Volume 2003 – The Book of Ron Paul


2003 Ron Paul Chapter 1

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

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 7, 2003
Introduction of the Social Security Preservation Act


2003 Ron Paul 1:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to protect the integrity of the Social Security trust fund by introducing the Social Security Preservation Act. The Social Security Preservation Act is a rather simple bill which states that all monies raised by the Social Security trust fund will be spent in payments to beneficiaries, with excess receipts invested in interest-bearing certificates of deposit. This will help keep Social Security trust fund monies from being diverted to other programs, as well as allow the fund to grow by providing for investment in interest-bearing instruments.

2003 Ron Paul 1:2
The Social Security Preservation Act ensures that the government will keep its promises to America’s seniors that taxes collected for Social Security will be used for Social Security. When the government taxes Americans to fund Social Security, it promises the American people that the money will be there for them when they retire. Congress has a moral obligation to keep that promise.

2003 Ron Paul 1:3
The return of massive federal deficits, and the accompanying pressure for massive new raids on the trust fund, make it more important than ever that Congress protect the trust fund from big spending, pork-barrel politics. I call upon all my colleagues, regardless of which proposal for long-term Social Security reform they support, to stand up for America’s seniors by cosponsoring the Social Security Preservation Act.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 2

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

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 7, 2003
Say NO to UNESCO


2003 Ron Paul 2:1
 Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a bill expressing the sense of the Congress that the United States should not rejoin the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

2003 Ron Paul 2:2
Mr. Speaker, in 1984 President Ronald Reagan withdrew the United States from membership in that UNESCO, citing egregious financial mismanagement, blatant anti-Americanism, and UNESCO’s general anti-freedom policies. President Reagan was correct in identifying UNESCO as an organization that does not act in America’s interest, and he was correct in questioning why the United States should fund 25 percent of UNESCO’s budget for that privilege.

2003 Ron Paul 2:3
Those calling for the United States to rejoin UNESCO claim that the organization has undertaken fundamental reforms and therefore the United States should re-join. It is strange that in the 18 years since the United States left UNESCO, we only started reading about the beginnings of reform in the year 2000. Are we to believe that after nearly two decades of no change in UNESCO’s way of mismanaging itself things have changed so much in just two years? Is it worth spending $60 million per year on an organization with such a terrible history of waste, corruption, and anti-Americanism?

2003 Ron Paul 2:4
Mr. Speaker, even if UNESCO has been “reforming” its finances over the past two years, its programmatic activities are still enough to cause great concern among those of us who value American sovereignty and honor our Constitution. Consider the following as a partial list of UNESCO’s ongoing highly questionable activities:

2003 Ron Paul 2:5
UNESCO meddles in the education affairs of its member-countries and has sought to construct a U.N.-based school curriculum for American schools.

2003 Ron Paul 2:6
UNESCO has been fully supportive of the United Nations’ Population Fund (UNFPA) in its assistance to China’s brutal coercive population control program.

2003 Ron Paul 2:7
UNESCO has designated 47 U.N. Biosphere Reserves in the United States covering more than 70 million acres, without Congressional consultation.

2003 Ron Paul 2:8
UNESCO effectively bypasses Congressional authority to manage federal lands, by establishing management policies without Congressional consultation of approval.

2003 Ron Paul 2:9
Mr. Speaker, I hope all members of this body will join me in opposing renewed U.S. membership in the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization by co-sponsoring this “Say NO to UNESCO” Act.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 3

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Shrimp Importation Financing Fairness Act
7 January 2003

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, January 7, 2003


2003 Ron Paul 3:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Shrimp Importation Financing Fairness Act. This bill aids America’s struggling domestic shrimping industry by placing a moratorium on restrictive regulations affecting the shrimping industry. This bill also prevents tax dollars from going to the domestic shrimping industry’s major foreign competitors.

2003 Ron Paul 3:2
The United States domestic shrimping industry is a vital social and economic force in many coastal communities across the United States, including several in my congressional district. A thriving shrimping industry benefits not only those who own and operate shrimp boats, but also food processors, hotels and restaurants, grocery stores, and all those who work in and service these industries. Shrimping also serves as a key source of safe domestic foods at a time when the nation is engaged in hostilities abroad.

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.

2003 Ron Paul 3:4
Many members of Congress have let the National Marine Fisheries Service, which is the lead federal agency with responsibility to regulate the domestic shrimp industry, know of their displeasure with the unreasonable regulatory burden imposed upon the industry. In response, the agency held briefings with House and Senate staffers as well as industry representatives to discuss how the agency’s actions are harming shrimpers.

2003 Ron Paul 3:5
However, even after hearing first-hand testimony from industry representatives and representatives of communities whose economies rely on a thriving shrimping industry, the agency refuses to refrain from placing regulatory encumbrances upon the domestic shrimping industry. Therefore it is up to Congress to protect this industry from overzealous regulators. The Shrimp Importation Financing Fairness Act provides this protection by placing an indefinite moratorium on all future restrictive regulations on the shrimping industry.

2003 Ron Paul 3:6
Seven foreign countries (Thailand, Vietnam, India, China, Ecuador, Indonesia, and Brazil) have taken advantage of the domestic shrimping industry’s government-created vulnerabilities. These countries each exported in excess of 20,000,000 pounds of shrimp to the United States in the first 6 months of 2002. These seven countries account for nearly 70 percent of all shrimp consumed in the United States in the first six months of this year and nearly 80 percent of all shrimp imported to this country in the same period!

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).

2003 Ron Paul 3:8
Many of the countries in question do not have free-market economics. Thus, the participation of these countries in United States-supported international financial regimes amounts to a direct subsidy by American shrimpers to their international competitors. In any case, providing aid to any of these countries indirectly grants benefits to foreign shrimpers because of the fungibility of money.

2003 Ron Paul 3:9
In order to ensure that American shrimpers are not forced to subsidize their competitors, the Shrimp Importation Financing Fairness Act ends all Export-Import and OPIC subsidies to the seven countries who imported more than 20 million pounds of shrimp in the first six months of 2002. The bill also reduces America’s contribution to the IMF by America’s pro rata share of any IMF aid provided to one of those seven countries.

2003 Ron Paul 3:10
Mr. Speaker, it is time for Congress to rein in regulation-happy bureaucrats and stop subsidizing the domestic shrimping industry’s leading competitors. Otherwise, the government- manufactured depression in the price of shrimp will decimate the domestic shrimping industry and the communities whose economies depend on this industry. I, therefore, hope all my colleagues will stand up for shrimpers by cosponsoring the Shrimp Importation Financing Fairness Act.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 4

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

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 7, 2003
Stop Identity Theft – Make Social Security Numbers Confidential


2003 Ron Paul 4:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the Identity Theft Prevention Act. This act protects the American people from government-mandated uniform identifiers that facilitate private crime as well as the abuse of liberty. 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 Social Security administration. 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 administration of the Social Security system.

2003 Ron Paul 4:2
Mr. Speaker, Congress has a moral responsibility to address this problem because it was Congress which transformed the Social Security number into a national identifier. Thanks to Congress, today no American can get a job, open a bank account, get a professional license, or even get a driver’s license without presenting their Social Security number. So widespread has the use of the Social Security number become that a member of my staff had to produce a Social Security number in order to get a fishing license!

2003 Ron Paul 4:3
One of the most disturbing abuses of the Social Security number is the congressionally-authorized rule forcing parents to get a Social Security number for their newborn children in order to claim them as dependents. Forcing parents to register their children with the state is more like something out of the nightmares of George Orwell than the dreams of a free republic which inspired this nation’s founders.

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!

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.

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.


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.

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.

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:

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.

2003 Ron Paul 4:11
Federal laws are not only ineffective in stopping private criminals, but have not even stopped unscrupulous government officials from accessing personal information. After all, laws purporting to restrict the use of personal information did not stop the well-publicized violations of privacy by IRS officials or the FBI abuses by the Clinton and Nixon administrations.

2003 Ron Paul 4:12
Just last month, thousands of active-duty soldiers and veterans had their personal information stolen, putting them at risk of identity theft. Imagine the dangers if thieves are able to obtain the universal identifier, and other personal information, of millions of Americans simply by breaking, or hacking, into one government facility or one government database?

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.

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.”

2003 Ron Paul 4:15
Mr. Speaker, those members who are not persuaded by the moral and constitutional reasons for embracing the Identity Theft Prevention Act should consider the opposition of the American people toward national identifiers. The overwhelming public opposition to the various “Know-Your-Customer” schemes, the attempt to turn driver’s licenses into National ID cards, as well as the numerous complaints over the ever-growing uses of the Social Security number, show that American people want Congress to stop invading their privacy. Furthermore, according to a survey by the Gallup company, 91 percent of the American people oppose forcing Americans to obtain a universal health ID. Several other recent polls show most Americans remain skeptical that a national ID card would enhance their security or preserve their liberty.

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.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 5

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

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 9, 2003
Restoring the Second Amendment


2003 Ron Paul 5:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise to restore the right the founding fathers saw as the guarantee of every other right by introducing the Second Amendment Protection Act. This legislation reverses the steady erosion of the right to keep and bear arms by repealing unconstitutional laws that allow power-hungry federal bureaucrats to restrict the rights of law-abiding gun owners.

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.”

2003 Ron Paul 5:3
Thomas Jefferson said “The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; ...that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”  Jefferson, and all of the Founders, would be horrified by the proliferation of unconstitutional legislation that prevents law-abiding Americans form exercising their right and duty to keep and bear arms. I hope my colleagues will join me in upholding the Founders’ vision for a free society by cosponsoring the Second Amendment Restoration Act.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 6

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker’s announced policy of January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.

2003 Ron Paul 6:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, at the close of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Benjamin Franklin told an inquisitive citizen that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention gave the people a Republic, if you can keep it. We should now apologize to Mr. Franklin. It is obvious that the Republic is gone, and we are wallowing in a pure democracy against which the Founders had strongly warned.

2003 Ron Paul 6:2
Madison, the Father of the Constitution, could not have been more explicit in his fear and concern for democracies. “Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contentions, have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property, and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”

2003 Ron Paul 6:3
If Madison’s assessment was correct, it behooves those of us in Congress to take note and decide, indeed, whether the public has vantaged when it occurred and what to expect in the ways of turbulence, contention and violence, and above all else what can we and what will we do about it.

2003 Ron Paul 6:4
The turbulence seems self-evident. Domestic welfare programs are not sustainable and do not accomplish their stated goals. State and Federal spending and deficits are out of control. Terrorism and uncontrollable fear undermines our sense of well-being. Hysterical reactions to dangers not yet seen prompt the people at the prodding of the politicians to readily sacrifice their liberties in vain hope that someone else will take care of them and guarantee their security.

2003 Ron Paul 6:5
With these obvious signs of a failed system all around us, there seems to be more determination than ever to antagonize the people of the world by pursuing a world empire. Nation-building, foreign intervention, preemptive war and global government drive our foreign policy.

2003 Ron Paul 6:6
There seems to be complete aversion to defending the Republic and the Constitution that established it. The Founders clearly understood the dangers of a democracy. Edmond Randolph of Virginia described the effort to deal with the issue at the Constitutional Convention: “The general object was to produce a cure for evils under which the United States labored; that in tracing these evils to their origins, every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy.”

2003 Ron Paul 6:7
These strongly held views regarding the evils of democracies and the benefit of a constitutional republic were shared by all the Founders. For them, a democracy meant centralized power, controlled by majority opinion, which was up for grabs and, therefore, completely arbitrary.

2003 Ron Paul 6:8
In contrast, a republic was decentralized and representative in nature, with the government’s purpose strictly limited by the Constitution to the protection of liberty and private property ownership. They believe the majority should never be able to undermine its principle and that the government must be tightly held in check by constitutional restraints.

2003 Ron Paul 6:9
The difference between a democracy and a republic was simple. Would we live under the age old concept of the rule of man or the enlightened rule of law?

2003 Ron Paul 6:10
A constitution in and by itself does not guarantee liberty in a republican form of government. Even a perfect constitution, with this goal in mind, is no better than the moral standards and desires of the people.

2003 Ron Paul 6:11
Although the United States Constitution was by far the best ever written for the protection of liberty, with safeguards against the dangers of a democracy, it, too, was flawed from the beginning. Instead of guaranteeing liberty equally for all people, the authors themselves yielded to the democratic majority’s demands that they compromise on the issue of slavery. This mistake, plus others along the way, culminated in a civil war that surely could have been prevented with clearer understanding and a more principled approach to the establishment of a constitutional republic.

2003 Ron Paul 6:12
Subsequently, the same urge to accommodate majority opinion while ignoring the principles of individual liberty led to some other serious errors. Even amending the Constitution in a proper fashion to impose alcohol prohibition turned out to be a disaster. Fortunately, this was rectified after a short time with its repeal.

2003 Ron Paul 6:13
But today, the American people accept drug prohibition, a policy equally damaging to liberty as was alcohol prohibition. A majority vote in Congress has been enough to impose this very expensive and failed program on the American people even without bothering to amend the Constitution. It has been met with only minimal but, fortunately, growing dissent. For the first 150 years of our history, when we were much closer to being a true Republic, there were no Federal laws dealing with the serious medical problem of addiction.

2003 Ron Paul 6:14
The ideas of democracy, not the principles of liberty, were responsible for the passage of the 16th amendment. It imposed the income tax on the American people and helped us usher in the modern age of the welfare warfare State. Unfortunately, the 16th amendment has not been repealed as was the 18th. As long as the 16th amendment is in place, the odds are slim that we can restore a constitutional republic dedicated to liberty. The personal income tax is more than symbolic of a democracy; it is a predictable consequence.

2003 Ron Paul 6:15
The transition from republic to democracy was gradual and insidious. Its seeds were sown early in our history. In many ways, the Civil War and its aftermath laid the foundation for the acute erosion that took place over the entire 20th century.

2003 Ron Paul 6:16
Chronic concern about war and economic downturns events caused by an intrusive government’s failure to follow the binding restraints of the Constitution allowed majority demands to supercede the rights of the minority. By the end of the 20th century, majority opinion had become the determining factor in all that government does. The rule of law was cast aside, leaving the Constitution a shell of what it once was, a Constitution with rules that guaranteed a Republic with limit and regional government and protection of personal liberty.

2003 Ron Paul 6:17
The marketplace, driven by voluntary cooperation, private property ownership, and sound money was severely undermined with the acceptance of the principles of true democracy. Unfortunately, too many people confused the democratic elections of leaders in a Republic for democracy by accepting the rule of majority opinion in all affairs. For majorities to pick leaders is one thing. It is something quite different for majorities to decide what rights are, to redistribute property, to tell people how to manage their personal lives, and to promote undeclared, unconstitutional wars.

2003 Ron Paul 6:18
The majority is assumed to be in charge today and can do whatever it pleases. If the majority has not yet sanctioned some desired breach of action demanded by special interest, the propaganda machine goes into operation and the pollsters relay the information back to politicians who are seeking legitimacy in their endeavors. The rule of law and the Constitution have become irrelevant, and we live by constant polls.

2003 Ron Paul 6:19
This trend toward authoritarian democracy was tolerated because, unlike a military dictatorship, it was done in the name of benevolence, fairness, and equity. The pretence of love and compassion by those who desire to remold society and undermine the Constitution convinced the recipients and even the victims of its necessity.

2003 Ron Paul 6:20
Since it was never a precipitous departure from the Republic, the gradual erosion of liberty went unnoticed, but it is encouraging that more and more citizens are realizing just how much has been lost by complacency.

2003 Ron Paul 6:21
The resolution to the problems we face as a result of this profound transition to pure democracy will be neither quick nor painless. This transition has occurred even though the word “democracy” does not appear in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. The Founders explicitly denounced it.

2003 Ron Paul 6:22
Over the last hundred years the goal of securing individual liberties within the framework of a constitutional republic has been replaced with incessant talk of democracy and fairness. Rallying support for our ill-advised participation in World War I, Wilson spoke glowingly of making the world safe for democracy and never mentioned national security. This theme has to this day persisted in all our foreign affairs. Neoconservatives now brag of their current victories in promoting what they call “hard Wilsonism.”

2003 Ron Paul 6:23
A true defense of self-determination for all people, the necessary ingredient of a free society is ignored. Self-determination implies separation of smaller governments from the larger entities that we witnessed in the breakup of the Soviet Union. This notion contradicts the goal of pure democracy and world government. A single world government is the ultimate goal of all social egalitarians who are unconcerned with liberty.

2003 Ron Paul 6:24
Today, the concepts of rights and property ownership are completely arbitrary. Congress, the courts, Presidents and bureaucrats arbitrarily legislate on a daily basis, seeking only the endorsement of the majority. Although the Republic was designed to protect the minority against the dictates of the majority, today we find the reverse. The Republic is no longer recognizable.

2003 Ron Paul 6:25
Supporters of democracy are always quick to point out one of the perceived benefits of this system is the redistribution of wealth by government to the poor. Although this may be true in a limited fashion, the champions of this system never concern themselves with the victims from whom the wealth is stolen. The so-called benefits are short lived because democracy consumes wealth with little concern for those who produce it. Eventually, the programs cannot be funded, and the dependency that has developed precipitates angry outcries for even more fairness.

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.

2003 Ron Paul 6:27
Foreign policy failures precipitate cries for more intervention abroad and an even greater empire. Cries for security grow louder and concern for liberty languishes.

2003 Ron Paul 6:28
A tax on our homeland form a massive increase in the bureaucracy to protect us from all dangers seen and imagined.

2003 Ron Paul 6:29
The prime goal of the concern of the Founders, the protection of liberty, is ignored. Those expressing any serious concern for personal liberty are condemned for their self-centeredness and their lack of patriotism. Even if we could defeat the al Qaeda, which is surely a worthwhile goal, it would do little to preserve our liberties, while ignoring the real purpose of our government. Another enemy would surely replace it, just as the various groups of so-called barbarians never left the Roman Empire alone once its internal republican structure collapsed.

2003 Ron Paul 6:30
Once it becomes acceptable to change the rules by majority vote, there are no longer any limits on the power of the government. When the Constitution can be subverted by mere legislative votes, executive orders or judicial degrees, constitutional restraints on the government are eliminated. This process was rare in the early years of our history, but now it is routine.

2003 Ron Paul 6:31
Democracy is promoted in the name of fairness in an effort to help some special interest group receive a benefit that it claims it needs or is entitled to. If only one small group were involved, nothing would come of the demands, but coalitions develop and the various groups ban together to form a majority, to vote themselves all those things that they expect others to provide for them.

2003 Ron Paul 6:32
Although the motivating factor is frequently the desire for the poor to better themselves through the willingness of others to sacrifice for what they see as a good cause, the process is doomed to failure. Governments are inefficient and the desired goals are rarely achieved. Administrators who benefit perpetuate the programs. Wealthy elites learn to benefit from the system in a superior fashion over the poor because they know how to skim the cream off the top of all the programs designed for the disadvantaged. They join the various groups in producing the majority vote needed to fund their own special interest.

2003 Ron Paul 6:33
Public financing of housing, for instance, benefits builders, bureaucrats, insurance companies and financial institutions while the poor end up in drug-invested, crime-ridden housing projects. For the same reason, not only do business leaders not object to this system but they also become strong supporters of welfare programs and foreign aid.

2003 Ron Paul 6:34
Big business strongly supports programs like the Export Import Bank, the IMF, the World Bank, foreign subsidies and military adventurism. Tax Code revisions and government contracts mean big profits for those who are well-connected. Concern for individual liberty is pushed to the bottom of the priority list for both the poor and the rich welfare recipients.

2003 Ron Paul 6:35
Prohibitions placed in the Constitution against programs that serve special interests are the greatest threat to the current system of democracy under which we operate. In order for the benefits to continue, politicians must reject the rule of law and concern themselves only with the control of majority opinion. Sadly, that is the job of almost all politicians. It is clearly the motivation behind the millions spent on constant lobbying, as well as the billions spent on promoting the right candidate in each election.

2003 Ron Paul 6:36
Those who champion liberty are rarely heard from. The media, banking, insurance, airlines, transportation, financial institutions, government employees, the military industrial complex, the education system and the medical community are all dependent on government appropriations resulting in a high-stakes system of government.

2003 Ron Paul 6:37
Democracy encourages the mother of all political corruption, the use of political money to buy influence. If the dollars spent in this effort represent the degree to which democracy has won out over the rule of law and the Constitution, it looks like the American Republic is left wanting. Billions are spent on the endeavor. Money and politics is the key to implementing policy and swaying democratic majorities. It is seen by most Americans, and rightly so, as a negative and danger. Yet the response, unfortunately, is only more of the same.

2003 Ron Paul 6:38
More laws tinkering with freedom of expression are enacted in hopes that regulating sums of private money thrown into the political system will curtail the abuse; but failing to understand the cause of the problem, lack of respect for the Constitution and obsession with legislative relativity dictated by the majority serve only to further undermine the rule of law.

2003 Ron Paul 6:39
We were adequately warned about this problem. Democracies lead to chaos, violence and bankruptcy. The demands of the majority are always greater than taxation alone can provide. Therefore, control of the monetary and banking system is required for democracies to operate.

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.

2003 Ron Paul 6:41
It is for this reason that democracies always bring about currency debasement through inflation of the money supply.

2003 Ron Paul 6:42
Some of the planners of today clearly understand the process. And others, out of ignorance, view central bank money creation as a convenience with little danger. That is where they are wrong. Even though the wealthy and the bankers support paper money, believing they know how to protect against its ill effects, many of them are eventually dragged down in the economic downturns that always develop. It is not a new era that they have created for us today, but more of the same endured throughout history by so many other nations.

2003 Ron Paul 6:43
The belief that democratic demands can be financed by deficits, credit creation, and taxation is based on false hope and failure to see how it contributes to the turbulence as the democracy collapses. Once a nation becomes a democracy, the whole purpose of government changes. Instead of the government’s goal being that of guaranteeing liberty, equal justice, private property and voluntary exchange, the government embarks on the impossible task of achieving economic equality and micromanaging the economy and protecting citizens from themselves in all their activities.

2003 Ron Paul 6:44
The destruction of the wealth-building process, which is inherent in a free society, is never anticipated. Once it is realized it has been undermined, it is too late to easily reverse the attacks against limited government and personal liberty. Democracy, by necessity, endorses special interest interventionism, inflationism and corporatism. In order to carry out the duties now expected of the government, power must be transferred from the citizens to the politicians. The only thing left is to decide which group or groups have the greatest influence over the government officials.

2003 Ron Paul 6:45
As the wealth of the nation dwindles, competition between the special interest groups grows more intense and becomes the dominant goal of all political action. Restoration of liberty, the market, and personal responsibilities are of little interest and are eventually seen as impractical. Power and public opinion become crucial factors in determining the direction of all government expenditures.

2003 Ron Paul 6:46
Although both major parties now accept the principles of rule of majority and reject the rule of law, the beneficiaries for each party are generally different, although they frequently overlap. Propaganda, demagoguery, and control of the educational system and the media are essential to directing the distribution of the loot the government steals from those who are still honestly working for a living.

2003 Ron Paul 6:47
The greater problem is that nearly everyone receives some government benefit and, at the same time, contributes to the Treasury. Most hope they will get back more than they pay in and, therefore, go along with the firmly entrenched system. Others, who understand and would choose to opt out and assume responsibility for themselves, are not allowed to and are forced to participate. The end only comes with the collapse of the system, since a gradual and logical reversal of the inexorable march toward democratic socialism is unachievable. Soviet- style communism dramatically collapsed once it was recognized that it could no longer function, and a better system replaced it. It became no longer practical to pursue token reforms like those that took place over its 70-year history.

2003 Ron Paul 6:48
The turmoil and dangers of pure democracy are known. We should get prepared. But it will be the clarity with which we plan its replacement that determines the amount of pain and suffering endured during the transition to another system. Hopefully, the United States Congress and other government leaders will come to realize the seriousness of our current situation and replace the business-as-usual attitude, regardless of political demands and growing needs of a boisterous majority.

2003 Ron Paul 6:49
Simply stated, our wealth is running out, and the affordability of democracy is coming to an end. History reveals that once majorities can vote themselves largesse, the system is destined to collapse from within. But in order to maintain the special interest system for as long as possible, more and more power must be given to an ever-expanding central government, which of course only makes matters worse. The economic shortcomings of such a system are easily understood. What is too often ignored is that the flip side of delivering power to government is the loss of liberty to the individual. This loss of liberty causes exactly what the government does not want: Less productive citizens who can’t pay taxes.

2003 Ron Paul 6:50
Even before 9–11 these trends were in place, and proposals were abundant for restraining liberty. Since 9–11 the growth of centralized government and the loss of privacy and personal freedoms have significantly accelerated. It is in dealing with homeland defense and potential terrorist attacks that the domestic social programs and the policy of foreign intervention are coming together and precipitating a rapid expansion of the state and an erosion of personal liberty.

2003 Ron Paul 6:51
Like our social welfarism at home, our foreign meddling and empire-building abroad are a consequence of our becoming a pure democracy. The dramatic shift away from the Republic that occurred in 1913, as expected, led to a bold change of purpose in foreign affairs. The goal of making the world safe for democracy was forcefully put forth by Wilson. Protecting national security had become too narrow a goal and selfish in purpose. An obligation for spreading democracy became a noble obligation backed by a moral commitment every bit as utopian as striving for economic equality in an egalitarian society here at home.

2003 Ron Paul 6:52
With the growing affection for democracy, it was no giant leap to assume that majority opinion should mold personal behavior. It was no mere coincidence that the 18th amendment, alcohol prohibition, was passed in 1919.

2003 Ron Paul 6:53
Ever since 1913, all our Presidents have endorsed meddling in the internal affairs of other nations and have given generous support to the notion that a world government would facilitate the goals of democratic welfare or socialism. On a daily basis we hear that we must be prepared to send our money and use our young people to police the world in order to spread democracy. Whether it is Venezuela or Colombia, Afghanistan or Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Korea or Vietnam, our intervention is always justified with the tone of moral arrogance that it is for their own good. Our policymakers promote democracy as a cure-all for the various complex problems of the world. Unfortunately, the propaganda machine is able to hide the real reasons for our empire-building.

2003 Ron Paul 6:54
Promoting democracy overseas merely becomes a slogan for doing things that the powerful and influential strive to do for their own benefit. To get authority for these overseas pursuits, all that is required of the government is that the majority be satisfied with the stated goals no matter how self-serving they may be. The rule of law, that is constitutional restraint, is ignored. But as successful as the policy may be on the short run, and as noble as it may be portrayed, it is a major contributing factor to the violence and chaos that eventually come from pure democracy.

2003 Ron Paul 6:55
There is abundant evidence that the pretense of spreading democracy contradicts the very policies we are pursuing. We preach about democratic elections, but we are only too willing to accept some for-the-moment friendly dictator who actually overthrew a democratically elected leader or to interfere in some foreign election. This is the case with Pakistan’s Musharraf. For a temporary alliance, he reaped hundreds of millions of dollars, even though strong evidence exists that the Pakistanis have harbored and trained al Qaeda terrorists, that they have traded weapons with North Korea, and that they possess weapons of mass destruction.

2003 Ron Paul 6:56
No one should be surprised that the Arabs are confused by our overtures of friendship. We have just recently promised billions of dollars to Turkey to buy their support for the new Persian Gulf War. Our support of Saudi Arabia, in spite of its ties to the al Qaeda, is financing and training. It is totally ignored by those obsessed with going to war against Iraq. Saudi Arabia is the furthest thing from a democracy. As a matter of fact, if democratic elections were permitted, the Saudi Government would be overthrown by a bin Laden ally.

2003 Ron Paul 6:57
Those who constantly preach global government and democracy ought to consider the outcome of their philosophy in a hypothetical Mideast regional government. If these people were asked which country in this region possessed weapons of mass destruction, had a policy of oppressive occupation, and constantly defies U.N. council resolutions, the vast majority would overwhelmingly name Israel. Is this ludicrous? No. This is what democracy is all about and what can come from a one man, one vote philosophy. U.S. policy supports the overthrow of the democratically elected Chavez government in Venezuela because we do not like the economic policy it pursues. We support a military takeover as long as the new dictator will do as we tell him.

2003 Ron Paul 6:58
There is no credibility in our contention that we really want to impose democracy on other nations, yet promoting democracy is the public justification for our foreign intervention. It sounds so much nicer than saying we are going to risk the lives of young people and massively tax our citizens to secure the giant oil reserves of Iraq. After we take over Iraq, how long would one expect it to take until there are authentic nationwide elections in that country? The odds of that happening in even 100 years are remote. It is virtually impossible to imagine a time when democratic elections would ever occur for the election of leaders in a constitutional republic dedicated to the protection of liberty anyplace in the region.

2003 Ron Paul 6:59
The tragedy of 9–11 and its aftermath dramatizes so clearly how a flawed foreign policy has served to encourage the majoritarians determined to run everyone’s life. Due to its natural inefficiencies and tremendous cost, a failing welfare state requires an ever-expanding authoritarian approach to enforce mandates, collect the necessary revenues, and keep afloat an unworkable system. Once the people grow to depend on government subsistence, they demand its continuation.

2003 Ron Paul 6:60
Excessive meddling in the internal affairs of other nations, and involving ourselves in every conflict around the globe has not endeared the United States to the oppressed of the world. The Japanese are tired of us, the South Koreans are tired of us, the Europeans are tired of us, the Central Americans are tired of us, the Filipinos are tired of us, and, above all, the Arab Muslims are tired of us. Angry and frustrated by our persistent bullying, and disgusted with having their own government bought and controlled by the United States, joining a radical Islamic movement was a natural and predictable consequence for Muslims.

2003 Ron Paul 6:61
We believe bin Laden when he takes credit for an attack on the West, and we believe him when he warns us of an impending attack, but we refuse to listen to his explanation of why he and his allies are at war with us. Bin Laden claims are straightforward. The U.S. defiles Islam with bases on the Holy Land and Saudi Arabia, its initiation of war against Iraq, with 12 years of persistent bombing, and its dollars and weapons being used against the Palestinians, as the Palestinian territory shrinks and Israel’s occupation expands.

2003 Ron Paul 6:62
There will be no peace in the world for the next 50 years or longer if we refuse to believe why those who are attacking us do it. To dismiss terrorism as a result of Muslims hating us because we are rich and free is one of the greatest foreign policy frauds ever perpetuated on the American people. Because the propaganda machine, the media, and the government have restated this so many times, the majority now accept it as face value, and the administration gets the political cover its needs to pursue a holy war for democracy against the infidels who hate us for our goodness.

2003 Ron Paul 6:63
Polling on the matter is followed closely and, unfortunately, is far more important than the rule of law. Do we hear the pundits talk of constitutional restraints on Congress and the administration? No. All we ever hear are the reassurances that the majority support the President; therefore, it must be all right.

2003 Ron Paul 6:64
The terrorist attacks are related to our severely flawed foreign policy of intervention. They also reflect the shortcomings of a bureaucracy that is already big enough to know everything it needs to know about impending attacks, but too cumbersome to do anything about it. Bureaucratic weaknesses within a fragile welfare state provide a prime opportunity for those whom we antagonize by our domination over world affairs and global wealth to take advantage of our vulnerability.

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.

2003 Ron Paul 6:66
Relying on authoritarian democracy and domestic and international meddling only moves us sharply away from a constitutional republic and the rule of law and toward the turbulence of a decaying democracy about which Madison and others had warned. Once the goal of liberty is replaced by a preconceived notion of the benefits and the moral justification of a democracy, a trend toward internationalism and world government follows. We certainly witnessed this throughout the 20th century. Since World War II, we have failed to follow the Constitution in taking this country to war, but instead have deferred to the collective democratic wisdom of the United Nations.

2003 Ron Paul 6:67
Once it is recognized that ultimate authority comes from an international body, whether it is the United Nations, NATO, the WTO, the World Bank or the IMF, the contest becomes a matter of who holds the reins of power and is able to dictate what is perceived as the will of the people in the world.

2003 Ron Paul 6:68
In the name of democracy, just as it is done in Washington, powerful nations with the most money will control the United Nations policy. Bribery, threats and intimidation are common practices used to achieve a democratic consensus, no matter how controversial and short-lived the benefits.

2003 Ron Paul 6:69
Can one imagine what it might be like if true worldwide democracy existed and the United Nations were controlled by a world-wide, one man/one vote philosophy? The masses of China and India could vote themselves whatever they needed from the more prosperous Western countries. How long would a world system last based on this absurdity? Yet this is the principle that we are working so hard to impose on ourselves and others around the world.

2003 Ron Paul 6:70
In spite of the great strides made toward one-world government based on egalitarianism, I am optimistic that this utopian nightmare will never come to fruition. I have already made the case that here at home powerful special interests take over controlling majority opinion, making sure fairness in distribution is never achieved. This fact causes resentment and becomes so expensive that the entire system becomes unstable and eventually collapses.

2003 Ron Paul 6:71
The same will occur internationally, even if it miraculously did not cause conflict among the groups demanding the loot confiscated from the producing individuals or countries. Democratic socialism is so destructive to production of wealth that it must fail, just as socialism failed under communism. We have a long way to go before old-fashioned nationalism is dead and buried. In the meantime, the determination of those promoting democratic socialism will cause great harm to many people before its chaotic end and we rediscover the basic principle responsible for all of human progress.

2003 Ron Paul 6:72
With the additional spending to wage war against terrorism at home, while propping up an ever-expensive and failing welfare state, and the added funds needed to police the world, all in the midst of a recession, we are destined to see an unbelievably huge explosion of deficit spending. Raising taxes will not help. Borrowing the needed funds for the budgetary deficit, plus the daily borrowing from foreigners required to finance our ever-growing account deficit, will put tremendous pressure on the dollar.

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.

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.

2003 Ron Paul 6:75
The reality is that we will not be able to inflate, tax, spend or borrow our way out of this mess that the Congress has delivered to the American people.

2003 Ron Paul 6:76
The demands that come with pure democracy always lead to an unaffordable system that ends with economic turmoil and political upheaval. Tragically, the worse the problems get, the louder is the demand for more of the same government programs that caused the problems in the first place, both domestic and international. Weaning off of government programs and getting away from foreign meddling because of political pressure are virtually impossible. The end comes only after economic forces make it clear we can no longer afford to pay for the extravagance that comes from the democratic dictates.

2003 Ron Paul 6:77
Democracy is the most excessive form of government. There is no “king” with an interest in preserving the nation’s capital. Everyone desires something, and the special-interest groups, banding together, dictate to the politicians exactly what they want and need. Politicians are handsomely rewarded for being “effective,” that is, getting the benefits for the groups that support them. Effectiveness is never measured by efforts and achievements in securing liberty, even though it is the most important element in a prosperous and progressive world.

2003 Ron Paul 6:78
Spending is predictable in a democracy, especially one that endorses foreign interventionism. It always goes up, both in nominal terms and in percentage of the nation’s wealth.

2003 Ron Paul 6:79
Paying for it can be quite complicated. The exact method is less consequential than the percent of the nation’s wealth the government commands. Borrowing and central bank credit creation are generally used and are less noticeable, but more deceitful, than direct taxation to pay as we go.

2003 Ron Paul 6:80
If direct taxation were accomplished through monthly checks written by each taxpayer, the cost of government would immediately be revealed, and the democratic con game would end much more quickly.

2003 Ron Paul 6:81
The withholding principle was devised to make paying for the programs the majority demanded seem less painful. Passing on debt to the next generation through borrowing is also a popular way to pay for welfare and warfare. The effect of inflating a currency to pay the bills is difficult to understand and the victims are hard to identify. Inflation is the most sinister method of payment for a welfare state. It, too, grows in popularity as the demands increase for services that are not affordable.

2003 Ron Paul 6:82
Although this appears to be a convenient and cheap way to pay the bills, the economic consequences of lost employment, inflated prices and economic dislocation make the long-term consequences much more severe than paying as we go. Not only is this costly in terms of national wealth, it significantly contributes to the political chaos and loss of liberty that accompany the death throes of a doomed democracy.

2003 Ron Paul 6:83
This does not mean that direct taxes will not be continuously raised to pay for out-of-control spending. In a democracy, all earned wealth is assumed to belong to the government. Therefore, not raising taxes, cutting taxes, or granting tax credits are considered “costs” of government. Once this notion is established, tax credits or cuts are given only under condition that the beneficiaries conform to the democratic consensus. Freedom of choice is removed, even if a group is merely getting back control of that which was rightfully theirs in the first place.

2003 Ron Paul 6:84
Tax-exempt status for various groups is not universal but is conditioned on whether their beliefs and practices are compatible with politically correct opinions endorsed by the democratic majority. This concept is incompatible with the principles of private-property ownership and individual liberty. In contrast, in a free society, all economic and social decision-making is controlled by private property owners without government intrusion, as long as no one is harmed in the process.

2003 Ron Paul 6:85
The vast majority of the American people have come to accept democracy as a favorable system and are pleased with our efforts to pursue Wilson’s dream of making the world safe for democracy. But the goals of pure democracy and that of a constitutional republic are incompatible. A clear understanding of the difference is paramount, if we are to remain a free and prosperous Nation.

2003 Ron Paul 6:86
There are certain wonderful benefits in recognizing the guidance that majority opinion offers. It takes a consensus or prevailing attitude to endorse the principles of liberty and a constitution to protect them. This is a requirement for the rule of law to succeed. Without a consensus, the rule of law fails. This does not mean that the majority or public opinion, measured by polls, court rulings or legislative bodies should be able to alter the constitutional restraints on the government’s abuse of life, liberty and property. But in a democracy that happens, and we know today that is happening in this country on a routine basis.

2003 Ron Paul 6:87
In a free society with totally free markets, the votes by consumers through their purchases or refusal to purchase determine which businesses survive and which fail. This is freechoice democracy, and it is a powerful force in producing and bringing about economic efficiency. In today’s democracy by decree, government laws dictate who receives the benefit and who gets shortchanged. Conditions of employment and sales are taxed and regulated at varying rates, and success or failure is too often dependent on government action than by consumers’ voting in the marketplace by their spending habits. Individual consumers by their decisions should be in charge, not governments armed with mandates from the majority.

2003 Ron Paul 6:88
Even a system of free market money, a redeemable gold coin standard, functions through the principle of consumers always voting or withholding support for that currency. A gold standard can only work when freely converted into gold coins, giving every citizen a right to vote on a daily basis for or against the government’s money.

2003 Ron Paul 6:89
It is too late to avoid the turbulence and violence that Madison warned us about. It has already started. But it is important to minimize the damage and prepare a way for the restoration of the Republic. The odds are not favorable, but not impossible. No one can know the future with certainty. The Soviet system came to an abrupt end with less violence than could ever have been imagined at the height of the Cold War. It was a pleasant surprise.

2003 Ron Paul 6:90
Interestingly enough, what is needed is a majority opinion, especially by those who find themselves in leadership roles, whether political, educational or in the media, that rejects democracy and supports the rule of law within the Republic. This majority support is essential for the preservation of the freedom and prosperity with which America is identified.

2003 Ron Paul 6:91
This will not occur until we as a Nation once again understand how freedom serves the interests of everyone. Henry Grady Weaver, in his 1947 classic, “The Mainspring of Human Progress,” explains how it works. His thesis is simple. Liberty permits progress, while government intervention tends always to tyranny. Liberty releases creative energy; government intervention suppresses it. This release of energy was never greater than in the time following the American Revolution and the writing of the U.S. Constitution.

2003 Ron Paul 6:92
Instead of individual activity being controlled by the government or superstitious beliefs about natural and mystical events, the activity is controlled by the individual. This understanding recognizes the immense value in voluntary cooperation and enlightened self-interests. Freedom requires selfcontrol and moral responsibility. No one owes anyone else anything and everyone is responsible for his or her own acts. The principle of never harming one’s neighbor, or never sending the government to do the dirty work, is key to making the system tend to peaceful pursuits and away from the tyranny and majority-induced violence. Nothing short of a reaffirmation of this principle can restore the freedoms once guaranteed under the Constitution. Without this, prosperity for the masses is impossible; and as a Nation we become more vulnerable to outside threats.

2003 Ron Paul 6:93
In a Republic, the people are in charge. The Constitution provides strict restraints on the politicians, bureaucrats and the military. Everything the government is allowed to do is only done with explicit permission from the people or the Constitution.

2003 Ron Paul 6:94
Today, it is the opposite. The American people must get permission from the government for their every move, whether it is the use of their own property or spending their own money. Even the most serious decisions, such as going to war, are done while ignoring the Constitution and without a vote of the people’s representatives in the Congress. Members of the global government have more to say about when American troops are put in harm’s way than the U.S. Congress. The Constitution no longer restrains the government. The government restrains the people in all they do. This destroys individual creative energy, and the “mainspring of human progress” is lost. The consequences are less progress, less prosperity, and less personal fulfillment.

2003 Ron Paul 6:95
A system that rejects voluntary contracts, enlightened self-interests and individual responsibilities permits the government to assume these responsibilities. And the government officials become morally obligated to protect us from ourselves, attempting to make us better people and setting standards for our personal behavior. That effort is already in full swing. But if this attitude prevails, liberty is gone.

2003 Ron Paul 6:96
When government assumes the responsibility for individuals to achieve excellence and virtue, it does so at the expense of liberty and must resort to force and intimidation. Standards become completely arbitrary, depending on the attitude of those in power and the perceived opinion of the majority. Freedom of choice is gone. This leads to inevitable conflicts with the government dictating what one can eat, drink, smoke, or whatever. One group may promote abstinence, the other tax-supported condom distribution. Arguments over literature, prayer, pornography and sexual behavior are endless. It is now not even permissible to mention the word “God” on public property. A people who allows its government to set personal moral standards for all nonviolent behavior will naturally allow it to be involved in the more important aspects of spiritual life. For instance, there are tax deductions for churches that are politically correct, but not for those whose benefits are considered out of the mainstream.

2003 Ron Paul 6:97
Groups that do not meet the official politically correct standards are more likely to be put on the terrorist list.

2003 Ron Paul 6:98
This arbitrary and destructive approach to solving difficult problems must be rejected if we ever hope to live again in a society where the role of government is limited to that of protecting freedom.

2003 Ron Paul 6:99
The question I am most often asked when talking about this subject is why do our elected leaders so easily relinquish liberty and have so little respect for the Constitution? The people of whom I speak are convinced that liberty is good and big government is dangerous. They also are quite certain that we have drifted a long way from the principles that made America great, and their bewilderment continuously elicits a big “why?”

2003 Ron Paul 6:100
There is no easy answer to this and no single explanation. It involves temptation, envy, greed and ignorance, but worst of all humanitarian zeal. Unfortunately, the greater the humanitarian outreach, the greater the violence required to achieve it. The greater the desire to perform humanitarian deeds through legislation, the greater is the violence required to achieve it.

2003 Ron Paul 6:101
Few understand this. There are literally no limits to the good deeds that some believe need to be done. Rarely does anyone question how each humanitarian act by government undermines the essential element of all human progress: individual liberty.

2003 Ron Paul 6:102
Failure of government programs prompts more determined efforts, while the loss of liberty is ignored or rationalized away. Whether it is the war against poverty, drugs, terrorism, or the current Hitler of the day, an appeal to patriotism is used to convince the people that a little sacrifice, here and there, of liberty is a small price to pay.

2003 Ron Paul 6:103
The results, though, are frightening and will soon even become more so. Poverty has been made worse. The drug war is a bigger threat than drug use. Terrorism remains a threat, and foreign wars have become routine and decided upon without congressional approval.

2003 Ron Paul 6:104
Most of the damage to liberty and the Constitution is done by men and women of goodwill who are convinced they know what is best for the economy, others, and foreign powers. They inevitably fail to recognize their own arrogance in assuming they know what is the best personal behavior for others. Their failure to recognize the likelihood of mistakes by central planners allows them to ignore the magnitude of a flawed central government directive compared to an individual or a smaller unit of government mistake.

2003 Ron Paul 6:105
C.S. Lewis had an opinion on this subject: “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some times be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

2003 Ron Paul 6:106
A system that is based on majority vote rather than the strict rule of law encourages the few who thrive on power and exerting authority over other people’s lives, unlike the many driven by sincere humanitarian concerns. Our current system rewards those who respond to age-old human instincts of envy and greed as they gang up on those who produce. Those individuals who are tempted by the offer of power are quick to accommodate those who are the most demanding of government-giveaway programs and government contracts. These special interest groups notoriously come from both the poor and the rich, while the middle class is required to pay.

2003 Ron Paul 6:107
It is not a coincidence that in the times of rapid monetary debasement, the middle class suffers the most from the inflation and the job losses that monetary inflation brings. When inflation is severe, which it will become, the middle class can be completely wiped out. The stock market crash gives us a hint as to what is likely to come as this country is forced to pay for the excesses sustained over the past 30 years while operating under a fiat monetary system.

2003 Ron Paul 6:108
Eric Hoffer, the longshoreman philosopher, commented on this subject as well. “Absolute power corrupts even when exercised for humane purposes. The benevolent despot who sees himself as a shepherd of the people still demands from others the submissiveness of sheep.”

2003 Ron Paul 6:109
Good men driven by a desire for benevolence encourage the centralization of power. The corruptive temptation of power is made worse when domestic and international interventions go wrong and feed into the hate and envy that invade men’s souls when the love of liberty is absent.

2003 Ron Paul 6:110
Those of goodwill who work to help the downtrodden do so not knowing they are building a class of rulers who will become drunk with their own arrogance and a lust for power. Generally only a few in a society yield to the urge to dictate to others and seek power for the sake of power and then abuse it. Most members of society are complacent and respond to propaganda, but they unite in the democratic effort to rearrange the world in hopes of gaining benefits through coercive means and convince themselves they are helping their fellow man as well. A promise of security is a powerful temptation for many.

2003 Ron Paul 6:111
A free society, on the other hand, requires these same desires be redirected. The desire for power and authority must be over one’s self alone. The desire for security and prosperity should be directed inwardly rather than toward controlling others. We cannot accept the notion that the gang solution endorsed by the majority is the only option. Self-reliance and personal responsibility are crucial.

2003 Ron Paul 6:112
But there is also a problem with economic understanding. Economic ignorance about the shortcomings of central economic planning, excessive taxation and regulations, central bank manipulation of money, and credit and interest rates is pervasive in our Nation’s Capital. A large number of conservatives now forcefully argue that deficits do not matter. Spending programs never shrink no matter whether conservatives or liberals are in charge. Rhetoric favoring free trade is cancelled out by special interest protectionist measures. Support of international government agencies that manage trade such as the IMF, the World Bank, the WTO, and NAFTA politicizes international trade and eliminates any hope that free-trade capitalism will soon emerge.

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.

2003 Ron Paul 6:114
The current economic system of fiat money and interventionism, both domestic and international, serve to accommodate the unreasonable demands for government to take care of the people, and this, in turn, contributes to the worst of human instincts: authoritarian control by the few over the many.

2003 Ron Paul 6:115
We as a Nation have lost our understanding of how the free market provides the greatest prosperity for the greatest number. Not only have most of us forgotten about the invisible hand of Adam Smith, few have ever heard of Mises and Hayek and Rothbart, the individuals who understood exactly why all economic ups and downs in the 20th century occurred, as well as the cause of the collapse of the Soviet Union.

2003 Ron Paul 6:116
But worst of all we have lost our faith in freedom. Materialistic concerns and desire for security drive our national politics. This trend has been sharply accelerated since 9–11.

2003 Ron Paul 6:117
Understanding the connection between liberty, prosperity and security has been lost. The priorities are backwards. Prosperity and security come from liberty. Peace and the absence of war come from a consequence of liberty and free trade. The elimination of ignorance and restraints on do-goodism and authoritarianism in a civilized society can only be achieved through a contractual arrangement between the people and the government, in our case the U.S. Constitution. This document was the best ever devised for releasing the creative energy of a free people while strictly holding in check the destructive powers of government. Only the rule of law can constrain those who by human instinct look for a free ride while delivering power to those few, found in every society, whose only goal in life is a devilish desire to rule over others.

2003 Ron Paul 6:118
The rule of law in a republic protects free-market activity and private property ownership and provides for equal justice under the law. It is this respect for law and rights over government power that protects the mainspring of human progress from the enemies of liberty. Communists and other Socialists have routinely argued that the law is merely a tool of the powerful capitalists.

2003 Ron Paul 6:119
But they have it backwards. Under democracy and fascism, the pseudocapitalists write the laws that undermine the Constitution and jeopardize the rights and property of all citizens. They fail to realize that the real law, the Constitution, itself guarantees the rights and equal justice and permits capitalism, thus guaranteeing progress.

2003 Ron Paul 6:120
Arbitrary, ever-changing laws are the friends of dictators. Authoritarians argue constantly that the Constitution is a living document and that rigid obedience to ideological purity is the enemy that we should be most concerned about. They would have us believe that those who cherish strict obedience to the rule of law in the defense of liberty are wrong merely because they demand ideological purity. They fail to demand that their love of relative rights and pure democracy is driven by a rigid obedience to an ideology as well. The issue is never rigid beliefs versus reasonable friendly compromise. In politics it is always competition between two strongly held ideologies. The only challenge for men and women of goodwill is to decide the wisdom and truth of the ideologies offered.

2003 Ron Paul 6:121
Nothing short of restoring a republican form of government with strict adherence to the rule of law, and curtailing illegal government programs, will solve our current and evolving problems.

2003 Ron Paul 6:122
Eventually the solution will come with the passage of the liberty amendment. Once there is serious debate on this amendment, we will know that the American people are considering the restoration of the constitutional republic and a protection of individual liberty.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 7

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

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 28, 2003
End the Income Tax – Pass the Liberty Amendment


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.

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.

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. 

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. 

2003 Ron Paul 7:5
Income taxes not only diminish liberty, they retard economic growth by discouraging work and production. Our current tax system also forces Americans to waste valuable time and money on complacence with an ever-more complex tax code. The increased interest in flat-tax and national sales tax proposals, as well as the increasing number of small businesses that questioning the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS)  “withholding” system provides further proof that America is tired of the labyrinthine tax code. Americans are also increasingly fed up with an IRS that continues to ride roughshod over their civil liberties, despite recent “pro-taxpayer” reforms.

2003 Ron Paul 7:6
Mr. Speaker, America survived and prospered for 140 years without an income tax, and with a federal government that generally adhered to strictly constitutional functions, operating with modest excise revenues. The income tax opened the door to the era (and errors) of Big Government. I hope my colleagues will help close that door by cosponsoring the Liberty Amendment.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 8

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

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 28, 2003
Reduce Taxes On Senior Citizens


HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, 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.

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.

2003 Ron Paul 8:3
Instead of imposing ridiculous taxes on senior citizens, Congress should ensure the integrity of the Social Security trust fund by ending the practice of using trust fund moneys for other programs. In order to accomplish this goal I introduced the Social Security Preservation Act (H.R. 219), which ensures that all money in the Social Security trust fund is spent solely on Social Security. At a time when Congress’ inability to control spending is once again threatening the Social Security trust fund, the need for this legislation has never been greater. When the government taxes Americans to fund Social Security, it promises the American people that the money will be there for them when they retire. Congress has a moral obligation to keep that promise.

2003 Ron Paul 8:4
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to help free senior citizens from oppressive taxation by supporting my Senior Citizens’ Tax Elimination Act and my Social Security Beneficiary Tax Reduction Act. I also urge my colleagues to ensure that moneys from the Social Security trust fund are used solely for Social Security benefits and not wasted on frivolous government programs.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 9

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

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 29, 2003
Abolish Selective Service


2003 Ron Paul 9:1
Mr. Speaker, I am today introducing legislation to repeal the Selective Service Act and related parts of the US Code.  The Department of Defense, in response to recent calls to reinstate the draft, has confirmed that conscription serves no military need. This is only the most recent confirmation that the draft, and thus the Selective Service system, serves no military purpose. In 1999, then-Secretary of the Army Louis Caldera, in a speech before the National Press Club, admitted that “Today, with our smaller, post-Cold War armed forces, our stronger volunteer tradition and our need for longer terms of service to get a good return on the high, up-front training costs, it would be even harder to fashion a fair draft.”   

2003 Ron Paul 9:2
Obviously, if there is no military need for the draft, then there is no need for Selective Service registration.  Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, Selective Service registration is an outdated and outmoded system, which has been made obsolete by technological advances. 

2003 Ron Paul 9:3
In fact, in 1993 the Department of Defense issued a report stating that registration could be stopped “with no effect on military mobilization and no measurable effect on the time it would take to mobilize, and no measurable effect on military recruitment.” Yet the American taxpayer has been forced to spend over $500 million dollars on an outdated system “with no measurable effect on military mobilization!”

2003 Ron Paul 9:4
Shutting down Selective Service will give taxpayers a break without adversely affecting military efforts. Shutting down Selective Service will also end a program that violates the very principals of individual liberty our nation was founded upon.  The moral case against the draft was eloquently expressed by former President Ronald Regan in the publication Human Events in 1979:   “...it [conscription] rests on the assumption that your kids belong to the state. If we buy that assumption then it is for the state -- not for parents, the community, the religious institutions or teachers -- to decide who shall have what values and who shall do what work, when, where and how in our society. That assumption isn’t a new one. The Nazis thought it was a great idea .”

2003 Ron Paul 9:5
I hope all my colleagues to join me in working to shut down this un-American relic of a bygone era and help realize the financial savings and the gains to individual liberties that can be achieved by ending Selective Service registration.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 10

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

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 29, 2003
The Terror Immigration Elimination Act


2003 Ron Paul 10:1
Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the “Terror Immigration Elimination Act of 2003.”

2003 Ron Paul 10:2
The United States remains vulnerable to terrorist attacks more than a year after the tragedy of 9/11. Our borders remain porous - a virtual revolving door and welcome mat for those who would seek to harm us. This was never more evident than when news broke some time ago that the Immigration and Naturalization Service had actually renewed the visas for several of the 9/11 hijackers after the attack had taken place. We cannot prevent terrorism if we cannot keep terrorists out of our country.

2003 Ron Paul 10:3
That is why I am introducing the “Terror Immigration Elimination Act of 2003.” This bill will deny student and “diversity” visas to anyone coming from a country currently on the State Department’s list of terrorism-sponsoring countries.

2003 Ron Paul 10:4
It may seem shocking that citizens from these countries can even still receive these visas, but it is true. We must put a lock on this revolving door if we are going to protect Americans from the continuing threat of terrorism on our soil.

2003 Ron Paul 10:5
Further, Mr. Speaker, it is time we face reality regarding Saudi Arabia. We must remember that most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi nationals. Also, when al-Qaeda supporters were rounded up from Afghanistan and held at Camp X-Ray, reports showed that of the 158 prisoners more than one hundred were Saudi nationals. With such an evident level of involvement from Saudi nationals in these activities, it is quite obvious that the Saudi government is not doing all it can, or all it should, in resolving this urgent problem. Therefore, Saudi citizens will also be denied student and “diversity” visas to the United States under this bill.

2003 Ron Paul 10:6
Mr. Speaker, we need to take concrete and substantive steps to protect the United States and its citizens against further terrorist attacks. One such step is passage of this bill. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and I look forward to its passage.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 11

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

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 29, 2003
Social Security for American Citizens Only!


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!

2003 Ron Paul 11:2
Hard as it may be to believe, the Untied States Government already provides Social Security benefits to citizens of 17 other countries. Under current law, citizens of those countries covered by these agreements may have an easier time getting Social Security benefits than public school teachers or policemen!

