to an unelected bunch of bureaucrats at the WTO.
    FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 310
    (Republicans in roman; Democrats in italic ; Independents underlined )
           H J RES 90     YEA-AND-NAY     21-JUN-2000   9:44 PM
           QUESTION:  On Passage
           BILL TITLE:  Withdrawing the Approval of the United States from the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization


    YEAS NAYS PRES NV
    REPUBLICAN 33 182   6
    DEMOCRATIC 21 181 3 6
    INDEPENDENT 2      
    TOTALS 56 363 3 12


    — YEAS    56 —
    Abercrombie Hall (TX) Peterson (MN)
    Aderholt Hilleary Pombo
    Baldwin Hostettler Rohrabacher
    Barr Hunter Sanders
    Bartlett Istook Scarborough
    Bilirakis Jackson (IL) Schaffer
    Bonior Jones (NC) Sensenbrenner
    Brown (OH) Kaptur Smith (NJ)
    Burton Kennedy Strickland
    Chenoweth-Hage Kucinich Stupak
    Coburn Lipinski Tancredo
    Deal McKinney Taylor (MS)
    DeFazio Metcalf Taylor (NC)
    Doolittle Mink Traficant
    Duncan Ney Wamp
    Everett Norwood Waters
    Gibbons Oberstar Weldon (FL)
    Goode Obey Young (AK)
    Goodling Paul

    — NAYS    363 —
    Ackerman Gilchrest Northup
    Allen Gillmor Nussle
    Andrews Gilman Olver
    Archer Gonzalez Ortiz
    Armey Goodlatte Ose
    Baca Gordon Owens
    Bachus Goss Oxley
    Baird Graham Packard
    Baker Granger Pallone
    Baldacci Green (TX) Pascrell
    Ballenger Green (WI) Pastor
    Barcia Greenwood Payne
    Barrett (NE) Gutierrez Pease
    Barrett (WI) Gutknecht Pelosi
    Barton Hall (OH) Peterson (PA)
    Bass Hansen Petri
    Bateman Hastings (FL) Phelps
    Becerra Hastings (WA) Pickering
    Bentsen Hayes Pickett
    Bereuter Hayworth Pitts
    Berkley Hefley Pomeroy
    Berman Herger Porter
    Berry Hill (IN) Portman
    Biggert Hill (MT) Price (NC)
    Bilbray Hilliard Pryce (OH)
    Bishop Hinojosa Quinn
    Blagojevich Hobson Radanovich
    Bliley Hoeffel Rahall
    Blumenauer Hoekstra Ramstad
    Blunt Holden Regula
    Boehlert Holt Reyes
    Boehner Hooley Reynolds
    Bonilla Horn Riley
    Bono Houghton Rodriguez
    Borski Hoyer Roemer
    Boswell Hulshof Rogan
    Boucher Hutchinson Rogers
    Boyd Hyde Ros-Lehtinen
    Brady (PA) Inslee Rothman
    Brady (TX) Isakson Roukema
    Brown (FL) Jackson-Lee (TX) Royce
    Bryant Jenkins Rush
    Burr John Ryan (WI)
    Buyer Johnson (CT) Ryun (KS)
    Callahan Johnson, E. B. Sabo
    Calvert Johnson, Sam Salmon
    Camp Jones (OH) Sanchez
    Canady Kanjorski Sandlin
    Cannon Kasich Sanford
    Capps Kelly Sawyer
    Capuano Kildee Saxton
    Cardin Kilpatrick Schakowsky
    Castle Kind (WI) Scott
    Chabot King (NY) Sessions
    Chambliss Kingston Shadegg
    Clay Kleczka Shaw
    Clayton Klink Shays
    Clement Knollenberg Sherman
    Clyburn Kolbe Sherwood
    Coble LaFalce Shimkus
    Collins LaHood Shows
    Combest Lampson Simpson
    Condit Lantos Sisisky
    Conyers Largent Skeen
    Cooksey Larson Skelton
    Costello Latham Slaughter
    Cox LaTourette Smith (MI)
    Coyne Lazio Smith (TX)
    Cramer Leach Smith (WA)
    Crane Lee Snyder
    Crowley Levin Souder
    Cubin Lewis (CA) Spence
    Cummings Lewis (GA) Spratt
    Cunningham Lewis (KY) Stabenow
    Danner Linder Stark
    Davis (FL) LoBiondo Stearns
    Davis (IL) Lofgren Stenholm
    Davis (VA) Lowey Stump
    DeGette Lucas (KY) Sununu
    Delahunt Lucas (OK) Sweeney
    DeLauro Luther Talent
    DeMint Maloney (CT) Tanner
    Deutsch Maloney (NY) Tauscher
    Diaz-Balart Manzullo Tauzin
    Dickey Markey Terry
    Dicks Martinez Thomas
    Dingell Mascara Thompson (CA)
    Dixon Matsui Thompson (MS)
    Doggett McCarthy (MO) Thornberry
    Dooley McCarthy (NY) Thune
    Doyle McCollum Thurman
    Dreier McCrery Tiahrt
    Dunn McDermott Tierney
    Edwards McGovern Toomey
    Ehlers McHugh Towns
    Ehrlich McInnis Turner
    Emerson McIntyre Udall (CO)
    Engel McKeon Udall (NM)
    English McNulty Upton
    Eshoo Meehan Velazquez
    Etheridge Meek (FL) Visclosky
    Evans Meeks (NY) Vitter
    Ewing Menendez Walden
    Farr Mica Walsh
    Fattah Millender-McDonald Watkins
    Filner Miller (FL) Watt (NC)
    Fletcher Miller, Gary Watts (OK)
    Foley Miller, George Waxman
    Forbes Minge Weiner
    Ford Moakley Weldon (PA)
    Fossella Mollohan Weller
    Fowler Moore Wexler
    Frank (MA) Moran (KS) Weygand
    Franks (NJ) Moran (VA) Whitfield
    Frelinghuysen Morella Wicker
    Frost Murtha Wilson
    Gallegly Myrick Wise
    Ganske Nadler Wolf
    Gejdenson Napolitano Woolsey
    Gekas Neal Wu
    Gephardt Nethercutt Young (FL)







    2000 Ron Paul Chapter 46

    Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

    Congressional Record [.PDF]

    21 June 2000

    2000 Ron Paul 46:1
    Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

    2000 Ron Paul 46:2
    Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today we have the opportunity to vote to get out of the WTO. We joined the WTO in 1994 in a lame-duck session hurried up because it was fearful that the new Members would not capitulate and go along with joining the WTO. The WTO was voted by the House and the Senate as an agreement, and yet it is clearly a treaty. It involves 135 countries. It is a treaty. It has been illegally implemented, and we are now obligated to follow the rules of the WTO.

    2000 Ron Paul 46:3
    This is the size of the agreement that we signed and voted on in 1994. Now, if that is not an entangling alliance, I do not know what could be. It is virtually impossible to go through this and understand exactly what we have agreed to. But this is it, and this is what we are voting on today. If my colleagues vote against the resolution, they are rubber stamping this. That is what they are doing.

    2000 Ron Paul 46:4
    Some argue that, yes, indeed the WTO is not quite perfect. But we need it. We need the WTO to manage this trade. But at the same time, they have no options. We cannot change the WTO. This is our only opportunity to vote and dissent on what is happening.

    2000 Ron Paul 46:5
    The people of this country are being galvanized in opposition to this. They never opposed GATT. GATT did not have the same authority as WTO. But now the WTO is being found to be very offensive to a lot of people around this country.

    2000 Ron Paul 46:6
    It is said that the WTO has no control over our sovereignty. That is like saying the U.N. has no control of our sovereignty. Yet what body in the world directs our foreign policy? Where do we send troops around the world? Why do we put our troops under U.N. command? Where do we get authority to march into Kosovo and Somalia? From the United Nations. The WTO is the same.

    2000 Ron Paul 46:7
    It is the same sort of thing. It is incrementalism. People say we can always oppose it. That is sort of like saying in 1913, The income tax is not all that bad; it is only 1 percent placed on the rich. We don’t have to worry about it. But before we know it, it is out of control. There is incrementalism here to be concerned about.

    2000 Ron Paul 46:8
    To the issue of whether or not we are obligated to follow the WTO rules, Congressional Research Service on August 25, 1999, did a study on the WTO. Their interpretation is this:

    2000 Ron Paul 46:9
    “As a member of the WTO, the United States does commit to act in accordance with the rules of the multilateral body. It is legally obligated to ensure national laws do not conflict with WTO rules.”

    2000 Ron Paul 46:10
    That is why we will be very soon changing our tax laws to go along with what the WTO tells us to do. In an article recently written by D. Augustino, he says:

    2000 Ron Paul 46:11
    “On June 5, WTO Director General Michael Moore emphasized the obedience to WTO rulings as not optional. Quote, the dispute settlement mechanism is unique in the international architecture. WTO member governments bind themselves to the outcome from panels and if necessary the appellate body. That is why the WTO has attracted so much attention from all sorts of groups who wish to use this mechanism to advance their interests.”

    2000 Ron Paul 46:12
    Indeed, this is a treaty that we are obligated to follow. It is an illegal treaty because it was never ratified by the Senate. Even if it had been, it is not legal because you cannot transfer authority to an outside body. It is the U.S. Congress that has the authority to regulate foreign commerce. Nobody else. We will change our tax law and obey the WTO. And just recently, the European Union has complained to us because we do not tax sales on the Internet, and they are going to the WTO to demand that we change that law; and if they win, we will have to change our law. The other side of the argument being, We don’t have to do it. We don’t have to do it if we don’t want to. But then we are not a good member as we promised to be. Then what does the WTO do? They punish us with punitive sanctions, with tariffs. It is a managed trade war operated by the WTO and done in secrecy, without us having any say about it because it is out of our hands. It is a political event now. You have to have access to the U.S. Trade Representative for your case to be heard. This allows the big money, the big corporations to be heard and the little guy gets ignored.

    2000 Ron Paul 46:13
    Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.


    2000 Ron Paul Chapter 47

    Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

    Congressional Record [.PDF]

    World Trade Organization
    21 June 2000

    2000 Ron Paul 47:1
    Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

    The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. GILLMOR). The gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) has 25 minutes remaining.

    2000 Ron Paul 47:2
    Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. It is said that we do not have to listen to the WTO, but they threaten us with sanctions. They do not give us incentives. It is a threat, and we capitulate.

    2000 Ron Paul 47:3
    Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Idaho, (Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE).


    2000 Ron Paul Chapter 48

    Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

    Congressional Record [.PDF]

    World Trade Organization
    21 June 2000

    2000 Ron Paul 48:1
    Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

    2000 Ron Paul 48:2
    Mr. Speaker, let me remind those who would like to reform the WTO that we are helpless, Congress cannot do that. We need a unanimous consent vote from the WTO members. So that is not going to happen. Even the committee describes what we are talking about as a system of fair trade administered by the WTO. Fair trade, fine, we are all for fair trade, but who decides the WTO? That is not fair to the American citizens.

    2000 Ron Paul 48:3
    Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. STUPAK).


    2000 Ron Paul Chapter 49

    Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

    Congressional Record [.PDF]

    World Trade Organization
    21 June 2000

    2000 Ron Paul 49:1
    Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

    2000 Ron Paul 49:2
    Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the gentleman from Texas. This is not an issue of trade. This is an issue of who gets to manage and decide whether it is fair trade or not. It is the issue of power, whether it is by the environmental bureaucrats or by the U.S. Congress. The one thing under this arrangement, the little farmer has very little say. He cannot get into the WTO and make a complaint. The great meat packers of the country may well.

    2000 Ron Paul 49:3
    Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. METCALF).


    2000 Ron Paul Chapter 50

    Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

    Congressional Record [.PDF]

    World Trade Organization
    21 June 2000

    2000 Ron Paul 50:1
    Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

    2000 Ron Paul 50:2
    The Financial Times does support the WTO, but this is what they said after NTR was passed. “Already, many Washington trade lawyers are smacking their lips at the thought of the fees to be earned from bringing dispute cases in the WTO against Chinese trade practices. Says one, what will China be like in the WTO? It is going to be hell on wheels.”

