Volume 2005 — The Book of Ron Paul
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 1
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Introducing The Parental Consent Act
4 January 2005
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, January 4, 2005
2005 Ron Paul 1:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Parental Consent 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.
2005 Ron Paul 1:2
The New Freedom Commission on Mental Health has recommended that the Federal and
State Governments work toward the implementation
of a comprehensive system of mental-
health screening for all Americans. The
commission recommends that universal or
mandatory mental-health screening first be implemented
in public schools as a prelude to
expanding it to the general public. However,
neither the commission’s report nor any related
mental-health screening proposal requires
parental consent before a child is subjected
to mental-health screening. Federally-
funded universal or mandatory mental health
screening in schools without parental consent
could lead to labeling more children as “ADD”
or “hyperactive” and thus force more children
to take psychotropic drugs, such as Ritalin,
against their parents’ wishes.
2005 Ron Paul 1:3
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.
2005 Ron Paul 1:4
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
are already being threatened with child
abuse charges if they resist efforts to drug
their children.
2005 Ron Paul 1:5
Imagine how much easier it will be to drug children against their parents’ wishes if a federally-
funded mental-health screener makes
the recommendation.
2005 Ron Paul 1:6
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.”
2005 Ron Paul 1:7
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 Parental Consent
Act.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 2
Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Introducing The Identity Theft protection Act
4 January 2005
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, January 4, 2005
2005 Ron Paul 2:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the Identity Theft Prevention Act. This act protects
the American people from government-
mandated uniform identifiers that facilitate private
crime as well as the abuse of liberty. The
major provision of the Identity Theft Prevention
Act halts the practice of using the Social Security
number as an identifier by requiring the
Social Security Administration to issue all
Americans new Social Security numbers within
5 years after the enactment of the bill. These
new numbers will be the sole legal property of
the recipient, and the Social Security administration
shall be forbidden to divulge the numbers
for any purposes not related to Social
Security administration. Social Security numbers
issued before implementation of this bill
shall no longer be considered valid Federal
identifiers. Of course, the Social Security Administration
shall be able to use an individual’s
original Social Security number to ensure efficient
administration of the Social Security system.
2005 Ron Paul 2:2
Mr. Speaker, Congress has a moral responsibility to address this problem because it was
Congress that transformed the Social Security
number into a national identifier. Thanks to
Congress, today no American can get a job,
open a bank account, get a professional license,
or even get a driver’s license without
presenting his Social Security number. So
widespread has the use of the Social Security
number become that a member of my staff
had to produce a Social Security number in
order to get a fishing license.
2005 Ron Paul 2:3
One of the most disturbing abuses of the Social Security number is the congressionally
authorized rule forcing parents to get a Social
Security number for their newborn children in
order to claim the children as dependents.
Forcing parents to register their children with
the State is more like something out of the
nightmares of George Orwell than the dreams
of a free republic that inspired this Nation’s
Founders.
2005 Ron Paul 2:4
Congressionally mandated use of the Social Security number as an identifier facilitates the
horrendous crime of identity theft. Thanks to
Congress, an unscrupulous person may simply
obtain someone’s Social Security number
in order to access that person’s bank accounts,
credit cards, and other financial assets.
Many Americans have lost their life savings
and had their credit destroyed as a result
of identity theft. Yet the Federal Government
continues to encourage such crimes by mandating
use of the Social Security number as a
uniform ID.
2005 Ron Paul 2:5
This act also forbids the Federal Government from creating national ID cards or establishing
any identifiers for the purpose of investigating,
monitoring, overseeing, or regulating
private transactions among American citizens.
At the very end of the 108th Congress, this
body established a de facto national ID card
with a provision buried in the “intelligence” reform
bill mandating Federal standards for drivers’
licenses, and mandating that Federal
agents only accept a license that conforms to
these standards as a valid ID.
2005 Ron Paul 2:6
Nationalizing standards for drivers’ licenses and birth certificates creates a national ID system
pure and simple. Proponents of the national
ID understand that the public remains
wary of the scheme, so proponents attempt to
claim they are merely creating new standards
for existing State IDs. However, the “intelligence”
reform legislation imposed Federal
standards in a Federal bill, thus creating 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.
2005 Ron Paul 2:7
The national ID will be used to track the movements of American citizens, not just terrorists.
Subjecting every citizen to surveillance
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.
2005 Ron Paul 2:8
The Identity Theft Prevention Act repeals those sections of Federal law creating the national
ID, as well as those sections of the
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability
Act of 1996 that require the Department of
Health and Human Services to establish a uniform
standard health identifier — an identifier
which could be used to create a national database
containing the medical history of all
Americans. As an OB/GYN with more than 30
years in private practice, I know the importance
of preserving the sanctity of the physician-
patient relationship. Oftentimes, effective
treatment depends on a patient’s ability to
place absolute trust in his or her doctor. What
will happen to that trust when patients know
that any and all information given to their doctors
will be placed in a government accessible
database?
2005 Ron Paul 2:9
By putting an end to government-mandated uniform IDs, the Identity Theft Prevention Act
will prevent millions of Americans from having
their liberty, property, and privacy violated by
private and public sector criminals.
2005 Ron Paul 2:10
In addition to forbidding the Federal Government from creating national identifiers, this
legislation forbids the Federal Government
from blackmailing States into adopting uniform
standard identifiers by withholding Federal
funds. One of the most onerous practices of
Congress is the use of Federal funds illegitimately
taken from the American people to
bribe States into obeying Federal dictates.
2005 Ron Paul 2:11
Some Members of Congress will claim that the Federal Government needs the power to
monitor Americans in order to allow the government
to operate more efficiently. I would
remind my colleagues that, in a constitutional
republic, the people are never asked to sacrifice
their liberties to make the jobs of government
officials easier. We are here to protect
the freedom of the American people, not to
make privacy invasion more efficient.
2005 Ron Paul 2:12
Mr. Speaker, while I do not question the sincerity of those Members who suggest that
Congress can ensure that citizens’ rights are
protected through legislation restricting access
to personal information, the only effective privacy
protection is to forbid the Federal
Government
from mandating national identifiers.
Legislative “privacy protections” are inadequate
to protect the liberty of Americans for
a couple of reasons.
2005 Ron Paul 2:13
First, it is simply common sense that repealing those Federal laws that promote identity
theft is more effective in protecting the public
than expanding the power of the Federal police
force. Federal punishment of identity
thieves provides cold comfort to those who
have suffered financial losses and the destruction
of their good reputations as a result of
identity theft.
2005 Ron Paul 2:14
Federal laws are not only ineffective in stopping private criminals, but these laws have not
even stopped unscrupulous government officials
from accessing personal information.
After all, laws purporting to restrict the use of
personal information did not stop the well-publicized
violations of privacy by IRS officials or
the FBI abuses of the Clinton and Nixon administrations.
2005 Ron Paul 2:15
In one of the most infamous cases of identity theft, thousands of active-duty soldiers and
veterans had their personal information stolen,
putting them at risk of identity theft. Imagine
the dangers if thieves are able to obtain the
universal identifier, and other personal information,
of millions of Americans simply by
breaking, or hacking, into one government facility
or one government database?
2005 Ron Paul 2:16
Second, the Federal Government has been creating proprietary interests in private information
for certain State-favored special interests.
Perhaps the most outrageous example of
phony privacy protection is the “medical privacy”’
regulation, that allows medical researchers,
certain business interests, and law
enforcement officials access to health care information,
in complete disregard of the Fifth
Amendment and the wishes of individual patients!
Obviously, “privacy protection” laws
have proven greatly inadequate to protect personal
information when the government is the
one seeking the information.
2005 Ron Paul 2:17
Any action short of repealing laws authorizing privacy violations is insufficient primarily
because the Federal Government lacks constitutional
authority to force citizens to adopt a
universal identifier for health care, employment,
or any other reason. Any Federal action
that oversteps constitutional limitations violates
liberty because it ratifies the principle that the
Federal Government, not the Constitution, is
the ultimate judge of its own jurisdiction over
the people. The only effective protection of the
rights of citizens is for Congress to follow
Thomas Jefferson’s advice and “bind (the
Federal Government) down with the chains of
the Constitution.”
2005 Ron Paul 2:18
Mr. Speaker, those members who are not persuaded by the moral and constitutional reasons
for embracing the Identity Theft Prevention
Act should consider the American people’s
opposition to national identifiers. The numerous
complaints over the ever-growing uses
of the Social Security number show that Americans
want Congress to stop invading their privacy.
Furthermore, according to a survey by
the Gallup company, 91 percent of the American
people oppose forcing Americans to obtain
a universal health ID.
2005 Ron Paul 2:19
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I once again call on my colleagues to join me in putting an end
to the Federal Government’s unconstitutional
use of national identifiers to monitor the actions
of private citizens. National identifiers
threaten all Americans by exposing them to
the threat of identity theft by private criminals
and abuse of their liberties by public criminals,
while diverting valuable law enforcement resources
away from addressing real threats to
public safety. In addition, national identifiers
are incompatible with a limited, constitutional
government. I, therefore, hope my colleagues
will join my efforts to protect the freedom of
their constituents by supporting the Identity
Theft Prevention Act.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 3
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Introducing The Social Security Beneficiary Tax reduction Act And The Senior Citizens’ Tax Elimination Act
4 January 2005
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, January 4, 2005
2005 Ron Paul 3:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce two pieces of legislation to reduce
taxes on senior citizens. The first bill, the Social
Security Beneficiary Tax Reduction Act,
repeals the 1993 tax increase on Social Security
benefits. Repealing this increase on Social
Security benefits is a good first step toward reducing
the burden imposed by the federal government
on senior citizens. However, imposing
any tax on Social Security benefits is unfair
and illogical. This is why I am also introducing
the Senior Citizens’ Tax Elimination Act, which
repeals all taxes on Social Security benefits.
2005 Ron Paul 3:2
Since Social Security benefits are financed with tax dollars, taxing these benefits is yet
another example of double taxation. Furthermore,
“taxing” benefits paid by the government
is merely an accounting trick, a shell
game which allows members of Congress to
reduce benefits by subterfuge. This allows
Congress to continue using the Social Security
trust fund as a means of financing other government
programs, and masks the true size of
the federal deficit.
2005 Ron Paul 3:3
Instead of imposing ridiculous taxes on senior citizens, Congress should ensure the integrity
of the Social Security trust fund by ending
the practice of using trust fund monies for
other programs. In order to accomplish this
goal I introduced the Social Security Preservation
Act (H.R. 219), which ensures that all
money in the Social Security trust fund is
spent solely on Social Security. At a time
when Congress’ inability to control spending is
once again threatening the Social Security
trust fund, the need for this legislation has
never been greater. When the government
taxes Americans to fund Social Security, it
promises the American people that the money
will be there for them when they retire. Congress
has a moral obligation to keep that
promise.
2005 Ron Paul 3:4
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to help free senior citizens from oppressive
taxation by supporting my Senior Citizens’
Tax Elimination Act and my Social Security
Beneficiary Tax Reduction Act. I also urge
my colleagues to ensure that moneys from the
Social Security trust fund are used solely for
Social Security benefits and not wasted on
frivolous government programs.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 4
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Introducing The Social Security Preservation Act
4 January 2005
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, January 4, 2005
2005 Ron Paul 4:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to protect the integrity of the Social Security trust fund by introducing
the Social Security Preservation Act.
The Social Security Preservation Act is a rather
simple bill which states that all monies
raised by the Social Security trust fund will be
spent in payments to beneficiaries, with excess
receipts invested in interest-bearing certificates
of deposit. This will help keep Social
Security trust fund monies from being diverted
to other programs, as well as allow the fund
to grow by providing for investment in interest-
bearing instruments.
2005 Ron Paul 4:2
The Social Security Preservation Act ensures that the government will keep its promises
to America’s seniors that taxes collected
for Social Security will be used for Social Security.
When the government taxes Americans
to fund Social Security, it promises the American
people that the money will be there for
them when they retire. Congress has a moral
obligation to keep that promise.
2005 Ron Paul 4:3
With federal deficits reaching historic levels the pressure from special interests for massive
new raids on the trust fund is greater than
ever. Thus it is vital that Congress act now to
protect the trust fund from big spending, pork-
barrel politics. Social Security reform will be
one of the major issues discussed in this Congress
and many of my colleagues have different
ideas regarding how to best preserve
the long-term solvency of the program. However,
as a medical doctor, I know the first step
in treatment is to stop the bleeding, and the
Social Security Preservation Act stops the
bleeding of the Social Security trust fund. I
therefore call upon all my colleagues, regardless
of which proposal for long-term Social Security
reform they support, to stand up for
America’s seniors by cosponsoring the Social
Security Preservation Act.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 5
Congressional Record [.PDF]
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 6, 2005
Government IDs and Identity Theft
2005 Ron Paul 5:1
Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the Identity Theft Prevention Act. This act
protects
the American people from government-mandated uniform identifiers that
facilitate
private crime as well as the abuse of liberty. The major provision of
the
Identity Theft Prevention Act halts the practice of using the Social
Security
number as an identifier by requiring the Social Security Administration
to issue
all Americans new Social Security numbers within five years after the
enactment
of the bill. These new numbers will be the sole legal property of the
recipient,
and the Social Security administration shall be forbidden to divulge
the numbers
for any purposes not related to Social Security administration. Social
Security
numbers issued before implementation of this bill shall no longer be
considered
valid federal identifiers. Of course, the Social Security
Administration shall
be able to use an individual’s original Social Security number to
ensure
efficient administration of the Social Security system.
2005 Ron Paul 5:2
Mr. Speaker, Congress has a moral responsibility to address this problem
because it
was Congress that transformed the Social Security number into a
national
identifier. Thanks to Congress, today no American can get a job, open a
bank
account, get a professional license, or even get a driver’s license
without
presenting his Social Security number. So widespread has the use of the
Social
Security number become that a member of my staff had to produce a
Social
Security number in order to get a fishing license!
2005 Ron Paul 5:3
One of the most disturbing abuses of the Social Security number is the congressionally-authorized rule forcing parents to get a Social
Security number
for their newborn children in order to claim the children as
dependents. Forcing
parents to register their children with the state is more like
something out of
the nightmares of George Orwell than the dreams of a free republic that
inspired
this nation’s founders.
2005 Ron Paul 5:4
Congressionally-mandated
use of the Social Security number as an identifier facilitates the
horrendous
crime of identity theft. Thanks to Congress, an unscrupulous person may
simply
obtain someone’s Social Security number in order to access that
person’s bank
accounts, credit cards, and other financial assets. Many Americans have
lost
their life savings and had their credit destroyed as a result of
identity theft.
Yet the federal government continues to encourage such crimes by
mandating use
of the Social Security number as a uniform ID!
2005 Ron Paul 5:5
This
act also forbids the federal government from creating national ID cards
or
establishing any identifiers for the purpose of investigating,
monitoring,
overseeing, or regulating private transactions among American citizens.
At the
very end of the 108th Congress, this body established a
de facto
national
ID card with a provisions buried in the “intelligence” reform bill
mandating
federal standards for drivers’ licenses, and mandating that federal
agents
only accept a license that conforms to these standards as a valid ID.
2005 Ron Paul 5:6
Nationalizing
standards for driver’s licenses and birth certificates creates a
national ID
system pure and simple.
Proponents
of the national ID understand that the public remains wary of the
scheme, so
proponents attempt to claim they are merely creating new standards for
existing
state IDs.
However, the
“intelligence” reform legislation imposed federal standards in a
federal
bill, thus creating 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.
2005 Ron Paul 5:7
The
national ID will be used to track the movements of American citizens,
not just
terrorists. Subjecting every citizen to surveillance 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.
2005 Ron Paul 5:8
The
Identity Theft Prevention Act repeals those sections of federal law
creating the
national ID, as well as those sections of the Health Insurance
Portability and
Accountability Act of 1996 that require the Department of Health and
Human
Services to establish a uniform standard health identifier--an
identifier which
could be used to create a national database containing the medical
history of
all Americans. As an OB/GYN with more than 30 years in private
practice, I know
the importance of preserving the sanctity of the physician-patient
relationship.
Oftentimes, effective treatment depends on a patient’s ability to place
absolute
trust in his or her doctor. What will happen to that trust when
patients know
that any and all information given to their doctors will be placed in a
government accessible database?
2005 Ron Paul 5:9
By
putting an end to government-mandated uniform IDs, the Identity Theft
Prevention
Act will prevent millions of Americans from having their liberty,
property, and
privacy violated by private and public sector criminals.
2005 Ron Paul 5:10
In
addition to forbidding the federal government from creating national
identifiers, this legislation forbids the federal government from
blackmailing
states into adopting uniform standard identifiers by withholding
federal funds.
One of the most onerous practices of Congress is the use of federal
funds
illegitimately taken from the American people to bribe states into
obeying
federal dictates.
2005 Ron Paul 5:11
Some
members of Congress will claim that the federal government needs the
power to
monitor Americans in order to allow the government to operate more
efficiently.
I would remind my colleagues that, in a constitutional republic, the
people are
never asked to sacrifice their liberties to make the jobs of government
officials easier. We are here to protect the freedom of the American
people, not
to make privacy invasion more efficient.
2005 Ron Paul 5:12
Mr.
Speaker, while I do not question the sincerity of those members who
suggest that
Congress can ensure that citizens’ rights are protected through
legislation
restricting access to personal information, the only effective privacy
protection is to forbid the federal government from mandating national
identifiers. Legislative “privacy protections” are inadequate to
protect
the liberty of Americans for a couple of reasons.
2005 Ron Paul 5:13
First,
it is simply common sense that repealing those federal laws that
promote
identity theft is more effective in protecting the public than
expanding the
power of the federal police force. Federal punishment of identity
thieves
provides cold comfort to those who have suffered financial losses and
the
destruction of their good reputations as a result of identity theft.
2005 Ron Paul 5:14
Federal
laws are not only ineffective in stopping private criminals, but these
laws have
not even stopped unscrupulous government officials from accessing
personal
information. After all, laws purporting to restrict the use of personal
information did not stop the well-publicized violations of privacy by
IRS
officials or the FBI abuses of the Clinton and Nixon administrations.
2005 Ron Paul 5:15
In
one of the most infamous cases of identity theft, thousands of
active-duty
soldiers and veterans had their personal information stolen, putting
them at
risk of identity theft. Imagine the dangers if thieves are able to
obtain the
universal identifier, and other personal information, of millions of
Americans
simply by breaking, or hacking, into one government facility or one
government
database?
2005 Ron Paul 5:16
Second,
the federal government has been creating proprietary interests in
private
information for certain state-favored special interests. Perhaps the
most
outrageous example of phony privacy protection is the “medical
privacy'”
regulation, that allows medical researchers, certain business
interests, and law
enforcement officials access to health care information, in complete
disregard
of the Fifth Amendment and the wishes of individual patients!
Obviously,
“privacy protection” laws have proven greatly inadequate to protect
personal information when the government is the one seeking the
information.
2005 Ron Paul 5:17
Any
action short of repealing laws authorizing privacy violations is
insufficient
primarily because the federal government lacks constitutional authority
to force
citizens to adopt a universal identifier for health care, employment,
or any
other reason. Any federal action that oversteps constitutional
limitations
violates liberty because it ratifies the principle that the federal
government,
not the Constitution, is the ultimate judge of its own jurisdiction
over the
people. The only effective protection of the rights of citizens is for
Congress
to follow Thomas Jefferson’s advice and “bind (the federal government)
down
with the chains of the Constitution.”
2005 Ron Paul 5:18
Mr.
Speaker, those members who are not persuaded by the moral and
constitutional
reasons for embracing the Identity Theft Prevention Act should consider
the
American people’s opposition to national identifiers. The numerous
complaints
over the ever-growing uses of the Social Security number show that
Americans
want Congress to stop invading their privacy. Furthermore, according to
a survey
by the Gallup company, 91 percent of the American people oppose forcing
Americans to obtain a universal health ID.
2005 Ron Paul 5:19
In
conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I once again call on my colleagues to join me
in
putting an end to the federal government’s unconstitutional use of
national
identifiers to monitor the actions of private citizens. National
identifiers
threaten all Americans by exposing them to the threat of identity theft
by
private criminals and abuse of their liberties by public criminals,
while
diverting valuable law enforcement resources away from addressing real
threats
to public safety. In addition, national identifiers are incompatible
with a
limited, constitutional government. I, therefore, hope my colleagues
will join
my efforts to protect the freedom of their constituents by supporting
the
Identity Theft Prevention Act.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 6
Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]
America’s Foreign Policy Of Intervention
26 January 2005
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under
the Speaker’s announced policy of January
4, 2005, the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. PAUL) is recognized for 60 minutes
as the designee of the majority leader.
2005 Ron Paul 6:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, what if it was all a big mistake? America’s foreign
policy of intervention, while still
debated in the early 20th century, is
today accepted as conventional wisdom
by both political parties.
2005 Ron Paul 6:2
But what if the overall policy is a colossal mistake, a major error in judgment?
Not just a bad judgment regarding
when and where to impose ourselves,
but the entire premise that we
have a moral right to meddle in the affairs
of others?
2005 Ron Paul 6:3
Think of the untold harm done by years of fighting, hundreds of thousands
of American casualties, hundreds
of thousands of foreign civilian casualties
and unbelievable human and economic
costs. What if it was all needlessly
borne by the American people?
2005 Ron Paul 6:4
If we do conclude that grave foreign policy errors have been made, a very
serious question must be asked: What
would it take to change our policy to
one more compatible with a true republic’s
goal of peace, commerce and
friendship with all nations? Is it not
possible that George Washington’s admonition
to avoid entangling alliances
is sound advice even today?
2005 Ron Paul 6:5
As a physician, I would like to draw an analogy. In medicine, mistakes are
made. Man is fallible. Misdiagnoses are
made, incorrect treatments are given,
and experimental trials of medicine are
advocated. A good physician understands
the imperfections in medical
care, advises close follow-ups and double-
checks the diagnoses, treatment
and medication. Adjustments are made
to assure the best results.
2005 Ron Paul 6:6
But what if a doctor never checks the success or failure of a treatment or ignores
bad results and assumes his omnipotence,
refusing to concede that the
initial course of treatment was a mistake?
Let me assure my colleagues the
results would not be good. Litigation
and the loss of reputation in the medical
community place restraints on
this type of bull-headed behavior.
2005 Ron Paul 6:7
Sadly, though, when governments, politicians and bureaucrats make mistakes
and refuse to examine them,
there is little that victims can do to
correct things. Since the bully pulpit
and the media propaganda machine are
instrumental in government cover-ups
and deception, the final truth emerges
slowly and only after much suffering.
The arrogance of some politicians, regulators,
and diplomats actually causes
them to become even more aggressive
and more determined to prove themselves
right, to prove their power is not
to be messed with by never admitting a
mistake. Truly, power corrupts.
2005 Ron Paul 6:8
The unwillingness to ever reconsider our policy of foreign intervention, despite
obvious failures and shortcomings
over the last 50 years, has brought
great harm to our country and our liberty.
Historically, financial realities
are the ultimate check on nations bent
on empire-building.
2005 Ron Paul 6:9
Economic laws ultimately prevail over bad judgment, but tragically, the
greater the wealth of the country, the
longer the flawed policy lasts. We will
probably not be any different.
2005 Ron Paul 6:10
We are still a wealthy Nation and our currency is still trusted by the world.
Yet we are vulnerable to some harsh
realities about our true wealth and the
burden of our future commitments.
Overwhelming debt and the precarious
nature of the dollar should serve to restrain
our determined leaders. Yet they
show little concern for our deficits.
Rest assured, though, the limitations
of our endless foreign adventurism and
spending will become apparent to everyone
at some point in time.
2005 Ron Paul 6:11
Since 9/11, a lot of energy and money have gone into efforts ostensibly designed
to make us safer. Many laws
have been passed. Many dollars have
been spent. Whether or not we are better
off is another question.
2005 Ron Paul 6:12
Today, we occupy two countries in the Middle East. We have suffered over
20,000 casualties and caused possibly
100,000 civilian casualties in Iraq.
2005 Ron Paul 6:13
We have spent over $200 billion in these occupations, as well as hundreds
of billions of dollars here at home hoping
to be safer. We have created the Department
of Homeland Security, passed
the PATRIOT Act, and created a new
super CIA agency. Our government is
now permitted to monitor the Internet,
read our mail, search us without proper
search warrants, to develop a national
ID card, and to investigate what people
are reading in libraries. Ironically, illegal
aliens flow into our country and
qualify for driver’s licenses and welfare
benefits with little restraint.
2005 Ron Paul 6:14
These issues are discussed, but nothing has been as highly visible to us as
the authoritarianism we accept at the
airports. The creation of the Transportation
Security Administration has
intruded on the privacy of all airline
travelers, and there is little evidence
that we are safer for it. Driven by fear,
we have succumbed to the age-old
temptation to sacrifice liberty on the
pretense of obtaining security.
2005 Ron Paul 6:15
Love of security, unfortunately, all too often vanquishes love of liberty.
Unchecked fear of another 9/11-type attack
constantly preoccupies our leaders
and most of our citizens and drives
the legislative attack on our civil liberties.
It is frightening to see us doing
to ourselves what even bin Laden never
dreamed he could accomplish with his
suicide bombers.
2005 Ron Paul 6:16
We do not understand the difference between a vague threat of terrorism
and the danger of a guerilla war. One
prompts us to expand and nationalize
domestic law enforcement while limiting
the freedoms of all Americans.
The other deals with understanding
terrorists like bin Laden who declared
war against us in 1998. Not understanding
the difference makes it virtually
impossible to deal with the real
threats.
2005 Ron Paul 6:17
We are obsessed with passing new laws to make our country safe from a
terrorist attack. This confusion about
the cause of the 9/11 attacks, the fear
they engendered, and the willingness to
sacrifice liberty prompts many to declare
their satisfaction with the inconveniences
and even humiliation at our
Nation’s airports.
2005 Ron Paul 6:18
There are always those in government who are anxious to increase its
power and authority over the people.
Strict adherence to personal privacy
annoys those who promote a centralized
state. It is no surprise to learn
that many of the new laws passed in
the aftermath of 9/11 had been proposed
long before that date. The attacks
merely provided an excuse to do many
things previously proposed by dedicated
statists.
2005 Ron Paul 6:19
All too often government acts perversely, promising to advance liberty
while actually doing the opposite. Dozens
of new bills passed since 9/11 promise
to protect our freedoms and our securities.
In time we will realize there is
little chance our security will be enhanced
or our liberties protected. The
powerful and intrusive TSA certainly
will not solve our problems. Without a
full discussion, greater understanding,
and ultimately a change in our foreign
policy that incites those who declare
war against us, no amount of patdowns
at airports will suffice.
2005 Ron Paul 6:20
Imagine the harm done, the staggering costs and the loss of liberty if in
the next 20 years airplanes are never
again employed by terrorists. Even if
there is a possibility that airplanes
will be used to terrorize us, TSA’s bullying
will do little to prevent it. Patting
down old women and little kids in
airports cannot possibly make us safer.
