[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 778-782]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        STIMULATING THE ECONOMY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2001, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) is recognized for 
60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, dealing with the slumping economy will prove 
every bit as challenging to the Congress as fighting terrorism. No one 
challenges the need to protect American citizens from further terrorist 
attacks, but there is much debate throughout the country as to how it 
should be done and whether personal liberty here at home must be 
sacrificed.
  Many are convinced that our efforts overseas might escalate the 
crisis and actually precipitate more violence. A growing number of 
Americans are becoming concerned that our efforts to preserve security 
will result in the unnecessary sacrifice of that which we have pledged 
to protect, our constitutionally protected liberty.
  A similar conflict also exists once government attempts to legislate 
an end to a recession. In the 1970s, wage and price controls were used 
to suppress price inflation and to help the economy without realizing 
the futility of such a policy. Not only did it not work, the economy 
was greatly harmed. Legislation per se is not necessarily harmful; but 
if it reflects bad policy, it is.
  The policy of wage and price controls makes things worse and 
represents a serious violation of people's rights. Today, we hear from 
strong advocates of higher taxation, increased spending, higher budget 
deficits, tougher regulations, bailouts and all kinds of subsidies and 
support programs as tools to restore economic growth. The Federal 
Reserve recognized early on the severity of the problems, and over the 
past year lowered short-term interest rates in an unprecedented 11 
times, dropping the Fed funds rate from 6\1/2\ percent to 1\3/4\.
  This has not helped, and none of these other suggestions can solve 
the economic problems we face either. Some may temporarily help a part 
of the economy, but the solution to restoring growth lies not in more 
government but less. It is precisely too much government and especially 
manipulation of credit by the Federal Reserve that precipitated the 
economic downturn in the first place.
  Increasing that which caused the recession cannot possibly at the 
same time be the solution. The magnitude of the distortions of the 
1990s brought on by artificially low interest rates orchestrated by the 
Fed on top of 30 years of operating with a fiat currency worldwide 
suggests that this slow down will not abort quickly. The Japanese 
economy has been in a slump for over 10 years and shows no signs of 
recovery.
  The world economies are more integrated than ever before. When they 
are

[[Page 779]]

growing, it is a benefit to all; but in a contraction, globalism based 
on fiat money and an international government assures that most 
economies will be dragged down together. Evidence is abundant that most 
countries of the world are feeling the pressure of a weakening economy.
  Many of our political and economic leaders have been preaching that 
more consumer spending can revitalize the economy. This admonition, of 
course, fails to address the reality of a record high $7.5 trillion, 
and rising, consumer debt. ``Today a party, tomorrow an economic 
hangover'' has essentially been our philosophy for decades; but there 
is always a limit to deficit spending, whether it is private or 
governmental, and the short-term benefits must always be paid for in 
one form or another later on.
  Those who felt and acted wealthy in holding the dot-com and Enron 
stocks were brought back to Earth with a shattering correction. There 
is a lot more of this type of correction yet to come in the financial 
sector. In recessions, to remain solvent consumers ought to tighten the 
belts, pay off debt and save. In a free market, this would lower 
interest rates to once again make investments attractive.
  The confusing aspect of today's economy is that consumers and even 
businesses continue profligate borrowing in spite of the problems on 
the horizon. Interest rates, instead of rising, are pushed dramatically 
downward by the Federal Reserve creating massive amounts of new credit. 
This new credit, according to economic law, must in time push the value 
of the dollar down and general prices up. When this happens and the 
dollar is threatened on exchange markets, the cost of living is pushed 
sharply upward. The Central Bank is then forced then to raise interest 
rates, as they did in 1979, when the rates hit 21 percent.
  Even before any need to tighten, interest rates may rise or not fall 
as expected. This has just happened in the year 2001. Even with Fed 
fund rates at 40-year lows, the 10- and 30-year rates have not fallen 
accordingly. Many corporate bond rates have stayed high, and credit 
card rates have stayed in double digits. This happens because the 
market discounts for debt quality and future depreciation of the 
dollar.
  The Fed cannot control these rates, and they cannot control where the 
new credit they create goes. This means that resorting to or trusting 
in the Fed to bail out the economy and accommodate a congressional 
spending is foolhardy and dangerous. This policy has led to a record 
default for U.S. corporate bonds, and worldwide $110 billion of bonds 
were defaulted on last year.
  Monetary inflation is the chief cause of recessions. Therefore, we 
must never expect that this same policy will reverse the economic 
dislocations it has caused. For over a year the Fed has been massively 
inflating the money supply, and there is no evidence that it has done 
much good. This continuous influx of new credit, instead, delays the 
correction that must inevitably come, the liquidation of bad debt and 
the reduction of overcapacity.
  This is something Japan has not accomplished in 12 years of interest 
rates of around 1 percent. The market must be left to eliminate the 
misdirected investments and allow the sound investments to survive.