2003 Ron Paul 11:3
Obviously, this program provides a threat to the already fragile Social Security system, and the threat is looming larger.  Just before Christmas, the press reported on a pending deal between the United States and the government of Mexico, which would make hundreds of thousands of Mexican citizens eligible for U.S. Social Security benefits.  Totalization is the centerpiece of this proposal, so even if a Mexican citizen did not work in the United States long enough to qualify for Social Security, the number of years worked in Mexico would be added to bring up the total and thus make the Mexican worker eligible for cash transfers from the United States.

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.

2003 Ron Paul 11:5
The proposed agreement is nothing more than a financial reward to those who have willingly and knowingly violated our own immigration laws. Talk about an incentive for illegal immigration! How many more would break the law to come to this country if promised U.S. government paychecks for life? Is creating a global welfare state on the back of the American taxpayer a good idea? The program also establishes a very disturbing precedent of U.S. foreign aid to individual citizens rather than to states.

2003 Ron Paul 11:6
Estimates of what this deal with the Mexican government would cost top one billion dollars per year. Supporters of the Social Security to Mexico deal may attempt to downplay the effect the agreement would have on the system, but actions speak louder than words: According to several press reports, the State Department and the Social Security Administration are already negotiating to build a new building in Mexico City to handle the expected rush of applicants for this new program!

2003 Ron Paul 11:7
As the system braces for a steep increase in those who will be drawing from the Social Security trust fund, it makes no sense to expand it into a global welfare system. Social Security was designed to provide support for retired American citizens who worked in the United States. We should be shoring up the system for those Americans who have paid in for decades, not expanding it to cover foreigners who have not.

2003 Ron Paul 11:8
It is long past time for Congress to stand up to the internationalist bureaucrats and start looking out for the American worker. I therefore call upon my colleagues to stop the use of the Social Security trust fund as yet another vehicle for foreign aid by cosponsoring the Social Security for American Citizens Only Act.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 12

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Expand Medicare MSA Program
5 February 2003

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, February 5, 2003


2003 Ron Paul 12:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation which enhances senior citizens’ ability to control their health care and use Medicare money to pay for prescription drugs. This legislation accomplishes these important goals by removing the numerical limitations and sunset provisions in the Medicare Medical Savings Account (MSAS) program so that all seniors can take advantage of the Medicare MSA option.

2003 Ron Paul 12:2
Medicare MSAs consist of a special savings account containing Medicare funds for seniors to use for their routine medical expenses, including prescription drug costs. Seniors in a Medicare MSA program are also provided with a catastrophic insurance policy to cover nonroutine expenses such as major surgery. Under an MSA plan, the choice of whether to use Medicare funds for prescription drug costs, or other services not available under traditional Medicare such as mammograms, are made by the senior, not by bureaucrats and politicians.

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.

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!

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.

2003 Ron Paul 12:6
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 cooking 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.

2003 Ron Paul 12:7
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to provide our senior citizens greater control of their health care, including the ability to use Medicare money to purchase prescription drugs by cosponsoring my legislation to expand the Medicare MSA program.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 13

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

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
February 5, 2003
The Family Education Freedom Act


2003 Ron Paul 13:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Family Education Freedom Act, a bill to empower millions of working and middle-class Americans to choose a non-public education for their children, as well as making it easier for  parents to actively participate in improving public schools. The Family Education Freedom Act accomplishes it goals by allowing American parents a tax credit of up to $3,000 for the expenses incurred in sending their child to private, public, parochial, other religious school, or for home schooling their children.

2003 Ron Paul 13:2
The Family Education Freedom Act returns the fundamental principal of a truly free economy to America’s education system: what the great economist Ludwig von Mises called “consumer sovereignty”. Consumer sovereignty simply means consumers decide who succeeds or fails in the market. Businesses that best satisfy consumer demand will be the most successful. Consumer sovereignty is the means by which the free market maximizes human happiness.

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.

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.

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.

2003 Ron Paul 13:6
The $3,000 tax credit will make a better education affordable for millions of parents. Mr. Speaker, many parents who would choose to send their children to private, religious, or parochial schools are unable to afford the tuition, in large part because of the enormous tax burden imposed on the American family by Washington.

2003 Ron Paul 13:7
The Family Education Freedom Act also benefits parents who choose to send their children to public schools. Parents of children in public schools may use this credit to help improve their local schools by helping finance the purchase of  educational tools such as computers or to ensure their local schools can offer enriching extracurricular activities such as  music programs. Parents of public school students may also wish to use the credit to pay for special services, such as tutoring, for their children.

2003 Ron Paul 13:8
Increasing parental control of education is superior to funneling more federal tax dollars, followed by greater federal control, into the schools. According a 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.

2003 Ron Paul 13:9
Clearly, enactment of the Family Education Freedom Act is the best thing this Congress could do to improve public education. Furthermore, a greater reliance on parental expenditures rather than government tax dollars will help make the public schools into true community schools that reflect the wishes of parents and the interests of the students.

2003 Ron Paul 13:10
The Family Education Freedom Act will also aid those parents who choose to educate their children at home. Home schooling has become an increasingly popular, and successful, method of educating children. Home schooled children out-perform their public school peers by 30 to 37 percentile points across all subjects on nationally standardized achievement exams. Home schooling parents spend thousands of dollars annually, in addition to the wages forgone by the spouse who forgoes outside employment, in order to educate their children in the loving environment of the home.

2003 Ron Paul 13:11
Ultimately, Mr. Speaker, this bill is about freedom. Parental control of child rearing, especially education, is one of the bulwarks of liberty. No nation can remain free when the state has greater influence over the knowledge and values transmitted to children than the family.

2003 Ron Paul 13:12
By moving to restore the primacy of parents to education, the Family Education Freedom Act will not only improve America’s education, it will restore a parent’s right to choose how best to educate one’s own child, a fundamental freedom that has been eroded by the increase in federal education expenditures and the corresponding decrease in the ability of parents to provide for their children’s education out of their own pockets. I call on all my colleagues to join me in allowing parents to devote more of their resources to their children’s education and less to feed the wasteful Washington bureaucracy by supporting the Family Education Freedom Act.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 14

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

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
February 5, 2003
Teacher Tax Cut Act


2003 Ron Paul 14:1
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce two pieces of legislation that raise the pay of teachers and other educators by cutting their taxes. I am sure that all my colleagues agree that it is long past time to begin treating those who have dedicated their lives to educating America’s children with the respect they deserve. Compared to other professionals, educators are under-appreciated and under-paid. This must change if America is to have the finest education system in the world!

2003 Ron Paul 14:2
Quality education is impossible without quality teaching. If we continue to undervalue educators, it will become harder to attract, and keep, good people in the education profession. While educators’ pay is primarily a local issue, Congress can, and should, help raise educators’ take home pay by reducing educators’ taxes.

2003 Ron Paul 14:3
This is why I am introducing the Teachers Tax Cut Act. This legislation provides every teacher in America with a $1,000 tax credit. I am also introducing the Professional Educators Tax Relief Act, which extends the $1,000 tax credit to counselors, librarians, and all school personnel involved in any aspect of the K-12 academic program.

2003 Ron Paul 14:4
The Teacher Tax Cut Act and the Professional Educators Tax Relief Act increase the salaries of teachers and other education professionals without raising federal expenditures. By raising the take-home pay of professional educators, these bills encourage highly qualified people to enter, and remain in, education. These bills also let America’s professional educators know that the American people and the Congress respect their work.

2003 Ron Paul 14:5
I hope all my colleagues join me in supporting our nation’s teachers and other professional educators by cosponsoring the Teacher Tax Cut Act and the Professional Educators Tax Relief Act.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 15

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Hope Plus Scholarship Act
5 February 2003

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, February 5, 2003


2003 Ron Paul 15:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Hope Plus Scholarship Act, which extends the HOPE scholarship tax credit to K–12 education expenses. Under this bill, parents could use the HOPE Scholarship to pay for private or religious school tuition or to offset the cost of home schooling. In addition, under the bill, all Americans could use the Hope Scholarship to make cash or in-kind donations to public schools. Thus, the Hope Scholarship could help working parents finally afford to send their child to a private school, while other parents could take advantage of the Hope credit to help purchase new computers for their children’s school. I urge my colleagues to join with me in returning education resources to the American people by cosponsoring my Hope Plus Scholarship Act.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 16

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

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
February 5, 2003
Education Improvement Tax Cut Act


2003 Ron Paul 16:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Education Improvement Tax Cut Act. This act, a companion to my Family Education Freedom Act, takes a further step toward returning control over education resources to private citizens by providing a $3,000 tax credit for donations to scholarship funds to enable low-income children to attend private schools. It also encourages private citizens to devote more of their resources to helping public schools, by providing a $3,000 tax credit for cash or in-kind donations to public schools to support academic or extra curricular programs.

2003 Ron Paul 16:2
I need not remind my colleagues that education is one of the top priorities of the American people. After all, many members of Congress have proposed education reforms and a great deal of time is spent debating these proposals. However, most of these proposals either expand federal control over education or engage in the pseudo-federalism of  block grants. Many proposals that claim to increase local control over education actually extend federal power by  holding schools “accountable” to federal bureaucrats and politicians. Of course, schools should be held accountable for their results, but they should be held accountable to parents and school boards not to federal officials. Therefore, I propose we move in a different direction and embrace true federalism by returning control over the education dollar to the American people.

2003 Ron Paul 16:3
One of the major problems with centralized control over education funding is that spending priorities set by Washington-based Representatives, staffers, and bureaucrats do not necessarily match the needs of individual   communities. In fact, it would be a miracle if spending priorities determined by the wishes of certain politically powerful representatives or the theories of Education Department functionaries match the priorities of every community in a country as large and diverse as America. Block grants do not solve this problem as they simply allow states and localities   to choose the means to reach federally-determined ends.

2003 Ron Paul 16:4
Returning control over the education dollar for tax credits for parents and for other concerned citizens returns control  over both the means and ends of education policy to local communities. People in one community may use this credit to purchase computers, while children in another community may, at last, have access to a quality music program because of community leaders who took advantage of the tax credit contained in this bill.

2003 Ron Paul 16:5
Children in some communities may benefit most from the opportunity to attend private, parochial, or other religious  schools. One of the most encouraging trends in education has been the establishment of private scholarship programs.  These scholarship funds use voluntary contributions to open the doors of quality private schools to low-income children. By providing a tax credit for donations to these programs, Congress can widen the educational opportunities and   increase the quality of education for all children. Furthermore, privately-funded scholarships raise none of the concerns of state entanglement raised by publicly-funded vouchers.

2003 Ron Paul 16:6
There is no doubt that Americans will always spend generously on education, the question is who should control the education dollar- politicians and bureaucrats or the American people?  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in placing control of education back in the hands of citizens and local communities by sponsoring the Education  Improvement Tax Cut Act.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 17

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

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
February 11, 2003
Prescription Drug Affordability Act


2003 Ron Paul 17:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Prescription Drug Affordability Act. This legislation ensures that millions of Americans, including seniors, have access to affordable pharmaceutical products. My bill makes pharmaceuticals more affordable to seniors by  reducing their taxes. It also removes needless government barriers to importing    pharmaceuticals and it protects Internet pharmacies, which are making affordable  prescription drugs available to millions of Americans, from being strangled by federal   regulation.

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.

2003 Ron Paul 17:3
Mr. Speaker, I do wish to clarify that this tax credit is intended to supplement the efforts to reform and strengthen the Medicare system to ensure seniors have the ability to use Medicare funds to purchase prescription drugs. I am a strong supporter of strengthening the Medicare system to allow for more choice and consumer control, including structural reforms that will allow seniors to use Medicare funds to cover the costs of prescription  drugs. In addition to making prescription medications more affordable for seniors, my bill lowers  the price for prescription medicines by reducing barriers to the importation of FDA-approved pharmaceuticals. Under my bill, anyone wishing to import a drug simply submits an application to the FDA, which then must approve the drug unless the FDA finds the drug is either not approved for use in the US or is adulterated or misbranded.  This process will make safe and affordable imported medicines affordable to millions of Americans. Mr. Speaker, letting the free market work is the best means of lowering the cost of prescription drugs.

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.

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.

2003 Ron Paul 17:6
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to make pharmaceuticals more affordable and accessible by lowering taxes on senior citizens, removing barriers to the importation of pharmaceuticals and protecting legitimate Internet pharmacies from needless regulation by cosponsoring the Prescription Drug Affordability Act.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 18

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Middle East Conflict
11 February 2003

2003 Ron Paul 18:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly must oppose this resolution.

2003 Ron Paul 18:2
Though I am sure this resolution commending Israel for holding free elections was introduced with the best intentions, this legislation unfortunately goes further than a simple commendation. The legislation as written will only once again inject the United States into the decades-old and intractable conflict in the Middle East. By commending Israel while at the same time demanding that the Palestinians take specific actions, this legislation places the United States squarely in the middle of a conflict that has absolutely nothing to do with American interests. Also, the resolution states that the United States is committed to secure peace for Israel. We cannot afford nor are we constitutionally permitted to play referee in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and securing peace for any country but the United States is not the role of this body.

2003 Ron Paul 18:3
We must resist the temptation to meddle in the affairs of far-away nations no matter how good our intentions may be. If we are to keep our Constitutional republic we must uphold the wise counsel of those who crafted our founding set of laws.

2003 Ron Paul 18:4
Thomas Jefferson summed up the foreign policy position we must uphold in his 1801 inaugural address: “People, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none.” How many champion Jefferson and the Constitution, but conveniently ignore both when it comes to American foreign policy? Washington similarly urged that the U.S. must “Act for ourselves and not for others,” by forming an “American character wholly free of foreign attachments.” Do so many on Capitol Hill now believe Washington was wrong?

2003 Ron Paul 18:5
Mr. Speaker, how many more times must we place ourselves and our country at risk by taking one side or other in battles, wars, and conflicts that have nothing to do with the United States, and where anger toward the United States will inevitably result? I urge my colleagues to uphold the Constitution and vote against this unfortunately-worded resolution.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 19

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Condemning The Selection Of Libya To Chair The United Nations Commission On Human Rights
11 February 2003

SPEECH OF
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, February 11, 2003


2003 Ron Paul 19:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I must reluctantly vote against this measure. We can all agree that Libya is a ridiculous choice to head a human rights commission in any civilized organization. The State Department has long listed Libya on its list of states sponsoring terrorism. Libya has shown over the years that it has no respect whatsoever for human rights, when it comes to its dealings with the rest of the world or even its own citizens. Additionally, this election just underscores what I have been saying for years about the United Nations: it is an organization that undermines American sovereignty and consistently works against U.S. interests.

2003 Ron Paul 19:2
The problem with this legislation, however, is that it pretends to be something it is not. It pretends to be simply a condemnation of the elevation of Libya to head the UN Commission on Human Rights. Were that the case I would have voted in favor of the measure.

2003 Ron Paul 19:3
But unfortunately the legislation ventures off course from there. The legislation calls on the president to demand that sanctions against Libya be initiated anew, after they had already been suspended. I do not believe that sanctions have ever hurt a dictator or repressive regime. On the contrary, sanctions against an authoritarian regime only give the leaders a scapegoat for the sufferings of their people — while the leadership itself manages to avoid any hardship. Sanctions do not lead to the defeat of these kinds of regimes, but actually strengthen them.

2003 Ron Paul 19:4
Cuba is an excellent example: the United States has maintained sanctions against that nation for four decades, but its dictator is stronger than ever. The best way to break the hold of dictatorship on a country is to engage and trade with that country. Trade with a repressive regime brings in goods and ideas that undermine the hold of the ruling elites on power. It breaks the monopolization on economic activity that characterizes a closed society and economic system. It weakens dictatorships and it enriches the population.

2003 Ron Paul 19:5
Mr. Speaker, I join my fellow members in condemning Libya’s election to chair the UN Human Rights Committee. I do not support sanctions, be they against Libya or any other country.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 20

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Do-Not-Call Implementation Act
12 February 2003

SPEECH OF
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday February 12, 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.

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.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 21

Ron Paul’s Congressional website HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
February 13, 2003
Support Medical Savings Accounts for Medicare


2003 Ron Paul 21:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation that enhances senior citizens’ ability to control their health care and use Medicare money to pay for prescription drugs.  This legislation accomplishes these important goals by removing the numerical limitations and sunset provisions in the Medicare Medical Savings Account (MSAS) program so that all seniors can take advantage of the Medicare MSA option.

2003 Ron Paul 21:2
Medicare MSAs consist of a special savings account containing Medicare funds for seniors to use for routine medical expenses, including prescription drugs. Seniors in a Medicare MSA program are also provided with a catastrophic insurance policy to cover non-routine expenses such as major surgery. Under an MSA plan, the choice of whether to use Medicare funds for prescription drug costs, or other services not available under traditional Medicare such as mammograms, are made by seniors, not by bureaucrats and politicians.

2003 Ron Paul 21:3
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.

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.

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!

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.

2003 Ron Paul 21:7
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.

2003 Ron Paul 21:8
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to provide our senior citizens greater control of their health care, including the ability to use Medicare money to purchase prescription drugs, by cosponsoring legislation to expand the Medicare MSA program.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 22

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

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Oppose the Federal Welfare State
February 13, 2003

2003 Ron Paul 22:1
Mr. Speaker, no one can deny that welfare programs have undermined America’s moral fabric and constitutional system. Therefore, all those concerned with restoring liberty and protecting civil society from the maw of the omnipotent state should support efforts to eliminate the welfare state, or, at the very least, reduce federal control over the provision of social services. Unfortunately, the misnamed Personal Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act (H.R. 4) actually increases the unconstitutional federal welfare state and thus undermines personal responsibility, the work ethic, and the family.

2003 Ron Paul 22:2
H.R. 4 reauthorizes the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) block grant program, the main federal welfare program. Mr. Speaker, increasing federal funds always increases federal control, as the recipients of the funds must tailor their programs to meet federal mandates and regulations. More importantly, since federal funds represent resources taken out of the hands of private individuals, increasing federal funding leaves fewer resources available for the voluntary provision of social services, which, as I will explain in more detail later, is a more effective, moral, and constitutional means of meeting the needs of the poor.

2003 Ron Paul 22:3
H.R. 4 further increases federal control over welfare policy by increasing federal mandates on welfare recipients. This bill even goes so far as to dictate to states how they must spend their own funds! Many of the new mandates imposed by this legislation concern work requirements. Of course, Mr. Speaker, there is a sound argument for requiring recipients of welfare benefits to work. Among other benefits, a work requirement can help welfare recipients obtain useful job skills and thus increase the likelihood that they will find productive employment. However, forcing welfare recipients to work does raise valid concerns regarding how much control over one’s life should be ceded to the government in exchange for government benefits.

2003 Ron Paul 22:4
In addition, Mr. Speaker, it is highly unlikely that a “one-size-fits-all” approach dictated from Washington will meet the diverse needs of every welfare recipient in every state and locality in the nation. Proponents of this bill claim to support allowing states, localities, and private charities the flexibility to design welfare-to-work programs that fit their particular circumstances. Yet, this proposal constricts the ability of the states to design welfare-to-work programs that meet the unique needs of their citizens. I also question the wisdom of imposing as much as $11 billion in unfunded mandates on the states at a time when many are facing a fiscal crisis.

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?

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.

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.

2003 Ron Paul 22:8
H.R. 4 further raises serious privacy concerns by expanding the use of the “New Hires Database” to allow states to use the database to verify unemployment claims. The New Hires Database contains the name and social security number of everyone lawfully employed in the United States. Increasing the states’ ability to identify fraudulent unemployment claims is a worthwhile public policy goal. However, every time Congress authorizes a new use for the New Hires Database it takes a step toward transforming it into a universal national database that can be used by government officials to monitor the lives of American citizens.

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.

2003 Ron Paul 22:10
Today, government welfare programs have supplemented the old-style private programs. One major reason for this is that the policies of high taxes and inflationary Federal Reserve money imposed on the American people in order to finance the welfare state have reduced the income available for charitable giving. Many over-taxed Americans take the attitude toward private charity that “I give at the (tax) office.”

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.”

2003 Ron Paul 22:12
Voluntary charities also promote self-reliance, but government welfare programs foster dependency. In fact, it is in the self-interest of the bureaucrats and politicians who control the welfare state to encourage dependency. After all, when a private organization moves a person off welfare, the organization has fulfilled its mission and proved its worth to donors. In contrast, when people leave government welfare programs, they have deprived federal bureaucrats of power and of a justification for a larger amount of taxpayer funding.

2003 Ron Paul 22:13
In conclusion, H.R. 4 furthers federal control over welfare programs by imposing new mandates on the states, which furthers unconstitutional interference in matters best left to state and local governments, and individuals. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose it. Instead, I hope my colleagues will learn the lessons of the failure of the welfare state and embrace a constitutional and compassionate agenda of returning control over the welfare programs to the American people.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 23

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Introducing United States Korea Normalization Resolution Of 2003
13 February 2003

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, February 13, 2003


2003 Ron Paul 23:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the United States-Korea Normalization Resolution of 2003.

2003 Ron Paul 23:2
Sixty years ago American troops fought in a United Nations “police action” on the Korean Peninsula. More than 50,000 Americans lost their lives. Sixty years later, some 37,000 U.S. troops remain in South Korea, facing a North Korean army of nearly a million persons. After 60 years, we can no longer afford this commitment.

2003 Ron Paul 23:3
The U.S. defense guarantee of South Korea costs more than $3 billion per year in direct costs and approximately $12 billion per year in total costs. Total U.S. aid to South Korea has exceeded $14 billion since the war.

2003 Ron Paul 23:4
But South Korea of today is not the Korea of 1950. Today’s South Korea is a modem, industrialized, economic powerhouse; it has a gross domestic product more than 40 times that of communist North Korea. It has a military more than 700,000 persons strong. Nor is it at all clear that the continued U.S. military presence is necessary — or desired.

2003 Ron Paul 23:5
Not long ago, incoming South Korean President Roh Moo-huyn, recognizing that the current tension is primarily between the United States and North Korea, actually offered to serve as a mediator between the two countries. It is an astonishing move considering that it is the United States that provides South Korea a security guarantee against the North. Additionally, it is becoming more obvious every day that with the man on the South Korean street, the United States military presence in their country is not desired and in fact viewed as a threat.

2003 Ron Paul 23:6
We cannot afford to continue guaranteeing South Korea’s borders when we cannot defend our own borders and when our military is stretched to the breaking point. We cannot continue subsidizing South Korea’s military when it is clear that South Korea has the wherewithal to pay its own way. We cannot afford to keep our troops in South Korea when it is increasingly clear that they are actually having a destabilizing effect and may be hindering a North-South rapprochement.

2003 Ron Paul 23:7
That is why I am introducing the United States-Korea Normalization Resolution, which expresses the sense of Congress that, 60 years after the Korean War, the U.S. security guarantee to South Korea should end, as should the stationing of American troops in South Korea.

2003 Ron Paul 23:8
I hope my colleagues will join me by supporting and co-sponsoring this legislation.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 24

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

Another United Nations War
25 February 2003

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

2003 Ron Paul 24:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, President Bush, Sr., proudly spoke of “The New World Order,” a term used by those who promote one-world government under the United Nations. In going to war in 1991, he sought and received U.N. authority to push Iraqi forces out of Kuwait. He forcefully stated that this U.N. authority was adequate and that although a congressional resolution was acceptable, it was entirely unnecessary and he would proceed regardless. At that time, there was no discussion regarding a congressional declaration of war. The first Persian Gulf War, therefore, was clearly a U.N. political war fought within U.N. guidelines, not for U.S. security; and it was not fought through to victory. The bombings, sanctions, and harassment of the Iraqi people have never stopped. We are now about to resume the act of fighting. Although this is referred to as the Second Persian Gulf War, it is merely a continuation of a war started long ago and is likely to continue for a long time, even after Saddam Hussein is removed from power.

2003 Ron Paul 24:2
Our attitude toward the United Nations is quite different today compared to 1991. I have argued for years against our membership in the United Nations because it compromises our sovereignty. The U.S. has always been expected to pay an unfair percentage of U.N. expenses. I contend that membership in the United Nations has led to impractical military conflicts that were highly costly, both in lives and dollars, and that were rarely resolved.

2003 Ron Paul 24:3
Our 58 years in Korea have seen 33,000 lives lost, 100,000 casualties and over $1 trillion in today’s dollars spent. Korea is the most outrageous example of our fighting a U.N. war without a declaration from the U.S. Congress. And where are we today? On the verge of a nuclear confrontation with a North Korean regime nearly out of control. And to compound the irony, the South Koreans are intervening in hopes of diminishing the tensions that exist between the United States and North Korea.

2003 Ron Paul 24:4
As bad as the Vietnam nightmare was, at least we left and the U.N. was not involved. We left in defeat and Vietnam remained a unified, Communist country. The results have been much more salutary. Vietnam is now essentially non-Communist and trade with the West is routine. We did not disarm Vietnam; we never counted their weapons; and so far, no one cares. Peaceful relations have developed between our two countries not by force of arms, but through trade and friendship. No United Nations, no war, and no inspections served us well, even after many decades of war and a million deaths inflicted on the Vietnamese in an effort by both the French and the United States to force them into compliance with Western demands.

2003 Ron Paul 24:5
In this new battle with Iraq, our relationship with the United Nations and our allies is drawing a lot of attention. The administration now says it would be nice to have U.N. support, but it is not necessary. The President argues that a unilateralist approach is permissible with his understanding of national sovereignty, but no mention is made of the fact that the authority to go to war is not a U.N. prerogative and that such authority can only come from the U.S. Congress.

2003 Ron Paul 24:6
Although the argument that the United Nations cannot dictate to us what is in our best interests is correct, and we do have a right to pursue foreign policy unilaterally, it is ironic that we are making this declaration in order to pursue an unpopular war that very few people or governments throughout the world support.

2003 Ron Paul 24:7
But the argument for unilateralism and national sovereignty cannot be made for the purpose of enforcing U.N. security resolutions. That does not make any sense. If one wants to enforce U.N. Security Council resolutions, that authority can only come from the United Nations itself. We end up with the worst of both worlds, hated for our unilateralism, but still lending credibility to the United Nations.

2003 Ron Paul 24:8
The Constitution makes it clear that if we must counter a threat to our security, that authority must come from the U.S. Congress.

2003 Ron Paul 24:9
Those who believe, and many sincerely do, that the United Nations serves a useful function, argue that ignoring the United Nations at this juncture will surely make it irrelevant. Even with my opposition to the United Nations, I can hardly be pleased that its irrelevancy might come about because of our rush to war against a nation that has not aggressed against us nor poses any threat to us.

2003 Ron Paul 24:10
From my viewpoint, the worst scenario would be for the United Nations to sanction this war, which may well occur if we offer enough U.S. taxpayer money and Iraqi oil to the reluctant countries. If that happens, we could be looking at another 58-year occupation, expanded Middle East chaos, or a dangerous spread of hostility to all of Asia or even further.

2003 Ron Paul 24:11
With regard to foreign affairs, the best advice comes from our Founders and the Constitution. It is better to promote peace and commerce with all nations and exclude ourselves from the entangling alliances and complex, unworkable alliances that comes from our membership in the United Nations.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 25

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Emancipation Proclamation
26 February 2003

2003 Ron Paul 25:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support H. Con. Res. 36. Friends of human liberty should celebrate the end of slavery in any country. The end of American slavery is particularly worthy of recognition since there are few more blatant violations of America’s founding principles, as expressed in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, than slavery. In order to give my colleagues, and all Americans, the opportunity to see what President Lincoln did and did not do, I am inserting the Emancipation Proclamation into the RECORD.

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.”

2003 Ron Paul 25:3
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I encourage all freedom-loving Americans to join me in celebrating the end of slavery.

2003 Ron Paul 25:4
THE EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION
By the President of the United States of America:
A PROCLAMATION Whereas on the 22nd day of September, A.D. 1862, a proclamation was issued by the President of the United States, containing, among other things, the following, to wit:

2003 Ron Paul 25:5
“That on the 1st day of January, A.D. 1863, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.

2003 Ron Paul 25:6
“That the executive will on the 1st day of January aforesaid, by proclamation, designate the States and parts of States, if any, in which the people thereof, respectively, shall then be in rebellion against the United States; and the fact that any State or the people thereof shall on that day be in good faith represented in the Congress of the United States by members chosen thereto at elections wherein a majority of the qualified voters of such States shall have participated shall, in the absence of strong countervailing testimony, be deemed conclusive evidence that such State and the people thereof are not then in rebellion against the United States.”

2003 Ron Paul 25:7
Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-In-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion, do, on this 1st day of January, A.D. 1863, and in accordance with my purpose so to do, publicly proclaimed for the full period of one hundred days from the first day above mentioned, order and designate as the States and parts of States wherein the people thereof, respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States the following, to wit:

2003 Ron Paul 25:8
Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana (except the parishes of St. Bernard, Palquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James, Ascension, Assumption, Terrebone, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the city of New Orleans), Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia (except the fortyeight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkeley, Accomac, Northhampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Anne, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth), and which excepted parts are for the present left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.

2003 Ron Paul 25:9
And by virtue of the power and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States and parts of States are, and henceforward shall be, free; and that the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons.

2003 Ron Paul 25:10
And I hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defence; and I recommend to them that, in all case when allowed, they labor faithfully for reasonable wages.

2003 Ron Paul 25:11
And I further declare and make known that such persons of suitable condition will be received into the armed serivce of the United States to garrison forts, positions, stations, and other places, and to man vessels of all sorts in said service.

2003 Ron Paul 25:12
And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution upon military necessity, I invoke the considerate judgment of mankind and the gracious favor of Almighty God.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 26

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Stem Cell research
27 February 2003

2003 Ron Paul 26:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, these words are from Frederic Bastiat’s The Law. They are prophetic, not only in the way they describe legislators’ attempts to transform society through socialized economic planning, but also in the analogy to the current moral issue before us today: human cloning.

2003 Ron Paul 26:2
Human life begins at conception. This fact is not a matter of faith. Every contemporary textbook of human embryology teaches that the life of the new individual human being begins at fertilization. When an embryo is cloned, a distinct human being is created: if implanted into a woman’s uterus, he or she grows into a human being. Those who deny the humanity of the “embryo” simply deny the facts.

2003 Ron Paul 26:3
Today we see another instance of the legislator playing God, viewing himself as Bastiat’s farmer or chemist. But human embryos are not just some “seeds” for the “farmers” to scatter! I ask those of you wishing to use taxpayer dollars to fund human cloning: Were you not once at this very stage of life? Is not each of you a developed embryo? And to those who view cloning and the accompanying destruction of humans at the embryonic stage of life as morally acceptable, I ask this, Are you aware that it took 277 attempts to clone Dolly the sheep, and when she finally was born, she was defective and died soon after? We must shudder to think of what this kind of experimentation implies for humans. Many ignore that a human is not cloned by simply waving a magic wand — rather, embryos are experimented upon and then discarded before a human is created via cloning. Many prolifers mistakenly attack the act of cloning, when what they should address is the discarding of humans at the embryonic stage of development that precedes the act of cloning.

2003 Ron Paul 26:4
Today we have before us a bill that attempts to protect innocent human life from legislators wishing to exploit it. Though well intentioned, Congress does not have authority under the Constitution to create a federal law banning cloning and the accompanying destruction of human life. The separation and enumeration of powers reserves to the states and local governments the power to write and enforce laws that protect life. If this bill instead were introduced as a constitutional amendment banning the destruction and discarding of human embryos, it would both accomplish its purpose and, equally important, hold to the letter of the law.

2003 Ron Paul 26:5
In Congress we can either pass an unconstitutional ban on cloning, or we can abide by the law and not pass the ban, as bureaucrats continue to have control over human cloning and use of taxpayer funds to destroy human life. These bureaucrats seem to have no difficulty violating the consciences of those who recognize cloning experimentation for what it is. What is to be done? I fear the answer to this question, and its implications, will continue to haunt us in the months and years to come, whether or not this federal ban on human cloning passes. Mr. Speaker, when we last considered this issue I placed the following statement in the RECORD and wish to do so once again.

2003 Ron Paul 26:6
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today we’re being asked to choose between two options dealing with the controversies surrounding cloning and stem cell research. As an obstetrician gynecologist with 30 years of experience with strong pro-life convictions I find this debate regarding stem cell research and human cloning offtrack, dangerous, and missing some very important points. This debate is one of the most profound ethical issues of all times. It has moral, religious, legal, and ethical overtones. However, this debate is as must about process as it is the problem we are trying to solve.

2003 Ron Paul 26:7
This dilemma demonstrates so clearly why difficult problems like this are made much more complex when we accept the notion that a powerful centralized state should provide the solution, while assuming it can be done precisely and without offending either side, which is a virtual impossibility.

2003 Ron Paul 26:8
Centralized governments’ solutions inevitably compound the problem we’re trying to solve. The solution is always found to be offensive to those on the losing side of the debate. It requires that the loser contribute through tax payments to implement the particular program and ignores the unintended consequences that arise. Mistakes are nationalized when we depend on Presidential orders or a new federal law. The assumption that either one is capable of quickly resolving complex issues is unfounded. We are now obsessed with finding a quick fix for this difficult problem.

2003 Ron Paul 26:9
Since federal funding has already been used to promote much of the research that has inspired cloning technology, no one can be sure that voluntary funds would have been spent in the same manner. There are many shortcomings of cloning and I predict there are more to come. Private funds may well have flowed much more slowly into this research than when the government/taxpayer does the funding. The notion that one person, i.e., the President, by issuing a President order can instantly stop or start major research is frightening. Likewise, the U.S. Congress is no more likely to do the right thing than the President by rushing to pass a new federal law. Political wisdom in dealing with highly charged and emotional issues is not likely to be found.

2003 Ron Paul 26:10
The idea that the taxpayer must fund controversial decisions, whether it be stem cell research, or performing abortion overseas, I find repugnant. The original concept of the republic was much more suited to sort out the pros and cons of such a difficult issue. It did so with the issue of capital punishment. It did so, until 1973, with the issue of abortion. As with many other issues it has done the same but now unfortunately, most difficult problems are nationalized.

2003 Ron Paul 26:11
Decentralized decision making and privatized funding would have gone a long way in preventing the highly charged emotional debate going on today regarding cloning and stem cell research.

2003 Ron Paul 26:12
There is danger in a blanket national prohibition of some questionable research in an effort to protect what is perceived as legitimate research. Too often there are unintended consequences. National legalization of cloning and financing discredits life and insults those who are forced to pay. Even a national law prohibiting cloning legitimizes national approach that can later be used to undermine this original intent. This national approach rules out states from passing any meaningful legislation and regulation on these issues.

2003 Ron Paul 26:13
There are some medical questions not yet resolved and careless legislation may impede legitimate research and use of fetal tissue. For instance, should a spontaneously aborted fetus, non-viable, not be used for stem cell research or organ transplant? Should a live fetus from an ectopic pregnancy removed and generally discarded not be used in research? How is a spontaneous abortion of an embryo or fetus different from an embryo conceived in a dish?

2003 Ron Paul 26:14
Being pro-life and pro-research makes the question profound and I might say best not answered by political demagogues, executive orders or emotional hype. How do problems like this get resolved in a free society where government power is strictly limited and kept local? Not easily, and not perfectly, but I am confident it would be much better than through centralized and arbitrary authority initiated by politicians responding to emotional arguments. For a free society to function, the moral standards of the people are crucial. Personal morality, local laws, and medical ethics should prevail in dealing with a subject such as this. This law, the government, the bureaucrats, the politicians can’t make the people more moral in making these judgments.

2003 Ron Paul 26:15
Laws inevitably reflect the morality or immorality of the people. The Supreme Court did not usher in the 60s revolution that undermined the respect for all human life and liberty. Instead, the people’s attitude of the 60s led to the Supreme Court Roe vs. Wade ruling in 1973 and contributed to a steady erosion of personal liberty. If a centralized government is incapable of doing the right thing, what happens when the people embrace immorality and offer no voluntary ethical approach to difficult questions such as cloning? The government then takes over and predictably makes things much worse. The government cannot instill morality in the people. An apathetic and immoral society inspires centralized, rigid answers while the many consequences to come are ignored. Unfortunately, once centralized government takes charge, the real victim becomes personal liberty.

2003 Ron Paul 26:16
What can be done? The first step Congress should take is to stop all funding of research for cloning and other controversial issues. Obviously all research in a free society should be done privately, thus preventing this type of problem. If this policy were to be followed, instead of less funding being available for research, there would actually be more.

2003 Ron Paul 26:17
Second, the President should issue no Executive Order because under the Constitution he does not have the authority either to promote or stop any particular research nor does the Congress. And third, there should be no sacrifice of life. Local law officials are responsible for protecting life or should not participate in its destruction. We should continue the ethical debate and hope that the medical leaders would voluntarily do the self-policing that is required in a moral society. Local laws, under the Constitution, could be written and the reasonable ones could then set the standard for the rest of the nation.

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.

2003 Ron Paul 26:19
If the problem is that our society lacks moral standards and governments can’t impose moral standards, hardly will this effort to write more laws solve this perplexing and intriguing question regarding the cloning of a human being and stem cell research. Neither option offered today regarding cloning provides a satisfactory solution. Unfortunately, the real issue is being ignored.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 27

Ron Paul’s Congressional website HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
February 28, 2003
The Financial Services Committee’s Terrible Blueprint for 2004


2003 Ron Paul 27:1
Supporters of limited, constitutional government and free markets will find little, if anything, to view favorably in the Financial Services Committee’s “Views and Estimates for Fiscal Year 2004.”   Almost every policy endorsed in this document is unconstitutional and a threat to the liberty and prosperity of the American people.

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!

2003 Ron Paul 27:3
The committee shows complete disregard for the American taxpayer and the United Sates Constitution by embracing increases in foreign aid. Congress has neither constitutional nor moral authority to take money from the American people and send it overseas. Furthermore, foreign aid rarely improves the standard of living of the citizens of the “beneficiary” countries. Instead, the aid all too often enriches corrupt politicians and helps stave off pressure for real reform. Furthermore, certain proposals embraced by the committee smack of economic imperialism, suggesting that if a country’s economic and other policies please American politicians and bureaucrats, they will be rewarded with money stolen from American taxpayers.

2003 Ron Paul 27:4
The committee also expresses unqualified support for programs such as the Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im), which use taxpayer dollars to subsidize large multinational corporations.  Ex-Im exists to subsidize corporations that are quite capable of paying the costs of their own export programs! Ex-Im also provides taxpayer funding for export programs that would never obtain funding in the private market. As Austrian economists Ludwig Von Mises and F.A. Hayek demonstrated, one of the purposes of the market is to determine the highest value of resources. Thus, the failure of a project to receive funding through the free market means the resources that could have gone to that project have a higher-valued use. Government programs that take funds from the private sector and use them to fund projects that cannot get market funding reduce economic efficiency and lower living standards.  Yet Ex-Im actually brags about its support for projects rejected by the market!

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.

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.

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.

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. 

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 28

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

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
March 4, 2003
The Myth of War Prosperity


2003 Ron Paul 28:1
Mr. Speaker, I want to talk tonight about an economic myth. There is a longstanding myth that war benefits the economy.

2003 Ron Paul 28:2
The argument goes that when a country is at war, jobs are created and the economy grows. This is a myth.   Many argue that World War II ended the Great Depression, which is another myth.   Unemployment went down because many men were drafted, but national economic output went down during the war.

2003 Ron Paul 28:3
Economic growth and a true end to the Depression did not occur until after World War II. So it is wrong to think there is an economic benefit arising from war.

2003 Ron Paul 28:4
There are many economic shortcomings during a war. During wartime it is much more common to experience inflation because the money presses are running to fund military expenses.  Also, during wartime there is a bigger challenge to the currency of the warring nation, and already we see that the dollar has dropped 20 percent in the past year.  Although there are many other reasons for a weak dollar, the war certainly is contributing to the weakness in the dollar.

2003 Ron Paul 28:5
Also, during wartime the country can expect that taxes will go up. I know we are talking about cutting taxes, and I am all for cutting taxes; but in real terms taxes will go up during wartime. And it is inevitable that deficits increase. And right now our deficits are exploding. Our national debt is going up nearly $500 billion per year at an analyzed rate.

2003 Ron Paul 28:6
The other shortcoming economically of wartime is that funds, once they are borrowed, inflated, or taxed, once the government spends these, so much of this expenditure is overseas, and it takes away from domestic spending. So this is a strong negative for the domestic economy. Another thing that arises during wartime so often is the sentiment for protectionism- and a weak economy in wartime will really build an incentive for protectionist measures, and we are starting to see that, which I think is a danger.

2003 Ron Paul 28:7
During wartime, trade is much more difficult; and so if a war comes, we can expect that even our trade balances might get much worse. There are a lot of subjective problems during wartime too. The first thing that goes is confidence.   Right now there is less confidence in the stock market and literally hundreds of billions of dollars lost in the stock market in the last year or two, again, due to other reasons; but the possibility of war contributes to this negative sentiment toward the stock market.

2003 Ron Paul 28:8
It is hard to judge the future. Nobody can know the future because of the unintended consequences of war. We do not know how long the war will last. How much it will spread? So there are a lot of uncertainties about this. There is fear. Fear comes from the potential for war and a lot of confusion. And unfortunately, when wars are not fought for national security reasons, the popularity of the war is questioned- and this may alienate our allies. And I believe we are seeing some of that already. 
There is no doubt that during wartime government expands in size and scope.   
And this of course is a great danger. And after war, the government rarely shrinks to its original size.   
It grows. It may shrink a little, but inevitably the size of the government grows because of war.    
This is a danger because when government gets bigger, the individual has to get smaller; therefore,   
it diminishes personal individual liberty.


2003 Ron Paul 28:9
So these are the costs that we cannot ignore.  We have the cost of potential loss of life, but there are also tremendous economic costs that even the best economists cannot calculate closely.

2003 Ron Paul 28:10
War should always be fought as the very, very last resort. It should never be done casually, but only when absolutely necessary. And when it is, I believe it should be fought to be won.  It should be declared.  It should not be fought under U.N. resolutions or for U.N. resolutions, but for the sovereignty and the safety and the security of this country. It is explicit in our Constitution that necessary wars be declared by the Congress. And that is something that concerns me a great deal because we have not declared war outright since 1945, and if you look carefully, we have not won very many since then.

2003 Ron Paul 28:11
We are lingering in Korea. What a mess! We have been there for 58 years, have spent hundreds of billions of dollars, and we still have achieved nothing- because we went there under U.N. resolutions and we did not fight to victory. The same was true with the first Persian Gulf War.  We went into Iraq without a declaration of war. We went there under the U.N., we are still there, and nobody knows how long we will be there. So there are many costs, some hidden and some overt. But the greatest threat, the greatest cost of war is the threat to individual liberty. So I caution my colleagues that we should move much more cautiously and hope and pray for peace.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 29

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Social Security Protection Act Of 2003
5 March 2003

SPEECH OF
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, March 5, 2003


2003 Ron Paul 29:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to H.R. 743, the Social Security Protection Act. While this bill contains many provisions worthy of support, it also removes the only means by which many widowed Texas public school teachers can receive the same spousal social security benefits as every other American. As I am sure my colleagues are aware, widowed public school employees in Texas, like public employees throughout the nation, have their spousal social security reduced if they receive a government pension. The Government Pension Offset even applies if the public employee in question worked all the quarters necessary to qualify for full social security benefits either before or after working in the public school system!

2003 Ron Paul 29:2
The effect of the Government Pension Offset is to punish people for teaching in public schools! However, current law provides widowed Texas public school teachers a means of collecting the full social security spousal benefits. Unfortunately, this bill removes that option from Texas teachers. Since I believe the Congress should repeal the Government Pension Offset by passing H.R. 524, which repeals both the Government Pension Offset and the Windfall Elimination Provision, another provision that denies public employees full social security benefits, I must oppose this bill.

2003 Ron Paul 29:3
Instead of punishing public school teachers, Congress should be encouraging good people to enter the education profession by passing my Teacher Tax Cut Act (H.R. 613) which provides every teacher with a $1,000 tax credit, as well as my Professional Educators Tax Credit Act (H.R. 614), which provides a $1,000 tax credit to counselors, librarians, and all school personnel. Congress should also act to protect the integrity of the Social Security Trust Fund by passing my Social Security Preservation Act (H.R. 219), which ensures that Social Security monies are not spent on other programs. Congress should also pass my Social Security for American Citizens Only Act (H.R. 489), which ensures that noncitizens who have not worked the required number of quarters and illegal immigrants do not receive social security benefits.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 30

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

American Servicemember And Civilian Protection Act Of 2003
6 March 2003

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, March 6, 2003


2003 Ron Paul 30:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the “American Servicemember and Civilian Protection Act of 2003.”

2003 Ron Paul 30:2
This bill prohibits funds made available by the United States Government from being used for the establishment or operation of the Court.

2003 Ron Paul 30:3
Perhaps the most significant part of the bill makes clear that any action taken by or on behalf of the Court against members of the United States Armed Forces shall be considered an act of aggression against the United States; and that any action taken by or on behalf of the Court against a United States citizen or national shall be considered an offense against the law of nations.

2003 Ron Paul 30:4
Mr. Speaker, on May 6, 2002, President George W. Bush took the commendable step of repudiating the signature of the United States on the Statute of the International Criminal Court, stating that the United States “can no longer be a party” to the International Criminal Court. He also requested that those states choosing membership in the Court respect the decision of the United States in this matter.

2003 Ron Paul 30:5
Mr. Speaker, the Court is an illegitimate body even by the United Nations’ own standards. The Statute of the International Criminal Court was enacted by a Conference of Diplomats convened by the United Nations General Assembly, whereas according to the UN Charter, the authority to create such a body lies only in the UN Security Council.

2003 Ron Paul 30:6
The International Criminal Court was established contrary to the American Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. It puts United States citizens in jeopardy of unlawful and unconstitutional criminal prosecution.

2003 Ron Paul 30:7
The International Criminal Court does not provide many of the Constitutional protections guaranteed every American citizen, including the right to trial by jury, the right to face your accuser, and the presumption of innocence, and the protection against double jeopardy.

2003 Ron Paul 30:8
Members of the United States Armed Forces are particularly at risk for politically motivated arrests, prosecutions, fines, and imprisonment for acts engaged in for the protection of the United States. These are the same brave men and women who place their lives on the line to protect and defend our Constitution. Do they not deserve the full protections of that same Constitution?

2003 Ron Paul 30:9
Last year Congress passed the American Servicemembers’ Protection Act within the Defense Authorization bill. Commendable as that effort was, the fact of the matter is that because of the numerous loopholes and exemptions in that legislation, our servicemembers are still not protected from the probing arms of the International Criminal Court. American citizens have absolutely no protection under last year’s legislation. This is simply unacceptable. That is why I am introducing this legislation that makes the position of the United States clear: we will protect our servicemembers and citizens from this illegal court.

2003 Ron Paul 30:10
Mr. Speaker, I hope all members of this body will join me in opposing this illegitimate and illegal court by cosponsoring the “American Servicemember and Civilian Protection Act of 2003.”

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 31

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2003
6 March 2003

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, March 6, 2003


2003 Ron Paul 31:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to reintroduce the American Sovereignty Restoration Act. I submitted this bill, which would end United States membership in the United Nations, in the 107th Congress and the 106th Congress and since then conditions have made its relevance and importance more evident now than ever. The United Nations assault on the sovereignty of the United States proceeds apace; it shows no signs of slowing. Mr. Speaker, since I last introduced this measure, the United Nations has convened its International Criminal Court, which claims jurisdiction even over citizens of countries that have not elected to join the court. This means that Americans — both civilians and members of our armed services — are subject to a court that even its supporters admit does not offer all the protections guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.

2003 Ron Paul 31:2
The United States continues to pay the lion’s share of the U.N. budget, yet it is routinely kicked off committees like the Human Rights Committee by some of the most egregious of human rights abusing countries. This is absurd and we shouldn’t have to pay for it.

2003 Ron Paul 31:3
As the United States faces another undeclared war for the United Nations — as is specified in the authorization for the use of force against Iraq (Public Law 107–243) — it is past time that we return to the principles of our founding fathers.

2003 Ron Paul 31:4
This legislation would represent a comprehensive and complete U.S. withdrawal from the United Nations. It repeals the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 and other related laws. It directs the President to terminate U.S. participation in the United Nations, including any organ, specialized agency, commission, or other affiliated body. It requires closure of the U.S. Mission to the U.N.

2003 Ron Paul 31:5
The legislation also prohibits the authorization of funds for the U.S. assessed or voluntary contribution to the U.N.; the authorization of funds for any U.S. contribution to any U.N. military operation; and the expenditure of funds to support the participation of U.S. armed forces as part of any U.N. military or peacekeeping operation. Finally, this legislation bars U.S. armed forces from serving under U.N. command.

2003 Ron Paul 31:6
The U.S. Congress, by passing H.R. 1146, and the U.S. president, by signing H.R. 1146, will heed the wise counsel of our first president, George Washington, when he advised his countrymen to “steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world,” lest the nation’s security and liberties be compromised by endless and overriding international commitments. I urge my colleagues to support this measure and I hope for its quick consideration.

2003 Ron Paul 31:7
In considering the recent United Nations meetings and the United States’ relation to that organization and its affront to U.S. sovereignty, we would all do well to again read carefully Professor Herbert W. Titus’ paper on the United Nations from which I have provided this excerpt:

2003 Ron Paul 31:8
It is commonly assumed that the Charter of the United Nations is a treaty. It is not. Instead, the Charter of the United Nations is a constitution. As such, it is illegitimate, having created a supranational government, deriving its powers not from the consent of the governed (the people of the United States of America and peoples of other member nations) but from the consent of the peoples’ government officials who have no authority to bind either the American people nor any other nation’s people to any terms of the Charter of the United Nations.

2003 Ron Paul 31:9
By definition, a treaty is a contract between or among independent and sovereign nations, obligatory on the signatories only when by competent governing authorities in accordance with the powers constitutionally conferred upon them. I Kent, Commentaries on American Law 163 (1826); Burdick, The Law of the American Constitution section 34 (1922) Even the United Nations Treaty Collection states that a treaty is (1) a binding instrument creating legal rights and duties (2) concluded by states or international organizations with treaty-making powers (3) governed by international law.

2003 Ron Paul 31:10
By contrast, a charter is a constitution creating a civil government for a unified nation or nations and establishing the authority of that government. Although the United Nations Treaty Collection defines a ‘charter’ as a ‘constituent treaty,’ leading international political authorities state that ‘[t]he use of the word ‘Charter’ [in reference to the founding document of the United Nations] . . . emphasizes the constitutional nature of this instrument.’ Thus, the preamble to the Charter of the United Nations declares ‘that the Peoples of the United Nations have resolved to combine their efforts to accomplish certain aims by certain means.’ The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary 46 (B. Simma, ed.) (Oxford Univ. Press, NY: 1995) (Hereinafter U.N. Charter Commentary). Consistent with this view, leading international legal authorities declare that the law of the Charter of the United Nations which governs the authority of the United Nations General Assembly and the United Nations Security Council is ‘similar . . . to national constitutional law,’ proclaiming that ‘because of its status as a constitution for the world community,’ the Charter of the United Nations must be construed broadly, making way for ‘implied powers’ to carry out the United Nations’ ‘comprehensive scope of duties, especially the maintenance of international peace and security and its orientation towards international public welfare.’ Id. at 27.

2003 Ron Paul 31:11
The United Nations Treaty Collection confirms the appropriateness of this ‘constitutional interpretive’ approach to the Charter of the United Nations with its statement that the charter may be traced ‘back to the Magna Carta (the Great Charter) of 1215,’ a national constitutional document. As a constitutional document, the Magna Carta not only bound the original signatories,, the English barons and the king, but all subsequent English rulers, including Parliament, conferring upon all Englishmen certain rights that five hundred years later were claimed and exercised by the English people who had colonized America.

2003 Ron Paul 31:12
A charter, then, is a covenant of the people and the civil rulers of a nation in perpetuity. Sources of Our Liberties 1–10 (R. Perry, ed.) (American Bar Foundation: 1978) As Article I of Magna Carta, puts it:

2003 Ron Paul 31:13
We have granted moreover to all free men of our kingdom for us and our heirs forever all liberties written below, to be had and holden by themselves and their heirs from us and our heirs.

2003 Ron Paul 31:14
In like manner, the Charter of the United Nations is considered to be a permanent ‘constitution for the universal society,’ and consequently, to be construed in accordance with its broad and unchanging ends but in such a way as to meet changing times and changing relations among the nations and peoples of the world. U.N. Charter Commentary at 28–44.

2003 Ron Paul 31:15
According to the American political and legal tradition and the universal principles of constitution making, a perpetual civil covenant or constitution, obligatory on the people and their rulers throughout the generations, must, first, be proposed in the name of the people and, thereafter, ratified by the people’s representatives elected and assembled for the sole purpose of passing on the terms of a proposed covenant. See 4 The Founders’ Constitution 647–58 (P. Kurland and R. Lerner, eds.) (Univ. Chicago. Press: 1985). Thus, the preamble of the Constitution of the United States of America begins with ’We the People of the United States’ and Article VII provides for ratification by state conventions composed of representatives of the people elected solely for that purpose. Sources of Our Liberties 408, 416, 418–21 (R. Perry, ed.) (ABA Foundation, Chicago: 1978).

2003 Ron Paul 31:16
Taking advantage of the universal appeal of the American constitutional tradition, the preamble of the Charter of the United Nations opens with ‘We the peoples of the United Nations.’ But, unlike the Constitution of the United States of America, the Charter of the United Nations does not call for ratification by conventions of the elected representatives of the people of the signatory nations. Rather, Article 110 of the Charter of the United Nations provides for ratification ‘by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.’ Such a ratification process would have been politically and legally appropriate if the charter were a mere treaty. But the Charter of the United Nations is not a treaty; it is a constitution.

2003 Ron Paul 31:17
First of all, Charter of the United Nations, executed as an agreement in the name of the people, legally and politically displaced previously binding agreements upon the signatory nations. Article 103 provides that ‘[i]n the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail.’ Because the 1787 Constitution of the United States of America would displace the previously adopted Articles of Confederation under which the United States was being governed, the drafters recognized that only if the elected representatives of the people at a constitutional convention ratified the proposed constitution, could it be lawfully adopted as a constitution. Otherwise, the Constitution of the United States of America would be, legally and politically, a treaty which could be altered by any state’s legislature as it saw fit. The Founders’ Constitution, supra, at 648–52.

2003 Ron Paul 31:18
Second, an agreement made in the name of the people creates a perpetual union, subject to dissolution only upon proof of breach of covenant by the governing authorities whereupon the people are entitled to reconstitute a new government on such terms and for such duration as the people see fit. By contrast, an agreement made in the name of nations creates only a contractual obligation, subject to change when any signatory nation decides that the obligation is no longer advantageous or suitable. Thus, a treaty may be altered by valid statute enacted by a signatory nation, but a constitution may be altered only by a special amendatory process provided for in that document. Id. at 652.

