Volume 2004 — The Book of Ron Paul



2004 Ron Paul Chapter 1
Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
February 4, 2004 Congress Abandoned its Duty to Debate and Declare War

2004 Ron Paul 1:1
There is plenty of blame to go around for the mistakes made by going to war in Iraq, especially now that it is common knowledge Saddam Hussein told the truth about having no weapons of mass destruction, and that Al Qaida and 9/11 were in no way related to the Iraqi government.  

2004 Ron Paul 1:2
Our intelligence agencies failed for whatever reason this time, but their frequent failures should raise the question of whether or not secretly spending forty billion taxpayer dollars annually gathering bad information is a good investment.   The administration certainly failed us by making the decision to sacrifice so much in life and limb, by plunging us into this Persian Gulf quagmire that surely will last for years to come.

2004 Ron Paul 1:3
But before Congress gets too carried away with condemning the administration or the intelligence gathering agencies, it ought to look to itself.   A proper investigation and debate by this Congress — as we’re now scrambling to accomplish — clearly was warranted prior to any decision to go to war.   An open and detailed debate on a proper declaration of war certainly would have revealed that U.S. national security was not threatened — and the whole war could have been avoided.   Because Congress did not do that, it deserves the greatest criticism for its dereliction of duty.

2004 Ron Paul 1:4
There was a precise reason why the most serious decision made by a country — the decision to go to war — was assigned in our Constitution to the body closest to the people.   If we followed this charge I’m certain fewer wars would be fought, wide support would be achieved for just defensive wars, there would be less political finger-pointing if events went badly, and blame could not be placed on one individual or agency.   This process would more likely achieve victory, which has eluded us in recent decades.

2004 Ron Paul 1:5
The president reluctantly has agreed to support an independent commission to review our intelligence gathering failures, and that is good.   Cynics said nothing much would be achieved by studying pre-9/11 intelligence failures, but it looks like some objective criticisms will emerge from that inquiry.   We can hope for the best from this newly appointed commission.

2004 Ron Paul 1:6
But already we hear the inquiry will be deliberately delayed, limited to investigating only the failures of the intelligence agencies themselves, and may divert its focus to studying intelligence gathering related to North Korea and elsewhere.   If the commission avoids the central controversy — whether or not there was selective use of information or undue pressure put on the CIA to support a foregone conclusion to go to war by the administration — the commission will appear a sham.

2004 Ron Paul 1:7
Regardless of the results, the process of the inquiry is missing the most important point — the failure of Congress to meet its responsibility on the decision to go, or not go, to war.   The current mess was predictable from the beginning.   Unfortunately, Congress voluntarily gave up its prerogative over war and illegally transferred this power to the president in October of 2002.   The debate we are having now should have occurred here in the halls of Congress then.   We should have debated a declaration of war resolution.   Instead, Congress chose to transfer this decision-making power to the president to avoid the responsibility of making the hard choice of sending our young people into harms way, against a weak, third world country.   This the president did on his own, with congressional acquiescence.    The blame game has emerged only now that we are in the political season.   Sadly, the call for and the appointment of the commission is all part of this political process.

2004 Ron Paul 1:8
It is truly disturbing to see many who abdicated their congressional responsibility to declare or reject war, who timidly voted to give the president the power he wanted, now posturing as his harshest critics.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 2
Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
February 11, 2004 A Wise Consistency

2004 Ron Paul 2:1
A wise consistency is the foundation of a free society. Yet everyone knows, or thinks they know, that consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. How many times has Ralph Waldo Emerson been quoted to belittle a consistent philosophy defending freedom?   Even on this floor I have been rebuked by colleagues with this quote, for pointing out the shortcomings of Congress in not consistently and precisely following our oath to uphold the Constitution.  

2004 Ron Paul 2:2
The need to discredit consistency is endemic. It’s considered beneficial to be flexible and pragmatic while rejecting consistency; otherwise the self-criticism would be more than most Members could take. The comfort level of most politicians in D.C. requires an attitude that consistency not only is unnecessary, but detrimental. For this reason Emerson’s views are conveniently cited to justify pragmatism and arbitrary intervention in all our legislative endeavors.

2004 Ron Paul 2:3
Communism was dependent on firm, consistent, and evil beliefs. Authoritarian rule was required to enforce these views, however. Allowing alternative views to exist, as they always do, guarantees philosophic competition. For instance, the views in Hong Kong eventually won out over the old communism of the Chinese mainland. But it can work in the other direction. If the ideas of socialism, within the context of our free society, are permitted to raise their ugly head, it may well replace what we have, if we do not consistently and forcefully defend the free market and personal liberty.

2004 Ron Paul 2:4
It’s quite a distortion of Emerson’s views to use them as justification for the incoherent and nonsensical policies coming out of Washington today. But, the political benefits of not needing to be consistent are so overwhelming that there’s no interest in being philosophically consistent in one’s votes.   It is a welcome convenience to be able to support whatever seems best for the moment, the congressional district, or one’s political party. Therefore, it’s quite advantageous to cling to the notion that consistency is a hobgoblin. For this reason, statesmanship in D.C. has come to mean one’s willingness to give up one’s own personal beliefs in order to serve the greater good — whatever that is. But it is not possible to preserve the rule of law or individual liberty if our convictions are no stronger than this. Otherwise something will replace our republic that was so carefully designed by the Founders. That something is not known, but we can be certain it will be less desirable than what we have.

2004 Ron Paul 2:5
As for Emerson, he was not even talking about consistency in defending political views that were deemed worthy and correct. Emerson clearly explained the consistency he was criticizing. He was most annoyed by a foolish consistency. He attacked bull-headedness, believing that intellectuals should be more open-minded and tolerant of new ideas and discoveries. His attack targeted the flat-earth society types in the world of ideas. New information, he claimed, should always lead to reassessment of previous conclusions. To Emerson, being unwilling to admit an error and consistently defending a mistaken idea, regardless of facts, was indeed a foolish consistency. His reference was to a character trait, not sound logical thinking.

2004 Ron Paul 2:6
Since it’s proven that centralized control over education and medicine has done nothing to improve them, and instead of reassessing these programs, more money is thrown into the same centralized planning, this is much closer to Emerson’s foolish consistency than defending liberty and private property in a consistent and forceful manner while strictly obeying the Constitution.

2004 Ron Paul 2:7
Emerson’s greatest concern was the consistency of conformity.   Nonconformity and tolerance of others obviously are much more respected in a free society than in a rigidly planned authoritarian society.

2004 Ron Paul 2:8
The truth is that Emerson must be misquoted in order to use him against those who rigidly and consistently defend a free society, cherish and promote diverse opinions, and encourage nonconformity. A wise and consistent defense of liberty is more desperately needed today than any time in our history. Our foolish and inconsistent policies of the last 100 years have brought us to a critical junction, with the American way of life at stake. It is the foolish inconsistencies that we must condemn and abandon. Let me mention a few:

2004 Ron Paul 2:9
Conservatives Who Spend: Conservatives for years have preached fiscal restraint and balanced budgets. Once in charge, they have rationalized huge spending increases and gigantic growth in the size of government, while supporting a new- found religion that preaches deficits don’t matter. According to Paul O’Neill, the Vice President lectured him that “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.”   Conservatives who no longer support balanced budgets and less government should not be called conservatives. Some now are called neo-conservatives. The conservative label merely deceives the many Americans who continuously hope the day of fiscal restraint will come. Yet if this deception is not pointed out, success in curtailing government growth is impossible.   Is it any wonder the national debt is $7 trillion and growing by over $600 billion per year?   Even today, the only expression of concern for the deficit seems to come from liberals. That ought to tell us something about how far astray we have gone.

2004 Ron Paul 2:10
Free Trade Fraud—Neo-mercantilism : Virtually all economists are for free trade. Even the politicians express such support. However, many quickly add, “Yes, but it should be fair.”   That is, free trade is fine unless it appears to hurt someone. Then a little protectionism is warranted, for fairness sake. Others who claim allegiance to free trade are only too eager to devalue their own currencies, which harms a different group of citizens — like importers and savers — in competitive devaluations in hopes of gaining a competitive edge. Many so-called free-trade proponents are champions of international agreements that undermine national sovereignty and do little more than create an international bureaucracy to manage tariffs and sanctions. Organizations like NAFTA, WTO, and the coming FTAA are more likely to benefit the powerful special interests than to enhance true free trade. Nothing is said, however, about how a universal commodity monetary standard would facilitate trade, nor is it mentioned how unilaterally lowering tariffs can benefit a nation. Even bilateral agreements are ignored when our trade problems are used as an excuse to promote dangerous internationalism.

2004 Ron Paul 2:11
Trade as an issue of personal liberty is totally ignored. But simply put, one ought to have the right to spend one’s own money any way one wants. Buying cheap foreign products can have a great economic benefit for our citizens and serve as an incentive to improve production here at home. It also puts pressure on us to reassess the onerous regulations and tax burdens placed on our business community. Monopoly wages that force wage rates above the market also are challenged when true free trade is permitted. And this, of course, is the reason free trade is rejected. Labor likes higher-than-market wages, and business likes less competition. In the end, consumers — all of us — suffer. Ironically, the free traders in Congress were the most outspoken opponents of drug reimportation, with a convoluted argument claiming that the free-trade position should prohibit the reimportation of pharmaceuticals. So much for a wise consistency!

2004 Ron Paul 2:12
Following the Constitution—Arbitrarily, Of Course : Following the Constitution is a convenience shared by both liberals and conservatives — at times. Everyone takes the same oath of office, and most Members of Congress invoke the Constitution, at one time or another, to make some legislative point. The fact that the Constitution is used periodically to embarrass one’s opponents, when convenient, requires that no one feel embarrassed by an inconsistent voting record. Believing that any consistency, not just a foolish one, is a philosophic hobgoblin gives many Members welcome reassurance. This allows limited-government conservatives to massively increase the size and scope of government, while ignoring the deficit. Liberals, who also preach their own form of limited government in the areas of civil liberties and militarism, have no problem with a flexible pragmatic approach to all government expenditures and intrusions. The net result is that the oath of office to abide by all the constitutional restraints on government power is rarely followed.

2004 Ron Paul 2:13
Paper Money, Inflation, and Economic Pain : Paper money and inflation have never provided long-term economic growth, nor have they enhanced freedom. Yet the world, led by the United States, lives with a financial system awash with fiat currencies and historic debt as a consequence. No matter how serious the problems that come from central-bank monetary inflations — the depressions and inflation, unemployment, social chaos, and war — the only answer has been to inflate even more. Except for the Austrian free-market economists, the consensus is that the Great Depression was prolonged and exacerbated by the lack of monetary inflation. This view is held by Alan Greenspan, and reflected in his January 2001 response to the stock market slump and a slower economy — namely a record monetary stimulus and historically low interest rates. The unwillingness to blame the slumps on the Federal Reserve’s previous errors, though the evidence is clear, guarantees that greater problems for the United States and the world economy lie ahead. Though there is adequate information to understand the real cause of the business cycle, the truth and proper policy are not palatable. Closing down the engine of inflation at any point does cause short-term problems that are politically unacceptable. But the alternative is worse, in the long term. It is not unlike a drug addict demanding and getting a fix in order to avoid the withdrawal symptoms. Not getting rid of the addiction is a deadly mistake.   While resorting to continued monetary stimulus through credit creation delays the pain and suffering, it inevitably makes the problems much worse. Debt continues to build in all areas — personal, business, and government. Inflated stock prices are propped up, waiting for another collapse. Mal-investment and overcapacity fail to correct. Insolvency proliferates without liquidation. These same errors have been prolonging the correction in Japan for 14 years, with billions of dollars of non-performing loans still on the books. Failure to admit and recognize that fiat money, mismanaged by central banks, gives us most of our economic problems, along with a greater likelihood for war, means we never learn from our mistakes. Our consistent response is to inflate faster and borrow more, which each downturn requires, to keep the economy afloat. Talk about a foolish consistency!   It’s time for our leaders to admit the error of their ways, consider the wise consistency of following the advice of our Founders, and reject paper money and central bank inflationary policies.

2004 Ron Paul 2:14
Alcohol Prohibition—For Our Own Protection : Alcohol prohibition was a foolish consistency engaged in for over a decade, but we finally woke up to the harm done.   In spite of prohibition, drinking continued. The alcohol being produced in the underground was much more deadly, and related crime ran rampant. The facts stared us in the face, and with time, we had the intelligence to repeal the whole experiment. No matter how logical this reversal of policy was, it did not prevent us from moving into the area of drug prohibition, now in the more radical stages, for the past 30 years. No matter the amount of harm and cost involved, very few in public life are willing to advise a new approach to drug addiction. Alcoholism is viewed as a medical problem, but illicit drug addiction is seen as a heinous crime. Our prisons overflow, with the cost of enforcement now into the hundreds of billions of dollars, yet drug use is not reduced. Nevertheless, the politicians are consistent. They are convinced that a tough stand against usage with very strict laws and mandatory sentences — sometimes life sentences for non-violent offenses — is a popular political stand. Facts don’t count, and we can’t bend on consistently throwing the book at any drug offenders. Our prisons are flooded with non-violent drug users — 84% of all federals prisoners — but no serious reassessment is considered.   Sadly, the current war on drugs has done tremendous harm to many patients’ need for legitimate prescribed pain control. Doctors are very often compromised in their ability to care for the seriously and terminally ill by overzealous law enforcement.   Throughout most of our history, drugs were legal and at times were abused. But during that time, there was no history of the social and legal chaos associated with drug use that we suffer today. A hundred years ago, a pharmacist openly advertised, “Heroin clears the complexion, gives buoyancy to the mind, regulates the stomach and the bowels and is, in fact, a perfect guardian of health.”   Obviously this is overstated as a medical panacea, but it describes what it was like not to have hysterical busybodies undermine our Constitution and waste billions of dollars on a drug war serving no useful purpose. This country needs to wake up! We should have more confidence in citizens making their own decisions, and decide once again to repeal federal prohibition, while permitting regulation by the states alone.

2004 Ron Paul 2:15
FDA and Legal Drugs—For Our Own Protection : Our laws and attitudes regarding legal drugs are almost as harmful. The FDA supposedly exists to protect the consumer and patients. This conclusion is based on an assumption that consumers are idiots and all physicians and drug manufacturers are unethical or criminals. It also assumes that bureaucrats and politicians, motivated by good intentions, can efficiently bring drugs onto the market in a timely manner and at reasonable cost. These same naïve dreamers are the ones who say that in order to protect the people from themselves, we must prohibit them from being allowed to re-import drugs from Canada or Mexico at great savings. The FDA virtually guarantees that new drugs come online slower and cost more money. Small companies are unable to pay the legal expenses, and don’t get the friendly treatment that politically connected big drug companies receive. If a drug seems to offer promise, especially for a life-threatening disease, why is it not available, with full disclosure, to anyone who wants to try it? No, our protectors say that no one gets to use it, or make their own decisions, until the FDA guarantees that each drug has been proven safe and effective. And believe me, the FDA is quite capable of making mistakes, even after years of testing.   It seems criminal when cancer patients come to our congressional offices begging and pleading for a waiver to try some new drug. We call this a free society!   For those who can’t get a potentially helpful drug but might receive a little comfort from some marijuana, raised in their own back yard legally in their home state, the heavy hand of the DEA comes down hard, actually arresting and imprisoning ill patients. Federal drug laws blatantly preempt state laws, adding insult to injury.

2004 Ron Paul 2:16
Few remember that the first federal laws regulating marijuana were written as recently as 1938, which means just a few decades ago our country had much greater respect for individual choices and state regulations in all health matters.   The nanny state is relatively new, but well entrenched. Sadly, we foolishly and consistently follow the dictates of prohibition and government control of new medications, never questioning the wisdom of these laws.   The silliness regarding illegal drugs and prescription drugs was recently demonstrated. It was determined that a drug used to cause an abortion can be available over the counter. However, Ephedra — used by millions for various reasons and found in nature — was made illegal as a result of one death after being misused. Individuals no longer can make their own decisions, at an affordable price, to use Ephedra. Now it will probably require a prescription and cost many times more. It can never be known, but weight loss by thousands using Ephedra may well have saved many lives. But the real issue is personal choice and responsibility, not the medicinal effect of these drugs. This reflects our moral standards, not an example of individual freedom and responsibility.

2004 Ron Paul 2:17
Foreign Policy of Interventionism—General : Our foreign policy of interventionism offers the best example of Emerson’s foolish inconsistency. No matter how unsuccessful our entanglements become, our leaders rarely question the wisdom of trying to police the world. Most of the time our failures prompt even greater intervention, rather than less. Never yielding to the hard cold facts of our failures, our drive to meddle and nation-build around the world continues. Complete denial of the recurrent blowback from our meddling — a term our CIA invented — prompts us to spend endlessly while jeopardizing the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. Refusing even to consider the failure of our own policies is outrageous. Only in the context of commercial benefits to the special interests and the military- industrial complex, molded with patriotic jingoism, can one understand why we pursue such a foolish policy. Some of these ulterior motives are understandable, but the fact that average Americans rarely question our commitment to these dangerous and expensive military operations is disturbing. The whipped up war propaganda too often overrules the logic that should prevail. Certainly the wise consistency of following the Constitution has little appeal. One would think the painful consequences of our militarism over the last hundred years would have made us more reluctant to assume the role of world policeman in a world that hates us more each day.

2004 Ron Paul 2:18
A strong case can be made that all the conflicts, starting with the Spanish-American War up to our current conflict in the Middle East, could have been avoided. For instance, the foolish entrance into World War I to satisfy Wilson’s ego led to a disastrous peace at Versailles, practically guaranteeing World War II. Likewise, our ill-advised role in the Persian Gulf War I placed us in an ongoing guerilla war in Iraq and Afghanistan, which may become a worldwide conflict before it ends. Our foolish antics over the years have prompted our support for many thugs throughout the 20th Century — Stalin, Samoza, Batista, the Shah of Iran, Noriega, Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and many others — only to regret it once the unintended consequences became known. Many of those we supported turned on us, or our interference generated a much worse replacement — such as the Ayatollah in Iran.   If we had consistently followed the wise advice of our early presidents, we could have avoided the foreign policy problems we face today. And if we had, we literally would have prevented hundreds of thousands of needless deaths over the last century. The odds are slim to none that our current failure in Afghanistan and Iraq will prompt our administration to change its policies of intervention. Ignoring the facts and rigidly sticking to a failed policy — a foolish consistency — as our leaders have repeatedly done over the past 100 years, unfortunately will prevail despite its failure and huge costs. This hostility toward principled consistency and common sense allows for gross errors in policy making. Most Americans believed, and still do, that we went to war against Saddam Hussein because he threatened us with weapons of mass destruction and his regime was connected to al Qaeda. The fact that Saddam Hussein not only did not have weapons of mass destruction, but essentially had no military force at all, seems to be of little concern to those who took us to war. It was argued, after our allies refused to join in our efforts, that a unilateral approach without the United Nations was proper under our notion of national sovereignty. Yet resolutions giving the President authority to go to war cited the United Nations 21 times, forgetting the U.S. Constitution allows only Congress to declare war. A correct declaration of war was rejected out of hand. Now with events going badly, the administration is practically begging the UN to take over the transition — except, of course, for the Iraqi Development Fund that controls the oil and all the seized financial assets. The contradictions and distortions surrounding the Iraqi conflict are too numerous to count. Those who wanted to institutionalize the doctrine of pre-emptive war were not concerned about the Constitution or consistency in our foreign policy. And for this, the American people and world peace will suffer.

2004 Ron Paul 2:19
Promoting Democracy — An Obsession Whose Time Has Passed : Promoting democracy is now our nation’s highest ideal. Wilson started it with his ill-advised drive to foolishly involve us in World War I. His utopian dream was to make the world safe for democracy. Instead, his naiveté and arrogance promoted our involvement in the back-to-back tragedies of World War I and World War II. It’s hard to imagine the rise of Hitler in World War II without the Treaty of Versailles. But this has not prevented every president since Wilson from promoting U.S.-style democracy to the rest of the world.

2004 Ron Paul 2:20
Since no weapons of mass destruction or al Qaeda have been found in Iraq, the explanation given now for having gone there was to bring democracy to the Iraqi people. Yet we hear now that the Iraqis are demanding immediate free elections not controlled by the United States. But our administration says the Iraqi people are not yet ready for free elections. The truth is that a national election in Iraq would bring individuals to power that the administration doesn’t want. Democratic elections will have to wait.

2004 Ron Paul 2:21
This makes the point that our persistence in imposing our will on others through military force ignores sound thinking, but we never hear serious discussions about changing our foreign policy of meddling and empire building, no matter how bad the results. Regardless of the human and financial costs for all the wars fought over the past hundred years, few question the principle and legitimacy of interventionism. Bad results, while only sowing the seeds of our next conflict, concern few here in Congress. Jingoism, the dream of empire, and the interests of the military-industrial complex generate the false patriotism that energizes supporters of our foreign entanglements. Direct media coverage of the more than 500 body bags coming back from Iraq is now prohibited by the administration. Seeing the mangled lives and damaged health of thousands of other casualties of this war would help the American people put this war in proper perspective. Almost all war is unnecessary and rarely worth the cost. Seldom does a good peace result. Since World War II, we have intervened 35 times in developing countries, according to the LA Times, without a single successful example of a stable democracy. Their conclusion: “American engagement abroad has not led to more freedom or more democracy in countries where we’ve become involved.” So far, the peace in Iraq — that is, the period following the declared end of hostilities — has set the stage for a civil war in this forlorn Western-created artificial state. A U.S.- imposed national government unifying the Kurds, the Sunnis, and the Shiites will never work. Our allies deserted us in this misadventure. Dumping the responsibility on the UN, while retaining control of the spoils of war, is a policy of folly that can result only in more Americans being killed. This will only fuel the festering wounds of Middle East hatred toward all Western occupiers. The Halliburton scandals and other military-industrial connections to the occupation of Iraq will continue to annoy our allies, and hopefully a growing number of American taxpayers.

2004 Ron Paul 2:22
I have a few suggestions on how to alter our consistently foolish policy in Iraq. Instead of hiding behind Wilson’s utopianism of making the world safe for democracy, let’s try a new approach:

2004 Ron Paul 2:23
-The internal affairs and the need for nation building in Iraq are none of our business.

2004 Ron Paul 2:24
-Our goal in international affairs ought to be to promote liberty and the private-property/free-market order — through persuasion and example, and never by force of arms, clandestine changes, or preemptive war.

2004 Ron Paul 2:25
-We should give up our obsession with democracy, both for ourselves and others, since the dictatorship of the majority is just as destructive to a minority, especially individual liberty, as a single Saddam Hussein-like tyrant. (Does anyone really believe the Shiite majority can possibly rule fairly over the Sunnis and the Kurds?)

2004 Ron Paul 2:26
-A representative republic, loosely held together with autonomy for each state or providence, is the only hope in a situation like this. But since we have systematically destroyed that form of government here in the United States, we can’t possibly be the ones who will impose this system on a foreign and very different land 6,000 miles away — no matter how many bombs we drop or people we kill. This type of change can come only with a change in philosophy, and an understanding of the true nature of liberty. It must be an intellectual adventure, not a military crusade. If for no other reason, Congress must soon realize that we no longer can afford to maintain an empire circling the globe. It’s a Sisyphean task to rebuild the Iraq we helped to destroy while our financial problems mount here at home. The American people eventually will rebel and demand that all job and social programs start at home before we waste billions more in Iraq, Afghanistan, and many other forlorn lands around the world.

2004 Ron Paul 2:27
-The Constitution places restraints on Congress and the executive branch, so as not to wage war casually and without proper declaration. It provides no authority to spend money or lives to spread our political message around the world. A strict adherence to the rule of law and the Constitution would bring an immediate halt to our ill-advised experiment in assuming the role of world policeman. We have been told that our effort in Iraq has been worth the 500-plus lives lost and the thousands wounded. I disagree — with great sadness for the families who have lost so much, and with so little hope for a good peace — I can only say, I disagree and hope I’m wrong.

2004 Ron Paul 2:28
Fighting Terrorism With Big Government—A Convenience or Necessity?    Fighting terrorism is a top concern for most Americans. It is understandable, knowing how vulnerable we now are to an attack by our enemies. But striking out against the liberties of all Americans, with the Patriot Act, the FBI, or Guantanamo-type justice will hardly address the problem.   Liberty cannot be enhanced by undermining liberty!   It is never necessary to sacrifice liberty to preserve it. It’s tempting to sacrifice liberty for safety, and that is the argument used all too often by the politicians seeking more power. But even that is not true. History shows that a strong desire for safety over liberty usually results in less of both. But that does not mean we should ignore the past attacks or the threat of future attacks that our enemies might unleash. First, fighting terrorism is a cliché. Terrorism is a technique or a process, and if not properly defined, the solutions will be hard to find. Terrorism is more properly defined as an attack by a guerrilla warrior who picks the time and place of the attack because he cannot match the enemy with conventional weapons. With too broad a definition of terrorism, the temptation will be to relinquish too much liberty, being fearful that behind every door and in every suitcase lurks a terrorist- planted bomb. Narrowing the definition of terrorism and recognizing why some become enemies is crucial. Understanding how maximum security is achieved in a free society is vital. We have been told that the terrorists hate us for our wealth, our freedom, and our goodness. This war cannot be won if that belief prevails.

2004 Ron Paul 2:29
When the definition of terrorism is vague and the enemy pervasive throughout the world, the neo-conservatives — who want to bring about various regime changes for other reasons — conveniently latch onto these threats and use them as the excuse and justification for our expanding military presence throughout the Middle East and the Caspian Sea region. This is something they have been anxious to do all along. Already, plans are being laid by neo-conservative leaders to further expand our occupations to many other countries, from Central America and Africa to Korea. Whether it’s invading Iraq, threatening North Korea, or bullying Venezuela or even Russia, it’s now popular to play the terrorist card. Just mention terrorism and the American people are expected to grovel and allow the war hawks to do whatever they want to do. This is a very dangerous attitude. One would think that, with the shortcomings of the Iraqi occupation becoming more obvious every day, more Americans would question our flagrant and aggressive policy of empire building.   The American people were frightened into supporting this war because they were told that Iraq had: “25,000 liters of anthrax; 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin; 500 tons of sarin, mustard, and VX nerve gas; significant quantities of refined uranium; and special aluminum tubes used in developing nuclear weapons.”   The fact that none of this huge amount of material was found, and the fact that David Kay resigned from heading up the inspection team saying none will be found, doesn’t pacify the instigators of this policy of folly. They merely look forward to the next regime change as they eye their list of potential targets. And they argue with conviction that the 500-plus lives lost were worth it.   Attacking a perceived enemy who had few weapons, who did not aggress against us, and who never posed a threat to us does nothing to help eliminate the threat of terrorist attacks. If anything, deposing an Arab Muslim leader — even a bad one — incites more hatred toward us, certainly not less. This is made worse if our justification for the invasion was in error. It is safe to say that in time we’ll come to realize that our invasion has made us less safe, and has served as a grand recruiting tool for the many militant Muslim groups that want us out of their countries — including the majority of those Muslims in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the entire Middle East. Because of the nature of the war in which we find ourselves, catching Saddam Hussein, or even killing Osama bin Laden, are almost irrelevant. They may well simply become martyrs to their cause and incite even greater hatred toward us.

2004 Ron Paul 2:30
There are a few things we must understand if we ever expect this war to end.

2004 Ron Paul 2:31
First: The large majority, especially all the militant Muslims, see us as invaders, occupiers, and crusaders. We have gone a long way from home and killed a lot of people, and none of them believe it’s to spread our goodness. Whether or not some supporters of this policy of intervention are sincere in bringing democracy and justice to this region, it just doesn’t matter — few over there believe us.

2004 Ron Paul 2:32
Second: This war started a long time before 9-11. That attack was just the most dramatic event of the war so far. The Arabs have fought Western crusaders for centuries, and they have not yet forgotten the European Crusades centuries ago. Our involvement has been going on, to some degree, since World War II, but was dramatically accelerated in 1991 with the first Persian Gulf invasion along with the collapse of the Soviet system. Placing U.S. troops on what is considered Muslim holy land in Saudi Arabia was pouring salt in the wounds of this already existing hatred. We belatedly realized this and have removed these troops.

2004 Ron Paul 2:33
Third: If these facts are ignored, there’s no chance that the United States-led Western occupation of the oil-rich Middle East can succeed (70% of the world’s oil is in the Persian Gulf and Caspian Sea regions). Without a better understanding of the history of this region, it’s not even possible to define the enemy, know why they fight, or understand the difference between guerilla warrior attacks and vague sinister forces of terrorism. The pain of recognizing that the ongoing war is an example of what the CIA calls blowback and an unintended consequence of our foreign policy is a great roadblock to ever ending the war.

2004 Ron Paul 2:34
Judicial Review : Respect for the original intent of the Constitution is low in Washington. It’s so low, it’s virtually non-existent. This causes many foolish inconsistencies in our federal courts. The Constitution, we have been told, is a living, evolving document and it’s no longer necessary to change it in the proper fashion. That method is too slow and cumbersome, it is claimed. While we amended it to institute alcohol prohibition, the federal drug prohibition is accomplished by majority vote of the U.S. Congress. Wars are not declared by Congress, but pursued by Executive Order to enforce UN Resolutions. The debate of the pros and cons of the war come afterward — usually following the war’s failure — in the political arena, rather than before with the proper debate on a declaration of war resolution.   Laws are routinely written by un-elected bureaucrats, with themselves becoming the judicial and enforcement authority. Little desire is expressed in Congress to alter this monster that creates thousands of pages each year in the Federal Register. Even the nearly 100,000 bureaucrats who now carry guns stir little controversy. For decades, Executive Orders have been arrogantly used to write laws to circumvent a plodding or disagreeable Congress. This attitude was best described by a Clinton presidential aide who bragged:   “…stroke of the pen, law of the land, kinda cool!”   This is quite a testimonial to the rule of law and constitutional restraint on government power.   The courts are no better than the executive or legislative branches in limiting the unconstitutional expansion of the federal monolith. Members of Congress, including committee chairmen, downplay my concern that proposed legislation is unconstitutional by insisting that the courts are the ones to make such weighty decisions, not mere Members of Congress. This was an informal argument made by House leadership on the floor during the debate on campaign finance reform. In essence, they said “We know it’s bad, but we’ll let the courts clean it up.” And look what happened!   The courts did not save us from ourselves.

2004 Ron Paul 2:35
Something must be done, however, if we expect to rein in our ever growing and intrusive government. Instead of depending on the courts to rule favorably, when Congress and the executive branch go astray, we must curtail the courts when they overstep their authority by writing laws, rubber stamping bad legislation, or overruling state laws. Hopefully in the future we will have a Congress more cognizant of its responsibility to legislate within the confines of the Constitution.   There is something Congress, by majority vote, can do to empower the states to deal with their First Amendment issues. It’s clear that Congress has been instructed to write no laws regarding freedom of speech, religion, or assembly. This obviously means that federal courts have no authority to do so either. Therefore, the remaining option is for Congress to specifically remove jurisdiction of all First Amendment controversies from all federal courts, including the Supreme Court.   Issues dealing with prayer, the Ten Commandments, religious symbols or clothing, and songs, even the issue of abortion, are properly left as a prerogative of the states. A giant step in this direction could be achieved with the passage my proposed legislation, the We the People Act.

2004 Ron Paul 2:36
Conclusion: Emerson’s real attack was on intellectual conformity without a willingness to entertain new ideas based on newly acquired facts. This is what he referred to as the foolish consistency. The greatest open-minded idea I’m aware of is to know that one does not know what is best for others, whether it’s in economic, social, or moral policy, or in the affairs of other nations. Believing one knows what is best for others represents the greatest example of a closed mind.   Friedrich Hayek referred to this as a pretense of knowledge. Governments are no more capable of running an economy made fair for everyone than they are of telling the individual what is best for their spiritual salvation. There are a thousand things in between that the busybody politicians, bureaucrats, and judges believe they know and yet do not. Sadly our citizens have become dependent on government for nearly everything from cradle to grave, and look to government for all guidance and security.

2004 Ron Paul 2:37
Continuously ignoring Emerson’s advice on self-reliance is indeed a foolish consistency which most of the politicians now in charge of the militant nanny state follow. And it’s an armed state, domestic as well as foreign. Our armies tell the Arab world what’s best for them, while the armed bureaucrats at home harass our own people into submission and obedience to every law and regulation, most of which are incomprehensible to the average citizen.   Ask three IRS agents for an interpretation of the tax code and you will get three different answers. Ask three experts in the Justice Department to interpret the anti-trust laws, and you will get three different answers. First they’ll tell you it’s illegal to sell too low, then they’ll tell you it’s illegal to sell too high, and it’s certainly illegal if everybody sold products at the same price. All three positions can get you into plenty of trouble and blamed for first, undermining competition, second, for having too much control and gouging the public, and third, for engaging in collusion. The people can’t win.

2004 Ron Paul 2:38
Real knowledge is to know what one does not know. The only society that recognizes this fact and understands how productive enterprise is generated is a free society, unencumbered with false notions of grandeur. It is this society that generates true tolerance and respect for others. Self-reliance and creativity blossom in a free society. This does not mean anarchy, chaos, or libertine behavior. Truly, only a moral society can adapt to personal liberty. Some basic rules must be followed and can be enforced by government — most suitably by local and small government entities. Honoring all voluntary contractual arrangements, social and economic, protection of all life, and established standards for private property ownership are the three principles required for a free society to remain civilized. Depending on the culture, the government could be the family, the tribe, or some regional or state entity.

2004 Ron Paul 2:39
The freedom philosophy is based on the humility that we are not omnipotent, but also the confidence that true liberty generates the most practical solution to all our problems, whether they are economic, domestic security, or national defense.   Short of this, any other system generates authoritarianism that grows with each policy failure and eventually leads to a national bankruptcy. It was this end, not our military budget, which brought the Soviets to their knees.

2004 Ron Paul 2:40
A system of liberty allows for the individual to be creative, productive, or spiritual on one’s own terms, and encourages excellence and virtue. All forms of authoritarianism only exist at the expense of liberty. Yet the humanitarian do-gooders claim to strive for these very same goals. To understand the difference is crucial to the survival of a free society.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 3
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Social Security Protection Act 11 February 2004

2004 Ron Paul 3:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I intend to vote for H.R. 743, the Social Security Protection Act, because it contains an important provision that was not included in previous versions of this bill. This provision takes a first step toward ensuring that non-citizens who are unauthorized to work in the United States do not receive Social Security benefits. Giving Social Security benefits to illegal immigrants is a slap in the faces of Americans who pay their entire working lives into the Social Security system and now face the possibility that there will be nothing left when it is their turn to retire. This is why, at the beginning of the 108th Congress, I introduced legislation, the Social Security for American Citizens Only Act (H.R. 489), which ensures no non-citizen can receive Social Security benefits. Therefore, I am pleased to see Congress beginning at last to address this issue.

2004 Ron Paul 3:2
However, I wish to make clear my continued opposition to a provision in the bill that removes the only means by which many widowed Texas public school teachers can receive the same personal Social Security benefits, as does 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 benefits 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.

2004 Ron Paul 3:3
The Government Pension Offset punishes people for teaching in public schools. However, current law provides widowed Texas public school teachers a means of collecting a full Social Security spousal benefits. Unfortunately, this bill takes that option away from Texas teachers. I have twice voted against H.R. 743 because of my strong opposition to the provision removing the only way Texas teachers can avoid the Government Pension Offset.

2004 Ron Paul 3:4
Instead of repealing the only means Texas teachers have of avoiding the Government Pension Offset, Congress should pass H.R. 594, the Social Security Fairness Act that repeals both the Government Pension Offset and the Windfall Elimination Provision, another provision that denies public employees full Social Security benefits.

2004 Ron Paul 3:5
Congress should also be encouraging good people to enter the education profession by passing my Teacher Tax Cut Act (H.R. 613) that 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.

2004 Ron Paul 3:6
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I will support H.R. 743 because it restricts the ability of illegal immigrants to raid the Social Security Trust Fund. However, I remain opposed to the provision that punishes teachers by denying them Social Security benefits for which they would be eligible if they were not teachers. Instead of punishing teachers, Congress should be enacting pro-teacher legislation, such as the Social Security Fairness Act and the Teacher Tax Cut Act.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 4
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Federal War On Drugs Threatens The Effective Treatment Of Chronic Pain 11 February 2004

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
11 February 2004

2004 Ron Paul 4:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the publicity surrounding popular radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh’s legal troubles relating to his use of the pain killer OxyContin will hopefully focus public attention on how the federal War on Drugs threatens the effective treatment of chronic pain. Prosecutors have seized Mr. Limbaugh’s medical records in connection with an investigation into charges that Mr. Limbaugh violated federal drug laws. The fact that Mr. Limbaugh is a high profile, and often controversial, conservative media personality has given rise to speculation that the prosecution is politically motivated. Adding to this suspicion is the fact that individual pain patients are rarely prosecuted in this type of case.

2004 Ron Paul 4:2
In cases where patients are not high profile celebrities like Mr. Limbaugh, it is a pain management physician who bears the brunt of overzealous prosecutors. Faced with the failure of the War on Drugs to eliminate drug cartels and kingpins, prosecutors and police have turned their attention to pain management doctors, using federal statutes designed for the prosecution of drug kingpins to prosecute physicians for prescribing pain medicine.

2004 Ron Paul 4:3
Many of the cases brought against physicians are rooted in the federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)’s failure to consider current medical standards regarding the use of opioids, including OxyContin, in formulating policy. Opioids are the pharmaceuticals considered most effective in relieving chronic pain. Federal law classifies most opioids as Schedule II drugs, the same classification given to cocaine and heroin, despite a growing body of opinion among the medical community that opioids should not be classified with these substances.

2004 Ron Paul 4:4
Furthering the problem is that patients often must consume very large amounts of opioids to obtain long-term relief. Some prescriptions may be for hundreds of pills and last only a month. A prescription this large may appear suspicious. But, according to many pain management specialists, it is medically necessary, in many cases, to prescribe such a large number of pills to effectively treat chronic pain. However, zealous prosecutors show no interest in learning the basic facts of pain management.

2004 Ron Paul 4:5
This harassment by law enforcement has forced some doctors to close their practices, while others have stopped prescribing opioids — even though opioids are the only way some of their patients can obtain pain relief. The current attitude toward pain physicians is exemplified by Assistant U.S. Attorney Gene Rossi’s statement that “our office will try our best to root out [certain doctors] like the Taliban.”

2004 Ron Paul 4:6
Prosecutors show no concern for how their actions will affect patients who need large amounts of opioids to control their chronic pain. For example, the prosecutor in the case of Dr. Cecil Knox of Roanoke, Virginia told all of Dr. Knox’s patients to seek help in federal clinics even though none of the federal clinics would prescribe effective pain medicine.

2004 Ron Paul 4:7
Doctors are even being punished for the misdeeds of their patients. For example, Dr. James Graves was sentenced to more than 60 years for manslaughter because several of his patients overdosed on various combinations of pain medications and other drugs, including illegal street drugs. As a physician with over thirty years experience in private practice, I find it outrageous that a physician would be held criminally liable for a patient’s misuse of medicine.

2004 Ron Paul 4:8
The American Association of Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), one of the nation’s leading defenders of private medical practice and medical liberty, has recently advised doctors to avoid prescribing opioids because, according to AAPS, “drug agents set medical standards.” I would hope that my colleagues would agree that doctors, not federal agents, should determine medical standards.

2004 Ron Paul 4:9
By waging this war on pain physicians, the government is condemning patients to either live with excruciating chronic pain or seek opioids from other, less reliable, sources — such as street drug dealers. Of course, opioids bought on the street will likely pose a greater risk of damaging a patient’s health than will opioids obtained from a physician.