TSA cannot protect us from another
attack, and it is not the solution. It
serves only to make us more obedient
and complacent toward government intrusion
in our lives.
2005 Ron Paul 6:21
The airplane mess has been compounded by other problems which we
fail to recognize. Most assume that
government has the greatest responsibility
for making private aircraft travel
safe. But this assumption only ignores
mistakes made before 9/11, when
the government taught us to not resist,
taught us that airline personnel could
not carry guns, and that the government
would be in charge of security.
Airline owners became complacent and
dependent on the government.
2005 Ron Paul 6:22
After 9/11, we moved in the wrong direction by allowing total government
control and political takeover of the
TSA, which was completely contrary
to the proposition that private owners
have the ultimate responsibility to
protect their customers.
2005 Ron Paul 6:23
Discrimination laws passed during the last 40 years ostensibly fueled the
Transportation Secretary’s near obsession
with avoiding the appearance of
discriminating against young Muslim
males. Instead, TSA seemingly targeted
white children and old women.
We have failed to recognize that a safety
policy by a private airline is quite a
different thing from government
agents blindly obeying antidiscrimination
laws.
2005 Ron Paul 6:24
Governments do not have a right to use blanket discrimination such as
that which led to the incarceration of
Japanese Americans in World War II.
However, local law enforcement agencies
should be able to target their
searches if the description of a suspect
is narrowed by sex, race or religion.
But we are dealing with an entirely different
matter when it comes to safety
on airplanes. The Federal Government
should not be involved in local law enforcement
and has no right to discriminate.
2005 Ron Paul 6:25
Airlines, on the other hand, should be permitted to do whatever is necessary
to provide safety. Private firms, long
denied this right, should have a right
to discriminate. Fine restaurants, for
example, can require that shoes and
shirts be worn for service in their establishments.
The logic of this remaining
property right should permit more
sensible security checks at airports.
The airlines should be responsible for
the safety of their property and liable
for it as well. This is not only the responsibility
of the airlines, but it is a
civil right that has long been denied
them and other private companies.
2005 Ron Paul 6:26
The present situation requires the government to punish some by targeting
those individuals who clearly
offer no threat. Any airline that tries
to make travel safer and happens to
question a larger number of young
Muslim males than the government
deems appropriate can be assessed huge
fines. To add insult to injury, the fines
collected from the airlines are used to
force sensitivity training on pilots,
who do their very best under the circumstances
to make flying safer by restricting
the travel of some individuals.
2005 Ron Paul 6:27
We have embarked on a process that serves no logical purpose. While airline
safety suffers, personal liberty is diminished,
and costs skyrocket.
2005 Ron Paul 6:28
Mr. Speaker, if we are willing to consider a different foreign policy, we
should ask ourselves a few questions:
2005 Ron Paul 6:29
What if the policies of foreign intervention, entangling alliances, policing
the world, nation-building, and spreading
our values through force are deeply
flawed?
2005 Ron Paul 6:30
What if it is true that Saddam Hussein never had weapons of mass destruction?
What if it is true that Saddam Hussein
and Osama bin Laden were never
allies?
2005 Ron Paul 6:31
What if it is true that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein did nothing to enhance
our national security?
2005 Ron Paul 6:32
What if our current policy in the Middle East leads to the overthrow of
our client oil states in that region?
2005 Ron Paul 6:33
What if the American people really knew that more than 20,000 American
troops have suffered serious casualties
or died in the Iraq war, and 9 percent of
our forces already have been made incapable
of returning to battle?
2005 Ron Paul 6:34
What if it turns out there are many more guerilla fighters in Iraq than our
government admits?
2005 Ron Paul 6:35
What if there really have been 100,000 civilian Iraqi casualties, as some
claim; and what is an acceptable price
for doing good?
2005 Ron Paul 6:36
What if Secretary Rumsfeld is replaced for the wrong reasons, and
things become worse under a defense
secretary who demands more troops
and an expansion of the war?
2005 Ron Paul 6:37
What if we discover that when they do vote, the overwhelming majority of
Iraqis support Islamic law over Western
secular law and want our troops removed?
2005 Ron Paul 6:38
What if those who correctly warned of the disaster awaiting us in Iraq are
never asked for their opinion of what
should be done now?
2005 Ron Paul 6:39
What if the only solution for Iraq is to divide the country into three separate
regions, recognizing the principle
of self-determination while rejecting
the artificial boundaries created in 1918
by non-Iraqis?
2005 Ron Paul 6:40
What if it turns out radical Muslims do not hate us for our freedoms, but
rather for our policies in the Middle
East that directly affected Arabs and
Muslims?
2005 Ron Paul 6:41
What if the invasion and occupation of Iraq actually distracted from pursuing
and capturing Osama bin Laden?
What if we discover that democracy
cannot be spread with force of arms?
2005 Ron Paul 6:42
What if democracy is deeply flawed and, instead, we should be talking
about liberty, property rights, free
markets, the rule of law, localized government,
weak centralized government,
and self-determination promoted
through persuasion, not force?
2005 Ron Paul 6:43
What if Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda actually welcomed our invasion
and occupation of an Arab-Muslim Iraq
as proof of their accusations against
us, and it served as a magnificent recruiting
tool for them?
2005 Ron Paul 6:44
What if our policy greatly increased and prolonged our vulnerability to
terrorists
and guerilla attacks both at
home and abroad?
2005 Ron Paul 6:45
What if the Pentagon, as reported by its Defense Science Board, actually
recognized the dangers of our policy before
the invasion, and their warnings
were ignored or denied?
2005 Ron Paul 6:46
What if the argument that by fighting over there we will not have to fight
here is wrong, and the opposite is true?
2005 Ron Paul 6:47
What if we can never be safer by giving up some of our freedoms?
2005 Ron Paul 6:48
What if the principle of preemptive war is adopted by Russia, China, Israel,
India, Pakistan, and others, and justified
by current U.S. policy?
2005 Ron Paul 6:49
What if preemptive war and preemptive guilt stem from the same flawed
policy of authoritarianism, though we
fail to recognize it?
2005 Ron Paul 6:50
What if Pakistan is not a trustworthy ally and turns on us when conditions
deteriorate?
2005 Ron Paul 6:51
What if plans are being laid to provoke Syria and/or Iran into actions
that would be used to justify a military
response and preemptive war against
them?
2005 Ron Paul 6:52
What if our policy of democratization of the Middle East fails and ends up
fueling a Russian-Chinese alliance that
we regret; an alliance not achieved
even at the height of the Cold War?
2005 Ron Paul 6:53
What if the policy forbidding profiling at our borders and airports is
deeply flawed?
2005 Ron Paul 6:54
What if presuming the guilt of a suspected terrorist without a trial leads to
the total undermining of constitutional
protections for American citizens
when arrested?
2005 Ron Paul 6:55
What if we discover the Army is too small to continue policies of preemption
and nation-building?
2005 Ron Paul 6:56
What if a military draft is the only way to mobilize enough troops?
2005 Ron Paul 6:57
What if the stop-loss program is actually an egregious violation of trust
and a breach of contract between the
government and soldiers; what if this is
actually a back-door draft, leading to
unbridled cynicism and rebellion
against a voluntary army and generating
support for a draft of both men
and women? Will lying to troops lead
to rebellion and anger toward the political
leaderships running this war?
2005 Ron Paul 6:58
What if the Pentagon’s legal task force opinion that the President is not
bound by international or Federal law
regarding torture stands unchallenged
and sets a precedent which ultimately
harms Americans while totally disregarding
the moral, practical, and
legal arguments against such a policy?
2005 Ron Paul 6:59
What if the intelligence reform legislation which gives us a bigger, more expensive
bureaucracy does not bolster
our security, distracts us from the real
problem of revamping our interventionist
foreign policy?
2005 Ron Paul 6:60
What if we suddenly discover we are the aggressors and we are losing an
unwinnable guerilla war? What if we
discover too late that we cannot afford
this war, and that our policies have led
to a dollar collapse, rampant inflation,
high interest rates, and a severe economic
downturn?
2005 Ron Paul 6:61
Mr. Speaker, why do I believe these are such important questions? Because
the number one function of the Federal
Government is to provide for national
security. And national security has
been severely undermined.
2005 Ron Paul 6:62
On 9/11 we had a grand total of 14 aircraft to protect the entire U.S. mainland,
all of which proved useless that
day. We have an annual DOD budget of
over $400 billion, most of which is spent
overseas in over 100 different countries.
2005 Ron Paul 6:63
Tragically, on 9/11 our Air Force was better positioned to protect Seoul,
Tokyo, Berlin and London than it was
to protect Washington, D.C. and New
York City. Moreover, our ill advised
presence in the Middle East and our
decade-long bombing of Iraq served
only to incite the suicidal attacks of
9/11.
2005 Ron Paul 6:64
Before 9/11 our CIA ineptly pursued bin Laden, whom the Taliban was protecting.
At the same time, the Taliban
was receiving significant support from
Pakistan, our trusted ally that received
millions of dollars from the
United States. We allied ourselves both
with bin Laden and Hussein in the
1980s, only to regret it in the 1990s. And
it is safe to say we have used billions of
U.S. dollars in the last 50 years pursuing
this contradictory, irrational,
foolish, costly and very dangerous foreign
policy.
2005 Ron Paul 6:65
Policing the world, spreading democracy by force, nation-building and frequent
bombing of countries that pose
no threat to us, while leaving the
homeland and our borders unprotected,
result from a foreign policy that is contradictory
and not in our self-interest.
2005 Ron Paul 6:66
I can hardly expect anyone in Washington to pay much attention to my
concerns. But if I am completely wrong
in my criticism, nothing is lost except
my time and energy expended in efforts
to get others to reconsider our foreign
policy.
2005 Ron Paul 6:67
But the bigger question is, what if I am right, or even partially right, and
we urgently need to change course in
our foreign policy for the sake of our
national and economic security, yet no
one pays attention?
2005 Ron Paul 6:68
For that, a price will be paid. Is it not worth talking about?
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 7
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
National ID
26 January 2005
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL).
(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission
to revise and extend his remarks.)
2005 Ron Paul 7:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
2005 Ron Paul 7:2
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. I rise also in support of the Sessions
amendment. But I also would like
to take this time to make a few comments
about why I will be voting
against the bill.
2005 Ron Paul 7:3
With the utmost sincerity and a deep conviction, I am quite confident that
this bill, if you vote for it, you will be
voting for a national ID card. I know
some will argue against that and they
say this is voluntary, but it really cannot
be voluntary. If a State opts out,
nobody is going to accept their driver’s
license. So this is not voluntary.
2005 Ron Paul 7:4
As a matter of fact, even the House Republican Conference, which sent a
statement around with some points
about this bill, said “the Federal Government
should set standards for the
issuance of birth certificates and
sources of identification such as driver’s
licenses.”
2005 Ron Paul 7:5
This is nationalization of all identification. It will be the confirmation of
the notion that we will be carrying our
papers.
2005 Ron Paul 7:6
As a matter of fact, I think it might be worse than just carrying our papers
and showing our papers, because in this
bill there are no limitations as to the
information that may be placed on this
identification card. There are minimum
standards, but no maximum limitations.
2005 Ron Paul 7:7
The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security can add anything it
wants. So if they would like to put on
our driver’s license that you belong to
a pro-gun group, it may well become
mandatory, because there may be an
administration some day that might
like to have that information.
2005 Ron Paul 7:8
But there is no limitation as far as biometrics and there is no limitation
as far as radio frequency identification.
That technology is already available
and being used on our passports. This
means that you do not have to show
your papers. All you have to do is walk
by somebody that has a radio frequency
ability to read your passport or
read your driver’s license. There is no
limitation as to what they can put on
these documents.
2005 Ron Paul 7:9
This bill also allows the definition of “terrorism” to be re-defined. There are
no limitations.
2005 Ron Paul 7:10
In many ways I understand how well intentioned this is, but to me it is sort
of like the gun issue. Conservatives always
know that you do not register
guns, that is just terrible, because the
criminals will not register their guns.
But what are we doing with this bill?
We are registering all the American
people, and your goal is to register the
criminals and the thugs and the terrorists.
2005 Ron Paul 7:11
Well, why does a terrorist need a driver’s license? They can just steal a
car or steal an airplane or steal a bus
or whatever they want to do. So you
are registering all the American people
because you are looking for a terrorist,
and all the terrorist is going to do is
avoid the law. But we all, the American
people, will have to obey the law.
If we do not, we go to prison.
2005 Ron Paul 7:12
So I rise in strong objection to this bill. I hope there will be a few that will
oppose H.R. 418.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 8
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Motion To Adjourn
26 January 2005
2005 Ron Paul 8:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I move that
the House do now adjourn.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 9
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Family Education Freedom Act
26 January 2005
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, January 26, 2005
2005 Ron Paul 9:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Family Education Freedom Act, a bill
to empower millions of working and middle-
class Americans to choose a non-public education
for their children, as well as making it
easier for parents to actively participate in improving
public schools. The Family Education
Freedom Act accomplishes its goals by allowing
American parents a tax credit of up to
$3,000 for the expenses incurred in sending
their child to private, public, parochial, other
religious school, or for home schooling their
children.
2005 Ron Paul 9:2
The Family Education Freedom Act returns the fundamental principle of a truly free economy
to America’s education system: what the
great economist Ludwig von Mises called
“consumer sovereignty.” Consumer sovereignty
simply means consumers decide who
succeeds or fails in the market. Businesses
that best satisfy consumer demand will be the
most successful. Consumer sovereignty is the
means by which the free market maximizes
human happiness.
2005 Ron Paul 9:3
Currently, consumers are less than sovereign in the education “market.” Funding decisions
are increasingly controlled by the
federal
government. Because “he who pays the
piper calls the tune,” public, and even private
schools, are paying greater attention to the
dictates of federal “educrats” while ignoring
the wishes of the parents to an ever greater
degree. As such, the lack of consumer sovereignty
in education is destroying parental
control of education and replacing it with state
control. Loss of control is a key reason why so
many of America’s parents express dissatisfaction
with the educational system.
2005 Ron Paul 9:4
According to a June 2001 poll by McLaughlin and Associates, two-thirds of
Americans believe education tax credits would
have a positive effect on American education.
This poll also found strong support for education
tax credits among liberals, moderates,
conservatives, low-income individuals, and African-
Americans. This is just one of numerous
studies and public opinion polls showing that
Americans want Congress to get the federal
bureaucracy out of the schoolroom and give
parents more control over their children’s education.
2005 Ron Paul 9:5
Today, Congress can fulfill the wishes of the American people for greater control over their
children’s education by simply allowing parents
to keep more of their hard-earned money
to spend on education rather than force them
to send it to Washington to support education
programs reflective only of the values and priorities
of Congress and the federal bureaucracy.
2005 Ron Paul 9:6
The $3,000 tax credit will make a better education affordable for millions of parents.
Mr. Speaker, many parents who would
choose to send their children to private, religious,
or parochial schools are unable to afford
the tuition, in large part because of the
enormous tax burden imposed on the American
family by Washington.
2005 Ron Paul 9:7
The Family Education Freedom Act also benefits parents who choose to send their children
to public schools. Parents of children in
public schools may use this credit to help improve
their local schools by helping finance
the purchase of educational tools such as
computers or to ensure their local schools can
offer enriching extracurricular activities such
as music programs. Parents of public school
students may also wish to use the credit to
pay for special services, such as tutoring, for
their children.
2005 Ron Paul 9:8
Increasing parental control of education is superior to funneling more federal tax dollars,
followed by greater federal control, into the
schools. According to a Manhattan Institute
study of the effects of state policies promoting
parental control over education, a minimal increase
in parental control boosts students’ average
SAT verbal score by 21 points and students’
SAT math score by 22 points! The
Manhattan Institute study also found that increasing
parental control of education is the
best way to improve student performance on
the National Assessment of Education
Progress (NAEP) tests.
2005 Ron Paul 9:9
Clearly, enactment of the Family Education Freedom Act is the best thing this Congress
could do to improve public education. Furthermore,
a greater reliance on parental expenditures
rather than government tax dollars will
help make the public schools into true community
schools that reflect the wishes of parents
and the interests of the students.
2005 Ron Paul 9:10
The Family Education Freedom Act will also aid those parents who choose to educate their
children at home. Home schooling has become
an increasingly popular, and successful,
method of educating children. Home schooled
children out-perform their public school peers
by 30 to 37 percentile points across all subjects
on nationally standardized achievement
exams. Home schooling parents spend thousands
of dollars annually, in addition to the
wages forgone by the spouse who forgoes
outside employment, in order to educate their
children in the loving environment of the
home.
2005 Ron Paul 9:11
Ultimately, Mr. Speaker, this bill is about freedom. Parental control of child rearing, especially
education, is one of the bulwarks of
liberty. No nation can remain free when the
state has greater influence over the knowledge
and values transmitted to children than
the family.
2005 Ron Paul 9:12
By moving to restore the primacy of parents to education, the Family Education Freedom
Act will not only improve America’s education,
it will restore a parent’s right to choose how
best to educate one’s own child, a fundamental
freedom that has been eroded by the
increase in federal education expenditures and
the corresponding decrease in the ability of
parents to provide for their children’s education
out of their own pockets. I call on all my
colleagues to join me in allowing parents to
devote more of their resources to their children’s
education and less to feed the wasteful
Washington bureaucracy by supporting the
Family Education Freedom Act.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 10
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Introduction Of The Liberty Amendment
26 January 2005
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, January 26, 2005
2005 Ron Paul 10:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Liberty Amendment, which repeals
the 16th Amendment, thus paving the way for
real change in the way government collects
and spends the people’s hard-earned money.
The Liberty Amendment also explicitly forbids
the federal government from performing any
action not explicitly authorized by the United
States Constitution.
2005 Ron Paul 10:2
The 16th Amendment gives the federal government a direct claim on the lives of American
citizens by enabling Congress to levy a
direct income tax on individuals. Until the passage
of the 16th amendment, the Supreme
Court had consistently held that Congress had
no power to impose an income tax.
2005 Ron Paul 10:3
Income taxes are responsible for the transformation of the federal government from one
of limited powers into a vast leviathan whose
tentacles reach into almost every aspect of
American life. Thanks to the income tax, today
the federal government routinely invades our
privacy, and penalizes our every endeavor.
2005 Ron Paul 10:4
The Founding Fathers realized that “the power to tax is the power to destroy,” which
is why they did not give the federal government
the power to impose an income tax.
Needless to say, the Founders would be horrified
to know that Americans today give more
than a third of their income to the federal government.
2005 Ron Paul 10:5
Income taxes not only diminish liberty, they retard economic growth by discouraging work
and production. Our current tax system also
forces Americans to waste valuable time and
money on compliance with an ever-more complex
tax code. The increased interest in flat-
tax and national sales tax proposals, as well
as the increasing number of small businesses
that question the Internal Revenue Service’s
(IRS) “withholding” system provides further
proof that America is tired of the labyrinthine
tax code. Americans are also increasingly fed
up with an IRS that continues to ride roughshod
over their civil liberties, despite recent
“pro-taxpayer” reforms.
2005 Ron Paul 10:6
Mr. Speaker, America survived and prospered for 140 years without an income tax,
and with a federal government that generally
adhered to strictly constitutional functions, operating
with modest excise revenues. The income
tax opened the door to the era (and errors)
of Big Government. I hope my colleagues
will help close that door by cosponsoring
the Liberty Amendment.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 11
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Introducing The Make College Affordable Act
26 January 2005
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, January 26, 2005
2005 Ron Paul 11:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Make College Affordable Act of 2005. This
legislation helps millions of Americans afford
college by making college tuition tax deductible.
Today the average cost of education at a
state university is $9,802 per year, and the
cost of education at a private university is
$31,052 per year! These high costs have left
many middle class American families struggling
to afford college for their children, who
are often ineligible for financial aid. Therefore,
middle class students have no choice but to
obtain student loans, and thus leave college
saddled with massive debt.
2005 Ron Paul 11:2
Even families who plan and save well in advance for their children’s education may have
a difficult time because their savings are eroded
by taxation and inflation. The Make College
Affordable Act will help these middle class students
by allowing them, or their parents or
guardians who claim them as dependents, to
deduct the cost of college tuition as well as
the cost of student loan repayments.
2005 Ron Paul 11:3
The Make College Affordable Act will also help older or nontraditional students looking to
improve their job skills or prepare for a career
change, by pursuing higher education. In today’s
economy, the average American worker
can expect to change jobs, and even careers,
several times during his or her working life,
making it more important than ever that working
Americans be able to devote their resources
to continuing their educations.
2005 Ron Paul 11:4
Helping the American people use their own money to ensure every qualified American can
receive a college education is one of the best
investments this Congress can make in the future.
I therefore urge my colleagues to help
strengthen America by ensuring more Americans
can obtain college educations by cosponsoring
the Make College Affordable Act.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 12
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Introducing The Hope Plus Scholarship Act
26 January 2005
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, January 26, 2005
2005 Ron Paul 12:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Hope Plus Scholarship Act, which expands
the Hope Education Scholarship credit to
cover K–12 education expenses. Under this
bill, parents could use the Hope Scholarship to
pay for private or religious school tuition or to
offset the cost of home schooling. In addition,
under the bill, all Americans could use the
Hope Scholarship to make cash or in-kind donations
to public schools. Thus, the Hope
Scholarship could help working parents send
their child to a private school, while other patents
could take advantage of the Hope credit
to help purchase new computers for their children’s
local public school.
2005 Ron Paul 12:2
Reducing taxes so that Americans can devote more of their own resources to education
is the best way to improve America’s schools,
since individuals are more likely than federal
bureaucrats to insist that schools be accountable
for student performance. When the federal
government controls the education dollar,
schools will be held accountable for their compliance
with bureaucratic paperwork requirements
and mandates that have little to do with
actual education. Federal rules and regulations
also divert valuable resources — away
from classroom instruction.
2005 Ron Paul 12:3
The only way to reform America’s education system is through restoring control of the education
dollar to the American people so they
can ensure schools provide their children a
quality education. I therefore ask all of my colleagues
to help improve education by returning
education resources to the American people
by cosponsoring the Hope Plus Scholarship
Act.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 13
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Introduction Of The Teacher Tax Cut And The Professional Educators Tax relief Act
26 January 2005
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, January 26, 2005
2005 Ron Paul 13:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce two pieces of legislation that raise the
pay of teachers and other educators by cutting
their taxes. I am sure that all my colleagues
agree that it is long past time to begin treating
those who have dedicated their lives to educating
America’s children with the respect they
deserve. Compared to other professionals,
educators are underappreciated and under-
paid. This must change if America is to have
the finest education system in the world.
2005 Ron Paul 13:2
Quality education is impossible without quality teaching. If we continue to undervalue educators,
it will become harder to attract, and
keep, good people in the education profession.
While educators’ pay is primarily a local
issue, Congress can, and should, help raise
educators’ take-home pay by reducing educators’
taxes.
2005 Ron Paul 13:3
This is why I am introducing the Teachers Tax Cut Act. This legislation provides every
teacher in America with a $1,000 tax credit. I
am also introducing the Professional Educators
Tax Relief Act, which extends the
$1,000 tax credit to counselors, librarians, and
all school personnel involved in any aspect of
the K–12 academic program.
2005 Ron Paul 13:4
The Teacher Tax Cut Act and the Professional Educators Tax Relief Act increase the
salaries of teachers and other education professionals
without raising federal expenditures.
By raising the take-home pay of professional
educators, these bills encourage highly qualified
people to enter, and remain in, education.
These bills also let America’s professional
educators know that the American people and
the Congress respect their work.
2005 Ron Paul 13:5
I hope all my colleagues join me in supporting our nation’s teachers and other professional
educators by cosponsoring the Teacher
Tax Cut Act and the Professional Educators
Tax Relief Act.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 14
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Introduction Of The Education Improvement Tax Cut Act
26 January 2005
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, January 26, 2005
2005 Ron Paul 14:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Education Improvement Tax Cut Act. This
act, a companion to my Family Education
Freedom Act, takes a further step toward returning
control over education resources to private
citizens by providing a $3,000 tax credit
for donations to scholarship funds to enable
low-income children to attend private schools.
It also encourages private citizens to devote
more of their resources to helping public
schools, by providing a $3,000 tax credit for
cash or in-kind donations to public schools to
support academic or extra curricular programs.
2005 Ron Paul 14:2
I need not remind my colleagues that education is one of the top priorities of the American
people. After all, many members of Congress
have proposed education reforms and a
great deal of time is spent debating these proposals.
However, most of these proposals either
expand federal control over education or
engage in the pseudo-federalism of block
grants. Many proposals that claim to increase
local control over education actually extend
federal power by holding schools “accountable”
to federal bureaucrats and politicians. Of
course, schools should be held accountable
for their results, but they should be held accountable
to parents and school boards not to
federal officials. Therefore, I propose we move
in a different direction and embrace true federalism
by returning control over the education
dollar to the American people.
2005 Ron Paul 14:3
One of the major problems with centralized control over education funding is that spending
priorities set by Washington-based Representatives,
staffers, and bureaucrats do not necessarily
match the needs of individual communities.
In fact, it would be a miracle if spending
priorities determined by the wishes of certain
politically powerful representatives or the theories
of Education Department functionaries
match the priorities of every community in a
country as large and diverse as America.
Block grants do not solve this problem as they
simply allow states and localities to choose
the means to reach federally-determined ends.
2005 Ron Paul 14:4
Returning control over the education dollar for tax credits for parents and for other concerned
citizens returns control over both the
means and ends of education policy to local
communities. People in one community may
use this credit to purchase computers, while
children in another community may, at last,
have access to a quality music program because
of community leaders who took advantage
of the tax credit contained in this bill.
2005 Ron Paul 14:5
Children in some communities may benefit most from the opportunity to attend private,
parochial, or other religious schools. One of
the most encouraging trends in education has
been the establishment of private scholarship
programs. These scholarship funds use voluntary
contributions to open the doors of quality
private schools to low-income children. By
providing a tax credit for donations to these
programs, Congress can widen the educational
opportunities and increase the quality
of education for all children. Furthermore, privately-
funded scholarships raise none of the
concerns of state entanglement raised by publicly-
funded vouchers.
2005 Ron Paul 14:6
There is no doubt that Americans will always spend generously on education, the
question is, “who should control the education
dollar — politicians and bureaucrats or the
American people?” Mr. Speaker, I urge my
colleagues to join me in placing control of education
back in the hands of citizens and local
communities by sponsoring the Education Improvement
Tax Cut Act.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 15
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Seniors’ Health Care Freedom Act
2 February 2005
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, February 2, 2005
2005 Ron Paul 15:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Seniors’ Health Care Freedom Act. This
act protects seniors’ fundamental right to
make their own health care decisions by repealing
federal laws that interfere with seniors’
ability to form private contracts for medical
services. This bill also repeals laws which
force seniors into the Medicare program
against their will. When Medicare was first established,
seniors were promised that the program
would be voluntary. In fact, the original
Medicare legislation explicitly protected a senior’s
right to seek out other forms of medical
insurance. However, the Balanced Budget Act
of 1997 prohibits any physician who forms a
private contract with a senior from filing any
Medicare reimbursement claims for two years.