2003 Ron Paul 31:19
Article V of the Constitution of the United States of America spells out that amendment process, providing two methods for adopting constitutional changes, neither of which requires unanimous consent of the states of the Union. Had the Constitution of the United States of America been a treaty, such unanimous consent would have been required. Similarly, the Charter of the United Nations may be amended without the unanimous consent of its member states. According to Article 108 of the Charter of the United Nations, amendments may be proposed by a vote of two-thirds of the United Nations General Assembly and may become effective upon ratification by a vote of two– thirds of the members of the United Nations, including all the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. According to Article 109 of the Charter of the United Nations, a special conference of members of the United Nations may be called ‘for the purpose of reviewing the present Charter’ and any changes proposed by the conference may ‘take effect when ratified by two–thirds of the Members of the United Nations including all the permanent members of the Security Council.’ Once an amendment to the Charter of the United Nations is adopted then that amendment ‘shall come into force for all Members of the United Nations,’ even those nations who did not ratify the amendment, just as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America is effective in all of the states, even though the legislature of a state or a convention of a state refused to ratify. Such an amendment process is totally foreign to a treaty. See Id., at 575–84.

2003 Ron Paul 31:20
Third, the authority to enter into an agreement made in the name of the people cannot be politically or legally limited by any preexisting constitution, treaty, alliance, or instructions. An agreement made in the name of a nation, however, may not contradict the authority granted to the governing powers and, thus, is so limited. For example, the people ratified the Constitution of the United States of America notwithstanding the fact that the constitutional proposal had been made in disregard to specific instructions to amend the Articles of Confederation, not to displace them. See Sources of Our Liberties 399–403 (R. Perry ed.) (American Bar Foundation: 1972). As George Mason observed at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, ‘Legislatures have no power to ratify’ a plan changing the form of government, only ‘the people’ have such power. 4 The Founders’ Constitution, supra, at 651.

2003 Ron Paul 31:21
As a direct consequence of this original power of the people to constitute a new government, the Congress under the new constitution was authorized to admit new states to join the original 13 states without submitting the admission of each state to the 13 original states. In like manner, the Charter of the United Nations, forged in the name of the ‘peoples’ of those nations, established a new international government with independent powers to admit to membership whichever nations the United Nations governing authorities chose without submitting such admissions to each individual member nation for ratification. See Charter of the United Nations, Article 4, Section 2. No treaty could legitimately confer upon the United Nations General Assembly such powers and remain within the legal and political definition of a treaty.

2003 Ron Paul 31:22
By invoking the name of the ‘peoples of the United Nations,’ then, the Charter of the United Nations envisioned a new constitution creating a new civil order capable of not only imposing obligations upon the subscribing nations, but also imposing obligations directly upon the peoples of those nations. In his special contribution to the United Nations Human Development Report 2000, United Nations Secretary-General Annan made this claim crystal clear:

2003 Ron Paul 31:23
Even though we are an organization of Member States, the rights and ideals the United Nations exists to protect are those of the peoples. No government has the right to hide behind national sovereignty in order to violate the human rights or fundamental freedoms of its peoples. Human Development Report 2000 31 (July 2000) [Emphasis added.]

2003 Ron Paul 31:24
While no previous United Nations’ secretary general has been so bold, Annan’s proclamation of universal jurisdiction over ‘human rights and fundamental freedoms’ simply reflects the preamble of the Charter of the United Nations which contemplated a future in which the United Nations operates in perpetuity ‘to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war . . . to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights . . . to establish conditions under which justice . . . can be maintained, and to promote social progress and between standards of life in larger freedom.’ Such lofty goals and objectives are comparable to those found in the preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America: ‘to . . . establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the Blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity . . .’

2003 Ron Paul 31:25
There is, however, one difference that must not be overlooked. The Constitution of the United States of America is a legitimate constitution, having been submitted directly to the people for ratification by their representatives elected and assembled solely for the purpose of passing on the terms of that document. The Charter of the United Nations, on the other hand, is an illegitimate constitution, having only been submitted to the Untied States Senate for ratification as a treaty. Thus, the Charter of the United Nations, not being a treaty, cannot be made the supreme law of our land by compliance with Article II, Section 2 of Constitution of the United States of America. Therefore, the Charter of the United Nations is neither politically nor legally binding upon the United States of America or upon its people.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 32

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

Quality Health Care Coalition Act
12 March 2003

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, March 12, 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.

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.

2003 Ron Paul 32:3
As an OB–GYN with over 30 years in practice, I am well aware of how young physicians coming out of medical school feel compelled to sign contracts with HMOs that may contain clauses that compromise their professional integrity. For example, many physicians are contractually forbidden from discussing all available treatment options with their patients because the HMO gatekeeper has deemed certain treatment options too expensive. In my own practice, I have tried hard not to sign contracts with any health insurance company that infringed on my ability to practice medicine in the best interests of my patients and I have always counseled my professional colleagues to do the same. Unfortunately, because of the dominance of the HMO in today’s health care market, many health care professionals cannot sustain a medical practice unless they agree to conform their practice to the dictates of some HMO.

2003 Ron Paul 32:4
One way health care professionals could counter the power of the HMOs would be to form a voluntary association for the purpose of negotiating with an HMO or an insurance company. However, health care professionals who attempt to form such a group run the risk of persecution under federal anti-trust laws. This not only reduces the ability of health care professionals to negotiate with HMOs on a level playing field, but also constitutes an unconstitutional violation of medical professionals’ freedom of contract and association.

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.

2003 Ron Paul 32:6
By restoring the freedom of medical professionals to voluntarily come together to negotiate as a group with HMOs and insurance companies, this bill removes a government-imposed barrier to a true free market in health care. Of course, this bill does not infringe on the rights of health care professionals by forcing them to join a bargaining organization against their will. While Congress should protect the rights of all Americans to join organizations for the purpose of bargaining collectively, Congress also has a moral responsibility to ensure that no worker is forced by law to join or financially support such an organization.

2003 Ron Paul 32:7
Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that Congress will not only remove the restraints on medical professionals’ freedom of contract, but will also empower patients to control their health care by passing my Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act. The Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act puts individuals back in charge of their own health care by expanding access to Medical Savings Accounts and providing Americans with large tax credits and tax deductions for their health care expenses. Putting individuals back in charge of their own health care decisions will enable patients to work with providers to ensure they receive the best possible health care at the lowest possible price. If providers and patients have the ability to form the contractual arrangements that they find most beneficial to them, the HMO monster will wither on the vine without the imposition of new federal regulations on the insurance industry.

2003 Ron Paul 32:8
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Quality Health Care Coalition Act and restore the freedom of contract and association to America’s health care professionals. I also urge my colleagues to join me in working to promote a true free market in health care by putting patients back in charge of the health care dollar by supporting my Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 33

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Freedom From Unnecessary Litigation Act
12 March 2003

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, March 12, 2003


2003 Ron Paul 33:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act. As its title suggests, this bill provides an effective means of ensuring that those harmed during medical treatment receive fair compensation while reducing the burden of costly malpractice litigation on the health care system. This bill achieves its goal by providing a tax credit for negative outcomes insurance purchased before medical treatment. The insurance will provide compensation for any negative outcomes of the medical treatment. Patients can receive this insurance without having to go through lengthy litigation and without having to give away a large portion of their award to a trial lawyer.

2003 Ron Paul 33:2
Relying on negative outcomes insurance instead of litigation will also reduce the costs imposed on physicians, other health care providers, and hospitals by malpractice litigation. The Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act also promotes effective solutions to the malpractice crisis by making malpractice awards obtained through binding, voluntary arbitration tax-free.

2003 Ron Paul 33:3
The malpractice crisis has contributed to the closing of a maternity ward in Philadelphia and a trauma center in Nevada. Meanwhile, earlier this year, surgeons in West Virginia walked off the job to protest increasing liability rates. These are a few of the examples of how access to quality health care is jeopardized by the epidemic of large (and medically questionable) malpractice awards, and the resulting increase in insurance rates.

2003 Ron Paul 33:4
As is typical of Washington, most of the proposed solutions to the malpractice problem involve unconstitutional usurpations of areas best left to the states. These solutions also ignore the root cause of the litigation crisis: the shift away from treating the doctor-patient relationship as a contractual one to viewing it as one governed by regulations imposed by insurance company functionaries, politicians, government bureaucrats, and trial lawyers. There is no reason why questions of the assessment of liability and compensation cannot be determined by a private contractual agreement between physicians and patients. The Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act is designed to take a step toward resolving these problems through private contracts.

2003 Ron Paul 33:5
Using insurance, private contracts, and binding arbitration to resolve medical disputes benefits patients, who receive full compensation in a timelier manner than under the current system. It also benefits physicians and hospitals, which are relieved of the costs associated with litigation. Since it will not cost as much to provide full compensation to an injured patient, these bills should result in a reduction of malpractice premiums. The Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act benefits everybody except those trial lawyers who profit from the current system. I hope all my colleagues will help end the malpractice crises while ensuring those harmed by medical injuries receive just compensation by cosponsoring my Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 34

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act (H.R. 1249)
13 March 2003

2003 Ron Paul 34:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, as an OB–GYN with over 30 years in private practice, I understand better than perhaps any other member of Congress the burden imposed on both medical practitioners and patients by excessive malpractice judgments and the corresponding explosion in malpractice insurance premiums. Malpractice insurance has skyrocketed to the point where doctors are unable to practice in some areas or see certain types of patients because they cannot afford the insurance premiums. This crisis has particularly hit my area of practice, leaving some pregnant women unable to find a qualified obstetrician in their city. Therefore, I am pleased to see Congress address this problem.

2003 Ron Paul 34:2
However this bill raises several questions of constitutionality, as well as whether it treats those victimized by large corporations and medical devices fairly. In addition, it places de facto price controls on the amounts injured parties can receive in a lawsuit and rewrites every contingency fee contract in the country. Yet, among all the new assumptions of federal power, this bill does nothing to address the power of insurance companies over the medical profession. Thus, even if the reforms of H.R. 5 become law, there will be nothing to stop the insurance companies from continuing to charge exorbitant rates.

2003 Ron Paul 34:3
Of course, I am not suggesting Congress place price controls on the insurance industry. Instead, Congress should reexamine those federal laws such as ERISA and the HMO Act of 1973, which have allowed insurers to achieve such a prominent role in the medical profession. As I will detail below, Congress should also take steps to encourage contractual means of resolving malpractice disputes. Such an approach may not be beneficial to the insurance companies or the trial lawyers, buy will certainly benefit the patients and physicians, which both sides in this debate claim to represent.

2003 Ron Paul 34:4
H.R. 5 does contain some positive elements. For example, the language limiting joint and several liabilities to the percentage of damage someone actually caused, is a reform I have long championed. However, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5 exceeds Congress’ constitutional authority by preempting state law. Congressional dissatisfaction with the malpractice laws in some states provides no justification for Congress to impose uniform standards on all 50 states. The 10th amendment does not authorize federal action in areas otherwise reserved to the states simply because some members of Congress are unhappy with the way the states have handled the problem. Ironically, H.R. 5 actually increases the risk of frivolous litigation in some states by lengthening the statue of limitations and changing the definition of comparative negligence!

2003 Ron Paul 34:5
I am also disturbed by the language that limits liability for those harmed by FDA-approved products. This language, in effect, establishes FDA approval as the gold standard for measuring the safety and soundness of medical devices. However, if FDA approval guaranteed safety, then the FDA would not regularly issue recalls of approved products later found to endanger human health and/or safety.

2003 Ron Paul 34:6
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5 also punishes victims of government mandates by limiting the ability of those who have suffered adverse reactions from vaccines to collect damages. Many of those affected by these provisions are children forced by federal mandates to receive vaccines. Oftentimes, parents reluctantly submit to these mandates in order to ensure their children can attend public school. H.R. 5 rubs salt in the wounds of those parents whose children may have been harmed by government policies forcing children to receive unsafe vaccines.

2003 Ron Paul 34:7
Rather than further expanding unconstitutional mandates and harming those with a legitimate claim to collect compensation, Congress should be looking for ways to encourage physicians and patients to resolve questions of liability via private, binding contracts. The root cause of the malpractice crisis (and all of the problems with the health care system) is the shift away from treating the doctor-patient relationship as a contractual one to viewing it as one governed by regulations imposed by insurance company functionaries, politicians, government bureaucrats, and trial lawyers. There is no reason why questions of the assessment of liability and compensation cannot be determined by a private contractual agreement between physicians and patients.

2003 Ron Paul 34:8
I have introduced the Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act (H.R. 1249). H.R. 1249 provides tax incentives to individuals who agree to purchase malpractice insurance, which will automatically provide coverage for any injuries sustained in treatment. This will insure that those harmed by spiraling medical errors receive timely and full compensation. My plan spares both patients and doctors the costs of a lengthy, drawn-out trial and respects Congress’ constitutional limitations.

2003 Ron Paul 34:9
Congress could also help physicians lower insurance rates by passing legislation, such as my Quality Health Care Coalition Act (H.R. 1247), that removes the antitrust restrictions preventing physicians from forming professional organizations for the purpose of negotiating contracts with insurance companies and HMOs. These laws give insurance companies and HMOs, who are often protected from excessive malpractice claims by ERISA, the ability to force doctors to sign contracts exposing them to excessive insurance premiums and limiting their exercise of professional judgment. The lack of a level playing field also enables insurance companies to raise premiums at will. In fact, it seems odd that malpractice premiums have skyrocketed at a time when insurance companies need to find other sources of revenue to compensate for their losses in the stock market.

2003 Ron Paul 34:10
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I support the efforts of the sponsors of H.R. 5 to address the crisis in health care caused by excessive malpractice litigation and insurance premiums, I cannot support this bill. H.R. 5 exceeds Congress’ constitutional limitations and denies full compensation to those harmed by the unintentional effects of federal vaccine mandates. Instead of furthering unconstitutional authority, my colleagues should focus on addressing the root causes of the malpractice crisis by supporting efforts to restore the primacy of contract to the doctor-patient relationships.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 35

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Crisis In Healthcare
13 March 2003

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, March 13, 2003


2003 Ron Paul 35:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, America faces a crisis in health care. Health care costs continue to rise while physicians and patients struggle under the control of managed-care “gatekeepers.” Obviously, fundamental health care reform should be one of Congress’ top priorities.

2003 Ron Paul 35:2
Unfortunately, most health care “reform” proposals either make marginal changes or exacerbate the problem. This is because they fail to address the root of the problem with health care, which is that government policies encourage excessive reliance on third-party payers. The excessive reliance on third-party payers removes all ilncentive from individual patients to concern themselves with health care costs. Laws and policies promoting Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) resulted from a desperate attempt to control spiraling costs. However, instead of promoting an efficient health care system, HMOs further took control over health care away from the individual patient and physician.

2003 Ron Paul 35:3
Returning control over health care to the individual is the key to true health care reform. This is why today I am introducing the Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act. This legislation puts control of health care back into the hands of the individual through tax credits, tax deductions, Medical Savings Accounts, and Flexible Savings Accounts. Specifically, the Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act:

2003 Ron Paul 35:4
A. Provides all Americans with a tax credit for 100% of health care expenses. The tax credit is fully refundable against both income and payroll taxes.

2003 Ron Paul 35:5
B. Allows individuals to roll over unused amounts in cafeteria plans and Flexible Savings Accounts (FSA).

2003 Ron Paul 35:6
C. Makes every American eligible for an Archer Medical Savings Account (MSA) and changes the tax laws to increase the benefits of MSAs.

2003 Ron Paul 35:7
D. Repeals the 7.5 percent threshold for the deduction of medical expenses, thus making all medical expenses tax deductible.

2003 Ron Paul 35:8
By providing a wide range of options, this bill allows individual Americans to choose the method of financing health care that best suits their individual needs. Increasing frustration with the current health care system is leading more and more Americans to embrace this approach to health care reform. For example, a recent poll by the respected Zogby firm showed that over 80 percent of Americans support providing all Americans with access to a Medical Savings Account. I hope all my colleagues will join this effort to put individuals back in control of health care by cosponsoring the Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 36

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Amber Alert Concerns
19 March 2003

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, March 19, 2003


2003 Ron Paul 36:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, as an OB–GYN who has had the privilege of bringing over 3,000 children into the world, I share the desire to punish severely those who sexually abuse children. In fact, it is hard to imagine someone more deserving of life in prison than one who preys on children. Therefore, I certainly support those parts of H.R. 1104 which enhance the punishment for those convicted of federal crimes involving sexual assaults on children.

2003 Ron Paul 36:2
I also support the provisions increasing the post-incarceration supervision of sex offenders. However, given the likelihood that a sex offender will attempt to commit another sex crime, it is reasonable to ask why rapists and child molesters are not simply imprisoned for life?

2003 Ron Paul 36:3
However, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that making the AMBER Alert system a Federal program is neither constitutionally sound nor effective law enforcement. All Americans should be impressed at the demonstrated effectiveness of the AMBER system in locating missing and kidnapped children. However, I would ask my colleagues to consider that one of the factors that makes the current AMBER system so effective is that the AMBER Alert system is not a Federal program. Instead, states and local governments developed AMBER Alerts on their own, thus ensuring that each AMBER system meets the unique needs of individual jurisdictions. Once the AMBER Alert system becomes a one-size-fits all Federal program (with standards determined by DC-based bureaucrats instead of communitybased law enforcement officials) local officials will not be able to tailor the AMBER Alert to fit their unique circumstances. Thus, nationalizing the AMBER system will cause this important program to lose some of its effectiveness.

2003 Ron Paul 36:4
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1104 also exceeds Congress’ constitutional authority by criminalizing travel with the intent of committing a crime. As appalling as it is that some would travel abroad to engage in activities that are rightly illegal in the United States, legislation of this sort poses many problems and offers few solutions. First among these problems is the matter of national sovereignty. Those who travel abroad and break the law in their host country should be subject to prosecution in that country: it is the responsibility of the host country — not the U.S. Congress — to uphold its own laws. It is a highly unique proposal to suggest that committing a crime in a foreign country against a non-US citizen is within the jurisdiction of the United States Government.

2003 Ron Paul 36:5
Mr. Speaker, this legislation makes it a Federal crime to “travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct.” I do not think this is a practical approach to the problem. It seems that this bill actually seeks to probe the conscience of anyone who seeks to travel abroad to make sure they do not have illegal or immoral intentions. Is it possible or even advisable to make thoughts and intentions illegal? And how is this to be carried out? Should Federal agents be assigned to each travel agency to probe potential travelers as to the intent of their travel?

2003 Ron Paul 36:6
At a time when Federal resources are stretched to the limit, American troops are preparing for imminent military conflict, and when we are not even able to keep known terrorists out of our own country, this bill would require Federal agents to not only track Americans as they vacation abroad, but would also require that they be able to divine the intentions of these individuals who seek to travel abroad. Talk about a tall order! As well-intentioned as I am sure this legislation is, I do not believe that it is a practical or well-thought-out approach to what I agree is a serious and disturbing problem. Perhaps a better approach would be to share with those interested countries our own laws and approaches to prosecuting those who commit these kinds of crimes, so as to see more effective capture and punishment of these criminals in the countries where the crime is committed.

2003 Ron Paul 36:7
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while H.R. 1104 has some good provisions aimed at enhancing the penalties of those who commit the most heinous of crimes, it also weakens the effective AMBER Alert program by nationalizing it. H.R. 542 also raises serious civil liberties and national sovereignty concerns by criminalizing intent and treating violations of criminal law occurring in other countries’ jurisdictions as violations of American criminal law.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 37

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Reconsider The Direction Of Our Foreign Policy
20 March 2003

2003 Ron Paul 37:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, as we vote today to commend our troops, I would like to take the opportunity to express my personal support for our brave men and women in uniform who are in harm’s way, and to hope for their safe return home after a victory on the battlefield.

2003 Ron Paul 37:2
The time for debate over the wisdom of going to war has passed. Although I was unsuccessful in arguing that such a war be undertaken only after the passage of a constitutionally- enacted Declaration of War, it is time now for us to line up behind our troops. As a Vietnam era veteran of the U.S. Air Force I understand how important it is to troop morale that each and every fighting person know all Americans stand behind them.

2003 Ron Paul 37:3
Once this war has ended we should seriously reconsider the direction of our foreign policy. The American people have seen the ineffectiveness of our reliance upon our socalled “NATO allies” and the United Nations. Hopefully this will lead us to reconsider our role in these organizations. I hope this will be the last time Americans fight under the color of U.N. resolutions. Once this war is completed I hope we will reassess our foreign entanglements, return to the traditional U.S. foreign policy of non-intervention, and return to the standard of our own national security.

2003 Ron Paul 37:4
For now all such foreign policy debates are on hold, and I hope all Americans will join in supporting our troops in the successful completion of their mission.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 38

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

American Citizenship Amendment
20 March 2003

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, March 20, 2003


2003 Ron Paul 38:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the American Citizenship Amendment. Under current U.S. laws, any person born on American soil can claim American citizenship, regardless of the citizenship of that child’s parents. This means that any alien who happens to give birth in the United States has just given birth to an American citizen, eligible for all the benefits and privileges afforded to citizens.

2003 Ron Paul 38:2
Mr. Speaker, this is unacceptable and is far from what our Founders intended when they drafted the Constitution. It undermines the very concept of citizenship as enshrined in the United States Constitution: to be constitutionally entitled to U.S. citizenship one must be “born . . . in the United States” and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” This second, and most important, part means that in order to gain U.S. citizenship one must owe and actively express allegiance to the United States in addition to the act of being born on United States soil.

2003 Ron Paul 38:3
What the current state of events has led to is a booming business in smuggling pregnant mothers over the border to give birth to new “American” citizens, who in turn become eligible for all the benefits thereof. Practically, what this does is cheapen citizenship: rather than impart all the obligations and responsibilities of being an American it becomes merely a ticket to welfare and other benefits. The history of the United States is that of immigrants: individuals from diverse backgrounds accepted the obligations of citizenship in exchange for the great benefits of living in the freest nation on earth.

2003 Ron Paul 38:4
This proposed Constitutional amendment restores the concept of American citizenship to that of our Founders. This legislation simply states that no child born in the United States whose mother and father do not possess citizenship or owe permanent allegiance to the United States shall be a citizen of the United States. It is essential to the future of our constitutional republic that citizenship be something of value, something to be cherished. It cannot be viewed as merely an express train into the welfare state.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 39

Ron Paul’s Congressional website HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
March 27, 2003
“Negative Outcomes” Insurance – A Free-Market Approach to the Medical Malpractice

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act. As its title suggests, this bill provides an effective means of ensuring that those harmed during medical treatment receive fair compensation while reducing the burden of costly malpractice litigation on the health care system. This bill achieves its goal by providing a tax credit for “negative outcomes” insurance purchased before medical treatment. The insurance will provide compensation for any negative outcomes of the medical treatment. Patients can receive this insurance without having to go through lengthy litigation and without having to give away a large portion of their award to a trial lawyer.

2003 Ron Paul 39:1
Relying on negative outcomes insurance instead of litigation will also reduce the costs imposed on physicians, other health care providers, and hospitals by malpractice litigation. The Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act also promotes effective solutions to the malpractice crisis by making malpractice awards obtained through binding, voluntary arbitration tax-free.

2003 Ron Paul 39:2
The malpractice crisis has contributed to the closing of a maternity ward in Philadelphia and a trauma center in Nevada. Meanwhile, earlier this year, surgeons in West Virginia walked off the job to protest increasing liability rates. These are a few of the examples of how access to quality health care is jeopardized by the epidemic of large (and medically questionable) malpractice awards, and the resulting increase in insurance rates.

2003 Ron Paul 39:3
As is typical of Washington, most of the proposed solutions to the malpractice problem involve unconstitutional usurpations of areas best left to the states. These solutions also ignore the root cause of the litigation crisis: the shift away from treating the doctor-patient relationship as a contractual one to viewing it as one governed by regulations imposed by insurance company functionaries, politicians, government bureaucrats, and trial lawyers. There is no reason why questions of the assessment of liability and compensation cannot be determined by a private contractual agreement between physicians and patients. The Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act is designed to take a step toward resolving these problems through private contracts.

2003 Ron Paul 39:4
Using insurance, private contracts, and binding arbitration to resolve medical disputes benefits patients, who receive full compensation in a timelier manner than under the current system. It also benefits physicians and hospitals, which are relieved of the costs associated with litigation. Since it will not cost as much to provide full compensation to an injured patient, these bills should result in a reduction of malpractice premiums. The Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act benefits everybody except those trial lawyers who profit from the current system. I hope all my colleagues will help end the malpractice crises while ensuring those harmed by medical injuries receive just compensation by cosponsoring my Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 40

Ron Paul’s Congressional website HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
March 27, 2003
Comprehensive Health Care Reform Without Socialized Medicine


2003 Ron Paul 40:1

Mr. Speaker, America faces a crisis in health care. Health care costs continue to rise while physicians and patients struggle under the control of managed-care “gatekeepers.”   Obviously, fundamental health care reform should be one of Congress’ top priorities. 

2003 Ron Paul 40:2
Unfortunately, most health care reform proposals either make marginal changes or exacerbate the problem. This is because they fail to address the root of the problem with health care, which is that government polices encourage excessive reliance on third-party payers. The excessive reliance on third-party payers removes all incentive from individual patients to concern themselves with health care costs. Laws and policies promoting Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) resulted from a desperate attempt to control spiraling costs. However, instead of promoting an efficient health care system, HMOs further took control over health care away from the individual patient and physician.

2003 Ron Paul 40:3
Returning control over health care to the individual is the key to true health care reform.  This why today I am introducing the Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act. This legislation puts control of health care back into the hands of the individual through tax credits, tax deductions, Medical Savings Accounts, and Flexible Savings Accounts. Specifically, the Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act:

2003 Ron Paul 40:4
A.  Provides all Americans with a tax credit for 100% of health care expenses. The tax credit is fully refundable against both income and payroll taxes- meaning even low-income taxpayers benefit;

2003 Ron Paul 40:5
B.  Allows individuals to roll over unused amounts in cafeteria plans and Flexible Savings Accounts (FSAs);

2003 Ron Paul 40:6
C.  Makes every American eligible for an Archer Medical Savings Account (MSA) and changes the tax laws to increase the benefits of MSAs;

2003 Ron Paul 40:7
D. Repeals the 7.5% threshold for the deduction of medical expenses, thus making all medical expenses tax deductible.

2003 Ron Paul 40:8
By providing a wide range of options, this bill allows individual Americans to choose the method of financing health care that best suits their individual needs. Increasing frustration with the current health care system is leading more and more Americans to embrace this approach to health care reform. For example, a recent poll by the respected Zogby firm showed that over 80% of Americans support providing all Americans with access to a Medical Savings Account. I hope all my colleagues will join this effort to put individuals back in control of health care by cosponsoring the Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 41

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

Don’t Antagonize our Trading Partners
April 1, 2003
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES


2003 Ron Paul 41:1
Madam Speaker, this week we will be working on the $75 billion supplemental appropriations to pay for the war. Financing the war is not as simple as it appears. It involves more than just passing a piece of legislation labeled as support for the troops.

2003 Ron Paul 41:2
It has now been fashionable to bash France and Germany and other friends if they are less enthusiastic for the war than we think they should be. Yet foreign corporations provide millions of jobs for American citizens. French companies alone employ over 400,000. There is a practical reason why offending the French and others may backfire on us.

2003 Ron Paul 41:3
In 2002 we earned $11.9 billion less from our investments overseas than foreigners did here. This is not a sign of financial strength. A negative balance on the income account contributes to the $500 billion annual current account deficit. Since 1985 when we became a deficit nation, we have acquired a foreign debt of approximately $2.8 trillion, the world’s largest. No nation can long sustain a debt that continues to expand at a rate greater than 5 percent of the GDP. This means we borrowed more than $1.4 billion every day to keep the borrowing binge going. This only can be maintained until foreigners get tired of taking and holding our dollars and buying our debt. Bashing the French and others will only hasten the day that sets off the train of economic events that will please no one.

2003 Ron Paul 41:4
In thinking about providing funds for the war and overall military expenditures, not only must every dollar be borrowed from overseas, but an additional $150 billion each year as well. The current account deficit is now 44 percent greater than the military budget and represents the amount we must borrow to balance the accounts. The bottom line is that our international financial condition is dire and being made worse by current international events.

2003 Ron Paul 41:5
It is true that military might gives a boost to a nation’s currency; but this is not permanent if fiscal and monetary policies are abused. Currently, our budget deficits are exploding, as there is no restraint on spending.

2003 Ron Paul 41:6
No one can guarantee permanent military superiority.

2003 Ron Paul 41:7
The dollar has already significantly weakened this past year, and this trend will surely continue. A weaker dollar requires that we pay more for everything we buy overseas. Foreign borrowing will eventually become more difficult, and this will in time cause interest rates to rise. Be assured that domestic price inflation will accelerate. Economic law dictates that these events will cause the recession to linger and deepen.

2003 Ron Paul 41:8
My humble advice, consider being nicer to our friends and allies. We need them more than we can imagine to finance our war efforts. There is more to it than passing the supplemental appropriation. Besides, we need time to get our financial house in order. Antagonizing our trading partners can only make that task that much more complicated.

2003 Ron Paul 41:9
The day will come when true monetary reform will be required. Printing money to finance war and welfare can never be a panacea.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 42

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

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
April 2, 2003
No Federal Funding for Abortion!


2003 Ron Paul 42:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce three bills relating to abortion. First, the Freedom of Conscience Act of 2003 prohibits any federal official from expending any federal funds for any population control or population planning program or any family planning activity. It is immoral to force the American taxpayers to subsidize programs and practices they find morally abhorrent.

2003 Ron Paul 42:2
Second, I rise to introduce the Partial-birth Abortion Funding Ban Act of 2003. This bill prohibits federal officials from paying any federal funds to any individual or entity that performs partial-birth abortions. The taxpayer must not be forced to fund this barbaric procedure.

2003 Ron Paul 42:3
Finally, my Life-Protecting Judicial Limitation Act of 2003 provides that the inferior courts of the United States 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. The district courts of the United States, as well as the United States Court of Federal Claims, should not have the authority to hear these types of cases.

2003 Ron Paul 42:4
Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that my colleagues will join me in support of these three bills. By following the Constitution and using the power granted to the Congress by this document, we can restore freedom of conscience and the sanctity of human life.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 43

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

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
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!

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.

2003 Ron Paul 43:3
As James Madison said, “There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.” I sincerely hope that my colleagues will fight against the “gradual and silent encroachment” of the courts upon our nation’s religious liberties by supporting this bill.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 44

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Social Security Protection Act
2 April 2003

2003 Ron Paul 44:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to HR 743, the Social Security Protection Act. While this bill contains many provisions worthy of support, it also removes the only means by which many widowed Texas public school teachers can receive the same spousal social security benefits as every other American. As I am sure my colleagues are aware, widowed public school employees in Texas, like public employees throughout the The Government Pension Offset even applies if the public employee in question worked all the quarters necessary to qualify for full social security benefits either before or after working in the public school system!

2003 Ron Paul 44:2
The effect of the Government Pension Offset is to punish people for teaching in public schools! However, current law provides widowed Texas public school teachers a means of collecting the full social security spousal benefits. Unfortunately, this bill removes that option from Texas teachers. Since I believe the Congress should repeal the Government Pension Offset by passing HR 524, which repeals both the Government Pension Offset and the Windfall Elimination Provision, another provision that denies public employees full social security benefits, I must oppose this bill.

2003 Ron Paul 44:3
Instead of punishing public school teachers, Congress should be encouraging good people to enter the education profession by passing my Teacher Tax Cut Act (HR 613) which provides every teacher with a $1,000 tax credit, as well as my Professional Educators Tax Credit act (HR 614), which provides a $1,000 tax credit to counselors, librarians, and all school personnel. Congress should also act to protect the integrity of the Social Security Trust Fund by passing my Social Security Preservation Act (HR 219), which ensures that Social Security monies are not spent on other programs. Congress should also pass my Social Security for American Citizens Only Act (HR 489), which ensures that non-citizens who have not worked the required number of quarters and illegal immigrants do not receive social security benefits.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 45

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Rice Farmers Fairness Act
2 April 2003

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, April 2, 2003


2003 Ron Paul 45:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am today introducing the Rice Farmers Fairness Act. This legislation conditions the continuation of farm subsidies in the state of Texas upon the maintenance of rice production. Federal law allows for the continuation of subsidies to landowners who discontinue tenant rice farming on their land. In essence, this means that the subsidy continues to flow in spite of an end to production.

2003 Ron Paul 45:2
This is a “something for nothing” subsidy of the worst kind! As a result of this provision, there is a very real threat to the agricultural infrastructure. With landowners receiving subsidies in spite of lack of production, the entire warehousing, processing and “value-added” industries are put at risk.

2003 Ron Paul 45:3
As grain elevators, processors and others see a reduction in demand for their services because of the diminution of production permitted by federal law, they have a disincentive to continue to provide said services, services which must remain in place in order for those who remain in production to be able to bring to market the rice which they continue to produce. Thus, by way of the decimation of the infrastructure, this subsidy to non-producers comes at the expense of those who continue to produce rice. Therefore, the provisions of federal law which provide this subsidy actually amount to another form of federal welfare, taking from producers and giving to nonproducers. These destructive government policies have particularly pernicious effect in Texas, where rice farming, and the related industries, are a major sector of the economy in many towns along the Texas coast.

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.

2003 Ron Paul 45:5
America’s rice farmers are the most efficient, effective producers of rice in the world, despite the many hurdles erected by Washington. The Rice Farmer Fairness Act helps remove one of these hurdles and this makes America’s rice farmers even more efficient. In order to enhance our competitive position, we should also end our embargoes of other nations. Congress should eliminate the burdensome taxes and regulations imposed on America’s farmers. I hope my colleagues will join me in removing these federally imposed burdens on rice farmers by supporting free trade, low taxes and regulations, and cosponsoring my Rice Farmer Fairness Act.

2003 Ron Paul 45:6
Mr. Speaker, I rise to help parents of children with special educational needs by introducing the Help and Opportunities for Parents of Exceptional Children (HOPE for Children) Act of 2003. This bill allows parents of children with a learning disability an up to $3,000 tax credit for educational expenses. Parents could use this credit to pay for special services for their child, or to pay tuition at private school or even to home school their child. By allowing parents of special needs children to control the education dollar, the HOPE for Children Act allows parents to control their child’s education. Thus, this bill helps parents of special needs children provide their child an education tailored to the child’s unique needs.

2003 Ron Paul 45:7
Helping parents provide their child with an education designed around the child’s individual needs is far superior to the “one size fits all” cookie cutter, bureaucratized approach that has dominated special education for the past 30 years. This approach is inappropriate for any child, but it is especially harmful for special needs children. The HOPE for Children Act puts control over education resources back in the hands of those who know best, and care most about, the unique needs of children: parents.

2003 Ron Paul 45:8
The HOPE for Children Act allows parents of special needs children to provide those children with an education that matches their child’s unique needs without having to beg permission of education bureaucrats or engage in lengthy and costly litigation. I urge all my colleagues to cosponsor this bill.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 46

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

War No Excuse For Frivolous Spending
3 April 2003

2003 Ron Paul 46:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, at a time of war Congress has no more important duty than to make sure that our military force have all the resources they need. However, Congress also has a duty to not use the war as cover for unnecessary and unconstitutional spending. This is especially true when war coincides with a period of economic downturn and growing federal deficits. Unfortunately, Congress today is derelict in its duty to the United States taxpayer. Instead of simply ensuring that our military has the necessary resources to accomplish its mission in Iraq, a mission which may very well be over before this money reaches the Pentagon, Congress has loaded this bill up with unconstitutional wasteful foreign aid and corporate welfare spending.

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.

2003 Ron Paul 46:3
Although generous to certain corporate interests, this bill actually contains less money than the administration requested for homeland security. One area of homeland security that Congress did not underfund is its own security; this bill provides the full amount requested to ensure the security of the Congress. Still, one could reasonably conclude from reading this bill that the security of Turkey, Pakistan, and Jordan are more important to Congress that the security of Houston, New York and other major American cities.

2003 Ron Paul 46:4
On foreign spending, this bill actually provides one billion dollars in foreign aid to Turkey — even though that country refused the U.S. request for cooperation in the war on Iraq. One billion dollars to a country that thumbed its nose at an American request for assistance? How is this possibly an appropriate expenditure of taxpayer money? Additionally, this “war supplemental” has provided cover for more of the same unconstitutional foreign aid spending. It provides 2.5 billion dollar for Iraqi reconstruction when Americans have been told repeatedly that reconstruction costs will be funded out of Iraqi oil revenues. It also ensures that the American taxpayer will subsidize large corporations that wish to do business in Iraq by making transactions with Iraq eligible for support from the Export-Import Bank. It sends grants and loans in excess of 11.5 billion dollars to Jordan, Israel, Egypt, and Afghanistan — above and beyond the money we already send them each year.

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?

2003 Ron Paul 46:6
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1559 endangers America’s economy by engaging in pork-barrel spending and corporate welfare unrelated to national security. This bill endangers America’s economic health by adding almost $80 billion to the already bloated federal deficit. Additions to the deficit endanger our financial independence because America will have to increase its reliance on foreign borrowers to finance our debt. H.R. 1599 also shortchanges Americans by giving lower priority to funding homeland security than to funding unreliable allies and projects, like the Middle Eastern TV Network, that will do nothing to enhance America’s security. Therefore, I must oppose this bill.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 47

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Second Amendment Restoration Act
9 April 2003

2003 Ron Paul 47:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today as a firm believer in the second amendment to the United States Constitution and an opponent of all federal gun laws. In fact, I have introduced legislation, the Second Amendment Restoration Act (H.R. 153), which repeals the misguided federal gun control laws such as the Brady Bill and the assault weapons ban. I believe that the second amendment is one of the foundations of our constitutional liberties. However, Mr. Speaker, another foundation of those liberties is the oath all of us took to respect the Constitutional limits on federal power. While I understand and sympathize with the goals of the proponents of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (H.R. 1036), this bill exceeds those constitutional limitations, and so I must oppose this bill.

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.

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.

2003 Ron Paul 47:4
These attacks on gun manufacturers are disturbing, since the gun industry provides our law enforcement and military with the necessary tools needed to fight crime and defend our country. We should be helping our law enforcement officers and military, not hurting them by putting reputable gun manufacturers out of business.

2003 Ron Paul 47:5
However, Mr. Chairman, the most disturbing aspect of these lawsuits is the idea that the gun, an inanimate object, is somehow responsible for crimes. H.R. 1036 enables individuals to abrogate responsibility for their actions, in that it allows gun dealers to be sued because they “should have known” the gun would be used in a crime. Under H.R. 1036, gun dealers will still be unjustly forced to scrutinize their customers for criminal intent.

2003 Ron Paul 47:6
This further erodes the ethics of individual responsibility for one’s own actions that must form the basis of a free and moral society. The root problem of violence is not the gun in the hand, but the gun in the heart: each person is accountable for the deeds that flow out of his or her own heart. One can resort to any means available to complete a crime (such as knives, fertilizer, pipes, and baseball bats). Should we start suing the manufacturers of these products as well because they are used in crimes? Of course not — its implications are preposterous.

2003 Ron Paul 47:7
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would remind my fellow supporters of gun rights that using unconstitutional federal powers to restrict state gun lawsuits makes it more likely those same powers will be used to restrict our gun rights. Despite these lawsuits, the number one threat to gun ownership remains a federal government freed of its constitutional restraints. Expanding that government in any way, no matter how just the cause may seem, is not in the interests of gun owners or any lovers of liberty.

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.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 48

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

United States Embargo On Cuba
9 April 2003

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, April 9, 2003


2003 Ron Paul 48:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise again in this Congress to introduce a bill to lift the harmful and counterproductive United States Embargo on Cuba.

2003 Ron Paul 48:2
On June 29, 2001, the Texas state legislature adopted a resolution calling for an end to U.S. economic sanctions against Cuba. Lawmakers emphasized the failure of sanctions to remove Castro from power, and the unwillingness of other nations to respect the embargo. One Texas Representative stated:

2003 Ron Paul 48:3
“We have a lot of rice and agricultural products, as well as high-tech products, that would be much cheaper for Cuba to purchase from Texas. All that could come through the ports of Houston and Corpus Christi.” I wholeheartedly support this resolution, and I have introduced similar federal legislation in past years to lift all trade, travel, and telecommunications restrictions with Cuba. I only wish Congress understood the simple wisdom expressed in Austin, so that we could end the harmful and ineffective trade sanctions that serve no national purpose.

2003 Ron Paul 48:4
I oppose economic sanctions for two very simple reasons. First, they don’t work as effective foreign policy. Time after time, from Cuba to China to Iraq, we have failed to unseat despotic leaders by refusing to trade with the people of those nations. If anything, the anti- American sentiment aroused by sanctions often strengthens the popularity of such leaders, who use America as a convenient scapegoat to divert attention from their own tyranny. History clearly shows that free and open trade does far more to liberalize oppressive governments than trade wars. Economic freedom and political freedom are inextricably linked — when people get a taste of goods and information from abroad, they are less likely to tolerate a closed society at home. So while sanctions may serve our patriotic fervor, they mostly harm innocent citizens and do nothing to displace the governments we claim as enemies.

2003 Ron Paul 48:5
Second, sanctions simply hurt American industries, particularly agriculture. Every market we close to our nation’s farmers is a market exploited by foreign farmers. China, Russia, the middle east, North Korea, and Cuba all represent huge markets for our farm products, yet many in Congress favor current or proposed trade restrictions that prevent our farmers from selling to the billions of people in these countries. The Department of Agriculture estimates that Iraq alone represents a $1 billion market for American farm goods. Given our status as one of the world’s largest agricultural producers, why would we ever choose to restrict our exports? The only beneficiaries of our sanctions policies are our foreign competitors.

2003 Ron Paul 48:6
I certainly understand the emotional feelings many Americans have toward nations such as Iran, Iraq, Libya, and Cuba. Yet we must not let our emotions overwhelm our judgment in foreign policy matters, because ultimately human lives are at stake. Economic common sense, self-interested foreign policy goals, and humanitarian ideals all point to the same conclusion: Congress should work to end economic sanctions against all nations immediately.

2003 Ron Paul 48:7
The legislation I introduce today is representative of true free trade in that while it opens trade, it prohibits the U.S. Taxpayer from being compelled to subsidize the United States government, the Cuban government or individuals or entities that choose to trade with Cuban citizens.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 49

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

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
April 9, 2003
Repeal the So-Called “Medical Privacy Rule”


2003 Ron Paul 49:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Patient Privacy Act. This bill repeals the misnamed Medical Privacy regulation, which went into effect on April 14 and actually destroys individual medical privacy. The Patient Privacy Act also repeals those sections of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 authorizing the establishment of a “standard unique health care identifier” for all Americans, as well as prohibiting the use of federal funds to develop or implement a database containing personal health information. Both of these threats to medical freedom grew out of the Clinton-era craze to nationalize health care as much as politically possible.

2003 Ron Paul 49:2
Establishment of a uniform medical identifier would allow federal bureaucrats to track every citizen’s medical history from cradle to grave. Furthermore, as explained in more detail below, it is possible that every medical professional, hospital, and Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) in the country would be able to access an individual citizen’s records simply by entering an identifier into a health care database.

2003 Ron Paul 49:3
The dangers to liberty inherent in the “uniform health identifier” are magnified by the so-called “medical privacy” regulation. Many things in Washington are misnamed, however, this regulation may be the most blatant case of false advertising I have come across in all my years in Congress. Rather than protecting the individual’s right to medical privacy, these regulations empower government officials to determine how much medical privacy an individual “needs.” This one-size-fits-all approach ignores the fact that different people may prefer different levels of privacy. Some individuals may be willing to exchange a great deal of their personal medical information in order to obtain certain benefits, such as lower-priced care or having information targeted to their medical needs sent to them in a timely manner. Others may forgo those benefits in order to limit the number of people who have access to their medical history. Federal bureaucrats cannot possibly know, much less meet, the optimal level of privacy for each individual. In contrast, the free market allows individuals to obtain the level of privacy protection they desire.

2003 Ron Paul 49:4
The so-called medical privacy regulations and uniform health identifier scheme not only reduce an individual’s ability to determine who has access to his personal medical information, but actually threaten medical privacy and constitutionally-protected liberties. For example, these regulations allow law enforcement and other government officials access to a citizen’s private medical records without having to obtain a search warrant.

2003 Ron Paul 49:5
Allowing government officials to access a private person’s medical records without a warrant is a violation of the Fourth amendment to the United States Constitution, which protects American citizens from warrantless searches by government officials. The requirement that law enforcement officials obtain a warrant from a judge before searching private documents is one of the fundamental protections against abuse of the government’s power to seize an individual’s private documents. While the Fourth Amendment has been interpreted to allow warrantless searches in emergency situations, it is hard to conceive of a situation where law enforcement officials would be unable to obtain a warrant before electronic medical records would be destroyed.

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.

2003 Ron Paul 49:7
In addition to law enforcement, these so-called privacy protection regulations create a privileged class of people with a federally-guaranteed right to see an individual’s medical records without the individual’s consent. My medical office recently received a Model “Privacy Act Compliance” form. This three-page form lists over 20 situations where medical information may be disclosed without individual consent. Medical information may be disclosed to attorneys, business associates of the provider, and federal agencies conducting “health oversight activities.” Medical information may also be divulged without consent to insurance companies and medical researchers!

2003 Ron Paul 49:8
Medical researchers claim to be able to protect the autonomy of their unwilling subjects, but the fact is that allowing third parties to use medical records for research purposes increases the risk of inadvertent identification of personal medical information. I am aware of at least one incident where a man had his identity revealed when his medical records were used without his consent. As a result, many people in his community discovered details of his medical history that he wished to keep private!

2003 Ron Paul 49:9
Forcing individuals to divulge medical information without their consent also runs afoul of the Fifth amendment’s prohibition on taking private property for public use without just compensation. After all, people do have a legitimate property interest in their private information. Therefore, restrictions on an individual’s ability to control the dissemination of their private information represents a massive regulatory taking. The takings clause is designed to prevent this type of sacrifice of individual property rights for the “greater good.”

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.

2003 Ron Paul 49:11
As an OB-GYN with more than 30 years experience in private practice, I am very concerned by the threat to medical practice posed by these privacy regulations and the unique health identifier scheme. The confidential physician-patient relationship is the basis of good health care.

2003 Ron Paul 49:12
Oftentimes, effective treatment depends on the patient’s ability to place absolute trust in his doctor. The legal system has acknowledged the importance of maintaining physician-patient confidentiality by granting physicians a privilege not to divulge confidential patient information.

2003 Ron Paul 49:13
I ask my colleagues to consider how comfortable you would be confiding an embarrassing physical or emotional problem to your physicians if you knew that any and all information given your doctor may be placed in a government database or seen by medical researchers, handed over to government agents without so much as a simple warrant or accessed by anyone who happens to know your unique health identifier?

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.

2003 Ron Paul 49:15
Mr. Speaker, the misnamed medical privacy regulations and the scheme to assign all Americans a unique health care identifier violates the Fourth and Fifth amendments by allowing law enforcement officials and government favored special interests to seize medical records without an individual’s consent or a warrant. Federal supervision of who can access medical records, combined with a federally-assigned medical ID, facilitate the creation of a federal database containing the health care data of every American citizen. These developments could undermine the doctor-patient relationship and thus worsen the health care of millions of Americans. I, therefore, call on my colleagues to join me in repealing these threats to privacy and quality health care by cosponsoring the Patient Privacy Act.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 50

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

Agriculture Education Freedom Act
10 April 2003

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, April 10, 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.

2003 Ron Paul 50:2
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. It is truly amazing that with all the handwringing in Congress over the alleged need to further restrict liberty and grow the size of government “for the children” we would continue to tax young people who are trying to lead responsible lives and prepare for the future. Even if the serious social problems today’s youth face could be solved by new federal bureaucracies and programs, it is still unfair to pick on those kids who are trying to do the right thing.

2003 Ron Paul 50:3
These children are not even old enough to vote, yet we are forcing them to pay taxes. What ever happened to no taxation without representation? No wonder young people are so cynical about government.

2003 Ron Paul 50:4
It is time we stopped taxing youngsters who are trying to earn money to go to college by selling livestock they have raised through their participation in programs such as 4–H or Future Farmers of America. Therefore, I call on my colleagues to join me in supporting the Agriculture Education Freedom Act.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 51

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

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
April 29, 2003
America National Sovereignty vs. UN “International Law” – Time for Congress to Vote


2003 Ron Paul 51:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge the leadership of this body to bring a very important vote to the House floor.   I recently reintroduced HR 1146, the American Sovereignty Restoration Act, which would end our participation in the United Nations.  Millions of Americans have begun to question why we continue to spend $300 million each year funding and housing an organization that is actively hostile to American interests.   Surely Congress, which routinely spends 15 minutes renaming post offices, can spare 15 minutes to vote on this fundamental issue of American sovereignty.

2003 Ron Paul 51:2
Obviously many Americans now want to get out of the UN because they resent its refusal to sanction our war in Iraq.   The administration deserves some credit for ultimately upholding the principle that American national security is not a matter of international consensus, and that we don’t need UN authorization to act.  But the administration sent mixed signals by doing everything possible to obtain such authorization, and by citing UN resolutions as justification for our actions.  The message seems to be that the UN is credible when we control it and it does what we want, but lacks all credibility when it refuses to do our bidding.

2003 Ron Paul 51:3
Perhaps it’s time to stop trying to manipulate the UN, and start asserting our national sovereignty.

2003 Ron Paul 51:4
If we do not, rest assured that the UN will continue to interfere not only in our nation’s foreign policy matters, but in our domestic policies as well.  UN globalists are not satisfied by meddling only in international disputes.  They increasingly want to influence our domestic environmental, trade, labor, tax, and gun laws.  UN global planners fully intend to expand the organization into a true world government, complete with taxes, courts, and possibly a standing army.  This is not an alarmist statement; these goals are readily promoted on the UN’s own website.  UN planners do not care about national sovereignty; in fact they are openly opposed to it.  They correctly view it as an obstacle to their plans.  They simply aren’t interested in our Constitution and republican form of government.

2003 Ron Paul 51:5
The choice is very clear: we either follow the Constitution or submit to UN global governance.  American national sovereignty cannot survive if we allow our domestic laws to be crafted or even influenced by an international body.  This needs to be stated publicly more often.  If we continue down the UN path, America as we know it will cease to exist.

2003 Ron Paul 51:6
Noted constitutional scholar Herb Titus has thoroughly researched the United Nations and its purported “authority.”   Titus explains that the UN Charter is not a treaty at all, but rather a blueprint for supranational government that directly violates the Constitution.  As such, the Charter is neither politically nor legally binding upon the American people or government.  The UN has no authority to make “laws” that bind American citizens, because it does not derive its powers from the consent of the American people.   We need to stop speaking of UN resolutions and edicts as if they represented legitimate laws or treaties.  They do not.

2003 Ron Paul 51:7
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I’m merely asking House leadership to schedule vote on HR 1146.   Americans deserve to know how their representatives stand on the critical issue of American sovereignty.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 52

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

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.

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.

2003 Ron Paul 52:3
There are attempts in this bill to reduce the role of bureaucracy and paperwork, and some provisions will benefit children. In particular, I applaud the efforts of the drafters of those who drafted it to address the over-prescription of psychotropic drugs, such as Ritalin by ensuring that no child shall be placed on these drugs without parental consent.

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!

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.

2003 Ron Paul 52:6
I would ask all my colleagues to consider whether we are truly aiding education by imposing new mandates, or just making it more difficult for hard-working, education professionals to properly educate our children?

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.

2003 Ron Paul 52:8
On May 10, 1994, Dr. Mary Wagner testified before the Education Committee that disabled children who are not placed in mainstream classrooms graduate from high school at a much higher rate than disabled children who are mainstreamed. Dr. Wagner quite properly accused Congress of sacrificing children to ideology.

2003 Ron Paul 52:9
H.R. 1350 also burdens parents by requiring them to go through a time-consuming process of bureaucracy and litigation to obtain a proper education for their child. I have been told that there are trial lawyers actively soliciting dissatisfied parents of special needs children as clients for lawsuits against local schools! Parents and school districts should not be wasting resources that could go to educating children enriching trial lawyers.

2003 Ron Paul 52:10
Instead of placing more federal control on education, Congress should allow parents of disabled children the ability to obtain the type of education appropriate for that child’s unique needs by passing my Help and Opportunities for Parents of Exceptional Children (HOPE for Children) Act of 2003, H.R. 1575. This bill allows parents of children with a learning disability a tax cut of up to $3,000 for educational expenses. Parents could use this credit to pay for special services for their child, or to pay tuition at private school or even to home school their child. By allowing parents of special needs children to control the education dollar, the HOPE for Children Act allows parents to control their child’s education. Thus, this bill helps parents of special needs children provide their child an education tailored to the child’s unique needs.

2003 Ron Paul 52:11
The HOPE for Children Act allows parents of special needs children to provide those children with an education that matches their child’s unique needs without having to beg permission of education bureaucrats or engage in lengthy and costly litigation.

2003 Ron Paul 52:12
Mr. Chairman, it is time to stop sacrificing children on the altar of ideology. Every child is unique and special. Given the colossal failure of Washington’s existing interference, it is clear that all children will be better off when we get Washington out of their classroom and out of their parents’ pocketbooks. I therefore urge my colleagues to cast a vote for constitutionally limited government and genuine compassion by opposing H.R. 1350 and supporting the HOPE for Children Act.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 53

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Against $15 Billion To Fight AIDS In Africa
1 May 2003

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

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

2003 Ron Paul 53:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I want to call attention to something in the committee report that I consider an error, and I would like to make a suggestion so that it might not occur again. This particular legislation, not the rule as much as the legislation, I am not in support of for various reasons.

2003 Ron Paul 53:2
One, I think the odds are very slim that it is going to do a whole lot of good. It is very well-intended. I am a physician, and I cannot think of anything better than to wipe out AIDS in Africa, or in the United States, for that matter. But $15 billion going to Africa on a questionable program bothers me because at the same time, we are cutting benefits to our veterans and also the elderly have a hard time getting medical care here. So there is a practical argument against the legislation.

2003 Ron Paul 53:3
In the bill and in the amendments, there is a lot of social engineering going on. I think if we are going to do any social engineering or social suggestions, it ought to be here and we ought not be naive enough to think we can change habits that exist in Africa.

2003 Ron Paul 53:4
But the point I wanted to bring up is the authority for doing programs like this. We have a rule in the House that we have to cite the constitutional authority, for the legislation we’re dealing with. The committee report cites the authority from a very important section of the Constitution, article I, section 8, because literally we, the Congress, get our marching orders from article I, section 8, which is the section of the Constitution relating to making all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers vested by the Constitution.

2003 Ron Paul 53:5
Well, that is where the shortcoming comes because if we read the Constitution, at the end of article I, section 8, it says, “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers.” Therefore, the “necessary and proper” clause is explicitly designed to give the authority to write the laws for the foregoing powers. Believe me, we will not find any authority in article I, section 8 for dealing with medical care problems in Africa.

2003 Ron Paul 53:6
I find it interesting here because quite often one side of the aisle when they do not like legislation will use my argument in this case, and other times it is the other side of the aisle. So everybody makes my argument one time or the other. My suggestion is if the Constitution means anything, and if article I, section 8 means anything, it ought to be applied across the board or we ought to change the Constitution and say this is a mandate from the American people that we should pursue missionary work in Africa.

