Home Page
Contents

U.S. Rep. Ron Paul
The Fed

Book of Ron Paul


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Fed
Supporting H.R. 2846
5 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 5:4
However, support of this bill should in no way be interpreted to imply that Congress has the power to authorize national testing. Education is not one of the powers delegated to the Federal Government.

The Fed
Supporting H.R. 2846
5 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 5:5
As the 9th and 10th amendment makes clear, the Federal Government can only act in those areas where there is an explicit delegation of power. Therefore, the Federal Government has no legitimate authority to legislate in this area of education. Rather, all matters concerning education, including testing, remain with those best able to educate children: individual States, local communities and, primarily, parents.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Fed
The Folly Of Foreign Intervention — Part 2
25 February 1998    1998 Ron Paul 17:1
Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentleman for his remarks. He made some very good points. I would like to follow up on the one point with regards to the military. That is one of the most essential functions of the Federal Government, is to provide for a strong national defense. But if we intervene carelessly around the world, that serves to weaken us.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Fed
Birth Defects Prevention Act
10 March 1998    1998 Ron Paul 24:5
Chiefly to resolve ambiguities about the national powers, the tenth amendment, proposed as part of the Bill of Rights by the Federalist-controlled first Congress, was added, declaring that the “powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” According to constitutional scholar Bernard Siegan, University of San Diego College of Law, the Constitution might never have been ratified had the Federalists’ representations in this regard not been accepted by a portion of the public. Siegan also reminds us that the Framers rejected the notion of empowering the national government to grant charters of incorporation; establish seminaries for the promotion of agriculture, commerce, trades, and manufactures; regulate stages on post roads; establish universities; encourage by premiums and provisions, the advancement of useful knowledge; and opening and establishing canals. Each notion was introduced during the convention and voted down or died in committee.

The Fed
Birth Defects Prevention Act
10 March 1998    1998 Ron Paul 24:9
I, for one, am uninterested in further catapulting this country down this “road to serfdom” albeit a road paved with the good intentions of, in this case, “preventing birth defects”. If this matter is so vital that it can only be done via the power of the federal government, then I suggest that members of the House convince their constituents of this and amend the constitution accordingly. I, despite my extensive work as an obstetrician, remain unconvinced. A volunteer group, private charity, hospital trade association, or university could certainly, in this age of advanced computer technology, maintain a database necessary to adequately address the information needs of those hoping to advance the cause of birth defect reduction. This, I believe would be a solution compatible with the framer’s notion of a national government of limited powers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Fed
Amendment Number 3 Offered By Mr. Paul
29 April 1998    1998 Ron Paul 42:4
There are 40 Federal programs now where the Social Security number is required. Not only that, the Federal Government now has been mandating the uses of the Social Security number for similar purposes even on State programs such as obtaining our driver’s license.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Fed
National Police State
12 May 1998    1998 Ron Paul 50:2
Our federal government is, constitutionally, a government of limited powers. Article one, Section eight, enumerates the legislative areas for which the U.S. Congress is allowed to act or enact legislation. For every other issue, the federal government lacks any authority or consent of the governed and only the state governments their designees, or the people in their private market actions enjoy such rights to governance. The tenth amendment is brutally clear in stating “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Our nation’s history makes clear that the U.S. Constitution is a document intended to limit the power of central government. No serious reading of historical events surrounding the creation of the Constitution could reasonably portray it differently. Of course, there will be those who will hang their constitutional “hats” on the interstate commerce general welfare clauses, both of which have been popular “headgear” since the FDR’s headfirst plunge into New Deal Socialism.

The Fed
National Police State
12 May 1998    1998 Ron Paul 50:3
The interstate commerce clause, however, was included to prevent states from engaging in protectionism and mercantilist policies as against other states. Those economists who influenced the framers did an adequate job of educating them as to the necessarily negative consequences for consumers of embracing such a policy. The clause was never intended to give the federal government carte blanche to intervene in private economic affairs anytime some special interest could concoct a “rational basis” for the enacting such legislation.

The Fed
National Police State
12 May 1998    1998 Ron Paul 50:5
Nevertheless, rather than abide by our constitutional limits, Congress today will likely pass H. Res. 423 and H.R. 3811 under suspension of the rules meaning, of course, they are “non-controversial.” House Resolution 423 pledges the House to “pass legislation that provides the weapons and tools necessary to protect our children and our communities from the dangers of drug addiction and violence”. Setting aside for the moment the practicality of federal prohibition laws, an experiment which failed miserably in the so-called “Progressive era”, the threshold question must be: “under what authority do we act?” There is, after all, a reason why a Constitutional amendment was required to empower the federal government to share jurisdiction with the States in fighting a war on a different drug (alcohol) — without it, the federal government had no constitutional authority. One must also ask, “if the general welfare and commerce clause were all the justification needed, why bother with the tedious and time-consuming process of amending the Constitution?” Whether any governmental entity should be in the “business” of protecting competent individuals against themselves and their own perceived stupidity is certainly debatable — Whether the federal government is empowered to do so is not. Being stupid or brilliant to one’s sole disadvantage or advantage, respectively, is exactly what liberty is all about.

The Fed
National Police State
12 May 1998    1998 Ron Paul 50:6
Today’s second legislative step towards a national police state can be found in H.R. 3811, the Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act of 1998. This bill enhances a federal criminal felony law for those who fail to meet child support obligations as imposed by the individual states. Additionally, the bills shifts some of the burden of proof from the federal government to the accused. The United States Constitution prohibits the federal government from depriving a person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Pursuant to this constitutional provision, a criminal defendant is presumed to be innocent of the crime charged and, pursuant to what is often called “the Winship doctrine,” the prosecution is allocated the burden of persuading the fact-finder of every fact necessary to constitute the crime . . . charged.” The prosecution must carry this burden because of the immense interests at stake in a criminal prosecution, namely that a conviction often results in the loss of liberty or life (in this case, a sentence of up to two years). This departure from the long held notion of “innocent until proven guilty” alone warrants opposition to this bill.

The Fed
National Police State
12 May 1998    1998 Ron Paul 50:7
Perhaps, more dangerous is the loss of another Constitutional protection which comes with the passage of more and more federal criminal legislation. Constitutionally, there are only three federal crimes. These are treason against the United States, piracy on the high seas, and counterfeiting (and, as mentioned above, for a short period of history, the manufacture, sale, or transport of alcohol was concurrently a federal and state crime). “Concurrent” jurisdiction crimes, such as alcohol prohibition in the past and federalization of felonious child support delinquency today, erode the right of citizens to be free of double jeopardy. The fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifies that no “person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . .” In other words, no person shall be tried twice for the same offense. However, in United States v. Lanza, the high court in 1922 sustained a ruling that being tried by both the federal government and a state government for the same offense did not offend the doctrine of double jeopardy. One danger of unconstitutionally expanding the federal criminal justice code is that it seriously increases the danger that one will be subject to being tried twice for the same offense. Despite the various pleas for federal correction of societal wrongs, a national police force is neither prudent nor constitutional.

The Fed
National Police State
12 May 1998    1998 Ron Paul 50:8
The argument which springs from the criticism of a federalized criminal code and a federal police force is that states may be less effective than a centralized federal government in dealing with those who leave one state jurisdiction for another. Fortunately, the Constitution provides for the procedural means for preserving the integrity of state sovereignty over those issues delegated to it via the tenth amendment. The privilege and immunities clause as well as full faith and credit clause allow states to exact judgments from those who violate their state laws. The Constitution even allows the federal government to legislatively preserve the procedural mechanisms which allow states to enforce their substantive laws without the federal government imposing its substantive edicts on the states. Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2 makes provision for the rendition of fugitives from one state to another. While not self-enacting, in 1783 Congress passed an act which did exactly this. There is, of course, a cost imposed upon states in working with one another than relying on a national, unified police force. At the same time, there is a greater cost to centralization of police power.

The Fed
FDIC Problem
13 May 1998    1998 Ron Paul 51:6
We have to think about how we got here. In the 1920s, the Federal Reserve created a lot of credit. They created a boom and a booming stock market and good times. Then the Federal Reserve raised the interest rates and there was a stock market crash and a depression. And out of the depression came the desire to regulate banking and commerce. That caused the depression, which was erroneous, because the cause of the depression was excessive credit and then a deflated bubble, which should be all laid at the doorstep of the Federal Reserve.

The Fed
The Indonesia Crisis
19 May 1998    1998 Ron Paul 52:16
The Indonesian government had one idea worth considering under these very difficult circumstances. They wanted to replace their central bank with a currency board. It’s not the gold standard, but it would have been a wise choice under current conditions. But the United States and the IMF insisted that in order to qualify for IMF funding this idea had to be rejected outright and the new central bank for Indonesia had to be patterned after the Federal Reserve with, I’m sure, ties to it for directions from Greenspan and company. A currency board would allow a close linkage of the rupiah to the dollar, its value controlled by market forces, and would have prevented domestic Indonesia monetary inflation — the principle cause of the economic bubble now collapsed. The shortcoming of a currency board is that the Indonesian currency and economy would be dependent on dollar stability which is far from guaranteed.

The Fed
The Indonesia Crisis
19 May 1998    1998 Ron Paul 52:22
We will all know we are on the right track when the people and our leaders are talking of restoring liberty to all equally, and establishing a sound money system that prevents the Fed from manufacturing money and credit out of thin air for the benefit of politicians, corporations and bankers who directly benefit.

The Fed
The Indonesia Crisis
22 May 1998    1998 Ron Paul 54:16
The Indonesian Government had one idea worth considering under these very difficult circumstances. They wanted to replace their central bank with a currency board. It’s not as good as gold standard, but it would have been a wise choice under current conditions. But the United States and the IMF insisted that in order to qualify for IMF funding this idea had to be rejected outright and the new central bank for Indonesia had to be patterned after the Federal Reserve with, I’m sure, ties to it for directions from Federal Reserve Board Governor Alan Greenspan and company. A currency board would allow a close linkage of the rupiah to the dollar, with its value controlled by market forces, and would have prevented domestic Indonesia monetary inflation — the principle cause of the economic bubble now collapsed. The shortcoming of a currency board tied to the U.S. dollar is that the Indonesian currency and economy would be dependent on dollar stability which is far from guaranteed.

The Fed
The Indonesia Crisis
22 May 1998    1998 Ron Paul 54:22
We will all know we are on the right track when the people and our leaders are talking of restoring liberty to all equally, and establishing a sound money system that prevents the Federal Reserve from manufacturing money and credit out of thin air for the benefit of politicians, corporations and bankers who directly profit

The Fed
Can’t Vote For Amendment
4 June 1998    1998 Ron Paul 55:7
This amendment opens the door for further abuse. Most of those who support this amendment concede that, quoting the authors of the amendment, “Because government is today found everywhere, this growth of government has dictated a shrinking of religion.” This is true, so the solution should be to shrink the government, not to further involve the Federal Government on how States and school districts use their property.

The Fed
Can’t Vote For Amendment
4 June 1998    1998 Ron Paul 55:8
This amendment further enables the Federal Government to do more mischief. The only solution is to shrink the government and raise a new generation of judges and Congressmen who understand the constitutional principles of original intent, the doctrine of enumerated powers, and property rights. If we do this, the First Amendment, freedom of religious expression, will be protected.

The Fed
Can’t Vote For Amendment
4 June 1998    1998 Ron Paul 55:9
Another recourse, less complicated than amending the Constitution, is for Congress to use its constitutional authority to remove jurisdiction from the courts in the areas where the courts have been the most abusive of free expression. Unfortunately, this amendment encourages a government solution to the problems by allowing the Federal Government and Federal courts to instruct States and local school districts on the use of their property. This is in direct contrast to the original purpose of the Constitution, to protect against a strong central government and in support of State and local government.

The Fed
Bankruptcy Hierarchy — Part 1
10 June 1998    1998 Ron Paul 56:3
If we reverse the order, the local government gets the money first, the money that would be left over from the bankruptcy, then the State government, and then the Federal Government. This merely states the point, which I hope we can get across someday in this Congress, that the priority in government should be local government, not a big, strong Federal Government.

The Fed
Bankruptcy Hierarchy — Part 1
10 June 1998    1998 Ron Paul 56:4
Indeed, today there is a lot of resentment in this country against the IRS and the way we spend money up here, and this emphasizes a very important point, that money should be left in the district, money should be left in the States, and at last resort, the money should come here to the Federal Government.

The Fed
Bankruptcy Hierarchy — Part 1
10 June 1998    1998 Ron Paul 56:5
One of the arguments used against this amendment is, “Uh-oh, it is going to cost the Government some money.” Cost the Government some money by leaving the money in the State or locally, or leaving it in the pockets of the American people as that same argument is used in tax increases? Hardly would it be difficult for the small amounts, I do not even know the exact amount of money that might be lost to the Treasury because some of these funds might not flow here in this direction, but it cannot be a tremendous amount. But what is wrong with the suggestion that we just cut something? There are so many places that we can cut. Instead, all we do around here is look around for more places to spend money. Today we are even talking about increasing taxes by three-quarters of a trillion dollars on a tobacco program. We are always looking for more revenues and more spending programs and we are worried about paying for a little less revenues coming into the Federal Government.

The Fed
Bankruptcy Hierarchy — Part 1
10 June 1998    1998 Ron Paul 56:6
Once again, this amendment is very clear. It states that in the order of designating these funds on unsecured creditors, local government would get the money first, then State government, and then the Federal Government.

The Fed
Bankruptcy Hierarchy — Part 1
10 June 1998    1998 Ron Paul 56:7
In the 1980s, in the early 1990s, when Texas and California had trouble, money flowed up here in the middle of bankruptcies at the same time school districts were suffering, putting a greater burden on local school districts. So this is to me a very clear principled position to state that we should have local government, not Federal Government, that we should not enhance the power and the authority of the Federal Government and certainly should not put the IRS and the Federal Government on the top of the pecking order. They should be at the bottom where they deserve to be. So I would ask my colleagues to endorse this legislation and this amendment to this legislation. I support the legislation. I am hopeful that this amendment will be passed.

The Fed
Bankruptcy Hierarchy — Part 2
10 June 1998    1998 Ron Paul 57:4
So I would say that it is very important that we do think about local government over Federal government, think about less taxes and less bureaucracy, because unless we change our mind set on this, we will continue to put the priorities of the Federal Government and the IRS up at the top. I want them at the bottom. That is where they deserve. They do not know how to spend their money. They do not know how to spend their money, and we ought to see to it that they get a lot less of it.

The Fed
Child Protection and Sexual Predator Punishment Act
11 June 1998    1998 Ron Paul 58:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Child Protection and Sexual Predator Punishment Act of 1998. This bill, if passed, will further expand the authority of this country’s national police force and further “justify” the federal Justice Department’s intrusion into mail, telephone and Internet communications.

The Fed
Child Protection and Sexual Predator Punishment Act
11 June 1998    1998 Ron Paul 58:6
Any federal usurpation of criminal law, no matter how flexible, violates the 10th amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The 10th amendment limits the Federal Government to those functions explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. Other than in these few areas, the States are sovereign. Therefore the Federal Government has no authority to federalize crimes whether committed against children, women, or some specific race. Additionally, ours is an individual Bill of Rights rather than a system of rights dependent upon to which group (gender, race, or age) one happens to belong.

The Fed
Child Protection and Sexual Predator Punishment Act
11 June 1998    1998 Ron Paul 58:8
Some will argue that federal legislation is necessary because communications cross state lines. Fortunately, the Constitution provides for the procedural means for preserving the integrity of state sovereignty over those issues delegated to it via the tenth amendment. The privilege and immunities clause as well as full faith and credit clause allow states to exact judgments from those who violate their state laws. The Constitution even allows the federal government to legislatively preserve the procedural mechanisms which allow states to enforce their substantive laws without the federal government imposing its substantive edicts on the states. Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2 makes provision for the rendition of fugitives from one state to another and in 1783 Congress passed an act which did exactly this.

The Fed
Individuals with Disabilities Act
16 June 1998    1998 Ron Paul 60:2
The drafters of this bill claim that increasing federal spending on IDEA will allow local school districts to spend more money on other educational priorities. However, because an increase in federal funding will come from the same taxpayers who currently fund the IDEA mandate at the state and local level, increasing federal IDEA funding will not necessarily result in a net increase of education funds available for other programs. In fact, the only way to combine full federal funding of IDEA with an increase in expenditures on other programs by state and localities is through massive tax increases at the federal, state, and/or local level.

The Fed
Parent And Student Saving Account Act
18 June 1998    1998 Ron Paul 62:6
Therefore, I would still support this bill as a good first (albeit small) step toward restoring parental control of education if it did not further expand the federal control of education and raise taxes on American businesses!

The Fed
Parent And Student Saving Account Act
18 June 1998    1998 Ron Paul 62:11
Mr. Speaker, this bill not only raises taxes instead of decreasing spending, it increases the federal role in education. For example the conference report on H.R. 2646 creates a new federal program to promote literacy, the so-called Reading Excellence Act. This new program bribes the states with monies illegitimately taken from the American people, to adapt programs to teach literacy using methods favored by Washington-based “experts.”

The Fed
Parent And Student Saving Account Act
18 June 1998    1998 Ron Paul 62:13
This bill also creates a new federal program to use federal taxpayer funds to finance teacher testing and merit pay. Mr. Speaker, these may be valuable education reforms; however, the federal government should not be in the business of education engineering and using federal funds to encourage states to adopt a particular education program.

The Fed
Parent And Student Saving Account Act
18 June 1998    1998 Ron Paul 62:14
While the stealth tax increase and the new unconstitutional programs provide significant justification for constitutionalists to oppose this conference report, the new taxes and spending are not even the worst parts of this legislation. The most objectionable provision of H.R. 2646 is one that takes another step toward making the federal government a National School Board by mandating that local schools consider a student’s bringing a weapon to school as evidence in an expulsion hearing.

The Fed
Parent And Student Saving Account Act
18 June 1998    1998 Ron Paul 62:16
The drafters of the United States Constitution understood that to allow the federal government to meddle in the governance of local schools, much less act as a national school board, would inevitably result in the replacement of parental control by federal control. Parents are best able to control education when the decision making power is located closest to them. Thus, when Congress centralized control over education, it weakens the ability of parents to control, or even influence, the educational system. If Congress was serious about restoring parental control on education, the last thing we would even consider doing is imposing more federal mandates on local schools.

The Fed
Parent And Student Saving Account Act
18 June 1998    1998 Ron Paul 62:17
In conclusion, although the Conference Report of Parent and Student Savings Account Act does take a step toward restoring parental control of education, it also raises job-destroying taxes on business. Furthermore, the conference report creates new education programs, including a new literacy program that takes a step toward nationalizing curriculum, as well as imposes yet another mandate on local schools. It violates the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution and reduces parental control over education. Therefore, I cannot, in good conscience, support this bill. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill and instead support legislation that returns education resources to American parents by returning to them monies saved by deep cuts in the federal bureaucracy, not by raising taxes on other Americans.

The Fed
Drug-Free Workplace Act
23 June 1998    1998 Ron Paul 63:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3853, The Drug-Free Workplace Act. Certainly there are many things the Federal Government can do to minimize the negative impact illicit drug users have upon society. Further expanding a philosophically bankrupt national drug war policy with the creation of yet another costly federally-funded program is not the answer.

The Fed
Drug-Free Workplace Act
23 June 1998    1998 Ron Paul 63:3
A Federal Government which reduces the cost of drug use by supplying free needles is one example. But this practice is but a minor example of exactly how the Federal Government has made matters worse by lowering the costs and encouraging the expansion of risky behavior. We must, once and for all, expose the fallacy that problems can be solved simply by cost spreading — in other words, that all risky behavior should be socialized by the government. A Federal Government that accepts responsibility for paying the rehabilitation costs and medical costs of its citizens who act irresponsibly is certain to do only one thing — increase the number of those who engage in such behavior.

The Fed
Drug-Free Workplace Act
23 June 1998    1998 Ron Paul 63:5
Moreover, the Federal Government further makes matters worse by imposing employment regulations which make it difficult to terminate employees who engage in drug or alcohol abuse. Such a regulatory regime further socializes the costs of irresponsibility upon innocents by forcing employers to continue to pay the salaries and/or health benefits of unsavory employees during rehabilitation periods.

The Fed
Drug-Free Workplace Act
23 June 1998    1998 Ron Paul 63:6
Private employers should already be free to require drug testing as a condition or term of employment. This legislation, however, unnecessarily brings the Federal Government into this process. The threat of liability law suits will dictate that drug testing will be prevalent in jobs where abstinence from drug use is most critical. However, setting up taxpayer-funded federal programs here are not only unnecessary but ill-advised. The newspapers are replete with examples of various lawsuits filed as a consequence of false positives resulting from both scientific and human errors. This legislation involves the Federal Government so far as to require drug testing be completed by only a few government-favored drug testers. This bill also requires those small businesses who participate to mandatorily test employees for drug and alcohol abuse. This proposition treads dangerously on grounds violative of the fourth amendment. While the bill of rights is a limitation upon actions by the Federal Government, it does not restrict the voluntary actions of private employers and their employees. The case becomes far less clear when the Federal Government involves itself in what should simply be a matter of private contract. In fact, government involvement may actually constitute a hindrance upon employers ability to adequately test those employees for whom they feel testing may be a necessary job component.

The Fed
Drug-Free Workplace Act
23 June 1998    1998 Ron Paul 63:7
It should never go unnoticed that, as is so often the case in this Congress, constitutional authority is lacking for the further expansion of the Federal Government into the realm of small business and the means by which they hire reliable employees. The Report on H.R. 3583 cites Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 as the Constitutional authority. This clause reads “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Office thereof” (emphasis added). The authority cited requires a foregoing Power which not only is missing from the authority cited for this bill but in my close examination of Article I, Section 8, simply seems not to exist.

The Fed
Every Currency Crumbles
24 June 1998    1998 Ron Paul 65:10
For the moment, the market is highly confident. So is the world at large. In 1996, the Federal Reserve Board estimated that some 60 percent of all American currency in existence circulates overseas. The dollar has become the Coca-Cola of monetary brands.

The Fed
Freedom And Privacy Restoration Act
15 July 1998    1998 Ron Paul 75:2
This obscure provision, which was part of a major piece of legislation passed at the end of the 104th Congress, represents a major power grab by the Federal Government and a threat to the liberties of every American, for it would transform State drivers’ licenses into national ID cards.

The Fed
The Freedom And Privacy Restoration Act
15 July 1998    1998 Ron Paul 76:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act, which repeals those sections of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 authorizing the establishment of federal standards for birth certificates and drivers’ licenses. This obscure provision, which was part of a major piece of legislation passed at the end of the 104th Congress, represents a major power grab by the federal government and a threat to the liberties of every American, for it would transform state drivers’ licenses into national ID cards.

The Fed
The Freedom And Privacy Restoration Act
15 July 1998    1998 Ron Paul 76:3
Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government has no constitutional authority to require Americans to present any form of identification before engaging in any private transaction such as opening a bank account, seeing a doctor, or seeking employment.

The Fed
The Freedom And Privacy Restoration Act
15 July 1998    1998 Ron Paul 76:4
The establishment of a national standard for drivers’ licenses and birth certificates makes a mockery of the 10th amendment and the principles of federalism. While no state is forced to conform their birth certificates or drivers’ licenses to federal standards, it is unlikely they will not comply when failure to conform to federal specifications means none of that state’s residents may get a job, receive Social Security, or even leave the state by plane? Thus, rather than imposing a direct mandate on the states, the federal government is blackmailing states into complying with federal dictates.

The Fed
The Freedom And Privacy Restoration Act
15 July 1998    1998 Ron Paul 76:5
Of course, the most important reason to support the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act is because any uniform, national system of identification would allow the federal government to inappropriately monitor the movements and transactions of every citizen. History shows that when government gains the power to monitor the actions of the people, it eventually uses that power to impose totalitarian controls on the populace.

The Fed
Child Custody Protection Act
15 July 1998    1998 Ron Paul 77:5
It is ironic that if this bill is passed into law, it will go into effect at approximately the same time that the Department of Transportation will impose a National I.D. card on all Americans. This bill only gives the Federal Government and big government proponents one more reason to impose the National I.D. card on all of us. So be prepared to show your papers as you travel about the U.S. You may be transporting a teenager.

The Fed
Child Custody Protection Act
15 July 1998    1998 Ron Paul 77:8
The solution will ultimately come when the Federal Government and Federal courts get out of the way and allow States to protect the unborn. If that were the case, we would not have to consider dangerous legislation like this with the many unforeseen circumstances.

The Fed
Child Custody Protection Act
15 July 1998    1998 Ron Paul 77:9
Our federal government is, constitutionally, a government of limited powers. Article one, Section eight, enumerates the legislative areas for which the U.S. Congress is allowed to act or enact legislation. For every other issue, the federal government lacks any authority or consent of the governed and only the state governments, their designees, or the people in their private market actions enjoy such rights to governance. The tenth amendment is brutally clear in stating “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Our nation’s history makes clear that the U.S. Constitution is a document intended to limit the power of central government. No serious reading of historical events surrounding the creation of the Constitution could reasonably portray it differently.

The Fed
Child Custody Protection Act
15 July 1998    1998 Ron Paul 77:10
Nevertheless, rather than abide by our constitutional limits, Congress today will likely pass H.R. 3682. H.R. 3682 amends title 18, United States Code, to prohibit taking minors across State lines to avoid laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions. Should parents be involved in decisions regarding the health of their children? Absolutely. Should the law respect parents rights to not have their children taken across state lines for contemptible purposes? Absolutely. Can a state pass an enforceable statute to prohibit taking minors across State lines to avoid laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions? Absolutely. But when asked if there exists constitutional authority for the federal criminalizing of just such an action the answer is absolutely not.

The Fed
Child Custody Protection Act
15 July 1998    1998 Ron Paul 77:11
This federalizing may have the effect of nationalizing a law with criminal penalties which may be less than those desired by some states. To the extent the federal and state laws could co-exist, the necessity for a federal law is undermined and an important bill of rights protection is virtually obliterated. Concurrent jurisdiction crimes erode the right of citizens to be free of double jeopardy. The fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifies that no “person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . . .” In other words, no person shall be tried twice for the same offense. However in United States v. Lanza, the high court in 1922 sustained a ruling that being tried by both the federal government and a state government for the same offense did not offend the doctrine of double jeopardy. One danger of unconstitutionally expanding the federal criminal justice code is that it seriously increases the danger that one will be subject to being tried twice for the same offense. Despite the various pleas for federal correction of societal wrongs, a national police force is neither prudent nor constitutional.

The Fed
Child Custody Protection Act
15 July 1998    1998 Ron Paul 77:12
The argument which springs from the criticism of a federalized criminal code and a federal police force is that states may be less effective than a centralized federal government in dealing with those who leave one state jurisdiction for another. Fortunately, the Constitution provides for the procedural means for preserving the integrity of state sovereignty over those issues delegated to it via the tenth amendment. The privilege and immunities clause as well as full faith and credit clause allow states to exact judgments from those who violate their state laws. The Constitution even allows the federal government to legislatively preserve the procedural mechanisms which allow states to enforce their substantive laws without the federal government imposing its substantive edicts on the states. Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2 makes provision for the rendition of fugitives from one state to another. While not self-enacting, in 1783 Congress passed an act which did exactly this. There is, of course, a cost imposed upon states in working with one another rather than relying on a national, unified police force. At the same time, there is a greater cost to centralization of police power.

The Fed
Child Custody Protection Act
15 July 1998    1998 Ron Paul 77:14
It is my erstwhile hope that parents will become more involved in vigilantly monitoring the activities of their own children rather than shifting parental responsibility further upon the federal government. There was a time when a popular bumper sticker read “It’s ten o’clock; do you know where your children are?” I suppose we have devolved to a point where it reads “It’s ten o’clock; does the federal government know where your children are.” Further socializing and burden-shifting of the responsibilities of parenthood upon the federal government is simply not creating the proper incentive for parents to be more involved.

The Fed
National Right To Work Act
15 July 1998    1998 Ron Paul 78:3
I would also like to take this opportunity to emphasize that this bill does not in any way infringe on the rights of workers to voluntary join or support a labor union or any other labor organization. Nothing in HR 59 interferes with the ability of a worker to organize, strike, or support union political activity if those actions stem from a worker’s choice. Furthermore, nothing in HR 59 interferes with the internal affairs of unions. All the National Right to Work Bill does is stop the federal government from forcing a worker to support a labor union against that worker’s will. In a free society, the decision of whether or not to join a union should be made by the worker, not by the government.

The Fed
Exchange Stabilization Fund
16 July 1998    1998 Ron Paul 79:8
Yes, we can get into the currency markets to the tune of billions of dollars. They say, well, there is only 38; they might not be able to do any mischief. But my strong suspicion is that the line of credit to the Federal Reserve is endless in the time of crisis.

The Fed
Women’s, Infant, and Children’s Program
20 July 1998    1998 Ron Paul 81:2
Providing for the care of the poor is a moral responsibility of every citizen, however, it is not a proper function of the Federal Government to plunder one group of citizens and redistribute those funds to another group of citizens. Nowhere in the United States Constitution is the Federal Government authorized to provide welfare services. If any government must provide welfare services, it should be State and local governments. However, the most humane and efficient way to provide charitable services are through private efforts. Among their other virtues, private charities are much more likely to provide short-term assistance rather than fostering long-term dependency upon government programs.

The Fed
Women’s, Infant, and Children’s Program
20 July 1998    1998 Ron Paul 81:5
As an OB/GYN I certainly recognize the importance of proper nutrition for pregnant women and young children. However, as a constitutionalist, I strenuously object to the federal government coercing pregnant women into accepting such services and restricting their choices of food products. The founders of this country would be flabbergasted if they knew that the federal government had monopolized the provisions of charitable services to low-income women, but they would be horrified if they knew the federal government was forbidding poor women from purchasing Post Raisin Bran for their children because some federal bureaucrats had determined that it contains too much sugar!

The Fed
Women’s, Infant, and Children’s Program
20 July 1998    1998 Ron Paul 81:6
Mr. Speaker, the fact that the manufacture of foods such as Raisin Bran battle to get their products included in this program reveals the extent to which WIC is actually corporate welfare. Many corporations have made a tidy profit from helping to feed the poor and excluding their competitors in the process. For example, thanks to the WIC program, the federal government is the largest purchaser of infant formula in the nation.

The Fed
Women’s, Infant, and Children’s Program
20 July 1998    1998 Ron Paul 81:7
According to the Congressional Research Service, food vendors participating in WIC received 9.86 billion in Fiscal Year 1997 — 75% of the total funds spent on the WIC program! This fiscal year, producers of food products approved by the federal government for purchase by WIC participants are expected to receive $10 billion dollars in taxpayer dollars! Small wonder the lobbyists who came to my office to discuss WIC were not advocates for the poor, but rather well-healed spokespersons for corporate interests!

The Fed
Women’s, Infant, and Children’s Program
20 July 1998    1998 Ron Paul 81:11
In conclusion, Congress should reject HR 3874 because the programs contained therein lack constitutional foundation, allow the federal government to control the lives of program recipients, and serve as a means of transferring monies from the taxpayers to big corporations. Instead of funding programs, Congress should return responsibility for helping those in need to those best able to effectively provide assistance; the American people acting voluntarily.

The Fed
The Patient Privacy Act
21 July 1998    1998 Ron Paul 82:7
The second, and most important reason, legislation “protecting” the unique health identifier is insufficient is that the federal government lacks any constitutional authority to force citizens to adopt a universal health identifier, regardless of any attached “privacy protections.” Any federal action that oversteps constitutional limitations violates liberty for it ratifies the principle that the federal government, not the Constitution, is the ultimate arbitrator of its own jurisdiction over the people. The only effective protection of the rights of citizens is for Congress and the American people to follow Thomas Jefferson’s advice and “bind (the federal government) down with the chains of the Constitution.”

The Fed
The Patient Privacy Act
21 July 1998    1998 Ron Paul 82:9
Mr. Speaker, the federal government has no authority to endanger the privacy of personal medical information by forcing all citizens to adopt a uniform health identifier for use in a national data base. A uniform health ID endangers the constitutional liberties, threatens the doctor-patient relationships, and could allow federal officials access to deeply personal medical information. There can be no justification for risking the rights of private citizens. I therefore urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Patient Privacy Act.

The Fed
Patient Protection Act of 1998
24 July 1998    1998 Ron Paul 84:2
Earlier this week I introduced legislation, the Patient Privacy Act (H.R. 4281), to repeal those sections of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 that authorized the creation of a national medical ID. I believe that the increasing trend toward allowing the federal government to track Americans through national ID cards and numbers represents one of the most serious threats to liberty we are facing. The scheme to create a national medical ID to enter each person’s medical history into a national data base not only threatens civil liberties but it undermines the physician-patient relationship, the cornerstone of good medical practice. Oftentimes, effective treatment depends on a patient’s ability to place absolute trust in his or her doctor, a trust that would be severely eroded if the patient knew that any and all information given their doctor could be placed in a data base accessible by anyone who knows the patient’s “unique personal identifier.”

The Fed
Patient Protection Act of 1998
24 July 1998    1998 Ron Paul 84:3
While I was not here in 1996 when the medical ID was authorized, it is my understanding that this provision was part of a large bill rushed through Congress without much debate. I am glad that Congress has decided to at least take a second look at this proposal and its ramifications. I am quite confident that, after Congress hears from the millions of Americans who object to a national ID, my colleagues will do the right thing and pass legislation forbidding the federal government from instituting a “uniform standard health identifier.”

The Fed
Patient Protection Act of 1998
24 July 1998    1998 Ron Paul 84:13
I am also concerned that this bill further tramples upon state automony by further preempting their ability to regulate HMO’s and health care plans. Under the 10th amendment, states should be able to set standards for organizations such as HMO’s without interference from the federal government. I am disappointed that we did not get an opportunity to debate Mr. BRADY’s amendment that would have preserved the authority of states in this area.

The Fed
Patient Protection Act of 1998
24 July 1998    1998 Ron Paul 84:14
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while the Patient Protection Act takes some good steps toward placing patients back in control of the health care system, it also furthers the federal role in overseeing the health system. It is my belief that the unintended, but inevitable, consequence of this bill, will require Congress to return to the issue of health care reform in a few years. I hope Congress gets it right next time.

The Fed
Banking Regulations
4 August 1998    1998 Ron Paul 93:11
The estimated, aggregate cost of bank regulation (noninterest expenses) on commercial banks was $125.9 billion in 1991, according to The Cost of Bank Regulation: A Review of the Evidence, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Staff Study 171 by Gregory Elliehausen, April 1998). It reports that studies estimate that this figure amounts to 12 percent to 13 percent of noninterest expenses. These estimates only include a fraction of the “most burdensome” regulations that govern the industry, it adds, “The total cost of all regulation can only be larger . . . The basic conclusion is similar for all of the studies of economies of scale: Average compliance costs for regulations are substantially greater for banks at low levels of output than for banks at moderate or high levels of output,” the Staff Study concludes.

The Fed
English Language Fluency Act
10 September 1998    1998 Ron Paul 96:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to express my opposition to H.R. 3892, the English Language Fluency Act. Although I supported the bill when it was marked-up before the Education and Workforce Committee, after having an opportunity to study the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)’s scoring of H.R. 3892, I realized that I must oppose this bill because it increases expenditures for bilingual education. Thus, this bill actually increases the Federal Government’s role in education.

The Fed
English Language Fluency Act
10 September 1998    1998 Ron Paul 96:2
I originally supported this bill primarily because of the provisions voiding compliance agreements between the Department of Education and local school districts. Contrary to what the name implies, compliance agreements are the means by which the Federal Government has forced 288 schools to adapt the model of bilingual education favored by the Federal bureaucrats in complete disregard of the wishes of the people in those communities.

The Fed
English Language Fluency Act
10 September 1998    1998 Ron Paul 96:3
The English Language Fluency Act also improves current law by changing the formula by which schools receive Federal bilingual funds from a competitive to a formula grant. Competitive grants are a fancy term for forcing States and localities to conform to Federal dictates before the Federal Government returns to them some of the moneys unjustly taken from the American people. Formula grants allow States and localities greater flexibility in designing their own education programs and thus are preferable to competitive grants.

The Fed
English Language Fluency Act
10 September 1998    1998 Ron Paul 96:4
Although H.R. 3892 takes some small steps forward toward restoring local control of education, it takes a giant step backward by extending bilingual education programs for three years beyond the current authorization and according to CBO this will increase Federal spending by $719 million! Mr. Chairman, it is time that Congress realized that increasing Federal funding is utterly incompatible with increasing local control. The primary reason State and local governments submit to Federal dictates in areas such as bilingual education is because the Federal Government bribes States with moneys illegitimately taken from the American people to confer to Federal dictates. Since he who pays the piper calls the tune, any measures to take more moneys from the American people and give it to Federal educrats reduces parental control by enhancing the Federal stranglehold on education. Only by defunding the Federal bureaucracy can State, local and parental control be restored.

The Fed
English Language Fluency Act
10 September 1998    1998 Ron Paul 96:6
Mr. Chairman, despite having some commendable features, such as eliminating consent decrees, the English Language Fluency Act, H.R. 3892, is not worthy of support because it authorizes increasing the Federal Government’s control over education dollars. I therefore call on my colleagues to reject this legislation and instead work for constitutional education reform by returning money and control over education to America’s parents through legislation such as the Family Education Freedom Act.

The Fed
Worldwide Financial Crisis
10 September 1998    1998 Ron Paul 97:9
The Federal Reserve hints at lower interest rates which means more easy credit. This may be construed as a positive for the market, but it only perpetuates a flawed monetary system.

The Fed
Head Start Program
14 September 1998    1998 Ron Paul 99:2
In fact, the founders of this country would be horrified by one of the premises underlying this type of federal program: that communities and private individuals are unwilling and unable to meet the special needs of low-income children without intervention by the federal government. The truth is that the American people can and will meet the educational and other needs of all children if Congress gives them the freedom to do so by eliminating the oppressive tax burden fostered on Americans to fund the welfare-warfare state.

The Fed
Head Start Program
14 September 1998    1998 Ron Paul 99:3
When the federal government becomes involved in funding a program such as Head Start, it should at least respect local autonomy by refraining from interfering with the ability of local communities to fashion a program that suits their needs. After all, federal funding does not change the fact that those who work with a group of children on a daily basis are the best qualified to design a program that effectively serves those children. Therefore, I must strongly object to the provisions in S. 2206 that requires the majority of Head Start classroom teachers to have an Associate or Bachelors degree in early childhood education by 2003. This provision may raise costs and/or cause some good Head Start teachers to lose their positions simply because they lack the credentials a Washington-based “expert” decided they needed to serve as a Head Start instructor.

The Fed
Head Start Program
14 September 1998    1998 Ron Paul 99:8
Since S. 2206 furthers the federal government’s unconstitutional role of controlling early childhood education by increasing federal micro-management of the Head Start program, furthers government intrusions into religious institutions and redistributes income from Texans to citizens of other states through the LIHEAP program, I must oppose this bill. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and instead join me in defunding all unconstitutional programs and cutting taxes so the American people may create social service programs that best meet the needs of low-income children and families in their communities.

The Fed
The Failed War On Drugs
15 September 1998    1998 Ron Paul 100:3
But the way we are going about this is wrong. I am rather surprised in our side of the aisle that champions limited government and States’ rights, that they use the FDA’s ability to regulate nicotine as an excuse and the legal loophole for the Federal Government to be involved in marijuana. I might remind them that 80 years ago when this country decided that we should not have alcohol, they did not come to the Congress and ask for a law. They asked for a constitutional amendment realizing the Congress had no authority to regulate alcohol. Today we have forgotten about that. Many of my colleagues might not know or remember that the first attack on the medicinal use of marijuana occurred under the hero of the left, F.D.R., in 1937. Prior to 1937, marijuana was used medicinally, and it was used with only local control.

The Fed
The Failed War On Drugs
15 September 1998    1998 Ron Paul 100:4
The Federal controls on illicit drugs has not worked and it is not working when it comes to marijuana. Once again, we have States saying, just allow the physician the option to give some of these people some marijuana. Possibly it will help. I think the jury is still out about how useful it is. But for us to close it down and say one cannot, and deny some comfort to a dying patient, I do not think this is very compassionate one way or the other. The war on drugs has been going on now for several decades. We have spent over $200 billion. There is no evidence to show that there is less drug usage in this country.

The Fed
Dollars To The Classroom Act
18 September 1998    1998 Ron Paul 101:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to express my reservations about H.R. 3248, the Dollars to the Classroom Act. I take a back seat to no one in my opposition to Federal control of education. Unlike some of this bills most vocal supporters, I have consistently voted against all appropriations for the Department of Education. In fact, when I was serving in the House in 1979, I opposed the creation of the Education Department. I applaud the work Mr. Pitts and others have done to force Congress to debate the best means of returning power over education to the states, local communities and primarily parents. However, although H.R. 3248 takes a step toward shrinking the Federal bureaucracy by repealing several education programs, its long-term effect will likely be to strengthen the Federal Government’s control over education by increasing Federal spending. Therefore, Congress should reject this bill.

The Fed
Dollars To The Classroom Act
18 September 1998    1998 Ron Paul 101:2
If H.R. 3248 did not increase Federal expenditures, my support would be unenthusiastic at best as the system of block grants established by this bill continue the unconstitutional practice of taking money from taxpayers and redistributing it to other states. The Federal Government lacks constitutional authority to carry out this type of redistribution between states and taxpayers, regardless of whether the monies are redistributed through Federal programs or through grants. There is no “block grant exception” to the principles of federalism embodied in the United States Constitution.

The Fed
Dollars To The Classroom Act
18 September 1998    1998 Ron Paul 101:3
The requirement that the states certify that 95% of Federal monies are spent “in the classroom,” (a term not defined in the act) and report to the Congress how they are using those monies to improve student performance imposes an unacceptable level of Federal management on the states. States are sovereign entities, not administrative units of the Federal Government, and should not have to account to the Federal Government for their management of educational programs.

The Fed
Dollars To The Classroom Act
18 September 1998    1998 Ron Paul 101:5
Under the revised version of H.R. 3248, states can only spend their block grant money on one or more of the programs supposedly repealed by the Federal Government! In fact, this bill is merely one more example of “mandate federalism” where states are given flexibility to determine how best to fulfill goals set by Congress. Granting states the authority to select a particular form of federal management of education may be an improvement over the current system, but it is hardly a restoration of state and local control over education!

The Fed
Dollars To The Classroom Act
18 September 1998    1998 Ron Paul 101:6
The federal government’s power to treat state governments as their administrative subordinates stems from an abuse of Congress’ taxing-and-spending power. Submitting to federal control is the only way state and local officials can recapture any part of the monies the federal government has illegitimately taken from a state’s citizens. Of course, this is also the only way state officials can tax citizens of other states to support their education programs. It is the rare official who can afford not to bow to federal dictates in exchange for federal funding!

The Fed
Dollars To The Classroom Act
18 September 1998    1998 Ron Paul 101:7
As long as the federal government controls education dollars, states and local schools will obey federal mandates; the core problem is not that federal monies are given with the inevitable strings attached, the real problem is the existence of federal taxation and funding.

The Fed
Dollars To The Classroom Act
18 September 1998    1998 Ron Paul 101:8
Since federal spending is the root of federal control, by increasing federal spending this bill lays the groundwork for future Congresses to fasten more and more mandates on the states. Because state and even local officials, not federal bureaucrats, will be carrying out these mandates, this system could complete the transformation of the state governments into mere agents of the federal government.

The Fed
Dollars To The Classroom Act
18 September 1998    1998 Ron Paul 101:11
Furthermore, by increasing the flow of federal money to state and local educrats, rather than directly increasing parental control over education through education tax credits and tax cuts, the effect will be to make state and local officials even less responsive to parents. I wish to remind my colleagues that many state and local education officials support the same programs as the federal educrats. The officials responsible for the genital exams of junior high school girls in Pennsylvania should not be rewarded with more federal taxpayers’ dollars to spend as they wish.

The Fed
Dollars To The Classroom Act
18 September 1998    1998 Ron Paul 101:13
Madam Chairman, while I applaud the attempt by the drafters of this bill to attempt to reduce the federal education bureaucracy, the fact is the Dollars to the Classroom Act represents the latest attempt of this Congress to avoid addressing philosophical and constitutional questions of the role of the Federal and State Governments by means of adjustments in management in the name of devolution. Devolution is said to be a return to state’s rights since it decentralized the management of federal program; this is a new 1990’s definition of the original concept of federalism and is a poor substitute for the original, constitutional definition of federalism.

The Fed
Dollars To The Classroom Act
18 September 1998    1998 Ron Paul 101:15
In conclusion, the Dollars to the Classroom Act may repeal some unconstitutional education programs but it continues the federal government’s equally unconstitutional taking of funds from the America people for the purpose of returning them in the form of monies for education only if a state obeys federal mandates. While this may be closer to the constitutional systems, it also lays the groundwork for future federal power grabs by increasing federal spending. Rather than continue to increase spending while pretending to restore federalism, Congress should take action to restore parents to the rightful place as the “bosses” of America’s education system.

The Fed
Revamping The Monetary System
24 September 1998    1998 Ron Paul 102:4
But last night an emergency meeting was called by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. It was not called by the banks and the security firms that were standing to lose the money, but the Federal Reserve Bank of New York called an emergency meeting late last night. Some of the members of this meeting, the attendees, came back from Europe just to attend this meeting because it was of such a serious nature. They put together a package of $3.5 billion to bail out this company.

The Fed
Revamping The Monetary System
24 September 1998    1998 Ron Paul 102:10
We need to have a revamping of the monetary system, but certainly it cannot be saved, it cannot be improved, by more paper money out of thin air, and that is what the Federal Reserve System is doing.

The Fed
Revamping The Monetary System
24 September 1998    1998 Ron Paul 102:11
I would like to remind my colleagues that when the Federal Reserve talks about lowering interest rates, like Mr. Greenspan announced yesterday, or alluded to, this means that the Federal Reserve will create new credit. Where do they get new credit and new money? They get it out of thin air. This, of course, will lower interest rates in the short run and this will give a boost to a few people in trouble and it will bail out certain individuals.

The Fed
Revamping The Monetary System
24 September 1998    1998 Ron Paul 102:17
But we go one step further. The Congress has reneged on its responsibility and has not maintained the responsibility of maintaining value in the dollar. It has turned it over to a very secretive body, the Federal Reserve System, that has no responsibility to the U.S. Congress. So I argue for the case of watching out for the dollar and argue for sound money, and not to allow this to progress any further.

The Fed
Don’t Fast-Track Free Trade Deal
25 September 1998    1998 Ron Paul 103:3
The Constitution clearly allows for international agreements and clearly specifies the means by which they are to be accomplished. Treaties, quite clearly are to be negotiated by the President with advice and consent of the Senate and can only become effective upon being ratified by a two-thirds majority of the Senate. The Constitution, however, does not expressly confer authority to make international agreements other than by treaties and, of course, the tenth amendment specifies that “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.” To ignore or allow the one branch of the federal government to delegate it’s powers to others destroys the liberty-protecting ability inherent to the Constitutional separation of powers.

The Fed
Don’t Fast-Track Free Trade Deal
25 September 1998    1998 Ron Paul 103:9
Fast track is merely a procedure under which the United States can more quickly integrate and cartelize government in order to entrench the interventionist mixed economy. In Europe, this process culminated in the Maastricht Treaty, the attempt to impose a single currency and central bank and force relatively free economies to ratchet up their regulatory and welfare states. In the United States, it has instead taken the form of transferring legislative and judicial authority from states and localities and to the executive branch of the federal government. Thus, agreements negotiated under fast track authority (like NAFTA) are, in essence, the same alluring means by which the socialist Eurocrats have tried to get Europeans to surrender to the super-statism of the European community. And just as Brussels has forced low-tax European countries to raise their taxes to the European average or to expand their respective welfare states in the name of “fairness,” a “level playing field,” and “upward harmonization,” so too will the international trade governors and commissions be empowered to “upwardly harmonize,” internationalize, and otherwise usurp laws of American state governments.

The Fed
World Financial Markets
1 October 1998    1998 Ron Paul 104:11
Credit conditions that allow a company with less than $1 billion in capital to buy $100 billion worth of stock with borrowed money and manage $1.2 trillion worth of derivatives is about as classic an example as one could ever find of speculative excess brought on by easy credit. As long as capital is thought to come from a computer at the Federal Reserve and not from savings, the financial problems the world faces today will persist.

The Fed
Hedge Fund Bailout
2 October 1998    1998 Ron Paul 105:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the Federal Reserve orchestrated bailout of the hedge fund Long-Term Capital Management LP raises serious policy questions. At one point, the notional value of the Cayman Island-registered fund’s derivatives totalled about $1.2 trillion. We should look seriously at this issue because of the taxpayer-backed liability concerns raised by the involvement of an agency with the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. The state of Michigan has taken a constructive first step regarding the public policy concerns of derivatives. I urge us to consider the wisdom of the State Representative Greg Kaza as we debate this issue.

The Fed
Hedge Fund Bailout
2 October 1998    1998 Ron Paul 105:3
Although derivatives are a relatively recent development in financial markets, their use by corporations, pension and mutual funds, financial institutions, governments and those involved in money management are clearly ascendant, according to the Federal Reserve and other federal agencies. The issue is not whether the government should ban or in some way restrict the prudent use of derivatives to hedge risk. Rather, the issue is one of disclosure, i.e., how best to provide increased transparency as our complex international financial system enters the 21st Century.

The Fed
Lake Texana
7 October 1998    1998 Ron Paul 111:2
Particularly frustrating is that in my attempt to return authority to the State of Texas for a water project located in the 14th District, I introduced HR 2161, The Palmetto Bend Title Transfer Project. Return of such authority comports with my Constitutional notion that local control is preferred to unlimited federal authority to dictate from Washington, the means by which a water project in Edna, Texas will be managed. I understand that certain Members of Congress may disagree with the notion of the proper and limited role of the federal government. The point here, however, is that the “political process” embracing the so-called “high virtue of compromise” means that in order for one to vote for less federal authority one must, at the same time, in this bill, vote for more. Political schizophrenia was never more rampant. One would have to vote to authorize the transfer of 377,000 acres of public land in Utah to the federal government (at taxpayer expense of $50 million for Utah’s public schools) in order to return Lake Texana to the State of Texas.Two unrelated issues; two opposite philosophies as to the proper role of the federal government — a policy at odds with itself (unless, of course, compromise is one’s ultimate end).

The Fed
Lake Texana
7 October 1998    1998 Ron Paul 111:3
HR 2161 merely facilitates the early payment of the construction costs (discounted, of course, by the amount of interest no longer due as a consequence of early payment) and transfers title of the Palmetto Bend Project to the Texas state authorities. Both the LNRA and TWDB concur that an early buy-out and title transfer is extremely beneficial to the economical and operational well-being of the project as well as the Lake Texana water users. The Texas Legislature and Governor George W. Bush have both formally supported the early payment and title transfer. In fact, even the residents of Highland Lakes in Travis County who initially expressed a concern as to the effects of the title transfer on the Colorado River Basin, came to support the legislation. This bill will save Lake Texana water users as much as one million dollars per year as well as providing an immediate infusion of $43 million dollars to the national treasury. Additionally, all liability associated with this water project are, under my legislation, assumed by the state of Texas thus further relieving the financial burden of the federal government.

The Fed
National Provider ID
8 October 1998    1998 Ron Paul 115:3
Allowing the federal government to establish a National Health ID not only threatens privacy but also will undermine effective health care. As an OB/GYN with more than 30 years experience in private practice, I know better than most the importance of preserving the sanctity of the physician-patient relationship. Oftentimes, effective treatment depends on a patient’s ability to place absolute trust in his or her doctor. What will happen to that trust when patients know that any and all information given their doctor will be placed in a data base accessible by anyone who knows the patient’s “unique personal identifier?”

The Fed
National Provider ID
8 October 1998    1998 Ron Paul 115:6
My amendment forbids the federal government from creating federal IDs for doctors and employers as well as for individuals. Contrary to the claims of some, federal-ID numbers for doctors and employers threaten American liberty every bit as much as individual medical IDs.

The Fed
National Provider ID
8 October 1998    1998 Ron Paul 115:12
Last September, NCVHS proposed guidelines for the development of the medical ID. Those guidelines required that all predecisional documents “should be kept in strict confidence and not be shared or discussed,” This is a direct violation of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which requires all working documents to be made public. Although NCVHS, succumbing to public pressure and possible legal action against it, recently indicated it will make its pre-decisional documents available in compliance with federal law, I hope my colleagues on the Rules Committee agree that the NCVHS attempt to evade the will of Congress and keep its work secret does not bode well for any future attempts to protect the medical ID from abuse by government officials.

The Fed
National Provider ID
8 October 1998    1998 Ron Paul 115:13
The most important reason, legislation “protecting” the unique health identifier is insufficient is that the federal government lacks any constitutional authority to force citizens to adopt a universal health identifier, regardless of any attached “privacy protections.” Any federal action that oversteps constitutional limitations violates liberty for it ratifies the principle that the federal government, not the Constitution, is the ultimate arbitrator of its own jurisdiction over the people. The only effective protection of the rights of citizens is for Congress and the American people to follow Thomas Jefferson’s advice and “bind (the federal government) down with the chains of the Constitution.”

The Fed
National Provider ID
8 October 1998    1998 Ron Paul 115:15
Mr. Chairman, all I ask is that Congress by given the change to correct the mistake made in 1996 when they authorized the National Health ID as part of the Kennedy-Kasebaum bill. The federal government has no authority to endanger the privacy of personal medical information by forcing all citizens to adopt a uniform health identifier for use in a national data base. A uniform health ID endangers the constitutional liberties, threatens the doctor-patient relationships, and could allow federal officials access to deeply personal medical information. There can be no justification for risking the rights of private citizens. I therefore urge the Rules Committee to take the first step toward protecting Americans from a medical ID by ruling my amendment to the Labor-HHS–Education Appropriations bill in order.

The Fed
Medicare Home Health And Veterans Health Care Improvement Act Of 1998
9 October 1998    1998 Ron Paul 118:6
Now I know many of the bill’s supporters will claim that this is not a tax increase just an adjustment in the qualifications for a tax benefit or tightening a tax loophole. However, the fact is that by raising the threshold before a taxpayer can rollover their traditional IRA into a Roth IRA the federal government is forcing some people to pay higher taxes than they otherwise would, thus they are raising taxes. It is morally wrong for Congress to raise taxes on one group of Americans in order to provide benefits for another group of Americans.

The Fed
Medicare Home Health And Veterans Health Care Improvement Act Of 1998
9 October 1998    1998 Ron Paul 118:8
Similarly, Congress should seek funds for an increased expenditure on home care by ending federal support for institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which benefit wealthy bankers and powerful interests but not the American people. At a time when the federal government continues to grow to historic heights and meddles in every facet of American life I cannot believe that Congress cannot find expenditure cuts to finance the programs in this bill!

The Fed
Monetary Policy
16 October 1998    1998 Ron Paul 120:14
First, the Federal Reserve should be denied the power to fix interest rates and buy government debt. It should not be central economic planner through manipulation of money and credit.

The Fed
Education Debate
16 October 1998    1998 Ron Paul 121:2
It is becoming increasingly clear that the experiment in centralized control of education has failed. Even data from the National Assessment of Education Progress [NAEP] shows that students in States where control over education is decentralized score approximately 10 percentage points higher on NAEP’s tests in math and reading than students from States with highly-centralized education systems. Clearly, the drafters of the Constitution knew what they were doing when they forbade the Federal Government from meddling in education.

The Fed
Education Debate
16 October 1998    1998 Ron Paul 121:5
Currently, consumers are less than sovereign in the education “market.” Funding decisions are increasingly controlled by the Federal Government. Because “he who pays the piper calls the tune,” public, and even private schools, are paying greater attention to the dictates of Federal “educrats” while ignoring the wishes of the parents to an ever-greater degree. As such, the lack of consumer sovereignty in education is destroying parental control of education and replacing it with State control. Restoring parental control is the key to improving education.

The Fed
Education Debate
16 October 1998    1998 Ron Paul 121:9
First of all, the Federal Government lacks constitutional authority to redistribute monies between States and taxpayers for the purpose of education, regardless of whether the monies are redistributed through Federal programs or through grants. There is no “block grant exception” to the principles of federalism embodied in the U.S. Constitution.

The Fed
Education Debate
16 October 1998    1998 Ron Paul 121:10
Furthermore, the Federal Government’s power to treat State governments as their administrative subordinates stems from an abuse of Congress’ taxing-and-spending power. Submitting to Federal control is the only way State and local officials can recapture any part of the monies of the Federal Government has illegitimately taken from a State’s citizens. Of course, this is also the only way State officials can tax citizens of other States to support their education programs. It is the rare official who can afford not to bow to Federal dictates in exchange for Federal funding!

The Fed
Education Debate
16 October 1998    1998 Ron Paul 121:11
As long as the Federal Government controls education dollars, States and local schools will obey Federal mandates; the core problem is not that Federal monies are given with the inevitable strings attached, the real problem is the existence of Federal taxation and funding.

The Fed
Education Debate
16 October 1998    1998 Ron Paul 121:12
Since Federal spending is the root of Federal control, by increasing Federal spending this Congress is laying the groundwork for future Congresses to fasten more and more mandates on the States. Because State and even local officials, not Federal bureaucrats, will be carrying out these mandates, this system could complete the transformation of the State governments into mere agents of the Federal Government.

The Fed
Education Debate
16 October 1998    1998 Ron Paul 121:13
Congress has used block grants to avoid addressing philosophical and constitutional questions of the role of the Federal and State governments by means of adjustments in management in the name of devolution. Devolution is said to return to State’s rights by decentralizing the management of Federal programs. This is a new 1990’s definition of the original concept of federalism and is a poor substitute for the original, constitutional definition of federalism.

The Fed
Education Debate
16 October 1998    1998 Ron Paul 121:14
While it is true that lower levels of intervention are not as bad as micro-management at the Federal level, Congress’ constitutional and moral responsibility is not to make the Federal education bureaucracy “less bad.” Rather, we must act now to put parents back in charge of education and thus make American education once again the envy of the world.

The Fed
Supports Impeachment Of President Clinton
19 December 1998    1998 Ron Paul 125:7
But the real irony is that the charges coming out of the Paula Jones sexual harassment suit stem from an unconstitutional federal law that purports to promote good behavior in the work place. It’s based entirely on ignoring the obligations of the states to deal with physical abuse and intimidation. This whole mess resulted from a legal system institutionalized by the very same people who are not the President’s staunchest defenders. Without the federal sexual harassment code of conduct — which the President repeatedly flaunted — there would have been no case against the President since the many other serious charges have been brushed aside. I do not believe this hypocrisy will go unnoticed in the years to come. Hopefully it will lead to the day when the Congress reconsiders such legislation in light of the strict limitations placed on it by the Constitution and to which many members of Congress are now publicly declaring their loyalty.

The Fed
Supports Impeachment Of President Clinton
19 December 1998    1998 Ron Paul 125:10
If my suspicion is correct we can claim a major victory. Polling across Texas, as well as nationally, confirms that more than 80 percent of the people are fearful of the Federal Government’s intrusion into our personal privacy. That’s a healthy sign and indicates that the privacy issue could be the issue that will eventually draw attention to the evils of big government.

The Fed
Supports Impeachment Of President Clinton
19 December 1998    1998 Ron Paul 125:19
Hopefully, the concept of the overly aggressive prosecutor will be condemned when it comes to overly aggressive activities of all the federal police agencies whether it’s the IRS, the BATF or any other authoritarian agency of the federal government.

The Fed
Supports Impeachment Of President Clinton
19 December 1998    1998 Ron Paul 125:20
A former U.S. Attorney, Robert Merkle, recently told the Pittsburgh Post Gazette that “the philosophy of (the Attorney General’s office) the last 10 to 15 years is whatever works is right,” when it comes to enforcing federal laws which essentially all are unconstitutional. It’s this attitude by the federal police agents that the American people must reject and not only when it applies to a particular President some want to shield.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Fed
Opposing National Teacher Certification Or National Teacher Testing
5 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 41:6
COALITION OF INDEPENDENT EDUCATION ASSOCIATIONS — STATEMENT ON NATIONAL TEACHER LICENSURE, FEBRUARY 26, 1999 The licensure of teachers should remain the responsibility of each state’s Board of Education and any attempt to authorize the federal government to govern this process should be opposed.

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

The Fed
Introduction of H.R. 1789
18 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 49:3
Alan Greenspan, now Chairman of the Federal Reserve, described the “world of antitrust” as “reminiscent of Alice’s Wonderland: Everything seemingly is, yet apparently isn’t, simultaneously.” Antitrust is, according to Greenspan “a world in which competition is lauded as the basic axiom and guiding principle, yet, ‘too much’ competition is condemned as ‘cutthroat’. * * * A world in which actions designed to limit competition are branded as criminal when taken by businessmen, yet praised as ‘enlightened’ when initiated by government. A world in which the law is so vague that businessmen have no way of knowing whether specific actions will be declared illegal until they hear the judge’s verdict — after the fact.” And, of course, obscure, incoherent, and vague legislation can make legality unattainable by anyone, or at least unattainable without an unauthorized revision which itself impairs legality.

The Fed
Introduction of H.R. 1789
18 May 1999    1999 Ron Paul 49:10
The purpose of my bill is to restore the inherent benefits of the market economy by repealing the Federal body of statutory law which currently prevents efficiency-maximizing voluntary exchange.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Fed
Only A Moral Society Will Make Our Citizens And Their Guns Less Violent
15 June 1999    1999 Ron Paul 60:6
There are no authentic anti-gun proponents in this debate. The only argument is who gets the guns, the people or the Federal bureaucrats. Proponents of more gun laws want to transfer the guns to the 80,000 and growing Federal Government officials who make up the national police force.

The Fed
Only A Moral Society Will Make Our Citizens And Their Guns Less Violent
15 June 1999    1999 Ron Paul 60:11
Number two, public school violence has increased since the Federal government took over the public school system.

The Fed
Only A Moral Society Will Make Our Citizens And Their Guns Less Violent
15 June 1999    1999 Ron Paul 60:17
Number eight, the Federal government’s role in Waco and the burning alive of innocent children in the name of doing good sends a confused message to our youth.

The Fed
Only A Moral Society Will Make Our Citizens And Their Guns Less Violent
15 June 1999    1999 Ron Paul 60:19
More gun laws expanding the role of the Federal government in our daily lives while further undermining the first and second amendment will not curb the violence. Understanding the proper constitutional role for government and preventing the government itself from using illegal force to mold society and police the world would go a long way in helping to diminish the violence.

The Fed
Don’t Undermine First And Second Amendment
16 June 1999    1999 Ron Paul 61:5
We should be reminded, though, that traditionally, up until the middle part of this century, crime control was always considered a local issue. That is the way the Constitution designed it. That is the way it should be. But every day we write more laws here in the Congress building a national police force. We now have more than 80,000 bureaucrats in this country carrying guns. We are an armed society, but it is the Federal Government that is armed.

The Fed
What We Would Be Doing By Amending The Constitution To Make It Illegal To Desecrate The American Flag
22 June 1999    1999 Ron Paul 63:11
We say, well, this is bad expression. This is ugly people. These are people that are saying unpopular things, and they are being obnoxious. But, Mr. Speaker, the first amendment and the freedom of expression was never put there for easygoing, nice, conventional, noncontroversial speech. There is no purpose to protect that. Nobody cares. The purpose of freedom of expression is to protect controversy, and if somebody is upset and annoyed, the best thing we can do with people like that is to ignore them. If we pass a constitutional amendment and people are so anti-American that they want to display their anti-Americanism, they will love it. They will get more attention because we will be sending in the Federal flag police to do something about it.

The Fed
Privacy Project Act
24 June 1999    1999 Ron Paul 68:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Privacy Protection Act, which repeals those sections of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 authorizing the establishment of federal standards for birth certificates and drivers’ licenses. This obscure provision, which was part of a major piece of legislation passed at the end of the 104th Congress, represents a major power grab by the federal government and a threat to the liberties of every American, for it would transform state drivers’ licenses into national ID cards.

The Fed
Privacy Project Act
24 June 1999    1999 Ron Paul 68:3
Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government has no constitutional authority to require Americans to present any form of identification before engaging in any private transaction such as opening a bank account, seeing a doctor, or seeking employment. Any uniform, national system of identification would allow the federal government to inappropriately monitor the movements and transactions of every citizen. History shows that when government gains the power to monitor the actions of the people, it eventually uses that power to impose totalitarian controls on the populace.

The Fed
Child Custody Protection Act
30 June 1999    1999 Ron Paul 69:3
Our federal government is, constitutionally, a government of limited powers. Article one, Section eight, enumerates the legislative areas for which the U.S. Congress is allowed to act or enact legislation. For every other issue, the federal government lacks any authority or consent of the governed and only the state governments, their designees, or the people in their private market actions enjoy such rights to governance. The tenth amendment is brutally clear in stating “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Our nation’s history makes clear that the U.S. Constitution is a document intended to limit the power of central government. No serious reading of historical events surrounding the creation of the Constitution could reasonably portray it differently.

The Fed
Child Custody Protection Act
30 June 1999    1999 Ron Paul 69:4
Nevertheless, rather than abide by our constitutional limits, Congress today will likely pass H.R. 1218. H.R. 1218 amends title 18, United States Code, to prohibit taking minors across State lines to avoid laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions. Should parents be involved in decisions regarding the health of their children?? Absolutely. Should the law respect parents rights to not have their children taken across state lines for contemptible purposes?? Absolutely. Can a state pass an enforceable statute to prohibit taking minors across State lines to avoid laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions?? Absolutely. But when asked if there exists constitutional authority for the federal criminalizing of just such an action the answer is absolutely not.

The Fed
Child Custody Protection Act
30 June 1999    1999 Ron Paul 69:5
This federalizing may have the effect of nationalizing a law with criminal penalties which may be less than those desired by some states. To the extent the federal and state laws could co-exist, the necessity for a federal law is undermined and an important bill of rights protection is virtually obliterated. Concurrent jurisdiction crimes erode the right of citizens to be free of double jeopardy. The fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifies that no “person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . .” In other words, no person shall be tried twice for the same offense. However, in United States v. Lanza, the high court in 1922 sustained a ruling that being tried by both the federal government and a state government for the same offense did not offend the doctrine of double jeopardy. One danger of the unconstitutionally expanding the federal criminal justice code is that it seriously increases the danger that one will be subject to being tried twice for the same offense. Despite the various pleas for federal correction of societal wrongs, a national police force is neither prudent nor constitutional.

The Fed
Child Custody Protection Act
30 June 1999    1999 Ron Paul 69:7
The argument which springs from the criticism of a federalized criminal code and a federal police force is that states may be less effective than a centralized federal government in dealing with those who leave one state jurisdiction for another. Fortunately, the Constitution provides for the procedural means for preserving the integrity of state sovereignty over those issues delegated to it via the tenth amendment. The privilege and immunities clause as well as full faith and credit clause allow states to exact judgments from those who violate their state laws. The Constitution even allows the federal government to legislatively preserve the procedural mechanisms which allow states to enforce their substantive laws without the federal government imposing its substantive edicts on the states. Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2 makes provision for the rendition of fugitives from one state to another. While not self-enacting, in 1783 Congress passed an act which did exactly this. There is, of course, a cost imposed upon states in working with one another rather than relying on a national, unified police force. At the same time, there is a greater cost to centralization of police power.

The Fed
Child Custody Protection Act
30 June 1999    1999 Ron Paul 69:9
It is my erstwhile hope that parents will become more involved in vigilantly monitoring the activities of their own children rather than shifting parental responsibility further upon the federal government. There was a time when a popular bumper sticker read “It’s ten o’clock; do you know where your children are?” I suppose we have devolved to point where it reads “It’s ten o’clock; does the federal government know where your children are.” Further socializing and burden-shifting of the responsibilities of parenthood upon the federal government is simply not creating the proper incentive for parents to be more involved.

The Fed
Improving Privacy
1 July 1999    1999 Ron Paul 71:4
Now, if one wants to really find something where one invades the privacy of the individual citizen, it is this notion that the Federal Government would dictate a profiling of every bank customer in this country; and then, if that customer varied its financial activities at any time, it could be reported to the various agencies of the Federal Government. Now, that is privacy. That is what we have to stop. I ask for support for my amendment.

The Fed
H.R. 1691 And Religious Freedom
15 July 1999    1999 Ron Paul 74:6
If one admires the Federal government’s handling of the abortion question, one will have to wait with even greater anticipation to witness the Federal government’s handiwork with respect to religious liberty.