    2000 Ron Paul 50:3
    Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. MCKINNEY).


    2000 Ron Paul Chapter 51

    Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

    Congressional Record [.PDF]

    World Trade Organization
    21 June 2000

    2000 Ron Paul 51:1
    Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

    2000 Ron Paul 51:2
    Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the gentleman from Texas that the giant meat packers may well be represented at the WTO, but the small rancher and farmer is not. The same people who promote this type of international managed trade where we lose control and it is delivered to an international bureaucracy are the same ones who fight hard to prevent us trading with Cuba and selling our products there.

    2000 Ron Paul 51:3
    Essentially no one here advocating trade, as managed through the WTO, supports me in my efforts to open the Cuban markets to our farm products. There’s a lot of talk regarding free trade and open markets but little action. The support by the WTO advocates is for international managed trade along with subsidies to their corporate allies.

    2000 Ron Paul 51:4
    Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. ROHRABACHER).


    2000 Ron Paul Chapter 52

    Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

    Congressional Record [.PDF]

    Yielding
    21 June 2000

    2000 Ron Paul 52:1
    Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. NORWOOD).


    2000 Ron Paul Chapter 53

    Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

    Congressional Record [.PDF]

    World Trade Organization
    21 June 2000

    2000 Ron Paul 53:1
    Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

    2000 Ron Paul 53:2
    Let me say to the gentleman that reforms are not permissible. The Congress cannot reform the WTO. Only they can reform themselves. But they work in secret, and they have to have a unanimous vote. Our vote is equal to the country of Sudan. So do not expect it to ever be reformed. The only way we can voice our objection is with this resolution. And there will never be another chance to talk about the WTO for 5 more years.

    2000 Ron Paul 53:3
    Let me state that the Congress is required to state a constitutional justification for any legislation. The Committee on Ways and Means amazingly used article I, section 8 to justify their position on this bill. And let me state their constitutional justification. It says, “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises.” But the Constitution says the Congress. But what we are doing is allowing the WTO to dictate to us.

    2000 Ron Paul 53:4
    Even those on the Committee on Ways and Means said that they endorse this system of “fair trade administered by the WTO”. Who is going to decide what is fair? The WTO does. And they tell us what to do.

    2000 Ron Paul 53:5
    Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.


    2000 Ron Paul Chapter 54

    Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

    Congressional Record [.PDF]

    Reserving Time
    21 June 2000

    2000 Ron Paul 54:1
    Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time for closing.


    2000 Ron Paul Chapter 55

    Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

    Congressional Record [.PDF]

    World Trade Organization
    21 June 2000

    2000 Ron Paul 55:1
    Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

    2000 Ron Paul 55:2
    “Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none, I deem one of the essential principles of our government and consequently one of those which ought to shape its administration.” Thomas Jefferson.

    2000 Ron Paul 55:3
    Thomas Jefferson, I am sure, would be aghast at this WTO trade agreement. It is out of the hands of the Congress. It is put into the hands of unelected bureaucrats at the WTO. I would venture to guess even the Hamiltonians would be a bit upset with what we do with trade today. I am pro-trade. I have voted consistently to trade with other nations, with lowering tariffs. But I do not support managed trade by international bureaucrats. I do not support subsidized trade. Huge corporations in this country like the WTO because they have political clout with it. They like it because they have an edge on their competitors. They can tie their competitors up in court. And they can beat them at it because not everybody has access. One has to be a monied interest to have influence at the World Trade Organization.

    2000 Ron Paul 55:4
    Earlier today I predicted that we would win this debate. There is no doubt in my mind that we and the American people have won this debate. We will not win the votes, but we will do well. But we have won the debate because we speak for the truth and we speak for the Constitution and we speak for the American people. That is why we have won this debate. It is true there are a lot of complaints about the WTO from those who endorse it. I think the suggestion from the gentleman from Oregon is a good suggestion. Those who are uncomfortable with the WTO and they do not want to rubber-stamp it, and they do not think it is quite appropriate to vote “yes” on this resolution, vote “present.” Send a message. They deserve to hear the message. We have no other way of speaking out. Every 5 years, we get a chance to get out of the WTO—that’s it.

    2000 Ron Paul 55:5
    We cannot control the WTO. None of us here in the Congress has anything to say. You have to have a unanimous vote with WTO to change policy. Our vote is equal to all the 134 other countries; and, therefore, we have very little to say here in the U.S. Congress.

    2000 Ron Paul 55:6
    Why is it that I have allies on the other side of the aisle where we may well disagree on the specifics of labor law and environmental law. We agree that the American people have elected us, we have taken an oath of office to obey the Constitution, that we have a responsibility to them and we should decide what the labor law ought to be, we should decide what the environmental law should be, we should decide what the tax law should be. That is why we have an alliance.

    2000 Ron Paul 55:7
    But let me remind my colleagues, the American people are getting frustrated. They feel this sense of rejection and this loss of control. Why bother coming to us? We do not have control of the WTO and they feel like they are being hurt. This is the reason we are seeing demonstrations. They say if we did not have the WTO we would have anarchy? I predict chaos. I predict eventual chaos from WTO mismanagement. The trade agreement is unmanageable. They would like to do it in secrecy, and they like to wheel and deal; but it is unmanageable.

    2000 Ron Paul 55:8
    Let me say there is another reason why we expect chaos in the economy and in trade. It has to do with the trade imbalances. Today we are at record highs. The current account deficit hit another record yesterday. It is 4.5 percent of the GDP, and it is significant. But unfortunately the WTO can do nothing about that because that is a currency problem. It too causes chaos. Yet there will be an attempt by the WTO to share the problem of imbalances. Just think of how NAFTA came to the rescue of the Mexican peso immediately after NAFTA was approved; a $50 billion rescue for the politicians and the bankers who loaned money to Mexico.

    2000 Ron Paul 55:9
    Quite frankly, I have a suspicion that when the Chinese currency fails, that will be one of the things that we will do. China will be our trading partner. They are in the family of countries, so therefore we will bail out their currency. That is what I suspect will happen. Why else would the Chinese put up with the nonsense that we pass out about what we are going to do, investigate them and tell them how to write their laws? They have no intention of doing that. I think they are anxious to be with WTO because they may well see a need for their currency to be supported by our currency, which would be a tax on the American people.

    2000 Ron Paul 55:10
    This is a sovereignty issue. We do not have the authority in the U.S. House of Representatives to give our authority to the President. We do not have the authority and we should never permit the President to issue these executive orders the way he does, but this is going one step further. We have delivered this sovereignty power to an unelected bunch of bureaucrats at the WTO.


    2000 Ron Paul Chapter 56

    Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

    Congressional Record [.PDF]

    World Trade Organization
    21 June 2000

    2000 Ron Paul 56:1
    Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.


    2000 Ron Paul Chapter 57

    Ron Paul’s Congressional website

    Congressional Record [.PDF]

    June 22, 2000

    Campbell/Bonior Amendment to Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary Appropriations Act


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

    Statement of
    HON. RON PAUL
    OF TEXAS


    [Pages: H5000]



    2000 Ron Paul 57:1
    Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment, and I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell ) for bringing this amendment to the floor, along with his colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior ). This is a crucial amendment. It is vital that we pass it.


    2000 Ron Paul 57:2
    This is truly a civil libertarian issue. It does go back to 1215 with the Magna Carta. It is not an American invention, that people should be protected and not convicted on secret information. This is not something new. However, it has been abused for hundreds of years at least. It has been abused by totalitarian governments.


    2000 Ron Paul 57:3
    Now, many may say today that this is not a big deal; this is not going to affect the American citizens; it is just a couple of poor old immigrants that may be affected. But what is the motivation for the national ID card? It’s good motivation to make sure there are no illegal immigrants coming in. So it’s said we need a national ID card. But who suffers from a national ID card? Maybe some immigrants, and maybe there will be an illegal one caught? But who really suffers? The American people. Because they will become suspect, especially maybe if they look Hispanic or whatever.


    2000 Ron Paul 57:4
    Well, who suffers here? Well, first the immigrant who is being abused of his liberties. But then what? Could this abuse ever be transferred to American citizens? That is the real threat. Now, my colleagues may say, oh, no, that would never happen. Never happen. But that is not the way government works. Government works with incrementalism. It gets us conditioned, gets us to be soft on the protection of liberty.


    2000 Ron Paul 57:5
    Our goal should not be to protect the privacy of government. Certainly we need security, and that is important; but privacy of government and the efficiency of government comes second to the protection of individual liberty. That is what we should be here for. I wish we would do a lot less of a lot of other things we do around here and spend a lot more of our efforts to protect liberty. And we can start by protecting the liberty of the weak and the difficult ones to defend, the small, the little people who have nobody to represent them, the ones who can be pushed around. That is what is happening, all with good intentions.

    2000 Ron Paul 57:6
    The national ID card is done with good intention. Those who oppose us on this amendment, I think they are very, very sincere, and they have justifiable concerns and we should address these. But quite frankly, killing and murder for a long time, up until just recently, was always a State matter. This is rather a new phenomenon that we as a Federal Government have taken over so much law enforcement. That is why the Federal Government, when it sets this precedent, is very bad.


    2000 Ron Paul 57:7
    So I plead with my colleagues. I think this is a fine amendment. I think this not only goes along with the Constitution, but it really confirms what was established in 1215 with the Magna Carta. We should strongly support the principle that secret evidence not be permitted to convict anyone in an American court.
    Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

    2000 Ron Paul 57:8
    Mr. PAUL. I yield to the gentleman from California.


    2000 Ron Paul Chapter 58

    Ron Paul’s Congressional website

    Congressional Record [.PDF]

    June 26, 2000

    TRIBUTE TO REVEREND MONSIGNOR CLYDE HOLTMAN


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

    Statement of
    HON. RON PAUL
    OF TEXAS


    [Pages: E1118]







    2000 Ron Paul Chapter 59

    Ron Paul’s Congressional website

    Congressional Record [.PDF]

    June 26, 2000

    Hostettler Amendment to Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary Appropriations Act


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

    Statement of
    HON. RON PAUL
    OF TEXAS


    [Pages: H5142]



    2000 Ron Paul 59:1
    Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler ) for bringing this very important amendment to the floor.


    2000 Ron Paul 59:2
    There is a lot of emphasis around here on the first amendment, and rightfully so. We should defend it. There is a lot of neglect on the second amendment, but there are a lot of Americans that believe that the second amendment is equally as important as the first amendment. So I congratulate the gentleman.


    2000 Ron Paul 59:3
    Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hostettler amendment. The Founding Fathers fought to break away from a tyrannical government. Part of the problem was that the King of England was making laws without any accountability. When they set up this Government, they saw the dire need to have several checks and balances, thus creating the three-fold system of Government: the executive branch, the judicial branch, and the legislative branch.


    2000 Ron Paul 59:4
    It is this legislative branch that is responsible for making laws and the judicial branch for interpreting them, period.


    2000 Ron Paul 59:5
    A serious act of misconduct on the administration occurred when the Smith & Wesson agreement was settled. The executive branch acted as the legislative branch when they bypassed Congress through 22 pages of litigation. The egregious agreement will require all authorized Smith & Wesson dealers to limit handgun sales to one handgun every 14 days regardless of make, require all authorized Smith & Wesson dealers to require customers to pass a certified test before completing a sale of any firearm, mandate that the BATF participate on an oversight commission created by the settlement agreement, and does not allow unaccompanied minors into areas where firearms are present.


    2000 Ron Paul 59:6
    It seems now that the administration sees fit, acting on no authority given it by the Constitution, to dictate to a company who they can sell their products to and in what manner their product can be sold. This forces law-abiding citizens to jump through Government-ordained hoops before they exercise their rights to purchase as many firearms as they choose and to purchase them whenever they choose.


    2000 Ron Paul 59:7
    The BATF, which has never been known for its fair treatment of gun owners, will play an integral part on the oversight commission of gun owners by the agreement.


    2000 Ron Paul 59:12
    I strongly support this amendment. I compliment the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler ) for bringing this to the floor, and I hope that we can pass this overwhelmingly.


    2000 Ron Paul Chapter 60

    Ron Paul’s Congressional website

    Congressional Record [.PDF]

    June 29, 2000
    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1304, QUALITY HEALTH-CARE COALITION ACT OF 2000


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




    2000 Ron Paul 60:1
    Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule. It is an imperfect rule, but this bill needs to be brought to the floor.