2003 Ron Paul 53:7
But most likely nobody is going to propose a change in the Constitution, the Constitution will not be changed, so the Congress chooses to ignore the Constitution when it feel like it; therefore, we have reduced the Constitution to something that has very little value anymore.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 54

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Big Program Won’t Eliminate AIDS
1 May 2003

2003 Ron Paul 54:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, as a physician I am particularly concerned about terrible diseases like AIDS. I have great sympathy for those — in increasing numbers — who suffer and die around the world. The question is not whether each and every one of us is concerned or would like to do something about this terrible problem. The question is whether yet another massive government foreign aid program will actually do anything at all to solve the problem. The United States has been sending billions and billions of dollars overseas for decades to do fine-sounding things like “build democracy” and “fight drugs” and “end poverty.” Yet decades later we are told that in every category these things have actually gotten worse rather than better. Our money has disappeared into bank accounts of dictators and salaries for extremely well-paid consultants and U.S. Government employees. Yet we refuse to learn from these mistakes; we are about to make another multi-billion dollar mistake with this bill.

2003 Ron Paul 54:2
Though I have not been in favor of Federal Government funding of healthcare, if this money is going to be spent why shouldn’t it be spent in this country, on American citizens? One legitimate function of government is to protect its citizens and taxpayers. Yet thousands of Americans who have contracted this terrible disease find themselves without any healthcare at all. Thousands of these Americans, as they become ill, are no longer able to work and therefore lose their insurance coverage. Drugs to treat the disease become impossible to afford; those with disease end up along and in misery. I seriously wonder whether negative perceptions of those at risk in this country do not drive this push to send billions abroad rather than address the disease here at home. I believe that if this money is to be spend it should be spent on Americans, regardless of what some may think about those high-risk groups.

2003 Ron Paul 54:3
Bills like the one we are considering today also force Americans to fund programs and organizations that many find morally objectionable, such as those that distribute condoms and perform abortion. While some amendments we are voting on today admirably seek to address some of these concerns, the fact remains that this bill even if amended unconstitutionally sends U.S. taxpayer money overseas and inappropriately engages in social engineering abroad. None of the amendments address the immorality of forcing Americans to fund organizations engaged in family planning, performing abortions, and distributing condoms. As Thomas Jefferson famously said, “To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas be disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.” That is why I have introduced H.R. 1548, a bill to prohibit any Federal official from expending any Federal funds for any population control or population planning program or any family planning activity. What we are seeing today on the floor just underscores the need to pass H.R. 1548 — to end this tyrannical and sinful practice of forcing Americans to pay for programs they believe to be immoral and evil.

2003 Ron Paul 54:4
Mr. Chairman, at a time when the government is running record deficits, is engaged in an enormously expensive war in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere, and is even cutting veterans benefits, I find it extremely irresponsible that we are discussing sending additional billions overseas in yet another dubious program. Additionally, I am greatly concerned that the billions we are contributing to the “Global Fund” will be going to organizations that support and perform abortions, prostitution, infanticide and other horrors. There is nothing in this bill to prevent this, only faith that the Coordinator will exercise good judgment in these matters. That is simply not sufficient. I strongly oppose this bill and urge my colleagues to do likewise.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 55

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Voter Protection Act
1 May 2003

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, May 1, 2003


2003 Ron Paul 55:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Voter Protection Act. Unlike most so-called “campaign reform” proposals, the Voter Protection Act enhances fundamental liberties and expands the exchange of political ideas. The Voter Fairness Act accomplishes this goal by lowering and standardizing the requirements for, and the time required to get, signatures to qualify a Federal candidate for the ballot. Many states have unfair rules and regulations that make it virtually impossible for minor party and independent candidates to get on the ballot.

2003 Ron Paul 55:2
I want to make 4 points about this bill. First, it is constitutional. Article I, section 4, explicitly authorizes the U.S. Congress to, “At any time by law make or alter such regulations regarding the manner of holding elections.” This is the authority that was used for the Voter Rights Act of 1965.

2003 Ron Paul 55:3
The second point I would like to make is an issue of fairness. Because so many states require independent candidates to collect an excessive amount of signatures in a short period of time, many individuals are excluded from the ballot. For instance, there has not been one minor party candidate on the Georgia ballot since 1943, because of Georgia’s overly strict ballot access requirements. This is unfair. The Voter Protection Act corrects this.

2003 Ron Paul 55:4
My third point addresses those who worry about overcrowding on the ballot. In fact, there have been statistical studies made of states that have minimal signature requirements and generous grants of time to collect the signatures. Instead of overcrowding, these states have an average of 3.3 candidates per ballot.

2003 Ron Paul 55:5
The fourth point that I would like to make is that complying with ballot access rules drains resources from even those minor party candidates able to comply with these onerous rules. This obviously limits the ability of minor party candidates to communicate their message and ideas to the general public. Perhaps the ballot access laws are one reason why voter turnout has been declining over the past few decades. After all, almost 42 percent of eligible voters have either not registered to vote or registered as something other than Democrat or Republican.

2003 Ron Paul 55:6
The Voter Protection Act is a constitutional way to reform campaign laws to increase voter participation by making the election process fairer and open to new candidates and ideas. I hope all my colleagues will join me in supporting this true campaign reform bill.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 56

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

The Wisdom Of Tax Cuts
6 May 2003

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

2003 Ron Paul 56:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the current tax debate is more about politics than serious economics. Both sides use demagoguery but propose only modest tax cuts. The benefits that could come from the current tax cut proposal, unfortunately, are quite small and not immediate.

2003 Ron Paul 56:2
Some say tax cuts raise revenues by addressing economic activity, thus providing Congress with even more money to spend. Others say lowering taxes simply lowers revenues and increases deficits. Some say we must target tax cuts to the poor and the middle class so they will spend more money. Others say tax cuts should be targeted to the rich so they can invest and create jobs. We must accept that it is hard to give tax cuts to people who do not pay taxes. But we could, if we wanted, cut payroll taxes for lower-income workers.

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.

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.

2003 Ron Paul 56:5
Two final points to remember: whether or not people can keep what they earn is first a moral issue, and second an economic issue. Tax cuts should never be referred to as a “cost to government.” Tax cuts should be much bigger and come much sooner for everyone.

2003 Ron Paul 56:6
Remember, the real issue is total spending by government. Yet this issue is ignored or politicized by both sides of the aisle here in Congress. The political discussion about whether to cut taxes has avoided the real issue and instead has degenerated into charges of class and party warfare, with both sides lusting for power. Of course, the great issue for the ages, namely, what is the proper role for government in a constitutional republic, is totally ignored. Yet another question remains: Are the American people determined they still wish to have a constitutional Republic?

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 57

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


Congressional Record [.PDF]

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
June 3, 2003
The Flag Burning Amendment


2003 Ron Paul 57:1
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule, although unenthusiastically. I am not too excited about this process, and certainly I am not very excited about this proposal to amend the Constitution. As for my viewpoint, I see the amendment as very unnecessary and very dangerous. I want to make a few points along those lines.

2003 Ron Paul 57:2
It has been inferred too often by those who promote this amendment that those who oppose it are less patriotic, and I think that is unfair. And an earlier statement was made by the gentleman from Florida that everybody here is patriotic and nobody’s patriotism should be challenged.

2003 Ron Paul 57:3
It has also been said that if one does not support this amendment to the flag that they are disloyal to the military, and that cannot possibly be true. I have served 5 years in the military, and I do not feel less respectful of the military because I have a different interpretation on how we should handle the flag. But nevertheless, I think what we are doing here is very serious business because it deals with more than just the flag.

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.

2003 Ron Paul 57:5
Here we are, amending the Constitution for a noncrisis. How many cases of flag burning have we seen? I have seen it on television a few times in the last year, but it was done on foreign soil, by foreigners, who had become angry at us over our policies, but I do not see that many Americans in the streets burning up flags. There were probably a lot more in previous decades, but in recent years it averages out to about eight, about eight cases a year, and they are not all that horrendous. It involves more vandalism, teenagers taking flags and desecrating the flag and maybe burning it, and there are local laws against that.

2003 Ron Paul 57:6
This is all so unnecessary. There are already laws against vandalism. There are state laws that say they cannot do it and they can be prosecuted. So this is overkill.

2003 Ron Paul 57:7
As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court has helped to create this. I know a lot of people depend on the Supreme Court to protect us, but in many ways, I think the Supreme Court has hurt us. So I agree with those who are promoting this amendment that the Supreme Court overreacted, because I think the States should have many more prerogatives than they do. Many states have these laws, and I believe that we should have a Supreme Court that would allow more solutions to occur at the state level. They would be imperfect, no doubt, it would not be perfect protection of liberty by state laws. But let me tell my colleagues, when we come here as politicians and superpatriots and we pass amendments to the Constitution, that will be less than perfect, then it will be just like the Supreme Court- a poor national solution.

2003 Ron Paul 57:8
It is a ruling for everyone, and if we make a mistake, it affects everybody in every state, and that is what I am afraid we are doing here.

2003 Ron Paul 57:9
The First Amendment has been brought up on several occasions, and I am sure it will be mentioned much more in general debate. This amendment does not directly violate the First Amendment, but what it does, it gives Congress the authority to write laws that will violate the First Amendment, and this is where the trouble is. Nothing but confusion and litigation can result.

2003 Ron Paul 57:10
Mr. Speaker, I do not believe much good will come of it. A lot of good intentions are put into the effort, but I see no real benefit.

2003 Ron Paul 57:11
It was mentioned earlier that those who supported campaign finance laws were inconsistent. And others would say that we do not have to worry about the First amendment when we are dealing with the flag amendments. But I would suggest there is another position. Why can we not be for the First amendment when it comes to campaign finance reform and not ask the government to regulate the way we spend our money and advertise, while at the same time supporting the First amendment here?

2003 Ron Paul 57:12
It seems that consistency is absent in this debate.

2003 Ron Paul 57:13
It is said by the chairman of the committee that he does not want to hear much more about the First amendment. We have done it before, so therefore it must be okay. But we should not give up that easily.

2003 Ron Paul 57:14
He suggested that we have amended the Constitution before when the courts have ruled a certain way. And he is absolutely right, we can do that and we have done that. But to use the 16th amendment as a beautiful example of how the Congress solves problems, I would expect the same kind of dilemma coming out of this amendment as we have out of the 16th amendment which, by the way, has been questioned by some historians as not being correctly ratified.

2003 Ron Paul 57:15
I think one of our problems has been that we have drifted away from the rule of law, we have drifted away from saying that laws ought to be clear and precise and we ought to all have a little interpretation of the laws.

2003 Ron Paul 57:16
The gentleman earlier had said that there are laws against slander so therefore we do violate the First amendment. Believe me, I have never read or heard about a legislative body or a judge who argued that you can lie and commit fraud under the First amendment. But the First amendment does say “Congress shall write no laws.”  That is precise. So even the laws dealing with fraud and slander should be written by the States. This is not a justification for us to write an amendment that says Congress shall write laws restricting expression through the desecration of the flag.

2003 Ron Paul 57:17
This amendment, as written so far, does not cause the conflict. It will be the laws that will be written and then we will have to decide what desecration is and many other things.

2003 Ron Paul 57:18
Earlier in the debate it was said that an individual may well be unpatriotic if he voted against a Defense appropriation bill. I have voted against the Defense appropriation bill because too much money in the Defense budget goes to militarism that does not really protect our country. I do not believe that is being unpatriotic.

2003 Ron Paul 57:19
Mr. Speaker, let me summarize why I oppose this Constitutional amendment. I have myself served 5 years in the military, and I have great respect for the symbol of our freedom. I salute the flag, and I pledge to the flag. I also support overriding the Supreme Court case that overturned State laws prohibiting flag burning. Under the Constitutional principle of federalism, questions such as whether or not Texas should prohibit flag burning are strictly up to the people of Texas, not the United States Supreme Court. Thus, if this amendment simply restored the state’s authority to ban flag burning, I would enthusiastically support it.

2003 Ron Paul 57:20
However, I cannot support an amendment to give Congress new power to prohibit flag burning. I served my country to protect our freedoms and to protect our Constitution. I believe very sincerely that today we are undermining to some degree that freedom that we have had all these many years.

2003 Ron Paul 57:21
Mr. Speaker, we have some misfits who on occasion burn the flag. We all despise this behavior, but the offensive conduct of a few does not justify making an exception to the First amendment protections of political speech the majority finds offensive. According to the pro-flag amendment Citizens Flag Alliance, there has been only 16 documented cases of flag burning in the last two years, and the majority of those cases involved vandalism or some other activity that is already punishable by local law enforcement!

2003 Ron Paul 57:22
Let me emphasize how the First Amendment is written, “Congress shall make no law.” That was the spirit of our Nation at that time: “Congress shall make no laws.”

2003 Ron Paul 57:23
Unfortunately, Congress has long since disregarded the original intent of the Founders and has written a lot of laws regulating private property and private conduct. But I would ask my colleagues to remember that every time we write a law to control private behavior, we imply that somebody has to arrive with a gun, because if you desecrate the flag, you have to punish that person. So how do you do that? You send an agent of the government, perhaps an employee of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Flags, to arrest him. This is in many ways patriotism with a gun – if your actions do not fit the official definition of a “patriot,” we will send somebody to arrest you.

2003 Ron Paul 57:24
Fortunately, Congress has models of flag desecration laws. For example, Saddam Hussein made desecration of the Iraq flag a criminal offense punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

2003 Ron Paul 57:25
It is assumed that many in the military support this amendment, but in fact there are veterans who have been great heroes in war on both sides of this issue. I would like to quote a past national commander of the American Legion, Keith Kreul. He said:

2003 Ron Paul 57:26
“Our Nation was not founded on devotion to symbolic idols, but on principles, beliefs and ideals expressed in the Constitution and its Bill of Rights. American veterans who have protected our banner in battle have not done so to protect a golden calf. Instead, they carried the banner forward with reverence for what it represents, our beliefs and freedom for all. Therein lies the beauty of our flag. A patriot cannot be created by legislation.”

2003 Ron Paul 57:27
Secretary of State, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and two-time winner of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, Colin Powell has also expressed opposition to amending the constitution in this manner:

2003 Ron Paul 57:28
“I would not amend that great shield of democracy to hammer out a few miscreants. The flag will be flying proudly long after they have slunk away.”

2003 Ron Paul 57:29
Mr. Speaker, this amendment will not even reach the majority of cases of flag burning. When we see flag burning on television, it is usually not American citizens, but foreigners who have strong objections to what we do overseas, burning the flag. This is what I see on television and it is the conduct that most angers me.

2003 Ron Paul 57:30
One of the very first laws that Red China passed upon assuming control of Hong Kong was to make flag burning illegal. Since that time, they have prosecuted some individuals for flag burning. Our State Department keeps records of how often the Red Chinese persecute people for burning the Chinese flag, as it considers those prosecutions an example of how the Red Chinese violate human rights. Those violations are used against Red China in the argument that they should not have most-favored-nation status. There is just a bit of hypocrisy among those members who claim this amendment does not interfere with fundamental liberties, yet are critical of Red China for punishing those who burn the Chinese flag.

2003 Ron Paul 57:31
Mr. Speaker, this is ultimately an attack on private property. Freedom of speech and freedom of expression depend on property. We do not have freedom of expression of our religion in other people’s churches; it is honored and respected because we respect the ownership of the property. The property conveys the right of free expression, as a newspaper would or a radio station. Once Congress limits property rights, for any cause, no matter how noble, it limits freedom.

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.

2003 Ron Paul 57:33
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out that by using the word “desecration,” which is traditionally reserved for religious symbols, the authors of this amendment are placing the symbol of the state on the same plane as the symbol of the church. The practical effect of this is to either lower religious symbols to the level of the secular state, or raise the state symbol to the status of a holy icon. Perhaps this amendment harkens back to the time when the state was seen as interchangeable with the church. In any case, those who believe we have “No king but Christ” should be troubled by this amendment.

2003 Ron Paul 57:34
We must be interested in the spirit of our Constitution. We must be interested in the principles of liberty. I therefore urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Instead, my colleagues should work to restore the rights of the individual states to ban flag burning, free from unconstitutional interference by the Supreme Court.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 58

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

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
June 4, 2003
The Partial Birth Abortion Ban


2003 Ron Paul 58:1
Mr. Speaker, like many Americans, I am greatly concerned about abortion.   Abortion on demand is no doubt the most serious sociopolitical problem of our age.  The lack of respect for life that permits abortion significantly contributes to our violent culture and our careless attitude toward liberty.  As an obstetrician, I know that partial birth abortion is never a necessary medical procedure.  It is a gruesome, uncivilized solution to a social problem.

2003 Ron Paul 58:2
Whether a civilized society treats human life with dignity or contempt determines the outcome of that civilization.  Reaffirming the importance of the sanctity of life is crucial for the continuation of a civilized society.  There is already strong evidence that we are indeed on the slippery slope toward euthanasia and human experimentation.  Although the real problem lies within the hearts and minds of the people, the legal problems of protecting life stem from the ill-advised Roe v. Wade ruling, a ruling that constitutionally should never have occurred.

2003 Ron Paul 58:3
The best solution, of course, is not now available to us.  That would be a Supreme Court that recognizes that for all criminal laws, the several states retain jurisdiction.  Something that Congress can do is remove the issue from the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts, so that states can deal with the problems surrounding abortion, thus helping to reverse some of the impact of Roe v. Wade.

2003 Ron Paul 58:4
Unfortunately, H.R. 760 takes a different approach, one that is not only constitutionally flawed, but flawed in principle, as well.  Though I will vote to ban the horrible partial-birth abortion procedure, I fear that the language used in this bill does not further the pro-life cause, but rather cements fallacious principles into both our culture and legal system.

2003 Ron Paul 58:5
For example, 14G in the “Findings” section of this bill states, “...such a prohibition [upon the partial-birth abortion procedure] will draw a bright line that clearly distinguishes abortion and infanticide...” The question I pose in response is this: Is not the fact that life begins at conception the main tenet advanced by the pro-life community?  By stating that we draw a “bright line” between abortion and infanticide, I fear that we simply reinforce the dangerous idea underlying Roe v. Wade, which is the belief that we as human beings can determine which members of the human family are “expendable,” and which are not.

2003 Ron Paul 58:6
Another problem with this bill is its citation of the interstate commerce clause as a justification for a federal law banning partial-birth abortion.  This greatly stretches the definition of interstate commerce.  The abuse of both the interstate commerce clause and the general welfare clause is precisely the reason our federal government no longer conforms to constitutional dictates but, instead, balloons out of control in its growth and scope.  H.R. 760 inadvertently justifies federal government intervention into every medical procedure through the gross distortion of the interstate commerce clause.

2003 Ron Paul 58:7
H.R. 760 also depends heavily upon a “distinction” made by the Court in both Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which establishes that a child within the womb is not protected under law, but one outside of the womb is.   By depending upon this illogical “distinction,” I fear that H.R. 760, as I stated before, ingrains the principles of Roe v. Wade into our justice system, rather than refutes them as it should.

2003 Ron Paul 58:8
Despite its severe flaws, this bill nonetheless has the possibility of saving innocent human life, and I will vote in favor of it.  I fear, though, that when the pro-life community uses the arguments of the opposing side to advance its agenda, it does more harm than good.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 59

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

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
June 4, 2003
Pro-Life Action Must Originate from Principle.


2003 Ron Paul 59:1
As an obstetrician who has delivered over 4000 children, I have long been concerned with the rights of unborn people.  I believe this is the greatest moral issue of our time.   The very best of the western intellectual tradition has understood the critical link between moral and political action.  Each of these disciplines should strongly inform and support the other.

2003 Ron Paul 59:2
I have become increasingly concerned over the years that the pro-life movement I so strongly support is getting further off track, both politically and morally.  I sponsored the original pro-life amendment, which used a constitutional approach to solve the crisis of federalization of abortion law by the courts.   The pro-life movement was with me and had my full support and admiration.

2003 Ron Paul 59:3
Those who cherish unborn life have become frustrated by our inability to overturn or significantly curtail Roe v. Wade.  Because of this, attempts were made to fight against abortion using political convenience rather than principle.  There is nothing wrong per se with fighting winnable battles, but a danger exists when political pragmatism requires the pro-life movement to surrender important moral and political principles. 

2003 Ron Paul 59:4
When we surrender constitutional principles, we do untold damage to the moral underpinnings on which our Constitution and entire system of government rest.  Those underpinnings are the inalienable right to life, liberty, and property.  Commenting upon the link between our most important rights, Thomas Jefferson said   “The God which gave us life gave us at the same time liberty.   The hands of force may destroy but can never divide these.”   

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.”

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.

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.

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.

2003 Ron Paul 59:9
The worst offender of federalism is the so-called Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which not only indirectly surrenders the pro-life principle but actually directly undercuts the right to life by granting a specific exemption to abortionists !  This exemption essentially allows some to take life with the sanction of federal law.  By supporting this legislation, pro-lifers are expressly condoning a legal exemption for abortionists- showing just how far astray some in the pro-life community have gone.

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.

2003 Ron Paul 59:11
Given these dilemmas, what should those of us in the pro-life community do?  First, we must return to constitutional principles and proclaim them proudly.  We must take a principled approach that recognizes both moral and political principles, and accepts the close relationship between them.  Legislatively, we should focus our efforts on building support to overturn Roe v. Wade.  Ideally this would be done in a fashion that allows states to again ban or regulate abortion.  State legislatures have always had proper jurisdiction over issues like abortion and cloning; the pro-life movement should recognize that jurisdiction and not encroach upon it.  The alternative is an outright federal ban on abortion, done properly via a constitutional amendment that does no violence to our way of government.

2003 Ron Paul 59:12
If the next version of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban act reads like past versions in the House, I will likely support it despite the dilemmas outlined here.  I cannot support, however, a bill like the proposed Senate version of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban that reaffirms Roe v. Wade.

2003 Ron Paul 59:13
For the pro-life cause to truly succeed without undermining the very freedoms that protect life, it must return to principle and uphold our Founder’s vision of federalism as an essential component of the American system.   Undermining federalism ultimately can only undermine the very mechanism that protects the right to life.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 60

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

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Let’s Keep All Representatives Elected
June 4, 2003

2003 Ron Paul 60:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the privately funded and privately constituted “Continuity of Government Commission” has recently proposed that, for the first time in our nation’s history, we should allow the appointment of members of the U.S. House of Representatives. Not only does this proposal fail to comport with the intention of the founders of this nation, but even worse, it advocates a solution that has been repeatedly rejected by this body.

2003 Ron Paul 60:2
The report of this so-called “Commission” makes clear that while the Senate has, from time to time, voted to pass constitutional amendments allowing for the appointment of House members, this body has always jealously guarded its status as “the people’s House” by failing to pass such amendments. A brief history review may be in order at this point. First, our Nation has been under attack from foreign powers in the past, such as in its nascent years when the British were constantly “coming” In our own century, we faced an attack on Pearl Harbor as well as the very real threat of nuclear annihilation. Now, because we have learned that our Capitol was a potential target in a terror plot, there is an outcry from some corners regarding our vulnerability. Our government leaders are no more vulnerable today to mass extinction than they were 20 years ago. Our top-flight military makes us, in many ways, less vulnerable to attack and the assassination of our leaders than we were 200 years ago.

2003 Ron Paul 60:3
Even if we were to sustain such a devastating attack, the nightmare scenario painted in the first report of the “commission” is not only far-fetched, but also admits of a plethora of potential solutions already existent in our current constitutional structure. Though the report endeavors to cast doubt on the legitimacy of those structures, it is unsuccessful. Moreover, what could be more offensive to our republican form of government and of more questionable legitimacy, than to have a slew of un-elected “representatives” outvote elected people on the floor of our U.S. House?

2003 Ron Paul 60:4
Let’s face it: we can scare people and doom-say anytime we wish, but it would only be in the case of a near-complete annihilation that our government would fail to function. In such an instance there is no “system” that will preserve our government. On the other hand, if we surrender the right to elect people to the U.S. House of Representatives under any circumstances, we will be on a slippery slope away from the few remaining vestiges and most precious principles of the government left to us by our founders.

2003 Ron Paul 60:5
In the event that this “proposal” gets more serious and is given long-term attention, I will place in the record more detailed statements defending the notion of an all-elected House of Representatives, and explaining the fallacies and illogic found in this report. For now Mr. Speaker, I simply wish to go on record as among those who would fight to the last to preserve the principle of a House of Representatives consisting entirely of members elected by the people.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 61

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

H. Con. res. 177
4 June 2003

2003 Ron Paul 61:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend the members of our armed forces, who serve our country in the most difficult of circumstances. They endure terrible hardships in the course of their service: they are shipped thousands of miles across the globe for everything from border control duty to combat duty, enduring terribly long separations from their families and loved ones.

2003 Ron Paul 61:2
I believe it is appropriate for Congress to recognize and commend this service to our country and I join with my colleagues to do so. I am concerned, however, that legislation like H. Con. Res. 177 seeks to use our support for the troops to advance a very political and controversial message. In addition to expressing sympathy and condolences to the families of those who have lost their lives in service to our country, for example, this legislation endorses the kind of open-ended occupation and nation-building that causes me great concern. It “recommits” the United States to “helping the people of Iraq and Afghanistan build free and vibrant democratic societies.” What this means is hundreds of thousands of American troops remaining in Iraq and Afghanistan for years to come, engaged in nation-building activities that the military is neither trained nor suited for. It also means tens and perhaps hundreds of billions of American tax dollars being shipped abroad at a time when our national debt is reaching unprecedented levels.

2003 Ron Paul 61:3
The legislation inaccurately links our military action against Afghanistan, whose government was in partnership with Al-Qaeda, with our recent attack on Iraq, claiming that these were two similar campaigns in the war on terror. In fact, some of us are more concerned that the policy of pre-emptive military action, such as was the case in Iraq, will actually increase the likelihood of terrorist attacks against the United States — a phenomenon already predicted by the CIA.

2003 Ron Paul 61:4
Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that some would politicize an issue like this. If we are to commend our troops let us commend our troops. We should not be forced to endorse the enormously expensive and counter-productive practice of nation-building and preemptive military strikes to do so.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 62

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Continuity Of Government — Part 1
5 June 2003

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 41/2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL).

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

2003 Ron Paul 62:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express a few concerns that I have regarding both the commission and the trend toward a constitutional amendment that might solve some of the problems that people anticipate.

2003 Ron Paul 62:2
I certainly agree with the gentleman from Washington (Mr. BAIRD) that this is a very serious issue; and this is to me not just a casual appointment of a commission, but we are dealing with something that is, in a constitutional sense, rather profound because we are talking about amendments that are suggesting that our governors will appoint Members of Congress for the first time in our history. That should be done with a great deal of caution and clear understanding of what we are doing.

2003 Ron Paul 62:3
My concern, of course, with the commission is that we are moving rather rapidly in that direction. Hopefully, that is not the case. We had the commission report of the Continuity of Government Commission yesterday, and that was released, and then we had a unanimous consent agreement to bring this up, like we need to do this in a hurry.

2003 Ron Paul 62:4
Ordinarily, if we deal with constitutional amendments, quite frequently we will have a constitutional amendment proposed, and then we will hold hearings on that particular amendment. I think we could handle it that way.

2003 Ron Paul 62:5
But I have another concern about the urgent need and the assumption that the world ends if we are not here for a few days. There are times when we are not here like in August and a few months we take off at Christmas. Of course, we can be recalled, but the world does not end because we’re not here. In a way this need for a constitutional amendment to appoint congressmen is assuming that life cannot go on without us writing laws.

2003 Ron Paul 62:6
I would suggest that maybe the urgency is not quite as much as one thinks. I want to quote Michael Barone who was trying to justify a constitutional amendment that allows governors to appoint moc in a time of crisis. He said, “think of all the emergency legislation that Congress passed in the weeks and months after September 11 authorizing expanded police powers. None of this could have happened”. But now as we look back at those emergency conditions, a lot of questions are being asked about the PATRIOT Act and the attack on our fourth amendment and civil liberties. I suggest there could be a slower approach no harm will come of it.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

2003 Ron Paul 62:7
Mr. PAUL. I yield to the gentleman from California.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 63

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Continuity Of Government — Part 2
5 June 2003

2003 Ron Paul 63:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say I am pleased to hear what the gentleman has said, because there are some who see this just from the outside, seeing what we are doing here today as nothing more than a continuity of what was done yesterday.

2003 Ron Paul 63:2
The gentleman from California (Mr. DREIER) suggests he does not see it that way, and that gives me some reassurance, and I thank the gentleman.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 64

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Establishin Joint Committee To Review House And Senate Matters Assuring Continuing Representation And Congressional Operations For The American People
5 June 2003

SPEECH OF
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, June 5, 2003


2003 Ron Paul 64:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, while may seem reasonable to establish a Joint Committee on the Continuity of Congress, I wish to bring to my colleagues’ attention my concerns relative to certain proposals regarding continuity of government, which would fundamentally alter the structure of our government in a way detrimental to republican liberty.

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.

2003 Ron Paul 64:3
Therefore, any action that abridges the people’s constitutional authority to elect members of the House of Representatives abridges the people’s ability to control their government. Supporters of this plan claim that the appointment power will be necessary in the event of an emergency and that the appointed representatives will only be temporary. However, Mr. Speaker, the laws passed by these “temporary” representatives will be permanent.

2003 Ron Paul 64:4
I would remind my colleagues that this country has faced the possibility of threats to the continuity of this body several times throughout our history, yet no one suggested removing the people’s right vote for members of Congress. For example, the British in the War of 1812 attacked the city of Washington, yet nobody suggested the states could not address the lack of a quorum in the House of Representatives though elections. During the Civil War, the neighboring state of Virginia, where today many Capitol Hill staffers and members reside, was actively involved in hostilities against the United States Government, yet Abraham Lincoln never suggested that non-elected persons serve in the House. Forty-two years ago, Americans wrestled with a hostile superpower that had placed nuclear weapons just 90 miles off the Florida coast, yet no one suggested we consider taking away the people’s right to elect their representatives in order to ensure “continuity of government!”

2003 Ron Paul 64:5
I have no doubt that the people of the states are quite competent to hold elections in a timely fashion. After all, isn’t it in each state’s interest to ensure it has adequate elected representation in Washington as soon as possible? Mr. Speaker, there are those who say that the power of appointment is necessary in order to preserve checks and balances and thus prevent an abuse of executive power. Of course, I agree that it is very important to carefully guard our constitutional liberties in times of crisis, and that an over-centralization of power in the Executive Branch is one of the most serious dangers to that liberty. However, I would ask my colleagues who is more likely to guard the people’s liberties, representatives chosen by, and accountable to, the people, or representatives hand-picked by the executive of their state?

2003 Ron Paul 64:6
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I wish to question the rush under which this bill is being brought to the floor. Until this morning, most members had no idea this bill would be considered today! The rules committee began its mark-up of the bill at 9:15 last night and by 9:31 the report was filed and the bill placed on the House Calendar. Then, after Congress had finished legislative business for the day and with only a handful of members on the floor, unanimous consent was obtained to consider this bill today.

2003 Ron Paul 64:7
It is always disturbing when bills dealing with important subjects are rushed through the House before members have adequate time to consider all the implications of the measure. I hope this does not set a precedent for shutting members of Congress out of the debate on this important issue.

2003 Ron Paul 64:8
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while there is no harm in considering ideas for continuity of Congress, I hope my colleagues will reject any proposal that takes away the people’s right to elect their representatives in this chamber.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 65

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Genetically Modified Agricultural Products
10 June 2003

2003 Ron Paul 65:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this measure not because I wish to either support or oppose genetically-modified products. Clearly the production and consumption of these products is a matter for producers and consumers to decide for themselves.

2003 Ron Paul 65:2
I oppose this bill because at its core it is government intervention — both in our own markets and in the affairs of foreign independent nations. Whether European governments decide to purchase American products should not be a matter for the U.S. Congress to decide. It is a matter for European governments and the citizens of European Union member countries. While it may be true that the European Union acts irrationally in blocking the import of genetically-modified products, the matter is one for European citizens to decide.

2003 Ron Paul 65:3
Also, this legislation praises U.S. efforts to use the World Trade Organization to force open European markets to genetically-modified products. The WTO is an unelected world bureaucracy seeking to undermine the sovereignty of nations and peoples. It has nothing to do with free trade and everything to do with government- and bureaucrat-managed trade. Just as it is unacceptable when the WTO demands — at the behest of foreign governments — that the United States government raise taxes and otherwise alter the practices of American private enterprise, it is likewise unacceptable when the WTO makes such demands to others on behalf of the United States. This is not free trade.

2003 Ron Paul 65:4
Genetically-modified agriculture products may well be the wave of the future. They may provide food for the world’s populations and contribute to the eradication of disease. That is something we certainly hope for and for which we will all applaud should it prove to be the case. But, again, this legislation is not about that. That is why I must oppose this bill.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 66

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

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.

2003 Ron Paul 66:2
In addition to being unconstitutional, H.R. 2143 is likely to prove ineffective at ending Internet gambling. Instead, this bill 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, H.R. 2143 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.

2003 Ron Paul 66:3
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2143 violates the constitutional limits on Federal power. Furthermore, laws such as H.R. 2143 are ineffective in eliminating the demand for vices such as Internet gambling; instead, they ensure that these enterprises will be controlled by organized crime. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 2143, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 67

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Results Of The Attack On Iraq: What Have We Discovered
19 June 2003

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, June 19, 2003


2003 Ron Paul 67:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, (1) After more than two months of searching, no Weapons of Mass Destruction have been discovered in Iraq. While it is not impossible that something may be discovered, the fact that no WMD were used during the war and none have yet been discovered afterward indicates that Iraq did not pose a threat to the United States.

2003 Ron Paul 67:2
(2) Assuming that no WMD are discovered in Iraq, it appears that Iraq may have actually been following the various UN resolutions that demanded the destruction of this weapons material.

2003 Ron Paul 67:3
(3) Before the attack on Iraq, it was claimed that Iraq would destroy its oil wells. Though some explosives may have been found at some sites, it is clear that there was no coordinated Iraqi effort to demolish its oil facilities.

2003 Ron Paul 67:4
(4) Before the attack, it was claimed that the Iraqi government would blow up dams to slow down invading troops. It did not do so.

2003 Ron Paul 67:5
(5) Despite claims before the attack, there is no evidence of sustained, high-level contacts between the Iraqi government and the Al- Qaeda terrorist network.

2003 Ron Paul 67:6
(6) US troops and defense planners were shocked that the Iraqi army simply melted away as the US attack pressed toward Baghdad. An army that cannot even defend its own territory is hardly a threat to its neighbors — or to the United States 6,000 miles away.

2003 Ron Paul 67:7
(7) Considering the apparent lack of WMD and the total failure of the Iraqi army, claims that Iraq was a threat to United States national security appear to have been inaccurate. I publicly doubted such claims before the attack.

2003 Ron Paul 67:8
(8) Ending Saddam Hussein’s rule over Iraq hasn’t solved much. Even with Saddam removed from power, we are told that that “regime change” as such is not enough: there must be a “process” of regime change where the end-goal is to remake Iraq and Iraqi society in our own image. This is otherwise known as “nation-building.”

2003 Ron Paul 67:9
(9) Chaos and lawlessness prevails across Iraq. There is no functioning police force other than American troops. Anger toward the United States occupying force continues to increase.

2003 Ron Paul 67:10
(10) There is little chance of anything resembling democracy emerging in Iraq any time soon. Any real “democracy” that emerges will likely have a fundamentalist Islamic flavor and will be hostile to other religious and ethnic groups in Iraq.

2003 Ron Paul 67:11
(11) American soldiers are still getting killed on a regular basis. More organized forces seeking to kill American troops appear to be springing up across Iraq. Frustration with the American occupation of Iraq seems to be adding to the ranks of these organized anti-occupation forces, multiplying the threat to American troops.

2003 Ron Paul 67:12
(12) There are more US troops being sent to Iraq now that major hostilities have ended. Troops that were supposed to be coming home have been told they must remain in Iraq because of the continued chaos and danger to American forces.

2003 Ron Paul 67:13
(13) Though it was claimed before the US attack that proceeds from the sale of Iraqi oil would be sufficient to rebuild the country, it is now obvious that this will not be the case. The brunt of the burden of Iraqi reconstruction will therefore fall on the American taxpayer. Much of the damage is the result of our own bombing of that country.

2003 Ron Paul 67:14
(14) At a time when the US economy continues to falter, costs of occupation and reconstruction of Iraq have skyrocketed. Money spent rebuilding Iraq is money not available to help the US economy recover.

2003 Ron Paul 67:15
(15) The credibility of the United States overseas is at an all time low.

2003 Ron Paul 67:16
(16) The US intelligence community is being increasingly questioned over the quality of intelligence provided, while others suspect that the intelligence provided had been manipulated somewhere in the process to support a pre-determined policy.

2003 Ron Paul 67:17
(17) Hatred toward the United States is on the increase in the Arab world, making terrorism more likely against us than before the attack — as the CIA predicted.

2003 Ron Paul 67:18
(18) Nation-building — from creating a healthcare system to organizing trash pick-up to running the Iraqi media — has become our number one goal in Iraq.

2003 Ron Paul 67:19
(19) Yet, supporters of this war are already planning for the next war — possibly against Iran, Syria, North Korea, Cuba . . . or who knows where . . .

2003 Ron Paul 67:20
(20) In Washington, a foreign policy of noninterventionism, as advanced by the Founders and supported by the Constitution, is not considered a reasonable option, though millions of Americans would welcome it.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 68

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

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
June 25, 2003
Does Tony Blair Deserve a Congressional Medal?


2003 Ron Paul 68:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this legislation for a number of reasons. First, forcing the American people to pay tens of thousands of dollars to give a gold medal to a foreign leader is immoral and unconstitutional. I will continue in my uncompromising opposition to appropriations not authorized within the enumerated powers of the Constitution- a Constitution that each member of Congress swore to uphold.

2003 Ron Paul 68:2
Second, though these gold medals are an unconstitutional appropriation of American tax dollars, at least in the past we have awarded them to great humanitarians and leaders like Mother Theresa, President Reagan, Pope John Paul II, and others. These medals generally have been proposed to recognize a life of service and leadership, and not for political reasons - as evidenced by the overwhelming bi-partisan support for awarding President Reagan, a Republican, a gold medal. These awards normally go to deserving individuals, which is why I have many times offered to contribute $100 of my own money, to be matched by other members, to finance these medals.

2003 Ron Paul 68:3
I sense that this current proposal is different, however. No one is claiming that British Prime Minister Tony Blair has given a lifetime of humanitarian service like Mother Theresa, or demonstrated the historical leadership of a Ronald Reagan. No one suggests the British Prime Minister, leading the avowedly socialist Labour Party, has embraced American values such as freedom and limited government, as Margaret Thatcher attempted before him. No, Tony Blair is being given this medal for one reason: he provided political support when international allies were sought for America’s attack on Iraq. Does this overtly political justification not cheapen both the medal itself and the achievements of those who have been awarded it previously?

2003 Ron Paul 68:4
I find it particularly unfortunate that the Republican-controlled Congress would nominate Tony Blair to receive this award. His political party is socialist: Britain under Blair has a system of socialized medicine and government intervention in all aspects of the commercial and personal lives of its citizens. Socialism is an enemy of freedom and liberty - as the 20 th century taught us so well. It is the philosophical basis for a century of mass-murder and impoverishment.

2003 Ron Paul 68:5
In May, a British television poll found that Prime Minister Blair is the most unpopular man in Great Britain. A brief look at his rule leaves little question why this is so. He has eroded Britain’s constitutional base- recently abolishing the ancient position of Lord Chancellor without any debate. He has overseen a huge expansion of government, with the creation of costly “assemblies” in Wales and Scotland. He also has overseen changes in Britain’s voting system that many believe open the door to widespread voting fraud. In short, he is no Margaret Thatcher and certainly no Winston Churchill. Yet today Congress is voting to give him its highest honor.

2003 Ron Paul 68:6
Mr. Speaker, it is very easy to be generous with other people’s money. I believe the politicization of this medal, as we are seeing here today, really makes my own point on such matters: Congress should never spend tax money for appropriations not authorized within the enumerated powers of the Constitution. When it does so, it charts a dangerous course away from the rule of law and away from liberty. I urge a “No” vote on this unfortunate bill.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 69

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

H. Con. Res. 45
25 June 2003

2003 Ron Paul 69:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker: I will reluctantly vote in favor of this legislation, partly because it is simply a sense of Congress resolution. But I am concerned about this bill and the others like it we face with regularity on the floor of Congress. We all condemn violence against innocents, whether it is motivated by hatred, prejudice, greed, jealousy, or whatever else. But that is not what this legislation is really about. It is about the Congress of the United States presuming to know — and to legislate on — the affairs of European countries. First, this is the United States Congress. We have no Constitutional authority to pass legislation affecting foreign countries. Second, when we get involved in matters such as this we usually get it wrong. H. Con. Res. 45 is an example of us getting it wrong on both fronts.

2003 Ron Paul 69:2
This legislation refers to the rise of anti- Semitism in Europe as if it is a purely homegrown phenomenon, as if native residents of European countries are suddenly committing violent crimes against Jews. But I think we are only getting part of the story here. What is absent from the legislation is mention of the wellreported fact that much of the anti-Jewish violence in Europe is perpetrated by recent immigrants from Muslim countries of the Middle East and Africa. Reporting on a firebombing of a Synagogue in Marseille, France, for example, the New York Times quotes the longtime president of that region’s Jewish Council, Charles Haddad, as saying, “This is not anti- Semitic violence; it’s the Middle East conflict that’s playing out here.”

2003 Ron Paul 69:3
Therefore, part of the problem in many European countries is the massive immigration from predominantly Muslim countries, where new residents bring their hatreds and prejudices with them. Those European politicians who recognize this growing problem — there are now 600,000 Jews in France and five million Muslims — are denounced as racist and worse. While I do not oppose immigration, it must be admitted that massive immigration from vastly different cultures brings a myriad of potential problems and conflicts. These are complicated issues for we in Congress to deal with here in the United States. Yes, prejudice and hatred are evil and must be opposed, but it is absurd for us to try to solve these problems in countries overseas.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 70

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Keep Out Of Middle East Conflicts
25 June 2003

2003 Ron Paul 70:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this measure. Of course we all deplore terrorism and violence that any innocents are forced to suffer. There is, sadly, plenty of this in the world today. But there is more to this resolution than just condemning the violence in the Middle East. I have a problem with most resolutions like this because they have the appearance of taking one side or the other in a conflict that has nothing to do with the United States. Our responsibility is to the American people and to the Constitution, not to adjudicate age-old conflicts half-way around the world.

2003 Ron Paul 70:2
When we take sides in these far off conflicts, we serve to antagonize the people affected and end up no closer to peace than when we started. This bill makes reference to the need to have solidarity with Israel. Elsewhere people say we should have solidarity with the Palestinians and the Arabs. So, as I have said before when bills such as this are on the floor, it is sort of a contest: Should we be pro-Israel or pro-Arab, or anti-Israel or anti- Arab, and how are we perceived in doing this? It is pretty important.

2003 Ron Paul 70:3
But I still believe, through all these bills attempting to intervene in the Middle East, that there is a third option to this that we so often forget about. Why can we not be pro-American? What is in the best interests of the United States? We do not hear much talk of that, unfortunately.

2003 Ron Paul 70:4
As I keep saying when votes such as this come to the floor, the best foreign policy for the United States is noninterventionism. It is a policy American interests first, costs must less money, and is in keeping with a long American tradition so eloquently described by our Founders.

2003 Ron Paul 70:5
I hope the peoples of the Middle East are able to resolve their differences, but because whether they decide or not is not our business I urge a no vote on this resolution.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 71

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

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.

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.

2003 Ron Paul 71:3
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. 1 provides seniors a choice between staying in traditionally Medicare or joining an HMO or a Preferred Provider Organization (PPO). No matter which option the senior selects, choices about which pharmaceuticals are available to seniors will be made by a public or private sector bureaucrat. Furthermore, the bureaucrats will have poor to determine the aggregate prices charged to the plans. Being forced to choose between types of bureaucrats is not choice.

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!

2003 Ron Paul 71:5
This bill is even more pernicious when one realizes that this plan provides a perverse incentive for private plans to dump seniors into the government plans. In what is likely to be a futile effort to prevent this from happening, H.R. 1 extends federal subsidies to private insurers to bribe them to keep providing private drug coverage to senior citizens. However, the Joint Economic Committee has estimated that nearly 40 percent of private plans that currently provide prescription drug coverage to seniors will stop providing such coverage if this plan is enacted. This number is certain to skyrocket once the pharmaceutical companies begin passing on any losses caused by Medicare price controls to private plans.

2003 Ron Paul 71:6
Furthermore, these private plans will be subject to government regulations. Thus, even seniors who are able to maintain their private coverage will fall under federal control. Thus, H.R. 1 will reduce the access of many seniors to the prescription drugs of their choice!

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!

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.

2003 Ron Paul 71:9
At the least, we should be debating whether to spend on warfare or welfare and choosing between corporate welfare and welfare for the poor instead of simply increasing spending on every program. While I would much rather spend federal monies on prescription drugs then another unconstitutional war, increasing spending on any program without corresponding spending reductions endangers our nation’s economic future.

2003 Ron Paul 71:10
Congress further exacerbates the fiscal problems created by this bill by failing to take any steps to reform the government policies responsible for the skyrocketing costs of prescription drugs. Congress should help all Americans by reforming federal patent laws and FDA policies, which provide certain large pharmaceutical companies a governmentgranted monopoly over pharmaceutical products. Perhaps the most important thing Congress can do to reduce pharmaceutical policies is liberalize the regulations surrounding the reimportation of FDA-Approved pharmaceuticals.

2003 Ron Paul 71:11
As a representative of an area near the Texas-Mexico border, I often hear from angry constituents who cannot purchase inexpensive quality imported pharmaceuticals in their local drug store. Some of these constituents regularly travel to Mexico on their own to purchase pharmaceuticals. It is an outrage that my constituents are being denied the opportunity to benefit from a true free market in pharmaceuticals by their own government.

2003 Ron Paul 71:12
Supporters of H.R. 1 claim that this bill does liberalize the rules governing the importation of prescription drugs. However, H.R. 1’s importation provision allows the Secretary of Health and Human Services to arbitrarily restrict the ability of American consumers to import prescription drugs — and HHS Secretary Thompson has already gone on record as determined to do all he can to block a free trade in pharmaceuticals! Thus, the importation language in H.R. 1 is a smokescreen designed to fool the gullible into thinking Congress is acting to create a free market in pharmaceuticals.

2003 Ron Paul 71:13
The alternative suffers from the same flaws, and will have the same (if not worse) negative consequences for seniors as will H.R. 1. There are only two differences between the two: First, under the alternative, seniors will not be able to choice to have a federally subsidized HMO bureaucrat deny them their choice of prescription drugs; instead, seniors will have to accept the control of bureaucrats at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Second, the alternative is even more fiscally irresponsible than H.R. 1.

2003 Ron Paul 71:14
Mr. Speaker, our seniors deserve better than a “choice” between whether a private or a public sector bureaucrat will control their health care. Meaningful prescription drug legislation should be based on the principles of maximum choice and flexibility for senior citizens. For example, my H.R. 1617 provides seniors the ability to use Medicare dollars to cover the costs of prescription drugs in a manner that increases seniors’ control over their own health care.

2003 Ron Paul 71:15
H.R. 1617 removes the numerical limitations and sunset provisions in the Medicare Medical Savings Accounts (MSA) program. Medicare MSAs consist of a special saving account containing Medicare funds for seniors to use for their routine medical expenses, including prescription drug costs. Unlike the plans contained in H.R. 4504, and the Democratic alternative, Medicare MSAs allow seniors to use Medicare funds to obtain the prescription drugs that fit their unique needs. Medicare MSAs also allow seniors to use Medicare funds for other services not available under traditional Medicare, such as mammograms.

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!

2003 Ron Paul 71:17
There are claims that this bill provides seniors access to MSAs. It is true that this bill lifts the numerical caps on Medicare MSAs; however, it also imposes price controls and bureaucratic requirements on MSA programs. Thus, the MSAs contained in this bill do nothing to free seniors and health care providers from third party control of health care decisions!

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.

2003 Ron Paul 71:19
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the procedure under which this will was brought before the House. Last week, the committees with jurisdiction passed two separate, but similar Medicare prescription drug bills. In the middle of last night, the two bills were merged to produce H.R. 1. The bills reported out of Committee were each less than 400 pages, yet the bill we are voting on today is 692 pages. So in the middle of the night, the bill mysteriously doubled in size! Once again, members are asked to vote on a significant piece of legislation with far reaching effects on the American people without having had the chance to read, study, or even see major portions of the bill.

2003 Ron Paul 71:20
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, both H.R. 1 and the alternative force seniors to cede control over which prescription medicines they may receive. The only difference between them is that H.R. 1 gives federally funded HMO bureaucrats control over seniors’ prescription drugs, whereas the alternative gives government functionaries the power to tell seniors which prescription drug they can (and can’t) have. Congress can, and must, do better for our Nation’s seniors, by rejecting this command- and-control approach. Instead, Congress should give seniors the ability to use Medicare funds to pay for the prescription drugs of their choice by passing my legislation that gives all seniors access to Medicare Medical Savings Accounts.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 72

Ron Paul’s Congressional website
The “Continuity of Government” Proposal – A Dangerous and Unnecessary Threat to Representative Rule
June 30, 2003
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS

2003 Ron Paul 72:1
The COGC Proposal
The “Continuity of Government Commission” (COGC), spearheaded by the Brookings Institution and the American Enterprise Institute, recently issued proposals for the operation of Congress following a catastrophic terrorist attack.  Specifically, COGC advocates a constitutional amendment calling for the appointment of individuals to the House of Representatives to fill the seats of dead or incapacitated members, a first in American history.  An examination of the proposal reveals that it is both unnecessary and dangerous.

2003 Ron Paul 72:2
Note that COGC is “self-commissioned,” its members being neither elected nor appointed by any government body.   The biographies of the commissioners demonstrate that COGC is made up mostly of professional lobbyists. Of course COGC is well-intentioned, but the nation should know exactly who is trying to substitute their wisdom for that of James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and other framers of the Constitution.  I think most Americans would prefer that proposals to amend the Constitution come from elected lawmakers or grassroots efforts, not from think tanks and lobbyists.

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.

2003 Ron Paul 72:4
COGC is Unnecessary
Every generation seems to labor under the delusion that it lives in the most dangerous and turbulent time in human history.   COGC certainly proves this point.  Its proposal provides doomsday scenarios designed to make us believe that the threat of modern terrorism poses a much greater risk to our government institutions than ever existed in the past.  Yet is Congress really more vulnerable than it was at the height of the Cold War, when a single Soviet missile could have destroyed Washington? Surely Congress faced greater danger in 1814, when the British army actually invaded Washington, routed the city, and burned down the White House!  Somehow the republic survived those much more perilous times without a constitutional amendment calling for the emergency appointment of Representatives.

2003 Ron Paul 72:5
The scenarios offered by the commission, while theoretically possible, are highly unlikely to disable Congress.   Remember, a majority of members assemble together in one place only rarely; even during votes most members are not on the floor together at the same time   Inauguration ceremonies and State of the Union addresses often bring together a majority of members in the same place, but simple precautions could be taken to keep a sufficient number away from such events.  Even a direct terrorist attack on the Pentagon failed to disrupt the operation of the Department of Defense.  The COGC proposal exaggerates the likelihood that a terrorist strike on Washington would incapacitate the House of Representatives, and exaggeration is a bad reason to amend the Constitution. 

2003 Ron Paul 72:6
Existing Constitutional Provisions are Adequate
It is important to understand that the Constitution already provides the framework for Congress to function after a catastrophic event. Article I section 2 grants the governors of the various states authority to hold special elections to fill vacancies in the House of Representatives.   Article I section 4 gives Congress the authority to designate the time, manner, and place of such special elections if states should fail to act expeditiously following a national emergency.  As Hamilton explains in Federalist 59, the “time, place, and manner” clause was specifically designed to address the kind of extraordinary circumstances imagined by COGC.  Hamilton characterized authority over federal elections as shared between the states and Congress, with neither being able to control the process entirely.   

2003 Ron Paul 72:7
COGC posits that states could not hold special elections quickly enough after a terrorist act to guarantee the functioning of Congress.  But even COGC reports that the average length of House vacancies, following the death of a member until the swearing in of a successor after a special election, is only 126 days.  Certainly this period could be shortened given the urgency created by a terrorist attack.  We should not amend the Constitution simply to avoid having a reduced congressional body for a month or two.

2003 Ron Paul 72:8
In fact, Congress often goes months without passing significant legislation, and takes long breaks in August and December.   If anything, legislation passed in the aftermath of a terrorist event is likely to be based on emotion, not reason.  The terrible Patriot Act, passed only one month after September 11 th by a credulous Congress, is evidence of this.

2003 Ron Paul 72:9
Also, advances in technology can be used to reduce the risk of a disruption in congressional continuity following an emergency.   Members already carry Blackberry devices to maintain communications even if cut off from their offices. Similar technology can be used to allow remote electronic voting by members.  Congress should focus on contingency plans that utilize technology, not a constitutional amendment.

2003 Ron Paul 72:10
States have a wide variety of electronic and telephonic technology at their disposal to speed up the process of special elections.  Consider that popular television shows hold votes that poll millions of Americans in a single night!  Yet COGC ignores alternatives to standard voting and incorrectly assumes that states will be in disarray and unable to hold elections for months.

2003 Ron Paul 72:11
COGC is Dangerous because the House Must Be Elected
At its heart, the COGC proposal is fundamentally at odds with the right of the people always to elect their members of the House of Representatives.  The House must be elected.  Even “temporary” appointees would be unacceptable, because the laws passed would be permanent.

2003 Ron Paul 72:12
The problems with appointment of “representatives” are obvious.  COGC calls for a general constitutional amendment that gives Congress wide power to make rules for filling vacancies “in the event that a substantial number of members are killed or incapacitated.”  Such an amendment would be unavoidably vague, open to broad interpretation and abuse.  In defining terms like “vacancy,” “substantial,” and “incapacitated,” Congress or the courts would be setting a dangerous precedent for a more elastic constitutional framework.  Members of Congress simply cannot appoint their colleagues; the conflict of interest is glaring. 

2003 Ron Paul 72:13
Alternate proposals allowing state governors to appoint representatives from a list of successors nominated by members are no better.  The House of Representatives represents the people, not the states.  Single states often exhibit wide variations in political makeup even among voters of the same party.  Appointment by governors, even though the successors represent the dead member’s party choice, could change the ideological composition of Congress contrary to the will of the people.  Furthermore, voters choose an individual candidate, not a panel.  They should not be required to consider the qualifications of a candidate’s potential successors.

2003 Ron Paul 72:14
COGC focuses on government legitimacy, arguing that a House of Representatives with only a handful of surviving members would not be seen as legitimate by the public.  In fact the opposite is true: appointed “representatives” will never be seen as legitimate and in fact would not be legitimate.  Without exception, every member of the House of Representatives has been elected by voters in the member’s district.   Madison states in Federalist 52 that “The definition of the right of suffrage is very justly regarded as a fundamental article of republican government.”  The very legitimacy of the House of Representatives is based on its constitutional status as the most directly accountable federal body.

2003 Ron Paul 72:15
The House passes numerous laws, often by voice vote, with very few members present.  The legitimacy of those laws is not called into question.  Even a House made up of only five elected members would have more legitimacy, as the living continuation of the only elected entity in government, than a House composed of five surviving members and 430 appointees.  Furthermore, even a decimated House membership would have to pass legislation with the concurrence of the Senate, which could be restored to full strength immediately by state governors.