The Fed
Africa Growth And Opportunity Act
16 July 1999    1999 Ron Paul 77:11
Fast track is merely a procedure under which the United States can more quickly integrate an cartelize government in order to entrench the interventionist mixed economy. In Europe, this process culminated in the Maastricht Treaty, the attempt to impose a single currency and central bank and force relatively free economies to ratchet up their regulatory and welfare states. In the United States, it has instead taken the form of transferring legislative and judicial authority from states and localities and to the executive branch of the federal government. Thus, agreements negotiated under fast track authority (like NAFTA) are, in essence, the same alluring means by which the socialistic Eurocrats have tried to get Europeans to surrender to the super-statism of the European Union. And just as Brussels has forced low-tax European countries to raise their taxes to the European average or to expand their respective welfare states in the name of “fairness,” a “level playing field,” and “upward harmonization,” so too will the international trade governors and commissions be empowered to “upwardly harmonize,” internationalize, and otherwise usurp laws of American state governments.

The Fed
Africa Growth And Opportunity Act
16 July 1999    1999 Ron Paul 77:14
To the extent America is non-competitive, it is not because of a lack of innovation, ingenuity, or work ethic. Rather, it is largely a function of the overburdening of business and industry with excessive taxation and regulation. Large corporations, of course, greatly favor such regulation because it disadvantages their smaller competitors who either are not in a position to maintain the regulatory compliance department due to their limited size or, equally important, unable to “capture” the federal regulatory agencies whose regulation will be written to favor the politically adept and disfavor the truly productive. The rub comes when other governments engage in more laissez faire approaches thus allowing firms operating within those jurisdictions to become more competitive. It will be the products of these less-taxed, less-regulated firms which will be the consumers’ only hope to maintain their standard of living in a climate of domestic production burdened by regulation and taxation. The consumers’ after-tax income becomes lower and lower while relative prices of domestic goods become higher and higher. Free trade which provides the poor consumer an escape hatch, of course, is not the particular brand of “free trade” espoused by the international trade organizations whose purpose it is to exclude the more efficient competitors internationally in the same way federal regulatory agencies have been created and captured to do the equivalent task domestically.

The Fed
Teacher Empowerment Act
20 July 1999    1999 Ron Paul 81:2
H.R. 1995 is not entirely without merit. The most important feature of the bill is the provision forbidding the use of federal funds for mandatory national teacher testing or teacher certification. National teacher testing or national teacher certification will inevitably lead to a national curriculum. National teacher certification will allow the federal government to determine what would-be teachers need to know in order to practice their chosen profession. Teacher education will revolve around preparing teachers to pass the national test or to receive a national certificate. New teachers will then base their lesson plans on what they needed to know in order to receive their Education Department-approved teaching certificate. Therefore, all those who oppose a national curriculum should oppose national teacher testing. I commend Chairman GOODLING and Chairman MCKEON for their continued commitment to fighting a national curriculum.

The Fed
Teacher Empowerment Act
20 July 1999    1999 Ron Paul 81:3
Furthermore, this bill provides increased ability for state and local governments to determine how best to use federal funds. However, no one should confuse this with true federalism or even a repudiation of the modern view of state and local governments as administrative agencies of the Federal Government. After all, the very existence of a federal program designed to “help” states train teachers limits a state’s ability to set education priorities since every dollar taken in federal taxes to fund federal teacher training programs is a dollar a state cannot use to purchase new textbooks or computers for students. This bill also dictates how much money the states may keep versus how much must be sent to the local level and limits the state government’s use of the funds to activities approved by Congress.

The Fed
Teacher Empowerment Act
20 July 1999    1999 Ron Paul 81:4
In order to receive any funds under this act, states must further entrench the federal bureaucracy by applying to the Department of Education and describing how local school districts will use the funds in accordance with federal mandates. They must grovel for funds while describing how they will measure student achievement and teacher quality; how they will coordinate professional development activities with other programs; and how they will encourage the development of “proven, innovative strategies” to improve professional development — I wonder how much funding a state would receive if their “innovative strategy” did not meet the approval of the Education Department! I have no doubt that state governments, local school districts, and individual citizens could design a less burdensome procedure to support teacher quality initiatives if the federal government would only abide by its constitutional limits.

The Fed
Teacher Empowerment Act
20 July 1999    1999 Ron Paul 81:5
Use of the funds by local school districts is also limited by the federal government. For example, local schools districts must use a portion of each grant to reduce class size, unless it can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the state that it needs the money to fund other priorities. This provision illustrates how this bill offends not just constitutional procedure but also sound education practice. After all, the needs of a given school system are best determined by the parents, administrators, community leaders, and, yes, teachers, closest to the students — not by state or federal bureaucrats. Yet this bill continues to allow distant bureaucrats to oversee the decisions of local education officials.

The Fed
Teacher Empowerment Act
20 July 1999    1999 Ron Paul 81:7
In order to receive funding under this bill, states must provide certain guarantees that the state’s use of the money will result in improvement in the quality of the state’s education system. Requiring such guarantees assumes that the proper role for the Federal Government is to act as overseer of the states and localities to ensure they provide children with a quality education. There are several flaws in this assumption. First of all, the 10th amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the Federal Government from exercising any control over education. Thus, the Federal Government has no legitimate authority to take money from the American people and use that money in order to bribe states to adopt certain programs that Congress and the federal bureaucracy believes will improve education. The prohibition in the 10th amendment is absolute; it makes no exception for federal education programs that “allow the states flexibility!”

The Fed
Teacher Empowerment Act
20 July 1999    1999 Ron Paul 81:8
In addition to violating the Constitution, making states accountable in any way to the federal government for school performance is counter-productive. The quality of American education has declined as Federal control has increased, and for a very good reason. As mentioned above, decentralized education systems are much more effective then centralized education systems. Therefore, the best way to ensure a quality education system is through dismantling the Washington-DC-based bureaucracy and making schools more accountable to parents and students.

The Fed
Teacher Empowerment Act
20 July 1999    1999 Ron Paul 81:10
Mr. Chairman, the Teacher Empowerment Act not only continues the federal control of education in violation of the Constitution and sound education principles, but it does so at increased spending levels. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to reject the approach of this bill and instead join me in working to eliminate the federal education bureaucracy, cut taxes, and thus return control over education to America’s parents, teachers, and students.

The Fed
Free Trade
27 July 1999    1999 Ron Paul 82:9
Before we assume that we can improve the political liberties of foreign citizens, we must meet the responsibility of protecting all civil liberties of our own citizens irrespective of whether it is guaranteeing first and second amendment protections or guaranteeing the balance of power between the states and the federal government as required by the ninth and tenth amendments.

The Fed
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
30 September 1999    1999 Ron Paul 102:13
Mr. Chairman, today Congress will vote to further instill and codify the ill-advised Roe versus Wade decision. While it is the independent duty of each branch of the federal government to act Constitutionally, Congress will likely ignore not only its Constitutional limits but earlier criticisms from Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well.

The Fed
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
30 September 1999    1999 Ron Paul 102:14
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 1999, H.R. 2436, would amend title 18, United States Code, for the laudable goal of protecting unborn children from assault and murder. However, by expanding the class of victims to which unconstitutional (but already-existing) federal murder and assault statutes apply, the federal government moves yet another step closer to a national police state.

The Fed
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
30 September 1999    1999 Ron Paul 102:16
Nevertheless, our federal government is, constitutionally, a government of limited powers. Article one, section eight, enumerates the legislative areas for which the U.S. Congress is allowed to act or enact legislation. For every other issue, the federal government lacks any authority or consent of the governed and only the state governments, their designees, or the people in their private market actions enjoy such rights to governance. The tenth amendment is brutally clear in stating “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Our nation’s history makes clear that the U.S. Constitution is a document intended to limit the power of central government. No serious reading of historical events surrounding the creation of the Constitution could reasonably portray it differently.

The Fed
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
30 September 1999    1999 Ron Paul 102:18
In this first formal complaint to Congress on behalf of the federal Judiciary, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said “the trend to federalize crimes that have traditionally been handled in state courts . . . threatens to change entirely the nature of our federal system.” Rehnquist further criticized Congress for yielding to the political pressure to “appear responsive to every highly publicized societal ill or sensational crime.”

The Fed
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
30 September 1999    1999 Ron Paul 102:19
Perhaps, equally dangerous is the loss of another Constitutional protection which comes with the passage of more and more federal criminal legislation. Constitutionally, there are only three federal crimes. These are treason against the United States, piracy on the high seas, and counterfeiting (and, because the constitution was amended to allow it, for a short period of history, the manufacture, sale, or transport of alcohol was concurrently a federal and state crime). “Concurrent” jurisdiction crimes, such as alcohol prohibition in the past and federalization of murder today, erode the right of citizens to be free of double jeopardy. The fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifies that no “person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . .” In other words, no person shall be tried twice for the same offense. However, in United States v. Lanza, the high court in 1922 sustained a ruling that being tried by both the federal government and a state government for the same offense did not offend the doctrine of double jeopardy. One danger of unconstitutionally expanding the federal criminal justice code is that it seriously increases the danger that one will be subject to being tried twice for the same offense. Despite the various pleas for federal correction of societal wrongs, a national police force is neither prudent nor constitutional.

The Fed
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
30 September 1999    1999 Ron Paul 102:20
Occasionally the argument is put forth that states may be less effective than a centralized federal government in dealing with those who leave one state jurisdiction for another. Fortunately, the Constitution provides for the procedural means for preserving the integrity of state sovereignty over those issues delegated to it via the tenth amendment. The privilege and immunities clause as well as full faith and credit clause allow states to exact judgments from those who violate their state laws. The Constitution even allows the federal government to legislatively preserve the procedural mechanisms which allow states to enforce their substantive laws without the federal government imposing its substantive edicts on the states. Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2 makes provision for the rendition of fugitives from one state to another. While not self-enacting, in 1783 Congress passed an act which did exactly this. There is, of course, a cost imposed upon states in working with one another rather than relying on a national, unified police force. At the same time, there is a greater cost to centralization of a police power.

The Fed
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
30 September 1999    1999 Ron Paul 102:23
Protection of life (born or unborn) against initiations of violence is of vital importance. So vitally important, in fact, it must be left to the states’ criminal justice systems. We have seen what a legal, constitutional, and philosophical mess results from attempts to federalize such an issue. Numerous states have adequately protected the unborn against assault and murder and done so prior to the federal government’s unconstitutional sanctioning of violence in the Roe v. Wade decision. Unfortunately, H.R. 2436 ignores the danger of further federalizing that which is properly reserved to state governments and, in so doing, throws legal philosophy, the Constitution, the bill of rights, and the insights of Chief Justice Rehnquist out with the baby and the bathwater. For these reasons, I must oppose H.R. 2436, The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 1999.

The Fed
Health Care Reform: Treat The Cause, Not The Symptom
4 October 1999    1999 Ron Paul 103:21
Mixing the concept of rights with the delivery of services is dangerous. The whole notion that patient’s “rights” can be enhanced by more edicts by the federal government is preposterous. Providing free medication to one segment of the population for political gain without mentioning the cost is passed on to another segment is dishonest. Besides, it only compounds the problem, further separating medical services from any market force and yielding to the force of the tax man and the bureaucrat. No place in history have we seen medical care standards improve with nationalizing its delivery system. Yet, the only debate here in Washington is how fast should we proceed with the government takeover. People have no more right to medical care than they have a right to steal your car because they are in need of it. If there was no evidence that freedom did not enhance everyone’s well being I could understand the desire to help others through coercive means. But delivering medical care through government coercion means not only diminishing the quality of care, it undermines the principles of liberty. Fortunately, a system that strives to provide maximum freedom for its citizens, also supports the highest achievable standard of living for the greatest number, and that includes the best medical care.

The Fed
Health Care Reform: Treat The Cause, Not The Symptom
4 October 1999    1999 Ron Paul 103:23
The ERISA law requiring businesses to provide particular programs for their employees should be repealed. The tax codes should give equal tax treatment to everyone whether working for a large corporation, small business, or is self employed. Standards should be set by insurance companies, doctors, patients, and HMOs working out differences through voluntary contracts. For years it was known that some insurance policies excluded certain care and this was known up front and was considered an acceptable provision since it allowed certain patients to receive discounts. The federal government should defer to state governments to deal with the litigation crisis and the need for contract legislation between patients and medical providers. Health care providers should be free to combine their efforts to negotiate effectively with HMOs and insurance companies without running afoul of federal anti-trust laws — or being subject to regulation by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Congress should also remove all federally-imposed roadblocks to making pharmaceuticals available to physicians and patients. Government regulations are a major reason why many Americans find it difficult to afford prescription medicines. It is time to end the days when Americans suffer because the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) prevented them from getting access to medicines that where available and affordable in other parts of the world!

The Fed
Quality Care For The Uninsured Act
6 October 1999    1999 Ron Paul 104:17
Mixing the concept of rights with the delivery of services is dangerous. The whole notion that patient’s “rights” can be enhanced by more edicts by the federal government is preposterous. Providing free medication to one segment of the population for political gain without mentioning the cost is passed on to another segment is dishonest. Besides, it only compounds the problem, further separating medical services from any market force and yielding to the force of the tax man and the bureaucrat. No place in history have we seen medical care standards improve with nationalizing its delivery system. Yet, the only debate here in Washington is how fast should we proceed with the government takeover. People have no more right to medical care than they have a right to steal your car because they are in need of it. If there was no evidence that freedom did not enhance everyone’s well being I could understand the desire to help others through coercive means. But delivering medical care through government coercion means not only diminishing the quality of care, it undermines the principles of liberty. Fortunately, a system that strives to provide maximum freedom for its citizens, also supports the highest achievable standard of living for the greatest number, and that includes the best medical care.

The Fed
Quality Care For The Uninsured Act
6 October 1999    1999 Ron Paul 104:19
The ERISA laws requiring businesses to provide particular programs for their employees should be repealed. The tax codes should give equal tax treatment to everyone whether working for a large corporation, small business, or is self employed. Standards should be set by insurance companies, doctors, patients, and HMOs working out differences through voluntary contracts. For years it was known that some insurance policies excluded certain care and this was known up front and was considered an acceptable provision since it allowed certain patients to receive discounts. The federal government should defer to state governments to deal with the litigation crisis and the need for contract legislation between patients and medical providers. Health care providers should be free to combine their efforts to negotiate effectively with HMOs and insurance companies without running afoul of federal anti-trust laws — or being subject to regulation by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Congress should also remove all federally-imposed roadblocks to making pharmaceuticals available to physicians and patients. Government regulations are a major reason why many Americans find it difficult to afford prescription medicines. It is time to end the days when Americans suffer because the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) prevented them from getting access to medicines that were available and affordable in other parts of the world!

The Fed
Paul-Doolittle Amendment To H.R. 3037
14 October 1999    1999 Ron Paul 105:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today I am placing in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD an amendment I, along with my colleague, Mr. DOOLITTLE of California, are offering to H.R. 3037, the Labor/HHS/Education Appropriations bill, to reduce funding for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) by $30,000,000, increase funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) by $25,000,000 and apply $5,000,000 toward debt reduction. Our amendment provides an increase in financial support to help local schools cope with the federal IDEA mandates by reducing funding for an out-of-control bureaucracy that is running roughshod over the rights of workers, and even defying the Supreme Court!

The Fed
Stop Federal Funding for Schools
20 October 1999    1999 Ron Paul 107:3
In 1963, the Federal Government spent less than $900,000 on education programs. This year, if we add up all the programs, it is over $60 billion. Where is the evidence? The scores keep going down. The violence keeps going up. We cannot keep drugs out of the schools. There is no evidence that our approach to education is working.

The Fed
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (SEA)
21 October 1999    1999 Ron Paul 108:7
One of the mantras of those who promote marginal reforms of federal education programs is the need to “hold schools accountable for their use of federal funds.” This is the justification for requiring Title I schools to produce “report cards” listing various indicators of school performance. Of course, no one would argue against holding schools should be accountable, but accountable to whom? The Federal Government? Simply requiring schools to provide information about the schools, without giving parents the opportunity to directly control their child’s education does not hold schools accountable to parents. As long as education dollars remain in the hands of bureaucrats not parents, schools will remain accountable to bureaucrats instead of parents.

The Fed
Academic Achievement for All Students Freedom and Accountability Act (STRAIGHT “A’s”)
21 October 1999    1999 Ron Paul 109:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, those who wish to diminish federal control over education should cast an unenthusiastic yes vote for the Academic Achievement for All Students Freedom and Accountability Act (STRAIGHT “A’s”). While this bill does increase the ability of state and local governments to educate children free from federal mandates and regulations, and is thus a marginal improvement over existing federal law, STRAIGHT “A’s” fails to challenge the federal government’s unconstitutional control of education. In fact, under STRAIGHT “A’s” states and local school districts will still be treated as administrative subdivisions of the federal education bureaucracy. Furthermore, this bill does not remove the myriad requirements imposed on states and local school districts by federal bureaucrats in the name of promoting “civil rights.” Thus, a school district participating in STRAIGHT “A’s” will still have to place children in failed bilingual education programs or face the wrath of the Department of Education’s misnamed Office of Civil Rights.

The Fed
Academic Achievement for All Students Freedom and Accountability Act (STRAIGHT “A’s”)
21 October 1999    1999 Ron Paul 109:2
The fact that this bill increases, however marginally, the ability of states and localities to control education, is a step forward. As long as the federal government continues to levy oppressive taxes on the American people, and then funnel that money back to the states to use for education programs, defenders of the Constitution should support all efforts to reduce the hoops through which states must jump in order to reclaim some of the people’s tax monies.

The Fed
Academic Achievement for All Students Freedom and Accountability Act (STRAIGHT “A’s”)
21 October 1999    1999 Ron Paul 109:3
However, there are a number of both practical and philosophical concerns regarding this bill. While the additional flexibility granted under this bill will be welcomed by the ten states allowed by the federal overseers to participate in the program, there is no justification to deny this flexibility to the remaining forty states. After all, federal education money represents the return of funds illegitimately taken from the American taxpayers to their states and communities. It is the pinnacle of arrogance for Congress to pick and choose which states are worthy of relief from federal strings in how they use what is, after all, the people’s money.

The Fed
Academic Achievement for All Students Freedom and Accountability Act (STRAIGHT “A’s”)
21 October 1999    1999 Ron Paul 109:5
Under the United States Constitution, the federal government has no authority to hold states “accountable” for their education performance. In the free society envisioned by the founders, schools are held accountable to parents, not federal bureaucrats. However, the current system of leveling oppressive taxes on America’s families and using those taxes to fund federal education programs denies parental control of education by denying them control over the education dollar. Because “he who pays the piper calls the tune,” when the federal government controls the education dollar schools will obey the dictates of federal “educrats” while ignoring the wishes of the parents.

The Fed
Academic Achievement for All Students Freedom and Accountability Act (STRAIGHT “A’s”)
21 October 1999    1999 Ron Paul 109:10
Since the STRAIGHT “A’s” bill does give states an opportunity to break free of some federal mandates, supporters of returning the federal government to its constitutional limits should support it. However, they should keep in mind that this bill represents a minuscule step forward as it fails to directly challenge the federal government’s usurpation of control over education. Instead, this bill merely gives states greater flexibility to fulfill federally-defined goals. Therefore, Congress should continue to work to restore constitutional government and parental control of education by defunding all unconstitutional federal programs and returning the money to America’s parents so that they may once again control the education of their children.

The Fed
Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999 (H.R. 2260)
27 October 1999    1999 Ron Paul 111:8
Another thing is this sets up a new agency. For those conservative colleagues of mine who do not like the nationalization of medical care, what my colleagues are looking at here is a new agency of government setting up protocols, educating doctors and hospitals, and saying this is the way palliative care must be administered. My colleagues will have to answer with reports to the Federal Government.

The Fed
Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999 (H.R. 2260)
27 October 1999    1999 Ron Paul 111:13
However, I believe that if we are not careful in our attempt to clarify this situation we also could participate in a slippery slope unbeknownst to us and just as dangerous. Roe vs. Wade essentially has nationalized an issue that should have been handled strictly by the states. Its repeal of a Texas State law set the stage for the wholesale of millions of innocent unborn. And yet, we once again are embarking on more nationalization of law that will in time backfire. Although the intention of H.R. 2260 is to repeal the Oregon law and make a statement against euthanasia it may well just do the opposite. If the nationalization of law dealing with abortion was designed to repeal state laws that protected life there is nothing to say that once we further establish this principle that the federal government, either the Congress or the Federal Courts, will be used to repeal the very laws that exist in 49 other states than Oregon that prohibit euthanasia. As bad as it is to tolerate an unsound state law, it’s even worse to introduce the notion that our federal congresses and our federal courts have the wisdom to tell all the states how to achieve the goals of protecting life and liberty.

The Fed
Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999 (H.R. 2260)
27 October 1999    1999 Ron Paul 111:18
Under this bill a new program of grants, cooperative agreements and contracts to help professional schools and other medical agencies will be used to educate and train health care professionals in palliative care. It is not explicit but one can expect that if the rules are not followed and an institution is receiving federal money they will be denied these funds unless they follow the universal protocols set up by the federal government. The bill states clearly that any special award under this new program can only be given if the applicant agrees that the program carried out with the award will follow the government guidelines. These new programs will be through the health professional schools, i.e. the medical schools’ residency training programs and other graduate programs in the health professions. It will be a carrot and stick approach and in time the medical profession will become very frustrated with the mandates and the threat that funds will be withheld.

The Fed
Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999.
27 October 1999    1999 Ron Paul 112:10
The Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999, H.R. 2260, would amend Title 21, United States Code, for the laudable goal of protecting palliative care patients from the scourge of “assisted” suicide. However, by preempting what is the province of States — most of which have already enacted laws prohibiting “assisted suicide” — and expanding its use of the Controlled Substances Act to further define what constitutes proper medical protocol, the federal government moves yet another step closer to both a federal medical bureau and a national police state.

The Fed
Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999.
27 October 1999    1999 Ron Paul 112:11
Our federal government is, constitutionally, a government of limited powers. Article one, section eight, enumerates the legislative areas for which the U.S. Congress is allowed enact legislation. For every other issue, the federal government lacks any authority or consent of the governed and only the state governments, their designees, or the people in their private market actions enjoy such rights to governance. The tenth amendment is brutally clear in stating “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Our nation’s history makes clear that the U.S. Constitution is a document intended to limit the power of central government. No serious reading of historical events surrounding the creation of the Constitution could reasonably portray it differently.

The Fed
Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999.
27 October 1999    1999 Ron Paul 112:12
In his first formal complaint to Congress on behalf of the federal Judiciary, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said “the trend to federalize crimes that have traditionally been handled in state courts . . . threatens to change entirely the nature of our federal system.” Rehnquist further criticized Congress for yielding to the political pressure to “appear responsive to every highly publicized societal ill or sensational crime.”

The Fed
Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999.
27 October 1999    1999 Ron Paul 112:13
However, Congress does significantly more damage than simply threatening physicians with penalties for improper prescription of certain drugs — it establishes (albeit illegitimately) the authority to dictate the terms of medical practice and, hence, the legality of assisted suicide nationwide. Even though the motivation of this legislation is clearly to pre-empt the Oregon Statute and may be protective of life in this instance, we mustn’t forget that the saw (or scalpel) cuts both ways. The Roe versus Wade decision — the Court’s intrusion into rights of states and their previous attempts to protect by criminal statute the unborn’s right not to be aggressed against — was quite clearly less protective of life than the Texas statute it obliterated. By assuming the authority to decide for the whole nation issues relating to medical practice, palliative care, and assisted suicide, the foundation is established for a national assisted suicide standard which may not be protective of life when the political winds shift and the Medicare system is on the verge of fiscal collapse. Then, of course, it will be the federal government’s role to make the tough choices of medical procedure rationing and for whom the cost of medical care doesn’t justify life extension. Current law already prohibits private physicians from seeing privately funded patients if they’ve treated a Medicaid patient within two years.

The Fed
Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999.
27 October 1999    1999 Ron Paul 112:14
Additionally, this bill empowers the Attorney General to train federal, state, and local law enforcement personnel to discern the difference between palliative care and euthanasia. Most recently, though, it was the Attorney General who specifically exempted the physicians of Oregon from certain provisions of Title 21, the very Title this legislation intends to augment. Under the tutelage of the Attorney General, it would thus become the federal police officer’s role to determine at which point deaths from pain medication constitute assisted suicide.

The Fed
Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999.
27 October 1999    1999 Ron Paul 112:16
Like the unborn, protection of the lives of palliative care patients is of vital importance. So vitally important, in fact, it must be left to the states’ criminal justice systems and state medical licensing boards. We have seen what a mess results from attempts to federalize such an issue. Numerous states have adequately protected both the unborn and palliative care patients against assault and murder and done so prior to the federal government’s unconstitutional sanctioning of violence in the Roe versus Wade decision. Unfortunately, H.R. 2260 ignores the danger of further federalizing that which is properly reserved to state governments and, in so doing, ignores the Constitution, the bill of rights, and the insights of Chief Justice Rehnquist. For these reasons, I must oppose H.R. 2260, The Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999.

The Fed
Conference Report On S. 900, Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
4 November 1999    1999 Ron Paul 113:5
Government policy and the increase in securitization are largely responsible for this bubble. In addition to loose monetary policies by the Federal Reserve, government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have contributed to the problem. The fourfold increases in their balance sheets from 1997 to 1998 boosted new home borrowings to more than $1.5 trillion in 1998, two-thirds of which were refinances which put an extra $15,000 in the pockets of consumers on average — and reduce risk for individual institutions while increasing risk for the system as a whole.

The Fed
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000    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.

The Fed
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000    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.

The Fed
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000    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.

The Fed
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000    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.

The Fed
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000    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.

The Fed
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000    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.

The Fed
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000    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.

The Fed
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000    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.

The Fed
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000    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.

The Fed
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000    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.

The Fed
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000    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.

The Fed
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000    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.

The Fed
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000    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.

The Fed
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000    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.

The Fed
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000    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.

The Fed
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000    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.

The Fed
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000    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.

The Fed
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000    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.

The Fed
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000    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.

The Fed
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000    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.

The Fed
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000    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.

The Fed
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000    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.

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

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

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

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

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

The Fed
ON INTRODUCTION OF THE PHARMACEUTICAL FREEDOM ACT OF 2000
February 10, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 6:2
* The first provision of my legislation provides seniors a tax credit equal to 80 percent of their prescription drug costs. As many of my colleagues have pointed out, our nation’s seniors are struggling to afford the prescription drugs they need in order to maintain an active and healthy lifestyle. Yet, the Federal Government continues to impose taxes on Social Security benefits and limits senior citizens’ ability to earn additional income by reducing Social Security benefits if a senior exceeds the ‘earnings limitation.’ Meanwhile, Congress continually raids the Social Security trust fund to finance unconstitutional programs! It is long past time for Congress to choose between helping seniors afford medicine or using the Social Security trust fund as a slush fund for big government and pork-barrel spending.

The Fed
ON INTRODUCTION OF THE PHARMACEUTICAL FREEDOM ACT OF 2000
February 10, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 6:5
* The Pharmaceutical Freedom Act also protects consumers’ access to affordable prescription drugs by forbidding the Federal Government from regulating any Internet sales of FDA-approved pharmaceuticals by state-licensed pharmacists. As I am sure my colleagues are aware, the Internet makes pharmaceuticals and other products more affordable and accessible for millions of Americans. However, the Federal Government has threatened to destroy this option by imposing unnecessary and unconstitutional regulations on web sites which sell pharmaceuticals. Any federal regulations would inevitably drive up prices of pharmaceuticals, thus depriving many consumers of access to affordable prescription medications.

The Fed
REVIEW ARTICLE ON ‘NEW MATH’
February 10, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 7:2
* Mr. Evers’ article points out that the federal government has no constitutional authority to dictate or even recommend to local schools what type of mathematics curriculum they should adopt. Instead, all curriculum decisions are solely under the control of states, local communities, teachers, and parents. I would remind my colleagues that outrages like ‘new math’ did not infiltrate the classroom until the federal government seized control of education, allowing Washington-DC based bureaucrats to use our children as guinea pigs for their politically correct experiments.

The Fed
REVIEW ARTICLE ON ‘NEW MATH’
February 10, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 7:4
* The Family Education Freedom Act provides parents with the means to make sure their children are getting a quality education that meets their child’s special needs. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleagues that thirty years of centralized education have produced nothing but failure and frustrated parents. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to read Mr. Evers’ article on the dangers of the federal endorsement of ‘fuzzy math’ and support my efforts to improve education by giving dollars and authority to parents, teachers and local school districts by cosponsoring the Family Education Freedom Act.

The Fed
REVIEW ARTICLE ON ‘NEW MATH’
February 10, 2000    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.

The Fed
REVIEW ARTICLE ON ‘NEW MATH’
February 10, 2000    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.

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

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

The Fed
THE AGRICULTURE EDUCATION FREEDOM ACT
February 16, 2000    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.

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

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

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

The Fed
MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE ACT
March 9, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 15:1
* Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to explain why I oppose the H.R. 3846, a bill to raise the federally-mandated minimum wage. Raising living standards for all Americans is an admirable goal, however, to believe that Congress can raise the standard of living for working Americans by simply forcing employers to pay their employees a higher wage is equivalent to claiming that Congress can repeal gravity by passing a law saying humans shall have the ability to fly.

The Fed
MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE ACT
March 9, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 15:10
* In conclusion, I would remind my colleagues that while it may make them feel good to raise the federal minimum wage, the real life consequences of this bill will be vested upon those who can least afford to be deprived of work opportunities. Therefore, rather than pretend that Congress can repeal the economic principles, I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation and instead embrace a program of tax cuts and regulatory reform to strengthen the greatest producer of jobs and prosperity in human history: the free market.

The Fed
PRAISING PARENTS AND TEACHERS DURING TEXAS PUBLIC SCHOOLS WEEK
March 9, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 16:2
* Unfortunately, Congress and the federal bureaucracy continue to strip authority away from parents, teachers and local school boards. While Congress promises the American people that expansions of federal control over local schools will create an educational utopia, the fact is that the federal education bureaucracy has only increased the difficulties of educating the next generation and diverted resources away from the classroom. For example, while the federal government provides less than 10% of education funding, many school districts find that more than 50% of their paperwork is generated by federal mandates and the hoops local school officials must jump through in order to get Washington to return a ridiculously small portion of taxpayer money to local public schools.

The Fed
PRAISING PARENTS AND TEACHERS DURING TEXAS PUBLIC SCHOOLS WEEK
March 9, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 16:5
* The “Family Education Freedom Act” fulfills the American people’s goal of greater control over their children’s education by simply allowing parents to keep more of their hard-earned money to spend on education, rather than forcing them to send it to Washington to support education programs reflective of the values and priorities of Congress and the federal bureaucracy.

The Fed
PRAISING PARENTS AND TEACHERS DURING TEXAS PUBLIC SCHOOLS WEEK
March 9, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 16:10
* Mr. Speaker, my education agenda of returning control over the education dollar to the American people is the best way to strengthen public education. First of all, unlike plans to expand the federal education bureaucracy, my bills are free of “guidelines” and restrictions that dilute the actual number of dollars spent to educate a child. In addition, the money does not have to go through federal and state bureaucrats, each of whom gets a cut, before it reaches the classroom. Returning power over the education dollar will also free public school teachers, administrators and principals from having to comply with numerous federal mandates. Instead, school personnel and officials may work with parents and other concerned citizens to make sure all children are receiving the best possible education.

The Fed
NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2000
March 22, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 17:1
* Mr. Speaker, while nuclear power has conferred a considerable benefit upon power users in this country, today, we confront the symptoms of a federal government run Constitutionally amok which requires our serious attention. As a Congress, we are faced with the decision of whether to further ignore the federal government’s constitutional limits and ultimately confront additional future symptoms of such action or acknowledge the necessary consequences of such an extra-Constitutional activity and act to correct the initial “enumerated powers doctrine” transgression.

The Fed
NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2000
March 22, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 17:2
* In 1982, the federal government entered into an agreement with nuclear power industry to take possession of their nuclear waste and properly dispose of it in 1998. It should be noted that it is now March 2000 and the federal government has quite simply breached its contract. More importantly, it should be noted that the federal government had no authority to enter such an agreement in the first place. These facts, of course, did nothing to prevent the federal government from collecting from utility companies and their customers tax revenues for placement in a trust fund to accomplish their illegitimate and unfulfilled promise. Lack of constitutional authority also did nothing to stop the federal government from squandering more than $6 billion of that trust fund without having collected one gram of nuclear waste.

The Fed
NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2000
March 22, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 17:4
* These facts stated, we nevertheless remain faced with the current status quo requiring a solution. The initial question which must necessarily be asked and answered is “whether one constitutionally illegitimate action by the federal government may ever be used to justify the second?” The answer to this question must always be answered in the negative. This does not mean, however, that those whose taxes have been illegitimately taken should receive nothing in return — quite the contrary. Numerous breach of contract lawsuits have been filed against the federal government for which a quick remedies must be effectuated. Not only must the ill-taken revenues be returned to the non-breaching parties but attorneys fees and damages imposed upon the non-breaching parties should be awarded them as well. Perhaps, even more should be done, however, as this “contract”can, in many ways, be likened to the car thief who knowingly sells a stolen car to an unsuspecting customer inasmuch as the federal government promised to deliver something for which they themselves have usurped (stolen) from the state authorities and, hence, have no legitimate right to offer.

The Fed
NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2000
March 22, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 17:6
* While citizens of those forty-nine states exclusive of Nevada may believe that Nevada is a fine place to dispose of one’s waste, one must never concede the principle of states right guaranteed by the Constitution nor forget that, in so doing, the next choice of the federal government may be to deposit equally dangerous or harmful materials in the rangeland of Texas. Enlisting the aid of the federal government to impose one’s waste on citizens of another state while efficacious for the dumper is thus neither prudent, Constitutional, nor particularly pleasant for the dumpee.

The Fed
NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2000
March 22, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 17:7
* It should not be lost on those interested in this issue that the federal government actually encouraged development of this industry to a degree the market would have never “contemplated” by artificially and, again, illegitimately, imposing a federal cap on damages in liability suits. In order to fully weigh the benefits and costs of nuclear power, external costs must be internalized rather than ignored.

The Fed
AWARDING GOLD MEDAL TO FORMER PRESIDENT AND MRS. RONALD REAGAN IN RECOGNITION OF SERVICE TO NATION
April 3, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 25:1
* Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3591. At the same time, I am very supportive of President Reagan’s publicly stated view of limiting the federal government to it’s proper and constitutional role. In fact, I was one of only four sitting members of the United States House of Representatives who endorsed Ronald Reagan’s candidacy for President in 1976. The United States enjoyed sustained economic prosperity and employment growth during Ronald Reagan’s presidency.

The Fed
AWARDING GOLD MEDAL TO FORMER PRESIDENT AND MRS. RONALD REAGAN IN RECOGNITION OF SERVICE TO NATION
April 3, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 25:2
* I must, however, oppose the Gold Medal for Ronald and Nancy Reagan because appropriating $30,000 of taxpayer money is neither constitutional nor, in the spirit of Ronald Reagan’s notion of the proper, limited role for the federal government.

The Fed
IDEA FULL FUNDING ACT OF 2000
May 4, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 33:2
* IDEA may also force local schools to deny children access to the education that best suits their unique needs in order to fulfill the federal command that disabled children be educated ‘in the least restrictive setting,’ which in practice means mainstreaming. Many children may thrive in a mainstream classroom environment, however, some children may be mainstreamed solely because school officials believe it is required by federal law, even though the mainstream environment is not the most appropriate for that child.

The Fed
Statement of Ron Paul on the Misuse of the Social Security Number
May 11, 2000    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.

The Fed
Statement of Ron Paul on the Misuse of the Social Security Number
May 11, 2000    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

The Fed
Statement of Ron Paul on the Misuse of the Social Security Number
May 11, 2000    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.

The Fed
Manipulating Interest Rates
May 15, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 36:1
* The national debt is rising at an annual rate of a $100 billion per year while the federal government obligation to future generations is rising even faster. Yet, little concern is shown in Congress as our budgets grow and new programs are added on to old. Ordinary political deception has been replaced with the dangerous notion of invincibleness as members claim credit for imaginary budgetary surpluses. The percent of our income that government now takes continues to rise, while personal liberty is steadily compromised with each new budget. But the political euphoria associated with the “New Era” economy will soon come to an end.

The Fed
Manipulating Interest Rates
May 15, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 36:3
* Business cycles are well understood. They are not a natural consequence of capitalism but instead result from central bank manipulation of credit. This is especially true when the monetary unit is undefinable as it is in a fiat monetary system, such as ours. Therefore, it is correct to place blame on the Federal Reserve for all depressions/recessions, inflation, and much of the unemployment since 1913. The next downturn, likewise, will be the fault of the Fed.

The Fed
Manipulating Interest Rates
May 15, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 36:4
* It is true that the apparent prosperity and the boom part of the cycle are a result of the Federal Reserve credit creation, but the price that must always be paid and the unfairness of inflationism makes it a dangerous process.

The Fed
Manipulating Interest Rates
May 15, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 36:6
* A central bank that has no restraints placed on it is always available to the politicians who spend endlessly for reelection purposes. When the private sector lacks its appetite to lend sufficiently to the government, the Federal Reserve is always available to buy treasury debt with credit created out of thin air. At the slightest hint that interest rates are higher than the Fed wants, its purchase of debt keeps interest rates in check; that is, they are kept lower than the market rate. Setting interest rates is an enormous undertaking. It’s price fixing and totally foreign to the principles of free market competition.

The Fed
Manipulating Interest Rates
May 15, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 36:9
* This silly notion of money and credit gives rise to the conventional wisdom that once the economy gets really rolling, it’s time for the Fed to stop economic growth. The false supposition is that economic growth causes higher prices and higher labor costs, and these evils must be prevented by tightening credit and raising interest rates. But these are only the consequences of the previous monetary expansion and blaming rising prices or higher labor costs is done only to distract from the real culprit-monetary inflation by the Federal Reserve.

The Fed
Manipulating Interest Rates
May 15, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 36:12
* Fine-tuning the economy, through monetary manipulation is a dangerous game to play. We are now completing nearly a decade of rapid monetary growth and evidence is now appearing indicating that we will soon start to pay for our profligate ways. The financial bubble that the Fed manufactured over the past decade or two will burst and the illusion of our great wealth will end. In time, also the illusion of “surpluses for as far as the eye can see” will end. Then the Congress will be forced to take much more seriously the budgetary problems that it pretends do not exist.

The Fed
Statement of Ron Paul on the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act (HR 220)
May 18, 2000    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.

The Fed
Statement of Ron Paul on the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act (HR 220)
May 18, 2000    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.

The Fed
Statement of Ron Paul on the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act (HR 220)
May 18, 2000    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.

The Fed
Statement of Ron Paul on the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act (HR 220)
May 18, 2000    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.

The Fed
Statement of Ron Paul on the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act (HR 220)
May 18, 2000    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.

The Fed
Statement of Ron Paul on the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act (HR 220)
May 18, 2000    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.”

The Fed
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
May 23, 2000    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.

The Fed
Medical Privacy Amendment
June 13, 2000    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.

The Fed
Campbell/Bonior Amendment to Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary Appropriations Act
June 22, 2000    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.

The Fed
Hostettler Amendment to Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary Appropriations Act
June 26, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 59:10
* These requirements have been voted on in the past in the House and Senate and thus far have not passed either house. It is all to clear that the agenda of the Clinton Administration has always been anti-second amendment, and thus, they have found a way to implement their policies by forcing a gun manufacturer to comply regardless of their legal legitimacy. The Federal government and executive branch have no business — and have no authority — to mandate how a company runs its business.

The Fed
Quality Health-Care Coalition Act of 2000
June 29, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 61:1
* Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to take this opportunity to lend my support to H.R. 1304, the Quality Health Care Coalition Act, which takes a first step towards restoring a true free-market in health care by restoring the rights of freedom of contract and association to health care professionals. Over the past few years, we have had much debate in Congress about the difficulties medical professionals and patients are having with Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs). HMOs are devices used by insurance industries to ration health care. While it is politically popular for members of Congress to bash the HMOs and the insurance industry, the growth of the HMOs are rooted in past government interventions in the health care market though the tax code, the Employment Retirement Security Act (ERSIA), and the federal anti-trust laws. These interventions took control of the health care dollar away from individual patients and providers, thus making it inevitable that something like the HMOs would emerge as a means to control costs.

The Fed
Quality Health-Care Coalition Act of 2000
June 29, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 61:2
* Many of my well-meaning colleagues would deal with the problems created by the HMOs by expanding the federal government’s control over the health care market. These interventions will inevitably drive up the cost of health care and further erode the ability of patents and providers to determine the best health treatments free of government and third-party interference. In contrast, the Quality Health Care Coalition Act addresses the problems associated with HMOs by restoring medical professionals’ freedom to form voluntary organizations for the purpose of negotiating contracts with an HMO or an insurance company.

The Fed
Quality Health-Care Coalition Act of 2000
June 29, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 61:5
* Under the United States Constitution, the federal government has no authority to interfere with the private contracts of American citizens. Furthermore, the prohibitions on contracting contained in the Sherman antitrust laws are based on a flawed economic theory: that federal regulators can improve upon market outcomes by restricting the rights of certain market participants deemed too powerful by the government. In fact, anti-trust laws harm consumers by preventing the operation of the free-market, causing prices to rise, quality to suffer, and, as is certainly the case with the relationship between the HMOs and medical professionals, favoring certain industries over others. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that my colleagues would see the folly of antitrust laws and support my Market Process Restoration Act (H.R. 1789), which repeals all federal antitrust laws.

The Fed
Sense Of Congress Regarding Importance And Value Of Education In United States History
July 10, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 63:4
* In contrast, in a republic, the role of government is strictly limited to a few well-defined functions and the fundamental rights of individuals are respected. A constitution limiting the authority of central government and a Bill of Rights expressly forbidding the federal government from abridging the fundamental rights of a people are features of a republican form of government. Even a cursory reading of the Federalist Papers and other works of the founders shows they understood that obtaining the consent of 51 percent of the people does not in any way legitimize government actions abridging individual liberty.

The Fed
Sense Of Congress Regarding Importance And Value Of Education In United States History
July 10, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 63:5
* Madam Speaker, the confusion over whether America is a democracy, where citizens’ rights may be violated if the consent of 51 percent of the people may be obtained, or a republic, where the federal government is forbidden to take any actions violating a people’s fundamental rights, is behind many of the flawed debates in this Congress. A constitutionally literate Congress that understands the proper function of a legislature in a constitutional republic would never even debate whether or not to abridge the right of self-defense, instruct parents how to raise and educate their children, send troops to intervene in distant foreign quarrels that do not involve the security of the country, or even deny entire classes of citizens the fundamental right to life.

The Fed
Sense Of Congress Regarding Importance And Value Of Education In United States History
July 10, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 63:6
* Secondly, it is not the proper role of the United States Congress to dictate educational tenets to states and local governments. After all, the United States Constitution does not give the federal government any power to dictate, or even suggest, curriculum. Instead the power to determine what is taught in schools is reserved to states, local communities, and, above all, parents.

The Fed
Sense Of Congress Regarding Importance And Value Of Education In United States History
July 10, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 63:7
* In conclusion, by mistaking this country’s founding as being based on mass democracy rather than on republican principles, and by ignoring the constitutionally limited role of the federal government, this resolution promotes misunderstanding about the type of government necessary to protect liberty. Such constitutional illiteracy may be more dangerous than historical ignorance, since the belief that America was founded to be a democracy legitimizes the idea that Congress may violate people’s fundamental rights at will. I, therefore, encourage my colleagues to embrace America’s true heritage: a constitutional republic with strict limitations on the power of the central government.

The Fed
INTERNET GAMBLING PROHIBITION ACT OF 2000
July 19, 2000    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.

The Fed
INTERNET GAMBLING PROHIBITION ACT OF 2000
July 19, 2000    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.

The Fed
Social Security Tax Relief Act
27 July 2000    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.

The Fed
Social Security Tax Relief Act
27 July 2000    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.

The Fed
Social Security Benefits Tax Relief Act Of 2000
27 July 2000    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.

The Fed
Social Security Benefits Tax Relief Act Of 2000
27 July 2000    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.

The Fed
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
September 7, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 70:2
* Ironically, this measure’s language permanently authorizes the appropriation of such sums as may be necessary for the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum; a purpose which propels our very own federal government beyond its constitutionally enumerated limits. This nation’s founders were careful to limit the scope of our federal government to those enumerated powers within Article One, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. These limits were further instilled within the bill of rights’ tenth amendment which reserves to States and private parties those powers not specifically given to the federal government.

The Fed
Child Support Distribution Act Of 2000
September 7, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 71:5
* I would also remind my colleagues that the federal government has no constitutional authority to be involved in the collection of child support, much less invade the privacy of every citizen in order to ferret out a few wrongdoers. Constitutionally, there are only three federal crimes: treason, counterfeiting, and piracy on the high seas. For Congress to authorize federal involvement in any other law enforcement issue is a violation on the limits on Congressional power contained in Article 1, section 8 and the 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution. No less an authority than Chief Justice William Renhquist has stated that Congress is creating too many federal laws and infringing on the proper police powers of the states.

The Fed
Child Support Distribution Act Of 2000
September 7, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 71:7
* While the expanded use of the new hires database provides sufficient justification for constitutionalists to oppose this bill, H.R. 4678 also must be opposed as it furthers the intrusion of the federal government into family life through the use of federal funds to support ‘fatherhood programs.’ Mr. Speaker, the federal government is neither constitutionally authorized nor institutionally competent to promote responsible fatherhood. In fact, by leveling taxes on responsible parents to provide special programs for irresponsible parents the federal government is punishing responsible fathers!

The Fed
Child Support Distribution Act Of 2000
September 7, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 71:8
* Federal programs promoting responsible fatherhood are another example of how the unintended consequences of government interventions are used to justify further expansions of state power. After all, it was the federal welfare state which undermined the traditional family as well as the ethic of self-responsibility so vital to maintaining a free society. In particular, the welfare state has promoted the belief that the government (re: taxpayer) has the primary responsibility for child-rearing, not the parents. When a large number of citizens view parenting as proper function of the central state it is inevitable that there will be an increase in those who fail to fulfill their obligations as parents. Without the destructive effects of the welfare state, there would be little need for federal programs to promote responsible fatherhood.

The Fed
Child Support Distribution Act Of 2000
September 7, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 71:12
* In conclusion, H.R. 4678, the Child Support Distribution Act, violates the Constitution by expanding the use of the new hires database, thus threatening the liberty and privacy of all Americans, as well as by expanding the federal role in family in the misguided belief that the state can somehow promote responsible fatherhood. By expanding the so-called ‘charitable choice’ program this bill also violates the conscience of millions of taxpayers and runs the risk of turning effective religious charities into agents of the welfare state. It also furthers the federalization of crime control by increasing the federal role in child support despite the fact that the federal government has no constitutional authority in this area. I therefore urge my colleagues to reject this bill and return responsibility for America’s children to states, local communities and, most importantly, parents.

The Fed
SOCIAL SECURITY TAX RELIEF ACT
7 September 2000    2000 Ron Paul 72:3
* 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.

The Fed
SOCIAL SECURITY TAX RELIEF ACT
7 September 2000    2000 Ron Paul 72:4
* 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.

The Fed
Scouting For All Act
September 12, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 74:4
* As to the ‘federal charter’, where do we find authority for the federal government to charter organizations it deems ‘honorable’? To the extent the ‘charter’ is an honorary title awarded by Congress to organizations which is then ultimately used to threaten exercise of the right to freedom of association, I suggest we repeal not only the Boy Scout’s charter but all federal charters such that they won’t be used as tools of federal meddling.

The Fed
Scouting For All Act
September 12, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 74:5
* While I hesitate to further propagate this system of federal charters by which the federal government manipulates private groups, I despise more so this congressional attempt to penalize the Boy Scouts for merely exercising their constitutional rights — or as syndicated columnist Charley Reese recently put it in the Orlando Sentinel:

The Fed
Scouting For All Act
September 12, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 74:6
* I think that it’s time for all patriotic organizations that have these federal charters to surrender those documents. It is impossible for a dishonorable organization to honor anyone. And these charters are, practically speaking, worthless. If the federal government believes that mindless non-discrimination trumps morality, then it’s time to disassociate from such bad company.

The Fed
Literacy Involves Families Together Act
September 12, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 75:2
* Several of my colleagues on the Education and Workforce Committee have expressed opposition to the LIFT Act’s dramatic increase in authorized expenditures for the Even Start family literacy programs. Of course, I share their opposition to the increased expenditure, however, my opposition to this bill is based not as much on the authorized amount but on the bill’s underlaying premise: that the American people either cannot or will not provide educational services to those who need them unless they are forced to do so by the federal government.

The Fed
Literacy Involves Families Together Act
September 12, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 75:4
* The drafters of the United States Constitution understood that the federal government was incapable of effectively providing services such as education. This is why they carefully limited the federal government’s powers to a few narrowly defined areas. This understanding of the proper role of the federal government was reinforced by the tenth amendment which forbids the Federal Government from controlling education, instead leaving authority over education in the hands of states, local communities and parents.

The Fed
Literacy Involves Families Together Act
September 12, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 75:5
* Reinforcing that the scariest words in the English language are ‘I’m from the federal government and I am here to help you,’ the American education system has deteriorated in the years since Congress disregarded the constitutional limitations on centralizing education in order to ‘improve the schools.’ One could argue that if the federally-controlled schools did a better job of educating children to read, perhaps there would not be a great demand for ‘adult literacy programs!’

The Fed
Literacy Involves Families Together Act
September 12, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 75:6
* Of course, family literacy programs do serve a vital purpose in society, but I would suggest that not only would family literacy programs exist, they would better serve those families in need of assistance if they were not controlled by the federal government. Because of the generosity of the American people, the issue is not whether family literacy programs will be funded but who should control the education dollars; the American people or the federal government?

The Fed
Literacy Involves Families Together Act
September 12, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 75:8
* Many effective techniques may not be readily supported by ‘scientific research.’ Therefore, this program may end up preventing the use of many effective means of reading instruction. The requirement that recipients of federal funds use only those reading techniques based on ‘scientific research,’ (which in practice means those methods approved by the federally-funded ‘experts’) ensures that a limited number of reading methodologies will, in essence, be ‘stamped with federal approval.’

The Fed
Literacy Involves Families Together Act
September 12, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 75:9
* In addition to violating the United States Constitution, the LIFT bill raises some serious questions regarding the relationship between the state and the family. Promoting family literacy is a noble goal but programs such as these may promote undue governmental interference in family life. Many people around the country have expressed concern that ‘parenting improvement’ programs have become excuses for the government bureaucrats to intimidate parents into ceding effective control over child-rearing to the government. While none of these complaints are directly related to the Even Start program Even Start does rest on the premise that it is legitimate for the federal government to interfere with the parent-child relationship to ‘improve’ parenting. Once one accepts that premise, it is a short jump to interfering in all aspects of family life in order to promote the federal government’s vision of ‘quality parenting.’

The Fed
SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS TAX RELIEF ACT OF 2000
September 14, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 76:3
* 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.

The Fed
SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS TAX RELIEF ACT OF 2000
September 14, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 76:4
* 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.

The Fed
CHILDHOOD CANCER AWARENESS MONTH
September 21, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 79:5
* Mr. Speaker, it is tough enough for working families to cope with a child with a serious illness without having to sacrifice resources that should be used for the care of that child to the federal government. It is hard to think of a more compassionate action this Congress can take than to reduce taxes on America’s parents in order to allow them to help provide quality health care to their children. I therefore call on my colleagues to join me in helping working parents provide health care to their children by cosponsoring H.R. 4799, the Family Health Tax Cut Act.

The Fed
TWENTY-FIFTH ANNIVERSARY OF EDUCATION FOR ALL HANDICAPPED CHILDREN ACT
September 25, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 80:2
* IDEA may also force local schools to deny children access to the education that best suits their unique needs in order to fulfill the federal command that disabled children be educated ‘in the least restrictive setting,’ which in practice means mainstreaming. Many children may thrive in a mainstream classroom environment, however, some children may be mainstreamed solely because school officials believe it is required by federal law, even though the mainstream environment is not the most appropriate for that child.

The Fed
CONGRESS IGNORES ITS CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY REGARDING MONETARY POLICY
October 11, 2000    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.

The Fed
CONGRESS IGNORES ITS CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY REGARDING MONETARY POLICY
October 11, 2000    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.

The Fed
END-OF-SESSION ISSUES
October 11, 2000    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.

The Fed
END-OF-SESSION ISSUES
October 11, 2000    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.

The Fed
END-OF-SESSION ISSUES
October 11, 2000    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.

The Fed
END-OF-SESSION ISSUES
October 11, 2000    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.

The Fed
END-OF-SESSION ISSUES
October 11, 2000    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!

The Fed
END-OF-SESSION ISSUES
October 11, 2000    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.

The Fed
END-OF-SESSION ISSUES
October 11, 2000    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.

The Fed
END-OF-SESSION ISSUES
October 11, 2000    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.

The Fed
WARNING ABOUT FOREIGN POLICY AND MONETARY POLICY
October 12, 2000    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.

The Fed
WARNING ABOUT FOREIGN POLICY AND MONETARY POLICY
October 12, 2000    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.

The Fed
WARNING ABOUT FOREIGN POLICY AND MONETARY POLICY
October 12, 2000    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.

The Fed
SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER CONFIDENTIALITY ACT OF 1999
17 October 2000    2000 Ron Paul 87:1
* Madam Speaker, I am pleased to support HR 3218, the Social Security Number Confidentiality Act. This bill takes a step toward protecting the integrity and security of the Social Security number by ensuring that window envelopes used by the Federal Government do not display an individual’s Social Security number. HR 3218 will help protect millions of Americans from the devastating crime of identity theft, which is a growing problem in my district and throughout the country.

The Fed
SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER CONFIDENTIALITY ACT OF 1999
17 October 2000    2000 Ron Paul 87:5
* Unscrupulous people have found ways to exploit this system and steal another’s identity — the ubiquity of the Social Security number paved the way for these very predictable abuses and crimes. Congress must undo the tremendous injury done to the people’s privacy and security by the federal government’s various mandates which transformed the Social Security number into a universal identifier.

The Fed
SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER CONFIDENTIALITY ACT OF 1999
17 October 2000    2000 Ron Paul 87:6
* In order to stop the disturbing trend toward the use of the Social Security number as a uniform ID I have introduced the Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act (HR 220), which forbids the use of the Social Security number for purposes not related to Social Security. 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. Speaker, prohibiting the Federal Government from using standard identifiers will help protect Americans from both private and public sector criminals.

The Fed
THREATS TO FINANCIAL FREEDOM
October 19, 2000    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.

The Fed
PALMETTO BEND CONVEYANCE ACT
October 24, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 89:3
* This bill will save Lake Texana water users as much as $1 million per year as well as provide an immediate infusion of millions of dollars to the national treasury. Additionally, all liability associated with this water project are, under my legislation, assumed by the state of Texas thus further relieving the financial burden of the federal government.

The Fed
OLDER AMERICANS ACT AMENDMENTS OF 2000
October 24, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 90:1
* Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take this opportunity to express my opinion on the Older Americans Act Reauthorization (H.R. 782) and explain why I must vote against this bill. Of course, I support efforts to ensure America’s senior citizens have access to employment, nutritional and other services; however the federal government is neither constitutionally authorized nor competent to provide such services.

The Fed
OLDER AMERICANS ACT AMENDMENTS OF 2000
October 24, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 90:2
* Under the tenth amendment, the federal government is forbidden from interfering in areas such as providing employment and nutritional services to any group of citizens. Thus, when the federal government uses taxpayer funds to support these services, it is violating the constitution. In a constitutional republic, good intentions are no excuse for constitutional carelessness.

The Fed
OLDER AMERICANS ACT AMENDMENTS OF 2000
October 24, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 90:3
* Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, by involving itself in these areas, the federal government has politicized the offering of these services as well as assured inefficiencies in their delivery — inefficiencies that would not be present if the federal government respected its constitutional limits and allowed states, local communities and private citizens to provide these vital services to seniors. For example, one of the most contentious areas of this bill is the funding that goes to private organization to provide employment services. Many of these organizations are involved in partisan politics, and, because money is fungible, the federal grants to these organizations make taxpayers de facto underwriters of their political activities. As Thomas Jefferson said: ‘To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is both sinful and tyrannical.’ This ‘sinful and tyrannical’ action is inevitable whenever Congress exceeds its constitutional limitations and abuses the taxing power by forcing citizens to support the charitable activities of congressionally-favored organizations. One reason for this is that federal funding encourages these organizations to become involved in lobbying in order to gain more federal support. These organizations may even form alliances with other advocacy groups in order to build greater support for their cause.

The Fed
OLDER AMERICANS ACT AMENDMENTS OF 2000
October 24, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 90:6
* Mr. Speaker, several years ago, when people still recognized their moral duty to voluntarily help their fellow humans rather than expect the government to coerce their fellow citizens to provide assistance through the welfare state, my parents were involved in a local Meals-on-Wheels program run by their church. I remember how upset they were when their local program was forced to conform to federal standards or close its program because Congress had decided to take control of delivering hot food to the elderly. It is time that this Congress return to the wisdom of the drafters of the Constitution and return responsibility for providing services to the nation’s seniors to states, communities, churches, and other private organizations who can provide those services much more effectively and efficiently than the federal government.

The Fed
NATIONAL SCIENCE EDUCATION ACT
October 25, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 91:2
* H.R. 4271 not only singles out science for special emphasis, certain positions of the bill will lead to a national science curriculum. For instance, the bill calls for the Department of Education and the National Science Foundation to coordinate and disseminate information on ‘standard’ math and science curricula as well as licensing requirements for teachers of math, science, engineering or technology. While local school districts are not forced to adopt these standards, local schools will be pressured to adopt these standards because they are the ones favored by their DC-based overlords. I would also ask the drafters of this bill what purpose is served by spending taxpayer moneys to create and disseminate a model curriculum at the federal level if their intent is not to have local schools adopt the federally-approved model?

The Fed
NATIONAL SCIENCE EDUCATION ACT
October 25, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 91:4
* If the steady decline of America’s education system over the past thirty years has shown us anything, it is that centralizing control leads to a declining education system. In fact, 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.

The Fed
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2615, CERTIFIED DEVELOPMENT COMPANY PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS ACT OF 2000
October 26, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 92:9
* The small business tax relief in this bill is more than outweighed by the provisions raising the federally-mandated minimum wage. While I certainly understand the motivation to help lower wage workers, the reality is that a minimum wage hike hurts lower income Americans the most. When an employer cannot afford to pay a higher wage, the employer has no choice but to hire less workers. As a result, young people with fewer skills and less experience find it harder to obtain an entry-level job. Raising the minimum wage actually reduces opportunities and living standards for the very people the administration claims will benefit from this legislation! It’s time to stop fooling ourselves about the basic laws of economics, and realize that Congress cannot legislate a higher standard of living. Congress should not allow itself to believe that the package of small business tax cuts will fully compensate businesses and their employees for the damage inflicted by a minimum wage hike. Congress is not omnipotent; we cannot pretend to strike a perfect balance between tax cuts and wage mandates so that no American businesses or workers are harmed. It may make my colleagues feel good to raise the minimum wage, but the real life consequences of this bill will be felt by those who can least afford diminished job opportunities.

The Fed
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2615, CERTIFIED DEVELOPMENT COMPANY PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS ACT OF 2000
October 26, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 92:16
* If IRAs are to continue to be a real help for people as they plan for their retirement years, it is past time for the federal government to allow higher contributions.

The Fed
ECONOMIC PROBLEMS AHEAD
November 13, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 93:4
* Even though it is argued that there are huge budget surpluses in Washington, instead of budget compromise, a stalemate results. Each side wants even a greater share of the loot being distributed by the politicians. Even with the windfall revenues, no serious suggestion is made in Washington for cuts in spending. Instead of moving toward a market economy and less dependency on the federal government in the midst of this so-called ‘prosperity,’ we continue to go World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank. Although in the early stages of interventionism and government planning, especially when a great deal of wealth is available for redistribution, it seems to enhance prosperity while prolonging the financial bubble on which the economy is dependent. The monetary system, both our domestic system as well as the international fiat system, plays a key role in the artificial prosperity based on inflated currencies as well as debt and speculation.

The Fed
ECONOMIC PROBLEMS AHEAD
November 13, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 93:6
* We have already seen signs of economic troubles ahead . Although the Fed plans for only a slight slow down and a so-called ‘soft landing,’ the correction from the monetary mischief of the last 10 years has already been determined. Although the dollar currently remains strong, because other currencies are so weak, there is a limitation on how long we can create new dollars without them being devalued. A weaker dollar will surely come in our not too distant future. Our huge current account deficit and trade imbalances warn us of that day.

The Fed
ECONOMIC PROBLEMS AHEAD
November 13, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 93:7
* Government statistics continue to tell us that price inflation is not a problem, and when an inflation statistic comes out it does not like, it drops out food and energy and claims the number is totally benign. Ask any housewife, and they will tell you that the cost of living is going up steadily and much more rapidly than the government will admit. We in the Congress should be prepared for lower revenues in the future since the revenues received in the last couple of years were artificially created by a stock market that had skyrocketed due to the credit expansion by the Federal Reserve. These capital gains tax revenues will soon disappear. The savings rates of the American people are now negative. Without savings, true capital investment cannot be maintained. Creation of credit out of thin air by the Fed was the original problem, so it surely can’t be the solution.

The Fed
James Madison Commemoration Commission Act
4 December 2000    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.

The Fed
ECONOMIC UPDATE
December 4, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 97:2
* I do not believe either should be blamed. I think we should deal with the real cause of the business cycle, and that is the Federal Reserve system. The FederalReserve system causes and brings about a boom period in a cycle, but it also brings about the bust. Because the bust, the correction, is inevitable consequence of the boom caused by unduly inflating the money supply.

The Fed
ECONOMIC UPDATE
December 4, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 97:4
* The only way the Federal Reserve can lower interest rates is by inflating the money supply, increasing the money supply, which is the cause of our problems. So if the cause of our problem is the inflation, increasing the money supply which causes a boom, we can hardly solve our problems by further inflating. And then, too, there is a period of time in the business cycle where inflating the money supply or lowering interest rates do not get the response that many people hope for.

The Fed
ECONOMIC UPDATE
December 4, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 97:7
* The problem I see is that Congress for too long has conceded too much of their authority over control of the monetary system to the Federal Reserve system, which acts in secrecy.

The Fed
ECONOMIC UPDATE
December 4, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 97:8
* It is something that is directly stated in the Constitution that the Congress shall have the responsibility over the money supply, not a Federal Reserve system. Quite frankly, the Federal Reserve system is not even authorized by the Constitution.

The Fed
ECONOMIC UPDATE
December 4, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 97:9
* Now, if in the midst of a recession the Federal Reserve decides that they want to lower interest rates but the dollar is also dropping and we lower interest rates, we cause the dollar to go down and price inflation will occur because of that. So it is not quite so simple as saying, well, let us just tell the Fed what to do, lower the interest rates and it will solve our problems.

The Fed
ECONOMIC UPDATE
December 4, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 97:13
* What I think is going to happen is that once the recession sets in and there is a need for additional spending and there will be no longer a concern at all about the deficit; and that is when the Congress will spend, the Federal Reserve will inflate. And it may temporarily help, but in the long-run it does not do the trick. It is not the way we gain economic prosperity out of a printing press. We just cannot allow a Federal Reserve to believe it creates capital by creating credit out of thin air.

The Fed
ECONOMIC UPDATE
December 4, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 97:14
* We will soon be hearing a lot about interest rates. There will be a loud clamor from all quarters for the Fed to lower interest rates. It will be argued that it is necessary in order to help stop the stock market slide/crash and also to stimulate a sagging economy.

The Fed
ECONOMIC UPDATE
December 4, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 97:15
* What we must remember though, is that every time someone pressures the Fed to lower interest rates, they are saying to the Fed that the money supply must be inflated. The only tool the Fed has for lowering interest rates is to increase the supply of money. They are arguing the case for further systematic and deliberate debasement of the US dollar. Those who chant for lower interest rates are literally attacking the dollar.

The Fed
ECONOMIC UPDATE
December 4, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 97:16
* And yet, depending on many variables, a deliberate attempt by the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates may instead lead to higher interest rates and precipitate a period of accelerating price inflation. Instead of boosting the stock market, this effort can do the opposite by producing conditions that will lower the stock market and do nothing to avert the economic slump that more people are now worried about.

The Fed
ECONOMIC UPDATE
December 4, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 97:18
* Many are starting to talk now about a legislative stalemate with no clear majority in the House or Senate and the Presidency being uncertain. This concern about a stalemate is overblown. Not that the problem isn’t serious, but I am certain that under the conditions that we are about to experience, the Congress and the President will be all too willing to deal with the deteriorating conditions with increased spending and with a concerted bi-partisan effort to pressure the Federal Reserve to further inflate the currency in pursuing the fiction that the Federal Reserve can prevent a “hard landing” by merely increasing the money supply in an effort to dictate short-term Fed funds rates.

The Fed
ECONOMIC UPDATE
December 4, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 97:20
* For decades now the Federal Reserve has followed a policy of “fine-tuning” the economy and with the relative success of the recent boom cycle, it has been deceived into believing its ability is more than it actually is. But in this effort to fine-tune the economy the Federal Reserve, since the middle of 1999 until May of this year, has systematically raised the Fed’s fund rates from 4.75% to 6.5%.

The Fed
ECONOMIC UPDATE
December 4, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 97:22
* Ironically it’s argued that the deliberate raising the cost of borrowing money for everyone is that this will hold prices in check. Yet consumers and businesses suffer from this additional cost - pushing all prices upward. But even more ironic is the claim that they now care about “inflation” after a decade of massive monetary inflation-the real culprit.-The Federal Reserve meanwhile ignores the fact that the money supply is key to monetary policy, not admitting the damage has already been done.

The Fed
ECONOMIC UPDATE
December 4, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 97:23
* Signs of economic slowdown are now all around with the seriously slumping stock market being the most visible and eliciting the most concern. As the slowdown spreads and accelerates the politicians will be anxious to advise the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan. Politicians from both sides of the aisle will become deeply and especially concerned when the evidence is clear that the revenues are plummeting and the “surplus” is disappearing. Since this will challenge the ability of the politician to continue the spending spree many will become deeply and vocally concerned.

The Fed
ECONOMIC UPDATE
December 4, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 97:24
* The big debate already started in the financial and political circles is when, how much, and how quickly the Federal Reserve should lower interest rates. Indeed all will clamor to lower rates to revive the economy again. With the signs of rising prices in many sectors, especially energy, and in spite of the weak economy we can expect the Federal Reserve chairman to issue precautionary statements. He will reiterate that he must watch out for the resurgence of (price) inflation. In spite of his statements about concerns for inflation, if the stock market slumps and the economic slowdown is significant enough, we can be certain of one thing, the money supply will continue to grow rapidly in an attempt to keep interest rates low. But Mr. Greenspan will never admit that inflating is exactly what he’s been generously doing for the past 13 years.

The Fed
ECONOMIC UPDATE
December 4, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 97:25
* A short time after Chairman Greenspan took over the reigns of the Federal Reserve the stock market crash of 1987 prompted him to alleviate concerns with a heavy dose of monetary inflation. Once again, in the slump of 1991 and 1992, he again re-ignited the financial bubble by more monetary inflation. There was no hesitation on Mr. Greenspan’s part to inflate as necessary to alleviate the conditions brought about by the Mexican financial crisis, the Asian crisis, the Russian ruble crisis, and with the Long-Term Capital Management crisis. Just one year ago the non-existent Y2K crisis prompted huge, unprecedented monetary inflation by the Federal Reserve. All these efforts kept interest rates below the market rate and contributed to the financial bubble that is now starting to deflate. But, there is no doubt that this monetary inflation did maintain an economy that seemed like it would never quit growing. Housing markets thrived, the stock market and bond market thrived, and in turn, the great profits made in these areas, especially gains made by stock market transactions, produced profits that inflated greatly the revenues that flowed into the Treasury. The serious problem that we now face, a collapsing stock market and a rapidly weakening economy, was caused by inflating the money supply along with artificially low interest rates. More inflation and continuing the policy of artificially low interest rates can’t possibly be the solution to the dilemma we face.

The Fed
ECONOMIC UPDATE
December 4, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 97:27
* Besides, Alan Greenspan knows full well that the scenario we are now experiencing can be made worse by lowering interest rates. Under the conditions we are facing it’s very likely the dollar will weaken and deliberately lowering interest rates will accelerate this trend. Price inflation, which the Fed claims it is so concerned about, will not necessarily go away even with a weak economy. And the one thing we will come to realize that even the best of all central bankers, Alan Greenspan, will not be able to determine interest rates at all times of the business cycle. Inflation premiums, confidence, the value of the dollar, and political conditions all can affect interest rates and these are out of the control of the Federal Reserve Board.