    2000 Ron Paul 60:2
    H.R. 1304 is the only bill that I have seen in the last 3 years, probably in the last 30 years, that would move us in a proper direction for health care in this country. For 30 years now we have moved in the direction, not toward socialized medicine, we do not have socialized medicine, we have a mess. We have a monster we created called ‘medical management.’ But we have moved toward corporate medicine.

    2000 Ron Paul 60:3
    Who are the greatest opponents of H.R. 1304? The HMOs and the insurance companies.

    2000 Ron Paul 60:4
    All we are asking for here is a little bit of return of freedom to the physician, that is, for the right of the physician to freedom of contract, to associate. We are giving no special powers, no special privileges. Trying to balance just to a small degree the artificial power given to the corporations who now run medicine, who mismanage medicine, who destroyed the doctor-patient relationship.

    2000 Ron Paul 60:5
    Mr. Speaker, this has given me a small bit of hope. I am thankful the leadership was willing to bring this bill to the floor tonight. We should go through, get the rule passed, and vote on this. This is the only thing that has offered any hope to preserve and to restore the doctor-patient relationship.

    2000 Ron Paul 60:6
    We need this desperately. We do not need to support the special corporate interests who get the money. The patient does not get the care. The doctors are unhappy. The hospitals are unhappy. And who lobbies against this? Corporate interests. This is total destruction of the doctor-patient relationship.

    2000 Ron Paul 60:7
    All we want to ask for is the freedom to associate and the freedom to contract. If they do not want to become a union, doctors do not have to. They had the power to become unions in the 19th century, but under ethical conditions they did not. Nobody tells doctors that they have to, if we remove this obstacle.



    2000 Ron Paul Chapter 61

    Ron Paul’s Congressional website

    Congressional Record [.PDF]

    Quality Health-Care Coalition Act of 2000
    June 29, 2000
    QUALITY HEALTH-CARE COALITION ACT OF 2000

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







    2000 Ron Paul Chapter 62

    Ron Paul’s Congressional website

    Congressional Record [.PDF]

    29 June 2000

    THE FAMILY HEALTH TAX CUT ACT


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

    Statement of
    HON. RON PAUL
    OF TEXAS


    [Pages: E1170]







    2000 Ron Paul Chapter 63

    Ron Paul’s Congressional website

    Congressional Record [.PDF]

    Sense Of Congress Regarding Importance And Value Of Education In United States History
    July 10, 2000
    SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING IMPORTANCE AND VALUE OF EDUCATION IN UNITED STATES HISTORY

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





    2000 Ron Paul Chapter 64

    Ron Paul’s Congressional website

    Congressional Record [.PDF]

    July 13, 2000

    LIMITATION ON FUNDS FOR ABORTION, FAMILY PLANNING, OR POPULATION CONTROL EFFORTS


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


    2000 Ron Paul 64:1
    Amendment No. 17 offered by Mr. Paul:


    2000 Ron Paul 64:2
    At the end of the bill (preceding the short title), insert the following:

    TITLE VII — ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

    LIMITATION ON FUNDS FOR ABORTION, FAMILY PLANNING, OR POPULATION CONTROL EFFORTS



    2000 Ron Paul 64:3
    Sec. 701. (a) Limitation : None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be made available for–

    2000 Ron Paul 64:4
    (1) population control educational programs or population policy educational programs;

    2000 Ron Paul 64:5
    (2) family planning services, including, but not limited to–

    2000 Ron Paul 64:6
    (A) the manufacture and distribution of contraceptives;

    2000 Ron Paul 64:7
    (B) printing, publication, or distribution of family planning literature; and

    2000 Ron Paul 64:8
    (C) family planning counseling;

    2000 Ron Paul 64:9
    (3) abortion and abortion-related procedures; or

    2000 Ron Paul 64:10
    (4) efforts to change any nation’s laws regarding abortion, family planning, or population control.
    (b) Additional Limitation : None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be made available to any organization which promotes or makes available–

    2000 Ron Paul 64:11
    (1) population control educational programs or population policy educational programs;

    2000 Ron Paul 64:12
    (2) family planning services, including, but not limited to–

    2000 Ron Paul 64:13
    (A) the manufacture and distribution of contraceptives;

    2000 Ron Paul 64:14
    (B) printing, publication, or distribution of family planning literature; and

    2000 Ron Paul 64:15
    (C) family planning counseling;

    2000 Ron Paul 64:16
    (3) abortion and abortion-related procedures; or (4) efforts to change any nation’s laws regarding abortion, family planning, or population control.

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


    Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

    2000 Ron Paul 64:17
    Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

    2000 Ron Paul 64:18
    Mr. Chairman, my amendment strikes all the funding for international population control, birth control, abortion, and family planning. This is not an authorized constitutional expenditure. It should not be spent in this manner.

    2000 Ron Paul 64:19
    More importantly, in a practical way, it addresses the problem of fungibility. Because so often we appropriate funds, whether it is funding for family planning with restrictions against abortion or whether we give economic aid or whether we give military aid. All funds are fungible.

    2000 Ron Paul 64:20
    So, in a very serious way, we subsidize and support abortion to any country that participates once we send them funds. This amendment addresses that by striking all these funds which are allocated for population control.

    2000 Ron Paul 64:21
    Population control and birth control in many of these nations is a serious personal affront to many of their social mores in these countries. Also, it is an affront to the American taxpayer because it requires that American taxpayers be forced through their taxing system to subsidize something they consider an egregious procedure. That is abortion. These funds go to paying for IUDs, Depo-Provera, Norplant, spermicides, condoms.

    2000 Ron Paul 64:22
    Just recently a study came out that showed that the spermicidal, the nonoxynol-9, is something that is paid for with these funds. Unfortunately, this spermicidal enhances the spread of AIDS. Talk about unintended consequences. Here we are, the other side, who likes this kind of spending, they do it with good intentions; and at the same time, it literally backfires and spreads AIDS inadvertently.

    2000 Ron Paul 64:23
    For this reason, I offer this amendment to strike all these funds because there is no other way to stop the use of these funds once the funds get there, no matter what the restrictions are.

    2000 Ron Paul 64:24
    The Mexico City language is something I support and I vote for, and the attempt is very sincere to try to stop the abuse of the way these funds are used. But quite frankly the Mexico City language does not do a whole lot. If the President wants to suspend that language, he can and he takes a penalty of $12 million, a 3 percent reduction in the amount of money that becomes available for these programs. It goes from $385 million down to $373 million and the President can do what he wants. So there is really no prohibition. We as American taxpayers do support these programs. You say, Oh, no, they don’t. We put prohibitions. They’re not allowed to use it for abortion.

    2000 Ron Paul 64:25
    That is not true. I mean, the language is true; but it does not accomplish that. What it accomplishes is that these funds go in for buying birth control pills and condoms, and the money that would have been spent on birth control pills and condoms go and is used to do the abortion. I believe in the fungibility argument in its entirety, not just in the family planning. As soon as you give funds in any way whatsoever to a country such as China that endorses abortion, I mean, we are participants, we are morally bound to say that we are a participant in those acts. Even though we say, I hope you don’t do it and you shouldn’t do it and we’re not authorizing you to do it, we have to remember that funds are fungible and that they can be used in this manner.

    2000 Ron Paul 64:26
    Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

    2000 Ron Paul Chapter 65

    Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

    Congressional Record [.PDF]

    Birth Control Funding
    13 July 2000

    The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. LOWEY) has expired. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) has 1 minute remaining.

    2000 Ron Paul 65:1
    Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

    2000 Ron Paul 65:2
    Let me see if I can explain as an obstetrician the fundamentals of the birds and the bees, about the fundamentals of law. Under the Constitution we are not permitted to do these things.

    2000 Ron Paul 65:3
    I agree with much of what has been said. I believe in birth control, and believe it should be voluntary. But this is not voluntary on the part of the American taxpayer. They are the ones who suffer the consequence of the involuntary compulsion of the tax collector coming and compelling the American taxpayer to fund things that they find immoral and wrong. That is the lack of voluntary approach that you have.

    2000 Ron Paul 65:4
    Yes, there are a lot of good intentions. I think that is very good. But there are a lot of complications that come from these procedures. As I mentioned before, this nonoxynol, it is spermicidal, and it increases the spread of AIDS. Good intentions, unintended consequences. The American taxpayers are subsidizing this.

    2000 Ron Paul 65:5
    What we are saying is that there is better approach. There is a voluntary approach through donations, through our churches. But not through the compulsion of the IRS telling the American taxpayers that they are compelled to pay for an egregious act that they find personally abhorrent.


    2000 Ron Paul Chapter 66

    Ron Paul’s Congressional website

    Congressional Record [.PDF]

    July 19, 2000

    INTERNET GAMBLING PROHIBITION ACT OF 2000


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



    2000 Ron Paul 66:1
    Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act of 2000 for several reasons. The bill threatens Internet privacy, invites Federal Government regulation of the Internet and tramples States’ rights.

    2000 Ron Paul 66:2
    H.R. 3125 establishes a precedent for Federal content regulation of the Internet. By opening this Pandora’s box, supporters of the bill ignore the unintended consequences. The principle will be clearly established that the Federal Government should intervene in Internet expression. This principle could be argued in favor of restrictions on freedom of expression and association. Disapprove of gambling? Let the government step in and ban it on the Internet! Minority rights are obviously threatened by majority whims.

    2000 Ron Paul 66:3
    The bill calls for Federal law enforcement agencies, such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation, to expand surveillance in order to enforce the proposed law. In order to enforce this bill (should it become law), law enforcement would have to obtain access to an individual’s computer to know if one is gambling online. Perhaps Internet Service Providers can be enlisted as law enforcement agents in the same way that bank tellers are forced to spy on their customers under the Bank Secrecy Act? It was this sort of intrusion that caused such a popular backlash against the ‘Know Your Customer’ proposal.

    2000 Ron Paul 66:4
    Several States have already addressed the issue, and Congress should recognize States’ rights. The definition of ‘gambling’ in the bill appears narrow but could be ‘reinterpreted’ to include online auctions or even day trading (a different sort of gambling). Those individuals who seek out such thrills will likely soon find a good substitute which will justify the next round of federal Internet regulation.

    2000 Ron Paul Chapter 67

    Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

    Congressional Record [.PDF]

    Social Security Tax Relief Act
    27 July 2000
    SPEECH OF
    HON. RON PAUL
    OF TEXAS
    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
    Thursday, July 27, 2000


    2000 Ron Paul 67:1
    Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of the Social Security Tax Relief Act (H.R. 4865). By repealing the 1993 tax increase on Social Security benefits, Congress will take a good first step toward eliminating one of the most unfair taxes imposed on seniors: the tax on Social Security benefits.

    2000 Ron Paul 67:2
    Eliminating the 1993 tax on Social Security benefits has long been one of my goals in Congress. In fact, I introduced legislation to repeal this tax increase in 1997, and I am pleased to see Congress acting on this issue. I would remind my colleagues that the justification for increasing this tax in 1993 was to reduce the budget deficit. Now, President Clinton, who first proposed the tax increase, and most members of Congress say the deficit is gone. So, by the President’s own reasoning, there is no need to keep this tax hike in place.

    2000 Ron Paul 67:3
    Because Social Security benefits are financed with tax dollars, taxing these benefits is yet another incidence of “double taxation.” Furthermore, “taxing” benefits paid by the government is merely an accounting trick, a “shell game” which allows members of Congress to reduce benefits by subterfuge. This allows Congress to continue using the Social Security trust fund as a means of financing other government programs and mask the true size of the federal deficit.

    2000 Ron Paul 67:4
    Mr. Speaker, the Social Security Tax Relief Act, combined with our action earlier this year to repeal the earnings limitation, goes a long way toward reducing the burden imposed by the Federal Government on senior citizens. However, I hope my colleagues will not stop at repealing the 1993 tax increase, but will work to repeal all taxes on Social Security benefits. I am cosponsoring legislation to achieve this goal, H.R. 761.

    2000 Ron Paul 67:5
    Congress should also act on my Social Security Preservation Act (H.R. 219), which ensures that all money in the Social Security Trust Fund is spent solely on Social Security. When the government takes money for the Social Security Trust Fund, it promises the American people that the money will be there for them when they retire. Congress has a moral obligation to keep that promise.