2003 Ron Paul 72:16
Consider a scenario COGC forgot to mention. Imagine a terrorist strike kills a majority of members of the House of Representatives.  200 members survive, and 235 are appointed by state governors on a “temporary basis.”  This new body considers a bill that drastically increases taxes to pay for emergency measures, while suspending civil liberties and imposing martial law.   The bill passes, with 195 elected members opposed and all 235 appointed members in favor.  Only 5 elected members support the measure.  Would the electorate consider this legislation legitimate?  Hardly.  Yet this is the type of outcome we must expect under the COGC proposal.

2003 Ron Paul 72:17
Conclusion
To quote Professor Charles Rice, a distinguished Professor Emeritus at Notre Dame Law School: “When it is not necessary to amend the Constitution, it is necessary not to amend the Constitution.”   We must not allow the understandable fears and passions engendered by the events of September 11 th to compel a rushed and grievous injury to our system of government.  The Constitution is our best ally in times of relative crisis; it is precisely during such times we should hold to it most dearly.  Rather than amending the Constitution, Congress should be meeting to discuss how to preserve our existing institutions- including an elected House- in the event of a terrorist attack.  The Constitution already provides us with the framework, while technology gives states the ability organize elections quickly.  The COGC proposal not only makes a mountain out of a molehill, but also acutely threatens the delicate balance of federal power established in the Constitution.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 73

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

Neo – CONNED !
July 10, 2003
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES



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.

2003 Ron Paul 73:2
Since the change of the political party in charge has not made a difference, who’s really in charge? If the particular party in power makes little difference, whose policy is it that permits expanded government programs, increased spending, huge deficits, nation building and the pervasive invasion of our privacy, with fewer Fourth Amendment protections than ever before?

2003 Ron Paul 73:3
Someone is responsible, and it’s important that those of us who love liberty, and resent big-brother government, identify the philosophic supporters who have the most to say about the direction our country is going. If they’re wrong—and I believe they are—we need to show it, alert the American people, and offer a more positive approach to government.  However, this depends on whether the American people desire to live in a free society and reject the dangerous notion that we need a strong central government to take care of us from the cradle to the grave. Do the American people really believe it’s the government’s responsibility to make us morally better and economically equal? Do we have a responsibility to police the world, while imposing our vision of good government on everyone else in the world with some form of utopian nation building? If not, and the contemporary enemies of liberty are exposed and rejected, then it behooves us to present an alternative philosophy that is morally superior and economically sound and provides a guide to world affairs to enhance peace and commerce.

2003 Ron Paul 73:4
One thing is certain: conservatives who worked and voted for less government in the Reagan years and welcomed the takeover of the U.S. Congress and the presidency in the 1990s and early 2000s were deceived. Soon they will realize that the goal of limited government has been dashed and that their views no longer matter.

2003 Ron Paul 73:5
The so-called conservative revolution of the past two decades has given us massive growth in government size, spending and regulations. Deficits are exploding and the national debt is now rising at greater than a half-trillion dollars per year. Taxes do not go down—even if we vote to lower them. They can’t, as long as spending is increased, since all spending must be paid for one way or another. Both Presidents Reagan and the elder George Bush raised taxes directly. With this administration, so far, direct taxes have been reduced—and they certainly should have been—but it means little if spending increases and deficits rise.

2003 Ron Paul 73:6
When taxes are not raised to accommodate higher spending, the bills must be paid by either borrowing or “printing” new money. This is one reason why we conveniently have a generous Federal Reserve chairman who is willing to accommodate the Congress. With borrowing and inflating, the “tax” is delayed and distributed in a way that makes it difficult for those paying the tax to identify it. Like future generations and those on fixed incomes who suffer from rising prices, and those who lose jobs they certainly feel the consequences of economic dislocation that this process causes. Government spending is always a “tax” burden on the American people and is never equally or fairly distributed. The poor and low-middle income workers always suffer the most from the deceitful tax of inflation and borrowing.

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.

2003 Ron Paul 73:8
Early in our history, the advocates of limited, constitutional government recognized two important principles: the rule of law was crucial, and a constitutional government must derive “just powers from the consent of the governed.” It was understood that an explicit transfer of power to government could only occur with power rightfully and naturally endowed to each individual as a God-given right. Therefore, the powers that could be transferred would be limited to the purpose of protecting liberty. Unfortunately, in the last 100 years, the defense of liberty has been fragmented and shared by various groups, with some protecting civil liberties, others economic freedom, and a small diverse group arguing for a foreign policy of nonintervention.

2003 Ron Paul 73:9
The philosophy of freedom has had a tough go of it, and it was hoped that the renewed interest in limited government of the past two decades would revive an interest in reconstituting the freedom philosophy into something more consistent. Those who worked for the goal of limited government power believed the rhetoric of politicians who promised smaller government. Sometimes it was just plain sloppy thinking on their part, but at other times, they fell victim to a deliberate distortion of a concise limited-government philosophy by politicians who misled many into believing that we would see a rollback on government intrusiveness.

2003 Ron Paul 73:10
Yes, there was always a remnant who longed for truly limited government and maintained a belief in the rule of law, combined with a deep conviction that free people and a government bound by a Constitution were the most advantageous form of government. They recognized it as the only practical way for prosperity to be spread to the maximum number of people while promoting peace and security.

2003 Ron Paul 73:11
That remnant—imperfect as it may have been—was heard from in the elections of 1980 and 1994 and then achieved major victories in 2000 and 2002 when professed limited-government proponents took over the White House, the Senate and the House. However, the true believers in limited government are now shunned and laughed at. At the very least, they are ignored—except when they are used by the new leaders of the right, the new conservatives now in charge of the U.S. government.

2003 Ron Paul 73:12
The remnant’s instincts were correct, and the politicians placated them with talk of free markets, limited government, and a humble, non-nation-building foreign policy. However, little concern for civil liberties was expressed in this recent quest for less government. Yet, for an ultimate victory of achieving freedom, this must change. Interest in personal privacy and choices has generally remained outside the concern of many conservatives—especially with the great harm done by their support of the drug war. Even though some confusion has emerged over our foreign policy since the breakdown of the Soviet empire, it’s been a net benefit in getting some conservatives back on track with a less militaristic, interventionist foreign policy. Unfortunately, after 9-ll, the cause of liberty suffered a setback. As a result, millions of Americans voted for the less-than-perfect conservative revolution because they believed in the promises of the politicians.

2003 Ron Paul 73:13
Now there’s mounting evidence to indicate exactly what happened to the revolution. Government is bigger than ever, and future commitments are overwhelming. Millions will soon become disenchanted with the new status quo delivered to the American people by the advocates of limited government and will find it to be just more of the old status quo. Victories for limited government have turned out to be hollow indeed.

2003 Ron Paul 73:14
Since the national debt is increasing at a rate greater than a half-trillion dollars per year, the debt limit was recently increased by an astounding $984 billion dollars. Total U.S. government obligations are $43 trillion, while the total net worth of U.S. households is about $40.6 trillion. The country is broke, but no one in Washington seems to notice or care. The philosophic and political commitment for both guns and butter—and especially the expanding American empire—must be challenged. This is crucial for our survival.

2003 Ron Paul 73:15
In spite of the floundering economy, Congress and the Administration continue to take on new commitments in foreign aid, education, farming, medicine, multiple efforts at nation building, and preemptive wars around the world. Already we’re entrenched in Iraq and Afghanistan, with plans to soon add new trophies to our conquest. War talk abounds as to when Syria, Iran and North Korea will be attacked.

2003 Ron Paul 73:16
How did all this transpire? Why did the government do it? Why haven’t the people objected? How long will it go on before something is done? Does anyone care?

2003 Ron Paul 73:17
Will the euphoria of grand military victories—against non-enemies—ever be mellowed? Someday, we as a legislative body must face the reality of the dire situation in which we have allowed ourselves to become enmeshed. Hopefully, it will be soon!

2003 Ron Paul 73:18
We got here because ideas do have consequences. Bad ideas have bad consequences, and even the best of intentions have unintended consequences. We need to know exactly what the philosophic ideas were that drove us to this point; then, hopefully, reject them and decide on another set of intellectual parameters.

2003 Ron Paul 73:19
There is abundant evidence exposing those who drive our foreign policy justifying preemptive war. Those who scheme are proud of the achievements in usurping control over foreign policy. These are the neoconservatives of recent fame. Granted, they are talented and achieved a political victory that all policymakers must admire. But can freedom and the republic survive this takeover? That question should concern us.

2003 Ron Paul 73:20
Neoconservatives are obviously in positions of influence and are well-placed throughout our government and the media. An apathetic Congress put up little resistance and abdicated its responsibilities over foreign affairs. The electorate was easily influenced to join in the patriotic fervor supporting the military adventurism advocated by the neoconservatives.

2003 Ron Paul 73:21
The numbers of those who still hope for truly limited government diminished and had their concerns ignored these past 22 months, during the aftermath of 9-11. Members of Congress were easily influenced to publicly support any domestic policy or foreign military adventure that was supposed to help reduce the threat of a terrorist attack. Believers in limited government were harder to find. Political money, as usual, played a role in pressing Congress into supporting almost any proposal suggested by the neocons. This process—where campaign dollars and lobbying efforts affect policy—is hardly the domain of any single political party, and unfortunately, is the way of life in Washington. 

2003 Ron Paul 73:22
There are many reasons why government continues to grow. It would be naïve for anyone to expect otherwise. Since 9-11, protection of privacy, whether medical, personal or financial, has vanished. Free speech and the Fourth Amendment have been under constant attack. Higher welfare expenditures are endorsed by the leadership of both parties. Policing the world and nation-building issues are popular campaign targets, yet they are now standard operating procedures. There’s no sign that these programs will be slowed or reversed until either we are stopped by force overseas (which won’t be soon) or we go broke and can no longer afford these grandiose plans for a world empire (which will probably come sooner than later.)

2003 Ron Paul 73:23
None of this happened by accident or coincidence. Precise philosophic ideas prompted certain individuals to gain influence to implement these plans. The neoconservatives—a name they gave themselves—diligently worked their way into positions of power and influence. They documented their goals, strategy and moral justification for all they hoped to accomplish. Above all else, they were not and are not conservatives dedicated to limited, constitutional government.

2003 Ron Paul 73:24
Neo-conservatism has been around for decades and, strangely, has connections to past generations as far back as Machiavelli. Modern-day neo-conservatism was introduced to us in the 1960s. It entails both a detailed strategy as well as a philosophy of government. The ideas of Teddy Roosevelt, and certainly Woodrow Wilson, were quite similar to many of the views of present-day neocons. Neocon spokesman Max Boot brags that what he advocates is “hard Wilsonianism.” In many ways, there’s nothing “neo” about their views, and certainly nothing conservative. Yet they have been able to co-opt the conservative movement by advertising themselves as a new or modern form of conservatism.

2003 Ron Paul 73:25
More recently, the modern-day neocons have come from the far left, a group historically identified as former Trotskyites. Liberal, Christopher Hitchens, has recently officially joined the neocons, and it has been reported that he has already been to the White House as an ad hoc consultant. Many neocons now in positions of influence in Washington can trace their status back to Professor Leo Strauss of the University of Chicago. One of Strauss’ books was Thoughts on Machiavelli . This book was not a condemnation of Machiavelli’s philosophy. Paul Wolfowitz actually got his PhD under Strauss. Others closely associated with these views are Richard Perle, Eliot Abrams, Robert Kagan, and William Kristol. All are key players in designing our new strategy of preemptive war. Others include: Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute; former CIA Director James Woolsey; Bill Bennett of Book of Virtues fame; Frank Gaffney; Dick Cheney; and Donald Rumsfeld. There are just too many to mention who are philosophically or politically connected to the neocon philosophy in some varying degree.

2003 Ron Paul 73:26
The godfather of modern-day neo-conservatism is considered to be Irving Kristol, father of Bill Kristol, who set the stage in 1983 with his publication Reflections of a Neoconservative. In this book, Kristol also defends the traditional liberal position on welfare.

2003 Ron Paul 73:27
More important than the names of people affiliated with neo-conservatism are the views they adhere to. Here is a brief summary of the general understanding of what neocons believe:

    2003 Ron Paul 73:28
  1. They agree with Trotsky on permanent revolution, violent as well as intellectual.

    2. 2003 Ron Paul 73:29
  2. They are for redrawing the map of the Middle East and are willing to use force to do so.

    3. 2003 Ron Paul 73:30
  3. They believe in preemptive war to achieve desired ends.

    4. 2003 Ron Paul 73:31
  4. They accept the notion that the ends justify the means—that hardball politics is a moral necessity.

    5. 2003 Ron Paul 73:32
  5. They express no opposition to the welfare state.

    6. 2003 Ron Paul 73:33
  6. They are not bashful about an American empire; instead they strongly endorse it.

    7. 2003 Ron Paul 73:34
  7. They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive.

    8. 2003 Ron Paul 73:35
  8. They believe a powerful federal government is a benefit.

    9. 2003 Ron Paul 73:36
  9. They believe pertinent facts about how a society should be run should be held by the elite and withheld from those who do not have the courage to deal with it.

    10. 2003 Ron Paul 73:37
  10.  They believe neutrality in foreign affairs is ill advised.

    11. 2003 Ron Paul 73:38
  11. They hold Leo Strauss in high esteem.

    12. 2003 Ron Paul 73:39
  12. They believe imperialism, if progressive in nature, is appropriate.

    13. 2003 Ron Paul 73:40
  13. Using American might to force American ideals on others is acceptable.  Force should not be limited to the defense of our country.

    14. 2003 Ron Paul 73:41
  14. 9-11 resulted from the lack of foreign entanglements, not from too many.

    15. 2003 Ron Paul 73:42
  15. They dislike and despise libertarians (therefore, the same applies to all strict constitutionalists.)

    16. 2003 Ron Paul 73:43
  16. They endorse attacks on civil liberties, such as those found in the Patriot Act, as being necessary.

    17. 2003 Ron Paul 73:44
  17. They unconditionally support Israel and have a close alliance with the Likud Party.


2003 Ron Paul 73:45
Various organizations and publications over the last 30 years have played a significant role in the rise to power of the neoconservatives. It took plenty of money and commitment to produce the intellectual arguments needed to convince the many participants in the movement of its respectability.

2003 Ron Paul 73:46
It is no secret—especially after the rash of research and articles written about the neocons since our invasion of Iraq—how they gained influence and what organizations were used to promote their cause. Although for decades, they agitated for their beliefs through publications like The National Review, The Weekly Standard, The Public Interest, The Wall Street Journal , Commentary , and the New York Post , their views only gained momentum in the 1990s following the first Persian Gulf War—which still has not ended even with removal of Saddam Hussein. They became convinced that a much more militant approach to resolving all the conflicts in the Middle East was an absolute necessity, and they were determined to implement that policy.

2003 Ron Paul 73:47
In addition to publications, multiple think tanks and projects were created to promote their agenda. A product of the Bradley Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) led the neocon charge, but the real push for war came from the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) another organization helped by the Bradley Foundation. This occurred in 1998 and was chaired by Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol. They urged early on for war against Iraq, but were disappointed with the Clinton administration, which never followed through with its periodic bombings.  Obviously, these bombings were motivated more by Clinton’s personal and political problems than a belief in the neocon agenda.

2003 Ron Paul 73:48
The election of 2000 changed all that.  The Defense Policy Board, chaired by Richard Perle, played no small role in coordinating the various projects and think tanks, all determined to take us into war against Iraq. It wasn’t too long before the dream of empire was brought closer to reality by the election of 2000 with Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld playing key roles in this accomplishment. The plan to promote an “American greatness” imperialistic foreign policy was now a distinct possibility. Iraq offered a great opportunity to prove their long-held theories. This opportunity was a consequence of the 9-11 disaster.

2003 Ron Paul 73:49
The money and views of Rupert Murdoch also played a key role in promoting the neocon views, as well as rallying support by the general population, through his News Corporation, which owns Fox News Network, the New York Post , and Weekly Standard. This powerful and influential media empire did more to galvanize public support for the Iraqi invasion than one might imagine. This facilitated the Rumsfeld/Cheney policy as their plans to attack Iraq came to fruition. It would have been difficult for the neocons to usurp foreign policy from the restraints of Colin Powell’s State Department without the successful agitation of the Rupert Murdoch empire. Max Boot was satisfied, as he explained: “Neoconservatives believe in using American might to promote American ideals abroad.” This attitude is a far cry from the advice of the Founders, who advocated no entangling alliances and neutrality as the proper goal of American foreign policy.

2003 Ron Paul 73:50
Let there be no doubt, those in the neocon camp had been anxious to go to war against Iraq for a decade. They justified the use of force to accomplish their goals, even if it required preemptive war. If anyone doubts this assertion, they need only to read of their strategy in “A Clean Break: a New Strategy for Securing the Realm.” Although they felt morally justified in changing the government in Iraq, they knew that public support was important, and justification had to be given to pursue the war. Of course, a threat to us had to exist before the people and the Congress would go along with war. The majority of Americans became convinced of this threat, which, in actuality, never really existed. Now we have the ongoing debate over the location of weapons of mass destruction. Where was the danger? Was all this killing and spending necessary? How long will this nation building and dying go on? When will we become more concerned about the needs of our own citizens than the problems we sought in Iraq and Afghanistan? Who knows where we’ll go next—Iran, Syria or North Korea?

2003 Ron Paul 73:51
At the end of the Cold War, the neoconservatives realized a rearrangement of the world was occurring and that our superior economic and military power offered them a perfect opportunity to control the process of remaking the Middle East.

2003 Ron Paul 73:52
It was recognized that a new era was upon us, and the neocons welcomed Frances Fukuyama’s “end of history” declaration. To them, the debate was over. The West won; the Soviets lost. Old-fashioned communism was dead. Long live the new era of neoconservatism. The struggle may not be over, but the West won the intellectual fight, they reasoned. The only problem is that the neocons decided to define the philosophy of the victors. They have been amazingly successful in their efforts to control the debate over what Western values are and by what methods they will be spread throughout the world.

2003 Ron Paul 73:53
Communism surely lost a lot with the breakup of the Soviet Empire, but this can hardly be declared a victory for American liberty, as the Founders understood it. Neoconservatism is not the philosophy of free markets and a wise foreign policy. Instead, it represents big-government welfare at home and a program of using our military might to spread their version of American values throughout the world. Since neoconservatives dominate the way the U.S. government now operates, it behooves us all to understand their beliefs and goals. The breakup of the Soviet system may well have been an epic event but to say that the views of the neocons are the unchallenged victors and that all we need do is wait for their implementation is a capitulation to controlling the forces of history that many Americans are not yet ready to concede. There is surely no need to do so.

2003 Ron Paul 73:54
There is now a recognized philosophic connection between modern-day neoconservatives and Irving Kristol, Leo Strauss, and Machiavelli. This is important in understanding that today’s policies and the subsequent problems will be with us for years to come if these policies are not reversed.

2003 Ron Paul 73:55
Not only did Leo Strauss write favorably of Machiavelli, Michael Ledeen, a current leader of the neoconservative movement, did the same in 1999 in his book with the title, Machiavelli on Modern Leadership, and subtitled: Why Machiavelli’s iron rules are as timely and important today as five centuries ago.   Ledeen is indeed an influential neocon theorist whose views get lots of attention today in Washington. His book on Machiavelli, interestingly enough, was passed out to Members of Congress attending a political strategy meeting shortly after its publication and at just about the time A Clean Break was issued.

2003 Ron Paul 73:56
In Ledeen’s most recent publication, The War Against the Terror Masters , he reiterates his beliefs outlined in this 1999 Machaivelli book. He specifically praises: “Creative destruction…both within our own society and abroad…(foreigners) seeing America undo traditional societies may fear us, for they do not wish to be undone.” Amazingly, Ledeen concludes: “They must attack us in order to survive, just as we must  destroy them to advance our historic mission.”

2003 Ron Paul 73:57
If those words don’t scare you, nothing will. If they are not a clear warning, I don’t know what could be. It sounds like both sides of each disagreement in the world will be following the principle of preemptive war. The world is certainly a less safe place for it.

2003 Ron Paul 73:58
In Machiavelli on Modern Leadership , Ledeen praises a business leader for correctly understanding Machiavelli: “There are no absolute solutions. It all depends. What is right and what is wrong depends on what needs to be done and how.” This is a clear endorsement of situational ethics and is not coming from the traditional left. It reminds me of: “It depends on what the definition of the word ‘is’ is.”

2003 Ron Paul 73:59
Ledeen quotes Machiavelli approvingly on what makes a great leader. “A prince must have no other objectives or other thoughts or take anything for his craft, except war.” To Ledeen, this meant: “…the virtue of the warrior are those of great leaders of any successful organization.” Yet it’s obvious that war is not coincidental to neocon philosophy, but an integral part. The intellectuals justify it, and the politicians carry it out. There’s a precise reason to argue for war over peace according to Ledeen, for “…peace increases our peril by making discipline less urgent, encouraging some of our worst instincts, in depriving us of some of our best leaders.” Peace, he claims, is a dream and not even a pleasant one, for it would cause indolence and would undermine the power of the state. Although I concede the history of the world is a history of frequent war, to capitulate and give up even striving for peace—believing peace is not a benefit to mankind—is a frightening thought that condemns the world to perpetual war and justifies it as a benefit and necessity. These are dangerous ideas, from which no good can come.

2003 Ron Paul 73:60
The conflict of the ages has been between the state and the individual: central power versus liberty. The more restrained the state and the more emphasis on individual liberty, the greater has been the advancement of civilization and general prosperity. Just as man’s condition was not locked in place by the times and wars of old and improved with liberty and free markets, there’s no reason to believe a new stage for man might not be achieved by believing and working for conditions of peace. The inevitability and so-called need for preemptive war should never be intellectually justified as being a benefit. Such an attitude guarantees the backsliding of civilization. Neocons, unfortunately, claim that war is in man’s nature and that we can’t do much about it, so let’s use it to our advantage by promoting our goodness around the world through force of arms. That view is anathema to the cause of liberty and the preservation of the Constitution. If it is not loudly refuted, our future will be dire indeed.

2003 Ron Paul 73:61
Ledeen believes man is basically evil and cannot be left to his own desires. Therefore, he must have proper and strong leadership, just as Machiavelli argued. Only then can man achieve good, as Ledeen explains: “In order to achieve the most noble accomplishments, the leader may have to ‘enter into evil.’ This is the chilling insight that has made Machiavelli so feared, admired and challenging…we are rotten,” argues Ledeen. “It’s true that we can achieve greatness if, and only if, we are properly led.” In other words, man is so depraved that individuals are incapable of moral, ethical and spiritual greatness, and achieving excellence and virtue can only come from a powerful authoritarian leader. What depraved ideas are these to now be influencing our leaders in Washington?  The question Ledeen doesn’t answer is:  “Why do the political leaders not suffer from the same shortcomings and where do they obtain their monopoly on wisdom?”

2003 Ron Paul 73:62
Once this trust is placed in the hands of a powerful leader, this neocon argues that certain tools are permissible to use. For instance: “Lying is central to the survival of nations and to the success of great enterprises, because if our enemies can count on the reliability of everything you say, your vulnerability is enormously increased.” What about the effects of lying on one’s own people? Who cares if a leader can fool the enemy? Does calling it “strategic deception” make lying morally justifiable? Ledeen and Machiavelli argue that it does, as long as the survivability of the state is at stake. Preserving the state is their goal, even if the personal liberty of all individuals has to be suspended or canceled.

2003 Ron Paul 73:63
Ledeen makes it clear that war is necessary to establish national boundaries—because that’s the way it’s always been done. Who needs progress of the human race! He explains:

2003 Ron Paul 73:64
“Look at the map of the world: national boundaries have not been drawn by peaceful men leading lives of spiritual contemplation. National boundaries have been established by war, and national character has been shaped by struggle, most often bloody struggle.”

2003 Ron Paul 73:65
Yes, but who is to lead the charge and decide which borders we are to fight for? What about borders 6,000 miles away unrelated to our own contiguous borders and our own national security? Stating a relative truism regarding the frequency of war throughout history should hardly be the moral justification for expanding the concept of war to settle man’s disputes. How can one call this progress?

2003 Ron Paul 73:66
Machiavelli, Ledeen and the neocons recognized a need to generate a religious zeal for promoting the state. This, he claims, is especially necessary when force is used to promote an agenda. It’s been true throughout history and remains true today, each side of major conflicts invokes God’s approval. Our side refers to a “crusade;” theirs to a “holy Jihad.” Too often wars boil down to their god against our God. It seems this principle is more a cynical effort to gain approval from the masses, especially those most likely to be killed for the sake of the war promoters on both sides who have power, prestige and wealth at stake.

2003 Ron Paul 73:67
Ledeen explains why God must always be on the side of advocates of war: “Without fear of God, no state can last long, for the dread of eternal damnation keeps men in line, causes them to honor their promises, and inspires them to risk their lives for the common good.” It seems dying for the common good has gained a higher moral status than eternal salvation of one’s soul. Ledeen adds:

2003 Ron Paul 73:68
“Without fear of punishment, men will not obey laws that force them to act contrary to their passions. Without fear of arms, the state cannot enforce the laws…to this end, Machiavelli wants leaders to make the state spectacular.”

2003 Ron Paul 73:69
It’s of interest to note that some large Christian denominations have joined the neoconservatives in promoting preemptive war, while completely ignoring the Christian doctrine of a Just War. The neocons sought and openly welcomed their support.

2003 Ron Paul 73:70
            I ’d like someone to glean anything from what the Founders said or placed in the Constitution that agrees with this now-professed doctrine of a “spectacular” state promoted by those who now have so much influence on our policies here at home and abroad. Ledeen argues that this religious element, this fear of God, is needed for discipline of those who may be hesitant to sacrifice their lives for the good of the “spectacular state.”

2003 Ron Paul 73:71
He explains in eerie terms: “Dying for one’s country doesn’t come naturally. Modern armies, raised from the populace, must be inspired, motivated, indoctrinated. Religion is central to the military enterprise, for men are more likely to risk their lives if they believe they will be rewarded forever after for serving their country.” This is an admonition that might just as well have been given by Osama bin Laden, in rallying his troops to sacrifice their lives to kill the invading infidels, as by our intellectuals at the AEI, who greatly influence our foreign policy.

2003 Ron Paul 73:72
Neocons—anxious for the U.S. to use force to realign the boundaries and change regimes in the Middle East—clearly understand the benefit of a galvanizing and emotional event to rally the people to their cause. Without a special event, they realized the difficulty in selling their policy of preemptive war where our own military personnel would be killed. Whether it was the Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, the Gulf of Tonkin, or the Maine, all served their purpose in promoting a war that was sought by our leaders.

2003 Ron Paul 73:73
Ledeen writes of a fortuitous event (1999):

2003 Ron Paul 73:74
…of course, we can always get lucky. Stunning events from outside can providentially awaken the enterprise from its growing torpor, and demonstrate the need for reversal, as the devastating Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 so effectively aroused the U.S. from its soothing dreams of permanent neutrality.

2003 Ron Paul 73:75
Amazingly, Ledeen calls Pearl Harbor a “lucky” event.  The Project for a New American Century, as recently as September 2000, likewise, foresaw the need for “a Pearl Harbor event” that would galvanize the American people to support their ambitious plans to ensure political and economic domination of the world, while strangling any potential “rival.”

2003 Ron Paul 73:76
Recognizing a “need” for a Pearl Harbor event, and referring to Pearl Harbor as being “lucky” are not identical to support and knowledge of such an event, but this sympathy for a galvanizing event, as 9-11 turned out to be, was used to promote an agenda that strict constitutionalists and devotees of the Founders of this nation find appalling is indeed disturbing. After 9-11, Rumsfeld and others argued for an immediate attack on Iraq, even though it was not implicated in the attacks.

2003 Ron Paul 73:77
The fact that neo-conservatives ridicule those who firmly believe that U.S. interests and world peace would best be served by a policy of neutrality and avoiding foreign entanglements should not go unchallenged. Not to do so is to condone their grandiose plans for American world hegemony.

2003 Ron Paul 73:78
The current attention given neocons is usually done in the context of foreign policy. But there’s more to what’s going on today than just the tremendous influence the neocons have on our new policy of preemptive war with a goal of empire. Our government is now being moved by several ideas that come together in what I call “neoconism.” The foreign policy is being openly debated, even if its implications are not fully understood by many who support it. Washington is now driven by old views brought together in a new package.

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.

2003 Ron Paul 73:80
There’s no serious opposition to the expanding welfare state, with rapid growth of the education, agriculture and medical-care bureaucracy. Support for labor unions and protectionism are not uncommon. Civil liberties are easily sacrificed in the post 9-11 atmosphere prevailing in Washington. Privacy issues are of little concern, except for a few members of Congress. Foreign aid and internationalism—in spite of some healthy criticism of the UN and growing concerns for our national sovereignty—are  championed on both sides of the aisle. Lip service is given to the free market and free trade, yet the entire economy is run by special-interest legislation favoring big business, big labor and, especially, big money.

2003 Ron Paul 73:81
Instead of the “end of history,” we are now experiencing the end of a vocal limited-government movement in our nation’s capital. While most conservatives no longer defend balanced budgets and reduced spending, most liberals have grown lazy in defending civil liberties and now are approving wars that we initiate. The so-called “third way” has arrived and, sadly, it has taken the worst of what the conservatives and liberals have to offer. The people are less well off for it, while liberty languishes as a result.

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.

2003 Ron Paul 73:83
The supply-siders’ policy of low-marginal tax rates has been incorporated into neoconism, as well as their support for easy money and generous monetary inflation. Neoconservatives are disinterested in the gold standard and even ignore the supply-siders’ argument for a phony gold standard.

2003 Ron Paul 73:84
Is it any wonder that federal government spending is growing at a rate faster than in any time in the past 35 years?

2003 Ron Paul 73:85
Power, politics and privilege prevail over the rule of law, liberty, justice and peace. But it does not need to be that way. Neoconism has brought together many old ideas about how government should rule the people. It may have modernized its appeal and packaging, but authoritarian rule is authoritarian rule, regardless of the humanitarian overtones. A solution can only come after the current ideology driving our government policies is replaced with a more positive one. In a historical context, liberty is a modern idea and must once again regain the high moral ground for civilization to advance. Restating the old justifications for war, people control and a benevolent state will not suffice. It cannot eliminate the shortcomings that always occur when the state assumes authority over others and when the will of one nation is forced on another—whether or not it is done with good intentions.

2003 Ron Paul 73:86
I realize that all conservatives are not neoconservatives, and all neocons don’t necessarily agree on all points—which means that in spite of their tremendous influence, most Members of Congress and those in the administration do not necessarily take their marching orders from the AEI or Richard Perle. But to use this as a reason to ignore what neoconservative leaders believe, write about it and agitate for—with amazing success I might point out—would be at our own peril. This country still allows open discourse—though less everyday—and we who disagree should push the discussion and expose those who drive our policies. It is getting more difficult to get  fair and balanced discussion on the issues, because it has become routine for the hegemons to label those who object to preemptive war and domestic surveillance as traitors, unpatriotic and un-American. The uniformity of support for our current foreign policy by major and cable-news networks should concern every American. We should all be thankful for CSPAN and the internet.

2003 Ron Paul 73:87
Michael Ledeen and other neoconservatives are already lobbying for war against Iran. Ledeen is pretty nasty to those who call for a calmer, reasoned approach by calling those who are not ready for war “cowards and appeasers of tyrants.” Because some urge a less militaristic approach to dealing with Iran, he claims they are betraying America’s best “traditions.” I wonder where he learned early American history! It’s obvious that Ledeen doesn’t consider the Founders and the Constitution part of our best traditions. We were hardly encouraged by the American revolutionaries to pursue an American empire. We were, however, urged to keep the Republic they so painstakingly designed.

2003 Ron Paul 73:88
If the neoconservatives retain control of the conservative, limited-government movement in Washington, the ideas, once championed by conservatives, of limiting the size and scope of government will be a long-forgotten dream.

2003 Ron Paul 73:89
  The believers in liberty ought not deceive themselves. Who should be satisfied? Certainly not conservatives, for there is no conservative movement left. How could liberals be satisfied? They are pleased with the centralization of education and medical programs in Washington and support many of the administration’s proposals. But none should be pleased with the steady attack on the civil liberties of all American citizens and the now-accepted consensus that preemptive war—for almost any reason—is an acceptable policy for dealing with all the conflicts and problems of the world.

2003 Ron Paul 73:90
In spite of the deteriorating conditions in Washington—with loss of personal liberty, a weak economy, exploding deficits, and perpetual war, followed by nation building—there are still quite a number of us who would relish the opportunity to improve things, in one way or another. Certainly, a growing number of frustrated Americans, from both the right and the left, are getting anxious to see this Congress do a better job. But first, Congress must stop doing a bad job.

2003 Ron Paul 73:91
We’re at the point where we need a call to arms, both here in Washington and across the country. I’m not talking about firearms. Those of us who care need to raise both arms and face our palms out and begin waving and shouting: Stop! Enough is enough! It should include liberals, conservatives and independents. We’re all getting a bum rap from politicians who are pushed by polls and controlled by special-interest money.

2003 Ron Paul 73:92
One thing is certain, no matter how morally justified the programs and policies seem, the ability to finance all the guns and butter being promised is limited, and those limits are becoming more apparent every day.

2003 Ron Paul 73:93
Spending, borrowing and printing money cannot be the road to prosperity. It hasn’t worked in Japan, and it isn’t working here either. As a matter of fact, it’s never worked anytime throughout history. A point is always reached where government planning, spending and inflation run out of steam. Instead of these old tools reviving an economy, as they do in the early stages of economic interventionism, they eventually become the problem. Both sides of the political spectrum must one day realize that limitless government intrusion in the economy, in our personal lives and in the affairs of other nations cannot serve the best interests of America. This is not a conservative problem, nor is it a liberal problem—it’s a government intrusion problem that comes from both groups, albeit for different reasons. The problems emanate from both camps that champion different programs for different reasons. The solution will come when both groups realize that it’s not merely a single-party problem, or just a liberal or just a conservative problem.

2003 Ron Paul 73:94
Once enough of us decide we’ve had enough of all these so-called good things that the government is always promising—or more likely, when the country is broke and the government is unable to fulfill its promises to the people—we can start a serious discussion on the proper role for government in a free society. Unfortunately, it will be some time before Congress gets the message that the people are demanding true reform. This requires that those responsible for today’s problems are exposed and their philosophy of pervasive government intrusion is rejected.

2003 Ron Paul 73:95
Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it’s realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy. A few have, and others will continue to do so, but too many—both in and out of government—close their eyes to the issue of personal liberty and ignore the fact that endless borrowing to finance endless demands cannot be sustained. True prosperity can only come from a healthy economy and sound money. That can only be achieved in a free society.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 74

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Motion To Adjourn
10 July 2003

2003 Ron Paul 74:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 75

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Amendment 6 To de-Fund The United Nations — Part 1
15 July 2003

2003 Ron Paul 75:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. PAUL:

Page 32, after line 3, insert the following

(and amend the table of contents accordingly):

Subtitle C — Limitations

SEC. 131. LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS AUTHORIZED TO BE APPROPRIATED BY THIS ACT FOR ANY UNITED STATES CONTRIBUTION TO THE UNITED NATIONS OR ANY AFFILIATED AGENCY OF THE UNITED NATIONS.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, none of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act may be obligated or expended to pay any United States contribution to the United Nations or any affiliated agency of the United Nations.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 316, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) and a Member opposed (Mr. HYDE) each will control 5 minutes.

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

2003 Ron Paul 75:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

2003 Ron Paul 75:3
Mr. Chairman, this amendment takes away the funding from the United Nations as well as any affiliated U.N. agency.

2003 Ron Paul 75:4
Mr. Chairman, last year we spent $3.25 billion on the U.N. as well as the other agencies at the U.N. I do not believe that is money worthwhile. It is not a good investment. I do not think the money is spent well. The amendment, as I said, defunds the United Nations as well as its agencies. We pay 21 percent of the budget, and on peacekeeping missions we pay over 27 percent. I think this is essentially wasted money.

2003 Ron Paul 75:5
We also lose our sovereignty when we look to the U.N. for guidance. When we declared war or when we went to war without declaration of war last fall, we had a resolution on the floor which cited the U.N. 23 different times. I do not believe we should go to war under U.N. resolutions, and we have essentially been in Iraq under U.N. resolution because in the early 1990s it was under U.N. resolution that we went to war. The old-fashioned way of going to war was a declaration of war.

2003 Ron Paul 75:6
We went into Korea over 50 years ago under a U.N. resolution. We are still in Korea. We still have serious problems in Korea. There is still a confrontation that we have with the government of North Korea. I do not see where it is to our benefit, I do not see where it is a benefit to world peace to rely on the United Nations. Even though we rely on the United Nations for authority, when we want the United Nations to go along with our policy as our President asked earlier this year, it was refused. So in many ways we have a policy that does not make a whole lot of sense. We first rely on the United Nations, spend a lot of money, then they do not do our bidding.

2003 Ron Paul 75:7
It gets to be almost a joke around the world about some of the things the U.N. does. When you think about the Commission of Human Rights and who is appointed as the chairman of the Commission of Human Rights, nobody else other than Libya. And before the war it was actually Iraq who was supposed to chair the Disarmament Commission.

2003 Ron Paul 75:8
So this I think in many ways reflects the ineptness of the United Nations and its inability to pursue any policy that is in our interest. So it is for this reason, whether it is rejoining UNESCO and throwing more money down another on another useless program, we here are spending a lot of money giving up our sovereignty. Much of this money should be spent here at home.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 76

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Yields To Mr. Bartlett
15 July 2003

2003 Ron Paul 76:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. BARTLETT).

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 77

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Amendment 6 To de-Fund The United Nations — Part 2
15 July 2003

2003 Ron Paul 77:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. HASTINGS of Washington). The gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) is recognized for 11/2 minutes.

2003 Ron Paul 77:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I once again urge a yes vote on this amendment to limit the funding to the United Nations and to all its agencies.

2003 Ron Paul 77:3
The gentleman from California (Mr. LANTOS) mentioned that there were some programs under the United Nations which were sort of “feel-good” programs, social welfare programs, and I think I would grant that some of these programs have had some benefit. That in itself is not enough for me to endorse the concept of international welfare through the United Nations.

2003 Ron Paul 77:4
However, too often I think they leave doing these programs that are designed to help people who are truly suffering versus getting involved with what we call peacekeeping missions. The United Nations are not allowed to declare war. They never go to war, and yet too often we get involved in war. That is why they were called peacekeepers in Korea. That is why it is a peacekeeping mission when we go to Iraq. But, still, the armies are raised, and young men are called off, and people are killed on these peacekeeping missions. Therefore, I say that the United Nations has tended to take away the responsibilities of this Congress to make these very, very important decisions.

2003 Ron Paul 77:5
I believe in many ways that by joining the United Nations we have allowed our Constitution to be amended merely by U.N. vote. If the U.N. votes and says something and we go along with that, we do that by majority vote here in the Congress. Where if we look to the Constitution for the authorities that we are allowed to do and what we are not permitted to do, we look to article I, section 8; and what the U.N. is doing is not permissible under the article.

2003 Ron Paul 77:6
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 78

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Legislation To Prohibit The Federal Government From Imposing A “Carry Tax”
17 July 2003

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, July 17, 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.

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.

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.

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.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 79

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

The Monetary Freedom And Accountability Act
17 July 2003

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, July 17, 2003


2003 Ron Paul 79:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Monetary Freedom and Accountability Act. This simple bill takes a step toward restoring Congress’ constitutional authority over U.S. monetary policy by requiring congressional approval before the President or the Treasury secretary buys or sells gold. I also ask for unanimous consent to insert into the RECORD articles by Kelly Patricia O Meara of Insight magazine detailing the evidence supporting allegations that the United States Government has manipulated the price of gold over the past decade and the harm such manipulation caused American investors, taxpayers, consumers, and workers.

2003 Ron Paul 79:2
Federal dealings in the gold market have the potential to seriously disrupt the free market by either artificially inflating or deflating the price of gold. Given gold’s importance to America’s (and the world’s) monetary system, any federal interference in the gold market will have ripple effects through the entire economy. For example, if the government were to intervene to artificially lower the price of gold, the result would be to hide the true effects of an inflationary policy until the damage was too severe to remain out of the public eye.

2003 Ron Paul 79:3
By artificially deflating the price of gold, federal intervention in the gold market can reduce the values of private gold holdings, adversely affecting millions of investors. These investors rely on their gold holdings to protect them from the effects of our misguided fiat currency system. Federal dealings in gold can also adversely affect those countries with large gold mines, many of which are currently ravished by extreme poverty. Mr. Speaker, restoring a vibrant gold market could do more than any foreign aid program to restore economic growth to those areas.

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.

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.”.

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.

2003 Ron Paul 79:7
Given the tremendous effects on the American economy from federal dealings in the gold market, it certainly is reasonable that the people’s representatives have a role in approving these transactions, especially since Congress has a neglected but vital constitutional role V in overseeing monetary policy. Therefore, I urge all my colleagues to stand up for sound economics, open government, and Congress’ constitutional role in monetary policy by cosponsoring the Monetary Freedom and Accountability Act.

2003 Ron Paul 79:8
[From Insight Magazine, July 8, 2003]
PANIC IS NEAR IF “THE GOLD IS GONE”
(By Kelly Patricia O Meara)
Gold. It’s been called a barbarous relic, and those who focus on its historic role as a standard of value frequently are labeled “lunatic fringe.” Given the recent highs in the gold market, it looks like the crazies have been having a hell of a year. With the stock market taking its third yearly loss, gold returned nearly 30 percent to investors, moving from $255 an ounce to six-year highs of $380.

2003 Ron Paul 79:9
Just about every analyst and “expert” on Wall Street willing to mention any of this has been quick to explain that the increase in the price of gold is due to impending war with Iraq. But hard-money analysts are arguing that should the United States go to war it will be of very little consequence to the price of gold — a momentary blip — because gold is a commodity and its price a matter of supply and demand.

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.

2003 Ron Paul 79:11
In fact the “gold bugs,” as they’re known, are so sure of their research that not only do they believe the price of gold will continue to climb, but many are expecting to see prices of $800 to $1,000 an ounce. Until recently, most in the gold and financial worlds scoffed at such a prediction, but last month the Bank of Portugal made an announcement that shocked those who credit official gold-reserve data and added fuel to the contention of the gold bugs that the “gold-cartel” manipulation is in meltdown.

2003 Ron Paul 79:12
What the Bank of Portugal revealed in its 2001 annual report is that 433 tonnes [metric tons] of gold — some 70 percent of its gold reserve — either have been lent or swapped into the market. According to Bill Murphy, chairman of the Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee (GATA), a nonprofit organization that researches and studies the gold market and reports its findings at www.LeMetropoleCafe.com: “This gold is gone — and it lends support to our years of research that the central banks do not have the 32,000 tonnes of gold in reserve that they claim. The big question is: How many other central banks are in the same predicament as the Portuguese?”

2003 Ron Paul 79:13
Murphy explains: “The essence of the rigging of the gold market is that the bullion banks borrowed central-bank gold from various vaults and flooded the market with supply, keeping the price down. The GATA camp has uncovered information that shows that around 15,000 to 16,000 tonnes of gold have left the central banks, leaving the centralbank reserves with about half of what is officially reported.”

2003 Ron Paul 79:14
This is why those who follow such arcana are predicting an explosion in the price of gold. According to Murphy, “The gold establishment says that the gold loans from the central banks are only 4,600 to 5,000 tonnes,” but his information is that these loans are more than three times that number, which means “they’re running out of physical gold to continue the scheme.”

2003 Ron Paul 79:15
According to Murphy, “The cartel has been able to get away with lying about the amount of gold in reserve because the International Monetary Fund [IMF] is the Arthur Andersen of the gold world.” He has provided to Insight documents from central banks confirming that the IMF instructed them to count both lent and swapped gold as a reserve. “In other words, the IMF told the central banks to deceive the investment and gold world[s]. Once this gold is lent [or] swapped, it’s gone until such time as it can be repurchased. And with the skyrocketing price of gold we’re now seeing, it would be incredibly expensive, let alone nearly physically impossible, to get it back.”

2003 Ron Paul 79:16
What is important to understand, says Murphy, “is that there is a mine and scrap supply deficit of 1,500 tonnes, which is an enormous deficit when yearly mine supply is only 2,500 tonnes and going down. On top of that, there are these under-reported gold loans and other derivatives that are on the short side. There is no way to pay this gold back to the central banks without the price of gold going up hundreds of dollars per ounce. So the peasants and women of the world will have to sell their jewelry at say $800 an ounce to bail out these short positions or someone is going to have to tell the world that they don’t have the gold that they have reported,” shaking the world’s financial system to its core.

2003 Ron Paul 79:17
The gold bugs appear to be basing their identification of a world gold shortage on industry data, much of which has been summarized in two papers prepared by four different gold analysts at different times using separate methods. The first paper was written by governmental investment adviser Frank Veneroso and his associate, mining analyst Declan Costelloe. Titled Gold Derivatives, Gold Lending: Official Management of the Gold Price and the Current State of the Gold Market, it was presented at the 2002 International Gold Symposium in Lima, Peru, and estimates the gold deficit of the central banks at between 10,000 and 15,000 tonnes. The second paper, Gold Derivatives: Moving Towards Checkmate, by Mike Bolser, a retired businessman, and Reginald H. Howe, a private investor and proprietor of the Website www.goldensextant.com, estimates the alleged shortage of central-bank gold at between 15,000 and 16,000 tonnes — nearly a decade’s worth of mine production.

2003 Ron Paul 79:18
George Milling-Stanley, manager of goldmarket analysis for the World Gold Council (WGC), a private organization made up of leading gold-mining companies that promotes the acquisition and retention of gold, is aware of these papers and shortage numbers but tells Insight that “there are no official [gold-reserve] reports.” That is, “The central banks are under no obligation to report what they lend into the market, what they place on deposit and what they do with their swaps, so there’s a conventional-wisdom view, and a couple of different bodies have done some fairly serious research in[to] this and have come up with a figure [of] around 4,500 to 5,000 tonnes.”

2003 Ron Paul 79:19
Stanley’s estimate is based on data provided by so-called “serious” researchers, including Londonbased Gold Fields Mineral Services (GFMS), one of the world’s foremost precious-metals consultants, and a report titled Gold Derivatives: The Market View, commissioned by the WGC to London-based Virtual Metals Consultancy. While these two groups appear to be the research choice of the official gold world, there are in fact no “official” figures, and both studies, like the Veneroso/Costelloe and Bolser/Howe reports, are based on interviews, data analysis and other research generally available to the industry.

2003 Ron Paul 79:20
Those who believe the central banks to have misrepresented their actual gold holdings place much of the blame for the lack of transparency on the shoulders of the IMF, which presents itself as being responsible for ensuring the stability of the international financial system. Although the IMF would not respond to questions about its gold-loan/ swap requirements, what information has been made public appears to support GATA’s understanding of how central-bank reserves are reported.

2003 Ron Paul 79:21
For example, in October 2001 the IMF responded to questions posed by GATA by saying it is not correct that the IMF insists members record swapped gold as an asset when a legal change in ownership has occurred. According to this response, “The IMF in fact recommends that swapped gold be excluded from reserve assets.” Nonetheless, says GATA, there is abundant evidence that this is not the case, citing as an example the Central Bank of the Philippines (BSP).

2003 Ron Paul 79:22
A footnote on the Website of the Central Bank of the Philippines (www.bsp.gov.ph) in fact directly contradicts the IMF’s claim: “Beginning January 2000, in compliance with the requirements of the IMF’s reserves and foreign-currency-liquidity template under the Special Data Dissemination Standard (SDDS), gold swaps undertaken by the BSP with noncentral banks shall be treated as collateralized loans. Thus gold under the swap arrangement remains to be part of reserves, and a liability is deemed incurred corresponding to the proceeds of the swap.”

2003 Ron Paul 79:23
The European Central Bank (ECB) also made it clear that the IMF policy is to include swaps and loans as reserves. The ECB responded to GATA: “Following the recommendations set out in the IMF operational guidelines of the ’Data Template on International Reserve and Foreign Currency Liquidity,’ which were developed in 1999, all reversible gold transactions, including gold swaps, are recorded as collateralized loans in balance of payments and international investment- position statistics. This treatment implies that the gold account would remain unchanged on the balance sheet.” The Bank of Finland and the Bank of Portugal also confirmed in writing that the swapped gold remains a reserve asset under IMF regulations.

2003 Ron Paul 79:24
Although the WGC’s Stanley stands by the data provided by the industry’s “serious” researchers, he insists he cannot say for certain that the numbers are accurate. “There is no requirement on any country to tell the IMF how much gold it owns,” says Stanley. “The requirement is to tell the IMF how much gold it has decided to place in its official reserves. Nobody knows whether that is the total of what they own or not. Obviously they can’t report more than what they own, but they can certainly report less if they chose to. That gold may have been lent out, but is nevertheless still owed to them. It’s a bit like any company reporting a cash position. It will report cash on hand and cash due — money owed by other people. I’m not saying this is ideal, but this is how it works.”

2003 Ron Paul 79:25
John Embry, the manager of last year’s best-performing North American gold fund and manager of the Royal Precious Metals Fund for the Royal Bank of Canada, says he is putting his and his clients’ money on the “lunatic fringe” in this dispute: “I’ve examined all the evidence gathered by GATA and everyone else, and I think these guys are anything but lunatics. They’ve done their homework and have unearthed a lot of interesting stuff. The problem, though, is that the market is sufficiently opaque that there is really no way to know who is right and who is wrong.”

2003 Ron Paul 79:26
“The fact is,” continues Embry, “a lot of this stuff is based on estimations. I do however believe that, based on the evidence dug up by Veneroso and Howe, they are presenting equally if not more credible numbers than the other side. I find the campaign to undermine their credence simply bizarre. I think these guys [GATA] are right and that the number put out by Gold Fields Mineral Services as the amount of gold loaned out by the central banks is definitely wrong. Now, whether it’s as much as 15,000 is up for interpretation. The recent release by the Bank of Portugal is important. When a central bank has 70 percent of its gold loaned or swapped, I don’t think it is operating independently, and I suspect there are an awful lot of them that have loaned out much more than has been reported.”

2003 Ron Paul 79:27
Embry says, “I’ve made a fortune for my clients investing in gold and gold stocks because I have operated on the premise that the Veneroso/Howe reports are right — that gold was significantly undervalued in the daily quote and that it was going a lot higher. The circumstantial evidence, and I bet my clients’ money on it, was very much in favor of the guys who said a great deal more central-bank gold had entered the market and driven the price down far too low. GATA has had this story from day one. I think that they’re right and that officialdom doesn’t want this exposed. GATA is willing to have a public debate but the gold world won’t debate. I think there is a tacit admission of anyone who has an IQ above that of a grapefruit that Veneroso and Howe have a pretty good point. I’m an analyst who has looked at both sides of the issue and I bet my money on GATA. So far they’ve been right.”

2003 Ron Paul 79:28
Whether the gold bugs are right about the reasons for the meteoric rise in the price of gold is uncertain, but, according to GATA’s Murphy: “It’s all the more reason to have the central banks come clean about the actual amount of gold that physically exists in their reserves. Either way, the price of gold will continue to rise because, as we already know and others are discovering, the gold is gone.”

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 80

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

The Foreign Aid Limitation Act
17 July 2003

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, July 17, 2003


2003 Ron Paul 80:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the Foreign Aid Limitation Act. This bill limits the ability of the Executive Branch to use the Exchange Stabilization Fund (ESF) to distribute largesse to foreign countries without the approval of Congress.

2003 Ron Paul 80:2
The Foreign Aid Limitation Act prohibits the Secretary of the Treasury from using the ESF to make a loan or extend credit to any foreign government or entity for an amount exceeding $250,000,000. The bill also forbids the ESF from being used to finance a loan or to extend credit, to any foreign government or entity for a period exceeding 60 days. The 60-day limitation can be waived if the President certifies in writing to the Chair and ranking members of the relevant House and Senate Committees that the United States obtained an assured source of repayment before making the loan or extending the credit. Finally, the bill prohibits the use of the ESF to make loans or extend credit in an amount exceeding $1,000,000,000 to a foreign government or entity without express statutory authorization. This provision can also be waived if the President certifies in writing to the heads of the relevant committees that the loan is necessary to address a financial crisis threatening the United States and Congress does not pass a joint resolution disapproving the loan or credit.

2003 Ron Paul 80:3
Mr. Speaker, these provisions all passed Congress as “riders” on appropriations bills in the 1990s. However, they have not been included in the appropriations bills for the past several years. It is long past time for Congress to make these provisions permanent. Over the past several years there has been great controversy over the use of the Exchange Stabilization Fund. This fund was created in the 1930s to help stabilize the exchange value of the dollar, yet it has mutated into a “slush fund” used by the executive branch to funnel money to foreign governments and even foreign companies free of congressional oversight.

2003 Ron Paul 80:4
In particular, there was great controversy over the Clinton administration’s use of the ESF to finance the Mexican bailout without Congressional approval in 1995. Today, there is a similar controversy over the use of the ESF in the Iraq rebuilding process. Ensuring the fund is only used for narrow purposes will help end the controversy by bringing greater transparency to the disbursement of foreign aid. Even supporters of a vigorous foreign aid program should support restoring Congress’ rightful role as appropriator and overseer of foreign aid funds.

2003 Ron Paul 80:5
Mr. Speaker, it long past time for Congress to begin reasserting its constitutional role in the appropriation of funds for foreign aid programs. For too long, the Exchange Stabilization Fund has allowed the executive branch to commit the American taxpayer to supporting foreign governments without even consulting with Congress. I hope all my colleagues will join my efforts to end this practice by cosponsoring my Foreign Aid Limitation Act.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 81

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

The Senior Citizens Freedom Of Choice Act
17 July 2003

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, July 17, 2003


2003 Ron Paul 81:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Senior Citizens Freedom of Choice of Act. This act ensures that participation in the Medicare program is completely voluntary. I also ask unanimous consent to insert into the record a letter sent to my office from a citizen who is trying to receive Social Security benefits without being forced to enroll in Medicare Part A, along with a letter from the Social Security Administration admitting that seniors who do not enroll in Medicare Part A are denied Social Security benefits.

2003 Ron Paul 81:2
When Medicare was first established, seniors were promised that the program would be voluntary. In fact, the original Medicare legislation explicitly protected a senior’s right to seek out other forms of medical insurance. However, today, the Social Security Administration refuses to give seniors Social Security benefits unless they enroll in Medicare Part A.

2003 Ron Paul 81:3
This not only distorts the intent of the creators of the Medicare system, it also violates the promise represented by Social Security. Americans pay taxes into the Social Security Trust Fund their whole working lives and are promised that Social Security will be there for them when they retire. Yet, today, seniors are told that they cannot receive these benefits unless they agree to join another government program!

2003 Ron Paul 81:4
At a time when the fiscal solvency of Medicare is questionable, to say the least, it seems foolish to waste scarce Medicare funds on those who would prefer to do without Medicare. Allowing seniors who neither want nor need to participate in the program to refrain from doing so will also strengthen the Medicare program for those seniors who do wish to participate in it. Of course, my bill does not take away Medicare benefits from any senior. It simply allows each senior to choose voluntarily whether or not to accept Medicare benefits.

2003 Ron Paul 81:5
Seniors may wish to refuse Medicare for a variety of reasons. Some seniors may wish to continue making their own health care decisions, rather than have those decisions made for them by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Other seniors may have a favorite physician who is one of the growing number of doctors who have been driven out of the Medicare program by CMS’s micromanagement of their practices and below-cost reimbursements.