The Fed
ECONOMIC UPDATE
December 4, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 97:29
* The question is what should one expect the Federal Reserve Board to eventually do? We can expect it to continue to inflate as they have always chosen with every crisis. There’s no evidence that Alan Greenspan would choose to do anything else regardless of his expression of concern about inflation and the value of the dollar. Greenspan still believes he can control the pain and produce a weakened economy that will not get out of control. But there’s no way that he can guarantee that the United States might not slip into a prolonged lethargy, similar to what Japan is now experiencing. We can be certain that Congress will accommodate with whatever seems to be necessary by bailing out a weakened financial sector.

The Fed
ECONOMIC UPDATE
December 4, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 97:31
* We must someday recognize that neither Congress nor the Fed is supposed to “run” the economy. Yet we still live with the belief that the Administration, our Presidents, our Congress and the Federal Reserve should run the economy. This is a dangerous concepts and always leads to the painful corrections to so-called the good times for which everyone is anxious to take credit.

The Fed
INTRODUCTION OF THE IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION ACT — HON. RON PAUL
Wednesday, January 3, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 1:4
* Congressionally-mandated use of the Social Security number as an identifier facilitates the horrendous crime of identity theft. Thanks to the Congressionally-mandated use of the Social Security number as an uniform identifier, an unscrupulous person may simply obtain someone’s Social Security number in order to access that person’s bank accounts, credit cards, and other financial assets. Many Americans have lost their life savings and had their credit destroyed as a result of identity theft — yet the federal government continues to encourage such crimes by mandating use of the Social Security number as a uniform ID!

The Fed
INTRODUCTION OF THE IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION ACT — HON. RON PAUL
Wednesday, January 3, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 1:5
* This act also forbids the federal government from creating national ID cards or establishing any identifiers for the purpose of investigating, monitoring, overseeing, or regulating private transactions between American citizens, as well as repealing those sections of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 that require the Department of Health and Human Services to establish a uniform standard health identifier. By putting an end to government-mandated uniform IDs, the Identity Theft Prevention Act will prevent millions of Americans from having their liberty, property and privacy violated by private-and-public sector criminals.

The Fed
INTRODUCTION OF THE IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION ACT — HON. RON PAUL
Wednesday, January 3, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 1:6
* 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.

The Fed
INTRODUCTION OF THE IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION ACT — HON. RON PAUL
Wednesday, January 3, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 1:8
* Many of my colleagues will claim that the federal government needs these powers to protect against fraud or some other criminal activities. However, monitoring the transactions of every American in order to catch those few who are involved in some sort of illegal activity turns one of the great bulwarks of our liberty, the presumption of innocence, on its head. The federal government has no right to treat all Americans as criminals by spying on their relationship with their doctors, employers, or bankers. In fact, criminal law enforcement is reserved to the state and local governments by the Constitution’s Tenth Amendment.

The Fed
INTRODUCTION OF THE IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION ACT — HON. RON PAUL
Wednesday, January 3, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 1:9
* Other members of Congress will claim that the federal government needs the power to monitor Americans in order to allow the government to operate more efficiently. I would remind my colleagues that in a constitutional republic the people are never asked to sacrifice their liberties to make the job of government officials a little bit easier. We are here to protect the freedom of the American people, not to make privacy invasion more efficient.

The Fed
INTRODUCTION OF THE IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION ACT — HON. RON PAUL
Wednesday, January 3, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 1:10
* Mr. Speaker, while I do not question the sincerity of those members who suggest that Congress can ensure citizens’ rights are protected through legislation restricting access to personal information, the only effective privacy protection is to forbid the federal government from mandating national identifiers. Legislative “privacy protections” are inadequate to protect the liberty of Americans for several reasons. First, it is simply common sense that repealing those federal laws that promote identity theft is more effective in protecting the public than expanding the power of the federal police force. Federal punishment of identity thieves provides cold comfort to those who have suffered financial losses and the destruction of their good reputation as a result of identity theft.

The Fed
INTRODUCTION OF THE IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION ACT — HON. RON PAUL
Wednesday, January 3, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 1:12
* Second, the federal government has been creating property interests in private information for

The Fed
INTRODUCTION OF THE IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION ACT — HON. RON PAUL
Wednesday, January 3, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 1:14
* The primary reason why any action short of the repeal of laws authorizing privacy violations is insufficient is because the federal government lacks constitutional authority to force citizens to adopt a universal identifier for health care, employment, or any other reason. Any federal action that oversteps constitutional limitations violates liberty because it ratifies the principle that the federal government, not the Constitution, is the ultimate judge of its own jurisdiction over the people. The only effective protection of the rights of citizens is for Congress to follow Thomas Jefferson’s advice and “bind (the federal government) down with chains of the Constitution.”

The Fed
INTRODUCTION OF THE IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION ACT — HON. RON PAUL
Wednesday, January 3, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 1:16
* In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I once again call on my colleagues to join me in putting an end to the federal government’s unconstitutional use of national identifiers to monitor the actions of private citizens. National identifiers threaten all Americans by exposing them to the threat of identity theft by private criminals and abuse of their liberties by public criminals. In addition, national identifiers are incompatible with a limited, constitutional government. I, therefore, hope my colleagues will join my efforts to protect the freedom of their constituents by supporting the Identity Theft Prevention Act.

The Fed
INTRODUCTION OF THE FAMILY EDUCATION FREEDOM ACT — HON. RON PAUL
Wednesday, January 31, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 3:3
* Currently, consumers are less than sovereign in the education “market.” Funding decisions are increasingly controlled by the federal government. Because “he who pays the piper calls the tune,” public, and even private schools, are paying greater attention to the dictates of federal “educrats” while ignoring the wishes of the parents to an ever-greater degree. As such, the lack of consumer sovereignty in education is destroying parental control of education and replacing it with state control.

The Fed
INTRODUCTION OF THE FAMILY EDUCATION FREEDOM ACT — HON. RON PAUL
Wednesday, January 31, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 3:4
* Loss of control is a key reason why so many of America’s parents express dissatisfaction with the educational system. According to a study by The Polling Company, over 70% of all Americans support education tax credits! This is just one of numerous studies and public opinion polls showing that Americans want Congress to get the federal bureaucracy out of the schoolroom and give parents more control over their children’s education.

The Fed
INTRODUCTION OF THE FAMILY EDUCATION FREEDOM ACT — HON. RON PAUL
Wednesday, January 31, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 3:5
* Today, Congress can fulfill the wishes of the American people for greater control over their children’s education by simply allowing parents to keep more of their hard-earned money to spend on education rather than force them to send it to Washington to support education programs reflective only of the values and priorities of Congress and the federal bureaucracy.

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

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

The Fed
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 7:5
The feared gridlock anticipated for the 107th Congress will differ little from the other legislative battles in recent previous congresses. Yes, there will be heated arguments regarding the size of budgets, local vs. federal control, and private vs. government solutions. But a serious debate over the precise role for government is unlikely to occur. I do not expect any serious challenge to the 20th Century consensus of both major parties-that the federal government has a significant responsibility to deal with education, health care, retirement programs, or managing the distribution of the welfare state benefits. Both parties are in general agreement on monetary management, environmental protection, safety and risks both natural and man-made. Both participate in telling others around the world how they must adopt a democratic process similar to ours, as we police our worldwide financial interests.

The Fed
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 7:6
We can expect most of the media-directed propaganda to be designed to speed up and broaden the role of the federal government in our lives and the economy. Unfortunately, the token opposition will not present a principled challenge to big government, only an argument that we must move more slowly and make an effort to allow greater local decision-making. Without presenting a specific philosophic alternative to authoritarian intervention from the left, the opposition concedes that the principle of government involvement per se is proper, practical, and constitutional.

The Fed
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 7:12
Already the spirit of bipartisanship has prompted the new president to request another $10 billion, along with many more mandates on public schools. This is a far cry from the clear constitutional mandate that neither the Congress nor the federal courts have any authority to be involved in public education.

The Fed
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 7:51
When the recession hits full force, even the extraordinary power and influence of Alan Greenspan and the Federal Reserve, along with all the other central banks of the world, won’t be able to stop the powerful natural economic forces that demand equilibrium. Liquidation of unreasonable debt and the elimination of the over-capacity built into the system and a return to trustworthy money and trustworthy government will be necessary. Quite an undertaking!

The Fed
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 7:55
During the past 30 years in the post-Bretton Woods era, worldwide sentiment has permitted us to inflate our money supply and get others to accept the dollar as if it were as good as gold. This convenient arrangement has discouraged savings, which are now at an historic low. Savings in a capitalist economy are crucial for furnishing capital and establishing market interest rates. With negative savings and with the FED fixing rates by creating credit out of thin air and calling it capital, we have abandoned a necessary part of free-market capitalism, without which a smooth and growing economy is sustainable.

The Fed
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 7:58
The mantra now is for the FED to quickly lower short-term interest rates to stimulate the economy and alleviate a liquidity crisis. This policy may stimulate a boom and may help in a mild downturn, but it doesn’t always work in a bad recession. It actually could do great harm since it could weaken the dollar, which in turn would allow market forces instead to push long-term interest rates higher. Deliberately lowering interest rates isn’t even necessary for the dollar to drop, since our policy has led to a current-account deficit of a magnitude that demands the dollar eventually readjust and weaken.

The Fed
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 7:60
The FED can create excess credit, but it can’t control where it goes as it circulates throughout the economy; nor can it dictate value either. Claiming that a subdued government-rigged CPI and PPI proves that no inflation exists is pure nonsense. It is well established that, under certain circumstances, new credit inflation can find its way into the stock or real estate market, as it did in the 1920s, while consumer prices remain relatively stable. This does not negate the distortion inherit in a system charged with artificially low interest rates. Instead it allows the distortion to last longer and become more serious, leading to a bigger correction.

The Fed
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 7:61
If gold prices reflected the true extent of the inflated dollar, confidence in the dollar specifically and in paper more generally would be undermined. It is a high priority of the FED and all central banks of the world for this not to happen. Revealing to the public the fraud associated with all paper money would cause loss of credibility of all central banks. This knowledge would jeopardize the central banks’ ability to perform the role of lender of last resort and to finance/monetize government debt. It is for this reason that the price of gold in their eyes must be held in check.

The Fed
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 7:64
Recent deterioration of the junk-bond market indicates how serious the situation is. Junk bonds are now paying 9% to 10% more than short-term government securities. The quality of business loans is suffering, while more and more corporate bonds are qualifying for junk status. The FED tries to reassure us by attempting to stimulate the economy with low short-term FED fund rates at the same time interest rates for businesses and consumers are rising. There comes a time when FED policy is ineffective, much to everyone’s chagrin.

The Fed
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 7:66
There is much more to inflation than rising prices. Inflation is defined as the increase in the supply of money and credit. Obsessively sticking to the rising prices definition conveniently ignores placing the blame on the responsible party – the Federal Reserve. The last thing central banks or the politicians, who need a backup for all their spending mischief, want is for the government to lose its power to create money out of thin air, which serves political and privileged financial interests.

The Fed
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 7:68
Much else related to artificially low interest rates goes unnoticed. An overpriced stock market, overcapacity in certain industries, excesses in real-estate markets, artificially high bond prices, general mal-investments, excessive debt, and speculation all result from the generous and artificial credit the Federal Reserve pumps into the financial system. These distortions are every bit, if not more, harmful than rising prices. As the economy soars from the stimulus effect of low interest rates, growth and distortions compound themselves. In a slump the reverse is true, and the pain and suffering is magnified as the adjustment back to reality occurs.

The Fed
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 7:69
The extra credit in the 1990s has found its way especially into the housing market like never before. GSEs, in particular Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, have gobbled up huge sums to finance a booming housing market. GSE securities enjoy implicit government guarantees, which have allowed for a generous discount on most housing loans. They have also been the vehicles used by consumers to refinance and borrow against their home equity to use these funds for other purposes, such as investing in the stock market. This has further undermined savings by using the equity that builds with price inflation that homeowners enjoy when money is debased. In addition, the Federal Reserve now buys and holds GSE securities as collateral in their monetary operations. These securities are then literally used as collateral for printing Federal Reserve notes; this is a dangerous precedent.

The Fed
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 7:76
But the day will come when we will have no choice but to question the current system. Yes, the FED does help to finance the welfare state. Yes, the FED does come to the rescue when funds are needed to fight wars and for us to pay the cost of maintaining our empire. Yes, the Fed is able to stimulate the economy and help create what appear to be good times. But it’s all built on an illusion. Wealth cannot come from a printing press. Empires crumble and a price is eventually paid for arrogance toward others. And booms inevitably turn into busts.

The Fed
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 7:77
Talk of a new era the past five years has had many, including Greenspan, believing that this time it really would be different. And it may indeed be different this time. The correction could be an especially big one, since the Fed-driven distortion of the past 10 years, plus the lingering distortions of previous decades have been massive. The correction could be big enough to challenge all our institutions, the entire welfare state, Social Security, foreign intervention, and our national defense. This will only happen if the dollar is knocked off its pedestal. No one knows if that is going to happen soon or later. But when it does, our constitutional system of government will be challenged to the core.

The Fed
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 7:114
But the system of government we have become accustomed to has, for decades, taken over responsibilities that were never intended to be the prerogative of the federal government under the Constitution. Although mostly well intended, the efforts at social engineering have caused significant damage to our constitutional Republic and have resulted in cynicism toward all politicians. Our presidents are now elected by less than 20% of those old enough to vote. Government is perceived to be in the business of passing out favors rather than protecting individual liberty. The majority of the people are made up of independents and non-voters.

The Fed
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 7:115
The most dramatic change in 20th Century social attitudes was the acceptance of abortion. This resulted from a change in personal morality that then led to legalization nationally through the courts and only occurred by perverting our constitutional system of government. The federal courts should never have been involved, but the Congress compounded the problem by using taxpayer funds to perform abortions both here and overseas. Confrontation between the pro-life and the pro-abortion forces is far from over. If government were used only to preserve life, rather than act as an accomplice in the taking of life, this conflict would not be nearly so rancorous.

The Fed
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 7:118
We can expect the pro-life and pro-abortion and euthanasia groups to become more vocal and confrontational in time, as long as government is used to commit acts that a large number of people find abhorrent. Partial-birth abortion dramatizes the issue at hand and clearly demonstrates how close we are to legalizing infanticide. This problem should be dealt with by the states and without the federal courts or US Congress involvement.

The Fed
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 7:121
There are ten times the number of prisoners for drug offenses than there were in 1980, and 80% of the drug arrests are for non-violent possession. In spite of all the money spent and energy wasted, drug usage continues at a record pace. Someday we must wake up and realize the federal drug war is a farce. It has failed and we must change our approach.

The Fed
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 7:132
The notion that the Federal government has an obligation to protect us from ourselves drives the drug war. But this idea also drives the do-gooders in Washington to involve themselves in every aspect of our lives. American citizens cannot move without being constantly reminded by consumer advocates, environmentalists, safety experts, and bureaucratic busybodies what they can or cannot do.

The Fed
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 7:137
There are many areas where the federal government has gotten involved when it shouldn’t have, and created more problems than it solved. There is no evidence that the federal government has improved education or medicine, in spite of the massive funding and mandates of the last 40 years. Yet all we hear is a call for increased spending and more mandates. How bad it will get before we reject the big-government approach is anybody’s guess.

The Fed
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 10:46
Those who feel slighted become more demanding at the same time resources are diminished. But the system of government we have become accustomed to have has for decades taken over responsibilities that have never intended to be the prerogative of the Federal Government under the Constitution.

The Fed
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 10:50
The Federal costs should never have been involved, but the Congress compounded the problem by using taxpayers’ funds to perform abortions both here and overseas. Confrontation between the pro-life and pro-abortion forces is far from over. If governments were used only to preserve life rather than act as an accomplice in the taking of life, this conflict would not nearly be so rancorous.

The Fed
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 10:53
We can expect the pro-life and pro-abortion and euthanasia groups to become more vocal and confrontational in time as long as Government is used to commit acts that a large number of people find abhorrent. Partial-birth abortion dramatize the issue at hand and clearly demonstrates how close we are to legalizing infanticide. This problem should be dealt with by the States and without the Federal courts or the U.S. Congress involvement.

The Fed
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 10:59
Some day we must wake up and realize the Federal drug war is a farce, it has failed, and we must change our approach.

The Fed
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 10:73
The notion that the Federal Government has an obligation to protect us from ourselves drives the drug war. But this idea also drives the do-gooders in Washington to involve themselves in every aspect of our lives.

The Fed
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 10:82
There are many areas where the Federal Government has been involved when they should not have and created more problems than it solved. There is no evidence that the Federal Government has improved education or medicine in spite of the massive funding and mandates of the last 40 years, yet all we hear is a call for increased spending and more mandates.

The Fed
IDENTITY THEFT — HON. RON PAUL
Tuesday, February 13, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 11:2
* Mr. Whalen properly identifies the Social Security number and its use as a universal identifier as the root cause of identity theft. Unfortunately, thanks to Congress, today no American can get a job, open a bank account, or even go fishing without showing their Social Security number. Following the lead of the federal government, many private industries now use the Social Security number as an identifier. After all, if a bank needs to see their customers’ Social Security number to comply with IRS regulations, why shouldn’t the bank use the Social Security number as a general customer identifier?

The Fed
IDENTITY THEFT — HON. RON PAUL
Tuesday, February 13, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 11:4
* This act also forbids the federal government from creating national ID cards or establishing any identifiers for the purpose of investigating, monitoring, overseeing, or regulating private transactions between American citizens, as well as repealing those sections of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 that require the Department of Health and Human Services to establish a uniform standard health identifier. By putting an end to government-mandated uniform IDs, the Identity Theft Prevention Act will prevent millions of Americans from having their liberty, property and privacy violated by private-and-public sector criminals.

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

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

The Fed
The WAGE Act
February 14, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 14:7
* As a result of the passage of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) in 1935 and the action taken by the federally-funded NLRB, workers can be forced to pay union dues or fees for unwanted representation as a condition of employment. Federal law may even force workers to accept union representation against the will of the majority of workers.

The Fed
Blame Congress for HMOs
February 27, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 15:2
* Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I highly recommend the attached article, “Blame Congress for HMOs” by Twila Brase, a registered nurse and President of the Citizens’ Council on Health Care, to my colleagues. Ms. Brase demolishes the myth that Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs), whose power to deny Americans the health care of their choice has been the subject of much concern, are the result of an unregulated free-market. Instead, Ms. Brase reveals how HMOs were fostered on the American people by the federal government for the express purpose of rationing care.

The Fed
Blame Congress for HMOs
February 27, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 15:22
In the Senate, Kennedy, author of the HMO Act, also encouraged its passage: “I have strongly advocated passage of legislation to assist the development of health maintenance organizations as a viable and competitive alternative to fee-for-service practice. ..... This bill represents the first initiative by the Federal Government which attempts to come to grips directly with the problems of fragmentation and disorganization in the health care industry. ..... I believe that the HMO is the best idea put forth so far for containing costs and improving the organization and the delivery of health-care services.” In a roll call vote, only Senator Herman Talmadge voted against the bill.

The Fed
Blame Congress for HMOs
February 27, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 15:29
In addition, the federal law pre-empted state laws, that prohibited physicians from receiving payments for not providing care. In other words, payments to physicians by HMOs for certain behavior (fewer admissions to hospitals, rationing care, prescribing cheaper medicines) were now legal.

The Fed
Opposing National Teacher Certification or National Teacher Testing
March 8, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 16:5
* Federal control of teacher certification will inevitably lead to a national curriculum. National teacher certification will allow the federal government to determine what would-be teachers need to know in order to practice their chosen profession. Teacher education will revolve around preparing teachers to pass the national test or to receive a national certificate. New teachers will then base their lesson plans on what they needed to know in order to receive their Education Department-approved teaching ceirtificate. Therefore, I call on those of my colleagues who oppose a national curriculum to join me in opposing national teacher testing and certification.

The Fed
Opposing National Teacher Certification or National Teacher Testing
March 8, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 16:6
* Many educators are voicing opposition to national teacher certification and testing. The Coalition of Independent Education Associations (CIEA), which represents the majority of the over 300,000 teachers who are members of independent educators associations, has passed a resolution opposing the nationalization of teacher certification and testing. As more and more teachers realize the impact of this proposal, I expect opposition from the education community to grow. Teachers want to be treated as professionals, not as minions of the federal government.

The Fed
The Beginning of the End of Fiat Money
March 13, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 18:8
Politicians and economists are very familiar with business cycles with most assuming that slumps erupt as: 1.) A natural consequence of capitalism, 2.) An act of God, 3.) Or as a result of Fed driven high interest rates. That is to say, the Fed did not engage in enough monetary debasement, becomes the most common complaint by Wall Street pundits and politicians.

The Fed
The Beginning of the End of Fiat Money
March 13, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 18:10
But the artificial nature of today’s world trade and finance being systematically managed by the IMF, the World Bank and WTO, and driven by a worldwide fiat monetary system, has produced imbalances that have already prompted many sudden adjustments. There have been eight major crisis in the past six years requiring a worldwide effort, led by the Fed, to keep the system afloat, all being done with more monetary inflation and bailouts.

The Fed
The Beginning of the End of Fiat Money
March 13, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 18:12
One day it will become known that technological advances and improvements in productivity also have a downside. This technology hid the ill effects of the monetary mischief the Fed had enthusiastically engaged in over the past decade. Technological improvements, while keeping the CPI and the PPI prices in check, led many, including Greenspan, to victoriously declare that no inflation existed and that a new era had indeed arrived. Finally, it’s declared that the day has arrived that printing money is equivalent to producing wealth and without a downside. Counterfeiting works!

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

The Fed
The Medical Privacy Protection Resolution
March 15, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 19:4
* Mr. Speaker, these regulations also require health care providers to give medical records to the federal government for inclusion in a federal health care data system. Such a system would contain all citizens’ personal health care information. History shows that when the government collects this type of personal information, the inevitable result is the abuse of citizens’ privacy and liberty by unscrupulous government officials. The only fail-safe privacy protection is for the government not to collect and store this type of personal information.

The Fed
The Medical Privacy Protection Resolution
March 15, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 19:8
* In a free society such as the one envisioned by those who drafted the Constitution, the federal government should never force a citizen to divulge personal information to advance “important social goals.” Rather, it should be up to the individuals, not the government, to determine what social goals are important enough to warrant allowing others access to their personal property, including their personal information. To the extent these regulations sacrifice individual rights in the name of a bureaucratically-determined “common good,” they are incompatible with a free society and a constitutional government.

The Fed
The Medical Privacy Protection Resolution
March 15, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 19:13
* Mr. Speaker, I am sure my colleagues agree that questions regarding who should or should not have access to one’s medical privacy are best settled by way of contract between a patient and a provider. However, the government-insurance company complex that governs today’s health care industry has deprived individual patients of control over their health care records, as well as over numerous other aspects of their health care. Rather than put the individual back in charge of his or her medical records, the Department of Health and Human Services’ privacy regulations give the federal government the authority to decide who will have access to individual medical records. These regulations thus reduce individuals’ ability to protect their own medical privacy.

The Fed
Congressman Paul’s Statement on Dietary Supplement Regulation and Research
March 20, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 21:3
Over the past decade the American people have made it clear that they do not want the federal government to interfere with their access to dietary supplements. In 1994, Congress responded to the American people’s desire for greater access to the truth about the benefits of dietary supplements by passing the Dietary Supplements and Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA), which liberalized the rules regarding the regulation of dietary supplements. Congressional offices received a record number of comments in favor of DSHEA.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Fed
INTRODUCTION OF THE AGRICULTURE EDUCATION FREEDOM ACT — HON. RON PAUL
April 26, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 27:1
* Mr. PAUL. 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 about 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Fed

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

The Fed
Protecting Privacy and Preventing Misuse of Social Security Numbers
May 22, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 37:4
This act also forbids the federal government from creating national ID cards or establishing any identifiers for the purpose of investigating, monitoring, overseeing, or regulating private transactions between American citizens, as well as repealing those sections of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 that require the Department of Health and Human Services to establish a uniform standard health identifier. By putting an end to government-mandated uniform IDs, the Identity Theft Prevention Act will prevent millions of Americans from having their liberty, property and privacy violated by private-and-public sector criminals.

The Fed
Protecting Privacy and Preventing Misuse of Social Security Numbers
May 22, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 37:5
In addition to forbidding the federal government from creating national identifiers, this legislation forbids the federal government from blackmailing states into adopting uniform standard identifiers by withholding federal funds. One of the most onerous practices of Congress is the use of federal funds illegitimately taken from the American people to bribe states into obeying federal dictates.

The Fed
Protecting Privacy and Preventing Misuse of Social Security Numbers
May 22, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 37:6
Many of our colleagues will claim that the federal government needs these powers to protect against fraud or some other criminal activities. However, monitoring the transactions of every American in order to catch those few who are involved in some sort of illegal activity turns one of the great bulwarks of our liberty, the presumption of innocence, on its head. The federal government has no right to treat all Americans as criminals by spying on their relationship with their doctors, employers, or bankers. In fact, criminal law enforcement is reserved to the state and local governments by the Constitution’s Tenth Amendment.

The Fed
Protecting Privacy and Preventing Misuse of Social Security Numbers
May 22, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 37:7
Other members of Congress will claim that the federal government needs the power to monitor Americans in order to allow the government to operate more efficiently. I would remind my colleagues that in a constitutional republic the people are never asked to sacrifice their liberties to make the job of government officials a little bit easier. We are here to protect the freedom of the American people, not to make privacy invasion more efficient.

The Fed
Protecting Privacy and Preventing Misuse of Social Security Numbers
May 22, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 37:8
Mr. Chairman, while I do not question the sincerity of those members who suggest that Congress can ensure citizens’ rights are protected through legislation restricting access to personal information, the only effective privacy protection is to forbid the federal government from mandating national identifiers. Legislative “privacy protections” are inadequate to protect the liberty of Americans for several reasons. First, it is simply common sense that repealing those federal laws that promote identity theft is a more effective in protecting the public than expanding the power of the federal police force. Federal punishment of identity thieves provides old comfort to those who have suffered financial losses and the destruction of their good reputation as a result of identity theft.

The Fed
Protecting Privacy and Preventing Misuse of Social Security Numbers
May 22, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 37:10
The primary reason why any action short of the repeal of laws authorizing privacy violation is insufficient is because the federal government lacks constitutional authority to force citizens to adopt a universal identifier for health care, employment, or any other reason. Any federal action that oversteps constitutional limitations violates liberty because it ratifies the principle that the federal government, not the Constitution, is the ultimate judge of its own jurisdiction over the people. The only effective protection of the rights of citizens is for Congress to follow Thomas Jefferson’s advice and “bind (the federal government) down with the chains of the Constitution.”

The Fed
Protecting Privacy and Preventing Misuse of Social Security Numbers
May 22, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 37:12
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I once again thank you and the other members of the subcommittee for holding a hearing on this important issue. I hope this hearing would lead to serious Congressional action to end to the federal government’s unconstitutional use of national identifiers which facilitate identity theft by passing Hr 220, the Identify Theft Prevention Act.

The Fed
Statement on the Congressional Education Plan
May 22, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 38:9
Under the United States Constitution, the federal government has no authority to hold states “accountable” for their education performance. In the free society envisioned by the founders, schools are held accountable to parents, not federal bureaucrats. However, the current system of imposing oppressive taxes on America’s families and using those taxes to fund federal education programs denies parental control of education by denying them control over their education dollars.

The Fed
Letter to HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson Regarding Proposed Medical Privacy Regulation
May 23, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 39:4
HHS should also eliminate those sections which require physicians to provide the federal government with personal medical records for purposes of monitoring compliance with the rule. HHS should only collect information if the physicians or the federal government has obtained written permission from the patient allowing HHS to obtain their records.

The Fed
Letter to HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson Regarding Proposed Medical Privacy Regulation
May 23, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 39:7
In a free society, such as the one envisioned by the drafters of the Constitution, the federal government should never force a citizen to divulge personal information to advance “important social goals.” Rather, it should be up to the individuals, not the government, to determine what social goals are important enough to warrant allowing others access to their personal property, including their personal information. To the extent these regulations sacrifice individual rights in the name of a bureaucratically-determined “common good,” they are incompatible with a constitutional government that respects individual liberty.

The Fed
Letter to HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson Regarding Proposed Medical Privacy Regulation
May 23, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 39:8
Finally, Secretary Thompson, if HHS is going to collect private medical records, the medical privacy rule should then explicitly forbid the federal government from permanently storing any medical information on a federally maintained or funded database. Previous experience with federal collection of information demonstrates the need for an explicit ban on creating a database. For example, despite repeated assurances they would not do so, the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms is using their authority to conduct background checks under the Brady Law to compile a database of every gun owner in America!

The Fed
Letter to HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson Regarding Proposed Medical Privacy Regulation
May 23, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 39:9
In conclusion, I once again respectfully request that the Department of Health and Human Services amend the medical privacy rule to require a search warrant before government officials may seize medical records. I also request that HHS remove all sections of the rule that give private parties (particularly researchers) a federal right to access medical records without consent for purposes unrelated to treatment. Furthermore, if HHS is going to continue to allow the Federal Government to collect medical information for any reason, HHS must explicitly provide that none of the information collected under the authority given HHS, or any other federal agency, will be stored in a federally maintained or funded database. Thank you for your consideration of my views, which, according to the Gallup poll, are shared by the vast majority of Americans.

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

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

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

The Fed
Faith Based Initiatives
June 13, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 43:2
* Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I recommend to my colleagues the attached article, “The Real Threat of the Faith-Based Initiative” by Star Parker, founder and president of the Coalition on Urban Renewal and Education (CURE). Miss Parker eloquently explains how providing federal monies to faith-based institutions undermines the very qualities that make them effective in addressing social problems. As Miss Parker points out, religious programs are successful because they are staffed and funded by people motivated to help others by their religious beliefs. Government funding of religious organizations will transform them into adjuncts of the federal welfare state, more concerned about obeying federal rules and regulations than fulfilling the obligations of their faith.

The Fed
Faith Based Initiatives
June 13, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 43:5
* Miss Parker points out that the founding fathers recognized the danger that church-state entanglement poses to religious liberty, which is why the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the free exercise of religion and forbids the federal government from establishing a national church. As Miss Parker points out, the most effective and constitutional means for Congress to help those in poverty is to cut taxes on the American people so that they may devote more of their resources to effective, locally-controlled, charitable programs.

The Fed
INTRODUCTION OF FOODS ARE NOT DRUGS ACT — HON. RON PAUL
June 21, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 46:7
* In a free society, the federal government must not be allowed to prevent people from receiving information enabling them to make informed decisions about whether or not to use dietary supplements or eat certain foods. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to take a step toward restoring freedom by cosponsoring the Foods are not Drugs Act.

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

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

The Fed
INTRODUCTION OF EDUCATION BILLS -- HON. RON PAUL
June 28, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 49:2
* Mr. Speaker, reducing taxes so that Americans can devote more of their own resources to education is the best way to improve America’s schools. This is not just because expanding the HOPE Scholarship bill will increase the funds devoted to education but because, to use a popular buzz word, individuals are more likely than federal bureaucrats to insist that schools be accountable for student performance. When the federal government controls the education dollar, schools will be held accountable for their compliance with bureaucratic paperwork requirements and mandates that have little to do with actual education, or for students performance on a test that may measure little more than test-taking skills or the ability of education bureaucrats to design or score the test so that “no child is left behind,” regardless of the child’s actual knowledge. Federal rules and regulations also divert valuable resources away from classroom instruction into fulfilling bureaucratic paperwork requirements. The only way to change this system is to restore control of the education dollar to the American people so they can ensure schools meet their demands that children be provided a quality education.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Fed
Statement on the Community Solutions Act of 2001
July 19, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 60:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, no one familiar with the history of the past century can doubt that private charities, particularly those maintained by persons motivated by their faith to perform charitable acts, are more effective in addressing social needs than federal programs. Therefore, the sponsors of HR 7, the Community Solutions Act, are correct to believe that expanding the role of voluntary, religious-based organizations will benefit society. However, this noble goal will not be accomplished by providing federal taxpayer funds to these organizations. Instead, federal funding will transform these organizations into adjuncts of the federal government and reduce voluntary giving on the part of the people. In so doing, HR 7 will transform the majority of private charities into carbon copies of failed federal welfare programs.

The Fed
Statement on the Community Solutions Act of 2001
July 19, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 60:3
Those who dismiss these concerns should consider that HR 7 explicitly forbids proselytizing in “faith-based’ programs receiving funds directly from the federal government. Religious organizations will not have to remove religious icons from their premises in order to receive federal funds. However, I fail to see the point in allowing a Catholic soup kitchen to hang a crucifix on its wall or a Jewish day care center to hang a Star of David on its door if federal law forbids believers from explaining the meaning of those symbols to persons receiving assistance. Furthermore, proselytizing is what is at the very heart of the effectiveness of many of these programs!

The Fed
Statement on the Community Solutions Act of 2001
July 19, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 60:4
H.R. 7 also imposes new paperwork and audit requirements on religious organizations, thus diverting resources away from fulfilling the charitable mission. Supporters of HR 7 point out that any organization that finds the conditions imposed by the federal government too onerous does not have to accept federal grants. It is true no charity has to accept federal grants. It is true no charity has to accept federal funds, but a significant number will accept federal funds in exchange for federal restrictions on their programs, especially since the restrictions will appear “reasonable” during the program’s first few years. Of course, history shows that Congress and the federal bureaucracy cannot resist imposing new mandates on recipients of federal money. For example, since the passage of the Higher Education Act the federal government has gradually assumed control over almost every aspect of campus life.

The Fed
Statement on the Community Solutions Act of 2001
July 19, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 60:9
Some supporters of this measure have attempted to invoke the legacy of the founding fathers in support of this legislation. Of course, the founders recognized the importance of religion in a free society, but not as an adjunct of the state. Instead, the founders hoped a religious people would resist any attempts by the state to encroach on the proper social authority of the church. The Founding Fathers would have been horrified by any proposal to put churches on the federal dole, as this threatens liberty by subordinating churches to the state.

The Fed
Statement on the Community Solutions Act of 2001
July 19, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 60:11
The primary issue both sides of this debate are avoiding is the constitutionality of the welfare state. Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to level excessive taxes on one group of citizens for the benefit of another group of citizens. Many of the founders would have been horrified to see modern politicians define compassion as giving away other people’s money stolen through confiscatory taxation. After all, the words of the famous essay by former Congressman Davy Crockett, that money is “Not Yours to Give.”

The Fed
THE PATIENT PRIVACY ACT -- HON. RON PAUL
July 24, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 65:3
* When the scheme to assign every American a unique medical identifier became public knowledge in 1998, their was a tremendous outcry from the public. Congress responded to the public outrage by including language forbidding the expenditure of funds to implement or develop a medical identifier in the federal budget for the past three fiscal years. Last year my amendment prohibiting the use of funds to develop or implement a medical ID unanimously passed the House of Representatives.

The Fed
THE PATIENT PRIVACY ACT -- HON. RON PAUL
July 24, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 65:9
* The second, and most important reason, legislation “protecting” the unique health identifier is insufficient is that the federal government lacks any constitutional authority to force citizens to adopt a universal health identifier, or force citizens to divulge their personal health information to the government, regardless of any attached “privacy protections.” Any federal action that oversteps constitutional limitations violates liberty as it ratifies the principle that the federal government, not the Constitution, is the ultimate arbitrator of its own jurisdiction over the people. The only effective protection of the rights of citizens is for congress and the American people to follow Thomas Jefferson’s advice and “bind (the federal government) down with the chains of the constitution.”

The Fed
THE PATIENT PRIVACY ACT -- HON. RON PAUL
July 24, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 65:11
* Mr. Speaker, the federal government has no authority to endanger the privacy of personal medical information by forcing all citizens to adopt a uniform health identifier for use in a national data base. A uniform health ID endangers constitutional liberties, threatens the doctor-patient relationships, and could allow federal officials access to deeply personal medical information. There can be no justification for risking the rights of private citizens. I therefore urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Patient Privacy Act.

The Fed
A NEWSPAPER ARTICLE ON THE LIFE OF FREDERIC BASTIAT -- HON. RON PAUL
July 26, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 67:2
* Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I commend to the attention of members an editorial appearing in the Wall Street Journal which is headlined “In Praise of an Economic Revolutionary.” The column is authored by Mr. Bob McTeer, president and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.

The Fed
Stem Cell Research and Human Cloning
July 31, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 68:26
This problem regarding cloning and stem cell research has been made much worse by the federal government involved, both by the pro and con forces in dealing with the federal government’s involvement in embryonic research. The problem may be that a moral society does not exist, rather than a lack of federal laws or federal police. We need no more federal mandates to deal with difficult issues that for the most part were made worse by previous government mandates.

The Fed
LEGISLATION WHICH ENHANCES SENIOR CITIZENS’ HEALTH CARE -- HON. RON PAUL
Thursday, August 2, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 70:3
* One of the major weaknesses of the Medicare program is that seniors do not have the ability to use Medicare dollars to cover the costs of prescription medicines, even though prescription drugs represent the major health care expenditure for many seniors. Medicare MSAs give those seniors who need to use Medicare funds for prescription drugs the ability to do so without expanding the power of the federal bureaucracy or forcing those seniors who currently have prescription drug coverage into a federal one-size-fits-all program.

The Fed
LEGISLATION WHICH ENHANCES SENIOR CITIZENS’ HEALTH CARE -- HON. RON PAUL
Thursday, August 2, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 70:5
[Page: E1538] GPO’s PDF by minimizing the role of the federal bureaucracy. As many of my colleagues know, an increasing number of health care providers have withdrawn from the Medicare program because of the paperwork burden and constant interference with their practice by bureaucrats from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (previously known as the Health Care Financing Administration). The MSA program frees seniors and providers from the this burden thus making it more likely that quality providers will remain in the Medicare program!

The Fed
LEGISLATION WHICH ENHANCES SENIOR CITIZENS’ HEALTH CARE -- HON. RON PAUL
Thursday, August 2, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 70:6
* Mr. Speaker, the most important reason to enact this legislation is seniors should not be treated like children and told what health care services they can and cannot have by the federal government. We in Congress have a duty to preserve and protect the Medicare trust fund and keep the promise to America’s seniors and working Americans, whose taxes finance Medicare, that they will have quality health care in their golden years. However, we also have a duty to make sure that seniors can get the health care that suits their needs, instead of being forced into a cookie cutter program designed by Washington-DC-based bureaucrats! Medicare MSAs are a good first step toward allowing seniors the freedom to control their own health care.

The Fed
PRESCRIPTION DRUG AFFORDABILITY ACT -- HON. RON PAUL
Thursday, August 2, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 72:4
* The first provision of my legislation provides seniors a tax credit equal to 80 percent of their prescription drug costs. As many of my colleagues have pointed out, our nation’s seniors are struggling to afford the prescription drugs they need in order to maintain an active and healthy lifestyle. Yet, the federal government continues to impose taxes on Social Security benefits. Meanwhile, Congress continually raids the Social Security trust fund to finance unconstitutional programs! It is long past time for Congress to choose between helping seniors afford medicine or using the Social Security trust fund as a slush fund for big government and pork-barrel spending.

The Fed
PRESCRIPTION DRUG AFFORDABILITY ACT -- HON. RON PAUL
Thursday, August 2, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 72:9
* However, the federal government has threatened to destroy this option by imposing unnecessary and unconstitutional regulations on web sites which sell pharmaceuticals. Any federal regulations would inevitably drive up prices of pharmaceuticals, thus depriving many consumers of access to affordable prescription medications.

The Fed
Patient’s Bill of Rights Undermines Individual Rights
August 2, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 73:5
I think we went astray about 30-some years ago in the direction of medical care when the government, the Federal Government, got involved. The first thing is we changed our attitude and our definition of what “rights” are. We call this a Patients’ Bill of Rights. It has very little to do with rights, because most of what we do in medicine, we undermine individual rights.

The Fed
Patients’ Bill Of Rights
2 August 2001    2001 Ron Paul 74:9
Mr. Chairman, the legislation before us is flawed not only in its effect but in the very premise that individuals have a federally-enforceable “right” to health care. Mixing the concept of rights with the delivery of services is dangerous. The whole notion that patient’s “rights” can be enhanced by more edicts by the federal government is preposterous.

The Fed
Patients’ Bill Of Rights
2 August 2001    2001 Ron Paul 74:12
Those who doubt they are endorsing government control of medicine by voting for a modified Patients’ Bill of Rights should consider that even after this legislation is “watered- down” it will still give the federal government the power to control the procedures for resolving disputes for every health plan in the country, as well as mandating a laundry list of services that health plans must offer to their patients. The new and improved Patients’ Bill of Rights will still drive up the costs of health care, causing many to lose their insurance and lead to yet more cries for government control of health care to address the unintended consequences of this legislation.

The Fed
Patients’ Bill Of Rights
2 August 2001    2001 Ron Paul 74:13
Of course, the real power over health care will lie with the unelected bureaucrats who will implement and interpret these broad and vague mandates. Federal bureaucrats already have too much power over health care. Today, physicians struggle with over 132,000 pages of Medicare regulations. To put that in perspective, I ask my colleagues to consider that the IRS code is “mere” 17,000 pages. Many physicians pay attorneys as much as $7,000 for a compliance plan to guard against mistakes in filing government forms, a wise investment considering even an innocent mistake can result in fines of up to $25,000. In case doctors are not terrorized enough by the federal bureaucracy, HCFA has requested authority to carry guns on their audits!

The Fed
Patients’ Bill Of Rights
2 August 2001    2001 Ron Paul 74:15
Instead of this phony argument between those who believe their form of nationalized medicine is best for patients and those whose only objection to nationalized medicine is its effect on entrenched corporate interests, we ought to consider getting rid of the laws that created this medical management crisis. The ERISA law requiring businesses to provide particular programs for their employees should be repealed. The tax codes should give equal tax treatment to everyone whether working for a large corporation, small business, or self employed. Standards should be set by insurance companies, doctors, patients, and HMOs working out differences through voluntary contracts. For years it was known that some insurance policies excluded certain care. This was known up front and was considered an acceptable practice since it allowed certain patients to receive discounts. The federal government should defer to state governments to deal with the litigation crisis and the need for contract legislation between patients and medical providers. Health care providers should be free to combine their efforts to negotiate effectively with HMOs and insurance companies without running afoul of federal anti-trust laws — or being subject to regulation by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

The Fed
Patients’ Bill Of Rights
2 August 2001    2001 Ron Paul 74:20
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject the phony Patients’ Bill of Rights which will only increase the power of the federal government, cause more Americans to lose their health care or receive substandard care, and thus set the groundwork for the next round of federal intervention. Instead. I ask my colleagues to embrace an agenda of returning control over health care to the American people by putting control over the health care dollar back into the hands of the individual and repealing those laws and regulations which distort the health care market. We should have more faith in freedom and more fear of the politicians and bureaucrats who think all can be made well by simply passing a Patients’ Bill of Rights.

The Fed
The US Dollar and the World Economy
September 6, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 75:3
In the 20 th Century, however we saw the systematic undermining of sound money, with the establishment of the Federal Reserve System in 1913, and the outright rejection of gold, with the collapse of the Bretton Woods Agreement in 1971.

The Fed
The US Dollar and the World Economy
September 6, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 75:4
We are now witnessing the effects of the accumulated problems of thirty years of fiat money-not only the dollar but also all the world currencies-something the world has never before experienced. Exactly how it plays out is yet unknown. Its severity will be determined by future monetary management- especially by the Federal Reserve. The likelihood of quickly resolving the deeply ingrained and worldwide imbalances built up over thirty years is remote. Yielding to the addiction of credit creation (as has been the case with every market correction over the past thirty years) remains irresistible to the central bankers of the world. Central planners, who occupy the seats of power in every central bank around the world, refuse to accept the fact that markets are more powerful and smarter than they are.

The Fed
The US Dollar and the World Economy
September 6, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 75:9
The monetary inflation of the 1900s produced welcomed profits of $145 billion for the NASDAQ companies over the five years between 1996 and 2000. Astoundingly this entire amount was lost in the past year. This doesn’t even address the trillions of dollars of paper losses in stock values from its peak in early 2000. Congress has expressed concern about the staggering stock-market losses but fails to see the connection between the bubble economy and the monetary inflation generated by the Federal Reserve.

The Fed
The US Dollar and the World Economy
September 6, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 75:10
Instead, Congress chooses to blame the analysts for misleading investors . The analysts may not be entirely blameless , but their role in creating the bubble is minimal compared to the misleading information that the Federal Reserve has provided, with artificially low interest rates and a financial market made flush with generous new credit at every sign of a correction over the past ten years.

The Fed
The US Dollar and the World Economy
September 6, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 75:11
By preventing the liquidation of bad debt and the elimination of mal-investment and overcapacity, the Federal Reserve’s actions have kept the financial bubble inflated. Of course it’s an easy choice on the short run. Who would deliberately allow the market tendency to deflate back to stability? That would be politically unacceptable.

The Fed
The US Dollar and the World Economy
September 6, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 75:12
Talk of sound money and balanced budgets is just that. When the economy sinks, the rhetoric for sound policy and a strong dollar may continue but all actions by the Congress and the Fed will be directed toward re-inflation and a congressional spending policy oblivious to all the promises regarding a balanced budget and the preservation of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds.

The Fed
The US Dollar and the World Economy
September 6, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 75:13
But if the Fed and its chairman, Alan Greenspan, have been able to guide us out of every potential crisis all the way back to the stock market crash of 1987, why shouldn’t we expect the same to happen once again? Mainly because there’s a limit to how long the monetary charade can be perpetuated. Now it looks like the international financial system built on paper money is coming to an end.

The Fed
The US Dollar and the World Economy
September 6, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 75:19
Current concerns are expressed by worries about meeting the criteria for a government-declared recession and whether a weaker dollar would help. The first is merely academic, because if you are one of the many thousands who have been laid off, you’re already in a recession. The second doesn’t make a lot of sense unless one asks “compared to what?” The dollar has been on a steady course of devaluation for thirty years, against most major currencies and against gold. Its purchasing power in general has been steadily eroded. The fact that the dollar has been strong against third-world currencies and against most major currencies for the past decade doesn’t cancel out the fact that the Federal Reserve has systematically eroded the dollar’s value by steadily expanding the money supply. Recent reports of a weakening dollar on international exchange markets have investment implications but do not reflect a new policy designed to weaken the dollar. This is merely the market adjusting to thirty years of systematic monetary inflation.

The Fed
The US Dollar and the World Economy
September 6, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 75:20
Regardless of whether the experts demand a weak dollar or a strong dollar, each inevitably demands lower interest rates, hoping to spur the economy and save the stock market from crashing. But one must remember that the only way the Federal Reserve can lower interest rates is to inflate the currency by increasing the money supply and by further debasing the currency. In the long term, the dollar is always weakened, even if the economy is occasionally stimulated on a short-run basis.

The Fed
The US Dollar and the World Economy
September 6, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 75:21
Economic growth can hide the ill effects of monetary inflation by holding some prices in check. But it can’t prevent the over-capacity and mal-investment which causes the economic downturn. Of course, the central bankers cling to the belief that they can somehow prevent the ugly corrections known as recessions. Economic growth, when artificially stimulated by monetary growth and low interest rates, generates the speculation we’ve seen in the stock, bond and real estate markets, along with excessive debt. Once the need for rectifying the over-capacity is recognized by the market, these imbalances are destined to be wiped out. Prolonging the correction phase with the Fed’s efforts to re-inflate by diligently working for a soft landing, or even to prevent a recession, only postpones the day the economy can return to sustained growth. This is a problem the United States had in the 1930s and one that Japan has experienced for more than a decade, with no end in sight.

The Fed
The US Dollar and the World Economy
September 6, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 75:23
Alan Greenspan made a concerted effort to stave off the 1991-1992 recession with numerous reductions in the Fed funds rate to no avail. The recession hit, and most people believe it led to George Bush’s defeat in the 1992 election. It wasn’t that Greenspan didn’t try, and in many ways the Bush people’s criticism of Greenspan’s effort is not justified. Greenspan, the politician, would have liked to please the elder Bush, but was unable to control events as he had wished. This time around, however, he’s been much more aggressive with the half-point cuts along with seven cuts in just eight months, for a total of a three-point cut in the Fed funds rate. But guess what? So far it hasn’t helped. Stocks continue to slide, and the economy is still in the doldrums. It is now safe to say that Greenspan is pushing on a string. In the year 2000, bank loans and commercial paper were growing at an annualized rate of 23%. In less than a year, in spite of this massive influx of new credit, these loans have crashed to a rate of minus 5%.

The Fed
The US Dollar and the World Economy
September 6, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 75:26
The Federal Reserve credit created during the last eight months has not stimulated economic growth in technology or the industrial sector, but a lot of it ended up in the expanding real-estate bubble, churned by the $3.2 trillion of debt maintained by the GSEs.

The Fed
The US Dollar and the World Economy
September 6, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 75:27
The GSEs, made up of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Bank, have managed to keep the housing market afloat, in contrast to the more logical slowdown in hotel and office construction. This spending through the GSEs has also served as a vehicle for consumption spending. This should be no surprise, considering the special status that GSEs enjoy, since their implied line of credit to the US Treasury keeps interest rates artificially low. The Clinton administration encouraged growth in housing loans that were financed through this system.

The Fed
The US Dollar and the World Economy
September 6, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 75:28
In addition, the Federal Reserve treats GSE securities with special consideration. Ever since the fall of 1999, the Fed has monetized GSE securities, just as if they were US Treasury bills. This message has not been lost by foreign central banks, which took their cue from the Fed and now hold more than $130 billion of United States GSE securities. The Fed holds only $20 billion worth, but the implication is clear. Not only will the Treasury loan to the GSEs if necessary, since the line of credit is already in place, but, if necessary, Congress will surely accommodate with appropriations as well, just as it did during the Savings and Loan crisis. But the Fed has indicated to the world that the GSEs are equivalent to US Treasury bills, and foreign central banks have enthusiastically accommodated, sometimes by purchasing more than $10 billion of these securities in one week alone. They are merely recycling the dollars we so generously print and spend overseas.

The Fed
The US Dollar and the World Economy
September 6, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 75:30
Refinancing especially helped the consumers to continue spending even in a slowing economy. It isn’t surprising for high credit-card debt to be frequently rolled into second mortgages, since interest on mortgage debt has the additional advantage of being tax-deductible. When financial conditions warrant it, leaving financial instruments (such as paper assets), and looking for hard assets (such as houses), is commonplace and is not a new phenomenon. Instead of the newly inflated money being directed toward the stock market, it now finds its way into the rapidly expanding real-estate bubble. This, too, will burst as all bubbles do. The Fed, the Congress, or even foreign investors can’t prevent the collapse of this bubble, any more than the incestuous Japanese banks were able to keep the Japanese “miracle” of the 1980s going forever.

The Fed
The US Dollar and the World Economy
September 6, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 75:31
Concerned Federal Reserve economists are struggling to understand how the wealth effect of the stock market and real estate bubble affect economic activity and consumer spending. It should be no mystery, but it would be too much to expect the Fed to look to itself and its monetary policy for an explanation and assume responsibility for engineering the entire financial mess we’re in.

The Fed
The US Dollar and the World Economy
September 6, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 75:32
A major problem still remains. Ultimately the market determines all value including all currencies. With the current direction of the dollar certainly downward, the day of reckoning is fast approaching. A weak dollar will prompt dumping of GSE securities before treasuries, despite the Treasury’s and the Fed’s attempt to equate them with government securities. This will threaten the whole GSE system of finance, because the challenge to the dollar and the GSEs will hit just when the housing market turns down and defaults rise. Also a major accident can occur in the derivatives markets where Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are deeply involved in hedging their interest-rate bets. Rising interest rates that are inherent with a weak currency will worsen the crisis.

The Fed
The US Dollar and the World Economy
September 6, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 75:36
Our dollar problem, which affects our financial and budgetary decisions, originated at the Fed with our country’s acceptance of paper money thirty years ago. Federal Reserve officials and other government leaders purposely continue to mislead the people by spouting the nonsense that there is no evidence of inflation, as measured by government-rigged price indices. Even though significant price increases need not exist for monetary inflation to place a hardship on the economy, stock prices, housing prices, costs of medical care and education, and the cost of government have all been rising at very rapid rates. But the true inflation, measured by the money supply, is rising at a rate of greater than 20%, as measured by MZM. This fact is ignored.

The Fed
The US Dollar and the World Economy
September 6, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 75:37
The deception regarding price increases is supposed to reassure us and may do so for a while. The Fed never admits it, and the Congress disregards it out of ignorance, but the serious harm done by artificially low interest rates--leading to mal-investment, overcapacity, excessive debt and speculation causes the distortions that always guarantee the next recession.

The Fed
The US Dollar and the World Economy
September 6, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 75:38
Serious problems lie ahead. If the Fed continues with the same monetary policy of perpetual inflation, and the Congress responds with more spending and regulations, real solutions will be indefinitely delayed.

The Fed
The US Dollar and the World Economy
September 6, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 75:40
Someday, stable money based on the gold standard must be reconsidered. Stable money is a constitutional responsibility of Congress. The Federal Reserve Board’s goal of stable prices, economic growth and low interest rates, through centralized economic planning by manipulating money and credit, is a concoction of 20 th Century Keynesian economics. These efforts are not authorized by the Constitution, and are economically detrimental.

The Fed
The US Dollar and the World Economy
September 6, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 75:45
Only reining in the welfare-warfare state will suffice. This eliminates the need for the Fed to monetize the debt that politicians depend on to please their constituents and secure their reelection. We must reject our obsession with policing the world by our endless foreign commitments and entanglements. This would reduce the need for greater expenditures while enhancing our national security. It would also remove pressure on the Federal Reserve to continue a flawed monetary policy of monetizing endless government debt.

The Fed
The US Dollar and the World Economy
September 6, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 75:46
But we must also reject the notion that one man, Alan Greenspan, or any other chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, can know what the proper money supply and interest rates ought to be- only the market can determine that. This must happen if we ever expect to avoid continuous and deeper recessions and to get the economy growing in a healthy and sustainable fashion. It also must happen if we want to preserve free-market capitalism and personal liberty.

The Fed
The US Dollar and the World Economy
September 6, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 75:49
In the words of James Madison in The Federalist Papers :

The Fed
Sometimes The Economy Needs A Setback
10 September 2001    2001 Ron Paul 77:9
In markets all things are cyclical, even the idea that markets are not cyclical. The notion that the millennial economy was in some way “new” was an early portent of confusion. Since the dawn of the industrial age, technology has been lightening the burden of work and industrial age, technology has been lightening the burden of work and driving the pace of economic change. In 1850, as the telegraph was beginning to anticipate the Internet, about 65 percent of the American labor force worked on farms. In 2000, only 2.4 percent did. The prolonged migration of hands and minds from the field to the factor, office and classroom is all productivity growth — the same phenomenon the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board rhapsodizes over. It’s true, just as Alan Greenspan says, that technological progress is the bulwark of the modern economy. Then again, it has been true for most of the past 200 years.

The Fed
Foreign Interventionism
September 25, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 80:28
If the responsibility had been left with the airlines to provide safety they may have had armed pilots or guards on the planes just as our industrial sites have. Privatizing the FAA, as other countries have, would also give airlines more leeway in providing security. My bill, HR 2896, should be passed immediately to clarify that the federal government will never place a prohibition on pilots being armed.

The Fed
Foreign Interventionism
September 25, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 80:37
Precise identification of all travelers on all our air flights is a desired goal. A national ID issued by the federal government would prove to be disastrous to our civil liberties and should not be considered. This type of surveillance power should never be given to an intrusive overbearing government, no matter how well intentioned the motives.

The Fed
AIR PIRACY REPRISAL AND CAPTURE ACT OF 2001 -- HON. RON PAUL
October 10, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 84:1
* Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Air Piracy Reprisal and Capture Act of 2001 and the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001. The Air Piracy Reprisal and Capture Act of 2001 updates the federal definition of “piracy” to include acts committed in the skies. The September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001 provides Congressional authorization for the President to issue letters of marque and reprisal to appropriate parties to seize the person and property of Osama bin Laden and any other individual responsible for the terrorist attacks of September 11. Authority to grant letters of marque and reprisal are provided for in the Constitution as a means of allowing Congress to deal with aggressive actions where a formal declaration of war against a foreign power is problematic, Originally intended to deal with piracy, letters of marque and reprisal represent an appropriate response to the piracy of the twentieth century: hijacking terrorism.

The Fed
Ron Paul statement on HR 3004 before the House Financial Services committee
October 11, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 86:1
Mr. Chairman, the so-called Financial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001 (HR 3004) has more to do with the ongoing war against financial privacy than with the war against international terrorism. Of course, the federal government should take all necessary and constitutional actions to enhance the ability of law enforcement to locate and seize funds flowing to known terrorists and their front groups. For example, America should consider signing more mutual legal assistance treaties with its allies so we can more easily locate the assets of terrorists and other criminals.

The Fed
Statement on Counter-Terrorism Proposals and Civil Liberties
October 12, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 87:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the shocking attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon have reminded us all that the primary responsibility of the federal government is to protect the security and liberty of our nation’s citizens. Therefore, we must do what we can to enhance the ability of law enforcement to prevent future terrorist attacks. For example, the federal government can allow enhanced data-sharing among federal agencies that deal with terrorism. The federal government should also forbid residents of countries which sponsor terrorism from receiving student visas as well as prohibit residents of terrorist countries from participating in programs which provide special privileges to immigrants. In fact, I have introduced my own anti-terrorism legislation, the Securing American Families Effectively (SAFE) Act, which strengthens the ability of law enforcement to track down and prosecute suspected terrorists as well as keep potential terrorists out of the country.

The Fed
Statement on Counter-Terrorism Proposals and Civil Liberties
October 12, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 87:2
There is also much the federal government can do under current existing law to fight terrorism. The combined annual budgets of the FBI, the CIA and various other security programs amount to over $30 billion. Perhaps Congress should consider redirecting some of the money spent by intelligence agencies on matters of lower priority to counter-terrorism efforts. Since the tragic attacks, our officials have located and arrested hundreds of suspects, frozen millions of dollars of assets, and received authority to launch a military attack against the ring leaders in Afghanistan. It seems the war against terrorism has so far been carried our satisfactorily under current law.

The Fed
Statement on Counter-Terrorism Proposals and Civil Liberties
October 12, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 87:8
H.R. 3108 waters down the fourth amendment by expanding the federal governments ability to use wiretaps free of judicial oversight. The fourth amendment’s requirement of a search warrant and probable cause strikes a balance between effective law enforcement and civil liberties. Any attempt to water down the warrant requirement threatens innocent citizens with a loss of their liberty. This is particularly true of provisions which allow for nationwide issuance of search warrants, as these severely restrict judicial oversight of government wiretaps and searches.

The Fed
Statement on Counter-Terrorism Proposals and Civil Liberties
October 12, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 87:12
As Jeffrey Rosen pointed out in the New Republic, this proposal makes even the most innocuous form of computer hacking a federal offense but does not even grant special emergency powers to perform searches in cases where police have reason to believe that a terrorist attack would be imminent. Thus, if this bill were law on April 24, 1995 and the FBI had information that someone in a yellow Ryder Truck was going to be involved in a terrorist attack, the government could not conduct an emergency search of all yellow Ryder Trucks in Oklahoma City. This failure to address so obvious a need in the anti-terrorism effort suggests this bill is a more hastily cobbled together wish list by the federal bureaucracy than a serious attempt to grant law enforcement the actual tools needed to combat terrorism.

The Fed
Statement on Counter-Terrorism Proposals and Civil Liberties
October 12, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 87:14
The reason this provision did not work in the case of the airlines is because the airlines followed federal regulations and assumed they were sufficient. This is often the case when the government assumes new powers or imposes new regulations. Therefore, in the future, once the horror of the events of September 11 fade from memory, people will relax their guard, figuring that the federal government is using its new powers to protect them and thus they do not need to invest their own time or money in security measures.

The Fed
Statement on HR 3004
October 17, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 88:1
Mr. Speaker, the so-called Financial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001 (HR 3004) has more to do with the ongoing war against financial privacy than with the war against international terrorism. Of course, the federal government should take all necessary and constitutional actions to enhance the ability of law enforcement to locate and seize funds flowing to known terrorists and their front groups. For example, America should consider signing more mutual legal assistance treaties with its allies so we can more easily locate the assets of terrorists and other criminals.

The Fed
A SAD STATE OF AFFAIRS --
October 25, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 90:12
Civil liberties are sure to suffer under today’s tensions, with the people demanding that the politicians do something, anything. Should those who object to the rapid move toward massively increasing the size and scope of the Federal Government in local law enforcement be considered un-American because they defend the principles they truly understand to be American?

The Fed
A SAD STATE OF AFFAIRS --
October 25, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 90:27
It is both annoying and sad that there is so little interest by anyone in Washington in free market solutions to the world’s economic problems. True private ownership of property without regulation and abusive taxation is a thing of the past. Few understand how the Federal Reserve monetary policy causes the booms and the busts that, when severe, as now, only serve to enhance the prestige of the money managers- while most politicians and Wall Streeters demand that the Fed inflate the currency at an even more rapid rate. Today’s conditions give license to the politicians to spend our way out of recession, they hope.

The Fed
Statement on Funding for the Export- Import Bank
October 31, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 91:8
There is simply no constitutional justification for the expenditure of funds on programs such as Eximbank. In fact, the drafters of the Constitution would be horrified to think the federal government was taking hard-earned money from the American people in order to benefit the politically powerful.

The Fed
Foolishness Of Fiat
31 October 2001    2001 Ron Paul 92:6
Printing money is not an answer, yet that is all that is offered. The clamor for low-interest rates by all those who benefit from fiat money has prompted the Fed to create new money out of thin air like never before. Driving the Fed funds rate down from 6.5 percent to 2.5 percent, a level below the price inflation rate, represents nothing short of panic and has done nothing to recharge the economy. But as one would expect, confidence in the dollar is waning.

The Fed
Foolishness Of Fiat
31 October 2001    2001 Ron Paul 92:7
I am sure, due to the crisis, a faith in fiat and a failure to understand the business cycle, the Fed will continue with the only thing it knows to do: credit creation and manipulation of interest rates.

The Fed
Foolishness Of Fiat
31 October 2001    2001 Ron Paul 92:9
Since the Federal Reserve first panicked in early January, it has created $830 billion of fiat money out of thin air. The country is no richer. The economy is weaker. The stock market has continued downward, and unemployment has skyrocketed. Returning to deficit spending, as we already have, will not help us any more than it helped Japan, which continues to sink into economic morass.

The Fed
Airport Security Federalization Act
1 November 2001    2001 Ron Paul 93:2
I have offered an alternate bill which would accomplish security goals without expanding the federal government. My bill would not create new federal spending nor new federal bureaucracies.

The Fed
Airport Security Federalization Act
1 November 2001    2001 Ron Paul 93:3
Mr. Chairman, the bill before us, while a slight improvement over the Senate version, is still a step in the wrong direction. By authorizing a new airline ticket tax, by creating new federal mandates and bureaucracies, and by subsidizing the airline industry to the tune of another $3 billion, this bill creates a costly expense that the American people cannot afford. We appropriated $40 billion in the wake of September 11, and I supported that measure as legitimate compensation for individuals and companies harmed by the failure of the federal government to provide national defense. Soon thereafter we made another $15 billion available to the airlines, and now we have a House bill that further victimizes the taxpayers by making them pay for another $3 billion worth of subsidies to the airline industry.

The Fed
Statement on Air Safety Legislation
November 1, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 94:3
Mr. Speaker, the House bill, while a slight improvement over the Senate version, is still a step in the wrong direction. By authorizing a new airline ticket tax, by creating new federal mandates and bureaucracies, and by subsidizing the airline industry to the tune of another $3 billion dollars, this bill creates a costly expense that the American people cannot afford. We appropriated $40 billion dollars in the wake of September 11, and I supported that measure as legitimate compensation for individuals and companies harmed by the failure of the federal government to provide national defense. Soon thereafter we made another $15 billion available to the airlines, and now we have a House bill that further victimizes the taxpayers by making them pay for another $3 billion dollars worth of subsidies to the airline industry.

The Fed
Statement on Preventing Identity Theft by Terrorists and Criminals
November 8, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 96:3
Because of the congressionally-mandated abuse of the Social Security number, all an unscrupulous person needs to do is obtain someone’s Social Security number in order to access that person’s bank accounts, credit cards, and other financial assets. As supportive as I am of efforts to ensure that the Social Security Administration minimizes the risk of identity theft, the only way to ensure the federal government is not inadvertently assisting identity criminals is to stop using the Social Security number as a uniform ID. I have introduced legislation to address the American people’s concerns regarding the transformation of the Social Security number into a national ID, the Identity Theft Prevention Act (HR 220). The major provision of the Identity Theft Prevention Act halts the practice of using the Social Security number as an identifier by requiring the Social Security Administration to issue all Americans new Social Security numbers within five years after the enactment of the bill. These new numbers will be the sole legal property of the recipient, and the Social Security Administration shall be forbidden to divulge the numbers for any purposes not related to the Social Security program. Social Security numbers issued before implementation of this bill shall no longer be considered valid federal identifiers. Of course, the Social Security Administration shall be able to use an individual’s original Social Security number to ensure efficient transition of the Social Security system.

The Fed
Statement on Preventing Identity Theft by Terrorists and Criminals
November 8, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 96:4
Madam Chairwoman, while I do not question the sincerity of those members who suggest that Congress can ensure citizens’ rights are protected through legislation restricting access to personal information, legislative “privacy protections” are inadequate to protect the liberty of Americans for several reasons. First, it is simply common sense that repealing those federal laws that promote identity theft is more effective in protecting the public than expanding the power of the federal police force. Federal punishment of identity thieves provides cold comfort to those who have suffered financial losses and the destruction of their good reputation as a result of identity theft.

The Fed
Statement on Preventing Identity Theft by Terrorists and Criminals
November 8, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 96:6
My colleagues should remember that the federal government lacks constitutional authority to force citizens to adopt a universal identifier for health care, employment, or any other reason. Any federal action that oversteps constitutional limitations violates liberty because it ratifies the principle that the federal government, not the Constitution, is the ultimate judge of its own jurisdiction over the people. The only effective protection of the rights of citizens is for Congress to follow Thomas Jefferson’s advice and “bind (the federal government) down with the chains of the Constitution.”

The Fed
Statement for the Government Reform Committee Hearing on National ID Card Proposals
November 16, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 97:1
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this important hearing examining the question of whether national ID cards would enhance security. Protecting the security of the American people from foreign threats is the most important responsibility of the federal government, and there is much the government needs to do in this area. Among the steps the federal government should take is to restrict immigration from countries which support or harbor terrorists, and implement policies to effectively enforce existing immigration laws. Moreover, private property owners certainly can take steps to protect their property from terrorists and other criminals. For example, it is perfectly legitimate for airlines to issue private ID cards to passengers and perform background checks as a condition of selling them a ticket.

The Fed
Statement for the Government Reform Committee Hearing on National ID Card Proposals
November 16, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 97:2
However, Congress should reject proposals which provide only the illusion of security, while in reality simply eroding constitutional government and individual liberty. Perhaps the most onerous example of a proposal that creates the illusion of security (yet really promotes servitude) is the plan to force all Americans to carry a national ID card. A uniform national system of identification would allow the federal government to inappropriately monitor the movements and transactions of every citizen. History shows that when government gains the power to monitor the actions of the people, it inevitably uses that power in harmful ways.

The Fed
Statement for the Government Reform Committee Hearing on National ID Card Proposals
November 16, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 97:4
Furthermore, the federal government has no constitutional authority to require law-abiding Americans to present any form of identification before engaging in private transactions (e.g. getting a job, opening a bank account, or seeking medical assistance). As we consider how best to enhance the federal government’s ability to ensure the safety of the people, it is more important then ever that Congress remain mindful of the constitutional limitations on its power.

The Fed
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 98:51
We know from the ongoing drug war that federal drug police frequently make mistakes, break down the wrong doors and destroy property. Abuses of seizure and forfeiture laws are numerous. Yet the new laws will encourage even more mistakes by federal law-enforcement agencies. It has long been forgotten that law enforcement in the United States was supposed to be a state and local government responsibility, not that of the federal government. The federal government’s policing powers have just gotten a giant boost in scope and authority through both new legislation and executive orders.