    2000 Ron Paul 67:6
    In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to help free senior citizens from oppressive taxation by supporting the Social Security Benefits Tax Relief Act (H.R. 4865). I also urge my colleagues to join me in working to repeal all taxes on Social Security benefits and ensuring that moneys from the Social Security trust fund are used solely for Social Security and not wasted on frivolous government programs.


    2000 Ron Paul Chapter 68

    Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

    Congressional Record [.PDF]

    Social Security Benefits Tax Relief Act Of 2000
    27 July 2000
    SPEECH OF
    HON. RON PAUL
    OF TEXAS
    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
    Thursday, July 27, 2000


    2000 Ron Paul 68:1
    Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of the Social Security Tax Relief Act (H.R. 4865). By repealing the 1993 tax increase on Social Security benefits, Congress will take a good first step toward eliminating one of the most unfair taxes imposed on seniors: the tax on Social Security benefits.

    2000 Ron Paul 68:2
    Eliminating the 1993 tax on Social Security benefits has long been one of my goals in Congress. In fact, I introduced legislation to repeal this tax increase in 1997, and I am pleased to see Congress acting on this issue. I would remind my colleagues that the justification for increasing this tax in 1993 was to reduce the budget deficit. Now, President Clinton, who first proposed the tax increase, and most members of Congress say the deficit is gone. So, by the President’s own reasoning, there is no need to keep this tax hike in place.

    2000 Ron Paul 68:3
    Because Social Security benefits are financed with tax dollars, taxing these benefits is yet another incidence of “double taxation.” Furthermore, “taxing” benefits paid by the government is merely an accounting trick, a “shell game” which allows members of Congress to reduce benefits by subterfuge. This allows Congress to continue using the Social Security trust fund as a means of financing other government programs and mask the true size of the federal deficit.

    2000 Ron Paul 68:4
    Mr. Speaker, the Social Security Tax Relief Act, combined with our action earlier this year to repeal the earnings limitation, goes a long way toward reducing the burden imposed by the Federal Government on senior citizens. However, I hope my colleagues will not stop at repealing the 1993 tax increase, but will work to repeal all taxes on Social Security benefits. I am cosponsoring legislation to achieve this goal, H.R. 761.

    2000 Ron Paul 68:5
    Congress should also act on my Social Security Preservation Act (H.R. 219), which ensures that all money in the Social Security Trust Fund is spent solely on Social Security. When the government takes money for the Social Security Trust Fund, it promises the American people that the money will be there for them when they retire. Congress has a moral obligation to keep that promise.

    2000 Ron Paul 68:6
    In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to help free senior citizens from oppressive taxation by supporting the Social Security Benefits Tax Relief Act (H.R. 4865). 1 also urge my colleagues to join me in working to repeal all taxes on Social Security benefits and ensuring that moneys from the Social Security trust fund are used solely for Social Security and not wasted on frivolous government programs.


    2000 Ron Paul Chapter 69

    Ron Paul’s Congressional website

    Congressional Record [.PDF]

    Minding Our Own Business Regarding Colombia Is In The Best Interest Of America
    September 6, 2000

    MINDING OUR OWN BUSINESS REGARDING COLOMBIA IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF AMERICA

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

    Statement of
    HON. RON PAUL
    OF TEXAS




    2000 Ron Paul 69:1
    Mr. Speaker, those of us who warned of the shortcomings of expanding our military presence in Colombia were ignored when funds were appropriated for this purpose earlier this year. We argued at that time that clearly no national security interests were involved; that the Civil War was more than 30 years old, complex with three factions fighting, and no assurance as to who the good guys were; that the drug war was a subterfuge, only an excuse, not a reason, to needlessly expand our involvement in Colombia; and that special interests were really driving our policy: Colombia Oil Reserves owned by American interests, American weapons manufacturers, and American corporations anxious to build infrastructure in Colombia.

    2000 Ron Paul 69:2
    Already our foolish expanded pressure in Colombia has had a perverse effect. The stated purpose of promoting peace and stability has been undermined. Violence has worsened as factions are now fighting more fiercely than ever before for territory as they anticipate the full force of U.S. weapons arriving.

    2000 Ron Paul 69:3
    The already weak peace process has been essentially abandoned. Hatred toward Americans by many Colombians has grown. The Presidents of 12 South American countries rejected outright the American-backed military operation amendment aimed at the revolutionary groups in Colombia.

    2000 Ron Paul 69:4
    This foolhardy effort to settle the Colombian civil war has clearly turned out to be a diplomatic failure. The best evidence of a seriously flawed policy is the departure of capital. Watching money flows gives us a market assessment of policy; and by all indication, our policy spells trouble.

    2000 Ron Paul 69:5
    There is evidence of a recent large-scale exodus of wealthy Colombians to Miami. Tens of thousands of Colombians are leaving for the U.S., Canada, Costa Rica, Spain, Australia. These are the middle-class and upper-class citizens, taking their money with them. Our enhanced presence in Colombia has accelerated this exodus.

    2000 Ron Paul 69:6
    Our policy, unless quickly and thoroughly reversed, will surely force an escalation of the civil war and a dangerous increase in our involvement with both dollars and troops. All this will further heighten the need for drug sales to finance all factions of the civil war. So much for stopping the drug war.

    2000 Ron Paul 69:7
    Our policy is doomed to fail. There is no national security interest involved; therefore, no goals can be set and no victory achievable. A foreign policy of non-intervention designed only to protect our sovereignty with an eagerness to trade with all nations willing to be friends is the traditional American foreign policy and would give us the guaranteed hope of peace, the greatest hope of peace and prosperity.

    2000 Ron Paul 69:8
    Let us think seriously about our foreign policy, and hopefully someday we will pursue a policy in the best interest of America by minding our own business.



    2000 Ron Paul Chapter 70

    Ron Paul’s Congressional website

    Congressional Record [.PDF]

    United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
    September 7, 2000
    UNITED STATES HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL MUSEUM

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




    2000 Ron Paul Chapter 71

    Ron Paul’s Congressional website

    Congressional Record [.PDF]

    Child Support Distribution Act Of 2000
    September 7, 2000
    CHILD SUPPORT DISTRIBUTION ACT OF 2000

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







    2000 Ron Paul Chapter 72

    Ron Paul’s Congressional website

    Congressional Record [.PDF]

    7 September 2000

    SOCIAL SECURITY TAX RELIEF ACT


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

    Statement of
    HON. RON PAUL
    OF TEXAS


    [Pages: E1412]


    2000 Ron Paul Chapter 73

    Ron Paul’s Congressional website

    Congressional Record [.PDF]

    FSC Repeal And Extra-Territorial Income Exclusion Act Of 2000
    September 12, 2000
    FSC REPEAL AND EXTRA-TERRITORIAL INCOME EXCLUSION ACT OF 2000

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

    Statement of
    HON. RON PAUL
    OF TEXAS


    [Page: H7428]







    2000 Ron Paul Chapter 74

    Ron Paul’s Congressional website

    Congressional Record [.PDF]

    Scouting For All Act
    September 12, 2000

    SCOUTING FOR ALL ACT

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

    Statement of
    HON. RON PAUL
    OF TEXAS


    [Page: H7455]







    2000 Ron Paul Chapter 75

    Ron Paul’s Congressional website

    Congressional Record [.PDF]

    Literacy Involves Families Together Act
    September 12, 2000

    LITERACY INVOLVES FAMILIES TOGETHER ACT

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

    Statement of
    HON. RON PAUL
    OF TEXAS


    [Page: H7468]







    2000 Ron Paul Chapter 76

    Ron Paul’s Congressional website
    September 14, 2000

    SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS TAX RELIEF ACT OF 2000


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

    Statement of
    HON. RON PAUL
    OF TEXAS


    [Page: E1493]







    2000 Ron Paul Chapter 77

    Ron Paul’s Congressional website

    Congressional Record [.PDF]

    September 18, 2000
    AMERICA’S ROLE IN THE UNITED NATIONS

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



    2000 Ron Paul 77:1
    Mr. Speaker, over a half a century has transpired since the United States of America became a member of the United Nations. Purporting to act pursuant to the treaty powers of the Constitution, the President of the United States signed, and the United States Senate ratified, the charter of the United Nations. Yet, the debate in government circles over the United Nations’ charter scarcely has touched on the question of the constitutional power of the United States to enter such an agreement. Instead, the only questions addressed concerned the respective roles that the President and Congress would assume upon the implementation of that charter.

    2000 Ron Paul 77:2
    On the one hand, some proposed that once the charter of the United States was ratified, the President of the United States would act independently of Congress pursuant to his executive prerogatives to conduct the foreign affairs of the Nation. Others insisted, however, that the Congress played a major role of defining foreign policy, especially because that policy implicated the power to declare war, a subject reserved strictly to Congress by Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.

    2000 Ron Paul 77:3
    At first, it appeared that Congress would take control of America’s participation in the United Nations. But in the enactment of the United Nations’ participation act on December 20, 1945, Congress laid down several rules by which America’s participation would be governed. Among those rules was the requirement that before the President of the United States could deploy United States Armed Forces in service of the United Nations, he was required to submit to Congress for its specific approval the numbers and types of Armed Forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance including rights of passage to be made available to the United Nations Security Council on its call for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.

    2000 Ron Paul 77:4
    Since the passage of the United Nations Participation Act, however, congressional control of presidential foreign policy initiatives, in cooperation with the United Nations, has been more theoretical than real. Presidents from Truman to the current President have again and again presented Congress with already-begun military actions, thus forcing Congress’s hand to support United States troops or risk the accusation of having put the Nation’s servicemen and service women in unnecessary danger. Instead of seeking congressional approval of the use of the United States Armed Forces in service of the United Nations, presidents from Truman to Clinton have used the United Nations Security Council as a substitute for congressional authorization of the deployment of United States Armed Forces in that service.

    2000 Ron Paul 77:5
    This transfer of power from Congress to the United Nations has not, however, been limited to the power to make war. Increasingly, Presidents are using the U.N. not only to implement foreign policy in pursuit of international peace, but also domestic policy in pursuit of international, environmental, economic, education, social welfare and human rights policy, both in derogation of the legislative prerogatives of Congress and of the 50 State legislatures, and further in derogation of the rights of the American people to constitute their own civil order.

    2000 Ron Paul 77:6
    As Cornell University government professor Jeremy Rabkin has observed, although the U.N. charter specifies that none of its provisions ‘shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State,’ nothing has ever been found so ‘essentially domestic’ as to exclude U.N. intrusions.

    2000 Ron Paul 77:7
    The release in July 2000 of the U.N. Human Development Report provides unmistakable evidence of the universality of the United Nations’ jurisdictional claims. Boldly proclaiming that global integration is eroding national borders, the report calls for the implementation and, if necessary, the imposition of global standards of economic and social justice by international agencies and tribunals. In a special contribution endorsing this call for the globalization of domestic policymaking, United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan wrote, ‘Above all, we have committed ourselves to the idea that no individual shall have his or her human rights abused or ignored. The idea is enshrined in the charter of the United Nations. The United Nations’ achievements in the area of human rights over the last 50 years are rooted in the universal acceptance of those rights enumerated in the Universal Declaration of Rights. Emerging slowly, but I believe, surely, is an international norm,’ and this is Annan’s words, ‘that must and will take precedence over concerns of State sovereignty.’

    2000 Ron Paul 77:8
    Although such a wholesale transfer of United States sovereignty to the United Nations as envisioned by Secretary General Annan has not yet come to pass, it will, unless Congress takes action.

    2000 Ron Paul 77:9
    Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1146, the American Sovereignty Restoration Act is my answer to this problem.

    2000 Ron Paul 77:10
    To date, Congress has attempted to curb the abuse of power of the United Nations by urging the United Nations to reform itself, threatening the nonpayment of assessments and dues allegedly owed by the United States and thereby cutting off the United Nations’ major source of funds. America’s problems with the United Nations will not, however, be solved by such reform measures. The threat posed by the United Nations to the sovereignty of the United States and independence is not that the United Nations is currently plagued by a bloated and irresponsible international bureaucracy. Rather, the threat arises from the United Nation’s Charter which — from the beginning — was a threat to sovereignty protections in the U.S. Constitution. The American people have not, however, approved of the Charter of the United Nations which, by its nature, cannot be the supreme law of the land for it was never ‘made under the Authority of the U.S.,’ as required by Article VI.