2004 Ron Paul 4:10
Finally, as the Limbaugh case reveals, the prosecution of pain management physicians destroys the medical privacy of all chronic pain patients. Under the guise of prosecuting the drug war, law enforcement officials can rummage through patients’ personal medical records and, as may be the case with Mr. Limbaugh, use information uncovered to settle personal or political scores. I am pleased that AAPS, along with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), has joined the effort to protect Mr. Limbaugh’s medical records.

2004 Ron Paul 4:11
Mr. Speaker, Congress should take action to rein in overzealous prosecutors and law enforcement officials and stop the harassment of legitimate pain management physicians, who are acting in good faith in prescribing opioids for relief from chronic pain. Doctors should not be prosecuted for doing what, in their best medical judgment, is in their patients’ best interest. Doctors should also not be prosecuted for the misdeeds of their patients. Finally, I wish to express my hope that Mr. Limbaugh’s case will encourage his many fans and supporters to consider how their support for the federal War on Drugs is inconsistent with their support of individual liberty and Constitutional government.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 5
Ron Paul’s Congressional website HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
February 12, 2004 Rush Limbaugh and the Sick Federal War on Pain Relief

2004 Ron Paul 5:1
Mr. Speaker, the publicity surrounding popular radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh’s legal troubles relating to his use of the pain killer OxyContin hopefully will focus public attention on how the federal drug war threatens the effective treatment of chronic pain. Prosecutors have seized Mr. Limbaugh’s medical records to investigate whether he violated federal drug laws. The fact that Mr. Limbaugh is a high profile, controversial, conservative media personality has given rise to speculation that the prosecution is politically motivated. Adding to this suspicion is the fact that individual pain patients are rarely prosecuted in this type of case.

2004 Ron Paul 5:2
In cases where patients are not high profile celebrities like Mr. Limbaugh, it is pain management physicians who bear the brunt of overzealous prosecutors. Faced with the failure of the war on drugs to eliminate drug cartels and kingpins, prosecutors and police have turned their attention to pain management doctors, using federal statutes designed for the prosecution of drug dealers to prosecute physicians for prescribing pain medicine.  

2004 Ron Paul 5:3
Many of the cases brought against physicians are rooted in the federal Drug Enforcement Administration’s failure to consider current medical standards regarding the use of opioids, including OxyContin, in formulating policy. Opioids are the pharmaceuticals considered most effective in relieving chronic pain. Federal law classifies most opioids as Schedule II drugs, the same classification given to cocaine and heroin, despite a growing body of opinion among the medical community that opioids should not be classified with these substances.

2004 Ron Paul 5:4
Unfortunately, patients often must consume very large amounts of opioids to obtain long-term relief. Some prescriptions may be for hundreds of pills and last only a month.  A prescription this large may appear suspicious.   But according to many pain management specialists, it is medically necessary in many cases to prescribe a large number of pills to effectively treat chronic pain. However, zealous prosecutors show no interest in learning the basic facts of pain management.

2004 Ron Paul 5:5
This harassment by law enforcement has forced some doctors to close their practices, while others have stopped prescribing opioids altogether — even though opioids are the only way some of their patients can obtain pain relief. The current attitude toward pain physicians is exemplified by Assistant US Attorney Gene Rossi’s statement that “Our office will try our best to root out [certain doctors] like the Taliban.”  

2004 Ron Paul 5:6
Prosecutors show no concern for how their actions will affect patients who need large amounts of opioids to control their chronic pain. For example, the prosecutor in the case of Dr. Cecil Knox of Roanoke, Virginia, told all of Dr. Knox’s patients to seek help in federal clinics even though none of the federal clinics would prescribe effective pain medicine!

2004 Ron Paul 5:7
Doctors are even being punished for the misdeeds of their patients. For example, Dr. James Graves was sentenced to more than 60 years for manslaughter because several of his patients overdosed on various combinations of pain medications and other drugs, including illegal street drugs. As a physician with over thirty years of experience in private practice, I find it outrageous that a physician would be held criminally liable for a patient’s misuse of medicine.

2004 Ron Paul 5:8
The American Association of Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), one of the nation’s leading defenders of medical freedom, recently advised doctors to avoid prescribing opioids because, according to AAPS, “drug agents set medical standards.” I would hope my colleagues would agree that doctors, not federal agents, should determine medical standards.

2004 Ron Paul 5:9
By waging this war on pain physicians, the government is condemning patients to either live with excruciating chronic pain or seek opioids from other, less reliable, sources — such as street drug dealers.   Of course opioids bought on the street likely will pose a greater risk of damaging a patient’s health than opioids obtained from a physician.

2004 Ron Paul 5:10
Finally, as the Limbaugh case reveals, the prosecution of pain management physicians destroys the medical privacy of all chronic pain patients. Under the guise of prosecuting the drug war, law enforcement officials can rummage through patients’ personal medical records and, as may be the case with Mr. Limbaugh, use information uncovered to settle personal or political scores. I am pleased that AAPS, along with the American Civil Liberties Union, has joined the effort to protect Mr. Limbaugh’s medical records.  

2004 Ron Paul 5:11
Mr. Speaker, Congress should take action to rein in overzealous prosecutors and law enforcement officials, and stop the harassment of legitimate physicians who act in good faith when prescribing opioids for relief from chronic pain. Doctors should not be prosecuted for using their best medical judgment to act in their patients’ best interests. Doctors also should not be prosecuted for the misdeeds of their patients.

2004 Ron Paul 5:12
Finally, I wish to express my hope that Mr. Limbaugh’s case will encourage his many fans and listeners to consider how their support for the federal war on drugs is inconsistent with their support of individual liberty and constitutional government.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 6
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Introducing The Belarus Freedom Act Of 2004 24 February 2004

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, February 24, 2004

2004 Ron Paul 6:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Belarus Freedom Act of 2004. This bill will graduate Belarus from the requirements of the Jackson-Vanik statute and thereby establish permanent normal trade relations with that country.

2004 Ron Paul 6:2
The Jackson-Vanik amendment was adopted in 1974, during a time when the U.S.S.R. was imposing enormous “education repayment fees” on anyone seeking to emigrate from that country. The statute was designed to prevent temporary restoration of an already suspended “most favored nation” treatment unless its freedom of emigration requirement is complied with. After the break-up of the U.S.S.R., the successor countries found themselves subject to Jackson-Vanik — meaning that they had to prove yearly that they allowed free emigration in order to enjoy normal trade relations with the United States. Several former Soviet republics have already been permanently graduated from Jackson-Vanik, and several others are in the process of being graduated. Belarus has gained a presidential waiver for every year since 1992, indicating its ongoing compliance with the requirements. Therefore it is time to recognize the passing of the Soviet era and move on toward better trade relations with Belarus.

2004 Ron Paul 6:3
Though some have tried to read additional requirements into the original amendment, Jackson-Vanik is in reality solely about freedom of emigration. And, as I have stated, Belarus has attained a Presidential waiver every year since 1992.

2004 Ron Paul 6:4
Time and time again we see that peaceful trade and good relations with other countries does much more to foster democratization and liberalization than sanctions, diplomatic expulsions, and accusations. Our Founding Fathers recognized this when they cautioned against foreign entanglements and counseled instead free trade and friendly relations with all countries who seek the same.

2004 Ron Paul 6:5
I hope my colleagues will join with me as cosponsors of this bill and support further constructive relations with the Republic of Belarus.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 7
Ron Paul’s Congressional website HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE HOUSE FINANCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE
February 26, 2004 The Financial Services Committees “Views and Estimates for 2005”

2004 Ron Paul 7:1
The Committee on Financial Services’ “Views and Estimates for Fiscal Year 2005” begins by expressing concerns about the long-term threat that record level of deficit spending poses to the American economy, and pledging to support efforts to reduce the deficit. Yet in the rest of the document the committee advocates increasing spending on both foreign and domestic welfare. The committee also advocates new regulations that will retard economic growth, as well as violate the Constitution and infringe on individual liberty.

2004 Ron Paul 7:2
This document claims that “investor confidence” was boosted by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which imposed new federal regulations on capital markets, including mandating new duties for board members and dictating how companies must structure their boards of directors. One of Sarbanes-Oxley’s most onerous provisions makes every member of a company’s board of directors, as well as the company’s chief executive officer, criminally liable if they fail to catch accounting errors.

2004 Ron Paul 7:3
As investigative reporter John Berleau detailed in his Insight magazine article (“Sarbanes-Oxley is a Business Disaster”), the new mandates in Sarbanes-Oxley have caused directorship, accounting, audit, and legal fees to double. In addition, the cost of directors’ liability insurance has almost doubled since Sarbanes-Oxley became law. Not surprisingly, the impact of these new costs hit small businesses especially hard — the traditional engine of job creation in America.

2004 Ron Paul 7:4
The costs of compliance with Sarbanes-Oxley divert capital away from activities that create jobs. Yet the committee is actually considering imposing Sarbanes-Oxley-like regulations on the mutual funds industry! Instead of expanding the regulatory state, the committee should examine the economic effects of Sarbanes-Oxley and at least pass legislation exempting small businesses from the law’s requirements.

2004 Ron Paul 7:5
The committee’s ‘Views and Estimates” gives an unqualified endorsement to increased taxpayer support for the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FINCEN), while ignoring the growing erosion of our financial privacy under the PATRIOT Act and similar legislation.   In fact, the committee ignores the recent stealth expansion of the FBI’s power to seize records of dealers in precious metals, jewelers, and pawnshops without a warrant issued by an independent judge.   Instead of serving as cheerleaders for the financial police state, the committee should act to curtail the federal government’s ability to monitor the financial affairs of law-abiding Americans.

2004 Ron Paul 7:6
While the committee’s “Views and Estimates” devote considerable space to discussing Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs), it makes no mention of the billions of dollars in subsidies Congress has given to GSEs. These subsidies distort the market, create a short-term boom in housing, and endanger the economy by allowing GSEs to attract capital they could not attract under pure market conditions.  

2004 Ron Paul 7:7
Like all artificially created bubbles, the boom in housing prices cannot last forever. When housing prices fall, the financial losses suffered by the mortgage debt holders will be greater than they would have been had the government not actively encouraged over-investment in housing.

2004 Ron Paul 7:8
Government subsidies helped Fannie and Freddie triple their debt to more than $2.2 trillion from 1995 to 2002. Fannie and Freddie’s combined debt soon could surpass the privately held debt of the entire federal government. A taxpayer bailout of the GSEs would dwarf the savings-and-loan bailout of the early nineties and could run up the national debt to unmanageable levels.  

2004 Ron Paul 7:9
However, according to the Committee on Financial Services, the problem with GSEs is not taxpayer subsidizes but a lack of proper regulation! Therefore, the only GSE reform recommended by this document is to create a new regulator to oversee GSEs. In fact, new regulators, or new regulations, will not do anything to correct the market distortions caused by government support of GSEs.

2004 Ron Paul 7:10
Instead of reorganizing the deck chairs of the GSEs’ looming fiscal Titanic, the Committee should pass HR 3071, the Free Housing Market Enhancement Act. This act repeals government subsidies for the housing-related GSEs — Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the National Home Loan Bank Board.

2004 Ron Paul 7:11
The committee’s inconsistency regarding deficit reduction is shown by its support for increased spending for almost every foreign aid program under its jurisdiction. Of course, Congress has neither constitutional nor moral authority to take money from the American people and send it overseas. Furthermore, foreign aid rarely helps improve the standard of living for citizens of “beneficiary” countries. Instead, the aid all too often enriches corrupt politicians and helps stave off pressure for real reform. Furthermore, certain proposals the committee embraces smack of economic imperialism, suggesting that a country whose economic and other policies please American politicians and bureaucrats will be rewarded with money stolen from the American taxpayer.

2004 Ron Paul 7:12
The committee also expresses unqualified support for programs such as the Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im) that use taxpayer dollars to subsidize large multinational corporations.   Ex-Im exists to subsidize large 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 uses 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 obtain market funding reduce economic efficiency and decrease living standards.   Yet, Ex-Im actually brags about its support for projects rejected by the market!

2004 Ron Paul 7:13
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.   If the committee is not going to defund programs such as Ex-Im, it should at least act on legislation Mr. Sanders will introduce denying corporate welfare to industries that move a substantial portion of their workforce overseas. It is obscene to force working Americans to subsidize their foreign competitors.

2004 Ron Paul 7:14
Finally, the committee’s views support expanding the domestic welfare state in the area of housing, despite the fact that federal subsidies distort the housing market by taking capital that could be better used elsewhere and applying it to housing at the direction of politicians and bureaucrats. Housing subsidies also violate the constitutional prohibitions against redistributionism. The federal government has no constitutional authority to abuse its taxing power to fund programs that reshape the housing market to the liking of politicians and bureaucrats.

2004 Ron Paul 7:15
Perhaps the most disappointing omission from the committee’s “Views and Estimates” is the failure to address monetary policy. This is especially so given the recent decline in the value of the dollar caused by the Federal Reserve’s continuing boom and bust monetary policy.

2004 Ron Paul 7:16
It is long past time for Congress to examine seriously the need to reform the fiat currency system.   The committee also should examine how Federal Reserve policies encourage excessive public and private sector debt, and the threat that debt poses to the long-term health of the American economy. Additionally, the committee should examine how the American government and economy would be affected if the dollar lost its privileged status as the world’s reserve currency. After all, the main reason the United States government is able to run such large deficits without suffering hyperinflation is the willingness of foreign investors to hold US debt instruments. If, or when, the dollar’s weakness causes foreigners to become reluctant to invest in US debt instruments, the results could be cataclysmic for our economy.  

2004 Ron Paul 7:17
In conclusion, the “Views and Estimates” report presented by the committee claims to endorse fiscal responsibility, yet also supports expanding international, corporate, and domestic spending. The report also endorses increasing the power of the federal police state. Perhaps most disturbingly, this document ignores the looming economic problems created by the Federal Reserve’s inflationary monetary polices and the resulting increase in private and public sector debt. I therefore urge my colleagues to reject this document and instead embrace an agenda of ending corporate welfare, protecting financial privacy, and reforming the fiat money system that is the root cause of America’s economic instability.  

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 8
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Unborn Victims Of Violence Act 26 February 2004

2004 Ron Paul 8:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, while it is the independent duty of each branch of the Federal Government to act constitutionally, Congress will likely continue to ignore not only its constitutional limits but earlier criticisms from Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well.

2004 Ron Paul 8:2
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2001, H.R. 1997, would amend title 18, United States Code, for the laudable goal of protecting unborn children from assault and murder. However, by expanding the class of victims to which unconstitutional, but already-existing, Federal murder and assault statutes apply, the Federal Government moves yet another step closer to a national police state.

2004 Ron Paul 8:3
Of course, it is much easier to ride the current wave of federalizing every human misdeed in the name of saving the world from some evil than to uphold a constitutional oath which prescribes a procedural structure by which the Nation is protected from what is perhaps the worst evil, totalitarianism. Who, after all, wants to be amongst those Members of Congress who are portrayed as soft on violent crimes initiated against the unborn?

2004 Ron Paul 8:4
Nevertheless, our Federal Government is constitutionally, a government of limited powers. Article one, section eight, enumerates the legislative areas for which the U.S. Congress is allowed to act or enact legislation. For every other issue, the Federal Government lacks any authority or consent of the governed and only the State governments, their designees, or the people in their private market actions enjoy such rights to governance. The 10th amendment is brutally clear in stating “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Our Nation’s history makes clear that the U.S. Constitution is a document intended to limit the power of central government. No serious reading of historical events surrounding the creation of the Constitution could reasonably portray it differently.

2004 Ron Paul 8:5
However, Congress does more damage than just expanding the class to whom Federal murder and assault statutes apply — it further entrenches and seemingly concurs with the Roe v. Wade decision — the Court’s intrusion into rights of States and their previous attempts to protect by criminal statute the unborn’s right not to be aggressed against. By specifically exempting from prosecution both abortionists and the mothers of the unborn — as is the case with this legislation — Congress appears to say that protection of the unborn child is not only a Federal matter but conditioned upon motive. In fact, the Judiciary Committee in marking up the bill, took an odd legal turn by making the assault on the unborn a strict liability offense insofar as the bill does not even require knowledge on the part of the aggressor that the unborn child exists. Murder statutes and common law murder require intent to kill — which implies knowledge — on the part of the aggressor. Here, however, we have the odd legal philosophy that an abortionist with full knowledge of his terminal act is not subject to prosecution while an aggressor acting without knowledge of the child’s existence is subject to nearly the full penalty of the law. With respect to only the fetus, the bill exempts the murderer from the death sentence — yet another diminution of the unborn’s personhood status and clearly a violation of the equal protection clause. It is becoming more and more difficult for Congress and the courts to pass the smell test as government simultaneously treats the unborn as a person in some instances and as a nonperson in others.

2004 Ron Paul 8:6
In his first formal complaint to Congress on behalf of the Federal Judiciary, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said “the trend to federalize crimes that have traditionally been handled in state courts . . . threatens to change entirely the nature of Federal system.” Rehnquist further criticized Congress for yielding to the political pressure to “appear responsive to every highly publicized societal ill or sensational crime.”

2004 Ron Paul 8:7
Perhaps, equally dangerous is the loss of another constitutional protection which comes with the passage of more and more Federal criminal legislation. Constitutionally, there are only three Federal crimes. These are treason against the United States, piracy on the high seas, and counterfeiting — and, because the constitution was amended to allow it, for a short period of history, the manufacture, sale, or transport of alcohol was concurrently a Federal and State crime. “Concurrent” jurisdiction crimes, such as alcohol prohibition in the past and federalization of murder today, erode the right of citizens to be free of double jeopardy. The fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifies that no “person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . .” In other words, no person shall be tried twice for the same offense. However, in United States v. Lanza, the high court in 1922 sustained a ruling that being tried by both the Federal Government and a State government for the same offense did not offend the doctrine of double jeopardy. One danger of unconstitutionally expanding the Federal criminal justice code is that it seriously increases the danger that one will be subject to being tried twice for the same offense. Despite the various pleas for federal correction of societal wrongs, a national police force is neither prudent nor constitutional.

2004 Ron Paul 8:8
Occasionaly the argument is put forth that States may be less effective than a centralized Federal Government in dealing with those who leave one State jurisdiction for another. Fortunately, the Constitution provides for the procedural means for preserving the integrity of State sovereignty over those issues delegated to it via the tenth amendment. The privilege and immunities clause as well as full faith and credit clause allow States to exact judgments from those who violate their State laws. The Constitution even allows the Federal Government to legislatively preserve the procedural mechanisms which allow States to enforce their substantive laws without the Federal Government imposing its substantive edicts on the States. Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2 makes provision for the rendition of fugitives from one State to another. While not self-enacting, in 1783 Congress passed an act which did exactly this. There is, of course, a cost imposed upon States in working with one another rather than relying on a national, unified police force. At the same time, there is a greater cost to centralization of police power.

2004 Ron Paul 8:9
It is important to be reminded of the benefits of federalism as well as the cost. There are sound reasons to maintain a system of smaller, independent jurisdictions — it is called competition and, yes, governments must, for the sake of the citizenry, be allowed to compete. We have obsessed so much over the notion of “competition” in this country we harangue someone like Bill Gates when, by offering superior products to every other similarly-situated entity, he becomes the dominant provider of certain computer products. Rather than allow someone who serves to provide value as made obvious by their voluntary exchanges in the free market, we lambaste efficiency and economies of scale in the private marketplace. Curiously, at the same time, we further centralize government, the ultimate monopoly and one empowered by force rather than voluntary exchange.

2004 Ron Paul 8:10
When small governments becomes too oppressive with their criminal laws, citizens can vote with their feet to a “competing” jurisdiction. If, for example, one does not want to be forced to pay taxes to prevent a cancer patient from using medicinal marijuana to provide relief from pain and nausea, that person can move to Arizona. If one wants to bet on a football game without the threat of government intervention, that person can live in Nevada. As government becomes more and more centralized, it becomes much more difficult to vote with one’s feet to escape the relatively more oppressive governments. Governmental units must remain small with ample opportunity for citizen mobility both to efficient governments and away from those which tend to be oppressive. Centralization of criminal law makes such mobility less and less practical.

2004 Ron Paul 8:11
Protection of life — born or unborn — against initiations of violence is of vital importance. So vitally important, in fact, it must be left to the States’ criminal justice systems. We have seen what a legal, constitutional, and philosophical mess results from attempts to federalize such an issue. Numerous States have adequately protected the unborn against assault and murder and done so prior to the Federal Government’s unconstitutional sanctioning of violence in the Roe v. Wade decision. Unfortunately, H.R. 1997 ignores the danger of further federalizing that which is properly reserved to State governments and, in so doing, throws legal philosophy, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the insights of Chief Justice Rehnquist out with the baby and the bathwater.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 9
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Requests Opposition Time 3 March 2004

2004 Ron Paul 9:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I want to inquire on whether or not the gentleman on the other side is in opposition to the bill.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair asks the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. SCOTT), is he opposed to the motion?

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I am not opposed to the motion.

2004 Ron Paul 9:2
Mr. PAUL. In that case, Mr. Speaker, I request the time in opposition.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under clause 1(c) of rule XV, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) to control the time in opposition to the motion.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 10
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

H. Res. 412 Honoring Men And Women Of The Drug Enforcement Administration — Part 1 3 March 2004

2004 Ron Paul 10:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

2004 Ron Paul 10:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution but obviously not because we should not honor the men who were asked to do their duty and lost their lives. It is for another reason.

2004 Ron Paul 10:3
I would like to call attention to my colleagues and to the Congress the lack of success on the war on drugs. The war has been going on for 30 years. The success is not there, and I think we are deceiving ourselves if we think that everything is going well and that we have achieved something, because there is really no evidence for that. Not only that, there have been many unintended consequences that we fail to look at, and I want to take this time to make that the point and try to get some of us to think that there may be another way to fight the war on drugs.

2004 Ron Paul 10:4
I do not know of anybody who likes drugs and advocates the use of drugs. I as a physician am strongly opposed to the use of drugs. It is just that the techniques make a big difference. We are talking about bad habits, and yet we are resorting to the use of force, literally an army of agents and hundreds of billions of dollars over a 30-year period, in an effort to bring about changes in people’s habits. Someday we are going to have to decide how successful we have been. Was it a good investment? Have we really accomplished anything?

2004 Ron Paul 10:5
Another reason why I am taking this time to express an opposition is that the process has been flawed. After World War I, there was a movement in this country that believed that too many Americans had bad habits of drinking too much alcohol, and of course, if we really want to deal with a bad drug, alcohol is it. Many, many more die from alcoholism and drunken driving and all kinds of related illnesses, but the country knew it and they recognized how one dealt with those problems.

2004 Ron Paul 10:6
The one thing that this country recognized was that the Congress had no authority to march around the country and tell people not to drink beer, and what did they do? They resorted to amending the Constitution, a proper procedure, and of course, it turned out to be a failed experiment. After 12 years, they woke up and the American people changed it.

2004 Ron Paul 10:7
We have gone 30 years and we have not even reconsidered a new approach to the use of drugs and the problems that we face.

2004 Ron Paul 10:8
Another thing that is rather astounding to me, is that not only have we lost the respect for the Constitution to say that the Federal Government can be involved in teaching habits, but we literally did this not even through congressional legislation.

2004 Ron Paul 10:9
The DEA was created by an executive order. Imagine the size of this program created merely by a President signing an executive order. Of course, the ultimate responsibility falls on the Congress because we acquiesce and we vote for all the funding. The DEA has received over $24 billion in the past 30 years, but the real cost of law enforcement is well over $240 billion when we add up all the costs.

2004 Ron Paul 10:10
And then if we look at the prison system, we have created a monstrosity. Eighty-four percent, according to one study, 84 percent of all Federal prisoners are nonviolent drug prisoners. They go in and they come out violent. We are still talking about a medical problem. We treat alcoholism as a medical problem, but anybody who smokes a marijuana cigarette or sells something, we want to put them in prison. I think it is time to stop and reevaluate this.

2004 Ron Paul 10:11
One other point is that as a physician I have come to the firm conclusion that the war on drugs has been very detrimental to the practice of medicine and the care of patients. The drug culture has literally handicapped physicians in caring for the ill and the pain that people suffer with terminal illnesses. I have seen doctors in tears coming to me and saying that all his wife had asked me for was to die not in pain; and even he, as a physician, could not get enough pain medication because they did not want to make her an addict. So we do have a lot of unintended consequences.

2004 Ron Paul 10:12
We have civil liberty consequences as well. We set the stage for gangsters and terrorists raising money by making weeds and wild plants and flowers illegal. If someone could say and show me all of a sudden that the American people use a lot less drugs and kids are never tempted, it would be a better case; but we do not have the evidence. We have no evidence to show that 30 years of this drug war has done very much good. Matter of fact, all studies of the DARE program show that the DARE program has not encouraged kids to use less illegal drugs. So there is quite a few reasons why we ought not to just glibly say to the DEA it’s been a wonderful 30 years and encourage more of it.

2004 Ron Paul 10:13
The second part of the resolution talks about the sacrifice of these men. To me, it is a tragedy. Why should we ever have a policy where men have to sacrifice themselves? I do not believe it is necessary. We gave up on the prohibition of alcohol. I believe the drug war ought to be fought, but in a much different manner.

2004 Ron Paul 10:14
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 11
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

H. Res. 412 Honoring Men And Women Of The Drug Enforcement Administration — Part 2 3 March 2004

2004 Ron Paul 11:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. SHAW). The gentleman from Texas has 14 minutes remaining.

2004 Ron Paul 11:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

2004 Ron Paul 11:3
Regarding the loss of lives, whether it is 3,000 that some report, or 20,000, many of those would be preventable if we did not have the drug wars going on. The drug wars go on because people are fighting for turf and then the police have to go in and try to stop them because prices are artificially high. We have created the incentive for drug violence. We take something worthless and make it worth billions of dollars. We set the stage for terrorists.

2004 Ron Paul 11:4
Right now, because of the policies in Afghanistan, 80 percent of Afghanistan now has been returned to the drug lords. If the drugs were worthless, there would be no incentive to promote them. But they are worth a lot of money, so inadvertently our drug war pushes the prices up, and we create the incentive for the Taliban and others to raise the poppies and send the drugs over here. Then they finance the terrorists. So it is an unintended consequence that does not make any sense. It does not have to happen.

2004 Ron Paul 11:5
The big challenge is will anybody ever be willing to raise the questions and suggest another way. Could we have made a mistake, such as we did with the prohibition of alcohol? This does not mean that everybody has everything they want. Alcohol is legal, but kids get marijuana and other drugs easier on the street than they get their alcohol, because there is such a tremendous incentive.

2004 Ron Paul 11:6
During prohibition it was very well known that because alcohol was illegal, the more concentrated it is and the higher price it is because you can move it about and because it is contraband. So there is a tremendous incentive to do that. And then, when it is illegal, it becomes more dangerous. That is exactly what happens on drugs.

2004 Ron Paul 11:7
One hundred years ago, you could buy cocaine in a drugstore. Most Americans would be tremendously surprised to realize that for most of our history drugs were not illegal. The first marijuana law was in 1938. And they got around that on the constitutional aspect by just putting a tax on it. So there is a lack of respect for how we solve our problems, a lack of wisdom on what we ought to do, and a lack of concern; and this is my deep concern as a physician, a lack of concern for seeing people dying and suffering.

2004 Ron Paul 11:8
Just think of the people who claim and are believable that they get some relief from marijuana, the paraplegics and those who have cancer and receiving chemotherapy. And in our arrogance, we, at the national level, write laws that send the DEA in to cancel out the States that have tried to change the law and show a little bit of compassion for people that are dying.

2004 Ron Paul 11:9
We are constitutionally wrong, we are medically wrong, we are economically wrong, and we are not achieving anything. We have no faith and confidence in our constitutional system. We have no faith and confidence that we change moral and personal habits through persuasion, not through armed might.

2004 Ron Paul 11:10
This is a choice. Nobody is for the use of drugs that I know of. But there is a big difference if you casually and carelessly resort to saying, oh, it is good that you do not do drugs, to let us create a drug army to prance around the country, and then lo and behold houses are invaded, mistakes are made, innocent people are killed, and it does not add up.

2004 Ron Paul 11:11
It is still astounding to me to find out that the DEA was not even created by congressional legislation. It was created by an executive order. We have gone a long way, colleagues, from where the respect for the Constitution existed and that at least the Congress should legislate. Even in the 1920s, when we attacked alcohol, we had enough respect for the Constitution to amend the Constitution.

2004 Ron Paul 11:12
Mr. Speaker, I think we are deceiving ourselves if we think the war on drugs is being won, and the failure to look at the unintended consequences, the real cost. As a matter of fact, this resolution brings up the real cost, this long list, this long tragic list of individuals who have been killed over this war.

2004 Ron Paul 11:13
So I am asking once again not so much to be in opposition to this resolution, but this resolution is to praise 30 years of the DEA and to praise an agency that really has no authority because it comes only from the executive branch, but for us to someday seriously think about the problems that have come from the war on drugs.

2004 Ron Paul 11:14
Let me tell Members, there is a politically popular position in this country that many are not aware of: The tragedy of so many families seeing their loved ones die and suffer without adequate care, 90-year-old people dying of cancer and nurses and doctors intimidated and saying we cannot make them a drug addict. This drug war culture that we live with has done a lot of harm in the practice of medicine. Attacking the physicians who prescribe pain medicine and taking their licenses from them is reprehensible. I ask Members to please reconsider, not so much what we do today, but in the future, maybe we will wake up and decide there is a better way to teach good habits to American citizens.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 12
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

H. Res. 412 Honoring Men And Women Of The Drug Enforcement Administration — Part 3 3 March 2004

2004 Ron Paul 12:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

2004 Ron Paul 12:2
Mr. Speaker, let me just close with a comment about the prison system and what has happened. As I mentioned before, 84 percent of Federal prisoners are nonviolent drug offenders. Many go into prison, and they come out hardened criminals, and the problem is made much worse. Because of overcrowding, we have the release of violent prisoners because the prisons are too full. Also, the rules on mandatory sentencing of non-violent offenders have not been a good idea and have contributed to the problems that we face.

2004 Ron Paul 12:3
Another thing which I have not mentioned before but is worth thinking about is the inequity in the enforcement of laws. If one happens to be a wealthy, white-collar worker caught using cocaine, the odds of that individual serving time in prison is very reduced, compared to if you are caught in the inner city. It seems there is less justice for the inner city youth. This, of course, intensifies the problems of the inner city.

2004 Ron Paul 12:4
Once again, all I ask is that in the future we look at our drug policy because current policy is working so poorly, and also to reconsider the fact that we have gone 30 years with a program where there is no evidence of success, and astoundingly it was all done under an executive order.

2004 Ron Paul 12:5
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 13
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

We The People Act 4 March 2004

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, March 4, 2004

2004 Ron Paul 13:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the We the People Act. The We the People Act forbids federal courts, including the Supreme Court, from adjudicating cases concerning state laws and policies relating to religious liberties or “privacy,” including cases involving sexual practices, sexual orientation or reproduction. The We the People Act also protects the traditional definition of marriage from judicial activism by ensuring the Supreme Court cannot abuse the equal protection clause to redefine marriage. In order to hold federal judges accountable for abusing their powers, the act also provides that a judge who violates the act’s limitations on judicial power shall either be impeached by Congress or removed by the president, according to rules established by the Congress.

2004 Ron Paul 13:2
The United States Constitution gives Congress the authority to establish and limit the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts and limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Founders intended Congress to use this authority to correct abuses of power by the federal judiciary.

2004 Ron Paul 13:3
Some may claim that an activist judiciary that strikes down state laws at will expands individual liberty. Proponents of this claim overlook the fact that the best guarantor of true liberty is decentralized political institutions, while the greatest threat to liberty is concentrated power. This is why the Constitution carefully limits the power of the federal government over the states.

2004 Ron Paul 13:4
In recent years, we have seen numerous abuses of power by federal courts. Federal judges regularly strike down state and local laws on subjects such as religious liberty, sexual orientation, family relations, education, and abortion. This government by federal judiciary causes a virtual nullification of the Tenth Amendment’s limitations on federal power. Furthermore, when federal judges impose their preferred policies on state and local governments, instead of respecting the policies adopted by those elected by, and thus accountable to, the people, republican government is threatened. Article IV, section 4 of the United States Constitution guarantees each state a republican form of government. Thus, Congress must act when the executive or judicial branch threatens the republican governments of the individual states. Therefore, Congress has a responsibility to stop federal judges from running roughshod over state and local laws. The Founders would certainly have supported congressional action to reign in federal judges who tell citizens where they can and can’t place manger scenes at Christmas.

2004 Ron Paul 13:5
Mr. Speaker, even some supporters of liberalized abortion laws have admitted that the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, which overturned the abortion laws of all fifty states, is flawed. The Supreme Court’s Establishment Clause jurisdiction has also drawn criticism from across the political spectrum. Perhaps more importantly, attempts to resolve, by judicial fiat, important issues like abortion and the expression of religious belief in the public square increase social strife and conflict. The only way to resolve controversial social issues like abortion and school prayer is to restore respect for the right of state and local governments to adopt policies that reflect the beliefs of the citizens of those jurisdictions. I would remind my colleagues and the federal judiciary that, under our Constitutional system, there is no reason why the people of New York and the people of Texas should have the same policies regarding issues such as marriage and school prayer.

2004 Ron Paul 13:6
Unless Congress acts, a state’s authority to define and regulate marriage may be the next victim of activist judges. After all, such a decision would simply take the Supreme Court’s decision in the Lawrence case, which overturned all state sodomy laws, to its logical conclusion. Congress must launch a preemptive strike against any further federal usurpation of the states’ authority to regulate marriage by removing issues concerning the definition of marriage from the jurisdiction of federal courts.

2004 Ron Paul 13:7
Although marriage is licensed and otherwise regulated by the states, government did not create the institution of marriage. Government regulation of marriage is based on state recognition of the practices and customs formulated by private individuals interacting in civil institutions, such as churches and synagogues. Having federal officials, whether judges, bureaucrats, or congressmen, impose a new definition of marriage on the people is an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty.

2004 Ron Paul 13:8
It is long past time that Congress exercises its authority to protect the republican government of the states from out-of-control federal judges. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the We the People Act.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 14
Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]

An Indecent Attack on the First Amendment March 10, 2004 HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES


2004 Ron Paul 14:1
We will soon debate the “Broadcast Indecency Act of 2004” on the House Floor.   This atrocious piece of legislation should be defeated.   It cannot improve the moral behavior of U.S. citizens, but it can do irreparable harm to our cherished right to freedom of speech.

2004 Ron Paul 14:2
This attempt at regulating and punishing indecent and sexually provocative language suggests a comparison to the Wahhabi religious police of Saudi Arabia, who control the “Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice.”   Though both may be motivated by the good intentions of improving moral behavior, using government force to do so is fraught with great danger and has no chance of success.

2004 Ron Paul 14:3
Regulating speech is a dangerous notion, and not compatible with the principles of a free society.   The Founders recognized this, and thus explicitly prohibited Congress from making any laws that might abridge freedom of speech or of the press.

2004 Ron Paul 14:4
But we have in recent decades seen a steady erosion of this protection of free speech.

2004 Ron Paul 14:5
This process started years ago when an arbitrary distinction was made by the political left between commercial and non-commercial speech, thus permitting government to regulate and censor commercial speech.   Since only a few participated in commercial speech, few cared — and besides, the government was there to protect us from unethical advertisements.   Supporters of this policy failed to understand that anti-fraud laws and state laws could adequately deal with this common problem found in all societies.

2004 Ron Paul 14:6
Disheartening as it may be, the political left, which was supposed to care more about the 1st Amendment than the right, has ventured in recent years to curtail so-called “hate speech” by championing political correctness.   In the last few decades we’ve seen the political-correctness crowd, in the name of improving personal behavior and language, cause individuals to lose their jobs, cause careers to be ruined, cause athletes to be trashed, and cause public speeches on liberal campuses to be disrupted and even banned.   These tragedies have been caused by the so-called champions of free speech.   Over the years, tolerance for the views of those with whom campus liberals disagree has nearly evaporated.   The systematic and steady erosion of freedom of speech continues.

2004 Ron Paul 14:7
Just one year ago we saw a coalition of both left and right push through the radical Campaign Finance Reform Act, which strictly curtails the rights all Americans to speak out against particular candidates at the time of elections.   Amazingly, this usurpation by Congress was upheld by the Supreme Court, which showed no concern for the restrictions on political speech during political campaigns.   Instead of admitting that money and corruption in government is not a consequence of too much freedom of expression, but rather a result of government acting outside the bounds of the Constitution, this new law addressed a symptom rather than the cause of special interest control of our legislative process.

2004 Ron Paul 14:8
And now comes the right’s attack on the 1st Amendment, with its effort to stamp out “indecent” language on the airways.   And it will be assumed that if one is not with them in this effort, then one must support the trash seen and heard in the movie theaters and on our televisions and radios.   For social rather than constitutional reasons, some on the left express opposition to this proposal.

2004 Ron Paul 14:9
But this current proposal is dangerous.   Since most Americans- I hope- are still for freedom of expression of political ideas and religious beliefs, no one claims that anyone who endorses freedom of speech therefore endorses the nutty philosophy and religious views that are expressed.   We should all know that the 1st Amendment was not written to protect non-controversial mainstream speech, but rather the ideas and beliefs of what the majority see as controversial or fringe.

2004 Ron Paul 14:10
The temptation has always been great to legislatively restrict rudeness, prejudice, and minority views, and it’s easiest to start by attacking the clearly obnoxious expressions that most deem offensive.   The real harm comes later.   But “later” is now approaching.

2004 Ron Paul 14:11
The failure to understand that radio, TV, and movies more often than not reflect the peoples’ attitudes prompts this effort.   It was never law that prohibited moral degradation in earlier times.   It was the moral standards of the people who rejected the smut that we now see as routine entertainment.   Merely writing laws and threatening huge fines will not improve the moral standards of the people.   Laws like the proposed “Broadcast Indecency Act of 2004” merely address the symptom of a decaying society, while posing a greater threat to freedom of expression.   Laws may attempt to silence the bigoted and the profane, but the hearts and minds of those individuals will not be changed.   Societal standards will not be improved.   Government has no control over these standards, and can only undermine liberty in its efforts to make individuals more moral or the economy fairer.

2004 Ron Paul 14:12
Proponents of using government authority to censor certain undesirable images and comments on the airwaves resort to the claim that the airways belong to all the people, and therefore it’s the government’s responsibility to protect them.   The mistake of never having privatized the radio and TV airwaves does not justify ignoring the 1st Amendment mandate that “Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech.”   When everyone owns something, in reality nobody owns it.   Control then occurs merely by the whims of the politicians in power.   From the very start, licensing of radio and TV frequencies invited government censorship that is no less threatening than that found in totalitarian societies.

2004 Ron Paul 14:13
We should not ignore the smut and trash that has invaded our society, but laws like this will not achieve the goals that many seek.   If a moral society could be created by law, we would have had one a long time ago.   The religious fundamentalists in control of other countries would have led the way.   Instead, authoritarian violence reigns in those countries.

2004 Ron Paul 14:14
If it is not recognized that this is the wrong approach to improve the quality of the airways, a heavy price will be paid.   The solution to decaying moral standards has to be voluntary, through setting examples in our families, churches, and communities- never by government coercion.   It just doesn’t work.

2004 Ron Paul 14:15
But the argument is always that the people are in great danger if government does not act by:


2004 Ron Paul 14:16
- Restricting free expression in advertising;


2004 Ron Paul 14:17
- Claiming insensitive language hurts people, and political correctness guidelines are needed to protect the weak;


2004 Ron Paul 14:18
- Arguing that campaign finance reform is needed to hold down government corruption by the special interests;


2004 Ron Paul 14:19
- Banning indecency on the airways that some believe encourages immoral behavior.

2004 Ron Paul 14:20
If we accept the principle that these dangers must be prevented through coercive government restrictions on expression, it must logically follow that all dangers must be stamped out, especially those that are even more dangerous than those already dealt with.   This principle is adhered to in all totalitarian societies.   That means total control of freedom of expression of all political and religious views.   This certainly was the case with the Soviets, the Nazis, the Cambodians, and the Chinese communists.   And yet these governments literally caused the deaths of hundreds of millions of people throughout the 20th Century.   This is the real danger, and if we’re in the business of protecting the people from all danger, this will be the logical next step.