The Fed
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 98:58
It’s easy for elected officials in Washington to tell the American people that the government will do whatever it takes to defeat terrorism. Such assurances inevitably are followed by proposals either to restrict the constitutional liberties of the American people or to spend vast sums of money from the federal treasury. The history of the 20th Century shows that the Congress violates our Constitution most often during times of crisis. Accordingly, most of our worst unconstitutional agencies and programs began during the two World Wars and the Depression. Ironically, the Constitution itself was conceived in a time of great crisis. The founders intended its provision to place severe restrictions on the federal government, even in times of great distress. America must guard against current calls for government to sacrifice the Constitution in the name of law enforcement.

The Fed
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 98:62
The biggest problem with these new law-enforcement powers is that they bear little relationship to fighting terrorism. Surveillance powers are greatly expanded, while checks and balances on government are greatly reduced. Most of the provisions have been sought by domestic law-enforcement agencies for years, not to fight terrorism, but rather to increase their police power over the American people. There is no evidence that our previously held civil liberties posed a barrier to the effective tracking or prosecution of terrorists. The federal government has made no showing that it failed to detect or prevent the recent terrorist strikes because of the civil liberties that will be compromised by this new legislation.

The Fed
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 98:75
The planned use of military personnel to patrol our streets and airports is another challenge of great importance that should not go uncontested. For years, many in Washington have advocated a national approach to all policing activity. This current crisis has given them a tremendous boost. Believe me, this is no panacea and is a dangerous move. The Constitution never intended that the federal government assume this power. This concept was codified in the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. This act prohibits the military from carrying out law-enforcement duties such as searching or arresting people in the United States, the argument being that the military is only used for this type of purpose in a police state. Interestingly, it was the violation of these principles that prompted the Texas Revolution against Mexico. The military under the Mexican Constitution at that time was prohibited from enforcing civil laws, and when Santa Anna ignored this prohibition, the revolution broke out. We should not so readily concede the principle that has been fought for on more than one occasion in this country.

The Fed
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 98:77
For instance, the military draft is the ultimate insult to those who love personal liberty. The Pentagon, even with the ongoing crisis, has argued against the reinstatement of the draft. Yet the clamor for its reinstatement grows louder daily by those who wanted a return to the draft all along. I see the draft as the ultimate abuse of liberty. Morally it cannot be distinguished from slavery. All the arguments for drafting 18-year old men and women and sending them off to foreign wars are couched in terms of noble service to the country and benefits to the draftees. The need-for-discipline argument is the most common reason given, after the call for service in an effort to make the world safe for democracy. There can be no worse substitute for the lack of parental guidance of teenagers than the federal government’s domineering control, forcing them to fight an enemy they don’t even know in a country they can’t even identity.

The Fed
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 98:78
Now it’s argued that since the federal government has taken over the entire job of homeland security, all kinds of jobs can be found for the draftees to serve the state, even for those who are conscientious objectors.

The Fed
Statement on Terrorism Reinsurance Legislation
November 30, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 99:3
The drafters of HR 3210 claim that this creates a temporary government program. However, Mr. Speaker, what happens in three years if industry lobbyists come to Capitol Hill to explain that there is still a need for this program because of the continuing threat of terrorist attacks? Does anyone seriously believe that Congress will refuse to reauthorize this “temporary” insurance program or provide some other form of taxpayer help to the insurance industry? I would like to remind my colleagues that the federal budget is full of expenditures for long-lasting programs that were originally intended to be temporary.

The Fed
Statement on Terrorism Reinsurance Legislation
November 30, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 99:7
The version of HR 3210 passed by the Financial Services committee took a good first step in this direction by repealing the tax penalty which prevents insurance companies from properly reserving funds for human-created catastrophes. I am disappointed that this sensible provision was removed from the final bill. Instead, HR 3210 instructs the Treasury department to study the benefits of allowing insurers to establish tax-free reserves to cover losses from terrorist events. The perceived need to study the wisdom of cutting taxes while expanding the federal government without hesitation demonstrates much that is wrong with Washington.

The Fed
Let Privateers Troll For Bin Laden
4 December 2001    2001 Ron Paul 100:5
Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld recently acknowledged the role that private parties, when provided sufficient incentives by government, can play in bringing terrorists to justice. Now is the time for Congress to ensure President Bush can take advantage of every effective and constitutional means of fighting the war on terrorism. This is why I have introduced the Air Piracy Reprisal and Capture Act of 2001 (HR 3074) and the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001 (HR 3076). The Air Piracy Reprisal and Capture Act of 2001 updates the federal definition of “piracy” to include acts committed in the skies. The September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001 provides Congressional authorization for the President to issue letters of marque and reprisal to appropriate parties to seize the person and property of Osama bin Laden and any other individuals responsible for the terrorist attacks of September 11. I encourage my colleagues to read Professor Sechrest’s article on the effectiveness of privateers, and to help ensure President Bush can take advantage of every available tool to capture and punish terrorists by cosponsoring my Air Piracy Reprisal and Capture Act and the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act.

The Fed
Statement Opposing Unconstitutional “Trade Promotion Authority”
December 6, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 103:1
Mr. Speaker, we are asked today to grant the President so-called trade promotion authority, authority that has nothing to do with free trade. Proponents of this legislation claim to support free trade, but really they support government-managed trade that serves certain interests at the expense of others. True free trade occurs only in the absence of interference by government, that’s why it’s called “free”- it’s free of government taxes, quotas, or embargoes. The term ”free-trade agreement“ is an oxymoron. We don’t need government agreements to have free trade; but we do need to get the federal government out of the way and unleash the tremendous energy of the American economy.

The Fed
Too Many Federal Cops
6 December 2001    2001 Ron Paul 104:12
It’s time for the executive and Congress to take a hard look at the police personnel amassing at the federal level and the extent to which we are concentrating them under any one individual short of the president. Congress should turn its most skeptical laser on the concept of an Office of Homeland Security and on any requests to institutionalize its director beyond the status of a special assistant to the president. We have survived for more than 200 years without a ministry of the interior or national police force, and we can effectively battle terrorism without creating one now.

The Fed
H.R. 3054
16 December 2001    2001 Ron Paul 106:3
Instead of abusing the taxing and spending power, I urge my colleagues to undertake to raise the money for these medals among ourselves. I would gladly donate to a Congressional Gold Medal fund whose proceeds would be used to purchase and award gold medals to those selected by Congress for this honor. Congress should also reduce the federal tax burdened on the families of those who lost their lives helping their fellow citizens on September 11. Mr. Speaker, reducing the tax burden on these Americans would be a real sacrifice for many in Washington since any reduction in taxes represents a loss of real and potential power for the federal government.

The Fed
The Case For Defending America
24 January 2002    2002 Ron Paul 1:11
One of the key responsibilities of the Federal Government in providing for national defense is protection of liberty here at home. Unwisely responding to the attacks could undermine our national defense while threatening our liberties.

The Fed
The Case For Defending America
24 January 2002    2002 Ron Paul 1:14
It has been reported that since the 9– 11 attacks, Big Government answers have gained in popularity and people fearful for their security have looked to the Federal Government for help. Polls indicate that acceptance of government solutions to our problems is at the highest level in decades. This may be true to some degree, or it may merely reflect the sentiments of the moment or even the way the questions were asked. Only time will tell. Since the welfare state is no more viable in the long run than a communist or fascist state, most Americans will eventually realize the fallacy of depending on the government for economic security and know that personal liberty should not be sacrificed out of fear.

The Fed
The Case For Defending America
24 January 2002    2002 Ron Paul 1:24
Giving up our civil liberties has made us feel even less safe from our own government’s intrusion in our lives. The two seem to be in conflict. How can we be safer from outside threats while making ourselves more exposed to our own government’s threat to our liberty? The most significant and dangerous result of last year’s attacks has been the bold expansion of the Federal police state in our enhanced international role as the world’s policeman. Although most of the legislation pushing the enhanced domestic and international role for our government passed by huge majorities, I am convinced that the people’s support for much of it is less enthusiastic than Washington politicians believe.

The Fed
Resolution Violates Spirit Of Establishment Clause
29 January 2002    2002 Ron Paul 2:6
Allowing Congress to single out certain religions for honors not only insults those citizens whose faith is not recognized by Congress, it also threatens the religious liberty of those honored by Congress. This is because when the federal government begins evaluating religious institutions, some religious institutions may be tempted to modify certain of their teachings in order to curry favor with political leaders. I will concede that religious institutions may not water down their faith in order to secure passage of “Sense of Congress resolutions,” however, the belief that it is proper to judge religious institutions by how effectively they fulfill secular objectives is at the root of the proposals to entangle the federal government with state-approved religions by providing taxpayer dollars to religious organizations in order to perform various social services. Providing taxpayer money to churches creates the very real risk that a church may, for example, feel the need to downplay its teaching against abortion or euthanasia in order to maintain favor with a future pro-abortion administration and thus not lose its federal funding.

The Fed
Statement before the House Capital Markets Subcommittee
Monday, February 4, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 3:3
In truth, investing carries risk, and it is not the role of the federal government to bail out every investor who loses money. In a true free market, investors are responsible for their own decisions, good or bad. This responsibility leads them to vigorously analyze companies before they invest, using independent financial analysts. In our heavily regulated economy, however, investors and analysts equate SEC compliance with reputability. The more we look to the government to protect us from investment mistakes, the less competition there is for truly independent evaluations of investment risk.

The Fed
Statement before the House Capital Markets Subcommittee
Monday, February 4, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 3:4
The SEC, like all government agencies, is not immune from political influence or conflicts of interest. In fact, the new SEC chief used to represent the very accounting companies now under SEC scrutiny. If anything, the Enron failure should teach us to place less trust in the SEC. Yet many in Congress and the media characterize Enron’s bankruptcy as an example of unbridled capitalism gone wrong. Few in Congress seem to understand how the Federal Reserve system artificially inflates stock prices and causes financial bubbles. Yet what other explanation can there be when a company goes from a market value of more than $75 billion to virtually nothing in just a few months? The obvious truth is that Enron was never really worth anything near $75 billion, but the media focuses only on the possibility of deceptive practices by management, ignoring the primary cause of stock overvaluation: Fed expansion of money and credit.

The Fed
Statement before the House Capital Markets Subcommittee
Monday, February 4, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 3:5
The Fed consistently increased the money supply (by printing dollars) throughout the 1990s, while simultaneously lowering interest rates. When dollars are plentiful, and interest rates are artificially low, the cost of borrowing becomes cheap. This is why so many Americans are more deeply in debt than ever before. This easy credit environment made it possible for Enron to secure hundreds of millions in uncollateralized loans, loans that now cannot be repaid. The cost of borrowing money, like the cost of everything else, should be established by the free market- not by government edict. Unfortunately, however, the trend toward overvaluation will continue until the Fed stops creating money out of thin air and stops keeping interest rates artificially low. Until then, every investor should understand how Fed manipulations affect the true value of any company and the level of the markets.

The Fed
Statement before the House Capital Markets Subcommittee
Monday, February 4, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 3:6
Therefore, if Congress wishes to avoid future bankruptcies like Enron, the best thing it can do is repeal existing regulations which give investors a false sense of security and reform the country’s monetary policy to end the Fed-generated boom-and-bust cycle. Congress should also repeal those programs which provide taxpayer subsidies to large, politically-powerful corporations such as Enron.

The Fed
Statement before the House Capital Markets Subcommittee
Monday, February 4, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 3:9
Enron similarly benefited from another federal boondoggle, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. OPIC operates much like the Ex-Im Bank, providing taxpayer-funded loan guarantees for overseas projects, often in countries with shaky governments and economies. An OPIC spokesman claims the organization paid more than one billion dollars for 12 projects involving Enron, dollars that now may never be repaid. Once again, corporate welfare benefits certain interests at the expense of taxpayers. The point is that Enron was intimately involved with the federal government. While most of my colleagues are busy devising ways to “save” investors with more government, we should be viewing the Enron mess as an argument for less government. It is precisely because government is so big and so thoroughly involved in every aspect of business that Enron felt the need to seek influence through campaign money. It is precisely because corporate welfare is so extensive that Enron cozied up to DC-based politicians of both parties. It’s a game every big corporation plays in our heavily regulated economy, because they must when the government, rather than the marketplace, distributes the spoils.

The Fed
Statement on the Argentine crisis
February 6 2002    2002 Ron Paul 4:3
In fact, Mr. Chairman, Argentina does not represent an exception to the laws of economics. Rather, Argentina’s economic collapse is but one more example of the folly of government intervention in the economy done to benefit powerful special interests at the expense of the Argentine people and the American taxpayer. The primary means by which the federal government forces American taxpayers to underwrite the destruction of the Argentine economy is the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which enjoys a $37 billion line of credit provided with U.S. Treasury funds.

The Fed
Statement on the Argentine crisis
February 6 2002    2002 Ron Paul 4:9
In addition, Mr. Chairman, the IMF violates basic constitutional and moral principles. The federal government has no constitutional authority to fund international institutions such as the IMF, and it is simply immoral to take money form hard-working Americas to support the economic schemes of politically-powerful special interests and third-world dictators.

The Fed
Stimulating The Economy
February 7, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 5:4
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 an unprecedented 11 times, dropping the Fed funds rate from 6 1/2 % 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 can’t possibly, at the same time, be the solution.

The Fed
Stimulating The Economy
February 7, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 5:5
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 slowdown will not abort quickly.

The Fed
Stimulating The Economy
February 7, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 5:9
In recessions, to remain solvent, consumers ought to tighten their belts, pay off debt, and save. In a free market, this would lower market 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 problems on the horizon. Interest rates, instead of rising, are pushed dramatically downward by the Federal Reserve, creating massive amounts of new credit.

The Fed
Stimulating The Economy
February 7, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 5:12
The Fed can’t control these rates, and they can’t 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 congressional spending is foolhardy and dangerous. This policy has led to a record default for U.S. corporate bonds. Worldwide, $110 billion of bonds were defaulted on last year.

The Fed
Stimulating The Economy
February 7, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 5:14
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 eventually come- the liquidation of bad debt, and the reduction of overcapacity. This is something Japan has not accomplished in 12 years of interest rates around 1%. The market must be left to eliminate the misdirected investments and allow the sound investments to survive.

The Fed
Stimulating The Economy
February 7, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 5:16
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. Welfarism and our expanding growing foreign commitments, financed seductively through credit creation by the Fed, are not viable options.

The Fed
Stimulating The Economy
February 7, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 5:23
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 in our personal freedoms. 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.

The Fed
Stimulating The Economy
February 7, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 5:41
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.

The Fed
Stimulating The Economy
February 7, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 5:49
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 won’t 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 tragically doesn’t work.

The Fed
Stimulating The Economy
February 7, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 5:65
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 the new regulations cannot help the recovery. When one adds up the domestic costs, the military costs and the costs of new regulations, we can be certain that deficits are going to grow significantly, and the Federal Reserve will be further pressured to pursue a dangerous monetary 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.

The Fed
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 7:5
This legislation thus represents an attempt by Congress to fix a problem created by excessive government intervention in the economy with another infringement on the people’s constitutional liberties. The real problem is not that government lacks power to control campaign financing, but that the federal government has excessive power over our economy and lives.

The Fed
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 7:16
I urge my colleagues to listen to Professor Titus and reject this unconstitutional proposal. Instead, I hope my colleagues will work to reduce special interest influence in Washington and restore integrity to politics by reducing the federal government to its constitutional limits. I would like to take this opportunity to introduce the excellent article by Mr. Titus into the record:

The Fed
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 7:28
II.Congress Has No Constitutional Authority to Pass Any Campaign-Finance Reform Legislation According to Article I, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, Congress is a legislature of enumerated powers, having only those “powers herein granted.” As a legislature of enumerated powers, Congress may enact laws only for constitutionally authorized purposes. ( McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S., 4 Wheat. 316, 1819) (“Let the end be legitimate, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end which are not prohibited, are constitutional.”) The stated purpose of all campaign-finance reform legislation, like the Federal Election Campaign Act that it amends, is to “reform the financing of campaigns for election to Federal office,” thereby preventing the “corruption and the appearance of corruption” in government and “equaliz[ing] the relative ability of all citizens to affect the outcomes of elections.” ( Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 25-26, 1976) Congress has been granted no such power.

The Fed
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 7:30
The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended in 1974, presumed that the Constitution authorized Congress to regulate federal election campaigns for the purposes of “the prevention of corruption and the appearance of corruption” in government and of the equalization of “the relative ability of all citizens to affect the outcome of elections.” ( Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 25-26, 1976) According to the proponents of campaign-finance reform, both then and now, Congress has power to regulate federal election campaigns because it has the general power “to regulate federal elections....” ( Id., 424 U.S. at 13-14) A careful examination of the Constitution, as it is written, uncovers no such broad power, but only a carefully circumscribed one.

The Fed
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 7:41
III. Campaign-Finance Reform Violates Separation of Powers and Federalism Under the Constitution, Congress has no role in the manner by which the president and vice president are selected. In order to ensure the independence of the president from Congress, the electors of the president and vice president are state officers, governed exclusively by the Constitution and by state law. (See Bush v. Gore , supra.) All current campaign-finance measures, such as the Federal Campaign Act of 1971, as amended in 1974, subvert these separation of powers and federalism principles by imposing a national uniform rule governing the conduct of election campaigns for president and vice-president. They also undermine the federalism principle underpinning the limited role of Congress in the governance of elections of representatives and senators.

The Fed
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 7:43
This detailed scheme limiting the role of Congress in the manner of electing the president and the vice president of the United States was deliberately chosen by America’s founders to insulate the federal executive branch from the legislative branch in order to ensure independence of the former from the latter. As Alexander Hamilton put it in Federalist No. 68, the Constitution entrusts the selection of the president and vice president not to “any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose....” The electoral college was designed, therefore, as a buffer between the people and Congress to guard against the risk of corruption of the presidency by congressional participation in the election process.

The Fed
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 7:44
Thus, the electoral college system was designed to prevent corruption and the appearance of corruption of the offices of the president and the vice president. That system was set up in such a way as to deny to Congress any authority over the manner of selecting those two officers, leaving the selection process to be exclusively and absolutely determined by the legislatures of the several states. This delegation to the several state legislatures necessarily precludes Congress from imposing any uniform rule governing the election of the president and the vice president. (See McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 1892.) By continuing the regulation of presidential election campaigns as provided for in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended in 1974, and by adding new regulations that extend to candidates for the presidency and vice presidency, all current campaign-finance reform measures subvert the constitutionally prescribed decentralized manner by which the president and vice president of the United States are selected.

The Fed
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 7:45
By design and effect, such measures perpetuate the current regulations governing the selection of presidential and vice presidential electors who are, according to the Constitution, state officers, and not federal ones. ( In re Green, 134 U.S. 377, 1890) (“Although the electors are appointed and act under and pursuant to the Constitution of the United States, they are no more officers or agents of the United States than are... the people of the States when acting as electors of representatives in Congress.”); Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214, 224-25 (1952) (“The presidential electors exercise a federal function in balloting for President and Vice-President but they are not federal officers or agents any more than the state elector who votes for congressmen.”) Thus, all current campaign-finance reform bills violate the principles of separation of powers and federalism protecting the independence of the federal executive branch.

The Fed
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 7:50
In Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 27-28 (1976), the Supreme Court recognized that the contribution and other limitations imposed by the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 could not be justified on the grounds that they prevented only “the most blatant and specific attempts of those with money to influence governmental action.” Rather, the court found, that such limitations served a much broader purpose, namely, the prevention of “the appearance of corruption” to the end that “confidence in the system of representative government is not to be eroded....” ( Id., 424 U.S. at 27)

The Fed
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 7:58
Such intrusions into the campaign process put the government into the role of editor of campaign literature, a role that is absolutely forbidden to the government by the freedom of the press. ( Miami Herald Tribune v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241, 258, 1974) Indeed, if the Supreme Court would apply the same principle to election-campaign literature that it has applied to election editorials and stories carried by newspapers, all campaign-finance reform legislation would be clearly unconstitutional. Not only do all campaign-finance reform measures transfer editorial control over an election campaign from the people to the government, but they also continue the unconstitutional licensing system of the Federal Election Commission established by the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. In order to engage in a campaign for federal office, a candidate must register and report to the commission. Anyone who does not meet the commission’s registration and reporting rules is denied the right to participate and is subject not only to civil and criminal penalties, but to an injunction. Such a regulatory scheme strikes at the very heart of the freedom of the press which, as Sir William Blackstone wrote in 1769:

The Fed
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 7:62
Since Watergate, Congress has been scrambling to “purify” the political process in order to restore public confidence in the federal government. Campaign-finance reform has been one of the centerpieces of this purification effort. Two central goals have dominated this reform effort: (1) to limit the amounts that any one person or entity may contribute to an election campaign; (2) to force disclosure of the identity of those contributors. Both of these aims violate the First Amendment right of the people to assemble.

The Fed
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 7:64
Had the Supreme Court applied this principle consistently in its review of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, it would have held that the individual contribution limits of that act violated the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of association. As Justice Thomas has pointed out: “If an individual is limited in the amount of resources he can contribute to...a pool, he is certainly limited in his ability to associate for the purposes of effective advocacy.” ( Id., 135 L.Ed.2d at 819) Instead, the court has attempted to distinguish between “issue advocacy” - where the right of the people to associate must remain unfettered - and “express advocacy” for or against individual candidates - where the right of the people to associate may be limited.

The Fed
Introduction of the Monetary Freedom and Accountability Act
February 13, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 8:4
While the Treasury denies it is dealing in gold, the Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee (GATA) has uncovered evidence suggesting that the Federal Reserve and the Treasury, operating through the Exchange-Stabilization Fund and in cooperation with major banks and the International Monetary Fund, have been interfering in the gold market with the goal of lowering the price of gold. The purpose of this policy has been to disguise the true effects of the monetary bubble responsible for the artificial prosperity of the 1990s, and to protect the politically-powerful banks that are heavy invested in gold derivatives. GATA believes federal actions to drive down the price of gold help protect the profits of these banks at the expense of investors, consumers, and taxpayers around the world.

The Fed
Introduction of the Monetary Freedom and Accountability Act
February 13, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 8:5
GATA has also produced evidence that American officials are involved in gold transactions. Alan Greenspan himself referred to the federal government’s power to manipulate the price of gold at hearings before the House Banking Committee and the Senate Agricultural Committee in July, 1998: “Nor can private counterparts restrict supplies of gold, another commodity whose derivatives are often traded over-the-counter, where central banks stand ready to lease gold in increasing quantities should the price rise .” [Emphasis added].

The Fed
Introduction of the Monetary Freedom and Accountability Act
February 13, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 8:7
Mr. Speaker, while I certainly share GATA’s concerns over the effects of federal dealings in the gold market, my bill in no way interferes with the ability of the federal government to buy or sell gold. It simply requires that before the executive branch engages in such transactions, Congress has the chance to review it, debate it, and approve it.

The Fed
Introduction of the Monetary Freedom and Accountability Act
February 13, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 8:10
Obfuscation, secrecy, and accounting tricks appear to have catapulted the Houston-based trader of oil and gas to the top of the Fortune 100, only to be brought down by the same corporate chicanery. Meanwhile, Wall Street analysts and the federal government’s top bean counters struggle to convince the nation that the Enron crash is an isolated case, not in the least reflective of how business is done in corporate America.

The Fed
Introduction of the Monetary Freedom and Accountability Act
February 13, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 8:18
Bill Murphy, chairman of the Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee, a nonprofit organization that researches and studies what he calls the “gold cartel” (J.P. Morgan Chase, Deutsche Bank, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Bank for International Settlements (BIS), the U.S. Treasury, and the Federal Reserve), and owner of www.LeMetropoleCafe.com, tells Insight that “Morgan Chase and other bullion banks are another Enron waiting to happen.” Murphy says, “Enron occurred because the nature of their business was obscured, there was no oversight and someone was cooking the books. Enron was deceiving everyone about their business operations C and the same thing is happening with the gold and bullion banks.”

The Fed
Introduction of the Monetary Freedom and Accountability Act
February 13, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 8:20
In December 2000, attorney Reginald H. Howe, a private investor and proprietor of the Website www.goldensextant.com, which reports on gold, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Boston. Named as defendants were J.P. Morgan & Co., Chase Manhattan Corp., Citigroup Inc., Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Deutsche Bank, Lawrence Summers (former secretary of the Treasury), William McDonough (president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York), Alan Greenspan (chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System), and the BIS.

The Fed
Introduction of the Monetary Freedom and Accountability Act
February 13, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 8:26
Whether the Fed and others in the alleged “gold cartel” have conspired to suppress the price of gold may, in the end, be secondary to the growing need for financial transparency. Wall Street insiders agree that as long as regulators, analysts, accountants, and politicians can be lobbied and “corrupted” to permit special privileges, there will be more Enron-size failures.

The Fed
Statement on Ending US Membership in the IMF
February 27, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 10:7
In addition, the IMF violates basic constitutional and moral principles. The federal government has no constitutional authority to fund international institutions such as the IMF. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, it is simply immoral to take money from hard-working Americans to support the economic schemes of politically-powerful special interests and third-world dictators.

The Fed
Health Information Independence Act of 2002
February 27, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 11:4
The procedures established by the Health Information Independence Act are a fair and balanced way to ensure consumers have access to truthful information about dietary supplements. Over the past decade, the American people have made it clear they do not want the federal government to interfere with their access to dietary supplements, yet the FDA continues to engage in heavy-handed attempts to restrict access to dietary supplements.

The Fed
Statement on the Financial Services committee’s “Views and Estimates for Fiscal Year 2003”
February 28, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 12:2
For example, this document gives an unqualified endorsement to increased taxpayer support for the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FINCEN). According to the committee, these increased funds are justified by FINCEN’s new authority under the PATRIOT Act. However, Mr. Chairman, FINCEN’s powers to snoop into the private financial affairs of American citizens raise serious constitutional issues. Whether the expansion of FINCEN’s power threatens civil liberties is ignored in this document; instead, the report claims the only problem with the PATRIOT Act is that the federal financial police state does not have enough power and taxpayer money to invade the privacy of United States citizens!

The Fed
Statement on the Financial Services committee’s “Views and Estimates for Fiscal Year 2003”
February 28, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 12:4
Finally, the committee’s views support expanding the domestic welfare state, particularly in the area of housing. This despite the fact that federal housing subsidies distort the housing market by taking capital that could be better used elsewhere, and applying it to housing at the direction of politicians and bureaucrats. Housing subsidies also violate the constitutional prohibitions against redistributionism. The federal government has no constitutional authority to abuse its taxing power to fund programs that reshape the housing market to the liking of politicians and bureaucrats.

The Fed
Statement on the Financial Services committee’s “Views and Estimates for Fiscal Year 2003”
February 28, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 12:5
Rather than embracing an agenda of expanded statism, I hope my colleagues will work to reduce government interference in the market that only benefits the politically powerful. For example, the committee could take a major step toward ending corporate welfare by holding hearings and a mark-up on my legislation to withdrawal the United States from the Bretton Woods Agreement and end taxpayer support for the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The Financial Services committee can also take a step toward restoring Congress’ constitutional role in monetary policy by acting on my Monetary Freedom and Accountability Act (HR 3732), which requires Congressional approval before the federal government buys or sells gold.

The Fed
Statement on the Financial Services committee’s “Views and Estimates for Fiscal Year 2003”
February 28, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 12:7
In conclusion, the “Views and Estimates” presented by the Financial Services committee endorses increasing the power of the federal police state, as well as increasing both international and corporate welfare, while ignoring the economic problems created by federal intervention into the economy. I therefore urge my colleagues to reject this document and instead embrace an agenda of ending federal corporate welfare, protecting financial privacy, and reforming the fiat money system which is the root cause of America’s economic instability.

The Fed
Export-Import Reauthorization Act
19 March 2002    2002 Ron Paul 17:9
There is simply no constitutional justification for the expenditure of funds on programs such as Eximbank. In fact, the drafters of the Constitution would be horrified to think the federal government was taking hard-earned money from the American people in order to benefit the politically powerful.

The Fed
Statement Opposing Military Conscription
March 20, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 20:5
Instead of reinstating a military draft, Congress should make military service attractive by finally living up to its responsibility to provide good benefits and pay to members of the armed forces and our nation’s veterans. It is an outrage that American military personnel and veterans are given a lower priority in the federal budget than spending to benefit politically powerful special interests. Until this is changed, we will never have a military which reflects our nation’s highest ideals.

The Fed
H.R. 476
17 April 2002    2002 Ron Paul 23:3
Our federal government is, constitutionally, a government of limited powers, Article one, Section eight, enumerates the legislative area for which the U.S. Congress is allowed to act or enact legislation. For every other issues, the federal government lacks any authority or consent of the governed and only the state governments, their designees, or the people in their private market actions enjoy such rights to governance. The tenth amendment is brutally clear in stating “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Our nation’s history makes clear that the U.S. Constitution is a document intended to limit the power of central government. No serious reading of historical events surrounding the creation of the Constitution could reasonably portray it differently.

The Fed
H.R. 476
17 April 2002    2002 Ron Paul 23:4
Nevertheless, rather than abide by our constitutional limits, Congress today will likely pass H.R. 476. H.R. 476 amends title 18, Untied States Code, to prohibit taking minors across State line to avoid laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions. Should parents be involved in decisions regarding the health of their children? Absolutely. Should the law respect parents rights to not have their children taken across state lines for contemptible purposes? Absolutely. Can a state pass an enforceable statute to prohibit taking minors across State lines to avoid laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions? Absolutely. But when asked if there exists constitutional authority for the federal criminalizing of just such an action the answer is absolutely not.

The Fed
H.R. 476
17 April 2002    2002 Ron Paul 23:5
This federalizing may have the effect of nationalizing a law with criminal penalties which may be less than those desired by some states. To the extent the federal and state laws could co-exist, the necessity for a federal law is undermined and an important bill of rights protection is virtually obliterated. Concurrent jurisdiction crimes erode the right of citizens to be free of double jeopardy. The fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifies that no “person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . .” In other words, no person shall be tried twice for the same offense. However, in United States v. Lanza, the high court in 1922 sustained a ruling that being tried by both the federal government and a state government for the same offense did not offend the doctrine of double jeopardy. One danger of the unconstitutionally expanding the federal criminal justice code is that it seriously increases the danger that one will be subject to being tried twice for the same offense. Despite the various pleas for federal correction of societal wrongs, a national police force is neither prudent nor constitutional.

The Fed
H.R. 476
17 April 2002    2002 Ron Paul 23:7
The argument which springs from the criticism of a federalized criminal code and a federal police force is that states may be less effective than a centralized federal government in dealing with those who leave one state jurisdiction for another. Fortunately, the Constitution provides for the procedural means for preserving the integrity of state sovereignty over those issues delegated to it via the tenth amendment. The privilege and immunities clause as well as full faith and credit clause allow states to exact judgments from those who violate their state laws. The Constitution even allows the federal government to legislatively preserve the procedural mechanisms which allow states to enforce their substantive laws without the federal government imposing its substantive edicts on the states. Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2 makes provision for the rendition of fugitives from one state to another. While not self-enacting, in 1783 Congress passed an act which did exactly this. There is, of course, a cost imposed upon states in working with one another rather than relying on a national, unified police force. At the same time, there is a greater cost to state autonomy and individual liberty from centralization of police power.

The Fed
H.R. 476
17 April 2002    2002 Ron Paul 23:9
It is my erstwhile hope that parents will become more involved in vigilantly monitoring the activities of their own children rather than shifting parental responsibility further upon the federal government. There was a time when a popular bumper sticker read “It’s ten o’clock; do you know where your children are?” I suppose we have devolved to the point where it reads “It’s ten o’clock; does the federal government know where your children are.” Further socializing and burden-shifting of the responsibilities of parenthood upon the federal government is simply not creating the proper incentive for parents to be more involved.

The Fed
Corporate and Auditing Accountability, Responsibility, And Transparency Act of 2002 (CARTA)
24 April 2002    2002 Ron Paul 24:7
In truth, investing carries risk, and it is not the role of the Federal Government to bail our every investor who loses money. In a true free market, investors are responsible for their own decisions, good or bad. This responsibility leads them to vigorously analyze companies before they invest, using independent financial analysts. In our heavily regulated environment, however, investors and analysts equate SEC compliance with reputability. The more we look to the government to protect us from investment mistakes, the less competition there if for truly independent evaluations of investment risk.

The Fed
Corporate and Auditing Accountability, Responsibility, And Transparency Act of 2002 (CARTA)
24 April 2002    2002 Ron Paul 24:9
Unfortunately, the Federal Government has a history of crippling market mechanisms to protect shareholders. As former Treasury official Bruce Bartlett pointed out in a recent Washington Times column, during the 1980s, so-called corporate raiders helped keep corporate management accountable to shareholders through devices such as the “junk” bond, which made corporate takeovers easier. Thanks to the corporate raiders, managers knew they had to be responsive to shareholders needs or they would become a potential target for a takeover.

The Fed
Corporate and Auditing Accountability, Responsibility, And Transparency Act of 2002 (CARTA)
24 April 2002    2002 Ron Paul 24:10
Unfortunately, the backlash against corporate raiders, led by demographic politicians and power-hungry bureaucrats eager to expand the financial police state, put an end to hostile takeovers. Bruce Bartlett, in the Washington Times column sited above, described the effects of this action on shareholders, “Without the threat of a takeover, manaagers have been able to go back to ignoring shareholders, treating them like a nuisance, and giving themselves bloated salaries and perks, with little oversight from corporate boards. Now insulated from shareholders once again, managers could engage in unsound practices with little fear of punishment for failure.” Ironically, the Federal power grab which killed the corporate raider may have set the stage for the Enron debacle, which is now being used as an excuse for yet another Federal power grab!

The Fed
Corporate and Auditing Accountability, Responsibility, And Transparency Act of 2002 (CARTA)
24 April 2002    2002 Ron Paul 24:14
Congress should also examine the role the Federal Reserve played in the Enron situation. Few in Congress seem to understand how the Federal Reserve system artificially inflates stock prices and causes financial bubbles. Yet, what other explanation can there be when a company goes from a market value of more than $75 billion to virtually nothing in just a few months? The obvious truth is that Enron was never really worth anything near $75 billion, but the media focuses only on the possibility of deceptive practices by management, ignoring the primary cause of stock overvaluations: Fed expansion of money and credit.

The Fed
Corporate and Auditing Accountability, Responsibility, And Transparency Act of 2002 (CARTA)
24 April 2002    2002 Ron Paul 24:15
The Fed consistently increased the money supply (by printing dollars) throughout the 1990s, while simultaneously lowering interest rates. When dollars are plentiful, and interest rates are artificially low, the cost of borrowing becomes cheap. This is why so many Americans are more deeply in debt than ever before. This easy credit environment made it possible for Enron to secure hundreds of millions in uncollateralized loans, loans that now cannot be repaid. The cost of borrowing money, like the cost of everything else, should be established by the free market — not by government edict. Unfortunately, however, the trend toward overvaluation will continue until the Fed stops creating money out of thin air and stops keeping interest rates artificially low.

The Fed
Predictions
24 April 2002    2002 Ron Paul 25:20
The Congress and the President will shift radically toward expanding the size and scope of the Federal Government. This will satisfy both the liberals and the conservatives.

The Fed
Statement Opposing Export-Import Bank Subsidies
May 1, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 30:5
Mr. Chairman, there is a market allocation of credit and there is credit allocation by politicians, and that is what we are talking about here. We have credit allocation, and we have mal-investment and over capacity which causes the conditions to exist for the recession. Of course, a lot of this comes from what the Federal Reserve does in artificially lowering interest rates; but this is a compounding problem when government gets in and allocates credit at lower rates. It causes more distortions. This is why allocations to companies like Enron contributes to the bubble that ends up in a major correction.

The Fed
Statement Opposing Export-Import Bank Corporate Welfare
May 1, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 31:10
At a time when the Federal budget is going back into deficit and Congress is once again preparing to raid the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, does it really make sense to use taxpayer funds to benefit future Enrons, Fortune 500 companies, and communist China?

The Fed
Statement Opposing Export-Import Bank Corporate Welfare
May 1, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 31:14
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind my colleagues that there is simply no constitutional justification for the expenditure of funds on programs such as Eximbank. In fact, the drafters of the Constitution would be horrified to think the Federal Government was taking hard-earned money from the American people in order to benefit the politically powerful.

The Fed
Stop Perpetuating the Welfare State
May 16, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 42:5
As Governor Ventura points out in reference to this proposal’s effects on Minnesota’s welfare-to-welfare work program, “We know what we are doing in Minnesota works. We have evidence. And our way of doing things has broad support in the state. Why should we be forced by the federal government to put our system at risk?” Why indeed, Mr. Speaker, should any state be forced to abandon its individual welfare programs because a group of self-appointed experts in Congress, the federal bureaucracy, and inside-the-beltway think tanks have decided there is only one correct way to transition people from welfare to work?

The Fed
Stop Perpetuating the Welfare State
May 16, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 42:6
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4737 further expands the reach of the federal government by authorizing $100 million dollars for new “marriage promotion” programs. I certainly recognize how the welfare state has contributed to the decline of the institution of marriage. As an ob-gyn with over 30 years of private practice. I know better than most the importance of stable, two parent families to a healthy society. However, I am skeptical, to say the least, of claims that government education programs can fix the deep-rooted cultural problems responsible for the decline of the American family.

The Fed
Stop Perpetuating the Welfare State
May 16, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 42:7
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, federal promotion of marriage opens the door for a level of social engineering that should worry all those concerned with preserving a free society. The federal government has no constitutional authority to promote any particular social arrangement; instead, the founders recognized that people are better off when they form their own social arrangements free from federal interference. The history of the failed experiments with welfarism and socialism shows that government can only destroy a culture; when a government tries to build a culture, it only further erodes the people’s liberty.

The Fed
Stop Perpetuating the Welfare State
May 16, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 42:9
As with all proponents of welfare programs, the supporters of H.R. 4737 show a remarkable lack of trust in the American people. They would have us believe that without the federal government, the lives of the poor would be "nasty, brutish and short." However, as scholar Sheldon Richman of the Future of Freedom Foundation and others have shown, voluntary charities and organizations, such as friendly societies that devoted themselves to helping those in need, flourished in the days before the welfare state turned charity into a government function.

The Fed
Stop Perpetuating the Welfare State
May 16, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 42:11
Releasing the charitable impulses of the American people by freeing them from the excessive tax burden so they can devote more of their resources to charity, is a moral and constitutional means of helping the needy. By contrast, the federal welfare state is neither moral or constitutional. Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to level excessive taxes on one group of citizens for the benefit of another group of citizens. Many of the founders would have been horrified to see modern politicians define compassion as giving away other people’s money stolen through confiscatory taxation. In the words of the famous essay by former Congressman Davy Crockett, this money is “Not Yours to Give.”

The Fed
Stop Perpetuating the Welfare State
May 16, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 42:14
Welfare: Not the Fed’s Job (By Jesse Ventura) In 1996, the federal government ended 60 years of failed welfare policy that trapped families in dependency rather than helping them to self-sufficiency. The 1996 law scrapped the federally centralized welfare system in favor of broad flexibility so states could come up with their own welfare programs. It was a move that had bipartisan support, was smart public policy and worked.

The Fed
Stop Perpetuating the Welfare State
May 16, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 42:20
Thompson would want us to do it: by putting people to work. But here’s the rub- it matters how families on welfare get to work. In Minnesota, we work with each family one on one and use a broad range of services to make sure the family breadwinner gets and keeps a decent job. For some families it might take a little longer that what the president is comfortable with, but the results are overwhelmingly positive. A three-year follow-up of Minnesota families on welfare found that more than three-quarters have left welfare or gone to work. Families that have left welfare for work earn more than $9 an hour, higher than comparable figures in other states. The federal government has twice cited Minnesota as a leader among the states in job retention and advancement.

The Fed
Stop Perpetuating the Welfare State
May 16, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 42:22
The administration’s proposal would have Minnesota set all this aside and focus instead on make-work activities. In Minnesota we believe that success in welfare reform is about helping families progress to a self-sufficiency that will last. While it may be politically appealing to demand that all welfare recipients have shovels in their hands, it makes sense to me that the states — and not the feds — are in the best position to make those decisions.

The Fed
Stop Perpetuating the Welfare State
May 16, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 42:23
We know what we are doing in Minnesota works. We have evidence. And our way of doing things has broad support in the state. Why should we be forced by the federal government to put our system at risk?

The Fed
Stop Perpetuating the Welfare State
May 16, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 42:24
I believe in accountable and responsive government, and have no problem with the federal government holding states accountable for results in welfare reform. But I also believe that in this case the people closest to the problem should be trusted to solve the problem and be left alone if they have.

The Fed
Statement on New Internet Regulations and Expanded Federal Wiretap Powers
May 21, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 44:2
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the federal government is singularly unqualified to act as the arbiter of what material is inappropriate for children. Instead, this is a decision that should be made by parents. Most of the problems pointed to by proponents of increased government control of the internet are the result of a lack of parental, not governmental, control of children’s computer habits. Expanding the government’s control over the internet may actually encourage parents to disregard their responsibility to monitor their child’s computer habits. After all, why should parents worry about what websites their children is viewing when the government has usurped this parental function?

The Fed
Statement on New Internet Regulations and Expanded Federal Wiretap Powers
May 21, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 44:5
I therefore hope my colleagues will respect the constitutional limitations on federal power. Instead of usurping powers not granted the federal government, Congress should allow state and local law enforcement, schools, local communities, and most of all responsible parents to devise the best measures to protect children.

The Fed
Stop Taxing Social Security Benefits!
May 22, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 46:1
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to commemorate Older Americans Month by introducing two pieces of legislation to reduce taxes on senior citizens. The first bill, the Social Security Beneficiary Tax Reduction Act, repeals the 1993 tax increase on Social Security benefits. Repealing this increase on Social Security benefits is a good first step toward reducing the burden imposed by the federal government on senior citizens. However, imposing any tax on Social Security benefits is unfair and illogical. This is why I am also introducing the Senior Citizens’ Tax Elimination Act, which repeals all taxes on Social Security benefits.

The Fed
Stop Taxing Social Security Benefits!
May 22, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 46:2
Since Social Security benefits are financed with tax dollars, taxing these benefits is yet another example 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 masks the true size of the federal deficit.

The Fed
Don’t Expand Federal Deposit Insurance
May 22, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 47:1
Mr. Speaker, HR 3717, the Federal Deposit Insurance Reform Act, expands the federal government’s unconstitutional control over the financial services industry and raises taxes on all financial institutions. Furthermore, this legislation could increase the possibility of future bank failures. Therefore, I must oppose this bill.

The Fed
Don’t Expand Federal Deposit Insurance
May 22, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 47:6
The presence of deposit insurance and government regulations removes incentives for individuals to act on their own to protect their deposits or even inquire as to the health of their financial institutions. After all, why should individuals be concerned with the health of their financial institutions when the federal government insures their deposits?

The Fed
Don’t Expand Federal Deposit Insurance
May 22, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 47:7
Finally, I would remind my colleagues that the federal deposit insurance program lacks constitutional authority. Congress’ only mandate in the area of money and banking is to maintain the value of the money. Unfortunately, Congress abdicated its responsibility over monetary policy with the passage of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, which allows the federal government to erode the value of the currency at the will of the central bank. Congress’ embrace of fiat money is directly responsible for the instability in the banking system that created the justification for deposit insurance.

The Fed
Oppose the "Supplemental" Spending Bill
May 24, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 50:1
Mr. Speaker, supporters of fiscal responsibility, a rational foreign policy, and constitutional government can find little, it anything, to support in the Supplemental Appropriations bill (HR 4775). HR 4775 enlarges the federal deficit, increases the size of the federal government, jeopardizes the Social Security trust fund, and, by removing resources from individuals and placing them under government control, depresses economic growth.

The Fed
AN OPEN LETTER TO TREASURY SECRETARY O’NEILL AND FEDERAL RESERVE CHAIRMAN ALAN GREENSPAN
May 31, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 51:2
(Congressman Ron Paul sent this letter to both the Treasury and the Federal Reserve Bank in April. Neither has responded)

The Fed
AN OPEN LETTER TO TREASURY SECRETARY O’NEILL AND FEDERAL RESERVE CHAIRMAN ALAN GREENSPAN
May 31, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 51:4
I would greatly appreciate an explanation from both the Treasury and the Federal Reserve of the reasons the United States has continued to acquiesce in this misguided policy. Please contact Mr. Norman Singleton, my legislative director, if you require any further information regarding this request. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

The Fed
Beware Dollar Weakness
June 5, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 52:9
Misplaced confidence in a currency can lead money managers and investors astray, but eventually the piper must be paid. Last year’s record interest rate drop by the Federal Reserve was like pouring gasoline on a fire. Now the policy of the past decade is being recognized as being weak for the dollar; and trust and confidence in it is justifiably being questioned.

The Fed
Beware Dollar Weakness
June 5, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 52:11
Now it is back to reality. This is serious business, and the correction that must come to adjust for the Federal Reserve’s mischief of the past 30 years has only begun. Congress must soon consider significant changes in our monetary system.

The Fed
Beware Dollar Weakness
June 5, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 52:12
Congress must soon consider significant changes in our monetary system if we hope to preserve a system of sound growth and wealth preservation. Paper money managed by the Federal Reserve System cannot accomplish this. In fact, it does the opposite.

The Fed
RESTORING FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTIONS OF RELIGION AND RELIGIOUS SPEECH
June 13, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 56:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation restoring First amendment protections of religion and religious speech. For fifty years, the personal religious freedom of this nation’s citizens has been infringed upon by courts that misread and distort the First amendment. The framers of the Constitution never in their worst nightmares imagined that the words, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech .....” would be used to ban children from praying in school, prohibit courthouses from displaying the Ten Commandments, or prevent citizens from praying before football games. The original meaning of the First amendment was clear on these two points: The federal government cannot enact laws establishing one religious denomination over another, and the federal government cannot forbid mention of religion, including the Ten Commandments and references to God.

The Fed
RESTORING FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTIONS OF RELIGION AND RELIGIOUS SPEECH
June 13, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 56:2
In case after case, the Supreme Court has used the infamous “separation of church and state” metaphor to uphold court decisions that allow the federal government to intrude upon and deprive citizens of their religious liberty. This "separation" doctrine is based upon a phrase taken out of context from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802. In the letter, Jefferson simply reassures the Baptists that the First amendment would preclude an intrusion by the federal government into religious matters between denominations. It is ironic and sad that a letter defending the principle that the federal government must stay out of religious affairs. should be used two hundred years later to justify the Supreme Court telling a child that he cannot pray in school!

The Fed
RESTORING FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTIONS OF RELIGION AND RELIGIOUS SPEECH
June 13, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 56:3
The Court completely disregards the original meaning and intent of the First amendment. It has interpreted the establishment clause to preclude prayer and other religious speech in a public place, thereby violating the free exercise clause of the very same First amendment. Therefore, it is incumbent upon Congress to correct this error, and to perform its duty to support and defend the Constitution. My legislation would restore First amendment protections of religion and speech by removing all religious freedom-related cases from federal district court jurisdiction, as well as from federal claims court jurisdiction. The federal government has no constitutional authority to reach its hands in the religious affairs of its citizens or of the several states.

The Fed
Lifetime Consequences For Sex Offenders Act
25 June 2002    2002 Ron Paul 58:2
However, Mr. Speaker, questions of the proper punishment for sexual crimes are not issues properly under federal jurisdiction. The Constitution grants the federal government jurisdiction over only three crimes: treason, counterfeiting, and piracy. It is hard to stretch the definition of treason, counterfeiting, or piracy to include sex crimes. Therefore, even though I agree with the policy behind H.R. 4679, I must remind my colleagues that the responsibility for investigating, prosecuting and punishing sex crimes is solely that of state and local governments.

The Fed
Child Obscenity And Pornography Prevention Act
25 June 2002    2002 Ron Paul 62:2
H.R. 4623 furthers one of the most disturbing trends in modern politics, the federalization of crimes. We have been reminded by both Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and former U.S. Attorney General Ed Meese that more federal crimes, while they make politicians feel good, are neither constitutionally sound nor prudent. Rehnquist has stated that “The trend to federalize crimes that traditionally have been handled in state courts . . . threatens to change entirely the nature of our federal system.” Meese stated that Congress’ tendency in recent decades to make federal crimes out of offenses that have historically been state matters has dangerous implications both for the fair administration of justice and for the principle that states are something more than mere administrative districts of a nation governed mainly from Washington.

The Fed
Child Obscenity And Pornography Prevention Act
25 June 2002    2002 Ron Paul 62:3
Legislation outlawing virtual pornography is, to say the least, of dubious constitutionality. The constitution grants the federal government jurisdiction over only three crimes: treason, counterfeiting, and piracy. It is hard to stretch the definition of treason, counterfeiting, or piracy to cover sending obscene or pornographic materials over the internet. Therefore, Congress should leave the issue of whether or not to regulate or outlaw virtual pornography to states and local governments.

The Fed
Child Obscenity And Pornography Prevention Act
25 June 2002    2002 Ron Paul 62:4
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I share my colleagues’ revulsion at child pornography, I do not believe that this justifies expanding the federal police state to outlaw distribution of pornographic images not containing actual children. I am further concerned by the possibility that passage of H.R. 4623 will divert law enforcement resources away from the prosecution of actual child pornography. H.R. 4623 also represents another step toward the nationalization of all police functions, a dangerous trend that will undermine both effective law enforcement an constitutional government. It is for these reasons that I must oppose this well-intentioned but fundamentally flawed bill.

The Fed
H.R. 4954
27 June 2002    2002 Ron Paul 63:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, while there is little debate about the need to update and modernize the Medicare system to allow seniors to use Medicare funds for prescription drugs, there is much debate about the proper means to achieve this end. However, much of that debate is phony, since neither H.R. 4954 or the alternative allow seniors the ability to control their own health care. Instead both plans give a large bureaucracy the power to determine what prescription drugs senior citizens can receive. The only difference is that alternative puts seniors under the control of the federal bureaucy, while H.R. 4954 gives this power to “private” health maintenance organizations and insurance companies.

The Fed
H.R. 4954
27 June 2002    2002 Ron Paul 63:2
I am pleased that the drafters of H.R. 4954 incorporate regulatory relief legislation, which I have supported in the past, into the bill. This will help relieve some of the tremendous regulatory burden imposed on health care providers by the Federal Government. I am also pleased that H.R. 4954 contains several good provisions addressing the Congressionally-created crisis in rural health and attempting to ensure that physicians are fairly reimbursed by the Medicare system.

The Fed
H.R. 4954
27 June 2002    2002 Ron Paul 63:3
However, Mr. Speaker, at the heart of this legislation is a fatally flawed plan that will fail to provide seniors access to the pharmaceuticals of their choice. H.R. 4954 requires seniors to enroll in a prescription benefit management company (PBM), which is the equivalent of an HMO. Under this plan, the PBM will have the authority to determine which pharmaceuticals are available to seniors. Thus, in order to get any help with their prescription drug costs, seniors have to relinquish their ability to choose the type of prescriptions that meet their own individual needs! The inevitable result of this process will be rationing, as PBM bureaucrats attempt to control costs by reducing the reimbursements paid to pharmacists to below-market levels (thus causing pharmacists to refuse to participate in PBM plans), and restricting the type of pharmacies seniors may use in the name of “cost effectiveness.” PBM bureaucrats may even go so far as to forbid seniors from using their own money to purchase Medicare-covered pharmaceuticals. I remind my colleagues that today the federal government prohibits seniors from using their own money to obtain health care services which differ from those “approved” of by the Medicare bureaucracy!

The Fed
H.R. 4954
27 June 2002    2002 Ron Paul 63:10
Medicare MSAs will also ensure senior access to a wide variety of health care services by minimizing the role of the federal bureaucracy. As many of my colleagues know, an increasing number of health care providers have withdrawn from the Medicare program because of the paperwork burden and constant interference with their practice by bureaucrats from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The MSA program frees seniors and providers from this burden, thus making it more likely that quality providers will remain in the Medicare program!

The Fed
H.R. 4954
27 June 2002    2002 Ron Paul 63:11
Mr. Speaker, seniors should not be treated like children by the federal government and told what health care services they can and cannot have. We in Congress have a duty to preserve and protect the Medicare trust fund. We must keep the promise to American’s seniors and working Americans, whose taxes finance Medicare, that they will have quality health care in their golden years. However, we also have a duty to make sure that seniors can get the health care that suits their needs, instead of being forced into a cookie cutter program designed by Washington, DC — based bureaucrats! Medicare MSAs are a good first step toward allowing seniors the freedom to control their own health care.

The Fed
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 64:24
Centralized control and regulations are required in a police state. Community and individual state regulations are not as threatening as the monolith of rules and regulations written by Congress and the federal bureaucracy. Law and order has been federalized in many ways and we are moving inexorably in that direction.

The Fed
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 64:25
Almost all of our economic activities depend upon receiving the proper permits from the federal government. Transactions involving guns, food, medicine, smoking, drinking, hiring, firing, wages, politically correct speech, land use, fishing, hunting, buying a house, business mergers and acquisitions, selling stocks and bonds, and farming all require approval and strict regulation from our federal government. If this is not done properly and in a timely fashion, economic penalties and even imprisonment are likely consequences.

The Fed
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 64:26
Because government pays for much of our health care, it’s conveniently argued that any habits or risk-taking that could harm one’s health are the prerogative of the federal government, and are to be regulated by explicit rules to keep medical-care costs down. This same argument is used to require helmets for riding motorcycles and bikes.

The Fed
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 64:28
The states do exactly as they’re told by the federal government, because they are threatened with the loss of tax dollars being returned to their state- dollars that should have never been sent to DC in the first place, let alone used to extort obedience to a powerful federal government.

The Fed
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 64:30
All 18-year-old males must register to be ready for the next undeclared war. If they don’t, men with guns will appear and enforce this congressional mandate. “Involuntary servitude” was banned by the 13th Amendment, but courts don’t apply this prohibition to the servitude of draftees or those citizens required to follow the dictates of the IRS – especially the employers of the country, who serve as the federal government’s chief tax collectors and information gatherers. Fear is the tool used to intimidate most Americans to comply to the tax code by making examples of celebrities. Leona Helmsley and Willie Nelson know how this process works.

The Fed
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 64:100
- The federalization of all airline security employees.

The Fed
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 64:107
There’s no reason to believe that the massive increase in spending, both domestic and foreign, along with the massive expansion of the size of the federal government, will slow any time soon. The deficit is exploding as the economy weakens. When the government sector drains the resources needed for capital expansion, it contributes to the loss of confidence needed for growth.

The Fed
Has Capitalism Failed?
July 9, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 66:1
It is now commonplace and politically correct to blame what is referred to as the excesses of capitalism for the economic problems we face, and especially for the Wall Street fraud that dominates the business news. Politicians are having a field day with demagoguing the issue while, of course, failing to address the fraud and deceit found in the budgetary shenanigans of the federal government- for which they are directly responsible. Instead, it gives the Keynesian crowd that run the show a chance to attack free markets and ignore the issue of sound money.

The Fed
Has Capitalism Failed?
July 9, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 66:13
First, Congress should be investigating the federal government’s fraud and deception in accounting, especially in reporting future obligations such as Social Security, and how the monetary system destroys wealth. Those problems are bigger than anything in the corporate world and are the responsibility of Congress. Besides, it’s the standard set by the government and the monetary system it operates that are major contributing causes to all that’s wrong on Wall Street today. Where fraud does exist, it’s a state rather than federal matter, and state authorities can enforce these laws without any help from Congress.

The Fed
Has Capitalism Failed?
July 9, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 66:14
Second, we do know why financial bubbles occur, and we know from history that they are routinely associated with speculation, excessive debt, wild promises, greed, lying, and cheating. These problems were described by quite a few observers as the problems were developing throughout the 90s, but the warnings were ignored for one reason. Everybody was making a killing and no one cared, and those who were reminded of history were reassured by the Fed Chairman that "this time" a new economic era had arrived and not to worry. Productivity increases, it was said, could explain it all.

The Fed
Has Capitalism Failed?
July 9, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 66:15
But now we know that’s just not so. Speculative bubbles and all that we’ve been witnessing are a consequence of huge amounts of easy credit, created out of thin air by the Federal Reserve. We’ve had essentially no savings, which is one of the most significant driving forces in capitalism. The illusion created by low interest rates perpetuates the bubble and all the bad stuff that goes along with it. And that’s not a fault of capitalism. We are dealing with a system of inflationism and interventionism that always produces a bubble economy that must end badly.

The Fed
Has Capitalism Failed?
July 9, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 66:16
So far the assessment made by the administration, Congress, and the Fed bodes badly for our economic future. All they offer is more of the same, which can’t possibly help. All it will do is drive us closer to national bankruptcy, a sharply lower dollar, and a lower standard of living for most Americans, as well as less freedom for everyone.

The Fed
Free Housing Market Enhancement Act
July 16, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 70:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Free Housing Market Enhancement Act. This legislation restores a free market in housing by repealing special privileges for housing-related government sponsored enterprises (GSEs). These entities are the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie), the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie), and the National Home Loan Bank Board (HLBB). According to the Congressional Budget Office, the housing-related GSEs received $13.6 billion worth of indirect federal subsidies in fiscal year 2000 alone.

The Fed
Free Housing Market Enhancement Act
July 16, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 70:3
The Free Housing Market Enhancement Act also repeals the explicit grant of legal authority given to the Federal Reserve to purchase the debt of housing-related GSEs. GSEs are the only institutions besides the United States Treasury granted explicit statutory authority to monetize their debt through the Federal Reserve. This provision gives the GSEs a source of liquidity unavailable to their competitors.

The Fed
Free Housing Market Enhancement Act
July 16, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 70:6
Perhaps the Federal Reserve can stave off the day of reckoning by purchasing GSE debt and pumping liquidity into the housing market, but this cannot hold off the inevitable drop in the housing market forever. In fact, postponing the necessary but painful market corrections will only deepen the inevitable fall. The more people invested in the market, the greater the effects across the economy when the bubble bursts.

The Fed
Hard Questions for Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan
July 17, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 71:2
"I have for quite a few years now expressed concern about the value of the dollar which I think we neglect here in the Congress, here in the committee and I do not think that the Federal Reserve has done a good job in protecting the value of the dollar. And it seems that maybe others are coming around to this viewpoint because I see that the head of the IMF this week, Mr. Koehler has expressed a concern and made a suggestion that all the central bankers of the world need to lay plans in the near future to possibly prop up the dollar. So others have this same concern.

The Fed
Hard Questions for Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan
July 17, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 71:3
"You have in your testimony expressed concern about the greed factor which obviously is there. And you implied that this has come out from the excessive capitalization/excessive valuations, which may be true. But I believe where you have come up short is in failing to explain why we have financial bubbles. I think when you have fiat money and excessive credit you create financial bubbles and you also undermine the value of the dollar and now we are facing that consequence. We see the disintegration of some of these markets. At the same time we have potential real depreciation of the value of our dollar. And we have pursued rampant inflation of the money supply. Since you have been Chairman of the Federal Reserve we have literally created $4.7 trillion worth of new money in M-3. Even in this last year with this tremendous burst of inflation of the money supply has gone up since last January over $1 trillion. You can’t have anything but lower value of that unit of account if you keep printing and creating new money.

The Fed
25 July 2002
Monetary Practices    2002 Ron Paul 78:7
The metaphorical drinking age is set by — and periodically changed by — the Federal Reserve. In our Fed-centric mixed economy, the understanding that “the Fed sets interest rates” has become widely accepted as a simple institutional fact. But unlike an actual drinking age, which has an inherent degree of arbitrariness about it, the interest rate cannot simply be “set” by some extramarket authority. With market forces in play, it has a life of its own.

The Fed
25 July 2002
Monetary Practices    2002 Ron Paul 78:10
But the Fed can do more than simply impose a ceiling on credit markets. Setting the interest rate below where the market would have it is accomplished not by decree but by increasing the money supply, temporarily masking the discrepancy between supply and demand. This papering over of the credit shortage hides a problem that would otherwise be obvious, allowing it to fester beneath a binge of investment spending.

The Fed
25 July 2002
Monetary Practices    2002 Ron Paul 78:13
In recent years money-supply figures have become clouded by institutional and technological change. But in our view, a tale-telling pattern is traced out by the MZM data reported by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. ZM standing for “zero maturity,” this monetary aggregate is a better indicator of credit conditions than are the more narrowly defined M’s.

The Fed
25 July 2002
Monetary Practices    2002 Ron Paul 78:15
Sean Corrigan, a principal in Capital Insight, a UK-based financial consultancy, has recently detailed the consequences of the expansion that came in “. . . autumn 1998, when the world economy, still racked by the problems of the Asian credit bust over the preceding year, then had to cope with the Russian default and the implosion of the mighty Long-Term Capital Management.” Corrigan goes on: “Over the next eighteen months, the Fed added $55 billion to its portfolio of Treasuries and swelled repos held from $6.5 billion to $22 billion . . . [T]his translated into a combined money market mutual fund and commercial bank asset increase of $870 billion to the market peak, of $1.2 trillion to the industrial production peak, and of $1.8 trillion to date — twice the level of real GDP added in the same interval” (http://www.mises.org/ fullarticle.asp?control=754).

The Fed
25 July 2002
Monetary Practices    2002 Ron Paul 78:16
The party was in full swing, and the Fed kept the good times rolling by cutting the fed funds rate a whole basis point between June 1998 and January 1999. The rate on 30- year Treasuries dropped from a high of over 7% to a low of 5%. Stock markets soared. The NASDAQ composite went from just over 1000 to over 5000 during the period, rising over 80% in 1999 alone. With abundant credit being freely served to Internet start-ups, hordes of corporate managers, who had seemed married to their stodgy blue-chip companies, suddenly were romancing some sexy dot-com that had just joined the party.

The Fed
25 July 2002
Monetary Practices    2002 Ron Paul 78:20
During the first half of 2001, the Fed demonstrated — with its half-dozen interest-rate cuts and a near-desperate MZM growth of over 23% — that you can’t recreate euphoria in the midst of a hangover.

The Fed
25 July 2002
Monetary Practices    2002 Ron Paul 78:22
“We are not in the midst of a financial panic, and recovery isn’t simply a matter of restoring confidence. Indeed, excessive confidence [fostered by unduly low interest rates maintained by rapid monetary growth? — RG & GC] may be part of the problem. Instead of being the victims of self-fulfilling pessimism, we may be suffering from self-defeating optimism. The driving force behind the current slowdown is a plunge in business investment. It now seems clear that over the last few years businesses spent too much on equipment and software and that they will be cautious about further spending until their excess capacity has been worked off. And the Fed cannot do much to change their minds, since equipment spending [at least when such spending has already proved to be excessive — RG & GC] is not particularly sensitive to interest rates.”

The Fed
Providing For Consideration Of H.R. 5005, Homeland Security Act Of 2002
25 July 2002    2002 Ron Paul 79:3
Instead of a carefully crafted product of meaningful deliberations, I fear we are once again about to pass a hastily drafted bill in order to appear that we are “doing something.” Over the past several months, Congress has passed a number of hastily crafted measures that do little, if anything, to enhance the security of the American people. Instead, these measures grow the size of the Federal Government, erode constitutional liberties, and endanger our economy by increasing the federal deficit and raiding the social security trust fund. The American people would be better served if we gave the question of how to enhance security from international terrorism the serious consideration it deserves rather than blindly expanding the Federal Government. Congress should also consider whether our hyper-interventionist foreign policy really benefits the American people.

The Fed
Department of Homeland Security
26 July 2002    2002 Ron Paul 80:4
Mr. Speaker, I come from a Coastal District in Texas. The Coast Guard and its mission are important to us. The chairman of the committee of jurisdiction over the Coast Guard has expressed strong reservations about the plan to move the Coast Guard into the new department. Recently my district was hit by the flooding in Texas, and we relied upon the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to again provide certain services. Additionally, as a district close to our border, much of the casework performed in my district offices relates to requests made to the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

The Fed
The Price Of War
5 September 2002    2002 Ron Paul 83:36
The term foreign policy does not exist in the Constitution. All members of the Federal Government have sworn to uphold the Constitution and should do only those things that are clearly authorized. Careful reading of the Constitution reveals Congress has a lot more responsibility than does the President in dealing with foreign affairs. The President is the Commanderin- Chief, but cannot declare war or finance military action without explicit congressional approval. A good starting point would be for all of us in the Congress to assume the responsibility given us to make sure the executive branch does not usurp any authority explicitly given to the Congress.

The Fed
Abolishing The Federal Reserve
10 September 2002    2002 Ron Paul 86:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation to restore financial stability to America’s economy by abolishing the Federal Reserve. I also ask unanimous consent to insert the attached article by Lew Rockwell, president of the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, which explains the benefits of abolishing the Fed and restoring the gold standard, into the RECORD.

The Fed
Abolishing The Federal Reserve
10 September 2002    2002 Ron Paul 86:2
Since the creation of the Federal Reserve, middle and working-class Americans have been victimized by a boom-and-bust monetary policy. In addition, most Americans have suffered a steadily eroding purchasing power because of the Federal Reserve’s inflationary policies. This represents a real, if hidden, tax imposed on the American people.

The Fed
Abolishing The Federal Reserve
10 September 2002    2002 Ron Paul 86:3
From the Great Depression, to the stagflation of the seventies, to the burst of the dotcom bubble last year, every economic downturn suffered by the country over the last 80 years can be traced to Federal Reserve policy. The Fed has followed a consistent policy of flooding the economy with easy money, leading to a misallocation of resources and an artificial “boom” followed by a recession or depression when the Fed-created bubble bursts.

The Fed
Abolishing The Federal Reserve
10 September 2002    2002 Ron Paul 86:5
Though the Federal Reserve policy harms the average American, it benefits those in a position to take advantage of the cycles in monetary policy. The main beneficiaries are those who receive access to artificially inflated money and/or credit before the inflationary effects of the policy impact the entire economy. Federal Reserve policies also benefit big spending politicians who use the inflated currency created by the Fed to hide the true costs of the welfare-warfare state. It is time for Congress to put the interests of the American people ahead of the special interests and their own appetite for big government.

The Fed
Abolishing The Federal Reserve
10 September 2002    2002 Ron Paul 86:6
Abolishing the Federal Reserve will allow Congress to reassert its constitutional authority over monetary policy. The United States Constitution grants to Congress the authority to coin money and regulate the value of the currency. The Constitution does not give Congress the authority to delegate control over monetary policy to a central bank. Furthermore, the Constitution certainly does not empower the Federal Government to erode Americans’ living standard via an inflationary monetary policy.

The Fed
Abolishing The Federal Reserve
10 September 2002    2002 Ron Paul 86:7
In fact, Congress’ constitutional mandate regarding monetary policy should only permit currency backed by stable commodities such as silver and gold to be used as legal tender. Therefore, abolishing the Federal Reserve and returning to a constitutional system will enable America to return to the type of monetary system envisioned by our Nation’s founders: one where the value of money is consistent because it is tied to a commodity such as gold. Such a monetary system is the basis of a true free-market economy.

The Fed
Abolishing The Federal Reserve
10 September 2002    2002 Ron Paul 86:8
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stand up for working Americans by putting an end to the manipulation of the money supply which erodes Americans’ standard of living, enlarges big government, and enriches well-connected elites, by cosponsoring my legislation to abolish the Federal Reserve.

The Fed
Abolishing The Federal Reserve
10 September 2002    2002 Ron Paul 86:10
Why wasn’t it obvious? The Fed has been inflating the dollar as never before, driving interest rates down to absurdly low levels, even as the federal government has been pushing a mercantile trade policy, and New York City, the hub of the world economy, continues to be threatened by terrorism. The government is failing to prevent more successful attacks by not backing down from foreign policy disasters and by not allowing planes to arm themselves.

The Fed
Abolishing The Federal Reserve
10 September 2002    2002 Ron Paul 86:12
Or perhaps it is not so obvious why this is true. It’s been three decades since the dollar’s tie to gold was completely severed, to the hosannas of mainstream economists. There is no stash of gold held by the Fed or the Treasury that backs our currency system. The government owns gold but not as a monetary asset. It owns it the same way it owns national parks and fighter planes. It’s just another asset the government keeps to itself.

The Fed
Abolishing The Federal Reserve
10 September 2002    2002 Ron Paul 86:18
Why isn’t gold money now? Because governments destroyed the gold standard. Why? Because they regarded it as too inflexible. To be sure, monetary inflexibility is the friend of free markets. Without the ability to create money out of nothing, governments tend to run tight financial ships. Banks are more careful about the lending when they can’t rely on a lender of last resort with access to a money-creation machine like the Fed.

The Fed
Abolishing The Federal Reserve
10 September 2002    2002 Ron Paul 86:22
Without the gold standard, government is free to work with the Fed to inflate the currency without limit. Even in our own times, we’ve seen governments do that and thereby spread mass misery.