As a practical matter, this means that seniors
cannot form private contracts for health care
services.
2005 Ron Paul 15:2
Seniors may wish to use their own resources to pay for procedures or treatments
not covered by Medicare, or to simply avoid
the bureaucracy and uncertainty that comes
when seniors must wait for the judgment of a
Center from Medicare and Medicaid Services
(CMS) bureaucrat before finding out if a desired
treatment is covered.
2005 Ron Paul 15:3
Seniors’ right to control their own health care is also being denied due to the Social
Security Administration’s refusal to give seniors
who object to enrolling for Medicare Part
A Social Security benefits. This not only distorts
the intent of the creators of the Medicare
system; it also violates the promise represented
by Social Security. Americans pay
taxes into the Social Security Trust Fund their
whole working lives and are promised that Social
Security will be there for them when they
retire. Yet, today, seniors are told that they
cannot receive these benefits unless they
agree to join an additional government program!
2005 Ron Paul 15:4
At a time when the fiscal solvency of Medicare is questionable, to say the least, it seems
foolish to waste scarce Medicare funds on
those who would prefer to do without Medicare.
Allowing seniors who neither want nor
need to participate in the program to refrain
from doing so will also strengthen the Medicare
program for those seniors who do wish to
participate in it. Of course, my bill does not
take away Medicare benefits from any senior.
It simply allows each senior to choose voluntarily
whether or not to accept Medicare benefits
or to use his own resources to obtain
health care.
2005 Ron Paul 15:5
Forcing seniors into government programs and restricting their ability to seek medical
care free from government interference infringes
on the freedom of seniors to control
their own resources and make their own
health care decisions. A woman who was
forced into Medicare against her wishes
summed it up best in a letter to my office,
“. . . I should be able to choose the medical
arrangements I prefer without suffering the
penalty that is being imposed.” I urge my colleagues
to protect the right of seniors to make
the medical arrangements that best suit their
own needs by cosponsoring the Seniors’
Health Care Freedom Act.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 16
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Harmful And Counterproductive United States Embargo On Cuba
2 February 2005
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, February 2, 2005
2005 Ron Paul 16:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise again this Congress to introduce a bill to lift the harmful
and counterproductive United States Embargo
on Cuba.
2005 Ron Paul 16:2
On June 29, 2001, the Texas State legislature adopted a resolution calling for an end to
U.S. economic sanctions against Cuba. Lawmakers
emphasized the failure of sanctions to
remove Castro from power, and the unwillingness
of other nations to respect the embargo.
One Texas Representative stated: “We have a
lot of rice and agricultural products, as well as
high-tech products, that would be much
cheaper for Cuba to purchase from Texas. All
that could come through the ports of Houston
and Corpus Christi.” I wholeheartedly support
this resolution, and I have introduced similar
Federal legislation in past years to lift all trade,
travel, and telecommunications restrictions
with Cuba. I only wish Congress understood
the simple wisdom expressed in Austin; so
that we could end the harmful and ineffective
trade sanctions that serve no national purpose.
2005 Ron Paul 16:3
I oppose economic sanctions for two very simple reasons. First, they don’t work as effective
foreign policy. Time after time, we have
failed to unseat despotic leaders by refusing to
trade with the people of those nations. If anything,
the anti-American sentiment aroused by
sanctions often strengthens the popularity of
such leaders, who use America as a convenient
scapegoat to divert attention from their
own tyranny. So while sanctions may serve
our patriotic fervor, they mostly harm innocent
citizens and do nothing to displace the governments
we claim as enemies.
2005 Ron Paul 16:4
Second, sanctions hurt American industries, particularly agriculture. Sanctions destroy
American jobs. Every market we close to our
Nation’s farmers is a market exploited by foreign
farmers. China, Russia, the Middle East,
North Korea, and Cuba all represent huge
markets for our farm products, yet many in
Congress favor current or proposed trade restrictions
that prevent our farmers from selling
to the billions of people in these countries.
Given our status as one of the world’s largest
agricultural producers, why would we ever
choose to restrict our exports? The only beneficiaries
of our sanctions policies are our foreign
competitors.
2005 Ron Paul 16:5
I certainly understand the emotional feelings many Americans have toward nations such as
Cuba. Yet we must not let our emotions overwhelm
our judgment in foreign policy matters,
because ultimately human lives are at stake.
Economic common sense, self-interested foreign
policy goals, and humanitarian ideals all
point to the same conclusion: Congress
should work to end economic sanctions
against all nations immediately.
2005 Ron Paul 16:6
The legislation I introduce today is representative of true free trade in that while it
opens trade, it prohibits the U.S. Taxpayer
from being compelled to subsidize the United
States government, the Cuban government or
individuals or entities that choose to trade with
Cuban citizens.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 17
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Ayn Rand’s Birthday
2 February 2005
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, February 2, 2005
2005 Ron Paul 17:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today, on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the birth of
Ayn Rand, these comments. Ayn Rand has
long inspired advocates of personal liberty and
economic freedom. These ideals of individual
responsibility and limited constitutional government
are urgently needed in our Nation today.
2005 Ron Paul 17:2
AYN RAND CENTENARY CELEBRATION
(By Don Ernsberger)
February 2nd marks the 100th Anniversary
of the birth of philosopher and novelist Ayn
Rand. The Russian born author of Atlas
Shrugged, Fountainhead and a number of
nonfiction works in economics and ethics became,
in the twentieth century, a major influence
on the intellectual culture of the
United States. Her most famous work, Atlas
Shrugged remains ranked by the Library of
Congress Center for the Book as the second
most influential books ever published.
2005 Ron Paul 17:3
Ayn Rand was a champion of capitalism and of individual liberty. She had experienced
the impact of communism in her native
Russia and was an outspoken opponent
of both communism and of socialism. She advocated
personal responsibility and an objective
code of moral behavior. Ayn Rand’s fictional
and non-fictional works promoted the
ideal of the self-reliant individual who values
reason, production and self-esteem in
their personal lives and rejects the enslavement
of others to advance one’s own personal
goals. A proud immigrant, who chose
America, she perceptively grasped the nature
of our Constitution: “The [U.S.] Constitution
is a limitation on the government, not on
private individuals . . . it does not prescribe
the conduct of private individuals, only the
conduct of government . . . it is not a charter
for government power, but a charter of
the citizen’s protection against the government.”
2005 Ron Paul 17:4
Today, February 2, 2005, we celebrate the birth of this influential philosopher and writer
who inspired and continues to inspire so many
individuals to live rationally, and respect the
rights of others. So much of what has made
American a great society is found in her
writings.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 18
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Introduction Of The Prescription Drug Affordability Act
2 February 2005
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, February 2, 2005
2005 Ron Paul 18:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Prescription Drug Affordability Act. This
legislation ensures that millions of Americans,
including seniors, have access to affordable
pharmaceutical products. My bill makes pharmaceuticals
more affordable to seniors by reducing
their taxes. It also removes needless
government barriers to importing pharmaceuticals
and it protects Internet pharmacies,
which are making affordable prescription drugs
available to millions of Americans, from being
strangled by Federal regulation.
2005 Ron Paul 18:2
The first provision of my legislation provides seniors a tax credit equal to 80 percent of
their prescription drug costs. While Congress
did add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare
in the last Congress, many seniors still have
difficulty affording the prescription drugs they
need in order to maintain an active and
healthy lifestyle. One reason is because the
new program creates a “doughnut hole,”
where seniors lose coverage once their prescription
expenses reach a certain amount
and must pay for their prescriptions above a
certain amount out of their own pockets until
their expenses reach a level where Medicare
coverage resumes. This tax credit will help
seniors cover the expenses provided by the
doughnut hole. This bill will also help seniors
obtain prescription medicines that may not be
covered by the new Medicare prescription
drug program.
2005 Ron Paul 18:3
In addition to making prescription medications more affordable for seniors, my bill lowers
the price for prescription medicines by reducing
barriers to the importation of
FDA-approved
pharmaceuticals. Under my bill, anyone
wishing to import a drug simply submits
an application to the FDA, which then must
approve the drug unless the FDA finds the
drug is either not approved for use in the
United States or is adulterated or misbranded.
This process will make safe and affordable imported
medicines affordable to millions of
Americans. Mr. Speaker, letting the free market
work is the best means of lowering the
cost of prescription drugs.
2005 Ron Paul 18:4
I need not remind my colleagues that many senior citizens and other Americans impacted
by the high costs of prescription medicine
have demanded Congress reduce the barriers
which prevent American consumers from purchasing
imported pharmaceuticals. Congress
has responded to these demands by repeatedly
passing legislation liberalizing the rules
governing the importation of pharmaceuticals.
However, implementation of this provision has
been blocked by the Federal bureaucracy. It is
time Congress stood up for the American consumer
and removed all unnecessary regulations
on importing pharmaceuticals.
2005 Ron Paul 18:5
The Prescription Drug Affordability Act also protects consumers’ access to affordable medicine
by forbidding the Federal Government
from regulating any Internet sales of FDA-approved
pharmaceuticals by State-licensed
pharmacists.
2005 Ron Paul 18:6
As I am sure my colleagues are aware, the Internet makes pharmaceuticals and other
products more affordable and accessible for
millions of Americans. However, the Federal
Government has threatened to destroy this option
by imposing unnecessary and unconstitutional
regulations on web sites that sell pharmaceuticals.
Any Federal regulations would inevitably
drive up prices of pharmaceuticals,
thus depriving many consumers of access to
affordable prescription medications.
2005 Ron Paul 18:7
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to make pharmaceuticals more affordable
and accessible by lowering taxes on senior
citizens, removing barriers to the importation
of pharmaceuticals and protecting legitimate
Internet pharmacies from needless regulation
by cosponsoring the Prescription Drug
Affordability Act.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 19
Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
February 9, 2005
HR 418- A National ID Bill Masquerading as Immigration Reform
2005 Ron Paul 19:1
Mr. Speaker:
I rise in strong opposition to
HR 418,
the REAL ID Act. This bill purports to make us safer from terrorists
who may
sneak into the United States, and from other illegal immigrants. While
I agree
that these issues are of vital importance, this bill will do very
little to make
us more secure. It will not address our real vulnerabilities. It will,
however,
make us much less free. In reality, this bill is a Trojan horse. It
pretends to
offer desperately needed border control in order to stampede Americans
into
sacrificing what is uniquely American: our constitutionally protected
liberty.
2005 Ron Paul 19:2
What is wrong with this bill?
2005 Ron Paul 19:3
The REAL ID Act establishes a
national
ID card by mandating that states include certain minimum identification
standards on driver’s licenses. It contains no limits on the
government’s
power to impose additional standards. Indeed, it gives authority to the
Secretary of Homeland Security to unilaterally add requirements as he
sees fit.
2005 Ron Paul 19:4
Supporters claim it is not a
national
ID because it is voluntary. However, any state that opts out will
automatically
make non-persons out of its citizens. The citizens of that state will
be unable
to have any dealings with the federal government because their ID will
not be
accepted. They will not be able to fly or to take a train. In essence,
in the
eyes of the federal government they will cease to exist. It is absurd
to call
this voluntary.
2005 Ron Paul 19:5
Republican Party talking
points on this
bill, which claim that this is not a national ID card, nevertheless
endorse the
idea that “the federal government should set standards for the issuance
of
birth certificates and sources of identification such as driver’s
licenses.”
So they admit that they want a national ID but at the same time pretend
that
this is not a national ID.
2005 Ron Paul 19:6
This bill establishes a
massive,
centrally-coordinated database of highly personal information about
American
citizens: at a minimum their name, date of birth, place of residence,
Social
Security number, and physical and possibly other characteristics. What
is even
more disturbing is that, by mandating that states participate in the
“Drivers
License Agreement,” this bill creates a massive database of sensitive
information on American citizens that will be shared with Canada and
Mexico!
2005 Ron Paul 19:7
This bill could have a
chilling effect
on the exercise of our constitutionally guaranteed rights. It
re-defines
“terrorism” in broad new terms that could well include members of
firearms rights and anti-abortion groups, or other such groups as
determined by
whoever is in power at the time. There are no prohibitions against
including
such information in the database as information about a person’s
exercise of
First Amendment rights or about a person’s appearance on a registry of
firearms owners.
2005 Ron Paul 19:8
This legislation gives
authority to the
Secretary of Homeland Security to expand required information on
driver’s
licenses, potentially including such biometric information as retina
scans,
finger prints, DNA information, and even Radio Frequency Identification
(RFID)
radio tracking technology. Including such technology as RFID would mean
that the
federal government, as well as the governments of Canada and Mexico,
would know
where Americans are at all time of the day and night.
2005 Ron Paul 19:9
There are no limits on what
happens to
the database of sensitive information on Americans once it leaves the
United
States for Canada and Mexico - or perhaps other countries. Who is to
stop a
corrupt foreign government official from selling or giving this
information to
human traffickers or even terrorists? Will this uncertainty make us
feel safer?
2005 Ron Paul 19:10
What will all of this mean for
us? When
this new program is implemented, every time we are required to show our
driver’s
license we will, in fact, be showing a national identification card. We
will be
handing over a card that includes our personal and likely biometric
information,
information which is connected to a national and international database.
2005 Ron Paul 19:11
H.R. 418 does nothing to solve
the
growing threat to national security posed by people who are already in
the U.S.
illegally. Instead, H.R. 418 states what we already know: that certain
people
here illegally are “deportable.” But it does nothing to mandate
deportation.
2005 Ron Paul 19:12
Although Congress funded an
additional
2,000 border guards last year, the administration has announced that it
will
only ask for an additional 210 guards. Why are we not pursuing these
avenues as
a way of safeguarding our country? Why are we punishing Americans by
taking away
their freedoms instead of making life more difficult for those who
would enter
our country illegally?
2005 Ron Paul 19:13
H.R. 418 does what legislation
restricting firearm ownership does. It punishes law-abiding citizens.
Criminals
will ignore it. H.R. 418 offers us a false sense of greater security at
the cost
of taking a gigantic step toward making America a police state.
2005 Ron Paul 19:14
I urge my colleagues to vote
“NO”
on the REAL ID Act of 2005.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 20
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Sense Of The Congress Resolution That The United States Should Not Ratify The Law Of The Sea Treaty
10 February 2005
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, February 10, 2005
2005 Ron Paul 20:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce a Resolution expressing the Sense of the
Congress that the United States should not
ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty (“LOST”).
2005 Ron Paul 20:2
The Law of the Sea Treaty was conceived in the early 1970s by the “New International
Economic Order,” a United Nations political
movement designed to transfer wealth and
technology from the industrial nations to communist
and undeveloped nations. President
Ronald Reagan recognized the threat this
treaty would pose to America’s sovereignty
and economic interests and rightly rejected the
Treaty in 1982.
2005 Ron Paul 20:3
Treaty proponents acted again in the 1990s, offering a separate “Agreement” that purported
to amend the Treaty. This “corrected
treaty” was also deemed unacceptable by the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1994.
Now we are once again facing a terribly
flawed treaty that will hand over more of our
sovereignty to a corrupt United Nations — just
at a time when the extent of the United Nations’
corruption is becoming more evident
through the oil for food scandal in Iraq.
2005 Ron Paul 20:4
What is specifically wrong with the Law of the Sea Treaty?
2005 Ron Paul 20:5
The Law of the Sea Treaty will deem the oceans of the Earth as the “Common Heritage
of Mankind.” The Treaty dictates that oceanic
resources should be shared among all mankind.
The effect of this will be U.N. control
over the world’s seabeds — a full 70 percent of
the earth’s surface.
2005 Ron Paul 20:6
The Law of the Sea Treaty will also create, for the first time in history, an international
body with the authority to collect taxes from
American citizens. It is truly a U.N. global tax.
This will come about as a fee on private enterprise
and nation states from seabed mining,
offshore oil platforms, and other raw material
recovery activities. These fees will first be paid
by the governments of the signatory states,
which will then have the burden of collecting
the monies back from the private enterprises
engaged in seabed mining activities.
2005 Ron Paul 20:7
This treaty will create a Law of the Sea Tribunal, which will claim — and already has
claimed — jurisdiction over the onshore as well
as within the territorial sea or economic zones
of coastal nations. This U.N. Tribunal could
very well rule in a manner contrary to U.S.
military, counterterrorism, and commercial interests.
2005 Ron Paul 20:8
Mr. Speaker, the Law of the Sea Treaty is a perfect example of “taxation without representation”
that our Founding Fathers rebelled
against. We should under no circumstances
surrender one bit of American
sovereignty or treasure to the United Nations
or any other global body. I hope my colleagues
will join me by co-sponsoring this
Sense of the Congress legislation and defeating
this destructive treaty.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 21
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Introducing The Sanity Of Life Act And The Taxpayer Freedom Of Conscience Act
10 February 2005
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, February 10, 2005
2005 Ron Paul 21:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce two bills relating to abortion. These bills
stop the federal government from promoting
abortion. My bills accomplish this goal by prohibiting
federal funds from being used for population
control or “family planning” through exercising
Congress’s constitutional power to restrict
federal court’s jurisdiction by restoring
each state’s authority to protect unborn life.
2005 Ron Paul 21:2
Abortion on demand is no doubt the most serious sociopolitical problem of our age. The
lack of respect for life that permits abortion
significantly contributes to our violent culture
and our careless attitude toward liberty.
Whether a civilized society treats human life
with dignity or contempt determines the outcome
of that civilization. Reaffirming the importance
of the sanctity of life is crucial for the
continuation of a civilized society. There is already
strong evidence that we are on the slippery
slope toward euthanasia and non-consensual
human experimentation. Although the
real problem lies within people’ hearts and
minds, the legal problems of protecting life
stem from the ill-advised Roe v. Wade ruling,
where the court usurped the state’s authority
over abortion.
2005 Ron Paul 21:3
One of the bills I am introducing today, the Sanctity of Life Act of 2005, reverses some of
the damage done by Roe v. Wade. The Sanctity
of Life Act provides that the federal courts
of the United States, up to and including the
Supreme Court, do not have jurisdiction to
hear abortion-related cases. Congress must
use the authority granted to it in Article 3, Section
1 of the Constitution to rein in rogue federal
judges from interfering with a state’s ability
to protect unborn life.
2005 Ron Paul 21:4
In addition to restricting federal court jurisdiction over abortion, Congress must stop the
unconstitutional practice of forcing Americans
to subsidize abortion providers. It is not
enough to say that “family planning” groups
may not use federal funds to perform or promote
abortion. After all, since money is fungible,
federal funding of any activities of these
organizations forces taxpayers to underwrite
the organizations abortion activities. This is
why I am also introducing the Taxpayer Freedom
of Conscience Act. The Taxpayer Freedom
of Conscience Act prohibits any federal
official from expending any federal funds for
any population control or population planning
program or any family planning activity. To
paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, it is “sinful and
tyrannical” to force the American taxpayers to
subsidize programs and practices they find
morally abhorrent.
2005 Ron Paul 21:5
Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that my colleagues will join me in support of these two
bills. By following the Constitution and using
the power granted to the Congress by the
Constitution, we can restore respect for freedom
of conscience and the sanctity of human
life.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 22
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Regulating The Airwaves
16 February 2005
2005 Ron Paul 22:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, 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 lewd, 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.
2005 Ron Paul 22:2
The First Amendment says, “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of
speech. . . .” It does not make an expectation
for broadcast television. Some argue that
broadcast speech is different because broadcasters
are using the “people’s airwaves.” Of
course, the people do not really control the
airwaves any more than 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.
2005 Ron Paul 22:3
Furthermore, there was no economic justification for Congress determining who is, and
is not, allowed to access the broadcast spectrum.
Instead of nationalizing the spectrum,
the Federal Government should have allowed
private parties to homestead parts of the
broadcast spectrum and settle disputes over
ownership and use through market processes,
contracts, and, if necessary, application of the
common law of contracts and torts. Such a
market-based solution would have provided a
more efficient allocation of the broadcast spectrum
than has government regulation.
2005 Ron Paul 22:4
Congress used its unconstitutional and unjustified power-grab over the allocation of
broadcast spectrum to justify imposing Federal
regulations on broadcasters. Thus, the Federal
Government used one unconstitutional action
to justify another seizing of regulatory control
over the content of a means of communication
in direct violation of the first amendment.
2005 Ron Paul 22:5
Congress should reject H.R. 310, 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.
310 expands an unconstitutional exercise of
Federal power. H.R. 310 also establishes new
frontiers in censorship by levying fines on individual
artists for violating FCC regulations.
2005 Ron Paul 22:6
Congress should also reject H.R. 310 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. 310 also hold
views that would likely be classified as “indecent
hate speech.”
2005 Ron Paul 22:7
The new FCC powers contained in H.R. 310 could even be used to censor religious
speech. Last year, a group filed a petition with
the United States Department of Justice asking
the agency to use Federal hate crimes
laws against the directors, producers, and
screenwriters of the popular movie, “The Passion
of the Christ.” Can anyone doubt that, if
H.R. 310 passes, any broadcaster who dares
show “The Passion” or similar material will
risk facing indecency charges? Our founders
recognized the interdependence of free
speech and religious liberty; this is why they
are protected together in the first amendment.
The more the Federal Government restricts
free speech, the more our religious liberties
are endangered.
2005 Ron Paul 22:8
The reason we are considering H.R. 310 is not unrelated to questions regarding state censorship
of political speech. Many of this bill’s
supporters are motivated by the attacks on a
Member of Congress, and other statements
critical of the current administration and violating
the standards of political correctness, by
“shock jock” Howard Stern. I have heard descriptions
of Stern’s radio program that suggest
this is a despicable program. However, I
find even more troubling the idea that the Federal
Government should censor anyone because
of his comments about a Member of
Congress. Such behavior is more suited for
members of a Soviet politburo than members
of a representative body in a constitutional republic.
2005 Ron Paul 22:9
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:
2005 Ron Paul 22:10
If the government is going to “censor”
what they think is right and wrong. . . . what
happens if a whole bunch of John Kerrys . .
. start running this country. And decide conservative
views are leading to violence?
2005 Ron Paul 22:11
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.
2005 Ron Paul 22:12
Mr. Speaker, I am also concerned that the new powers H.R. 310 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 “Desperate Housewives” 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.
2005 Ron Paul 22:13
H.R. 310 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 last year’s Super Bowl.
Shortly before the 2004 Super Bowl, 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.
2005 Ron Paul 22:14
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.
2005 Ron Paul 22:15
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 310 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.
2005 Ron Paul 22:16
Even the proponents of the commercial speech doctrine agreed that the Federal Government
should never restrict political speech.
Yet, this Congress, this administration, and
this Supreme Court have restricted political
speech with the campaign finance reform law.
Meanwhile, the Department of Justice has indicated
it will use the war against terrorism to
monitor critics of the administration’s foreign
policy, thus chilling anti-war political speech.
Of course, on many college campuses students
have to watch what they say lest they
run afoul of the rules of “political correctness.”
Even telling a “politically incorrect” joke can
bring a student up on charges before the
thought police. Now, self-proclaimed opponents
of political correctness want to use Federal
power to punish colleges that allow the
expression of views they consider “unpatriotic”
and/or punish colleges when the composition
of the facility does not meet their definition of
diversity.
2005 Ron Paul 22:17
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.
2005 Ron Paul 22:18
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, because H.R. 310 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.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 23
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Introduction Of The Social Security For American Citizens Only Act
16 February 2005
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
2005 Ron Paul 23:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the Social Security for American Citizens Only
Act. This act forbids the federal government
from providing Social Security benefits to noncitizens.
It also ends the practice of totalization.
Totalization is where the Social Security
Administration takes into account the number
of years an individual worked abroad, and
thus was not paying payroll taxes, in determining
that individual’s eligibility for Social Security
benefits.
2005 Ron Paul 23:2
Hard as it may be to believe, the United States Government already provides Social
Security benefits to citizens of 17 other countries.
Under current law, citizens of those
countries covered by these agreements may
have an easier time getting Social Security
benefits than public school teachers or policemen.
2005 Ron Paul 23:3
Obviously, this program provides a threat to the already fragile Social Security system, and
the threat is looming larger. A little-noticed
part of the administration’s immigration “reform”
proposal would make hundreds of thousands
of Mexican citizens eligible for U.S. Social
Security benefits. Totalization is the centerpiece
of this proposal, so even if a Mexican
citizen did not work in the United States long
enough to qualify for Social Security, the number
of years worked in Mexico would be
added to bring up the total and thus make the
Mexican worker eligible for cash transfers from
the United States.
2005 Ron Paul 23:4
Mr. Speaker, press reports also indicate that thousands of foreigners who would qualify for
U.S. Social Security benefits actually came to
the United States and worked here illegally.
That’s right: the federal government may actually
actually
allow someone who came to the United
States illegally, worked less than the required
number of years to qualify for Social Security,
and then returned to Mexico for the rest of his
working years, to collect full U.S. Social Security
benefits while living in Mexico. That is an
insult to the millions of Americans who pay
their entire working lives into the system and
now face the possibility that there may be
nothing left when it is their turn to retire.
2005 Ron Paul 23:5
The proposed agreement is nothing more than a financial reward to those who have willingly
and knowingly violated our own immigration
laws. Talk about an incentive for illegal
immigration. How many more would break the
law to come to this country if promised U.S.
government paychecks for life? Is creating a
global welfare state on the back of the American
taxpayer a good idea? The program also
establishes a very disturbing precedent of U.S.
foreign aid to individual citizens rather than to
states.
2005 Ron Paul 23:6
Estimates of what this latest totalization proposal would cost top $1 billion per year. Supporters
of the Social Security to Mexico deal
may attempt to downplay the effect the agreement
would have on the system, but actions
speak louder than words: According to several
press reports, the State Department and the
Social Security Administration are planning to
enact a new building in Mexico City to handle
the expected rush of applicants for this new
program. As the system braces for a steep increase
in those who will be drawing from the
Social Security trust fund while policy makers
seriously consider cutting Social Security benefits
to American seniors and raising payroll
taxes on American workers, it makes no
sense to expand Social Security into a global
welfare system. Social Security was designed
to provide support for retired American citizens
who worked in the United States. We should
be shoring up the system for those Americans
who have paid in for decades, not expanding
it to cover foreigners who have not.
2005 Ron Paul 23:7
It is long past time for Congress to stand up to the internationalist bureaucrats and start
looking out for the American worker. I therefore
call upon my colleagues to stop the use
of the Social Security Trust Fund as yet another
vehicle for foreign aid by cosponsoring
the Social Security for American Citizens Only
Act.
2005 Ron Paul 23:8
Original Cosponsors of the Social Security for American Citizens Only Act: ROSCOE BARTLETT
(MD–06), JOHN DUNCAN (TN–02), SCOTT
GARRETT (NJ–05), VIRGIL GOODE (VA–03),
THADDEUS MCCOTTER (MI–11), ZACH WAMP
(TN–03).