2003 Ron Paul 81:6
Forcing seniors into any government program as a precondition of receiving their promised Social Security benefits both violates the promise of Social Security and infringes on the freedom of seniors who do not wish to participate in Medicare. As the author of the submitted letter says, “. . . I should be able to choose the medical arrangements I prefer without suffering the penalty that is being imposed.” I urge my colleagues to protect the rights of seniors to make the medical arrangements that best suit their own needs by cosponsoring the Senior Citizens Freedom of Choice Act.

2003 Ron Paul 81:7
Congressman RON PAUL
U.S. Congress, Washington, DC.
DEAR CONGRESSMAN PAUL: I am writing to inform you about a structural problem in Medicare of which you may he unaware and that I believe must be remedied, all the more so now that there are rumors that Medicare, Part A, might be combined with Medicare, Part B.

2003 Ron Paul 81:8
In brief; the problem to which I refer involves the requirement that a Medicare eligible individual enroll in Medicare, Part A as a condition of receiving Social Security benefits to which he or she is entitled. In fact, the Social Security Administration has combined the enrollment forms for the two programs, so that an application for Social Security benefits to which one is entitled automatically entails enrollment in Medicare, Part A.

2003 Ron Paul 81:9
I discovered this in June 2001 when I went with my husband to apply for my Social Security benefits. I made it quite clear that I would not enroll in Medicare, Part A due to my objections to certain aspects of this program. (The objectionable aspects include invasion of privacy and limitation of medical choice.) In response I was told that I then could not receive the Social Security benefits to which I am otherwie entitled.

2003 Ron Paul 81:10
Further communication with CMS by myself and by the office of Senator Kennedy on my behalf confirmed that CMS and the Social Security Administration take the position that “the Medicare program, Part A . . . [is] a benefit completely linked to the monthly social security benefit for those age 65 or older.” Indeed I was sent a copy of federal regulation 404.640 (entitled “Withdrawal of an application”), which states that anyone who enrolls in Medicare, Part A and then decides later to withdraw will have to return all benefits received. (Another document I received states that this includes both medical benefits and social security benefits.)

2003 Ron Paul 81:11
Upon receipt of a copy of the letter, dated October 12, 2001, sent to Senator Kennedy regarding my complaint. I followed that letter’s suggestion that I make an attempt to file “a restricted application for Social Security benefits.” This I did in a letter, dated May 15, 2002, to the regional commissioner for Social Security, Manual Vaz.

2003 Ron Paul 81:12
The response to my letter to Mr. Vaz came from the local (Waltham) Social Security office. In that letter, dated May 29, 2002. I was told that it was impossible to make a restricted application, i.e., an “application for cash social security retirement benefits only.”

2003 Ron Paul 81:13
Thus I was left with no recourse. I could not appeal a denial of my “restricted” application, because I was not even permitted to make the application. Short of an expensive lawsuit or an Act of Congress, there appears to be no remedy.

2003 Ron Paul 81:14
This is no trivial matter for me. I have now lost two years of Social Security benefits. It is not clear when or if I will ever receive these benefits. All those with whom I have discussed this problem, irrespective of their political persuasion, have been shocked to hear about these regulations.

2003 Ron Paul 81:15
I believe that I should be able to choose the medical arrangements I prefer without suffering the penalty that is being imposed. I ask that you take steps to remedy this situation. I shall be happy to supply documentation regarding the facts outlined above, it you request it. I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,_______.

2003 Ron Paul 81:16
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
DEAR MS. :

Enclosed please find the regulations which state that there is no application for cash social security retirement benefits only. If you file for cash benefits you MUST file for the Medicare Part A (HI). Therefore this can only be translated, in one way at this time. If you do not wish to file for Medicare Part A (HI) you must forfeit your right to cash benefits.

2003 Ron Paul 81:17
If I can be of any further assistance please feel free to contact me at the above telephone number extension, 3016.

2003 Ron Paul 81:18
Sincerely yours,
Technical Expert.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 82

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

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
17 July 2003
Bring Back Honest Money


2003 Ron Paul 82:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Honest Money Act. The Honest Money Act repeals legal tender laws, a.k.a. forced tender laws, that compel American citizens to accept fiat (arbitrary) irredeemable paper-ticket or electronic money as their unit of account. 

2003 Ron Paul 82:2
Absent legal tender laws, individuals acting through the markets, rather than government dictates, determine what is to be used as money. Historically, the free-market choice for money has been some combination of gold and silver, whenever they were available. As Dr. Edwin Vieira, the nation’s top expert on constitutional money, states: “A free market functions most efficiently and most fairly when the market determines the quality and the quantity of money that’s being used.” 

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.  

2003 Ron Paul 82:4
Legal tender laws disadvantage ordinary citizens by forcing them to use money that is vulnerable to vast depreciation. As Stephen T. Byington wrote in the September 1895 issue of the American Federationist : “No legal tender law is ever needed to make men take good money; its only use is to make them take bad money. Kick it out!” Similarly, the American Federation of Labor asked: “If money is good and would be preferred by the people, then why are legal tender laws necessary? And, if money is not good and would not be preferred by the people, then why in a democracy should they be forced to use it?”

2003 Ron Paul 82:5
The American Federation of Labor understood how the erosion of the value of money cheated working people. Further, honest money, i.e., specie, was one of the three issues that encouraged ordinary people to organize into unions when the union movement began in the U.S. circa 1830.

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.

2003 Ron Paul 82:7
The advantages given banks and other financial institutions by our fiat monetary system, which is built on a foundation of legal tender laws, allow them to realize revenues that would not be available to these institutions in a free market. This represents legalized plunder of ordinary people. Legal tender laws thus enable the redistribution of wealth from those who produce it, mostly ordinary working people, to those who create and move around our irredeemable paper-ticket electronic money which is, in essence, just scrip.  

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.”

2003 Ron Paul 82:9
However, during the 20 th century, the legal tender power enabled politicians to fool the public into believing the dollar no longer meant a weight of gold or silver. Instead, the government told the people that the dollar now meant a piece of government-issued paper backed up by nothing except the promises of the government to maintain a stable value of currency. Of course, history shows that the word of the government (to protect the value of the dollar) is literally not worth the paper it is printed on.  

2003 Ron Paul 82:10
Tragically, the Supreme Court has failed to protect the American people from unconstitutional legal tender laws. Salmon Chase, who served as Secretary of the Treasury in President Lincoln’s administration, when he was Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, dissenting in Knox vs. Lee, summed up the argument against legal tender laws in twelve words: “The legal tender quality [of money] is only valuable for the purposes of dishonesty .” [emphasis added.]

2003 Ron Paul 82:11
Another prescient Justice was Stephen Field, the only Justice to dissent in every legal tender case to come before the Court. Justice Field accurately described the dangers to our constitutional republic posed by legal tender laws: “The arguments in favor of the constitutionality of legal tender paper currency tend directly to break down the barriers which separate a government of limited powers from a government resting in the unrestrained will of Congress. Those limitations must be preserved, or our government will inevitably drift from the system established by our Fathers into a vast, centralized, and consolidated government.” A government with unrestrained powers is properly characterized as tyrannical.

2003 Ron Paul 82:12
Repeal of legal tender laws will help restore constitutional government and protect the people’s right to a medium of exchange chosen by the market, thereby protecting their current purchasing power as well as their pensions, savings, and other promises of future payment. Because honest money serves the needs of ordinary people, instead of fiat irredeemable paper-ticket electronic money that improperly transfers the wealth of society to a small specially privileged financial elite along with other special interests, I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Honest Money Act.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 83

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Abolishing The Federal Reserve
17 July 2003

2003 Ron Paul 83:1
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, July 17, 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.

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.

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.

2003 Ron Paul 83:5
With a stable currency, American exporters will no longer be held hostage to an erratic monetary policy. Stabilizing the currency will also give Americans new incentives to save as they will no longer have to fear inflation eroding their savings. Those members concerned about increasing America’s exports or the low rate of savings should be enthusiastic supporters of this legislation.

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.

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.

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.

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.

2003 Ron Paul 83:10
[From USA Daily, May 6, 2003]
THE GREATEST THEFT IN HISTORY
(By Murray Sabrin)
If you have a savings account, your bank probably credits it with interest every month. At the end of the month, you expect the bank to pay you the amount of interest it was obligated to pay you — no more no less. In other words, you would not expect the bank to change the interest it was going to pay you unless your account explicitly allows the bank to readjust the interest rate at its discretion.

2003 Ron Paul 83:11
We know the interest rate paid on shortterm “risk free” deposits are based on the “real rate” plus an inflation premium. Historically, the real rate — the rental price of money — is the annual rate that borrowers and lenders agree on is typically 2–3 percent. So if you borrow $100 for a year, you would expect to pay the lender about $103 at the end of one year.

2003 Ron Paul 83:12
However, if price inflation is expected to be 3% for the year the loan is outstanding, the lender wants to protect his principal from the decline in the dollar’s purchasing power. So, the interest rate on the loan would thus not be just 2% (assuming this is the real rate), but 2% plus an inflation premium of 3%, for a total of 5%.

2003 Ron Paul 83:13
Currently the annual inflation rate is about 2.5%. Thus, the risk free rate (the real rate-2% — plus the inflation premium) on savings deposits and money market funds should be about 4.5%. For Americans who seek the safety of savings accounts and money market funds for their hard-earned money, the current average yield of 0.7% on money market funds is well below the current risk free rate. In addition, savers who own short-term U.S. Treasury debt are receiving slightly more than 1.1 % annually. What’s going on? How can savers be receiving about 3.5% less than the risk free rate on their money market accounts and savings accounts?

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.

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.

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.

2003 Ron Paul 83:17
In short, the American people are being ripped off to the tune of tens of billions of dollars per year.

2003 Ron Paul 83:18
To put this in dollars and cents, there are $2.2 trillion in money market funds, with an average annual yield of 0.7%. The income from these funds is about $15 billion a year. If interest rates were 4.5%, savers would have nearly one hundred billion dollars in income or $85 billion more than they are currently receiving.

2003 Ron Paul 83:19
Moreover, there is $4.61 trillion in the nation’s time and savings deposits, earning an average of about 1.0% or more depending on the financial institution your money is deposited in. (ING Direct pays 2.10% online on short-term deposits. The money can be transferred from your checking account to an online account and back. The minimum deposit to open an account is only $1. This is not a misprint.)

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.

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.

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.

2003 Ron Paul 83:23
Thus, Federal Reserve policy aids and abets the legalized theft of hundreds of billions of dollars per year from low-and middle- income families to the economic elites of this country and profligate governments at all levels — all with the approval of the U.S. Congress and the Bush administration.

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.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 84

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Legislation To Withdraw The United States From The Bretton Woods Agreement
17 July 2003

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, July 17, 2003


2003 Ron Paul 84:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation to withdraw the United States from the Bretton Woods Agreement and thus end taxpayer support for the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Rooted in a discredited economic philosophy and a complete disregard for fundamental constitutional principles, the IMF forces American taxpayers to subsidize large, multinational corporations and underwrite economic destruction around the globe. This is because the IMF often uses the $46.7 billion line of credit provided to it by the American taxpayers to bribe countries to follow destructive, statist policies.

2003 Ron Paul 84:2
Just last year, Argentina was rocked by an economic crisis caused by IMF policies. Despite clear signs over the past several years that the Argentine economy was in serious trouble, the IMF continued pouring taxpayersubsidized loans with an incredibly low interest rate of 2.6 percent into the country. In 2001, as Argentina’s fiscal position steadily deteriorated, the IMF funneled over 8 billion dollars to the Argentine government!

2003 Ron Paul 84:3
According to Congressman JIM SAXTON, Chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, this “Continued lending over many years sustained and subsidized a bankrupt Argentine economic policy, whose collapse is now all the more serious. The IMF’s generous subsidized bailouts lead to moral hazard problems, and enable shaky governments to pressure the IMF for even more funding or risk disaster.”

2003 Ron Paul 84:4
Argentina is just the latest example of the folly of IMF policies. Five years ago the world economy was rocked by an IMF-created disaster in Asia. The IMF regularly puts the taxpayer on the hook for the mistakes of the big banks. Oftentimes, Mr. Speaker, IMF funds end up in the hands of corrupt dictators who use our taxpayer-provided largesse to prop up their regimes by rewarding their supporters and depriving their opponents of access to capital.

2003 Ron Paul 84:5
If not corrupt, most IMF borrowers are governments of countries with little economic productivity. Either way, most recipient nations end up with huge debts that they cannot service, which only adds to their poverty and instability. IMF money ultimately corrupts those countries it purports to help, by keeping afloat reckless political institutions that destroy their own economies.

2003 Ron Paul 84:6
IMF policies ultimately are based on a flawed philosophy that says the best means of creating economic prosperity is through government- to-government transfers. Such programs cannot produce growth, because they take capital out of private hands, where it can be allocated to its most productive use as determined by the choices of consumers in the market; and place it in the hands of politicians. Placing economic resources in the hands of politicians and bureaucrats inevitably results in inefficiencies, shortages, and economic crises, as even the best-intentioned politicians cannot know the most efficient use of resources.

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.

2003 Ron Paul 84:8
In all my years in Congress, I have never been approached by a taxpayer asking that he or she be forced to provide more subsidies to Wall Street executives and foreign dictators. The only constituency for the IMF is the huge multinational banks and corporations. Big banks used IMF funds — taxpayer funds — to bail themselves out from billions in losses after the Asian financial crisis. Big corporations obtain lucrative contracts for a wide variety of construction projects funded with IMF loans. It’s a familiar game in Washington, with corporate welfare disguised as compassion for the poor.

2003 Ron Paul 84:9
Last year’s Argentine debacle is yet further proof that the IMF was a bad idea from the very beginning — economically, constitutionally, and morally. The IMF is a relic of an era when power-hungry bureaucrats and deluded economists believed they could micromanage the world’s economy. Withdrawal from the IMF would benefit American taxpayers, as well as workers and consumers around the globe. I hope my colleagues will join me in working to protect the American taxpayer from underwriting the destruction of countries like Argentina, by cosponsoring my legislation to end America’s support for the IMF.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 85

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

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
July 21, 2003    
The Justifications for War


2003 Ron Paul 85:1
Madam Speaker, the truth about whether or not Saddam Hussein sought to buy uranium from Niger has dominated the news for the past several weeks. Many of those challenging the administration on this issue are motivated more by politics than by policy. Some of today’s critics were strongly in favor of going to war against Iraq when doing so appeared politically popular, but now are chagrined that the war is not going as smoothly as was hoped.

2003 Ron Paul 85:2
I am sure once the alleged attempt to buy uranium is thoroughly debunked, the other excuses for going to war will be examined with a great deal of scrutiny as well. It is obvious that the evidence used to justify going to war is now less than convincing.

2003 Ron Paul 85:3
The charge that Saddam Hussein had aluminum tubes used in manufacturing nuclear weapons was in error.

2003 Ron Paul 85:4
A fleet of unmanned aerial vehicles capable of dispensing chemical and biological weapons did not exist.

2003 Ron Paul 85:5
The 63,000 liters of anthrax and botulism have not been found, nor have any of the mobile germ labs. There are no signs of the one million pounds of sarin, mustard, and VX gasses alleged to exist.

2003 Ron Paul 85:6
No evidence has been revealed to indicate Iraq was a threat to the security of any nation, let alone America.  

2003 Ron Paul 85:7
The charge that Saddam Hussein was connected to the al Qaeda was wrong. Saddam Hussein’s violations the UN resolutions regarding weapons of mass destruction remain unproven.

2003 Ron Paul 85:8
How could so many errors have occurred? Some say it was incompetence, while others claim outright deception and lies. Some say it was selective use of intelligence to promote a particular policy already decided upon. This debate, I am sure, will rage on for a long time, and since motivations are subjective and hard to prove, resolving the controversy will be difficult. However, this should not diminish the importance of sorting out truth from fiction, errors from malice.

2003 Ron Paul 85:9
One question, though, I hope gets asked: Why should we use intelligence cited by a foreign government as justification for going to war? One would think the billions we spend would produce reliable intelligence-gathering agencies.

2003 Ron Paul 85:10
Since we lack a coherent foreign policy, we see support for war from different groups depending on circumstances unrelated to national defense. For instance, those who strenuously objected to Kosovo promoted war in Iraq. And those who objected to Iraq are now anxious to send troops to Liberia. For some, U.N. permission is important and necessary. For others, the U.N. is helpful provided it endorses the war they want.

2003 Ron Paul 85:11
Only a few correctly look to the Constitution and to Congress to sort out the pros and cons of each conflict, and decide whether or not a declaration of war is warranted.

2003 Ron Paul 85:12
The sad fact is that we have lost our way. A legitimate threat to national security is no longer a litmus test for sending troops hither and yon, and the American people no longer require Congress to declare the wars we fight. Hopefully, some day this will change.

2003 Ron Paul 85:13
The raging debate over whether or not Saddam Hussein tried to buy uranium, as important as it is, distracts from the much more important strategic issue of the proper foreign policy in a republic.

2003 Ron Paul 85:14
Hopefully, we will soon seriously consider the foreign policy approach advocated by our Founding Fathers, a policy of nonintervention in the affairs of other nations. Avoiding entangling alliances and staying out of the internal affairs of other nations is the policy most conducive to peace and prosperity.  Policing the world and nation building are not proper for our constitutional republic.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 86

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

UNESCO
22 July 2003

AMENDMENT NO. 10 OFFERED BY MR. PAUL

2003 Ron Paul 86:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

2003 Ron Paul 86:2
The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. PAUL:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following:

LIMITATION ON UNITED STATES CONTRIBUTIONS TO UNESCO

SEC. ll. None of the funds made available in this Act may be made available for the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

2003 Ron Paul 86:3
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very simple and clear. It is to strike the funds for UNESCO. We have been out of UNESCO since 1984, since President Reagan took us out of UNESCO, and the proposal now is that we rejoin. And this strikes the funding, which I think is a good idea.

2003 Ron Paul 86:4
UNESCO was started with a bad idea. It became very corrupted, and it was almost unanimous that we get out of UNESCO in 1984, and actually I see no reason for us to rejoin.

2003 Ron Paul 86:5
Let me just mention a few things that UNESCO is involved in. They came across, when we were in there, as being very anti-American, certainly anti-freedom, and certainly anti-first amendment. UNESCO’s main function is to mettle in the education affairs of individual neighborhoods, nations, by proposing global school curriculums; something that we hardly need.

2003 Ron Paul 86:6
In one of the publications put out from UNESCO it describes rather well what their intentions are. The publication is called Toward World Understanding. Let me just quote from that.

2003 Ron Paul 86:7
“One of the chief aims of education today should be to prepare boys and girls to take an active part in the creation of a world society. As long as the child breathes the poisoned air of nationalism, education and world mindedness can produce only rather precarious results. As we have pointed out, it is frequently the family,” the family, it says, “that infects the child with extreme nationalism. The schools should, therefore, use the means described earlier to combat family attitudes.”

2003 Ron Paul 86:8
Now, that is coming from a publication put out by UNESCO and states one of their goals. And I might just remind my colleagues of who the founding director general was, and that happened to have been Sir Julian Huxley. Huxley helped to write some of the goals set in the UNESCO, and he happens to be a believer in eugenics, but let me just quote from him what he thought this organization should do.

2003 Ron Paul 86:9
He says, “The general philosophy of UNESCO should be a scientific world humanism.” And those words have not been changed; they still exist in these documents. They have not repealed that concept.

2003 Ron Paul 86:10
He goes on to say, “In its education program, it can stress the ultimate need for world political unity and familiarize all people with the implications of the transfer of full sovereignty from separate nations to a world organization.” They are rather explicit in what the goal of UNESCO is through the educational process.

2003 Ron Paul 86:11
“It is also to help the emergence of a single world culture, even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy could not be passed now,” they say, “in time, the world will become ready for it.”

2003 Ron Paul 86:12
So I warn my colleagues about rejoining UNESCO, believing very sincerely that it is not in our interest. It costs us a lot of money. It does not represent the goals and the culture and the beliefs of Americans. We did get out because it represented us badly, and here we are about to get back into UNESCO. I urge support for my amendment.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 87

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

UNESCO — Part 2
22 July 2003

2003 Ron Paul 87:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. TERRY). Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.

There was no objection.

2003 Ron Paul 87:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, let me mention once again that the amendment strikes all the funding for UNESCO. We have been out of UNESCO since 1984. President Reagan took us out of UNESCO, and that was a very popular move. The argument now is that UNESCO has made some reforms and therefore we should get back in. But their goals have not changed. I have already mentioned some of the goals of UNESCO, and they are not beneficial to us and they do not represent American ideals; it is an attack on American sovereignty. But during these 18 years since we have been out of UNESCO, it has only been the last year or two where they have talked about reforms. So over all these years, nothing has been done.

2003 Ron Paul 87:3
But more importantly, it is the goals of UNESCO. For instance, UNESCO’s position on international taxation is that they would like to impose an international tax. If that is what the people want, if that is what the Congress wants, then you vote against my amendment. But if you think it is a bad idea for the U.N. and UNESCO to be leveling a worldwide tax, then you vote for my amendment.

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.

2003 Ron Paul 87:5
I do not believe that. I have not come around to that belief. Being a member in a world community does not mean that you have to sacrifice your sovereignty. Being a member of a world community means that we should get along with people, that we should not be fighting with people, we should be trading with people; but that does not imply the necessity of having an international government. This is what is implied here. In this day and age we go to war under U.N. resolutions; but here our children are going to war with the education system by the United Nations dictating to us educational standards.

2003 Ron Paul 87:6
But they do other things as well. UNESCO, for instance, has been fully supportive of the United Nations Population Fund in its assistance to China’s brutal, coercive population control program. That is part of UNESCO. I do not believe the majority of the Members of Congress really believe that is a good expenditure. And you cannot control the money once it gets to UNESCO, believe me. We send the money, we send a larger amount of money than anybody else, we lose control of it and they do these things that I think are illegitimate as far as our Constitution is concerned.

2003 Ron Paul 87:7
UNESCO has designated already 47 U.N. biosphere reserves in the United States covering more than 70 million acres without congressional consultation. This project has led to the confiscation of private lands and restrictions. Because we do go along with the restrictions, it is somewhat like following WTO mandates. They come back with regulations and mandates, and we accommodate them by rewriting our tax laws. In the same way, they are moving in, with radical environmentism that originates from UNESCO and it filters into our grade schools as well as our kindergartens. UNESCO effectively bypasses congressional authority to manage Federal lands, including places like the Everglades, and it is done without congressional approval.

2003 Ron Paul 87:8
UNESCO’s World Heritage Convention has taken treasured American public monuments to be designated world heritage sites. This is a movement away from the concept of national sovereignty. This means that there will not be control by the American people through their Representative. That makes every single one of us less significant, not only in the issue of war but now in the issue of schools and taxation. Yes, it moves slowly, it is not overwhelming; we still have a lot of control, but we are losing it gradually. And we do know that even those who objected to the war in Iraq would have been quite happy if only the United Nations would have passed a resolution that permitted us to go to war. I do not like that kind of a world. The only oath of office I take is the oath to the U.S. Constitution and UNESCO does not conform to that oath.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL).

The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that the noes appeared to have it.

2003 Ron Paul 87:9
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 88

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

PATRIOT Act
22 July 2003

2003 Ron Paul 88:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

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

2003 Ron Paul 88:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I want to compliment the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. OTTER) for bringing this to the floor.

2003 Ron Paul 88:3
When the PATRIOT Act was passed, it was in the passions following 9/11, and that bill should have never been passed. It was brought up carelessly, casually, in a rapid manner. The bill that had been discussed in the Committee on the Judiciary was removed during the night before we voted. The full text of this bill was very difficult to find. I am convinced that very few Members were able to review this bill before voting. That bill should have never passed. We certainly should continue to maintain the sunset provisions. But that is a long way off, and we should be starting to reform and improve this particular piece of legislation. This is our first chance to do so.

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.

2003 Ron Paul 88:5
But there is no need ever to sacrifice liberty in order to maintain security. I feel more secure when I have more liberty; and that is why I am a defender of liberty, because my main concern is security, both in the physical sense as well as the financial sense. I think the freer the country is, the more prosperous we are; and the freer the country is, the more secure we are.

2003 Ron Paul 88:6
Yet it was in the atmosphere of post- 9/11 that so many were anxious to respond to what they perceived as demands by the people to do something. But just to do something, if you are doing the wrong thing, what good is it? You are doing more harm.

2003 Ron Paul 88:7
But my main argument is that there is never a need to sacrifice liberty in order to protect liberty, and that is why we would like to at least remove this clause that allows sneak-and-peak search warrants.

2003 Ron Paul 88:8
It took hundreds, if not thousands, of years to develop this concept that governments do not have the right to break in without the proper procedures and without probable cause. And yet we threw that out the window in this post-9/11 atmosphere, and we gave away a lot.

2003 Ron Paul 88:9
Yes, we talked about numbers of dozens of examples of times when our government has used this and abused it. But that is only the beginning. It is the principle. If they had only done it once, if they had not done it, this should still be taken care of, because as time goes on, and if we adapt to this process, it will be used more and more, and that is throwing away a big and important chunk of our Constitution, the fourth amendment.

2003 Ron Paul 88:10
Not only should we do whatever we can to reform that legislation, but we already know that there is a PATRIOT Act No. 2. It has not been given to us, the Congress; but the administration has it for the future. It is available, but we have only gotten to see it from the Internet.

2003 Ron Paul 88:11
In that bill there is a proposal that the government can strip us of our citizenship, and then anybody then stripped of their citizenship could be put into the situation that many foreigners find themselves in at Guantanamo before the military tribunals.

2003 Ron Paul 88:12
I see this as a very, very important issue, if anybody cares about liberty, if anybody cares about personal freedom and the rule of law and the need for probable cause before our government comes barging into our houses. It has been under the guise of drug laws that have in the past instituted many of these abuses, but this is much worse. This has been put into an explicit piece of legislation, and the American people and this Congress ought to become very alert to this and realize how serious the PATRIOT Act is.

2003 Ron Paul 88:13
I hope that the Congress and our colleagues here will support this amendment. It is very necessary, and it will be voting for the Constitution; and it will be voting for liberty if we support this amendment.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 89

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Medicinal Marijuana
22 July 2003

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL).

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

2003 Ron Paul 89:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.

2003 Ron Paul 89:2
As a cosponsor of the amendment, I rise in support of this amendment and appreciate the fact that the gentleman from New York has brought it to the floor.

2003 Ron Paul 89:3
I would suggest that the previous speaker has forgotten some of the law; and to me, that would be the constitutional law of the ninth and tenth amendments. So changing the law is one thing, but remembering the Constitution is another.

2003 Ron Paul 89:4
This has a lot to do with State law; but more importantly, as a physician, I see this bill as something dealing with compassion. As a physician, I have seen those who have died with cancer and getting chemotherapy and with AIDS and having nothing to help them.

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.

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.

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.

2003 Ron Paul 89:8
Yes, I would grant my colleagues there is danger in all medications. There is some danger in marijuana, but I do not know of any deaths that is purely marijuana-related. If we want to talk about a deadly medication or a deadly drug that kills literally tens of thousands in this country, it is alcohol. And how many people want to go back to prohibition? I mean, nobody’s proposing that, and yet that is a deadly drug.

2003 Ron Paul 89:9
The whole notion that we can deny this right to the States to allow a little bit of compassion for a patient that is dying, I would say this is a compassionate vote. If we care about the people being sick, then we have to vote for this amendment. This will do nothing to increase the use of bad drugs. The bad drugs are there; and as a physician and a parent and a grandparent, I preach against it all the time, but the unwise use of drugs is a medical problem, just like alcoholism is a medical problem; but we have turned this into a monster to the point where we will not even allow a person dying from cancer and AIDS to get a little bit of relief.

2003 Ron Paul 89:10
I strongly urge support and a positive vote for this amendment.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 90

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

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
24 July 2003  
Stay out of Liberia!


2003 Ron Paul 90:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce a resolution expressing the sense of the Congress that while we encourage a regional West African effort to resolve the Liberia crisis, the United States military has no role - either alone or as part of a multinational force - in that country.

2003 Ron Paul 90:2
We all recognize the tragedy in Liberia. A civil war has raged there for the past 14 years, leaving thousands dead and a million without homes. Horrific stories of atrocities abound. We wish for peace and a resolution to the conflict. But we must recognize that this resolution should come through regional West African efforts. These are the countries involved and affected; these are the countries with the most incentive to resolve the problem. Simply stated, there is no US national security interest at stake in the conflict - no matter how widely “national interest” is defined.

2003 Ron Paul 90:3
But the administration is currently pondering repeated calls by some in the US and especially the United Nations to commit thousands of troops to a full-fledged American operation in Liberia. According to press reports, the Pentagon has just ordered about 4,500 sailors and marines from the Horn of Africa into the Mediterranean Sea, so as to be closer to Liberia just in case.

2003 Ron Paul 90:4
Before we commit our troops to yet another foreign intervention, Congress must at the very least consider the implications of further committing our already seriously overextended military. According to recent press reporting, of the 33 brigades that make up the entirety of the US Army’s active duty combat forces, all but just three brigades are either currently engaged in Iraq, Afghanistan, South Korea; are committed to other missions; or are reconstituting. This suggests that the US military is in serious danger of becoming over-extended.

2003 Ron Paul 90:5
Mr. Speaker, there is no US interest in the conflict and US military involvement could well lead to resentment and more violence against US troops, as we saw in Somalia. We must ponder this possibility before yet again putting our men and women in uniform in harm’s way.

2003 Ron Paul 90:6
I hope very much that my colleagues will join me in this effort and that we may see a quick Floor vote on this very important measure.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 91

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

H.R. 2427, the Pharmaceutical Market Access Act
24 July 2003

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

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

2003 Ron Paul 91:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule, but I also strongly support the bill itself, H.R. 2427. And I would like to advise other Members here that I approach all legislation the same way. I look at it through two prisms. One, I look to see if it promotes freedom, and the other I look to see if it conforms to the Constitution.

2003 Ron Paul 91:2
Every piece of legislation I look at it in this manner. Now, the sad part is I do not get to vote for many bills. They come up short on quite a few occasions. So I want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. GUTKNECHT) and the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. EMERSON) for giving us a bill tonight that I can vote for enthusiastically. I finally found one, and I thank them very much.

2003 Ron Paul 91:3
But in looking at the particular bill, one of the specific reasons why I oppose it, is I came to Congress opposing all welfare. Some people oppose welfare for the poor, but they support welfare for the rich. Others support welfare for the rich, but not for the poor; and some people support both kinds of welfare. I do not support any kind of welfare. This bill is needed to stop the indirect welfare through regulation for the rich and the pharmaceutical corporations. This is corporate welfare. That is one of the strong reasons why I am opposed to that.

2003 Ron Paul 91:4
I also believe in freedom of choice. People have the right to make their own choices. We do not need to promote the nanny state. People are wise enough and cautious enough to make their own choices. Today we had two votes on free trade legislation. They were promoting international trade agreements, but done in the name of free trade. Why do we have free trade legislation, so-called? To lower tariffs, to lower prices to the consumer. But those very same people who worked so hard on free trade legislation are saying now we cannot allow the American people the option of buying drugs from other countries and saving money.

2003 Ron Paul 91:5
I urge all my colleagues to support H.R. 2427.

2003 Ron Paul 91:6
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of H.R. 2427, the Pharmaceutical Market Access Act, because I believe it is an important bill that will benefit all Americans. As my colleagues are aware, many Americans are concerned about the high cost of prescription drugs. These high prices particularly affect senior citizens who have a greater than average need for prescription drugs and a lower than average income. Of course, some of these seniors may soon have at least part of their prescription drug costs covered by Medicare.

2003 Ron Paul 91:7
However, the fact that Medicare, that is already on shaky financial ground, will soon be subsidizing prescription drug costs makes it more important than ever that Congress address the issue of prescription drug costs. Of course, Congress’s actions should respect our constitutional limits and not further expand the role of government in the health care market.

2003 Ron Paul 91:8
Fortunately, there are a number of marketoriented policies Congress can adopt to lower the prices of prescription drugs. This is because the main reason prescription drug prices are high is government policies, that give a few powerful companies monopoly power. For example, policies restricting the importation of quality pharmaceuticals enable pharmaceutical companies to charge abovemarket prices for their products. Therefore, all members of Congress who are serious about lowering prescription drug prices should support H.R. 2427.

2003 Ron Paul 91:9
Opponents of this bill have waged a hysterical campaign to convince members that this amendment will result in consumers purchasing unsafe products. Acceptance of this argument not only requires ignoring H.R. 2427’s numerous provisions ensuring the safety of imported drugs, it also requires assuming that consumers will buy cheap pharmaceuticals without taking any efforts to ensure that they are buying quality products. The experience of my constituents who are currently traveling to foreign countries to purchase prescription drugs shows that consumers are quite capable of purchasing safe products without interference from Big “Mother.”

2003 Ron Paul 91:10
Furthermore, if the supporters of the status quo were truly concerned about promoting health, instead of protecting the special privileges of powerful companies, they would be more concerned with reforming the current policies that endanger health by artificially raising the cost of prescription drugs. Oftentimes, lower income Americans will take less of a prescription medicine than necessary to save money. Some even forgo other necessities, including food, in order to afford their medications. By reducing the prices of pharmaceuticals, H.R. 2427 will help ensure that no child has to take less than the recommended dosage of a prescription medicine and that no American has to choose between medication and food.

2003 Ron Paul 91:11
Other opponents of this bill have charged that creating a free market in pharmaceuticals will impose Canadian style price controls on prescription drugs. This is nonsense. Nothing in H.R. 2427 gives the government any additional power to determine pharmaceutical prices. H.R. 2427 simply lowers trade barriers, thus taking a step toward ensuring that Americans pay a true market price for prescription drugs. This market price will likely be lower than the current price because current government policies raise the price of prescription drugs above what it would be in the market.

2003 Ron Paul 91:12
Today, Americans enjoy access to many imported goods which are subject to price controls, and even receive government subsidies, in their countries of origin. Interestingly, some people support liberalized trade with Communist China, which is hardly a free economy, while opposing H.R. 2427! American policy has always been based on the principle that our economy is strengthened by free trade even when our trading partners engage in such market distorting policies as price controls and industrial subsidies. There is no good reason why pharmaceuticals should be an exception to the rule.

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.

2003 Ron Paul 91:14
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I once again urge my colleagues to show that they are serious about lowering the prices of prescription drugs and that they trust the people to do what is in their best interests by supporting H.R. 2427, the Pharmaceutical Market Access Act.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 92

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

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
July 25, 2003
Stop Subsidizing Foreign Shrimpers


2003 Ron Paul 92:1
The United States domestic shrimping industry is a vital social and economic force in many coastal communities across the United States, including several in my congressional district.  A thriving shrimping industry benefits not only those who own and operate shrimp boats, but also food processors, hotels, restaurants, grocery stores, and those who work in and service these industries. Shrimping also serves as a key source of safe domestic food at a time when the nation is engaged in hostilities abroad.

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.

2003 Ron Paul 92:3
Seven foreign countries (Thailand, Vietnam, India, China, Ecuador, Indonesia, and Brazil) have taken advantage of the domestic shrimping industry’s government-created vulnerabilities. These countries each exported in excess of 20,000,000 pounds of shrimp to the United States in the first 6 months of 2002. These seven countries supplied nearly 70 percent of all shrimp consumed in the United States in the first six months of 2002, and nearly 80 percent of all shrimp imported to this country in the same period!

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!   

2003 Ron Paul 92:5
Many of the countries in question do not have free-market economies. Thus, the participation of these countries in United States-supported international financial regimes amounts to American shrimpers directly subsidizing their international competitors. In any case, providing aid to any of these countries indirectly benefits foreign shrimpers because of the fungibility of money.

2003 Ron Paul 92:6
In order to ensure that American shrimpers are not forced to subsidize their competitors, my legislation forbids taxpayer dollars from being used to support Export-Import and OPIC subsidies to the countries that imported more than 20 million pounds of shrimp in the first six months of 2002. 

2003 Ron Paul 92:7
Mr. Speaker, it is time for Congress to stop subsidizing the domestic shrimping industry’s leading competitors. Otherwise, the government-manufactured depression in the price of shrimp will decimate the domestic shrimping industry and the communities whose economies depend on this industry. I therefore hope that Congress will soon stand up for American shrimpers by passing my Shrimp Importation Financing Fairness Act.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 93

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

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
September 5, 2003
Paper Money and Tyranny


2003 Ron Paul 93:1
All great republics throughout history cherished sound money. This meant that the monetary unit was a commodity of honest weight and purity. When money was sound, civilizations were found to be more prosperous and freedom thrived. The less free a society becomes, the greater the likelihood its money is being debased and the economic well-being of its citizens diminished.

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.

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.

2003 Ron Paul 93:4
            If honest money and freedom are inseparable, as Mr. Greenspan argued, and paper money leads to tyranny, one must wonder why it’s so popular with economists, the business community, bankers, and our government officials. The simplest explanation is that it’s a human trait to always seek the comforts of wealth with the least amount of effort. This desire is quite positive when it inspires hard work and innovation in a capitalist society. Productivity is improved and the standard of living goes up for everyone. This process has permitted the poorest in today’s capitalist countries to enjoy luxuries never available to the royalty of old.

2003 Ron Paul 93:5
            But this human trait of seeking wealth and comfort with the least amount of effort is often abused. It leads some to believe that by certain monetary manipulations, wealth can be made more available to everyone.   Those who believe in fiat money often believe wealth can be increased without a commensurate amount of hard work and innovation. They also come to believe that savings and market control of interest rates are not only unnecessary, but actually hinder a productive growing economy. Concern for liberty is replaced by the illusion that material benefits can be more easily obtained with fiat money than through hard work and ingenuity. The perceived benefits soon become of greater concern for society than the preservation of liberty. This does not mean proponents of fiat money embark on a crusade to promote tyranny, though that is what it leads to, but rather they hope they have found the philosopher’s stone and a modern alternative to the challenge of turning lead into gold.

2003 Ron Paul 93:6
            Our Founders thoroughly understood this issue, and warned us against the temptation to seek wealth and fortune without the work and savings that real prosperity requires. James Madison warned of “The pestilent effects of paper money,” as the Founders had vivid memories of the destructiveness of the Continental dollar. George Mason of Virginia said that he had a “Mortal hatred to paper money.”  Constitutional Convention delegate Oliver Ellsworth from Connecticut thought the convention “A favorable moment to shut and bar the door against paper money.”   This view of the evils of paper money was shared by almost all the delegates to the convention, and was the reason the Constitution limited congressional authority to deal with the issue and mandated that only gold and silver could be legal tender. Paper money was prohibited and no central bank was authorized. Over and above the economic reasons for honest money, however, Madison argued the moral case for such. Paper money, he explained, destroyed “The necessary confidence between man and man, on necessary confidence in public councils, on the industry and morals of people and on the character of republican government.”

2003 Ron Paul 93:7
            The Founders were well aware of the biblical admonitions against dishonest weights and measures, debased silver, and watered-down wine. The issue of sound money throughout history has been as much a moral issue as an economic or political issue.

2003 Ron Paul 93:8
            Even with this history and great concern expressed by the Founders, the barriers to paper money have been torn asunder. The Constitution has not been changed, but is no longer applied to the issue of money. It was once explained to me, during the debate over going to war in Iraq, that a declaration of war was not needed because to ask for such a declaration was “frivolous” and that the portion of the Constitution dealing with congressional war power was “anachronistic.”  So too, it seems that the power over money given to Congress alone and limited to coinage and honest weights, is now also “anachronistic.”

2003 Ron Paul 93:9
            If indeed our generation can make the case for paper money, issued by an unauthorized central bank, it behooves us to at least have enough respect for the Constitution to amend it in a proper fashion. Ignoring the Constitution in order to perform a pernicious act is detrimental in two ways. First, debasing the currency as a deliberate policy is economically destructive beyond measure. Second, doing it without consideration for the rule of law undermines the entire fabric of our Constitutional republic.

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.

2003 Ron Paul 93:11
            All the great religions teach honesty in money, and the economic shortcomings of paper money were well known when the Constitution was written, so we must try to understand why an entire generation of Americans have come to accept paper money without hesitation, without question.  Most Americans are oblivious to the entire issue of the nature and importance of money. Many in authority, however, have either been misled by false notions or see that the power to create money is indeed a power they enjoy, as they promote their agenda of welfarism at home and empire abroad.

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



 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.

2003 Ron Paul 93:14
            When the government can replicate the monetary unit at will without regard to cost, whether it’s paper currency or a computer entry, it’s morally identical to the counterfeiter who illegally prints currency. Both ways, it’s fraud.

2003 Ron Paul 93:15
            A fiat monetary system allows power and influence to fall into the hands of those who control the creation of new money, and to those who get to use the money or credit early in its circulation. The insidious and eventual cost falls on unidentified victims who are usually oblivious to the cause of their plight. This system of legalized plunder (though not constitutional) allows one group to benefit at the expense of another. An actual transfer of wealth goes from the poor and the middle class to those in privileged financial positions.

2003 Ron Paul 93:16
            In many societies the middle class has actually been wiped out by monetary inflation, which always accompanies fiat money. The high cost of living and loss of jobs hits one segment of society, while in the early stages of inflation, the business class actually benefits from the easy credit. An astute stock investor or home builder can make millions in the boom phase of the business cycle, while the poor and those dependent on fixed incomes can’t keep up with the rising cost of living.

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.

2003 Ron Paul 93:18
            If one sees the welfare state and foreign militarism as improper and immoral, one understands how the license to print money permits these policies to go forward far more easily than if they had to be paid for immediately by direct taxation.

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



2003 Ron Paul 93:20
            Although the money issue today is of little political interest to the parties and politicians, it should not be ignored. Policy makers must contend with the consequences of the business cycle, which result from the fiat monetary system under which we operate. They may not understand the connection now, but eventually they must.

2003 Ron Paul 93:21
            In the past, money and gold have been dominant issues in several major political campaigns.  We find that when the people have had a voice in the matter, they inevitably chose gold over paper. To the common man, it just makes sense. As a matter of fact, a large number of Americans, perhaps a majority, still believe our dollar is backed by huge hoards of gold in Fort Knox.

2003 Ron Paul 93:22
            The monetary issue, along with the desire to have free trade among the states, prompted those at the Constitutional Convention to seek solutions to problems that plagued the post-revolutionary war economy. This post-war recession was greatly aggravated by the collapse of the unsound fiat Continental dollar. The people, through their representatives, spoke loudly and clearly for gold and silver over paper.

2003 Ron Paul 93:23
            Andrew Jackson, a strong proponent of gold and opponent of central banking (the Second Bank of the United States,) was a hero to the working class and was twice elected president. This issue was fully debated in his presidential campaigns. The people voted for gold over paper.

2003 Ron Paul 93:24
            In the 1870s, the people once again spoke out clearly against the greenback inflation of Lincoln. Notoriously, governments go to paper money while rejecting gold to promote unpopular and unaffordable wars. The return to gold in 1879 went smoothly and was welcomed by the people, putting behind them the disastrous Civil War inflationary period.

2003 Ron Paul 93:25
            Grover Cleveland, elected twice to the presidency, was also a strong advocate of the gold standard.

2003 Ron Paul 93:26
            Again, in the presidential race of 1896, William McKinley argued the case for gold. In spite of the great orations by William Jennings Bryant, who supported monetary inflation and made a mocking “Cross of Gold” speech, the people rallied behind McKinley’s bland but correct arguments for sound money.

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.

2003 Ron Paul 93:28
             A central bank and fiat money enable government to maintain an easy war policy that under strict monetary rules would not be achievable. In other words, countries with sound monetary policies would rarely go to war because they could not afford to, especially if they were not attacked.   The people could not be taxed enough to support wars without destroying the economy. But by printing money, the cost can be delayed and hidden, sometimes for years if not decades. To be truly opposed to preemptive and unnecessary wars one must advocate sound money to prevent the promoters of war from financing their imperialism.

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.

2003 Ron Paul 93:30
            The money issue should indeed be a gigantic political issue. Fiat money hurts the economy, finances wars, and allows for excessive welfarism. When these connections are realized and understood, it will once again become a major political issue, since paper money never lasts. Ultimately politicians will not have a choice of whether to address or take a position on the money issue. The people and circumstances will demand it.

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.

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



 2003 Ron Paul 93:33
For a time, the economic consequences of paper money may seem benign and even helpful, but are always disruptive to economic growth and prosperity.

2003 Ron Paul 93:34
            Economic planners of the Keynesian-socialist type have always relished control over money creation in their efforts to regulate and plan the economy. They have no qualms with using this power to pursue their egalitarian dreams of wealth redistribution. That force and fraud are used to make the economic system supposedly fairer is of little concern to them.

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.

2003 Ron Paul 93:36
            Many sincere politicians, bureaucrats, and bankers endorse the current system, not out of malice or greed, but because it’s the only system they have know.  The principles of sound money and free market banking are not taught in our universities. The overwhelming consensus in Washington, as well as around the world, is that commodity money without a central bank is no longer practical or necessary. Be assured, though, that certain individuals who greatly benefit from a paper money system know exactly why the restraints that a commodities standard would have are unacceptable.

2003 Ron Paul 93:37
            Though the economic consequences of paper money in the early stage affect lower-income and middle-class citizens, history shows that when the destruction of monetary value becomes rampant, nearly everyone suffers and the economic and political structure becomes unstable. There’s good reason for all of us to be concerned about our monetary system and the future of the dollar.

2003 Ron Paul 93:38
            Nations that live beyond their means must always pay for their extravagance. It’s easy to understand why future generations inherit a burden when the national debt piles up. This requires others to pay the interest and debts when they come due. The victims are never the recipients of the borrowed funds. But this is not exactly what happens when a country pays off its debt. The debt, in nominal terms, always goes up, and since it is still accepted by mainstream economists that just borrowing endlessly is not the road to permanent prosperity, real debt must be reduced. Depreciating the value of the dollar does that. If the dollar loses 10% of its value, the national debt of $6.5 trillion is reduced in real terms by $650 billion dollars. That’s a pretty neat trick and quite helpful- to the government.

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.

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.

2003 Ron Paul 93:41
            Nearly 100 years ago, Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises explained and predicted the failure of socialism. Without a pricing mechanism, the delicate balance between consumers and producers would be destroyed. Freely fluctuating prices provide vital information to the entrepreneur who is making key decisions on production. Without this information, major mistakes are made. A central planning bureaucrat cannot be a substitute for the law of supply and demand.

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.

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.

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.

2003 Ron Paul 93:45
            Lowering interest rates at times, especially early in the stages of monetary debasement, will produce the desired effects and stimulate another boom-bust cycle. But eventually the distortions and imbalances between consumption and production, and the excessive debt, prevent the monetary stimulus from doing very much to boost the economy. Just look at what’s been happening in Japan for the last 12 years. When conditions get bad enough the only recourse will be to have major monetary reform to restore confidence in the system.

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.

2003 Ron Paul 93:47
            Ironically, the more successful the money managers are at restoring growth or prolonging the boom with their monetary machinations, the greater are the distortions and imbalances in the economy. This means that when corrections are eventually forced upon us, they are much more painful and more people suffer with the correction lasting longer.

Today’s Conditions



2003 Ron Paul 93:48
Today’s economic conditions reflect a fiat monetary system held together by many tricks and luck over the past 30 years. The world has been awash in paper money since removal of the last vestige of the gold standard by Richard Nixon when he buried the Bretton Woods agreement- the gold exchange standard- on August 15, 1971. Since then we’ve been on a worldwide paper dollar standard. Quite possibly we are seeing the beginning of the end of that system. If so, tough times are ahead for the United States and the world economy.

2003 Ron Paul 93:49
            A paper monetary standard means there are no restraints on the printing press or on federal deficits. In 1971, M3 was $776 billion; today it stands at $8.9 trillion, an 1100% increase. Our national debt in 1971 was $408 billion; today it stands at $6.8 trillion, a 1600% increase. Since that time, our dollar has lost almost 80% of its purchasing power. Common sense tells us that this process is not sustainable and something has to give. So far, no one in Washington seems interested.

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.

2003 Ron Paul 93:51
            Following the breakdown of the Bretton Woods agreement, the world essentially accepted the dollar as a replacement for gold, to be held in reserve upon which even more monetary expansion could occur. It was a great arrangement that up until now seemed to make everyone happy.

2003 Ron Paul 93:52
            We own the printing press and create as many dollars as we please. These dollars are used to buy federal debt. This allows our debt to be monetized and the spendthrift Congress, of course, finds this a delightful convenience and never complains. As the dollars circulate through our fractional reserve banking system, they expand many times over. With our excess dollars at home, our trading partners are only too happy to accept these dollars in order to sell us their products. Because our dollar is relatively strong compared to other currencies, we can buy foreign products at a discounted price. In other words, we get to create the world’s reserve currency at no cost, spend it overseas, and receive manufactured goods in return. Our excess dollars go abroad and other countries-especially Japan and China- are only too happy to loan them right back to us by buying our government and GSE debt. Up until now both sides have been happy with this arrangement.

2003 Ron Paul 93:53
            But all good things must come to an end and this arrangement is ending. The process put us into a position of being a huge debtor nation, with our current account deficit of more than $600 billion per year now exceeding 5% of our GDP. We now owe foreigners more than any other nation ever owed in all of history, over $3 trillion.

2003 Ron Paul 93:54
            A debt of this sort always ends by the currency of the debtor nation decreasing in value. And that’s what has started to happen with the dollar, although it still has a long way to go. Our free lunch cannot last. Printing money, buying foreign products, and selling foreign holders of dollars our debt ends when the foreign holders of this debt become concerned with the dollar’s future value.

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.

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.

2003 Ron Paul 93:57
            If inflation were equitable and treated all classes the same, it would be less socially divisive. But while some see their incomes going up above the rate of inflation (movie stars, CEOs, stock brokers, speculators, professional athletes,) others see their incomes stagnate like lower-middle-income workers, retired people, and farmers. Likewise, the rise in the cost of living hurts the poor and middle class more than the wealthy. Because inflation treats certain groups unfairly, anger and envy are directed toward those who have benefited.

2003 Ron Paul 93:58
            The long-term philosophic problem with this is that the central bank and the fiat monetary system are not blamed; instead free market capitalism is. This is what happened in the 1930s. The Keynesians, who grew to dominate economic thinking at the time, erroneously blamed the gold standard, balanced budgets, and capitalism instead of tax increases, tariffs, and Fed policy. This country cannot afford another attack on economic liberty similar to what followed the 1929 crash that ushered in the economic interventionism and inflationism which we have been saddled with ever since. These policies have brought us to the brink of another colossal economic downturn and we need to be prepared.

2003 Ron Paul 93:59
            Big business and banking deserve our harsh criticism, but not because they are big or because they make a lot of money. Our criticism should come because of the special benefits they receive from a monetary system designed to assist the business class at the expense of the working class. Labor leader Samuel Gompers understood this and feared paper money and a central bank while arguing the case for gold. Since the monetary system is used to finance deficits that come from war expenditures, the military industrial complex is a strong supporter of the current monetary system.

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.

2003 Ron Paul 93:61
            Economic intervention, financed by inflation, is high-stakes government. It provides the incentive for the big money to “invest” in gaining government control. The big money comes from those who have it- corporations and banking interests. That’s why literally billions of dollars are spent on elections and lobbying. The only way to restore equity is to change the primary function of government from economic planning and militarism to protecting liberty. Without money, the poor and middle class are disenfranchised since access for the most part requires money. Obviously, this is not a partisan issue since both major parties are controlled by wealthy special interests. Only the rhetoric is different.

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.

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.

2003 Ron Paul 93:64
            The world central bankers are concerned with the lack of response to low interest rates and they have joined in a concerted effort to rescue the world economy through a policy of protecting the dollar’s role in the world economy, denying that inflation exists, and justifying unlimited expansion of the dollar money supply. To maintain confidence in the dollar, gold prices must be held in check. In the 1960s our government didn’t want a vote of no confidence in the dollar, and for a couple of decades, the price of gold was artificially held at $35 per ounce.  That, of course, did not last.

2003 Ron Paul 93:65
            In recent years, there has been a coordinated effort by the world central bankers to keep the gold price in check by dumping part of their large horde of gold into the market. This has worked to a degree, but just as it could not be sustained in the 1960s, until Nixon declared the Bretton Woods agreement dead in 1971, this effort will fail as well.

2003 Ron Paul 93:66
            The market price of gold is important because it reflects the ultimate confidence in the dollar. An artificially low price for gold contributes to false confidence and when this is lost, more chaos ensues as the market adjusts for the delay.

2003 Ron Paul 93:67
            Monetary policy today is designed to demonetize gold and guarantee for the first time that paper can serve as an adequate substitute in the hands of wise central bankers. Trust, then, has to be transferred from gold to the politicians and bureaucrats who are in charge of our monetary system. This fails to recognize the obvious reason that market participants throughout history have always preferred to deal with real assets, real money, rather than government paper. This contest between paper and honest money is of much greater significance than many realize. We should know the outcome of this struggle within the next decade.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

2003 Ron Paul 93:73
            It’s now admitted that the deficit is out of control, with next year’s deficit reaching over one-half trillion dollars, not counting the billions borrowed from  “trust funds” like Social Security. I’m sticking to my prediction that within a few years the national debt will increase over $1 trillion in one fiscal year. So far, so good, no big market reactions, the dollar is holding its own and the administration and congressional leaders are not alarmed. But they ought to be.

2003 Ron Paul 93:74
            I agree, it would be politically tough to bite the bullet and deal with our extravagance, both fiscal and monetary, but the repercussions here at home from a loss of confidence in the dollar throughout the world will not be a pretty sight to behold. I don’t see any way we are going to avoid the crisis.

2003 Ron Paul 93:75
            We do have some options to minimize the suffering. If we decided to, we could permit some alternatives to the current system of money and banking we have today.

2003 Ron Paul 93:76
            Already, we took a big step in this direction. Gold was illegal to own between 1933 and 1976. Today millions of Americans do own some gold.

2003 Ron Paul 93:77
            Gold contracts are legal, but a settlement of any dispute is always in Federal Reserve notes. This makes gold contracts of limited value.

2003 Ron Paul 93:78
            For gold to be an alternative to Federal Reserve notes, taxes on any transactions in gold must be removed, both sales and capital gains.

2003 Ron Paul 93:79
            Holding gold should be permitted in any pension fund, just as dollars are permitted in a checking account of these funds.

2003 Ron Paul 93:80
            Repeal of all legal tender laws is a must. Sound money never requires the force of legal tender laws. Only paper money requires such laws.

2003 Ron Paul 93:81
            These proposals, even if put in place tomorrow, would not solve all the problems we face. It would though, legalize freedom of choice in money, and many who worry about having their savings wiped out by a depreciating dollar would at least have another option. This option would ease some of the difficulties that are surely to come from runaway deficits in a weakening economy with skyrocketing inflation.

2003 Ron Paul 93:82
            Curbing the scope of government and limiting its size to that prescribed in the Constitution is the goal that we should seek. But political reality makes this option available to us only after a national bankruptcy has occurred. We need not face that catastrophe. What we need to do is to strictly limit the power of government to meddle in our economy and our personal affairs, and stay out of the internal affairs of other nations.

Conclusion



 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.