2004 Ron Paul 14:21
It could easily be argued that this must be done, since political ideas and fanatical religious beliefs are by far the most dangerous ideas known to man.   Sadly, we’re moving in that direction, and no matter how well intended the promoters of these limits on the 1st Amendment are, both on the left and the right, they nevertheless endorse the principle of suppressing any expressions of dissent if one chooses to criticize the government.

2004 Ron Paul 14:22
When the direct attack on political and religious views comes, initially it will be on targets that most will ignore, since they will be seen as outside the mainstream and therefore unworthy of defending – like the Branch Davidians or Lyndon LaRouche.

2004 Ron Paul 14:23
Rush Limbaugh has it right (at least on this one), and correctly fears the speech police.   He states:   “I’m in the free speech business,” as he defends Howard Stern and criticizes any government effort to curtail speech on the airways, while recognizing the media companies’ authority and responsibility to self-regulate.

2004 Ron Paul 14:24
Congress has been a poor steward of the 1st Amendment.   This newest attack should alert us all to the dangers of government regulating freedom of speech — of any kind.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 15
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Federalizing Tort Law 10 March 2004

2004 Ron Paul 15:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, Congress is once again using abusive litigation at the state level as a justification nationalizing tort law. In this case, the Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act (H.R. 339) usurps state jurisdiction over lawsuits related to obesity against food manufactures.

2004 Ron Paul 15:2
Of course, I share the outrage at the obesity lawsuits. The idea that a fast food restaurant should be held legally liable because some of its customers over indulged in the restaurants products, and thus are suffering from obesityrelated health problems, is the latest blow to the ethos of personal responsibility that is fundamental in a free society. After all, McDonalds does not force anyone to eat at its restaurants. Whether to make Big Macs or salads the staple of one’s diet is totally up to the individual. Furthermore, it is common knowledge that a diet centering on super-sized cheeseburgers, french fires, and sugar-filled colas is not healthy. Therefore, there is no rational basis for these suits. Some proponents of lawsuits claim that the fast food industry is “preying” on children. But isn’t making sure that children limit their consumption of fast foods the responsibility of parents, not trial lawyers? Will trial lawyers next try to blame the manufactures of cars that go above 65 miles per hour for speeding tickets?

2004 Ron Paul 15:3
Congress bears some responsibility for the decline of personal responsibility that led to the obesity lawsuits. After all, Congress created the welfare state that popularized the notion that people should not bear the costs of their mistakes. Thanks to the welfare state, too many Americans believe they are entitled to pass the costs of their mistakes on to a third party — such as the taxpayers or a corporation with “deep pockets.”

2004 Ron Paul 15:4
While I oppose the idea of holding food manufactures responsible for their customers’ misuse of their products, I cannot support addressing this problem by nationalizing tort law. It is long past time for Congress to recognize that not every problem requires a federal solution. This country’s founders recognized the genius of separating power among federal, state, and local governments as a means to maximize individual liberty and make government most responsive to those persons who might most responsibly influence it. This separation of powers strictly limits the role of the federal government in dealing with civil liability matters; and reserves jurisdiction over matters of civil tort, such as food related negligence suits, to the state legislatures.

2004 Ron Paul 15:5
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would remind the food industry that using unconstitutional federal powers to restrict state lawsuits makes it more likely those same powers will be used to impose additional federal control over the food industry. Despite these lawsuits, the number one threat to business remains a federal government freed of its Constitutional restraints. After all, the federal government imposes numerous taxes and regulations on the food industry, often using the same phony “pro-consumer” justifications used by the trial lawyers. Furthermore, while small businesses, such as fast-food franchises, can move to another state to escape flawed state tax, regulatory, or legal policies, they cannot as easily escape destructive federal regulations. Unconstitutional expansions of federal power, no matter how just the cause may seem, are not in the interests of the food industry or of lovers of liberty.

2004 Ron Paul 15:6
In conclusion, while I share the concern over the lawsuits against the food industry that inspired H.R. 339, this bill continues the disturbing trend of federalizing tort law. Enhancing the power of the federal government is in no way in the long-term interests of defenders of the free market and Constitutional liberties. Therefore, I must oppose this bill.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 16
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Undermining First Amendment 11 March 2004

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL).

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

2004 Ron Paul 16:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution, but I would like to express a few views on why I will oppose the legislation.

2004 Ron Paul 16:2
I am convinced that the Congress has been a very poor steward of the first amendment, and we are moving in the direction of further undermining the first amendment with this legislation.

2004 Ron Paul 16:3
First, many years ago, it was an attack on commercial speech by dividing commercial and noncommercial speech, which the Constitution does not permit. Then there was a systematic attack from the left, writing rules against hate speech which introduced the notion of political correctness. Recently, there was a petition to the Department of Justice that has asked the Department to evaluate “The Passion of Christ” as an example of hate speech. Unintended consequences do occur.

2004 Ron Paul 16:4
Next came along a coalition between right and left, and there was an attack on campaign speech with the campaign finance reform with a suspension of freedom of speech during an election period.

2004 Ron Paul 16:5
Now, once again, we are attacking indecency, which we all should, but how we do it is critical; because “indecency” is a subjective term, and it has yet to be defined by the courts. We should remember that the Congress very clearly by the Constitution is instructed to: “make no laws abridging the freedom of speech.” It cannot be any clearer. If we have problems with indecency they are to be solved in different manners. The excuse, because the government is responsible and owns the airwaves, that we can suspend the first amendment is incorrect. That is a good argument for privatizing the airwaves rather than an excuse for suspension of the first amendment.

2004 Ron Paul 16:6
I would like to close by quoting someone who is obviously not a libertarian and obviously not a liberal who has great concern about what we are doing, and he comes from the conservative right, Rush Limbaugh. He said: “If the government is going to ‘censor’ what they think is right and wrong, what happens if a whole bunch John Kerrys or Terry McAuliffes start running this country and decide conservative views are leading to violence? I am in the free speech business. It is one thing for a company to determine if they are going to be a party to it. It is another thing for the government to do it.”

2004 Ron Paul 16:7
Mr. Speaker, we all should be in the free speech business.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 17
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Providing For Consideration Of H.R. 3717, Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act Of 2004 11 March 2004

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, March 11, 2004

The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3717) to increase the penalties for violations by television and radio broadcasters of the prohibitions against transmission of obscene, indecent, and profane language:

2004 Ron Paul 17:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, Americans are right to be outraged at much of the content of broadcast television and radio today. Too many television and radio programs regularly mock the values of millions of Americans and feature lude, inappropriate conduct. It is totally legitimate and even praiseworthy for people to use market forces, such as boycotts of the sponsors of the offensive programs, to pressure networks to remove objectionable programming. However, it is not legitimate for Congress to censor broadcast programs.

2004 Ron Paul 17:2
The First Amendment says, “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech. . . .” It does not make an exception for broadcast television. Some argue that broadcast speech is different because broadcasters are using the “people’s airwaves.” Of course, the “people” don’t really control the airwaves anymore then the “people” control the government in the “People’s Republic” of China! Instead, the “people’s airwaves” is a euphemism for government control of the airwaves. Of course, government exceeded its Constitutional authority when it nationalized the broadcast industry.

2004 Ron Paul 17:3
Furthermore, there was no economic justification for Congress determining who is, and is not, allowed to access the broadcast spectrum. Instead of nationalizing the spectrum, the Federal Government should have allowed private parties to homestead parts of the broadcast spectrum and settle disputes over ownership and use through market processes, contracts, and, if necessary, application of the common law of contracts and torts. Such a market-based solution would have provided a more efficient allocation of the broadcast spectrum than has government regulation.

2004 Ron Paul 17:4
Congress used its unconstitutional and unjustified power-grab over the allocation of broadcast spectrum to justify imposing federal regulations on broadcasters. Thus, the Federal Government used one unconstitutional action to justify another seizing of regulatory control over the content of a means of communication in direct violation of the First Amendment.

2004 Ron Paul 17:5
Congress should reject H.R. 3717, the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act, because, by increasing fines and making it easier for governments to revoke the licenses of broadcasters who violate federal standards, H.R. 3717 expands an unconstitutional exercise of federal power. H.R. 3717 also establishes new frontiers in censorship by levying fines on individual artists for violating FCC regulations.

2004 Ron Paul 17:6
Congress should also reject H.R. 3717 because the new powers granted to the FCC may be abused by a future administration to crack down on political speech. The bill applies to speech the agency has determined is “obscene” or “indecent.” While this may not appear to include political speech, I would remind my colleagues that there is a serious political movement that believes that the expression of certain political opinions should be censored by the government because it is “hate speech.” Proponents of these views would not hesitate to redefine indecency to include “hate speech.” Ironically, many of the strongest proponents of H.R. 3717 also hold views that would likely be classified as “indecent hate speech.”

2004 Ron Paul 17:7
The new FCC powers contained in H.R. 3717 could even be used to censor religious speech. Just this week, a group filed a petition with the United States Department of Justice asking the agency to use federal hate crimes laws against the directors, producers, and screenwriters of the popular movie, “The Passion of the Christ.” Can anyone doubt that, if H.R. 3717 passes, any broadcaster who dares show “The Passion” or similar material will risk facing indecency charges? Our founders recognized the interdependence of free speech and religious liberty; this is why they are protected together in the First Amendment. The more the Federal Government restricts free speech, the more our religious liberties are endangered.

2004 Ron Paul 17:8
The reason we are considering H.R. 3717 is not unrelated to questions regarding state censorship of political speech. Many of this bill’s most rabid supporters appear to be motivated by the attacks on a member of Congress, and other statements critical of the current administration and violating the standards of political correctness, by “shock jock” Howard Stern. I have heard descriptions of Stern’s radio program that suggest this is a despicable program. However, I find even more troubling the idea that the Federal Government should censor anyone because of his comments about a member of Congress. Such behavior is more suited for members of a Soviet politburo than members of a representative body in a constitutional republic.

2004 Ron Paul 17:9
The nation’s leading conservative radio broadcaster, Rush Limbaugh, has expressed opposition to a federal crackdown on radio broadcast speech that offends politicians and bureaucrats:

2004 Ron Paul 17:10
If the government is going to ‘censor’ what they think is right and wrong . . . . what happens if a whole bunch of John Kerrys, or Terry McAliffes start running this country. And decide conservative views are leading to violence?

2004 Ron Paul 17:11
I am in the free speech business. It’s one thing for a company to determine if they are going to be party to it. It’s another thing for the government to do it.

2004 Ron Paul 17:12
Mr. Chairman, I am also concerned that the new powers H.R. 3717 creates will be applied in a manner that gives an unfair advantage to large media conglomerates. While the FCC will occasionally go after one of the major media conglomerates when it does something especially outrageous, the agency will likely spend most of its energies going after smaller outlets such as college and independent radio stations. Because college and independent stations lack the political clout of the large media companies, the FCC can prosecute them without incurring the wrath of powerful politicians. In addition, because these stations often cater to a small, niche audience, FCC actions against them would not incur the public opposition it would if the agency tried to kick “Survivor” off the air. Most significantly, college and independent stations lack the financial and technical resources to absolutely guarantee that no violations of ambiguous FCC regulations occur and to defend themselves adequately if the FCC attempts to revoke their licenses. Thus, college and independent radio stations make tempting targets for the FCC. My colleagues who are concerned about media concentration should consider how giving the FCC extended power to revoke licenses might increase media concentration.

2004 Ron Paul 17:13
H.R. 3717 should also be rejected because it is unnecessary. Major broadcasters’ profits depend on their ability to please their audiences and thus attract advertisers. Advertisers are oftentimes “risk adverse,” that is, afraid to sponsor anything that might offend a substantial portion of the viewing audience, who they hope to turn into customers. Therefore, networks have a market incentive to avoid offending the audience. It was fear of alienating the audience, and thus losing advertising revenue, that led to CBS’s quick attempt at “damage control” after the Super Bowl. Last year, we witnessed a remarkable demonstration of the power of private citizens when public pressure convinced CBS to change plans to air the movie “The Reagans,” which outraged conservatives concerned about its distortion of the life of Ronald Reagan.

2004 Ron Paul 17:14
Clearly, the American people do not need the government to protect them from “indecent” broadcasts. In fact, the unacknowledged root of the problem is that a large segment of the American people has chosen to watch material that fellow citizens find indecent. Once again, I sympathize with those who are offended by the choices of their fellow citizens. I do not watch or listen to the lewd material that predominates on the airwaves today, and I am puzzled that anyone could find that sort of thing entertaining. However, my colleagues should remember that government action cannot improve the people’s morals; it can only reduce liberty.

2004 Ron Paul 17:15
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3717 is the latest in an increasing number of attacks on free speech. For years, those who wanted to regulate and restrict speech in the commercial marketplace relied on the commercial speech doctrine that provides a lower level of protection to speech designed to provide a profit to the speaker. However, this doctrine has no Constitutional authority because the plain language of the First Amendment does not make any exceptions for commercial speech!

2004 Ron Paul 17:16
Even the proponents of the commercial speech doctrine agreed that the Federal Government should never restrict political speech. Yet, this Congress, this administration, and this Supreme Court have restricted political speech with the recently enacted campaign finance reform law. Meanwhile, the Department of Justice has indicated it will use the war against terrorism to monitor critics of the administration’s foreign policy, thus chilling antiwar political speech. Of course, on many college campuses students have to watch what they say lest they run afoul of the rules of “political correctness.” Even telling a “politically incorrect” joke can bring a student up on charges before the thought police! Now, selfproclaimed opponents of political correctness want to use federal power to punish colleges that allows the expression of views they consider “unpatriotic” and/or punish colleges when the composition of the facility does not meet their definition of diversity.

2004 Ron Paul 17:17
Just this week, there was a full-page ad in Roll Call, the daily paper distributed to House members, from people who want Congress to impose new regulations on movies featuring smoking. No doubt the sponsors of this ads are drooling over the prospect of fining stations that show Humphrey Bogart movies for indecent broadcasts.

2004 Ron Paul 17:18
These assaults on speech show a trend away from allowing the free and open expression of all ideas and points of view toward censoring those ideas that may offend some politically powerful group or upset those currently holding government power. Since censorship of speech invariably leads to censorship of ideas, this trend does not bode well for the future of personal liberty in America.

2004 Ron Paul 17:19
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, because H.R. 3717 is the latest assault in a disturbing pattern of attacks on the First Amendment, I must vote against it and urge my colleagues to do the same.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 18
Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Oppose a Flawed Policy of Preemptive War March 17, 2004

2004 Ron Paul 18:1
Mr. Speaker, today during the floor debate on H. Res. 557 (the Iraq resolution), I unfortunately was denied time to express my dissent on the policy of preemptive war in Iraq- even though I am a member of the International Relations committee.   The fact that the committee held no hearings and did not mark up the resolution further challenges the fairness of the process.

2004 Ron Paul 18:2
I wish to express my opposition to H. Res. 557, obviously not because our armed forces do not deserve praise, but rather because our policy in the Persian Gulf is seriously flawed. A resolution commending our forces should not be used to rubber-stamp a policy of folly. To do so is disingenuous. Though the resolution may have political benefits, it will prove to be historically incorrect.

2004 Ron Paul 18:3
Justifying preemption is not an answer to avoiding appeasement. Very few wars are necessary. Very few wars are good wars. And this one does not qualify. Most wars are costly beyond measure, in life and limb and economic hardship. In this regard, this war does qualify: 566 deaths, 10,000 casualties, and hundreds of billions of dollars for a victory requiring self-deception.

2004 Ron Paul 18:4
Rather than bragging about victory, we should recognize that the war raging on between the Muslim East and the Christian West has intensified and spread, leaving our allies and our own people less safe. Denying we have an interest in oil, and denying that occupying an Islamic country is an affront to the sensitivities of most Arabs and Muslims, is foolhardy.

2004 Ron Paul 18:5
Reasserting U.N. Security Council resolutions as a justification for the war further emphasizes our sacrifice of sovereignty, and only underscores how Congress has reneged its constitutional responsibility over war.

2004 Ron Paul 18:6
This resolution dramatizes how we have forgotten that for too long we were staunch military and economic allies of Saddam Hussein, confirming the folly of our policy of foreign meddling over many decades. From the days of installing the Shah of Iran to the current worldwide spread of hostilities and hatred, our unnecessary involvement shows so clearly how unintended consequences come back to haunt generation after generation.

2004 Ron Paul 18:7
Someday our leaders ought to ask why Switzerland, Sweden, Canada, Mexico, and many others are not potential targets of an Islamic attack. Falsely believing that al Qaeda was aligned with Saddam Hussein has resulted in al Qaeda now having a strong presence and influence in Iraq. Falsely believing that Iraq had a supply of weapons of mass destruction has resulted in a dramatic loss of U.S. credibility, as anti-Americanism spreads around the world. Al Qaeda recruitment, sadly, has been dramatically increased.

2004 Ron Paul 18:8
We all praise our troops and support them. Challenging one’s patriotism for not supporting this resolution and/or policy in the Persian Gulf is not legitimate. We should all be cautious about endorsing and financing a policy that unfortunately expands the war rather than ends it.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 19
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Opposing H.R. 557 17 March 2004

2004 Ron Paul 19:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 557. I do so obviously not because I oppose praising our armed forces, but because our policy in the Persian Gulf is seriously flawed and an effort to commend our forces should not be used to rubber-stamp a policy of folly. To do so is disingenuous. Though this resolution may yield political benefits to those who are offering it, it will prove to be historically inaccurate. Justifying preemption is not the answer to avoiding appeasement.

2004 Ron Paul 19:2
Very few wars are necessary. Very few wars are good and just, including this one. In reality, most wars are costly beyond measure in life and limb and economic hardship, including this one. There have been 566 deaths, 10,000 casualties, and hundreds of billions of dollars for a “victory” that remains elusive. Rather than bragging of victory we should recognize that the war that rages on has intensified and spread, leaving our allies and our own people less safe.

2004 Ron Paul 19:3
Denying that we are interested in oil and that occupying an Islamic country is not an affront to the sensitivities of most Arabs and Muslims is foolhardy. Reasserting U.N. Security Council resolutions as the justification for war further emphasizes our sacrifice of sovereignty and Congress’s reneging on its Constitutional responsibility on war.

2004 Ron Paul 19:4
This resolution seems to forget that for too long we were staunch military and economic allies of Saddam Hussein. This in itself only demonstrates the folly of our policy of foreign meddling over many decades from the days of the U.S. installing the Shah of Iran to the current world-wide spread of hostilities and hatred, our unnecessary intervention abroad shows so clearly how unintended consequences come back to haunt generation after generation.

2004 Ron Paul 19:5
Someday our leaders ought to ask why Switzerland, Sweden, Canada, Mexico and many other nations are not potential targets of an attack by Islamic extremists.

2004 Ron Paul 19:6
Falsely claiming that al-Qaeda was aligned with Saddam Hussein and using this as a rallying cry to war has now resulted in al-Qaeda actually having a strong presence and influence in Iraq. Falsely claiming that Iraq had a supply of weapons of mass destruction has resulted in a dramatic loss of U.S. credibility, as anti-Americanism spreads around the world. As a result of this, al-Qaeda recruitment sadly has been dramatically boosted.

2004 Ron Paul 19:7
That Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator was never in question, so reaffirming it here is unnecessary. What we must keep in mind, however, is that Saddam Hussein was attacking his own people and making war on Iran when he was essentially an ally of the United States — to the point where the U.S. Government assisted him in his war on Iran. This support is made all the more clear when viewing recently-declassified State Department cables in the days after Donald Rumsfeld traveled to Iraq as a U.S. envoy in 1983. Here are two such examples:

2004 Ron Paul 19:8
(1) United States Embassy in the United Kingdom Cable from Charles H. Price II to the Department of State. “Rumsfeld One-on-One Meeting with Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister,” December 21, 1983.

2004 Ron Paul 19:9
Presidential envoy Donald Rumsfeld and Tariq Aziz meet for two and one-half hours and agree that “the U.S. and Iraq shared many common interests,” including peace in the Persian Gulf, the desire to diminish the influence of Iran and Syria, and support for reintegrating Egypt, isolated since its unilateral peace with Israel, into the Arab world. Rumsfeld comments on Iraq’s oil exports, suggests alternative pipeline facilities, and discusses opposition to international terrorism and support for a fair Arab-Israeli peace. He and Aziz discuss the Iran-Iraq war “in detail.” Rumsfeld says that the administration wants an end to the war, and offers “our willingness to do more.” He mentions chemical weapons, possible escalation of fighting in the Gulf, and human rights as impediments to the U.S. government’s desire to do more to help Iraq, then shifts the conversation to U.S. opposition to Syria’s role in Lebanon.

2004 Ron Paul 19:10
(2) Department of State, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs Action Memorandum from Richard W. Murphy to Lawrence S. Eagleburger. “EXIM [Export-Import] Bank Financing for Iraq” [Includes Letter From Lawrence S. Eagleburger to William Draper, Dated December 24, 1983], December 22, 1983.

2004 Ron Paul 19:11
Pursuant to the Reagan administration’s policy of increasing support for Iraq, the State Department advises Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Lawrence Eagleburger to urge the U.S. Export-Import Bank to provide Iraq with financial credits. Eagleburger signs a letter to Eximbank saying that since Saddam Hussein had complied with U.S. requests, and announced the end of all aid to the principal terrorist group of concern to the U.S., and expelled its leader (Abu Nidal), “The terrorism issue, therefore, should no longer be an impediment to EXIM financing for U.S. sales to Iraq.” The financing is to signal U.S. belief in Iraq’s future economic viability, secure a foothold in the potentially large Iraqi market, and “go far to show our support for Iraq in a practical, neutral context.”

2004 Ron Paul 19:12
This resolution praises the new constitution for Iraq, written by U.S. experts and appointees. No one stops to consider the folly of the U.S. and the West believing they can write a constitution for a country with a completely different political and social history than ours. The constitution that the occupying forces have come up with is unworkable and absurd. It also will saddle the Iraqi people with an enormous and socialist-oriented government. In this, we are doing the Iraqi people no favor.

2004 Ron Paul 19:13
Article 14 of the new constitution grants the Iraqi people the “right” to “security, education, health care, and social security,” and affirms that “the Iraqi state . . . shall strive to provide prosperity and employment opportunities to the people.” This sounds more like the constitution of the old USSR than that of a free and market-oriented society. Further, this constitution declares that Iraqi citizens “shall not be permitted to possess, bear, buy, or sell arms” except by special license — denying the right of self defense to the Iraqi people just as their security situation continues to deteriorate. The Iraqi constitution also sets up a quota system for the Iraqi electoral system, stating that women should “constitute no less than one-quarter of the members of the National Assembly.” Is this kind of social engineering in Iraq on very left-liberal lines really appropriate? Are we doing the Iraqi people any favors with this approach?

2004 Ron Paul 19:14
We all praise our troops and support them. Had this bill merely done that I would have been an enthusiastic supporter. But in politicizing the issue rather than simply praising the armed forces, I regret that I cannot support it. Challenging one’s patriotism for not supporting this resolution and our policy in the Persian Gulf, however, is not appropriate.

2004 Ron Paul 19:15
We should all be cautious in endorsing and financing a policy that unfortunately expands the war rather than ending it. That, sadly, is what this legislation does.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 20
Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
March 22, 2004 Don’t Let the FDA Block Access to Needed Health Care Information

2004 Ron Paul 20:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Health Information Independence Act. This Act restores the right of consumers to purchase the dietary supplements of their choice and receive accurate information about the health benefits of foods and dietary supplements. The Act restricts the Food and Drug Administration’s power to impede consumers access to truthful claims regarding the benefits of foods and dietary supplements to those cases where the FDA has evidence that a product poses a threat to safety and well-being, or that a product does not have a disclaimer informing consumers that the claims are not FDA-approved.

2004 Ron Paul 20:2
Claims that could threaten public safety, or that are marketed without a disclaimer, would have to be reviewed by an independent review board, comprised of independent scientific experts randomly chosen by the FDA. Anyone who is (or has been) on the FDA’s payroll is disqualified from serving on the board.   The FDA is forbidden from exercising any influence over the review board. If the board recommends approval of a health claim, then the FDA must approve the claim.

2004 Ron Paul 20:3
The board also must consider whether any claims can be rendered non-misleading by adopting a disclaimer before rejecting a claim out of hand. For example, if the board finds the scientific evidence does not conclusively support a claim, but the claim could be rendered non-misleading if accompanied with a disclaimer, then the board must approve the claim- provided it is always accompanied by an appropriate disclaimer. The disclaimer would be a simple statement to the effect that “scientific studies on these claims are inconclusive” and/or “these claims are not approved by the FDA.” Thus, the bill tilts the balance of federal law in favor of allowing consumers access to information regarding the health benefits of foods and dietary supplements, which is proper in a free society.

2004 Ron Paul 20:4
The procedures established by the Health Information Independence Act are a fair and balanced way to ensure consumers have access to truthful information about dietary supplements. Over the past decade, the American people have made it clear they do not want the federal government to interfere with their access to dietary supplements, yet the FDA continues to engage in heavy-handed attempts to restrict such access.

2004 Ron Paul 20:5
In 1994, Congress responded to the American people’s desire for greater access to information about the benefits of dietary supplements by passing the Dietary Supplements and Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA), liberalizing rules regarding the regulation of dietary supplements. Congressional offices received a record number of comments in favor of DSHEA.

2004 Ron Paul 20:6
Despite DSHEA, FDA officials continued to attempt to enforce regulations aimed at keeping the American public in the dark about the benefits of dietary supplements. Finally, in the case of Pearson v. Shalala, the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit Court reaffirmed consumers’ First Amendment right to learn about dietary supplements without unnecessary interference from the FDA. The Pearson decision anticipated my legislation by suggesting the FDA adopt disclaimers in order to render some health claims non-misleading.

2004 Ron Paul 20:7
In the years since the Pearson decision, members of Congress have had to continually intervene with the FDA to ensure it followed the court order. The FDA continues to deny consumers access to truthful health information. Clearly, the FDA is determined to continue to (as the Pearson court pointed out) act as though liberalizing regulations regarding health claims is the equivalent of “asking consumers to buy something while hypnotized and therefore they are bound to be misled.”

2004 Ron Paul 20:8
The FDA’s “grocery store censorship” not only violates consumers’ First Amendment rights- by preventing consumers from learning about the benefits of foods and dietary supplements, the FDA’s policies are preventing consumers from taking easy steps to improve their own health!

2004 Ron Paul 20:9
If Congress is serious about respecting First Amendment rights, and the people’s right to improve their own health, we must remove the FDA’s authority to censor non-misleading health claims, and claims that can be rendered non-misleading by the simple device of adopting a disclaimer.

2004 Ron Paul 20:10
In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to help establish an objective process that respects consumers’ First Amendment rights to non-misleading information regarding the health benefits of foods and dietary supplements by cosponsoring the Health Information Independence Act.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 21
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

North American Development Bank 24 March 2004

2004 Ron Paul 21:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 254 expands the authority of the North American Development Bank (NAD), which was created in the allegedly free-trade NAFTA agreement, to make below-market loans. H.R. 254 also expands the geographic area in which the NAD bank operates. This bill is economically unsound and blatantly unconstitutional and I hope my colleagues will reject it.

2004 Ron Paul 21:2
Supporters of the NAD claim that the bank facilitates economic development and thus improves the quality of life for those living in regions where NAD finances projects. In fact, the NAD bank hinders economic development.

2004 Ron Paul 21:3
When Congress funds institutions like NAD, it transfers resources from the private sector to the government. When resources are left in the private sector, they are put to the use most highly valued by individual consumers. In contrast, the use of resources transferred to the public sector by agencies like NAD is determined by bureaucrats and politically powerful special interests, thus assuring that the resources cannot be put to their highest-valued use. Therefore, determining the allocation of resources through the political process decreases economic efficiency. Thus, NAD will actually cost jobs and reduce the standard of living of the very workers NAD’s supporters claim to benefit!

2004 Ron Paul 21:4
I would also like to remind my colleagues that there is no constitutional authorization for Congress to fund organizations like the NAD. If my colleagues are not convinced by the constitutional argument, I would hope they would consider the wisdom of expanding the scope of taxpayer support of programs like the NAD at a time when the government is facing massive deficits and Congress is scrambling to find the money to pay for national priorities.

2004 Ron Paul 21:5
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stand up for sound economics and constitutional principles by rejecting H.R. 254, legislation expanding the North American Development Bank.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 22
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

The Television Consumer Freedom Act 24 March 2004

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, March 24, 2004

2004 Ron Paul 22:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Television Consumer Freedom Act, legislation repealing regulations that interfere with a consumer’s ability to obtain desired television programming. The Television Consumer Freedom Act also repeals federal regulations that would increase the cost of a television.

2004 Ron Paul 22:2
My office has received numerous calls from rural satellite and cable TV customers who are upset because their satellite or cable service providers have informed them that they will lose access to certain network and cable programming. The reason my constituents cannot obtain their desired satellite and cable services is that the satellite and cable “marketplace” is fraught with government interventionism at every level. Local governments have historically granted cable companies franchises of monopoly privilege. Government has previously intervened to invalidate “exclusive dealings” contracts between private parties, namely cable service providers and program creators, and has most recently imposed price controls. The Library of Congress has even been delegated the power to determine prices at which program suppliers must make their programs available to cable and satellite programming service providers.

2004 Ron Paul 22:3
It is, of course, within the constitutionally enumerated powers of Congress to “promote the progress of Science and Useful Arts by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the Exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” However, operating a clearing-house for the subsequent transfer of such property rights in the name of setting a just price or “instilling competition” via “central planning” seems to be neither economically prudent nor justifiable under this enumerated power. This process is one best reserved to the competitive marketplace.

2004 Ron Paul 22:4
It is impossible for the government to set the just price for satellite programming. Over regulation of the cable industry has resulted in competition among service providers for government privilege rather than free market competition among providers to offer a better product at a lower price. While federal regulation does leave satellite programming service providers free to bypass the governmental royalty distribution scheme and negotiate directly with owners of programming for program rights, there is a federal prohibition on satellite service providers making local network affiliates’ programs available to nearby satellite subscribers. This bill repeals that federal prohibition so satellite service providers may freely negotiate with program owners for programming desired by satellite service subscribers. Technology is now available by which viewers could view network programs via satellite as presented by their nearest network affiliate. This market-generated technology will remove a major stumbling block to negotiations that should currently be taking place between network program owners and satellite service providers.

2004 Ron Paul 22:5
This bill also repeals federal laws that force cable companies to carry certain programs. These federal “must carry” mandates deny cable companies the ability to provide the programming their customers’ desire. Decisions about what programming to carry on a cable system should be made by consumers, not federal bureaucrats.

2004 Ron Paul 22:6
The Television Consumer Freedom Act also repeals federal regulations that mandate that all TVs sold in the United States contain “digital technology.” In complete disregard of all free market and constitutional principles, the FCC actually plans to forbid consumers from buying TVs, after 2006 that are not equipped to carry digital broadcasts. According to Stephen Moore of the CATO Institute, this could raise the price of a TV by as much as $250 dollars. While some television manufactures and broadcasters may believe they will benefit from this government-imposed price increase, they will actually lose business as consumers refrain from purchasing new TVs because of the government mandated price increase.

2004 Ron Paul 22:7
Mr. Speaker, the federal government should not interfere with a consumer’s ability to purchase services such as satellite or cable television in the free market. I therefore urge my colleagues to take a step toward restoring freedom by cosponsoring my Television Consumer Freedom Act.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 23
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

The Child Health Care Affordability Act 24 March 2004

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, March 24, 2004

2004 Ron Paul 23:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to help working Americans provide for their children’s health care needs by introducing the Child Health Care Affordability Act. The Child Health Care Affordability Act provides parents with a tax credit of up to $500 for health care expenses of dependent children. Parents caring for a child with a disability, terminal disease, cancer, or any other health condition requiring specialized care would receive a tax credit of up to $3,000 to help cover their child’s health care expenses.

2004 Ron Paul 23:2
The tax credit would be available to all citizens, regardless of whether or not they itemize their deductions. The credit applies against both income and payroll tax liability. The tax credits provided in this bill will be especially helpful to those Americans whose employers cannot afford to provide health insurance for their employees. These workers must struggle to meet the medical bills of themselves and their families. This burden is especially heavy on parents whose children have a medical condition; such as cancer or a physical disability that requires long-term or specialized health care.

2004 Ron Paul 23:3
As an OB–GYN who has had the privilege of delivering more than four thousand babies, I know how important it is that parents have the resources to provide adequate health care for their children. The inability of many working Americans to provide health care for their children is rooted in one of the great inequities of the tax code — Congress’ failure to allow individuals the same ability to deduct health care costs that it grants to businesses. As a direct result of Congress’ refusal to provide individuals with health care related tax credits, parents whose employers do not provide health insurance have to struggle to provide health care for their children. Many of these parents work in low-income jobs; oftentimes, their only recourse for health care is the local emergency room.

2004 Ron Paul 23:4
Sometimes parents are forced to delay seeking care for their children until minor health concerns that could have been easily treated become serious problems requiring expensive treatment! If these parents had access to the type of tax credits provided in the Child Health Care Affordability Act, they would be better able to provide care for their children, and our nation’s already overcrowded emergency rooms would be relieved of the burden of having to provide routine care for people who otherwise cannot afford it.

2004 Ron Paul 23:5
According to research on the effects of this bill done by my staff and legislative counsel, the benefit of these tax credits would begin to be felt by joint filers with incomes slightly above $18,000 per year, or single income filers with incomes slightly above $15,000 per year. Clearly, this bill will be of the most benefit to low-income Americans balancing the demands of taxation with the needs of their children.

2004 Ron Paul 23:6
Under the Child Health Care Affordability Act, a struggling singling mother with an asthmatic child would at last be able to provide for her child’s needs, while a working-class family will not have to worry about how they will pay the bills if one of their children requires lengthy hospitalization or some other form of specialized care.

2004 Ron Paul 23:7
Mr. Speaker, this Congress has a moral responsibility to provide tax relief so that low-income parents struggling to care for a sick child can better meet their child’s medical expenses. Some may say that we cannot enact the Child Health Care Affordability Act because it would cause the government to lose revenue. But, who is more deserving of this money, Congress or the working parents of a sick child?

2004 Ron Paul 23:8
The Child Health Care Affordability Act takes a major step toward helping working Americans meet their health care needs by providing them with generous health care related tax cuts and tax credits. I urge my colleagues to support the pro-family, pro-health care tax cuts contained in the Child Health Care Affordability Act.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 24
Ron Paul’s Congressional website HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
March 25, 2004 Oppose the Spendthrift 2005 Federal Budget Resolution

2004 Ron Paul 24:1
Mr. Speaker, I once again find myself compelled to vote against the annual budget resolution (HConRes 393) for a very simple reason: it makes government bigger.   Like many of my Republican colleagues who curiously voted for today’s enormous budget, I campaign on a simple promise that I will work to make government smaller.   This means I cannot vote for any budget that increases spending over previous years.   In fact, I would have a hard time voting for any budget that did not slash federal spending by at least 25%, a feat that becomes less unthinkable when we remember that the federal budget in 1990 was less than half what it is today.   Did anyone really think the federal government was uncomfortably small just 14 years ago?   Hardly.   It once took more than 100 years for the federal budget to double, now it takes less than a decade.   We need to end the phony rhetoric about “priorities” and recognize federal spending as the runaway freight train that it is.   A federal government that spends 2.4 trillion dollars in one year and consumes roughly one-third of the nation’s GDP is far too large.

2004 Ron Paul 24:2
Neither political party wants to address the fundamental yet unspoken issue lurking beneath any budget debate: What is the proper role for government in our society?   Are these ever-growing social services and defense expenditures really proper in a free country?   We need to understand that the more government spends, the more freedom is lost.   Instead of simply debating spending levels, we ought to be debating whether the departments, agencies, and programs funded by the budget should exist at all.   My Republican colleagues especially ought to know this.   Unfortunately, however, the GOP has decided to abandon principle and pander to the entitlements crowd.   But this approach will backfire, because Democrats will always offer to spend even more than Republicans.   When Republicans offer to spend $500 billion on Medicare, Democrats will offer $600 billion.   Why not?   It’s all funny money anyway, and it helps them get reelected.

2004 Ron Paul 24:3
I object strenuously to the term “baseline budget.”   In Washington, this means that the previous year’s spending levels represent only a baseline starting point.   Both parties accept that each new budget will spend more than the last, the only issue being how much more.   If Republicans offer a budget that grows federal spending by 3%, while Democrats seek 6% growth, Republicans trumpet that they are the party of smaller government! But expanding the government slower than some would like is not the same as reducing it.  

2004 Ron Paul 24:4
Furthermore, today’s budget debate further entrenches the phony concept of discretionary versus nondiscretionary spending.   An increasing percentage of the annual federal budget is categorized as “nondiscretionary” entitlement spending, meaning Congress ostensibly has no choice whether to fund certain programs.   In fact, roughly two-thirds of the fiscal year 2005 budget is consumed by nondiscretionary spending.   When Congress has no say over how two-thirds of the federal budget is spent, the American people effectively have no say either.   Why in the world should the American people be forced to spend 1.5 trillion dollars funding programs that cannot even be reviewed at budget time?   The very concept of nondiscretionary spending is a big-government statist’s dream, because it assumes that we as a society simply have accepted that most of the federal leviathan must be funded as a matter of course.   NO program or agency should be considered sacred, and no funding should be considered inevitable.

2004 Ron Paul 24:5
The assertion that this budget will reduce taxes is nonsense.   Budget bills do not change the tax laws one bit.   Congress can pass this budget today and raise taxes tomorrow- budget and tax bills are completely separate and originate from different committees.   The budget may make revenue projections based on tax cuts, but the truth is that Congress has no idea what federal revenues will be in any future year.   Similarly, the deficit reduction supposedly contained in the budget is illusory.   The federal government always spends more in future years than originally projected, and always runs single-year deficits when one factors in raids on funds supposedly earmarked for Social Security.   The notion that today’s budget will impose fiscal restraint on Congress in the future is laughable- Congress will vote for new budgets every year without the slightest regard for what we do today.

2004 Ron Paul 24:6
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues have discussed the details of this budget ad nauseam.   The increases in domestic, foreign, and military spending would not be needed if Congress stopped trying to build an empire abroad and a nanny state at home.   Our interventionist foreign policy and growing entitlement society will bankrupt this nation if we do not change the way we think about the proper role of the federal government.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 25
Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Don’t Expand NATO! March 30, 2004

2004 Ron Paul 25:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. I do so because further expansion of NATO, an outdated alliance, is not in our national interest and may well constitute a threat to our national security in the future.

2004 Ron Paul 25:2
More than 50 years ago the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was formed to defend Western Europe and the United States against attack from the communist nations of Eastern Europe. It was an alliance of sovereign nations bound together in common purpose - for mutual defense. The deterrence value of NATO helped kept the peace throughout the Cold War. In short, NATO achieved its stated mission. With the fall of the Soviet system and the accompanying disappearance of the threat of attack, in 1989-1991, NATO’s reason to exist ceased. Unfortunately, as with most bureaucracies, the end of NATO’s mission did not mean the end of NATO. Instead, heads of NATO member states gathered in 1999 desperately attempting to devise new missions for the outdated and adrift alliance. This is where NATO moved from being a defensive alliance respecting the sovereignty of its members to an offensive and interventionist organization, concerned now with “economic, social and political difficulties...ethnic and religious rivalries, territorial disputes, inadequate or failed efforts at reform, the abuse of human rights, and the dissolution of states,” in the words of the Washington 1999 Summit.