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 24
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Honoring The Life And Legacy Of Former Lebanese Prome Minister Rafik Hariri
16 February 2005
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
2005 Ron Paul 24:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in expressing condolences to the family
of Mr. Hariri, the families of others killed in
the attack that took Mr. Hariri’s life, and the
people of Lebanon. While I support this legislation
expressing sorrow over the murders, I
do have some concerns that H. Res. 91 is
being waved as a red flag to call for more
U.S. intervention in the Middle East.
2005 Ron Paul 24:2
It is unfortunate that tragic occurrences like these are all too often used by those who wish
to push a particular foreign policy. We don’t
really know who killed Mr. Hariri. Maybe an
agent of the Syrian government killed him.
Then again any of several other governments
or groups in the Middle East or even beyond
could be responsible. But already we are
hearing from those who want to use this murder
to justify tightening sanctions against
Syria, forcing Syrian troops to leave Lebanon
immediately, or even imposing U.S. military
intervention against Syria. Just yesterday we
heard that the U.S. ambassador to Syria has
been withdrawn.
2005 Ron Paul 24:3
The problem is that these calls for U.S. intervention ignore the complexities of Lebanon’s
tragic recent history, and its slow return
from the chaos of the civil war — a revival in
which Mr. Hariri played a praiseworthy role.
We should remember, however, that it was the
Lebanese government itself that requested assistance
from Syria in 1976, to help keep
order in the face of a civil war where Maronite
Christians battled against Sunnis and Druze.
This civil war dragged on until a peace treaty
was agreed to in 1989. The peace was maintained
by the Syrian presence in Lebanon. So,
while foreign occupation of any country
against that country’s will is to be condemned,
it is not entirely clear that this is the case with
Syrian involvement in Lebanon. Hariri himself
was not a supporter of immediate Syrian withdrawal
from Lebanon. What most won’t say
here is that Syria has indeed been slowly withdrawing
forces from Lebanon. Who is to say
that this is not the best approach to avoid a
return to civil war? Yet, many are convinced
that we must immediately blame Syria for this
attack and we must “do something” to avenge
something that has nothing whatsoever to do
with the United States.
2005 Ron Paul 24:4
So, while I do wish to express my sympathy over the tragic death of Rafik Hariri, I hope
that my colleagues would refrain from using
this tragedy to push policies of more U.S.
interventionism in the Middle East.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 25
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Introducing Bill To Prohibit Any Remittance Of U.S. Voluntary And Assessed Contributions To The United Nations If The United Nations Imposes Any Tax Or Fee On Any United States Person Or Continues To Develop Or Promote Proposals For Such A Tax Or Fee
1 March 2005
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, March 1, 2005
2005 Ron Paul 25:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a bill to prohibit any remittance of U.S.
voluntary and assessed contributions to the
United Nations if the United Nations imposes
any tax or fee on any United States person or
continues to develop or promote proposals for
such a tax or fee.
2005 Ron Paul 25:2
The United Nations has for decades been looking for a way to develop and promote a
system of direct taxation on American citizens.
It is bad enough that the United States has
wasted more than $30 billion thus far on this
corrupt and inept organization. U.N. bureaucrats
want to find a way to put their hands directly
in the taxpayer’s pocket and do away
with the U.S. Government middle man.
2005 Ron Paul 25:3
A current example of this determination to tax American citizens is the Law of the Sea
Treaty. The “International Seabed Authority”
created by the Law of the Sea Treaty would
have the authority to — for the first time in history
— impose taxes on American businesses
and citizens. This treaty may be ratified at any
time by the U.S. Senate and U.N. taxation of
Americans will become a reality.
2005 Ron Paul 25:4
This is just one of many examples of the United Nations attempting to impose direct
taxes on the American people. If we are to retain
our sovereignty and our way of life we
must reject completely any such attempt. Our
forefathers rebelled against English rule over
the issue of “taxation without representation is
tyranny.” It makes no sense at all more than
230 years later to subject ourselves to such a
tyrannical arrangement.
2005 Ron Paul 25:5
I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 26
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Continuity In Representation Act
3 March 2005
2005 Ron Paul 26:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to support H.R. 841, the Continuity in Representation
Act, introduced by my distinguished colleague,
House Judiciary Committee Chairman
JAMES SENSENBRENNER. H.R. 841 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. 841 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.
2005 Ron Paul 26:2
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 entirety. H.R.
841 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.
2005 Ron Paul 26:3
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. 841 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.
I am disappointed that some of my colleagues
reject the sensible approach of H.R.
841 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.
2005 Ron Paul 26:4
Even with the direct election of Senators, the fact that Members of the House are elected
every 2 years while Senators run for statewide
office every 6 years means that Members
of the House of Representatives are still
more accountable to the people than members
of any other part of the Federal Government.
Appointed Members of Congress simply cannot
be truly representative. James Madison
and Alexander Hamilton eloquently made this
point in Federalist 52:
2005 Ron Paul 26:5
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 effectively secured.
2005 Ron Paul 26:6
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.
2005 Ron Paul 26:7
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.
2005 Ron Paul 26:8
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. 841 in favor of a
constitutional amendment will question the
wisdom of handing terrorists a preemptive victory
over republican government.
2005 Ron Paul 26:9
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.
2005 Ron Paul 26:10
In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 841, 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. 841 sends a strong message to
terrorists
that they cannot alter our republican government.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 27
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Introducing The American Sovereignty Restoration Act Of 2005
8 March 2005
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, March 8, 2005
2005 Ron Paul 27:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to re- introduce the American Sovereignty Restoration
Act. I submitted this bill, which would end
United States membership in the United Nations,
in the 106th, 107th, and 108th Congresses
and if anything, conditions have made
its relevance and importance more evident
now than ever. The United Nations assault on
the sovereignty of the United States proceeds
apace; it shows no signs of slowing. Mr.
Speaker, since I last introduced this measure,
the United Nations has been embroiled in
scandal after scandal, from the Oil for Food
Scandal to several recent particularly appalling
sex scandals.
2005 Ron Paul 27:2
The United States has wasted more than 30 billion taxpayer dollars on the United Nations
and has received in return only contempt from
an organization that scoffs at traditional notions
of limited government and sovereignty.
2005 Ron Paul 27:3
Indeed, even though the United States pays the lion’s share of the UN budget, UN bureaucrats
are still not satisfied. They want direct
access to U.S. taxpayer money with out the
U.S. government middleman. A current example
of this determination to tax American citizens
is the Law of the Sea Treaty. The “International
Seabed Authority” created by the Law
of the Sea Treaty would have the authority
to — for the first time in history — impose taxes
on American businesses and citizens. This
treaty may be ratified at any time by the U.S.
Senate and UN taxation of Americans will become
a reality.
2005 Ron Paul 27:4
This legislation would represent a comprehensive and complete U.S. withdrawal from
the United Nations. It repeals the United Nations
Participation Act of 1945 and other related
laws. It directs the President to terminate
U.S. participation in the United Nations, including
any organ, specialized agency, commission,
or other affiliated body. It requires closure
of the U.S. Mission to the UN.
2005 Ron Paul 27:5
The legislation also prohibits the authorization of funds for the U.S. assessed or voluntary
contribution to the UN; the authorization
of funds for any U.S. contribution to any UN
military operation; and the expenditure of
funds to support the participation of U.S.
armed forces as part of any UN military or
peacekeeping operation. Finally, this legislation
bars U.S. armed forces from serving
under UN command.
2005 Ron Paul 27:6
The U.S. Congress, by passing H.R. 1146, and the U.S. President, by signing H.R. 1146,
will heed the wise counsel of our first President,
George Washington, when he advised
his countrymen to “steer clear of permanent
alliances with any portion of the foreign
world,” lest the nation’s security and liberties
be compromised by endless and overriding
international commitments. I urge my colleagues
to support this measure and I hope
for its quick consideration.
2005 Ron Paul 27:7
In considering the recent United Nations meetings and the United States’ relation to
that organization and its affront to U.S. sovereignty,
we would all do well to again read
carefully Professor Herbert W. Titus’ paper on
the United Nations from which I have provided
this excerpt:
2005 Ron Paul 27:8
It is commonly assumed that the Charter
of the United Nations is a treaty. It is not.
Instead, the Charter of the United Nations is
a constitution. As such, it is illegitimate,
having created a supranational government,
deriving its powers not from the consent of
the governed (the people of the United States
of America and peoples of other member nations)
but from the consent of the peoples’
government officials who have no authority
to bind either the American people nor any
other nation’s people to any terms of the
Charter of the United Nations.
2005 Ron Paul 27:9
By definition, a treaty is a contract between or among independent and sovereign
nations, obligatory on the signatories only
when made by competent governing authorities
in accordance with the powers constitutionally
conferred upon them. I Kent, Commentaries
on American Law 163 (1826); Burdick,
The Law of the American Constitution
section 34 (1922). Even the United Nations
Treaty Collection states that a treaty is (1)
a binding instrument creating legal rights
and duties; (2) concluded by states or international
organizations with treaty-making
power; (3) governed by international law.
2005 Ron Paul 27:10
By contrast, a charter is a constitution creating a civil government for a unified nation
or nations and establishing the authority
of that government. Although the United
Nations Treaty Collection defines a “charter”
as a “constituent treaty,” leading international
political authorities state that —
“[t]he use of the word ‘Charter’ [in reference
to the founding document of the United Nations]
. . . emphasizes the constitutional nature
of this instrument.” Thus, the preamble
to the Charter of the United Nations declares
“that the Peoples of the United Nations have
resolved to combine their efforts to accomplish
certain aims by certain means.” The
Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary
46 (B. Simma, ed.) (Oxford Univ.
Press, NY: 1995) (Hereinafter U.N. Charter
Commentary). Consistent with this view,
leading international legal authorities declare
that the law of the Charter of the
United Nations which governs the authority
of the United Nations General Assembly and
the United Nations Security Council is
“similar . . . to national constitutional law,”
proclaiming that “because of its status as a
constitution for the world community,” the
Charter of the United Nations must be construed
broadly, making way for “implied
powers” to carry out the United Nations’
“comprehensive scope of duties, especially
the maintenance of international peace and
security and its orientation towards international
public welfare.” Id. at 27
2005 Ron Paul 27:11
The United Nations Treaty Collection confirms the appropriateness of this “constitutional
interpretive” approach to the Charter
of the United Nations with its statement
that the charter may be traced “back to the
Magna Carta (the Great Charter) of 1215,” a
national constitutional document. As a constitutional
document, the Magna Carta not
only bound the original signatories, the
English barons and the king, but all subsequent
English rulers, including Parliament,
conferring upon all Englishmen certain
rights that five hundred years later were
claimed and exercised by the English people
who had colonized America.
2005 Ron Paul 27:12
A charter, then, is a covenant of the people and the civil rulers of a nation in perpetuity.
Sources of Our Liberties 1–10 (R. Perry, ed.)
(American Bar Foundation: 1978). As Article
1 of Magna Carta, puts it:
2005 Ron Paul 27:13
We have granted moreover to all free men of our kingdom for us and our heirs forever
all liberties written below, to be had and
holden by themselves and their heirs from us
and our heirs.
2005 Ron Paul 27:14
In like manner, the Charter of the United Nations is considered to be a permanent
“constitution for the universal society,” and
consequently, to be construed in accordance
with its broad and unchanging ends but in
such a way as to meet changing times and
changing relations among the nations and
peoples of the world. U.N. Charter Commentary
at 28–44.
2005 Ron Paul 27:15
According to the American political and legal tradition and the universal principles
of constitution making, a perpetual civil
covenant or constitution, obligatory on the
people “and their rulers throughout the generations,
must, first, be proposed in the
name of the people and, thereafter, ratified
by the people’s representatives elected and
assembled for the sole purpose of passing on
the terms of a proposed covenant. See 4 The
Founders’ Constitution 647–58 (P. Kurland
and R. Lerner, eds.) (Univ. Chicago Press:
1985). Thus, the preamble of the Constitution
of the United States of America begins with
“We the People of the United States” and
Article VII provides for ratification by state
conventions composed of representatives of
the people elected solely for that purpose.
Sources of Our Liberties 408, 416, 418–21 (R.
Perry, ed.) (ABA Foundation, Chicago: 1978).
2005 Ron Paul 27:16
Taking advantage of the universal appeal of the American constitutional tradition, the
preamble of the Charter of the United Nations
opens with “We the peoples of the
United Nations.” But, unlike the Constitution
of the United States of America, the
Charter of the United Nations does not call
for ratification by conventions of the elected
representatives of the people of the signatory
nations. Rather, Article 110 of the Charter
of the United Nations provides for ratification
“by the signatory states in accordance
with their respective constitutional
processes.” Such a ratification process would
have been politically and legally appropriate
if the charter were a mere treaty. But the
Charter of the United Nations is not a treaty;
it is a constitution.
2005 Ron Paul 27:17
First of all, Charter of the United Nations, executed as an agreement in the name of the
people, legally and politically displaced previously
binding agreements upon the signatory
nations. Article 103 provides that “[i]n
the event of a conflict between the obligations
of the Members of the United Nations
under the present Charter and their obligations
under any other international agreement,
their obligations under the present
Charter shall prevail.” Because the 1787 Constitution
of the United States of America
would displace the previously adopted Articles
of Confederation under which the United
States was being governed, the drafters recognized
that only if the elected representatives
of the people at a constitutional convention
ratified the proposed constitution,
could it be lawfully adopted as a constitution.
Otherwise, the Constitution of the
United States of America would be, legally
and politically, a treaty which could be altered
by any state’s legislature as it saw fit.
The Founders’ Constitution, supra, at 648–52.
2005 Ron Paul 27:18
Second, an agreement made in the name of the people creates a perpetual union, subject
to dissolution only upon proof of breach of
covenant by the governing authorities
whereupon the people are entitled to reconstitute
a new government on such terms and
for such duration as the people see fit. By
contrast, an agreement made in the name of
nations creates only a contractual obligation,
subject to change when any signatory
nation decides that the obligation is no
longer advantageous or suitable. Thus, a
treaty may be altered by valid statute enacted
by a signatory nation, but a constitution
may be altered only by a special amendatory
process provided for in that document.
Id. at 652.
2005 Ron Paul 27:19
Article V of the Constitution of the United States of America spells out that amendment
process, providing two methods for
adopting constitutional changes, neither of
which requires unanimous consent of the
states of the Union. Had the Constitution of
the United States of America been a treaty,
such unanimous consent would have been required.
Similarly, the Charter of the United
Nations may be amended without the unanimous
consent of its member states. According
to Article 108 of the Charter of the
United Nations, amendments may be proposed
by a vote of two-thirds of the United
Nations General Assembly and may become
effective upon ratification by a vote of two-
thirds of the members of the United Nations,
including all the permanent members of the
United Nations Security Council. According
to Article 109 of the Charter of the United
Nations, a special conference of members of
the United Nations may be called “for the
purpose of reviewing the present Charter”
and any changes proposed by the conference
may “take effect when ratified by two-thirds
of the Members of the United Nations including
all the permanent members of the Security
Council.” Once an amendment to the
Charter of the United Nations is adopted
then that amendment “shall come into force
for all Members of the United Nations,” even
those nations who did not ratify the amendment,
just as an amendment to the
Constitution
of the United States of America is effective
in all of the states, even though the legislature
of a state or a convention of a state
refused to ratify. Such an amendment process
is totally foreign to a treaty. See Id., at
575–84.
2005 Ron Paul 27:20
Third, the authority to enter into an agreement made in the name of the people
cannot be politically or legally limited by
any preexisting constitution, treaty, alliance,
or instructions. An agreement made in
the name of a nation, however, may not contradict
the authority granted to the governing
powers and, thus, is so limited. For
example, the people ratified the Constitution
of the United States of America notwithstanding
the fact that the constitutional
proposal had been made in disregard to specific
instructions to amend the Articles of
Confederation, not to displace them. See
Sources of Our Liberties 399–403 (R. Perry
ed.) (American Bar Foundation: 1972). As
George Mason observed at the Constitutional
Convention in 1787, “Legislatures have no
power to ratify” a plan changing the form of
government, only “the people” have such
power. 4 The Founders’ Constitution, supra,
at 651.
2005 Ron Paul 27:21
As a direct consequence of this original power of the people to constitute a new government,
the Congress under the new constitution
was authorized to admit new states
to join the original 13 states without submitting
the admission of each state to the 13
original states. In like manner, the Charter
of the United Nations, forged in the name of
the “peoples” of those nations, established a
new international government with independent
powers to admit to membership
whichever nations the United Nations governing
authorities chose without submitting
such admissions to each individual member
nation for ratification. See Charter of the
United Nations, Article 4, Section 2. No treaty
could legitimately confer upon the United
Nations General Assembly such powers and
remain within the legal and political definition
of a treaty.
2005 Ron Paul 27:22
By invoking the name of the “peoples of the United Nations,” then, the Charter of the
United Nations envisioned a new constitution
creating a new civil order capable of not
only imposing obligations upon the subscribing
nations, but also imposing obligations
directly upon the peoples of those nations.
In his special contribution to the
United Nations Human Development Report
2000, United Nations Secretary-General
Annan made this claim crystal clear:
2005 Ron Paul 27:23
Even though we are an organization of Member States, the rights and ideals the
United Nations exists to protect are those of
the peoples. No government has the right to
hide behind national sovereignty in order to
violate the human rights or fundamental
freedoms of its peoples. Human Development
Report 2000 31 (July 2000) [Emphasis added.]
2005 Ron Paul 27:24
While no previous United Nations’ secretary general has been so bold, Annan’s
proclamation of universal jurisdiction over
“human rights and fundamental freedoms”
simply reflects the preamble of the Charter
of the United Nations which contemplated a
future in which the United Nations operates
in perpetuity “to save succeeding generations
from the scourge of ware . . . to reaffirm
faith in fundamental human rights . . .
to establish conditions under which justice
. . . can be maintained, and to promote social
progress and between standards of life in
larger freedom.” Such lofty goals and objectives
are comparable to those found in the
preamble to the Constitution of the United
States of America: “to . . . establish Justice,
insure domestic tranquility, provide for the
common defense, promote the general welfare
and secure the Blessings of liberty to
ourselves and our posterity . . .”
2005 Ron Paul 27:25
There is, however, one difference that must not be overlooked. The Constitution of the
United States of America is a legitimate
constitution, having been submitted directly
to the people for ratification by their representatives
elected and assembled solely for
the purpose of passing on the terms of that
document. The Charter of the United Nations,
on the other hand, is an illegitimate
constitution, having only been submitted to
the Untied States Senate for ratification as
a treaty. Thus, the Charter of the United Nations,
not being a treaty, cannot be made the
supreme law of our land by compliance with
Article II, Section 2 of Constitution of the
United States of America. Therefore, the
Charter of the United Nations is neither politically
nor legally binding upon the United
States of America or upon its people.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 28
Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
March 14, 2005
Reject the Latest Foreign Welfare Scheme
2005 Ron Paul 28:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation. We have absolutely no
constitutional authority to establish a commission to “assist”
parliaments
throughout the world. Despite all the high-sounding rhetoric
surrounding this
legislation, we should not fool ourselves. This is nothing more than
yet another
scheme to funnel United States tax dollars to foreign governments. It
is an
international welfare scheme and an open door to more U.S. meddling in
the
internal affairs of foreign countries.
2005 Ron Paul 28:2
How can we tell an American family struggling to pay its bills that it must
pay more taxes so a foreign parliament can purchase fancy plasma screen
televisions, or the latest computer equipment, or ultra-modern
communications
equipment? Can anyone here justify this?
2005 Ron Paul 28:3
Mr. Speaker, this bill will do more than just take money from Americans. This
commission will enable members of Congress and congressional staff
employees to
travel the world meddling in the affairs of foreign governing bodies.
It is
counterproductive to tell other nations how they should govern
themselves, as
even if we come loaded with dollars to hand out, our meddling is always
resented
by the local population -- just as we would resent a foreign government
telling
us how to govern ourselves. Don’t we have enough of our own problems to
solve
without going abroad in search of foreign parliaments to aid?
2005 Ron Paul 28:4
I urge my colleagues to reject this wasteful and counterproductive scheme.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 29
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
“Emergency” Supplemental Spending Bill
16 March 2005
2005 Ron Paul 29:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this $82 billion “emergency” supplemental
bill. I also am opposed to the manner in which
the REAL ID Act, H.R. 418, was attached to
the Rule, thereby stealthily making the establishment
of a national ID part of an “emergency”
bill to which it is completely unrelated.
Once again we see controversial bills being
hidden inside another bill so that they are
automatically passed where they otherwise
might face opposition. I do not believe this is
a wise practice.
2005 Ron Paul 29:2
This “emergency” supplemental is the second largest supplemental appropriations bill in
United States history, second only to the one
last year. The funds will be considered “emergency”
funds so Congress can ignore spending
caps that would require the billions in new
spending to be offset by reducing spending
elsewhere.
2005 Ron Paul 29:3
We are told that this is emergency spending, and that we therefore must not question
this enormous expenditure. Does an emergency
require sending billions of American
taxpayers’ dollars overseas as foreign aid an
emergency? This bill is filled with foreign aid
spending. If we pass this ill-conceived legislation,
we will spend $656 million for tsunami relief;
$94 million for Darfur, Sudan; $150 million
for food aid, most to Liberia and Sudan; $580
million for “peacekeeping” overseas; $582 million
to build a new American embassy in Iraq;
$76 million to build a new airport in Kuwait
(one of the wealthiest countries on earth);
$257 million for counter drug efforts in Afghanistan;
$372 million for health, reconstruction,
and alternative development programs to help
farmers stop raising poppy; $200 million in
economic aid for the Palestinians; $150 million
for Pakistan (run by an unelected dictator);
$200 million for Jordan; $34 million for
Ukraine.
2005 Ron Paul 29:4
Does anyone really believe that all this foreign aid is “emergency” spending? Or is it just
an opportunity for some off-budget spending?
Just the above foreign aid equals almost $3.5
billion. Does anyone believe that sending this
much money abroad as international welfare is
a good thing for our economy?
2005 Ron Paul 29:5
Is there a baseball emergency? There must be, because this “emergency” supplemental
contains a provision to allow Washington, D.C.
to use taxpayer money to build a baseball stadium.
2005 Ron Paul 29:6
Mr. Chairman, this bill is almost unimaginably expensive. It is our out-of-control spending
that really is the greatest threat to the
United States and our way of life. I urge my
colleagues to reject this legislation.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 30
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Consequences Of Foreign Policy — Part 1
16 March 2005
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.)
2005 Ron Paul 30:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I have taken the time in opposition to this resolution
not so much to object to the well-
intended notions of the gentlewoman
and the promotion of freedom and liberty.
It is just that I do not think this
is going to achieve it. As a matter of
fact, when we pursue resolutions like
this and a more aggressive foreign policy
of telling other countries what to
do, I see it as more of a threat to our
security rather than helping our security.
2005 Ron Paul 30:2
I, for one, would admit I personally do not know what is best for the Lebanese
and the Syrians, the Iraqis, or
anybody else in the region; but I would
argue the case that traditionally in
this country up until probably the past
100 years, we took a different position
on foreign policy. We took a position of
nonintervention, one where we strived
for neutrality, and we argued the case
that we did not have any business in
the internal affairs of other nations.
No matter how well intended, there always
seem to be ramifications. There
seem to be unintended consequences.
There seems to be a condition called
“blow-back,” where it comes back and
ends up where we suffer more than anybody
else.
2005 Ron Paul 30:3
For instance, we are in Iraq right now with all these good intentions. We
have been there for a couple of years.
We have spent over $200 billion, and
this week they came out with a survey
and they talked about the most dangerous
city in the world and where security
is the worst, and that city is not
Beirut.
2005 Ron Paul 30:4
In the last 2 years, every one of us would have rather have been in Beirut
than we would have been in Iraq. And
yet we have 140,000 troops there protecting
the Iraqis and promoting freedom
and liberty and elections, and it
sounds good. But I think if we are honest
with ourselves, the results are not
nearly as wonderful as we would like
them to be.
2005 Ron Paul 30:5
The other thing that concerns me is that we lose credibility when we talk
about what we want and what we will
impose on other nations, because when
we are claiming that the Lebanese cannot
possibly have elections with the
presence of foreign troops, at the same
time we daily hear the bragging about
the great election in Iraq where we had
these 140,000 troops and total martial
law in order for an election to take
place. I am all for the elections, and I
am a strong supporter of self-determination;
but I do not correlate that
with our policies.
2005 Ron Paul 30:6
We saw demonstrations, first a little at a demonstration orchestrated in
support of getting Syria out of Lebanon,
and then there was a response to
that where 500,000 showed up supporting
Hezbollah claiming they supported
Syria, and then of course following
that there was a much bigger
demonstration. So the people have had
freedom to express themselves. But the
one thing about all the demonstrations,
we never saw a sign that said,
America, come save us, come in here,
tell us what to do, tell us what to do
with our elections. They have had elections
going on for you in Lebanon
without any violence directed against
Syrian troops as we see daily in Iraq.
They have an election coming up in
May. It has been scheduled all along. It
is not like they have been avoiding
them.
2005 Ron Paul 30:7
We complain a lot about the Syrians being there, and if I have a personal
preference, since I believe in self-determination,
I would have the troops out
just as I would have our troops out of
most other places. But I would have
foreign troops out of the Golan
Heights. Why are we so excited about
the Syrian troops, who were invited by
the Lebanese Government? Why are we
not excited about foreign troops in the
Golan Heights and in the over 100 countries
where that we have troops?
2005 Ron Paul 30:8
So I think we lose credibility. I think the Arab people just laugh at us and
say, oh, yes, they are for these wonderful
elections, and they have got to get
these troops out; and at the same time
we have troops all over the place.
2005 Ron Paul 30:9
The Syrians went into Lebanon in 1976, and if we go back and look at history,
it was at the urging of the Government
of the United States because
there was about to be an election. And
at that time, it was perceived that the
election would undermine the minorities,
the Christians and the Druse. So,
therefore, it was in our interest at that
time to interfere with the election, just
as we have interfered so many times
since then over the world.
2005 Ron Paul 30:10
Just think of the elected leader in 1953 in Iran, the elected leader,
Mossadeq. But he did not follow what
we wanted him to do with regards to
oil. So what did we do? We sent in the
CIA. We overthrew him, and then we
had our puppet government, the Shah,
for 25 years, which did nothing more
than provide fodder for the radicals,
and we radicalized the ayatollahs
against us.
2005 Ron Paul 30:11
In a conversation with a veteran of the CIA, an expert in this region, he explained,
at least he sincerely believed,
that we did a tremendous favor for
Osama bin Laden, and that is to go
into Iraq, expose ourselves, and then
create the chaos of Iraq. Where there
was no al Qaeda before, it is now a
haven for al Qaeda.
2005 Ron Paul 30:12
It has served as a recruiting ground for al Qaeda. So no matter how well
the intentions are, we should look at
the conclusions; what finally happens.