    2000 Ron Paul 77:11
    H.R. 1146 — The American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 1999 is my solution to the continued abuses of the United Nations. The U.S. Congress can remedy its earlier unconstitutional action of embracing the Charter of the United Nations by enacting H.R. 1146. The U.S. Congress, by passing H.R. 1146, and the U.S. president, by signing H.R. 1146, will heed the wise counsel of our first president, George Washington, when he advised his countrymen to ‘steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world,’ lest the nation’s security and liberties be compromised by endless and overriding international commitments.

    An excerpt from Herbert W. Titus’ Constitutional Analysis of the United Nations



    2000 Ron Paul 77:12
    In considering the recent United Nations meetings and the United States’ relation to that organization and its affront to U.S. sovereignty, we would all do well to read carefully Professor Herbert W. Titus’ paper on the United Nations of which I have provided this excerpt:

    2000 Ron Paul 77:13
    It is commonly assumed that the Charter of the United Nations is a treaty. It is not. Instead, the Charter of the United Nations is a constitution. As such, it is illegitimate, having created a supranational government, deriving its powers not from the consent of the governed (the people of the United States of America and peoples of other member nations) but from the consent of the peoples’ government officials who have no authority to bind either the American people nor any other nation’s people to any terms of the Charter of the United Nations.

    2000 Ron Paul 77:14
    By definition, a treaty is a contract between or among independent and sovereign nations, obligatory on the signatories only when made by competent governing authorities in accordance with the powers constitutionally conferred upon them. I Kent, Commentaries on American Law 163 (1826); Burdick, The Law of the American Constitution section 34 (1922) Even the United Nations Treaty Collection states that a treaty is (1) a binding instrument creating legal rights and duties (2) concluded by states or international organizations with treaty-making power (3) governed by international law.

    2000 Ron Paul 77:15
    By contrast, a charter is a constitution creating a civil government for a unified nation or nations and establishing the authority of that government. Although the United Nations Treaty Collection defines a ‘charter’ as a ‘constituent treaty,’ leading international political authorities state that ‘[t]he use of the word ‘Charter’ [in reference to the founding document of the United Nations] . . . emphasizes the constitutional nature of this instrument.’ Thus, the preamble to the Charter of the United Nations declares ‘that the Peoples of the United Nations have resolved to combine their efforts to accomplish certain aims by certain means.’ The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary 46 (B. Simma, ed.) (Oxford Univ. Press, NY: 1995) (Hereinafter U.N. Charter Commentary). Consistent with this view, leading international legal authorities declare that the law of the Charter of the United Nations which governs the authority of the United Nations General Assembly and the United Nations Security Council is ‘similar . . . to national constitutional law,’ proclaiming that ‘because of its status as a constitution for the world community,’ the Charter of the United Nations must be construed broadly, making way for ‘implied powers’ to carry out the United Nations’ ‘comprehensive scope of duties, especially the maintenance of international peace and security and its orientation towards international public welfare.’ Id. at 27

    2000 Ron Paul 77:16
    The United Nations Treaty Collection confirms the appropriateness of this ‘constitutional interpretive’ approach to the Charter of the United Nations with its statement that the charter may be traced ‘back to the Magna Carta (the Great Charter) of 1215,’ a national constitutional document. As a constitutional document, the Magna Carta not only bound the original signatories, the English barons and the king, but all subsequent English rulers, including Parliament, conferring upon all Englishmen certain rights that five hundred years later were claimed and exercised by the English people who had colonized America.

    2000 Ron Paul 77:17
    A charter, then, is a covenant of the people and the civil rulers of a nation in perpetuity. Sources of Our Liberties 1-10 (R. Perry, ed.) (American Bar Foundation: 1978) As Article 1 of Magna Carta, puts it:

    2000 Ron Paul 77:18
    We have granted moreover to all free men of our kingdom for us and our heirs forever all liberties written below, to be had and holden by themselves and their heirs from us and our heirs.

    2000 Ron Paul 77:19
    In like manner, the Charter of the United Nations is considered to be a permanent ‘constitution for the universal society,’ and consequently, to be construed in accordance with its broad and unchanging ends but in such a way as to meet changing times and changing relations among the nations and peoples of the world. U.N. Charter Commentary at 28-44.

    2000 Ron Paul 77:20
    According to the American political and legal tradition and the universal principles of constitution making, a perpetual civil covenant or constitution, obligatory on the people and their rulers throughout the generations, must, first, be proposed in the name of the people and, thereafter, ratified by the people’s representatives elected and assembled for the sole purpose of passing on the terms of a proposed covenant. See 4 The Founders’ Constitution 647-58 (P. Kurland and R. Lerner, eds.) (Univ. Chicago. Press: 1985). Thus, the preamble of the Constitution of the United States of America begins with ‘We the People of the United States’ and Article VII provides for ratification by state conventions composed of representatives of the people elected solely for that purpose. Sources of Our Liberties 408, 416, 418-21 (R. Perry, ed.) (ABA Foundation, Chicago: 1978)

    2000 Ron Paul 77:21
    Taking advantage of the universal appeal of the American constitutional tradition, the preamble of the Charter of the United Nations opens with ‘We the peoples of the United Nations.’ But, unlike the Constitution of the United States of America, the Charter of the United Nations does not call for ratification by conventions of the elected representatives of the people of the signatory nations. Rather, Article 110 of the Charter of the United Nations provides for ratification ‘by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.’ Such a ratification process would have been politically and legally appropriate if the charter were a mere treaty. But the Charter of the United Nations is not a treaty; it is a constitution.

    2000 Ron Paul 77:22
    First of all, Charter of the United Nations, executed as an agreement in the name of the people, legally and politically displaced previously binding agreements upon the signatory nations. Article 103 provides that ‘[i]n the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail.’ Because the 1787 Constitution of the United States of America would displace the previously adopted Articles of Confederation under which the United States was being governed, the drafters recognized that only if the elected representatives of the people at a constitutional convention ratified the proposed constitution, could it be lawfully adopted as a constitution. Otherwise, the Constitution of the United States of America would be, legally and politically, a treaty which could be altered by any state’s legislature as it saw fit. The Founders’ Constitution, supra, at 648-52.

    2000 Ron Paul 77:23
    Second, an agreement made in the name of the people creates a perpetual union, subject to dissolution only upon proof of breach of covenant by the governing authorities whereupon the people are entitled to reconstitute a new government on such terms and for such duration as the people see fit. By contrast, an agreement made in the name of nations creates only a contractual obligation, subject to change when any signatory nation decides that the obligation is no longer advantageous or suitable. Thus, a treaty may be altered by valid statute enacted by a signatory nation, but a constitution may be altered only by a special amendatory process provided for in that document. Id. at 652.

    2000 Ron Paul 77:24
    Article V of the Constitution of the United States of America spells out that amendment process, providing two methods for adopting constitutional changes, neither of which requires unanimous consent of the states of the Union. Had the Constitution of the United States of America been a treaty, such unanimous consent would have been required. Similarly, the Charter of the United Nations may be amended without the unanimous consent of its member states. According to Article 108 of the Charter of the United Nations, amendments may be proposed by a vote of two-thirds of the United Nations General Assembly and may become effective upon ratification by a vote of two-thirds of the members of the United Nations, including all the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. According to Article 109 of the Charter of the United Nations, a special conference of members of the United Nations may be called ‘for the purpose of reviewing the present Charter’ and any changes proposed by the conference may ‘take effect when ratified by two-thirds of the Members of the United Nations including all the permanent members of the Security Council.’ Once an amendment to the Charter of the United Nations is adopted then that amendment ‘shall come into force for all Members of the United Nations,’ even those nations who did not ratify the amendment, just as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America is effective in all of the states, even though the legislature of a state or a convention of a state refused to ratify. Such an amendment process is totally foreign to a treaty. See Id., at 575-84.

    2000 Ron Paul 77:25
    Third, the authority to enter into an agreement made in the name of the people cannot be politically or legally limited by any preexisting constitution, treaty, alliance, or instructions. An agreement made in the name of a nation, however, may not contradict the authority granted to the governing powers and, thus, is so limited. For example, the people ratified the Constitution of the United States of America notwithstanding the fact that the constitutional proposal had been made in disregard to specific instructions to amend the Articles of Confederation, not to displace them. See Sources of Our Liberties 399-403 (R. Perry ed.) (American Bar Foundation: 1972). As George Mason observed at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, ‘Legislatures have no power to ratify’ a plan changing the form of government, only ‘the people’ have such power. 4 The Founders’ Constitution, supra, at 651.

    2000 Ron Paul 77:26
    As a direct consequence of this original power of the people to constitute a new government, the Congress under the new constitution was authorized to admit new states to join the original 13 states without submitting the admission of each state to the 13 original states. In like manner, the Charter of the United Nations, forged in the name of the ‘peoples’ of those nations, established a new international government with independent powers to admit to membership whichever nations the United Nations governing authorities chose without submitting such admissions to each individual member nation for ratification. See Charter of the United Nations, Article 4, Section 2. No treaty could legitimately confer upon the United Nations General Assembly such powers and remain within the legal and political definition of a treaty.

    2000 Ron Paul 77:27
    By invoking the name of the ‘peoples of the United Nations,’ then, the Charter of the United Nations envisioned a new constitution creating a new civil order capable of not only imposing obligations upon the subscribing nations, but also imposing obligations directly upon the peoples of those nations. In his special contribution to the United Nations Human Development Report 2000, United Nations Secretary-General Annan made this claim crystal clear:

    2000 Ron Paul 77:28
    Even though we are an organization of Member States, the rights and ideals the United Nations exists to protect are those of the peoples. No government has the right to hide behind national sovereignty in order to violate the human rights or fundamental freedoms of its peoples. Human Development Report 2000 31 (July 2000) [Emphasis added.]

    2000 Ron Paul 77:29
    While no previous United Nations’ secretary general has been so bold, Annan’s proclamation of universal jurisdiction over ‘human rights and fundamental freedoms’ simply reflects the preamble of the Charter of the United Nations which contemplated a future in which the United Nations operates in perpetuity ‘to save succeeding generations from the scourge of ware . . . to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights . . . to establish conditions under which justice . . . can be maintained, and to promote social progress and between standards of life in larger freedom.’ Such lofty goals and objectives are comparable to those found in the preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America: ‘to . . . establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the Blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity . . .’

    2000 Ron Paul 77:30
    There is, however, one difference that must not be overlooked. The Constitution of the United States of America is a legitimate constitution, having been submitted directly to the people for ratification by their representatives elected and assembled solely for the purpose of passing on the terms of that document. The Charter of the United Nations, on the other hand, is an illegitimate constitution, having only been submitted to the Untied States Senate for ratification as a treaty. Thus, the Charter of the United Nations, not being a treaty, cannot be made the supreme law of our land by compliance with Article II, Section 2 of Constitution of the United States of America. Therefore, the Charter of the United Nations is neither politically nor legally binding upon the United States of America or upon its people.



    2000 Ron Paul Chapter 78

    Ron Paul’s Congressional website

    Congressional Record [.PDF]

    September 20, 2000

    INTRODUCTION OF THE ESSENTIAL RURAL HOSPITAL PRESERVATION ACT


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

    Statement of
    HON. RON PAUL
    OF TEXAS


    [Page: E1536]



    2000 Ron Paul Chapter 79

    Ron Paul’s Congressional website

    Congressional Record [.PDF]

    September 21, 2000

    CHILDHOOD CANCER AWARENESS MONTH


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

    Statement of
    HON. RON PAUL
    OF TEXAS


    [Page: E1555]








    2000 Ron Paul Chapter 80

    Ron Paul’s Congressional website

    Congressional Record [.PDF]

    September 25, 2000

    TWENTY-FIFTH ANNIVERSARY OF EDUCATION FOR ALL HANDICAPPED CHILDREN ACT


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

    Statement of
    HON. RON PAUL
    OF TEXAS


    [Page: H8004]







    2000 Ron Paul Chapter 81

    Ron Paul’s Congressional website

    Congressional Record [.PDF]

    Congratulating Home Educators And Home Schooled Students
    September 26, 2000

    CONGRATULATING HOME EDUCATORS AND HOME SCHOOLED STUDENTS

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

    Statement of
    HON. RON PAUL
    OF TEXAS


    [Page: H8187]







    2000 Ron Paul Chapter 82

    Ron Paul’s Congressional website

    Congressional Record [.PDF]

    September 27, 2000

    GONZALES — ‘LEXINGTON OF TEXAS’


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

    Statement of
    HON. RON PAUL
    OF TEXAS


    [Page: E1607]







    2000 Ron Paul Chapter 83

    Ron Paul’s Congressional website

    Congressional Record [.PDF]

    October 11, 2000

    CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 4205, FLOYD D. SPENCE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001


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

    Statement of
    HON. RON PAUL
    OF TEXAS


    [Page: H9658]







    2000 Ron Paul Chapter 84

    Ron Paul’s Congressional website

    Congressional Record [.PDF]

    October 11, 2000

    CONGRESS IGNORES ITS CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY REGARDING MONETARY POLICY


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

    Statement of
    HON. RON PAUL
    OF TEXAS


    [Page: H9806 - H9807]



    2000 Ron Paul 84:1
    Mr. Speaker, at a frantic pace we anxiously rush to close down this Congress with excessive legislation while totally ignoring the all-important issue of monetary policy.