2004 Ron Paul 25:3
And we saw the fruits of this new NATO mission in the former Yugoslavia, where the US, through NATO, attacked a sovereign state that threatened neither the United States nor its own neighbors. In Yugoslavia, NATO abandoned the claim it once had to the moral high ground. The result of the illegal and immoral NATO intervention in the Balkans speaks for itself: NATO troops will occupy the Balkans for the foreseeable future. No peace has been attained, merely the cessation of hostilities and a permanent dependency on US foreign aid.

2004 Ron Paul 25:4
The further expansion of NATO is in reality a cover for increased US interventionism in Europe and beyond. It will be a conduit for more unconstitutional US foreign aid and US interference in the internal politics of member nations, especially the new members from the former East.

2004 Ron Paul 25:5
It will also mean more corporate welfare at home. As we know, NATO membership demands a minimum level of military spending of its member states. For NATO’s new members, the burden of significantly increased military spending when there are no longer external threats is hard to meet. Unfortunately, this is where the US government steps in, offering aid and subsidized loans to these members so they can purchase more unneeded and unnecessary military equipment. In short, it is nothing more than corporate welfare for the US military industrial complex.

2004 Ron Paul 25:6
The expansion of NATO to these seven countries, we have heard, will open them up to the further expansion of US military bases, right up to the border of the former Soviet Union. Does no one worry that this continued provocation of Russia might have negative effects in the future? Is it necessary?

2004 Ron Paul 25:7
Further, this legislation encourages the accession of Albania, Macedonia, and Croatia - nations that not long ago were mired in civil and regional wars. The promise of US military assistance if any of these states are attacked is obviously a foolhardy one. What will the mutual defense obligations we are entering into mean if two Balkan NATO members begin hostilities against each other (again)?

2004 Ron Paul 25:8
In conclusion, we should not be wasting US tax money and taking on more military obligations expanding NATO. The alliance is a relic of the Cold War, a hold-over from another time, an anachronism. It should be disbanded, the sooner the better.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 26
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Introducing The American Justice For American Citizens Act 1 April 2004

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, April 1, 2004

2004 Ron Paul 26:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the American Justice for American Citizens Act, which exercises Congress’s Constitutional authority to regulate the federal judiciary to ensure that federal judges base their decisions solely on American Constitutional, statutory, and traditional common law. Federal judges increasing practice of “transjudicialism” makes this act necessary. Transjudicialism is a new legal theory that encourages judges to disregard American law, including the United States Constitution, and base their decisions on foreign law. For example, Supreme Court justices recently used international law to justify upholding race-based college admissions and overturning all state sodomy laws.

2004 Ron Paul 26:2
In an October 28, 2003 speech before the Southern Center for International Studies in Atlanta, Georgia, Justice O’Connor stated: “[i]n ruling that consensual homosexual activity in one’s home is constitutionally protected, the Supreme Court relied in part on a series of decisions from the European Court of Human Rights. I suspect that with time, we will rely increasingly on international and foreign law in resolving what now appear to be domestic issues, as we both appreciate more fully the ways in which domestic issues have an international dimension, and recognize the rich resources available to us in the decisions of foreign courts.”

2004 Ron Paul 26:3
This statement should send chills down the back of every supporter of Constitutional government. After all, the legal systems of many of the foreign countries that provide Justice O’Connor with “rich resources” for her decisions do not respect the same concepts of due process, federalism, and even the presumption of innocence that are fundamental to the American legal system. Thus, harmonizing American law with foreign law could undermine individual rights and limited, decentralized government.

2004 Ron Paul 26:4
There has also been speculation that transjudicialism could be used to conform American law to treaties, such as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the Senate has not ratified. Mr. Speaker, some of these treaties have not been ratified because of concerns regarding their effects on traditional American legal, political, and social institutions. Judges should not be allowed to implement what could be major changes in American society, short-circuit the democratic process, and usurp the Constitutional role of the Senate to approve treaties, by using unratifed treaties as the bases of their decisions.

2004 Ron Paul 26:5
All federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, take an oath to obey and uphold the Constitution. The Constitution was ordained and ratified by the people of the United States to provide a charter of governance in accord with fixed and enduring principles, not to empower federal judges to impose the transnational legal elites’ latest theories on the American people.

2004 Ron Paul 26:6
Mr. Speaker, the drafters of the Constitution gave Congress the power to regulate the jurisdiction of federal courts precisely so we could intervene when the federal judiciary betrays its responsibility to uphold the Constitution and American law. Congress has a duty to use this power to ensure that judges base their decisions solely on American law.

2004 Ron Paul 26:7
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to do their Constitutional duty to ensure that American citizens have American justice by cosponsoring the American Justice for American Citizens Act.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 27
Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
April 22, 2004 The Lessons of 9/11

2004 Ron Paul 27:1
We are constantly admonished to remember the lessons of 9/11.   Of course the real issue is not remembering, but rather knowing what the pertinent lesson of that sad day is.

2004 Ron Paul 27:2
The 9/11 Commission soon will release its report after months of fanfare by those whose reputations are at stake.   The many hours and dollars spent on the investigation may well reveal little we don’t already know, while ignoring the most important lessons that should be learned from this egregious attack on our homeland.   Common sense already tells us the tens of billions of dollars spent by government agencies, whose job it is to provide security and intelligence for our country, failed.

2004 Ron Paul 27:3
A full-fledged investigation into the bureaucracy may help us in the future, but one should never pretend that government bureaucracies can be made efficient.   It is the very nature of bureaucracies to be inefficient.   Spending an inordinate amount of time finger pointing will distract from the real lessons of 9/11.   Which agency, which department, or which individual receives the most blame should not be the main purpose of the investigation.

2004 Ron Paul 27:4
Despite our serious failure to prevent the attacks, it’s disturbing to see how politicized the whole investigation has become.   Which political party receives the greatest blame is a high stakes election-year event, and distracts from the real lessons ignored by both sides.

2004 Ron Paul 27:5
Everyone on the Commission assumes that 9/11 resulted from a lack of government action.   No one in Washington has raised the question of whether our shortcomings, brought to light by 9/11, could have been a result of too much government.   Possibly in the final report we will discuss this, but to date no one has questioned the assumption that we need more government and, of course — though elusive — a more efficient one.

2004 Ron Paul 27:6
The failure to understand the nature of the enemy who attacked us on 9/11, along with a pre-determined decision to initiate a pre-emptive war against Iraq, prompted our government to deceive the people into believing that Saddam Hussein had something to do with the attacks on New York and Washington.   The majority of the American people still contend the war against Iraq was justified because of the events of 9/11.   These misinterpretations have led to many U.S. military deaths and casualties, prompting a growing number of Americans to question the wisdom of our presence and purpose in a strange foreign land 6,000 miles from our shores.

2004 Ron Paul 27:7
The neo-conservative defenders of our policy in Iraq speak of the benefits that we have brought to the Iraqi people:   removal of a violent dictator, liberation, democracy, and prosperity.   If all this were true, the resistance against our occupation would not be growing.   We ought to admit we have not been welcomed as liberators as was promised by the proponents of the war.

2004 Ron Paul 27:8
Though we hear much about the so-called “benefits” we have delivered to the Iraqi people and the Middle East, we hear little talk of the cost to the American people:   lives lost, soldiers maimed for life, uncounted thousands sent home with diseased bodies and minds, billions of dollars consumed, and a major cloud placed over U.S. markets and the economy.   Sharp political divisions, reminiscent of the 1960s, are arising at home.

2004 Ron Paul 27:9
Failing to understand why 9/11 happened and looking for a bureaucratic screw-up to explain the whole thing — while using the event to start an unprovoked war unrelated to 9/11 — have dramatically compounded the problems all Americans and the world face.   Evidence has shown that there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and the guerilla attacks on New York and Washington, and since no weapons of mass destruction were found, other reasons are given for invading Iraq.   The real reasons are either denied or ignored: oil, neo-conservative empire building, and our support for Israel over the Palestinians.

2004 Ron Paul 27:10
The proponents of the Iraqi war do not hesitate to impugn the character of those who point out the shortcomings of current policy, calling them unpatriotic and appeasers of terrorism.   It is said that they are responsible for the growing armed resistance, and for the killing of American soldiers.   It’s conveniently ignored that if the opponents of the current policy had prevailed, not one single American would have died nor would tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians have suffered the same fate.

2004 Ron Paul 27:11
Al Qaeda and many new militant groups would not be enjoying a rapid growth in their ranks.   By denying that our sanctions and bombs brought havoc to Iraq, it’s easy to play the patriot card and find a scapegoat to blame.   We are never at fault and never responsible for bad outcomes of what many believe is, albeit well-intentioned, interference in the affairs of others 6,000 miles from our shores.

2004 Ron Paul 27:12
Pursuing our policy has boiled down to “testing our resolve.”   It is said by many — even some who did not support the war — that now we have no choice but to “stay the course.”   They argue that it’s a noble gesture to be courageous and continue no matter how difficult.   But that should not be the issue.   It is not a question of resolve, but rather a question of wise policy.   If the policy is flawed and the world and our people are less safe for it, unshakable resolve is the opposite of what we need.   Staying the course only makes sense when the difficult tasks are designed to protect our country and to thwart those who pose a direct threat to us.   Wilsonian idealism of self-sacrifice to “make the world safe for democracy” should never be an excuse to wage preemptive war — especially since it almost never produces the desired results.   There are always too many unintended consequences.

2004 Ron Paul 27:13
In our effort to change the political structure of Iraq, we continue alliances with dictators and even develop new ones with countries that are anything but democracies.   We have a close alliance with Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, many other Arab dictatorships, and a new one with Kadafi of Libya.   This should raise questions about the credibility of our commitment to promoting democracy in Iraq — which even our own government wouldn’t tolerate.  

2004 Ron Paul 27:14
Show me one neo-con that would accept a national election that put the radical Shiites in charge.   As Secretary Rumsfeld said, it’s not going to happen.   These same people are condemning the recent democratic decisions made in Spain.   We should remember that since World War II, in 35 U.S. attempts to promote democracy around the world none have succeeded.

2004 Ron Paul 27:15
Promoters of war too often fail to contemplate the unintended consequences of an aggressive foreign policy.   So far, the anti-war forces have not been surprised with the chaos that has now become Iraq, or Iran’s participation — but even they cannot know all the long-term shortcomings of such a policy.

2004 Ron Paul 27:16
In an eagerness to march on Baghdad, the neo-cons gloated — and I heard them — of the “shock and awe” that was about to hit the Iraqi people.   It turns out that the real shock and awe is that we’re further from peace in Iraq than we were a year ago — and Secretary Rumsfeld admits his own surprise.           

2004 Ron Paul 27:17
The only policy now offered is to escalate the war and avenge the deaths of American soldiers—if they kill 10 of our troops, we’ll kill 100 of theirs.   Up until now, announcing the number of Iraqi deaths has been avoided purposely, but the new policy announces our success by the number of Iraqis killed.   But the more we kill, the greater the incitement of the radical Islamic militants.   The harder we try to impose our will on them, the greater the resistance becomes.

2004 Ron Paul 27:18
Amazingly, our occupation has done what was at one time thought to be impossible—it has united the Sunnis and Shiites against our presence.   Although this is probably temporary, it is real and has deepened our problems in securing Iraq.   The results are an escalation of the conflict and the requirement for more troops.   This acceleration of the killing is called “pacification”—a bit of 1984 newspeak.

2004 Ron Paul 27:19
The removal of Saddam Hussein has created a stark irony.   The willingness and intensity of the Iraqi people to fight for their homeland has increased many times over.   Under Saddam Hussein, essentially no resistance occurred.   Instead of jubilation and parades for the liberators, we face much greater and unified efforts to throw out all foreigners than when Saddam Hussein was in charge.

2004 Ron Paul 27:20
It’s not whether the Commission investigation of the causes of 9/11 is unwarranted; since the Commissioners are looking in the wrong places for answers, it’s whether much will be achieved.

2004 Ron Paul 27:21
I’m sure we will hear that the bureaucracy failed, whether it was the FBI, the CIA, the NSC, or all of them for failure to communicate with each other.   This will not answer the question of why we were attacked and why our defenses were so poor. Even though 40 billion dollars are spent on intelligence gathering each year, the process failed us.   It’s likely to be said that what we need is more money and more efficiency.   Yet, that approach fails to recognize that depending on government agencies to be efficient is a risky assumption.

2004 Ron Paul 27:22
We should support efforts to make the intelligence agencies more effective, but one thing is certain: more money won’t help.   Of the 40 billion dollars spent annually for intelligence, too much is spent on nation building and activities unrelated to justified surveillance.

2004 Ron Paul 27:23
There are two other lessons that must be learned if we hope to benefit by studying and trying to explain the disaster that hit us on 9/11.   If we fail to learn them, we cannot be made safer and the opposite is more likely to occur.

2004 Ron Paul 27:24
The first point is to understand who assumes most of the responsibility for the security of our homes and businesses in a free society.   It’s not the police.   There are too few of them, and it’s not their job to stand guard outside our houses or places of business.   More crime occurs in the inner city, where there are not only more police, but more restrictions on property owners’ rights to bear and use weapons if invaded by hoodlums.   In safer rural areas, where every home has a gun and someone in it who is willing to use it is, there is no false dependency on the police protecting them, but full reliance on the owner’s responsibility to deal with any property violators.   This understanding works rather well—at least better than in the inner cities where the understanding is totally different.

2004 Ron Paul 27:25
How does this apply to the 9/11 tragedies?   The airline owners accepted the rules of the inner city rather than those of rural America.   They all assumed that the government was in charge of airline security—and unfortunately, by law, it was.   Not only were the airlines complacent about security, but the FAA dictated all the rules relating to potential hijacking.   Chemical plants or armored truck companies that carry money make the opposite assumption, and private guns do a reasonably good job in providing security.    Evidently we think more of our money and chemical plants than we do our passengers on airplanes.

2004 Ron Paul 27:26
The complacency of the airlines is one thing, but the intrusiveness of the FAA is another.   Two specific regulations proved to be disastrous for dealing with the thugs who, without even a single gun, took over four airliners and created the havoc of 9/11.   Both the prohibition against guns in cockpits and precise instructions that crews not resist hijackers contributed immensely to the horrors of 9/11.

2004 Ron Paul 27:27
Instead of immediately legalizing a natural right of personal self-defense guaranteed by an explicit Second Amendment freedom, we still do not have armed pilots in the sky.   Instead of more responsibility being given to the airlines, the government has taken over the entire process.   This has been encouraged by the airline owners, who seek subsidies and insurance protection.   Of course, the nonsense of never resisting has been forever vetoed by all passengers.

2004 Ron Paul 27:28
Unfortunately, the biggest failure of our government will be ignored.   I’m sure the Commission will not connect our foreign policy of interventionism—practiced by both major parties for over a hundred years—as an important reason 9/11 occurred.   Instead, the claims will stand that the motivation behind 9/11 was our freedom, prosperity, and way of life.   If this error persists, all the tinkering and money to improve the intelligence agencies will bear little fruit.

2004 Ron Paul 27:29
Over the years the entire psychology of national defense has been completely twisted.   Very little attention had been directed toward protecting our national borders and providing homeland security.  

2004 Ron Paul 27:30
Our attention, all too often, was and still is directed outward toward distant lands.   Now a significant number of our troops are engaged in Afghanistan and Iraq.   We’ve kept troops in Korea for over 50 years, and thousands of troops remain in Europe and in over 130 other countries.   This twisted philosophy of ignoring national borders while pursuing an empire created a situation where Seoul, Korea, was better protected than Washington, DC, on 9/11.   These priorities must change, but I’m certain the 9/11 Commission will not address this issue.

2004 Ron Paul 27:31
This misdirected policy has prompted the current protracted war in Iraq, which has gone on for 13 years with no end in sight.   The al Qaeda attacks should not be used to justify more intervention; instead they should be seen as a guerilla attacks against us for what the Arabs and Muslim world see as our invasion and interference in their homelands.   This cycle of escalation is rapidly spreading the confrontation worldwide between the Christian West and the Muslim East.   With each escalation, the world becomes more dangerous.   It is especially made worse when we retaliate against Muslims and Arabs who had nothing to do with 9/11—as we have in Iraq—further confirming the suspicions of the Muslim masses that our goals are more about oil and occupation than they are about punishing those responsible for 9/11.

2004 Ron Paul 27:32
Those who claim that Iraq is another Vietnam are wrong.   They can’t be the same.   There are too many differences in time, place, and circumstance.   But that doesn’t mean the Iraqi conflict cannot last longer, spread throughout the region and throughout the world—making it potentially much worse than what we suffered in Vietnam.   In the first 6 years we were in Vietnam, we lost less than 500 troops. Over 700 have been killed in Iraq in just over a year.

2004 Ron Paul 27:33
Our failure to pursue al Qaeda and bin Laden in Pakistan and Afghanistan — and diverting resources to Iraq — have seriously compromised our ability to maintain a favorable world opinion of support and cooperation in this effort.

2004 Ron Paul 27:34
Instead, we have chaos in Iraq while the Islamists are being financed by a booming drug business from U.S.-occupied Afghanistan.

2004 Ron Paul 27:35
Continuing to deny that the attacks against us are related to our overall policy of foreign meddling through many years and many administrations, makes a victory over our enemies nearly impossible.   Not understanding the true nature and motivation of those who have and will commit deadly attacks against us prevents a sensible policy from being pursued.   Guerilla warriors, who are willing to risk and sacrifice everything as part of a war they see as defensive, are a far cry, philosophically, from a band of renegades who out of unprovoked hate seek to destroy us and kill themselves in the process.   How we fight back depends on understanding these differences.

2004 Ron Paul 27:36
Of course, changing our foreign policy to one of no pre-emptive war, no nation building, no entangling alliances, no interference in the internal affairs of other nations, and trade and friendship with all who seek it, is no easy task.

2004 Ron Paul 27:37
The real obstacle, though, is to understand the motives behind our current policy of perpetual meddling in the affairs of others for more than a hundred years.

2004 Ron Paul 27:38
Understanding why both political parties agree on the principle of continuous foreign intervention is crucial.   Those reasons are multiple and varied.   They range from the persistent Wilsonian idealism of making the world safe for democracy to the belief that we must protect “our” oil.

2004 Ron Paul 27:39
Also contributing to this bi-partisan, foreign policy view is the notion that promoting world government is worthwhile.   This involves support for the United Nations, NATO, control of the world’s resources through the IMF, the World Bank, the WTO, NAFTA, FTAA, and the Law of the Sea Treaty—all of which gain the support of those sympathetic to the poor and socialism, while too often the benefits accrue to the well-connected international corporations and bankers sympathetic to economic fascism.

2004 Ron Paul 27:40
Sadly, in the process the people are forgotten, especially those who pay the taxes, those whose lives are sacrificed in no-win undeclared wars, and the unemployed and poor as the economic consequences of financing our foreign entanglements evolve.

2004 Ron Paul 27:41
Regardless of one’s enthusiasm or lack thereof for the war and the general policy of maintaining American troops in more than 130 countries, one cold fact soon must be recognized by all of us in Congress.   The American people cannot afford it, and when the market finally recognizes the over commitment we’ve made, the results will not be pleasing to anyone.

2004 Ron Paul 27:42
A “guns and butter” policy was flawed in the 60s, and gave us interest rates of 21% in the 70s with high inflation rates.   The current “guns and butter” policy is even more intense, and our economic infrastructure is more fragile than it was back then.   These facts dictate our inability to continue this policy both internationally and domestically.   It is true, an unshakable resolve to stay the course in Iraq, or any other hot spot, can be pursued for years.   But when a country is adding to its future indebtedness by over 700 billion dollars per year it can only be done with great economic harm to all our citizens.

2004 Ron Paul 27:43
Huge deficits, financed by borrowing and Federal Reserve monetization, are an unsustainable policy and always lead to higher price inflation, higher interest rates, a continued erosion of the dollar’s value, and a faltering economy.   Economic law dictates that the standard of living then must go down for all Americans—except for the privileged few who have an inside track on government largess—if this policy of profligate spending continues.   Ultimately, the American people, especially the younger generation, will have to decide whether to languish with current policy or reject the notion that perpetual warfare and continued growth in entitlements should be pursued indefinitely.

2004 Ron Paul 27:44
Conclusion I’m sure the Commission will not deal with the flaw in the foreign policy endorsed by both parties for these many decades.   I hope the Commission tells us why members of the bin Laden family were permitted, immediately after 9/11, to leave the United States without interrogation, when no other commercial or private flights were allowed.   That event should have been thoroughly studied and explained to the American people.   We actually had a lot more reason to invade Saudi Arabia than we did Iraq in connection with 9/11, but that country, obviously no friend of democracy, remains an unchallenged ally of the United States with few questions asked.

2004 Ron Paul 27:45
I’m afraid the Commission will answer only a few questions while raising many new ones.   Overall though, the Commission has been beneficial and provides some reassurance to those who believe we operate in a much too closed society.   Fortunately, any administration, under the current system, still must respond to reasonable inquiries.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 28
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Continuity In Representation Act 22 April 2004

Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL).

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

2004 Ron Paul 28:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, as a cosponsor I am very pleased to support H.R. 2844, the Continuity in Representation Act.

2004 Ron Paul 28:2
H.R. 2844 provides a practical and constitutional way to ensure that the House of Representatives can continue to operate in the event that more than 100 Members are killed. H.R. 2844 thus protects the people’s right to choose their Representative at a time when such a right may be most important, while ensuring continuity of the legislative branch.

2004 Ron Paul 28:3
The version of H.R. 2844 before Congress today was drafted with input from the State election commissioners to make sure it sets realistic goals and will not unduly burden State governments.

2004 Ron Paul 28:4
Mr. Chairman, there are those who say the power of appointment is necessary in order to preserve checks and balances and prevent an abuse of executive power during a time of crisis. Of course, I agree that is a very important point to carefully guard against and protect our constitutional liberties, and that an overcentralization of power in the executive branch is one of the most serious dangers to our liberties. However, during a time of crisis, it is all the more important to have Representatives accountable to the people.

2004 Ron Paul 28:5
Otherwise, the citizenry has no check on the inevitable tendency of government to infringe on the people’s liberties at such a time.

2004 Ron Paul 28:6
Supporters of amending the constitution 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.

2004 Ron Paul 28:7
The Framers gave Congress all the tools it needs to address problems of mass vacancies in the House without compromising this institution’s primary function as a representative body. In fact, as Hamilton explains in Federalist 59, the “time, place, and manner” clause was specifically designed to address the kind of extraordinary circumstances imagined by those who support amending the Constitution. In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2844, the Continuity in Representation Act, which ensures an elected Congress can continue to operate in the event of an emergency.

2004 Ron Paul 28:8
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to support H.R. 2844, the Continuity in Representation Act, introduced by my distinguished colleague, House Judiciary Committee Chairman JAMES SENSENBRENNER. H.R. 2844 provides a practical and Constitutional way to ensure that the House of Representatives can continue to operate in the event that more than 100 members are killed, H.R. 2844 thus 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.

2004 Ron Paul 28:9
Article I Section 2 of the United States Constitution grants state governors the authority to hold special elections to fill vacancies in the House of Representatives. Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to designate the time, place, and manner of such special elections if states should fail to act expeditiously following a national emergency. Alexander Hamilton, who played a major role in the drafting and ratification of the United States Constitution, characterized authority over federal elections as shared between the states and Congress, with neither being able to control the process entirely. H.R. 2844 exercises Congress’s power to regulate the time, place, and manner of elections by requiring the holding of special elections within 45 days after the Speaker or acting Speaker declares 100 members of the House have been killed.

2004 Ron Paul 28:10
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. The version of H.R. 2844 before Congress today was drafted with input from state elections commissioners to make sure it sets realistic goals and will not unduly burden state governments.

2004 Ron Paul 28:11
I am disappointed that some of my colleagues reject the sensible approach of H.R. 2844 and instead support amending the Constitution to allow appointed members to serve in this body. Allowing appointed members to serve in “the people’s house” will fundamentally alter the nature of this institution and sever the people’s most direct connection with their government.

2004 Ron Paul 28:12
Even with the direct election of Senators, the fact that members of the House are elected every 2 years while Senators run for statewide office every 6 years means that members of the House of Representatives are still more accountable to the people than members of any other part of the federal government. Appointed members of Congress simply cannot be truly representative. James Madison and Alexander Hamilton eloquently made this point in Federalist 52: “As it is essential to liberty that the government in general should have a common interest with the people, so it is particularly essential that the branch of it under consideration should have an immediate dependence on, and an intimate sympathy with, the people. Frequent elections are unquestionably the only policy by which this dependence and sympathy can be effectually secured.”

2004 Ron Paul 28:13
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 during a time of crisis. 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. 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 considering reexamining 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.

2004 Ron Paul 28:14
Supporters of amending the constitution 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.

2004 Ron Paul 28:15
Mr. Chairman, this country has faced the possibility of threats to the continuity of this body several times in 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 through elections. During the Civil War, the neighboring State of Virginia, where today many Capitol Hill staffers reside and many members stay while Congress is in session, was actively involved in hostilities against the United States Government. Yet, Abraham Lincoln never suggested that non-elected persons serve in the House. Adopting any of the proposals to deny the people the ability to choose their own representatives would let the terrorists know that they can succeed in altering our republican institutions. I hope all my colleagues who are considering rejecting H.R. 2844 in favor of a Constitutional amendment will question the wisdom of handing terrorists a preemptive victory over republican government.

2004 Ron Paul 28:16
As noted above, the Framers gave Congress all the tools it needs to address problems of mass vacancies in the House without compromising this institution’s primary function as a representative body. In fact, as Hamilton explains in Federalist 59, the “time, place, and manner” clause was specifically designed to address the kind of extraordinary circumstances imagined by those who support amending the Constitution. In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2844, the Continuity in Representation 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. Furthermore, passage of H.R. 2844 sends a strong message to terrorists that they cannot alter our republican government.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 29
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Introducing Cassandra Tamez’s Essay Into The Congressional Record

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, April 22, 2004

2004 Ron Paul 29:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to enter into the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD the following essay by Miss Cassandra Tamez, a high school student who resides in my Congressional district. Miss Tamez’s essay, entitled “My Commitment to America’s Future,” earned her a Voice of Democracy Scholarship award from the Veterans of Foreign Wars. I am very proud of Miss Tamez’s efforts and I wish her well in her future endeavors.

2004 Ron Paul 29:2
“MY COMMITMENT TO AMERICA’S FUTURE”
(By Cassandra Tamez) When I think of the word “commitment,” an image of my school’s athletic teams pops into my mind. I think of what the coaches used to say during their pep talks before a game, “There’s no question about it, we’re going to win tonight. I have seen the effort put in by this team . . . We have determination; we have dedication; and we have commitment.” My teammates and I would get really “pumped up.” We were ready to go out there and win. Looking back now, though, I do not think that as individuals we were truly committed, because commitment is not merely an effort for one game but for every practice and every game.

2004 Ron Paul 29:3
I think commitment is doing something, whether you have the ability to or not, and sticking with it. Commitment is following through every single day. Commitment is focusing solely on the one thing that you commit yourself to. Commitment is binding yourself to something. It is a pledge.

2004 Ron Paul 29:4
So with all this in mind I ask myself, what is my commitment to America’s future? Should I recycle or join a beautification committee to preserve America? Should I donate money to foundations that help kids? Or perhaps I could pledge my time to hospitals or nursing homes to help the sick people of America . . .

2004 Ron Paul 29:5
Most people would probably think that my efforts in any of these would make little difference. After all, I am only one person, a speck of sand on a beach. Recycling . . . Yes, collecting cans and glass bottles would be a Tremendous help. My mother recycles. I went with her one day to help her put all our old newspapers in the recycling bin. I started thinking. How many people are there in the world, billions? Out of all these people, how many recycle? I laughed to myself, probably not that many. My mom was definitely wasting her time.

2004 Ron Paul 29:6
Donating money . . . I am not rich. How could the amount of money that I give even help one person with cancer or in need of help? I have seen programs on T.V. that talk about saving the life of a child by just donating 88 cents a day. Then I began thinking about how much it costs for me to eat for just one day. I estimated that my food alone costs eight to fifteen dollars. How could a child survive on 88 cents a day? Is it possible?

2004 Ron Paul 29:7
Pledging my time . . . I used to do volunteer work in a nursing home. I would go there every day during the summer and try and help out however I could. However, I remember this one day that something really horrible happened. I was walking down the hall when all of a sudden this lady started screaming. I looked around, waiting for someone to come running and help her. I waited for about ten seconds, but no one came. I ran towards the nurses’ station to see if anyone was on their way. Three of them were just standing there. I knew they could hear the woman screaming . . . I wanted to tell them something, but was it my place? I returned to the woman screaming instead. As soon as I walked in the room she said, “Help me, Honey. Please, it’s my leg. I need to move it.” I moved forward to help her, but then I hesitated. What if her legs were not supposed to be moved? Could I hurt her if I moved them? By this time I was getting frantic. I told her I would go get someone to help and ran out. I took five steps out the door, and a nurse was standing there, calmly writing on a piece of paper. “Um, I think that lady needs some help”, I told her. She looked up in annoyance and shouted to another nurse that she needed something for “The Screamer.” I stood there for a moment in shock. They acted as if this woman were just a nuisance. At that moment I felt hatred; clearly that woman was in pain. I did not know what was wrong with her, and I could not help her. There was no point in my being there.

2004 Ron Paul 29:8
Taking all of my experiences into consideration, I think this is exactly how many other people think; they feel helpless and insignificant. They feel too small to make any real difference in the world. And then I came across this poem by Edward Everette Hale. He said,

2004 Ron Paul 29:9
I am only one,
But still I am one.
I cannot do everything
But still I can do something.
And because I cannot do everything
I will not refuse to do
The something that I can do.

2004 Ron Paul 29:10
I have to admit that this poem has inspired me. Because even though I am but one speck of sand on a beach, I know that I am a solid and firm speck, and that there are other specs like me that compose the sand. I am one of many who may carry the optimistic attitude of commitment to America. Once again, I think back to my efforts of recycling, donating money, and pledging my time, and realize that they were not futile efforts at all. When I recycled, I know it was probably only thirty newspapers out of trillions in the world, but what if I recycled once a month? That would be 360 newspapers a year for a lifetime. I might save a beautiful tree or even more. As for donating money, well 88 cents a day from me might not feed a child, but if only nine more people in my state donate 88 cents, then that child has a total of $8.80, my estimate of money needed for a day. Now, as far as pledging my time goes, I do not think my time spent in the nursing home was a complete waste. I did help one patient who was in pain.

2004 Ron Paul 29:11
So once again, what is my commitment to America’s future? My commitment is to “play to my strengths.” My commitment is to do my best. Like the patriotic commercials on television say, “We, the children, are America’s future,” and every bit we can do helps.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 30
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

In Support Of The Gutierrez-Paul Bill 28 April 2004

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, April 28, 2004

2004 Ron Paul 30:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to cosponsor the legislation offered by Mr. GUTIERREZ using the Congressional Review Act to disapprove the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency’s (OCC) preemption regulation because I strongly oppose any attempt to expand the OCC’s regulatory functions beyond the power Congress originally granted the OCC. The OCC was never meant to serve as a national consumer protection agency. Its limited, intended role has been underscored by Federal court rulings that State law remains applicable to national banks in the absence of explicit Federal preemption.

2004 Ron Paul 30:2
Expanding the jurisdiction of OCC necessarily infringes on the ability of State lawmakers to determine their own consumer protection standards. One-size-fits-all policies crafted in Washington cannot serve the 50 diverse States well. Different States and markets have different needs that are better understood by State and local legislators. Congressional conservatives, in particular, should not endorse an expansion of the Federal regulatory power at the expense of States’ rights. The Tenth Amendment is clear: regulatory powers not specifically granted to Congress remain with the States. Congress should stop usurping State authority and leave consumer protection laws to those with far more experience and expertise.

2004 Ron Paul 30:3
This new OCC authority will have far-reaching and unintended consequences. State law governing mortgage brokers, sub-prime lenders, check cashing centers, leasing companies, and even car dealers could be preempted under the new proposal. This proposal may also give national banks and their subsidiaries a competitive advantage over small mortgage companies. OCC undoubtedly will need to hire new staff. Yet the OCC still may be unable to handle the flood of new responsibilities. Unless Congress resists any expansion of OCC, it risks creating another huge, unaccountable, bureaucratic agency. Therefore, I respectfully urge all my colleagues to support Mr. Gutierriez’s legislation disapproving the OCC’s preemption regulation.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 31
Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Statement on the Abuse of Prisoners in Iraq May 6, 2004

2004 Ron Paul 31:1
Mr. PAUL: Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution as written. Like so many resolutions we have seen here on the Iraq war, this one is not at all what it purports to be. Were this really a resolution condemning abuse of prisoners and other detainees, I doubt anyone here would oppose it. Clearly the abuse and humiliation of those in custody is deplorable, and the pictures we have all seen over the past week are truly horrific.

2004 Ron Paul 31:2
But why are we condemning a small group of low-level servicemembers when we do not yet know the full story? Why are we rushing to insert ourselves into an ongoing investigation, pretending that we already know the conclusions when we have yet to even ask all the questions? As revolting as the pictures we have seen are, they are all we have to go by, and we are reacting to these pictures alone. We do not and cannot know the full story at this point, yet we jump to condemn those who have not even yet had the benefit of a trial. We appear to be operating on the principle of guilty until proven innocent. It seems convenient and perhaps politically expedient to blame a small group of “bad apples” for what may well turn out to be something completely different – as the continuously widening investigation increasingly suggests.

2004 Ron Paul 31:3
Some of the soldiers in the photographs claim that their superior officers and the civilian contractors in charge of the interrogations forced them to pose this way. We cannot say with certainty what took place in Iraq’s prisons based on a few photographs. We have heard that some of those soldiers put in charge of prisons in Iraq were woefully unprepared for the task at hand. We have heard that they were thrown into a terribly confusing, stressful, and dangerous situation with little training and little understanding of the rules and responsibilities. What additional stresses and psychological pressures were applied by those in charge of interrogations? We don’t know. Does this excuse what appears to be reprehensible behavior? Not in the slightest, but it does suggest that we need to get all the facts before we draw conclusions. It is more than a little disturbing that this resolution does not even mention the scores of civilian contractors operating in these prisons at whom numerous fingers are being pointed as instigators of these activities. While these individuals seem to operate with impunity, this legislation before us all but convicts without trial those lowest in the chain of command.

2004 Ron Paul 31:4
But this resolution is only partly about the alleged abuses of detainees in Iraq. Though this is the pretext for the legislation, this resolution is really just an enthusiastic endorsement of our nation-building activities in Iraq. This resolution “expresses the continuing solidarity and support of the House of Representatives…with the Iraqi people in building a viable Iraqi government and a secure nation.” Also this resolution praises the “mission to rebuild and rehabilitate a proud nation after liberating it…” At least the resolution is honest in admitting that our current presence in Iraq is nothing more than a nation-building exercise.

2004 Ron Paul 31:5
Further, this resolution explicitly endorses what is clearly a failed policy in Iraq. I wonder whether anyone remembers that we did not go to war against Iraq to build a better nation there, or to bring about “improvements in… water, sewage, power, infrastructure, transportation, telecommunications, and food security…” as this resolution touts. Nor did those who urged this war claim at the time that the goals were to “significantly improv[e]…food availability, health service, and educational opportunities” in Iraq, as this legislation also references. No, the war was essential, they claimed, to stop a nation poised to use weapons of mass destruction to inflict unspeakable harm against the United States. Now historical revisionists are pointing out how wonderful our nation-building is going in Iraq, as if that justifies the loss of countless American and Iraqi civilian lives.

2004 Ron Paul 31:6
This resolution decries the fact that the administration had not informed Congress of these abuses and that the administration has not kept Congress in the information loop. Yet, Congress made it clear to the administration from the very beginning that Congress wanted no responsibility for the war in Iraq. If Congress wanted to be kept in the loop it should have vigorously exercised its responsibilities from the very beginning. This means, first and foremost, that Congress should have voted on a declaration of war as required in the Constitution. Congress, after abrogating this responsibility in October 2002, now is complaining that it is in the dark. Indeed, who is to say that the legal ambiguity created by the Congressional refusal to declare war may not have contributed to the notion that detainees need not be treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention, that governs the treatment of prisoners during a time of war? Until Congress takes up its constitutional responsibilities, complaints that the administration is not sufficiently forthcoming with information ring hollow.

2004 Ron Paul 31:7
This resolution calls on the administration to keep Congress better informed. But Congress has the power – and the obligation – to keep itself better informed! If Congress is truly interested in being informed, it should hold hearings – exercising its subpoena power if necessary. Depending on the administration to fulfill what is our own constitutional responsibility is once again passing the buck. Isn’t this what has gotten us into this trouble in the first place?

2004 Ron Paul 31:8
I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 32
Ron Paul’s Congressional website HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Don’t Start a War with Iran! May 6, 2004

2004 Ron Paul 32:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this ill-conceived and ill-timed legislation. Let’s not fool ourselves: this concurrent resolution leads us down the road to war against Iran. It creates a precedent for future escalation, as did similar legislation endorsing “regime change” in Iraq back in 1998.

2004 Ron Paul 32:2
I find it incomprehensible that as the failure of our Iraq policy becomes more evident - even to its most determined advocates -we here are approving the same kind of policy toward Iran. With Iraq becoming more of a problem daily, the solution as envisioned by this legislation is to look for yet another fight. And we should not fool ourselves: this legislation sets the stage for direct conflict with Iran. The resolution “calls upon all State Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), including the United States, to use all appropriate means to deter, dissuade, and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons…” Note the phrase “…use all appropriate means….”

2004 Ron Paul 32:3
Additionally, this legislation calls for yet more and stricter sanctions on Iran, including a demand that other countries also impose sanctions on Iran. As we know, sanctions are unmistakably a move toward war, particularly when, as in this legislation, a demand is made that the other nations of the world similarly isolate and blockade the country. Those who wish for a regime change in Iran should especially reject sanctions - just look at how our Cuba policy has allowed Fidel Castro to maintain his hold on power for decades. Sanctions do not hurt political leaders, as we know most recently from our sanctions against Iraq, but rather sow misery among the poorest and most vulnerable segments of society. Dictators do not go hungry when sanctions are imposed.

2004 Ron Paul 32:4
It is somewhat ironic that we are again meddling in Iranian affairs. Students of history will recall that the US government’s ill-advised coup against Iranian leader Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953 and its subsequent installation of the Shah as the supreme ruler led to intense hatred of the United States and eventually to the radical Islamic revolution of 1979. One can only wonder what our relations would be with Iran if not for the decades of meddling in that country’s internal affairs. We likely would not be considering resolutions such as this. Yet the solution to all the difficulties created by our meddling foreign policy always seems to always be yet more meddling. Will Congress ever learn?

2004 Ron Paul 32:5
I urge my colleagues to reject this move toward war with Iran, to reject the failed policies of regime-change and nation-building, and to return to the wise and consistent policy of non-interventionism in the affairs of other sovereign nations.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 33
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Brown v. Board Of Education 13 May 2004

2004 Ron Paul 33:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H. Con. Res. 414, the resolution commending the anniversary of the decision in Brown v. Board of Education and related cases. While I certainly agree with the expression of abhorrence at the very idea of forced segregation I cannot, without reservation, simply support the content in the resolution.

2004 Ron Paul 33:2
The “whereas clauses” of this resolution venture far beyond the basis of Brown and praise various federal legislative acts such as the Fair Housing Act of 1968, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. This final Act was particularly pernicious because it was not applied across the board, but targeted only at certain areas of the country. As such, it violates the spirit of the very equal protection it claims to promote. Moreover, we certainly should ask what constitutional authority lies behind the passage of such legislation.

2004 Ron Paul 33:3
The history of racism, segregation and inferior facilities that led to Brown cannot be ignored, and should not pass from our condemnation. Still, thinking people must consider the old adage that “two wrongs do not make a right.” Simply, the affects of Brown have been, at best, mixed. As this anniversary has approached there have been a large number of events and articles in the media to celebrate the decision and analyze its impact. Most people, regardless of their opinion of the decision, seem to be aware that it has not achieved its goals.