2005 Ron Paul 30:13
Our problem very simply comes from the violation of the basic principle that
we should follow, and that is that we
should be friends with nations and
trade with nations, and that we should
be neutral in foreign affairs, because it
does not serve our interests. It costs a
lot of money and it costs a lot of credibility
and it costs a lot of lives.
2005 Ron Paul 30:14
Just think of what the interference in Iraq has cost us: Over 1,500 men; over
11,000 battle casualties, with another
9,000 sent home because of illness; and
over $200 billion. And there is no end in
sight. Today we had to pass another $82
billion, which was not put into the
budget, to continue this process. My
argument is it comes not because we
make a misjudgment, not that this resolution
is simply a misjudgment of the
day; it just is that is part of the
misjudgments that we have made now
for many, many decades in overall foreign
policy.
2005 Ron Paul 30:15
It is fully endorsed. The American people certainly have not been up in
arms about it and have endorsed it,
along with the large majority in the
Congress. But long term it does not
work. Just look how long the American
people supported Vietnam, until finally
they had to throw up their arms and
demand an end to the senseless war.
2005 Ron Paul 30:16
But, ultimately, not only do the people get very angry and upset and frustrated
with the loss of life, there are
economic limitations to this as well,
and that is something that I do not
think anybody here hardly pays any
attention to; that is how long can we
continue to spend this money and not
have this come back to really haunt us
economically? The 1960s came back to
haunt us in the 1970s, and the basic financial
condition of this country is
much worse than it was in the 1970s.
Yet there is no hesitation.
2005 Ron Paul 30:17
I see resolutions like this as not restraint, but encouragement, without
looking back and seeing how we participated
in contributing to the problems
that we have in the Middle East.
So I am making the suggestion, why do
we not think about overall policy with
consistency, and think almost what is
in our best interests?
I would like to read a quote from
Ronald Reagan, because he was involved
in Lebanon and our government
was involved in the early 1980s. In his
memoirs he admits it was a serious
mistake, and we ought to take advice
from Ronald Reagan on what he said
about his misadventure in Lebanon. We
were in there in 1983. This is what he
writes in his memoirs several years
later.
2005 Ron Paul 30:18
“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 into 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.”
2005 Ron Paul 30:19
Further quoting Ronald Reagan,
“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 rethink our policies
there.”
2005 Ron Paul 30:20
He concluded with advising us to stay clear. I would like to suggest that
I believe that is pretty good advice.
2005 Ron Paul 30:21
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 31
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Consequences Of Foreign Policy — Part 2
16 March 2005
2005 Ron Paul 31:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself
such time as I may consume.
2005 Ron Paul 31:2
Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few points regarding the unintended
consequences of our foreign policy, as
well as what might happen in Lebanon.
2005 Ron Paul 31:3
It has been said about our administration that we hope the Lebanese people
will be able to express their view at
the ballot box through free elections
without interference and outside intimidation.
That sounds like a pretty
good suggestion, with the conclusion
by the administration that when there
is outside interference the elections
are unreliable.
2005 Ron Paul 31:4
Once again, I ask the question, does that not raise the question of whether
or not the elections in Iraq are as reliable,
as is supposed?
2005 Ron Paul 31:5
Also, President Bush said that these elections must take place without external
forces, and all the troops must
be out. The UN resolution calls for the
troops out as well as the security
forces, but the resolution also calls for
disarming the people of Lebanon.
2005 Ron Paul 31:6
In other words, this resolution takes the position that we should go in Lebanon
and repeal the Lebanese Second
Amendment rights so that nobody has
any guns. I just see that as an interference
that is going to lead to trouble.
2005 Ron Paul 31:7
We see civil strife precipitating a civil war in Iraq, and I think what our
involvement here now is liable to lead
to that type of situation, rather than
peace and prosperity and elections.
2005 Ron Paul 31:8
It is said that this has all come out from the murder and killing of Hariri,
and most people now just assume that
the government of Syria had something
to do with that. Yet there is no
evidence for that. There is absolutely
zero benefit for the Syrian government
to have killed Hariri.
2005 Ron Paul 31:9
But there is a theory that some of the radical Muslims in Syria that object
to Assad, because he is too moderate,
because he endorsed the Persian
Gulf War and because he takes some of
our prisoners and he participates in the
interrogations of our prisoners, that he
is seen as too liberal, too friendly with
the West, and some suppose that that
could have been the reason that the
murder had occurred, believing that it
would bring down the government of
Assad.
2005 Ron Paul 31:10
Now, that could be an unintended consequence, that consequence that
could have a great deal of significance,
and that is that the radicals end up
taking over, some individuals more
radical than Assad, end up taking over
Syria, which is always the possibility.
But too often these unintended consequences
occur and then we do not
know how to respond to them.
2005 Ron Paul 31:11
In Iraq in January of this year there was some polling done, an expression
by the people on what they thought
about foreign occupation. Eighty-two
percent of the Sunnis, I guess understandably
so, said that all foreign
troops ought to leave, and 69 percent of
the Shiites said all foreign troops
ought to leave. I wonder why that is
not important to anybody?
2005 Ron Paul 31:12
Instead, we are talking about occupation for years, about building 14 bases
in Iraq. How long do we stay in these
countries and why is it so necessary for
us to be telling other people what to do
and when to do it and how to do it and
stirring up nothing but anti-American
sentiment, while at the same time,
even though our goals may be well-intentioned,
they are never achieved? We
just do not achieve them. And to think
that the election under the conditions
that we are condemning in Lebanon is
the salvation, is the evidence that we
are having tremendous achievement, I
think is something that we are just
pulling the wool over our eyes.
2005 Ron Paul 31:13
John Adams gave us some pretty good advice about what we should do
overseas. And I think that when we
have resolutions like this, and we do
have them continuously, and we have
done them for decades. It was a preliminary
to our invasion of Iraq starting
specifically in 1988; But Adams advised,
he made a suggestion and he
made a statement, he says: “America
goes not abroad seeking monsters to
destroy.”
2005 Ron Paul 31:14
That statement is so appropriate. It looks like we are just looking for problems;
and since the results are so poor
and we cannot afford it, once again, I
want to state my position that I am
suggesting not so much that I know or
we know exactly what is best for other
people. It is that precisely we do not
know and we do not have the authority,
the moral, the legal, the constitutional
authority to do what we do. And
besides, it is a threat to our national
security.
2005 Ron Paul 31:15
Jefferson’s suggestion was for peace, commerce, and honest friendship with
all nations and entangling alliances
with none. And we have way too many
entangling alliances, making these
huge commitments which will come to
an end not because anybody is going to
pay much attention to what I say, but
they will come to an end because this
country is on the verge of bankruptcy.
2005 Ron Paul 31:16
We cannot continue to raise our national debt by $650 billion a year and
pretend that we can police the world
and at the same time increase entitlements
here at home. So one day we will
have to face up to these realities, and
it will all come to an end.
2005 Ron Paul 31:17
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 32
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Consequences Of Foreign Policy — Part 3
16 March 2005
2005 Ron Paul 32:1
Mr. PAUL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
2005 Ron Paul 32:2
Mr. Speaker, I do want to make one point about the resolution. The statement
toward the ends says: The President
should direct the United States
Representative to the United Nations
to present and secure reports for the
United Nations Security Council
classifying Lebanon as a captive country
in calling for the immediate release
of Lebanese detainees in Syria and
Lebanon.
2005 Ron Paul 32:3
Now that is pretty interesting that we are going to tell them who they can
release and who they should release.
But the question I have, and maybe the
sponsors of the resolution could answer
this: Will that include that we insist
that they release the prisoners that we
have sent to Syria?
2005 Ron Paul 32:4
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 33
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
The Deficit
16 March 2005
Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr.
Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas (Mr.
PAUL), a fellow member of the Joint
Economic Committee.
(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission
to revise and extend his remarks.)
2005 Ron Paul 33:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
2005 Ron Paul 33:2
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much this opportunity to talk about
the budget. In listening to the debate
today on both sides of the aisle, there
has been a lot of expression of concern
about the deficit; and, of course, I am
very concerned about the deficit as
well.
2005 Ron Paul 33:3
But I would like to make a suggestion that we are not facing primarily a
budgetary crisis or a budgetary problem.
I see this more as a philosophic
problem, dealing more with the philosophy
of government rather than thinking
that we can tinker with the budget,
dealing with this as a tactical problem
when really it is a strategic problem.
So as long as we endorse the type of
government that we have and there is
a willingness for the people as well the
Congress to finance it, we are going to
continue with this process and the
frustrations are going to grow because
it is just not likely that these deficits
will shrink.
2005 Ron Paul 33:4
And the gentleman from Pennsylvania rightly pointed out the concerns
this might have in the financial markets.
I am hoping that his optimism
pans out because, indeed, if they do
not, there could be some ramifications
from these expanding deficits and what
it means to our dollar.
2005 Ron Paul 33:5
But I would like to suggest that in dealing with the budget itself, I see
only one problem that we have. And
that problem to me is the budget is too
big, and I would like to shrink the
budget. I have toyed with the idea over
the years to introduce and offer a constitutional
budget to the House floor.
That would not be too difficult because
the budget would be so much smaller.
It would mean essentially that if one is
a strict constitutionalist that they
would cut the budget approximately 80
percent.
2005 Ron Paul 33:6
What would that mean to the economy? It would be a boost because we
would be injecting $2 trillion back into
the economy, allowing the people to
spend their own money. But being pretty
realistic, I know that is not likely
to happen or be offered or even be able
to present that on the House floor. Besides,
it could be rather embarrassing
to bring something like that to the
floor. Not so much embarrassing to me,
because I am accustomed to voting in a
small group of people on many occasions;
but it could be embarrassing to
others because, for the most part, most
Members would not even conceive of
the idea of having a strict interpretation
of the Constitution and severely
limiting the budget. So we would not
want to put everybody on record for
that.
2005 Ron Paul 33:7
The other day I heard an interview with one of our Members, and he was
asked about a particular program
about where the authority came from
in the Constitution for that program.
And his answer was very straightforward;
and he explained that in the
Constitution there was no prohibition
against that program, so therefore it
was permitted. In his mind, as it is in
the minds of many Members of Congress,
if there is no strict prohibition,
it is permitted.
2005 Ron Paul 33:8
And that is just absolutely opposite of what was intended by the authors of
the Constitution that we would only be
able to do those things which are explicitly
permitted in the Congress, and
they are spelled out rather clearly in
article I, section 8.
2005 Ron Paul 33:9
And then we are given the permission to write the laws that are necessary
and proper to implement those powers
that are delegated to us. Those powers
that are not delegated are reserved to
the States and to the people. So it
means that those things that are not
prohibited are permitted, but I would
say that the conventional wisdom
today is that people accept the notion
that we can do anything that we want
as long as it is not prohibited by the
Constitution.
2005 Ron Paul 33:10
I think this improper understanding and following of the Constitution has
brought us closer to a major crisis in
this country, a crisis of our personal
liberties, a crisis in our foreign policy,
as well as a crisis in our budgeting.
2005 Ron Paul 33:11
But it is not simply the ignoring of the Constitution that I think is our
problem. I think our other problem is
our country and our people and our
Congresses and our Senators have accepted
the notion of faith in government,
faith in the State, that the State
can provide these great services and do
it efficiently.
2005 Ron Paul 33:12
Really, there are only two areas that would have to be cut if we were to
strive for a constitutional budget.
There are only two things that we
would have to cut, and it would be welfare
and warfare. And then we would
get back to some fundamentals. During
World War I, a gentleman by the name
of Randolph Bourne wrote a pamphlet
called “War is the Health of the
State,” and I truly believe that. When
we are at war, we are more likely to
sacrifice our liberties; and, of course,
we spend more money that we really
have. I would like to suggest a corollary,
that peace is the foundation of
liberty because that is what the goal of
all government should be: the preservation
of liberty.
2005 Ron Paul 33:13
We have endorsed a program with this interpretation that spending is
going to be endlessly increased, and we
have devised a system whereby we have
ignored the constraints through monetary
policy by not only are we taxing
too much and borrowing too much; we
have now since 1971 endorsed a monetary
system that if we come up short
we just print the money. And I would
suggest to the gentlewoman that one of
the reasons why the workers’ purchasing
power is going down is we print
too many dollars and they are the ones
who are most likely and first to suffer
from inflation.
2005 Ron Paul 33:14
And it is the philosophy of government and our philosophy on money
that encourages these problems. And
the current account deficits and this
huge foreign indebtedness that are encouraged
by our ability to maintain a
reserve currency, it is going to lead to
a crisis where this spending will have
to come in check.
2005 Ron Paul 33:15
And that is why the gentleman from Pennsylvania is quite correct that we
should be concerned about how the financial
markets look at what we do.
And hopefully we will be able to deal
with this in a budgetary way and institute
some restraints. But quite frankly
I am a bit pessimistic about that. This
program that we follow and this philosophy
we followed prompted our Federal
Reserve to create $620 billion in order
to finance the system. That is the reason
that the dollar becomes less valuable,
because we just print too many to
accommodate the politicians and the
people who enjoy the excessive spending.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 34
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
April 6, 2005
Hypocrisy and the Ordeal of Terri Schiavo
2005 Ron Paul 34:1
Clearly no one wins in the legal and political battles over the death of Terri
Schiavo.
Although it has been terribly politicized, a valuable debate has
emerged.
This debate is not about abortion or euthanasia in general, nor
about
death in the abstract.
It’s about
an individual’s right to life and the value of life itself.
Without concern for the life of each individual, liberty is
meaningless
and indefensible.
2005 Ron Paul 34:2
This
debate deals with the passive treatment of the critically and
terminally ill.
This type of decision is manageable most of the time without
government
interference, but circumstances in this case made it difficult to
determine
proper guardianship.
The
unprecedented level of government involvement, questions about which
branch of
government had the ultimate say, and what the explicit intent of the
patient
was, brought national attention to what was otherwise a family conflict.
2005 Ron Paul 34:3
Terri
Schiavo is a unique case, and unfortunately her fate ended up in the
hands of
lawyers, judges, and the legislators.
The
media certainly did their part in disrupting her final days.
2005 Ron Paul 34:4
In
a free society the doctor and the patient-- or his or her designated
spokesperson-- make the decision, short of using violence, in dealing
with death
and dying issues.
The government stays out
of it.
2005 Ron Paul 34:5
This
debate, though, shows that one life is indeed important.
It is not an esoteric subject; it’s a real life involved and a
personal
issue we can’t ignore, especially in this age of Medicare, with
government now
responsible for most of the medical bills.
2005 Ron Paul 34:6
We’re
rapidly moving toward a time when these decisions will be based on the
cost of
care alone, since government pays all the bills under nationalized
health care.
As we defer to the state for our needs, and parental power is
transferred
to government, it is casually expected that government will be making
more and
more of these decisions.
This has
occurred in education, general medical care, and psychological testing.
The government now can protect the so-called right of a teenager
to have
an abortion, sometimes paid for by the government, without notifying
the
parents.
2005 Ron Paul 34:7
Free-market
medicine is not perfect, but it’s the best system to sort out these
difficult
problems-- and it did so for years.
2005 Ron Paul 34:8
Eventually,
government medicine surely will ignore the concern for a single patient
as a
person, and instead a computer program and cost analysis will make the
determination.
It will be said to
be more efficient, though morally unjustified, to allow a patient to
die by
court order rather than permitting family and friends to assume
responsibility
for the cost of keeping patients alive.
2005 Ron Paul 34:9
There’s
plenty of hypocrisy to go around on both sides of this lingering and
prolonged
debate.
In this instance we heard
some very sound arguments from the left defending states’ rights and
family
responsibility, while criticizing the federal government involvement.
I’m anxious for the day when those who made these arguments join
me in
defending the Constitution and states’ rights, especially the 9
th
and 10
th
Amendments, on many other economic and social
issues.
I won’t hold my breath.
2005 Ron Paul 34:10
More
importantly, where are those who rightfully condemn congressional
meddling in
the Schiavo case-- because of federalism and separation of powers-- on
the issue
of abortion?
These same folks strongly
defend Roe vs. Wade and the
so-called constitutional right to abort healthy human fetuses at any
stage.
There’s no hesitation to demand support of this phony right from
both
Congress and the federal courts.
Not
only do they demand federal legal protection for abortion, they insist
that
abortion foes be forced to fund this act that many of them equate with
murder.
2005 Ron Paul 34:11
It’s
too bad that philosophic consistency and strict adherence to the
Constitution
are not a high priority for many Members.
But
perhaps this “flexibility” in administering the rule of law helps
create
problems such as we faced in the Schiavo ordeal.
2005 Ron Paul 34:12
Though
the left produced some outstanding arguments for the federal government
staying
out of this controversy, they frequently used an analogy that could
never
persuade those of us who believe in a free society guided by the
constraints of
the Constitution.
They argued that
if conservatives who supported prolonging Terri’s life would only spend
more
money on welfare, they would demonstrate sincere concern for the right
to life.
This is false logic and does nothing to build the case for a local
government
solution to a feeding tube debate.
2005 Ron Paul 34:13
First,
all wealth transfers depend on an authoritarian state willing to use
lethal
force to satisfy the politicians’ notion of an unachievable fair
society.
Robbing Peter to pay Paul, no matter how well intentioned, can
never be
justified.
It’s theft, plain and
simple, and morally wrong.
Actually,
welfare is anti-prosperity; so it can’t be pro-life.
Too often good intentions are motivated only by the good that
someone
believes will result from the transfer program.
They
never ask who must pay, who must be threatened, who must
be arrested and imprisoned.
They
never ask whether the welfare funds taken by forcible taxation could
have helped
someone in a private or voluntary way.
2005 Ron Paul 34:14
Practically
speaking, welfare rarely works.
The
hundreds of billions of dollars spent on the war on poverty over the
last 50
years has done little to eradicate poverty.
Matter-of-fact, worthwhile studies show that poverty is actually
made
worse by government efforts to eradicate poverty.
Certainly the whole system does nothing to build self-esteem and
more
often than not does exactly the opposite.
2005 Ron Paul 34:15
My
suggestion to my colleagues, who did argue convincingly that Congress
should not
be involved in the Schiavo case, is please consider using these same
arguments
consistently and avoid the false accusation that if one opposes
increases in
welfare one is not pro-life.
Being
pro-liberty and pro-Constitution is indeed being
pro-life, as well as pro-prosperity.
2005 Ron Paul 34:16
Conservatives
on the other hand are equally inconsistent in their arguments for life.
There’s little hesitation by the conservative right to come to
Congress
to promote their moral agenda even when it’s not within the
jurisdiction of
the federal government to do so.
Take
for instance the funding of faith-based charities.
The process is of little concern to conservatives if their
agenda is met
by passing more federal laws and increasing spending.
Instead of concentrating on the repeal of Roe vs. Wade and
eliminating federal judicial authority over issues best dealt with at
the state
level, more federal laws are passed, which strictly speaking should not
be the
prerogative of the federal government.
2005 Ron Paul 34:17
The
biggest shortcoming of the Christian Right position is its adamancy for
protecting life in the very early, late, and weakened stages, while
enthusiastically supporting aggressive war that results in hundreds of
thousands
of unnecessary deaths.
While the killing
of the innocent unborn represents a morally
decadent society, and all life deserves an advocate, including Terri
Schiavo,
promoting a policy of deadly sanctions and all-out war against a nation
that
committed no act of aggression against us cannot come close to being
morally
consistent or defendable under our Constitution.
2005 Ron Paul 34:18
The
one issue generally ignored in the Schiavo debate is the subtle
influence the
cost of care for the dying had on the debate. Government paid care
clouds the
issue, and it must be noted that the courts ruled out any privately
paid care
for Terri.
It could be embarrassing in a
government-run nursing home to
see some patients receiving extra care from families while others are
denied the
same.
However, as time goes on, the
economics of care will play even a greater role since under socialized
medicine
the state makes all the decisions based on affordability.
Then there will be no debate as we just witnessed in the case of
Terri
Schiavo.
2005 Ron Paul 34:19
Having
practiced medicine in simpler times, agonizing problems like we just
witnessed
in this case did not arise.
Yes,
similar medical decisions were made and have been made for many, many
years.
But lawyers weren’t involved, nor the courts nor the legislators
nor
any part of the government-- only the patient, the patient’s family,
and the
doctor.
No one would have dreamed
of making a federal case of the dying process.
2005 Ron Paul 34:20
A
society and a government that lose respect for life help create
dilemmas of this
sort.
Today there is little respect
for life-- witness the number of abortions performed each year.
There is little respect for liberty-- witness the rules and laws
that
regulate our every move.
There is
little respect for peace-- witness our eagerness to initiate war to
impose our
will on others.
Tragically,
government financing of the elderly, out of economic necessity, will
usher in an
age of euthanasia.
2005 Ron Paul 34:21
The
accountants already have calculated that if the baby-boomer generation
is
treated to allow maximum longevity without quality of life concerns,
we’re
talking about $7 trillion in additional medical costs.
Economists will determine the outcome, and personal decisions
will
vanish.
National health care, of
necessity, will always conflict with personal choices.
2005 Ron Paul 34:22
Compounding
the cost problems that will lead to government ordered euthanasia is
the fact
that costs always skyrocket in government-run programs.
This is true whether it’s a $300 hammer for the Pentagon or an
emergency room visit for a broken toe.
And
in addition deficit financing, already epidemic because of our flawed
philosophy
of guns and butter, always leads to inflation when a country operates
on a paper
money system.
2005 Ron Paul 34:23
Without
a renewal in the moral fiber of the country and respect for the
constitutional
rule of law, we can expect a lot more and worse problems than we
witnessed in
the case of Terri Schiavo.
When
dying and medical care becomes solely a commercial event, we will long
for the
days of debating what was best for Terri.
2005 Ron Paul 34:24
Hopefully,
this messy debate will lead more Members to be convinced that all life
is
precious, that family and patient wishes should be respected, and that
government jurisprudence and financing falls far short of providing a
just
solution in these difficult matters.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 35
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
April 6, 2005
Who’s Better Off?
2005 Ron Paul 35:1
Whenever the administration is challenged regarding the success of the Iraq war,
or
regarding the false information used to justify the war, the retort is:
“Aren’t the people of Iraq better off?”
The insinuation is that anyone who expresses any reservations
about
supporting the war is an apologist for Saddam Hussein and every
ruthless act he
ever committed.
The short answer to the question of whether the Iraqis are
better off is
that it’s too early to declare, “Mission Accomplished.”
But more importantly, we should be asking if the mission was
ever
justified or legitimate.
Is it legitimate to justify an action that some claim yielded
good
results, if the means used to achieve them are illegitimate?
Do the ends justify the means?
2005 Ron Paul 35:2
The information Congress was
given prior to the war was false.
There were no weapons of mass destruction; the Iraqis did not
participate
in the 9/11 attacks; Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were enemies
and did not
conspire against the United States; our security was not threatened; we
were not
welcomed by cheering Iraqi crowds as we were told; and Iraqi oil has
not paid
any of the bills.
Congress failed to declare war, but instead passed a wishy-washy
resolution citing UN resolutions as justification for our invasion.
After the fact we’re now told the real reason for the Iraq
invasion was
to spread democracy, and that the Iraqis are better off.
Anyone who questions the war risks being accused of supporting
Saddam
Hussein, disapproving of democracy, or “supporting terrorists.”
It’s implied that lack of enthusiasm for the war means one is
not
patriotic and doesn’t support the troops.
In other words, one must march lock-step with the consensus or
be
ostracized.
2005 Ron Paul 35:3
However,
conceding that the world is better off without Saddam Hussein is a far
cry from
endorsing the foreign policy of our own government that led to the
regime
change.
In
time it will become clear to everyone that support for the policies of
pre-emptive war and interventionist nation-building will have much
greater
significance than the removal of Saddam Hussein itself.
The interventionist policy should be scrutinized more carefully
than the
purported benefits of Saddam Hussein’s removal from power.
The real question ought to be:
“Are we better off with a foreign policy that promotes regime
change
while justifying war with false information?”
Shifting the stated goals as events unravel should not satisfy
those who
believe war must be a last resort used only when our national security
is
threatened.
2005 Ron Paul 35:4
How
much better off are the Iraqi people?
Hundreds of thousands of former inhabitants of Fallajah are not
better
off with their city flattened and their homes destroyed.
Hundreds of thousands are not better off living with foreign
soldiers
patrolling their street, curfews, and the loss of basic utilities.
One hundred thousand dead Iraqis, as estimated by the Lancet
Medical
Journal, certainly are not better off.
Better to be alive under Saddam Hussein than lying in some cold
grave.
2005 Ron Paul 35:5
Praise
for the recent election in Iraq has silenced many critics of the war.
Yet the election was held under martial law implemented by a
foreign
power, mirroring conditions we rightfully condemned as a farce when
carried out
in the old Soviet system and more recently in Lebanon.
Why is it that what is good for the goose isn’t always good for
the
gander?
2005 Ron Paul 35:6
Our
government fails to recognize that legitimate elections are the
consequence
of freedom, and that an artificial election does not create freedom.
In our own history we note that freedom was achieved first and
elections
followed-- not the other way around.
2005 Ron Paul 35:7
One
news report claimed that the Shiites actually received 56% of the vote,
but such
an outcome couldn’t be allowed for it would preclude a coalition of the
Kurds
and Shiites from controlling the Sunnis and preventing a theocracy from
forming.
This reminds us of the statement made months ago by Secretary
Rumsfeld
when asked about a Shiite theocracy emerging from a majority democratic
vote,
and he assured us that would not happen.
Democracy, we know, is messy and needs tidying up a bit when we
don’t
like the results.
2005 Ron Paul 35:8
Some
have described Baghdad and especially the green zone, as being
surrounded by
unmanageable territory.
The highways in and out of Baghdad are not yet secured.
Many anticipate a civil war will break out sometime soon in
Iraq; some
claim it’s already underway.
2005 Ron Paul 35:9
We
have seen none of the promised oil production that was supposed to
provide
grateful Iraqis with the means to repay us for the hundreds of billions
that
American taxpayers have spent on the war.
Some have justified our continuous presence in the Persian Gulf
since
1990 because of a need to protect “our” oil.
Yet now that Saddam Hussein is gone, and the occupation
supposedly is a
great success, gasoline at the pumps is reaching record highs
approaching $3 per
gallon.
2005 Ron Paul 35:10
Though
the Iraqi election has come and gone, there still is no government in
place and
the next election-- supposedly the real one-- is not likely to take
place on
time.
Do
the American people have any idea who really won the dubious election
at all?
2005 Ron Paul 35:11
The oil-for-food scandal under Saddam Hussein has been replaced by corruption in the distribution of
U.S. funds
to rebuild Iraq.
Already there is an admitted $9 billion discrepancy in the
accounting of
these funds.
The
over-billing by Halliburton is no secret, but the process has not
changed.
2005 Ron Paul 35:12
The
whole process is corrupt.