                              {time}  1300

  There are other policies that will assist in a recovery that the 
Congress could implement: all taxes ought to be lowered, government 
spending should be reduced, controls of labor costs should be removed, 
and onerous regulations should be reduced or eliminated. We should not 
expect any of this to happen unless the people and the Congress decide 
that free market capitalism and sound money are preferable to a welfare 
state and fiat money.
  Whether this downturn is the one that will force that major decision 
upon us is not known, but eventually we will have to make it. 
Welfareism and our expanding growing foreign commitments, financed 
seductively through credit creation by the Fed, are not viable options. 
Transferring wealth to achieve a modicum of economic equality and 
assuring the role and assuming the role of world policemen, while 
ignoring economic laws regarding money and credit, must lead to 
economic distortions and a lower standard of living for most citizens. 
In the process, dependency on the government develops and Congress 
attempts to solve all the problems with a much more visible hand than 
Adam Smith recommended.
  The police efforts overseas and the effort to solve the social and 
economic problems here at home cannot be carried out without 
undermining the freedoms that we all profess to care about. Sadly 
lacking in the Congress is a conviction that free markets, that is, 
truly free markets, and sound money can provide the highest standard of 
living for the greatest number of people. Instead, we operate with a 
system that compromises free markets and causes economic injury to a 
growing number of people while rewarding special interests and steadily 
undermining the principles of liberty.
  Unfortunately, the policy of monetary inflation is most harmful to 
the poor and the middle class, especially in the early stages. Since 
rejecting the current system and endorsing economic freedom diminishes 
the power and influence of politicians, it is difficult to get 
political support for such a program. The necessary changes will only 
come when the American people wake up to the reality and insist that 
the Congress pursue only those goals permitted under the Constitution.
  Instead of moving in the direction of freer markets, the more 
problems the Western countries face, the more government programs are 
demanded. If one looks at Europe, the United States, or even Japan, as 
their economies weaken, government involvement in the economy 
increases. But in China and Russia, where the horrible conditions that 
communism caused, ironically made those two countries move toward freer 
markets when they encountered serious problems. Even the central banks 
of these two countries today are accumulating gold, while Western 
central banks are selling.
  The reason for this is that the conventional wisdom of the West's 
political and economic leaders is that there is a third way that is 
best, or an alternative to the extremes of too much freedom, laissez-
faire capitalism, and too little freedom, authoritarianism socialism, 
and communism. But this is a myth. One can only justify intervention in 
the market on principle or against it.
  There is always the hope that government will be prudent and limit 
its intrusion in the economy with low taxes, minimal regulations, a 
little inflation, and only a few special interest favors. Yet the 
record is clear. Any sign of distress prompts government action for any 
and every conceivable problem. Since each action by the government not 
only fails in its attempt to solve the problem it addresses, it creates 
several new problems in addition while prompting even more government 
intervention.
  Here in the United States, we have seen the process at work for 
several decades with steady growth in the size and scope of the Federal 
bureaucracy and the corresponding reduction of our personal liberties. 
This principle also applies to overseas intervention. One episode of 
meddling in the affairs of other nations leads to several new problems, 
requiring even more of our attention and funding. This system leads to 
a huge bureaucratic government manipulated by politicians and generates 
an army of special interests that flood the system with money and 
demands. To achieve and maintain political power in Washington, these 
powerful special interests must be satisfied.
  This is a well-known problem and prompts some serious-minded and 
well-intentioned Members to want to legislate campaign finance reforms. 
But the reforms proposed would actually make the whole mess worse. They 
would regulate access to the Members of Congress and dictate how 
private money is spent in campaigns. This merely curtails liberty while 
ignoring the real problem: a government that ignores the Constitution 
naturally passes out largess.