2003 Ron Paul 93:84
            If unchecked, the economic and political chaos that comes from currency destruction inevitably leads to tyranny- a consequence of which the Founders were well aware. For 90 years we have lived with a central bank, with the last 32 years absent of any restraint on money creation. The longer the process lasts, the faster the printing presses have to run in an effort to maintain stability. They are currently running at record rate. It was predictable and is understandable that our national debt is now expanding at a record rate.

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.

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.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 94

Ron Paul’s Congressional website HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
September 9, 2003
Statement Opposing the Continuity of Government Proposal


2003 Ron Paul 94:1
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing and for providing me the opportunity to present comments on the important issue of how to maintain continuity of government if a majority of members of the House of Representatives are incapacitated. This issue has recently attracted attention because of the proposal of the “Continuity of Government (COG) Commission,” that the Constitution be amended to allow appointed persons to fill vacancies in the House in the event of an emergency.

2003 Ron Paul 94:2
Since the COG Commission proposal was introduced I, along with other members of Congress, journalists, academics, and policy experts have expressed concerns that having appointed members serve in Congress function is inconsistent with the House’s historic function as the branch of Congress most directly accountable to the people. A superior way to address concerns regarding continuity of House operations in the event of an emergency is contained in HR 2844, the Continuity of Representation Act, introduced by my distinguished colleague, House Judiciary Chairman James Sensenbrenner.

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.”

2003 Ron Paul 94:4
Mr. Chairman, there are those who say that the power of appointment is necessary in order to preserve checks and balances and thus prevent an abuse of executive power. Of course, I agree that it is very important to carefully guard our constitutional liberties in times of crisis, and that an over-centralization of power in the executive branch is one of the most serious dangers to that liberty. However, Mr. Chairman, during a time of crisis it is all the more important to have representatives accountable to the people making the laws. Otherwise, the citizenry has no check on the inevitable tendency of government to infringe on the people’s liberties at such a time. I would remind my colleagues that the only reason we are re-examining provisions of the PATRIOT Act is because of public concerns that this Act gives up excessive liberty for a phantom security. Appointed officials would not be as responsive to public concerns.

2003 Ron Paul 94:5
Supporters of this plan claim that the appointment power will be necessary in the event of an emergency and that the appointed representatives will only be temporary. However, the laws passed by these “temporary” representatives will be permanent.

2003 Ron Paul 94:6
Mr. Chairman, this country has faced the possibility of threats to the continuity of this body several times throughout our history, yet no one suggested removing the people’s right to vote for members of Congress. For example, the British in the War of 1812 attacked the city of Washington, yet nobody suggested the states could not address the lack of a quorum in the House of Representatives though elections. During the Civil War, the neighboring state of Virginia (where today many Capitol Hill staffers and members reside) was actively involved in hostilities against the United States government. Yet Abraham Lincoln never suggested that non-elected persons serve in the House.

2003 Ron Paul 94:7
The Constitution already provides the framework for Congress to function after a catastrophic event. Article I section 2 grants the governors of the various states authority to hold special elections to fill vacancies in the House of Representatives.  Article I section 4 gives Congress the authority to designate the time, manner, and place of such special elections if states should fail to act expeditiously following a national emergency.  As Hamilton explains in Federalist 59, the “time, place, and manner” clause was specifically designed to address the kind of extraordinary circumstances imagined by COGC.  Hamilton characterized authority over federal elections as shared between the states and Congress, with neither being able to control the process entirely. 

2003 Ron Paul 94:8
Chairman Sensenbrenner’s bill exercises Congress’ power to regulate the time, place, and manner of elections by requiring the holding of special elections within 21 days after the Speaker or acting Speaker declares a majority of House members are incapacitated. This proposal protects the people’s right to choose their representatives at the time when such a right may be most important, while ensuring continuity of the legislative branch.

2003 Ron Paul 94:9
I have no doubt that the people of the states are quite competent to hold elections in a timely fashion. After all, it is in each state’s interest to ensure it has adequate elected representation in Washington as soon as possible. The re-call election in California shows it is possible to have a gubernatorial election, in the most populous state in the union no less, in less than three months time. Surely it is possible to hold an election in a congressional district in under that amount of time.

2003 Ron Paul 94:10
In conclusion, I once again thank the Chairman of this Committee for allowing me to express my views before the House. I also once again urge my colleagues to reject any proposal that takes away the people’s right to elect their representatives and instead support HR 2844, the Continuity of Congress Act, which ensures an elected Congress can continue to operate in the event of an emergency. This is what the drafters of the Constitution intended.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 95

Ron Paul’s Congressional website HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE FINANCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE
September 10, 2003
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Subsidies Distort the Housing Market


2003 Ron Paul 95:1
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing on the Treasury Department’s views regarding government sponsored enterprises (GSEs). I would also like to thank Secretaries Snow and Martinez for taking time out of their busy schedules to appear before the committee.

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.

2003 Ron Paul 95:3
One of the major government privileges granted to GSEs is a line of credit with the United States Treasury. According to some estimates, the line of credit may be worth over $2 billion dollars. This explicit promise by the Treasury to bail out GSEs in times of economic difficulty helps the GSEs attract investors who are willing to settle for lower yields than they would demand in the absence of the subsidy. Thus, the line of credit distorts the allocation of capital. More importantly, the line of credit is a promise on behalf of the government to engage in a huge unconstitutional and immoral income transfer from working Americans to holders of GSE debt.

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.

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.

2003 Ron Paul 95:6
Ironically, by transferring the risk of a widespread mortgage default, the government increases the likelihood of a painful crash in the housing market. This is because the special privileges granted to Fannie and Freddie have distorted the housing market by allowing them to attract capital they could not attract under pure market conditions. As a result, capital is diverted from its most productive use into housing. This reduces the efficacy of the entire market and thus reduces the standard of living of all Americans.

2003 Ron Paul 95:7
Despite the long-term damage to the economy inflicted by the government’s interference in the housing market, the government’s policy of diverting capital to other uses creates a short-term boom in housing.   Like all artificially-created bubbles, the boom in housing prices cannot last forever. When housing prices fall, homeowners will experience difficulty as their equity is wiped out. Furthermore, the holders of the mortgage debt will also have a loss. These losses will be greater than they would have otherwise been had government policy not actively encouraged over-investment in housing.

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.

2003 Ron Paul 95:9
No less an authority than Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has expressed concern that government subsidies provided to GSEs make investors underestimate the risk of investing in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

2003 Ron Paul 95:10
Mr. Chairman, I would like to once again thank the Financial Services Committee for holding this hearing. I would also like to thank Secretaries Snow and Martinez for their presence here today. I hope today’s hearing sheds light on how special privileges granted to GSEs distort the housing market and endanger American taxpayers. Congress should act to remove taxpayer support from the housing GSEs before the bubble bursts and taxpayers are once again forced to bail out investors who were misled by foolish government interference in the market. I therefore hope this committee will soon stand up for American taxpayers and investors by acting on my Free Housing Market Enhancement Act.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 96

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Introducing Free Housing Market Enhancement Act
10 September 2003

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, September 10, 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.

2003 Ron Paul 96:2
One of the major government privileges granted the GSE is a line of credit to the United States Treasury. According to some estimates, the line of credit may be worth over $2 billion dollars. This explicit promise by the Treasury to bail out the GSEs in times of economic difficulty helps the GSEs attract investors who are willing to settle for lower yields than they would demand in the absence of the subsidy. Thus, the line of credit distorts the allocation of capital. More importantly, the line of credit is a promise on behalf of the government to engage in a massive unconstitutional and immoral income transfer from working Americans to holders of GSE debt.

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.

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.

2003 Ron Paul 96:5
Ironically, by transferring the risk of a widespread mortgage default, the government increases the likelihood of a painful crash in the housing market This is because the special privileges of Fannie and Freddie have distorted the housing marketing by allowing Fannie, Freddie and the home loan bank board to attract capital they could not attract under pure market conditions. As a result, capitol is diverted from its most productive use into housing. This reduces the efficacy of the entire market and thus reduces the standard of living of all Americans.

2003 Ron Paul 96:6
Despite the long-term damage to the economy inflicted by the government’s interference in the housing market, the government’s policies of diverting capital to other uses creates a short-term boom in housing. Like all artificially- created bubbles, the boom in housing prices cannot last forever. When housing prices fall, homeowners will experience difficulty as their equity is wiped out. Furthermore, the holders of the mortgage debt will also have a loss. These losses will be greater than they would have otherwise been had government policy not actively encouraged over-investment in housing.

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.

2003 Ron Paul 96:8
No less an authority than Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has expressed concern that the government subsidies provided to the GSEs make investors underestimate the risk of investing in Fannie Mac and Freddie Mac.

2003 Ron Paul 96:9
Mr. Speaker, it is time for Congress to act to remove taxpayer support from the housing GSEs before the bubble bursts and taxpayers are once again forced to bail out investors who were misled by foolish government interference in the market. I therefore hope my colleagues will stand up for American taxpayers and investors by cosponsoring the Free Housing Market Enhancement Act.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 97

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Introduction Of The Steel Financing Fairness Act
10 September 2003

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, September 10, 2003


2003 Ron Paul 97:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Steel Financing Fairness Act. This bill helps our Nation’s beleaguered steel industry by stopping the Government from forcing American steel workers to subsidize their foreign competitors. Specifically, the bill prohibits the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) and the Export-Import Bank (EXIMBANK) from providing any assistance to countries that subsidize their steel industries. The Steel Financing Fairness Act also instructs the Secretary of the Treasury to reduce America’s contribution to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) by a prorated share of the IMF’s assistance to countries that subsidize their steel industries.

2003 Ron Paul 97:2
No one can doubt that the United States steel industry is in crisis. Approximately 15 million tons of flat-rolled capability (20 percent of the existing domestic capacity base at the start of 2000) was closed in the 18 months from September 2000 to December 2001. The decline of the steel industry has a human cost: in just the last five years, 30,000 Americans once productively employed in the steel industry have joined the ranks of the unemployed.

2003 Ron Paul 97:3
One of the problems facing America’s domestic steel industry is that it must compete with foreign industries that receive subsidies from their governments. Some of these subsidies are explicitly intended to provide these companies with a non-market advantage over American steel producers. The U.S. Government further compounds the damage caused by these subsidies by forcing the domestic steel producers to support their major competitors through taxpayer-funded programs.

2003 Ron Paul 97:4
For example, according to the most recent figures available, the eight countries with the greatest EXIMBANK exposure are all among the top ten exporters of steel and/or steel products to the United States. In fact, EXIMBANK has provided over $250 billion of U.S. taxpayer support to these countries.

2003 Ron Paul 97:5
Meanwhile, OPIC has provided over $3 billion of the taxpayers’ money to seven of the top ten leading steel exporters. Thus, the American taxpayer has provided at least $253 billion worth of support to the countries that are the leading competitors of the domestic steel industry. This does not count the funds provided these countries by the IMF. Since money is fungible, the practical effect of providing aid to countries which practice industrial policy is to free up resources these governments can use to further subsidize their steel industries. Thus, taxpayer dollars sent to foreign governments and industries can benefit foreign steel manufacturers even if American taxpayer money is not sent to directly benefit those industries.

2003 Ron Paul 97:6
However, hard as it may be to believe, organizations funded by American taxpayers actually use American tax dollars to directly assist foreign steel producers! For example, among the projects funded by EXIMBANK in recent years is an $18 million loan guarantee to expand steel manufacturing in Red China.

2003 Ron Paul 97:7
Ironically, many of the supporters of these foreign giveaways claim to be promoters of free trade. This claim makes as much sense as a supporter of higher taxes and spending claiming to be a fiscally conservative supporter of limited government. Free trade is the peaceful exchange of goods and services across borders unhampered by government interference. Taxing American workers to support their overseas competitors is not free trade. Instead, it is corporatism designed to benefit certain politically powerful interests at the expense of American entrepreneurs and workers.

2003 Ron Paul 97:8
I have no doubt that America’s steel industry can out-compete the steel industry of any country if allowed to compete on a level planning field. Unfortunately, due in part to government policy, today’s playing field is in no way level. Congress must end this economically destructive, immoral, and unconstitutional policy of forcing owners and workers in the domestic steel industry to subsidize their competitors. I therefore call upon my colleagues to cosponsor the Steel Financing Fairness Act.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 98

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

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
September 16, 2003
We Cannot Afford Another $87 Billion in Iraq


2003 Ron Paul 98:1
Mr. Speaker, the neo-conservative media machine has been hard at work lately drumming up support for the $87 billion appropriation to extend our precarious occupation of Iraq. Opposition to this funding, according to the Secretary of Defense, encourages our enemies and hinders the war against terrorism. This is a distortion of the facts and is nothing more than attacking the messenger when one disapproves of the message.

2003 Ron Paul 98:2
Those within the administration, prior to the war, who warned of the dangers and real costs were fired. Yet now it turns out that they were correct, that it would not be a cakewalk, that it would require a lot more troops, and costs would far exceed original expectations.

2003 Ron Paul 98:3
The President recently reminded us that we went into Iraq to force its compliance with U.N. resolutions, since the U.N. itself was not up to the task. It was not for national security reasons. Yet we all know that the U.N. never endorsed this occupation.

2003 Ron Paul 98:4
The question we in the Congress ought to ask is this: What if our efforts to westernize and democratize Iraq do not work? Who knows? Many believe that our pursuit of nation building in Iraq will actually make things worse in Iraq, in the entire Middle East, throughout the entire Muslim world, and even here in the United States.

2003 Ron Paul 98:5
This is a risky venture, and new funding represents an escalation of our efforts to defend a policy that has little chance of working.

2003 Ron Paul 98:6
Since no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq, nor any evidence that the army of Saddam Hussein could have threatened the security of any nation, let alone the United States, a new reason is now given to justify an endless entanglement in a remote area of the world 6,000 miles from our homeland.

2003 Ron Paul 98:7
We are now told that we must occupy Iraq to fight the terrorists that attacked us on 9/11. Yet not one shred of evidence has been produced to show that the Iraqi government had anything to do with 9/11 or any affiliation with al-Qaeda.

2003 Ron Paul 98:8
The American people are first told they have to sacrifice to pay for the bombing of Iraq. Now they must accept the fact that they must pay to rebuild it. If they complain, they will be accused of being unpatriotic and not supporting the troops. I wonder what a secret poll of our troops would reveal about whether they thought public support for bringing them home next week indicated a lack of support for their well-being.

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.

2003 Ron Paul 98:10
Mr. Speaker, I guess we shouldn’t worry because we can find a way to pay for it. Already we are charging our wounded soldiers $8.10 a day for food when recuperating in a hospital from their war injuries.  We also know that other soldiers are helping out by buying their own night vision goggles, GPS devices, short wave radios, backpacks, and even shoes!  So I suppose we can fund the war that way.  It does not seem like much of a bother to cut veterans’ benefits. Besides, many conservatives for years have argued that deficits do not really matter, only tax rates do. So let us just quit worrying about deficits and this $87 billion supplemental.  Of course I’m being sarcastic.

2003 Ron Paul 98:11
Seriously, though, funding for this misadventure should be denied no matter how well-meaning its supporters are. To expect a better world to come from force of arms abroad and confiscatory taxation at home is nothing but a grand illusion. The sooner we face the reality, the better.

2003 Ron Paul 98:12
While we nation-build in Iraq in the name of defeating terrorism, we ignore our responsibilities to protect our borders at home while we compromise the liberties of our citizens with legislation like the Patriot Act.

2003 Ron Paul 98:13
There are two main reasons we need to reject the foreign policy of the past 50 years that has been used to rationalize our presence in Iraq. First, the practical: We cannot expect to force western, U.S.-style democracy on a nation that for over 1,000 years learned to live with and accept an Islamic-based legal system.  No matter what we say or believe, to the Iraqis they have been invaded by the Christian west, and whether it is the United States, U.N. or European troops that are sent to teach them the ways of the west it will not matter.

2003 Ron Paul 98:14
Second, we have no constitutional authority to police the world or involve ourselves in nation building, in making the world safe for our style of democracy. Our founders advised against it and the early presidents followed that advice. If we believe strongly in our ideals, the best way to spread them is to set a good example so that others will voluntarily emulate us. Force will not work. Besides, we do not have the money. The $87 billion appropriations request should be rejected.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 99

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Thrift Savings Improvement Act
16 September 2003

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, September 16, 2003


2003 Ron Paul 99:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Thrift Savings Fund Improvement Act. This legislation to expand the investment options available to congressional and other federal employees by creating a precious metals investment fund in the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP). Adding a precious metals fund to the TSP will enhance the plan’s ability to offer congressional employees a wide range of investment options that can provide financial security even during difficult economic conditions.

2003 Ron Paul 99:2
All of us recognize the importance of maintaining a professional congressional staff and promoting longevity of service in order to enhance stability in the operations of Congress. This is why we have recently enacted legislation authorizing new benefits, such as a student loan forgiveness program, and have taken other measures to improve staff compensation and benefits.

2003 Ron Paul 99:3
The Thrift Savings Plan is one of the most important benefits offered to congressional employees. A strong TSP can obviously play a key role in attracting and retaining talented individuals to serve in the legislative branch. However, the three stock index funds in the Thrift Savings Plan have not recently performed well, especially when measured against inflation. In 2002, for example, losses from these funds were greater than three, four, and five percent, respectively, in the month of December and, more than 15, 18, and 22 percent, respectively, for the entire year!

2003 Ron Paul 99:4
In contrast, increases in gold spot prices more than offset the losses experienced by even the worst performing stock-indexed fund in the Thrift Savings Plan in 2002, with the price of gold increasing by nearly 25 percent in the year and by more than nine percent in December!

2003 Ron Paul 99:5
Recent gains aside, precious metals have a number of features that make them a sound part of a prudent investment strategy. In particular, inflation does not erode the value of precious metals is not eroded over time. Thus, precious metals can serve as a valuable “inflation hedge.” Precious metals also maintain, or even increase, their value during times of stock market instability, such as what the country is currently experiencing. Thus, investments in precious metals can help ensure that an investment portfolio maintains its value during times of economic instability.

2003 Ron Paul 99:6
Federal employees could greatly benefit from the protection against inflation and economic downturns provided by prudent investments in precious metals. I, therefore, once again urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Thrift Savings Fund Improvement Act.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 100

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Congratulations
17 September 2003

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, September 17, 2003


2003 Ron Paul 100:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor John and Geraldine Dettling, a couple with longstanding roots in the 14th congressional district of Texas. Mr. and Mrs. Dettling recently celebrated 60 years of marriage, an incredible milestone that deserves recognition and great respect. The longevity of their marriage serves as an inspiration for all couples today.

2003 Ron Paul 100:2
John Dettling and Geraldine Wendel met in south Texas more than 6 decades ago. They married in El Campo, Texas in 1943, on the eve of World War II. Less than 1 year later, John left for Europe as a soldier. Like many couples of the era, the war separated the young newlyweds for some time. Happily, John returned from the war safe and sound and they began a long life together. The couple built a home in Wharton, Texas, where they still live today.

2003 Ron Paul 100:3
Over the years the Dettlings were blessed with 6 children, along with (so far) 11 grandchildren and 6 great-grandchildren. John worked as a barber for 30 years, and then worked as a security guard for 6 years. Throughout the decades Geraldine worked hard at home raising the children; when they were older she embarked on a nursing career. Both enjoy retirement today.

2003 Ron Paul 100:4
I’m happy to report that the Dettlings’ momentous 60th anniversary did not go unnoticed. They renewed their vows at Holy Family Catholic Church in Wharton. Afterward, an anniversary reception was held for the couple at the Wharton County Historical Museum, where they celebrated with family and 200 well-wishers.

2003 Ron Paul 100:5
Mr. Speaker, in today’s transient world the Dettlings stand out as a couple who maintained both their marriage and their local roots for decades. It’s my privilege to honor them in the House of Representatives today.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 101

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

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
September 18, 2003
Reject UN Gun Control!


2003 Ron Paul 101:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the “Right to Keep and Bear Arms Act.” This legislation prohibits US taxpayer dollars from being used to support or promote any United Nations actions that could infringe on the Second Amendment. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms Act also expresses the sense of Congress that proposals to tax, or otherwise limit, the right to keep and bear arms are “reprehensible and deserving of condemnation.”

2003 Ron Paul 101:2
Over the past decade, the UN has waged a campaign to undermine gun rights protected by the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan has called on members of the Security Council to “tackle” the proliferation and “easy availability” of small arms and light weapons. Just this June, the UN tried to “tackle” gun rights by sponsoring a “Week of Action Against Small Arms.” Of course, by small arms, the UN really means all privately owned firearms.

2003 Ron Paul 101:3
Secretary Annan is not the only globalist calling for international controls on firearms. For example, some world leaders, including French President Jacques Chirac, have called for a global tax on firearms. Meanwhile, the UN Security Council’s “Report of the Group of Governmental Experts on Small Arms” calls for a comprehensive program of worldwide gun control and praises the restrictive gun polices of Red China and France!

2003 Ron Paul 101:4
Contrary to the UN propaganda, the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right  and, according to the drafters of the Constitution, the guardian of every other right . Scholar John Lott has shown that respecting the right to keep and bear arms is one of the best ways governments can reduce crime. Conversely, cities where the government imposes gun control have higher crime rates. Far from making people safer, gun control endangers innocent people by increasing the odds that they will be victimized!

2003 Ron Paul 101:5
Gun control also increases the odds that people will lose their lives and liberties to power-hungry government officials. Tyrannical governments throughout the world kill approximately 2,000,000 people annually. Many of these victims of tyranny were first disarmed by their governments. If the UN is successful in implementing a global regime of gun control, more innocent lives will be lost to public (and private) criminals. 

2003 Ron Paul 101:6
I would remind my colleagues that policies prohibiting the private ownership of firearms were strongly supported by tyrants such as Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Tse-Tung.

2003 Ron Paul 101:7
Mr. Speaker, global gun control is a recipe for global tyranny and a threat to the safety of all law-abiding persons. I therefore hope all my colleagues will help protect the fundamental human right to keep and bear arms by cosponsoring the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Act.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 102

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Tribute To Larry Reed
25 september 2003

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, September 25, 2003


2003 Ron Paul 102:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to pay tribute to one of America’s leading advocates for liberty, my friend Larry Reed, who celebrates his 50th birthday on September 29th. In 1993 Larry founded the Mackinac Center for Public Policy in Midland, Michigan. Under his leadership, Mackinac has emerged as one of the largest, most prolific, and effective think tanks in America. Mackinac focuses on issues affecting Michigan; however, much of their work is useful to policymakers at the State and national level.

2003 Ron Paul 102:2
Prior to founding Mackinac, Larry served as Chair of the Department of Economics at Northwood University in Midland, Michigan. While at Northwood, Larry developed the university dual major in Economic and Business management and founded the University’s “Freedom Seminar.” Larry has also been a candidate for Congress.

2003 Ron Paul 102:3
In addition to running Mackinac, Larry is a prolific author. He has written over 800 newspaper columns and articles, 200 radio commentaries, dozens of articles in magazines and journals in the United States and abroad. Larry is also the author of five books including Lessons From the Past: The Silver Panic of 1893 and Private Cures for Public Ills: The Promise of Privatization. All of Larry’s writings reflect his unswerving commitment to limited government and the free market as the best way to promote human happiness.

2003 Ron Paul 102:4
Larry has also found time to deliver more than 700 speeches, traveling to 40 states and 10 foreign countries to spread the freedom philosophy. Larry also promotes liberty as a member and past chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), the nation’s oldest free-market educational institution.

2003 Ron Paul 102:5
In 1993, Larry was appointed by then-Governor John Engler to head the Headlee Amendment Blue Ribbon Commission. Governor Engler also appointed Larry to the task force of the Secchia Commission on Total Quality Government, where Larry helped develop policies aimed at streamlining Michigan’s state government. I am sure the taxpayers of Michigan are grateful to Larry for his efforts to reduce unnecessary spending.

2003 Ron Paul 102:6
Mr. Speaker, the great economist Ludwig Von Mises once said that “everyone. . . . must thrust himself vigorously into the intellectual battle. None can stand aside with unconcern; the interests of everyone hang on the result. Whether he chooses or not, every man is drawn into the great historic struggle, the decisive battle into which our epoch has plunged.” Few have so vigorously thrust themselves into the intellectual and policy battle on the side of freedom as Larry Reed. It is therefore my privilege to pay tribute to this champion of liberty on his 50th birthday.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 103

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

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
September 30, 2003
Are Vouchers the Solution for Our Failing Public Schools?


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.

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.

2003 Ron Paul 103:3
It may be argued that vouchers are at least a more efficient welfare program than continuing to throw taxpayer money at public schools. However, the likely effect of a voucher program is to increase spending on new programs for private schools while continuing to increase spending on programs for public schools. For example, Mr. Speaker, during the debate on the DC voucher program, voucher proponents vehemently denied that any public schools would lose any Federal funding. Some even promised to support increased Federal spending on DC’s public and charter schools. Instead of reducing funding for failed programs, Congress simply added another 10 million dollars (from taxes or debt) to the bill to pay for the vouchers without making any offsetting cuts. In a true free market, failing competitors are not guaranteed a continued revenue stream.

2003 Ron Paul 103:4
Many supporters of vouchers couch their support in rhetoric about a child’s right to a quality education and the need for equal educational opportunities for all. However, accepting the premise that people have a “right” to a good of a certain quality logically means accepting government’s role in establishing standards to ensure that providers are giving their consumers a “quality” product. Thus, in order to ensure that vouchers are being used to fulfilling students’ “right” to a “quality” education (as defined by the government) private schools will be forced to comply with the same rules and regulations as the public schools.

2003 Ron Paul 103:5
Even some supporters of vouchers recognize the threat that vouchers may lead to increased Federal regulation of private schools. These voucher supporters often point to the fact that, with vouchers, parents will choose which schools receive public funding to assuage the concerns of their critics. However, even if a voucher program is free of State controls at its inception, it will not remain so for long. Inevitably, some parents will choose a school whose curriculum is objectionable to many taxpayers; say an academy run by believers in the philosophy of the Nation of Islam. This will lead to calls to control the schools for which a voucher can be used. More likely, parents will be given a list of approved schools where they can use their voucher at the inception of the program. Government bureaucrats will have compiled the list to “help” parents choose a quality school for their children.

2003 Ron Paul 103:6
The fears of these voucher critics was confirmed on the floor of the House of Representatives when the lead sponsor of the DC voucher amendment admitted that under his plan the Department of Education would have to begin accrediting religious schools to ensure that only qualified schools participate in the voucher program because religious schools currently do not need to receive government accreditation. Government accreditation is the first step toward government control.

2003 Ron Paul 103:7
Several private, Christian schools in my district have expressed concerns that vouchers would lead to increased government control of private education. This concern is not just limited to Christian conservatives; the head of the Jewish Anti-Defamation league opposed the recent DC voucher bill because he feared it would lead to “...an unacceptable effort by the government to monitor and control religious activities.”

2003 Ron Paul 103:8
Voucher supporters will fall back on the argument that no school is forced to accept vouchers. However, those schools that accept vouchers will have a competitive advantage over those that do not because they will be perceived as being superior since they have the “government’s seal of approval.” Thus, those private schools that retain their independence will likely be forced out of business by schools that go on the government dole.

2003 Ron Paul 103:9
We have already seen how a Federal education program resembling a voucher program can lead to Federal control of education. Currently, Federal aid to college students is dispersed in the form of loans or grants to individual students who then transfer these funds to the college of their choice. However the government has used its support of student loans to impose a wide variety of policies dealing with everything from the makeup of student bodies to campus safety policies. There are even proposals for Federal regulation of the composition of college faculties and course content! I would remind my colleagues that only two colleges refuse to accept Federal funds (and thus Federal control) today. It would not be a victory for either liberty or quality education if the experience of higher education was replicated in private K-12 education. Yet, that is the likely result if the supporters of vouchers have their way.

2003 Ron Paul 103:10
Some supporters of centralized education have recognized how vouchers can help them advance their statist agenda. For example, Sibhon Gorman, writing in the September 2003 issue of the Washington Monthly, suggests that, “The way to insure that vouchers really work, then is to make them agents of accountability for the private schools that accept them. And the way to do that is to marry the voucher concept with the testing regime mandated by Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act. Allow children to go to the private school of their choosing, but only so long as that school participates in the same testing requirements mandates for public schools.” In other words, parents can choose any school they want as long as the school teaches the government approved curriculum so the students can pass the government approved test.

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.

2003 Ron Paul 103:12
The Family Education Freedom Act restores true accountability to education by putting parents in control of the education dollar. If a child is not being educated to the parents’ satisfaction, the parent will withdraw that student from the school and spend their education dollars someplace else.

2003 Ron Paul 103:13
I have also introduced the Education Improvement Tax Cut Act (H.R. 611) that provides a tax credit of up to $3,000 for in-kind or cash donation to public, private, or home schools. The Education Improvement Tax Cut Act relies on the greatest charitable force in history to improve the education of children from low-income families: the generosity of the American people. As with parental tax credits, the Education Improvement Tax Cut Act brings true accountability to education since taxpayers will only donate to schools that provide a quality education.

2003 Ron Paul 103:14
Mr. Speaker, proponents of vouchers promise these programs advance true market principles and thus improve education. However, there is a real danger that Federal voucher programs will expand the welfare state and impose government “standards” on private schools, turning them into “privatized” versions of public schools. A superior way of improving education is to return control of the education dollar directly to the American people through tax cuts and tax credits. I therefore hope all supporters of parental control of education will support my Family Education Freedom Act and Education Improvement Tax Cut Act.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 104

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

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.

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.

2003 Ron Paul 104:3
As the great economist Ludwig Von Mises pointed out, questions of the proper allocation of resources for housing and other goods should be determined by consumer preference in the free market. Resources removed from the market and distributed according to the preferences of government politician and bureaucrats are not devoted to their highest-valued use. Thus, government interference in the economy results in a loss of economic efficiency and, more importantly, a lower standard of living for all citizens.

2003 Ron Paul 104:4
H.R. 1276 takes resources away from private citizens, through confiscatory taxation, and uses them for the politically favored cause of expanding home ownership. Government subsidization of housing leads to an excessive allocation of resources to the housing market. Thus, thanks to government policy, resources that would have been devoted to education, transportation, or some other good desired by consumers, will instead be devoted to housing. Proponents of this bill ignore the socially beneficial uses the monies devoted to housing might have been put to had those resources been left in the hands of private citizens.

2003 Ron Paul 104:5
Finally, while I know this argument is unlikely to have much effect on my colleagues, I must point out that Congress has no constitutional authority to take money from one American and redistribute it to another. Legislation such as H.R. 1276, which takes tax money from some Americans to give to others whom Congress has determined are worthy, is thus blatantly unconstitutional.

2003 Ron Paul 104:6
I hope no one confuses my opposition to this bill as opposition to any congressional actions to ensure more Americans have access to affordable housing. After all, one reason many Americans lack affordable housing is because taxes and regulations have made it impossible for builders to provide housing at a price that could be afforded by many lower-income Americans. Therefore, Congress should cut taxes and regulations. A good start would be generous housing tax credits. Congress should also consider tax credits and regulatory relief for developers who provide housing for those with low incomes. For example, I am cosponsoring H.R. 839, the Renewing the Dream Tax Credit Act, which provides a tax credit to developers who construct or rehabilitate low-income housing.

2003 Ron Paul 104:7
H.R. 1276 distorts the economy and violates constitutional prohibitions on income redistribution. A better way of guaranteeing an efficient housing market where everyone could meet their own needs for housing would be for Congress to repeal taxes and programs that burden the housing industry and allow housing needs to be met by the free market. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to reject this bill and instead develop housing policies consistent with constitutional principles, the laws of economics, and respect for individual rights.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 105

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Commending The National Endowment For Democracy For Contributions To democratic Development Around The World On The 20th Anniversary Of Its Establishment
7 October 2003

SPEECH OF
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, October 7, 2003

2003 Ron Paul 105:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to express my grave concerns over H. Con. Res 274. The misnamed National Endowment for Democracy (NED) is nothing more than a costly program that takes U.S. taxpayer funds to promote favored politicians and political parties abroad. Madam Speaker, what the NED does in foreign countries, through its recipient organizations the National Democratic Institute (NDI) and the International Republican Institute (IRI), would be rightly illegal in the United States. The NED injects “soft money” into the domestic elections of foreign countries in favor of one party or the other. Imagine what a couple of hundred thousand dollars will do to assist a politician or political party in a relatively poor country abroad. It is particularly Orwellian to call U.S. manipulation of foreign elections “promoting democracy.” How would Americans feel if the Chinese arrived with millions of dollars to support certain candidates deemed friendly to China? Would this be viewed as a democratic development?

2003 Ron Paul 105:2
In an excellent study of the folly of the National Endowment for Democracy, CATO Institute scholar Barbara Conry notes that:

2003 Ron Paul 105:3
“NED, which also has a history of corruption and financial mismanagement, is superfluous at best and often destructive. Through the endowment, the American taxpayer has paid for special-interest groups to harass the duly elected governments of friendly countries, interfere in foreign elections, and foster the corruption of democratic movements . . .

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 . . .

2003 Ron Paul 105:5
“. . . In the final analysis, the endowment embodies the most negative aspects of both private aid and official foreign aid — the pitfalls of decentralized ‘loose cannon’ foreign policy efforts combined with the impression that the United States is trying to ‘run the show’ around the world.”

2003 Ron Paul 105:6
The National Endowment for Democracy is dependent on the U.S. taxpayer for funding, but because NED is not a government agency, it is not subject to Congressional oversight. It is indeed a heavily subsidized foreign policy loose cannon.

2003 Ron Paul 105:7
Since its founding in 1983, the National Endowment for Democracy has been headed by Carl Gershman, a member of the neo-Trotskyite Social Democrats/USA.

2003 Ron Paul 105:8
Perhaps that is one reason much of what NED has done in the former Communist Bloc has ended up benefiting former communists in those countries. As British Helsinki Human Rights Group Director Christine Stone has written:

2003 Ron Paul 105:9
Both (IRI and NDI) are largely funded by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) . . . which, in turn, receive money from the American taxpayer. Both have favoured the return to power of former highranking Communists which has also meant co-opting foot-soldiers from the new left who have extremely liberal ideas . . .

2003 Ron Paul 105:10
Skender Gjinushi, speaker of the Albanian parliament, thanks the IRI for its assistance in drafting the Albanian constitution in 1998. What the IRI does not say is that Gjinushi was a member of the brutal Stalinist Politburo of Enver Hoxha’s Communist Party until 1990 and one of the main organizers of the unrest that led to the fall of the Democratic Party government in 1997 and the death of over 2000 people.

2003 Ron Paul 105:11
President Stoyanov of Bulgaria drools: “Without IRI’s support we could not have come so far so fast.” Indeed. Indeed. So far did they come that Ivan Kostov (who supplies another encomium to IRI) was catapulted from his job teaching Marxism-Leninism at Sofia University to being prime minister of Bulgaria and a leader of ‘reform.’ ”

2003 Ron Paul 105:12
In Slovakia, NED funded several initiatives aimed at defeating the freely-elected government of Prime Minister Vladimir Meciar, who, interestingly, had been persecuted by the previous Communist regime. After the election, an IRI newsletter boasted that “IRI polls changed the nature of the campaign,” adding that IRI efforts secured “a victory for reformers in Slovakia.” What the IRI does not say is that many of these “reformers” had been leading members of the former Communist regime of then-Czechoslovakia. Is this democracy?

2003 Ron Paul 105:13
More recently, IRI president George A. Folsom last year praised a coup against Venezuela’s democratically-elected president, saying, “Last night, led by every sector of civil society, the Venezuelan people rose up to defend democracy in their country.” It was later revealed that the National Endowment for Democracy provided funds to those organizations that initiated the violent revolt in the streets against Venezuela’s legal leaders. More than a dozen civilians were killed and hundreds were injured in this attempted coup. Is this promoting democracy?

2003 Ron Paul 105:14
Madam Speaker, the National Endowment for Democracy, by meddling in the elections and internal politics of foreign countries, does more harm to the United States than good. It creates resentment and ill-will toward the United States among millions abroad. It is beyond time to de-fund this Cold War relic and return to the foreign policy of our founders, based on open relations and trade with all countries and free from meddling and manipulation in the internal affairs of others.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 106

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

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
October 15, 2003
Statement Opposing Trade Sanctions against Syria


2003 Ron Paul 106:1
Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my strong opposition to this ill-conceived and ill-timed legislation. This bill will impose what is effectively a trade embargo against Syria and will force the severance of diplomatic and business ties between the United States and Syria. It will also significantly impede travel between the United States and Syria. Worse yet, the bill also provides essentially an open-ended authorization for the president to send US taxpayer money to Syria should that country do what we are demanding in this bill.

2003 Ron Paul 106:2
This bill cites Syria’s alleged support for Hamas, Hizballah, Palestine Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups as evidence that Syria is posing a threat to the United States. Not since the Hizballah bombing of a US Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983 have any of these organizations attacked the United States. After that attack on our Marines, who were sent to Beirut to intervene in a conflict that had nothing to do with the United States, President Ronald Reagan wisely ordered their withdrawal from that volatile area. Despite what the interventionists constantly warn, the world did not come to an end back in 1983 when the president decided to withdraw from Beirut and leave the problems there to be worked out by those countries most closely involved.

2003 Ron Paul 106:3
What troubles me greatly about this bill is that although the named, admittedly bad, terrorist organizations do not target the United States at present, we are basically declaring our intention to pick a fight with them. We are declaring that we will take pre-emptive actions against organizations that apparently have no quarrel with us. Is this wise, particularly considering their capacity to carry out violent acts against those with whom they are in conflict? Is this not inviting trouble by stirring up a hornet’s nest? Is there anything to be gained in this?

2003 Ron Paul 106:4
This bill imposes an embargo on Syria for, among other reasons, the Syrian government’s inability to halt fighters crossing the Syrian border into Iraq. While I agree that any foreign fighters coming into Iraq to attack American troops is totally unacceptable, I wonder just how much control Syria has over its borders — particularly over the chaotic border with Iraq. If Syria has no control over its borders, is it valid to impose sanctions on the country for its inability to halt clandestine border crossings? I find it a bit ironic to be imposing a trade embargo on Syria for failing to control its borders when we do not have control of our own borders. Scores cross illegally into the United States each year – potentially including those who cross over with the intent to do us harm – yet very little is done to secure our own borders. Perhaps this is because our resources are too engaged guarding the borders of countless countries overseas. But there is no consistency in our policy. Look at the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan: while we continue to maintain friendly relations and deliver generous foreign aid to Pakistan, it is clear that Pakistan does not control its border with Afghanistan. In all likelihood, Osama bin Laden himself has crossed over the Afghan border into Pakistan. No one proposes an embargo on Pakistan. On the contrary: the supplemental budget request we are taking up this week includes another $200 million in loan guarantees to Pakistan.

2003 Ron Paul 106:5
I am also concerned about the timing of this bill. As we continue to pursue Al-Qaeda - most of which escaped and continue to operate - it seems to me we need all the help we can get in tracking these criminals down and holding them to account for the attack on the United States. As the AP reported recently:

2003 Ron Paul 106:6
“So, too, are Syria’s claims, supported by US intelligence, that Damascus has provided the United States with valuable assistance in countering terror.  

2003 Ron Paul 106:7
“The Syrians have in custody Mohammed Haydar Zammer, believed to have recruited some of the Sept. 11 hijackers, and several high-level Iraqis who were connected to the Saddam Hussein government have turned up in US custody.”

2003 Ron Paul 106:8
Numerous other press reports detail important assistance Syria has given the US after 9/11. If Syria is providing assistance to the US in tracking these people down - any assistance - passing this bill can only be considered an extremely counterproductive development. Does anyone here care to guess how much assistance Syria will be providing us once this bill is passed? Can we afford to turn our back on Syria’s assistance, even if it is not as complete as it could be?

2003 Ron Paul 106:9
That is the problem with this approach. Imposing sanctions and cutting off relations with a country is ineffective and counterproductive. It is only one-half step short of war and very often leads to war. This bill may well even completely eliminate any trade between the two countries. It will almost completely shut the door on diplomatic relations. It sends a strong message to Syria and the Syrian people: that we no longer wish to engage you. This cannot be in our best interest.

2003 Ron Paul 106:10
This bill may even go further than that. In a disturbing bit of déjà vu, the bill makes references to “Syria’s acquisition of weapons of mass destruction (WMD)” and threatens to “impede” Syrian weapons ambitions. This was the justification for our intervention in Iraq, yet after more than a thousand inspectors have spent months and some 300 million dollars none have been found. Will this bill’s unproven claims that Syria has WMD be later used to demand military action against that country?

2003 Ron Paul 106:11
Mr. Speaker: history is replete with examples of the futility of sanctions and embargoes and travel bans. More than 40 years of embargo against Cuba have not produced the desired change there. Sadly, embargoes and sanctions most often hurt those least responsible. A trade embargo against Syria will hurt American businesses and will cost American jobs. It will make life more difficult for the average Syrian - with whom we have no quarrel. Making life painful for the population is not the best way to win over hearts and minds. I strongly urge my colleagues to reject this counterproductive bill.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 107

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Defense Production Reauthorization Act
15 October 2003

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, October 15, 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!

2003 Ron Paul 107:2
Under this bill, the President is given authority to void private contracts in order to ensure that federal defense priorities, as determined by the executive, are met. The only limitation on the President’s judgment is a requirement that he submits a series of “findings” to Congress. The Executive also has what appears to be unchecked authority to use financial incentives such as loan guarantees, direct loans, and purchase guarantees to ensure production of items he determines are in the national interest.

2003 Ron Paul 107:3
Congress appears to have no ability to perform any real oversight of a Presidential action under the DPA. In fact, my office has been informed by the Congressional Research Service that past Presidents may have invoked the DPA without even submitting the required findings to Congress!

2003 Ron Paul 107:4
The wide grant of unchecked power to the Executive runs counter to the intent of the drafters of the Constitution. The Founders carefully limited the executive power because they recognized that an executive with unfettered power was a threat to liberty. In recent years we have seen administrations of both parties undermine the Constitutional separation of powers via enhanced reliance on executive orders and unilateral decision-making. The Defense Production Reauthorization Act provides Constitutional blessing to this usurpation of power, and not just in areas clearly related to national defense. For example, the DPA has been used to justify federal interference in the energy market. It is an open question what other exercise of federal power could be justified as related to defense. For example, federal education programs has been justified on the grounds that an educated population is vital to national defense, so perhaps a future president will use DPA to impose a national curriculum!

2003 Ron Paul 107:5
I am also concerned that this bill violates the Fifth Amendment’s takings clause. In particular, DPA allows the government to seize private property by interfering with the performance of private contracts in order to give priority to military production. This action reduces the value of the affected parties’ proprietary interests, and thus is a taking, requiring the government to provide just compensation to the affected party. The Fifth Amendment intends to assure that the government does not unfairly burden one group of citizens in carrying out its constitutional functions. By not providing for just compensation, DPA allows the executive to unfairly burden one group of citizens for costs that the Constitution requires be shared among the entire population.

2003 Ron Paul 107:6
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the Defense Production Act gives the executives unchecked power to meddle in the economy, flying in the face of the original constitutional structure and endangering the very liberty it claims to protect. Therefore, I must oppose this bill.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 108

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Supplemental Appropriation
16 October 2003

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL).

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

2003 Ron Paul 108:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time.

2003 Ron Paul 108:2
Mr. Chairman, this $87 billion is a little bit steep for my wallet, and it is a little bit steep for probably the wallets of most Americans. So I will be voting against it.

2003 Ron Paul 108:3
But I understand this is called a supplemental. It is interesting that it is a supplemental because we have not passed a budget; so I have to suggest maybe we ought to call this a preemptive budget rather than a supplemental. But it is the largest, and to have it before the regular budget is pretty astounding that we are going to spend this type of money.

2003 Ron Paul 108:4
But I want to take this minute I have to quote from a book, “A World Transformed,” and this was written about 5 years ago talking about Iraq. And I think this is a very serious quote and something worth listening to:

2003 Ron Paul 108:5
“Trying to eliminate Saddam Hussein . . . would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible . . . We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq . . . There was no available ‘exit strategy’ we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations’ mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land.”

2003 Ron Paul 108:6
That was written 5 years ago, very perceptive. It was written by President Bush, Sr. So I think we are here now in a very hostile land with a very difficult situation.

2003 Ron Paul 108:7
I was a strong opponent of the war for two reasons: one, I sincerely believed our national security was not threatened, and I also was convinced that it had no relationship to 9–11; and I think those two concerns have been proven to be correct. Many who had voted against the war now suggest that they might vote for this appropriation because they feel it is necessary to vote to support the troops. I think that is a red herring argument because if we take a poll, and there have been some recent polls of the troops in Iraq, we find out that probably all of them would love to come home next week. So I do not see how a vote against this appropriation can be construed. As a matter of fact, that is challenging the motivation of those of us who will oppose the legislation, that we do not support the troops. So I am in support of voting against this appropriation.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 109

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Veterans Recognized By The Silver Rose
16 October 2003

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, October 16, 2003


2003 Ron Paul 109:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to thank Gary Chenett, and Robert Baker. These two gentlemen are responsible for awarding The Silver Rose to our military veterans in Texas and across the Nation.

2003 Ron Paul 109:2
Established in 1997 by Mary Elizabeth Marchand, The Order of The Silver Rose gives many veterans the satisfaction of being recognized for making the ultimate sacrifice for our nation. Mrs. Marchand’s father, Chief Hospital Corpsman Frank Davis, died from illnesses resulting from the use of Agent Orange in the Vietnam War. A combat veteran, Chief Davis was not wounded in combat but exposed to a dangerous substance while fighting for his country. Exposure to Agent Orange resulted in Davis losing his life some years later. Subsequently, determination was made by the Department of Defense that Chief Davis and many like him do not qualify for The Purple Heart.

2003 Ron Paul 109:3
The Order of The Silver Rose recognizes the courage, heroism, and contributions of American service personnel who were exposed to Agent Orange in a combat zone. There are thousands of veterans who served this country faithfully who are now suffering illnesses, some fatal, directly due to being exposed to harmful substances during the war.

2003 Ron Paul 109:4
Gary Chenett and Robert Baker award veterans with The Silver Rose. To date over one thousand veterans have received this award. Sadly, many of these awards have been made posthumously. October is now recognized as Agent Orange month in Texas and many other states. On behalf of Texas, I thank our brave patriots for their sacrifices.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 110

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

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
October 17, 2003
Borrowing Billions to Fund a Failed Policy in Iraq


2003 Ron Paul 110:1
Mr. Speaker: I rise in opposition to this request for nearly $87 billion to continue the occupation and rebuilding of Iraq and Afghanistan. This is money we do not have being shipped away on a foreign welfare program. The burden on our already weakened economy could well be crippling.

2003 Ron Paul 110:2
Those who argue that we must vote for this appropriation because “we must succeed” in Iraq are misguided. Those who say this have yet to define what it means – in concrete terms – to have “success” in Iraq. What is success in Iraq? How will we achieve success in Iraq? How will we know when we have succeeded in Iraq? About how long will “success” take to achieve and about how much will it cost? These are reasonable questions to have when we are asked to spend billions of taxpayers’ dollars, but thus far we have heard little more than nice-sounding platitudes.

2003 Ron Paul 110:3
We have established a troubling precedent that no matter how ill-conceived an intervention, we must continue to become more deeply involved because “we must succeed.” That is one reason we see unrelated funding in this supplemental for places like Liberia and Sudan.

2003 Ron Paul 110:4
Mr. Speaker this reconstruction of Iraq – that we are making but a down-payment on today – is at its core just another foreign policy boondoggle. The $20 billion plan to “rebuild” Iraq tilts heavily toward creating a statist economy and is filled with very liberal social-engineering programs. Much of the money in this reconstruction plan will be wasted - as foreign aid most often is. Much will be wasted as corporate welfare to politically connected corporations; much will be thrown away at all the various “non-government organizations” that aim to teach the Iraqis everything from the latest American political correctness to the “right” way to vote. The bill includes $900 million to import petroleum products into Iraq (a country with the second largest oil reserves in the world); $793 million for healthcare in Iraq when we’re in the midst of our own crisis and about to raise Medicare premiums of our seniors; $10 million for "women’s leadership programs" (more social engineering); $200 million in loan guarantees to Pakistan (a military dictatorship that likely is the home of Osama bin Laden); $245 million for the "U.S. share" of U.N. peacekeeping in Liberia and Sudan; $95 million for education in Afghanistan; $600 million for repair and modernization of roads and bridges in Iraq (while our own infrastructure crumbles).

2003 Ron Paul 110:5
There has been some discontent among conservatives about the $20 billion reconstruction price tag. They fail to realize that this is just the other side of the coin of military interventionism. It is the same coin, which is why I have consistently opposed foreign interventionism. There is a lesson here that those who call themselves fiscal conservatives seem to not have learned. There is no separation between the military intervention and the post-military intervention, otherwise known as “nation-building.” Fiscal conservatives are uneasy about nation building and foreign aid. The president himself swore off nation building as a candidate. But anyone concerned about sending American tax dollars to foreign countries must look directly at military interventionism abroad. If there is one thing the history of our interventionism teaches, it is that the best way for a foreign country to become a financial dependent of the United States is to first be attacked by the United States.

2003 Ron Paul 110:6
This request - which was not the first and will not be the last - demonstrates in the most concrete terms that there is a real and concrete cost of our policy of interventionism. The American taxpayer paid to bomb Baghdad and now will pay to rebuild Iraq – its schools, hospitals, prisons, roads, and more. Many Americans cannot afford to send their own children to college, but with the money in this bill they will be sending Iraqi kids to college. Is this really what the American people want?

2003 Ron Paul 110:7
The real point is that the billions we are told we must spend to rebuild Iraq is indeed the natural outcome of our policy of pre-emptive military intervention. All those who voted for the resolution authorizing the president to attack Iraq have really already voted for this supplemental. There is no military intervention without a “Marshall Plan” afterward, regardless of our ability to pay. And the American people will be expected to pay for far more. This current request is only perhaps step four in what will likely be a 10 or more step program to remake Iraq and the rest of the Middle East in the image of Washington, D.C. social engineers and “global planners.” What will be steps five, six, seven, eight? Long-term occupation, micro-managing Iraq’s economy, organizing and managing elections, writing an Iraqi constitution. And so on. When will it end?

2003 Ron Paul 110:8
There is also much said about how we must support this supplemental because to do otherwise would mean not supporting the troops. I resent this dishonest accusation. It is nothing but a red herring. I wonder if an American currently serving an open-ended occupation in Iraq would think that bringing him home next week would be a good show of support for our troops. Maintaining an increasingly deadly occupation of Iraq and bankrupting many of our reservists and National Guard troops by unilaterally extending their contracts to serve in an active deployment is hardly “supporting the troops.” Perhaps that is why a Stars and Stripes newspaper survey of the troops in Iraq this week found that a majority had very low morale. And according to the same Stars and Stripes survey, an increasing number are not planning to re-enlist.

2003 Ron Paul 110:9
Conservatives often proclaim that they are opposed to providing American welfare to the rest of the world. I agree. The only way to do that, however, is to stop supporting a policy of military interventionism. You cannot have one without the other. If a military intervention against Syria and Iran are next, it will be the same thing: we will pay to bomb the country and we will pay even more to rebuild it - and as we see with the plan for Iraq, this rebuilding will not be done on the cheap. The key fallacy in the argument of the militarists is that there is some way to fight a war without associated costs - the costs of occupation, reconstruction, “institution-building,” “democracy programs.”

2003 Ron Paul 110:10
I opposed our action against Iraq for two main reasons. I sincerely believed that our national security was not threatened and I did not believe that Saddam Hussein’s regime was involved in the attack on the United States on 9/11. I believe what we have learned since the intervention has supported my view. Meanwhile, while our troops are trying to police the border between Syria and Iraq our own borders remain as porous as ever. Terrorists who entered our country could easily do so again through our largely un-patrolled borders. While we expend American blood and treasure occupying a country that was not involved in the attack on the US, those who were responsible for the attack most likely are hiding out in Pakistan - a military dictatorship we are now allied with and to which this supplemental sends some $200 million in loan guarantees.

2003 Ron Paul 110:11
Our continued occupation of Iraq is not producing the promised results, despite efforts to paint a brighter picture of the current situation. What once was a secular dictatorship appears to be moving toward being a fundamentalist Islamic regime – not the democracy we were promised. As repulsive as Saddam’s regime was, the prospect of an Iraq run by Islamic clerics, aligned with Iranian radicals and hostile to the United States, is no more palatable. There are signs that this is the trend. The press reports regularly on attacks against Iraq’s one million Christians. Those hand-picked by the United States to run Iraq have found themselves targets for assassination. Clerics are forming their own militias. The thousands of non-combatants killed in the US intervention are seeking revenge against the unwanted American occupiers.

2003 Ron Paul 110:12
Mr. Speaker, throwing billions of dollars after a failed policy will not produce favorable results. We are heading full-speed toward bankruptcy, yet we continue to spend like there is no tomorrow. There will be a tomorrow, however. The money we are spending today is real. The bill will be paid, whether through raising taxes or printing more money. Either way, the American people will become poorer in pursuit of a policy that cannot and will not work. We cannot re-make the world in our own image. The stated aim was to remove Saddam Hussein. That mission is accomplished. The best policy now for Iraq is to declare victory and bring our troops home. We should let the people of Iraq rebuild their own country. I urge my colleagues to vote against this supplemental request.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 111

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Misguided Policy Of Nation Building In Iraq
17 October 2003

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker’s announced policy of January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.

2003 Ron Paul 111:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I want to spend a little bit of time this evening talking about the bill that we spent 3 days debating. That is the $87 billion appropriations bill that we just voted on and passed, not so much that I want to rehash what we did during these 3 days as much as to make a point that we ought to be debating something other than the technicality of how to spend $87 billion of the taxpayers’ money. And that has to do with overall policy.

2003 Ron Paul 111:2
I think so rarely we deal with policy and we deal only with technicality and accounting and an attempt made at oversight. So I would like to spend a little bit of time emphasizing a different type of foreign policy that we have become unaccustomed to. Because there was an American foreign policy once well known to us, to our country and especially to our founders, a policy of nonintervention. Today, and essentially for a hundred years, we have been following a policy of foreign intervention, that is, that we assume more than I believe we should overseas. And I object to that because I see it as not gaining a constitutional mandate as well as I see it as being a great danger to us both in the area of national defense, national security, as well as the economic dangers it presents.

2003 Ron Paul 111:3
The debate has ended, it is said, with this vote; but in many ways I think the debate is only really getting started. The debate has been going on a long time dealing with Iraq.

2003 Ron Paul 111:4
It did not even start after 9–11. It is true within weeks after 9–11 the Project for New American Century saw this as an opportunity to bring forth their suggestions that they had made many years ago, and they have been agitating forth for over 10 years, and that is to go into Iraq; and they saw this as an opportunity. But actually, this debate has been going on even a lot longer. Certainly since the first Iraqi war in 1990 and the persistence of our bombing of Iraq, as well as the embargo and boycotts of Iraq served to do a lot of internal damage to the Iraqi people.

2003 Ron Paul 111:5
But the debate, instead of ending, I think is really just starting. Because the vote today, although it was overwhelmingly in support of the $87 billion, I noticed a lot more people in the Congress voted against the appropriations reflecting probably the views of many taxpayers in this country who are very reluctant to spend this kind of money overseas, especially if they perceive what we are doing is not being very productive. And not only do we have to deal with whether or not what we are doing is productive or not, but the final analysis will be, can we afford it?