It just doesn’t make sense to most Americans to see their tax
dollars
used to fight an unnecessary and unjustified war.
First they see American bombs destroying a country, and then
American
taxpayers are required to rebuild it.
Today it’s easier to get funding to rebuild infrastructure in
Iraq than
to build a bridge in the United States.
Indeed, we cut the Army Corps of Engineers’ budget and operate
on the
cheap with our veterans as the expenditures in Iraq skyrocket.
2005 Ron Paul 35:13
One
question the war promoters don’t want to hear asked, because they don’t
want
to face up to the answer, is this:
“Are Christian Iraqis better off today since we decided to build
a new
Iraq through force of arms?”
The answer is plainly no.
2005 Ron Paul 35:14
Sure,
there are only 800,000 Christians living in Iraq, but under Saddam
Hussein they
were free to practice their religion.
Tariq Aziz, a Christian, served in Saddam Hussein’s cabinet as
Foreign
Minister-- something that would never happen in Saudi Arabia, Israel,
or any
other Middle Eastern country.
Today, the Christian churches in Iraq are under attack and
Christians are
no longer safe.
Many Christians have been forced to flee Iraq and migrate to
Syria.
It’s strange that the human rights advocates in the U.S.
Congress have
expressed no concern for the persecution now going on against
Christians in
Iraq.
Both
the Sunni and the Shiite Muslims support the attacks on Christians.
In fact, persecuting Christians is one of the few areas in which
they
agree-- the other being the removal of all foreign forces from Iraqi
soil.
2005 Ron Paul 35:15
Considering
the death, destruction, and continual chaos in Iraq, it’s difficult to
accept
the blanket statement that the Iraqis all feel much better off with the
U.S. in
control rather than Saddam Hussein.
Security in the streets and criminal violence are not anywhere
near being
under control.
2005 Ron Paul 35:16
But
there’s another question that is equally important:
“Are the American people better off because of the Iraq war?”
2005 Ron Paul 35:17
One
thing for sure, the 1,500 plus dead American soldiers aren’t better off.
The nearly 20,000 severely injured or sickened American troops
are not
better off.
The
families, the wives, the husbands, children, parents, and friends of
those who
lost so much are not better off.
2005 Ron Paul 35:18
The
families and the 40,000 troops who were forced to re-enlist against
their will--
a de facto draft-- are not feeling better off.
They believe they have been deceived by their enlistment
agreements.
2005 Ron Paul 35:19
The
American taxpayers are not better off having spent over 200 billion
dollars to
pursue this war, with billions yet to be spent.
The victims of the inflation that always accompanies a
guns-and-butter
policy are already getting a dose of what will become much worse.
2005 Ron Paul 35:20
Are
our relationships with the rest of the world better off?
I’d say no.
Because of the war, our alliances with the Europeans are weaker
than
ever.
The
anti-American hatred among a growing number of Muslims around the world
is
greater than ever.
This makes terrorist attacks more likely than they were before
the
invasion.
Al
Qaeda recruiting has accelerated.
Iraq is being used as a training ground for al Qaeda terrorists,
which it
never was under Hussein’s rule.
So as our military recruitment efforts suffer, Osama bin Laden
benefits
by attracting more terrorist volunteers.
2005 Ron Paul 35:21
Oil
was approximately $27 a barrel before the war, now it’s more than twice
that.
I wonder who benefits from this?
2005 Ron Paul 35:22
Because
of the war, fewer dollars are available for real national security and
defense
of this country.
Military spending is up, but the way the money is spent
distracts from
true national defense and further undermines our credibility around the
world.
2005 Ron Paul 35:23
The
ongoing war’s lack of success has played a key role in diminishing
morale in
our military services.
Recruitment is sharply down, and most branches face shortages of
troops.
Many young Americans rightly fear a coming draft-- which will be
required
if we do not reassess and change the unrealistic goals of our foreign
policy.
2005 Ron Paul 35:24
The
appropriations for the war are essentially off-budget and obscured, but
contribute nonetheless to the runaway deficit and increase in the
national debt.
If these trends persist, inflation with economic stagnation will
be the
inevitable consequences of a misdirected policy.
2005 Ron Paul 35:25
One
of the most significant consequences in times of war that we ought to
be
concerned about is the inevitable loss of personal liberty.
Too often in the patriotic nationalism that accompanies armed
conflict,
regardless of the cause, there is a willingness to sacrifice personal
freedoms
in pursuit of victory.
The real irony is that we are told we go hither and yon to fight
for
freedom and our Constitution, while carelessly sacrificing the very
freedoms
here at home we’re supposed to be fighting for.
It makes no sense.
2005 Ron Paul 35:26
This
willingness to give up hard-fought personal liberties has been
especially
noticeable in the atmosphere of the post-September 11th war on
terrorism.
Security has replaced liberty as our main political goal,
damaging the
American spirit.
Sadly, the whole process is done in the name of patriotism and
in a
spirit of growing militant nationalism.
2005 Ron Paul 35:27
These
attitudes and fears surrounding the 9-11 tragedy, and our eagerness to
go to war
in the Middle East against countries not responsible for the attacks,
have
allowed a callousness to develop in our national psyche that justifies
torture
and rejects due process of law for those who are suspects and not
convicted
criminals.
2005 Ron Paul 35:28
We
have come to accept pre-emptive war as necessary, constitutional, and
morally
justifiable.
Starting
a war without a proper declaration is now of no concern to most
Americans or the
U.S. Congress.
Let’s hope and pray the rumors of an attack on Iran in June by
U.S.
Armed Forces are wrong.
2005 Ron Paul 35:29
A
large segment of the Christian community and its leadership think
nothing of
rationalizing war in the name of a religion that prides itself on the
teachings
of the Prince of Peace, who instructed us that blessed are the
peacemakers-- not
the warmongers.
2005 Ron Paul 35:30
We
casually accept our role as world policeman, and believe we have a
moral
obligation to practice nation building in our image regardless of the
number of
people who die in the process.
2005 Ron Paul 35:31
We
have lost our way by rejecting the beliefs that made our country great.
We no longer trust in trade, friendship, peace, the
Constitution, and the
principle of neutrality while avoiding entangling alliances with the
rest of the
world.
Spreading
the message of hope and freedom by setting an example for the world has
been
replaced by a belief that use of armed might is the only practical tool
to
influence the world-- and we have accepted, as the only superpower, the
principle of initiating war against others.
2005 Ron Paul 35:32
In
the process, Congress and the people have endorsed a usurpation of
their own
authority, generously delivered to the executive and judicial
branches-- not to
mention international government bodies.
The concept of national sovereignty is now seen as an issue that
concerns
only the fringe in our society.
2005 Ron Paul 35:33
Protection
of life and liberty must once again become the issue that drives
political
thought in this country.
If this goal is replaced by an effort to promote world
government, use
force to plan the economy, regulate the people, and police the world,
against
the voluntary desires of the people, it can be done only with the
establishment
of a totalitarian state.
There’s no need for that.
It’s up to Congress and the American people to decide our fate,
and
there is still time to correct our mistakes.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 36
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
April 6, 2005
Honoring Pope John Paul II- A Consistent Pro-life Figure
2005 Ron Paul 36:1
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues in paying tribute to the life
and legacy of Pope John Paul II. Pope John Paul II was one of the great
religious leaders of modern times, and an eloquent champion of human
freedom and
dignity. Unlike all-too-many misguided religious leaders, the Pope
understood
that liberty, both personal and economic, is a necessary condition for
the
flourishing of human virtue.
2005 Ron Paul 36:2
The
Pope’s commitment to human dignity, grounded in the teachings of
Christ, led
him to become one of the most eloquent spokesmen for the consistent
ethic of
life, exemplified by his struggles against abortion, war, euthanasia,
and the
death penalty.
2005 Ron Paul 36:3
Unfortunately,
few in American politics today adhere to the consistent ethic of life,
thus we
see some who cheered the Pope’s stand against the war and the death
penalty
while downplaying or even openly defying his teachings against abortion
and
euthanasia.
2005 Ron Paul 36:4
Others
who cheered the Pope’s opposition to abortion and euthanasia were
puzzled or
hostile to his opposition to war. Many of these “pro-life supporters of
war”
tried to avoid facing the inherent contradictions in their position by
distorting the Just War doctrine, which the Pope properly interpreted
as denying
sanction to the Iraq war. One prominent conservative commentator even
suggested
that the pope was the “enemy” of the United States.
2005 Ron Paul 36:5
In
conclusion, I am pleased to pay tribute to Pope John Paul II. I would
encourage
those who wish to honor his memory to reflect on his teachings
regarding war and
the sanctity of life, and consider the inconsistencies in claiming to
be
pro-life but supporting the senseless killing of innocent people that
inevitably
accompanies militarism, or in claiming to be pro-peace and
pro-compassion but
supporting the legal killing of the unborn.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 37
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Tribute To Dr. Andrew Messenger, A True Friend Of Liberty
6 April 2005
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, April 6, 2005
2005 Ron Paul 37:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a friend and patriot, Dr. Andrew L. Messenger,
of Riverdale, Michigan.
2005 Ron Paul 37:2
As a physician, I know Dr. Messenger is the type of doctor all of us would want to have to
take care of us. He is capable, loves his work,
genuinely cares about his patients, and is always
available if someone needs him. In fact,
he loves being a doctor so much that he did
not retire until this past year at age 83.
2005 Ron Paul 37:3
Every day he would wake up early to be at the office by 6:45 a.m. He knew that many of
his working patients preferred to come in early
so he made himself available. Dr. Messenger
felt that if he as a doctor was unavailable, he
was worthless.
2005 Ron Paul 37:4
Dr. Messenger also applied this principle to being a father. Leaving the house early in the
morning allowed him to spend time with his
family in the evenings. Most nights and weekends
were spent hunting, fishing, playing at
the local playground, and attending athletic
events with his six children.
2005 Ron Paul 37:5
When Dr. Messenger returned home from work, the whole family would sit around the
dinner table and discuss personal and newsworthy
events of the day. After dinner was
done and homework finished, Dr. Messenger
would take the kids out to play. Baseball and
going to the park were two of the Messenger
family’s favorite after dinner activities.
2005 Ron Paul 37:6
His personal involvement in the lives of his children paid off. He has six successful children,
three of whom are doctors.
2005 Ron Paul 37:7
Dr. Messenger lives by the principals of honesty, hard work, and caring for his fellow
man, and took great care to instill these same
principles into his children.
2005 Ron Paul 37:8
After raising a family and running a respected practice, Dr. Messenger continues to
make a difference not only in his local community
and across the United States through his
generous support of the Leadership Institute.
2005 Ron Paul 37:9
When most men embrace the rewards retirement offers, Dr. Messenger pushes on to
make a difference in the lives of his countrymen.
Dr. Messenger’s support of the Leadership
Institute gives young people and working
professionals the practical tools necessary to
advance liberty and protect freedom. Too
often freedom has few friends on our college
campuses, in our state houses, and in our
capitol. Dr. Messenger is providing everyday
citizens with the resources necessary to defend
the dream of limited government George
Washington and the rest of our founding fathers
created when they wrote our constitution.
2005 Ron Paul 37:10
Clearly, Dr. Messenger has not only contributed to society by raising six successful children,
he has made provisions for future generations
through investing in the long-term
mission of the Leadership Institute.
2005 Ron Paul 37:11
Thank you, Dr. Messenger, for investing in the lives of the future leaders of this country
through your faithful and generous support of
the Leadership Institute.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 38
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Humanitarian Food And Medicine Export Act
6 April 2005
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, April 6, 2005
2005 Ron Paul 38:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation that will remove current, and prohibit
future, embargoes on the export of food,
medicine, or medical devices. Embargoes on
these items, as we have seen time and time
again, do not have the desired policy effect on
the targeted country. In fact, they only punish
the innocent and most vulnerable people in
these countries. Does anyone believe that denying
the people of a foreign country food or
medicine because of our quarrel with their
leader will make them more sympathetic toward
the United States? We are fond of talking
about “humanitarian” treatment in foreign
countries. But it is our policy of embargoing
the export of food and medicine to certain
countries that is most un-humanitarian. We
need to practice what we preach.
2005 Ron Paul 38:2
Also, it is very important to remember the harm we do to our own citizens when we deny
them the right to sell their products to whoever
they like. It is not very humanitarian to deny
our own citizens the right to their livelihood because
our political leadership does not get
along with the political leadership of another
country.
2005 Ron Paul 38:3
Mr. Speaker, we do ourselves no favors in denying our citizens the right to export the essentials
for life to citizens abroad. And we do
no real harm to leaders abroad, who actually
benefit by our sanction policies, as they provide
a convenient scapegoat for their own
economic failures. The fact is that trade promotes
peace. Forcibly cutting off trade relations
with another country promotes militarism
and conflict.
2005 Ron Paul 38:4
I hope my colleagues will join me by co- sponsoring this legislation.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 39
Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
April 14, 2005
Repeal Sarbanes-Oxley!
2005 Ron Paul 39:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Due Process and Economic
Competitiveness
Restoration Act, which repeals Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.
Sarbanes-Oxley was rushed into law in the hysterical atmosphere
surrounding the Enron and WorldCom bankruptcies, by a Congress more
concerned
with doing something than doing the right thing.
Today, American businesses, workers, and investors are suffering
because
Congress was so eager to appear “tough on corporate crime.”
Sarbanes-Oxley
imposes costly new regulations on the financial services industry.
These
regulations are damaging American capital markets by providing an
incentive for
small US firms and foreign firms to deregister from US stock exchanges.
According to a study by the prestigious Wharton Business School, the
number of
American companies deregistering from public stock exchanges nearly
tripled
during the year after Sarbanes-Oxley became law, while the New York
Stock
Exchange had only 10 new foreign listings in all of 2004.
2005 Ron Paul 39:2
The
reluctance of small businesses and foreign firms to register on
American stock
exchanges is easily understood when one considers the costs
Sarbanes-Oxley
imposes on businesses. According to a survey by Kron/Ferry
International,
Sarbanes-Oxley cost Fortune 500 companies an average of
$5.1 million in compliance expenses in 2004, while a study by
the law
firm of Foley and Lardner found the Act increased costs associated with
being a
publicly held company by 130 percent.
2005 Ron Paul 39:3
Many
of the major problems stem from section 404 of Sarbanes-Oxley, which
requires
Chief Executive Officers to certify the accuracy of financial
statements.
It also requires that outside auditors “attest to” the soundness
of
the internal controls used in preparing the statements-- an obvious sop
to
auditors and accounting firms.
The
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board defines internal controls as
“controls over all significant accounts and disclosures in the
financial
statements.” According to John Berlau, a Warren Brookes Fellow at the
Competitive Enterprise Institute, the definition of internal controls
is so
broad that a CEO possibly could be found liable for not using the
latest version
of Windows! Financial analysts have identified Section 404 as the major
reason
why American corporations are hoarding cash instead of investing it in
new
ventures.
2005 Ron Paul 39:4
Journalist
Robert Novak, in his column of April 7, said that, “[f]or more than a
year,
CEOs and CFOs have been telling me that 404 is a costly nightmare” and
“ask
nearly any business executive to name the biggest menace facing
corporate
America, and the answer is apt to be number 404…a dagger aimed at the
heart of
the economy.”
2005 Ron Paul 39:5
Compounding
the damage done to the economy is the harm Sarbanes-Oxley does to
constitutional
liberties and due process. CEOs and CFOs can be held criminally liable,
and
subjected to 25 years in prison, for inadvertent errors. Laws
criminalizing
honest mistakes done with no intent to defraud are more typical of
police states
than free societies. I hope those who consider themselves civil
libertarians
will recognize the danger of imprisoning citizens for inadvertent
mistakes, put
aside any prejudice against private businesses, and join my efforts to
repeal
Section 404.
2005 Ron Paul 39:6
The US Constitution does not give the federal government authority to regulate
the accounting standards of private corporations. These questions
should be
resolved by private contracts between a company and its shareholders,
and by
state and local regulations. Let me remind my colleagues who are
skeptical of
the ability of markets and local law enforcement to protect against
fraud: the
market passed judgment on Enron, in the form of declining stock prices,
before
Congress even held the first hearing on the matter. My colleagues also
should
keep in mind that certain state attorneys general have been very
aggressive in
prosecuting financial crimes
2005 Ron Paul 39:7
Section
404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act has raised the costs of doing business,
thus
causing foreign companies to withdraw from American markets and
retarding
economic growth. By criminalizing inadvertent mistakes and exceeding
congressional authority, Section 404 also undermines the rule of law
and
individual liberty. I therefore urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Due
Process
and Economic Competitiveness Restoration Act.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 40
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
The United States Should Withdraw From UNESCO
14 April 2005
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, April 14, 2005
2005 Ron Paul 40:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a concurrent resolution expressing the
sense of the Congress that the United States
should withdraw from the United Nations Educational,
Scientific, and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO).
2005 Ron Paul 40:2
Mr. Speaker, in 1984 President Ronald Reagan withdrew the United States from
membership in UNESCO, citing egregious financial
mis-management, blatant anti-Americanism,
and UNESCO’s general anti-freedom
policies and programs. President Reagan was
correct in identifying UNESCO as an organization
that does not act in America’s interest,
and he was correct in questioning why the
U.S. should fund 25 percent of UNESCO’s
budget for that privilege.
2005 Ron Paul 40:3
Since the United States decided to re-join UNESCO in 2003, Congress has appropriated
funds to cover some 25 percent of the organization’s
entire budget. But what are we getting
for this money?
2005 Ron Paul 40:4
UNESCO has joined the “International Network for Cultural Policy” in seeking a UN
“global diversity initiative” by this year that
would restrict US export of some $70 billion
worth of movies, television programs, music
recordings, and other cultural products.
2005 Ron Paul 40:5
UNESCO sponsors the International Baccalaureate program, which seeks to indoctrinate
US primary and secondary school students
through its “universal curriculum” for teaching
global citizenship, peace studies and equality
of world cultures. This program, started in Europe,
is infiltrating the American school system.
2005 Ron Paul 40:6
UNESCO has been fully supportive of the United Nations’ Population Fund in its assistance
to China’s brutal coercive population
control program.
2005 Ron Paul 40:7
UNESCO has designated 47 U.N. Biosphere Reserves in the United States covering
more than 70 million acres, without Congressional
consultation.
2005 Ron Paul 40:8
Continued membership in UNESCO is a blatant assault on our sovereignty and an inexcusable
waste of U.S. taxpayer dollars.
2005 Ron Paul 40:9
Mr. Speaker, I hope all members of this body will join me in calling for an end to U.S.
membership in the United Nations Educational,
Scientific, and Cultural Organization
by co-sponsoring this legislation.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 41
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
The American Justice For American Citizens Act
14 April 2005
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, April 14, 2005
2005 Ron Paul 41:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the American Justice for American Citizens
Act, which exercises Congress’s Constitutional
authority to regulate the federal judiciary to ensure
that federal judges base their decisions
solely on American Constitutional, statutory,
and traditional common law. Federal judges
increasing practice of “transjudicialism” makes
this act necessary. Transjudicialism is a new
legal theory that encourages judges to disregard
American law, including the United
States Constitution, and base their decisions
on foreign law. For example, Supreme Court
justices have used international law to justify
upholding race-based college admissions,
overturning all state sodomy laws, and, most
recently, to usurp state authority to decide the
age at which criminals becomes subject to the
death penalty.
2005 Ron Paul 41:2
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.”
2005 Ron Paul 41:3
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.
2005 Ron Paul 41:4
There has also been speculation that transjudicialism could be used to conform
American law to treaties, such as the U.N.
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.
2005 Ron Paul 41:5
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.
2005 Ron Paul 41:6
Mr. Speaker, the drafters of the Constitution gave Congress the power to regulate the jurisdiction
of federal courts precisely so we could
intervene when the federal judiciary betrays its
responsibility to uphold the Constitution and
American law. Congress has a duty to use this
power to ensure that judges base their decisions
solely on American law.
2005 Ron Paul 41:7
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.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 42
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Federalizing Abortion Law
27 April 2005
2005 Ron Paul 42:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, in the name of a truly laudable cause, preventing abortion and
protecting parental rights, today the Congress
could potentially move our Nation one step
closer to a national police state by further expanding
the list of Federal crimes and usurping
power from the States to adequately address
the issue of parental rights and family
law. Of course, it is much easier to ride the
current wave of criminally federalizing all
human malfeasance 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
carried out by a centralized government. Who,
after all, wants to be amongst those Members
of Congress who are portrayed as trampling
parental rights or supporting the transportation
of minor females across State lines for ignoble
purposes.
2005 Ron Paul 42:2
As an obstetrician of almost 40 years, I have personally delivered more than 4,000
children. During such time, I have not performed
a single abortion. On the contrary, I
have spoken and written extensively and publicly
condemning this “medical” procedure. At
the same time, I have remained committed to
upholding the constitutional procedural protections
which leave the police power decentralized
and in control of the States. In the name
of protecting parental rights, this bill usurps
States’ rights by creating yet another Federal
crime.
2005 Ron Paul 42:3
Our Federal government is, constitutionally, a government of limited powers, article I, section
8, enumerates the legislative area for
which the U.S. Congress is allowed to act or
enact legislation. For every other issues, the
Federal Government lacks any authority or
consent of the governed and only the State
governments, their designees, or the people in
their private market actions enjoy such rights
to governance. The 10th amendment is brutally
clear in stating “The powers not delegated
to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved
to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Our Nation’s history makes clear that the U.S.
Constitution is a document intended to limit
the power of central government. No serious
reading of historical events surrounding the
creation of the Constitution could reasonably
portray it differently.
2005 Ron Paul 42:4
Nevertheless, rather than abide by our constitutional limits, Congress today will likely
pass H.R. 748. H.R. 748 amends title 18,
United States Code, to prohibit taking minors
across State lines to avoid laws requiring the
involvement of parents in abortion decisions.
Should parents be involved in decisions regarding
the health of their children? Absolutely.
Should the law respect parents’ rights
to not have their children taken across State
lines for contemptible purposes? Absolutely.
Can a State pass an enforceable statute to
prohibit taking minors across State lines to
avoid laws requiring the involvement of parents
in abortion decisions? Absolutely. But
when asked if there exists constitutional authority
for the Federal criminalizing of just such
an action the answer is absolutely not.
2005 Ron Paul 42:5
This federalizing may have the effect of nationalizing a law with criminal penalties which
may be less than those desired by some
States. To the extent the Federal and State
laws could co-exist, the necessity for a Federal
law is undermined and an important bill of
rights protection is virtually obliterated. Concurrent
jurisdiction crimes erode the right of
citizens to be free of double jeopardy. The fifth
amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifies
that no “person be subject for the same offense
to be twice put in jeopardy of life or
limb. . .” In other words, no person shall be
tried twice for the same offense. However, in
United States v. Lanza, the high court in 1922
sustained a ruling that being tried by both the
Federal Government and a State government
for the same offense did not offend the doctrine
of double jeopardy. One danger of the
unconstitutionally expanding the Federal criminal
justice code is that it seriously increases
the danger that one will be subject to being
tried twice for the same offense. Despite the
various pleas for Federal correction of societal
wrongs, a national police force is neither prudent
nor constitutional.
2005 Ron Paul 42:6
We have been reminded by both Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and former U.S. Attorney
General Ed Meese that more Federal
crimes, while they make politicians feel good,
are neither constitutionally sound nor prudent.
Rehnquist has stated that “The trend to federalize
crimes that traditionally have been handled
in state courts . . . threatens to change
entirely the nature of our federal system.”
Meese stated that Congress’s tendency in recent
decades to make Federal crimes out of
offenses that have historically been State matters
has dangerous implications both for the
fair administration of justice and for the principle
that States are something more than
mere administrative districts of a Nation governed
mainly from Washington.
2005 Ron Paul 42:7
The argument which springs from the criticism of a federalized criminal code and a Federal
police force is that States may be less effective
than a centralized Federal Government
in dealing with those who leave one State jurisdiction
for another. Fortunately, the Constitution
provides for the procedural means for
preserving the integrity of State sovereignty
over those issues delegated to it via the 10th
amendment. The privilege and immunities
clause as well as full faith and credit clause
allow States to exact judgments from those
who violate their State laws. The Constitution
even allows the Federal Government to legislatively
preserve the procedural mechanisms
which allow States to enforce their substantive
laws without the Federal Government imposing
its substantive edicts on the States. Article
IV, section 2, clause 2 makes provision for the
rendition of fugitives from one State to another.
While not self-enacting, in 1783 Congress
passed an act which did exactly this.
There is, of course, a cost imposed upon
States in working with one another rather than
relying on a national, unified police force. At
the same time, there is a greater cost to State
autonomy and individual liberty from centralization
of police power.
2005 Ron Paul 42:8
It is important to be reminded of the benefits of federalism as well as the costs. There are
sound reasons to maintain a system of smaller,
independent jurisdictions. An inadequate
Federal law, or an “adequate” Federal law improperly
interpreted by the Supreme Court,
preempts States’ rights to adequately address
public health concerns. Roe v. Wade should
serve as a sad reminder of the danger of making
matters worse in all States by federalizing
an issue.
2005 Ron Paul 42:9
It is my erstwhile hope that parents will become more involved in vigilantly monitoring
the activities of their own children rather than
shifting parental responsibility further upon the
Federal Government. There was a time when
a popular bumper sticker read “It’s ten o’clock;
do you know where your children are?” I suppose
we have devolved to the point where it
reads “It’s ten o’clock; does the Federal Government
know where your children are.” Further
socializing and burden shifting of the responsibilities
of parenthood upon the Federal
Government is simply not creating the proper
incentive for parents to be more involved.
2005 Ron Paul 42:10
For each of these reasons, among others, I must oppose the further and unconstitutional
centralization of police powers in the national
government and, accordingly, H.R. 748.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 43
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Tribute To Fort Bend, ISD For Winning The Award For Best District-Wide Mock Student Election Program
27 April 2005
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
2005 Ron Paul 43:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to congratulate the Fort Bend Independent
School District (ISD) for winning the award for
having the best district-wide mock student
election program in the nation from the American
Association of School Administrators and
the National Student/Parent Mock Election.
Fort Bend lSD’s program is an innovative educational
project combining resources from the
social studies, math, and education technology
departments to create an interactive website
containing election resources, an online voting
location, and a database of election results.
2005 Ron Paul 43:2
Fort Bend students can use the database to study election results, create spreadsheets,
and draw conclusions about the election process.
The website also includes information for
parents, including a link to the county registrar’s
office for voter registration. Another
part of the program involved the county election
board deputizing teachers so the teachers
could register adults, including eligible high
school students, to vote in the 2004 election.
2005 Ron Paul 43:3
Each school within the Fort Bend ISD individualized its mock election by having candidates
debate and the students decorate the
polling places. Students also studied potential
campaign strategies for the candidates they
supported. Student participation were very
strong, with over 40,000 votes cast.