2004 Ron Paul 33:4
In many places in our country the public school system continues to fail many American children, particularly those in the inner city. Research shows that our schools are more segregated than at any point from the 1960s. Some of this is undoubtedly due to the affects of the Brown decision. Do we really mean to celebrate the failures of forced busing? Forced integration largely led to white flight from the cities, thus making society even more segregated. Where children used to go to different schools but meet each other at the little league field, after Brown these people would now live in different cities or different counties. Thus, forced integration led only to even more segregation. A recent Washington Post article about McKinley High School makes this very point. Worse still, prior to this re-segregation racial violence was often prevalent.

2004 Ron Paul 33:5
We need also to think about whether sacrificing quality education on the altar of equality is not a terrible mistake, especially as it applies to the opportunities available to those who are historically and economically disadvantaged. For example, research has shown that separating children on the basis of gender enhances academic performance. Attempts to have such schools have been struck down by the courts on the basis of Brown. Just last night Fox News reported the academic successes at schools separating children based on gender, as approved by this body is the so-called “No Child Left Behind Act.” Yet the National Organization of Women continues to oppose this policy on the basis of Brown’s “separate is inherently not equal” edict, despite the statistically evident positive impact this policy has had on the achievement of female students in mathematics and science classes.

2004 Ron Paul 33:6
Mr. Speaker, in short forced integration and enforced equality are inimical to liberty; while they may be less abhorrent than forced segregation they are nonetheless as likely to lead to resentment and are demonstrably as unworkable and hence ineffective.

2004 Ron Paul 33:7
While I completely celebrate the end of forced segregation that Brown helped to bring about, I cannot unreservedly support this resolution as currently worded.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 34
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

H. Con. Res. 398: Expressing The Concern Of Congress Over Iran’s Development Of The Means To Produce Nuclear Weapons 17 May 2004

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Monday, May 17, 2004

2004 Ron Paul 34:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this ill-conceived and ill-timed legislation. Let’s not fool ourselves: this concurrent resolution leads us down the road to war against Iran. It creates a precedent for future escalation, as did similar legislation endorsing “regime change” in Iraq back in 1998.

2004 Ron Paul 34:2
I find it incomprehensible that as the failure of our Iraq policy becomes more evident — even to its most determined advocates — we here are approving the same kind of policy toward Iran. With Iraq becoming more of a problem daily, the solution as envisioned by this legislation is to look for yet another fight. And we should not fool ourselves: this legislation sets the stage for direct conflict with Iran. The resolution “calls upon all State Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), including the United States, to use all appropriate means to deter, dissuade, and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons . . .” Note the phrase “use all appropriate means.”

2004 Ron Paul 34:3
Additionally, this legislation calls for yet more and stricter sanctions on Iran, including a demand that other countries also impose sanctions on Iran. As we know, sanctions are unmistakably a move toward war, particularly when, as in this legislation, a demand is made that the other nations of the world similarly isolate and blockade the country. Those who wish for a regime change in Iran should especially reject sanctions — just look at how our Cuba policy has allowed Fidel Castro to maintain his hold on power for decades. Sanctions do not hurt political leaders, as we know most recently from our sanctions against Iraq, but rather sow misery among the poorest and most vulnerable segments of society. Dictators do not go hungry when sanctions are imposed.

2004 Ron Paul 34:4
It is somewhat ironic that vie are again meddling in Iranian affairs. Students of history will recall that the U.S. government’s ill-advised coup against Iranian leader Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953 and its subsequent installation of the Shah as the supreme ruler led to intense hatred of the United States and eventually to the radical Islamic revolution of 1979. One can only wonder what our relations would be with Iran if not for the decades of meddling in that country’s internal affairs. We likely would not be considering resolutions such as this. Yet the solution to all the difficulties created by our meddling foreign policy always seems to be yet more meddling. Will Congress ever learn?

2004 Ron Paul 34:5
I urge my colleagues to reject this move toward war with Iran, to reject the failed policies of regime-change and nation-building, and to return to the wise and consistent policy of non-interventionism in the affairs of other sovereign nations.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 35
Ron Paul’s Congressional website HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
May 19, 2004 Reject the Millennium Challenge Act

2004 Ron Paul 35:1
Mr. Chairman, though the ill-conceived Millennium Challenge Act has already become law and therefore we are only talking about its implementation today, it is nevertheless important to again address some very fundamental problems with this new foreign aid program.

2004 Ron Paul 35:2
I believe that the Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) may be one of the worst foreign policy blunders yet - and among the most costly. It is advertised as a whole new kind of foreign aid - apparently an honest admission that the old system of foreign aid does not work. But rather than get rid of the old, bad system of foreign aid in favor of this “new and improved” system, we are keeping both systems and thereby doubling our foreign aid. I guess it is easy to be generous with other people’s money. In reality, this “new and improved” method of sending US taxpayer dollars overseas will likely work no better than the old system, and may in fact do more damage to the countries that it purports to help.

2004 Ron Paul 35:3
The MCA budget request for fiscal year 2005 is $2.5 billion. We have been told that somewhere between 12 and 16 countries have met the following criteria for inclusion in the program: “ruling justly, investing in people, and pursuing sound economic policies.”

2004 Ron Paul 35:4
It is a good idea to pay close attention to these criteria, as they tell the real tale of this new program. First, what does “investing in people” mean? It is probably safe to assume that “investing in people” does not mean keeping taxes low and government interference to a minimum so that individuals can create wealth through private economic activity. So, in short, this program will reward socialist-style governance.

2004 Ron Paul 35:5
In fact, this program will do much more harm than good. MCA will hurt recipient country economies. Sending US aid money into countries that are pursuing sound economic policies will not help these economies. On the contrary, an external infusion of money to governments meeting the economic criteria will actually obscure areas where an economy is inefficient and unproductive. This assistance will slow down necessary reform by providing a hidden subsidy to unproductive sectors of the economy. We thus do no favors for the recipient country in the long term with this harmful approach.

2004 Ron Paul 35:6
MCA is a waste of taxpayer money. Countries that pursue sound economic policies will find that international financial markets provide many times the investment capital necessary for economic growth. MCA funds will not even be a drop in the bucket compared to what private capital can bring to bear in an economy with promise and potential. And this capital will be invested according to sound investment strategies - designed to make a profit - rather than allocated according to the whim of government bureaucrats.

2004 Ron Paul 35:7
MCA is corporate welfare for politically-connected US firms. These companies will directly benefit from this purported aid to foreign countries, as the money collected from US taxpayers can under the program be transferred directly to US companies to complete programs in the recipient countries. As bad as it is for US tax dollars to be sent overseas to help poor countries, what is worse is for it to be sent abroad to help rich and politically-connected US and multi-national companies.

2004 Ron Paul 35:8
MCA encourages socialism and statism. Because it is entirely geared toward foreign governments, it will force economically devastating “public-private partnerships” in developing nations: if the private sector is to see any of the money it will have to be in partnership with government. There should be no doubt that these foreign governments will place additional requirements on the private firms in order to qualify for funding. Who knows how much of this money will be wasted on those companies with the best political connections to the foreign governments in power. The MCA invites political corruption by creating a slush fund at the control of foreign governments.

2004 Ron Paul 35:9
MCA encourages a socialist approach to health care in recipient countries. In rewarding a top-down government-controlled approach to health care, the program ignores the fact that this model has failed miserably wherever it has been applied. Ask anyone in the former communist countries how they liked their government healthcare system.

2004 Ron Paul 35:10
Finally, MCA is another tool to meddle in the internal affairs of sovereign nations. Already we see that one of the countries slated to receive funds is the Republic of Georgia, where former cronies of dictator Eduard Shevardnadze staged a coup against him last year and have since then conducted massive purges of the media and state institutions, have jailed thousands in phony “anti-corruption” campaigns, and have even adopted their own political party flag as the new flag of the country. The current government in Georgia does not deserve a dime of aid from the United States.

2004 Ron Paul 35:11
Though the Millennium Challenge Account is advertised as a brand new approach to foreign aid - foreign aid that really works - it is in fact expensive and counter-productive, and will be very unlikely to affect real change in the countries it purports to help. The wisest approach to international economic development is for the United States to lead by example, to re-embrace the kind of economic policies that led us to become wealthy in the first place. This means less government, less taxation, no foreign meddling. Demonstrating the effectiveness of limited government in creating wealth would be the greatest gift we could send overseas.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 36
Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
June 2, 2004 The House of Representatives Must be Elected!

2004 Ron Paul 36:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J.Res. 83, which amends the United States Constitution to allow appointed persons to fill vacancies in the House of Representatives in the event of an emergency. Since the Continuity of Government (COG) Commission first proposed altering our system of government by allowing appointed members to serve in this body. I, along with other members of Congress, journalists, academics, and policy experts, have expressed concerns that having appointed members serve in the House of Representatives is inconsistent with the House’s historic function as the branch of Congress most directly accountable to the people.

2004 Ron Paul 36:2
Even with the direct election of Senators, the fact that members of the House of Representatives are elected every two years (while Senators run for statewide office every six years) means that members of the House are still more accountable to the people than members of any other part of the federal government. Appointed members of Congress simply cannot be truly representative. James Madison and Alexander Hamilton eloquently made this point in Federalist 52: “As it is essential to liberty that the government in general should have a common interest with the people, so it is particularly essential that the branch of it under consideration should have an immediate dependence on, and an intimate sympathy with, the people. Frequent elections are unquestionably the only policy by which this dependence and sympathy can be effectually secured.”

2004 Ron Paul 36:3
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, Mr. Speaker, 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 reexamining provisions of the PATRIOT Act is because of public concerns that this Act gives up too much liberty for a phantom security. Appointed officials would not be as responsive to public concerns.

2004 Ron Paul 36:4
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 serve for a limited time. However, the laws passed by these “temporary” representatives will be permanent.

2004 Ron Paul 36:5
Mr. Speaker, 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 the House of Representatives. For example, when the British attacked the city of Washington in the War of 1812, nobody suggested the states could not address the lack of a quorum in the House of Representatives though elections. During the Civil War, DC neighbor Virginia was actively involved in hostilities against the United States government- yet President Abraham Lincoln never suggested that non-elected persons serve in the House.

2004 Ron Paul 36:6
Adopting any of the proposals to deny the people the ability to choose their own representatives would let the terrorists know that they can succeed in altering our republican institutions. I hope all my colleagues who are considering supporting H.J.Res. 83 will question the wisdom of handing terrorists a victory over republican government.

2004 Ron Paul 36:7
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 the supporters of H.J.Res. 83.   Hamilton characterized authority over federal elections as shared between the states and Congress, with neither being able to control the process entirely.  

2004 Ron Paul 36:8
Last month, this body fulfilled its constitutional duty by passing HR 2844, the Continuity of Representation Act. HR 2844 exercises Congress’s power to regulate the time, place, and manner of elections by requiring the holding of special elections within 45 days after the Speaker or acting Speaker declares 100 or more members of the House have been killed. 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.

2004 Ron Paul 36:9
In conclusion, I call upon my colleges to reject H.J.Res. 83, since it alters the Constitution to deny the people their right to elect their representatives at a time when having elected representation may be most crucial.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 37
Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
June 3, 2004 The Same Old Failed Policies in Iraq

2004 Ron Paul 37:1
Mr. Speaker, the more things change, the more they stay the same.   Our allegiances to our allies and friends change constantly.   For a decade, exiled Iraqi Ahmed Chalabi was our chosen leader-to-be in a new Iraq.   Championed by Pentagon neocons and objected to by the State Department, Mr. Chalabi received more than 100 million U.S. taxpayer dollars as our man designated to be leader of a new Iraqi government.

2004 Ron Paul 37:2
But something happened on the way to the coronation.   The State Department finally won out in its struggle with the Pentagon to dump Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress, delivering Iraq to a competing exiled group, Dr. Iyad Allawi’s Iraqi National Accord.   But never fear, both groups were CIA supported and both would be expected to govern as an American puppet.   And that’s the problem.   Under the conditions that currently exist in Iraq, American sponsorship of a government, or even United Nations approval, for that matter, will be rejected by a nationalistic Iraqi people.

2004 Ron Paul 37:3
We never seem to learn, and the Muslim Middle East never forgets.   Our support for the Shah of Iran and Saddam Hussein’s war against Iran has never endeared us to the Iranians.   We’re supposed to be surprised to discover that our close confidant Ahmed Chalabi turns out to be a cozy pragmatic friend of Iran.   The CIA may have questioned the authenticity of Iranian intelligence passed on to the U.S. by Chalabi, yet still this intelligence was used eagerly to promote the pro-war propaganda that so many in Congress and the nation bought into.   And now it looks like the intelligence fed to Chalabi by Iran was deliberately falsified, but because it fit in so neatly with the neocon’s determination to remake the entire Middle East, starting with a preemptive war against Iraq, it was received enthusiastically.

2004 Ron Paul 37:4
Inadvertently we served the interests of both Iran and Osama bin Laden by eliminating the very enemy they despised- Saddam Hussein.   To the Iranians delight, it was payback time for our allegiance with Saddam Hussein against Iran in the 1980s.

2004 Ron Paul 37:5
The serious concern is that valuable and top-secret U.S. intelligence may well have gone in the other direction: to Iran with the help of Chalabi.

2004 Ron Paul 37:6
These serious concerns led to the dumping of the heir apparent Chalabi, the arrest of his colleagues, and the raid on his home and headquarters to seize important documents. The connection between Chalabi and the U.N. food-for-oil scandal is yet to be determined.

2004 Ron Paul 37:7
What a mess!   But no one should be surprised.   Regime change plans- whether by CIA operations or by preemptive war- almost always go badly.   American involvement in installing the Shah of Iran in the fifties, killing Diem in South Vietnam in the sixties, helping Osama bin Laden against the Soviets in the eighties, assisting Saddam Hussein against Iran in the eighties, propping up dictators in many Arab countries, and supporting the destruction of the Palestinian people all have had serious repercussions on American interests including the loss of American life.   We have wasted hundreds of billions of dollars while the old wounds in the Middle East continue to fester.

2004 Ron Paul 37:8
How many times have our friends become our enemies and our enemies our friends, making it difficult to determine which is which?   Our relationship with Kadafi in Libya is an example of the silliness of our policy.   Does his recent “conversion” to our side qualify him for U.S. assistance?   No one can possibly predict what our relationship with Kadafi will be in a year or two from now.   My guess is that he too has a long memory.   And even if he becomes a U.S. stooge, it will only foment antagonism from his own people for his cozy relationship with the United States.   Long term, interference in the internal affairs of other nations doesn’t help us or those we support.

2004 Ron Paul 37:9
Those who strongly argue behind the scenes that we must protect “our oil” surely should have second thoughts, as oil prices soar over $40 with our current policy of military interventionism.  

2004 Ron Paul 37:10
The real tragedy is that even those with good intentions who argue the case for our military presence around the world never achiever their stated goals.   Not only do the efforts fall short, the unintended consequences in life and limb and dollars spent are always much greater than ever anticipated.   The blow back effects literally go on for decades.

2004 Ron Paul 37:11
The invisible economic costs are enormous but generally ignored.   A policy of militarism and constant war has huge dollar costs, which contribute to the huge deficits, higher interest rates, inflation, and economic dislocations.   War cannot raise the standard of living for the average American.   Participants in the military-industrial complex do benefit, however.   Now the grand scheme of physically rebuilding Iraq using American corporations may well prove profitable to the select few with political connections.

2004 Ron Paul 37:12
The clear failure of the policy of foreign interventionism followed by our leaders for more than a hundred years should prompt a reassessment of our philosophy.   Tactical changes, or relying more on the U.N., will not solve these problems.   Either way the burden will fall on the American taxpayer and the American soldier.

2004 Ron Paul 37:13
The day is fast approaching when we no longer will be able to afford this burden. For now foreign governments are willing to loan us the money needed to finance our current account deficit, and indirectly the cost of our worldwide military operations.   It may seem possible for the moment because we have been afforded the historically unique privilege of printing the world’s reserve currency.   Foreigners have been only too willing to take our depreciating dollars for their goods.   Economic law eventually will limit our ability to live off others by credit creation.   Eventually trust in the dollar will be diminished, if not destroyed.   Those who hold these trillion plus dollars can hold us hostage if it’s ever in their interest.   It may be that economic law and hostility toward the United States will combine to precipitate an emotionally charged rejection of the dollar.

2004 Ron Paul 37:14
That’s when the true wealth of the country will become self-evident and we will no longer be able to afford the extravagant expense of pursuing an American empire. No nation has ever been able to finance excessive foreign entanglements and domestic entitlements through printing press money and borrowing from abroad.

2004 Ron Paul 37:15
It’s time we reconsider the advice of the founding fathers and the guidelines of the Constitution, which counsel a foreign policy of non-intervention and strategic independence.   Setting a good example is a far better way to spread American ideals than through force of arms.   Trading with nations, without interference by international government regulators, is far better than sanctions and tariffs that too often plant the seeds of war.

2004 Ron Paul 37:16
The principle of self-determination should be permitted for all nations and all demographically defined groups.   The world tolerated the breakup of the ruthless Soviet and Yugoslavian systems rather well, even as certain national and ethnic groups demanded self-determination and independence.

2004 Ron Paul 37:17
This principle is the source of the solution for Iraq.   We should suggest and encourage each of the three groups- the Sunnis, the Shiites, and the Kurds- to seek self-government and choose voluntarily whether they want to associate with a central government.

2004 Ron Paul 37:18
Instead of the incessant chant about us forcing democracy on others, why not read our history and see how thirteen nations joined together to form a loose-knit republic with emphasis on local self-government.   Part of the problem with our effort to re-order Iraq is that the best solution is something we have essentially rejected here in the United States.   It would make a lot more sense to concentrate on rebuilding our Republic, emphasizing the principles of private property, free markets, trade, and personal liberty here at home rather then pursuing war abroad.   If this were done, we would not be a militaristic state spending ourselves into bankruptcy, and government benefits to the untold thousands of corporations and special interest would be denied.

2004 Ron Paul 37:19
True defense is diminished when money and energy are consumed by activities outside the scope of specifically protecting our national security.   Diverting resources away from defense and the protection of our borders while antagonizing so many around the world actually serves to expose us to greater danger from more determined enemies.

2004 Ron Paul 37:20
A policy of non-intervention and strategic independence is the course we should take if we’re serious about peace and prosperity.   Liberty works!

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 38
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Mourning The Death Of Ronald Reagan 9 June 2004

2004 Ron Paul 38:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, all Americans mourn the death of President Ronald Reagan, but those of us who had the opportunity to know President Reagan are especially saddened. I got to know President Reagan in 1976 when, as a freshman congressman, I was one of only four members of this body to endorse then-Governor Reagan’s primary challenge to President Gerald Ford. I had the privilege of serving as the leader of President Reagan’s Texas delegation at the Republican convention of 1976, where Ronald Reagan almost defeated an incumbent president for his party’s nomination.

2004 Ron Paul 38:2
I was one of the millions attracted to Ronald Reagan by his strong support for limited government and the free-market. I felt affinity for a politician who based his conservative philosophy on “. . . a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom . . .” I wish more of today’s conservative leaders based their philosophy on a desire for less government and more freedom.

2004 Ron Paul 38:3
Ronald Reagan was one of the most eloquent exponents of the freedom philosophy in modern American politics. One of his greatest achievements is the millions of Americans he helped convert to the freedom philosophy and the many he inspired to become active in the freedom movement. One of the best examples of President Reagan’s rhetorical powers is his first major national political address, “A Time for Choosing.” Delivered in 1964 in support of the presidential campaign of Barry Goldwater, this speech launched Ronald Reagan’s career as both a politician and a leader of the conservative movement. The following excerpt from that speech illustrates the power of Ronald Reagan’s words and message. Unfortunately, these words are as relevant to our current situation as they were when he delivered them in 1964:

2004 Ron Paul 38:4
It’s time we asked ourselves if we still know the freedoms intended for us by the Founding Fathers. James Madison said, “We base all our experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government.”

2004 Ron Paul 38:5
This idea — that government was beholden to the people, that it had no other source of power — is still the newest, most unique idea in all the long history of man’s relation to man. This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self- government or whether we abandon the American Revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.

2004 Ron Paul 38:6
You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man’s age-old dream — the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism.

2004 Ron Paul 38:7
Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would sacrifice freedom for security have embarked on this downward path. Plutarch warned, “The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits.”

2004 Ron Paul 38:8
The Founding Fathers knew a government can’t control the economy without controlling people. And they knew when a government set out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. So we have come to a time for choosing.

2004 Ron Paul 38:9
One of the most direct expressions of Ronald Reagan’s disdain for big government came during a private conversation when we where flying from the White House to Andrews Air Force Base. As the helicopter passed over the monuments, we looked down and he said, ‘Isn’t that beautiful? It’s amazing how much terrible stuff comes out of this city when it’s that beautiful.’ ”

2004 Ron Paul 38:10
While many associate Ronald Reagan with unbridled militarism, he was a lifelong opponent of the draft. It is hardly surprising that many of the most persuasive and powerful arguments against conscription came from President Reagan. One of my favorite Reagan quotes comes from a 1979 article he wrote for the conservative publication Human Events regarding the draft and related “national service” proposals:

2004 Ron Paul 38:11
. . . 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.

2004 Ron Paul 38:12
I extend my deepest sympathies to Ronald Reagan’s family and friends, especially his beloved wife Nancy and his children. I also urge my colleagues and all Americans to honor Ronald Reagan by dedicating themselves to the principles of limited government and individual liberty.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 39
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

American Jobs Creation Act 17 June 2004

2004 Ron Paul 39:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I will vote for H.R. 4520 today because the tax cuts contained in the bill outweigh the unfortunate but inevitable subsidies also included. I promise my constituents that I will vote for all tax cuts and against all new spending. So when faced with a bill that contains both, my decision is based on whether the bill cuts taxes overall, i.e. whether its ultimate impact will be to reduce or increase federal revenues. This legislation does reduce revenues, and therefore takes a small step towards reducing the size of the federal government. So while I certainly object to some parts of the bill, especially the tobacco bailout, I do support tax cuts.

2004 Ron Paul 39:2
My biggest concern with the bill, however, is not based on its contents. I object to the process underlying the bill and the political reason for which it was written. This bill is on the floor for one reason and one reason only: the World Trade Organization demanded that we change our domestic tax law. Since America first joined the WTO in 1994, Europe has objected to how we tax American companies on their overseas earnings. The EU took its dispute to the WTO grievance board, which voted in favor of the Europeans. After all, it’s not fair for high-tax Europe to compete with relatively low tax America; the only solution is to force the U.S. to tax its companies more. The WTO ruling was clear: Congress must change American tax rules to comply with “international law.”

2004 Ron Paul 39:3
Sadly, Congress chose to comply. We scrambled to change our corporate tax laws in 2001, but failed to appease the Europeans. They again complained to the WTO, which again sided with the EU. So we’re back to the drawing board, working overtime to change our domestic laws to satisfy the WTO and the Europeans.

2004 Ron Paul 39:4
This outrageous affront to our national sovereignty was of course predictable when we joined the WTO. During congressional debates we were assured that entry into the organization posed no threat whatsoever to our sovereignty. But this was nonsense. A Congressional Research Service report was quite clear about the consequences of our membership: “As a member of the WTO, the United States does commit to act in accordance with the rules of the multi-lateral body. It is legally obligated to insure that national laws do not conflict with WTO rules.” With the Europeans and the WTO now telling us our laws are illegal and must be changed, it’s hard to imagine a more blatant loss of American sovereignty.

2004 Ron Paul 39:5
The bill does cut taxes overall, and for that reason I will vote in favor of it. Any legislation that results in less money being sent to the black hole that is the federal Treasury is worth supporting. I especially support the provision that allows Texans (and citizens of other states that do not have an income tax) to deduct state sales taxes, and will vote yes accordingly.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 40
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Bill Would Not Bring Middle East Peace 23 June 2004

2004 Ron Paul 40:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation. As I have argued so many times in the past when legislation like this is brought to the Floor of Congress, the resolution before us is in actuality an endorsement of our failed policy of foreign interventionism. It attempts to create an illusion of our success when the truth is rather different. It seeks not peace in the Middle East, but rather to justify our continued meddling in the affairs of Israel and the Palestinians. As recent history should make clear, our sustained involvement in that part of the world has cost the American taxpayer billions of dollars yet has delivered no results. On the contrary, despite our continued intervention and promises that the invasion of Iraq would solve the Israeli/Palestinian problem the conflict appears as intractable as ever.

2004 Ron Paul 40:2
Mr. Speaker, this resolution in several places asserts that the United States is “strongly committed” to the security of Israel. I find no provision in the Constitution that allows the United States Government to confiscate money from its own citizens and send it overseas for the defense of a foreign country. Further, this legislation promises that the United States “remains committed to . . . Israel, including secure, recognized, and defensible borders.” So we are pledging to defend Israel’s borders while we are not even able to control our own borders. Shouldn’t we be concentrating on fulfilling our constitutional obligations in our own country first, before we go crusading around the world to protect foreign borders?

2004 Ron Paul 40:3
I do agree with one of the statements in this legislation, though it is hardly necessary for us to affirm that which is self-evident: “. . . Israel has the right to defend itself against terrorism, including the right to take actions against terrorist organizations that threaten the citizens of Israel.” Yes, they do. But do the Israelis really need the U.S. Congress to tell them they are free to defend themselves?

2004 Ron Paul 40:4
I also must object to the one-sidedness of this legislation. Like so many that have come before it, this resolution takes sides in a conflict that has nothing to do with us. Among other things, it affirms Israel as a “Jewish state.” Is it really our business to endorse a state church in a foreign country? What message does this send from the United States to Israeli citizens who are not Jewish?

2004 Ron Paul 40:5
Like my colleagues who have come to the floor to endorse this legislation, I would very much like to see peace in the Middle East — and elsewhere in this troubled world. But this is not the way to achieve that peace. As our Founders recognized, the best way for the United States to have peaceful relations with others is for Americans to trade freely with them. The best way to sow resentment and discontent among the other nations of the world is for the United States to become entangled in alliances with one power against another power, to meddle in the affairs of other nations. One-sided legislation such as this in reality just fuels the worst fears of the Muslim world about the intentions of the United States. Is this wise?

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 41
Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
June 23, 2004 Spending Billions on our Failed Intelligence Agencies

2004 Ron Paul 41:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation. Though I certainly recognize the legitimate national security role of our intelligence community, I have concerns about this authorization and the questionable role played by components of the intelligence community.

2004 Ron Paul 41:2
Specifically, I am concerned about our history of secret regime changes carried out by our intelligence apparatus. More often than not, we see many of the problems we face today were created as a result of this unwise practice of forcibly changing regimes in secret.

2004 Ron Paul 41:3
The stories of such activities are numerous. In 1953 the CIA overthrew Mohammad Mossadegh in Iran, installing the Shah as dictator. This led to increasing anti-Americanism, the overthrow of the Shah in 1979, the kidnapping of Americans, the establishment of a hard-line Islamic regime hostile to the United States. In the 1980s the United States provided covert support to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in its war with Iran. Ten years later the United States went to war against Saddam Hussein and then 11 years after that the United States went to war again against Saddam’s Iraq. In the 1980s the United States provided weapons and training to the Taliban and what later became Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan as they sought to overthrow the communist government in power. Some 20 years later, that same Taliban and Osama bin Laden struck out against the United States. The United States then went to war against that Taliban government.

2004 Ron Paul 41:4
I am also concerned about the efficacy of our intelligence community. The intelligence budget seems to grow every year, but seldom do my colleagues ask what exactly we are getting for our constituents’ money. It may be unfair that we only hear about the intelligence community’s failures and shortcomings, but we cannot help but be concerned over so many 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 the intelligence community to detect and prevent the September 11, 2001 attacks.

2004 Ron Paul 41:5
Additionally, as we now see so clearly, our intelligence community failed completely to accurately assess the nature of the Iraqi threat. We were told of weapons of mass destruction capable of reaching the United States. This proved to be false. We were told of Iraq’s relationship with Al-Qaeda. This proved to be false. The intelligence community relied heavily - perhaps almost exclusively — on Iraqi exile and convicted criminal Ahmad Chalabi to provide intelligence on Iraq and most of it turned out to be incorrect, perhaps intentionally misleading. Now we are told that Chalabi and his organization may have passed sensitive intelligence to Iran. We have read reports of secret pseudo-agencies set up in the Pentagon and elsewhere whose role appears to have been to politicize intelligence in order to force pre-determined conclusions. This does not serve the American people well. These are all by any measure grave failures, costing us incalculably in human lives and dollars. 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.

2004 Ron Paul 41:6
I encourage my colleagues to reject this bill and instead begin looking for new ways to strengthen the legitimate functions of our intelligence community so as to better protect the borders and citizens of the United States.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 42
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Opposing H. Res. 676 23 June 2004

2004 Ron Paul 42:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H. Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H. Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.

2004 Ron Paul 42:2
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.

2004 Ron Paul 42:3
This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce.

2004 Ron Paul 42:4
The Civil Rights act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judge’s cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business’s workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judges defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.

2004 Ron Paul 42:5
Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

2004 Ron Paul 42:6
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join in sponsors of H. Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting race-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H. Res. 676.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 43
Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]

A Token Attempt to Reduce Government Spending June 24, 2004 HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES


2004 Ron Paul 43:1
Mr. Speaker, I support HR 4663, the Spending Control Act of 2004, because I believe those of us concerned about the effects of excessive government spending on American liberty and prosperity should support any effort to rein in spending. However, I hold no great expectations that this bill will result in a new dawn of fiscal responsibility. In fact, since this bill is unlikely to pass the Senate, the main effect of today’s vote will be to allow members to brag to their constituents that they voted to keep a lid on spending. Many of these members will not tell their constituents that later this year they will likely vote for a budget busting, pork laden, omnibus spending bill that most members will not even have a chance to read before voting! In fact, last week, many members who I am sure will vote for HR 4663 voted against cutting funding for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). Last November, many of these same members voted for the greatest expansion of the welfare state since the Great Society. If Congress cannot even bring itself to cut the budget of the NEA or refuse to expand the welfare state, what are the odds that Congress will make the tough choices necessary to restore fiscal order, much less constitutional government?

2004 Ron Paul 43:2
Even if this bill becomes law, it is likely that the provision in this bill allowing spending for emergency purposes to exceed the bill’s spending caps will prove to be an easily abused loophole allowing future Congresses to avoid the spending limitations in this bill. I am also concerned that, by not applying the spending caps to international or military programs, this bill invites future Congresses to misplace priorities, and ignores a major source of fiscal imprudence. Congress will not get our fiscal house in order until we seriously examine our overseas commitments, such as giving welfare to multinational corporations and subsidizing the defense of allies who are perfectly capable of defending themselves.

2004 Ron Paul 43:3
Congress already has made numerous attempts to restore fiscal discipline, and none of them has succeeded. Even the much-heralded “surpluses” of the nineties were due to the Federal Reserve creating an economic boom and Congress continuing to raid the social security trust fund. The surplus was not caused by a sudden outbreak of fiscal conservativism in Washington, DC.

2004 Ron Paul 43:4
The only way Congress will cease excessive spending is by rejecting the idea that the federal government has the authority and the competence to solve all ills, both domestic and international. If the last century taught us anything, it was that big government cannot create utopia. Yet, too many members believe that we can solve all economic problems, eliminate all social ills, and bring about worldwide peace and prosperity by simply creating new federal programs and regulations. However, the well-intended efforts of Congress have exacerbated America’s economic and social problems. Meanwhile our international meddling has failed to create perpetual peace but rather lead to perpetual war for perpetual peace.

2004 Ron Paul 43:5
Every member of Congress has already promised to support limited government by swearing to uphold the United States Constitution. The Constitution limits the federal government to a few, well-defined functions. A good start toward restoring Constitutional government would be debating my Liberty Amendment (H.J.Res. 15). The Liberty Amendment repeals the Sixteenth Amendment, thus eliminating the income tax the source of much of the growth of government and loss of individual liberty. The Liberty Amendment also explicitly limits the federal government to those functions it is constitutionally authorized to perform.

2004 Ron Paul 43:6
If Congress were serious about reining in government, it would also eliminate the Federal Reserve Board’s ability to inflate the currency. Federal Reserve policy enables excessive government spending by allowing the government to monitorize the debt, and hide the cost of big government through the hidden tax of inflation.

2004 Ron Paul 43:7
In 1974, during debate on the Congressional Budget Reform and Impoundment Control Act, Congressman H.R. Gross, a libertarian-conservative from Iowa, eloquently addressed the flaws in thinking that budget process reform absent the political will to cut spending would reduce the size of government. Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude my remarks by quoting Mr. Gross:

2004 Ron Paul 43:8
Every Member knows that he or she cannot for long spend $75,000 a year on a salary of $42,500 and remain solvent. Every Member knows this Government cannot forever spend billions beyond tax revenue and endure.

2004 Ron Paul 43:9
Congress already has the tools to halt the headlong flight into bankruptcy. It holds the purse strings. No President can impound funds or spend unwisely unless an improvident, reckless Congress makes available the money.

2004 Ron Paul 43:10
I repeat, neither this nor any other legislation will provide morality and responsibility on the part of Members of Congress.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 44
Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]

Praising Private Space Exploration June 25, 2004 HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES


2004 Ron Paul 44:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate and commend the designers, builders, sponsors, and pilot of SpaceShipOne on the occasion of its successful flight out of earth’s atmosphere on June 21, 2004. What is most remarkable about SpaceShipOne, of course, is that it is the first privately-financed and privately built vehicle to leave the Earth’s atmosphere.

2004 Ron Paul 44:2
SpaceShipOne was designed and built by Burt Rutan and piloted by test pilot Michael W. Melvill. It was launched successfully from Mojave California, reaching a height of 100 KM (62 miles ) above the Earth’s surface. Remarkably, SpaceShipOne is entirely privately-financed, chiefly by Microsoft co-founder Paul G. Allen.

2004 Ron Paul 44:3
According to the designers and financers of SpaceShipOne, the mission of this project is to demonstrate the viability of commercial space flight and to open the door for private space tourism. The successful completion of SpaceShipOne’s maiden voyage demonstrates that relatively modest amounts of private funding can significantly increase the boundaries of commercial space technology. It constitutes a major leap toward their goal and demonstrates that private capital and private enterprise can be applied to enormous success all on its own. Those associated with this project represent the best of our American traditions, embodied in our enterprising and pioneering spirit.

2004 Ron Paul 44:4
Their success should also be read as a cautionary tale for all of us in government. If only the United States had a taxation policy that limited government and thereby freed up more private capital, there is no telling how many more like Burt Rutan, Paul Allen, and Michael Melvill would be able to do great things to the benefit all of mankind. This not just in space exploration, but in medical research, alternative energy research, and any number of the problems that continue to perplex mankind. Private enterprise depends on results and success and therefore private capital is always targeted much more wisely than is monies confiscated by governments.

2004 Ron Paul 44:5
With this successful maiden voyage, SpaceShipOne is now the leading contender for the $10 million Ansari X Prize, which is to be awarded to the first privately financed three-seat aircraft that reaches an altitude of 62 miles and repeats the feat within two weeks. I wish all those involved in this remarkable project the best of luck.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 45
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

American Community Survey 7 July 2004

AMENDMENT NO. 7 OFFERED BY MR. PAUL

2004 Ron Paul 45:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Chairman. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. PAUL: At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following:
TITLE VIII — ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
SEC. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act may be used for the American Community Survey.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House today, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.

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

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

2004 Ron Paul 45:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

2004 Ron Paul 45:3
Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that denies all funding for the American Community Survey. And if anyone has been listening to the debate early on, the Census has come up numerous times already, and much of what I have to propose here has in many ways has been debated. But I do want to bring it up one more time dealing specifically with the American Community Survey.

2004 Ron Paul 45:4
One of the reasons why it came to my attention is just recently I received this survey in the mail here in my temporary residence in Virginia. It is rather intimidating and it is rather threatening when you receive this in the mail. And I have the envelope here and right up on the front they have warned me. They said “The American Community Survey form enclosed. Your response is required by law.”

2004 Ron Paul 45:5
This was the second time. Evidently, I missed it the first time, so the second time around I have been threatened by the census police that I better jolly well fill it out or the police will be knocking on the door. And that does happen because I have known other individuals who have not filled out the long form, and they come to the door, the police are there deciding they want this information.

2004 Ron Paul 45:6
It was stated earlier in the discussion about the census that this was certainly the law of the land. The law of the land is very clear that the Congress gave the authority; the Census Bureau certainly does not do this on its own. We, the Congress, gave it the authority to do this. But it just happens to be an authority that we had no right to give. We have no right to give this authority to meddle into the privacy of American citizens.

2004 Ron Paul 45:7
Article 1, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution mandates a national census every 10 years. I am in support of that, and I vote for funding for a national census every 10 years for the sole purpose of congressional redistricting. But, boy, this is out of hand now. We are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars and it is perpetual. The argument earlier was, we have to have to survey continuously because we save money by spending more money. Ask people a lot of questions, personal questions about bathrooms and incomes and who knows what.

2004 Ron Paul 45:8
This survey I have got here, here is a copy of it. It is called the American Community Survey. And it says the Census Bureau survey collects information about education, employment, income, housing for the purposes of community uses so that they can do community economic planning.

2004 Ron Paul 45:9
How did we ever get involved in all of this? It is almost sacred now that we fund these programs and they are going to be perpetual, perpetual meddling in the personal lives of all American citizens, 24 pages here.

2004 Ron Paul 45:10
I got to wondering, I did not fill it out the first one. I got the second one, and they are threatening me. I know I did not vote for it, but you who did means, you are ready to send the census police out to get me.

2004 Ron Paul 45:11
I am getting worried about this. I mean, what is the penalty? So I looked it up, and it is not insignificant. Do you know what my colleagues have done and threatened me with? A $1,000 penalty for every question I do not answer. Wow, that is scary stuff. I had a friend that he did not answer the long form, after a couple of requests, the census police came and knocked on his door and said you better, you better answer all these questions or you are going to be penalized.

2004 Ron Paul 45:12
So that is the kind of thing that we do and everybody talks about all these wonderful advantages, but it is stuff we do not need. I mean, if we want this information, if people need this information in the communities, they ought to get it themselves. This whole idea that we have to collect all this information for the benefit of our communities to do all this economic planning, I mean, it is just so much more than we need, and we are not talking about 10 or $15 million. We are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars, and it is not just every 10 years.

2004 Ron Paul 45:13
It is continuous with this perpetual threat, you tell us what we want to know and we are going to put it into the record, and if not, for every question you do not answer, we can fine you $1,000 if you do not tell us your age and where you work and how far you have to go to work and how long it takes you to go to work.

2004 Ron Paul 45:14
I mean, this is way too much of Big Brother. Let me tell my colleagues, I think the American people cannot be very happy with all this meddling.

2004 Ron Paul 45:15
So my proposal is let us at least get rid of the American Community Survey, which is the ongoing nuisance that we put up with, and limit what we do here to what the Constitution has told us we can do and what we should do, and that is, count the people every 10 years for the purpose of redistricting. But big deal, who cares. For all we do around here, how often do we really pay attention to the details of the Constitution?

2004 Ron Paul 45:16
So I ask my colleagues to support this amendment and cut this funding.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 46
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Stop Prosecuting Doctors For Prescribing Legal Drugs 7 July 2004

2004 Ron Paul 46:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, what this amendment does is it denies funding to the Department of Justice to prosecute doctors for prescribing legal drugs.

2004 Ron Paul 46:2
The reason I bring this up is to call attention to the Members of a growing and difficult problem developing in this country, and that is, that more and more doctors now are being prosecuted by the Justice Department under the laws that were designated for going after drug kingpins, for illegal drug dealers; but they are using the same laws to go after doctors.