[[Page 780]]

  Even under today's conditions, where money talks in Washington, if 
enough Members would just refuse either to accept or be influenced by 
the special interests, government favors would no longer be up for 
sale. Since politicians are far from perfect, the solution is having a 
government of limited size acting strictly within the framework of the 
Constitution. No matter how strictly campaign finance laws are written, 
they will do only harm if the rule of law is not restored and if 
Congress refuses to stop being manipulated by the special interests.
  Most people recognize the horrible mess that Washington is and how 
campaign money and lobbyists influence the system. But the reforms 
proposed only deal with the symptoms and not the cause. There is a 
sharp disagreement in what to do about it, but no one denies the 
existence of the problem. It is just hard for most to acknowledge that 
the welfare state is out of control and should not be in existence 
anyway. Therefore, they misdirect our attention toward campaign finance 
reform, rather than deal with the real problem.
  Very few in Washington, however, recognize the dire consequences to 
economic prosperity that welfareism, warfarism, and inflationism cause. 
Most believe that the occasional recession can be easily handled by 
government programs and a Federal Reserve policy designed to stimulate 
growth. It has happened many times already and almost everyone believes 
that in a few months our economy and stock market will be roaring once 
again.
  This is where I disagree. Every recession in the last 30 years, since 
the dollar became a purely fiat currency, has ended after a significant 
correction and resumption of all the bad policies that caused the 
recession in the first place. Each rebound required more spending, more 
debt, and easy credit than the previous recovery did. And with each 
cycle the government got bigger and more intrusive.
  Bigger government with more monetary debasement and deficit spending 
means a steady erosion of the free market and personal freedoms. This 
is not tolerated because the people enjoy or even endorse higher taxes, 
more regulations and fewer freedoms. It is tolerated because most 
people believe that their financial and economic security is the 
responsibility of the government. They believe they are better off with 
government assistance in facilitating the free market, having been 
taught for decades that it is necessary for government to put a human 
face on capitalism.
  Extreme capitalism, that is, freedom, we have been told, is just as 
dangerous as extreme socialism. As long as this belief prevails, our 
system will continue in its inexorable march towards fascist-type 
socialism. However, support for today's policies is built on the 
fallacy that material wealth and general prosperity are best achieved 
with this third way: interventionism, while avoiding the dangers of 
communism and socialism. This is coupled with the firm conviction that 
the sacrifice of freedom will be minimal and limited and that the very 
rich can be adequately taxed and regulated to help the poor.
  This is a fallacy because more freedom will be lost than is expected 
and the productivity of the market will suffer more than anticipated. 
Once this realization occurs, it will suddenly be discovered that the 
apparent wealth of the Nation is a lot less than calculated. An economy 
that depends on ever-increasing rates of monetary inflation will appear 
much healthier and the people much richer than is the actual case. 
Owners of the dot-com companies or the Enron stocks know what it is 
like to feel rich one day and very poor the next.
  This is not a unique experience, but one that should be expected and 
is predictable. Countries that inflate their currencies must adjust 
their values periodically with sudden devaluations which destroy the 
pseudowealth of the middle class and the poor. The wealthy, more often 
than not, can protect themselves from the sudden shocks to the monetary 
system. However, they cannot protect from the insidious loss of liberty 
that accompanies these adjustments, and eventually everyone suffers.