The Fed
Abolishing The Federal Reserve
10 September 2002    2002 Ron Paul 86:24
In the real world, of course, there is a lag time between cause and effect. The Fed has been inflating the currency at very high levels for longer than a year. The consequences of this disastrous policy are showing up only recently in the form of a falling dollar and higher gold prices. And so what does the Fed do? It is pulling back now. For the first time in nearly ten years, some measures of money (M2 and MZM) are showing a falling money stock, which is likely to prompt a second dip in the continuing recession.

The Fed
Abolishing The Federal Reserve
10 September 2002    2002 Ron Paul 86:28
Is a gold standard feasible again? Of course. The dollar could be redefined in terms of gold. Interest rates would reflect the real supply and demand for credit. We could shut down the Fed and we would never need to worry again what the chairman of the Fed wanted. There was a time when Greenspan was nostalgic for such a system. Investors of the world have come to embrace this view even as Greenspan has completely abandoned it.

The Fed
Rent-To-Own Contracts
18 september 2002    2002 Ron Paul 88:3
Proponents of H.R. 1701 admit the benefits of rent-to-own but fret that rent-to-own transactions are regulated by the states, not the federal government. Proponents of this legislation claim that state regulations are inadequate, thus making federal regulations necessary. My well-intentioned colleagues ignore the fact that Congress has no legitimate authority to judge whether or not state regulations are adequate. This is because the Constitution gives the federal government no authority to regulate this type of transaction. Thus, whether or not state regulations are adequate is simply not for Congress to judge.

The Fed
Rent-To-Own Contracts
18 september 2002    2002 Ron Paul 88:4
Some may claim that H.R. 1701 respects states’ rights, because it does not preempt those state regulations acceptable to federal regulators. However, Mr. Chairman, this turns the constitutional meaning of federalism on its head. After all, the 10th amendment does not limit its protections to state laws approved of by the federal bureaucracy.

The Fed
Can We Afford this War?
September 24, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 89:13
Since there are limits to borrowing and taxing, but no limits to the Fed printing money to cover our deficit, we can be assured this will occur. This guarantees that Social Security checks will never stop coming, but it also guarantees that the dollars that all retired people receive will buy less. We have already seen this happening in providing medical services. A cheap dollar; that is, an inflated dollar, is a sinister and deceitful way of cutting benefits.

The Fed
Internet Gambling
1 October 2002    2002 Ron Paul 92:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 556 limits the ability of individual citizens to use bank instruments, including credit cards or checks, to finance Internet gambling. This legislation should be rejected by Congress since the federal government has no constitutional authority to ban or even discourage any form of gambling.

The Fed
Introduction of the Television Consumer Freedom Act
October 1, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 93:6
Mr. Speaker, the federal government should not interfere with a consumer’s ability to purchase services such as satellite or cable television in the free market. I therefore urge my colleagues to take a step toward restoring freedom by cosponsoring my Television Consumer Freedom Act.

The Fed
The Shrimp Importation Financing Fairness Act
October 8, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 97:3
Given the importance of a strong shrimping industry to so many Americans, it seems strange that the federal government continues to burden shrimpers with excessive regulations. For example, the federal government has imposed costly regulations on this industry dealing with usage of items such as by catch reduction devices and turtle excluder devices (TEDS). The mandatory use of these devices results in a significant reduction in the amount of shrimp caught by domestic shrimpers, thus damaging their competitive position and market share.

The Fed
The Shrimp Importation Financing Fairness Act
October 8, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 97:7
Adding insult to injury the federal government is forcing American shrimpers to subsidize their competitors! In the last three years, the United States Government has provided more than $1,800,000,000 in financing and insurance for these foreign countries through the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC). Furthermore, the U.S. current exposure relative to these countries through the Export-Import Bank totals some $14,800,000,000. Thus, the United States taxpayer is providing a total subsidy of $16,500,000,000 to the home countries of the leading foreign competitors of American shrimpers! Of course, the American taxpayer could be forced to shovel more money to these countries through the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

The Fed
Treatment Of Mr. Martin Mawyer By U.N. Officers Must Be Investigated
16 October 2002    2002 Ron Paul 100:2
Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, Section 7, subsection (b) of the U.N. host country agreement (Establishment of Permanent Headquarters in New York; Agreement Between United Nations and United States; Joint Res. Aug. 4, 1947, ch. 482, 61 Stat. 756) states, in part “the federal, state and local law of the United States shall apply within the headquarters district.” Moreover, as Mawyer states in item #6 on his signed affidavit regarding this incident: “Without asking me to leave, he ordered his security officers, ‘Throw him out of the gates.’ ”

The Fed
Oppose The New Homeland Security Bureaucracy!
November 13, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 101:5
HR 5710 also expands the federal police state by allowing the attorney general to authorize federal agency inspectors general and their agents to carry firearms and make warrantless arrests. One of the most disturbing trends in recent years is the increase in the number of federal officials authorized to carry guns. This is especially disturbing when combined with the increasing trend toward restricting the ability of average Americans to exercise their second amendment rights. Arming the government while disarming the public encourages abuses of power.

The Fed
Oppose The New Homeland Security Bureaucracy!
November 13, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 101:6
Mr. Speaker, HR 5710 gives the federal government new powers and increases federal expenditures, completely contradicting what members were told about the bill. Furthermore, these new power grabs are being rushed through Congress without giving members the ability to debate, or even properly study, this proposal. I must oppose this bill and urge my colleagues to do the same.

The Fed
Shrimp Importation Financing Fairness Act
7 January 2003    2003 Ron Paul 3:3
Given the importance of a strong shrimping industry to so many Americans, it seems strange that the federal government continues to burden shrimpers with excessive regulations. For example, the federal government has imposed costly regulations, dealing with usage of items such as by catch reduction devices and turtle excluder devices (TEDS), on the industry. The mandatory use of these devices results in a significant reduction in the amount of shrimp caught by domestic shrimpers, thus damaging their competitive position and market share.

The Fed
Shrimp Importation Financing Fairness Act
7 January 2003    2003 Ron Paul 3:7
Adding insult to injury, the federal government is forcing American shrimpers to subsidize their competitors! Since 1999, the United States Government has provided more than $1,800,000,000 in financing and insurance for these foreign countries through the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC). Furthermore, according to the latest available figures, the U.S. current exposure relative to these countries through the Export- Import Bank totals some $14,800,000,000. Thus, the United States taxpayer is providing a subsidy of at least $16,500,000,000 to the home countries of the leading foreign competitors of American shrimpers! Of course, the American taxpayer could be forced to shovel more money to these countries through the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

The Fed
Stop Identity Theft – Make Social Security Numbers Confidential
January 7, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 4:4
Congressionally-mandated use of the Social Security number as an identifier facilitates the horrendous crime of identity theft. Thanks to Congress, an unscrupulous person may simply obtain someone’s Social Security number in order to access that person’s bank accounts, credit cards, and other financial assets. Many Americans have lost their life savings and had their credit destroyed as a result of identity theft- yet the federal government continues to encourage such crimes by mandating use of the Social Security number as a uniform ID!

The Fed
Stop Identity Theft – Make Social Security Numbers Confidential
January 7, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 4:5
This act also forbids the federal government from creating national ID cards or establishing any identifiers for the purpose of investigating, monitoring, overseeing, or regulating private transactions between American citizens, as well as repealing those sections of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 that require the Department of Health and Human Services to establish a uniform standard health identifier. By putting an end to government-mandated uniform IDs, the Identity Theft Prevention Act will prevent millions of Americans from having their liberty, property and privacy violated by private-and-public sector criminals.

The Fed
Stop Identity Theft – Make Social Security Numbers Confidential
January 7, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 4:6
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.

The Fed
Stop Identity Theft – Make Social Security Numbers Confidential
January 7, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 4:7
Mr. Speaker, of all the invasions of privacy proposed in the past decade, perhaps the most onerous is the attempt to assign every American a “unique health identifier” — an identifier which could be used to create a national database containing the medical history of all Americans. As an OB/GYN with more than 30 years in private practice, I know the importance of preserving the sanctity of the physician-patient relationship. Oftentimes, effective treatment depends on a patient’s ability to place absolute trust in his or her doctor. What will happen to that trust when patients know that any and all information given to their doctor will be placed in a government accessible database? Some members of Congress may claim that the federal monitoring of all Americans will enhance security. However, the fact is that creating a surveillance state will divert valuable resources away from investigating legitimate security threats into spying on innocent Americans, thus reducing security. The American people would be better served if the government focused attention on ensuring our borders are closed to potential terrorists instead of coming up with new ways to violate the rights of American citizens.

The Fed
Stop Identity Theft – Make Social Security Numbers Confidential
January 7, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 4:8
Other members of Congress will claim that the federal government needs the power to monitor Americans in order to allow the government to operate more efficiently. I would remind my colleagues that in a constitutional republic, the people are never asked to sacrifice their liberties to make the job of government officials easier. We are here to protect the freedom of the American people, not to make privacy invasion more efficient.

The Fed
Stop Identity Theft – Make Social Security Numbers Confidential
January 7, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 4:9
Mr. Speaker, while I do not question the sincerity of those members who suggest that Congress can ensure that citizens’ rights are protected through legislation restricting access to personal information, the only effective privacy protection is to forbid the federal government from mandating national identifiers. Legislative “privacy protections” are inadequate to protect the liberty of Americans for several reasons:

The Fed
Stop Identity Theft – Make Social Security Numbers Confidential
January 7, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 4:10
First, it is simply common sense that repealing those federal laws that promote identity theft is more effective in protecting the public than expanding the power of the federal police force. Federal punishment of identity thieves provides cold comfort to those who have suffered financial losses and the destruction of their good reputation as a result of identity theft.

The Fed
Stop Identity Theft – Make Social Security Numbers Confidential
January 7, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 4:13
Second, the federal government has been creating proprietary interests in private information for certain state-favored special interests. Perhaps the most outrageous example of phony privacy protection is the “medical privacy” regulation, which allows medical researchers, certain business interests, and law enforcement officials’ access to health care information, in complete disregard of the Fifth Amendment and the wishes of individual patients! Obviously, “privacy protection” laws have proven greatly inadequate to protect personal information when the government is the one providing or seeking the information.

The Fed
Stop Identity Theft – Make Social Security Numbers Confidential
January 7, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 4:14
The primary reason why any action short of the repeal of laws authorizing privacy violations is insufficient is because the federal government lacks constitutional authority to force citizens to adopt a universal identifier for health care, employment, or any other reason. Any federal action that oversteps constitutional limitations violates liberty because it ratifies the principle that the federal government, not the Constitution, is the ultimate judge of its own jurisdiction over the people. The only effective protection of the rights of citizens is for Congress to follow Thomas Jefferson’s advice and “bind (the federal government) down with the chains of the Constitution.”

The Fed
Stop Identity Theft – Make Social Security Numbers Confidential
January 7, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 4:16
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I once again call on my colleagues to join me in putting an end to the federal government’s unconstitutional use of national identifiers to monitor the actions of private citizens. National identifiers threaten all Americans by exposing them to the threat of identity theft by private criminals and abuse of their liberties by public criminals, while diverting valuable law enforcement resources away from addressing real threats to public safety. In addition, national identifiers are incompatible with a limited, constitutional government. I, therefore, hope my colleagues will join my efforts to protect the freedom of their constituents by supporting the Identity Theft Prevention Act.

The Fed
Restoring the Second Amendment
January 9, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 5:2
Specifically, my legislation repeals the five-day waiting period and the “instant” background check, which enables the federal government to compile a database of every gun owner in America. My legislation also repeals the misnamed ban on “semi-automatic” weapons, which bans entire class of firearms for no conceivable reason beside the desire of demagogic politicians to appear tough on crime. Finally, my bill amends the Gun Control Act of 1968 by deleting the “sporting purposes” test, which allows the Treasury Secretary to infringe on second amendment rights by classifying a firearm (handgun, rifle, shotgun) as a “destructive device” simply because the Secretary believes the gun to be “non-sporting.”

The Fed
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003    2003 Ron Paul 6:26
Since reversing the tide against liberty is so difficult, this unworkable system inevitably leads to various forms of tyranny. As our Republic crumbles, voices of protest grow louder. The central government becomes more authoritarian with each crisis. As the equality of education plummets, the role of the Federal Government is expanded. As the quality of medical care collapses, the role of the Federal Government in medicine is greatly increased.

The Fed
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003    2003 Ron Paul 6:40
It was no accident in 1913 when the dramatic shift toward democracy became pronounced that the Federal Reserve was established. A personal income tax was imposed as well. At the same time, popular election of Senators was instituted, and our foreign policy became aggressively interventionist. Even with an income tax, the planners for war and welfare knew that it would become necessary to eliminate restraints on the printing of money. Private counterfeiting was a heinous crime, but government counterfeiting and fractional reserve banking were required to seductively pay for the majority’s demands.

The Fed
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003    2003 Ron Paul 6:65
What has been our answer to the shortcomings of policies driven by manipulated majority opinion by the powerful elite? We have responded by massively increasing the Federal Government’s policing activity to hold American citizens in check and make sure we are well behaved and pose no threat, while massively expanding our aggressive presence around the world. There is no possible way these moves can make us more secure against terrorism, yet they will accelerate our march toward national bankruptcy with a currency collapse.

The Fed
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003    2003 Ron Paul 6:73
The time will come when the Fed will no longer be able to dictate low interest rates. Reluctance of foreigners to lend, the exorbitant size of our borrowing needs, and the risk premium will eventually send interest rates upward. Price inflation will accelerate and the cost of living for all Americans will increase. Under these conditions, most Americans will face a decline in their standard of living.

The Fed
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003    2003 Ron Paul 6:74
Facing this problem of paying for past and present excess spending, the borrowing and inflating of the money supply has already begun in earnest. Many retirees, depending on their 401(k) funds and other retirement programs, are suffering the ill effects of the stock market crash, a phenomenon that still has a long way to go. Depreciating the dollar by printing excessive money, like the Fed is doing, will eventually devastate the purchasing power of those retirees who are dependent on Social Security. Government cost-ofliving increases will never be able to keep up with the loss. The elderly are already unable to afford the inflated cost of medical care, especially the cost of pharmaceuticals.

The Fed
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003    2003 Ron Paul 6:113
The Federal Government will not improve on its policies until the people coming to Washington are educated by a different breed of economists than those who dominate our governmentrun universities. Economic advisors and most officeholders merely reflect the economics taught to them. A major failure of our entire system will most likely occur before serious thought is given once again to the guidelines laid out in the Constitution.

The Fed
End the Income Tax – Pass the Liberty Amendment
January 28, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 7:1
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Liberty Amendment, which repeals the 16th Amendment, thus paving the way for real change in the way government collects and spends the people’s hard-earned money. The Liberty Amendment also explicitly forbids the federal government from performing any action not explicitly authorized by the United States Constitution.

The Fed
End the Income Tax – Pass the Liberty Amendment
January 28, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 7:2
The 16th Amendment gives the federal government a direct claim on the lives of American citizens by enabling Congress to levy a direct income tax on individuals. Until the passage of the 16th amendment, the Supreme Court had consistently held that Congress had no power to impose an income tax.

The Fed
End the Income Tax – Pass the Liberty Amendment
January 28, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 7:3
Income taxes are responsible for the transformation of the federal government from one of limited powers into a vast leviathan whose tentacles reach into almost every aspect of American life. Thanks to the income tax, today the federal government routinely invades our privacy, and penalizes our every endeavor.

The Fed
End the Income Tax – Pass the Liberty Amendment
January 28, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 7:4
The Founding Fathers realized that “the power to tax is the power to destroy,” which is why they did not give the federal government the power to impose an income tax. Needless to say, the Founders would be horrified to know that Americans today give more than a third of their income to the federal government.

The Fed
Reduce Taxes On Senior Citizens
January 28, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 8:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce two pieces of legislation to reduce taxes on senior citizens. The first bill, the Social Security Beneficiary Tax Reduction Act, repeals the 1993 tax increase on Social Security benefits. Repealing this increase on Social Security benefits is a good first step toward reducing the burden imposed by the federal government on senior citizens. However, imposing any tax on Social Security benefits is unfair and illogical. This is why I am also introducing the Senior Citizens’ Tax Elimination Act, which repeals all taxes on Social Security benefits.

The Fed
Reduce Taxes On Senior Citizens
January 28, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 8:2
Since Social Security benefits are financed with tax dollars, taxing these benefits is yet another example 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 masks the true size of the federal deficit.

The Fed
Social Security for American Citizens Only!
January 29, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 11:1
Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the Social Security for American Citizens Only Act. This act forbids the federal government from providing Social Security benefits to non-citizens. It also ends the practice of totalization. Totalization is where the Social Security Administration takes into account the number of year’s an individual worked abroad, and thus was not paying payroll taxes, in determining that individual’s eligibility for social security benefits!

The Fed
Social Security for American Citizens Only!
January 29, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 11:4
Mr. Speaker, press reports also indicate that thousands of foreigners who would qualify for U.S. Social Security benefits actually came to the United States and worked here illegally. That’s right: The federal government may actually allow someone who came to the United States illegally, worked less than the required number of years to qualify for Social Security, and then returned to Mexico for the rest of his working years, to collect full U.S. Social Security benefits while living in Mexico. That is an insult to the millions of Americans who pay their entire working lives into the system and now face the possibility that there may be nothing left when it is their turn to retire.

The Fed
Expand Medicare MSA Program
5 February 2003    2003 Ron Paul 12:3
One of the major weaknesses of the Medicare program is that seniors do not have the ability to use Medicare dollars to cover the costs of prescription medicines, even though prescription drugs represent the major health care expenditure for many seniors. Medicare MSAs give those seniors who need to use Medicare funds for prescription drugs the ability to do so without expanding the power of the federal bureaucracy or forcing those seniors who currently have prescription drug coverage into a federal one-size-fits-all program.

The Fed
Expand Medicare MSA Program
5 February 2003    2003 Ron Paul 12:4
Medicare MSAs will also ensure seniors access to a wide variety of health care services by minimizing the role of the federal bureaucracy. As many of my colleagues know, an increasing number of health care providers have withdrawn from the Medicare program because of the paperwork burden and constant interference with their practice by bureaucrats from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (previously known as the Health Care Financing Administration). The MSA program frees seniors and providers from this burden thus making it more likely that quality providers will remain in the Medicare program!

The Fed
Expand Medicare MSA Program
5 February 2003    2003 Ron Paul 12:5
Mr. Speaker, the most important reason to enact this legislation is seniors should not be treated like children and told what health care services they can and cannot have by the federal government. We in Congress have a duty to preserve and protect the Medicare trust fund and keep the promise to America’s seniors and working Americans, whose taxes finance Medicare, that they will have quality health care in their golden years.

The Fed
The Family Education Freedom Act
February 5, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 13:3
Currently, consumers are less than sovereign in the education market. Funding decisions are increasingly controlled by the federal government. Because “He who pays the piper calls the tune,” public, and even private schools, are paying greater attention to the dictates of federal “educrats” while ignoring the wishes of the parents to an ever-greater degree. As such, the lack of consumer sovereignty in education is destroying parental control of education and replacing it with state control. Loss of control is a key reason why so many of America’s parents express dissatisfaction with the educational system.

The Fed
The Family Education Freedom Act
February 5, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 13:4
According to a study by The Polling Company, over 70% of all Americans support education tax credits! This is just one of numerous studies and public opinion polls showing that Americans want Congress to get the federal bureaucracy out of the schoolroom and give parents more control over their children’s education.

The Fed
The Family Education Freedom Act
February 5, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 13:5
Today, Congress can fulfill the wishes of the American people for greater control over their children’s education by simply allowing parents to keep more of their hard-earned money to spend on education rather than force them to send it to Washington to support education programs reflective only of the values and priorities of Congress and the federal bureaucracy.

The Fed
Prescription Drug Affordability Act
February 11, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 17:2
The first provision of my legislation provides seniors a tax credit equal to 80 percent of their prescription drug costs. As many of my colleagues have pointed out, our nation’s seniors are struggling to afford the prescription drugs they need in order to maintain an active and healthy lifestyle. Yet, the federal government continues to impose taxes on Social Security benefits. Meanwhile, Congress continually raids the Social Security trust fund to finance unconstitutional programs! It is long past time for Congress to choose between helping seniors afford medicine or using the Social Security trust fund as a slush fund for big government and pork-barrel spending.

The Fed
Prescription Drug Affordability Act
February 11, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 17:4
I need not remind my colleagues that many senior citizens and other Americans impacted by the high costs of prescription medicine have demanded Congress reduce the barriers which prevent American consumers from purchasing imported pharmaceuticals. Congress has responded to these demands by repeatedly passing legislation liberalizing the rules governing the importation of pharmaceuticals. However, implementation this provisions have been blocked by the federal bureaucracy. It is time Congress stood up for the American consumer and removed all unnecessary regulations on importing pharmaceuticals are removed.

The Fed
Prescription Drug Affordability Act
February 11, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 17:5
The Prescription Drug Affordability Act also protects consumers’ access to affordable medicine by forbidding the Federal Government from regulating any Internet sales of FDA-approved pharmaceuticals by state-licensed pharmacists. As I am sure my colleagues are aware, the Internet makes pharmaceuticals and other products more affordable and accessible for millions of Americans. However, the federal government has threatened to destroy this option by imposing unnecessary and unconstitutional regulations on web sites that sell pharmaceuticals. Any federal regulations would inevitably drive up prices of pharmaceuticals, thus depriving many consumers of access to affordable prescription medications.

The Fed
Do-Not-Call Implementation Act
12 February 2003    2003 Ron Paul 20:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, as someone who has, my share of insolicited telemarketing calls, I sympahize fully with the concerns of the sponsors of the Do-Not-Call Implementation Act (HR 395). However, I would remind those who support federal intervention to “put a stop” to telemarketing on the basis of its annoyance, that the Constitution prohibits the federal government from interfering in the areas of advertising and communications.

The Fed
Do-Not-Call Implementation Act
12 February 2003    2003 Ron Paul 20:2
In addition to exceeding Congress’ constitutional authority, legislation to regulate telemarketing would allow the government to intrude further into our personal lives. Our country’s founders recognized the genius of severely limiting the role of government and reserving to the people extensive liberties, including the freedom to handle problems like this on the local level and through private institutions. The fact that the privately-run Direct Marketing Association is operating its own “do-not-call” list is evidence that consumers need not rely upon the national government to address the problems associated with telemarketers. Furthermore, many state public utility commissions have imposed regulations on telemarketers. Further regulation at the federal level will only result in a greater loss of liberty. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to take the constitutional course and oppose the Do-No- Call Implementation Act.

The Fed
Support Medical Savings Accounts for Medicare
February 13, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 21:4
Medicare MSAs give those seniors who need to use Medicare funds for prescription drugs the ability to do so without expanding the power of the federal bureaucracy or forcing those seniors who currently have prescription drug coverage into a federal one-size-fits-all program.

The Fed
Support Medical Savings Accounts for Medicare
February 13, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 21:5
Medicare MSAs will also ensure seniors access to a wide variety of health care services by minimizing the role of the federal bureaucracy. As many of my colleagues know, an increasing number of health care providers have withdrawn from the Medicare program because of the paperwork burden and constant interference with their practice by bureaucrats from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (previously known as the Health Care Financing Administration). The MSA program frees seniors and providers from this burden, thus making it more likely that quality providers will remain in the Medicare program!

The Fed
Support Medical Savings Accounts for Medicare
February 13, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 21:6
Mr. Speaker, the most important reason to enact this legislation is seniors should not be treated like children and told what health care services they can and cannot have by the federal government. We in Congress have a duty to preserve and protect the Medicare trust fund and keep the promise to America’s seniors and working Americans, whose taxes finance Medicare, that they will have quality health care in their golden years.

The Fed
Oppose the Federal Welfare State
February 13, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 22:5
As former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura pointed out in reference to this proposal’s effects on Minnesota’s welfare-to-welfare work program, “We know what we are doing in Minnesota works. We have evidence. And our way of doing things has broad support in the state. Why should we be forced by the federal government to put our system at risk?” Why indeed, Mr. Speaker, should any state be forced to abandon its individual welfare programs because a group of self-appointed experts in Congress, the federal bureaucracy, and inside-the-beltway think tanks have decided there is only one correct way to transition people from welfare to work?

The Fed
Oppose the Federal Welfare State
February 13, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 22:6
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4 further expands the reach of the federal government by authorizing approximately $10 million dollars for new “marriage promotion” programs. I certainly recognize how the welfare state has contributed to the decline of the institution of marriage. As an ob-gyn with over 30 years of private practice. I know better than most the importance of stable, two parent families to a healthy society. However, I am skeptical, to say the least, of claims that government education programs can fix the deep-rooted cultural problems responsible for the decline of the American family.

The Fed
Oppose the Federal Welfare State
February 13, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 22:7
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, federal promotion of marriage opens the door for a level of social engineering that should worry all those concerned with preserving a free society. The federal government has no constitutional authority to promote any particular social arrangement; instead, the founders recognized that people are better off when they form their own social arrangements free from federal interference. The history of the failed experiments with welfarism and socialism shows that government can only destroy a culture; when a government tries to build a culture, it only further erodes the people’s liberty.

The Fed
Oppose the Federal Welfare State
February 13, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 22:9
As with all proponents of welfare programs, the supporters of H.R. 4 show a remarkable lack of trust in the American people. They would have us believe that without the federal government, the lives of the poor would be “nasty, brutish and short.” However, as scholar Sheldon Richman of the Future of Freedom Foundation and others have shown, voluntary charities and organizations, such as friendly societies that devoted themselves to helping those in need, flourished in the days before the welfare state turned charity into a government function.

The Fed
Oppose the Federal Welfare State
February 13, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 22:11
Releasing the charitable impulses of the American people by freeing them from the excessive tax burden so they can devote more of their resources to charity, is a moral and constitutional means of helping the needy. By contrast, the federal welfare state is neither moral nor constitutional. Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to level excessive taxes on one group of citizens for the benefit of another group of citizens. Many of the founders would have been horrified to see modern politicians define compassion as giving away other people’s money stolen through confiscatory taxation. In the words of the famous essay by former Congressman Davy Crockett, this money is “Not Yours to Give.”

The Fed
Emancipation Proclamation
26 February 2003    2003 Ron Paul 25:2
While all Americans should be grateful that this country finally extinguished slavery following the Civil War, many scholars believe that the main issue in the Civil War was the proper balance of power between the states and the federal government. President Lincoln himself made it clear that his primary motivation was to preserve a strong central government. For example, in a letter to New York Tribune editor Horace Greeley in 1862, Lincoln said: “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union.”

The Fed
Stem Cell research
27 February 2003    2003 Ron Paul 26:18
This problem regarding cloning and stem cell research has been made much worse by the federal government involved, both by the pro and con forces in dealing with the federal government’s involvement in embryonic research. The problem may be that a moral society does not exist, rather than a lack of federal laws or federal police. We need no more federal mandates to deal with difficult issues that for the most part were made worse by previous government mandates.

The Fed
The Financial Services Committee’s Terrible Blueprint for 2004
February 28, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 27:2
For example, this document gives an unqualified endorsement to increased taxpayer support for the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FINCEN). According to the committee, these increased funds are justified by FINCEN’s new authority under the PATRIOT Act. However, Mr. Chairman, FINCEN’s power to snoop into the private financial affairs of American citizens raises serious constitutional issues. Whether the expansion of FINCEN’s power threatens civil liberties is ignored in this document; instead, the committee is concerned that the federal financial police state does not have enough power and taxpayer money to invade the privacy of United States citizens!

The Fed
The Financial Services Committee’s Terrible Blueprint for 2004
February 28, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 27:5
Finally, the committee’s views support expanding the domestic welfare state, particularly in the area of housing. This despite the fact that federal housing subsidies distort the housing market by taking capital that could be better used elsewhere, and applying it to housing at the direction of politicians and bureaucrats. Housing subsidies also violate the constitutional prohibitions against redistributionism. The federal government has no constitutional authority to abuse its taxing power to fund programs that reshape the housing market to the liking of politicians and bureaucrats.

The Fed
The Financial Services Committee’s Terrible Blueprint for 2004
February 28, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 27:6
Rather than embracing an agenda of expanded statism, I hope my colleagues will work to reduce government interference in the market that only benefits the politically powerful. For example, the committee could take a major step toward ending corporate welfare by holding hearings and a mark-up on my legislation to withdraw the United States from the Bretton Woods Agreement and end taxpayer support for the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The Financial Services Committee can also take a step toward restoring Congress’ constitutional role in monetary policy by passing legislation requiring congressional approval before the federal government buys or sells gold.

The Fed
The Financial Services Committee’s Terrible Blueprint for 2004
February 28, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 27:7
Perhaps the most disappointing omission from the committee’s views is the failure to address monetary policy. This is especially troubling given that many Americans have lost their jobs, while millions of others have seen severe declines in their net worth, because of the Federal Reserve’s continuing boom and bust monetary policy. It is long past time for Congress to examine seriously the need for reform of the system of fiat currency that is responsible for the cycle of booms and busts that plague the American economy. Until this committee addresses those issues, I am afraid the American economy may suffer more recessions or even depressions in the future.

The Fed
The Financial Services Committee’s Terrible Blueprint for 2004
February 28, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 27:8
In conclusion, the “Views and Estimates” presented by the Financial Services Committee endorse increasing the power of the federal police state, as well as increasing both international and corporate welfare, while ignoring the economic problems created by federal intervention into the economy. I therefore urge my colleagues to reject this document and instead embrace an agenda of ending federal corporate welfare, protecting financial privacy, and reforming the fiat money system that is the root cause of America’s economic instability.

The Fed
Quality Health Care Coalition Act
12 March 2003    2003 Ron Paul 32:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Quality Health Care Coalition Act, which takes a first step towards restoring a true free market in health care by restoring the rights of freedom of contract and association to health care professionals. Over the past few years, we have had much debate in Congress about the difficulties medical professionals and patients are having with Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs). HMOs are devices used by insurance industries to ration health care. While it is politically popular for members of Congress to bash the HMOs and the insurance industry, the growth of the HMOs are rooted in past government interventions in the health care market though the tax code, the Employment Retirement Security Act (ERSIA), and the federal anti-trust laws. These interventions took control of the health care dollar away from individual patients and providers, thus making it inevitable that something like the HMOs would emerge as a means to control costs.

The Fed
Quality Health Care Coalition Act
12 March 2003    2003 Ron Paul 32:2
Many of my well-meaning colleagues would deal with the problems created by the HMOs by expanding the federal government’s control over the health care market. These interventions will inevitably drive up the cost of health and further erode the ability of patents and providers to determine the best health treatments free of government and third-party interference. In contrast, the Quality Health Care Coalition Act addresses the problems associated with HMOs by restoring medical professionals’ freedom to form voluntary organizations for the purpose of negotiating contracts with an HMO or an insurance company.

The Fed
Quality Health Care Coalition Act
12 March 2003    2003 Ron Paul 32:5
Under the United States Constitution, the federal government has no authority to interfere with the private contracts of American citizens. Furthermore, the prohibitions on contracting contained in the Sherman antitrust laws are based on a flawed economic theory which holds that federal regulators can improve upon market outcomes by restricting the rights of certain market participants deemed too powerful by the government. In fact, anti-trust laws harm consumers by preventing the operation of the free-market, causing prices to rise, quality to suffer, and, as is certainly the case with the relationship between the HMOs and medical professionals, favoring certain industries over others.

The Fed
The First Amendment Protects Religious Speech
April 2, 2003 Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation restoring First amendment protections of religion and religious speech. For fifty years, the personal religious freedom of this nation’s citizens has been infringed upon by courts that misread and distort the First amendment. The framers of the Constitution never in their worst nightmares imagined that the words, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech.......” would be used to ban children from praying in school, prohibit courthouses from displaying the Ten Commandments, or prevent citizens from praying before football games. The original meaning of the First amendment was clear on these two points: The federal government cannot enact laws establishing one religious denomination over another, and the federal government cannot forbid mention of religion, including the Ten Commandments and references to God.    2003 Ron Paul 43:1
In case after case, the Supreme Court has used the infamous “separation of church and state” metaphor to uphold court decisions that allow the federal government to intrude upon and deprive citizens of their religious liberty. This “separation” doctrine is based upon a phrase taken out of context from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802. In the letter, Jefferson simply reassures the Baptists that the First amendment would preclude an intrusion by the federal government into religious matters between denominations. It is ironic and sad that a letter defending the principle that the federal government must stay out of religious affairs. Should be used two hundred years later to justify the Supreme Court telling a child that he cannot pray in school!

The Fed
The First Amendment Protects Religious Speech
April 2, 2003 Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation restoring First amendment protections of religion and religious speech. For fifty years, the personal religious freedom of this nation’s citizens has been infringed upon by courts that misread and distort the First amendment. The framers of the Constitution never in their worst nightmares imagined that the words, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech.......” would be used to ban children from praying in school, prohibit courthouses from displaying the Ten Commandments, or prevent citizens from praying before football games. The original meaning of the First amendment was clear on these two points: The federal government cannot enact laws establishing one religious denomination over another, and the federal government cannot forbid mention of religion, including the Ten Commandments and references to God.    2003 Ron Paul 43:2
The Court completely disregards the original meaning and intent of the First amendment. It has interpreted the establishment clause to preclude prayer and other religious speech in a public place, thereby violating the free exercise clause of the very same First amendment. Therefore, it is incumbent upon Congress to correct this error, and to perform its duty to support and defend the Constitution. My legislation would restore First amendment protections of religion and speech by removing all religious freedom-related cases from federal district court jurisdiction, as well as from federal claims court jurisdiction. The federal government has no constitutional authority to reach its hands in the religious affairs of its citizens or of the several states.

The Fed
Rice Farmers Fairness Act
2 April 2003    2003 Ron Paul 45:4
My legislation is very simple and direct in dealing with this problem. It says that those who have tenant rice farmers producing rice in Texas must agree to continue to maintain rice in their crop rotation if they wish to receive subsidies. In this way, we can remove the perverse incentive, which the Federal Government has provided to landowners to exit the rice business and thereby put the entire rice infrastructure at risk.

The Fed
War No Excuse For Frivolous Spending
3 April 2003    2003 Ron Paul 46:2
For example, this bill provides a hidden subsidy to vaccine manufacturers by transferring liability for injuries caused by the smallpox vaccine from the companies to the United States Taxpayer. It also provides $3.2 billion dollars for yet another government bailout of the airline industry, as well as a hidden subsidy to the airlines in the form of $235 million of taxpayer money to pay for costs associated with enhanced baggage screening. Mr. Speaker, there is no more constitutional reason for the taxpayer to protect what is, after all, the airlines’ private property, than there is for the taxpayer to subsidize security costs at shopping malls or factories. Furthermore, the airlines could do a more efficient and effective job at providing security if they were freed from government rules and regulations. I remind my colleagues that it was government bureaucrats who disarmed airline pilots, thus leaving the pilots of the planes used in the September 11 attacks defenseless against the terrorists. I would also remind my colleagues that anti-gun fanatics in the federal bureaucracy continue to prevent pilots from carrying firearms.

The Fed
War No Excuse For Frivolous Spending
3 April 2003    2003 Ron Paul 46:5
Incredibly, this bill sends 175 million dollars in aid to Pakistan even though it was reported in April that Pakistan purchased ballistic missiles from North Korea! Furthermore, it is difficult to understand how $100 million to Colombia, $50 million to the Gaza Strip, and $200 million for “Muslim outreach” has anything to do with the current war in Iraq. Also, this bill spends $31 million to get the federal government into the television broadcasting business in the Middle East. With private American news networks like CNN available virtually everywhere on the globe, is there any justification to spend taxpayer money to create and fund competing state-run networks? Aren’t state-run news networks one of the features of closed societies we have been most critical of in the past?

The Fed
Second Amendment Restoration Act
9 April 2003    2003 Ron Paul 47:2
It is long past time for Congress to recognize that not every problem requires a federal solution. This country’s founders recognized the genius of separating power amongst federal, state and local governments as a means to maximize individual liberty and make government most responsive to those persons who might most responsibly influence it. This separation of powers strictly limited the role of the federal governments in dealing with civil liability matters; instead, it reserved jurisdiction over matters of civil tort, such as gun related alleged-negligence suits, to the state legislatures from which their respective jurisdictions flow.

The Fed
Second Amendment Restoration Act
9 April 2003    2003 Ron Paul 47:3
While I am against the federalization of tort reform, I must voice my complete disapproval for the nature of these very suits brought against gun manufacturers. Lawsuits for monetary damages form gun violence should be aimed at the perpetrators of those crimes, not the manufacturers! Holding manufacturers liable for harm they could neither foresee nor prevent is irresponsible and outlandish. The company that makes a properly functioning product in accordance with the law is acting lawfully and thus should not be taken to court because of misuse by the purchaser (or in many cases, by the one who stole the weapon). I fear these lawsuits are motivated not by a concern for justice but by a search for deep pockets, since gun manufactures have higher incomes than the average criminals, and a fanatical anti-gun political agenda.

The Fed
Second Amendment Restoration Act
9 April 2003    2003 Ron Paul 47:8
In conclusion, while I share the concern over the lawsuits against gun manufacturers, which inspired H.R. 1036, this bill continues the disturbing trend toward federalization of tort law. Enhancing the power of the federal government is not in the long-term interests of defenders of the second amendment and other constitutional liberties. Therefore, I must oppose this bill.

The Fed
Repeal the So-Called “Medical Privacy Rule”
April 9, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 49:6
Mr. Speaker, these regulations also require health care providers to give medical records to the federal government for inclusion in a federal health care data system. Such a system would contain all citizens’ personal health care information, accessible to anyone who knows the individual’s unique health identifier. History shows that when the government collects this type of personal information, the inevitable result is the abuse of citizens’ privacy and liberty by unscrupulous government officials. The only fail-safe privacy protection is for the government not to collect and store this type of personal information.

The Fed
Repeal the So-Called “Medical Privacy Rule”
April 9, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 49:10
In a free society such as the one envisioned by those who drafted the Constitution, the federal government should never force a citizen to divulge personal information to advance “important social goals.” Rather, it should be up to individuals, not the government, to determine what social goals are important enough to warrant allowing others access to their personal property, including their personal information. To the extent these regulations sacrifice individual rights in the name of a bureaucratically determined common good, they are incompatible with a free society and a constitutional government.

The Fed
Repeal the So-Called “Medical Privacy Rule”
April 9, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 49:14
By now it should be clear to every member of Congress that the American people do not want their health information recorded on a database, and they do not wish to be assigned a unique health identifier. According to a survey by the respected Gallup Company, 91 percent of Americans oppose assigning Americans a unique health care identifier, while 92 percent of the people oppose allowing government agencies the unrestrained power to view private medical records and 88 percent of Americans oppose placing private health care information in a national database. Congress has acknowledge this public concern by including language forbidding the expenditure of funds to implement or develop a medical identifier in the federal budget for the past five fiscal years. Rather than continuing to extend the prohibition on funding for another year, Congress should finally obey the wishes of the American people by repealing the authorization of the individual medical ID this year as well as repealing these dangerous medical privacy rules.

The Fed
Agriculture Education Freedom Act
10 April 2003    2003 Ron Paul 50:1
Mr. PAUL. 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.

The Fed
Improving Educational Results For Children With Disabilities Act
30 April 2003    2003 Ron Paul 52:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose H.R. 1350, the Improving Education Results for Children with Disabilities Act. I oppose this bill as a strong supporter of doing everything possible to advance the education of persons with disabilities. However, I believe this bill is yet another case of false advertising by supporters of centralized education, as it expands the federal education bureaucracy and thus strips control over education from local communities and the parents of disabled children. Parents and local communities know their children so much better than any federal bureaucrat, and they can do a better job of meeting a child’s needs than we in Washington. There is no way that the unique needs of my grandchildren, and some young boy or girl in Los Angeles, CA or New York City can be educated by some sort of “Cookie Cutter” approach. In fact, the “Cookie Cutter” approach is especially inappropriate for special needs children.

The Fed
Improving Educational Results For Children With Disabilities Act
30 April 2003    2003 Ron Paul 52:2
At a time when Congress should be returning power and funds to the states, IDEA increases Federal control over education. Under this bill, expenditures on IDEA will total over $100 billion by the year 2011. After 2011, congressional appropriators are free to spend as much as they wish on this program. This flies in the face of many members’ public commitment to place limits on the scope of the Federal bureaucracy.

The Fed
Improving Educational Results For Children With Disabilities Act
30 April 2003    2003 Ron Paul 52:4
However, H.R. 1350 still imposes significant costs on state governments and localities. For example, this bill places new mandates on state and local schools to offer special services in areas with significant “overidentification” of disabled students. Mr. Chairman, the problem of overidentification is one created by the Federal mandates and federal spending of IDEA! So once again, Congress is using problems created by their prior mandates to justify imposing new mandates on the states!

The Fed
Improving Educational Results For Children With Disabilities Act
30 April 2003    2003 Ron Paul 52:5
When I think of imposing new mandates on local schools, I think of a survey of teachers my office conducted last year. According to this survey, over 65 percent of teachers felt that the federal mandates are excessive. In fact, the area where most teachers indicated there is too much federal involvement is disabilities education.

The Fed
Improving Educational Results For Children With Disabilities Act
30 April 2003    2003 Ron Paul 52:7
The major federal mandate in IDEA is that disabled children be educated in the least restrictive setting. In other words, this bill makes mainstreaming the federal policy. Many children may thrive in a mainstream classroom environment; however, I worry that some children may be mainstreamed solely because school officials believe federal law requires it, even though the mainstream environment is not the most appropriate for that child.

The Fed
The Wisdom Of Tax Cuts
6 May 2003    2003 Ron Paul 56:3
The truth is, government officials cannot know what consumers and investors will do if they get a tax cut. Plugging tax cut data into a computer and expecting an accurate projection of the economic outcome is about as reliable as asking Congress to project government surpluses. Two important points are purposely ignored: first, the money people earn is their own, and they have a moral right to keep as much of it as possible. It is not Congress’ money to spend. Government spending is the problem. Taking a big chunk of the people’s earnings out of the economy, whether through taxes or borrowing, is always harmful. Taxation is more honest and direct and the harm is less hidden. Borrowing, especially since the Federal Reserve creates credit out of thin air to loan to big spenders in Congress, is more deceitful. It hides the effects and delays the consequences. But over the long term, this method of financing is much more dangerous.

The Fed
The Wisdom Of Tax Cuts
6 May 2003    2003 Ron Paul 56:4
The process by which the Fed monetizes debt and accommodates Congress contributes to, if not causes, most of our problems. This process of government financing generates the business cycle and thus increases unemployment. It destroys the value of the dollar and thus causes price inflation. It encourages deficits by reducing restraints on congressional spending. It encourages an increase in the current account deficit, the dollar being the reserve currency of the world, and causes huge foreign indebtedness. It reflects a philosophy of instant gratification that says, live for the pleasures of today and have future generations pay the bills.

The Fed
The Flag Burning Amendment
June 3, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 57:4
First off, I think what we are trying to achieve through an amendment to the Constitution is to impose values on people- that is, teach people patriotism with our definition of what patriotism is. But we cannot force values on people; we cannot say there will be a law that a person will do such and such because it is disrespectful if they do not, and therefore, we are going to make sure that people have these values that we want to teach. Values in a free society are accepted voluntarily, not through coercion, and certainly not by law, because the law implies that there are guns, and that means the federal government and others will have to enforce these laws.

The Fed
The Flag Burning Amendment
June 3, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 57:32
Some claim that this is not an issue of private property rights because the flag belongs to the country. The flag belongs to everybody. But if you say that, you are a collectivist. That means you believe everybody owns everything. So why do American citizens have to spend money to obtain, and maintain, a flag if the flag is community owned? If your neighbor, or the Federal Government, owns a flag, even without this amendment you do not have the right to go and burn that flag. If you are causing civil disturbances, you are liable for your conduct under state and local laws. But this whole idea that there could be a collective ownership of the flag is erroneous.

The Fed
Pro-Life Action Must Originate from Principle.
June 4, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 59:5
M. Stanton Evans further explained the link between our form of government and the rights it protects when he wrote, “The genius of the Constitution is its division of powers-summed up in that clause reserving to the several states, or the people, all powers not expressly granted to the federal government.”

The Fed
Pro-Life Action Must Originate from Principle.
June 4, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 59:6
Pro-lifers should be fiercely loyal to this system of federalism, because the very same Constitution that created the federal system also asserts the inalienable right to life. In this way, our constitutional system closely links federalism to the fundamental moral rights to life, liberty, and property. For our Founders it was no exaggeration to say federalism is the means by which life, as well as liberty and property, are protected in this nation. This is why the recent direction of the pro-life cause is so disturbing.

The Fed
Pro-Life Action Must Originate from Principle.
June 4, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 59:7
Pro-life forces have worked for the passage of bills that disregard the federal system, such as the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, the federal cloning ban, and the Child Custody Protection Act. Each of these bills rested on specious constitutional grounds and undermined the federalism our Founders recognized and intended as the greatest protection of our most precious rights.

The Fed
Pro-Life Action Must Originate from Principle.
June 4, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 59:8
Each of these bills transfers to the federal government powers constitutionally retained by the states, thus upsetting the separation and balance of powers that federalism was designed to guarantee. To undermine federalism is to indirectly surrender the very principle upon which the protection of our inalienable right to life depends.

The Fed
Pro-Life Action Must Originate from Principle.
June 4, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 59:10
Even the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, which is an integral part of the current pro-life agenda, presents a dilemma. While I have always supported this Act and plan to do so in the future, I realize that it raises questions of federalism because authority over criminal law is constitutionally retained by the states. The only reason a federal law has any legitimacy in this area is that the Supreme Court took it upon itself to federalize abortion via Roe v. Wade. Accordingly, wrestling the abortion issue from the federal courts and putting it back in the hands of the elected legislature comports with the Founder’s view of the separation of powers that protects our rights to life, liberty, and property.

The Fed
Establishin Joint Committee To Review House And Senate Matters Assuring Continuing Representation And Congressional Operations For The American People
5 June 2003    2003 Ron Paul 64:2
In particular, I hope this Committee does not endorse the proposal contained in “Preserving our Institutions, The Continuity of Government Commission” which recommends that state governors appoint new representatives. Appointing representatives flies in the face of the Founders’ intention that the House of Representatives be the part of the federal government most directly accountable to the people. Even with the direct election of Senators, the fact that members of the House are elected every two years while Senators run for statewide office every six years, means members of the House of Representatives are still more accountable to the people than any other part of the federal government.

The Fed
Unlawful Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act
10 June 2003    2003 Ron Paul 66:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2143 limits the ability of individual citizens to use bank instruments, including credit cards or checks, to finance Internet gambling. This legislation should be rejected by Congress since the Federal Government has no constitutional authority to ban or even discourage any form of gambling.

The Fed
Medicare Funds For Prescription Drugs
26 June 2003    2003 Ron Paul 71:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, while there is little debate about the need to update and modernize the Medicare system to allow seniors to use Medicare funds for prescription drugs, there is much debate about the proper means to achieve this end. However, much of that debate is phony, since neither H.R. 1 nor the alternative allows seniors the ability to control their own health care. Both plans give a large bureaucracy the power to determine which prescription drugs senior citizens can receive. Under both plans, federal spending and control over health care will rise dramatically. The only difference is that the alternative puts seniors under the total control of the federal bureaucracy, while H.R. 1 shares this power with “private” health maintenance organizations and insurance companies. No wonder supporters of nationalized health care are celebrating the greatest expansion of federal control over health care since the Great Society.

The Fed
Medicare Funds For Prescription Drugs
26 June 2003    2003 Ron Paul 71:2
I am pleased that the drafters of H.R. 1 incorporate regulatory relief legislation, which have supported in the past, into the bill. This will help relieve some of the tremendous regulatory burden imposed on health care providers by the Federal Government. I am also pleased that H.R. 1 contains several good provisions addressing the congressionally-created crisis in rural health and attempts to ensure that physicians are fairly reimbursed by the Medicare system.

The Fed
Medicare Funds For Prescription Drugs
26 June 2003    2003 Ron Paul 71:4
Thus, in order to get any help with their prescription drug costs, seniors have to relinquish their ability to choose the type of prescriptions that meet their own individual needs! The inevitable result of this process will be rationing, as Medicare and/or HMO bureaucrats attempt to control costs by reducing the reimbursements paid to pharmacists to below-market levels (thus causing pharmacists to refuse to participate in Medicare), and restricting the type of pharmacies seniors may use in the name of “cost effectiveness.” Bureaucrats may even go so far as to forbid seniors from using their own money to purchase Medicarecovered pharmaceuticals. I remind may colleagues that today the federal government prohibits seniors from using their own money to obtain health care services that differ from those “approved” of by the Medicare bureaucracy!

The Fed
Medicare Funds For Prescription Drugs
26 June 2003    2003 Ron Paul 71:7
Setting up a system where by many of those currently receiving private coverage are hired into the government program exacerbates one of the major problems with this bill: it hastens the bankruptcy of the Medicare program and the federal government. According to Medicare Trustee, and professor of economics at Texas A&M University, Tom Saving, the costs of this bill could eventually amount to two-thirds of the current public-held debt of $3.8 trillion! Of course, estimates such as this often widely underestimate the costs of government programs. For example, in 1965, the government estimate that the Medicare Part B hospitalization program would cost $9 billion in 1990, but Medicare Part B costs $66 billion in 1990!

The Fed
Medicare Funds For Prescription Drugs
26 June 2003    2003 Ron Paul 71:8
This new spending comes on top of recent increases in spending for “homeland security,” foreign aid, federal education programs, and new welfare initiatives, such as those transforming churches into agents of the welfare state. In addition we have launched a seemingly endless program of global reconstruction to spread “democratic capitalism.” The need to limit spending is never seriously discussed: it is simply assumed that Congress can spend whatever it wants and rely on the Federal Reserve to bail us out of trouble. This is a prescription for disaster.

The Fed
Medicare Funds For Prescription Drugs
26 June 2003    2003 Ron Paul 71:16
Medicare MSAs will also ensure that seniors have access to a wide variety of health care services by minimizing the role of the federal bureaucracy. As many of my colleagues know, an increasing number of health care providers have withdrawn from the Medicare program because of the paperwork burden and constant interference with their practice by bureaucrats from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The MSA program frees seniors and providers from this burden, thus making it more likely that quality providers will remain in the Medicare program!

The Fed
Medicare Funds For Prescription Drugs
26 June 2003    2003 Ron Paul 71:18
Mr. Speaker, seniors should not be treated like children by the federal government and told what health care services they can and cannot have. We in Congress have a duty to preserve and protect the Medicare trust fund. We must keep the promise to America’s seniors and working Americans, whose taxes finance Medicare, that they will have quality health care in their golden years. However, we also have a duty to make sure that seniors can get the health care that suits their needs, instead of being forced into a cookie cutter program designed by Washington, DC-based bureaucrats! Medicare MSAs are a good first step toward allowing seniors the freedom to control their own health care.

The Fed
The “Continuity of Government” Proposal – A Dangerous and Unnecessary Threat to Representative Rule
June 30, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 72:3
One reading the COGC proposal cannot help but sense the familiar Washington conceit at work, a conceit that sees America as totally dependent on the workings of Capitol Hill. It is simply unthinkable to many in Washington that the American people might survive a period in which Congress did not pass any new laws. But the truth is that the federal state is not America. The American people have always been remarkably resilient in the face of emergencies, and individual states are far more equipped to deal with emergencies and fill congressional vacancies than COGC imagines.

The Fed
Neo – CONNED !
July 10, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 73:1
The modern-day limited-government movement has been co-opted. The conservatives have failed in their effort to shrink the size of government. There has not been, nor will there soon be, a conservative revolution in Washington. Party control of the federal government has changed, but the inexorable growth in the size and scope of government has continued unabated. The liberal arguments for limited government in personal affairs and foreign military adventurism were never seriously considered as part of this revolution.

The Fed
Neo – CONNED !
July 10, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 73:7
Many present-day conservatives, who generally argue for less government and supported the Reagan/Gingrich/Bush takeover of the federal government, are now justifiably disillusioned. Although not a monolithic group, they wanted to shrink the size of government.

The Fed
Neo – CONNED !
July 10, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 73:79
We know those who lead us—both in the administration and in Congress—show no appetite to challenge the tax or monetary systems that do so much damage to our economy. The IRS and the Federal Reserve are off limits for criticism or reform. There’s no resistance to spending, either domestic or foreign. Debt is not seen as a problem. The supply-siders won on this issue, and now many conservatives readily endorse deficit spending.

The Fed
Neo – CONNED !
July 10, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 73:82
Neocons enthusiastically embrace the Department of Education and national testing. Both parties overwhelmingly support the huge commitment to a new prescription drug program. Their devotion to the new approach called “compassionate conservatism” has lured many conservatives into supporting programs for expanding the federal role in welfare and in church charities. The faith-based initiative is a neocon project, yet it only repackages and expands the liberal notion of welfare. The intellectuals who promoted these initiatives were neocons, but there’s nothing conservative about expanding the federal government’s role in welfare.

The Fed
Legislation To Prohibit The Federal Government From Imposing A “Carry Tax”
17 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 78:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to protect American liberty, privacy and economic wellbeing by introducing legislation to prohibit the Federal Government from imposing a “carry tax.” A carry tax is a tax imposed on Americans that requires them to pay a tax whenever they make a bank deposit. The amount of the tax is based on how long their money has been in circulation. Hard as it may be to believe, some in the Federal Government have actually considered imposing this tax on American citizens. Since this bill punishes those who rely on cash for the majority of their economic transactions, and since lower income Americans tend to rely on cash for their economic transactions, this is a highly regressive tax plan. Furthermore, since the plan is designed to lower interest rates, it will negatively impact those who rely on investment income for a significant part of their income. Thus, the carry tax will lower the income of millions of senior citizens.

The Fed
Legislation To Prohibit The Federal Government From Imposing A “Carry Tax”
17 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 78:2
Proposals to punish people if their economic behavior meets with the disapproval of government officials form the foundation of the type of central planning which caused so much misery in the last century. The carry tax proposal is obviously incompatible with a free market. This proposal is also a major threat to personal and financial privacy and thus individual liberty. In order to enforce the carry tax, the government would need a means of monitoring how long each piece of currency has been in circulation and how many hands it passed through before coming into the possession of the person on whom the tax is assessed. Thus, enforcing this tax would also give the government the power to monitor the transactions of individual Americans. The Federal Government should not abuse the authority granted it by our current monetary system and legal tender laws as a backdoor means of prying into the private economic transactions of American citizens. That is why my legislation also forbids the Federal Government from placing any information storage capacity on any Federal Reserve notes.

The Fed
Legislation To Prohibit The Federal Government From Imposing A “Carry Tax”
17 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 78:3
The carry tax was proposed as a measure to counteract the perceived risk of deflation. Yet, the problems this carry tax is intended to solve are caused by our government’s boomand- bust monetary policy. Any perceived deflation in the American economy is the result of the end of the inflationary period of the nineties that created the stock market bubble. When the bubble burst, there was the inevitable process of liquidating bad investments caused by the misallocation of credit as a result of the Federal Reserve monetary policy. In fact, this liquidation is necessary for the economy to recover from the economic misallocations caused by the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy.

The Fed
Legislation To Prohibit The Federal Government From Imposing A “Carry Tax”
17 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 78:4
Unfortunately, rather than finally putting an end to the boom-and-bust cycle, most in Washington are preparing to resume the cycle by calling on the Federal Reserve and the Treasury to flood the economy with new money. If Congress is not going to stabilize the American economy by reforming our unstable monetary policy, it should at least refrain from using this government failure as an excuse to further restrict the American people’s liberty through an odious carry tax. I therefore hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation.

The Fed
The Monetary Freedom And Accountability Act
17 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 79:4
While the Treasury denies it is dealing in gold, the Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee (GATA) has uncovered evidence suggesting that the Federal Reserve and the Treasury, as detailed in the attached article. GATA alleges that the Treasury, operating through the Exchange- Stabilization Fund and in cooperation with major banks and the International Monetary Fund, has been interfering in the gold market with the goal of lowering the price of gold. The purpose of this policy has been to disguise the true effects of the monetary bubble responsible for the artificial prosperity of the 1990s, and to protect the politically-powerful banks that are heavy invested in gold derivatives. GATA believes federal actions to drive down the price of gold help protect the profits of these banks at the expense of investors, consumers, and taxpayers around the world.

The Fed
The Monetary Freedom And Accountability Act
17 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 79:5
GATA has also produced evidence that American officials are involved in gold transactions. Alan Greenspan himself referred to the federal government’s power to manipulate the price of gold at hearings before the House Banking Committee and the Senate Agricultural Committee in July, 1998: “Nor can private counterparts restrict supplies of gold, another commodity whose derivatives are often traded over-the-counter, where central banks stand ready to lease gold in increasing quantities should the price rise.”.

The Fed
The Monetary Freedom And Accountability Act
17 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 79:6
Mr. Speaker, while I certainly share GATA’s concerns over the effects of federal dealings in the gold market, my bill in no way interferes with the ability of the federal government to buy or sell gold. It simply requires that before the executive branch engages in such transactions, Congress has the chance to review it, debate it, and approve it.

The Fed
The Monetary Freedom And Accountability Act
17 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 79:10
The “lunatic fringe” long has argued that the price of gold was being manipulated by a “gold cartel” involving J.P. Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), the U.S. Treasury and the Federal Reserve, but that the manipulation had been sufficiently exposed to require that it be abandoned, producing the steady upward increase in the price of the shiny, yellow metal.

The Fed
Bring Back Honest Money
17 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 82:3
While fiat money is widely accepted thanks to legal tender laws, it does not maintain its purchasing power. This works to the disadvantage of ordinary people who lose the purchasing power of their savings, pensions, annuities, and other promises of future payment. Most importantly, because of the subsidies our present monetary system provides to banks, which, as Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has stated, “induces” the financial sector to increase leverage, the Federal Reserve can create additional money, in Mr. Greenspan’s words, “ without limit .” For this reason, absent legal tender laws, many citizens would refuse to accept fiat irredeemable paper-ticket or electronic money.

The Fed
Bring Back Honest Money
17 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 82:6
While harming ordinary citizens, legal tender laws help expand the scope of government beyond that authorized under the Constitution. However, the primary beneficiaries of legal tender laws are financial institutions, especially banks, which have been improperly granted the special privilege of creating fiat irredeemable electronic money out of thin air through a process commonly called fractional reserve lending. According to the Federal Reserve, since 1950 these private companies (banks) have created almost $8 trillion out of nothing. This has been enormously advantageous to them.

The Fed
Bring Back Honest Money
17 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 82:8
The drafters of the Constitution were well aware of how a government armed with legal tender powers could ravage the people’s liberty and prosperity. That is why the Constitution does not grant legal tender power to the federal government, and the states are empowered to make legal tender only out of gold and silver (see Article 1, Section 10). Instead, Congress was given the power to regulate money against a standard, i.e., the dollar. When Alexander Hamilton wrote the Coinage Act of 1792, he simply made into law the market-definition of a dollar as equaling the silver content of the Spanish milled dollar (371.25 grains of silver), which is the dollar referred to in the Constitution. This historical definition of the dollar has never been changed, and cannot be changed any more than the term “inch,” as a measure of length, can be changed. It is a gross misrepresentation to equate our irredeemable paper-ticket or electronic money to “dollars.”

The Fed
Abolishing The Federal Reserve
17 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 83:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation to restore financial stability to America’s economy by abolishing the Federal Reserve. I also ask unanimous consent to insert the attached article “The Greatest Theft in History” by Professor Murray Sabrin, into the RECORD. Professor Sabrin provides an excellent summary of how the Federal Reserve is responsible for the nation’s current economic difficulties.

The Fed
Abolishing The Federal Reserve
17 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 83:3
Since the creation of the Federal Reserve, middle and working-class Americans have been victimized by a boom-and-bust monetary policy. In addition, most Americans have suffered a steadily eroding purchasing power because of the Federal Reserve’s inflationary policies. This represents a real, if hidden, tax imposed on the American people.

The Fed
Abolishing The Federal Reserve
17 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 83:4
From the Great Depression, to the stagflation of the seventies, to the burst of the dotcom bubble, every economic downturn suffered by the country over the last 80 years can be traced to Federal Reserve policy. The Fed has followed a consistent policy of flooding the economy with easy money, leading to a misallocation of resources and an artificial “boom” followed by a recession or depression when the Fed-created bubble bursts.

The Fed
Abolishing The Federal Reserve
17 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 83:6
Though the Federal Reserve policy harms the average American, it benefits those in a position to take advantage of the cycles in monetary policy. The main beneficiaries are those who receive access to artificially inflated money and/or credit before the inflationary effects of the policy impact the entire economy. Federal Reserve policies also benefit big spending politicians who use the inflated currency created by the Fed to hide the true costs of the welfare-warfare state. It is time for Congress to put the interests of the American people ahead of the special interests and their own appetite for big government.

The Fed
Abolishing The Federal Reserve
17 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 83:7
Abolishing the Federal Reserve will allow Congress to reassert its constitutional authority over monetary policy. The United States Constitution grants to Congress the authority to coin money and regulate the value of the currency. The Constitution does not give Congress the authority to delegate control over monetary policy to a central bank. Furthermore, the Constitution certainly does not empower the federal government to erode the American standard of living via an inflationary monetary policy.

The Fed
Abolishing The Federal Reserve
17 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 83:8
In fact, Congress’ constitutional mandate regarding monetary policy should only permit currency backed by stable commodities such as silver and gold to be used as legal tender. Therefore, abolishing the Federal Reserve and returning to a constitutional system will enable America to return to the type of monetary system envisioned by our nation’s founders: one where the value of money is consistent because it is tied to a commodity such as gold. Such a monetary system is the basis of a true free-market economy.

The Fed
Abolishing The Federal Reserve
17 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 83:9
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stand up for working Americans by putting an end to the manipulation of the money supply which erodes Americans’ standard of living, enlarges big government, and enriches well-connected elites, by cosponsoring my legislation to abolish the Federal Reserve.

The Fed
Abolishing The Federal Reserve
17 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 83:14
The answer is simple: The Federal Reserve, the government created institution that was founded to “stabilize” the value of the dollar and “smooth” “out the business cycle”, which has the legal authority to create money out of thin air, is nothing more than the greatest manipulator of interest rates in the history of the world.

The Fed
Abolishing The Federal Reserve
17 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 83:15
The FED pumps money into the banking system if it wants to lower interest rates in order “to stimulate” the economy, and conversely will take money out of the banking system if it want to dampen borrowing and “cool off” an overheated economy.

The Fed
Abolishing The Federal Reserve
17 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 83:16
For the past two-and-a-half years the FED has been pumping money into the banking system, driving down short-term interest rates to its current levels, well below the risk free rate. In fact, the American people are being penalized heavily for saving. Real interest rates are negative.

The Fed
Abolishing The Federal Reserve
17 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 83:20
Using the same 4.5% risk free rate, savers should be receiving about $210 billion on their short-term deposits at the nation’s financial institutions. Instead, they are earning about $50 billion, for a loss of $160 billion in annual income. In addition, the U.S. Treasury has approximately $1 trillion in short-term debt that is yielding a little more than 1%. Savers holding the federal government’s short-term debt are losing approximately $35 billion in annual income.

The Fed
Abolishing The Federal Reserve
17 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 83:21
The bottom line: While the economic debate in Washington DC centers around President Bush’s tax cut proposal, which should pass intact because less money in the federal government means more freedom and prosperity for the American people, the Federal Reserve continues to perpetuate the greatest theft in world history. By having the power to manipulate interest rates, the FED in effect has not only a license to print money but also can redistribute income form savers to borrowers.

The Fed
Abolishing The Federal Reserve
17 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 83:22
The winners of the FED’s interest rate manipulations include the nations’ financial institutions, business borrowers and government. The losers are anyone who wants to save for the proverbial rainy day and accumulate money for a down payment on a house or other family need.

The Fed
Abolishing The Federal Reserve
17 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 83:24
After 90 years of manipulating interest rates, it is time to abolish the FED and return the country to the only sound monetary system that is consistent with liberty and prosperity — the gold standard.

The Fed
Legislation To Withdraw The United States From The Bretton Woods Agreement
17 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 84:7
In addition, the IMF violates basic constitutional and moral principles. The Federal Government has no constitutional authority to fund international institutions such as the IMF. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, it is simply immoral to take money from hard-working Americans to support the economic schemes of politicallypowerful special interests and third-world dictators.

The Fed
UNESCO — Part 2
22 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 87:4
I do not think the American people want that. I think the American people do not want to sacrifice their sovereignty and they would like not to have the United Nations and UNESCO interfering in our curricula. We have enough problems ourselves here to allow our States and our local communities to manage their schools with the interference of the Federal Government. And now here we are talking about an international organization designing a curriculum for our schools. Their goals are not American. Their goals are internationalist. I quoted just a little while ago from one of their pamphlets that says they do not even believe in nationalism, that it was a bad thing, that it was a result of families teaching children bad things, to believe in nationalism.

The Fed
PATRIOT Act
22 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 88:4
I have had many Members in the Congress come to me and on the quiet admit to me that voting for the PATRIOT Act was the worst bill and the worst vote they have ever cast; and this will give them an opportunity to change it, although this is very narrow. It is too bad we could not have made this more broad, and it is too bad we are not going to get to vote on the amendment of the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. SANDERS) to make sure that without the proper search warrant that the Federal Government would not have access to the library records.

The Fed
Medicinal Marijuana
22 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 89:5
There is the case in California of Peter McDaniels, who was diagnosed with cancer and AIDS. California changed the law and permitted him to use marijuana if it was self-grown, and he was using it; and yet although he was dying, the Federal officials came in and arrested him and he was taken to court. The terrible irony of this was here was a man that was dying and the physicians were not giving him any help; and when he was tried, it was not allowed to be said that he was obeying the State law.

The Fed
Medicinal Marijuana
22 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 89:6
That is how far the ninth and tenth amendments have been undermined, that there has been so much usurpation of States’ rights and States’ abilities to manage these affair, and that is why the Founders set the system up this way in order that if there is a mistake it not be monolithic; and believe me, the Federal Government has made a mistake not only here with marijuana, with all the drug laws, let me tell my colleagues.

The Fed
Medicinal Marijuana
22 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 89:7
There are more people who die from the use of legal drugs than illegal drugs. Just think of that. More people die from the use of legal drugs; and also, there are more deaths from the drug war than there are from deaths from using the illegal drugs. So it has gotten out of control. But the whole idea that a person who is dying, a physician cannot even prescribe something that might help them. The terrible irony of Peter McDaniels was that he died because of vomiting, something that could have and had only been curtailed by the use of marijuana. No other medication had helped; and we, the Federal Government, go in there and deny this and defy the State law, the State law of California.

The Fed
H.R. 2427, the Pharmaceutical Market Access Act
24 July 2003    2003 Ron Paul 91:13
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my disappointment with the numerous D.C.-based “free-market” organizations that are opposing this bill. Anyone following this debate could be excused for thinking they have entered into a Twilight Zone episode where “libertarian” policy wonks argue that the Federal Government must protect citizens from purchasing the pharmaceuticals of their choice, endorse protectionism, and argue that the Federal Government has a moral duty to fashion policies designed to protect the pharmaceutical companies’ profit margins. I do not wish to speculate on the motivation behind this deviation from free-market principles among groups that normally uphold the principles of liberty. However, I do hope the vehemence with which these organizations are attacking this bill is motivated by sincere, if misguided, principle, and not by the large donations these organizations have received from the pharmaceutical industry. If the latter is the case, then these groups have discredited themselves by suggesting that their free-market principles can be compromised when it serves the interests of their corporate donors.

The Fed
Stop Subsidizing Foreign Shrimpers
July 25, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 92:2
Unfortunately, the federal government is strangling this vital industry with excessive regulations. For example, the federal government mandates catch reduction devices and turtle excluder devices (TEDS) on the industry. Our shrimpers’ foreign competitors operate without such regulations, placing them at a distinct advantage. The mandatory use of these devices also results in a significant reduction in the amount of shrimp caught by domestic shrimpers, thus damaging their competitive position and market share.

The Fed
Stop Subsidizing Foreign Shrimpers
July 25, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 92:4
Adding insult to injury the federal government is forcing American shrimpers to subsidize their competitors! From 1999-2002, the United States government provided approximately $2,172,220,000 in financing and insurance for these foreign countries through the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC). Furthermore, the United States’ current exposure relative to these countries through the Export-Import Bank totals approximately $14,800,000,000. Thus, the United States taxpayer is providing a subsidy of at least $16,972,220,000 to the home countries of the leading foreign competitors of American shrimpers!