2004 Ron Paul 46:3
It is not one or two or three or four. There are approximately 400 doctors who have been prosecuted, and I know some of them, and I know they are good physicians; and we are creating a monster of a problem. It does not mean that I believe that none of these doctors have a problem. As a physician, I know what they are up against and what they face, and that is, that we have now created a system where a Federal bureaucrat makes the medical decision about whether or not a doctor has prescribed too many pain pills. I mean, that is how bureaucratic we have become even in medicine; but under these same laws that should be used going after kingpins, they are now being used to go after the doctors.

2004 Ron Paul 46:4
As I say, some of them may well be involved in something illegal and unethical; and because I still want to stop this, this does not mean I endorse it, because all the problems that do exist with some doctors can be taken care of in many different ways. Doctors are regulated by their reputation, by medical boards, State and local laws, as well as malpractice suits. So this is not to give license and say the doctors can do anything they want and cause abuse because there are ways of monitoring physicians; but what has happened is we have, as a Congress, developed a great atmosphere of fear among the doctors.

2004 Ron Paul 46:5
The American Association of Physicians and Surgeons, a large group of physicians in this country, has now advised their members not to use any opiates for pain, not to give adequate pain pills because the danger of facing prosecution is so great. So the very people in the medical profession who face the toughest cases, those individuals with cancer who do not need a couple of Tylenol, they might need literally dozens, if not hundreds, of tablets to control their pain, these doctors are being prosecuted.

2004 Ron Paul 46:6
Now, that is a travesty in itself; but the real travesty is what it does to the other physicians, and what it is doing is making everybody fearful. The other doctors are frightened. Nurses are too frightened to give adequate pain medications even in the hospitals because of this atmosphere.

2004 Ron Paul 46:7
My suggestion here is to deny the funding to the Justice Department to prosecute these modest numbers, 3 or 400 doctors, leave that monitoring to the States where it should be in the first place, and let us get rid of this idea that some bureaucrat in Washington can determine how many pain pills I, as a physician, can give a patient that may be suffering from cancer.

2004 Ron Paul 46:8
I mean, this is something anyone who has any compassion, any concern, any humanitarian instincts would say we have gone astray; we have done too much harm; we have to do something to allow doctors to practice medicine. It was never intended that the Federal Government, let alone bureaucrats, interfere in the practice of medicine.

2004 Ron Paul 46:9
So my suggestion is let us take it away, take away the funding of the Justice Department to prosecute these cases, and I think it would go a long way to improving the care of medicine. At the same time, it would be a much fairer approach to the physicians that are now being prosecuted unfairly.

2004 Ron Paul 46:10
And let me tell you, there are plenty, because all they have to do is to be reported that they prescribed an unusual number of tablets for a certain patient, and before you know it, they are intimidated, their license is threatened, their lives are ruined, they spend millions of dollars in defense of their case, and they cannot ever recover. And it is all because we here in the Congress write these regulations, all with good intentions that we are going to make sure there is no abuse.

2004 Ron Paul 46:11
Well, there is always going to be some abuse. But I tell you there is a lot better way to find abusive doctors from issuing pain medication than up here destroying the practice of medicine and making sure thousands of patients suffering from the pain of cancer do not get adequate pain medication.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 47
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

UNESCO 7 July 2004

AMENDMENT NO. 9 OFFERED BY MR. PAUL

2004 Ron Paul 47:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 9.

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. PAUL:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following:

TITLE VIII — ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

SEC. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to pay expenses for any United States contribution to the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

The CHAIRMAN. Points of order are reserved. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.

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

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

2004 Ron Paul 47:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

2004 Ron Paul 47:3
This amendment denies funds to UNESCO, and it is an amendment that is identical to what I brought up last year and got a recorded vote on and had a debate on last year.

2004 Ron Paul 47:4
Last year, I brought it up because we were just getting back into UNESCO. President Ronald Reagan, in 1984, had the wisdom of getting us out of UNESCO because of its corrupt nature, not only because it had a weird, false ideology, contrary to what most Americans believed, but it was also corrupt. He had the wisdom to get us out of it, yet last year we were put back in UNESCO, and I was hoping that we would not fund it.

2004 Ron Paul 47:5
Last year, the Congress approved $60 million for this purpose, which was 25 percent of UNESCO’s budget. Does that mean we have 25 percent of the vote in UNESCO? Do the American people get represented by 25 percent? How much do we get out of it? What is the American taxpayer going to get? The American taxpayer gets a bill, that is all. They do not get any benefits from it.

2004 Ron Paul 47:6
And there is one part of UNESCO that is particularly irritating to me, and it is called the Cultural Diversity Convention. This is an organization that actually is very destructive and will play havoc with our educational system. It also attempts to control our education through the International Baccalaureate Program, and that, too, introduces programs and offers them to our schools. It is not forced, but there are already quite a few schools that have accepted these programs.

2004 Ron Paul 47:7
Now, let me just give my colleagues an idea of the type of philosophy they are promoting, but what we as the Congress promote with what the American taxpayers are paying for. Here it is:

2004 Ron Paul 47:8
“The international education offers people a state of mind, international mindedness. We are living on a planet that is becoming exhausted. And now listen to this, this is what the U.N. UNESCO people are saying about education in the various countries, including ours. Most national educational systems at the moment encourage students to seek the truth, memorize it and reproduce it accurately.” Now, one would think that is not too bad of an idea. “The real world is not this simple,” so says UNESCO. “International education has to reconcile this diversity with the unity of the human condition.”

2004 Ron Paul 47:9
I mean, if those are not threatening terms about what they want to do, and yet here we are funding this program and the American taxpayers are forced to pay for it. Now, there are a few of us left in the Congress, I see a couple on the floor tonight, that might even object to the Federal Government telling our States what to do with education, and of course there is no constitutional authority for that. We have the Leave No Child Behind, but it looks like everyone is going to be left behind before we know it.

2004 Ron Paul 47:10
But here it is not the Federal Government taking over our Federal education system; this is the UNESCO, United Nations, taking over our educational system. It does have an influence. Sure, it is minimal now, but it will grow if we allow this to continue.

2004 Ron Paul 47:11
So I ask my colleagues to please vote for my amendment, and I sure hope they allow a vote on this amendment. It was permitted last year, so it surely would be permitted this year.

2004 Ron Paul 47:12
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 48
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Marinol And Terrorism 7 July 2004

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL).

2004 Ron Paul 48:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

2004 Ron Paul 48:2
Mr. Chairman, I, too, am a physician from Texas, but I have a little different opinion about Marinol. No doctor that I know of ever prescribes Marinol.

2004 Ron Paul 48:3
I think marijuana is a helpful medical treatment for the people who have intractable nausea. I would like to point out this is not something strange that we are suggesting here. For the first 163 years of our history in this country, the Federal Government had total hands off, they never interfered with what the States were doing. They interfered only after 1938 through tax law. So this is something new.

2004 Ron Paul 48:4
The States’ rights issue is almost a dead issue in the Congress, but we ought to continue to talk about it, and I am delighted somebody has brought this up.

2004 Ron Paul 48:5
But if you do have compassion and care for patients, they ought to have a freedom of choice. I think that is what this is all about, freedom of choice.

2004 Ron Paul 48:6
I would like to point out one statistic. One year prior to 9/11 there were 750,000 arrests of people who used marijuana; there was one arrest for a suspect that was committing terrorism. Now, that, to me, is a misdirected law enforcement program that we could help address here by at least allowing the States to follow the laws that they already have on the books.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 49
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

End Embargo On Cuba 7 July 2004

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL).

2004 Ron Paul 49:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

2004 Ron Paul 49:2
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support for this amendment. This, to me, is a freedom issue, as the gentleman from Florida has indicated. I think everyone in this body is concerned about freedom in Cuba, and we should be, and we should do whatever we can to encourage it, but obviously some believe you can encourage freedom by sanctions, which has not worked very well, but it seems to boggle my mind that if we restrain freedom here, that we help freedom there.

2004 Ron Paul 49:3
This is what we are doing. We are restraining the freedom of our people to send a package, and of course not dealt with in the amendment, but travel as well.

2004 Ron Paul 49:4
The founders of this country gave strong advice to us, and for 100 years or so we followed it. They said friendship and trade with everyone who is willing, alliances with none; and that is pretty good advice. But what have we done in recent years? We have a hodgepodge when we deal with other countries.

2004 Ron Paul 49:5
Just think of what has happened recently. We took the gentleman from Libya, the so-called gentleman Omar Qadhafi, who is now scheduled to shoot four nurses and a doctor, and we have given him normal trade sanctions, and we are going to subsidize trade with him. And here he admits to having shot down one of our airplanes or blown up one of our airplanes. He is a terrorist, but here we are dealing with him in that way.

2004 Ron Paul 49:6
We have trade with China. Things have gone better with China, not worse.

2004 Ron Paul 49:7
Where are the free traders? It really bothers me when I hear the free traders who promote free trade in every other area except the freedom of an American citizen to send a package to Cuba.

2004 Ron Paul 49:8
I do not believe you can enhance freedom in Cuba by limiting the freedom of American citizens. We must be more open and more confident that freedom of choice by American citizens is worth something to defend; and I stand strongly for this amendment and I compliment the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. FLAKE) for bringing it to us.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 50
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Demands Recorded Vote 7 July 2004

2004 Ron Paul 50:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 51
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Restore Rights Violated By PATRIOT Act 8 July 2004

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL).

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

2004 Ron Paul 51:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I think it would be proper to rename this amendment and call it the “partial restoration of the fourth amendment,” and that is our attempt here. We are doing exactly what the gentleman early on suggested: this is oversight; this is our responsibility. This is the proper place to have the debate. It was the Congress that created the PATRIOT Act; it is the responsibility of the Congress to do something about it if it was a mistake. And it, indeed, was a mistake.

2004 Ron Paul 51:2
I would like to think that the American people are with us entirely, and I know a large number already are with us on trying to straighten up some of the mess caused by the Patriot Act, but I would like to say that there is one basic principle that we should approach this with, something I approach all legislation with, and that is the principle of a free society is that we never have to sacrifice liberty in order to preserve it.

2004 Ron Paul 51:3
The whole notion that the purpose of providing freedom and liberty to this country is that we have to give up some, I do not believe is necessary. It is never necessary to give up freedom to preserve freedom. I do think we made some serious mistakes. We made a mistake in passing the PATRIOT Act under conditions of an emergency and under the conditions of post-9/11. We did not do a very good job at Tora Bora. We failed to find the individuals responsible for 9/11 and we have not concentrated on the people who committed this crime. Instead, we have decided to invade and occupy a foreign country rather than protecting and providing security here, at home providing freedom for our people and more security for this country.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 52
Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
July 8, 2004 Government Spending – A Tax on the Middle Class

2004 Ron Paul 52:1
All government spending represents a tax.   The inflation tax, while largely ignored, hurts middle-class and low-income Americans the most.

2004 Ron Paul 52:2
The never-ending political squabble in Congress over taxing the rich, helping the poor, “Pay-Go,” deficits, and special interests, ignores the most insidious of all taxes- the inflation tax.   Simply put, printing money to pay for federal spending dilutes the value of the dollar, which causes higher prices for goods and services.   Inflation may be an indirect tax, but it is very real- the individuals who suffer most from cost of living increases certainly pay a “tax.”

2004 Ron Paul 52:3
Unfortunately no one in Washington, especially those who defend the poor and the middle class, cares about this subject.   Instead, all we hear is that tax cuts for the rich are the source of every economic ill in the country.   Anyone truly concerned about the middle class suffering from falling real wages, under-employment, a rising cost of living, and a decreasing standard of living should pay a lot more attention to monetary policy. Federal spending, deficits, and Federal Reserve mischief hurt the poor while transferring wealth to the already rich.   This is the real problem, and raising taxes on those who produce wealth will only make conditions worse.

2004 Ron Paul 52:4
This neglect of monetary policy may be out of ignorance, but it may well be deliberate.   Fully recognizing the harm caused by printing money to cover budget deficits might create public pressure to restrain spending- something the two parties don’t want.

2004 Ron Paul 52:5
Expanding entitlements is now an accepted prerogative of both parties.   Foreign wars and nation building are accepted as foreign policy by both parties.

2004 Ron Paul 52:6
The Left hardly deserves credit when complaining about Republican deficits.   Likewise, we’ve been told by the Vice President that Ronald Reagan “proved deficits don’t matter”- a tenet of supply-side economics.   With this the prevailing wisdom in Washington, no one should be surprised that spending and deficits are skyrocketing.   The vocal concerns expressed about huge deficits coming from big spenders on both sides are nothing more than political grandstanding.   If Members feel so strongly about spending, Congress simply could do what it ought to do- cut spending.   That, however, is never seriously considered by either side.

2004 Ron Paul 52:7
If those who say they want to increase taxes to reduce the deficit got their way, who would benefit?   No one!   There’s no historic evidence to show that taxing productive Americans to support both the rich and poor welfare beneficiaries helps the middle class, produces jobs, or stimulates the economy.

2004 Ron Paul 52:8
Borrowing money to cut the deficit is only marginally better than raising taxes.   It may delay the pain for a while, but the cost of government eventually must be paid.   Federal borrowing means the cost of interest is added, shifting the burden to a different group than those who benefited and possibly even to another generation.   Eventually borrowing is always paid for through taxation.

2004 Ron Paul 52:9
All spending ultimately must be a tax, even when direct taxes and direct borrowing are avoided.   The third option is for the Federal Reserve to create credit to pay the bills Congress runs up.   Nobody objects, and most Members hope that deficits don’t really matter if the Fed accommodates Congress by creating more money.   Besides, interest payments to the Fed are lower than they would be if funds were borrowed from the public, and payments can be delayed indefinitely merely by creating more credit out of thin air to buy U.S. treasuries.   No need to soak the rich.   A good deal, it seems, for everyone.   But is it?

2004 Ron Paul 52:10
Paying for government spending with Federal Reserve credit, instead of taxing or borrowing from the public, is anything but a good deal for everyone.   In fact it is the most sinister seductive “tax” of them all.   Initially it is unfair to some, but dangerous to everyone in the end.   It is especially harmful to the middle class, including lower-income working people who are thought not to be paying taxes.

2004 Ron Paul 52:11
The “tax” is paid when prices rise as the result of a depreciating dollar.   Savers and those living on fixed or low incomes are hardest hit as the cost of living rises.   Low and middle incomes families suffer the most as they struggle to make ends meet while wealth is literally transferred from the middle class to the wealthy.   Government officials stick to their claim that no significant inflation exists, even as certain necessary costs are skyrocketing and incomes are stagnating.   The transfer of wealth comes as savers and fixed income families lose purchasing power, large banks benefit, and corporations receive plush contracts from the government- as is the case with military contractors. These companies use the newly printed money before it circulates, while the middle class is forced to accept it at face value later on.   This becomes a huge hidden tax on the middle class, many of whom never object to government spending in hopes that the political promises will be fulfilled and they will receive some of the goodies.   But surprise- it doesn’t happen.   The result instead is higher prices for prescription drugs, energy, and other necessities. The freebies never come.

2004 Ron Paul 52:12
The Fed is solely responsible for inflation by creating money out of thin air.   It does so either to monetize federal debt, or in the process of economic planning through interest rate manipulation.   This Fed intervention in our economy, though rarely even acknowledged by Congress, is more destructive than Members can imagine.

2004 Ron Paul 52:13
Not only is the Fed directly responsible for inflation and economic downturns, it causes artificially low interest rates that serve the interests of big borrowers, speculators, and banks. This unfairly steals income from frugal retirees who chose to save and place their funds in interest bearing instruments like CDs.

2004 Ron Paul 52:14
The Fed’s great power over the money supply, interest rates, the business cycle, unemployment, and inflation is wielded with essentially no Congressional oversight or understanding.   The process of inflating our currency to pay for government debt indeed imposes a tax without legislative authority.

2004 Ron Paul 52:15
This is no small matter.   In just the first 24 weeks of this year the M3 money supply increased 428 billion dollars, and 700 billion dollars in the past year.   M3 currently is rising at a rate of 10.5%.   In the last seven years the money supply has increased 80%, as M3 has soared 4.1 trillion dollars.   This bizarre system of paper money worldwide has allowed serious international imbalances to develop.   We owe just four Asian countries 1.5 trillion dollars as a consequence of a chronic and staggering current account deficit now exceeding 5% of our GDP.   This current account deficit means Americans must borrow 1.6 billion dollars per day from overseas just to finance this deficit.   This imbalance, which until now has permitted us to live beyond our means, eventually will give us higher consumer prices, a lower standard of living, higher interest rates, and renewed inflation.

2004 Ron Paul 52:16
Rest assured the middle class will suffer disproportionately from this process.

2004 Ron Paul 52:17
The moral of the story is that spending is always a tax.   The inflation tax, though hidden, only makes things worse.   Taxing, borrowing, and inflating to satisfy wealth transfers from the middle class to the rich in an effort to pay for profligate government spending, can never make a nation wealthier.   But it certainly can make it poorer.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 53
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Requests Opposition Debate Time 14 July 2004

2004 Ron Paul 53:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, is either gentleman opposed to the bill?

Mr. LANTOS. No, Mr. Speaker. I am strongly in support of this legislation.

2004 Ron Paul 53:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I seek time in opposition.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 54
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Taiwan Relations Act — Part 1 14 July 2004

2004 Ron Paul 54:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

2004 Ron Paul 54:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to start off by saying that I really do not have a lot of disagreement with what the chairman has to say, because I certainly think we should be friends with Taiwan. I believe our goals are very similar. It is just that the approach I have would be quite different.

2004 Ron Paul 54:3
I happen to believe that we have ignored for too long in this country and in this body the foreign policy that was designed by our Founders, a foreign policy of nonintervention. I think it is better for us. I think it is healthy in all ways, both financially and in that it keeps us out of wars, and we are allowed to build friendships with all the nations of the world. The politics of nonintervention should be given some serious consideration.

2004 Ron Paul 54:4
Usually, the argument given me for that is that 200 years ago or 250 years ago things were different. Today we have had to go through the Cold War and communism; and, therefore, we are a powerful Nation and we have an empire to protect; and we have this moral obligation to police the world and take care of everybody.

2004 Ron Paul 54:5
But, Mr. Speaker, my answer to that is somewhat like the notion that we no longer have to pay attention to the Ten Commandments or the Bill of Rights. If principles were correct 200 years ago or 250 years ago, they should be correct today. So if a policy of friendship and trade with other nations and nonintervention were good 250 years ago, it should be good today.

2004 Ron Paul 54:6
I certainly think the Taiwan Relations Act qualifies as an entangling alliance, and that is what we have been warned about: “Do not get involved in entangling alliances.” It gets us so involved, we get in too deep, and then we end up with a military answer to too many of our problems. I think that is what has happened certainly in the last 50 years.

2004 Ron Paul 54:7
I essentially have four objections to what we are doing. One is a moral objection. I will not dwell on the first three and I will not dwell on this one. But I do not believe one generation of Americans has a moral right to obligate another generation, because, in many ways, when we make this commitment, this is not just a friendly commitment; this is weapons and this is defense.

2004 Ron Paul 54:8
Most people interpret the Taiwan Relations Act as a commitment for our troops to go in and protect the Taiwanese if the Chinese would ever attack. Although it is not explicit in the act, many people interpret it that way. But I do not believe that we or a generation 25 years ago has the moral right to obligate another generation to such an overwhelming commitment, especially if it does not involve an attack on our national security. Some say that if Taiwan would be attacked, it would be. But, quite frankly, it is a stretch to say that settling that dispute over there has something to do with an attack on our national security.

2004 Ron Paul 54:9
Economics is another issue. We are running out of money; and these endless commitments, military commitments and commitments overseas, cannot go on forever. Our national debt is going up between $600 billion and $700 billion a year, so eventually my arguments will win out, because we are going to run out of money and this country is going to go broke. So there is an economic argument against that.

2004 Ron Paul 54:10
Also, looking for guidance in the Constitution. It is very clear that the Constitution does not give us this authority to assume responsibility for everybody, and to assume the entire responsibility for Taiwan is more than I can read into the Constitution.

2004 Ron Paul 54:11
But the issue I want to talk about more than those first three is really the practical approach to what we are doing. I happen to believe that the policy of the One-China Policy does not make a whole lot of sense. We want Taiwan to be protected, so we say we have a One-China Policy, which occurred in 1982. But in order to say we have a One-China Policy, then we immediately give weapons to Taiwan to defend against China.

2004 Ron Paul 54:12
So this, to me, just does not quite add up. If we put arms in Taiwan, why would we not expect the Chinese to put arms in opposition, because they are only answering what we are doing? What happened when the Soviets went to Cuba? They put arms there. We did not like that. What would happen if the Chinese went into Cuba or Mexico? We are not going to like that. So I think this part is in conflict with what the National Relations Act says, because we are seeking a peaceful resolution of this.

2004 Ron Paul 54:13
So I would urge my colleagues to be cautious about this. I know this will be overwhelmingly passed; but, nevertheless, it is these types of commitments, these types of alliances that we make that commit us to positions that are hard to back away from. This is why we get into these hot wars, these shooting wars, when really I do not think it is necessary.

2004 Ron Paul 54:14
There is no reason in the world why we cannot have friendship with China and with Taiwan. But there is something awfully inconsistent with our One-China Policy, when at the same time we are arming part of China in order to defend itself. The two just do not coexist.

2004 Ron Paul 54:15
Self-determination, I truly believe, is worth looking at. Self-determination is something that we should champion. Therefore, I am on the strong side of Taiwan in determining what they want by self-determination. But what do we do? Our administration tells them they should not have a referendum on whether or not they want to be independent and have self-determination. So in one sense we try to help them; and, in the other sense, we say do not do it.

2004 Ron Paul 54:16
I am just arguing that we do not have to desert Taiwan. We can be very supportive of their efforts, and we can do it in a much more peaceful way and at least be a lot more consistent.

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

2004 Ron Paul 54:17
Mr. PAUL. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend for yielding. I just want to correct the impression the gentleman left with his observation, which implied that Taiwan is getting economic aid from the United States.

2004 Ron Paul 54:18
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I will answer that.

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I have not yet made my point. Taiwan is getting no economic aid from the United States.

2004 Ron Paul 54:19
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, that is correct. I did not say that, so the gentleman has implied that; and that is incorrect that I said it.

2004 Ron Paul 54:20
I do know that it is a potential military base for us, because when I was in the Air Force, on more than one occasion I landed on Taiwan. So they are certainly a close military ally.

2004 Ron Paul 54:21
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 55
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Taiwan Relations Act — Part 2 14 July 2004

2004 Ron Paul 55:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

2004 Ron Paul 55:2
Very briefly, let me mention that this last election was marred by news revealing that there was an assassination attempt. It has been very much in the news in question about the authenticity of this assassination. And, actually, the election itself is believed to be under a cloud with many people in Taiwan. So to paint too rosy a picture on that, I am pleased that they are making progress, but it is not quite as rosy as it has been portrayed here.

2004 Ron Paul 55:3
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. MCCOLLUM).

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 56
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Taiwan Relations Act — Part 3 14 July 2004

2004 Ron Paul 56:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

2004 Ron Paul 56:2
Let me just restate my general position, because my defense is that of a foreign policy of nonintervention, sincerely believing it is in the best interests of our people and the world that we get less involved militaristically.

2004 Ron Paul 56:3
Once again, I would like to make the point that if it is a true and correct principle because of its age, it is not negated. If it is a true principle and worked 200 years ago or 400 years ago, it is still a principle today; and it should not be discarded.

2004 Ron Paul 56:4
I would like to just close with quoting from the Founders. First, very simply, from Jefferson. His advice was, “Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.”

2004 Ron Paul 56:5
John Quincy Adams: “Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions, and her prayers be. But she goes,” and “she” is referring to us, the United States, “but she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.”

2004 Ron Paul 56:6
And our first President. He is well- known for his farewell address, and in that address he says, “Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand: neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing.”

2004 Ron Paul 56:7
Force gets us nowhere. Persuasion is the answer. Peace and commerce is what we should pursue.

2004 Ron Paul 56:8
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 57
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Millennium Challenge Account — Part 1 15 July 2004

AMENDMENT NO. 17 OFFERED BY MR. PAUL

2004 Ron Paul 57:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment No. 17 offered by Mr. PAUL: Title II of the bill is amended by striking the item relating to “MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE CORPORATION”.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. KOLBE) each will control 10 minutes.

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

2004 Ron Paul 57:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

2004 Ron Paul 57:3
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, my amendment strikes the Millennium Challenge Account. When this program was put in place a year ago, it was originally thought to be a program that would replace old-fashioned foreign aid, but because the votes were not there, instead of a transition from one form of foreign aid to another, it was just added on. That is the way we do things here. We keep adding on in order to satisfy everybody.

2004 Ron Paul 57:4
So the foreign aid bill now is up to nearly $20 billion, and that represents $1.25 billion for the Millennium Challenge Account, and it is a $266 million increase from 1 year ago. So we are making “progress”, if one is a strong supporter of such programs.

2004 Ron Paul 57:5
The strongest argument of those who endorse foreign aid is a humanitarian argument: We are rich, they are poor, we have empathy, we must help, it is our moral obligation. For the most part, people go along with that. But I have a humanitarian argument, also. Mine is that it does not work and that, if we indeed care about people, we ought to be encouraging free markets and individual liberty, and that is when countries become more prosperous.

2004 Ron Paul 57:6
But the idea that we can promote humanitarian programs by taking literally money from poor people in this country and giving it to rich, influential leaders in other countries and we are going to have this miraculous success I think is a myth. It does not work that way, and there are people who are not benefitted.

2004 Ron Paul 57:7
Now, it may be said by those who have promoted the Millennium Challenge Account, that is exactly what we are trying to address. We want to reward countries that are moving in the direction of free markets. Now, that is a nice notion, but it cannot work. It is impossible because when we give money to a government, it is politicized. It becomes bureaucratic, and it has to be handed out to special interests.

2004 Ron Paul 57:8
When Paul Applegarth, the chairman of the corporation for the Millennium Challenge Account was before our committee, I asked him a question. I said, are there any American companies that will benefit by this type of program? I actually was pretty shocked with his answer, because he was very blunt. He said, I certainly hope so. In other words, even our American corporations benefit from programs like this.

2004 Ron Paul 57:9
So it would be nice to think that the poor people of these other countries are going to benefit, but I think it is a greater injury to the poor people of this country. My colleagues say the poor people of this country do not pay taxes. Well, that is incorrect, because the inflation tax is borne by the poor and the middle class, and that occurs when we spend too much money. And this is too much money spent the wrong way, and we do not have the authority to do it. Besides, how many of us ever get calls from our constituents saying please vote for more foreign aid? No, they are asking for more help here, and this distracts from it.

2004 Ron Paul 57:10
When we do not have the money, we run up the debt. Then we go and we literally print the money to pay the bills. We create the inflation and the higher cost of living, and it injures the low and middle income people the most, and they are the ones who are losing jobs.

2004 Ron Paul 57:11
So this is literally money coming out of our pockets for programs that could help us in this country.

2004 Ron Paul 57:12
My suggestion is, since I am a moderate here in the Congress, my moderate approach would be when we have a program like this, whether it is 1.25 or the whole $20 billion, my suggestion is cut it, cut the whole thing. Let us say we cut the $20 billion of foreign aid. I would take $10 billion and put it toward the deficit, and I would join my colleagues on the left and say, look, let us fund some of these programs that are needed or are coming up short. Why are we cutting veterans benefits at the same time? Why do we cut the Corps of Engineers? Why do we not fully fund our infrastructure?

2004 Ron Paul 57:13
This type of spending does not make any economic sense, and it does not make any moral sense.

2004 Ron Paul 57:14
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 58
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Yields 2 Minutes To Rep. Keller 15 July 2004

2004 Ron Paul 58:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. KELLER).

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 59
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Millennium Challenge Account — Part 2 15 July 2004

2004 Ron Paul 59:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

2004 Ron Paul 59:2
Let me follow up on the point I made earlier about the good intentions of a program like this to promote free market changes in certain countries, but, unfortunately, this backfires because once the money gets in the hands of the government we then require them to develop partnerships or alliances with businesses, which is exactly the opposite of free markets. This is closer to crony capitalism or fascism when we combine government money with business interests.

2004 Ron Paul 59:3
At the same time, we know that our corporations will also participate in these programs. So the money once again leaves the people of this country, many times the poor, and goes to these foreign aid programs which subsidize certain governments, solidifying powers of certain politicians, which then allows fungibility of their other funds to do other things and then encourage business partnerships between government and business which is not free markets, which literally is undermining the move that I think is intended and that is to improve the conditions of other countries.

2004 Ron Paul 59:4
If the conditions of a country are amenable to capitalism and investment, there is never a problem of a lack of investors. The fact that we have to do this, that means there are flaws in the system. This will not improve it. It actually makes it worse. Just because you have partnership with businesses does not mean you are moving toward free enterprise. That means you are moving toward a system of interventionism, or crony capitalism. It is not true reform.

2004 Ron Paul 59:5
So a program like this actually does the reverse. It has unintended consequences. It makes our problems worse. And, besides, we do not have the right to do it. We do not have the constitutional authority to do it, and we certainly do not have a moral authority to undermine the poor people of this country by making the conditions worse here.

2004 Ron Paul 59:6
For this reason, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote “yes” on this amendment.

2004 Ron Paul 59:7
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 60
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Financing Operations, Export Financing, And Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2005 15 July 2004

The Committee resumed its sitting.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL).

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

2004 Ron Paul 60:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, the author of the amendment, and I am a coauthor of it, mentioned that it has a broad spectrum of individuals supporting it. He mentioned progressives and liberals and conservatives and moderates, but he forgot the libertarians.

2004 Ron Paul 60:2
Libertarians support this as well and for a precise reason. A free market libertarian does not believe in welfare for anybody, let alone the rich, and it is particularly gnawing to see the subsidies go to the very wealthy.

2004 Ron Paul 60:3
I am in strong support of this amendment, but, like the gentleman from California, I do not support this for the purpose of collecting more taxes, but I do think it is a message to us here that if we do not revise our tax system and our regulatory system we will prompt more and more business to leave this country.

2004 Ron Paul 60:4
So there are two issues here, but corporate welfare and subsidies should have no part in this. There is no room for it. It is wrong.

2004 Ron Paul 60:5
Also, the beneficiaries outside the corporations we should not forget either, because the biggest country that benefits from this is China. Why do we subsidize China? People who receive the goods get a benefit as well as the people who get to sell the goods get a benefit? China is on the books right now currently with $5.9 billion in outstanding loans. They receive more than anybody else. So there is something wrong with a system like that.

2004 Ron Paul 60:6
There are two economic points that I want to make on this. When we do this and we allow tax credit and special deals for some corporations, we assume, and we will hear this in the defense of the Ex-Im Bank, and say look at the good that we do. But what they fail to ask is, where did it come from, who was denied the credit? The fact that we do not finance it does not mean it would not happen. It would happen.

2004 Ron Paul 60:7
What it does is it distorts the market and causes people to do the wrong thing, and some individuals do not get the credit is obviously the case, but what we need to do is to have a much more oriented free market. When we direct it this way, even those companies may do more than they ordinarily would, and that participates in the economic bubble that occurs, of course, for other reasons as well. Then there has to be corrections. But if one is in a powerful position in a place where they can qualify, and 80 percent of this goes to the very, very large companies, although there are a lot of companies that receive the big bucks, and big countries like China.

2004 Ron Paul 60:8
This is corporate welfare. It should be defeated; and, ultimately, if we believe in liberty and freedom, we ought to get rid of the Export-Import Bank.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 61
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Opposing Aid To Pakistan 15 July 2004

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL).

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

2004 Ron Paul 61:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

2004 Ron Paul 61:2
I appreciate the opportunity to spend 5 minutes on an issue that I wanted to bring up in the form of an amendment, and that deals with the $300 million that will be going to Pakistan. And I call this to attention because I think it is a very unwise expenditure. But I want to make my case for this in the context of overall foreign policy.

2004 Ron Paul 61:3
Essentially for 100 years, we have accepted the foreign policy of Woodrow Wilson. It is a flawed idealism that we should, and it is our responsibility to, make the world safe for democracy. That did not just exist for World War I, which led to a peace treaty which caused a lot of problems leading up to World War II; but those notions are well engrained in the current neoconservative approach to foreign policy and the policy that this administration follows. But I do not think it is in the best interests of our country to follow this.

2004 Ron Paul 61:4
The advice of the Founders was that we should be more balanced in our approach and not favoring special nations, not giving money or weapons or getting involved in any alliances with the different nations of the world and we would all be better off for it.

2004 Ron Paul 61:5
I believe that this policy is a failure and has been very costly. If we think about the last 100 years how many lives were lost, how much blood has been spilled, how many dollars have been spent in this effort to make the world safe for democracy, the world is probably as unsafe now as it has ever been. And here we are. We are proposing that we send $300 million under this policy to Pakistan.

2004 Ron Paul 61:6
We are in Iraq to promote democracy, but here we send money to a military dictator who overthrew an elected government. And there just seems to be a tremendous inconsistency here. There was a military coup in 1999. There is the strong possibility that Osama bin Laden may well be in Pakistan. And to actually send money there, we are prohibited from really going in there and looking for Osama bin Laden; so we give the government of Pakistan money in the hopes that they will be helpful to us.

2004 Ron Paul 61:7
There is quite a bit of difference between the foreign policy of neutrality and friendship with everyone versus giving money and support to everyone. And if we look at our history, it has not worked very well. We have in the past given money to both sides of a lot of wars, and right now we try to be friends and we give money in support to both India and Pakistan. I do not bring this amendment up here to be pro either one or anti either one. I want to have a pro-American foreign policy and not say, well, I want to punish Pakistan and help India or vice versa.

2004 Ron Paul 61:8
We have helped people who have been arch enemies for years. Take Greece and Turkey. We helped both sides. But not only do we help both sides of a lot of these fights that have been going on for a long time, we literally help our enemies. Just think of the support we gave Osama bin Laden when he was fighting the Russians in Afghanistan and just think of our alliance with Saddam Hussein in the 1980s when we did provide him with a lot of destructive weapons. That type of policy does not add up. It does not make a lot of sense. It is not in our best interests, and my suggestion here is hopefully somewhere along the way, we will take a serious look at this and redirect our foreign policy.

2004 Ron Paul 61:9
But, specifically, is it a wise expenditure to put $300 million into the government of Pakistan with the pretense that we are promoting democracy by supporting a military dictator at the same time our young men are dying in Iraq promoting democracy? It does not add up, and it suggests that there are other motives for some of these expenditures and some of our motivations around the world.

2004 Ron Paul 61:10
In the past we have been arch enemies of Libya, but now we have decided they will be our friends. And I am not against that in particular, but I am against giving them subsidies and helping them out.

2004 Ron Paul 61:11
There is such a difference between neutrality and friendship and that of giving weapons and arms and promoting antagonisms.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 62
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Demands Recorded Vote 15 July 2004

2004 Ron Paul 62:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 63
Ron Paul’s Congressional website HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
July 15, 2004 End the Two-Party Monopoly!

2004 Ron Paul 63:1
Mr. Speaker, political operatives across the country are using state ballot access laws to deny voters the opportunity to support independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader. For example, one New York election lawyer publicly stated that partisan election lawyers should take advantage of New York’s complex and costly ballot access procedures to keep Mr. Nader off the New York ballot. Meanwhile, a state party chairman in Arizona has hired a team of lawyers for the sole purpose of keeping Mr. Nader off the Arizona ballot.

2004 Ron Paul 63:2
The effort to keep Mr. Nader off the ballot shows how ballot access laws preserve the two-party monopoly over the political system by effectively disenfranchising supporters of third parties and independent candidates. While the campaign against Mr. Nader is an extreme case, supporters of the two-party monopoly regularly use ballot access laws to keep third party and independent candidates off ballots. Even candidates able to comply with onerous ballot access rules must devote so many resources to simply getting on the ballot that their ability to communicate ideas to the general public is severely limited. Perhaps the ballot access laws are one reason why voter turnout has been declining over the past few decades. After all, almost 42% of eligible voters have either not registered to vote or have registered as something other than Democrat or Republican.

2004 Ron Paul 63:3
The United States Constitution gives Congress the authority to regulate the time, place, and manner of federal elections. Thus, ballot access is one of the few areas where Congress has explicit constitutional authority to establish national standards. In order to open up the political process, I have introduced the Voter Freedom Act (HR 1941). HR 1941 established uniform standards for ballot access so third party and independent candidates can at last compete on a level playing field.

2004 Ron Paul 63:4
The blatant attempt by a major party to keep Ralph Nader off state ballots demonstrates how restrictive ballot access laws are used to preserve a political monopoly, limit voter choices, and deny the rights of millions of Americans who support third parties and independent candidates an opportunity to effectively participate in the political process. I call upon my colleagues to remedy this situation by supporting my Voter Freedom Act.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 64
Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]

Protecting Marriage from Judicial Tyranny July 22, 2004 HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES


2004 Ron Paul 64:1
Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act (HR 3313), I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill.   HR 3313 ensures federal courts will not undermine any state laws regulating marriage by forcing a state to recognize same-sex marriage licenses issued in another state. The Marriage Protection Act thus ensures that the authority to regulate marriage remains with individual states and communities, as the drafters of the Constitution intended.

2004 Ron Paul 64:2
The practice of judicial activism- legislating from the bench- is now standard procedure for many federal judges.   They dismiss the doctrine of strict construction as outdated, instead treating the Constitution as fluid and malleable to create a desired outcome in any given case.   For judges who see themselves as social activists, their vision of justice is more important than the letter of the law they are sworn to interpret and uphold.   With the federal judiciary focused more on promoting a social agenda than on upholding the rule of law, Americans find themselves increasingly governed by judges they did not elect and cannot remove from office.

2004 Ron Paul 64:3
Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court last June.   The Court determined that Texas has no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because these laws violated the court’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment.   Regardless of the advisability of such laws, the Constitution does not give the federal government authority to overturn these laws.   Under the Tenth Amendment, the state of Texas has the authority to pass laws concerning social matters, using its own local standards, without federal interference.   But rather than adhering to the Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a state matter, the Court decided to stretch the “right to privacy” to justify imposing the justices’ vision on the people of Texas.

2004 Ron Paul 64:4
Since the Lawrence decision, many Americans have expressed their concern that the Court may next “discover” that state laws defining marriage violate the Court’s wrongheaded interpretation of the Constitution. After all, some judges simply may view this result as taking the Lawrence decision to its logical conclusion.

2004 Ron Paul 64:5
One way federal courts may impose a redefinition of marriage on the states is by interpreting the full faith and credit clause to require all states, even those which do not grant legal standing to same-sex marriages , to treat as valid same-sex marriage licenses from the few states which give legal status to such unions.   This would have the practical effect of nullifying state laws defining marriage as solely between a man and a woman, thus allowing a few states and a handful of federal judges to create marriage policy for the entire nation.

2004 Ron Paul 64:6
In 1996 Congress exercised its authority under the full faith and credit clause of Article IV of the Constitution by passing the Defense of Marriage Act. This ensured each state could set its own policy regarding marriage and not be forced to adopt the marriage policies of another state. Since the full faith and credit clause grants Congress the clear authority to “prescribe the effects” that state documents such as marriage licenses have on other states, the Defense of Marriage Act is unquestionably constitutional. However, the lack of respect federal judges show for the plain language of the Constitution necessitates congressional action so that state officials are not forced to recognize another states’ same-sex marriage licenses because of a flawed judicial interpretation.   The drafters of the Constitution gave Congress the power to limit federal jurisdiction to provide a check on out-of-control federal judges. It is long past time we begin using our legitimate authority to protect the states and the people from judicial tyranny.