    2000 Ron Paul 84:2
    Congress has certainly reneged on its responsibility in this area. We continue to grant authority to a central bank that designs monetary policy in complete secrecy, inflating the currency at will, thus stealing value from the already existing currency through a dilution effect.


    2000 Ron Paul 84:3
    The Federal Reserve clings to the silly notion that economic growth causes inflation, thus trying to avoid the blame it deserves. The Federal Reserve then concludes that an economic slowdown is the solution to the problem it created. Those who argue to continue the inflationary process are equally in error. As if the economy were an airplane, the monetary authorities talk about a soft landing with the false hope of painlessly paying for the excesses enjoyed for a decade.


    2000 Ron Paul 84:4
    It should surprise no one that our financial markets are getting more volatile every day. Inflating a currency and causing artificially low interest rates always leads to malinvestment, overcapacity, excessive debt, speculation, and dangerous trade imbalances. We now live in a world awash in a sea of fiat currencies, with the dollar, the yen, and the Euro leading the way. The inevitable unwinding of the wild speculation, as reflected in the derivatives market, is now beginning.


    2000 Ron Paul 84:5
    And what do we do here in the Congress? We continue to ignore our constitutional responsibility to maintain a sound dollar. Our monetary policy of the last 10 years has produced the largest financial bubble in all of history, with the good times paid for by borrowing and an illusion of wealth created in a speculative stock market. Our current account deficit, now running over $400 billion per year, and our $1.5 trillion foreign debt, has been instrumental in financing our extravagance. Be assured, the piper will be paid. The markets are clearly reflecting the excesses of the 1990s.


    2000 Ron Paul 84:6
    Already we hear the pundits arguing over who is to be blamed if the markets crash or a recession hits. Some have given the current President credit for the good times we have enjoyed. If the crash comes before January, some will place the blame on him as well. If problems hit later, the next President will get the blame. But the truth is our Presidents deserve neither the credit for the good times nor the blame for the bad times.


    2000 Ron Paul 84:7
    The Federal Reserve, which maintains a monopoly control over the money supply, credit and interest rates, is indeed the culprit and should be held accountable. But the real responsibility falls on the Congress, for it is Congress’ neglect that permits the central bank to debase the dollar at will.


    2000 Ron Paul 84:8
    Destroying the value of a currency is immoral and remains unconstitutional. It should be illegal. And only a responsible Congress can accomplish that.


    2000 Ron Paul 84:9
    In preparation for the time when we are forced to reform the monetary system, we must immediately begin to consider the problems that befall a nation that permits systematic currency depreciation as a tool to gain short-term economic benefits while ignoring the very dangerous long-term consequences to our liberty and prosperity.






    2000 Ron Paul Chapter 85

    Ron Paul’s Congressional website

    Congressional Record [.PDF]

    October 11, 2000
    END-OF-SESSION ISSUES

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



    2000 Ron Paul 85:1
    Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan and the gentleman from Colorado for allowing me the opportunity to express my thoughts on the education reform debate that is sure to consume much of our time in the remaining days of the 106th Congress. For all the sound and fury generated by the argument over education, the truth is that the differences between the congressional leadership and the administration are not significant; both wish to strengthen the unconstitutional system of centralized education. I trust I need not go into the flaws with President Clinton’s command-and-control approach to education. However, this Congress has failed to present a true, constitutional alternative to President Clinton’s proposal to further nationalize education.

    2000 Ron Paul 85:2
    It is becoming increasingly clear that the experiment in centralized control of education has failed, and that the best means of improving education is to put parents back in charge. According to a recent Manhattan Institute study of the effects of state policies promoting parental control over education, a minimal increase in parental control boosts students’ average SAT verbal score by 21 points and students’ SAT math score by 22 points! The Manhattan Institute study also found that increasing parental control of education is the best way to improve student performance on the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) tests. Clearly, the drafters of the Constitution knew what they were doing when they forbade the Federal Government from meddling in education.

    2000 Ron Paul 85:3
    American children deserve nothing less than the best educational opportunities, not warmed-over versions of the disastrous educational policies of the past. That is why I introduced H.R. 935, the Family Education Freedom Act. This bill would give parents an inflation-adjusted $3,000 per annum tax credit, per child for educational expenses. The credit applies to those in public, private, parochial, or home schooling.

    2000 Ron Paul 85:4
    This bill creates the largest tax credit for K-12 education in the history of our great Republic and it returns the fundamental principle of a truly free economy to America’s education system: what the great economist Ludwig von Mises called ‘consumer sovereignty.’

    2000 Ron Paul 85:5
    Consumer sovereignty simply means consumers decide who succeeds or fails in the market. Businesses that best satisfy consumer demand will be the most successful. Consumer sovereignty is the means by which the free market maximizes human happiness.

    2000 Ron Paul 85:6
    Currently, consumers are less than sovereign in the education ‘market.’ Funding decisions are increasingly controlled by the federal government. Because ‘he who pays the piper calls the tune,’ public, and even private schools, are paying greater attention to the dictates of federal ‘educrats’ while ignoring the wishes of the parents to an ever-greater degree. As such, the lack of consumer sovereignty in education is destroying parental control of education and replacing it with state control. Restoring parental control is the key to improving education.

    2000 Ron Paul 85:7
    Of course, I applaud all efforts which move in the right direction such as the Education Savings Accounts legislation (H.R. 7). President Clinton’s college tax credits are also good first steps in the right direction. However, Congress must act boldly — we can ill afford to waste another year without a revolutionary change in our policy. I believe my bill sparks this revolution and I am disappointed that the leadership of this Congress chose to ignore this fundamental reform and instead focused on reauthorizing great society programs and promoting the pseudo-federalism of block grants.

    2000 Ron Paul 85:8
    One area where this Congress has so far been successful in fighting for a constitutional education policy was in resisting President Clinton’s drive for national testing. I do wish to express my support for the provisions banning the development of national testing contained in the Education Appropriations bill, and thank Mr. Goodling for his leadership in this struggle.

    2000 Ron Paul 85:9
    Certain of my colleagues champion proposals to relieve schools of certain mandates so long as states and localities agree to be held ‘accountable’ to the federal government for the quality of their schools. I have supported certain of these proposals because they do provide states and localities the option of escaping certain federal mandates.

    2000 Ron Paul 85:10
    However, there are a number of both practical and philosophical concerns regarding these proposals. The primary objection to this approach, from a constitutional viewpoint, is embedded in the very mantra of ‘accountability’ stressed by the plans’ proponents. Talk of accountability begs the question: accountable to whom? Under these type of plans, schools remain accountable to federal bureaucrats and those who develop the state tests upon which a schools’ performance is judged. Should the schools not live up to their bureaucratically-determined ‘performance goals,’ they will lose their limited freedom from federal mandates. So federal and state bureaucrats will determine if the schools are to be allowed to participate in these programs and bureaucrats will judge whether the states are living up to the standards set in the state’s education plan — yet this is supposed to debureaucratize and decentralize education!

    2000 Ron Paul 85:11
    Even absent the ‘accountability’ provisions spending billions of taxpayer dollars on block grants is a poor way of restoring control over education to local educators and parents. Some members claim that the expenditure levels for not matter, it is the way the money is spent which is important. Contrary to the view of the well-meaning but misguided members who promote block grants, the amount of taxpayer dollars spent on federal education does matter.

    2000 Ron Paul 85:12
    First of all, the federal government lacks constitutional authority to redistribute monies between states and taxpayers for the purpose of education, regardless of whether the monies are redistributed through federal programs or through grants. There is no ‘block grant exception’ to the principles of federalism embodied in the U.S. Constitution.

    2000 Ron Paul 85:13
    Furthermore, the federal government’s power to treat state governments as their administrative subordinates stems from an abuse of Congress’ taxing-and-spending power. Submitting to federal control is the only way state and local officials can recapture any part of the monies of the federal government has illegitimately taken from a state’s citizens. Of course, this is also the only way state officials can tax citizens of other states to support their education programs. It is the rare official who can afford not to bow to federal dictates in exchange for federal funding!

    2000 Ron Paul 85:14
    As long as the federal government controls education dollars, states and local schools will obey Federal mandates; the core program is not that federal monies are given with the inevitable strings attached, the real problem is the existence of federal taxation and funding.

    2000 Ron Paul 85:15
    Since federal spending is the root of federal control, by increasing federal spending this Congress is laying the groundwork for future Congresses to fasten more and more mandates on the states. Because state and even local officials, not federal bureaucrats, will be carrying out these mandates, this system could complete the transformation of the state governments into mere agents of the federal government.

    2000 Ron Paul 85:16
    While it is true that lower levels of intervention are not as bad as micro-management at the federal level, Congress’ constitutional and moral responsibility is not to make the federal education bureaucracy ‘less bad.’ Rather, we must act now to put parents back in charge of education and thus make American education once again the envy of the world.

    2000 Ron Paul 85:17
    Hopefully the next Congress will be more reverent toward their duty to the U.S. Constitution and America’s children. The price of Congress’s failure to return to the Constitution in the area of education will be paid by the next generation of American children. In short, we cannot afford to continue on the policy read we have been going down. The cost of inaction to our future generations is simply too great.



    2000 Ron Paul Chapter 86

    Ron Paul’s Congressional website

    Congressional Record [.PDF]

    October 12, 2000
    WARNING ABOUT FOREIGN POLICY AND MONETARY POLICY

    ------------
    Statement of
    HON. RON PAUL
    OF TEXAS
    EXCHANGE OF SPECIAL ORDER TIME

    2000 Ron Paul 86:1
    Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the special order time of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. BURTON).

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


    2000 Ron Paul 86:2
    Mr. Speaker, over the last 3 years to 4 years, I have come to the floor on numerous occasions trying to sound a warning about both our foreign policy and our monetary policy. Today our monetary policy and our foreign policy have clashed. We see now that we face serious problems, not only in the Middle East, but on our financial markets.


    2000 Ron Paul 86:3
    Yesterday, I talked a bit about what I see as a financial bubble that has developed over the past decade and made the point that a financial bubble can be financed through borrowing money, as well as inflation. A financial bubble is essentially a consequence of inflation. A lot of people talk about inflation being the mere rising of some prices, but that is not the case.


    2000 Ron Paul 86:4
    Most good economists recognize that inflation is a consequence of monetary policy; as one increases the supply of money, it inflates the currency. This distorts interest rates, and it distorts the markets. Sometimes this goes into goods and services, and other times these excessive funds will go into marketplaces and distort the value of stocks and bonds.


    2000 Ron Paul 86:5
    I believe this is what has happened for the past 10 years. Mr. Speaker, so in spite of the grand prosperity that we have had for this past decade, I believe it is an illusion in many ways, because we have not paid for it. In a true capitalist society, true wealth comes from hard work and savings.


    2000 Ron Paul 86:6
    Today, the American people have a negative savings rate, which means that we get our so-called capital from a printing press, because there are no savings and no funds to invest. The Federal Reserve creates these funds to be invested. On a short-term, this seems to benefit everyone.


    2000 Ron Paul 86:7
    The poor like it because they seem to get welfare benefits from it; and certainly the rich like it, because it motivates and stimulates their businesses; and politicians like it, because it takes care of deficits and it stimulates the economy.