The Fed
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 93:2
Alan Greenspan, years before he became Federal Reserve Board Chairman in charge of flagrantly debasing the U.S. dollar, wrote about this connection between sound money, prosperity, and freedom. In his article “Gold and Economic Freedom” ( The Objectivist, July 1966), Greenspan starts by saying: “An almost hysterical antagonism toward the gold standard is an issue that unites statists of all persuasions. They seem to sense…that gold and economic freedom are inseparable.” Further he states that: “Under the gold standard, a free banking system stands as the protector of an economy’s stability and balanced growth.” Astoundingly, Mr. Greenspan’s analysis of the 1929 market crash, and how the Fed precipitated the crisis, directly parallels current conditions we are experiencing under his management of the Fed. Greenspan explains: “The excess credit which the Fed pumped into the economy spilled over into the stock market- triggering a fantastic speculative boom.” And, “…By 1929 the speculative imbalances had become overwhelming and unmanageable by the Fed.” Greenspan concluded his article by stating: “In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation.” He explains that the “shabby secret” of the proponents of big government and paper money is that deficit spending is simply nothing more than a “scheme for the hidden confiscation of wealth.” Yet here we are today with a purely fiat monetary system, managed almost exclusively by Alan Greenspan, who once so correctly denounced the Fed’s role in the Depression while recognizing the need for sound money.

The Fed
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 93:3
The Founders of this country, and a large majority of the American people up until the 1930s, disdained paper money, respected commodity money, and disapproved of a central bank’s monopoly control of money creation and interest rates. Ironically, it was the abuse of the gold standard, the Fed’s credit-creating habits of the 1920s, and its subsequent mischief in the 1930s, that not only gave us the Great Depression, but also prolonged it. Yet sound money was blamed for all the suffering. That’s why people hardly objected when Roosevelt and his statist friends confiscated gold and radically debased the currency, ushering in the age of worldwide fiat currencies with which the international economy struggles today.

The Fed
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 93:10
Though the need for sound money is currently not a pressing issue for Congress, it’s something that cannot be ignored because serious economic problems resulting from our paper money system are being forced upon us. As a matter of fact, we deal with the consequences on a daily basis, yet fail to see the connection between our economic problems and the mischief orchestrated by the Federal Reserve.

The Fed
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 93:12
Money is a moral, economic, and political issue. Since the monetary unit measures every economic transaction, from wages to prices, taxes, and interest rates, it is vitally important that its value is honestly established in the marketplace without bankers, government, politicians, or the Federal Reserve manipulating its value to serve special interests. Money As a Moral Issue

The Fed
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 93:13
The moral issue regarding money should be the easiest to understand, but almost no one in Washington thinks of money in these terms. Although there is a growing and deserved distrust in government per se, trust in money and the Federal Reserve’s ability to manage it remains strong. No one would welcome a counterfeiter to town, yet this same authority is blindly given to our central bank without any serious oversight by the Congress.

The Fed
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 93:17
Fiat money is also immoral because it allows government to finance special interest legislation that otherwise would have to be paid for by direct taxation or by productive enterprise. This transfer of wealth occurs without directly taking the money out of someone’s pocket. Every dollar created dilutes the value of existing dollars in circulation. Those individuals who worked hard, paid their taxes, and saved some money for a rainy day are hit the hardest, with their dollars being depreciated in value while earning interest that is kept artificially low by the Federal Reserve easy-credit policy. The easy credit helps investors and consumers who have no qualms about going into debt and even declaring bankruptcy.

The Fed
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 93:19
Printing money, which is literally inflation, is nothing more than a sinister and evil form of hidden taxation. It’s unfair and deceptive, and accordingly strongly opposed by the authors of the Constitution. That is why there is no authority for Congress, the Federal Reserve, or the executive branch to operate the current system of money we have today. Money As a Political Issue

The Fed
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 93:27
The 20 th Century was much less sympathetic to gold. Since 1913 central banking has been accepted in the United States without much debate, despite the many economic and political horrors caused or worsened by the Federal Reserve since its establishment. The ups and downs of the economy have all come as a consequence of Fed policies, from the Great Depression to the horrendous stagflation of the ‘70s, as well as the current ongoing economic crisis.

The Fed
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 93:29
Look at how the military budget is exploding, deficits are exploding, and tax revenues are going down. No problem; the Fed is there and will print whatever is needed to meet our military commitments, whether it’s wise to do so or not.

The Fed
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 93:31
We do hear some talk about monetary policy and criticism directed toward the Federal Reserve, but it falls far short of what I’m talking about. Big-spending welfarists constantly complain about Fed policy, usually demanding lower interest rates even when rates are at historic lows. Big-government conservatives promoting grand worldwide military operations, while arguing that “deficits don’t matter” as long as marginal tax rates are lowered, also constantly criticize the Fed for high interest rates and lack of liquidity. Coming from both the left and the right, these demands would not occur if money could not be created out of thin air at will. Both sides are asking for the same thing from the Fed for different reasons. They want the printing presses to run faster and create more credit, so that the economy will be healed like magic- or so they believe.

The Fed
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 93:32
This is not the kind of interest in the Fed that we need. I’m anticipating that we should and one day will be forced to deal with the definition of the dollar and what money should consist of. The current superficial discussion about money merely shows a desire to tinker with the current system in hopes of improving the deteriorating economy. There will be a point, though, when the tinkering will no longer be of any benefit and even the best advice will be of no value. We have just gone through two-and-a-half years of tinkering with 13 rate cuts, and recovery has not yet been achieved. It’s just possible that we’re much closer than anyone realizes to that day when it will become absolutely necessary to deal with the monetary issue- both philosophically and strategically- and forget about the band-aid approach to the current system. Money as an Economic Issue

The Fed
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 93:35
There are also many conservatives who do not endorse central economic planning as those on the left do, but nevertheless concede this authority to the Federal Reserve to manipulate the economy through monetary policy. Only a small group of constitutionalists, libertarians, and Austrian free-market economists reject the notion that central planning, through interest-rate and money-supply manipulation, is a productive endeavor.

The Fed
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 93:39
That’s why the Fed screams about a coming deflation, so it can continue the devaluation of the dollar unabated. The politicians don’t mind, the bankers welcome the business activity, and the recipients of the funds passed out by Congress never complain. The greater the debt, the greater the need to inflate the currency, since debt cannot be the source of long-term wealth. Individuals and corporations who borrow too much eventually must cut back and pay off debt and start anew, but governments rarely do.

The Fed
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 93:40
But where’s the hitch? This process, which seems to be a creative way of paying off debt, eventually undermines the capitalist structure of the economy, thus making it difficult to produce wealth, and that’s when the whole process comes to an end. This system causes many economic problems, but most of them stem from the Fed’s interference with the market rate of interest that it achieves through credit creation and printing money.

The Fed
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 93:42
Though generally accepted by most modern economists and politicians, there is little hesitancy in accepting the omnipotent wisdom of the Federal Reserve to know the “price” of money – the interest rate – and its proper supply. For decades, and especially during the 1990s – when Chairman Greenspan was held in such high esteem, and no one dared question his judgment or the wisdom of the system- this process was allowed to run unimpeded by political or market restraints. Just as we must eventually pay for our perpetual deficits, continuous manipulation of interest and credit will also extract a payment.

The Fed
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 93:43
Artificially low interest rates deceive investors into believing that rates are low because savings are high and represent funds not spent on consumption. When the Fed creates bank deposits out of thin air making loans available at below-market rates, mal-investment and overcapacity results, setting the stage for the next recession or depression. The easy credit policy is welcomed by many: stock-market investors, home builders, home buyers, congressional spendthrifts, bankers, and many other consumers who enjoy borrowing at low rates and not worrying about repayment. However, perpetual good times cannot come from a printing press or easy credit created by a Federal Reserve computer. The piper will demand payment, and the downturn in the business cycle will see to it. The downturn is locked into place by the artificial boom that everyone enjoys, despite the dreams that we have ushered in a “new economic era.” Let there be no doubt: the business cycle, the stagflation, the recessions, the depressions, and the inflations are not a result of capitalism and sound money, but rather are a direct result of paper money and a central bank that is incapable of managing it.

The Fed
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 93:44
Our current monetary system makes it tempting for all parties, individuals, corporations, and government to go into debt. It encourages consumption over investment and production. Incentives to save are diminished by the Fed’s making new credit available to everyone and keeping interest rates on saving so low that few find it advisable to save for a rainy day. This is made worse by taxing interest earned on savings. It plays havoc with those who do save and want to live off their interest. The artificial rates may be 4, 5, or even 6% below the market rate, and the savers- many who are elderly and on fixed incomes- suffer unfairly at the hands of Alan Greenspan, who believes that resorting to money creation will solve our problems and give us perpetual prosperity.

The Fed
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 93:46
The two conditions that result from fiat money that are more likely to concern the people are inflation of prices and unemployment. Unfortunately, few realize these problems are directly related to our monetary system. Instead of demanding reforms, the chorus from both the right and left is for the Fed to do more of the same- only faster. If our problem stems from easy credit and interest-rate manipulation by the Fed, demanding more will not do much to help. Sadly, it will only make our problems worse.

The Fed
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 93:50
Although dollar creation is ultimately the key to its value, many other factors play a part in its perceived value, such as: the strength of our economy, our political stability, our military power, the benefit of the dollar being the key reserve currency of the world, and the relative weakness of other nation’s economies and their currencies. For these reasons, the dollar has enjoyed a special place in the world economy. Increases in productivity have also helped to bestow undeserved trust in our economy with consumer prices, to some degree, being held in check and fooling the people, at the urging of the Fed, that “inflation” is not a problem. Trust is an important factor in how the dollar is perceived. Sound money encourages trust, but trust can come from these other sources as well. But when this trust is lost, which always occurs with paper money, the delayed adjustments can hit with a vengeance.

The Fed
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 93:55
Once this process starts, interest rates will rise. And in recent weeks, despite the frenetic effort of the Fed to keep interest rates low, they are actually rising instead. The official explanation is that this is due to an economic rebound with an increase in demand for loans. Yet a decrease in demand for our debt and reluctance to hold our dollars is a more likely cause. Only time will tell whether the economy rebounds to any significant degree, but one must be aware that rising interest rates and serious price inflation can also reflect a weak dollar and a weak economy. The stagflation of the 1970s baffled many conventional economists, but not the Austrian economists. Many other countries have in the past suffered from the extremes of inflation in an inflationary depression, and we are not immune from that happening here. Our monetary and fiscal policies are actually conducive to such a scenario.

The Fed
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 93:56
In the short run, the current system gives us a free ride, our paper buys cheap goods from overseas, and foreigners risk all by financing our extravagance. But in the long run, we will surely pay for living beyond our means. Debt will be paid for one way or another. An inflated currency always comes back to haunt those who enjoyed the “benefits” of inflation. Although this process is extremely dangerous, many economists and politicians do not see it as a currency problem and are only too willing to find a villain to attack. Surprisingly the villain is often the foreigner who foolishly takes our paper for useful goods and accommodates us by loaning the proceeds back to us. It’s true that the system encourages exportation of jobs as we buy more and more foreign goods. But nobody understands the Fed role in this, so the cries go out to punish the competition with tariffs. Protectionism is a predictable consequence of paper- money inflation, just as is the impoverishment of an entire middle class. It should surprise no one that even in the boom phase of the 1990s, there were still many people who became poorer. Yet all we hear are calls for more government mischief to correct the problems with tariffs, increased welfare for the poor, increased unemployment benefits, deficit spending, and special interest tax reduction, none of which can solve the problems ingrained in a system that operates with paper money and a central bank.

The Fed
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 93:60
Liberals foolishly believe that they can control the process and curtail the benefits going to corporations and banks by increasing the spending for welfare for the poor. But this never happens. Powerful financial special interests control the government spending process and throw only crumbs to the poor. The fallacy with this approach is that the advocates fail to see the harm done to the poor, with cost of living increases and job losses that are a natural consequence of monetary debasement. Therefore, even more liberal control over the spending process can never compensate for the great harm done to the economy and the poor by the Federal Reserve’s effort to manage an unmanageable fiat monetary system.

The Fed
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 93:62
Our current economic problems are directly related to the monetary excesses of three decades and the more recent efforts by the Federal Reserve to thwart the correction that the market is forcing upon us. Since 1998, there has been a sustained attack on corporate profits. Before that, profits and earnings were inflated and fictitious, with WorldCom and Enron being prime examples. In spite of the 13 rate cuts since 2001, economic growth has not been restored.

The Fed
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 93:63
Paper money encourages speculation, excessive debt, and misdirected investments. The market, however, always moves in the direction of eliminating bad investments, liquidating debt, and reducing speculative excesses. What we have seen, especially since the stock market peak of early 2000, is a knock-down, drag-out battle between the Fed’s effort to avoid a recession, limit the recession, and stimulate growth with its only tool, money creation, while the market demands the elimination of bad investments and excess debt. The Fed was also motivated to save the stock market from collapsing, which in some ways they have been able to do. The market, in contrast, will insist on liquidation of unsustainable debt, removal of investment mistakes made over several decades, and a dramatic revaluation of the stock market. In this go-around, the Fed has pulled out all the stops and is more determined than ever, yet the market is saying that new and healthy growth cannot occur until a major cleansing of the system occurs. Does anyone think that tariffs and interest rates of 1% will encourage the rebuilding of our steel and textile industries anytime soon? Obviously, something more is needed.

The Fed
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 93:68
Alan Greenspan, although once a strong advocate for the gold standard, now believes he knows what the outcome of this battle will be. Is it just wishful thinking on his part? In an answer to a question I asked before the Financial Services Committee in February 2003, Chairman Greenspan made an effort to convince me that paper money now works as well as gold: “I have been quite surprised, and I must say pleased, by the fact that central banks have been able to effectively simulate many of the characteristics of the gold standard by constraining the degree of finance in a manner which effectively brought down the general price levels.” Earlier, in December 2002, Mr. Greenspan spoke before the Economic Club of New York and addressed the same subject: “The record of the past 20 years appears to underscore the observation that, although pressures for excess issuance of fiat money are chronic, a prudent monetary policy maintained over a protracted period of time can contain the forces of inflation.” There are several problems with this optimistic assessment. First, efficient central bankers will never replace the invisible hand of a commodity monetary standard. Second, using government price indexes to measure the success of a managed fiat currency should not be reassuring. These indexes can be arbitrarily altered to imply a successful monetary policy. Also, price increases of consumer goods are not a litmus test for measuring the harm done by the money managers at the Fed. The development of overcapacity, excessive debt, and speculation still occur, even when prices happen to remain reasonably stable due to increases in productivity and technology. Chairman Greenspan makes his argument because he hopes he’s right that sound money is no longer necessary, and also because it’s an excuse to keep the inflation of the money supply going for as long as possible, hoping a miracle will restore sound growth to the economy. But that’s only a dream.

The Fed
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 93:69
We are now faced with an economy that is far from robust and may get a lot worse before rebounding. If not now, the time will soon come when the conventional wisdom of the last 90 years, since the Fed was created, will have to be challenged. If the conditions have changed and the routine of fiscal and monetary stimulation don’t work, we better prepare ourselves for the aftermath of a failed dollar system, which will not be limited to the United States.

The Fed
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 93:70
An interesting headline appeared in the New York Times on July 31, 2003, “Commodity Costs Soar, But Factories Don’t Bustle.” What is observed here is a sea change in attitude by investors shifting their investment funds and speculation into things of real value and out of financial areas, such as stocks and bonds. This shift shows that in spite of the most aggressive Fed policy in history in the past three years, the economy remains sluggish and interest rates are actually rising. What can the Fed do? If this trend continues, there’s little they can do. Not only do I believe this trend will continue, I believe it’s likely to accelerate. This policy plays havoc with our economy; reduces revenues, prompts increases in federal spending, increases in deficits and debt occur, and interest costs rise, compounding our budgetary woes.

The Fed
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 93:71
The set of circumstances we face today are unique and quite different from all the other recessions the Federal Reserve has had to deal with. Generally, interest rates are raised to slow the economy and dampen price inflation. At the bottom of the cycle interest rates are lowered to stimulate the economy. But this time around, the recession came in spite of huge and significant interest rate reductions by the Fed. This aggressive policy did not prevent the recession as was hoped; so far it has not produced the desired recovery. Now we’re at the bottom of the cycle and interest rates not only can’t be lowered, they are rising. This is a unique and dangerous combination of events. This set of circumstances can only occur with fiat money and indicates that further manipulation of the money supply and interest rates by the Fed will have little if any effect.

The Fed
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 93:72
The odds aren’t very good that the Fed will adopt a policy of not inflating the money supply because of some very painful consequences that would result. Also there would be a need to remove the pressure on the Fed to accommodate the big spenders in Congress. Since there are essentially only two groups that have any influence on spending levels, big-government liberals and big- government conservatives, that’s not about to happen. Poverty is going to worsen due to our monetary and fiscal policies, so spending on the war on poverty will accelerate. Our obsession with policing the world, nation building, and pre-emptive war are not likely to soon go away, since both Republican and Democratic leaders endorse them. Instead, the cost of defending the American empire is going to accelerate. A country that is getting poorer cannot pay these bills with higher taxation nor can they find enough excess funds for the people to loan to the government. The only recourse is for the Federal Reserve to accommodate and monetize the federal debt, and that, of course, is inflation.

The Fed
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 93:83
It’s no coincidence that during the period following the establishment of the Federal Reserve and the elimination of the gold standard, a huge growth in the size of the federal government and its debt occurred. Believers in big government, whether on the left or right, vociferously reject the constraints on government growth that gold demands. Liberty is virtually impossible to protect when the people allow their government to print money at will. Inevitably, the left will demand more economic interventionism, the right more militarism and empire building. Both sides, either inadvertently or deliberately, will foster corporatism. Those whose greatest interest is in liberty and self-reliance are lost in the shuffle. Though left and right have different goals and serve different special-interest groups, they are only too willing to compromise and support each other’s programs.

The Fed
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 93:85
The panicky effort of the Fed to stimulate economic growth does produce what it considers favorable economic reports, recently citing second quarter growth this year at 3.1%. But in the footnotes, we find that military spending—almost all of which is overseas- was up an astounding 46%. This, of course, represents deficit spending financed by the Federal Reserve’s printing press. In the same quarter, after-tax corporate profits fell 3.4%. This is hardly a reassuring report on the health of our economy and merely reflects the bankruptcy of current economic policy.

The Fed
Paper Money and Tyranny
September 5, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 93:86
Real economic growth won’t return until confidence in the entire system is restored. And that is impossible as long as it depends on the politicians not spending too much money and the Federal Reserve limiting its propensity to inflate our way to prosperity. Only sound money and limited government can do that.

The Fed
Statement Opposing the Continuity of Government Proposal
September 9, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 94:3
Even with the direct election of Senators, the fact that members of the House are elected every two years while Senators run for statewide office every six years, means that members of the House of Representatives are still more accountable to the people than any other part of the federal government. Appointed members of Congress simply cannot be truly representative. Turning once again to Federalist 52, we find this point eloquently made by Mssrs. Madison and Hamilton: “As it is essential to liberty that the government in general should have a common interest with the people, so it is particularly essential that the branch of it under consideration should have an immediate dependence on, and an intimate sympathy with, the people. Frequent elections are unquestionably the only policy by which this dependence and sympathy can be effectually secured.”

The Fed
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Subsidies Distort the Housing Market
September 10, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 95:2
I hope this committee spends some time examining the special privileges provided to GSEs by the federal government. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the housing-related GSEs received 13.6 billion worth of indirect federal subsidies in fiscal year 2000 alone. Today, I will introduce the Free Housing Market Enhancement Act, which removes government subsidies from the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), and the National Home Loan Bank Board.

The Fed
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Subsidies Distort the Housing Market
September 10, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 95:4
The Free Housing Market Enhancement Act also repeals the explicit grant of legal authority given to the Federal Reserve to purchase GSE debt. GSEs are the only institutions besides the United States Treasury granted explicit statutory authority to monetize their debt through the Federal Reserve. This provision gives the GSEs a source of liquidity unavailable to their competitors.

The Fed
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Subsidies Distort the Housing Market
September 10, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 95:5
The connection between the GSEs and the government helps isolate the GSE management from market discipline. This isolation from market discipline is the root cause of the recent reports of mismanagement occurring at Fannie and Freddie. After all, if Fannie and Freddie were not underwritten by the federal government, investors would demand Fannie and Freddie provide assurance that they follow accepted management and accounting practices.

The Fed
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Subsidies Distort the Housing Market
September 10, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 95:8
Perhaps the Federal Reserve can stave off the day of reckoning by purchasing GSE debt and pumping liquidity into the housing market, but this cannot hold off the inevitable drop in the housing market forever. In fact, postponing the necessary, but painful market corrections will only deepen the inevitable fall. The more people invested in the market, the greater the effects across the economy when the bubble bursts.

The Fed
Introducing Free Housing Market Enhancement Act
10 September 2003    2003 Ron Paul 96:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Free Housing Market Enhancement Act. This legislation restores a free market in housing by repealing special privileges for the housing-related government sponsored enterprises (GSE). These entities are the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), and the National Home Loan Bank Board. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the housing-related GSEs received 13.6 billion worth of indirect Federal subsidies in Fiscal Year 2000 alone.

The Fed
Introducing Free Housing Market Enhancement Act
10 September 2003    2003 Ron Paul 96:3
The Free Housing Market Enhancement Act also repeals the explicit grant of legal authority given to the Federal Reserve to purchase the debt of GSE. GSEs are the only institutions besides the United States Treasury granted explicit statutory authority to monetarize their debt through the Federal Reserve. This provision gives the GSEs a source of liquidity unavailable to their competitors.

The Fed
Introducing Free Housing Market Enhancement Act
10 September 2003    2003 Ron Paul 96:4
The connection between the GSEs and the government helps isolate the GSE management from market discipline. This isolation from market discipline is the root cause of the recent reports of mismanagement occurring at Fannie and Freddie. After all, if investors did not have reason to believe that Fannie and Freddie were underwritten by the Federal government then investors would demand Fannie and Freddie provided assurance they were following accepted management and accounting practices before investing in Fannie and Freddie.

The Fed
Introducing Free Housing Market Enhancement Act
10 September 2003    2003 Ron Paul 96:7
Perhaps the Federal Reserve can stave off the day of reckoning by purchasing the GSE’s debt and pumping liquidity into the housing market, but this cannot hold off the inevitable drop in the housing market forever. In fact, postponing the necessary, but painful market corrections will only deepen the inevitable fall. The more people invested in the market, the greater the effects across the economy when the bubble bursts.

The Fed
We Cannot Afford Another $87 Billion in Iraq
September 16, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 98:9
Some believe that by not raising taxes to pay for the war we can fund it on the cheap. We cannot. When deficits skyrocket the federal government prints more money, the people are effectively taxed by losing value in their savings and in their paychecks. The inflation tax is a sinister and evil way to pay for unpopular wars. It has been done that way for centuries.

The Fed
Are Vouchers the Solution for Our Failing Public Schools?
September 30, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 103:1
Mr. Speaker, many of those who share my belief that the most effective education reform is to put parents back in charge of the education system have embraced government-funded voucher programs as a means to that end. I certainly sympathize with the goals of voucher proponents and I believe that States and local governments have the right, protected by the Tenth Amendment, to adopt any sort of voucher program they believe meets the needs of their communities. However, I have a number of concerns regarding proposals to implement a voucher plan on the Federal level.

The Fed
Are Vouchers the Solution for Our Failing Public Schools?
September 30, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 103:2
The basic reason supporters of parental control of education should view Federal voucher programs with a high degree of skepticism is that vouchers are a creation of the government, not the market. Vouchers are a taxpayer-funded program benefiting a particular group of children selected by politicians and bureaucrats. Therefore, the Federal voucher program supported by many conservatives is little more than another tax-funded welfare program establishing an entitlement to a private school education. Vouchers thus raise the same constitutional and moral questions as other transfer programs. Yet, voucher supporters wonder why middle-class taxpayers, who have to sacrifice to provide a private school education to their children, balk at being forced to pay more taxes to provide a free private education for another child.

The Fed
Are Vouchers the Solution for Our Failing Public Schools?
September 30, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 103:11
Instead of expanding the Federal control over education in the name of parental control, Congress should embrace a true agenda of parental control by passing generous education tax credits. Education tax credits empower parents to spend their own money on their children’s education. Since the parents control the education dollar, the parents control their children’s education. In order to provide parents with control of education, I have introduced the Family Education Freedom Act (H.R. 612) that provides all parents with a tax credit of up to $3,000. The credit is available to parents who choose to send their children to public, private, or home school. Education tax credits are particularly valuable to lower income parents.

The Fed
American Dream Downpayment Act
1 October 2003    2003 Ron Paul 104:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the American dream, as conceived by the Nation’s Founders, has little in common with H.R. 1276, the so-called American Dream Downpayment Act. In the original version of the American dream, individuals earned the money to purchase a house through their own efforts, often times sacrificing other goods to save for their first downpayment. According to the sponsors of H.R. 1276, that old American dream has been replaced by a new dream of having the Federal Government force your fellow citizens to hand you the money for a downpayment.

The Fed
American Dream Downpayment Act
1 October 2003    2003 Ron Paul 104:2
H.R. 1276 not only warps the true meaning of the American dream, but also exceeds Congress’ constitutional boundaries and interferes with and distorts the operation of the free market. Instead of expanding unconstitutional federal power, Congress should focus its energies on dismantling the federal housing bureaucracy so the American people can control housing resources and use the free market to meet their demands for affordable housing.

The Fed
Commending The National Endowment For Democracy For Contributions To democratic Development Around The World On The 20th Anniversary Of Its Establishment
7 October 2003    2003 Ron Paul 105:4
“. . . the controversy surrounding NED questions the wisdom of giving a quasi-private organization the fiat to pursue what is effectively an independent foreign policy under the guise of “promoting democracy.” Proponents of NED maintain that a private organization is necessary to overcome the restraints that limit the activities of a government agency, yet they insist that the American taxpayer provide full funding for this initiative. NED’s detractors point to the inherent contradiction of a publicly funded organization that is charged with executing foreign policy (a power expressly given to the federal government in the Constitution) yet exempt from nearly all political and administrative controls . . .

The Fed
Defense Production Reauthorization Act
15 October 2003    2003 Ron Paul 107:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, no one questions the need for the Federal Government to obtain the necessary resources to fill its constitutional role of providing for the common defense. However, the federal government must fulfill this duty in a manner that does not conflict in any way with the Constitution or endanger republican government. The Defense Production Reauthorization Act (DPA), which gives almost unchecked power to the executive to interfere in the economy in the name of “national security,” fails both of these standards. In fact, when I inquired at the sole hearing the House Financial Services Committee held on this issue as to which section of the Constitution authorized such sweeping grants of power to the Executive, I was greeted by silence from the “expert” witnesses!

The Fed
Misguided Policy Of Nation Building In Iraq
17 October 2003    2003 Ron Paul 111:63
In the old days, they deluded the metal or clipped the coins. Today, it is more sophisticated, because we run up the debt, we send it over to the Fed, and they print the money. But that is debasing the currency, and it undermines the standard of living, already occurring with people on fixed incomes. So it will finally come to a halt, just as our intervention in Vietnam finally came to a sad halt. It did end. But the rest will come to an end when we can no longer afford it.

The Fed
A Wise Consistency
February 11, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 2:13
Paper Money, Inflation, and Economic Pain : Paper money and inflation have never provided long-term economic growth, nor have they enhanced freedom. Yet the world, led by the United States, lives with a financial system awash with fiat currencies and historic debt as a consequence. No matter how serious the problems that come from central-bank monetary inflations — the depressions and inflation, unemployment, social chaos, and war — the only answer has been to inflate even more. Except for the Austrian free-market economists, the consensus is that the Great Depression was prolonged and exacerbated by the lack of monetary inflation. This view is held by Alan Greenspan, and reflected in his January 2001 response to the stock market slump and a slower economy — namely a record monetary stimulus and historically low interest rates. The unwillingness to blame the slumps on the Federal Reserve’s previous errors, though the evidence is clear, guarantees that greater problems for the United States and the world economy lie ahead. Though there is adequate information to understand the real cause of the business cycle, the truth and proper policy are not palatable. Closing down the engine of inflation at any point does cause short-term problems that are politically unacceptable. But the alternative is worse, in the long term. It is not unlike a drug addict demanding and getting a fix in order to avoid the withdrawal symptoms. Not getting rid of the addiction is a deadly mistake. While resorting to continued monetary stimulus through credit creation delays the pain and suffering, it inevitably makes the problems much worse. Debt continues to build in all areas — personal, business, and government. Inflated stock prices are propped up, waiting for another collapse. Mal-investment and overcapacity fail to correct. Insolvency proliferates without liquidation. These same errors have been prolonging the correction in Japan for 14 years, with billions of dollars of non-performing loans still on the books. Failure to admit and recognize that fiat money, mismanaged by central banks, gives us most of our economic problems, along with a greater likelihood for war, means we never learn from our mistakes. Our consistent response is to inflate faster and borrow more, which each downturn requires, to keep the economy afloat. Talk about a foolish consistency! It’s time for our leaders to admit the error of their ways, consider the wise consistency of following the advice of our Founders, and reject paper money and central bank inflationary policies.

The Fed
A Wise Consistency
February 11, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 2:34
Judicial Review : Respect for the original intent of the Constitution is low in Washington. It’s so low, it’s virtually non-existent. This causes many foolish inconsistencies in our federal courts. The Constitution, we have been told, is a living, evolving document and it’s no longer necessary to change it in the proper fashion. That method is too slow and cumbersome, it is claimed. While we amended it to institute alcohol prohibition, the federal drug prohibition is accomplished by majority vote of the U.S. Congress. Wars are not declared by Congress, but pursued by Executive Order to enforce UN Resolutions. The debate of the pros and cons of the war come afterward — usually following the war’s failure — in the political arena, rather than before with the proper debate on a declaration of war resolution. Laws are routinely written by un-elected bureaucrats, with themselves becoming the judicial and enforcement authority. Little desire is expressed in Congress to alter this monster that creates thousands of pages each year in the Federal Register. Even the nearly 100,000 bureaucrats who now carry guns stir little controversy. For decades, Executive Orders have been arrogantly used to write laws to circumvent a plodding or disagreeable Congress. This attitude was best described by a Clinton presidential aide who bragged: “…stroke of the pen, law of the land, kinda cool!” This is quite a testimonial to the rule of law and constitutional restraint on government power. The courts are no better than the executive or legislative branches in limiting the unconstitutional expansion of the federal monolith. Members of Congress, including committee chairmen, downplay my concern that proposed legislation is unconstitutional by insisting that the courts are the ones to make such weighty decisions, not mere Members of Congress. This was an informal argument made by House leadership on the floor during the debate on campaign finance reform. In essence, they said “We know it’s bad, but we’ll let the courts clean it up.” And look what happened! The courts did not save us from ourselves.

The Fed
Federal War On Drugs Threatens The Effective Treatment Of Chronic Pain
11 February 2004    2004 Ron Paul 4:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the publicity surrounding popular radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh’s legal troubles relating to his use of the pain killer OxyContin will hopefully focus public attention on how the federal War on Drugs threatens the effective treatment of chronic pain. Prosecutors have seized Mr. Limbaugh’s medical records in connection with an investigation into charges that Mr. Limbaugh violated federal drug laws. The fact that Mr. Limbaugh is a high profile, and often controversial, conservative media personality has given rise to speculation that the prosecution is politically motivated. Adding to this suspicion is the fact that individual pain patients are rarely prosecuted in this type of case.

The Fed
Federal War On Drugs Threatens The Effective Treatment Of Chronic Pain
11 February 2004    2004 Ron Paul 4:3
Many of the cases brought against physicians are rooted in the federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)’s failure to consider current medical standards regarding the use of opioids, including OxyContin, in formulating policy. Opioids are the pharmaceuticals considered most effective in relieving chronic pain. Federal law classifies most opioids as Schedule II drugs, the same classification given to cocaine and heroin, despite a growing body of opinion among the medical community that opioids should not be classified with these substances.

The Fed
Federal War On Drugs Threatens The Effective Treatment Of Chronic Pain
11 February 2004    2004 Ron Paul 4:6
Prosecutors show no concern for how their actions will affect patients who need large amounts of opioids to control their chronic pain. For example, the prosecutor in the case of Dr. Cecil Knox of Roanoke, Virginia told all of Dr. Knox’s patients to seek help in federal clinics even though none of the federal clinics would prescribe effective pain medicine.

The Fed
Federal War On Drugs Threatens The Effective Treatment Of Chronic Pain
11 February 2004    2004 Ron Paul 4:11
Mr. Speaker, Congress should take action to rein in overzealous prosecutors and law enforcement officials and stop the harassment of legitimate pain management physicians, who are acting in good faith in prescribing opioids for relief from chronic pain. Doctors should not be prosecuted for doing what, in their best medical judgment, is in their patients’ best interest. Doctors should also not be prosecuted for the misdeeds of their patients. Finally, I wish to express my hope that Mr. Limbaugh’s case will encourage his many fans and supporters to consider how their support for the federal War on Drugs is inconsistent with their support of individual liberty and Constitutional government.

The Fed
Rush Limbaugh and the Sick Federal War on Pain Relief
February 12, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 5:1
Mr. Speaker, the publicity surrounding popular radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh’s legal troubles relating to his use of the pain killer OxyContin hopefully will focus public attention on how the federal drug war threatens the effective treatment of chronic pain. Prosecutors have seized Mr. Limbaugh’s medical records to investigate whether he violated federal drug laws. The fact that Mr. Limbaugh is a high profile, controversial, conservative media personality has given rise to speculation that the prosecution is politically motivated. Adding to this suspicion is the fact that individual pain patients are rarely prosecuted in this type of case.

The Fed
Rush Limbaugh and the Sick Federal War on Pain Relief
February 12, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 5:3
Many of the cases brought against physicians are rooted in the federal Drug Enforcement Administration’s failure to consider current medical standards regarding the use of opioids, including OxyContin, in formulating policy. Opioids are the pharmaceuticals considered most effective in relieving chronic pain. Federal law classifies most opioids as Schedule II drugs, the same classification given to cocaine and heroin, despite a growing body of opinion among the medical community that opioids should not be classified with these substances.

The Fed
Rush Limbaugh and the Sick Federal War on Pain Relief
February 12, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 5:6
Prosecutors show no concern for how their actions will affect patients who need large amounts of opioids to control their chronic pain. For example, the prosecutor in the case of Dr. Cecil Knox of Roanoke, Virginia, told all of Dr. Knox’s patients to seek help in federal clinics even though none of the federal clinics would prescribe effective pain medicine!

The Fed
Rush Limbaugh and the Sick Federal War on Pain Relief
February 12, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 5:12
Finally, I wish to express my hope that Mr. Limbaugh’s case will encourage his many fans and listeners to consider how their support for the federal war on drugs is inconsistent with their support of individual liberty and constitutional government.

The Fed
The Financial Services Committees “Views and Estimates for 2005”
February 26, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 7:5
The committee’s ‘Views and Estimates” gives an unqualified endorsement to increased taxpayer support for the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FINCEN), while ignoring the growing erosion of our financial privacy under the PATRIOT Act and similar legislation. In fact, the committee ignores the recent stealth expansion of the FBI’s power to seize records of dealers in precious metals, jewelers, and pawnshops without a warrant issued by an independent judge. Instead of serving as cheerleaders for the financial police state, the committee should act to curtail the federal government’s ability to monitor the financial affairs of law-abiding Americans.

The Fed
The Financial Services Committees “Views and Estimates for 2005”
February 26, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 7:14
Finally, the committee’s views support expanding the domestic welfare state in the area of housing, despite the fact that federal subsidies distort the housing market by taking capital that could be better used elsewhere and applying it to housing at the direction of politicians and bureaucrats. Housing subsidies also violate the constitutional prohibitions against redistributionism. The federal government has no constitutional authority to abuse its taxing power to fund programs that reshape the housing market to the liking of politicians and bureaucrats.

The Fed
The Financial Services Committees “Views and Estimates for 2005”
February 26, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 7:15
Perhaps the most disappointing omission from the committee’s “Views and Estimates” is the failure to address monetary policy. This is especially so given the recent decline in the value of the dollar caused by the Federal Reserve’s continuing boom and bust monetary policy.

The Fed
The Financial Services Committees “Views and Estimates for 2005”
February 26, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 7:17
In conclusion, the “Views and Estimates” report presented by the committee claims to endorse fiscal responsibility, yet also supports expanding international, corporate, and domestic spending. The report also endorses increasing the power of the federal police state. Perhaps most disturbingly, this document ignores the looming economic problems created by the Federal Reserve’s inflationary monetary polices and the resulting increase in private and public sector debt. I therefore urge my colleagues to reject this document and instead embrace an agenda of ending corporate welfare, protecting financial privacy, and reforming the fiat money system that is the root cause of America’s economic instability.

The Fed
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
26 February 2004    2004 Ron Paul 8:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, while it is the independent duty of each branch of the Federal Government to act constitutionally, Congress will likely continue to ignore not only its constitutional limits but earlier criticisms from Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well.

The Fed
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
26 February 2004    2004 Ron Paul 8:2
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2001, H.R. 1997, would amend title 18, United States Code, for the laudable goal of protecting unborn children from assault and murder. However, by expanding the class of victims to which unconstitutional, but already-existing, Federal murder and assault statutes apply, the Federal Government moves yet another step closer to a national police state.

The Fed
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
26 February 2004    2004 Ron Paul 8:4
Nevertheless, our Federal Government is constitutionally, a government of limited powers. Article one, section eight, enumerates the legislative areas for which the U.S. Congress is allowed to act or enact legislation. For every other issue, the Federal Government lacks any authority or consent of the governed and only the State governments, their designees, or the people in their private market actions enjoy such rights to governance. The 10th amendment is brutally clear in stating “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Our Nation’s history makes clear that the U.S. Constitution is a document intended to limit the power of central government. No serious reading of historical events surrounding the creation of the Constitution could reasonably portray it differently.

The Fed
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
26 February 2004    2004 Ron Paul 8:6
In his first formal complaint to Congress on behalf of the Federal Judiciary, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said “the trend to federalize crimes that have traditionally been handled in state courts . . . threatens to change entirely the nature of Federal system.” Rehnquist further criticized Congress for yielding to the political pressure to “appear responsive to every highly publicized societal ill or sensational crime.”

The Fed
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
26 February 2004    2004 Ron Paul 8:7
Perhaps, equally dangerous is the loss of another constitutional protection which comes with the passage of more and more Federal criminal legislation. Constitutionally, there are only three Federal crimes. These are treason against the United States, piracy on the high seas, and counterfeiting — and, because the constitution was amended to allow it, for a short period of history, the manufacture, sale, or transport of alcohol was concurrently a Federal and State crime. “Concurrent” jurisdiction crimes, such as alcohol prohibition in the past and federalization of murder today, erode the right of citizens to be free of double jeopardy. The fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifies that no “person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . .” In other words, no person shall be tried twice for the same offense. However, in United States v. Lanza, the high court in 1922 sustained a ruling that being tried by both the Federal Government and a State government for the same offense did not offend the doctrine of double jeopardy. One danger of unconstitutionally expanding the Federal criminal justice code is that it seriously increases the danger that one will be subject to being tried twice for the same offense. Despite the various pleas for federal correction of societal wrongs, a national police force is neither prudent nor constitutional.

The Fed
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
26 February 2004    2004 Ron Paul 8:8
Occasionaly the argument is put forth that States may be less effective than a centralized Federal Government in dealing with those who leave one State jurisdiction for another. Fortunately, the Constitution provides for the procedural means for preserving the integrity of State sovereignty over those issues delegated to it via the tenth amendment. The privilege and immunities clause as well as full faith and credit clause allow States to exact judgments from those who violate their State laws. The Constitution even allows the Federal Government to legislatively preserve the procedural mechanisms which allow States to enforce their substantive laws without the Federal Government imposing its substantive edicts on the States. Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2 makes provision for the rendition of fugitives from one State to another. While not self-enacting, in 1783 Congress passed an act which did exactly this. There is, of course, a cost imposed upon States in working with one another rather than relying on a national, unified police force. At the same time, there is a greater cost to centralization of police power.

The Fed
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
26 February 2004    2004 Ron Paul 8:11
Protection of life — born or unborn — against initiations of violence is of vital importance. So vitally important, in fact, it must be left to the States’ criminal justice systems. We have seen what a legal, constitutional, and philosophical mess results from attempts to federalize such an issue. Numerous States have adequately protected the unborn against assault and murder and done so prior to the Federal Government’s unconstitutional sanctioning of violence in the Roe v. Wade decision. Unfortunately, H.R. 1997 ignores the danger of further federalizing that which is properly reserved to State governments and, in so doing, throws legal philosophy, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the insights of Chief Justice Rehnquist out with the baby and the bathwater.

The Fed
H. Res. 412 Honoring Men And Women Of The Drug Enforcement Administration — Part 1
3 March 2004    2004 Ron Paul 10:8
Another thing that is rather astounding to me, is that not only have we lost the respect for the Constitution to say that the Federal Government can be involved in teaching habits, but we literally did this not even through congressional legislation.

The Fed
We The People Act
4 March 2004    2004 Ron Paul 13:2
The United States Constitution gives Congress the authority to establish and limit the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts and limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Founders intended Congress to use this authority to correct abuses of power by the federal judiciary.

The Fed
We The People Act
4 March 2004    2004 Ron Paul 13:3
Some may claim that an activist judiciary that strikes down state laws at will expands individual liberty. Proponents of this claim overlook the fact that the best guarantor of true liberty is decentralized political institutions, while the greatest threat to liberty is concentrated power. This is why the Constitution carefully limits the power of the federal government over the states.

The Fed
We The People Act
4 March 2004    2004 Ron Paul 13:5
Mr. Speaker, even some supporters of liberalized abortion laws have admitted that the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, which overturned the abortion laws of all fifty states, is flawed. The Supreme Court’s Establishment Clause jurisdiction has also drawn criticism from across the political spectrum. Perhaps more importantly, attempts to resolve, by judicial fiat, important issues like abortion and the expression of religious belief in the public square increase social strife and conflict. The only way to resolve controversial social issues like abortion and school prayer is to restore respect for the right of state and local governments to adopt policies that reflect the beliefs of the citizens of those jurisdictions. I would remind my colleagues and the federal judiciary that, under our Constitutional system, there is no reason why the people of New York and the people of Texas should have the same policies regarding issues such as marriage and school prayer.

The Fed
Federalizing Tort Law
10 March 2004    2004 Ron Paul 15:4
While I oppose the idea of holding food manufactures responsible for their customers’ misuse of their products, I cannot support addressing this problem by nationalizing tort law. It is long past time for Congress to recognize that not every problem requires a federal solution. This country’s founders recognized the genius of separating power among federal, state, and local governments as a means to maximize individual liberty and make government most responsive to those persons who might most responsibly influence it. This separation of powers strictly limits the role of the federal government in dealing with civil liability matters; and reserves jurisdiction over matters of civil tort, such as food related negligence suits, to the state legislatures.

The Fed
Federalizing Tort Law
10 March 2004    2004 Ron Paul 15:5
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would remind the food industry that using unconstitutional federal powers to restrict state lawsuits makes it more likely those same powers will be used to impose additional federal control over the food industry. Despite these lawsuits, the number one threat to business remains a federal government freed of its Constitutional restraints. After all, the federal government imposes numerous taxes and regulations on the food industry, often using the same phony “pro-consumer” justifications used by the trial lawyers. Furthermore, while small businesses, such as fast-food franchises, can move to another state to escape flawed state tax, regulatory, or legal policies, they cannot as easily escape destructive federal regulations. Unconstitutional expansions of federal power, no matter how just the cause may seem, are not in the interests of the food industry or of lovers of liberty.

The Fed
Federalizing Tort Law
10 March 2004    2004 Ron Paul 15:6
In conclusion, while I share the concern over the lawsuits against the food industry that inspired H.R. 339, this bill continues the disturbing trend of federalizing tort law. Enhancing the power of the federal government is in no way in the long-term interests of defenders of the free market and Constitutional liberties. Therefore, I must oppose this bill.

The Fed
Providing For Consideration Of H.R. 3717, Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act Of 2004
11 March 2004    2004 Ron Paul 17:3
Furthermore, there was no economic justification for Congress determining who is, and is not, allowed to access the broadcast spectrum. Instead of nationalizing the spectrum, the Federal Government should have allowed private parties to homestead parts of the broadcast spectrum and settle disputes over ownership and use through market processes, contracts, and, if necessary, application of the common law of contracts and torts. Such a market-based solution would have provided a more efficient allocation of the broadcast spectrum than has government regulation.

The Fed
Providing For Consideration Of H.R. 3717, Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act Of 2004
11 March 2004    2004 Ron Paul 17:4
Congress used its unconstitutional and unjustified power-grab over the allocation of broadcast spectrum to justify imposing federal regulations on broadcasters. Thus, the Federal Government used one unconstitutional action to justify another seizing of regulatory control over the content of a means of communication in direct violation of the First Amendment.

The Fed
Providing For Consideration Of H.R. 3717, Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act Of 2004
11 March 2004    2004 Ron Paul 17:7
The new FCC powers contained in H.R. 3717 could even be used to censor religious speech. Just this week, a group filed a petition with the United States Department of Justice asking the agency to use federal hate crimes laws against the directors, producers, and screenwriters of the popular movie, “The Passion of the Christ.” Can anyone doubt that, if H.R. 3717 passes, any broadcaster who dares show “The Passion” or similar material will risk facing indecency charges? Our founders recognized the interdependence of free speech and religious liberty; this is why they are protected together in the First Amendment. The more the Federal Government restricts free speech, the more our religious liberties are endangered.

The Fed
Providing For Consideration Of H.R. 3717, Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act Of 2004
11 March 2004    2004 Ron Paul 17:8
The reason we are considering H.R. 3717 is not unrelated to questions regarding state censorship of political speech. Many of this bill’s most rabid supporters appear to be motivated by the attacks on a member of Congress, and other statements critical of the current administration and violating the standards of political correctness, by “shock jock” Howard Stern. I have heard descriptions of Stern’s radio program that suggest this is a despicable program. However, I find even more troubling the idea that the Federal Government should censor anyone because of his comments about a member of Congress. Such behavior is more suited for members of a Soviet politburo than members of a representative body in a constitutional republic.

The Fed
Providing For Consideration Of H.R. 3717, Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act Of 2004
11 March 2004    2004 Ron Paul 17:16
Even the proponents of the commercial speech doctrine agreed that the Federal Government should never restrict political speech. Yet, this Congress, this administration, and this Supreme Court have restricted political speech with the recently enacted campaign finance reform law. Meanwhile, the Department of Justice has indicated it will use the war against terrorism to monitor critics of the administration’s foreign policy, thus chilling antiwar political speech. Of course, on many college campuses students have to watch what they say lest they run afoul of the rules of “political correctness.” Even telling a “politically incorrect” joke can bring a student up on charges before the thought police! Now, selfproclaimed opponents of political correctness want to use federal power to punish colleges that allows the expression of views they consider “unpatriotic” and/or punish colleges when the composition of the facility does not meet their definition of diversity.

The Fed
Don’t Let the FDA Block Access to Needed Health Care Information
March 22, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 20:4
The procedures established by the Health Information Independence Act are a fair and balanced way to ensure consumers have access to truthful information about dietary supplements. Over the past decade, the American people have made it clear they do not want the federal government to interfere with their access to dietary supplements, yet the FDA continues to engage in heavy-handed attempts to restrict such access.

The Fed
The Television Consumer Freedom Act
24 March 2004    2004 Ron Paul 22:7
Mr. Speaker, the federal government should not interfere with a consumer’s ability to purchase services such as satellite or cable television in the free market. I therefore urge my colleagues to take a step toward restoring freedom by cosponsoring my Television Consumer Freedom Act.

The Fed
Oppose the Spendthrift 2005 Federal Budget Resolution
March 25, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 24:1
Mr. Speaker, I once again find myself compelled to vote against the annual budget resolution (HConRes 393) for a very simple reason: it makes government bigger. Like many of my Republican colleagues who curiously voted for today’s enormous budget, I campaign on a simple promise that I will work to make government smaller. This means I cannot vote for any budget that increases spending over previous years. In fact, I would have a hard time voting for any budget that did not slash federal spending by at least 25%, a feat that becomes less unthinkable when we remember that the federal budget in 1990 was less than half what it is today. Did anyone really think the federal government was uncomfortably small just 14 years ago? Hardly. It once took more than 100 years for the federal budget to double, now it takes less than a decade. We need to end the phony rhetoric about “priorities” and recognize federal spending as the runaway freight train that it is. A federal government that spends 2.4 trillion dollars in one year and consumes roughly one-third of the nation’s GDP is far too large.

The Fed
Oppose the Spendthrift 2005 Federal Budget Resolution
March 25, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 24:4
Furthermore, today’s budget debate further entrenches the phony concept of discretionary versus nondiscretionary spending. An increasing percentage of the annual federal budget is categorized as “nondiscretionary” entitlement spending, meaning Congress ostensibly has no choice whether to fund certain programs. In fact, roughly two-thirds of the fiscal year 2005 budget is consumed by nondiscretionary spending. When Congress has no say over how two-thirds of the federal budget is spent, the American people effectively have no say either. Why in the world should the American people be forced to spend 1.5 trillion dollars funding programs that cannot even be reviewed at budget time? The very concept of nondiscretionary spending is a big-government statist’s dream, because it assumes that we as a society simply have accepted that most of the federal leviathan must be funded as a matter of course. NO program or agency should be considered sacred, and no funding should be considered inevitable.

The Fed
Oppose the Spendthrift 2005 Federal Budget Resolution
March 25, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 24:5
The assertion that this budget will reduce taxes is nonsense. Budget bills do not change the tax laws one bit. Congress can pass this budget today and raise taxes tomorrow- budget and tax bills are completely separate and originate from different committees. The budget may make revenue projections based on tax cuts, but the truth is that Congress has no idea what federal revenues will be in any future year. Similarly, the deficit reduction supposedly contained in the budget is illusory. The federal government always spends more in future years than originally projected, and always runs single-year deficits when one factors in raids on funds supposedly earmarked for Social Security. The notion that today’s budget will impose fiscal restraint on Congress in the future is laughable- Congress will vote for new budgets every year without the slightest regard for what we do today.

The Fed
Oppose the Spendthrift 2005 Federal Budget Resolution
March 25, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 24:6
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues have discussed the details of this budget ad nauseam. The increases in domestic, foreign, and military spending would not be needed if Congress stopped trying to build an empire abroad and a nanny state at home. Our interventionist foreign policy and growing entitlement society will bankrupt this nation if we do not change the way we think about the proper role of the federal government.

The Fed
Introducing The American Justice For American Citizens Act
1 April 2004    2004 Ron Paul 26:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the American Justice for American Citizens Act, which exercises Congress’s Constitutional authority to regulate the federal judiciary to ensure that federal judges base their decisions solely on American Constitutional, statutory, and traditional common law. Federal judges increasing practice of “transjudicialism” makes this act necessary. Transjudicialism is a new legal theory that encourages judges to disregard American law, including the United States Constitution, and base their decisions on foreign law. For example, Supreme Court justices recently used international law to justify upholding race-based college admissions and overturning all state sodomy laws.

The Fed
Introducing The American Justice For American Citizens Act
1 April 2004    2004 Ron Paul 26:6
Mr. Speaker, the drafters of the Constitution gave Congress the power to regulate the jurisdiction of federal courts precisely so we could intervene when the federal judiciary betrays its responsibility to uphold the Constitution and American law. Congress has a duty to use this power to ensure that judges base their decisions solely on American law.

The Fed
Continuity In Representation Act
22 April 2004    2004 Ron Paul 28:12
Even with the direct election of Senators, the fact that members of the House are elected every 2 years while Senators run for statewide office every 6 years means that members of the House of Representatives are still more accountable to the people than members of any other part of the federal government. Appointed members of Congress simply cannot be truly representative. James Madison and Alexander Hamilton eloquently made this point in Federalist 52: “As it is essential to liberty that the government in general should have a common interest with the people, so it is particularly essential that the branch of it under consideration should have an immediate dependence on, and an intimate sympathy with, the people. Frequent elections are unquestionably the only policy by which this dependence and sympathy can be effectually secured.”

The Fed
In Support Of The Gutierrez-Paul Bill
28 April 2004    2004 Ron Paul 30:2
Expanding the jurisdiction of OCC necessarily infringes on the ability of State lawmakers to determine their own consumer protection standards. One-size-fits-all policies crafted in Washington cannot serve the 50 diverse States well. Different States and markets have different needs that are better understood by State and local legislators. Congressional conservatives, in particular, should not endorse an expansion of the Federal regulatory power at the expense of States’ rights. The Tenth Amendment is clear: regulatory powers not specifically granted to Congress remain with the States. Congress should stop usurping State authority and leave consumer protection laws to those with far more experience and expertise.

The Fed
The House of Representatives Must be Elected!
June 2, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 36:2
Even with the direct election of Senators, the fact that members of the House of Representatives are elected every two years (while Senators run for statewide office every six years) means that members of the House are still more accountable to the people than members of any other part of the federal government. Appointed members of Congress simply cannot be truly representative. James Madison and Alexander Hamilton eloquently made this point in Federalist 52: “As it is essential to liberty that the government in general should have a common interest with the people, so it is particularly essential that the branch of it under consideration should have an immediate dependence on, and an intimate sympathy with, the people. Frequent elections are unquestionably the only policy by which this dependence and sympathy can be effectually secured.”

The Fed
American Jobs Creation Act
17 June 2004    2004 Ron Paul 39:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I will vote for H.R. 4520 today because the tax cuts contained in the bill outweigh the unfortunate but inevitable subsidies also included. I promise my constituents that I will vote for all tax cuts and against all new spending. So when faced with a bill that contains both, my decision is based on whether the bill cuts taxes overall, i.e. whether its ultimate impact will be to reduce or increase federal revenues. This legislation does reduce revenues, and therefore takes a small step towards reducing the size of the federal government. So while I certainly object to some parts of the bill, especially the tobacco bailout, I do support tax cuts.

The Fed
American Jobs Creation Act
17 June 2004    2004 Ron Paul 39:5
The bill does cut taxes overall, and for that reason I will vote in favor of it. Any legislation that results in less money being sent to the black hole that is the federal Treasury is worth supporting. I especially support the provision that allows Texans (and citizens of other states that do not have an income tax) to deduct state sales taxes, and will vote yes accordingly.

The Fed
Opposing H. Res. 676
23 June 2004    2004 Ron Paul 42:2
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.

The Fed
Opposing H. Res. 676
23 June 2004    2004 Ron Paul 42:3
This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce.

The Fed
Opposing H. Res. 676
23 June 2004    2004 Ron Paul 42:4
The Civil Rights act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judge’s cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business’s workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judges defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.

The Fed
A Token Attempt to Reduce Government Spending
June 24, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 43:3
Congress already has made numerous attempts to restore fiscal discipline, and none of them has succeeded. Even the much-heralded “surpluses” of the nineties were due to the Federal Reserve creating an economic boom and Congress continuing to raid the social security trust fund. The surplus was not caused by a sudden outbreak of fiscal conservativism in Washington, DC.

The Fed
A Token Attempt to Reduce Government Spending
June 24, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 43:4
The only way Congress will cease excessive spending is by rejecting the idea that the federal government has the authority and the competence to solve all ills, both domestic and international. If the last century taught us anything, it was that big government cannot create utopia. Yet, too many members believe that we can solve all economic problems, eliminate all social ills, and bring about worldwide peace and prosperity by simply creating new federal programs and regulations. However, the well-intended efforts of Congress have exacerbated America’s economic and social problems. Meanwhile our international meddling has failed to create perpetual peace but rather lead to perpetual war for perpetual peace.

The Fed
A Token Attempt to Reduce Government Spending
June 24, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 43:5
Every member of Congress has already promised to support limited government by swearing to uphold the United States Constitution. The Constitution limits the federal government to a few, well-defined functions. A good start toward restoring Constitutional government would be debating my Liberty Amendment (H.J.Res. 15). The Liberty Amendment repeals the Sixteenth Amendment, thus eliminating the income tax the source of much of the growth of government and loss of individual liberty. The Liberty Amendment also explicitly limits the federal government to those functions it is constitutionally authorized to perform.

The Fed
A Token Attempt to Reduce Government Spending
June 24, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 43:6
If Congress were serious about reining in government, it would also eliminate the Federal Reserve Board’s ability to inflate the currency. Federal Reserve policy enables excessive government spending by allowing the government to monitorize the debt, and hide the cost of big government through the hidden tax of inflation.

The Fed
Stop Prosecuting Doctors For Prescribing Legal Drugs
7 July 2004    2004 Ron Paul 46:8
I mean, this is something anyone who has any compassion, any concern, any humanitarian instincts would say we have gone astray; we have done too much harm; we have to do something to allow doctors to practice medicine. It was never intended that the Federal Government, let alone bureaucrats, interfere in the practice of medicine.

The Fed
UNESCO
7 July 2004    2004 Ron Paul 47:9
I mean, if those are not threatening terms about what they want to do, and yet here we are funding this program and the American taxpayers are forced to pay for it. Now, there are a few of us left in the Congress, I see a couple on the floor tonight, that might even object to the Federal Government telling our States what to do with education, and of course there is no constitutional authority for that. We have the Leave No Child Behind, but it looks like everyone is going to be left behind before we know it.

The Fed
UNESCO
7 July 2004    2004 Ron Paul 47:10
But here it is not the Federal Government taking over our Federal education system; this is the UNESCO, United Nations, taking over our educational system. It does have an influence. Sure, it is minimal now, but it will grow if we allow this to continue.

The Fed
Marinol And Terrorism
7 July 2004    2004 Ron Paul 48:3
I think marijuana is a helpful medical treatment for the people who have intractable nausea. I would like to point out this is not something strange that we are suggesting here. For the first 163 years of our history in this country, the Federal Government had total hands off, they never interfered with what the States were doing. They interfered only after 1938 through tax law. So this is something new.

The Fed
Government Spending – A Tax on the Middle Class
July 8, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 52:9
All spending ultimately must be a tax, even when direct taxes and direct borrowing are avoided. The third option is for the Federal Reserve to create credit to pay the bills Congress runs up. Nobody objects, and most Members hope that deficits don’t really matter if the Fed accommodates Congress by creating more money. Besides, interest payments to the Fed are lower than they would be if funds were borrowed from the public, and payments can be delayed indefinitely merely by creating more credit out of thin air to buy U.S. treasuries. No need to soak the rich. A good deal, it seems, for everyone. But is it?

The Fed
Government Spending – A Tax on the Middle Class
July 8, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 52:12
The Fed is solely responsible for inflation by creating money out of thin air. It does so either to monetize federal debt, or in the process of economic planning through interest rate manipulation. This Fed intervention in our economy, though rarely even acknowledged by Congress, is more destructive than Members can imagine.

The Fed
Government Spending – A Tax on the Middle Class
July 8, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 52:13
Not only is the Fed directly responsible for inflation and economic downturns, it causes artificially low interest rates that serve the interests of big borrowers, speculators, and banks. This unfairly steals income from frugal retirees who chose to save and place their funds in interest bearing instruments like CDs.

The Fed
Government Spending – A Tax on the Middle Class
July 8, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 52:14
The Fed’s great power over the money supply, interest rates, the business cycle, unemployment, and inflation is wielded with essentially no Congressional oversight or understanding. The process of inflating our currency to pay for government debt indeed imposes a tax without legislative authority.

The Fed
Protecting Marriage from Judicial Tyranny
July 22, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 64:2
The practice of judicial activism- legislating from the bench- is now standard procedure for many federal judges. They dismiss the doctrine of strict construction as outdated, instead treating the Constitution as fluid and malleable to create a desired outcome in any given case. For judges who see themselves as social activists, their vision of justice is more important than the letter of the law they are sworn to interpret and uphold. With the federal judiciary focused more on promoting a social agenda than on upholding the rule of law, Americans find themselves increasingly governed by judges they did not elect and cannot remove from office.

The Fed
Protecting Marriage from Judicial Tyranny
July 22, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 64:3
Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court last June. The Court determined that Texas has no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because these laws violated the court’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Regardless of the advisability of such laws, the Constitution does not give the federal government authority to overturn these laws. Under the Tenth Amendment, the state of Texas has the authority to pass laws concerning social matters, using its own local standards, without federal interference. But rather than adhering to the Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a state matter, the Court decided to stretch the “right to privacy” to justify imposing the justices’ vision on the people of Texas.

The Fed
Protecting Marriage from Judicial Tyranny
July 22, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 64:8
Some may argue that allowing federal judges to rewrite the definition of marriage can result in a victory for individual liberty. This claim is flawed. The best guarantor of true liberty is decentralized political institutions, while the greatest threat to liberty is concentrated power. This is why the Constitution carefully limits the power of the federal government over the states. Allowing federal judges unfettered discretion to strike down state laws, or force a state to conform to the laws of another state, leads to centralization and loss of liberty.

The Fed
Opposes Mandatory Mental Health Screenings In Public Schools — Part 1
9 September 2004    2004 Ron Paul 67:10
The whole notion of testing children to me represents a principle even more intrusive than a mandatory blood test. It would make more sense medically to have a blood test for, say, AIDS, if you thought it was the responsibility of the Federal Government to take this job upon themselves. But, no, if we tried to do this in the area of mental diseases, believe me, the criteria would be way too arbitrary. A diagnosis will be too difficult to determine with a set of objective standards.

The Fed
Federal Courts and the Pledge of Allegiance
September 23, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 71:1
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support, and cosponsor, the Pledge Protection Act (HR 2028), which restricts federal court jurisdiction over the question of whether the phrase “under God” should be included in the pledge of allegiance. Local schools should determine for themselves whether or not students should say “under God” in the pledge. The case finding it is a violation of the First Amendment to include the words “under God” in the pledge is yet another example of federal judges abusing their power by usurping state and local governments’ authority over matters such as education. Congress has the constitutional authority to rein in the federal courts’ jurisdiction and the duty to preserve the states’ republican forms of governments. Since government by the federal judiciary undermines the states’ republican governments, Congress has a duty to rein in rogue federal judges. I am pleased to see Congress exercise its authority to protect the states from an out-of-control judiciary.

The Fed
Federal Courts and the Pledge of Allegiance
September 23, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 71:2
Many of my colleagues base their votes on issues regarding federalism on whether or not they agree with the particular state policy at issue. However, under the federalist system as protected by the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, states have the authority to legislate in ways that most members of Congress, and even the majority of the citizens of other states, disapprove. Consistently upholding state autonomy does not mean approving of all actions taken by state governments; it simply means acknowledging that the constitutional limits on federal power require Congress to respect the wishes of the states even when the states act unwisely. I would remind my colleagues that an unwise state law, by definition, only affects the people of one state. Therefore, it does far less damage than a national law that affects all Americans.

The Fed
District Of Columbia Personal Protection Act
29 September 2004    2004 Ron Paul 72:3
It is unfortunate that people in the federal capital city have for nearly 30 years faced some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the country. This fact is particularly unfortunate given Washington, DC’s recent history as the murder capital of the United States. Ironically, the place where people most need to bear arms to defend themselves from violent crimes has been one of the places where the exercise of that right has been most restricted.

The Fed
District Of Columbia Personal Protection Act
29 September 2004    2004 Ron Paul 72:6
Enacting H.R. 3193 would be a good first step in adopting legislation to restore the Federal Government’s respect for the right to bear arms throughout the United States. The Federal Government has trampled on gun rights nationwide — not just in Washington, DC. I have introduced several pieces of legislation this Congress that would help restore respect for the right to bear arms, including the Second Amendment Protection Act, H.R. 153, that would repeal the now-sunset semi-auto ban, repeal the 5-day waiting period and “instant” background check imposed on gun purchases, and delete the “sporting purposes” test that allows the Treasury Secretary to classify a firearm as a destructive device simply because the Secretary deems the gun to be “non-sporting.” Additionally, Congress should consider my Right to Keep and Bear Arms Act, H.R. 3125, that prohibits U.S. taxpayers’ dollars from being used to support or promote any United Nations actions that could infringe on the second amendment.

The Fed
Cultural Conservatives Lose if Gay Marriage is Federalized
September 30, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 73:4
Having studied this issue and consulted with leading legal scholars, including an attorney who helped defend the Boy Scouts against attempts to force the organization to allow gay men to serve as scoutmasters, I am convinced that both the Defense of Marriage Act and the Marriage Protection Act can survive legal challenges and ensure that no state is forced by a federal court’s or another state’s actions to recognize same sex marriage. Therefore, while I am sympathetic to those who feel only a constitutional amendment will sufficiently address this issue, I respectfully disagree. I also am concerned that the proposed amendment, by telling the individual states how their state constitutions are to be interpreted, is a major usurpation of the states’ power. The division of power between the federal government and the states is one of the virtues of the American political system. Altering that balance endangers self-government and individual liberty. However, if federal judges wrongly interfere and attempt to compel a state to recognize the marriage licenses of another state, that would be the proper time for me to consider new legislative or constitutional approaches.

The Fed
Cultural Conservatives Lose if Gay Marriage is Federalized
September 30, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 73:7
Passing a constitutional amendment is a long, drawn-out process. The fact that the marriage amendment already failed to gather the necessary two-thirds support in the Senate means that, even if two-thirds of House members support the amendment, it will not be sent to states for ratification this year. Even if the amendment gathers the necessary two-thirds support in both houses of Congress, it still must go through the time-consuming process of state ratification. This process requires three-quarters of the state legislatures to approve the amendment before it can become effective. Those who believe that immediate action to protect the traditional definition of marriage is necessary should consider that the Equal Rights Amendment easily passed both houses of Congress and was quickly ratified by a number of states. Yet, that amendment remains unratified today. Proponents of this marriage amendment should also consider that efforts to amend the Constitution to address flag burning and require the federal government to balance the budget have been ongoing for years, without any success.

The Fed
Reject a National Prescription Database
October 5, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 74:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to HR 3015, the National All Schedules Prescription Electronic Reporting Act. This bill is yet another unjustifiable attempt by the federal government to use the war on drugs as an excuse for invading the privacy and liberties of the American people and for expanding the federal government’s disastrous micromanagement of medical care. As a physician with over 30 years experience in private practice, I must oppose this bill due to the danger it poses to our health as well as our liberty.

The Fed
Reject a National Prescription Database
October 5, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 74:2
By creating a national database of prescriptions for controlled substances, the federal government would take another step forward in the war on pain patients and their doctors. This war has already resulted in the harassment and prosecution of many doctors, and their staff members, whose only “crime” is prescribing legal medication, including opioids, to relieve their patients’ pain. These prosecutions, in turn, have scared other doctors so that they are unwilling to prescribe an adequate amount of pain medication, or even any pain medication, for their suffering patients.

The Fed
No Mandatory Mental Health Screening for Kids
October 6, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 76:2
The New Freedom Commission on Mental Health has recommended that the federal government adopt a comprehensive system of mental-health screening for all Americans .

The Fed
The 9-11 Intelligence Bill: More Bureaucracy, More Intervention, Less Freedom
October 8, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 77:1
Mr. Speaker, the 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act (HR 10) is yet another attempt to address the threat of terrorism by giving more money and power to the federal bureaucracy. Most of the reforms contained in this bill will not make America safer, though they definitely will make us less free. HR 10 also wastes American taxpayer money on unconstitutional and ineffective foreign aid programs. Congress should make America safer by expanding liberty and refocusing our foreign policy on defending this nation’s vital interests, rather than expanding the welfare state and wasting American blood and treasure on quixotic crusades to “democratize” the world.

The Fed
The 9-11 Intelligence Bill: More Bureaucracy, More Intervention, Less Freedom
October 8, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 77:5
Furthermore, the federal government has no constitutional authority to require law-abiding Americans to present any form of identification before engaging in private transactions (e.g. getting a job, opening a bank account, or seeking medical assistance). Nothing in our Constitution can reasonably be construed to allow government officials to demand identification from individuals who are not suspected of any crime.

The Fed
The 9-11 Intelligence Bill: More Bureaucracy, More Intervention, Less Freedom
October 8, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 77:6
HR 10 also broadens the definition of terrorism contained in the PATRIOT Act. HR 10 characterizes terrorism as acts intended “to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.” Under this broad definition, a scuffle at an otherwise peaceful pro-life demonstration might allow the federal government to label the sponsoring organization and its members as terrorists. Before dismissing these concerns, my colleagues should remember the abuse of Internal Revenue Service power by both Democratic and Republican administrations to punish political opponents, or the use of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act on anti-abortion activists. It is entirely possible that a future administration will use the new surveillance powers granted in this bill to harm people holding unpopular political views.