2004 Ron Paul 64:7
Since the Marriage Protection Act requires only a majority vote in both houses of Congress (and the president’s signature) to become law, it is a more practical way to deal with this issue than the time-consuming process of passing a constitutional amendment. In fact, since the Defense of Marriage Act overwhelmingly passed both houses, and the president supports protecting state marriage laws from judicial tyranny, there is no reason why the Marriage Protection Act cannot become law this year.

2004 Ron Paul 64:8
 Some may argue that allowing federal judges to rewrite the definition of marriage can result in a victory for individual liberty. This claim is flawed. The best guarantor of true liberty is decentralized political institutions, while the greatest threat to liberty is concentrated power. This is why the Constitution carefully limits the power of the federal government over the states. Allowing federal judges unfettered discretion to strike down state laws, or force a state to conform to the laws of another state, leads to centralization and loss of liberty.

2004 Ron Paul 64:9
While marriage is licensed and otherwise regulated by the states, government did not create the institution of marriage. In fact, the institution of marriage most likely pre-dates the institution of government! Government regulation of marriage is based on state recognition of the practices and customs formulated by private individuals interacting in civil society. Many people associate their wedding day with completing the rituals and other requirements of their faith, thus being joined in the eyes of their church- not the day they received their marriage license from the state. Having federal officials, whether judges, bureaucrats, or congressmen, impose a new definition of marriage on the people is an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty.

2004 Ron Paul 64:10
Mr. Speaker, Congress has a constitutional responsibility to stop rogue federal judges from using a flawed interpretation of the Constitution to rewrite the laws and traditions governing marriage. I urge my colleagues to stand against destructive judicial activism and for marriage by voting for the Marriage Protection Act.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 65
Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]

Hands Off Sudan! July 23, 2004 HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES


2004 Ron Paul 65:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this incredibly dangerous legislation. I hope my colleagues are not fooled by the title of this bill, “Declaring genocide in Darfur, Sudan.” This resolution is no statement of humanitarian concern for what may be happening in a country thousands of miles from the United States. Rather, it could well lead to war against the African country of Sudan. The resolution “urges the Bush Administration to seriously consider multilateral or even unilateral intervention to prevent genocide should the United Nations Security Council fail to act.” We must realize the implications of urging the President to commit the United States to intervene in an ongoing civil war in a foreign land thousands of miles away.

2004 Ron Paul 65:2
Mr. Speaker, this resolution was never marked-up in the House International Relations Committee, on which I serve. Therefore, Members of that committee had no opportunity to amend it or express their views before it was sent to the Floor for a vote. Like too many highly controversial bills, it was rushed onto the suspension calendar (by House rules reserved for “non-controversial” legislation) at the last minute. Perhaps there was a concern that if Members had more time to consider the bill they would cringe at the resolution’s call for US military action in Sudan - particularly at a time when our military is stretched to the breaking point. The men and women of the United States Armed Forces risk their lives to protect and defend the United States. Can anyone tell me how sending thousands of American soldiers into harm’s way in Sudan is by any stretch of the imagination in the US national interest or in keeping with the constitutional function of this country’s military forces? I urge my colleagues in the strongest terms to reject this dangerous resolution.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 66
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Opposes Commemorating 9/11 9 September 2004

2004 Ron Paul 66:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am forced to rise in opposition to this legislation, I do so despite my desire to commemorate the horrific attacks on September 11, 2001 and again express my sympathy to the families of the victims. But don’t be fooled by the label. This legislation is no mere commemoration of the events of September 11, 2001. Rather, it is page after page of Congressional self-congratulation. It is page after page of praise for policies that have made us no safer from terrorist attack, but that have certainly made us much less free at home. Does it not strike anyone else as a bit unseemly for Congress to be congratulating itself on this solemn occasion?

2004 Ron Paul 66:2
This legislation is an endorsement of the policy of restricting freedoms at home that I have consistently opposed, including praise for the creation of the bloated and impotent Department of Homeland Security, the liberty-killing PATRIOT Act, and many other futile measures. It praises the notoriously ineffective air marshal program while avoiding altogether one of the most important lessons of the September 11, 2001 tragedy; The entire disaster could have been avoided with just one gun in the hands of each of the pilots. Four guns could have prevented September 11, 2001, but we are no closer to arming pilots than we were on September 10, 2001. Shortly after the attacks, I introduced a bill to allow pilots to be armed. Eventually, a version of that bill was passed, but pilots are still not armed. I also introduced several other bills to deal with the attacks of 9/11, protect us against future attacks, and do so without sacrificing our liberty.

2004 Ron Paul 66:3
What this legislation does not do is address some of the real causes of the hatred that lead others to wish to harm us. Why should we bother to understand the motivations of madmen and murderers? It is not to sympathize with them or their cause. It is to ensure our self-preservation. Those who oppose us and who have attacked us have made it very clear: They oppose our foreign policy of interventionism and meddling, and they oppose our one-sided approach to the Middle East. Therefore, mitigating the anger against us could be as simple as returning to the foreign policy recommended by our forefathers. We should not be stationing hundreds of thousands of our troops in more than 100 foreign countries, guarding their borders while our own remain open to terrorist infiltration. We should not be meddling in the internal affairs of foreign countries, nor should we be involving ourselves in foreign conflicts that have nothing to do with the United States. We should not be sending hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars overseas to “build nations” and “export democracy” at the barrel of a gun.

2004 Ron Paul 66:4
Many of my colleagues like to repeat the mantra that “freedom is under attack” in the United States. Well, they are right. Freedom is under attack in the United States, but not only from foreign terrorists. Freedom is under attack from a government that rushes to pass legislation like the PATRIOT Act, that guts civil liberties in the United States. Freedom is under attack from those who are rushing to create a national biometric identification card and internal check-points, which will force innocent Americans to prove to government authorities that they are not terrorists. Freedom is under attack from a government that is spending itself into bankruptcy at an unprecedented pace. Freedom is under attack from a foreign policy that generates millions of enemies across the globe.

2004 Ron Paul 66:5
This legislation praises the number of Coast Guard boardings as one example of success, but we should not take a false sense of security from boardings. Rather, we should claim victories only if we have stopped another planned attack. Both shippers and recreational users of the gulf ports I represent have expressed concern about our new Federal policies and practices.

2004 Ron Paul 66:6
If we fail to heed the real lessons of September 11, 2001, we may well be condemned to see such tragedies repeated again in our land. It unfortunately seems that this is exactly what we are doing.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 67
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Opposes Mandatory Mental Health Screenings In Public Schools — Part 1 9 September 2004

AMENDMENT NO. 3 OFFERED BY MR. PAUL

2004 Ron Paul 67:1
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. 3 offered by Mr. PAUL: At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following:

SEC. ll. None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to create or implement any new universal mental health screening program.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House earlier today, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.

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

2004 Ron Paul 67:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 1/2 minutes.

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

2004 Ron Paul 67:3
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, my amendment says that no funds in this bill will be permitted to be used to institute system of universal mental health screening. The New Freedoms Commission on Mental Health, a commission established in 2002, has recommended universal mental health screening for all our children in our public schools as well as adults who work in these schools. As a medical doctor, as a civil libertarian, and a strict constitutionist, I strongly reject this notion, this plan, as dangerous and nonproductive.

2004 Ron Paul 67:4
This type of screening would surely lead to a lot more treatment of hyperactive kids. We already have an epidemic in our schools today that are overtreated. Too often under these conditions, children are coerced into taking medicine. It has been known that parents who have denied medication for their children have been accused of child abuse. There is already tremendous pressure on parents to allow public school officials to put children on medication like Ritalin.

2004 Ron Paul 67:5
This amendment would not deny, in the routine course of events, medical treatment for those who are suffering from mental disease. What my concern is for a universal screening test of all children for mental illness.

2004 Ron Paul 67:6
Diagnosis in psychiatry is mostly subjective. It is very difficult to come up with objective criteria. If we wanted psychiatrists to perform the test to make it more objective, it would be impossible. We are talking about an unbelievable number of psychiatrists that are not available, so nonpsychiatrists would be doing this testing.

2004 Ron Paul 67:7
One of the worst downsides from a program like this would be for a child to be put on a list as having some type of mental disorder.

2004 Ron Paul 67:8
An unruly child is going to be the first one to be determined as mentally disturbed. It is happening all the time. Those are the individuals that are hyperactive even in a normal sense and end up on Ritalin.

2004 Ron Paul 67:9
But can you imagine a list of this sort? They claim it will be private, but can you imagine if there is a list that has identified an individual as a possible candidate for violence? And what if he were to be hired by an important industry? What if the post office was to hire this individual and he was on this list and we did not make this information available to the hiring authorities? That means there would be tremendous pressure to make public officials use this list for reasons that I think would be very, very negative.

2004 Ron Paul 67:10
The whole notion of testing children to me represents a principle even more intrusive than a mandatory blood test. It would make more sense medically to have a blood test for, say, AIDS, if you thought it was the responsibility of the Federal Government to take this job upon themselves. But, no, if we tried to do this in the area of mental diseases, believe me, the criteria would be way too arbitrary. A diagnosis will be too difficult to determine with a set of objective standards.

2004 Ron Paul 67:11
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 68
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Opposes Mandatory Mental Health Screenings In Public Schools — Part 2 9 September 2004

2004 Ron Paul 68:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

2004 Ron Paul 68:2
Mr. Chairman, I think the amendment was misconstrued by the previous speaker, because it would not deny medical care. What it does is it denies the authority to the administration to have universal screening of all children in public school. It does not deny care to any individual that may qualify.

2004 Ron Paul 68:3
Already the SAT tests have now been changed to incorporate having the students write a paragraph about personal beliefs and their world view. Can you not see the connection? If one has a strange world view or a strange personal belief, if you have a prejudice or whatever one may be deemed mentally ill.

2004 Ron Paul 68:4
This is a dangerous idea and a notion that has been used by totalitarian societies throughout the ages. Just think of the extreme of this if this is not nipped in the bud, as happened in the Soviet system. People were not always convicted of crimes; but they were put in psychiatric hospitals to be retrained, to be conditioned to think differently and politically correct.

2004 Ron Paul 68:5
When we see a monopoly school system, a universal school system, talking about standardizing what they think is sound mental health, believe me, we are treading on dangerous ground.

2004 Ron Paul 68:6
I would like to restate once again, this amendment does not deny treatment to any individual that is pointed out to have medical needs. This goes along with the principles of reasonable cause. They cannot go in and search our houses, or at least they are not supposed to, without a reasonable cause. We should not go into these kids’ minds without reasonable cause and sort out this kind of information.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 69
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

Demands Recorded Vote 9 September 2004

2004 Ron Paul 69:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 70
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.

Congressional Record [.PDF]

The Constitution 23 September 2004

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

2004 Ron Paul 70:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Constitution is the most unique and best contract ever drawn up between a people and their government throughout history. Though flawed from the beginning, because all men are flawed, it nevertheless has served us well and set an example for the entire world.

2004 Ron Paul 70:2
Yet no matter how hard the authors tried, the inevitable corrupting influence of power was not thwarted by the Constitution. The notion of separate States and local governments championed by the followers of Jefferson was challenged by the Hamiltonians almost immediately following ratification of the Constitution.

2004 Ron Paul 70:3
Early on the supporters of strong centralized government promoted central banking, easy credit, protectionism, mercantilism and subsidies for corporate interests.

2004 Ron Paul 70:4
Although the 19th century generally was kind to the intent of the constitution, namely limiting government power, a major setback occurred with the Civil War and the severe undermining of the principle of sovereign States.

2004 Ron Paul 70:5
The Civil War will finally change the balance of power in our federalist system, paving the way for centralized big government.

2004 Ron Paul 70:6
Although the basic principle underlying the constitutional republic we were given was compromised in the post Civil War period, it was not until the 20th century that steady and significant erosion of the Constitution restraints placed on the central government occurred. This erosion adversely affected not only economic and civil liberties but foreign affairs as well.

2004 Ron Paul 70:7
We now have persistent abuse of the Constitution by the executive, legislative and the judicial branches. Our legislative leaders in Washington demonstrate little concern for the rule of law, liberty and our republican form of government.

2004 Ron Paul 70:8
Today, the pragmatism of the politicians, as they spend more than $2 trillion annually, create legislative chaos. The vultures consume the carcass of liberty without remorse. On the contrary, we hear politicians brag incessantly about their ability to deliver benefits to their district, thus qualifying themselves for automatic reelection.

2004 Ron Paul 70:9
The real purpose of the Constitution was the preservation of liberty, but our government ignores this while spending endlessly, taxing and regulating. The complacent electorate who are led to believe their interests and needs are best served by a huge bureaucratic welfare state convince themselves that enormous Federal deficits and destructive inflation can be dealt with on another day.

2004 Ron Paul 70:10
The answer to the dilemma of unconstitutional government and runaway spending is simple: restore a burning conviction in the hearts and minds of the people that freedom works and government largesse is a fraud. When the people once again regain their confidence in the benefits of liberty and demand it from their elected leaders, Congress will act appropriately.

2004 Ron Paul 70:11
The response of honorable men and women who represent us should be simply to take their oaths of office seriously, vote accordingly and return our Nation to its proper republican origins. The result would be economic prosperity, greater personal liberty, honest money, abolition of the Internal Revenue Service and a world made more peaceful when we abandon the futile policy of building and policing an American empire. No longer would we yield our sovereignty to international organizations that act outside of the restraints placed on the government by the Constitution.

2004 Ron Paul 70:12
The Constitution and those who have sworn to uphold it are not perfect, and it is understandable that abuse occurs, but it should not be acceptable. Without meticulous adherence to the principle of the rule of law, minor infractions become commonplace, and the Constitution loses all meaning. Unfortunately, that is where we are today.

2004 Ron Paul 70:13
The nonsense that the Constitution is a living, flexible document taught as gospel in most public schools must be challenged. The Founders were astute enough to recognize the Constitution was not perfect and wisely permitted amendments to the document, but they correctly made the process tedious and difficult. Without a renewed love for liberty and confidence in its results, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to restore once again the rule of law under the Constitution.

2004 Ron Paul 70:14
I have heard throughout my life how each upcoming election is the most important election ever and how the very future of our country is at stake. Those fears have always been grossly overstated. The real question is not who will achieve the next partisan victory; the real question is whether or not we will once again accept the clear restraints placed in the power of the national government by the Constitution. Obviously, the jury is still out on this issue. However, what we choose to do about this constitutional crisis is the most important “election” of our times, and the results will determine the kind of society our children will inherit. I believe it is worthwhile for all of us to tirelessly pursue the preservation of the elegant constitution with which we have been so blessed.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 71
Ron Paul’s Congressional website HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
September 23, 2004 Federal Courts and the Pledge of Allegiance

2004 Ron Paul 71:1
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support, and cosponsor, the Pledge Protection Act (HR 2028), which restricts federal court jurisdiction over the question of whether the phrase “under God” should be included in the pledge of allegiance. Local schools should determine for themselves whether or not students should say “under God” in the pledge. The case finding it is a violation of the First Amendment to include the words “under God” in the pledge is yet another example of federal judges abusing their power by usurping state and local governments’ authority over matters such as education. Congress has the constitutional authority to rein in the federal courts’ jurisdiction and the duty to preserve the states’ republican forms of governments. Since government by the federal judiciary undermines the states’ republican governments, Congress has a duty to rein in rogue federal judges. I am pleased to see Congress exercise its authority to protect the states from an out-of-control judiciary.

2004 Ron Paul 71:2
Many of my colleagues base their votes on issues regarding federalism on whether or not they agree with the particular state policy at issue. However, under the federalist system as protected by the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, states have the authority to legislate in ways that most members of Congress, and even the majority of the citizens of other states, disapprove. Consistently upholding state autonomy does not mean approving of all actions taken by state governments; it simply means acknowledging that the constitutional limits on federal power require Congress to respect the wishes of the states even when the states act unwisely. I would remind my colleagues that an unwise state law, by definition, only affects the people of one state. Therefore, it does far less damage than a national law that affects all Americans.

2004 Ron Paul 71:3
While I will support this bill even if the language removing the United States Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over cases regarding the pledge is eliminated, I am troubled that some of my colleagues question whether Congress has the authority to limit Supreme Court jurisdiction in this case. Both the clear language of the United States Constitution and a long line of legal precedents make it clear that Congress has the authority to limit the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction. The Framers intended Congress to use the power to limit jurisdiction as a check on all federal judges, including Supreme Court judges , who, after all, have lifetime tenure and are thus unaccountable to the people.  

2004 Ron Paul 71:4
Ironically, the author of the pledge of allegiance might disagree with our commitment to preserving the prerogatives of state and local governments. Francis Bellamy, the author of the pledge, was a self-described socialist who wished to replace the Founders’ constitutional republic with a strong, centralized welfare state. Bellamy wrote the pledge as part of his efforts to ensue that children put their allegiance to the central government before their allegiance to their families, local communities, state governments, and even their creator! In fact, the atheist Bellamy did not include the words “under God” in his original version of the pledge. That phrase was added to the pledge in the 1950s.

2004 Ron Paul 71:5
Today, most Americans who support the pledge reject Bellamy’s vision and view the pledge as a reaffirmation of their loyalty to the Framers’ vision of a limited, federal republic that recognizes that rights come from the creator, not from the state. In order to help preserve the Framers’ system of a limited federal government and checks and balances, I am pleased to support HR 2028, the Pledge Protection Act. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 72
Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]

District Of Columbia Personal Protection Act 29 September 2004

2004 Ron Paul 72:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 3193, the District of Columbia Personal Protection Act. I am a cosponsor of this legislation that ensures greater respect for the right to bear arms in Washington, DC.

2004 Ron Paul 72:2
H.R. 3193 repeals several of the more draconian citywide Washington, DC, gun restrictions enacted in 1976. Restrictions H.R. 3193 will repeal include the requirement that all firearms be registered. Gun registration in other countries has created government lists of who owns what guns. Such lists facilitate the harassment of gun owners and the confiscation of their guns. Also repealed are blanket bans on the possession of handguns and handgun ammunition as well as any semi-automatic guns. These bans exist despite the fact that handguns and semi-automatic guns are regularly used outside Washington, DC, for self-defense. Also repealed is the prohibition on carrying a gun on one’s own property. It is hard to say a person is free if he is prohibited from using the means of protecting himself and his family even in his own home.

2004 Ron Paul 72:3
It is unfortunate that people in the federal capital city have for nearly 30 years faced some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the country. This fact is particularly unfortunate given Washington, DC’s recent history as the murder capital of the United States. Ironically, the place where people most need to bear arms to defend themselves from violent crimes has been one of the places where the exercise of that right has been most restricted.

2004 Ron Paul 72:4
A strong case can be made that the high rate of violent crimes, including murders, in Washington, DC, is due in part to restrictions on the exercise of the right to bear arms. When potential victims are likely armed, criminals think twice about committing violent crimes; a gun in the hands of a law-abiding citizen is an excellent deterrent to crime. Across the Potomac River from Washington, DC, Virginia does not have this horrific crime and murder rate. Yet, people in Virginia can buy, own, and even carry guns in public.

2004 Ron Paul 72:5
I am hopeful that the House’s consideration of H.R. 3193 indicates a new openness to legislation that will roll back other unconstitutional and dangerous restrictions on Americans’ right to bear arms. For years, federal lawmakers have been passing gun control laws, even though they have no authority to do so. Crime control, the stated reason for passing gun control laws in the first place, is a function belonging to the states.

2004 Ron Paul 72:6
Enacting H.R. 3193 would be a good first step in adopting legislation to restore the Federal Government’s respect for the right to bear arms throughout the United States. The Federal Government has trampled on gun rights nationwide — not just in Washington, DC. I have introduced several pieces of legislation this Congress that would help restore respect for the right to bear arms, including the Second Amendment Protection Act, H.R. 153, that would repeal the now-sunset semi-auto ban, repeal the 5-day waiting period and “instant” background check imposed on gun purchases, and delete the “sporting purposes” test that allows the Treasury Secretary to classify a firearm as a destructive device simply because the Secretary deems the gun to be “non-sporting.” Additionally, Congress should consider my Right to Keep and Bear Arms Act, H.R. 3125, that prohibits U.S. taxpayers’ dollars from being used to support or promote any United Nations actions that could infringe on the second amendment.

2004 Ron Paul 72:7
In 1976, I spoke on the floor of the House against the adoption of restrictions on the right to bear arms in Washington, DC, that H.R. 3193 seeks to repeal. Unfortunately, my argument then was ruled out of order, and the restrictions went into effect. While it has been too long in coming, I am glad that the House is finally considering this important issue. The District of Columbia Personal Protection Act would restore some much needed respect for the fundamental rights of people in Washington, DC.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 73
Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
September 30, 2004 Cultural Conservatives Lose if Gay Marriage is Federalized

2004 Ron Paul 73:1
Mr. Speaker, while I oppose federal efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman, I do not believe a constitutional amendment is either a necessary or proper way to defend marriage.

2004 Ron Paul 73:2
While marriage is licensed and otherwise regulated by the states, government did not create the institution of marriage. In fact, the institution of marriage most likely pre-dates the institution of government! Government regulation of marriage is based on state recognition of the practices and customs formulated by private individuals interacting in civil society. Many people associate their wedding day with completing the rituals and other requirements of their faith, thus being joined in the eyes of their church and their creator, not with receiving their marriage license, thus being joined in the eyes of the state.

2004 Ron Paul 73:3
If I were in Congress in 1996, I would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congress’s constitutional authority to define what official state documents other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a “same sex” marriage license issued in another state. This Congress, I was an original cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act, HR 3313, that removes challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from federal courts’ jurisdiction. If I were a member of the Texas legislature, I would do all I could to oppose any attempt by rogue judges to impose a new definition of marriage on the people of my state.

2004 Ron Paul 73:4
Having studied this issue and consulted with leading legal scholars, including an attorney who helped defend the Boy Scouts against attempts to force the organization to allow gay men to serve as scoutmasters, I am convinced that both the Defense of Marriage Act and the Marriage Protection Act can survive legal challenges and ensure that no state is forced by a federal court’s or another state’s actions to recognize same sex marriage. Therefore, while I am sympathetic to those who feel only a constitutional amendment will sufficiently address this issue, I respectfully disagree. I also am concerned that the proposed amendment, by telling the individual states how their state constitutions are to be interpreted, is a major usurpation of the states’ power. The division of power between the federal government and the states is one of the virtues of the American political system. Altering that balance endangers self-government and individual liberty. However, if federal judges wrongly interfere and attempt to compel a state to recognize the marriage licenses of another state, that would be the proper time for me to consider new legislative or constitutional approaches.

2004 Ron Paul 73:5
Conservatives in particular should be leery of anything that increases federal power, since centralized government power is traditionally the enemy of conservative values. I agree with the assessment of former Congressman Bob Barr, who authored the Defense of Marriage Act:

2004 Ron Paul 73:6
“The very fact that the FMA [Federal Marriage Amendment] was introduced said that conservatives believed it was okay to amend the Constitution to take power from the states and give it to Washington. That is hardly a basic principle of conservatism as we used to know it. It is entirely likely the left will boomerang that assertion into a future proposed amendment that would weaken gun rights or mandate income redistribution.”

2004 Ron Paul 73:7
Passing a constitutional amendment is a long, drawn-out process. The fact that the marriage amendment already failed to gather the necessary two-thirds support in the Senate means that, even if two-thirds of House members support the amendment, it will not be sent to states for ratification this year. Even if the amendment gathers the necessary two-thirds support in both houses of Congress, it still must go through the time-consuming process of state ratification. This process requires three-quarters of the state legislatures to approve the amendment before it can become effective. Those who believe that immediate action to protect the traditional definition of marriage is necessary should consider that the Equal Rights Amendment easily passed both houses of Congress and was quickly ratified by a number of states. Yet, that amendment remains unratified today. Proponents of this marriage amendment should also consider that efforts to amend the Constitution to address flag burning and require the federal government to balance the budget have been ongoing for years, without any success.

2004 Ron Paul 73:8
Ironically, liberal social engineers who wish to use federal government power to redefine marriage will be able to point to the constitutional marriage amendment as proof that the definition of marriage is indeed a federal matter!   I am unwilling either to cede to federal courts the authority to redefine marriage, or to deny a state’s ability to preserve the traditional definition of marriage. Instead, I believe it is time for Congress and state legislatures to reassert their authority  by refusing to enforce judicial usurpations of power.

2004 Ron Paul 73:9
In contrast to a constitutional amendment, the Marriage Protection Act requires only a majority vote of both houses of Congress and the president’s signature to become law. The bill already has passed the House of Representatives; at least 51 senators would vote for it; and the president would sign this legislation given his commitment to protecting the traditional definition of marriage. Therefore, those who believe Congress needs to take immediate action to protect marriage this year should focus on passing the Marriage Protection Act.

2004 Ron Paul 73:10
Because of the dangers to liberty and traditional values posed by the unexpected consequences of amending the Constitution to strip power from the states and the people and further empower Washington, I cannot in good conscience support the marriage amendment to the United States Constitution. Instead, I plan to continue working to enact the Marriage Protection Act and protect each state’s right not to be forced to recognize a same sex marriage.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 74
Ron Paul’s Congressional website <-- CR URL http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2004_record&page=H8072&position=all --> HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
October 5, 2004 Reject a National Prescription Database

2004 Ron Paul 74:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to HR 3015, the National All Schedules Prescription Electronic Reporting Act.   This bill is yet another unjustifiable attempt by the federal government to use the war on drugs as an excuse for invading the privacy and liberties of the American people and for expanding the federal government’s disastrous micromanagement of medical care.   As a physician with over 30 years experience in private practice, I must oppose this bill due to the danger it poses to our health as well as our liberty.

2004 Ron Paul 74:2
By creating a national database of prescriptions for controlled substances, the federal government would take another step forward in the war on pain patients and their doctors.   This war has already resulted in the harassment and prosecution of many doctors, and their staff members, whose only “crime” is prescribing legal medication, including opioids, to relieve their patients’ pain.   These prosecutions, in turn, have scared other doctors so that they are unwilling to prescribe an adequate amount of pain medication, or even any pain medication, for their suffering patients.

2004 Ron Paul 74:3
Doctors and their staffs may even be prosecuted because of a patient’s actions that no doctor approved or even knew about.   A doctor has no way of controlling if a patient gives some of the prescribed medication away or consumes a prescribed drug in a dangerous combination with illegal drugs or other prescription drugs obtained from another source.   Nonetheless, doctors can be subjected to prosecution when a patient takes such actions.

2004 Ron Paul 74:4
Applying to doctors laws intended to deal with drug kingpins, the government has created the illusion of some success in the war on drugs.   Investigating drug dealers can be hard and dangerous work.   In comparison, it is much easier to shut down medical practices and prosecute doctors who prescribe pain medication.

2004 Ron Paul 74:5
A doctor who is willing to treat chronic pain patients with medically justified amounts of controlled substances may appear at first look to be excessively prescribing.   Because so few doctors are willing to take the drug war prosecution risks associated with treating chronic pain patients, and because chronic pain patients must often consume significant doses of pain medication to obtain relief, the prosecution of one pain doctor can be heralded as a large success.   All the government needs to do is point to the large amount of patients and drugs associated with a medical practice.

2004 Ron Paul 74:6
Once doctors know that there is a national database of controlled substances prescriptions that overzealous law enforcement will be scrutinizing to harass doctors, there may be no doctors left who are willing to treat chronic pain.   Instead of creating a national database, we should be returning medical regulation to local control, where it historically and constitutionally belongs.   Instead of drug warriors regulating medicine with an eye to maximizing prosecutions, we should return to state medical boards and state civil courts review that looks to science-based standards of medical care and patients’ best interests.

2004 Ron Paul 74:7
HR 3015 also threatens patients’ privacy.   A patient’s medical records should be treated according to the mutual agreement of the patient and doctor.   In contrast, HR 3015 will put a patient’s prescriptions on a government-mandated database that can be accessed without the patient’s permission!

2004 Ron Paul 74:8
Instead of further eroding our medical privacy, Congress should take steps to protect it.   Why should someone be prevented from denying the government and third parties access to his medical records without his permission or a warrant?

2004 Ron Paul 74:9
One way the House can act to protect patients’ privacy is by enacting my Patient Privacy Act (HR 1699) that repeals the provision of federal law establishing a medical ID for every American.   Under the guise of “protecting privacy,” the Health and Human Services’ so-called “medical privacy” regulations allow medical researchers, insurance agents, and government officials access to your personal medical records — without your consent!   Congress should act now to reverse this government-imposed invasion of our medical privacy.

2004 Ron Paul 74:10
Please join me in opposing HR 3015 — legislation that, if enacted, will make us less free and less healthy.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 75
Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]

Reject Draft Slavery October 5, 2004 HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES


2004 Ron Paul 75:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose HR 163 in the strongest possible terms.   The draft, whether for military purposes or some form of “national service,” violates the basic moral principles of individual liberty upon which this country was founded. Furthermore, the military neither wants nor needs a draft.

2004 Ron Paul 75:2
The Department of Defense, in response to calls to reinstate the draft, has confirmed that conscription serves no military need. Defense officials from both parties have repudiated it.   Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has stated, “The disadvantages of using compulsion to bring into the armed forces the men and women needed are notable,” while President William Clinton’s 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.”   

2004 Ron Paul 75:3
However, the most important reason to oppose HR 163 is that a draft violates the very principles of individual liberty upon which our nation was founded.   Former President Ronald Regan eloquently expressed the moral case against the draft in the publication Human Events in 1979:   “...[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 .”

2004 Ron Paul 75:4
Some say the 18-year old draftee “owes it” to his (or her, since HR 163 makes woman eligible for the draft) country.   Hogwash!   It just as easily could be argued that a 50 year-old chicken-hawk, who promotes war and places innocent young people in danger, owes more to the country than the 18 year-old being denied his (or her) liberty.

2004 Ron Paul 75:5
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.

2004 Ron Paul 75:6
Economic hardship is great in all wars.   War is never economically beneficial except for those in position to profit from war expenditures.   The great tragedy of war is that it enables 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.

2004 Ron Paul 75:7
But the real sacrifice comes with conscription — forcing a small number of young vulnerable citizens to fight the wars that older men and women, who seek glory in military victory without themselves being exposed to danger, promote.  The draft encourages wars with neither purpose nor moral justification, wars that too often are not even declared by the Congress.

2004 Ron Paul 75:8
Without conscription, unpopular wars are 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 think nothing of forcing men to fight and serve in wrongheaded wars. A true fight for survival and defense of America would elicit, I am sure, the assistance of every able-bodied man and woman.   This is not the case with wars of mischief far away from home, which we have experienced often in the past century.

2004 Ron Paul 75:9
A government that is willing to enslave some of its people can never be trusted to protect the liberties of its own citizens. I hope all my colleagues to join me in standing up for individual liberty by rejecting HR 163 and all tempts to bring back the draft.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 76
Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
October 6, 2004 No Mandatory Mental Health Screening for Kids

2004 Ron Paul 76:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Let Parents Raise Their Kids Act. This bill forbids federal funds from being used for any universal or mandatory mental-health screening of students without the express, written, voluntary, informed consent of their parents or legal guardians. This bill protects the fundamental right of parents to direct and control the upbringing and education of their children.

2004 Ron Paul 76:2
The New Freedom Commission on Mental Health has recommended that the federal government adopt a comprehensive system of mental-health screening for all Americans .

2004 Ron Paul 76:3
The commission recommends the government implement universal or mandatory mental- health screening in public schools as a prelude to expanding it to the general public. However, neither the commission’s report nor any related mental-health screening proposal requires parental consent before a child is subjected to such screening. Federally funded universal or mandatory mental-health screening in schools without parental consent could lead to labeling more children as “ADD” or “hyperactive,” and thus force more children to take psychotropic drugs like Ritalin against their parents’ wishes.

2004 Ron Paul 76:4
Already, too many children are suffering from being prescribed psychotropic drugs for nothing more than children’s typical rambunctious behavior. According to the Journal of the American Medical Association, there was a 300-percent increase in psychotropic drug use in two to four-year old children from 1991 to 1995!

2004 Ron Paul 76:5
Many children have suffered harmful side effects from using psychotropic drugs. Some of the possible side effects include mania, violence, dependence, and weight gain. Yet parents  already are being threatened with child abuse charges if they resist efforts to drug their children. Imagine how much easier it will be to drug children against their parents’ wishes if a federal mental-health screener makes the recommendation.

2004 Ron Paul 76:6
Universal or mandatory mental-health screening could also provide a justification for stigmatizing children from families that support traditional values. Even the authors of mental-health diagnosis manuals admit that mental-health diagnoses are subjective and based on social constructions.  Therefore, it is all too easy for a psychiatrist to label a person’s disagreement with the psychiatrist’s political beliefs a mental disorder. For example, a federally funded school violence prevention program lists “intolerance” as a mental problem that may lead to school violence. Because “intolerance” is often a code word for believing in traditional values, children who share their parents’ values could be labeled as having mental problems and a risk of causing violence. If the mandatory mental-health screening program applies to adults, everyone who believes in traditional values could have his or her beliefs stigmatized as a sign of a mental disorder. Taxpayer dollars should not support programs that may label those who adhere to traditional values as having a “mental disorder.”

2004 Ron Paul 76:7
Mr. Speaker, universal or mandatory mental-health screening threatens to undermine parents’ right to raise their children as the parents see fit. Forced mental-health screening could also endanger the health of children by leading to more children being improperly placed on psychotropic drugs, such as Ritalin, or stigmatized as “mentally ill” or a risk of causing violence because they adhere to traditional values. Congress has a responsibility to the nation’s parents and children to stop this from happening. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Let Raise Their Kids Act.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 77
Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]

The 9-11 Intelligence Bill: More Bureaucracy, More Intervention, Less Freedom October 8, 2004 HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES


2004 Ron Paul 77:1
Mr. Speaker, the 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act (HR 10) is yet another attempt to address the threat of terrorism by giving more money and power to the federal bureaucracy. Most of the reforms contained in this bill will not make America safer, though they definitely will make us less free.   HR 10 also wastes American taxpayer money on unconstitutional and ineffective foreign aid programs. Congress should make America safer by expanding liberty and refocusing our foreign policy on defending this nation’s vital interests, rather than expanding the welfare state and wasting American blood and treasure on quixotic crusades to “democratize” the world.

2004 Ron Paul 77:2
Disturbingly, HR 10 creates a de facto national ID card by mandating new federal requirements that standardize state-issued drivers licenses and birth certificates and even require including biometric identifiers in such documents. State drivers license information will be stored in a national database, which will include information about an individual’s driving record!

2004 Ron Paul 77:3
Nationalizing standards for drivers licenses and birth certificates, and linking them together via a national database, creates a national ID system pure and simple.   Proponents of the national ID understand that the public remains wary of the scheme, so they attempt to claim they’re merely creating new standards for existing state IDs.   Nonsense!   This legislation imposes federal standards in a federal bill, and it creates a federalized ID regardless of whether the ID itself is still stamped with the name of your state.   It is just a matter of time until those who refuse to carry the new licenses will be denied the ability to drive or board an airplane.   Domestic travel restrictions are the hallmark of authoritarian states, not free republics.   

2004 Ron Paul 77:4
The national ID will be used to track the movements of American citizens, not just terrorists. Subjecting every citizen to surveillance actually diverts resources away from tracking and apprehending terrorists in favor of needless snooping on innocent Americans.   This is what happened with “suspicious activity reports” required by the Bank Secrecy Act. Thanks to BSA mandates, federal officials are forced to waste countless hours snooping through the private financial transactions of innocent Americans merely because those transactions exceeded $10,000.

2004 Ron Paul 77:5
Furthermore, the federal government has no constitutional authority to require law-abiding Americans to present any form of identification before engaging in private transactions (e.g. getting a job, opening a bank account, or seeking medical assistance).   Nothing in our Constitution can reasonably be construed to allow government officials to demand identification from individuals who are not suspected of any crime.

2004 Ron Paul 77:6
HR 10 also broadens the definition of terrorism contained in the PATRIOT Act. HR 10 characterizes terrorism as acts intended “to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.”   Under this broad definition, a scuffle at an otherwise peaceful pro-life demonstration might allow the federal government to label the sponsoring organization and its members as terrorists. Before dismissing these concerns, my colleagues should remember the abuse of Internal Revenue Service power by both Democratic and Republican administrations to punish political opponents, or the use of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act on anti-abortion activists.   It is entirely possible that a future administration will use the new surveillance powers granted in this bill to harm people holding unpopular political views.

2004 Ron Paul 77:7
Congress could promote both liberty and security by encouraging private property owners to take more responsibility to protect themselves and their property.   Congress could enhance safety by removing the roadblocks thrown up by the misnamed Transportation Security Agency that prevent the full implementation of the armed pilots program. I cosponsored an amendment with my colleague from Virginia, Mr. Goode, to do just that, and I am disappointed it was ruled out of order.

2004 Ron Paul 77:8
I am also disappointed the Financial Services Committee rejected my amendment to conform the regulations governing the filing of suspicious activities reports with the requirements of the US Constitution. This amendment not only would have ensured greater privacy protection, but it also would have enabled law enforcement to better focus on people who truly pose a threat to our safety.

2004 Ron Paul 77:9
Immediately after the attack on September 11, 2001, I introduced several pieces of legislation designed to help fight terrorism and secure the United States, including a bill to allow airline pilots to carry firearms and a bill that would have expedited the hiring of   Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) translators to support counterterrorism investigations and operations. I also introduced a bill to authorize the president to issue letters of marque and reprisal to bring to justice those who committed the attacks of September 11, 2001, and other similar acts of war planned for the future.

2004 Ron Paul 77:10
The foreign policy provisions of HR 10 are similarly objectionable and should be strongly opposed. I have spoken before about the serious shortcomings of the 9/11 Commission, upon whose report this legislation is based. I find it incredible that in the 500-plus page report there is not one mention of how our interventionist foreign policy creates enemies abroad who then seek to harm us. Until we consider the root causes of terrorism, beyond the jingoistic explanations offered thus far, we will not defeat terrorism and we will not be safer.

2004 Ron Paul 77:11
Among the most ill-considered foreign policy components of H.R. 10 is a section providing for the United States to increase support for an expansion of the United Nations “Democracy Caucus.” Worse still, the bill encourages further integration of that United Nations body into our State department.   The last thing we should do if we hope to make our country safer from terrorism is expand our involvement in the United Nations.

2004 Ron Paul 77:12
This bill contains a provision to train American diplomats to be more sensitive and attuned to the United Nations, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) — which will be in the US to monitor our elections next month — and other international non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Even worse, this legislation actually will create an “ambassador-at-large” position solely to work with non-governmental organizations overseas. It hardly promotes democracy abroad to accord equal status to NGOs, which, after all, are un-elected foreign pressure groups that, therefore, have no popular legitimacy whatsoever. Once again, we are saying one thing and doing the opposite.

2004 Ron Paul 77:13
This bill also increases our counterproductive practice of sending United States’ taxpayer money abroad to prop up selected foreign media, which inexplicably are referred to as “independent media.” This is an unconstitutional misuse of tax money. Additionally, does anyone believe that citizens of countries where the US subsidizes certain media outlets take kindly to, or take seriously, such media? How would Americans feel if they knew that publications taking a certain editorial line were financed by foreign governments? We cannot refer to foreign media funded by the US government as “independent media.” The US government should never be in the business of funding the media, either at home or abroad.

2004 Ron Paul 77:14
Finally, I am skeptical about the reorganization of the intelligence community in this legislation. In creating an entire new bureaucracy, the National Intelligence Director, we are adding yet another layer of bureaucracy to our already bloated federal government. Yet, we are supposed to believe that even more of the same kind of government that failed us on September 11, 2001 will make us safer. At best, this is wishful thinking. The constitutional function of our intelligence community is to protect the United States from foreign attack. Ever since its creation by the National Security Act of 1947, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has been meddling in affairs that have nothing to do with the security of the United States. Considering the CIA’s overthrow of Iranian leader Mohammed Mossadeq in the 1950s, and the CIA’s training of the Muhajadin jihadists in Afghanistan in the 1980s, it is entirely possible the actions of the CIA abroad have actually made us less safe and more vulnerable to foreign attack. It would be best to confine our intelligence community to the defense of our territory from foreign attack. This may well mean turning intelligence functions over to the Department of Defense, where they belong.