    2000 Ron Paul 86:8
    The only problem with this is it always ends, and it always ends badly. And this is the reason that we have to meet up with a policy that seems ridiculous. The economy seems to be doing quite well, but the Federal Reserve comes along and says there is a problem with economic growth. Economic growth might cause prices to go up; so, therefore, what we have to do is cut off the economic growth. If you have slower growth, the prices will not go up any longer.


    2000 Ron Paul 86:9
    They are talking about a symptom and not the cause. The cause is the Federal Reserve. The problem is that the Federal Reserve has been granted authority that is unconstitutional to go and counterfeit money, and until we recognize that and deal with that, we will continue to have financial problems.


    2000 Ron Paul 86:10
    We have heard that the 1990s was a different decade, it was a new era, economy, exactly what we heard throughout the decade prior to the collapse of the markets in Japan. The markets have now been down more than 50 percent in Japan for more than 10 years, and there is no sign of significant recovery there.


    2000 Ron Paul 86:11
    Also there were other times in our history when they talked about a new era economy.


    2000 Ron Paul 86:12
    Let me read a quote: ‘With growing optimism, they gave birth to a foolish idea called the New Economic Era. That notion spread over the whole country. We were assured that we were in a new period where the old laws of economics no longer applied.’ Herbert Hoover in his memoirs.


    2000 Ron Paul 86:13
    It is an illusion to believe that the new paradigm exists. Actually, the computer industry involves 5 percent of the economy; 95 percent is what they called the old economy. I ascribe to old economic laws, because the truth is, we cannot change economic laws. And if inflating a currency distorts the market and the boom leads to the bust, that cannot be repelled.


    2000 Ron Paul 86:14
    If we are looking towards bad times, it is not because of current policy, it is because of previous policy, the previous policy of the 10 years, the time when we live beyond our means. We say how did we live beyond our means? Where did the money come from? Are we not spending less than Washington? No, we are not spending less in Washington. Are not the deficits a lot less? They are less, but they are not gone.


    2000 Ron Paul 86:15
    Where did we borrow from? We borrowed from overseas. We have a current account deficit that requires over a billion dollars a day that we borrow from foreigners just to finance our current account deficit. We are now the greatest debtor in the world, and that is a problem. This is why the markets are shaky, and this is why the markets have been going down for 6 months, and this is why in a foreign policy crisis such as we are facing in the Middle East, we will accentuate these problems. Therefore, the foreign policy of military interventionism overseas is something that we should seriously question.






    2000 Ron Paul Chapter 87

    Ron Paul’s Congressional website

    Congressional Record [.PDF]

    17 October 2000

    SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER CONFIDENTIALITY ACT OF 1999


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

    Statement of
    HON. RON PAUL
    OF TEXAS


    [Page: E1845]







    2000 Ron Paul Chapter 88

    Ron Paul’s Congressional website

    Congressional Record [.PDF]

    October 19, 2000

    THREATS TO FINANCIAL FREEDOM


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

    Statement of
    HON. RON PAUL
    OF TEXAS


    [Page: E1868 - E1869]



    2000 Ron Paul 88:4
    I take as my theme two quotations, one from the Gospel of St. Matthew, 20:15 — ‘Do not I have the right to do what I want with my own money?’


    2000 Ron Paul 88:5
    The second is from Mayer Amschel Rothchild (1743-1812), founder of the famous banking dynasty, the House of Rothchild, who said: ‘Give me control over a nation’s currency and I care not who makes its laws.’ Both quotes have relevance to what I have to say.


    2000 Ron Paul 88:6
    If you are fortunate enough to fall into the estimated group of six million millionaires worldwide now in existence, a number noted in a study by Merrill Lynch last year, you automatically may be a criminal suspect.


    2000 Ron Paul 88:7
    I say ‘suspect’ because Citibank views these wealthy people, who control approximately 21 trillion-six hundred billion dollars, as potential financial criminals simply because of their wealth. Citibank announced last year that their 40,000 private banking clients, each of whom had to prove a personal net worth of $3 million in order to qualify for the bank’s services, are watched every minute of every day to see if they may be engaged in money laundering or other financial crimes. I am certain other banks do as well.


    2000 Ron Paul 88:8
    The constant surveillance is accomplished, as is most privacy invasion these days, by a special banking computer software program called ‘America’s Software’ which allows every transaction in any account to be watched constantly. It produces a daily record for bank officials, who now have certain obligations imposed by US law that require the reporting of ‘suspicious activities’ to federal agents. Transfers of large amounts of cash or other unusual account activity rings alarm bells and results in an investigation not revealed to the ‘suspect’ banking client under penalty of law.


    2000 Ron Paul 88:9
    We can conclude from this Draconian arrangement, for one thing, that a person of great wealth who establishes a private banking relationship with a major bank now is presumed to be a


    2000 Ron Paul 88:10
    I was at a conference on April 22, 1999 in Miami sponsored by the respected publication, Money Laundering Alert. Lester Joseph, Assistant Chief of Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering for the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, said that the U.S. Government officially views any offshore financial activity by US persons — any offshore financial activity — especially the use of tax havens, as potential criminal money laundering activity.


    2000 Ron Paul 88:11
    Now, it’s quite obvious that financial activities in which a person engages when wealth is moved offshore for asset protection, for broader investment potential, for any number of legitimate reasons, for possible tax savings, any of these moves, are innocent in themselves. Former Secretary of the US Treasury, Robert Rubin, admitted in congressional testimony last year, it is the intention behind these innocent financial moves that government agents want to police for possible criminal investigation and prosecution.


    2000 Ron Paul 88:12
    So now we have the government money police targeting normal financial activities that until recently have been perfectly legal, simply because a person decides in his own best interests, to go offshore. We all know that in the US, African-American, Latino, Asian-American and other racial minorities have been unfairly subject to police ‘profiling.’ Add to that list of ‘presumed guilty,’ Americans who engaged in offshore financial activity.


    2000 Ron Paul 88:13
    I’m not a defender of wealth per se. I wish I had wealth to defend, but I am a defender of freedom. There can be no freedom, personal or otherwise, without wealth, without the right to own and use one’s own property as one see fit. Remove property rights and you have no means to sustain life for yourself or your family. But now the acquisition and accumulation of productive wealth has become officially suspect in America.


    2000 Ron Paul 88:14
    For the last 20 years the policies adopted by the United States and allied governments have constituted a stealth war against wealth and against financial privacy. While the free flow of capital is extolled as appropriate and essential, the governments of major nations have turned upside down the traditional role of banks and banking. As a child I was made to believe that the people you dealt with at your bank and other financial institutions were fiduciaries to whom you could entrust your money.


    2000 Ron Paul 88:15
    Now we have what I call the ‘Nazification’ of the financial system, not only in America but worldwide. I don’t use that term lightly. As a matter of historic fact, the civil forfeiture laws in this country mirror in many major respects the Nazi forfeiture laws that were used to confiscate the property of the Jews. I am a member of the board of directors of Forfeiture Endangers American


    2000 Ron Paul 88:16
    The genesis of this ‘wealth=crime’ policy can be found in that infamous political and moral failure, the so-called ‘war on drugs.’ One of the primary weapons of this ill-begotten war has been civil forfeiture, where police seize cash and property based on rumor or hearsay. In 80% of the cases, the owner is never charged with any crime, but usually the police keep the loot. Many police have long since turned their attention away from drugs, and instead pursue the cash and property they use to lard their budgets. Thankfully, my former colleague, Henry Hyde of Illinois, led the successful legislative battle for some much needed civil forfeiture reform which recently became law.


    2000 Ron Paul 88:17
    As part of the drug war that progressed and expanded (but is never victorious), the catch all crime of ‘money laundering’ was invented: an all purpose federal prosecutors’ dream. The anti-money laundering statutes that have grown like a malignancy. Charges of money laundering now routinely are shown in with almost every possible criminal indictment, often as a bargaining chip and/or a means to confiscate the wealth of the accused even before trial. Try hiring a good defense attorney when your bank account has been frozen.


    2000 Ron Paul 88:18
    Laws enacted under the banner of the war on drugs intentionally have forced bankers to become spies for the federal financial police. The bankers’ primary allegiance now is not to customers or clients, but to the government.


    2000 Ron Paul 88:19
    At the Miami conference, scores of bank officials were instructed how to question clients, watch account activity, and report any ‘suspicious activity’. Suspicious activity reports (SARs) are filed by the tens of thousands every month, produce voluminous computer records, encourage potential criminal investigations, allow prosecutors to bully citizens, but in the end very few SARs put criminals in jail. What this success process has produced is the mushrooming of federal prosecutorial staffs, US attorneys budgets, the power and costs of the US Department of Justice and the welfare of the bureaucrats and lawyers who feast at the taxpayers’ trough.


    2000 Ron Paul 88:20
    That great economist, Wilhelm Roepke, once wrote: ‘It is very easy to awaken resentment against people who not only have money, but also the boldness to send that money abroad in order to protect it against all manner of domestic insecurity. It’s vital that people in their means of existence, that is, capital, still have the chance to move about internationally, and when absolutely necessary, to escape the arbitrariness of government policy by means of secret back doors.’


    2000 Ron Paul 88:21
    Consider that expressed view in the context of what is known as ‘expatriation,’ the human right to acquire a new nationality and renounce one’s old citizenship. We, as a nation of immigrants, should cherish that right.


    2000 Ron Paul 88:22
    In November 1994 Forbes magazine published an infamous article which identified a handful


    2000 Ron Paul 88:23
    In truth, there are very legitimate financial reasons for an American citizen to ‘go offshore’. These include avoiding exposure to costly domestic litigation and excessive court damage judgements and jury awards, protection of assets, unreasonable SEC restrictions on foreign investments, the availability of more attractive and private offshore bank accounts, life insurance policies and annuities, avoidance of probate and reduction of estate taxes.


    2000 Ron Paul 88:24
    But Americans who have followed this prudent course now find themselves lumped together with drug lords, tax cheats, dirty money launderers, disease carriers and assorted criminals. What is legal and legitimate is made to look sinister and evil.


    2000 Ron Paul 88:25
    There is a decided international dimension to this domestic U.S. campaign against wealth. Beginning last June, the news media took belated notice of offshore tax havens and their thriving financial centers as a newly discovered international threat. A frenzy of publicity surrounded the serial publication of spurious ‘blacklists’ by previously unnoticed international organizations. None of these self-appointed, self-important groups enjoy any legal standing, but they proceeded to announce exactly how the international financial world should conduct its affairs. Those nations in disagreement with the OECD world view were threatened with financial boycotts and unexplained ‘sanctions’ to be imposed by June 2001.


    2000 Ron Paul 88:26
    These organizations include the Paris-based organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), which loudly denounces what it calls ‘harmful tax competition’ is composed of representatives from major high tax nations. An OECD subsidiary is the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), a sort of financial Gestapo that pronounces who is legal and who is not legal in terms of money laundering activity.


    2000 Ron Paul 88:27
    Yet a third group without no basis in international law calls itself the ‘Financial Stability Forum.’ This is a subgroup of the G-7 nations and has taken it upon itself to decide which nations are good or bad in cooperation for capital flows.


    2000 Ron Paul 88:28
    All of these organizations are self-anointed and don’t have any more standing than the International Tennis Association as far as legal capacity to impose their decisions. They are little more than public relations mouthpieces of an international cartel of rich nations trying to suppress tax havens and other nations that have profited from fully legal tax competition.


    2000 Ron Paul 88:29
    In an obviously co-ordinated effort starting last May, these organizations each issued its own ‘blacklist’ of nations it found deficient in various ways. The FSF attached those it claimed were disruptive to international financial activity. FATF issued a list of countries allegedly lax on money laundering. The OECD came out with list of nations engaged in ‘unfair tax competition’. It was no coincidence that most of the world’s no-tax financial haven nations were on all these phony lists. A small coterie of statist bureaucrats in the financial ministries of the major nations had coordinated their propaganda work well: an uneducated, gullible global news media swallowed this phony story whole.


    2000 Ron Paul 88:30
    Every one of the wealthy nations that are pushing this attack on tax havens are controlled by high-tax, socialist governments who see a tax and wealth hemorrhage occurring among their citizens. Yes, millions, billions of dollars, pounds and francs are pouring out of high tax nations flowing to offshore tax havens — and for very good reasons. Why would anyone in his right mind continue to pay confiscatory taxes when you can move your financial activity to another nation where you pay no personal or corporate income tax, no estate tax, no capital gains tax?