The Fed
Honoring Phil Crane
November 17, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 78:4
When I came to Congress in the seventies to fight to limit the size and scope of the federal government, I was pleased to find a kindred sprit in the gentleman from Illinois. I had the privilege of working with Phil on several efforts to cut taxes, reduce regulations, and return the government to its constitutional size. I also had the privilege of working with Phil when we where two of only four members to endorse Ronald Reagan’s 1976 primary challenge to President Gerald Ford.

The Fed
Raising the Debt Limit: A Disgrace
November 18, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 79:2
The term “national debt” really is a misnomer. It is not the nation’s debt. Instead, it is the federal government’s debt. The American people did not spend the money, but they will have to pay it back.

The Fed
Raising the Debt Limit: A Disgrace
November 18, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 79:3
Most Americans do not spend much time worrying about the national debt, which now totals more than eight trillion dollars. The number is so staggering that it hardly seems real, even when economists issue bleak warnings about how much every American owes — currently about $25,000. Of course, Congress never hands each taxpayer a bill for that amount. Instead, the federal government uses your hard-earned money to pay interest on this debt, which is like making minimum payments on a credit card. Notice that the principal never goes down. In fact, it is rising steadily.

The Fed
Raising the Debt Limit: A Disgrace
November 18, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 79:4
The problem is very simple: Congress almost always spends more each year than the IRS collects in revenues. Federal spending always goes up, but revenues are not so dependable, especially since raising income taxes to sufficiently fund the government would be highly unpopular. So long as Congress spends more than the government takes via taxes, the federal government must raise taxes, print more dollars, or borrow money.

The Fed
Raising the Debt Limit: A Disgrace
November 18, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 79:7
Increasing the national debt sends a signal to investors that the government is not serious about reining in spending. This increases the risks that investors will be reluctant to buy government debt instruments. The effects on the American economy could be devastating. The only reason why we have been able to endure such large deficits without skyrocketing interest rates is the willingness of foreign nations to buy the federal government’s debt instruments. However, the recent fall in the value of the dollar and rise in the price of gold indicate that investors may be unwilling to continue to prop up our debt-ridden economy. Furthermore, increasing the national debt will provide more incentive for foreign investors to stop buying federal debt instruments at the current interest rates. Mr. Speaker, what will happen to our already fragile economy if the Federal Reserve must raise interest rates to levels unseen since the seventies to persuade foreigners to buy government debt instruments?

The Fed
Raising the Debt Limit: A Disgrace
November 18, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 79:9
The only way to control federal spending is to take away the government’s credit card. Therefore, I call upon my colleagues to reject S. 2986 and, instead, to reduce government spending. It is time Congress forces the federal government to live within its constitutional means. Congress should end the immoral practice of excessive spending and passing the bill to the next generation.

The Fed
Where To From Here?
November 20, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 81:12
Both supported our current monetary system, which permits the Federal Reserve to accommodate deficit spending by Congress through the dangerous process of debt monetization.

The Fed
Where To From Here?
November 20, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 81:32
No serious thoughts are expressed in Washington about the constitutional principle of local government. The notion of a loose-knit republican form of government is no longer a consideration. The consensus is that the federal government has responsibility for solving all of our problems, and even amending the Constitution to gain proper authority is no longer thought necessary.

The Fed
Where To From Here?
November 20, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 81:34
There are even more reasons to believe the current government status quo is unsustainable. As a nation dependent on the willingness of foreigners to loan us the money to finance our extravagance, we now are consuming 80% of the world’s savings. Though the Fed does its part in supplying funds by purchasing Treasury debt, foreign central banks and investors have loaned us nearly twice what the Fed has, to the tune of $1.3 trillion. The daily borrowing needed to support our spending habits cannot last. It can be argued that even the financing of the Iraq war cannot be accomplished without the willingness of countries like China and Japan to loan us the necessary funds. Any shift, even minor, in this sentiment will send chills through the world financial markets. It will not go unnoticed, and every American consumer will be affected.

The Fed
Where To From Here?
November 20, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 81:42
The 1973 Roe vs. Wade ruling caused great harm in two distinct ways. First, it legalized abortion at any stage, establishing clearly that the Supreme Court and the government condoned the cheapening of human life. Second, it firmly placed this crucial issue in the hands of the federal courts and national government. The federalization of abortion was endorsed even by those who opposed abortion. Instead of looking for state-by-state solutions and limiting federal court jurisdiction, those anxious to protect life came to rely on federal laws, eroding the constitutional process. The authors of the Constitution intended for criminal matters and acts of violence (except for a few rare exceptions) to be dealt with at the state level. Now, however, conservatives as well as liberals find it acceptable to nationalize issues such as abortion, marriage, prayer, and personal sexual matters — with more federal legislation offered as the only solution. This trend of transferring power from the states to the federal government compounds our problems — for when we lose, it affects all 50 states, and overriding Congress or the Supreme Court becomes far more difficult than dealing with a single state.

The Fed
Introducing The Parental Consent Act
4 January 2005    2005 Ron Paul 1:2
The New Freedom Commission on Mental Health has recommended that the Federal and State Governments work toward the implementation of a comprehensive system of mental- health screening for all Americans. The commission recommends that universal or mandatory mental-health screening first be implemented in public schools as a prelude to expanding it to the general public. However, neither the commission’s report nor any related mental-health screening proposal requires parental consent before a child is subjected to mental-health screening. Federally- funded universal or mandatory mental health screening in schools without parental consent could lead to labeling more children as “ADD” or “hyperactive” and thus force more children to take psychotropic drugs, such as Ritalin, against their parents’ wishes.

The Fed
Introducing The Identity Theft protection Act
4 January 2005    2005 Ron Paul 2:4
Congressionally mandated use of the Social Security number as an identifier facilitates the horrendous crime of identity theft. Thanks to Congress, an unscrupulous person may simply obtain someone’s Social Security number in order to access that person’s bank accounts, credit cards, and other financial assets. Many Americans have lost their life savings and had their credit destroyed as a result of identity theft. Yet the Federal Government continues to encourage such crimes by mandating use of the Social Security number as a uniform ID.

The Fed
Introducing The Identity Theft protection Act
4 January 2005    2005 Ron Paul 2:5
This act also forbids the Federal Government from creating national ID cards or establishing any identifiers for the purpose of investigating, monitoring, overseeing, or regulating private transactions among American citizens. At the very end of the 108th Congress, this body established a de facto national ID card with a provision buried in the “intelligence” reform bill mandating Federal standards for drivers’ licenses, and mandating that Federal agents only accept a license that conforms to these standards as a valid ID.

The Fed
Introducing The Identity Theft protection Act
4 January 2005    2005 Ron Paul 2:10
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.

The Fed
Introducing The Identity Theft protection Act
4 January 2005    2005 Ron Paul 2:11
Some Members of Congress will claim that the Federal Government needs the power to monitor Americans in order to allow the government to operate more efficiently. I would remind my colleagues that, in a constitutional republic, the people are never asked to sacrifice their liberties to make the jobs of government officials easier. We are here to protect the freedom of the American people, not to make privacy invasion more efficient.

The Fed
Introducing The Identity Theft protection Act
4 January 2005    2005 Ron Paul 2:12
Mr. Speaker, while I do not question the sincerity of those Members who suggest that Congress can ensure that citizens’ rights are protected through legislation restricting access to personal information, the only effective privacy protection is to forbid the Federal Government from mandating national identifiers. Legislative “privacy protections” are inadequate to protect the liberty of Americans for a couple of reasons.

The Fed
Introducing The Identity Theft protection Act
4 January 2005    2005 Ron Paul 2:13
First, it is simply common sense that repealing those Federal laws that promote identity theft is more effective in protecting the public than expanding the power of the Federal police force. Federal punishment of identity thieves provides cold comfort to those who have suffered financial losses and the destruction of their good reputations as a result of identity theft.

The Fed
Introducing The Identity Theft protection Act
4 January 2005    2005 Ron Paul 2:16
Second, the Federal Government has been creating proprietary interests in private information for certain State-favored special interests. Perhaps the most outrageous example of phony privacy protection is the “medical privacy”’ regulation, that allows medical researchers, certain business interests, and law enforcement officials access to health care information, in complete disregard of the Fifth Amendment and the wishes of individual patients! Obviously, “privacy protection” laws have proven greatly inadequate to protect personal information when the government is the one seeking the information.

The Fed
Introducing The Identity Theft protection Act
4 January 2005    2005 Ron Paul 2:17
Any action short of repealing laws authorizing privacy violations is insufficient primarily 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.”

The Fed
Introducing The Identity Theft protection Act
4 January 2005    2005 Ron Paul 2:19
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I once again call on my colleagues to join me in putting an end to the Federal Government’s unconstitutional use of national identifiers to monitor the actions of private citizens. National identifiers threaten all Americans by exposing them to the threat of identity theft by private criminals and abuse of their liberties by public criminals, while diverting valuable law enforcement resources away from addressing real threats to public safety. In addition, national identifiers are incompatible with a limited, constitutional government. I, therefore, hope my colleagues will join my efforts to protect the freedom of their constituents by supporting the Identity Theft Prevention Act.

The Fed
Introducing The Social Security Beneficiary Tax reduction Act And The Senior Citizens’ Tax Elimination Act
4 January 2005    2005 Ron Paul 3:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce two pieces of legislation to reduce taxes on senior citizens. The first bill, the Social Security Beneficiary Tax Reduction Act, repeals the 1993 tax increase on Social Security benefits. Repealing this increase on Social Security benefits is a good first step toward reducing the burden imposed by the federal government on senior citizens. However, imposing any tax on Social Security benefits is unfair and illogical. This is why I am also introducing the Senior Citizens’ Tax Elimination Act, which repeals all taxes on Social Security benefits.

The Fed
Introducing The Social Security Beneficiary Tax reduction Act And The Senior Citizens’ Tax Elimination Act
4 January 2005    2005 Ron Paul 3:2
Since Social Security benefits are financed with tax dollars, taxing these benefits is yet another example 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 masks the true size of the federal deficit.

The Fed
Government IDs and Identity Theft
January 6, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 5:4
Congressionally-mandated use of the Social Security number as an identifier facilitates the horrendous crime of identity theft. Thanks to Congress, an unscrupulous person may simply obtain someone’s Social Security number in order to access that person’s bank accounts, credit cards, and other financial assets. Many Americans have lost their life savings and had their credit destroyed as a result of identity theft. Yet the federal government continues to encourage such crimes by mandating use of the Social Security number as a uniform ID!

The Fed
Government IDs and Identity Theft
January 6, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 5:5
This act also forbids the federal government from creating national ID cards or establishing any identifiers for the purpose of investigating, monitoring, overseeing, or regulating private transactions among American citizens. At the very end of the 108th Congress, this body established a de facto national ID card with a provisions buried in the “intelligence” reform bill mandating federal standards for drivers’ licenses, and mandating that federal agents only accept a license that conforms to these standards as a valid ID.

The Fed
Government IDs and Identity Theft
January 6, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 5:10
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.

The Fed
Government IDs and Identity Theft
January 6, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 5:11
Some members of Congress will claim that the federal government needs the power to monitor Americans in order to allow the government to operate more efficiently. I would remind my colleagues that, in a constitutional republic, the people are never asked to sacrifice their liberties to make the jobs of government officials easier. We are here to protect the freedom of the American people, not to make privacy invasion more efficient.

The Fed
Government IDs and Identity Theft
January 6, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 5:12
Mr. Speaker, while I do not question the sincerity of those members who suggest that Congress can ensure that citizens’ rights are protected through legislation restricting access to personal information, the only effective privacy protection is to forbid the federal government from mandating national identifiers. Legislative “privacy protections” are inadequate to protect the liberty of Americans for a couple of reasons.

The Fed
Government IDs and Identity Theft
January 6, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 5:13
First, it is simply common sense that repealing those federal laws that promote identity theft is more effective in protecting the public than expanding the power of the federal police force. Federal punishment of identity thieves provides cold comfort to those who have suffered financial losses and the destruction of their good reputations as a result of identity theft.

The Fed
Government IDs and Identity Theft
January 6, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 5:16
Second, the federal government has been creating proprietary interests in private information for certain state-favored special interests. Perhaps the most outrageous example of phony privacy protection is the “medical privacy'” regulation, that allows medical researchers, certain business interests, and law enforcement officials access to health care information, in complete disregard of the Fifth Amendment and the wishes of individual patients! Obviously, “privacy protection” laws have proven greatly inadequate to protect personal information when the government is the one seeking the information.

The Fed
Government IDs and Identity Theft
January 6, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 5:17
Any action short of repealing laws authorizing privacy violations is insufficient primarily 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.”

The Fed
Government IDs and Identity Theft
January 6, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 5:19
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I once again call on my colleagues to join me in putting an end to the federal government’s unconstitutional use of national identifiers to monitor the actions of private citizens. National identifiers threaten all Americans by exposing them to the threat of identity theft by private criminals and abuse of their liberties by public criminals, while diverting valuable law enforcement resources away from addressing real threats to public safety. In addition, national identifiers are incompatible with a limited, constitutional government. I, therefore, hope my colleagues will join my efforts to protect the freedom of their constituents by supporting the Identity Theft Prevention Act.

The Fed
America’s Foreign Policy Of Intervention
26 January 2005    2005 Ron Paul 6:24
Governments do not have a right to use blanket discrimination such as that which led to the incarceration of Japanese Americans in World War II. However, local law enforcement agencies should be able to target their searches if the description of a suspect is narrowed by sex, race or religion. But we are dealing with an entirely different matter when it comes to safety on airplanes. The Federal Government should not be involved in local law enforcement and has no right to discriminate.

The Fed
America’s Foreign Policy Of Intervention
26 January 2005    2005 Ron Paul 6:61
Mr. Speaker, why do I believe these are such important questions? Because the number one function of the Federal Government is to provide for national security. And national security has been severely undermined.

The Fed
National ID
26 January 2005    2005 Ron Paul 7:4
As a matter of fact, even the House Republican Conference, which sent a statement around with some points about this bill, said “the Federal Government should set standards for the issuance of birth certificates and sources of identification such as driver’s licenses.”

The Fed
Family Education Freedom Act
26 January 2005    2005 Ron Paul 9:3
Currently, consumers are less than sovereign in the education “market.” Funding decisions are increasingly controlled by the federal government. Because “he who pays the piper calls the tune,” public, and even private schools, are paying greater attention to the dictates of federal “educrats” while ignoring the wishes of the parents to an ever greater degree. As such, the lack of consumer sovereignty in education is destroying parental control of education and replacing it with state control. Loss of control is a key reason why so many of America’s parents express dissatisfaction with the educational system.

The Fed
Family Education Freedom Act
26 January 2005    2005 Ron Paul 9:4
According to a June 2001 poll by McLaughlin and Associates, two-thirds of Americans believe education tax credits would have a positive effect on American education. This poll also found strong support for education tax credits among liberals, moderates, conservatives, low-income individuals, and African- Americans. This is just one of numerous studies and public opinion polls showing that Americans want Congress to get the federal bureaucracy out of the schoolroom and give parents more control over their children’s education.

The Fed
Family Education Freedom Act
26 January 2005    2005 Ron Paul 9:5
Today, Congress can fulfill the wishes of the American people for greater control over their children’s education by simply allowing parents to keep more of their hard-earned money to spend on education rather than force them to send it to Washington to support education programs reflective only of the values and priorities of Congress and the federal bureaucracy.

The Fed
Introduction Of The Liberty Amendment
26 January 2005    2005 Ron Paul 10:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Liberty Amendment, which repeals the 16th Amendment, thus paving the way for real change in the way government collects and spends the people’s hard-earned money. The Liberty Amendment also explicitly forbids the federal government from performing any action not explicitly authorized by the United States Constitution.

The Fed
Introduction Of The Liberty Amendment
26 January 2005    2005 Ron Paul 10:2
The 16th Amendment gives the federal government a direct claim on the lives of American citizens by enabling Congress to levy a direct income tax on individuals. Until the passage of the 16th amendment, the Supreme Court had consistently held that Congress had no power to impose an income tax.

The Fed
Introduction Of The Liberty Amendment
26 January 2005    2005 Ron Paul 10:3
Income taxes are responsible for the transformation of the federal government from one of limited powers into a vast leviathan whose tentacles reach into almost every aspect of American life. Thanks to the income tax, today the federal government routinely invades our privacy, and penalizes our every endeavor.

The Fed
Introduction Of The Liberty Amendment
26 January 2005    2005 Ron Paul 10:4
The Founding Fathers realized that “the power to tax is the power to destroy,” which is why they did not give the federal government the power to impose an income tax. Needless to say, the Founders would be horrified to know that Americans today give more than a third of their income to the federal government.

The Fed
Introducing The Hope Plus Scholarship Act
26 January 2005    2005 Ron Paul 12:2
Reducing taxes so that Americans can devote more of their own resources to education is the best way to improve America’s schools, since individuals are more likely than federal bureaucrats to insist that schools be accountable for student performance. When the federal government controls the education dollar, schools will be held accountable for their compliance with bureaucratic paperwork requirements and mandates that have little to do with actual education. Federal rules and regulations also divert valuable resources — away from classroom instruction.

The Fed
Introduction Of The Prescription Drug Affordability Act
2 February 2005    2005 Ron Paul 18:4
I need not remind my colleagues that many senior citizens and other Americans impacted by the high costs of prescription medicine have demanded Congress reduce the barriers which prevent American consumers from purchasing imported pharmaceuticals. Congress has responded to these demands by repeatedly passing legislation liberalizing the rules governing the importation of pharmaceuticals. However, implementation of this provision has been blocked by the Federal bureaucracy. It is time Congress stood up for the American consumer and removed all unnecessary regulations on importing pharmaceuticals.

The Fed
Introduction Of The Prescription Drug Affordability Act
2 February 2005    2005 Ron Paul 18:5
The Prescription Drug Affordability Act also protects consumers’ access to affordable medicine by forbidding the Federal Government from regulating any Internet sales of FDA-approved pharmaceuticals by State-licensed pharmacists.

The Fed
Introduction Of The Prescription Drug Affordability Act
2 February 2005    2005 Ron Paul 18:6
As I am sure my colleagues are aware, the Internet makes pharmaceuticals and other products more affordable and accessible for millions of Americans. However, the Federal Government has threatened to destroy this option by imposing unnecessary and unconstitutional regulations on web sites that sell pharmaceuticals. Any Federal regulations would inevitably drive up prices of pharmaceuticals, thus depriving many consumers of access to affordable prescription medications.

The Fed
HR 418- A National ID Bill Masquerading as Immigration Reform
February 9, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 19:4
Supporters claim it is not a national ID because it is voluntary. However, any state that opts out will automatically make non-persons out of its citizens. The citizens of that state will be unable to have any dealings with the federal government because their ID will not be accepted. They will not be able to fly or to take a train. In essence, in the eyes of the federal government they will cease to exist. It is absurd to call this voluntary.

The Fed
HR 418- A National ID Bill Masquerading as Immigration Reform
February 9, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 19:5
Republican Party talking points on this bill, which claim that this is not a national ID card, nevertheless endorse the idea that “the federal government should set standards for the issuance of birth certificates and sources of identification such as driver’s licenses.” So they admit that they want a national ID but at the same time pretend that this is not a national ID.

The Fed
HR 418- A National ID Bill Masquerading as Immigration Reform
February 9, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 19:8
This legislation gives authority to the Secretary of Homeland Security to expand required information on driver’s licenses, potentially including such biometric information as retina scans, finger prints, DNA information, and even Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) radio tracking technology. Including such technology as RFID would mean that the federal government, as well as the governments of Canada and Mexico, would know where Americans are at all time of the day and night.

The Fed
Introducing The Sanity Of Life Act And The Taxpayer Freedom Of Conscience Act
10 February 2005    2005 Ron Paul 21:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce two bills relating to abortion. These bills stop the federal government from promoting abortion. My bills accomplish this goal by prohibiting federal funds from being used for population control or “family planning” through exercising Congress’s constitutional power to restrict federal court’s jurisdiction by restoring each state’s authority to protect unborn life.

The Fed
Introducing The Sanity Of Life Act And The Taxpayer Freedom Of Conscience Act
10 February 2005    2005 Ron Paul 21:3
One of the bills I am introducing today, the Sanctity of Life Act of 2005, reverses some of the damage done by Roe v. Wade. The Sanctity of Life Act provides that the federal courts of the United States, up to and including the Supreme Court, do not have jurisdiction to hear abortion-related cases. Congress must use the authority granted to it in Article 3, Section 1 of the Constitution to rein in rogue federal judges from interfering with a state’s ability to protect unborn life.

The Fed
Regulating The Airwaves
16 February 2005    2005 Ron Paul 22:3
Furthermore, there was no economic justification for Congress determining who is, and is not, allowed to access the broadcast spectrum. Instead of nationalizing the spectrum, the Federal Government should have allowed private parties to homestead parts of the broadcast spectrum and settle disputes over ownership and use through market processes, contracts, and, if necessary, application of the common law of contracts and torts. Such a market-based solution would have provided a more efficient allocation of the broadcast spectrum than has government regulation.

The Fed
Regulating The Airwaves
16 February 2005    2005 Ron Paul 22:4
Congress used its unconstitutional and unjustified power-grab over the allocation of broadcast spectrum to justify imposing Federal regulations on broadcasters. Thus, the Federal Government used one unconstitutional action to justify another seizing of regulatory control over the content of a means of communication in direct violation of the first amendment.

The Fed
Regulating The Airwaves
16 February 2005    2005 Ron Paul 22:7
The new FCC powers contained in H.R. 310 could even be used to censor religious speech. Last year, a group filed a petition with the United States Department of Justice asking the agency to use Federal hate crimes laws against the directors, producers, and screenwriters of the popular movie, “The Passion of the Christ.” Can anyone doubt that, if H.R. 310 passes, any broadcaster who dares show “The Passion” or similar material will risk facing indecency charges? Our founders recognized the interdependence of free speech and religious liberty; this is why they are protected together in the first amendment. The more the Federal Government restricts free speech, the more our religious liberties are endangered.

The Fed
Regulating The Airwaves
16 February 2005    2005 Ron Paul 22:8
The reason we are considering H.R. 310 is not unrelated to questions regarding state censorship of political speech. Many of this bill’s supporters are motivated by the attacks on a Member of Congress, and other statements critical of the current administration and violating the standards of political correctness, by “shock jock” Howard Stern. I have heard descriptions of Stern’s radio program that suggest this is a despicable program. However, I find even more troubling the idea that the Federal Government should censor anyone because of his comments about a Member of Congress. Such behavior is more suited for members of a Soviet politburo than members of a representative body in a constitutional republic.

The Fed
Regulating The Airwaves
16 February 2005    2005 Ron Paul 22:16
Even the proponents of the commercial speech doctrine agreed that the Federal Government should never restrict political speech. Yet, this Congress, this administration, and this Supreme Court have restricted political speech with the campaign finance reform law. Meanwhile, the Department of Justice has indicated it will use the war against terrorism to monitor critics of the administration’s foreign policy, thus chilling anti-war political speech. Of course, on many college campuses students have to watch what they say lest they run afoul of the rules of “political correctness.” Even telling a “politically incorrect” joke can bring a student up on charges before the thought police. Now, self-proclaimed opponents of political correctness want to use Federal power to punish colleges that allow the expression of views they consider “unpatriotic” and/or punish colleges when the composition of the facility does not meet their definition of diversity.

The Fed
Introduction Of The Social Security For American Citizens Only Act
16 February 2005    2005 Ron Paul 23:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the Social Security for American Citizens Only Act. This act forbids the federal government from providing Social Security benefits to noncitizens. It also ends the practice of totalization. Totalization is where the Social Security Administration takes into account the number of years an individual worked abroad, and thus was not paying payroll taxes, in determining that individual’s eligibility for Social Security benefits.

The Fed
Introduction Of The Social Security For American Citizens Only Act
16 February 2005    2005 Ron Paul 23:4
Mr. Speaker, press reports also indicate that thousands of foreigners who would qualify for U.S. Social Security benefits actually came to the United States and worked here illegally. That’s right: the federal government may actually actually allow someone who came to the United States illegally, worked less than the required number of years to qualify for Social Security, and then returned to Mexico for the rest of his working years, to collect full U.S. Social Security benefits while living in Mexico. That is an insult to the millions of Americans who pay their entire working lives into the system and now face the possibility that there may be nothing left when it is their turn to retire.

The Fed
Continuity In Representation Act
3 March 2005    2005 Ron Paul 26:4
Even with the direct election of Senators, the fact that Members of the House are elected every 2 years while Senators run for statewide office every 6 years means that Members of the House of Representatives are still more accountable to the people than members of any other part of the Federal Government. Appointed Members of Congress simply cannot be truly representative. James Madison and Alexander Hamilton eloquently made this point in Federalist 52:

The Fed
Hypocrisy and the Ordeal of Terri Schiavo
April 6, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 34:9
There’s plenty of hypocrisy to go around on both sides of this lingering and prolonged debate. In this instance we heard some very sound arguments from the left defending states’ rights and family responsibility, while criticizing the federal government involvement. I’m anxious for the day when those who made these arguments join me in defending the Constitution and states’ rights, especially the 9 th and 10 th Amendments, on many other economic and social issues. I won’t hold my breath.

The Fed
Hypocrisy and the Ordeal of Terri Schiavo
April 6, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 34:10
More importantly, where are those who rightfully condemn congressional meddling in the Schiavo case-- because of federalism and separation of powers-- on the issue of abortion? These same folks strongly defend Roe vs. Wade and the so-called constitutional right to abort healthy human fetuses at any stage. There’s no hesitation to demand support of this phony right from both Congress and the federal courts. Not only do they demand federal legal protection for abortion, they insist that abortion foes be forced to fund this act that many of them equate with murder.

The Fed
Hypocrisy and the Ordeal of Terri Schiavo
April 6, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 34:12
Though the left produced some outstanding arguments for the federal government staying out of this controversy, they frequently used an analogy that could never persuade those of us who believe in a free society guided by the constraints of the Constitution. They argued that if conservatives who supported prolonging Terri’s life would only spend more money on welfare, they would demonstrate sincere concern for the right to life. This is false logic and does nothing to build the case for a local government solution to a feeding tube debate.

The Fed
Hypocrisy and the Ordeal of Terri Schiavo
April 6, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 34:16
Conservatives on the other hand are equally inconsistent in their arguments for life. There’s little hesitation by the conservative right to come to Congress to promote their moral agenda even when it’s not within the jurisdiction of the federal government to do so. Take for instance the funding of faith-based charities. The process is of little concern to conservatives if their agenda is met by passing more federal laws and increasing spending. Instead of concentrating on the repeal of Roe vs. Wade and eliminating federal judicial authority over issues best dealt with at the state level, more federal laws are passed, which strictly speaking should not be the prerogative of the federal government.

The Fed
Repeal Sarbanes-Oxley!
April 14, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 39:6
The US Constitution does not give the federal government authority to regulate the accounting standards of private corporations. These questions should be resolved by private contracts between a company and its shareholders, and by state and local regulations. Let me remind my colleagues who are skeptical of the ability of markets and local law enforcement to protect against fraud: the market passed judgment on Enron, in the form of declining stock prices, before Congress even held the first hearing on the matter. My colleagues also should keep in mind that certain state attorneys general have been very aggressive in prosecuting financial crimes

The Fed
The American Justice For American Citizens Act
14 April 2005    2005 Ron Paul 41:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the American Justice for American Citizens Act, which exercises Congress’s Constitutional authority to regulate the federal judiciary to ensure that federal judges base their decisions solely on American Constitutional, statutory, and traditional common law. Federal judges increasing practice of “transjudicialism” makes this act necessary. Transjudicialism is a new legal theory that encourages judges to disregard American law, including the United States Constitution, and base their decisions on foreign law. For example, Supreme Court justices have used international law to justify upholding race-based college admissions, overturning all state sodomy laws, and, most recently, to usurp state authority to decide the age at which criminals becomes subject to the death penalty.

The Fed
The American Justice For American Citizens Act
14 April 2005    2005 Ron Paul 41:6
Mr. Speaker, the drafters of the Constitution gave Congress the power to regulate the jurisdiction of federal courts precisely so we could intervene when the federal judiciary betrays its responsibility to uphold the Constitution and American law. Congress has a duty to use this power to ensure that judges base their decisions solely on American law.

The Fed
Federalizing Abortion Law
27 April 2005    2005 Ron Paul 42:3
Our Federal government is, constitutionally, a government of limited powers, article I, section 8, enumerates the legislative area for which the U.S. Congress is allowed to act or enact legislation. For every other issues, 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 10th amendment is brutally clear in stating “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Our Nation’s history makes clear that the U.S. Constitution is a document intended to limit the power of central government. No serious reading of historical events surrounding the creation of the Constitution could reasonably portray it differently.

The Fed
Federalizing Abortion Law
27 April 2005    2005 Ron Paul 42:4
Nevertheless, rather than abide by our constitutional limits, Congress today will likely pass H.R. 748. H.R. 748 amends title 18, United States Code, to prohibit taking minors across State lines to avoid laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions. Should parents be involved in decisions regarding the health of their children? Absolutely. Should the law respect parents’ rights to not have their children taken across State lines for contemptible purposes? Absolutely. Can a State pass an enforceable statute to prohibit taking minors across State lines to avoid laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions? Absolutely. But when asked if there exists constitutional authority for the Federal criminalizing of just such an action the answer is absolutely not.

The Fed
Federalizing Abortion Law
27 April 2005    2005 Ron Paul 42:5
This federalizing may have the effect of nationalizing a law with criminal penalties which may be less than those desired by some States. To the extent the Federal and State laws could co-exist, the necessity for a Federal law is undermined and an important bill of rights protection is virtually obliterated. Concurrent jurisdiction crimes erode the right of citizens to be free of double jeopardy. The fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifies that no “person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb. . .” In other words, no person shall be tried twice for the same offense. However, in United States v. Lanza, the high court in 1922 sustained a ruling that being tried by both the Federal Government and a State government for the same offense did not offend the doctrine of double jeopardy. One danger of the unconstitutionally expanding the Federal criminal justice code is that it seriously increases the danger that one will be subject to being tried twice for the same offense. Despite the various pleas for Federal correction of societal wrongs, a national police force is neither prudent nor constitutional.

The Fed
Federalizing Abortion Law
27 April 2005    2005 Ron Paul 42:7
The argument which springs from the criticism of a federalized criminal code and a Federal police force is that States may be less effective than a centralized Federal Government in dealing with those who leave one State jurisdiction for another. Fortunately, the Constitution provides for the procedural means for preserving the integrity of State sovereignty over those issues delegated to it via the 10th amendment. The privilege and immunities clause as well as full faith and credit clause allow States to exact judgments from those who violate their State laws. The Constitution even allows the Federal Government to legislatively preserve the procedural mechanisms which allow States to enforce their substantive laws without the Federal Government imposing its substantive edicts on the States. Article IV, section 2, clause 2 makes provision for the rendition of fugitives from one State to another. While not self-enacting, in 1783 Congress passed an act which did exactly this. There is, of course, a cost imposed upon States in working with one another rather than relying on a national, unified police force. At the same time, there is a greater cost to State autonomy and individual liberty from centralization of police power.

The Fed
Federalizing Abortion Law
27 April 2005    2005 Ron Paul 42:9
It is my erstwhile hope that parents will become more involved in vigilantly monitoring the activities of their own children rather than shifting parental responsibility further upon the Federal Government. There was a time when a popular bumper sticker read “It’s ten o’clock; do you know where your children are?” I suppose we have devolved to the point where it reads “It’s ten o’clock; does the Federal Government know where your children are.” Further socializing and burden shifting of the responsibilities of parenthood upon the Federal Government is simply not creating the proper incentive for parents to be more involved.

The Fed
Republicans Should Not Support a UN Court
May 4, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 45:3
As the resolution itself cites, one top UN official, Jaques Klein, has already pronounced Taylor guilty, stating “Charles Taylor is a psychopath and a killer.” But the resolution concludes that “Congress urges the Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to expeditiously transfer Charles Ghankay Taylor, former President of the Republic of Liberia, to the jurisdiction of the Special Court for Sierra Leone to undergo a fair and open trial…” So it is probably safe to guess what kind of “trial” this will be - a Soviet-style show trial. The United Nations has no business conducting trials for anyone, regardless of the individual or the crime. It is the business of Liberia and Nigeria to determine the fate of Charles Taylor.

The Fed
Reject Taxpayer Bank Bailouts
May 4, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 46:1
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1185, the Federal Deposit Insurance Reform Act, expands the federal government’s unconstitutional control over the financial services industry and raises taxes on all financial institutions. Furthermore, this legislation increases the possibility of future bank failures. Therefore, I must oppose this bill.

The Fed
Reject Taxpayer Bank Bailouts
May 4, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 46:6
The presence of deposit insurance and government regulations removes incentives for individuals to act on their own to protect their deposits or even inquire as to the health of their financial institutions. After all, why should individuals be concerned when the federal government is ensuring banks following sound practices and has insured their deposits?

The Fed
Reject Taxpayer Bank Bailouts
May 4, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 46:7
Finally, I would remind my colleagues that the federal deposit insurance program lacks constitutional authority. Congress’ only mandate in the area of money, and banking is to maintain the value of the money. Unfortunately, Congress abdicated its responsibility over monetary policy with the passage of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, which allows the federal government to erode the value of the currency at the will of the central bank. Congress’ embrace of fiat money is directly responsible for the instability in the banking system that created the justification for deposit insurance.

The Fed
Gang Deterrence And Community Protection Act
11 May 2005    2005 Ron Paul 47:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, the Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act, (H.R. 1279), is the latest example of Congress disregarding its constitutional limitations in the name of “getting tough on crime.” Gang crime is certainly a serious issue in many parts of the country. However, unless criminal gangs are engaging in counterfeiting, treason, or piracy, the federal government has no jurisdiction over the criminal activities of gangs. In fact, by creating new federal crimes related to gang activities, but unrelated to one of the federal crimes enumerated in the Constitution, the new federal crimes and enhanced penalties in this bill usurp state and local authority.

The Fed
Gang Deterrence And Community Protection Act
11 May 2005    2005 Ron Paul 47:7
Finally, I must oppose this bill because it expands the Federal death penalty. While I recognize that nothing in the Constitution forbids Federal, State, or local governments from imposing a death penalty, I have come to the conclusion that a consistent pro-life position requires opposition to any legislation imposing a Federal death penalty for unconstitutional Federal crimes. Mr. Speaker, I do not advocate Federal action to stop individual States from imposing a death penalty, I simply oppose compounding the damage done by creating new Federal crimes by making those crimes subject to a Federal death penalty.

The Fed
Gang Deterrence And Community Protection Act
11 May 2005    2005 Ron Paul 47:8
H.R. 1279 exceeds Congress’s constitutional authority by creating new Federal crimes, thus further burdening the already overwhelmed Federal judiciary system and taking another step toward upending our constitutional system by turning the States into administrative districts of the Federal Government. This bill also creates unwise mandatory minimum sentences, usurping the sentencing decisions of judges and juries. Finally, H.R. 1279 raises serious moral issues by expanding the use of the Federal death penalty. Therefore, I must oppose H.R. 1279 and urge my colleagues to do same.

The Fed
Introducing The Consumers Access To Health Information Act
12 May 2005    2005 Ron Paul 48:2
In 1990, responding to the demands of the American people that the federal government respect consumers’ right to receive information about the ways foods and dietary supplements can improve their health, Congress passed the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act. The intent of that act was to allow the manufacturers of foods and dietary supplements to provide consumers with accurate and specific information regarding the curative and preventive effects of foods and dietary supplements. However, the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, ignored repeated efforts by Congress to protect consumers’ First Amendment rights to receive truthful information about the health benefits of foods and dietary supplements.

The Fed
Introducing The Consumers Access To Health Information Act
12 May 2005    2005 Ron Paul 48:7
At a time when health care costs are rising it is absurd for the federal government to prevent Americans from learning about how they increase their chances of staying healthy by making simple changes in their diets. However, this bill is about more than physical health; it is about freedom. The First Amendment forbids Congress from abridging freedom of all speech, including commercial speech. The type of prior restraint the FDA exercises over these health claims has also been thought to be particularly repugnant to the First Amendment. In a free society, the federal government must not be allowed to prevent people from receiving information enabling them to make informed decisions about whether or not they will use dietary supplements or eat certain foods. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to take a step toward restoring freedom by cosponsoring the Consumer Access to Health Information Act.

The Fed
The Hidden Cost of War
June 14, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 58:29
The Federal Reserve was created in 1913, and shortly thereafter the Fed accommodated the Wilsonians bent on entering WWI by inflating and deficit financing that ill-begotten involvement. Though it produced the 1921 depression and many other problems since, the process subsequently has become institutionalized in financing our militarism in the 20 th Century and already in the 21 st . Without the Fed’s ability to create money out of thin air, our government would be severely handicapped in waging wars that do not serve our interests. The money issue and the ability of our government to wage war are intricately related. Anyone interested in curtailing wartime spending and our militarism abroad is obligated to study the monetary system, through which our government seductively and surreptitiously finances foreign adventurism without the responsibility of informing the public of its cost or collecting the revenues required to finance the effort.

The Fed
An Article By Mr. Lee Jackson
14 June 2005    2005 Ron Paul 62:13
We soon learned of a difference in treatment depending upon residence. In Texas, the legislature had defined attorneys’ fees as belonging to attorneys, and therefore not taxable to plaintiffs. In Maine, no such determination had been made. Also, the Federal District court in which Texas lies had decided that damages were not subject to Alternative Minimum Taxes. The federal court district in which Maine lies had decided the opposite. As a result, the Maine plaintiffs could expect to realize an after-tax net that would have been an estimated 1/15 of the net that the Texas plaintiffs could have expected on the same estimated award. Ironically, all we plaintiffs in our case had been subjected to the exact same set of circumstances; we would have appeared together in the same court; and, if damages were awarded, they would have been determined by the exact same jury.

The Fed
An Article By Mr. Lee Jackson
14 June 2005    2005 Ron Paul 62:22
The concept of exemptions presents its own difficulties. By legislatively determining that some cases are entitled to favorable tax treatment over others, lawmakers are making judgments over the relative merits of cases in advance of either a judge or jury examining specific facts. On its face, such policy screams violation of Constitutional equal protection and equal access to the courts. Justice is no longer blind. And to the extent that such laws continue, the Federal government becomes complicit in chilling citizen participation on issues such as the ones in our case in California. Bad guys already know this, and they know that as a result, they can do bad things to good people with impunity. The combined branches of government have evolved those conditions.

The Fed
Introduction of the Industrial Hemp Farming Act
June 22, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 70:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Industrial Hemp Farming Act. The Industrial Hemp Farming Act requires the federal government to respect state laws allowing the growing of industrial hemp.

The Fed
Introduction of the Industrial Hemp Farming Act
June 22, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 70:3
Since 1970, the federal Controlled Substances Act’s inclusion of industrial hemp in the Schedule One definition of marijuana has prohibited American farmers from growing industrial hemp, despite the fact that industrial hemp has such a low content of THC (the psychoactive chemical in the related marijuana plant) that nobody can be psychologically affected by consuming hemp. Federal law concedes the safety of industrial hemp by allowing it to be legally imported for use as food.

The Fed
Introduction of the Industrial Hemp Farming Act
June 22, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 70:5
Industrial hemp is a crop that was grown legally throughout the United States for most of our history. In fact, during World War II the federal government actively encouraged American farmers to grow industrial hemp to help the war effort. The Department of Agriculture even produced a film, “Hemp for Victory,” encouraging the plant’s cultivation.

The Fed
Introduction of the Industrial Hemp Farming Act
June 22, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 70:7
It is unfortunate that the federal government has stood in the way of American farmers, including many who are struggling to make ends meet, competing in the global industrial hemp market. Indeed the founders of our nation, some of who grew hemp, surely would find that federal restrictions on farmers growing a safe and profitable crop on their own land are inconsistent with the constitutional guarantee of a limited, restrained federal government. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to stand up for American farmers and cosponsor the Industrial Hemp Farming Act.

The Fed
Statement on the Flag Burning Amendment
June 22, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 71:4
One merely would be to use State law. There are a lot of State laws, such as laws against arson, disturbing the peace, theft, inciting riots, trespassing. We could deal with all of the flag desecration with these laws. But there is another solution that our side has used and pretends to want to use on numerous occasions, and that is to eliminate the jurisdiction of the federal courts. We did it on the marriage issue; we can do it right here.

The Fed
Statement on the Flag Burning Amendment
June 22, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 71:9
Another point: The real problem that exists routinely on the House floor is the daily trashing of the Constitution by totally ignoring Act I Sec. 8. We should spend a lot more time following the rule of law, as defined by our oath of office, and a lot less on unnecessary constitutional amendments that expand the role of the federal government while undermining the States.

The Fed
Statement on the Flag Burning Amendment
June 22, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 71:22
Some claim that this is not an issue of private property rights because the flag belongs to the country. The flag belongs to everybody. But if you say that, you are a collectivist. That means you believe everybody owns everything. So why do American citizens have to spend money to obtain, and maintain, a flag if the flag is communally owned? If your neighbor, or the federal government, owns a flag, even without this amendment you do not have the right to go and burn that flag. If you are causing civil disturbances, you are liable for your conduct under state and local laws. But this whole idea that there could be a collective ownership of the flag is erroneous.

The Fed
Introducing The Agriculture Education Freedom Act
27 June 2005    2005 Ron Paul 76:1
Mr. PAUL. 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.

The Fed
Introducing The Quality Health Care Coalition Act
27 June 2005    2005 Ron Paul 78:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Quality Health Care Coalition Act, which takes a first step towards restoring a true free market in health care by restoring the rights of freedom of contract and association to health care professionals. Over the past few years, we have had much debate in Congress about the difficulties medical professionals and patients are having with Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs). HMOs are devices used by insurance industries to ration health care. While it is politically popular for members of Congress to bash the HMOs and the insurance industry, the growth of the HMOs are rooted in past government interventions in the health care market though the tax code, the Employment Retirement Security Act (ERSIA), and the federal anti-trust laws. These interventions took control of the health care dollar away from individual patients and providers, thus making it inevitable that something like the HMOs would emerge as a means to control costs.

The Fed
Introducing The Quality Health Care Coalition Act
27 June 2005    2005 Ron Paul 78:2
Many of my well-meaning colleagues would deal with the problems created by the HMOs by expanding the federal government’s control over the health care market. These interventions will inevitably drive up the cost of health care and further erode the ability of patents and providers to determine the best health treatments free of government and third-party interference. In contrast, the Quality Health Care Coalition Act addresses the problems associated with HMOs by restoring medical professionals’ freedom to form voluntary organizations for the purpose of negotiating contracts with an HMO or an insurance company.

The Fed
Introducing The Quality Health Care Coalition Act
27 June 2005    2005 Ron Paul 78:5
Under the United States Constitution, the Federal government has no authority to interfere with the private contracts of American citizens. Furthermore, the prohibitions on contracting contained in the Sherman antitrust laws are based on a flawed economic theory which holds that Federal regulators can improve upon market outcomes by restricting the rights of certain market participants deemed too powerful by the government. In fact, anti- trust laws harm consumers by preventing the operation of the free-market, causing prices to rise, quality to suffer, and, as is certainly the case with the relationship between the HMOs and medical professionals, favoring certain industries over others.

The Fed
Introducing The Cancer And Terminal Illness Patient Health Care Act
27 June 2005    2005 Ron Paul 79:2
When stricken with cancer or another terminal disease, many Americans struggle to pay for the treatment necessary to save, or extend, their lives. Even employees with health insurance incur costs such as for transportation to and from care centers, prescription drugs not covered by their insurance, or for child care while they are receiving treatment. Yet, the federal government continues to force these employees to pay for retirement benefits they may never live to see!

The Fed
Congress Lacks Authority To Sell Unocal
30 June 2005    2005 Ron Paul 82:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker I rise with great reservations over this legislation. Why is the federal government involving itself in the sale of a private American company? Do we really believe we have this kind of authority?

The Fed
Amend The PATRIOT Act — Part 1
21 July 2005    2005 Ron Paul 87:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment. mBR> The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment No. 19 offered by Mr. PAUL: Add at the end the following: mBR> SEC. 17. SENSE OF CONGRESS RELATING TO LAWFUL POLITICAL ACTIVITY. It is the sense of Congress that the Federal Government should not investigate an American citizen for alleged criminal conduct solely on the basis of the citizen’s membership in a non-violent political organization or the fact that the citizen was engaging in other lawful political activity. The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 369, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL).

The Fed
Amend The PATRIOT Act — Part 1
21 July 2005    2005 Ron Paul 87:3
Mr. Chairman, this is a straightforward amendment intended to modestly improve the PATRIOT Act, and let me just state exactly what it does. “It is the sense of Congress that the Federal government should not investigate any American citizen for alleged criminal conduct solely on the basis of citizen’s membership in a nonviolent political organization or the fact that the citizen was engaging in other lawful political activity.”

The Fed
Introduction Of The Cures Can Be Found Act
26 July 2005    2005 Ron Paul 91:4
By encouraging private medical research, the Cures Can Be Found Act enhances a tradition of private medical research that is responsible for many medical breakthroughs. For example, Jonas Salk, discoverer of the polio vaccine, did not receive one dollar from the federal government for his efforts. I urge my colleagues to help the American people support the efforts of future Jonas Salks by cosponsoring the Cures Can Be Found Act.

The Fed
Introducing The Rice Farmers Fairness Act
6 September 2005    2005 Ron Paul 93:4
My legislation is very simple and direct in dealing with this problem. It says that those who have tenant rice farmers producing rice in Texas must agree to continue to maintain rice in their crop rotation if they wish to receive subsidies. In this way, we can remove the perverse incentive, which the Federal Government has provided to landowners to exit the rice business and thereby put the entire rice infrastructure at risk.

The Fed
Statement On H.R. 3673, Making Emergency Supplemental Appropriations For 2005
8 September 2005    2005 Ron Paul 96:2
Mr. Speaker, considering the demonstrated ineptitude of government on both the Federal and State level in this disaster, the people affected by the hurricane and subsequent flood would no doubt be better off if relief money was simply sent directly to them or to community organizations dedicated to clean-up and reconstruction. Indeed, we have seen numerous examples of private organizations and individuals attempting to help their fellow Americans in so many ways over the last 10 days, only to be turned back by FEMA or held up for days by government red tape. We have seen in previous disasters how individuals and non- governmental organizations were often among the first to pitch in and help their neighbors and fellow citizens. Now, FEMA is sending these good Samaritans a troubling message: stay away, let us handle it.

The Fed
Statement On H.R. 3673, Making Emergency Supplemental Appropriations For 2005
8 September 2005    2005 Ron Paul 96:4
Mr. Speaker, we see here once again the Federal Government attempting to impose a topdown solution to the disaster. No one is questioning from where this $52 billion will come. The answer, of course, is that the Federal Government is going to simply print the money up. There are no reductions in Federal spending elsewhere to free up this disaster aid. Rather, the money will come from a printing press. The economic devastation created by such a reckless approach may well be even more wide-reaching than the disaster this bill is meant to repair.

The Fed
Providing For Consideration Of H.R. 3132, Children’s Safety Act Pf 2005
14 September 2005    2005 Ron Paul 97:4
Thus, once again we see how increasing the role of the Federal Government in fighting these crimes — even when it is well intended — only hamstrings local and State law enforcement officers and courts and prevents them from effectively dealing with such criminals as the locals would have them dealt with — harshly and finally.

The Fed
Providing For Consideration Of H.R. 3132, Children’s Safety Act Pf 2005
14 September 2005    2005 Ron Paul 97:6
Just as the Founders never intended the Congress to create a national police force, they never intended the Federal courts to dictate criminal procedures to the States. The Founding Fathers knew quite well that it would be impossible for a central government to successfully manage crime prevention programs for as large and diverse a country as America. That is one reason why they reserved to the States the exclusive authority and jurisdiction to deal with crime. Our children would likely be safe today if the police powers and budgets were under the direct and total control of the States as called for in the Constitution.

The Fed
The Coming Category 5 Financial Hurricane
September 15, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 98:3
Congress reacted to Katrina in the expected irresponsible manner. It immediately appropriated over $60 billion with little planning or debate. Taxes won’t be raised to pay the bill-- fortunately. There will be no offsets or spending reductions to pay the bill. Welfare and entitlement spending is sacrosanct. Spending for the war in Iraq and the military-industrial complex is sacrosanct. There is no guarantee that gracious foreign lenders will step forward, especially without raising interest rates. This means the Federal Reserve and Treasury will print the money needed to pay the bills. The sad truth is that monetary debasement hurts poor people the most-- the very people we saw on TV after Katrina. Inflating our currency hurts the poor and destroys the middle class, while transferring wealth to the ruling class. This occurs in spite of good intentions and misplaced compassion.

The Fed
The Coming Category 5 Financial Hurricane
September 15, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 98:5
Runaway inflation is a well-known phenomenon. It leads to political and economic chaos of the kind we witnessed in New Orleans. Hopefully we’ll come to our senses and not allow that to happen. But we’re vulnerable and we have only ourselves to blame. The flawed paper money system in existence since 1971 has allowed for the irresponsible spending of the past 30 years. Without a linkage to gold, Washington politicians and the Federal Reserve have no restraints placed on their power to devalue our money by merely printing more to pay the bills run up by the welfare-warfare state.

The Fed
The Coming Category 5 Financial Hurricane
September 15, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 98:11
My suggestion to my colleagues: Any new expenditures must have offsets greater in amount than the new programs. Foreign military and foreign aid expenditures must be the first target. The Federal Reserve must stop inflating the currency merely for the purpose of artificially lowering interest rates to perpetuate a financial bubble. This policy allows government and consumer debt to grow beyond sustainable levels, while undermining incentives to save. This in turn undermines capital investment while exaggerating consumption. If this policy doesn’t change, the dollar must fall and the current account deficit will play havoc until the house of cards collapses.

The Fed
Introduction Of The Affordable Gas Price Act
6 October 2005    2005 Ron Paul 99:4
Instead of expanding government, Congress should repeal Federal laws and policies that raise the price of gas, either directly through taxes or indirectly through regulations that discourage the development of new fuel sources. This is why my legislation repeals the Federal moratorium on offshore drilling and allows oil exploration in the ANWR reserve in Alaska. My bill also ensures that the National Environmental Policy Act’s environmental impact statement requirement will no longer be used as a tool to force refiners to waste valuable time and capital on nuisance litigation. The Affordable Gas Price Act also provides tax incentives to encourage investment in new refineries.

The Fed
Introduction Of The Affordable Gas Price Act
6 October 2005    2005 Ron Paul 99:5
Federal fuel taxes are a major part of gasoline’s cost. The Affordable Gas Price Act suspends the Federal gasoline tax any time the average gas prices exceeds $3 per gallon. During the suspension, the Federal Government will have a legal responsibility to ensure the Federal highway trust fund remains funded. My bill also raises the amount of mileage reimbursement not subject to taxes, and, during times of high oil prices, provides the same mileage reimbursement benefit to charity and medical organizations as provided to businesses.

The Fed
Personal Responsibility In Food Consumption Act
19 October 2005    2005 Ron Paul 105:4
While I oppose the idea of holding food manufacturers responsible for their customers’ misuse of their products, I cannot support addressing this problem by nationalizing tort law. It is long past time for Congress to recognize that not every problem requires a Federal solution. This country’s founders recognized the genius of separating power among Federal, State, and local governments as a means to maximize individual liberty and make government most responsive to those persons who might most responsibly influence it. This separation of powers strictly limits the role of the Federal Government in dealing with civil liability matters; and reserves jurisdiction over matters of civil tort, such as food related negligence suits, to the State legislatures.

The Fed
Personal Responsibility In Food Consumption Act
19 October 2005    2005 Ron Paul 105:5
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would remind the food industry that using unconstitutional Federal powers to restrict State lawsuits makes it more likely those same powers will be used to impose additional Federal control over the food industry. Despite these lawsuits, the number one threat to business remains a Federal government freed of its Constitutional restraints. After all, the Federal government imposes numerous taxes and regulations on the food industry, often using the same phony “pro-consumer” justifications used by the trial lawyers. Furthermore, while small business, such as fast-food franchises, can move to another State to escape flawed State tax, regulatory, or legal policies, they cannot as easily escape destructive Federal regulations. Unconstitutional expansions of Federal power, no matter how just the cause may seem, are not in the interests of the food industry or of lovers of liberty.

The Fed
Personal Responsibility In Food Consumption Act
19 October 2005    2005 Ron Paul 105:6
In conclusion, while share the concern over the lawsuits against the food industry that inspired H.R. 554, this bill continues the disturbing trend of federalizing tort law. Enhancing the power of the Federal government is in no way in the long-term interests of defenders of the free market and Constitutional liberties. Therefore, I must oppose this bill.

The Fed
Protection Of Lawful Commerce In Arms Act
20 october 2005    2005 Ron Paul 106:7
I am particularly disturbed that the House of Representatives’ leadership has taken the unusual step of bringing S. 397 to the floor for a vote without House members at least having an opportunity to vote on removing the gun control amendments. Instead of voting on a bill that contains the new gun control provisions, we should be considering H.R. 800, the House version of S. 397 prior to its perversion by gun control amendments. Notably, Gun Owners of America has written to House members to request that they oppose S. 397 and, instead, support H.R. 800. Last month, I wrote to House Speaker DENNIS HASTERT, Majority Leader TOM DELAY, and Committee on the Judiciary Chairman JAMES SENSENBRENNER of my opposition to these anti-gun rights provisions in S. 397. While I am concerned about some of the federalism implications of H.R. 800, it is a far superior bill because it neither requires gun locks nor restricts gun owners’ ammunition choices.

The Fed
Introducing The Improve Interoperable Communications For First Responders Act
20 october 2005    2005 Ron Paul 107:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Improve Interoperable Communications for First Responders Act of 2005. This act provides Federal assistance to local first responders for developing an interoperable means of communications. Ensuring first responders at the local, state, and Federal level have the ability to effectively communicate with each other should be one of the Federal Government’s top priorities. The ability of first responders to effectively communicate with each other, and with their counterparts at different levels of governments, is key to their ability to save lives in the crucial time immediately after a natural disaster or a terrorist attack.

The Fed
Introducing The Improve Interoperable Communications For First Responders Act
20 october 2005    2005 Ron Paul 107:3
Rather than simply further burdening taxpayers, or increasing the already skyrocketing national debt, my legislation is financed through cuts in corporate welfare and foreign aid programs, which subsidize large corporations and even American businesses’ overseas competitors such as the Export-Import Bank use of taxpayer money to underwrite trade with countries such as Communist China. It is time for the Federal Government to begin prioritizing spending by cutting unnecessary programs that benefit powerful special interests in order to met our constitutional responsibilities to ensure America’s first responders can effectively respond to terrorists’ attacks.

The Fed
Government Sponsored Enterprises
26 October 2005    2005 Ron Paul 108:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1461 fails to address the core problems with the Government Sponsored Enterprises, GSEs. Furthermore, since this legislation creates new government programs that will further artificially increase the demand for housing, H.R. 1461 increases the economic damage that will occur when the housing bubble bursts. The main problem with the GSEs is the special privileges the Federal Government gives the GSEs. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the housing-related GSEs received almost 20 billion dollars worth of indirect federal subsidies in fiscal year 2004 alone.

The Fed
Government Sponsored Enterprises
26 October 2005    2005 Ron Paul 108:2
One of the major privileges the Federal Government grants to the GSEs is a line of credit from the United States Treasury. According to some estimates, the line of credit may be worth over two billion dollars. GSEs also benefit from an explicit grant of legal authority given to the Federal Reserve to purchase the debt of the GSEs. GSEs are the only institutions besides the United States Treasury granted explicit statutory authority to monetize their debt through the Federal Reserve. This provision gives the GSEs a source of liquidity unavailable to their competitors.

The Fed
Government Sponsored Enterprises
26 October 2005    2005 Ron Paul 108:4
The connection between the GSEs and the government helps isolate the GSEs’ managements from market discipline. This isolation from market discipline is the root cause of the mismanagement occurring at Fannie and Freddie. After all, if investors did not believe that the Federal Government would bail out Fannie and Freddie if the GSEs faced financial crises, then investors would have forced the GSEs to provide assurances that the GSEs are following accepted management and accounting practices before investors would consider Fannie and Freddie to be good investments.

The Fed
Government Sponsored Enterprises
26 October 2005    2005 Ron Paul 108:15
Perhaps the Federal Reserve can stave off the day of reckoning by purchasing the GSEs’ debt and pumping liquidity into the housing market, but this cannot hold off the inevitable drop in the housing market forever. In fact, postponing the necessary and painful market corrections will only deepen the inevitable fall. The more people are invested in the market, the greater the effects across the economy when the bubble bursts.

The Fed
Amendment No. 6 Offered By Mr. Paul — Part 1
26 October 2005    2005 Ron Paul 109:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. PAUL: Page 64, after line 12, insert the following new section: SECTION 117. ELIMINATION OF AUTHORITY TO BORROW FROM TREASURY OF THE UNITED STATES. (a) FANNIE MAE. — Section 304 of the Federal National Mortgage Association Charter Act (12 U.S.C. 1719) is amended by striking subsection (c). (b) FREDDIE MAC. — Section 306 of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation Act (12 U.S.C. 1455) is amended by striking subsection (c). (c) FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS. — Section 11 of the Federal Home Loan Bank Act (12 U.S.C. 1431) is amended by striking subsection (i). The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 509, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. FRANK) each will control 5 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL).

The Fed
Amendment No. 6 Offered By Mr. Paul — Part 1
26 October 2005    2005 Ron Paul 109:4
I think Members can see there is a problem with our GSEs. The debt is horrendous. Today, the administration sent a letter around and said that the debt of the GSEs totals $2.5 trillion, and they also guarantee in addition $2.4 trillion. That adds up to more money than the Federal Government has borrowed. So it is a tremendous amount of money and credit that is in the system; and people have become frightened about this, including chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, Alan Greenspan.

The Fed
Free Speech and Dietary Supplements
November 10, 2005 HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS    2005 Ron Paul 118:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Health Freedom Protection Act. This bill restores the First Amendment rights of consumers to receive truthful information regarding the benefits of foods and dietary supplements by codifying the First Amendment standards used by federal courts to strike down the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) efforts to censor truthful health claims. The Health Freedom Protection Act also stops the Federal Trade Commissions (FTC) from censoring truthful health care claims.

The Fed
Free Speech and Dietary Supplements
November 10, 2005 HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS    2005 Ron Paul 118:2
The American people have made it clear they do not want the federal government to interfere with their access to dietary supplements, yet the FDA and the FTC continue to engage in heavy-handed attempts to restrict such access. The FDA continues to frustrate consumers’ efforts to learn how they can improve their health even after Congress, responding to a record number of constituents’ comments, passed the Dietary Supplement and Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA). FDA bureaucrats are so determined to frustrate consumer access to truthful information that they are even evading their duty to comply with four federal court decisions vindicating consumers’ First Amendment rights to discover the health benefits of foods and dietary supplements.

The Fed
Free Speech and Dietary Supplements
November 10, 2005 HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS    2005 Ron Paul 118:6
The Health Freedom Protection Act will force the FDA to at last comply with the commands of Congress, the First Amendment, and the American people by codifying the First Amendment standards adopted by the federal courts. Specifically, the Health Freedom Protection Act stops the FDA from censoring truthful claims about the curative, mitigative, or preventative effects of dietary supplements, and adopts the federal court’s suggested use of disclaimers as an alternative to censorship. The Health Freedom Protection Act also stops the FDA from prohibiting the distribution of scientific articles and publications regarding the role of nutrients in protecting against disease.

The Fed
Free Speech and Dietary Supplements
November 10, 2005 HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS    2005 Ron Paul 118:7
This legislation also addresses the FTC’s violations of the First Amendment. Under traditional First Amendment jurisprudence, the federal government bears the burden of proving an advertising statement false before censoring that statement. However, the FTC has reversed the standard in the case of dietary supplements by requiring supplement manufactures to satisfy an unobtainable standard of proof that their statement is true. The FTC’s standards are blocking innovation in the marketplace.

The Fed
Congress Erodes Privacy
November 16, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 121:2
There have been serious legal debates in recent decades about whether “privacy” is protected by the Constitution. Some argue that since the word does not appear in the text of that document, it is not protected. Others argue that privacy protection grants the federal government power to dictate to all states limits or leniency in enforcing certain laws. But the essence of liberty is privacy.

The Fed
Introducing We The People
17 November 2005    2005 Ron Paul 122:2
The United States Constitution gives Congress the authority to establish and limit the jurisdiction of the lower Federal courts and limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Founders intended Congress to use this authority to correct abuses of power by the federal judiciary.

The Fed
Introducing We The People
17 November 2005    2005 Ron Paul 122:3
Some may claim that an activist judiciary that strikes down State laws at will expands individual liberty. Proponents of this claim overlook the fact that the best guarantor of true liberty is decentralized political institutions, while the greatest threat to liberty is concentrated power. This is why the Constitution carefully limits the power of the Federal Government over the States.

The Fed
Introducing We The People
17 November 2005    2005 Ron Paul 122:5
Mr. Speaker, even some supporters of liberalized abortion laws have admitted that the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, which overturned the abortion laws of all 50 States, is flawed. The Supreme Court’s Establishment Clause jurisdiction has also drawn criticism from across the political spectrum. Perhaps more importantly, attempts to resolve, by judicial fiat, important issues like abortion and the expression of religious belief in the public square increase social strife and conflict The only way to resolve controversial social issues like abortion and school prayer is to restore respect for the right of State and local governments to adopt polices that reflect the beliefs of the citizens of those jurisdictions. I would remind my colleagues and the Federal judiciary that, under our Constitutional system, there is no reason why the people of New York and the people of Texas should have the same polices regarding issues such as marriage and school prayer.

The Fed
Statement on So-Called "Deficit Reduction Act"
November 18, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 123:2
For all the passionate debate this bill has generated, its effect on the federal government and taxpayers are relatively minor. HR 4241 does not even reduce federal expenditures! That’s right--if HR 4241 passes, the federal budget, including entitlement programs, will continue to grow. HR 4241 simply slows down the rate of growth of federal spending. The federal government may spend less in the future if this bill passes then it otherwise would, but it will still spend more than it does today. To put HR 4241 in perspective, consider that this bill reduces spending by less than $50 billion over 10 years, while the most recent “emergency” supplemental passed by this Congress appropriated $82 billion dollars to be spent this year.

The Fed
Statement on So-Called "Deficit Reduction Act"
November 18, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 123:3
HR 4241 reduces total federal entitlement expenditures by one half of one percent over the next five years. For all the trumpeting about how this bill gets “runaway entitlement spending” under control, HR 4241 fails to deal with the biggest entitlement problem facing our nation--the multi-billion dollar Medicare prescription drug plan, which actually will harm many seniors by causing them to lose their private coverage, forcing them into an inferior government-run program. In fact, the Medicare prescription drug plan will cost $55 billion in fiscal year 2006 alone, while HR 4241 will reduce spending by only $5 billion next year. Yet some House members who voted for every expansion of the federal government considered by this Congress will vote for these small reductions in spending and then brag about their fiscal conservatism to their constituents.

The Fed
Statement on So-Called "Deficit Reduction Act"
November 18, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 123:8
HR 4241 fails to address the root of the spending problem--the belief that Congress can solve any problem simply by creating a new federal program or agency. However, with the federal government’s unfunded liabilities projected to reach as much as $50 trillion by the end of this year, Congress no longer can avoid serious efforts to rein in spending. Instead of the smoke-and-mirrors approach of HR 4241, Congress should begin the journey toward fiscal responsibility by declaring a ten percent reduction in real spending, followed by a renewed commitment to reduce spending in a manner consistent with our obligation to uphold the Constitution and the priorities of the American people. This is the only way to make real progress on reducing spending without cutting programs for the poor while increasing funding for programs that benefit foreign governments and corporate interests.

The Fed
The Blame Game
December 7, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 124:1
Our country faces major problems. No longer can they remain hidden from the American people. Most Americans are aware the federal budget is in dismal shape. Whether it’s Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, or even the private pension system, most Americans realize we’re in debt over our heads.

The Fed
Terrorism Insurance Program
7 December 2005    2005 Ron Paul 125:2
The drafters of H.R. 3210 claim that this creates a “temporary” government program. However, Mr. Speaker, what happens in 3 years if industry lobbyists come to Capitol Hill to explain that there is still a need for this program because of the continuing threat of terrorist attacks. Does anyone seriously believe that Congress will refuse to reauthorize this “temporary” insurance program or provide some other form of taxpayer help to the insurance industry? I would like to remind my colleagues that the Federal budget is full of expenditures for long-lasting programs that were originally intended to be “temporary.”

The Fed
Terrorism Insurance Program
7 December 2005    2005 Ron Paul 125:8
The drafters of H.R. 3210 claim that this creates a “temporary” government program. However, Mr. Speaker, what happens in 3 years if industry lobbyists come to Capitol Hill to explain that there is still a need for this program because of the continuing threat of terrorist attacks. Does anyone seriously believe that Congress will refuse to reauthorize this “temporary” insurance program or provide some other form of taxpayer help to the insurance industry? I would like to remind my colleagues that the Federal budget is full of expenditures for long-lasting programs that were originally intended to be “temporary.”

The Fed
Terrorism Insurance Program
7 December 2005    2005 Ron Paul 125:12
The version of H.R. 3210 passed by the Financial Services committee took a good first step in this direction by repealing the tax penalty which prevents insurance companies from properly reserving funds for human-created catastrophes. I am disappointed that this sensible provision was removed from the final bill. Instead, H.R. 3210 instructs the Treasury Department to study the benefits of allowing insurers to establish tax-free reserves to cover losses from terrorist events. The perceived need to study the wisdom of cutting taxes while expanding the federal government without hesitation demonstrates much that is wrong with Washington.

The Fed
Pension Protection Act
15 December 2005    2005 Ron Paul 126:2
However, I oppose this rule, because I do not like the process under which this bill is being brought to the floor. The rule before us today does not allow any member to offer, or vote on, amendments that may improve this bill. In particular, I was hoping to vote on an amendment protecting United Airline retirees from having their pension benefits reduced or terminated even though United expects to make $1 billion in profit within 1 year of being discharged from bankruptcy. The Senate version of the bill does address same problems of the airline industry. However it fails to protect United Airlines retirees. The Federal Government should not facilitate a large companies getting out of its contractual obligations to their retired workers. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to protect the pensions of retired United Airline employees by rejecting this rule and voting for a rule that allows us to consider adding, language helping the United Airline retirees to the bill. If this rule does pass, I urge my colleagues to move the process foreword by voting for the bill and working to add language protecting the United Airline pilots to the bill when it goes to conference with the Senate.

The Fed
Border Protection Antiterrorism, And Illegal Immigration Control Act Of 2005
16 December 2005    2005 Ron Paul 127:2
Some measures in the bill sound good, but are in effect superfluous. Do we need new legislation requiring the Department of Homeland Security to achieve “operational control of the borders”? Shouldn’t the federal government already have “operational control of the borders”?

The Fed
Border Protection Antiterrorism, And Illegal Immigration Control Act Of 2005
16 December 2005    2005 Ron Paul 127:5
There are some elements of this new bill to be applauded. Measures to require detention of and expedited removal of aliens, for example, are a good step. Also to be applauded is the requirement for an additional 250 inspectors at U.S. ports of entry each year from 2007 through 2010, although this is unfortunately subject to the availability of funds. But overall this bill is a weak substitute for real immigration and border reform. As the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) says, H.R. 4437 “treats some of the symptoms, it does not, in fact, do enough to actually cure the illness.”

The Fed
Foreign Policy
17 December 2005    2005 Ron Paul 128:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, our country faces major problems. No longer can they remain hidden from the American people. Most Americans are aware the Federal budget is in dismal shape. Whether it is Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, or even the private pension system, most Americans realize we are in debt over our heads. The welfare state is unmanageable and severely overextended.

The Fed
Return To Constitutional Government
1 February 2006    2006 Ron Paul 1:2
This measure does nothing to address the root cause of the scandals — the ever-growing size and power of the Federal Government. As long the Federal Government continues to regulate, tax, and subsidize the American people, there will be attempts to influence those who write the laws and regulations under which the people must live. Human nature being what it is, there will also be those lobbyists and policymakers who will manipulate the power of the regulatory state to enrich themselves. As I have said before, and I fear I will have plenty of opportunity to say again, the only way to get special interest money and influence out of politics is to get the money and power out of Washington. Instead of passing new regulations and laws regulating the people’s right to petition their government, my colleagues should refuse to vote for any legislation that violates the constitutional limits on Federal power or enriches a special interest at the expense of American taxpayers. Returning to constitutional government is the only way to ensure that our republican institutions will not be corrupted by powerful interests seeking special privileges.