  Our dollar system is quite similar to the Argentine and Mexico peso 
systems that periodically make sudden and painful adjustments. But ours 
is different in one respect because the dollar is accepted as the 
reserve currency of the world, the paper gold of the world financial 
system. This gives us license to inflate, that is, steal, for longer 
periods of time. And we can avoid sudden and sharp devaluations since 
the world's currencies are defined by our dollar.
  But this does not permit the ultimate devaluation that will bring a 
significant increase in the cost of living to all Americans but hurt 
the poor and the middle class the most. This special status of the 
dollar only makes the problem of the illusion of wealth much worse. 
Since our bubble can last a lot longer due to our perceived military 
and economic strength, it appears that our wealth is much greater than 
it actually is. Because of our unique position as the economic 
powerhouse of the world, we are able to borrow more than anyone else. 
Foreigners loan us exorbitant sums as our current account deficits soar 
out of sight.
  The U.S. now has a foreign debt of over $2 trillion. Perceptions and 
illusions and easy credit allow our consumers to spend even in 
recessions, by rolling up even more debt in a time when market forces 
are saying that borrowing should decrease and the debt burden lessen. 
Our corporations follow the same pattern, keeping afloat with more 
borrowing.
  Ideas regarding the national debt have been transformed. Presidents 
Jefferson and Jackson despised government debt and warned against it. 
Likewise, both detested central banking, which they knew inevitably 
would be used to liquidate the real debt through the mischievous 
process of monetary debasement.
  Today, few decry the debt, except for the purpose of political 
demagoguery when convenient. The concern about deficits expressed by 
liberal big spenders does not merit credibility. But even conservative 
spenders now are less likely to decry deficits, and some actually 
praise them. Just recently, the Conservative Institute for Policy 
Innovation announced in a national press release, ``National debt can 
lead to a growing economy and it produces steady long-term growth, 
greater security and a higher standard of living.''
  This would not be so bad if it came from a typical Keynesian think 
tank; but this is the growing conventional wisdom of many conservatives 
whose goal it is to generate government revenues, painlessly, of 
course, not to drastically shrink the size of government and restore 
personal liberty. What they fail to recognize, once they lose interest 
in shrinking the size of government, is that government borrowing 
always takes money from productive enterprises while placing these 
funds in the hands of politicians whose prime job is to serve special 
interests.
  Deficits are a political expedience that also forces the Federal 
Reserve to inflate the currency while reducing in real terms the debt 
owed by the government by depreciating the value of the currency. Those 
who would belittle the critics of the deficit and national debt are 
merely supporting a system of big government, whether it is welfare or 
warfare or both.
  Debt per se is not the only issue. It is also because the debt always 
encourages the growth in the size of government, allowing it to be 
seductively financed through inflation or borrowing, is what makes it 
so bad. Just because it is less painful at first and payment is 
delayed, we should not be tempted to endorse this process. If liberty 
is our goal and minimal government a benefit to a sound economy, we 
must always reject debt and deficits as a legitimate tool for improving 
the economy and the welfare of the greatest number of people. The 
principle of authoritarian government is endorsement whenever deficits 
are legitimatized. All those who love liberty must reject the notion 
that deficits and debt perform a useful function.
  It is possible this recession may end in a few months, as the 
optimists predict. But if it does, other problems are

[[Page 781]]