2003 Ron Paul 111:6
It may be that the lack of affordability may bring us to our senses before the logic of a foreign policy. That might make more sense than what we have been doing. Before the Iraqi war, the 18 months, actually there was a pretty strong debate here in the Congress. Several of us, quite a few of us, got to the floor and talked about the potentiality of war and why we thought it was a bad idea. My conclusion in October of 2002, 6 months or so before the invasion, was that we should not go in to Iraq. And it was a deeply held conviction, not only philosophically, because of a strong belief I have in nonintervention and the restraints that are placed on us by the Constitution, but also because I was convinced that our national security was not threatened by Saddam Hussein and that 9–11 had nothing to do with Iraq and Iraq had nothing to do with 9–11 nor Saddam Hussein. And I think the events since that time have proven that assumption to be correct.

2003 Ron Paul 111:7
There is no evidence that Saddam Hussein was capable of fighting or invading anybody. There was no resistance and he had been shooting at our airplanes for over 12 years and never hit one of them. To assume he was a threat to the world was, I think, overblown. Those are the reasons why I so strongly objected to it.

2003 Ron Paul 111:8
Now, the argument goes that whether or not we supported the war at the beginning, we should support the troops now. The troops are there and if you vote against the appropriations, it means that you lack support for the troops. Well, this is not true; and those who argue that case know it is the case, that it is not true because the funding that is already in the pipeline is certainly enough for several months of leaving and coming home. And so that argument just does not hold water. And besides, if you really talk to the troops, and now we are getting so much more information from the troops, if you ask them whether there is somebody in the Congress that votes to have them come home, whether that indicates a lack of support for them, I think you would get a very clear answer. Probably a very large number, if not all of them, would like to come home tomorrow and they do not see a lot of benefit by the sacrifices that are being made over there. But I think if the support for the war is weak, why are we there? What drives us? And what drives our foreign policy?

2003 Ron Paul 111:9
Basically, we have come to the acceptance, at least especially throughout the 20th century, of accepting the notion that we have some moral obligation to make the world safe for democracy. And we have heard so much about this that we are over there to spread democracy. Well, if you look to the Constitution, there is no grant of authority even to the Congress or to the President that that should be a goal. That does not mean that our values should not be looked upon and spread; but to be done through the military and by force, that is an entirely different story.

2003 Ron Paul 111:10
What we are involved here now with our intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan and other places, we are involved in nation-building. And nobody in this country campaigns, whether it is for the Presidency or for a congressional seat or a Senate seat, nobody goes out and says, Elect me to Congress because I want to get into the business of nation- building. Nobody does that and yet really that is what we are talking about today.

2003 Ron Paul 111:11
We are very much involved in nationbuilding in Afghanistan, and the successes there are very shaky. We probably occupy one city and not much more. And everybody reads daily about the shakiness of our occupation of Iraq. And we are very much involved in internal affairs of other nations, the kind of thing our founders said do not get involved in. Do not get involved in the internal affairs of other nations. Stay out of entangling alliances. And we are very much involved. The entangling alliance that I had the strongest objection to is the entangling alliance with the United Nations.

2003 Ron Paul 111:12
So although it was seen by the world that we went into Iraq by defying the United Nations, if anybody would like to check and go back and look at the authorization for the use of force which was a transfer, illegal transfer of power to the President to pursue war, the United Nations was cited 16 times. There was a need to enforce the United Nations resolution. That was the justification for the Congress to transfer this power to the President in allowing him to make his own decision.

2003 Ron Paul 111:13
Well, that is technically flaunting the Constitution and that the proper method for us going to war is for the Congress to declare war, and then, of course, go out and win the war. But the authority comes from the people to the Congress and the Congress cannot transfer this power and this decisionmaking to the President under a majority vote in the legislative body.

2003 Ron Paul 111:14
There have been others, in particular the neo-conservatives who have been very influential in foreign policy the last several years and who have been associated with the Project for a New American Century. They have been explicit in their goals. And one of their explicit goals has been to redraw the lines of the Middle East and to have preemptive regime change. These are serious beliefs that they have; and everybody has a right to their beliefs. Their beliefs that we have this obligation to remove regimes that we do not like and to redraw lines and to spread our way of life and our democracy by the use of force, they sincerely hold those beliefs; and I sincerely disagree with them.

2003 Ron Paul 111:15
But I believe that the Constitution is on my side and not on their side. And when we do what they want and what we have done and have been doing, it is dangerous. It is dangerous to our security. It is dangerous to our financial situation and our economy. And it is a tremendous drain on so many taxpayers here trying to struggle and make a living.

2003 Ron Paul 111:16
There are others who influence our policy, and it is not the conspiracy buffs that had coined the phrase “the military industrial complex.” And everybody knows where that phrase came from. But it is alive and well. Believe me, it is alive and well. There is a tremendous amount of influence by those who make profits, refurbishing the weapons they get, rebuilding the bombs, rebuilding the airplanes and lining up at the trough to see how they will get to participate in this $87 billion that has just been recently appropriated.

2003 Ron Paul 111:17
This is one of the reasons why I think the debate just in these last couple of days on whether or not the money would be a loan or a grant really did not have a whole lot of merit. I happen to have supported all the amendments that said it should be a loan, not a grant, but it does not make a bit of difference because the likelihood of a country like Iraq, that does not have a government, being able to make a promise and then pay us back, we generally never get paid back anything. So that to me was a red-herring argument that was sort of one of the tactical or accounting arguments that occupied a tremendous amount of time here by avoiding the bigger issue on whether or not it is a proper role for the United States to be telling the rest of the world how to live and it is our obligation to nation-build and our obligation to redraw the lines of the Middle East. That is the bigger question, and this is the debate I hope to hear that we have on this floor some day.

2003 Ron Paul 111:18
The policy of interventionism, I think it is dangerous as instead of reducing the odds of a terrorist attack, I believe it increases the odds of a terrorist attack. When I see us occupying Saudi Arabia, having an air base on land which is considered holy land, occupying the Persian Gulf that has a lot of oil, and it has been said we are there to protect our oil, that it would be equivalent to the Chinese coming in to the Gulf of Mexico and saying we do not have enough oil. And if they happen to be stronger and that they could come over and say, well, we are more powerful, we need imports, we are going to protect our oil in the Gulf of Mexico, we will have our Navy in the Gulf of Mexico, and if we need to we are going to put air bases in Florida and Texas and wherever. And then if the Chinese come in and say, well, your way of life is not our way of life, and we should teach you a better system, that is what I see as being equivalent to us being in the Persian Gulf occupying the Arab lands, and especially, now, Afghanistan and Iraq.

2003 Ron Paul 111:19
In other words, no matter how well-intended those individuals are who drive our foreign policy and drive these expenditures and drive our military around the world, no matter how wellintended under these circumstances, if what I am saying is correct, there is no way it is going to work, and the sooner we admit it and the sooner we discover it is not going to work, the better it is for all of us and the less killing that is going to occur.

2003 Ron Paul 111:20
So I am strongly suggesting that we here in the House someday get serious about talking about the big picture, the strategic picture, the philosophic picture and the Constitution, deciding what we really should be doing in our foreign policy. Some people say, well, it sounds to me like what you are advocating is isolationism, and nobody wants to be an isolationist. When they throw that term out, it is usually done there to try to discredit those individuals, like myself, who are arguing the case for nonintervention. Isolationism is quite a bit different. Isolationism is those who want to put barriers on trade and travel in exchange of ideas. That is true isolationism. That is mercantilism and protectionism. That is not what I am talking about, and that is not what nonintervention is.

2003 Ron Paul 111:21
Nonintervention in foreign policy means we do not impose our will on other people, something that a lot of very conventional politicians have talked about for years as a matter of fact, especially when they are campaigning.

2003 Ron Paul 111:22
I would like to quote from the memoirs of George Bush, Senior, which he wrote, and they were published approximately 5 years ago, dealing with Iraq and what he thought about it, about the invasion of Iraq and why he did not go into Iraq. This comes from A World Transformed. This is George Bush, Senior. He says, Trying to eliminate Saddam would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. There was no viable exit strategy we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post- Cold War period. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land.

2003 Ron Paul 111:23
That comes from George Bush, Senior. That is not coming from me, who has always had great concern about our military activity. I think that is sound thinking and sound advice, totally ignored.

2003 Ron Paul 111:24
In the campaign before the last Presidential election, our President said, If we are an arrogant Nation, they will resent us. If we are a humble Nation but strong, they will believe us. If we are a humble Nation, they will respect us as an honorable Nation.

2003 Ron Paul 111:25
I think we have lost a little bit of our humility, to say the least, and, as of now, I do not think that our reputation has been enhanced, especially in the Arab-Muslim world, and that concerns me because it is this lack of civility between countries and the antagonism which leads to conflicts and hatreds and killing and guerrilla wars which we are fighting right now.

2003 Ron Paul 111:26
I express my concern about the way we went to war because it was a transfer of power from the Congress by mere vote, which circumvented the Constitution, rather than a declaration of war, and I base my concern on the fact that we have had a lot more trouble in the last 50 years when we quit declaring war and at least prior to that the wars we declared, they came to an end.

2003 Ron Paul 111:27
Look at Korea. We did not declare war there. We went there under a U.N. resolution. We are still there. We spent over $1 trillion, and we are still in conflict with North Korea, and it is a serious problem, and we do not trade with them.

2003 Ron Paul 111:28
Going into Vietnam, we went once again into Vietnam without a declaration of war. It really came to no resolution other than the fact that we walked away. We had to get out because we were not winning. The determination to win was not there because the Vietnamese were not a threat to our national security. Nobody was going to declare war, but look at the difference.

2003 Ron Paul 111:29
We are still in North Korea. That was under a U.N. resolution, and just look at what has been achieved by leaving Vietnam. They have become Westernized and, to a degree, capitalized. They are more capitalistic. We trade with them, making the point that it is very, very hard to impose our will and our system of values on somebody with the use of arms, but by the willingness of trade and exchanges with people and ideas, they are more likely to come in our direction. So the difference between the 10 terrible years in the 1960s, as we lost 60,000 men and achieved nothing, compared to the next decade or two, how we have become more friends with the Vietnamese, there is a powerful message there if we would listen to it and pay attention to it, but no, since that time we have continued to go into many areas.

2003 Ron Paul 111:30
I think this was a problem going into Iraq in 1990. It was an undeclared war. It was a U.N. war. It did not end it. It continued and it is still continuing into its 15th year, and here we are still arguing over the financing which I think is at very early stages. How long will we be there and how many men are going to die and how is it going to end? I am convinced as long as we follow this principle of foreign interventionism that we take it upon ourselves to spread democracy around the world, we are going to be running into trouble like this.

2003 Ron Paul 111:31
James Madison early on in 1798 gave us some advice about the Presidential power and congressional power to go to war, but he was explaining why it was important to keep it in the hands of the legislative body. He says, The Constitution supposes what the history of all governments demonstrate, that the executive is the branch of power most interested in war and the most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war in the legislature.

2003 Ron Paul 111:32
That is what our Constitution did, but because now it has drifted from the legislature, we allow our Presidents to do more than they should be able to do, and then we allow them to incorporate this into United Nations’ mandates. It means that the people have lost their control.

2003 Ron Paul 111:33
How do the people stay involved in this? In one way, they pay the bills and the young people die. That is what is at stake. Our economy’s at stake, our young people are at stake and our freedoms are at stake because we allow the prerogatives that were explicitly given to the Congress to drift away and get into the hands of the executive branch and into the United Nations. We do not declare war. We do not win them. They persist, they last a long time, and this is the reason why we should really and truly talk about how do we get out of this mess, instead of just expanding the mess, how do we get out and restore a policy that makes a lot more sense.

2003 Ron Paul 111:34
The famous General, General Douglas MacArthur, who knew a lot about war, also had advice to us about how to handle the issue of war, and he said, The powers in charge keep us in a perpetual state of fear, keep us in a conscious stampede of patriotic fervor, with a cry of grave national emergency. Always there has been some terrible evil to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it by furnishing the exorbitant sums demanded. Yet, in retrospect, these disasters seem never to have happened, seem never to have been quite real.

2003 Ron Paul 111:35
Here is a man who knew about World War I, World War II and Korea, and he was suggesting that they were overblown.

2003 Ron Paul 111:36
One thing that we did not talk about in the debate of the $87 billion was a $600 million appropriation. It is not written in there explicitly, but there is a $9.3 billion authority to transfer funds over into the Pentagon and more or less having a slush fund to spend just about any way they want without any significant congressional oversight, but the $600 million has been asked for and will be achieved through this appropriation to continue the search for weapons of mass destruction. They have spent $300 million for six months, with 1,200 individuals combing the entire country of Iraq, and nothing has been found. So typically, American style, modern America, that is, double the amount of money, double the number of people and keep searching, because something will be found.

2003 Ron Paul 111:37
My answer is, what if you do find something? What does it prove? Does it prove that he was a threat to our national security? No way. Does it prove that it was a relationship to Iraq and 9/ 11? No way. So this obsession is for saving face and nothing more. If there was a major nuclear or chemical weapon available that was about to be unleashed against us, it would have surely been found by now, but that was not debated, but I am sure that search will go on, and “when something is found,” and I put that in quotes, there will be a lot of questions asked. More questions will be asked than answers given.

2003 Ron Paul 111:38
I guess early this week we also had another vote that emphasizes my concerns, because it again is going in the wrong direction, and that was the vote we had on Syria. A couple of us voted against this. Syria is a hard country to defend, and I am not going to defend Syria. I am defending the Constitution, and I am defending nonintervention, but the Syrian resolution was more or less the first major step in the direction of war against Syria.

2003 Ron Paul 111:39
This is exactly what the project for a new America century wants. Syria is on their list and the sanctions put on Syria are essentially a prelude to war because that country, as part of the axis of evil, we have to get rid of that regime and they are helping the Iraqis so, therefore, war is coming, and I just cannot see how the average American is sitting around worrying about the Syrians, but they said the Syrians, there may be some people going back and forth from Syria and participating in the guerrilla war in Iraq, which may well be true, but then again, what about other borders?

2003 Ron Paul 111:40
There is a border between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Pakistan’s on our side, Afghanistan is half and half, but right on that border is Osama bin Laden most likely.

2003 Ron Paul 111:41
And he is probably in Pakistan. So do we decide that we have to go after Pakistan? No, we recognize that the borders are uncontrollable.

2003 Ron Paul 111:42
Here we are putting sanctions on Syria because we do not like the way they are handling their borders, but there are a lot of people in this country who would like to see us do a better job with our own borders. We do not have control of our own borders, yet here we are putting on sanctions and initiating another step towards war against Syria because we are not satisfied with what they are doing.

2003 Ron Paul 111:43
We cannot achieve some of these goals that we have set for ourselves through force. We have what comes close to an obsession with democracy. You hear it constantly. We are over in Iraq because we are going to make it a democracy. Well, democratic elections are the way we all get here; but this obsession with democracy, well, democracy means there is a ruling of the majority. But what if the majority does not support freedom?

2003 Ron Paul 111:44
I would like to see a time come to this place where we talk a lot less about democracy and more about liberty. Liberty is where the minority is protected. Under democracy, the majority is protected, and they can obliterate the minority. And this, in a sense, is what we keep talking about. But let us say they do not want democracy. Are we going to force it upon them? It looks like that is our goal; that we will, by gosh, force them into it if we have to.

2003 Ron Paul 111:45
I have come to the conclusion that you cannot achieve this through the force of arms and that if you are participating in an unwelcome occupation, you cannot change a culture, you cannot change religious values, you cannot change a legal system. We would not accept the Chinese trying to tell us to live like the Chinese; and we are just as strange and different in Iraq as the Chinese would be here. So even with this grand motivation, it is a lost cause; and the sooner we own up to it, the better.

2003 Ron Paul 111:46
If we want Iraq and other countries to act more like we do, it can be done; and that should be a goal. But there is a difference. There are two different ways we can do it. One, we can force people to do things and the other way is we can try to talk them into doing it in a voluntary fashion. If we did an exceptionally good job and we had a truly prosperous economy, which I believe a free market would achieve, which we do not have, where the greatest number of people would have the greatest benefits, truly set an example, have democratic elections but obey a constitution that is designed to protect liberty and protect minorities, if we set an example, then I sincerely believe others then would be more inclined to emulate us and to see us as an example.

2003 Ron Paul 111:47
In a way, what happened in Vietnam, the achievement there without the Army was far better than the losses that occurred when we were trying to use force. But I just am worried about what is happening. I am worried about the expenditures. I am worried that the guerilla war is going to spread. I am concerned because I believe so sincerely that our policy of foreign intervention serves more to incite terrorists against our country than we will calm down by our being over there.

2003 Ron Paul 111:48
I am convinced that these articles that now appear in the media about the al Qaeda now having an easier time recruiting, I believe those stories. I believe them. Whether it is right or wrong, I do not want to get into that issue, but I believe they are true. And that is a practical reason why nonintervention is so much better than intervention. Intervention leads to trouble, and it leads to expenditures. It leads to debt.

2003 Ron Paul 111:49
It is such a grand idea that the Founding Fathers gave us about nonintervention and nonentangling alliances. It will do more to serve the cause of peace and prosperity than any other single change of any policy we could have here in this Congress.

2003 Ron Paul 111:50
I am a little bit encouraged, though, about the fact that the debate may be shifting. In the Congress, not yet. Not yet. There are not too many supporters, and I know that, for nonintervention, for a constitutional foreign policy, to looking to the Founders. It is considered old-fashioned, and that truths do not stay so static, and times are different, and we have this obligation, and all the reasons why we have this moral obligation to go about the world. But where I am encouraged is outside of this place, where the American people are getting concerned.

2003 Ron Paul 111:51
I would bet if we had a referendum in this country today with this $87 billion, I will tell you where I think that vote would have come down. I bet the American people would not have voted for it. I am convinced of that. But just yesterday, there was an announcement of a group that has organized that I find very fascinating and very encouraging. This group is called Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy.

2003 Ron Paul 111:52
I have a copy of their statement of principles. More than 100 individuals are involved, mostly professors and other academicians and think-tank people. I do not know if there are any politicians in there. Hopefully, no politicians will be involved. But this is important. This is important because they want to get together and try to change the tone and the nature of the debate. Now, are they liberals or are they conservatives? Are they libertarian or are they constitutionalists? All of them. It is a mixture. They do not want just the liberal flavor or just the right-wing conservative flavor. It is anybody who is willing to sit down and talk about the disadvantage, the practical disadvantage of this road to empire and why we come up on the short end and that this moral obligation of us policing the world really is not a wise idea.

2003 Ron Paul 111:53
I want to read a little bit from their statement of principles. It says: “We are a diverse group of scholars and analysts from across the political spectrum who believe that the move toward empire must be halted immediately. The need for a change in direction is particularly urgent because imperial policies can quickly gain momentum with new interventions begetting new dangers, and thus the demand for further actions. If current trends are allowed to continue, we may well end up with an empire that most Americans, especially those whose sons and daughters are or will be sent into harm’s way, don’t really favor.

2003 Ron Paul 111:54
“The American people have not embraced the idea of the American empire, and they are unlikely to do so. Since rebelling against the British Empire, Americans have resisted the imperial impulse, guided by the founders’ frequent warnings that republic and empire are incompatible. Empire is problematic because it subverts the freedoms and liberties of freedoms at home while simultaneously thwarting the will of the people abroad. An imperial strategy threatens to entangle America in an assortment of unnecessary and unrewarding wars.

2003 Ron Paul 111:55
“There are ominous signs that the strategy of empire has already begun to erode our fundamental rights and liberties. More and more power is being claimed by the executive branch. And on the economic front,” which is important in my argument, “on the economic front, an imperial strategy threatens to weaken us as a Nation, overextending and bleeding the economy and straining our military and Federal budgets.”

2003 Ron Paul 111:56
Further reading on from the Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy: “The defenders of empire assert that the horrific acts of terrorism on September 11 demand that we assume new financial burdens to fund an expensive national security strategy, relax our commitment to individual liberty at home, and discard our respect for stated sovereignty abroad. Nothing could be further from the truth. Following 9– 11, we should have refocused our attention on the very threats facing us in the 21st century. As a nation, we must not allow the events of 9–11 to be used as a pretext for reshaping American foreign policy in a manner inconsistent with our traditions and values and contrary to our interests.”

2003 Ron Paul 111:57
And that is basically a brief outline of the principles of the Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy.

2003 Ron Paul 111:58
We have been told by some of our leaders that standing up for good against evil is very hard work and it costs a lot of money and blood, but they have gone on to say we are willing to pay. These are the politicians. This has been true for thousands of years. The politicians are always grandiose in their goals and their schemes and their plans for what they think is best for the world, and they are always willing to pay with dollars and blood.

2003 Ron Paul 111:59
But the politician never pays. Politicians here on the floor who are so anxious to go, many of them have not served, and many of them would not be very anxious to be serving over there. It is the politicians who promote the wars that rarely serve. The only way that anybody on this floor should ever vote to send our troops into harm’s way is they should look at it in a very personal way. They should look at it in the sense of what would it be like if I would go there and I would be carrying a rifle on the front line, or I would be a target for some sniper. Do I want to be there? Is it worth that? Or would I send my son to do that, or would I send my grandson or my granddaughter to that type of danger?

2003 Ron Paul 111:60
It has to be personalized. Because if it is just, oh, we are willing to pay. Where does the money come from? We are flat-out broke. We have had the biggest deficit ever. Our dollar is going down on the market, and we are now assuming more liabilities. When we spend $87 billion in Iraq, that is literally taken out of our economy. Imagine how many jobs and how much improvement on the standard of living of Americans could occur with $87 billion, and at the same time believe sincerely that a policy of nonintervention would be the best policy for peace and prosperity.

2003 Ron Paul 111:61
I do not know how anybody could reject that policy. It is fantastic. It is the policy of free people. It is not the policy of empire. It is not the policy of imperialism.

2003 Ron Paul 111:62
But I am going to win this argument. Not because I am persuasive. I will win this argument that we have gone too far and have overextended. Sadly, I will win this argument because we are going to go broke. Because all great nations who believe that they can spread their will around the world, they always overextend; and then it virtually always leads to the debasement of the currency.

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.

2003 Ron Paul 111:64
We should have greater faith and greater confidence in freedom. Freedom works. And that was the message of the Founders. That is the message of the Constitution. But we have lost our confidence. We have lost our way. We cannot even have one single problem exist throughout the country without coming here for another law.

2003 Ron Paul 111:65
I think it is time that free people gain some confidence, believing sincerely that we will all be better off, we will all be more prosperous, we will all be much freer, and we will all be much safer. And then, when we achieve that, then I believe other countries of the world will have a stronger desire to emulate us, rather than hate us.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 112

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Congratulations On LaGrange Noon Lion’s Club’s 75th Anniversary
21 October 2003

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, October 21, 2003


2003 Ron Paul 112:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the LaGrange Noon Lion’s Club on the occasion of their 75th anniversary. Since its founding, the LaGrange Noon Lion’s Club has been a cornerstone of charitable service to its community. I am therefore pleased to submit this proclamation honoring the LaGrange Noon Lion’s Club into the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.

2003 Ron Paul 112:2
CONGRESSIONAL PROCLAMATION, LA GRANGE
NOON LION’S CLUB 75TH ANNIVERSARY
Whereas, the LaGrange Noon Lion’s Club serves the citizens of LaGrange, Fayette County, the great state of Texas and the United States of America, AND

2003 Ron Paul 112:3
Whereas, the La Grange Noon Lion’s Club gives of their time freely for the betterment of mankind, having a membership of anonymous individual philanthropists, AND

2003 Ron Paul 112:4
Whereas, the International Association of Lion’s Clubs all over the world offer charitable hope to the blind, provide services for youth, disabled and victims of disaster, of which the Noon Lion’s Club is a subsidiary

2003 Ron Paul 112:5
Therefore, on behalf of the United States House of Representatives and the Constituents of District 14 in Texas, I, Representative Ron Paul, do hereby proclaim October 12–18, 2003 the 75th Anniversary Week of the La Grange Noon Lions Club.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 113

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Congress Shouldn’t Censor Foreign Leaders
28 October 2003

2003 Ron Paul 113:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise with great concerns over this legislation — both over its content and what it represents. First, I think it is absurd that the U.S. Congress believes it has the responsibility and authority to rectify the inappropriate statements of individuals in foreign countries. Have we moved beyond meddling in the internal affairs of foreign countries — as bad as that is — to even meddling in the very thoughts and words of foreign leaders and citizens? It is the obligation of the U.S. Congress to correct the “wrong thoughts” of others that have nothing to do with the United States? Additionally, is it our place to demand that other sovereign states, such as the members of the European Union, react as we say they must to certain international events?

2003 Ron Paul 113:2
More troubling than what is stated in this legislation, however, is the kind of thinking that this approach represents. The purpose of this legislation is to punish inappropriate thoughts and speech — to free debate on difficult topics and issues. In this, it contains a whiff of totalitarian thinking. This legislation advances the disturbing idea that condemnatory speech that does not explicitly incite violence is nevertheless inherently dangerous. It asserts that even debating controversial topics inevitably leads to violence. This is absurd on its face: it is only debate that leads us to come to understandings over controversial topics without violence. That is why nations engage in diplomacy.

2003 Ron Paul 113:3
Those who feel aggrieved over an issue can either broach the issue through discussion and debate or they can attempt to address the grievance through the barrel of a gun. Which is preferable? I think the answer is self-evident. Once persuasion is taken from the realm of possibility, the only approach left to address grievances is violence.

2003 Ron Paul 113:4
Is the prime minister of Malaysia wrong in his statements? Debate him. Invite him to one of the various multilateral gatherings with someone who disagrees with him and have a debate and discussion over the issue. This approach is much more likely to result in a peaceful resolution of the dispute than what we are doing here: a blanket condemnation and a notice that certain difficult issues are not subject to any inappropriate thoughts or statements. This is chilling for a nation that prides itself on its tradition of protecting even the most distasteful of speech.

2003 Ron Paul 113:5
Dr. Mahathir has long been known for his statements on the Middle East. His views are no secret. Yet even President Bush, who invited Prime Minister Mahathir to Washington in May, 2003, chose the path of debate over blanket condemnation. President Bush said at a joint press conference that, “we’ll also talk about the Middle East, and I look forward to hearing from the Prime Minister on the Middle East. So we’ll have a good discussion.” Abandoning our beliefs and traditions — especially those regarding the right to hold and express even abhorrent thoughts and ideas — when it comes to our foreign relations is hardly the best way to show the rest of the world the strength of our system and way of life.

2003 Ron Paul 113:6
A careful reading of the prime minister’s speech did not find any explicit calls for violence. Actually, Dr. Mahathir called for Muslims around the world to cease using violence to seek their goals. He stated, “is there no other way than to ask our young people to blow themselves up and kill people and invite the massacre of more of our own people?” Also, he advises against “revenge” attacks and urges Muslims to “win [the] hearts and minds” of non-Muslims including “Jews...who do not approve of what the Israelis are doing.” While we may agree or disagree with the cause that Dr. Mahathir espouses, the fact that he calls for non-violent means to achieve his goals is to be commended rather than condemned. This is not to agree with every aspect of his address — and certainly not to agree with some of the ridiculous statements contained therein — but rather to caution against the kind of blanket condemnation that this legislation represents. Do we not also agree with his words that Muslim violence in the Middle East has been counterproductive? President Bush himself in May invited Dr. Mahathir to the White House to, in the president’s words, “publicly thank the Prime Minister for his strong support in the war against terror.”

2003 Ron Paul 113:7
I strongly believe that we need to get out of the business of threatening people over what they think and say and instead trust that our own principles, freedom and liberty, can win out in the marketplace of ideas over bigotry and hate. When the possibility of persuasion is abandoned, the only recourse for the aggrieved is violence. Haven’t we seen enough of this already?

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 114

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Expressing Gratitude To Members Of The U.S. Armed Forces Deployed In Operation Restore Hope In Somalia In 1993
28 October 2003

SPEECH OF
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, October 28, 2003


2003 Ron Paul 114:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I voted in favor of this legislation because I do believe it is important to express our gratitude to our armed forces, and particularly to remember those who lost their lives in Somalia in Operation Restore Hope. Indeed, members of our armed forces have been asked to make extraordinary sacrifices in this post Cold War era, as US military presence across the globe has, despite what many of us hoped, increased significantly and military deployments into hostile situations have also increased.

2003 Ron Paul 114:2
Mr. Speaker, while I do want to join those praising members of our armed forces, I must point out that legislation like H. Con. Res. 291 is dishonest and actually disrespectful to our military. It is obvious that praising the soldiers is only one small part of this legislation. Under cover of this praise is an attempt to re-write history and to praise a foreign policy that sends our military into useless and meaningless battle zones, like Somalia, where they are asked to fight and die for a cause completely unrelated to the US national interest. It is shameful for legislators to wrap themselves in the sacrifice of our troops in praise of a policy that does not serve the United States and ends up getting these same troops killed and maimed.

2003 Ron Paul 114:3
The legislation states, falsely, that our failed Somali nation-building fiasco was somehow related to the war against terrorism. This attempt at revisionist history is more than dishonest: it is likely interventions like these actually increased resentment of the US and may have even led to more recruits to terrorist organizations.

2003 Ron Paul 114:4
This legislation expresses gratitude for our troops’ “provid[ing] humanitarian assistance to the people of Somalia in 1993.” I see nowhere in our Constitution a provision that allows the United States armed forces to be used for the purpose of “provid[ing] humanitarian assistance” to any foreign country or people. Our armed forces are to be used in defense of our homeland. Period. So I am deeply disturbed by legislation such as this. Yes, we must honor troops, but we cannot honor a foreign policy that sends them into harm’s way for “nation-building” or “humanitarian assistance” or any other reason not directly related to the defense of the United States. I hope the next time we see legislation congratulating the brave service of our armed forces it is more honest. Our servicemembers deserve at least this, do they not?

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 115

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Encouraging People’s Republic Of China To Fulfill Commitments Under International Trade Agreements, Support United States Manufacturing Sector, And Establish Monetary And Financial Market Reforms
29 october 2003

SPEECH OF
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, October 29, 2003


2003 Ron Paul 115:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, like all Americans, I am concerned about the loss of jobs in America’s manufacturing sector and the role currency manipulation plays in that loss. For many years, I have warned my colleagues that America’s monetary policy is endangering America’s economy. The economic difficulties currently facing this country are a classic example of the harm resulting from a boom-andbust cycle caused by an inflationary monetary policy. An open debate on monetary issues is therefore long overdue.

2003 Ron Paul 115:2
However, instead of debating America’s monetary policy, we are debating China’s monetary policy. Specifically, the goal of this resolution is to pressure China to change the valuation of its currency. Whatever short-term benefit our manufacturers may gain from this action, the policies urged today are not in the long-term interest of the American people.

2003 Ron Paul 115:3
In arguing for fluctuating rates, the backers of H. Res. 414 are demanding that the Chinese Government adopt an irrational policy. A sound economy requires a sound and dependable unit of economic measurement. Yet, by definition, under fluctuating rates the currency, which serves as the basic unit of economic measurement, will not be sound and dependable. Instead, that value will change depending on the whims of politicians and the perceived economic needs of politically powerful special interests.

2003 Ron Paul 115:4
China, in fact, has done very well with a fixed measurement of value. China’s economic growth rate is high; China is also exporting many products into our market while our domestic producers are suffering. Therefore, China makes a good scapegoat for our economic problems. Demanding that the Chinese government adjust its currency is a convenient distraction from addressing the real economic problems facing our country.

2003 Ron Paul 115:5
Instead of having fluctuating currency exchange rates and the inevitable instability that accompanies them, we should be working to establish a gold-backed currency whose value is determined by the market. This would provide an objective measurement of the value of economic goods and services and thus strengthen the economy by freeing it from the negative effects of our unstable monetary policy.

2003 Ron Paul 115:6
I would also urge my colleagues to consider the benefits we receive from our relationship with China. Of course, consumers benefit from lower-priced goods. Adopting the policy urged by supporters of this bill would cause consumer prices to increase, thus reducing consumers wealth. Other producers would suffer as a result of the consumers decreased purchasing power. — While there is not an organized lobby arguing against the-policy recommendations of H. Res. 414, I doubt many of our constituents want us to increase the prices they pay for goods and services.

2003 Ron Paul 115:7
Congress should also consider how the Chinese benefit the United States Government by holding our debt. The dollars the Chinese acquire by selling us goods and services must be returned to the United States. Since the Chinese are not buying an equivalent amount of American goods and services, they are using the dollars to finance our extravagant spending.

2003 Ron Paul 115:8
In fact, Mr. Speaker, our ability to continue to fund the welfare-warfare state without destroying the American economy depends on foreigners buying our debt. Perhaps we should think twice before we start bullying and browbeating our foreign creditors to change their economic or other polices to our liking.

2003 Ron Paul 115:9
H. Res. 414’s underlying premise is that sovereign countries have a duty to fashion economic policies that benefit the United States and it is a proper concern of Congress if these countries fail to do so. H. Res. 414 attempts to justify Congressional interference in the internal economic affairs of China by claiming that China is not living up to its obligations as a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO). I would remind my colleagues that the WTO has oftentimes ruled against the United States and Congress is right now changing United States tax laws to please the WTO. Ceding control over United States tax and trade policy to this international organization violates the United States Constitution and is contrary to the interests of American citizens. Therefore, it is not wise to endorse the WTO process by encouraging other countries to submit to WTO control.

2003 Ron Paul 115:10
Instead of promoting global economic government, the United States Congress should reform those policies that reduce our manufacturers’ competitiveness. Recently, a financial journalist visited with businessmen who are launching new enterprises in China. When he asked them why they chose to invest in China, they answered: “It is so much easier to start a business in China than in the United States, especially in places like Massachusetts and California.” This answer should send a clear message to every lawmaker in America: the taxes and regulations imposed on American businesses are damaging economic growth and killing jobs. If we were serious about creating jobs, we would be working on an aggressive agenda of cutting taxes and repealing needless regulations.

2003 Ron Paul 115:11
Congress can also improve America’s competitive position by ending the practice of forcing American workers to subsidize their foreign competitors through organizations such as the Export-Import Bank and the International Monetary Fund. I have introduced the Steel Financing Fairness Act (H.R. 3072) to accomplish this goal. H.R. 3072 prevents taxpayer funds from being sent to countries, such as China, that subsidize their steel industries. Of course, our ultimate goal should be to end all taxpayer subsidies of foreign corporations and governments.

2003 Ron Paul 115:12
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleagues that stability in currencies is something we should seek, not something we should condemn Instead of urging China to adopt a floating rate, Congress should be working to adopt a stable, commodity-backed currency whose value is determined by the market and encourage other countries to also adopt a market-based currency. This will benefit American workers, entrepreneurs, and consumers. Congress should also strengthen America’s economy by reducing taxes and repealing unnecessary and unconstitutional regulations and stop forcing American taxpayers to subsidize their foreign competitors.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 116

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Conference Report On H.R. 1588 National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Yeas 2004
7 November 2003

SPEECH OF
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Friday, November 7, 2003


2003 Ron Paul 116:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, while I am pleased to see that this conference report has addressed the issue of concurrent receipt, I note with dismay that the provision as included in the report is inadequate. It will leave hundreds of thousands of veterans out in the cold, many of whom will likely not live long enough to benefit from this unacceptable pseudo-solution.

2003 Ron Paul 116:2
This provision will allow only those 20-year retiree combat-disabled veterans to receive concurrent receipt, which completely ignores that many if not most soldiers who are combat- disabled do not remain in the military for 20 years. Upon becoming disabled they are discharged from the military. This means that, according to some estimates, two-thirds of disabled veterans will be left behind by this provision. In this, the provision is a slap in the face of our veterans.

2003 Ron Paul 116:3
Additionally, the 10 year phase-in of concurrent receipt for the remaining who are at least 50 percent disabled effectively means that thousands of our veterans — particularly those of the World War II and Korea generations — will not live to receive this earned and deserved benefit.

2003 Ron Paul 116:4
Mr. Speaker, we need to make our veterans and our soldiers our top priority. We have entered into a contract with each of them. They have done their part and are doing their part every day — in conflicts across the globe including the increasingly deadly Iraq occupation. We must keep our end of the contract. I am sad to note that provisions like this watered- down concurrent receipt are not in keeping with our end of the contract.

2003 Ron Paul 116:5
I also must object to the procedure in bringing this conference report to the Floor. We were once again given only hours to read a conference report that ran hundreds and hundreds of pages. This is a disturbing pattern that seems to surface when we are required to vote on controversial legislation. Are Members not anymore supposed to at least review legislation before voting?

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 117

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Redrawing Coastal Barrier Resources Map
17 November 2003

2003 Ron Paul 117:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support S. 1066, the Senate version of my H.R. 154, which I introduced on the first day of the 108th Congress. This legislation fixes a mistake in the official Fish and Wildlife Services’ maps by removing a 19-acre area known as Matagorda Dunes, in Matagorda County, Texas, from the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources Act (COBRA). This change is fully supported by the Fish and Wildlife Service. In fact, a Fish and Wildlife Service created map, dated July 12, 2002, acknowledges the error.

2003 Ron Paul 117:2
This change will ensure property owners who had already begun developing this area are able to obtain insurance. Congress never intended to deny these landowners access to insurance. Matagorda Dunes was included in COBRA as a result of a drafting error when the COBRA maps were revised in the early eighties. Unless this mistake is fixed, the result could be catastrophic for these property owners who invested in developing Matagorda Dunes under the belief that the land was excluded from COBRA. A failure to fix this mistake could also be quite costly to the American taxpayers.

2003 Ron Paul 117:3
Fixing this mistake is also quite important to the people of Matagorda County, which is why a county official traveled to Washington to testify at a hearing on this bill in September. In conclusion, I thank Chairman POMBO and my colleague from Texas, Senator HUTCHISON, for their work on this issue and I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

2003 Ron Paul 117:4
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 118

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Best Energy Policy Is The Free Market
18 November 2003

2003 Ron Paul 118:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today we are once again voting to take our Nation further down the path toward a system of centralized Federal planning of our energy supply. The very notion of a national energy policy is collectivist; it assumes that an energy supply would not exist without a government plan. Yet basic economics teaches us that nothing could be further from the truth.

2003 Ron Paul 118:2
The best energy policy is the free market! Energy is no different than any other commodity — free market, competition produces the most efficient allocation of resources. In a true free market, conservation of scarce energy resources occurs naturally. When coal, natural gas, or other nonrenewable sources are depleted, the price goes up. When alternative energy sources like wind and solar become economically feasible, demand for such sources arises naturally. There is always a natural market for clean and cheap energy. Only an unregulated free market creates the environment that allows critical technological innovation to flourish, innovation that holds the key to cheaper and cleaner energy.

2003 Ron Paul 118:3
The approach we take today, however, distorts the market and favors certain industries and companies at the expense of American taxpayers.

2003 Ron Paul 118:4
It’s always the same old story in Washington: instead of allowing the free market to work, Congress regulates, subsidizes, and taxes an industry, and when inevitable problems arise, the free market is blamed! The solution is always more Federal intervention; no one suggests that too much Federal involvement created the problems in the first place.

2003 Ron Paul 118:5
Let me provide just a few examples of the most egregious, wasteful spending measures and corporate subsidies contained in this legislation: It spends even more than the President requested; it provides $90 million in subsidies for hydroelectric power plants; it provides $500 million for research and development of Biomass; it authorizes almost $2 billion for the Energy Department to do what the private sector would if it was profitable — develop hydrogen cars; it allows FERC to use eminent domain to ride roughshod over State and local governments; it increases failed ethanol subsidies to favored agribusiness companies, while providing liability protection for those companies; it requires States to reduce energy consumption by 25 percent in 2010, including States with growing populations like Texas; it forces taxpayers to guarantee loans for pipeline projects, despite the easy availability of cheap credit; it spends $20 million for the Labor Department to recruit and train Alaskan employees to build a new pipeline; and it authorizes the Energy Department to create efficiency standards for vending machines!

2003 Ron Paul 118:6
Mr. Speaker, this conference report represents the usual pork, subsidies, protectionism, and regulations that already distort our energy markets. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote “no” on this terrible bill.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 119

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Don’t Meddle With Religion In Vietnam
19 November 2003

2003 Ron Paul 119:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this ill-conceived and ill-timed bill. I would like to remind my colleagues that according to our own Constitution, Congress is prohibited from making any law “respecting the establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof.” Yet are we not doing that today — albeit in a country some 10,000 miles away? Why on earth are we commending one particular church in Vietnam in the name of “religious freedom”? At the risk of being blunt, what business is the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam of the United States Congress? The answer, of course, is that this legislation is of a much more political than a religious nature: this bill tells the Vietnamese government how it should enforce its own constitution, commits the United States government to promoting religious freedom in Vietnam, and tells the U.S. embassy staff in Vietnam to “closely monitor” religious issues in Vietnam. It is an attempt to meddle in the affairs of Vietnam and force them to adopt the kinds of laws we think they should have. Mr. Speaker, as much as we value our own religious liberty, we must realize that setting the example of the benefits of a society that values such liberty is much more effective than demanding that other countries pass the kinds of laws we want them to pass. The unintended consequences of this otherwise well-meaning legislation is that relations with the Vietnamese government will likely suffer, making it less likely that Vietnam’s leaders look favorably upon our own history of religious liberty.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 120

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Advancing Religious Freedom Worldwide Not Our Job
19 November 2003

2003 Ron Paul 120:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this legislation but want to make it clear that I am not doing so because I oppose religious freedom, as one might falsely conclude from the way this bill is crafted. My concerns with this bill are the same concerns I raise whenever Congress attempts to act in areas in which it has no constitutional authority: under the guise of promoting a laudable cause — religious freedom — this legislation seeks to impose our views of this topic on other sovereign nations. In short, it is yet another example of the U.S. meddling in the affairs of other countries.

2003 Ron Paul 120:2
Mr. Speaker, as Americans we have a special attachment to the idea of religious freedom. That is the reason many of our ancestors came to this land and fought for independence. But I don’t think the way to advance religious freedom around the world is to demand that every country adopt our approach. I believe that so demanding will only engender ill-will toward the United States and, ironically, increased resistance to this idea. People generally to not like being told by foreign countries what to do or how they can worship. I believe the best way we can promote the idea of religious liberty abroad is to serve as a working, living example of the benefits of liberty. The United States has been admired historically in other countries because our system of government demonstrates the economic and other benefits of liberty. That is why other nations seek to emulate the United States, not because we demand that their religious laws conform to our notions of what is acceptable.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 121

Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Conference Report On H.R. 2417 Intelligence Authorization Act For Fiscal year 2004
20 November 2003

SPEECH OF
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, November 20, 2003


2003 Ron Paul 121:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise with great concerns over the Intelligence Authorization Conference Report. I do not agree that Members of Congress should vote in favor of an authorization that most know almost nothing about — including the most basic issue of the level of funding.

2003 Ron Paul 121:2
What most concerns me about this conference report, though, is something that should outrage every single American citizen. am referring to the stealth addition of language drastically expanding FBI powers to secretly and without court order snoop into the business and financial transactions of American citizens. These expanded internal police powers will enable the FBI to demand transaction records from businesses, including auto dealers, travel agents, pawnbrokers and more, without the approval or knowledge of a judge or grand jury. This was written into the bill at the 11th hour over the objections of members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which would normally have jurisdiction over the FBI. The Judiciary Committee was frozen out of the process. It appears we are witnessing a stealth enactment of the enormously unpopular “Patriot II” legislation that was first leaked several months ago. Perhaps the national outcry when a draft of the Patriot II act was leaked has led its supporters to enact it one piece at a time in secret. Whatever the case, this is outrageous and unacceptable. I urge each of my colleagues to join me in rejecting this bill and its incredibly dangerous expansion of Federal police powers.

2003 Ron Paul 121:3
I also have concerns about the rest of the bill. One of the few things we do know about this final version is that we are authorizing even more than the president has requested for the intelligence community. The intelligence budget seems to grow every year, but we must ask what we are getting for our money. It is notoriously difficult to assess the successes of our intelligence apparatus, and perhaps it is unfair that we only hear about its failures and shortcomings. However, we cannot help but be concerned over several such failures in recent years. Despite the tens of billions we spend on these myriad intelligence agencies, it is impossible to ignore the failure of our federal intelligence community to detect and prevent the September 11 attacks. Additionally, it is becoming increasingly obvious that our intelligence community failed completely to accurately assess the nature of the Iraqi threat. These are by any measure grave failures, costing us incalculably in human lives and treasure. Yet from what little we can know about this bill, the solution is to fund more of the same. I would hope that we might begin coming up with new approaches to our intelligence needs, perhaps returning to an emphasis on the proven value of human intelligence and expanded linguistic capabilities for our intelligence personnel.

2003 Ron Paul 121:4
I am also concerned that our scarce resources are again being squandered pursuing a failed drug war in Colombia, as this bill continues to fund our disastrous Colombia policy. Billions of dollars have been spent in Colombia to fight this drug war, yet more drugs than ever are being produced abroad and shipped into the United States — including a bumper crop of opium sent by our new allies in Afghanistan. Evidence in South America suggests that any decrease in Colombian production of drugs for the US market has only resulted in increased production in neighboring countries. As I have stated repeatedly, the solution to the drug problem lies not in attacking the producers abroad or in creating a militarized police state to go after the consumers at home, but rather in taking a close look at our seemingly insatiable desire for these substances. Until that issue is addressed we will continue wasting billions of dollars in a losing battle.

2003 Ron Paul 121:5
In conclusion, I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting this dangerous and expensive bill.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 122

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

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
November 21, 2003
Say No To Involuntary Servitude


2003 Ron Paul 122:1
The ultimate cost of war is almost always the loss of liberty.  True defensive wars and revolutionary wars against tyrants may preserve or establish a free society, as did our war against the British.  But these wars are rare.  Most wars are unnecessary, dangerous, and cause senseless suffering with little being gained.  The result of most conflicts throughout the ages has been loss of liberty and life on both sides.  The current war in which we find ourselves clearly qualifies as one of those unnecessary and dangerous wars.  To get the people to support ill-conceived wars, the nation’s leaders employ grand schemes of deception.

2003 Ron Paul 122:2
Woodrow Wilson orchestrated our entry into World War I by first promising during the election of 1916 to keep us out of the European conflict, then a few months later pressuring and maneuvering Congress into declaring war against Germany.  Whether it was the Spanish American War before that or all the wars since, U.S. presidents have deceived the people to gain popular support for ill-conceived military ventures.  Wilson wanted the war and immediately demanded conscription to fight it.   He didn’t have the guts even to name the program a military draft; instead in a speech before Congress calling for war he advised the army should be “chosen upon the principle of universal liability to service.”   Most Americans at the time of the declaration didn’t believe actual combat troops would be sent.  What a dramatic change from this early perception, when the people endorsed the war, to the carnage that followed – and the later disillusionment with Wilson and his grand scheme for world government under the League of Nations.   The American people rejected this gross new entanglement, a reflection of a somewhat healthier age than the one we find ourselves in today.

2003 Ron Paul 122:3
But when it comes to war, the principle of deception lives on. The plan for “universal liability to serve” once again is raising its ugly head.   The dollar cost of the current war is already staggering, yet plans are being made to drastically expand the human cost by forcing conscription on the young men (and maybe women) who have no ax to grind with the Iraqi people and want no part of this fight.

2003 Ron Paul 122:4
Hundreds of Americans have already been killed, and thousands more wounded and crippled, while thousands of others will experience new and deadly war related illnesses not yet identified.

2003 Ron Paul 122:5
We were told we had to support this pre-emptive war against Iraq because Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction (and to confront al Qaeda).   It was said our national security depended on it.  But all these dangers were found not to exist in Iraq.   It was implied that lack of support for this Iraqi invasion was un-American and unpatriotic.

2003 Ron Paul 122:6
Since the original reasons for the war never existed, it is now claimed that we’re there to make Iraq a western-style democracy and to spread western values.  And besides, it’s argued, it’s nice that Saddam Hussein has been removed from power.   But does the mere existence of evil somewhere in the world justify preemptive war at the expense of the American people?  Utopian dreams, fulfilled by autocratic means, hardly qualify as being morally justifiable.

2003 Ron Paul 122:7
These after-the-fact excuses for invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation direct attention away from the charge that the military industrial complex encouraged this war. It was encouraged by war profiteering, a desire to control natural resources (oil), and a Neo-con agenda of American hegemony with the goal of redrawing the borders of the countries of the Middle East.

2003 Ron Paul 122:8
The inevitable failure of such a seriously flawed foreign policy cannot be contemplated by those who have put so much energy into this occupation.   The current quagmire prompts calls from many for escalation, with more troops being sent to Iraq.  Many of our reservists and National Guardsmen cannot wait to get out and have no plans to re-enlist.  The odds are that our policy of foreign intervention, which has been with us for many decades, is not likely to soon change.  The dilemma of how to win an un-winnable war is the issue begging for an answer.

2003 Ron Paul 122:9
To get more troops, the draft will likely be reinstated.  The implicit prohibition of “involuntary servitude” under the 13th Amendment to the Constitution has already been ignored many times so few will challenge the constitutionality of the coming draft.

2003 Ron Paul 122:10
Unpopular wars invite conscription.  Volunteers disappear, as well they should.  A truly defensive just war prompts popular support.  A conscripted, unhappy soldier is better off on the long run than the slaves of old since the “enslavement” is only temporary.  But in the short run the draft may well turn out to be more deadly and degrading, as one is forced to commit life and limb to a less than worthy cause – like teaching democracy to unwilling and angry Arabs.   Slaves were safer in that their owners had an economic interest in protecting their lives.  Endangering the lives of our soldiers is acceptable policy, and that’s why they are needed.  Too often, though, our men and women who are exposed to the hostilities of war and welcomed initially are easily forgotten after the fighting ends.  Soon afterward, the injured and the sick are ignored and forgotten.

2003 Ron Paul 122:11
It is said we go about the world waging war to promote peace, and yet the price paid is rarely weighed against the failed efforts to make the world a better place.  Justifying conscription to promote the cause of liberty is one of the most bizarre notions ever conceived by man!  Forced servitude, with the risk of death and serious injury as a price to live free, makes no sense.  What right does anyone have to sacrifice the lives of others for some cause of questionable value?  Even if well motivated it can’t justify using force on uninterested persons.  

2003 Ron Paul 122:12
It’s said that the 18 year old owes it to his country.  Hogwash!  It just as easily could be argued that a 50 year-old chicken-hawk, who promotes war and places the danger on innocent young people, owes a heck of a lot more to the country than the 18 year-old being denied his liberty for a cause that has no justification.

2003 Ron Paul 122:13
All drafts are unfair.  All 18 and 19 year olds are never drafted.  By its very nature a draft must be discriminatory.  All drafts hit the most vulnerable young people, as the elites learn quickly how to avoid the risks of combat.

2003 Ron Paul 122:14
The dollar cost of war and the economic hardship is great in all wars and cannot be minimized.  War is never economically beneficial except for those in position to profit from war expenditures.  The great tragedy of war is the careless disregard for civil liberties of our own people.   Abuses of German and Japanese Americans in World War I and World War II are well known.

2003 Ron Paul 122:15
But the real sacrifice comes with conscription – forcing a small number of youngvulnerable citizens to fight the wars that older men and women, who seek glory in military victory without themselves being exposed to danger, promote.   These are wars with neither purpose nor moral justification, and too often not even declared by the Congress.

2003 Ron Paul 122:16
Without conscription, unpopular wars are much more difficult to fight.   Once the draft was undermined in the 1960s and early 1970s, the Vietnam War came to an end.  But most importantly, liberty cannot be preserved by tyranny.  A free society must always resort to volunteers.  Tyrants thinks nothing of forcing men to fight and serve in wrongheaded wars; a true fight for survival and defense of America would elicit, I’m sure, the assistance of every able-bodied man and woman.  This is not the case for wars of mischief far away from home in which we so often have found ourselves in the past century.

2003 Ron Paul 122:17
One of the worst votes that an elected official could ever cast would be to institute a military draft to fight an illegal war, if that individual himself maneuvered to avoid military service.  But avoiding the draft on principle qualifies oneself to work hard to avoid all unnecessary war and oppose the draft for all others.

2003 Ron Paul 122:18
A government that is willing to enslave a portion of its people to fight an unjust war can never be trusted to protect the liberties of its own citizens.  The ends can never justify the means, no matter what the Neo-cons say.

2003 Ron Paul Chapter 123

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

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
December 8, 2003
Whose Peace?


2003 Ron Paul 123:1
Much has been written lately about several attempts to craft an alternative peace plan in the decades-old Israeli-Palestinian dispute. The best known of these recent plans - the “Geneva Initiative” -was conceived and written by representatives of both sides of the conflict, but without the involvement of governments or politicians. As such, it is a fresh approach that should provide a lesson to those who continue to believe that peace is something that can only be crafted by government officials, or bribed and bullied by the “international community”.

2003 Ron Paul 123:2
We do know this: after decades of conflict and tens of billions of US taxpayer dollars spent, US government involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process has led nowhere. The latest US government-initiated plan for peace, the “road map,” appears to be a map to nowhere. This does not surprise me much. With a seemingly endless amount of money to bribe the leaders of the two opposing sides to remain engaged in the process, is it any wonder why the two parties never arrive at peace?

2003 Ron Paul 123:3
But people on both sides are becoming more and more frustrated with the endless impasse and endless government and bureaucrat-written peace agreements that go nowhere.

2003 Ron Paul 123:4
That is why plans like this should be of such interest. Initially conceived by an obscure Swiss professor, the project was joined by former Israeli Justice Minister Yossi Beilin, former Palestinian Authority Information Minister Yasser Abed Rabbo, and by other prominent individuals like former president Jimmy Carter. The negotiations led to the creation of a 50 page detailed accord.

2003 Ron Paul 123:5
I do not know whether the product is perfect. I have not studied the minute details of the proposal. But what I do know is that politicians, governments, and special interests promote war at the expense of those who have to fight them. Wars end when the victims finally demand peace. And that is what we are beginning to see. According to one recent survey, a majority among both the Israeli and Palestinian population support this new initiative. That is encouraging.

2003 Ron Paul 123:6
To his credit, President Bush has demonstrated an open mind toward this alternative approach. He declared the Geneva Initiative “productive,” and added that the United States “appreciates people discussing peace.” Secretary of State Colin Powell echoed the president when he resisted hard-line pressure to ignore the proposed accord, stating, “I have an obligation to listen to individuals who have interesting ideas.” This is also encouraging.

2003 Ron Paul 123:7
Predictably, though, this new approach is not as welcomed by those-- governments, politicians, and special interests-- who have a stake in dragging out the process indefinitely. Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat has been lukewarm at best. Extremist Arab organizations that have a special interest in continuing the violence have also rejected the Geneva Initiative. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has rejected the Initiative out of hand. Said Mr. Sharon: “Geneva is an attempt to do something only a government can do.”

2003 Ron Paul 123:8
But the point is that governments have little incentive to finally end conflicts such as these. The United States is in places like Kosovo and Bosnia indefinitely in the name of “peace-keeping” and “peace processes”. The same will be true of our involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq.  It is not until foreign involvement ceases — that means our continued meddling in the Middle East — and the people involved demand peace that real working solutions begin to emerge. The Geneva Initiative is therefore a positive step toward peace in the Middle East. Let us step back and get out of the way!