2005 Ron Paul 43:4
The curricula developed to analyze mock election results were made available to elementary,
middle and high school students. According
to the National Student/Parent Mock
Election, which evaluates similar curricula nationwide,
2005 Ron Paul 43:5
Fort Bend lSD’s curricula was very strong. Particularly impressive was Fort Bend
lSD’s utilization of Microsoft Excel to analyze
and generate summaries of the election results.
Fort Bend lSD’s mock student election
project was an innovative use of technology
and community support to educate children
about the electoral process and thus prepare
them to be active, and informed, citizens. I am
proud to pay tribute to the teachers, administrators,
parents, and especially the students of
Fort Bend ISD for winning the award for the
best mock student election project in the nation
from the American Association of School
Administrators and the National Student/Parent
Mock Election.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 44
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Introducing The “American Citizenship Amendment”
28 April 2005
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, April 28, 2005
2005 Ron Paul 44:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the American Citizenship Amendment. Currently,
any person born on American soil can
claim American citizenship, regardless of the
citizenship of that child’s parents. This means
that any alien who happens to give birth in the
United States has just given birth to an American
citizen, eligible for all the benefits and
privileges afforded to citizens.
2005 Ron Paul 44:2
Thus far the U.S. courts have asserted authority by interpreting the 14th Amendment to
include the concept of birthright citizenship.
However it is up to the U.S. Congress — and
not the U.S. Supreme Court — to define American
citizenship. That is why, I am introducing
this Constitutional Amendment clarifying that
the happenstance of birth on U.S. soil does
not a U.S. citizen make.
2005 Ron Paul 44:3
This proposed Constitutional amendment restores the concept of American citizenship to
that of our Founders. This legislation simply
states that no child born in the United States
whose mother and father do not possess citizenship
or owe permanent allegiance to the
United States shall be a citizen of the United
States. It is essential to the future of our constitutional
republic that citizenship be something
of value, something to be cherished. It
cannot be viewed as merely an express train
into the welfare state.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 45
Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
May 4, 2005
Republicans Should Not Support a UN Court
2005 Ron Paul 45:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution. The idea
that the United States Congress should demand that Nigeria deport a
former
president of Liberia to stand trial in a United Nations court in
Liberia is
absurd!
2005 Ron Paul 45:2
I do not object to this legislation because I dispute the charges against
Charles Taylor. Frankly, as a United States Congressman my authority
does not
extend to deciding whether a foreign leader has committed crimes in his
own
county. The charges may well be true. I do, however, dispute our
authority as
the United States Congress to demand that a foreign country transfer a
former
leader of a third country back to that country to stand trial before a
United
Nations kangaroo court.
2005 Ron Paul 45:3
As the resolution itself cites, one top UN official, Jaques Klein, has
already pronounced Taylor guilty, stating “Charles Taylor is a
psychopath and
a killer.” But the resolution concludes that “Congress urges the
Government
of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to expeditiously transfer Charles
Ghankay
Taylor, former President of the Republic of Liberia, to the
jurisdiction of the
Special Court for Sierra Leone to undergo a fair and open trial…” So it
is
probably safe to guess what kind of “trial” this will be - a
Soviet-style
show trial. The United Nations has no business conducting trials for
anyone,
regardless of the individual or the crime. It is the business of
Liberia and
Nigeria to determine the fate of Charles Taylor.
2005 Ron Paul 45:4
If we in the United States wish to retain our own constitutional protections,
we must be steadfast in rejecting the idea that a one-world court has
jurisdiction over anyone, anywhere, regardless of how heinous the
accusations.
The sovereignty we undermine eventually will be our own.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 46
Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
May 4, 2005
Reject Taxpayer Bank Bailouts
2005 Ron Paul 46:1
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1185, the Federal
Deposit Insurance Reform Act, expands the federal government’s
unconstitutional
control over the financial services industry and raises taxes on all
financial
institutions. Furthermore, this legislation increases the possibility
of future
bank failures. Therefore, I must oppose this bill.
2005 Ron Paul 46:2
I
primarily object to the provisions in H.R. 1185 which may increase the
premiums
assessed on participating financial institutions. These “premiums,”
which
are actually taxes, are the primary source of funds for the Deposit
Insurance
Fund. This fund is used to bail out banks that experience difficulties
meeting
commitments to their depositors. Thus, the deposit insurance system
transfers
liability for poor management decisions from those who made the
decisions to
their competitors. This system punishes those financial institutions
that follow
sound practices, as they are forced to absorb the losses of their
competitors.
This also compounds the moral hazard problem created whenever
government
socializes business losses.
2005 Ron Paul 46:3
In
the event of a severe banking crisis, Congress likely will transfer
funds from
general revenues into the Deposit Insurance Fund, which would make all
taxpayers
liable for the mistakes of a few. Of course, such a bailout would
require
separate authorization from Congress, but can anyone imagine Congress
saying no
to banking lobbyists pleading for relief from the costs of bailing out
their
weaker competitors?
2005 Ron Paul 46:4
Government
subsidies lead to government control, as regulations are imposed on the
recipients of the subsidies in order to address the moral hazard
problem. This
certainly is the case in banking, which is one of the most heavily
regulated
industries in America. However, as George Kaufman (John Smith Professor
of
Banking and Finance at Loyola University in Chicago and co-chair of the
Shadow
Financial Regulatory Committee) pointed out in a study for the CATO
Institute,
the FDIC’s history of poor management exacerbated the banking crisis of
the
eighties and nineties. Professor Kaufman properly identifies a key
reason for
the FDIC’s poor track record in protecting individual depositors:
regulators
have incentives to downplay or even cover-up problems in the financial
system
such as banking facilities. Banking failures are black marks on the
regulators’
records. In addition, regulators may be subject to political pressure
to delay
imposing sanctions on failing institutions, thus increasing the
magnitude of the
loss.
2005 Ron Paul 46:5
Immediately
after a problem in the banking industry comes to light, the media and
Congress
inevitably blame it on regulators who were “asleep at the switch.” Yet
most
politicians continue to believe that giving more power to the very
regulators
whose incompetence (or worse) either caused or contributed to the
problem
somehow will prevent future crises!
2005 Ron Paul 46:6
The
presence of deposit insurance and government regulations removes
incentives for
individuals to act on their own to protect their deposits or even
inquire as to
the health of their financial institutions. After all, why should
individuals be
concerned when the federal government is ensuring banks following sound
practices and has insured their deposits?
2005 Ron Paul 46:7
Finally,
I would remind my colleagues that the federal deposit insurance program
lacks
constitutional authority. Congress’ only mandate in the area of money,
and
banking is to maintain the value of the money. Unfortunately, Congress
abdicated
its responsibility over monetary policy with the passage of the Federal
Reserve
Act of 1913, which allows the federal government to erode the value of
the
currency at the will of the central bank. Congress’ embrace of fiat
money is
directly responsible for the instability in the banking system that
created the
justification for deposit insurance.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 47
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Gang Deterrence And Community Protection Act
11 May 2005
2005 Ron Paul 47:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, the Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act, (H.R.
1279), is the latest example of Congress disregarding
its constitutional limitations in the
name of “getting tough on crime.” Gang crime
is certainly a serious issue in many parts of
the country. However, unless criminal gangs
are engaging in counterfeiting, treason, or piracy,
the federal government has no jurisdiction
over the criminal activities of gangs. In
fact, by creating new federal crimes related to
gang activities, but unrelated to one of the federal
crimes enumerated in the Constitution,
the new federal crimes and enhanced penalties
in this bill usurp state and local authority.
2005 Ron Paul 47:2
H.R. 1279 broadly defines “criminal street gangs” and “gang activity.” This is a major expansion
of Federal criminal jurisdiction. Chief
Justice William H. Rehnquist and former U.S.
Attorney General Ed Meese, two men who no
one has ever accused of being “soft on
crime,” have both warned that, although creating
more Federal crimes may make politicians
feel good, it is neither constitutionally
sound nor prudent. Rehnquist has stated that,
“[t]he trend to federalize crimes that traditionally
have been handled in state courts . . .
threatens to change entirely the nature of our
federal system.” Meese stated that Congress’s
tendency in recent decades to make federal
crimes out of offenses that have historically
been state matters has dangerous implications
both for the fair administration of justice and
for the principle that states are something
more than mere administrative districts of a
nation governed mainly from Washington.
2005 Ron Paul 47:3
Those who want the American criminal justice system to actually deliver justice should
oppose H.R. I279 because it imposes “mandatory
minimum” sentences for certain gang-
related crimes. Mandatory minimum sentences
impose a “one-size-fits-all” formula in place of
the discretion of a judge, or jury, to weigh all
the circumstances surrounding an individual’s
crime and decide on an appropriate punishment.
Taking away judicial discretion over
sentencing may represent a legislative usurpation
of areas properly left to the judiciary. I
have long been critical of judicial usurpation of
legislative functions, and have introduced legislation
using Congress’s constitutional powers
to rein in the judiciary. However, I recognize
that Congress must make sure it does not
overstep its constitutional authority by imposing
legislative solutions on matters best resolved
by the judicial branch.
2005 Ron Paul 47:4
Mandatory minimums almost guarantee unjust sentences. Reverend Nicholas DiMarzio,
Chairman of the Domestic Policy Committee
of the United States Conference of Catholic
Bishops, and Reverend Kerry Snyder, President
of Catholic Charities USA, summed it up
well in a letter to Congress opposing this bill:
“. . . rigid sentencing formulations could prevent
judges from properly assessing an individual’s
culpability during the crime of other
factors that have bearing on recidivism, thus
sometimes resulting in harsh and inappropriate
sentences.”
2005 Ron Paul 47:5
I am also concerned that removing authority over the prevention and punishment of gang
crimes from state and local jurisdictions will
prevent states and localities from coming up
with innovative ways to prevent gang crimes.
Gangs flourish for a multitude of reasons, and
no federal “one-size-fits-all” program can address
all the causes of gang crimes. States
and localities should be left free to create the
gang prevention and punishment programs
that best meet their unique needs.
2005 Ron Paul 47:6
Supporters of this bill make a good point that federal money is being wasted on ineffective
“prevention” programs like the infamous
“midnight basketball” program. However, H.R.
1279 in no way reduces funding for ineffective
prevention programs. Instead, it spends more
taxpayer money on unconstitutional crime programs.
The sponsors of this bill could have attempted
to stop wasting taxpayer funds on
programs such as midnight basketball by
defunding such prevention programs and
using the funds to pay for the new programs
created by H.R. 1279.
2005 Ron Paul 47:7
Finally, I must oppose this bill because it expands the Federal death penalty. While I recognize
that nothing in the Constitution forbids
Federal, State, or local governments from imposing
a death penalty, I have come to the
conclusion that a consistent pro-life position
requires opposition to any legislation imposing
a Federal death penalty for unconstitutional
Federal crimes. Mr. Speaker, I do not advocate
Federal action to stop individual States
from imposing a death penalty, I simply oppose
compounding the damage done by creating
new Federal crimes by making those
crimes subject to a Federal death penalty.
2005 Ron Paul 47:8
H.R. 1279 exceeds Congress’s constitutional authority by creating new Federal
crimes, thus further burdening the already
overwhelmed Federal judiciary system and
taking another step toward upending our constitutional
system by turning the States into
administrative districts of the Federal Government.
This bill also creates unwise mandatory
minimum sentences, usurping the sentencing
decisions of judges and juries. Finally, H.R.
1279 raises serious moral issues by expanding
the use of the Federal death penalty.
Therefore, I must oppose H.R. 1279 and urge
my colleagues to do same.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 48
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Introducing The Consumers Access To Health Information Act
12 May 2005
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, May 12, 2005
2005 Ron Paul 48:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to enhance the health and liberty of American citizens by
introducing the Consumers Access to Health
Information Act of 2005. This act ensures consumers
can receive truthful information about
how foods and dietary supplements can cure,
mitigate, and prevent specific diseases. The
act does this simply by correcting an erroneous
court decision and thus restoring congressional
intent to allow consumers to have
access to information regarding the health
benefits of dietary supplements without government
interference.
2005 Ron Paul 48:2
In 1990, responding to the demands of the American people that the federal government
respect consumers’ right to receive information
about the ways foods and dietary supplements
can improve their health, Congress passed the
Nutrition Labeling and Education Act. The intent
of that act was to allow the manufacturers
of foods and dietary supplements to provide
consumers with accurate and specific information
regarding the curative and preventive effects
of foods and dietary supplements. However,
the Food and Drug Administration, FDA,
ignored repeated efforts by Congress to protect
consumers’ First Amendment rights to receive
truthful information about the health benefits
of foods and dietary supplements.
2005 Ron Paul 48:3
Incredibly, in the case of Whitaker v. Thompson, 353 F.3d 947 (2004), rehearing
den. 2004 U.S.D. App. LEXIS 4617 (D.C. Cir.
March 9, 2004) the United States Court of Appeals
for the D.C. Circuit supported the FDA’s
interpretation of Congress’s intent and rejected
the clear restraints of the First Amendment by
ruling that the FDA had the authority to censor
information regarding the specific benefits of
foods and dietary supplements.
2005 Ron Paul 48:4
Mr. Speaker, under the D.C. Circuit’s absurd interpretation of federal law, the only way food
and drug manufacturers can transmit information
about the health benefits of their products
is by going through the lengthy and expensive
FDA drug approval process. Because of this
court decision, manufacturers are reluctant to
provide all but the most general health information,
thus ensuring that consumers remain
ignorant about how they can cure or avoid diseases
by making simple changes in their diet.
2005 Ron Paul 48:5
There are numerous examples of how the FDA’s grocery store censorship negatively impacts
Americans’ health. Several years ago,
the FDA dragged manufacturers of Cholestin,
a dietary supplement containing lovastatin,
which is helpful in lowering cholesterol, into
court. The FDA did not dispute the benefits of
Cholestin. Instead, the FDA attempted to deny
consumers access to this helpful product simply
because the manufacturer did not submit
Cholestin to the FDA’s drug approval process.
2005 Ron Paul 48:6
The FDA’s treatment of the manufacturer of Cholestin is not an isolated example of how
current FDA policy harms consumers. Even
though coronary heart disease is the nation’s
number-one killer, the FDA waited nine years
until it allowed consumers to learn about how
consumption of foods and dietary supplements
containing soluble fiber from the husk of psyllium
seeds can reduce the risk of coronary
heart disease. Thanks to the FDA, the American
public is also prevented from learning
about possible ways to prevent cancer, Alzheimer’s,
high blood pressure, urinary tract infection,
and numerous other diseases.
2005 Ron Paul 48:7
At a time when health care costs are rising it is absurd for the federal government to prevent
Americans from learning about how they
increase their chances of staying healthy by
making simple changes in their diets. However,
this bill is about more than physical
health; it is about freedom. The First Amendment
forbids Congress from abridging freedom
of all speech, including commercial speech.
The type of prior restraint the FDA exercises
over these health claims has also been
thought to be particularly repugnant to the
First Amendment. In a free society, the federal
government must not be allowed to prevent
people from receiving information enabling
them to make informed decisions about
whether or not they will use dietary supplements
or eat certain foods. I, therefore, urge
my colleagues to take a step toward restoring
freedom by cosponsoring the Consumer Access
to Health Information Act.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 49
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Statement Introducing Repeal Of Selective Service
18 May 2005
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
2005 Ron Paul 49:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am today introducing legislation to repeal the Selective Service
Act and related parts of the United States
Code. The Department of Defense, in response
to calls to reinstate the draft, has confirmed
that conscription serves no military
need.
2005 Ron Paul 49:2
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is on record citing the “notable disadvantages”
of a military draft, adding, “. . . there is not a
draft. . . . There will not be a draft.”
2005 Ron Paul 49:3
This is only the most recent confirmation that the draft, and thus the Selective Service
system, serves no military purpose.
2005 Ron Paul 49:4
Obviously, if there is no military need for the draft, then there is no need for Selective Service
registration. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, Selective
Service registration is an outdated and
outmoded system, which has been made obsolete
by technological advances.
2005 Ron Paul 49:5
In fact, in 1993, the Department of Defense issued a report stating that registration could
be stopped “with no effect on military mobilization
and no measurable effect on the time it
would take to mobilize, and no measurable effect
on military recruitment.” Yet the American
taxpayer has been forced to spend over $500
million dollars on an outdated system “with no
measurable effect on military mobilization!”
2005 Ron Paul 49:6
Shutting down Selective Service will give taxpayers a break without adversely affecting
military efforts. Shutting down Selective Service
will also end a program that violates the
very principals of individual liberty our nation
was founded upon. The moral case against
the draft was eloquently expressed by former
President Ronald Regan in the publication
Human Events in 1979: “. . . it [conscription]
rests on the assumption that your kids belong
to the state. If we buy that assumption then it
is for the state — not for parents, the community,
the religious institutions or teachers — to
decide who shall have what values and who
shall do what work, when, where and how in
our society. That assumption isn’t a new one.
The Nazis thought it was a great idea.”
2005 Ron Paul 49:7
I hope all my colleagues join me in working to shut down this un-American relic of a bygone
era and help realize the financial savings
and the gains to individual liberties that can be
achieved by ending Selective Service registration.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 50
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Introducing A Bill To Postpone The 2005 Round Of Defense Base Closure And Realignment
19 May 2005
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, May 19, 2005
2005 Ron Paul 50:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a bill to postpone the 2005 round of military
base closure and realignment. This bill
would postpone the conclusion of the Realignment
report issued by the Department of Defense
on 13 May 2005, as well as any preceding
or subsequent plans that may ultimately
be enacted to close or realign military
bases on U.S. territory. This bill will postpone
such closures and realignments until a specific
set of criteria have been fulfilled, including
until both the Defense Department and Congress
have had the opportunity to fully study
the recommendations and their implications for
the national security and defense of the United
States.
2005 Ron Paul 50:2
This round of base closure and realignment also should not go forward while we have hundreds
of thousands of troops deployed overseas
in major conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The constant rotation of troops and other
personnel to these major theaters of operations
has caused great disruption, logistical
strain, and terrible burdens on our
servicemembers, their families, and the military
itself.
2005 Ron Paul 50:3
Also, we should not proceed with this round of base closures and realignments before the
2006 release of the Quadrennial Defense Review.
Congress must have ample time to
study the recommendations of the QDR before
agreeing on any major closure and realignment
strategy. To do otherwise just does not
make any sense.
2005 Ron Paul 50:4
Mr. Speaker, for these and other reasons I feel it is essential — for the strength of our military,
the effectiveness of our defense, and the
security of all Americans — that we postpone
this round of BRAC closings until we are able
to satisfy the critical criteria outlined in this bill.
I hope my colleagues will join me by supporting
this legislation and I hope for its
speedy consideration on the House Floor.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 51
Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
May 24, 2005
No Federal Funding for Stem Cell Research
2005 Ron Paul 51:1
Mr. Speaker, the issue of government funding of embryonic stem cell
research is one
of the most divisive matters facing the country. While I sympathize
with those
who see embryonic stem cell research as a path to cures for
dreadful
diseases that have stricken so many Americans, I strongly object to
forcing
those Americans who believe embryonic stem cell research is immoral to
subsidize
such research with their tax dollars.
2005 Ron Paul 51:2
The
question that should concern Congress today is: Does the US government
have the
constitutional authority to fund any form of stem cell research?
The clear
answer to that question is no. A proper constitutional position would
reject
federal funding for stem cell research, while allowing individual
states and
private citizens to decide whether to permit, ban, or fund this
research.
Therefore, I must vote against HR 810.
2005 Ron Paul 51:3
Unfortunately,
many congressional opponents of embryonic stem cell research disregard
the
Constitution by supporting HR 2520, an “acceptable” alternative that
funds
umbilical-cord stem cell research. While this approach is much
less
objectionable than funding embryonic stem cell research, it is still
unconstitutional. Therefore, I must also oppose HR 2520.
2005 Ron Paul 51:4
Federal
funding of medical research guarantees the politicization of decisions
about
what types of research for what diseases will be funded. Thus, scarce
tax
resources are allocated according to who has the most effective lobby
rather
than on the basis of need or even likely success. Federal funding also
causes
researchers to neglect potential treatments and cures that do not
qualify for
federal funds. Ironically, an example of this process may be found in
HR 2520:
some research indicates that adult stem cells may be as useful or more
useful to
medical science than either embryonic or umbilical cord stem cells. In
fact, the
supporters of embryonic stem cell research may have a point when they
question
the effectiveness of umbilical cord stem cells for medical purposes.
Yet if HR
2520 becomes law, researchers will have an incentive to turn away from
adult
stem cell research in order to receive federal funds for umbilical cord
stem
cell research!
2005 Ron Paul 51:5
Legal questions relating to ethical dilemmas should be resolved at the local
level, as
the Constitution provides. Congress should follow the
Constitution and
reject federal funding of stem cell research.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 52
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Bad Policy For Base Closings
25 May 2005
Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL).
(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission
to revise and extend his remarks.)
2005 Ron Paul 52:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment.
2005 Ron Paul 52:2
Some Members wonder why I would support this amendment, considering
the fact that I am the most fiscally
conservative Member of Congress and
vote for the least amount of spending.
But I think this amendment is a good
amendment, and I think the closing of
these bases represents bad policy. I do
not have a base in my district that is
being threatened to be closed.
2005 Ron Paul 52:3
Let me tell Members why I think this is a mistake. First, I think the process
is very poor. I think we are ducking
our responsibility. To turn this responsibility
over to a commission and duck
the responsibility of facing up to making
tough decisions, I think, is something
we do too often. Too often in the
Congress, we do things we should not
be doing, and we forget to assume the
responsibilities we have. In this case, I
think we are not assuming the responsibility
to face up to making this tough
decision.
2005 Ron Paul 52:4
It is claimed we will save $5 billion a year on base closings. We spend $5 billion
a month in Iraq. We are spending
nearly a billion dollars in building an
embassy in Iraq. We are going to build
four bases in Iraq that are going to be
permanent, costing tens of billions of
dollars. I think we have our priorities
all messed up.
2005 Ron Paul 52:5
I think that it makes a lot more sense to keep a submarine base in Connecticut
and keep a deep seaport in
Ingleside, Texas, than it does to be
closing these down and at the same
time building bases up around the
world.
2005 Ron Paul 52:6
I think the savings issue is a red herring. Between 1995 and 2001, the last
base closing, $6.5 billion was spent, and
$6.1 billion was saved. So we are spending
more money than we are saving in
closing down these bases.
2005 Ron Paul 52:7
I have a quote here I want to read; it comes from a think tank, one of the defense
policy think tanks. This to me is
important. “The big story here is not
going to be saving money; the big story
is going to be preparing the force for
future threats by moving it to more
logical locations.” In other words, defending
our borders, protecting our
homeland, worry about defending this
country is less important than spreading
our troops and protecting the empire
and expanding the empire and exposing
us to greater danger.
2005 Ron Paul 52:8
This is an issue of policy. This is an issue of process, and this is a red herring
when you think you are saving
money. We are not going to be saving
money in this process. We are just
going to be giving an excuse to build
bases around the world.
2005 Ron Paul 52:9
This is the time that we ought to reassess our policies and how we spend
our money. This is why a 1-year delay
is a perfect time to take time, stand
back and figure out when we are going
to get our troops home, when are we
going to have a defense policy that defends
this country and our borders
rather than spreading ourselves so
thinly around the world and building
huge bases in foreign lands.
2005 Ron Paul 52:10
That, to me, is the real issue. I hope we take deep consideration and support
this amendment.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 53
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Military Appropriations
26 May 2005
2005 Ron Paul 53:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of this appropriations bill, although with some
reservations. I am pleased that the reorganization
of the appropriations bills has brought
about a more logical and supportable Veterans
Affairs appropriations product.
2005 Ron Paul 53:2
I do retain strong concerns over some of the funds appropriated under the Military Construction
and North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Security Investment Program sections of
this bill.
2005 Ron Paul 53:3
Although I recognize the need for legitimate funds for military construction, I do remain
concerned that the funds appropriated herein
will be used to fund the construction of U.S.
military installations overseas. At a time when
we are closing dozens of military installations
in the United States — installations that actually
contribute to the defense of the United
States — under the auspices of saving money,
it is unconscionable to be spending money for
the defense of foreign countries.
2005 Ron Paul 53:4
I also strongly object to the appropriation of U.S.taxpayer funds for, as the bill states, “the
acquisition and construction of military facilities
and installations (including international military
headquarters) and for related expenses
for the collective defense of the North Atlantic
Treaty Area.” NATO is a relic of the Cold War
and most certainly has no purpose some fifteen
years after the fall of the Soviet Union.
As we saw in the NATO invasion of Yugoslavia,
having outlived its usefulness as a defensive
alliance, the Organization has become
an arm of aggressive militarism and interventionism.
NATO deserves not a dime of American
taxpayer’s money, nor should the United
States remain a member.
2005 Ron Paul 53:5
In conclusion, though I support this appropriations bill, I remain concerned about the
construction of military bases overseas and
the dangerous interventionist foreign policy
that drives this construction.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 54
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Public Safety Tax Cut Act
8 June 2005
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, June 8, 2005
2005 Ron Paul 54:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Public Safety Tax Cut Act. This
legislation will achieve two important public
policy goals. First, it will effectively overturn a
ruling of the Internal Revenue Service which
has declared as taxable income the waiving of
fees by local governments who provide service
for public safety volunteers.
2005 Ron Paul 54:2
Many local governments use volunteer firefighters and auxiliary police either in place of,
or as a supplement to, their public safety professionals.
Often as an incentive to would-be
volunteers, the local entities might waive all or
a portion of the fees typically charged for city
services such as the provision of drinking
water, sewerage charges, or debris pick up.
Local entities make these decisions for the
purpose of encouraging folks to volunteer, and
seldom do these benefits come anywhere
near the level of a true compensation for the
many hours of training and service required of
the volunteers. This, of course, not even to
mention the fact that these volunteers could
very possibly be called into a situation where
they may have to put their lives on the line.
2005 Ron Paul 54:3
Rather than encouraging this type of volunteerism, which is so crucial, particularly to
America’s rural communities, the IRS has decided
that the provision of the benefits described
above amount to taxable income. Not
only does this adversely affect the financial
position of the volunteer by foisting new taxes
about him or her, it has in fact led local entities
to stop providing these benefits, thus taking
away a key tool they have used to recruit
volunteers. That is why the IRS ruling in this
instance has a substantial deleterious impact
on the spirit of American volunteerism. How
far could this go? For example, would consistent
application mean that a local Salvation
Army volunteer be taxed for the value of a
complimentary ticket to that organization’s annual
county dinner? This is obviously bad policy.
2005 Ron Paul 54:4
This legislation would rectify this situation by specifically exempting these types of benefits
from federal taxation.
2005 Ron Paul 54:5
Next, this legislation would also provide paid professional police and fire officers with a
$1,000 per year tax credit. These professional
public safety officers put their lives on the line
each and every day, and I think we all agree
that there is no way to properly compensate
them for the fabulous services they provide. In
America we have a tradition of local law enforcement
and public safety provision. So,
while it is not the role of our federal government
to increase the salaries of these, it certainly
is within our authority to increase their
take-home pay by reducing the amount of
money that we take from their pockets via federal
taxation, and that is something this bill
specifically does as well.