only delayed. The fundamental correction will still be necessary to 
preserve the productivity of a market economy. If we do not change our 
ways, the financial bubble will just go back to inflating again. The 
big correction, like that which Argentina is now experiencing, with 
rapid disappearance of paper wealth, will eventually hit our economy. 
The longer the delay, the bigger will be the bust and greater the 
threat to our freedoms and institutions.
  Since we are moving toward the big correction, we are going to see a 
lot more wealth removed from our balance sheets and our retirement 
accounts. The rampant price inflation that results will erode the 
purchasing power of all fixed-income retirement funds, like Social 
Security, and mean a lower standard of living for most people. The 
routine government response of increasing benefits for living expenses 
and medical care will never keep up with the needs or the demands. 
Eventually, we will have to give up and a new economic system will have 
to be devised, as occurred in the Soviet system after 1989.
  Wealth, the product of labor, investment, and savings, can never be 
substituted by government spending or by a central bank that creates 
new money out of thin air. Governments can only give things they first 
take from someone else. Printing money only diminishes the value of 
each monetary unit. Neither can create wealth. Both can destroy it.
  The dilemma is that early on, and sometimes for many years, as we 
have experienced, transferring wealth and printing money seems to help 
more than it hurts. That is because the wealth is not real and the 
trust funds, like Social Security, hold no actual wealth. A pension 
fund with dot-coms and Enron stock hold no wealth either. 
Unfortunately, the stocks and bonds remaining are worth a lot less than 
most people realize.

                              {time}  1315

  The Social Security System depends on the value of the dollar and on 
future taxation. The Fed can create unlimited amounts of money that 
Congress needs, and Congress can raise taxes as it wants, but this 
policy guarantees that the dollar cannot maintain its purchasing power, 
and that there will not be enough young people to tax in the future. 
Increasing benefits under these circumstances can only be done at the 
expense of the dollar. Catching up with the current system of money and 
transfer payments is equivalent to a person on a treadmill who expects 
to get to the next town. It does not work.
  The economic loss is bad enough, but whether it is fighting the war 
on terrorism, acting as the world's policeman or solving the problems 
of vanishing wealth, the real insult will come from the freedoms we 
lose. These freedoms, vital to production and wealth formation, are 
necessary and represent what the American dream is all about. They are 
what made us the richest Nation in all of history, but this we will 
lose if Congress is not careful with what it does in the coming months.
  Mr. Speaker, if nothing else, the knowledge that we are now 
vulnerable from outside attacks is shared by all Americans. The danger 
is clear and present, and everybody wants something done about it. 
There is, however, no unanimity as to the cause of the attacks, who is 
responsible, and what has to be done. The President has been given 
congressional authority to use force against ``those responsible for 
the recent attacks launched against the United States.''
  A large majority of Americans are quite satisfied that his efforts 
have been carried out with due diligence, but a growing number of 
Americans are becoming aware that antiterrorist efforts both at home 
and abroad will have unintended consequences that few anticipated, and 
that in time will not be beneficial to U.S. security and will undermine 
our liberties here at home. Let me name a few potential dangers we 
face.
  Number one, there is a danger that the definition of terrorism will 
become so vague and broad that almost any act internationally or 
domestically will qualify. If our response in Afghanistan becomes the 