    2000 Ron Paul 88:31
    Ignored in this concerted attack on small tax haven nations is the simple fact that under current U.S. and UK tax laws the biggest tax savings for foreigners can be found in Britain and in the United States. The United States is one of the biggest tax havens in the world — but only for non-U.S. persons. And in spite of the known fact that most of the dirty money laundering in the world takes place in London and New York, neither nation is on the FATF money laundering blacklist.



    2000 Ron Paul 88:32
    All this is really a smoke screen for increased tax collection. Feeling the tax drain, the rich nations want an end to all those factors that make tax haven attractive: They demand that taxes be imposed where there are none, want an end to financial and banking privacy and ‘free exchange’ of information, want complete ‘transparency’, and want these small nations to become tax collectors for the rich, welfare state nations. In other words, they want tax havens to become just like the profligate major nations.


    2000 Ron Paul 88:33
    This new cartel of high-tax nations, limping along with their huge, unsustainable welfare state budgets, are engaged in a grotesque rebirth of colonialism and imperialism of a financial nature. They are willing to trample the sovereignty of small nations. In fact, the United Nations last year said national sovereignty must be compromised in order to impose a world financial order of high taxes and no financial privacy. Such a radical demand mocks international law. It makes vassal states out of sovereign nations.


    2000 Ron Paul 88:34
    This wrong headed approach flies in the face of every development that is producing the new prosperity: the Internet, e-commerce, globalization, cross border investment worldwide. For that reason alone, this effort will fail. Just as the legendary King Canute could not hold back the ocean tides, the rich nations will be swept away in their effort to impose their will on the world.





    2000 Ron Paul Chapter 89

    Ron Paul’s Congressional website

    Congressional Record [.PDF]

    October 24, 2000

    PALMETTO BEND CONVEYANCE ACT


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

    Statement of
    HON. RON PAUL
    OF TEXAS


    [Page: H10571]





    2000 Ron Paul Chapter 90

    Ron Paul’s Congressional website

    Congressional Record [.PDF]

    October 24, 2000

    OLDER AMERICANS ACT AMENDMENTS OF 2000


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

    Statement of
    HON. RON PAUL
    OF TEXAS


    [Page: H10605]






    2000 Ron Paul Chapter 91

    Ron Paul’s Congressional website

    Congressional Record [.PDF]

    October 25, 2000

    NATIONAL SCIENCE EDUCATION ACT


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

    Statement of
    HON. RON PAUL
    OF TEXAS


    [Page: E1919]







    2000 Ron Paul Chapter 92

    Ron Paul’s Congressional website

    Congressional Record [.PDF]

    October 26, 2000

    CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2615, CERTIFIED DEVELOPMENT COMPANY PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS ACT OF 2000


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

    Statement of
    HON. RON PAUL
    OF TEXAS


    [Page: H11260]






    2000 Ron Paul Chapter 93

    Ron Paul’s Congressional website

    Congressional Record [.PDF]

    November 13, 2000

    ECONOMIC PROBLEMS AHEAD


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

    Statement of
    HON. RON PAUL
    OF TEXAS


    [Page: H11866]





    2000 Ron Paul Chapter 94

    Ron Paul’s Congressional website

    Congressional Record [.PDF]

    FSC Repeal and Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act of 2000
    14 November 2000

    2000 Ron Paul 94:1
    Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today we are faced with a decision to do the right thing for the wrong reasons or the wrong thing for the wrong reasons. We have heard proponents of this FSC bill argue for tax breaks for U.S. exporters, which, of course, should be done. Those proponents, however, argue that this must be done to move the United States into compliance with a decision by the WTO tribunal. Alternatively, opponents of the bill, argue that allowing firms domiciled in the United States to keep their own earnings results in some form of subsidy to the “evil” corporations. If we were to evaluate this legislation based upon the floor debated, we would be left with the choice of abandoning U.S. sovereignty in the name of WTO compliance or denying private entities freedom from excess taxation.

    2000 Ron Paul 94:2
    Setting aside the aforementioned false choice of globalism or oppression by taxation, there are three reasons to consider voting against this bill. First, it perpetuates an international trade war. Second, this bill is brought to the floor as a consequence of a WTO ruling against the United States. Number three, this bill gives more authority to the President to issue Executive Orders.

    2000 Ron Paul 94:3
    Although this legislation deals with taxes and technically actually lowers taxes, the reason the bill has been brought up has little to do with taxes per se. To the best of my knowledge there has been no American citizen making any request that this legislation be brought to the floor. It was requested by the President to keep us in good standing with the WTO.

    2000 Ron Paul 94:4
    We are now witnessing trade war protectionism being administered by the World (Government) Trade Organization—the WTO. For two years now we have been involved in an ongoing trade war with Europe and this is just one more step in that fight. With this legislation the U.S. Congress capitulates to the demands of the WTO. The actual reason for this legislation is to answer back to the retaliation of the Europeans for having had a ruling against them in favor of the United States on meat and banana products. The WTO obviously spends more time managing trade wars than it does promoting free trade. This type of legislation demonstrates clearly the WTO is in charge of our trade policy.

    2000 Ron Paul 94:5
    The Wall Street Journal reported on 9/5/00, “After a breakdown of talks last week, a multibillion- dollar trade war is now about certain to erupt between the European Union and the U.S. over export tax breaks for U.S. companies, and the first shot will likely be fired just weeks before the U.S. election.”

    2000 Ron Paul 94:6
    Already, the European Trade Commissioner, Pascal Lamy, has rejected what we’re attempting to do here today. What is expected is that the Europeans will quickly file a new suit with the WTO as soon as this legislation is passed. They will seek to retaliate against United States companies and they have already started to draw up a list of those products on which they plan to place punitive tariffs.

    2000 Ron Paul 94:7
    The Europeans are expected to file suit against the United States in the WTO within 30 days of this legislation going into effect.

    2000 Ron Paul 94:8
    This legislation will perpetuate the trade war and certainly support the policies that have created the chaos of the international trade negotiations as was witnessed in Seattle, Washington.

    2000 Ron Paul 94:9
    The trade war started two years ago when the United States obtained a favorable WTO ruling and complained that the Europeans refused to import American beef and bananas from American owned companies.

    2000 Ron Paul 94:10
    The WTO then, in its administration of the trade war, permitted the United States to put on punitive tariffs on over $300 million worth of products coming into the United States from Europe. This only generated more European anger who then objected by filing against the United States claiming the Foreign Sales Corporation tax benefit of four billion dollars to our corporations was “a subsidy.”

    2000 Ron Paul 94:11
    On this issue the WTO ruled against the United States both initially and on appeal. We had been given till November 1st to accommodate our laws to the demands of the WTO.

    2000 Ron Paul 94:12
    H.R. 4986 will only anger the European Union and accelerate the trade war. Most likely within two months, the WTO will give permission for the Europeans to place punitive tariffs on hundreds of millions of dollars of U.S. exports. These trade problems will only worsen if the world slips into a recession when protectionist sentiments are strongest. Also, since currency fluctuations by their very nature stimulate trade wars, this problem will continue with the very significant weakness of the EURO.

    2000 Ron Paul 94:13
    The United States is now rotating the goods that are to receive the 100 to 200 percent tariff in order to spread the pain throughout the various corporations in Europe in an effort to get them to put pressure on their governments to capitulate to allow American beef and bananas to enter their markets. So far the products that we have placed high tariffs on have not caused Europeans to cave in. The threat of putting high tariffs on cashmere wool is something that the British now are certainly unhappy with.

    2000 Ron Paul 94:14
    The Europeans are already well on their way to getting their own list ready to “scare” the American exporters once they get their permission in November.

    2000 Ron Paul 94:15
    In addition to the danger of a recession and a continual problem with currency fluctuation, there are also other problems that will surely aggravate this growing trade war. The Europeans have already complained and have threatened to file suit in the WTO against the Americans for selling software products over the Internet. Europeans tax their Internet sales and are able to get their products much cheaper when bought from the United States thus penalizing European countries. Since the goal is to manage things in a so-called equitable manner the WTO very likely could rule against the United States and force a tax on our international Internet sales.

    2000 Ron Paul 94:16
    Congress has also been anxious to block the Voice Stream Communications planned purchase by Deutsche Telekom, a German government-owned phone monopoly. We have not yet heard the last of this international trade fight.

    2000 Ron Paul 94:17
    The British also have refused to allow any additional American flights into London. In the old days the British decided these problems, under the WTO the United States will surely file suit and try to get a favorable ruling in this area thus ratcheting up the trade war.

    2000 Ron Paul 94:18
    Americans are especially unhappy with the French who have refused to eliminate their farm subsidies—like we don’t have any in this country.

    2000 Ron Paul 94:19
    The one group of Americans that seem to get little attention are those importers whose businesses depend on imports and thus get hit by huge tariffs. When 100 to 200 percent tariffs are placed on an imported product, this virtually puts these corporations out of business. The one thing for certain is this process is not free trade; this is international managed trade by an international governmental body. The odds of coming up with fair trade or free trade under WTO are zero. Unfortunately, even in the language most commonly used in the Congress in promoting “free trade” it usually involves not only international government managed trade but subsidies as well, such as those obtained through the Import/Export Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation and various other methods such as the Foreign Aid and our military budget.

    2000 Ron Paul 94:20
    Lastly, despite a Constitution which vests in the House authority for regulating foreign commerce (and raising revenue, i.e. taxation), this bill unconstitutionally delegates to the President the “authority” to, by Executive order, suspend the tax break by designating certain property “in short supply.” Any property so designated shall not be treated as qualifying foreign trade property during the period beginning with the date specified in the Executive order.

    2000 Ron Paul 94:21
    Free trade should be our goal. We should trade with as many nations as possible. We should keep our tariffs as low as possible since tariffs are taxes and it is true that the people we trade with we are less likely to fight with. There are many good sound, economic and moral reasons why we should be engaged in free trade. But managed trade by the WTO does not qualify for that definition.


    2000 Ron Paul Chapter 95

    Ron Paul’s Congressional website
    November 15, 2000

    OUR FOOLISH WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST


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

    Statement of
    HON. RON PAUL
    OF TEXAS







    2000 Ron Paul Chapter 96

    Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

    Congressional Record [.PDF]

    James Madison Commemoration Commission Act
    4 December 2000

    2000 Ron Paul 96:1
    Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the James Madison Commemoration Commission Act secure in the belief that were James Madison on the floor today, he would share my opposition to this bill. Congress has no constitutional authority to use taxpayer funds to promote the life and thought of any individual. Congressional actions exceeding the limitations on congressional power contained in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution undermine the very principles of limited government to which James Madison devoted his life. In fact, few have been as eloquent in pointing out how liberty is threatened when Congress exceeds its enumerated powers:


    2000 Ron Paul 96:2
    If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.—Letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792 (Madison, 1865, I, page 546)


    2000 Ron Paul 96:3
    Of course, Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly endorse the goals of promoting public awareness and appreciation of, the life and thought of James Madison. In fact, through my work with various educational organizations, I have probably done as much as any member to promote the thought of James Madison and the other Founding Fathers. James Madison’s writings provide an excellent guide to the principles underlying the true nature of the American government. In addition, Madison’s writings address many issues of concern to friends of limited government today, such as the need for each branch of government to respect the Separation of Powers, the threat posed to individual liberty by an interventionist foreign policy, and the differences between a Republic and a pure Democracy.

    2000 Ron Paul 96:4
    However, the continuing growth of the federal government and Congress’ refusal to abide by its constitutional limits suggest that the people most in need of familiarization with the thought of James Madison are those who would support this bill.

    2000 Ron Paul 96:5
    Mr. Speaker, S. 3137 exceeds the constitutional limits on Congressional power, and thus violates the principles of limited government upon which our constitutional system was based. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to pay appropriate tribute to James Madison by rejecting this unconstitutional bill.


    2000 Ron Paul Chapter 97

    Ron Paul’s Congressional website

    Congressional Record [.PDF]

    December 4, 2000
    ECONOMIC UPDATE


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

    Statement of
    HON. RON PAUL
    OF TEXAS


    [Page: H 11939]