The Fed
The End Of Dollar Hegemony
15 February 2006    2006 Ron Paul 3:17
This transition only could have occurred with a dramatic change in monetary policy and the nature of the dollar itself. Congress created the Federal Reserve system in 1913. Between then and 1971, the principle of sound money was systematically undermined. Between 1913 and 1971, the Federal Reserve found it much easier to expand the money supply at will for financing war or manipulating an economy with little resistance from Congress while benefiting the special interests that influence Congress.

The Fed
The End Of Dollar Hegemony
15 February 2006    2006 Ron Paul 3:33
Once again, the effort between 1980 and 2000 to fool the market as to the true value of the dollar proved unsuccessful. In the past 5 years, the dollar has been devalued in terms of gold by more than 50 percent. You just cannot fool all the people all the time, even with the power of the mighty printing press and the money-creating system of the Federal Reserve.

The Fed
The End Of Dollar Hegemony
15 February 2006    2006 Ron Paul 3:39
Greenspan, in his first speech after leaving the Fed, said that gold prices were up because of concern about terrorism and not because of monetary concerns or because he created too many dollars during his tenure. Gold has to be discredited and the dollar propped up. Even when the dollar comes under serious attack by market forces, the central banks and the IMF will surely do everything conceivable to soak up the dollars in hope of restoring stability. Eventually, they will fail.

The Fed
The End Of Dollar Hegemony
15 February 2006    2006 Ron Paul 3:68
It has been suggested we need to change course and correct the way Congress is run. A good idea, but if we merely tinker with current attitudes about what role the Federal Government ought to play in our lives, it won’t do much to solve the ethics crisis.

The Fed
The End Of Dollar Hegemony
15 February 2006    2006 Ron Paul 3:81
The problem of special interest government that breeds corruption comes from our lack of respect for the Constitution in the first place. So what do we do? We further violate the Constitution, rather than examine it for guidance as to the proper role of the Federal Government.

The Fed
The End Of Dollar Hegemony
15 February 2006    2006 Ron Paul 3:83
The theft that the Federal Government commits against its citizens and the power that Congress has assumed illegally are the real crimes that need to be dealt with. In this regard, we truly need a new direction: get rid of the evil tax system, the fraudulent monetary system and the power of the government to run our lives, the economy and the world, and the Abramoff types would be exposed for the mere gnats they are. There would be a lot less of them since the incentive to buy politicians would be removed.

The Fed
The End Of Dollar Hegemony
15 February 2006    2006 Ron Paul 3:97
But if the Federal Reserve did not pick up the slack and create huge amounts of new credit and money out of thin air, interest rates would rise and call a halt to the charade. The people who suffer from a depreciated dollar don’t understand why they suffer, while the people who benefit promote the corrupt system. The wealthy clean up on Wall Street and the unsophisticated buy in at the market tops. Wealth is transferred from one group to another, and it is all related to the system that allows politicians and the central banks to create money out of thin air. It is literally legalized counterfeiting.

The Fed
The End Of Dollar Hegemony
15 February 2006    2006 Ron Paul 3:111
Counterfeiting money never creates wealth. It only steals wealth from the unsuspecting. The Federal Reserve creation of money is exactly the same. Increasing the dollars in circulation can only diminish the value of each existing dollar. Only production and jobs can make a country wealthy in the long run. Today, it is obvious our country is becoming poorer and more uneasy as our jobs and capital go overseas.

The Fed
Debt Addiction
1 March 2006    2006 Ron Paul 6:8
But this official debt figure barely touches the subject. Total obligations of the Federal Government, including Social Security and Medicare and prescription drugs, are now over $50 trillion, a sum younger generations will not be able to pay. This means the standard of living of a lot of Americans who are retired will decline sharply in the near future.

The Fed
Debt Addiction
1 March 2006    2006 Ron Paul 6:9
Two vehicles are used to fund this wild spending. First, the Federal Reserve creates dollars out of thin air and purchases Treasury bills without limit, a very nice convenience.

The Fed
Debt Addiction
1 March 2006    2006 Ron Paul 6:11
Excessive spending, a rapidly growing national debt, the Federal Reserve inflation machine, and foreign borrowing all put pressure on the dollar. Unless we treat our addiction to debt, it will play havoc with the dollar, undermine our economic well-being, and destroy our liberties. It is time for us to get our house in order.

The Fed
Introduction Of The Treat Physicians Fairly Act
2 March 2006    2006 Ron Paul 7:5
EMTALA could actually decrease the care available for low-income Americans at emergency rooms. This is because EMTALA discourages physicians from offering any emergency care. Many physicians in my district have told me that they are considering curtailing their practices, in part because of the costs associated with the EMTALA mandates. Many other physicians are even counseling younger people against entering the medical profession because of the way the Federal Government treats medical professionals. The tax credits created in the Treat Physicians Fairly Act will help mitigate some of the burden government policies place on physicians.

The Fed
Introduction Of The Sunshine In Monetary Policy Act
7 March 2006    2006 Ron Paul 10:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Sunshine in Monetary Policy Act, which requires the Federal Reserve to resume reporting the monetary measure known as M3. M3 consists of M1 (M1 is currency in circulation plus travelers’ checks, demand deposits, Negotiable Order of Withdrawal (NOW) accounts, and similar interest-earning checking account balances) plus M2 (M2 is M1 plus household holdings of savings deposits, small time deposits, and retail money market mutual funds balances except for balances held in IRA and Keogh accounts) plus institutional money market mutual fund balances and managed liabilities of deposits consisting of large time deposits, repurchase agreements, and Eurodollars.

The Fed
Introduction Of The Sunshine In Monetary Policy Act
7 March 2006    2006 Ron Paul 10:2
The Federal Reserve Board has recently announced it will stop reporting M3, thus depriving Congress and the American people of the most comprehensive measure of the money supply. The cessation of Federal Reserve’s weekly M3 report will make it more difficult for policymakers, economists, investors, and the general public to learn the true rate of inflation. As Nobel laureate Milton Friedman famously said, “inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon.” Therefore, having access to a comprehensive measure of the money supply like M3 is a vital tool for those seeking to track inflation. Thorsten Polleit, honorary professor at HfB-Business School of Finance and Management, in his article “Why Money Supply Matters” posted on the Ludwig von Mises Institute’s website mises.org, examined the relationship between changes in the money supply and inflation and concluded that “money supply signals might actually be far more important for inflation — even in the short-term — than current central bank practice suggests,” thus demonstrating the importance of the M3 aggregate.

The Fed
Introduction Of The Sunshine In Monetary Policy Act
7 March 2006    2006 Ron Paul 10:3
The Federal Reserve Board has claimed neither policymakers nor the Federal Reserve staff closely track M3. Even if M3 is not used by Federal Reserve Board economists or legislators, many financial services professionals whose livelihoods depend on their ability to obtain accurate information about the money supply rely on M3. For example, my office has been contacted by a professional money manger complaining that the Federal Reserve Board’s discontinuing M3 reports will make it difficult for him to do his job.

The Fed
Introduction Of The Sunshine In Monetary Policy Act
7 March 2006    2006 Ron Paul 10:4
Whatever lack of interest policymakers are currently displaying in M3 is no doubt related to the mistaken perception that the Federal Reserve Board has finally figured out how to effectively manage a fiat currency. This illusion exists largely because the effects of the Fed’s inflationary polices are concentrated in malinvestments in specific sectors of the economy, leading to “bubbles” such as the one that occurred in the stock market in the late nineties and the bubble that many believe is occurring in the current real estate market. When monetary inflation is reflected in sector- specific bubbles, it is easier to pretend that the bubbles are caused by problems specific to those sectors, instead of reflecting the problems inherent in a fiat currency system. Once the damage to our economy done by our reliance on fiat currency becomes clear, I am certain that policymakers will once again take more interest in M3.

The Fed
Introduction Of The Sunshine In Monetary Policy Act
7 March 2006    2006 Ron Paul 10:5
Economists and others who are following M3 have become increasingly concerned about inflation because last year the rate of M3 rose almost twice as fast as other monetary aggregates. This suggests that the inflation picture is not as rosy as the Federal Reserve would like Congress and the American people to believe. Discontinuing reporting the monetary aggregate that provides the best evidence that the Federal Reserve Board has not conquered inflation suggests to many people that the government is trying to conceal information about the true state of the economy from the American people. Brad Conrad, a professor of investing who has also worked with IBM, CDC, and Amdahl, spoke for many when he said, “It [the discontinuance of M3] is unsettling. It detracts from the transparency the Fed preaches and adds to the suspicion that the Fed wants to hide anything showing money growth high enough to fuel inflation...” Discontinuing reporting M3 will only save 0.00000699% of the Federal Reserve Board’s yearly budget. This savings hardly seems to justify depriving the American people of an important measurement of money supply, especially since Congress has tasked the Federal Reserve Board with reporting on monetary aggregates.

The Fed
Introduction Of The Sunshine In Monetary Policy Act
7 March 2006    2006 Ron Paul 10:6
Discontinuing reporting M3 may not be a violation of the letter of the Federal Reserve Board’s statutory duty, but it is a violation of the spirit of the congressional command that the Federal Reserve Board ensure the American public is fully informed about the effects of monetary policy.

The Fed
Introduction Of The Sunshine In Monetary Policy Act
7 March 2006    2006 Ron Paul 10:7
Mr. Speaker, knowledge of the money supply is one of the keys to understanding the state of the economy. The least the American people should expect from the Federal Reserve Board is complete and accurate information regarding the money supply. I urge my colleagues to ensure that the American people can obtain that information by cosponsoring the Sunshine in Monetary Policy Act.

The Fed
Opposes Supplemental Spending Bill
15 March 2006    2006 Ron Paul 15:6
Mr. Chairman, I am offering an amendment to this “emergency” supplemental that reduces some of the non-emergency “emergencies” by $500 million and allocates that money for the recovery of the State of Texas from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Additionally, my amendment will take another half-billion dollars from the non-emergency portions of this bill and apply it toward the Federal deficit.

The Fed
College Access and Opportunity Act
30 March 2006    2006 Ron Paul 20:4
Instead of fostering open dialog and wide- ranging intellectual inquiry, the main effect of the Academic Bill of Rights will be to further stifle debate about controversial topics. This is because many administrators will order their professors not to discuss contentious and divisive subjects in order to avoid a possible confrontation with the Federal Government. Those who doubt this should remember that many TV and radio stations minimized political programming in the 60s and 70s in order to avoid running afoul of the Federal “fairness doctrine.”

The Fed
Iran, The Next Neocon Target
5 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 21:52
Excessive spending to finance the war causes deficits to explode. There are never enough tax dollars available to pay the bills, and since there are not enough willing lenders and dollars available, the Federal Reserve must create new money out of thin air and new credit for buying Treasury bills to prevent interest rates from rising too rapidly. Rising rates would tip off everyone that there are not enough savings or taxes to finance the war.

The Fed
Iran, The Next Neocon Target
5 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 21:53
This willingness to print whatever amount of money the government needs to pursue the war is literally inflation. Without a fiat monetary system, wars would be very difficult to finance since the people would never tolerate the taxes required to pay for it. Inflation of the money supply delays and hides the real cost of war. The result of the excessive creation of new money leads to the higher cost of living everyone decries and the Fed denies. Since taxes are not levied, the increase in prices that results from printing too much money is technically the tax required to pay for the war.

The Fed
Gold And The U.S. Dollar
25 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 23:20
The number of dollars created by the Federal Reserve and through the fractional reserve banking system is crucial in determining how the market assesses the relationship of the dollar and gold.

The Fed
Gold And The U.S. Dollar
25 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 23:24
Today, no one in Washington believes for a minute that runaway deficits are going to be curtailed. In March alone, the Federal Government created a historic $85 billion deficit. The current supplemental bill going through Congress has grown from $92 billion to over $106 billion, and everyone knows it will not draw President Bush’s first veto.

The Fed
Gold And The U.S. Dollar
25 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 23:26
There is no single measurement that reveals what the Fed has done in the recent past or tells us exactly what it is about to do in the future. Forget about the lip service given to transparency by the new Fed Chairman Bernanke. Not only is this administration one of the most secretive across the board in our history, the current Fed firmly supports denying the most important measurement of current monetary policy to Congress, the financial community and the American public.

The Fed
Gold And The U.S. Dollar
25 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 23:27
Because of a lack of interest and poor understanding of monetary policy, Congress has expressed essentially no concern about the significant change in reporting statistics on the money supply. Beginning in March, though planned before Bernanke arrived at the Fed, the central bank discontinued compiling and reporting monetary aggregates known as M3. M3 is the best description of how quickly the Fed is creating new money and credit. Common sense tells us that a government central bank creating new money out of thin air depreciates the value of each dollar in circulation. Yet this report is no longer available to us, and Congress makes no demands to receive it.

The Fed
Gold And The U.S. Dollar
25 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 23:28
Though M3 is the most helpful statistic to track Fed activity, it by no means tells us everything we need to know about trends in monetary policy. Total bank credit, still available to us, gives us indirect information reflecting the Fed’s inflationary policies. But ultimately the markets will figure out exactly what the Fed is up to, and then individuals, financial institutions, governments and other central bankers will act accordingly.

The Fed
Gold And The U.S. Dollar
25 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 23:33
The Fed tries to keep the consumer spending spree going, not through hard work and savings, but by creating artificial wealth in stock market bubbles and housing bubbles. When these distortions run these courses and are discovered, the corrections will be quite painful as was witnessed with the collapse of the NASDAQ bubble. Likewise a fiat monetary system encourages speculation and unsound borrowing.

The Fed
Gold And The U.S. Dollar
25 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 23:38
Special interest groups, who vigorously compete for Federal dollars, want to perpetuate the system rather than admit to a dangerous addiction. Those who champion welfare for the poor, entitlements for the middle class or war contracts for the military industrial complex all agree on the so- called benefits bestowed by the Fed’s power to counterfeit fiat money.

The Fed
Gold And The U.S. Dollar
25 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 23:39
Bankers who benefit from our fractional reserve system likewise never criticize the Fed, especially since it is the lender of last resort that bails out financial institutions when crises arise. It is true, special interest and bankers do benefit from the Fed and may well get bailed out, just as we saw with the long-term capital management fund crisis a few years ago.

The Fed
Gold And The U.S. Dollar
25 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 23:40
In the past, companies like Lockheed and Chrysler benefited as well. But what the Fed cannot do is guarantee the market will maintain trust in the worthiness of the dollar. Current policy guarantees that the integrity of the dollar will be undermined. Exactly when this will occur, and the extent of the resulting damage to the financial system, cannot be known for sure, but it is coming. There are plenty of indications already on the horizon.

The Fed
Gold And The U.S. Dollar
25 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 23:65
Since keeping interest rates below market levels is synonymous with new money creation by the Fed, the resulting business cycle, higher cost of living and job losses all can be laid at the doorstep of the Fed. This burden hits the poor the most, making Fed taxation by inflation the worst of all regressive taxes. Statistics about revenues generated by the income tax are grossly misleading. In reality, much harm is done by our welfare-warfare system supposedly designed to help the poor and tax the rich. Only sound money can rectify the blatant injustice of this destructive system.

The Fed
Gold And The U.S. Dollar
25 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 23:67
A recent headline in the financial press announced that gold prices surged over concern that confrontation with Iran will further push oil prices higher. This may well reflect the current situation, but higher gold prices mainly reflect monetary expansion by the Federal Reserve. Dwelling on current events and their effect on gold prices reflects concern for symptoms rather than an understanding of the actual cause of these price increases. Without an enormous increase in the money supply over the past 35 years and a worldwide paper monetary system, this increase in the price of gold would not have occurred.

The Fed
Gold And The U.S. Dollar
25 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 23:74
Price inflation, with generally rising price levels, is characteristic of paper money. Reports that the Consumer Price Index and the Producer Price Index are rising are distractions. The real cause of inflation is the Fed’s creation of new money.

The Fed
Gold And The U.S. Dollar
25 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 23:86
Today, we face a 60 percent devaluation and counting, yet no one seems to care. It is of greater significance than the three events mentioned above, and yet the one measurement that best reflects the degree of inflation, the Fed and our government denies us. Since March, M3 reporting has been discontinued. For starters, I would like to see Congress demand that this report be resumed. I fully believe the American people and Congress are entitled to this information.

The Fed
Gold And The U.S. Dollar
25 April 2006    2006 Ron Paul 23:89
A sharply rising gold price is a vote of no confidence in the Congress’ ability to control the budget, the Fed’s ability to control the money supply, and the administration’s ability to bring stability to the Middle East.

The Fed
What To Do About Soaring Oil Prices
2 May 2006    2006 Ron Paul 32:7
Third, we must remember that prices of all things go up because of inflation. Inflation, by definition, is an increase in the money supply. The money supply is controlled by the Federal Reserve and responds to the deficits Congress creates. When deficits are excessive, as they are today, the Fed creates new dollars out of thin air to buy Treasury bills and keeps interest rates artificially low. But when new money is created out of nothing, the money already in circulation loses value.

The Fed
What To Do About Soaring Oil Prices
2 May 2006    2006 Ron Paul 32:9
Exploding deficits due to runaway entitlement spending and the cost of dangerous militarism create pressure for the Fed to inflate the money supply. This contributes greatly to the higher prices we all claim to oppose. If we want to do something about gas prices, we should demand and vote for greatly reduced welfare and military spending, a balanced budget, and fewer regulations that interfere with the market development of alternative fuels. We also should demand a return to a sound commodity monetary standard. All subsidies and special benefits to energy companies should be ended; and, in the meantime, let’s eliminate Federal gas taxes at the pump.

The Fed
Jack Abramoff Scandal
3 May 2006    2006 Ron Paul 33:5
However, I would like to remind my colleagues that, since earmark reform does not reduce the total amount of spending, instead giving more power to the executive branch to allocate federal funds, the problem of members trading their votes in exchange for earmarks will continue. The only difference will be that instead of trading their votes to win favor with Congressional appropriators and House leadership, members will trade their votes to get funding from the Executive branch. Transferring power over allocation of taxpayer dollars from the legislative branch to the executive branch is hardly a victory for republican government. Reducing Congress’s role in allocating of tax dollars, without reducing the Federal budget, also means State and local officials, to say nothing of ordinary citizens, will have less input into how Federal funds are spent.

The Fed
Jack Abramoff Scandal
3 May 2006    2006 Ron Paul 33:7
The principals in the recent scandals where not deterred by existing laws and congressional ethics rules. Why would a future Jack Abramoff be deterred by H.R. 4975? H.R. 4975 is not just ineffective to the extent that it burdens the ability of average citizens to support and join grassroots organizations to more effectively participate in the policy process, H.R. 4975 violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the First Amendment. I therefore urge my colleagues to reject this bill and instead work to reduce corruption in Washington by reducing the size and power of the Federal Government.

The Fed
Amending Title 49, United States Code
6 June 2006    2006 Ron Paul 42:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5449 changes the rules under which the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) negotiates with Federal employees unions, such as the National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA), to make the FAA abide by the exact same process that other government agencies do when they negotiate with Federal employees unions. Contrary to the claims of its opponents, H.R. 5449 does not allow NATCA to indefinitely prolong negotiations. H.R. 5449 allows the FAA to act to end negotiations and bring their case before a Federal mediation board who has power to resolve the dispute. H.R. 5449 would prevent the FAA from unilaterally imposing a contract on the air traffic controllers. In contrast, the current system may provide the FAA with the opportunity to drag out negotiations, so it can ultimately declare an impasse and impose a contract. Thus, the changes made in H.R. 5449 seem reasonable.

The Fed
Amending Title 49, United States Code
6 June 2006    2006 Ron Paul 42:3
Some opponents of H.R. 5449 complain that the air traffic controllers are overpaid. However, since the air traffic control system is government controlled and government financed, the wages of air traffic controllers are not set by the market. Instead, these wages are set by political and bureaucratic fiat. Absent a market, it is imposable to say the air traffic controllers’ wages are too high or too low. In fact, given the importance of air traffic control, it is possible that, in a free market, some air traffic controllers may have higher incomes than they do now. One thing I can say for sure is that air traffic controllers would still have their jobs if the Federal government were limited to its constitutional functions since air traffic controllers perform a function that would be necessary in a free market.

The Fed
Legislative Line Item Veto Act
22 June 2006    2006 Ron Paul 47:4
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the Legislative Line Item Veto Act upsets the constitutional balance of powers between the executive and legislative branches of government. Increasing the power of the executive branch will likely increase the size and power of the federal government. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to reject this bill and instead simply vote against all unconstitutional spending.

The Fed
Society For Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications
29 June 2006    2006 Ron Paul 49:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that the federal government’s program examine records of international financial transactions collected by the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications (SWIFT) is worth all the sound and fury that has surrounded the program since its existence was revealed last week. For one thing, this program appears to threaten civil liberties less than the already widely known “Know Your Customer” program or the requirement that American financial institutions file suspicious activity reports whenever a transaction’s value exceeds $10,000. However, the program’s defenders should consider the likelihood that having federal bureaucrats wade through mountains of SWIFT-generated data will prove as ineffective in protecting the American people as other government programs that rely on sifting through mountains of financial data in hopes of identifying “suspicious transactions.”

The Fed
Society For Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications
29 June 2006    2006 Ron Paul 49:3
Congress should examine all government programs that monitor the financial transactions of American citizens to ensure they are effective and they do not violate the rights of Americans. Unfortunately, many of my colleagues are attacking newspapers that inform the American people about government surveillance on the grounds that revealing that the federal government is monitoring financial transactions somehow damages national security. It is odd to claim that, until last Friday, neither the American people nor America’s enemies had any idea that the government is engaging in massive surveillance of financial transactions, since the government has been openly operating major financial surveillance programs since the 1970s and both the administration and Congress have repeatedly discussed increasing the government’s power to monitor financial transactions. In fact, such an expansion of the government’s ability to spy on Americans’ banking activites was a major part of the PATRIOT Act.

The Fed
Society For Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications
29 June 2006    2006 Ron Paul 49:4
Congress should be leery of criticizing media reporting on government activity. Attacking the media for revealing information about government surveillance of American citizens may make reporters reluctant to aggressively pursue stories that may embarrass the government. A reluctance by the media to “embarrass the state” will make it easier for the federal government to get away with violating the people’s rights. Media reports on government surveillance and other security programs can help Congress and the Americans people ensure the government’s actions effectively protect Americans’ security without infringing on basic constitutional liberties. I therefore urge my colleagues to reject this resolution.

The Fed
Introduction Of The We The People Act
29 June 2006    2006 Ron Paul 51:2
The United States Constitution gives Congress the authority to establish and limit the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts and limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Founders intended Congress to use this authority to correct abuses of power by the federal judiciary.

The Fed
Introduction Of The We The People Act
29 June 2006    2006 Ron Paul 51:3
Some may claim that an activist judiciary that strikes down state laws at will expands individual liberty. Proponents of this claim overlook the fact that the best guarantor of true liberty is decentralized political institutions, while the greatest threat to liberty is concentrated power. This is why the Constitution carefully limits the power of the federal government over the states.

The Fed
Introduction Of The We The People Act
29 June 2006    2006 Ron Paul 51:5
Mr. Speaker, even some supporters of liberalized abortion laws have admitted that the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, which overturned the abortion laws of all fifty states, is flawed. The Supreme Court’s Establishment Clause jurisdiction has also drawn criticism from across the political spectrum. Perhaps more importantly, attempts to resolve, by judicial fiat, important issues like abortion and the expression of religious belief in the public square increase social strife and conflict. The only way to resolve controversial social issues like abortion and school prayer is to restore respect for the right of state and local governments to adopt polices that reflect the beliefs of the citizens of those jurisdictions. I would remind my colleagues and the federal judiciary that, under our Constitutional system, there is no reason why the people of New York and the people of Texas should have the same polices regarding issues such as marriage and school prayer.

The Fed
Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act
11 July 2006    2006 Ron Paul 53:9
H.R. 4411, the Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act, should be rejected by Congress since the Federal Government has no constitutional authority to ban or even discourage any form of gambling.

The Fed
Alternative Pluripotent Stem cell Therapies Enhancement Act
18 July 2006    2006 Ron Paul 57:7
Companies like Prime Cell are continuing the great American tradition of private medical research that is responsible for many medical breakthroughs. For example, Jonas Salk, discoverer of the polio vaccine, did not receive one dollar from the federal government for his efforts.

The Fed
Marriage Protection Amendment
18 July 2006    2006 Ron Paul 58:4
Having studied this issue and consulted with leading legal scholars, including an attorney who helped defend the Boy Scouts against attempts to force the organization to allow gay men to serve as scoutmasters, I am convinced that both the Defense of Marriage Act and the Marriage Protection Act can survive legal challenges and ensure that no state is forced by a federal court’s or another state’s actions to recognize same sex marriage. Therefore, while I am sympathetic to those who feel only a constitutional amendment will sufficiently address this issue, I respectfully disagree. I also am concerned that the proposed amendment, by telling the individual states how their state constitutions are to be interpreted, is a major usurpation of the states’ power. The division of power between the federal government and the states is one of the virtues of the American political system. Altering that balance endangers self-government and individual liberty. However, if federal judges wrongly interfere and attempt to compel a state to recognize the marriage licenses of another state, that would be the proper time for me to consider new legislative or constitutional approaches.

The Fed
Marriage Protection Amendment
18 July 2006    2006 Ron Paul 58:7
Passing a constitutional amendment is a long, drawn-out process. The fact that the marriage amendment already failed to gather the necessary two-thirds support in the Senate means that, even if two-thirds of House members support the amendment, it will not be sent to states for ratification this year. Even if the amendment gathers the necessary two- thirds support in both houses of Congress, it still must go through the time-consuming process of state ratification. This process requires three-quarters of the state legislatures to approve the amendment before it can become effective. Those who believe that immediate action to protect the traditional definition of marriage is necessary should consider that the Equal Rights Amendment easily passed both houses of Congress and was quickly ratified by a number of states. Yet, that amendment remains unratified today. Proponents of this marriage amendment should also consider that efforts to amend the Constitution to address flag burning and require the federal government to balance the budget have been ongoing for years, without any success.

The Fed
Whom to Blame
19 July 2006    2006 Ron Paul 66:28
So we are facing a crisis that is liable to escalate and get out of control in the Middle East. At the same time, it has a bearing on our finances, because when it contributes to the deficit, there is a limit to how much foreigners will loan to us. We have to print the money. We have to go to the Fed, create new money. That is the inflation.

The Fed
H.R. 5068, the Export-Import Reauthorization Act
25 July 2006    2006 Ron Paul 69:8
Unfortunately, China is not an isolated case. Colombia and Sudan benefit from taxpayer subsidized trade as well, courtesy of the Ex-Im Bank. At a time when the Federal Government is running huge deficits and Congress is once again preparing to raid Social Security and Medicare trust funds, does it really make sense to use taxpayers’ funds to benefit future Enrons, Fortune 500 companies, and Communist China?

The Fed
H.R. 5068, the Export-Import Reauthorization Act
25 July 2006    2006 Ron Paul 69:15
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleagues that there is simply no constitutional justification for the expenditure of funds on programs such as Eximbank. In fact, the drafters of the Constitution would be horrified to think the Federal Government was taking hard-earned money from the American people in order to benefit the politically powerful.

The Fed
Raising The Minimum Wage
28 July 2006    2006 Ron Paul 73:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address my concerns with H.R. 5970, a bill to raise the federally mandated minimum wage. Before addressing the substance of this bill, I must address the flaws in the process under which this bill is brought before us. Neither I nor my staff had received any indication the bill before us tonight would be considered by the House until late this afternoon, and the only way a member of the general public could learn about this bill is to look on the Rules Committee website. Therefore, Members of Congress are being asked to vote for a major piece of legislation that was introduced just hours before being voted on the Friday night before Congress adjourns for the month of August.

The Fed
Raising The Minimum Wage
28 July 2006    2006 Ron Paul 73:8
In conclusion, I would remind my colleagues that while it may make them feel good to raise the Federal minimum wage, the real life consequences of this bill will be vested upon those who can least afford to be deprived of work opportunities. Therefore, rather than pretend that Congress can repeal the economic principles, I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation and instead embrace a program of tax cuts and regulatory reform to strengthen the greatest producer of jobs and prosperity in human history: the free market.

The Fed
Big-Government Solutions Don’t Work
7 september 2006    2006 Ron Paul 74:3
Not long ago, I spoke on this floor about why I believe Americans are so angry in spite of rosy government economic reports. The majority of Americans are angry, disgusted, and frustrated that so little is being done in Congress to solve their problems. The fact is, a majority of American citizens expect the Federal Government to provide for every need without considering whether government causes many economic problems in the first place. This certainly is an incentive for politicians to embrace the role of omnipotent problem-solvers, since nobody asked first whether they, the politicians themselves, are at fault.

The Fed
Big-Government Solutions Don’t Work
7 september 2006    2006 Ron Paul 74:81
I find it amazing that we in this country seem determined to completely separate religious expression and the state, even to the detriment of the first amendment, yet we can say little about how Christian and Jewish religious beliefs greatly influence our policies in the Middle East? It should be the other way around. Religious expression, according to the First Amendment, cannot be regulated anywhere by Congress or the Federal courts. But deeply held theological beliefs should never dictate our foreign policy. Being falsely accused of anti- Semitism and being a supporter of radical fascism is not an enviable position for any politician. Most realize it is best to be quiet and support our Middle East involvement.

The Fed
Opposes 9/11 Resolution
13 September 2006    2006 Ron Paul 77:2
Much of the legislation referenced in this legislation is legislation that I supported. For example, I voted in favor of the Border Protection, Anti-terrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005 and for the SAFE Port Act of 2006. I continue to support measures that help secure our borders and thereby make us less vulnerable to future foreign attack. However, I find it particularly unacceptable to heap praise on the PATRIOT Act, as this bill does. This act expanded the federal government’s power to an unprecedented degree at the expense not of foreign terrorists, but of law-abiding American citizens. It opened average Americans up to wide-ranging government snooping and surveillance in matters completely unrelated to terrorism. For example, the “sneak and peek” provisions of the PATRIOT Act allow law enforcement to enter someone’s home without a warrant, search that property, and never inform that citizen they had been there. Also, libraries and book stores can be forced to provide the government with citizens’ borrowing and purchasing history without showing probable cause. I see no reason to applaud such an un-American piece of legislation.

The Fed
Introduction Of taxpayer Protection From Genetic Discrimination Act
20 september 2006    2006 Ron Paul 81:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Taxpayer Protection from Genetic Discrimination Act. This bill ensures that no American taxpayer will be denied health care because of his or her genetic history by any agency of the federal government, a state or local government, or a government contractor. Some people have raised concerns that, while recent advances in genetic testing bring much hope of improved medical treatment, the increased use of genetic tests may also result in many people being denied access to health insurance, or even refused employment, because of their genetic history.

The Fed
Overstepping Constitutional Authority
26 September 2006    2006 Ron Paul 86:3
Our Federal Government is, constitutionally, a government of limited powers, Article one, Section eight, enumerates the legislative area for which the U.S. Congress is allowed to act or enact legislation. For every other issue, the Federal Government lacks any authority or consent of the governed and only the State governments, their designees, or the people in their private market actions enjoy such rights to governance. The tenth amendment is brutally clear in stating “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Our Nation’s history makes clear that the U.S. Constitution is a document intended to limit the power of central government. No serious reading of historical events surrounding the creation of the Constitution could reasonably portray it differently.

The Fed
Overstepping Constitutional Authority
26 September 2006    2006 Ron Paul 86:4
Nevertheless, rather than abide by our constitutional limits, Congress today will likely pass S. 403. S. 403 amends title 18, United States Code, to prohibit taking minors across State lines to avoid laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions. Should parents be involved in decisions regarding the health of their children? Absolutely. Should the law respect parents’ rights to not have their children taken across State lines for contemptible purposes? Absolutely. Can a State pass an enforceable statute to prohibit taking minors across State lines to avoid laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions? Absolutely. But when asked if there exists constitutional authority for the Federal criminalizing of just such an action the answer is absolutely not.

The Fed
Overstepping Constitutional Authority
26 September 2006    2006 Ron Paul 86:5
This federalizing may have the effect of nationalizing a law with criminal penalties which may be less than those desired by some States. To the extent the Federal and State laws could co-exist, the necessity for a Federal law is undermined and an important bill of rights protection is virtually obliterated. Concurrent jurisdiction crimes erode the right of citizens to be free of double jeopardy. The fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifies that no “person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . .” In other words, no person shall be tried twice for the same offense. However, in United States v. Lanza, the high court in 1922 sustained a ruling that being tried by both the Federal Government and a State government for the same offense did not offend the doctrine of double jeopardy. One danger of unconstitutionally expanding the Federal criminal justice code is that it seriously increases the danger that one will be subject to being tried twice for the same offense. Despite the various pleas for Federal correction of societal wrongs, a national police force is neither prudent nor constitutional.

The Fed
Overstepping Constitutional Authority
26 September 2006    2006 Ron Paul 86:7
The argument which springs from the criticism of a federalized criminal code and a Federal police force is that States may be less effective than a centralized Federal Government in dealing with those who leave one State jurisdiction for another. Fortunately, the Constitution provides for the procedural means for preserving the integrity of State sovereignty over those issues delegated to it via the tenth amendment. The privilege and immunities clause as well as full faith and credit clause allow States to exact judgments from those who violate their State laws. The Constitution even allows the Federal Government to legislatively preserve the procedural mechanisms which allow States to enforce their substantive laws without the Federal Government imposing its substantive edicts on the States. Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2 makes provision for the rendition of fugitives from one State to another. While not self-enacting, in 1783 Congress passed an act which did exactly this. There is, of course, a cost imposed upon States in working with one another rather than relying on a national, unified police force. At the same time, there is a greater cost to State autonomy and individual liberty from centralization of police power.

The Fed
Overstepping Constitutional Authority
26 September 2006    2006 Ron Paul 86:9
It is my erstwhile hope that parents will become more involved in vigilantly monitoring the activities of their own children rather than shifting parental responsibility further upon the Federal Government. There was a time when a popular bumper sticker read” It’s ten o’clock; do you know where your children are?” I suppose we have devolved to the point where it reads” It’s ten o’clock; does the Federal Government know where your children are.” Further socializing and burden shifting of the responsibilities of parenthood upon the Federal Government is simply not creating the proper incentive for parents to be more involved.

The Fed
Statement In Support Of NAIS
26 September 2006    2006 Ron Paul 87:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I recently become a cosponsor of H.R. 6042, offered by my colleague Mrs. Emerson. This bill prohibits the federal government from implementing the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). It also provides some privacy protections for framers and ranchers who choose to participate in a voluntary identification system. I hope all of my colleagues join me in supporting this bill.

The Fed
Statement In Support Of NAIS
26 September 2006    2006 Ron Paul 87:3
Small, family farmers and ranchers will be forced to spend thousands of dollars, as well as comply with new paperwork and monitoring regulations, to implement and operate NAIS. These farmers and ranchers will be paying for a massive assault on their property and privacy rights as NAIS forces farmers and ranchers to provide detailed information about their private property to the government. In addition, the NAIS system empowers the Federal government to enter and seize property from farmers and ranchers without a warrant. Mr. Speaker, this is a blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment-protected right to be free of arbitrary searches and seizures.

The Fed
Warrantless Wiretaps
28 september 2006    2006 Ron Paul 91:6
Warrantless wiretapping may hinder the ability to identify true threats to safety. This is because experience has shown that, when Congress makes it easier for the federal government to monitor the activities of Americans, there is a tendency to collect so much information that it becomes impossible to weed out the true threats. My colleagues should consider how the over-filing of “suspicious transaction reports” regarding financial transactions hampers effective anti-terrorism efforts. According to investigative journalist James Bovard, writing in the Baltimore Sun on June 28, “[a] U.N. report on terrorist financing released in May 2002 noted that a ‘suspicious transaction report’ had been filed with the U.S. government over a $69,985 wire transfer that Mohamed Atta, leader of the hijackers, received from the United Arab Emirates. The report noted that ‘this particular transaction was not noticed quickly enough because the report was just one of a very large number and was not distinguishable from those related to other financial crimes.’ ” Congress should be skeptical, to say the least, regarding the assertion that allowing federal bureaucrats to accumulate even more data without having to demonstrate a link between the data sought and national security will make the American people safer.

The Fed
SAFE Ports Act
29 september 2006    2006 Ron Paul 94:2
I have long opposed The Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act since the federal government has no constitutional authority to ban or even discourage any form of internet gambling. In addition to being unconstitutional, this provision is likely to prove ineffective at ending internet gambling. Instead, by passing law proportion to ban internet gambling Congress will ensure that gambling is controlled by organized crime. History, from the failed experiment of prohibition to today’s futile “war on drugs,” shows that the government cannot eliminate demand for something like internet gambling simply by passing a law. Instead, this provision will force those who wish to gamble over the internet to patronize suppliers willing to flaunt the ban. In many cases, providers of services banned by the government will be members of criminal organizations. Even if organized crime does not operate internet gambling enterprises their competitors are likely to be controlled by organized crime. After all, since the owners and patrons of internet gambling cannot rely on the police and courts to enforce contracts and resolve other disputes, they will be forced to rely on members of organized crime to perform those functions. Thus, the profits of internet gambling will flow into organized crime. Furthermore, outlawing an activity will raise the price vendors are able to charge consumers, thus increasing the profits flowing to organized crime from internet gambling. It is bitterly ironic that a bill masquerading as an attack on crime will actually increase organized crime’s ability to control and profit from internet gambling!

The Fed
Introduction Of Legislation Repealing Two Unconstitutional And Paternalistic Federal Financials Regulations
29 September 2006    2006 Ron Paul 97:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce legislation repealing 2 unconstitutional and paternalistic federal financial regulations. First, this legislation repeals a federal regulation that limits the number of withdrawals someone can make from a savings account in a month’s time without being assessed financial penalties. As hard as it is to believe, the Federal Government actually forces banks to punish people for accessing their own savings too many times in a month. This bill also repeals a regulation that requires bank customers to receive a written monthly financial statement from their banks, regardless of whether the customer wants such a communication.

The Fed
Milton Friedman
6 December 2006    2006 Ron Paul 100:3
Friedman’s work showed that inflation is not a result of markets but is, as he memorably put it, “always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon.” Friedman was the major originator and theoretician of monetarism. Friedman recommended restricting the Federal Reserve’s authority to increasing the quantity of money by a fixed yearly amount. While monetarism is far from the ideal free-market monetary system, Milton Friedman deserves credit for focusing the attention of economists on the Federal Reserve’s responsibility for inflation.

The Fed
Milton Friedman
6 December 2006    2006 Ron Paul 100:5
Unlike many free market economists who downplay their opposition to government of encroachments on personal liberty in order to appear “respectable,” Friedman never hesitated to take controversial stands in favor of liberty. Thus Friedman was one of the most outspoken critics of the federal war on drugs and an early critic of government licensing of professionals. Friedman also never allowed fear of losing access to power stop him from criticizing politicians who betrayed economic liberty. For example, his status as an advisor to President Richard Nixon did not stop him from criticizing Nixon’s imposition of wage and price controls.

The Fed
Introducing The Social Security Beneficiary Tax reduction Act And The Senior Citizens’ Tax Elimination Act
4 January 2007    2007 Ron Paul 1:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce two pieces of legislation to reduce taxes on senior citizens. The first bill, the Social Security Beneficiary Tax Reduction Act, repeals the 1993 tax increase on Social Security benefits. Repealing this increase on Social Security benefits is a good first step toward reducing the burden imposed by the federal government on senior citizens. However, imposing any tax on Social Security benefits is unfair and illogical. This is why I am also introducing the Senior Citizens’ Tax Elimination Act, which repeals all taxes on Social Security benefits.

The Fed
Introducing The Social Security Beneficiary Tax reduction Act And The Senior Citizens’ Tax Elimination Act
4 January 2007    2007 Ron Paul 1:2
Since Social Security benefits are financed with tax dollars, taxing these benefits is yet another example 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 masks the true size of the federal deficit.

The Fed
Introducing The Social Security For American Citizens Only Act
4 January 2007    2007 Ron Paul 3:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, today I introduce the Social Security for American Citizens Only Act. This act forbids the federal government from providing Social Security benefits to non-citizens. It also ends the practice of totalization. Totalization is where the Social Security Administration takes into account the number of year’s an individual worked abroad, and thus was not paying payroll taxes, in determining that individual’s eligibility for Social Security benefits!

The Fed
Introducing The Social Security For American Citizens Only Act
4 January 2007    2007 Ron Paul 3:3
Obviously, this program provides a threat to the already fragile Social Security system, and the threat is looming larger. The administration’s totalization proposal, a version of which passed the other body in the 109th Congress, actually allows thousands of foreigners who would qualify for U.S. Social Security benefits actually came to the United States and worked here illegally. Adding insult to injury, the federal government may even give Social Security benefits to non-citizens who worked here for as little as 18 months.

The Fed
Introducing The Social Security For American Citizens Only Act
4 January 2007    2007 Ron Paul 3:4
That’s right: the federal government may actually allow someone who came to the United States illegally, worked for less than the required number of years to qualify for Social Security, and then returned to Mexico for the rest of his working years, to collect full U.S. Social Security benefits while living in Mexico. That is an insult to the millions of Americans who pay their entire working lives into the system and now face the possibility that there may be nothing left when it is their turn to retire.

The Fed
Introducing The Prescription Drug Affordability Act
4 January 2007    2007 Ron Paul 5:4
I need not remind my colleagues that many senior citizens and other Americans impacted by the high costs of prescription medicine have demanded Congress reduce the barriers which prevent American consumers from purchasing imported pharmaceuticals. Congress has responded to these demands by repeatedly passing legislation liberalizing the rules governing the importation of pharmaceuticals. However, implementation of this provision has been blocked by the federal bureaucracy. It is time Congress stood up for the American consumer and removed all unnecessary regulations on importing pharmaceuticals.

The Fed
Introducing The Prescription Drug Affordability Act
4 January 2007    2007 Ron Paul 5:5
The Prescription Drug Affordability Act also protects consumers’ access to affordable medicine by forbidding the Federal Government from regulating any Internet sales of FDA-approved pharmaceuticals by state-licensed pharmacists.

The Fed
Introducing The Prescription Drug Affordability Act
4 January 2007    2007 Ron Paul 5:6
As I am sure my colleagues are aware, the Internet makes pharmaceuticals and other products more affordable and accessible for millions of Americans. However, the federal government has threatened to destroy this option by imposing unnecessary and unconstitutional regulations on web sites that sell pharmaceuticals. Any federal regulations would inevitably drive up prices of pharmaceuticals, thus depriving many consumers of access to affordable prescription medications.

The Fed
Identity Theft Protection Act
5 January 2007    2007 Ron Paul 8:4
Congressionally-mandated use of the Social Security number as an identifier facilitates the horrendous crime of identity theft. Thanks to Congress, an unscrupulous person may simply obtain someone’s Social Security number in order to access that person’s bank accounts, credit cards, and other financial assets. Many Americans have lost their life savings and had their credit destroyed as a result of identity theft. Yet the Federal Government continues to encourage such crimes by mandating use of the Social Security number as a uniform ID!

The Fed
Identity Theft Protection Act
5 January 2007    2007 Ron Paul 8:5
This act also forbids the Federal Government from creating national ID cards or establishing any identifiers for the purpose of investigating, monitoring, overseeing, or regulating private transactions among American citizens. In 2005, this body established a de facto national ID card with provisions buried in the “intelligence” reform bill mandating Federal standards for drivers” licenses, and mandating that Federal agents only accept a license that conforms to these standards as a valid ID.

The Fed
Identity Theft Protection Act
5 January 2007    2007 Ron Paul 8:9
Madam Speaker, no wonder there is a groundswell of opposition to this mandate. There is even a movement in several State legislatures to refuse to comply with this mandate! The Identity Theft Prevention Act not only repeals those sections of the Federal law creating a national UD, it forbids the Federal Government from using Federal funds to blackmail States into adopting uniform Federal identifiers. Passing the Identity Theft Prevention Act is thus an excellent way for this Congress to show renewed commitment to federalism and opposition to imposing unfunded mandates on the States.

The Fed
Identity Theft Protection Act
5 January 2007    2007 Ron Paul 8:12
Some members of Congress will claim that the Federal Government needs the power to monitor Americans in order to allow the government to operate more efficiently. I would remind my colleagues that, in a constitutional republic, the people are never asked to sacrifice their liberties to make the jobs of government officials easier. We are here to protect the freedom of the American people, not to make privacy invasion more efficient.

The Fed
Identity Theft Protection Act
5 January 2007    2007 Ron Paul 8:13
Madam Speaker, while I do not question the sincerity of those members who suggest that Congress can ensure that citizens’ rights are protected through legislation restricting access to personal information, the only effective privacy protection is to forbid the Federal Government from mandating national identifiers. Legislative “privacy protections” are inadequate to protect the liberty of Americans for a couple of reasons.

The Fed
Identity Theft Protection Act
5 January 2007    2007 Ron Paul 8:14
First, it is simply common sense that repealing those Federal laws that promote identity theft is more effective in protecting the public than expanding the power of the Federal police force. Federal punishment of identity thieves provides cold comfort to those who have suffered financial losses and the destruction of their good reputations as a result of identity theft.

The Fed
Identity Theft Protection Act
5 January 2007    2007 Ron Paul 8:17
Second, the Federal Government has been creating proprietary interests in private information for certain State-favored special interests. Perhaps the most outrageous example of phony privacy protection is the “medical privacy’ ” regulation, that allows medical researchers, certain business interests, and law enforcement officials access to health care information, in complete disregard of the Fifth Amendment and the wishes of individual patients! Obviously, “privacy protection” laws have proven greatly inadequate to protect personal information when the government is the one seeking the information.

The Fed
Identity Theft Protection Act
5 January 2007    2007 Ron Paul 8:18
Any action short of repealing laws authorizing privacy violations is insufficient primarily 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.”

The Fed
Identity Theft Protection Act
5 January 2007    2007 Ron Paul 8:20
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I once again call on my colleagues to join me in putting an end to the Federal Government’s unconstitutional use of national identifiers to monitor the actions of private citizens. National identifiers threaten all Americans by exposing them to the threat of identity theft by private criminals and abuse of their liberties by public criminals, while diverting valuable law enforcement resources away from addressing real threats to public safety. In addition, national identifiers are incompatible with a limited, constitutional government. I, therefore, hope my colleagues will join my efforts to protect the freedom of their constituents by supporting the Identity Theft Prevention Act.

The Fed
Introducing We The People
5 January 2007    2007 Ron Paul 9:2
The United States Constitution gives Congress the authority to establish and limit the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts and limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Founders intended Congress to use this authority to correct abuses of power by the federal judiciary.

The Fed
Introducing We The People
5 January 2007    2007 Ron Paul 9:3
Some may claim that an activist judiciary that strikes down state laws at will expands individual liberty. Proponents of this claim overlook the fact that the best guarantor of true liberty is decentralized political institutions, while the greatest threat to liberty is concentrated power. This is why the Constitution carefully limits the power of the federal government over the states.

The Fed
Introducing We The People
5 January 2007    2007 Ron Paul 9:5
Madam Speaker, even some supporters of liberalized abortion laws have admitted that the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, which overturned the abortion laws of all fifty states, is flawed. The Supreme Court’s Establishment Clause jurisdiction has also drawn criticism from across the political spectrum. Perhaps more importantly, attempts to resolve, by judicial fiat, important issues like abortion and the expression of religious belief in the public square increase social strife and conflict. The only way to resolve controversial social issues like abortion and school prayer is to restore respect for the right of state and local governments to adopt policies that reflect the beliefs of the citizens of those jurisdictions. I would remind my colleagues and the federal judiciary that, under our Constitutional system, there is no reason why the people of New York and the people of Texas should have the same policies regarding issues such as marriage and school prayer.

The Fed
Against Raising The Minimum Wage
10 January 2007    2007 Ron Paul 10:6
In conclusion, I would remind my colleagues that while it may make them feel good to raise the Federal minimum wage, the real life consequences of this bill will be vested upon those who can least afford to be deprived of work opportunities. Therefore, rather than pretend that Congress can repeal the economic principles, I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation and instead embrace a program of tax cuts and regulatory reform to strengthen the greatest producer of jobs and prosperity in human history: the free market.

The Fed
Governmental Funding Of Embryonic Stem Cell Research
11 January 2007    2007 Ron Paul 11:6
Companies like Prime Cell are continuing the great American tradition of private medical research that is responsible for many medical breakthroughs. For example, Jonas Salk, discoverer of the polio vaccine, did not receive one dollar from the federal government for his efforts.

The Fed
Introduction Of The Cures Can be Found Act
12 January 2007    2007 Ron Paul 16:4
By encouraging private medical research, the Cures Can Be Found Act enhances a tradition of private medical research that is responsible for many medical breakthroughs. For example, Jonas Salk, discoverer of the polio vaccine, did not receive one dollar from the federal government for his efforts. I urge my colleagues to help the American people support the efforts of future Jonas Salks by cosponsoring the Cures Can Be Found Act.

The Fed
Introduction Of The Liberty Amendment
7 February 2007    2007 Ron Paul 24:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Liberty Amendment, which repeals the 16th Amendment, thus paving the way for real change in the way government collects and spends the people’s hard-earned money. The Liberty Amendment also explicitly forbids the federal government from performing any action not explicitly authorized by the United States Constitution.

The Fed
Introduction Of The Liberty Amendment
7 February 2007    2007 Ron Paul 24:2
The 16th Amendment gives the federal government a direct claim on the lives of American citizens by enabling Congress to levy a direct income tax on individuals. Until the passage of the 16th amendment, the Supreme Court had consistently held that Congress had no power to impose an income tax.

The Fed
Introduction Of The Liberty Amendment
7 February 2007    2007 Ron Paul 24:3
Income taxes are responsible for the transformation of the federal government from one of limited powers into a vast leviathan whose tentacles reach into almost every aspect of American life. Thanks to the income tax, today the federal government routinely invades our privacy, and penalizes our every endeavor.

The Fed
Introduction Of The Liberty Amendment
7 February 2007    2007 Ron Paul 24:4
The Founding Fathers realized that “the power to tax is the power to destroy,” which is why they did not give the federal government the power to impose an income tax. Needless to say, the Founders would be horrified to know that Americans today give more than a third of their income to the federal government.

The Fed
Introduction Of The Industrial Hemp Farming Act
13 February 2007    2007 Ron Paul 25:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the Industrial Hemp Farming Act. The Industrial Hemp Farming Act requires the Federal Government to respect State laws allowing the growing of industrial hemp.

The Fed
Introduction Of The Industrial Hemp Farming Act
13 February 2007    2007 Ron Paul 25:3
Since 1970, the Federal Controlled Substances Act’s inclusion of industrial hemp in the schedule one definition of marijuana has prohibited American farmers from growing industrial hemp despite the fact that industrial hemp has such a low content of THC (the psychoactive chemical in the related marijuana plant) that nobody can be psychologically affected by consuming hemp. Federal law concedes the safety of industrial hemp by allowing it to be legally imported for use as food.

The Fed
Introduction Of The Industrial Hemp Farming Act
13 February 2007    2007 Ron Paul 25:5
Industrial hemp is a crop that was grown legally throughout the United States for most of our Nation’s history. In fact, during World War II, the Federal Government actively encouraged American farmers to grow industrial hemp to help the war effort. The Department of Agriculture even produced a film “Hemp for Victory” encouraging the plant’s cultivation.

The Fed
Introduction Of The Industrial Hemp Farming Act
13 February 2007    2007 Ron Paul 25:7
It is unfortunate that the Federal Government has stood in the way of American farmers, including many who are struggling to make ends meet, competing in the global industrial hemp market. Indeed, the founders of our Nation, some of whom grew hemp, would surely find that Federal restrictions on farmers growing a safe and profitable crop on their own land are inconsistent with the constitutional guarantee of a limited, restrained Federal Government. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to stand up for American farmers and cosponsor the Industrial Hemp Farming Act.

The Fed
Introduction Of The Hope Plus Scholarship Act
14 February 2007    2007 Ron Paul 28:2
Reducing taxes so that Americans can devote more of their own resources to education is the best way to improve America’s schools, since individuals are more likely than federal bureaucrats to insist that schools be accountable for student performance. When the federal government controls the education dollar, schools will be held accountable for their compliance with bureaucratic paperwork requirements and mandates that have little to do with actual education. Federal rules and regulations also divert valuable resources away from classroom instruction.

The Fed
Introduction Of The Family Education Freedom Act
14 february 2007    2007 Ron Paul 29:3
Currently, consumers are less than sovereign in the education “market.” Funding decisions are increasingly controlled by the federal government. Because “he who pays the piper calls the tune,” public, and even private schools, are paying greater attention to the dictates of federal “educrats” while ignoring the wishes of the parents to an evergreater degree. As such, the lack of consumer sovereignty in education is destroying parental control of education and replacing it with state control. Loss of control is a key reason why so many of America’s parents express dissatisfaction with the educational system.

The Fed
Introduction Of The Family Education Freedom Act
14 february 2007    2007 Ron Paul 29:4
According to a poll by McLaughlin and Associates, two-thirds of Americans believe education tax credits would have a positive effect on American education. This poll also found strong support for education tax credits among liberals, moderates, conservatives, low-income individuals, and African-Americans. This is just one of numerous studies and public opinion polls showing that Americans want Congress to get the federal bureaucracy out of the schoolroom and give parents more control over their children’s education.

The Fed
Introduction Of The Family Education Freedom Act
14 february 2007    2007 Ron Paul 29:5
Today, Congress can fulfill the wishes of the American people for greater control over their children’s education by simply allowing parents to keep more of their hard-earned money to spend on education rather than force them to send it to Washington to support education programs reflective only of the values and priorities of Congress and the federal bureaucracy.

The Fed
Introducing The Sanctity Of Life Act And The Taxpayer Freedom Of Conscience Act
15 February 2007    2007 Ron Paul 31:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce two bills relating to abortion. These bills stop the federal government from promoting abortion. My bills accomplish this goal by prohibiting federal funds from being used for population control or “family planning” through exercising Congress’s constitutional power to restrict federal court’s jurisdiction by restoring each state’s authority to protect unborn life.

The Fed
Introducing The Sanctity Of Life Act And The Taxpayer Freedom Of Conscience Act
15 February 2007    2007 Ron Paul 31:3
One of the bills I am introducing today, the Sanctity of Life Act of 2005, reverses some of the damage done by Roe v. Wade. The Sanctity of Life Act provides that the federal courts of the United States, up to and including the Supreme Court, do not have jurisdiction to hear abortion-related cases. Congress must use the authority granted to it in Article 3, Section 1 of the Constitution to rein in rogue federal judges from interfering with a state’s ability to protect unborn life.

The Fed
Statement for Hearing before the House Financial Services Committee, “Monetary Policy and the State of the Economy”
15 February 2007    2007 Ron Paul 32:1
Transparency in monetary policy is a goal we should all support. I’ve often wondered why Congress so willingly has given up its prerogative over monetary policy. Astonishingly, Congress in essence has ceded total control over the value of our money to a secretive central bank. Congress created the Federal Reserve, yet it had no constitutional authority to do so. We forget that those powers not explicitly granted to Congress by the Constitution are inherently denied to Congress-- and thus the authority to establish a central bank never was given. Of course Jefferson and Hamilton had that debate early on, a debate seemingly settled in 1913.

The Fed
Statement for Hearing before the House Financial Services Committee, “Monetary Policy and the State of the Economy”
15 February 2007    2007 Ron Paul 32:2
But transparency and oversight are something else, and they’re worth considering. Congress, although not by law, essentially has given up all its oversight responsibility over the Federal Reserve. There are no true audits, and Congress knows nothing of the conversations, plans, and actions taken in concert with other central banks. We get less and less information regarding the money supply each year, especially now that M3 is no longer reported.

The Fed
Statement for Hearing before the House Financial Services Committee, “Monetary Policy and the State of the Economy”
15 February 2007    2007 Ron Paul 32:3
The role the Fed plays in the President’s secretive Working Group on Financial Markets goes unnoticed by members of Congress. The Federal Reserve shows no willingness to inform Congress voluntarily about how often the Working Group meets, what actions it takes that affect the financial markets, or why it takes those actions. But these actions, directed by the Federal Reserve, alter the purchasing power of our money. And that purchasing power is always reduced. The dollar today is worth only four cents compared to the dollar in 1913, when the Federal Reserve started. This has profound consequences for our economy and our political stability. All paper currencies are vulnerable to collapse, and history is replete with examples of great suffering caused by such collapses, especially to a nation’s poor and middle class. This leads to political turmoil.

The Fed
Statement for Hearing before the House Financial Services Committee, “Monetary Policy and the State of the Economy”
15 February 2007    2007 Ron Paul 32:10
In 2006 dollars, the minimum wage was $9.50 before the 1971 breakdown of Bretton Woods. Today that dollar is worth $5.15. Congress congratulates itself for raising the minimum wage by mandate, but in reality it has lowered the minimum wage by allowing the Fed to devalue the dollar. We must consider how the growing inequalities created by our monetary system will lead to social discord.

The Fed
Statement for Hearing before the House Financial Services Committee, “Monetary Policy and the State of the Economy”
15 February 2007    2007 Ron Paul 32:11
GDP purportedly is now growing at 3.5%, and everyone seems pleased. What we fail to understand is how much government entitlement spending contributes to the increase in the GDP. Rebuilding infrastructure destroyed by hurricanes, which simply gets us back to even, is considered part of GDP growth. Wall Street profits and salaries, pumped up by the Fed’s increase in money, also contribute to GDP statistical growth. Just buying military weapons that contribute nothing to the well being of our citizens, sending money down a rat hole, contributes to GDP growth! Simple price increases caused by Fed monetary inflation contribute to nominal GDP growth. None of these factors represent any kind of real increases in economic output. So we should not carelessly cite misleading GDP figures which don’t truly reflect what is happening in the economy. Bogus GDP figures explain in part why so many people are feeling squeezed despite our supposedly booming economy.

The Fed
Statement for Hearing before the House Financial Services Committee, “Monetary Policy and the State of the Economy”
15 February 2007    2007 Ron Paul 32:13
For starters, the Federal Reserve should:

The Fed
Statement for Hearing before the House Financial Services Committee, “Monetary Policy and the State of the Economy”
15 February 2007    2007 Ron Paul 32:14
Begin publishing the M3 statistics again. Let us see the numbers that most accurately reveal how much new money the Fed is pumping into the world economy.

The Fed
Statement for Hearing before the House Financial Services Committee, “Monetary Policy and the State of the Economy”
15 February 2007    2007 Ron Paul 32:16
Explain how interest rates are set. Conservatives profess to support free markets, without wage and price controls. Yet the most important price of all, the price of money as determined by interest rates, is set arbitrarily in secret by the Fed rather than by markets! Why is this policy written in stone? Why is there no congressional input at least?

The Fed
Statement for Hearing before the House Financial Services Committee, “Monetary Policy and the State of the Economy”
15 February 2007    2007 Ron Paul 32:19
We need more transparency in how the Federal Reserve carries out monetary policy, and we need it soon.

The Fed
Introducing The Agriculture Education Freedom Act
27 March 2007    2007 Ron Paul 37:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam 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.

The Fed
Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Is Excessive
29 March 2007    2007 Ron Paul 38:2
To summarize, Congress proposes spending roughly $3 trillion in 2008. When I first came to Congress in 1976, the Federal Government spent only about $300 billion. So spending has increased tenfold in 30 years, and tripled just since 1990.

The Fed
Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Is Excessive
29 March 2007    2007 Ron Paul 38:3
About one-third of this $3 trillion is so-called discretionary spending; the remaining two- thirds is deemed “mandatory” entitlement spending, which means mostly Social Security and Medicare. I am sure many American voters would be shocked to know their elected representatives essentially have no say over two-thirds of the Federal budget, but that is indeed the case.

The Fed
Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Is Excessive
29 March 2007    2007 Ron Paul 38:4
The most disturbing problem with the budget is the utter lack of concern for the coming entitlement meltdown. The official national debt figure, now approaching $9 trillion, reflects only what the Federal Government owes in current debts on money already borrowed. It does not reflect what the Federal Government has promised to pay millions of Americans in entitlement benefits down the road. Those future obligations put our real debt figure at roughly 50 trillion dollars — a staggering sum that is about as large as the total household net worth of the entire United States. Your share of this 50 trillion amounts to about $175,000.

The Fed
Shareholder Vote On Executive Compensation Act
18 April 2007    2007 Ron Paul 43:11
The backlash against corporate raiders included the enactment of laws that made it more difficult to launch hostile takeovers. Bruce Bartlett, writing in the Washington Times in 2001, commented on the effects of these laws, “Without the threat of a takeover, managers have been able to go back to ignoring shareholders, treating them like a nuisance, and giving themselves bloated salaries and perks, with little oversight from corporate boards. Now insulated from shareholders once again, managers could engage in unsound practices with little fear of punishment for failure.” The Federal “crackdown” on corporate raiders, combined with provisions in Sarbanes- Oxley disqualifying the people who are the most capable of serving as shareholder watchdogs from serving on corporate boards, contributed to the disconnect between CEO salaries and creation of shareholder value that is being used to justify another expansion of the regulatory state.

The Fed
Shareholder Vote On Executive Compensation Act
18 April 2007    2007 Ron Paul 43:12
In addition to repealing laws that prevent shareholders from exercising control over corporations, Congress should also examine United States monetary policy’s effects on income inequality. When the Federal Reserve Board injects credit into the economy, the result is at least a temporary rise in incomes. However, those incomes do not rise equally. People who first receive the new credit — who in most instances are those already at the top of the economic pyramid — receive the most benefit from the Fed’s inflationist polices. By the time those at the lower end of the income scale experience a nominal rise in incomes, they must also contend with price inflation that has eroded their standard of living. Except for the lucky few who take advantage of the new credit first, the negative effects of inflation likely more than outweigh any temporary gains in nominal income from the Federal Reserve’s expansionist polices.

The Fed
Genetic Information Non-discrimination Act
25 April 2007    2007 Ron Paul 44:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, the supporters of H.R. 493, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, are right to be concerned over the possibility that third parties, such as the government or potential employers, will access an individual’s genetic information without consent, and use that information to deny an individual health insurance or other benefits. I have long advocated repealing government laws and polices that allow third parties to access personal information. For example, I have worked to repeal the provision of Federal law giving the Federal Government the power to assign every American a “unique medical health identifier.” I also support repealing the phony “medical privacy” regulations that give law enforcement officials and state-favored private interests the right to access medical records at will.

The Fed
Genetic Information Non-discrimination Act
25 April 2007    2007 Ron Paul 44:2
Because of the Federal Government’s poor record in protecting privacy, I do not believe the best way to address concerns about the misuse of genetic information is through intrusive Federal legislation. Uniform Federal mandates are a clumsy and ineffective way to deal with problems such as employers making hiring decisions on the basis of a potential employee’s genetic profile. Imposing Federal mandates on private businesses merely raises the costs of doing business and thus reduces the employment opportunities for all citizens. A much better way to eliminate irrational discrimination is to rely on state and local regulation. Unlike the Federal Government, states and localities are able to tailor their regulations to fit the needs of their particular populaces. I would remind my colleagues that 34 states currently ban genetic discrimination in employment, while 46 states forbid health insurers from engaging in genetic discrimination. Clearly, the states are capable of addressing this issue without interference from Washington. My colleagues should also remember that Congress has no constitutional authority to forbid private sector employers from making hiring or other employment decisions on the basis of genetic information.

The Fed
Introduction Of The Freedom To Bank Act
1 May 2007    2007 Ron Paul 47:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce legislation repealing two unconstitutional and paternalistic Federal financial regulations. First, this legislation repeals a Federal regulation that limits the number of withdrawals someone can make from a savings account in a month’s time without being assessed financial penalties. As hard as it is to believe, the Federal Government actually forces banks to punish people for accessing their own savings too many times in a month. This bill also repeals a regulation that requires bank customers to receive a written monthly financial statement from their banks, regardless of whether the customer wants such a communication.

The Fed
Introduction Of The health Freedom Protection Act
2 May 2007    2007 Ron Paul 49:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Health Freedom Protection Act. This bill restores the First Amendment rights of consumers to receive truthful information regarding the benefits of foods and dietary supplements by codifying the First Amendment standards used by Federal courts to strike down the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) efforts to censor truthful health claims. The Health Freedom Protection Act also stops the Federal Trade Commissions (FTC) from censoring truthful health care claims.

The Fed
Introduction Of The health Freedom Protection Act
2 May 2007    2007 Ron Paul 49:2
The American people have made it clear they do not want the Federal government to interfere with their access to dietary supplements, yet the FDA and the FTC continue to engage in heavy-handed attempts to restrict such access. The FDA continues to frustrate consumers’ efforts to learn how they can improve their health even after Congress, responding to a record number of constituents’ comments, passed the Dietary Supplement and Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA). FDA bureaucrats are so determined to frustrate consumers’ access to truthful information that they are even evading their duty to comply with four Federal court decisions vindicating consumers’ First Amendment rights to discover the health benefits of foods and dietary supplements.

The Fed
Introduction Of The health Freedom Protection Act
2 May 2007    2007 Ron Paul 49:6
The Health Freedom Protection Act will force the FDA to at last comply with the commands of Congress, the First Amendment, and the American people by codifying the First Amendment standards adopted by the Federal courts. Specifically, the Health Freedom Protection Act stops the FDA from censoring truthful claims about the curative, mitigative, or preventative effects of dietary supplements, and adopts the Federal court’s suggested use of disclaimers as an alternative to censorship. The Health Freedom Protection Act also stops the FDA from prohibiting the distribution of scientific articles and publications regarding the role of nutrients in protecting against disease.

The Fed
Introduction Of The health Freedom Protection Act
2 May 2007    2007 Ron Paul 49:7
This legislation also addresses the FTC’s violations of the First Amendment. Under traditional First Amendment jurisprudence, the Federal government bears the burden of proving an advertising statement false before censoring that statement. However, the FTC has reversed the standard in the case of dietary supplements by requiring supplement manufactures to satisfy an unobtainable standard of proof that their statement is true. The FTC’s standards are blocking innovation in the marketplace.

The Fed
Introducting The Parental Consent Act
17 May 2007    2007 Ron Paul 51:2
The New Freedom Commission on Mental Health has recommended that the Federal and State governments work toward the implementation of a comprehensive system of mental health screening for all Americans. The commission recommends that universal or mandatory mental health screening first be implemented in public schools as a prelude to expanding it to the general public. However, neither the commission’s report nor any related mental health screening proposal requires parental consent before a child is subjected to mental health screening. Federally-funded universal or mandatory mental health screening in schools without parental consent could lead to labeling more children as “ADD” or “hyperactive” and thus force more children to take psychotropic drugs, such as Ritalin, against their parents’ wishes.

The Fed
Federal Housing Finance Reform Act Of 2007
17 May 2007    2007 Ron Paul 52:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1427 fails to address the core problems with the Government Sponsored Enterprises, GSEs. Furthermore, since this legislation creates new government programs that will further artificially increase the demand for housing, H.R. 1427 increases the economic damage that will occur from the bursting of the housing bubble. The main problem with the GSEs is the special privileges the Federal Government gives the GSEs. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the housing-related GSEs received almost 20 billion dollars worth of indirect Federal subsidies in fiscal year 2004 alone, while Wayne Passmore of the Federal Reserve estimates the value of the GSE’s Federal subsides to be between $122 and $182 billion dollars.

The Fed
Federal Housing Finance Reform Act Of 2007
17 May 2007    2007 Ron Paul 52:2
One of the major privileges the Federal Government grants to the GSEs is a line of credit from the United States Treasury. According to some estimates, the line of credit may be worth over 2 billion dollars. GSEs also benefit from an explicit grant of legal authority given to the Federal Reserve to purchase the debt of the GSEs. GSEs are the only institutions besides the United States Treasury granted explicit statutory authority to monetize their debt through the Federal Reserve. This provision gives the GSEs a source of liquidity unavailable to their competitors.

The Fed
Federal Housing Finance Reform Act Of 2007
17 May 2007    2007 Ron Paul 52:4
The connection between the GSEs and the Government helps isolate the GSEs’ managements from market discipline. This isolation from market discipline is the root cause of the mismanagement occurring at Fannie and Freddie. After all, if investors did not believe that the Federal Government would bail out Fannie and Freddie if the GSEs faced financial crises, then investors would have forced the GSEs to provide assurances that the GSEs are following accepted management and accounting practices before investors would consider Fa