standard for all countries in their retaliation, negotiated settlements 
of conflicts will become a thing of the past; acts of terror occurring 
on a regular basis around the world, whether involving Northern Ireland 
and Britain, India and Pakistan, the Palestinians and Israel, Turkey 
and Greece, or many other places. Traditionally, the United States has 
always urged restraint and negotiations. This approach may end if our 
response in Afghanistan sets the standard.
  Number 2. Another danger is that the administration may take it upon 
itself to broadly and incorrectly interpret H.J. Res. 64, the 
resolution granting authority to the President to use force to 
retaliate against only those responsible for the recent attacks 
launched against the United States. Congress did not authorize force 
against all terrorist attacks throughout the world if the individuals 
involved were not directly involved in the September 11 attacks. It 
would be incorrect and dangerous to use this authority to suppress 
uprising throughout the world. This authority cannot be used to 
initiate an all-out attack on Iraq or any other nation we might find 
displeasing, but that did not participate in the September 11 attacks.
  Number 3. An imprecise definition of who is or who is not a terrorist 
may be used to justify massively expanding our military might around 
the world. For every accused terrorist, there will be a declared 
freedom fighter. To always know the difference is more than one can 
expect. Our record in the past 50 years for choosing the right side in 
many conflicts is poor, to say the least. Many times there is no right 
side from the viewpoint of American security, and our unnecessary 
entanglements have turned out to be the greatest threat to our 
security.
  Number 4. There is a risk that our massive deployment of troops in 
many countries of the world may contribute to a greater conflict. We 
are today in the middle of a dangerous situation between Pakistan and 
India over Kashmir, both of whom possess nuclear weapons, and both of 
whom we generally finance. Exposing ourselves to such risk, while 
spending endless sums supporting both sides, makes no sense.
  Number 5. Our pervasive military presence may well encourage 
alliances that would have been unheard of a few years ago. Now that we 
have committed ourselves internationally to destroying Afghanistan and 
rebuilding it, with a promise that we will be there for a long time, 
might encourage closer military alliances between Russia and China, and 
even others like Pakistan, Iran and Iraq, and even Saudi Arabia, 
countries all nervous about our military permanency in this region. 
Control of Caspian Sea oil is not a forgotten item for these countries, 
and it will not be gracefully conceded to United States oil interests. 
If these alliances develop, even U.S. control of the Persian Gulf oil 
could be challenged as well.
  Number 6. Limits exist on how extensive our foreign commitments 
should be. It is difficult to be everyplace at one time, especially if 
hostilities break out in more than one place. For instance, if we were 
to commit our troops to the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, and Iran were 
to decide to help Iraq at the same time the North Koreans were to 
decide to make a move, our capacity to wage war in both places would be 
limited. Already we are short of bombs from the current Afghanistan 
war. We had to quit flying sorties over our own cities due to costs, 
while depending on NATO planes to provide AWACS cover of U.S. 
territory. In addition, our financial resources are not unlimited, and 
any significant change in the value of the dollar as well as our 
rapidly growing deficits could play a significant role in our ability 
to pay our bills.
  Number 7. In the area of personal liberty, we face some real dangers. 
Throughout our history, starting with the Civil War, our liberties have 
been curtailed, and the Constitution has been flaunted. Although our 
government continued to grow with each crisis, many of the liberties 
curtailed during wartime were restored. War was precise and declared, 
and when the war