2004 Ron Paul 77:15
For all of these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I vigorously oppose HR 10. It represents the worst approach to combating terrorism — more federal bureaucracy, more foreign intervention, and less liberty for the American people.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 78
Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
November 17, 2004 Honoring Phil Crane

2004 Ron Paul 78:1
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take this opportunity to pay tribute to my friend and colleague Phil Crane. During his 35 years in Congress, Phil has been one of the House’s most consistent defenders of low taxes, free-markets, limited government, and individual liberty. I count myself among the numerous elected officials and activists in the free-market movement who have been inspired by his example.

2004 Ron Paul 78:2
As a conservative professor, author, and activist, Phil was already a nationally known conservative leader before he ran for Congress. Two of his books, “The Democrat’s Dilemma” and “The Sum of Good Government” stand out as conservative classics that educated and motivated many conservative activists. Among the attributes that have made Phil a hero to the free-market movement is his understanding of sound economics. Phil is one of the few members of Congress who is well versed in the teachings of great free-market teachers such as Ludwig von Misses. This country would be much better off if more representatives understood economics as well as Phil Crane.

2004 Ron Paul 78:3
When Phil Crane came to Congress in the late sixties, there were only a handful of members supporting free-markets. This was a time when a “conservative” president imposed wage and price controls and “conservative” representatives and senators called for balancing the budget with tax increases rather than spending cuts. Thanks in large part to Phil’s effort; the political and intellectual climate of the nation became more receptive to free-market ideas. Phil’s work with groups such as the American Conservative Union, the Free Congress Foundation, and the Republican Study Committee (which he founded) played a major role in growing the movement for individual liberty. Phil’s service as an advisor to Young Americans for Freedom and as a director of the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, Hillsdale College, and the Ashbrook Center helped inspire new generations of young people to become active in the movement for liberty.

2004 Ron Paul 78:4
When I came to Congress in the seventies to fight to limit the size and scope of the federal government, I was pleased to find a kindred sprit in the gentleman from Illinois. I had the privilege of working with Phil on several efforts to cut taxes, reduce regulations, and return the government to its constitutional size. I also had the privilege of working with Phil when we where two of only four members to endorse Ronald Reagan’s 1976 primary challenge to President Gerald Ford.

2004 Ron Paul 78:5
As the number of representatives committed to free-markets and low taxes increased, Phil’s status as a congressional leader and accomplished legislator grew. Thanks in large part to Phil’s leadership; Congress has provided tax relief to American families and businesses during each of the last four years.

2004 Ron Paul 78:6
As his distinguished congressional career draws to a close, I hope all who value free-markets, individual liberty, and limited government will join me in thanking Phil Crane for his work on behalf of freedom.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 79
Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
November 18, 2004  Raising the Debt Limit: A Disgrace

2004 Ron Paul 79:1
Mr. Speaker, Congress is once again engaging in fiscal irresponsibility and endangering the American economy by raising the debt ceiling, this time by $800 billion dollars. One particularly troubling aspect of today’s debate is how many members who won their seats in part by pledging never to raise taxes, will now vote for this tax increase on future generations without so much as a second thought.  Congress has become like the drunk who promises to sober up tomorrow, if only he can keep drinking today.  Does anyone really believe this will be the last time, that Congress will tighten its belt if we just grant it one last loan?  What a joke!  There is only one approach to dealing with an incorrigible spendthrift: cut him off. 

2004 Ron Paul 79:2
The term “national debt” really is a misnomer. It is not the nation’s debt. Instead, it is the federal government’s debt. The American people did not spend the money, but they will have to pay it back.

2004 Ron Paul 79:3
Most Americans do not spend much time worrying about the national debt, which now totals more than eight trillion dollars. The number is so staggering that it hardly seems real, even when economists issue bleak warnings about how much every American owes — currently about $25,000. Of course, Congress never hands each taxpayer a bill for that amount. Instead, the federal government uses your hard-earned money to pay interest on this debt, which is like making minimum payments on a credit card. Notice that the principal never goes down. In fact, it is rising steadily.

2004 Ron Paul 79:4
The problem is very simple: Congress almost always spends more each year than the IRS collects in revenues. Federal spending always goes up, but revenues are not so dependable, especially since raising income taxes to sufficiently fund the government would be highly unpopular. So long as Congress spends more than the government takes via taxes, the federal government must raise taxes, print more dollars, or borrow money.

2004 Ron Paul 79:5
Over the last three years, we have witnessed an unprecedented explosion in federal spending. The national debt has actually increased an average of $16 billion a day since September 30, 2003!

2004 Ron Paul 79:6
Federal law limits the total amount of debt the Treasury can carry. Despite a historic increase in the debt limit in 2002 and another increase in 2003, the current limit of $7.38 trillion was reached last month. So Congress must once again vote to raise the limit. Hard as it may be for the American people to believe, many experts expect government spending will exceed this new limit next year!

2004 Ron Paul 79:7
Increasing the national debt sends a signal to investors that the government is not serious about reining in spending. This increases the risks that investors will be reluctant to buy government debt instruments. The effects on the American economy could be devastating. The only reason why we have been able to endure such large deficits without skyrocketing interest rates is the willingness of foreign nations to buy the federal government’s debt instruments. However, the recent fall in the value of the dollar and rise in the price of gold indicate that investors may be unwilling to continue to prop up our debt-ridden economy. Furthermore, increasing the national debt will provide more incentive for foreign investors to stop buying federal debt instruments at the current interest rates. Mr. Speaker, what will happen to our already fragile economy if the Federal Reserve must raise interest rates to levels unseen since the seventies to persuade foreigners to buy government debt instruments?

2004 Ron Paul 79:8
The whole point of the debt ceiling law was to limit borrowing by forcing Congress into an open and presumably somewhat shameful vote when it wants to borrow more than a preset amount of money. Yet, since there have been no political consequences for members who vote to raise the debt limit and support the outrageous spending bills in the first place, the debt limit has become merely another technicality on the road to bankruptcy.

2004 Ron Paul 79:9
The only way to control federal spending is to take away the government’s credit card.  Therefore, I call upon my colleagues to reject S. 2986 and, instead, to reduce government spending. It is time Congress forces the federal government to live within its constitutional means. Congress should end the immoral practice of excessive spending and passing the bill to the next generation.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 80
Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]

Stay out of Sudan’s Civil War November 19, 2004 HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
House Amendments to Comprehensive Peace in Sudan Act

2004 Ron Paul 80:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this ill-conceived, counter-productive legislation. This represents exactly the kind of unconstitutional interventionism the Founding Fathers warned us about. It is arrogant and dangerous for us to believe that we can go around the world inserting ourselves into civil wars that have nothing to do with us without having to face the unintended consequences that always arise. Our steadily-increasing involvement in the civil war in Sudan may well delay the resolution of the conflict that appears to be proceeding without our involvement. Just today, in talks with the UN, the two sides pledged to end the fighting.

2004 Ron Paul 80:2
The fact is we do not know and cannot understand the complexities of the civil war in Sudan, which has lasted for 39 of that country’s 48 years of existence. Supporters of our intervention in Sudan argue that this is a clear-cut case of Sudan’s Christian minority being oppressed and massacred by the Arab majority in the Darfur region. It is interesting that the CIA’s World Factbook states that Sudan’s Christians, who make up five percent of the population, are concentrated in the south of the country. Darfur is a region in the mid-western part of Sudan. So I wonder about this very simplistic characterization of the conflict.

2004 Ron Paul 80:3
It seems as if this has been all reduced to a few slogans, tossed around without much thought or care about real meaning or implication. We unfortunately see this often with calls for intervention. One thing we do know, however, is that Sudan is floating on a sea of oil. Why does it always seem that when we hear urgent clamor for the United States to intervene, oil or some other valuable commodity just happens to be present? I find it interesting that so much attention is being paid to oil-rich Sudan while right next door in Congo the death toll from its civil war is estimated to be two to three million - several times the estimated toll in Sudan.

2004 Ron Paul 80:4
At a time when we have just raised the debt-ceiling to allow more massive debt accumulation, this legislation will unconstitutionally commit the United States to ship some 300 million taxpayer dollars to Sudan. It will also freeze the US assets of certain Sudanese until the government of Sudan pursues peace in a time-frame and manner that the US determines.

2004 Ron Paul 80:5
Inserting ourselves into this civil war in Sudan will do little to solve the crisis. In fact, the promise of US support for one side in the struggle may discourage the progress that has been made recently. What incentive is there to seek a peaceful resolution of the conflict when the US government promises massive assistance to one side? I strongly urge my colleagues to rethink our current dangerous course toward further intervention in Sudan. We may end up hurting most those we are intending to help.

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 81
Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]

Where To From Here? November 20, 2004 HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES


2004 Ron Paul 81:1
The election of 2004 is now history.   It’s time to ponder our next four years.   Will our country become freer, richer, safer, and more peaceful, or will we continue to suffer from lost civil liberties, a stagnant economy, terrorist threats, and an expanding war in the Middle East and central Asia?     Surely the significance of the election was reflected in its intensity and divisiveness.

2004 Ron Paul 81:2
More people voted for President Bush than any other presidential candidate in our history.   And because of the turnout, more people voted against an incumbent president than ever before.   However, President Bush was reelected by the narrowest popular vote margin of any incumbent president since Woodrow Wilson in 1916.   The numbers are important and measurable; the long-term results are less predictable.   The president and many others have said these results give the President a “mandate.”   Exactly what that means and what it may lead to is of great importance to us all.   Remember, the nation reelected a president in 1972 with a much bigger mandate who never got a chance to use his political capital.

2004 Ron Paul 81:3
The bitter campaign and the intensity with which both sides engaged each other implies that a great divide existed between two competing candidates with sharply different philosophies.   There were plenty of perceived differences — obviously — or a heated emotional contest wouldn’t have materialized.

2004 Ron Paul 81:4
The biggest difference involved their views on moral and family values.    It was evident that the views regarding gay marriage and abortion held by Senator Kerry did not sit well with a majority of American voters, who were then motivated to let their views be known through their support for President Bush.   This contributed to the “mandate” the President received more than any other issue.   But it begs the question:   If the mandate given was motivated by views held on moral values, does the President get carte blanche on all the other programs that are much less conservative?   It appears the President and his neo-con advisors assume the answer is yes.

2004 Ron Paul 81:5
Ironically, the reason the family and moral values issue played such a big role in the election is that on other big issues little difference existed between the two candidates.            

2004 Ron Paul 81:6
Interesting enough, both candidates graduated from Yale and both were members of the controversial and highly secretive Skull and Bones Society.   This fact elicited no interest with the media in the campaign.

2004 Ron Paul 81:7
Both candidates supported the Iraq War and the continuation of it.

2004 Ron Paul 81:8
Both supported the Patriot Act and its controversial attack on personal privacy.

2004 Ron Paul 81:9
Both supported the UN and the internationalism of UNESCO, IMF, World Bank, and the WTO.

2004 Ron Paul 81:10
Both candidates agreed that a president can initiate war without a declaration by Congress.

2004 Ron Paul 81:11
Both supported foreign interventionism in general, foreign aid, and pursuing American interests by maintaining a worldwide American empire.

2004 Ron Paul 81:12
Both supported our current monetary system, which permits the Federal Reserve to accommodate deficit spending by Congress through the dangerous process of debt monetization.

2004 Ron Paul 81:13
Both supported expanding entitlements, including programs like the National Endowment for the Arts, medical benefits, and federal housing programs.

2004 Ron Paul 81:14
Both candidates supported deficit financing. Both candidates supported increased spending in almost all categories.

2004 Ron Paul 81:15
Though President Bush was more favorably inclined to tax cuts, this in reality has limited value if spending continues to grow.    All spending must be paid for by a tax, even if it’s the inflation “tax,” whereby printing press money pays the bills and the “tax” is paid through higher prices — especially by the poor and the middle class.

2004 Ron Paul 81:16
The immediate market reaction to the reelection of President Bush was interesting.   The stock market rose significantly, led by certain segments thought to benefit from a friendly Republican administration such as pharmaceuticals, HMO’s, and the weapons industry.   The Wall Street Journal summed up the election with a headline the following day:   “Winner is Big Business.”   The stock market rally following the election likely will be short-lived, however, as the fundamentals underlying the bear market that started in 2000 are still in place.

2004 Ron Paul 81:17
More important was the reaction of the international exchange markets immediately following the election.   The dollar took a dive and gold rose.   This indicated that holders of the trillions of dollars slushing around the world interpreted the results to mean that even with conservatives in charge, unbridled spending will not decrease and will actually grow.   They also expect the current account deficit and our national debt to increase.   This means the economic consequence of continuing our risky fiscal and monetary policy is something Congress should be a lot more concerned about.

2004 Ron Paul 81:18
One Merrill Lynch money manager responded to the election by saying,   “Bush getting reelected means a bigger deficit, a weaker dollar, and higher gold prices.”   Another broker added,   “Four more years of Bush is a gift to the gold markets — more war, more deficits, more division.”

2004 Ron Paul 81:19
During the Bush administration gold surged 70%, as the dollar lost 30% of its value.   A weakened currency is never beneficial, although it’s argued that it helps our exporters.   People who work to earn and save dollars should never have the value of those dollars undermined and diminished by capricious manipulation of the money supply by our government officials.

2004 Ron Paul 81:20
The value of the dollar is a much more important issue than most realize in Washington.   Our current account deficit of 6% of GDP, and our total foreign indebtedness of over $3 trillion, pose a threat to our standard of living.   Unfortunately, when the crisis hits our leaders will have little ability to stem the tide of price inflation and higher interest rates that will usher in a dangerous period of economic weakness.   Our dependency on foreign borrowing to finance our spendthrift habits is not sustainable. We borrow $1.8 billion a day!   The solution involves changing our policy with regards to foreign commitments, foreign wars, empire overseas, and the ever-growing entitlement system here at home.   This change is highly unlikely without significant turmoil, and it certainly is not on the administration’s agenda for the next four years.   That’s why the world is now betting against the dollar.

2004 Ron Paul 81:21
When the shift in sentiment comes regarding the U.S. dollar, dollars will come back home.   They will be used to buy American assets, especially real property.   In the late 1970s it annoyed many Americans when Japan, which was then in the driver’s seat of the world economy, started “buying up America.”   This time a lot more dollars will be repatriated.

2004 Ron Paul 81:22
It’s important to note that total future obligations of the United States government are estimated at well over $70 trillion.   These obligations obviously cannot be met.   This indebtedness equates to an average household share of the national debt of $474,000!

2004 Ron Paul 81:23
One cannot expect the needed changes to occur soon, considering that these options were not even considered or discussed in the campaign.   But just because they weren’t part of the campaign, and there was no disagreement between the two candidates on the major issues, doesn’t distract from their significance nor disqualify these issues from being crucial in the years to come.   My guess is that in the next four years little legislation will be offered dealing with family and moral issues.   Foreign policy and domestic spending, along with the ballooning deficit, will be thrust into the forefront and will demand attention.   The inability of our Congress and leaders to change direction, and their determination to pursue policies that require huge expenditures, will force a financial crisis upon us as the dollar is further challenged as the reserve currency of the world on international exchange markets.

2004 Ron Paul 81:24
There will be little resistance to spending and deficits because it will be claimed they are necessary to “fight terrorism.”   The irony is that Patriot Act-type regulations were all proposed before 9-11, and are now becoming a costly burden to American businesses.   I’m getting more calls every day from constituents who are being harassed by government bureaucrats for “infractions” of all kinds totally unrelated to national security.   This immeasurable cost from the stepped-up activity of government bureaucrats will further burden our economy as it slips toward recession — and do little to enhance homeland security.

2004 Ron Paul 81:25
The only thing that allows our borrowing from foreigners to continue is the confidence they place in our economic system, our military might, and the dollar itself.   This is all about to change.   Confidence in us, with the continuous expansion of our military presence overseas and with a fiscal crisis starring us in the face, is already starting to erode.   Besides, paper money — and that’s all the U.S. dollar is — always fails when trust is lost.   That’s a fact of history, not someone’s opinion.   Be assured trust in paper money never lasts forever.

2004 Ron Paul 81:26
The problem the country faces is that social issues garnered intense interest and motivated many to vote both for and against the candidates, yet these issues are only a tiny fraction of the issues dealt with at the national level.   And since the election has passed, the odds of new legislation dealing with social issues are slim.   Getting a new Supreme Court that will overthrow Roe vs. Wade is a long shot despite the promises.   Remember, we already have a Supreme Court where seven of the nine members were appointed by Republican presidents with little to show for it.

2004 Ron Paul 81:27
Though the recent election reflected the good instincts of many Americans concerned about moral values, abortion, and marriage, let’s hope and pray this endorsement will not be used to justify more pre-emptive/unnecessary wars, expand welfare, ignore deficits, endorse the current monetary system, expand the domestic police state, and promote the American empire worldwide.

2004 Ron Paul 81:28
We’re more likely to see entitlements and domestic spending continue to increase. There are zero plans for reigning in the Department of Education, government medical care, farm subsidies, or federal housing programs.   Don’t expect the National Endowment for the Arts to be challenged.   One can be assured its budget will expand as it has for the last four years, with much of the tax money spent on “arts” ironically being used to attack family values.

2004 Ron Paul 81:29
Deficits never were much of a concern for Democrats, and the current Republican leadership has firmly accepted the supply-sider argument that “deficits don’t matter,” as Vice President Cheney declared according to Former Secretary of the Treasury Paul O’Neill.

2004 Ron Paul 81:30
Expenditures for foreign adventurism, as advocated by the neo-cons who direct our foreign policy, have received a shot in the arm with the recent election.   Plans have been in the workings for expanding our presence throughout the Middle East and central Asia.   Iran is the agreed-on next target for those who orchestrated the Iraq invasion and occupation.

2004 Ron Paul 81:31
A casual attitude has emerged regarding civil liberties.   The post 9-11 atmosphere has made it politically correct to sacrifice some of our personal liberties in the name of security, as evidenced by the Patriot Act.

2004 Ron Paul 81:32
No serious thoughts are expressed in Washington about the constitutional principle of local government.   The notion of a loose-knit republican form of government is no longer a consideration.   The consensus is that the federal government has responsibility for solving all of our problems, and even amending the Constitution to gain proper authority is no longer thought necessary.

2004 Ron Paul 81:33
President Eisenhower, not exactly a champion of a strict interpretation of the Constitution, made some interesting comments years ago when approached about more welfare benefits for the needy:   “If all that Americans want is security, they can go to prison.   They’ll have enough to eat, a bed and a roof over their heads.   But if an American wants to preserve his dignity and his equality as a human being, he must not bow his neck to any dictatorial government.”   Our country sure could use a little bit more of this sentiment, as Congress rushes to pass new laws relating to the fear of another terrorist attack.

2004 Ron Paul 81:34
There are even more reasons to believe the current government status quo is unsustainable.   As a nation dependent on the willingness of foreigners to loan us the money to finance our extravagance, we now are consuming 80% of the world’s savings.   Though the Fed does its part in supplying funds by purchasing Treasury debt, foreign central banks and investors have loaned us nearly twice what the Fed has, to the tune of $1.3 trillion.   The daily borrowing needed to support our spending habits cannot last.   It can be argued that even the financing of the Iraq war cannot be accomplished without the willingness of countries like China and Japan to loan us the necessary funds.   Any shift, even minor, in this sentiment will send chills through the world financial markets.   It will not go unnoticed, and every American consumer will be affected.

2004 Ron Paul 81:35
The debt, both domestic and foreign, is difficult to comprehend.   Our national debt is $7.4 trillion, and this limit will be raised in the lame duck session.   This plus our U.S. foreign debt breaks all records, and is a threat to sustained economic growth.   The amazing thing is that deficits and increases in the debt limit no longer have a stigma attached to them.   Some demagoguery takes place, but the limit is easily raised.   With stronger partisan control over Congress, the president will have even less difficulty in raising the limit as necessary.   It is now acceptable policy to spend excessively without worrying about debt limits.   It may be a sign of the times, but the laws of economics cannot be repealed and eventually a price will be paid for this extravagance.

2004 Ron Paul 81:36
Few in Washington comprehend the nature of the crisis.   But liberal Lawrence Summers, Clinton’s Secretary of the Treasury and now president of Harvard, perceptively warns of the danger that is fast approaching.   He talks of,   “A kind of global balance of financial terror” that we should be concerned about.   He goes on to say:   “there is surely something off about the world’s greatest power being the world’s greatest debtor.   In order to finance prevailing levels of consumption and investment, must the United States be as dependent as it is on the discretionary acts of what are inevitably political entities in other countries?”   An economist from the American Enterprise Institute also expressed concern by saying that foreign central banks “now have considerable ability to disrupt U.S. financial markets by simply deciding to refrain from buying further U.S. government paper.”

2004 Ron Paul 81:37
We must remember the Soviet system was not destroyed from without by military confrontation; it succumbed to the laws of economics that dictated communism a failure, and it was unable to finance its empire.   Deficit-financed welfarism, corporatism, Keynesianism, inflationism, and Empire, American style, are no more economically sound than the more authoritarian approach of the Soviets.   If one is concerned with the Red/Blue division in this country and the strong feelings that exist already, an economic crisis will make the conflict much more intense.

2004 Ron Paul 81:38
The Crucial Moral Issue — Respect for Life
It has been said that a society is defined by how it treats its elderly, its infirm, its weak, its small, its defenseless, and its unborn.

2004 Ron Paul 81:39
The moral issue surrounding abortion and the right to life is likely the most important issue of our age.   It is imperative that we resolve the dilemma of why it’s proper to financially reward an abortionist who acts one minute before birth, yet we arrest and prosecute a new mother who throws her child into a garbage bin one minute after birth.   This moral dilemma, seldom considered, is the source of great friction in today’s society as we witnessed in the recent election.

2004 Ron Paul 81:40
This is a reflection of personal moral values and society’s acceptance of abortion more than a reflection of a particular law or court ruling.   In the 1960s, as part of the new age of permissiveness, people’s attitudes changed regarding abortion.   This led to a change in the law as reflected in court rulings — especially Roe vs. Wade.   The people’s moral standards changed first, followed by the laws.   It was not the law or the Supreme Court that brought on the age of abortion.

2004 Ron Paul 81:41
I’ve wondered if our casual acceptance of the deaths inflicted on both sides in the Vietnam War, and its association with the drug culture that many used to blot out the tragic human losses, contributed to the cheapening of pre-born human life and the acceptance of abortion as a routine and acceptable practice.   Though abortion is now an ingrained part of our society, the moral conflict over the issue continues to rage with no end in sight.

2004 Ron Paul 81:42
The 1973 Roe vs. Wade ruling caused great harm in two distinct ways.   First, it legalized abortion at any stage, establishing clearly that the Supreme Court and the government condoned the cheapening of human life.   Second, it firmly placed this crucial issue in the hands of the federal courts and national government.   The federalization of abortion was endorsed even by those who opposed abortion.   Instead of looking for state-by-state solutions and limiting federal court jurisdiction, those anxious to protect life came to rely on federal laws, eroding the constitutional process.   The authors of the Constitution intended for criminal matters and acts of violence (except for a few rare exceptions) to be dealt with at the state level.   Now, however, conservatives as well as liberals find it acceptable to nationalize issues such as abortion, marriage, prayer, and personal sexual matters — with more federal legislation offered as the only solution.   This trend of transferring power from the states to the federal government compounds our problems — for when we lose, it affects all 50 states, and overriding Congress or the Supreme Court becomes far more difficult than dealing with a single state.

2004 Ron Paul 81:43
The issue of moral values and the mandate that has been claimed after the election raises serious questions.   The architects of the Iraq invasion claim a stamp of approval from the same people who voted for moral values by voting against abortion and gay marriage.   The question must be asked whether or not the promotion of pre-emptive war and a foreign policy of intervention deserve the same acceptance as the pro-life position by those who supported moral values.   The two seem incompatible: being pro-life yet pro-war, with a callous disregard for the innocent deaths of thousands.   The minister who preaches this mixed message of protecting life for some while promoting death for others deserves close scrutiny.   Too often the message from some of our national Christian leaders sounds hateful and decidedly un-Christian in tone.   They preach the need for vengeance and war against a country that never attacked nor posed a threat to us.   It’s just as important to resolve this dilemma as the one involving the abortionist who is paid to kill the unborn while the mother is put in prison for killing her newborn.

2004 Ron Paul 81:44
To argue the invasion and occupation of Iraq is pro-life and pro-moral values is too much of a stretch for thinking Americans, especially conservative Christians.

2004 Ron Paul 81:45
One cannot know the true intention of the war promoters, but the policy and its disastrous results require our attention and criticism.   Pre-emptive war, especially when based on erroneous assumptions, cannot be ignored — nor can we ignore the cost in life and limb, the financial costs, and the lost liberties.

2004 Ron Paul 81:46
Being more attuned to our Constitution and having a different understanding of morality would go a long way toward preventing unnecessary and dangerous wars.   I’d like to make a few points about this different understanding:

2004 Ron Paul 81:47
First :   The United States should never go to war without an express Declaration by Congress.   If we had followed this crucial but long-forgotten rule the lives lost in Korea, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf, and Iraq might have been prevented.   And instead of making us less secure, this process would make us more secure.   Absent our foreign occupations and support for certain governments in the Middle East and central Asia over the past fifty years, the 9-11 attack would have been far less likely to happen.

2004 Ron Paul 81:48
Second :   A defensive war is morally permissible and justified, even required.   Just as a criminal who invades our house and threatens our family deserves to be shot on the spot, so too does a nation have the moral duty to defend against invasion or an imminent threat.   For centuries the Christian definition of a just war has guided many nations in making this decision.

2004 Ron Paul 81:49
Third :   The best test (a test the chicken hawks who promoted the war refused to take) for those who are so eager to send our troops to die in no-win wars is this:   “Am I willing to go; am I willing to be shot; am I willing to die for this cause; am I willing to sacrifice my children and grandchildren for this effort?”   The bottom line: Is this Iraq war worth the loss of more than 1200 dead Americans, and thousands of severe casualties, with no end in sight, likely lasting for years and motivating even more suicidal attacks on innocent Americans here at home?

2004 Ron Paul 81:50
Fourth :   Can we as a moral people continue to ignore the loss of innocent life on the other side?   Can we as a nation accept the callousness of the war proponents regarding the estimated 100,000 Iraqi civilian deaths?   Can we believe these deaths are a mere consequence of our worthy effort to impose our will on an alien culture?   Is it really our duty to sacrifice so much to pursue a questionable policy of dictating to others what we think is best for them?   Can these deaths be dismissed as nothing more than “collateral damage,” and even applauded as proof of the professed progress we are making in our effort to democratize the Middle East?   By ignoring the human costs of the conflict we invite problems, and the consequence of our actions will come back to haunt us.

2004 Ron Paul 81:51
Fifth :   Arguing that the war in Iraq is necessary for our national security is pure fiction; that it has something to do with the 9-11 attack or WMDs is nonsense.   Our meddling in the Middle East and the rest of the world actually increases the odds of us being attacked again by suicidal guerrillas here at home.   Tragically, this is something the neo-cons will never admit.

2004 Ron Paul 81:52
Sixth :   What kind of satisfaction can we achieve from the civil war we have instigated?   A significant portion of the killing in Iraq now occurs amongst Iraqis themselves, at our urging.   The country is in chaos, despite the assurances of our leaders.   Even under the thug Saddam Hussein, Christians at least were protected by the government — whereas today their churches are bombed and many are struggling to escape the violence by fleeing to Syria.   There is no evidence that our efforts in the Middle East have promoted life and peace.   Tragically, no one expects the death and destruction in Iraq to end anytime soon.  

2004 Ron Paul 81:53
To not be repulsed and outraged over our failed policy undermines our commitment to pro-life and moral values.   Of course it’s hard for many Americans to be outraged since so few know or even care about cities like Fallujah.   The propaganda machine has achieved its goal of ignorance and denial for most of our citizens.

2004 Ron Paul 81:54
Main Street America will rise up in indignation only after conditions in the Persian Gulf deteriorate further, many more American lives are lost, and the cost becomes obvious and prohibitive.   It’s sad, but only then will we consider changing our policy.   The losses likely to occur between now and then will be tragic indeed.

2004 Ron Paul 81:55
Though the election did not reflect a desire for us to withdraw from Iraq, it will be a serious mistake for those who want to expand the war into Syria or Iran to claim the election results were an endorsement of the policy of pre-emptive war.   Yet that’s exactly what may happen if no one speaks out against our aggressive policy of foreign intervention and occupation.

2004 Ron Paul 81:56
What can’t be ignored is that our activities in the Middle East have stirred up Russian and Chinese animosity.   Their concern for their own security may force us to confront much greater resistance than we have met so far in Afghanistan and Iraq.

2004 Ron Paul 81:57
A Chinese news agency recently reported that the Chinese government made a $70 billion investment commitment in Iran for the development of natural gas resources.   This kind of investment by a neighbor of Iran will be of great significance if the neo-cons have their way and we drag Iran into the Afghanistan and Iraqi quagmire.   The close alliance between Iranian Shias and their allies in Iraq makes a confrontation with Iran likely, as the neo-cons stoke the fire of war in the region.

2004 Ron Paul 81:58
By failing to understand the history of the region and the nature of tribal culture, we have made victory virtually impossible.   Tribal customs and religious beliefs that have existed for thousands of years instruct that family honor requires reciprocal killing for every member of the family killed by infidels/Americans.   For each of the possible 100,000 Iraqis killed, there’s a family that feels a moral obligation to get revenge by killing an American, any American if possible.

2004 Ron Paul 81:59
Ronald Reagan learned this lesson the hard way in coming to understand attitudes in Lebanon.   Reagan spoke boldly that he would not turn tail and run no matter how difficult the task when he sent Marines to support the Israeli/Christian side of the Lebanese civil war in 1983.   But he changed his tune after 241 Marines were killed.   He wrote about the incident in his autobiography:   “Perhaps we didn’t appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle.   Perhaps the idea of a suicide car bomber committing mass murder to gain instant entry to Paradise was so foreign to our own values and consciousness that it did not create in us the concern for the Marines’ safety that it should have… In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believed the last thing we should do was turn tail and leave… Yet, the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to re-think our policy there.”   Shortly thereafter Reagan withdrew the Marines from Lebanon, and no more Americans were killed in that fruitless venture.

2004 Ron Paul 81:60
Too bad our current foreign policy experts don’t understand the “irrationality of Middle Eastern politics”.   By leaving Lebanon, Reagan saved lives and proved our intervention in the Lebanese war was of no benefit to Lebanon or the United States.

2004 Ron Paul 81:61
Reagan’s willingness to admit error and withdraw from Lebanon was heroic, and proved to be life-saving.   True to form, many neo-cons with their love of war exude contempt for Reagan’s decision.   To them force and violence are heroic, not reassessing a bad situation and changing policy accordingly.

2004 Ron Paul 81:62
One of the great obstacles to our efforts in Iraq is pretending we’re fighting a country. We wrongly expect occupation and “democratization” to solve our problems.   The notion that the Iraq war is part of our retaliation for the 9-11 attacks is a serious error that must be corrected if we are to achieve peace and stability in the Middle East and security here at home.

2004 Ron Paul 81:63
We must come to realize that we’re fighting an ideology that is totally alien to us.   Within that ideology the radical Islamists and the traditional tribal customs are in conflict with more moderate and secular Muslims.   We’re seen as intruding in this family feud, and thus serve the interests of the radicals as we provide evidence that they are under attack by Western crusaders.   With each act of violence the hatred between the two is ratcheted upward, as fighting spreads throughout the entire Muslim world.

2004 Ron Paul 81:64
Ironically, this fight over religious values and interpretations in the Middle East encourages a similar conflict here at home among Christians.   The conservative Christian community too often sounds militantly pro-war.   Too many have totally forgotten the admonition “blessed are the peacemakers.”   This contrasts with the views of some Christians, who find pre-emptive war decidedly un-Christian.   Though civil, the two Christian views are being more hotly contested every day.

2004 Ron Paul 81:65
A policy that uses the religious civil war within the Muslim faith as an excuse for remaking the entire Middle East by force makes little sense and will not end well.   The more we fight and the more we kill the greater the animosity of those who want us out of their family feud — and out of their countries.

2004 Ron Paul 81:66
It’s clear the Christian conservative turnout was critical to the President’s re-election.   Though many may well have voted for the family/moral values touted by the President and mishandled by Senator Kerry, most agree with the Christian Right that our policy of pre-emptive war in the Middle East is not in conflict with pro-family and pro-life values.   This seems strange indeed, since a strong case can be made that the conservative Christian Right, those most interested in the pro-life issue, ought to be the strongest defenders of peace and reject unnecessary pre-emptive war.

2004 Ron Paul 81:67
Here are a few reasons why conservatives ought to reject the current policy of pre-emptive war:

2004 Ron Paul 81:68
1.       The Constitution is on the side of peace.   Under the Constitution — the law of the land — only Congress can declare war.   The president is prohibited from taking us to war on his own.

2004 Ron Paul 81:69
2.       The Founders and all the early presidents argued the case for non-intervention overseas, with the precise goals of avoiding entangling alliances and not involving our people in foreign wars unrelated to our security.

2004 Ron Paul 81:70
3.       The American tradition and sense of morality for almost all our history rejected the notion that we would ever deliberately start a war, even with noble intentions.

2004 Ron Paul 81:71
4.       The Christian concept of just war rejects all the excuses given for marching off to Iraq with the intention of changing the whole region into a western-style democracy by force, with little regard for the cost in life and limb and the economic consequences here at home.

2004 Ron Paul 81:72
5.       America faces a 7.5 trillion dollar national debt that is increasing by 600 billion dollars per year.   Fiscal conservatives cannot dismiss this, even as they clamor for wars we cannot afford.

2004 Ron Paul 81:73
6.       History shows the size of the state always grows when we’re at war.   Under conditions of war civil liberties are always sacrificed — thus begging the point. We go hither and yon to spread our message of freedom, while sacrificing our freedoms here at home and eating away at the wealth of the country.

2004 Ron Paul 81:74
7.       Those who understand the most important function of our national government is to provide strong national defense should realize that having troops in over 100 countries hardly helps us protect America, secure our borders, or avoid alienating our allies and potential enemies.

2004 Ron Paul 81:75
8.       The best way to prevent terrorism is to change our policies, stop playing crusader, and stop picking sides in religious civil wars or any other civil wars.   “Blowback” from our policies is not imaginary.

2004 Ron Paul 81:76
9.       Promoting true free trade and promoting prosperity through low taxes and less regulation sends a strong message to the world and those interested in peace and commerce.

2004 Ron Paul 81:77
10.   A policy of free exchange with other nations avoids the trappings of the new isolationists, who influence our foreign policy with the generous use of sanctions, trade barriers, and competitive currency devaluations. They are only too willing to defer to the World Trade Organization and allow it to dictate our trade and tax policies.

2004 Ron Paul 81:78
Conservatives who profess to uphold the principle of right-to-life should have little trouble supporting the position of the Founders and the Constitution: a foreign policy of “peace and commerce with those who choose and no entangling alliances.”

2004 Ron Paul Chapter 82
Ron Paul’s Congressional website HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE
December 7, 2004 U.S. Hypocrisy in Ukraine

2004 Ron Paul 82:1
Mr. Chairman: President Bush said last week that, “Any election (in Ukraine), if there is one, ought to be free from any foreign influence.”  I agree with the president wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, it seems that several US government agencies saw things differently and sent US taxpayer dollars into Ukraine in an attempt to influence the outcome.

2004 Ron Paul 82:2
We do not know exactly how many millions — or tens of millions — of dollars the United States government spent on the presidential election in Ukraine. We do know that much of that money was targeted to assist one particular candidate, and that through a series of cut-out non-governmental organizations (NGOs) — both American and Ukrainian — millions of dollars ended up in support of the presidential candidate, Viktor Yushchenko.

2004 Ron Paul 82:3
Let me add that I do not think we should be supporting either of the candidates. While I am certainly no supporter of Viktor Yushchenko, I am not a supporter of his opponent, Viktor Yanukovich, either. Simply, it is none of our business who the Ukrainian people select to be their president. And, if they feel the vote was not fair, it is up to them to work it out.

2004 Ron Paul 82:4
How did this one-sided US funding in Ukraine come about? While I am afraid we may have seen only the tip of the iceberg, one part that we do know thus far is that the US government, through the US Agency for International Development (USAID), granted millions of dollars to the Poland-America-Ukraine Cooperation Initiative (PAUCI), which is administered by the US-based Freedom House.

2004 Ron Paul 82:5
PAUCI then sent US Government funds to numerous Ukrainian non-governmental organizations (NGOs). This would be bad enough and would in itself constitute meddling in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation. But, what is worse is that many of these grantee organizations in Ukraine are blatantly in favor of presidential candidate Viktor Yushchenko.

2004 Ron Paul 82:6
Consider the Ukrainian NGO International Centre for Policy Studies. It is an organization funded by the US Government through PAUCI, but on its website you will find that the front page in the English section features a prominent orange ribbon, the symbol of Yushchenko’s party and movement. Reading further on, we discover that this NGO was founded by George Soros’s Open Society Institute. And further on we can see that Viktor Yushchenko himself sits on the advisory board!

2004 Ron Paul 82:7
And this NGO is not the only one the US government funds that is openly supportive of Viktor Yushchenko. The Western Ukraine Regional Training Center, as another example, features a prominent USAID logo on one side of its website’s front page and an orange ribbon of the candidate Yushchenko’s party and movement on the other. By their proximity, the message to Ukrainian readers is clear: the US government supports Yushchenko.

2004 Ron Paul 82:8
The Center for Political and Law Reforms, another Ukrainian NGO funded by the US government, features a link at the top of its website’s front page to Viktor Yushchenko’s personal website. Yushchenko’s picture is at the top of this US government funded website.

2004 Ron Paul 82:9
This May, the Virginia-based private management consultancy Development Associates, Inc., was awarded $100 million by the US government “for strengthening national legislatures and other deliberative bodies worldwide.” According to the organization’s website, several million dollars from this went to Ukraine in advance of the elections.

2004 Ron Paul 82:10
As I have said, this may only be the tip of the iceberg. There may be many more such organizations involved in this twisted tale.

2004 Ron Paul 82:11
It is clear that a significant amount of US taxpayer dollars went to support one candidate in Ukraine. Recall how most of us felt when it became known that the Chinese government was trying to funnel campaign funding to a US presidential campaign. This foreign funding of American elections is rightly illegal. Yet, it appears that that is exactly what we are doing abroad. What we do not know, however, is just how much US government money was spent to influence the outcome of the Ukrainian election.

2004 Ron Paul 82:12
Dozens of organizations are granted funds under the PAUCI program alone, and this is only one of many programs that funneled dollars into Ukraine. We do not know how many millions of US taxpayer dollars the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) sent to Ukraine through NED’s National Democratic Institute and International Republican Institute. Nor do we know how many other efforts, overt or covert, have been made to support one candidate over the other in Ukraine.

2004 Ron Paul 82:13
That is what I find so disturbing: there are so many cut-out organizations and sub-grantees that we have no idea how much US government money was really spent on Ukraine, and most importantly how it was spent. Perhaps the several examples of blatant partisan support that we have been able to uncover are but an anomaly. I believe Congress and the American taxpayers have a right to know. I believe we urgently need an investigation by the Government Accounting Office into how much US government money was spent in Ukraine and exactly how it was spent. I would hope very much for the support of Chairman Hyde, Chairman Lugar, Deputy Assistant Secretary Tefft, and my colleagues on the Committee in this request.

2004 Ron Paul 82:14
President Bush is absolutely correct: elections in Ukraine should be free of foreign influence. It is our job here and now to discover just how far we have violated this very important principle, and to cease any funding of political candidates or campaigns henceforth.