[[Page 782]]

was over, there was a desire to return to normalcy.
  With the current war on terrorism, there is no end in sight, and 
there is no precise enemy. We have been forewarned that this fight will 
go on for a long time. This means that a return to normalcy after the 
sacrifices that we are making with our freedoms is not likely. The 
implementation of a national ID card, national surveillance, easy-to-
get search warrants and loss of financial and medical privacy will be 
permanent. If this trend continues, the Constitution will become a much 
weaker document.
  Number 8. A danger exists that the United States is becoming a police 
state. Just a few decades ago, this would have become unimaginable. As 
originally designed, in the American Republic, police powers were to be 
the prerogative of the States, and the military was not to be involved. 
Unfortunately today most Americans welcome the use of military troops 
to police our public places, especially the airports. Each before 
September 11, more than 80,000 armed Federal bureaucrats patrolled the 
countryside checking for violations of Federal laws and regulations. 
That number since September 11 has increased by nearly 50 percent, and 
it will not shrink. Military takeover of homeland security looks 
certain. Can freedom and prosperity survive if the police state 
continues to expand? I doubt it. It never has before in all of history, 
and this is a threat that Congress should not ignore.
  Number 9. There is a danger that personal privacy will be a thing of 
the past. Even before September 11, there were attacks on the privacy 
of all Americans for good reasons, or so it was argued. The attacks 
included plans for national ID cards, a national medical data bank, and 
know-your-customer-type banking regulations. The need for enforcement 
powers for the DEA and IRS routinely prompted laws that violated the 
fourth amendment. The current crisis has emboldened those who already 
were anxious to impose restrictions on the American people. With drug 
and tax laws, and now with antiterrorist legislation sailing through 
Congress, true privacy enjoyed by a free people is fast becoming 
something that we will only read about in our textbooks. Reversing this 
trend will not be easy.
  Number 10. Flying commercial airlines will continue to be a hassle 
and dangerous. Even travel by other means will require close scrutiny 
by all levels of government in the name of providing security. 
Unfortunately, the restrictions and rules on travel on all American 
citizens will do little, if anything, to prevent another terrorist 
attack.
  Number 11. The economic ramifications of our war on terrorism are 
difficult to ascertain, but could be quite significant. Although the 
recession was obviously not caused by the attacks, the additional money 
spent and the effect of all regulations cannot help the recovery. When 
one adds up the domestic costs, the military costs and the costs of our 
new regulations, we can be certain that deficits are going to grow 
significantly, and the Federal Reserve will be required to further 
pursue a dangerous monetary policy of inflation. This policy will 
result in higher rather than lower interest rates, a weak dollar, and 
certainly rising prices. The danger of our economy spinning out of 
control should not be lightly dismissed.
  Number 12. In this crisis, as in all crises, the special interests 
are motivated to increase their demands. It is a convenient excuse to 
push for the benefits they were already looking for. Domestically this 
includes everyone from the airlines to the unions, insurance companies, 
travel agents, State and local governments, and anyone who can justify 
a related need. It is difficult for the military-industrial complex to 
hide their glee with their new contracts for weapons and related 
technology. Instead of the events precipitating a patriotic fervor for 
liberty, we see enthusiasm for big government, more spending, more 
dependency, greater deficits, and military confrontations that are 
unrelated to the problems of terrorism. We are supposed to be fighting 
terrorism to protect our freedoms, but if we are not careful, we will 
lose our freedoms and precipitate more terrorist attacks.
  Lastly, not much empathy is being expressed for members of the 
Taliban that we now hold as prisoners. The antipathy is easily 
understood. It is not just as a Nation we should set a good example 
under the rules of the Geneva Convention, but if we treat the Taliban 
prisoners inhumanely, there is the danger it will be surely used as an 
excuse to treat American prisoners in the same manner in the future. 
This certainly is true when we use torture to extract information, 
which is now being advised. Not only does that reflect on our own 
society as a free Nation, but torture notoriously rarely generates 
reliable information. This danger should not be ignored. Besides, we 
have nothing to gain by mistreating prisoners who have no knowledge of 
the September 11 attacks. The idea that those captured are terrorists 
responsible for the September 11 attacks begs an obvious question.
  Mr. Speaker, many realists who see the world as it really is and who 
recognize the dilemma we face in the United States to preserve our 
freedoms in this time of crisis are despondent and pessimistic, 
believing little can be done to reverse the tide against freedom. 
Others who share the same concern are confident that efforts to 
preserve the true spirit of the Constitution can be successful. Maybe 
next month or next year or at some later date, I am convinced in time 
the love of liberty can be rejuvenated. Once it is recognized that 
government has no guarantee of future successes, promoting dependency 
and security can quickly lose its allure.

                              {time}  1330

  The Roman poet, Horace, 2,000 years ago spoke of adversity: 
``Adversity has the effect of eliciting talents which in times of 
prosperity would have lain dormant.'' Since I believe we will be a lot 
less prosperous in the not-too-distant future, we will have plenty of 
opportunity to elicit the talents of many Americans.
  Leonard Read, one of the greatest champions of liberty in the 20th 
century, advised optimism:
  ``In every society there are persons who have the intelligence to 
figure out the requirements of liberty and the character to walk in its 
ways. This is a scattered fellowship of individuals--mostly unknown to 
you and me--bound together by a love of ideas and a hunger to know the 
plain truth of things.''
  Mr. Read was convinced that this remnant would rise to the occasion 
and do the necessary things to restore virtue and excellence to a 
people who had lost their way. Liberty would prevail.
  Let us be convinced that there is not enough hate or anger to silence 
the cries for liberty or to extinguish the flame of truth and justice. 
We must have faith that those who now are apathetic, anxious for 
security at all costs, forgetful of the true spirit of American 
liberty, and neglectful of the Constitution, will rise to the task and 
respond accordingly.

                          ____________________