2005 Ron Paul 54:6
President George Bush has called on Americans to volunteer their time and energy to enhancing
public safety. Shouldn’t Congress do
its part by reducing taxes that discourage public
safety volunteerism? Shouldn’t Congress
also show its appreciation to police officers
and firefighters by reducing their taxes? I believe
the answer to both of these questions is
a resounding “yes” and therefore I am proud
to introduce the Public Safety Tax Cut Act. I
request that my fellow Members join in support
of this key legislation.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 55
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Police Security Protection Act
8 June 2005
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, June 8, 2005
2005 Ron Paul 55:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to help America’s law enforcement officers by introducing
the Police Security Protection Act.
This legislation provides police officers a tax
credit for the purchase of armored vests.
2005 Ron Paul 55:2
Professional law enforcement officers put their lives on the line each and every day. Reducing
the tax liability of law enforcement officers
so they can afford armored vests is one
of the best ways Congress can help and encourage
these brave men and women. After
all, an armored vest could literally make the
difference between life or death for a police officer,
I hope my colleagues will join me in
helping our nation’s law enforcement officers
by cosponsoring the Police Security Protection
Act.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 56
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Yields To Rep. Jones
9 June 2005
(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission
to revise and extend his remarks.)
2005 Ron Paul 56:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I first yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. JONES).
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 57
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
United States Should Leave World Trade Organization
9 June 2005
2005 Ron Paul 57:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself
such time as I may consume.
2005 Ron Paul 57:2
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of our position to remove ourselves
from the WTO. My economic position is
somewhat different from some of my
allies, because I come at it from a free
trade position.
2005 Ron Paul 57:3
I happen to believe in minimum tariffs, if any, but I do not believe that
the process of the WTO and world government
is a good way to do it. I do not
think the WTO achieves its purpose,
and I do not think it is permissible
under the Constitution. Therefore, I
strongly argue the case that, through
the process, that we should defend the
position of the Congress which gives us
the responsibility of dealing with international
trade, with international foreign
commerce. That is our responsibility.
We cannot transfer that responsibility
to the President, and we cannot
transfer that responsibility to an
international government body.
2005 Ron Paul 57:4
Therefore, there are many of us who ally together to argue that case, although
we may have a disagreement on
how much tariffs we should have, because
the Congress should decide that.
We could have no tariffs; we could have
a uniform tariff, which the Founders
believed in and permitted; or we could
have protective tariffs, which some of
those individuals on our side defend,
and I am not that much interested in.
But the issue that unifies us is who
should determine it. For me, the determination
should be by the U.S. Congress
and not to defer to an international
government body.
2005 Ron Paul 57:5
Now this always bewilders me, when my conservative friends and those who
believe in limited government are so
anxious to deliver this to another giant
international body. For instance, the
WTO employs over 600 people. Free
trade, if you are interested in free
trade, all you have to do is write a sentence
or two, and you can have free
trade. You do not need 600 bureaucrats.
It costs $133 million to manage the
WTO every year. Of course, we pay the
biggest sum, over $25 million for this,
just to go and get permission or get our
instructions from the WTO.
2005 Ron Paul 57:6
We all know that we raised taxes not too long ago, not because the American
people rose up and called their Congressmen
and said we wanted you to repeal
this tax and change the taxes. It
was done in order to be an upstanding
member of the WTO. We responded and
took instructions from the WTO and
adapted our tax policy to what they desired.
2005 Ron Paul 57:7
One other issue that I think those who defend the WTO and call themselves
free traders ought to recognize is
that when we concede the fact that
there should be a trade-off, it means
they really do not believe in free trade.
If you believe in free trade and the people
have the right to spend their money
the way they want, it would be as simple
as that. It would benefit that country,
because you could get your goods
and services cheaper.
2005 Ron Paul 57:8
But this whole concession to the management of trade through the WTO
says, all right, we are going to do this
if you do this, and it acknowledges the
fact that free trade does not work unless
you get something for it. That
may be appealing to some, but a free
trader should not argue that way. Because
free trade, if it is a benefit, it is
simply a benefit.
2005 Ron Paul 57:9
In the 1990s when the WTO was originally passed, the former Speaker of the
House made a statement about this. I
want to quote from him. This is from
Newt Gingrich. He was talking about
the WTO: “I am just saying that we
need to be honest about the fact that
we are transferring from the United
States at a practical level significant
authority to a new organization. This
is a transformational moment. I would
feel better if the people who favor this
would be honest about the scale of
change. This is not just another trade
agreement. This is adopting something
which twice, once in the 1940s and once
in the 1950s, the U.S. Congress rejected.
I am not even saying that we should reject
it. I, in fact, lean toward it. But I
think we have to be very careful, because
it is a very big transfer of
power.”
2005 Ron Paul 57:10
I agree with Newt Gingrich on this. It was a huge transfer of power. I happen
to believe it was an unconstitutional
transfer of power; and, therefore, we
are now suffering the consequences because
we have lost prerogatives and
control of our own trade policy.
2005 Ron Paul 57:11
Now the President of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, a free market think
tank, from Auburn, Alabma said, “The
World Trade Organization is supposed
to be the great apparatus to push the
world to greater economic integration.
In reality, it was nothing but the resurrection
of the old central planning
fallacy that the world needs a central
authority to manage it. The WTO has
ended up politicizing trade by putting
the stamp of officialdom on some very
bad policy.”
2005 Ron Paul 57:12
So my message is to appeal to those who believe in limited government,
free markets, free trade and the Constitution.
I appeal to those who want
to use tariffs in a protective way because
they defend the process. But I am
really appealing to the conservatives
who claim they believe in free trade,
because I do not believe what we have
here is truly free trade.
2005 Ron Paul 57:13
The WTO has already been able to influence our tax laws. Not too long ago,
Utah repealed a ban on electronic gambling
for fear the WTO would come in
and find that violated free trade.
2005 Ron Paul 57:14
Another area of importance to so many of us, both on the left and the
right of the political spectrum, has to
do with the Codex Commission regulation
set up by the United Nations. How
much regulation are we going to have
on vitamins and nutrition products?
The UN already indicated the type of
regulation. Guess who may, most likely,
be the enforcer of these regulations?
It will be the WTO. The Europeans
have much stricter regulations. This
means that some day the WTO may
well come to us and regulate the distribution
of vitamins and nutritional
supplements in this country, something
that I do not think we should
even contemplate. The case can be
made that if they have already pressured
us to do things, they may well do
it once again.
2005 Ron Paul 57:15
Our administration is not too interested in the Kyoto Protocol, but that
may well come down the road, and the
enforcement of the Kyoto Protocol
many believe will be enforced by the
WTO.
2005 Ron Paul 57:16
So this is big government, pure and simple. It does not endorse free trade
whatsoever. It endorses managed trade;
and too often it is managed for the
privileges of the very large, well-positioned
companies. It does not recognize
the basic principle that we should defend
as a free society individuals ought
to have the right to spend their money
the way they want. That is what free
trade is, and you can do that unilaterally
without pain and suffering.
2005 Ron Paul 57:17
So I ask Members to consider, why should we not reclaim some of our prerogatives,
our authorities, our responsibility?
We have given up too much
over the years. We have clearly given
up our prerogatives on the declaration
of war, and on monetary issues. That
has been given away by the Congress.
And here it is on the trade issue.
2005 Ron Paul 57:18
I can remember an ad put out in the 1990s when the WTO was being promoted
and they talked directly, it was
a full page ad, I believe, in the New
York Times. They said, “This is the
third leg of the new world order.” We
had the World Bank, we had the IMF,
and now we had the World Trade Organization.
2005 Ron Paul 57:19
So if you are a believer in big government and world government and you
believe in giving up the prerogatives of
the Congress and not assuming our responsibility,
I would say, go with the
WTO. But if you believe in freedom, if
you believe in the Constitution and if
you really believe in free trade, I would
say we should vote to get out of the
WTO.
2005 Ron Paul 57:20
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my remaining time be allotted
to the gentleman from Vermont
(Mr. SANDERS) and that he be able to
control that time.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 58
Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]
The Hidden Cost of War
June 14, 2005
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2005 Ron Paul 58:1
The cost of war is always more than anticipated.
If all the costs were known prior to the beginning of a war,
fewer wars
would be fought.
At the beginning,
optimism prevails.
Denial and
deception override the concern for the pain and penalties yet to come.
Jingoistic patriotism and misplaced militarism too easily
silence those
who are cautious about the unforeseen expenses and hardships brought on
by war.
Conveniently forgotten are the goals never achieved by armed
conflict,
and the negative consequences that linger for years.
Even some who recognize that the coming war will be costly
easily
rationalize that the cost will be worth it Others claim it’s unmanly or
weak
to pursue a negotiated settlement of a political dispute, which helps
drive the
march toward armed conflict.
2005 Ron Paul 58:2
It
has been argued by proponents of modern technological warfare in recent
decades
that sophisticated weapons greatly reduce the human costs by using a
smaller
number of troops equipped with smart weapons that minimize battle
deaths and
collateral damage.
This belief has
led some to be more willing to enter an armed conflict.
The challenge will be deciding whether or not modern weapons
actually
make war more acceptable and less costly.
So
far the use of sanctions, the misjudgments of resistance to occupation,
and
unintended consequences reveal that fancy weapons do not guarantee
fancy and
painless outcomes.
Some
old-fashioned rules relating to armed conflicts cannot be easily
repealed
despite the optimism of the “shock and awe” crowd.
It seems that primitive explosive weapons can compete quite
effectively
with modern technology when the determination exists and guerrilla
tactics are
used.
The promised efficiency and
the reduced casualties cannot yet be estimated.
2005 Ron Paul 58:3
Costs
are measured differently depending on whether or not a war is defensive
or
offensive in nature.
Costs in each
situation may be similar but are tolerated
quite differently.
The
determination of those defending their homeland frequently is
underestimated,
making it difficult to calculate costs.
Consider
how long the Vietnamese fought and suffered before routing all foreign
armies.
For 85 years the Iraqis steadfastly have resisted all foreign
occupation,
and even their previous history indicates that meddling by western and
Christian
outsiders in their country would not be tolerated.
Those who fight a defensive war see the cost of the conflict
differently.
Defenders have the goal of surviving and preserving their
homeland,
religious culture, and their way of life-- despite the shortcomings
their prior
leaders.
Foreigners are seen as a
threat.
This willingness to defend
to the last is especially strong if the society they fight for affords
more
stability than a war-torn country.
2005 Ron Paul 58:4
Hardships
can be justified in defensive wars, and use of resources is more easily
justified than in an unpopular far-away conflict.
Motivations are stronger, especially when the cause seems to be
truly
just and the people are willing to sacrifice for the common goal of
survival.
Defensive war provides a higher moral goal, and this idealism
exceeds
material concerns.
In all wars,
however, there are profiteers and special interests looking after their
own
selfish interests.
2005 Ron Paul 58:5
Truly
defensive wars never need a draft to recruit troops to fight.
Large numbers voluntarily join to face the foreign threat.
2005 Ron Paul 58:6
In
a truly defensive war, huge costs in terms of money, lives, and
property are
endured because so much is at stake.
Total
loss of one’s country is the alternative.
2005 Ron Paul 58:7
The
freer a country is, where the love of liberty is alive and well, the
greater the
resistance.
A free society provides
greater economic means to fight than a tyrannical society.
For this reason truly free societies are less likely to be
attacked by
tyrants.
2005 Ron Paul 58:8
But
societies that do not enjoy maximum freedom and economic prosperity
still pull
together to resist invaders.
A
spirit of nationalism brings people together when attacked, as do
extreme
religious beliefs.
The cause of
liberty or a “divine” emperor or radical Islam can inspire those
willing to
fight to the death to stop a foreign occupation.
These motivations make the costs and risks necessary and
justifiable,
where a less popular offensive war will not be tolerated as long.
Idealism inspires a strong defense; cynicism eventually curtails
offensive wars.
2005 Ron Paul 58:9
The
cost of offensive war over time is viewed quite differently by the
people who
must pay.
Offensive wars include
those that are initiated by one country to seek some advantage over
another
without provocation.
This includes
needless intervention in the internal affairs
of others and efforts at nation building, even when well intentioned.
Offensive war never achieves the high moral ground in spite of
proclamations made by the initiators of the hostilities.
Offensive wars eventually fail, but tragically only after much
pain and
suffering.
The cost is great, and
not well accepted by the people who suffer and have nothing to gain.
The early calls for patriotism and false
claims generate
initial support, but the people eventually tire.
2005 Ron Paul 58:10
At
the beginning of an offensive war the people are supportive because of
the
justifications given by government authorities, who want the war for
ulterior
reasons.
But the demands to
sacrifice liberty at home to promote freedom and democracy abroad ring
hollow
after the cost and policy shortcomings become evident.
Initially, the positive propaganda easily overshadows the pain
of the
small number who must fight and suffer injury.
2005 Ron Paul 58:11
Offensive
wars are fought without as much determination as defensive wars. They
tend to be
less efficient and more political, causing them to linger and drift
into
stalemate or worse.
2005 Ron Paul 58:12
In
almost all wars, governments use deception about the enemy that needs
to be
vanquished to gain the support of the people.
In our recent history, just since 1941, our government has
entirely
ignored the requirement that war be fought only after a formal
congressional
declaration-- further setting the stage for disenchantment once the war
progresses poorly.
Respect for the
truth is easily sacrificed in order to rally the people for the war
effort.
Professional propagandists, by a coalition of the media and
government
officials, beat the war drums. The people follow out of fear of being
labeled
unpatriotic and weak in the defense of our nation-- even when there is
no
national security threat at all.
2005 Ron Paul 58:13
Joining
in support for the war are the special interest groups that have other
agendas
to pursue: profits, religious beliefs, and partisan political
obligations.
2005 Ron Paul 58:14
Ideologues
use war to pursue personal ambitions unrelated to national defense, and
convert
the hesitant with promises of spreading democracy, freedom, and
prosperity.
The tools they use are unrestrained state power to force their
ideals on
others, no matter how unjust it seems to the unfortunate recipients of
the
preemptive war.
For some, the more
chaos the greater the opportunity to jump in and remake a country or an
entire
region.
At times in history the
opening salvo has been deliberately carried out by the ones anxious to
get the
war underway while blaming the opposition for the incident.
The deceptions must stir passion for the war through an appeal
to
patriotism, nationalism, machismo, and jingoistic manliness of proving
oneself
in great feats of battle.
2005 Ron Paul 58:15
This
early support, before the first costs are felt, is easily achieved.
Since total
victory may not come quickly, however, support by the people is
gradually lost.
When the war is questioned, the ill-conceived justifications for
getting
involved are reexamined and found to have been distorted.
Frequently, the people discover they were lied to, so that
politicians could gain support for a war that had nothing to do with
national
security.
2005 Ron Paul 58:16
These
discoveries and disenchantments come first to those directly exposed to
danger
in the front lines, where soldiers die or lose their limbs.
Military families and friends bear the burden of grief, while
the
majority of citizens still hope the war will end or never affect them
directly
in any way.
But as the casualties
grow the message of suffering spreads, and questions remain unanswered
concerning the real reason an offensive war was necessary in the first
place.
2005 Ron Paul 58:17
Just
when the human tragedy becomes evident to a majority of the citizens,
other
costs become noticeable.
Taxes are
raised, deficits explode, inflation raises its ugly head and the
standard of
living for the average citizen is threatened.
Funds for the war, even if immediate direct taxes are not
levied, must
come from the domestic economy and everyone suffers.
The economic consequences of the Vietnam War were felt
throughout the
1970s and into the early 1980s.
2005 Ron Paul 58:18
As
the problems mount, the falsehoods and distortions on which the war was
based
become less believable and collectively resented.
The government and the politicians who pursued the policy lose
credibility.
The tragedy, however, is that
once even the majority
discovers the truth, much more time is needed to change the course of
events.
This is the sad part.
2005 Ron Paul 58:19
Political
leaders who needlessly dragged us into the war cannot and will not
admit an
error in judgment.
In fact they do the
opposite to prove they were right all
along.
Instead of winding down, the
war gets a boost to prove the policy was correct and to bring the war
to a
victorious conclusion.
This only
motivates the resistance of those fighting the defensive side of the
war.
More money and more troops must be sacrificed before the policy
changes.
Using surrogate foreign troops may seem to cut domestic troop
loses in
the country starting the war, but will only prolong the agony,
suffering, and
costs and increase the need for even more troops.
2005 Ron Paul 58:20
Withdrawing
financial support for the effort is seen as being even more unpatriotic
than not
having supported the war in the first place.
Support for the troops becomes equivalent to supporting the
flawed policy
that led to the mess.
2005 Ron Paul 58:21
No
matter how unwise the policy and how inevitable the results, changing
course
becomes almost impossible for those individuals who promoted the war.
This fear of being labeled unpatriotic and not supportive of the
troops
on the battlefield ironically drives a policy that is more harmful to
the troops
and costly to the folks at home.
Sometimes
it requires a new group of politicians, removed from the original
decision
makers who initiated the war, to bring about a shift in policy.
Johnson couldn’t do it in Vietnam, and Nixon
did it slowly,
awkwardly and not without first expanding the war before agreeing
enough was
enough.
2005 Ron Paul 58:22
With
the seemingly inevitable delays in altering policy, the results are
quite
predictable.
Costs escalate and the
division between supporters and non-supporters widens.
This adds to economic problems while further eroding domestic
freedoms,
as with all wars.
On occasion, as
we’ve seen in our own country, dissent invites harsh social and legal
repercussions.
Those who speak out
in opposition will not only be ostracized, but may feel the full force
of the
law coming down on them.
Errors in
foreign affairs leading to war are hard to reverse.
But even if deliberate action doesn’t change the course of
events,
flawed policies eventually will fail as economic laws will assert
themselves.
2005 Ron Paul 58:23
The
more people have faith in and depend upon the state, the more difficult
it is to
keep the state from initiating wars.
If
the state is seen as primarily responsible for providing personal and
economic
security, obedience and dependency becomes a pervasive problem.
If the state is limited to protecting liberty, and encourages
self-reliance and personal responsibility, there’s a much better chance
for
limiting pro-war attitudes.
The
great danger of war, especially unnecessary war, is that it breeds more
dependency while threatening liberty-- always allowing the state to
grow
regardless of existing attitudes before the war.
War unfortunately allows the enemies of liberty to justify the
sacrifice
of personal freedoms, and the people all too often carelessly sacrifice
precisely what they are supposed to be fighting for: freedom.
Our revolution was a rare exception.
It was one war where the people ended up with
more freedom
not less.
2005 Ron Paul 58:24
Economics and War
Almost
every war has an economic component, some more obvious than others.
Our own civil war dealt with slavery, but tariffs and economic
oppression
by the North were also major factors.
Remember,
only a small number of southern soldiers personally owned slaves, yet
they were
enthusiastic in their opposition to the northern invasion.
The battles fought in the Middle East since WWI have had a lot
to do with
securing Arab oil fields for the benefit of western nations.
Not only are wars fought for economic reasons, wars have
profound
economic consequences for the countries involved, even if one side is
spared
massive property damage.
The
economic consequences of war play a major role in bringing hostilities
to an
end.
The consequences are less
tolerated by the citizens of countries whose leaders drag them into
offensive
and unnecessary wars.
The
determination to fight on can’t compete with those who see their
homeland
threatened by foreign invaders.
2005 Ron Paul 58:25
Iraq
2005 Ron Paul 58:26
There’s
essentially no one, not even among the neo-con crowd, claiming that the
Iraqi
war is defensive in nature for America.
Early
on there was an attempt to do so, and it was successful to a large
degree in
convincing the American people that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass
destruction and was connected to al Qaeda.
Now the justification for the war is completely different and
far less
impressive.
If the current justification
had been used to rally the
American people and Congress from the beginning, the war would have
been
rejected.
The fact that we are
bogged down in an offensive war makes it quite difficult to extricate
ourselves
from the mess.
Without the
enthusiasm that a defensive war generates, prolonging the Iraq war will
play
havoc with our economy.
The insult
of paying for the war in addition to the fact that the war was not
truly
necessary makes the hardship less tolerable.
This leads to domestic turmoil, as proponents become more vocal
in
demanding patriotic support and opponents become angrier for the burden
they
must bear.
2005 Ron Paul 58:27
So
far the American people have not yet felt the true burden of the costs
of this
war.
Even with 1,700 deaths and
13,000 wounded, only a small percentage of Americans have suffered
directly--
but their pain and suffering is growing and more noticeable every day.
Taxes have not been raised to pay the bills for the current war,
so
annual deficits and national debt continue to grow.
This helps delay the pain of paying the bills, but the
consequences of
this process are starting to be felt.
Direct
tax increases, a more honest way to finance foreign interventionism,
would serve
to restrain those who so cavalierly take us to war.
The borrowing authority of governments permit wars to be
started and prolonged which otherwise would be resisted if the true
cost were
known to the people from the beginning.
2005 Ron Paul 58:28
Americans
have an especially unique ability to finance our war efforts while
minimizing
the immediate effect.
As the issuer
of the world’s reserve currency, we are able to finance our
extravagance
through inflating our dollars.
We
have the special privilege of printing that which the world accepts as
money in
lieu of gold.
This is an invitation
to economic disaster, permitting an ill-founded foreign policy that
sets the
stage for problems for years to come.
A
system of money that politicians and central bankers could not
manipulate would
restrain those with grandiose ideas of empire.
2005 Ron Paul 58:29
The
Federal Reserve was created in 1913, and shortly thereafter the Fed
accommodated
the Wilsonians bent on entering WWI by inflating and deficit financing
that
ill-begotten involvement.
Though it
produced the 1921 depression and many other problems since, the process
subsequently has become institutionalized in financing our militarism
in the 20
th
Century and already in the 21
st
.
Without the Fed’s ability to create money out of thin air, our
government would be severely handicapped in waging wars that do not
serve our
interests.
The money issue and the
ability of our government to wage war are intricately related.
Anyone interested in curtailing wartime spending and our
militarism
abroad is obligated to study the monetary system, through which our
government
seductively and surreptitiously finances foreign adventurism without
the
responsibility of informing the public of its cost or collecting the
revenues
required to finance the effort.
2005 Ron Paul 58:30
Being
the issuer of the world’s premier currency allows for a lot more abuse
than a
country would have otherwise.
World
businesses, governments, and central banks accept our dollars as if
they are as
good as gold.
This is a remnant of
a time when the dollar
was
as good as gold.
That is no longer the case.
The
trust is still there, but it’s a misplaced trust.
Since the dollar is simply a paper currency without real value,
someday
confidence will be lost and our goose will no longer be able to lay the
golden
egg.
That’s when reality will set
in and the real cost of our extravagance, both domestic and foreign,
will be
felt by all Americans.
We will no
longer be able to finance our war machine through willing foreigners,
who now
gladly take our newly printed dollars for their newly produced goods
and then
loan them back to us at below market interest rates to support our
standard of
living and our war effort.
2005 Ron Paul 58:31
The
payment by American citizens will come as the dollar loses value,
interest rates
rise, and prices increase.
The
higher prices become the tax that a more honest government would have
levied
directly to pay for the war effort.
An
unpopular war especially needs this deception as a method of payment,
hiding the
true costs which are dispersed and delayed through this neat little
monetary
trick.
The real tragedy is that this
“inflation tax” is not
evenly distributed among all the people, and more often than not is
borne
disproportionately by the poor and the middle class as a truly
regressive tax in
the worst sense.
Politicians in
Washington do not see inflation as an unfair seductive tax.
Our
monetary policy unfortunately is never challenged even by the
proponents of low
taxes who care so little about deficits, but eventually it all comes to
an end
because economic law overrides the politicians’ deceit.
2005 Ron Paul 58:32
Already
we are seeing signs on the horizon that this free ride for us is coming
to an
end.
Price inflation is alive and
well and much worse than government statistics show.
The sluggish economy suggests that the super stimulation of easy
credit
over the last decades is no longer sufficient to keep the economy
strong.
Our personal consumption and government spending are dependent
on
borrowing from foreign lenders.
Artificially
high standards of living can mask the debt accumulation that it
requires while
needed savings remain essentially nil.
2005 Ron Paul 58:33
This
ability to print the reserve currency of the world, and the willingness
of
foreigners to take it, causes gross distortions in our current account
deficits
and total foreign indebtedness.
It
plays a major role in the erosion of our manufacturing base, and causes
the
exporting of our jobs along with our dollars.
Bashing foreigners, in particularly the Chinese and the
Japanese, as the
cause of our dwindling manufacturing and job base is misplaced. It
prevents the
evaluation of our own policies-- policies that undermine and increase
the price
of our own manufacturing goods while distorting the trade balance.
Though we continue to benefit from the current circumstances,
through
cheap imports on borrowed money, the shaky fundamentals make our
economy and
financial system vulnerable to sudden and severe adjustments.
Foreigners will not finance our excessive standard of living and
our
expensive war overseas indefinitely.
It
will end!
What we do in the
meantime to prepare for that day will make all the difference in the
world for
the future of freedom in this country.
It’s
the future of freedom in this country that is truly the legitimate
responsibility of us as Members of Congress.
2005 Ron Paul 58:34
Centuries
ago the notion of money introduced the world to trade and the principle
of
division of labor, ushering in for the first time a level of economic
existence
above mere subsistence.
Modern fiat
money with electronic transactions has given an additional boost to
that
prosperity.
But unlike sound
commodity money, fiat money, with easy credit and artificially low
interest
rates, causes distortions and mal-investments that require corrections.
The modernization of electronic global transfers, which with
sound money
would be beneficial, has allowed for greater distortion and debt to be
accumulated-- setting the stage for a much more serious period of
adjustment
requiring an economic downturn, liquidation of debt, and reallocation
of
resources that must come from savings rather than a central bank
printing press.
2005 Ron Paul 58:35
These
economic laws will limit our ability to pursue our foreign
interventions no
matter how well intentioned and “successful” they may seem.
The Soviet system collapsed of its own weakness.
I fear an economic collapse here at home much more than an
attack by a
foreign country.
Above all, the
greatest concern should be for the systematic undermining of our
personal
liberties since 9/11, which will worsen with an ongoing foreign war and
the
severe economic problems that are coming.
2005 Ron Paul 58:36
Since
we are not fighting the war to defend our homeland and we abuse so many
of our
professed principles, we face great difficulties in resolving the
growing
predicament in which we find ourselves.
Our
options are few, and admitting errors in judgment is not likely to
occur.
Moral forces are against us as we
find ourselves imposing our
will on a people six thousand miles from our shores.
How would the American people respond if a foreign country,
with people of a different color, religion, and language imposed itself
on us to
make us conform to their notions of justice and goodness?
None of us would sit idly by.
This
is why those who see themselves as defenders of their homeland and
their way of
life have the upper hand regardless of the shock and awe military power
available to us.
At this point our
power works perversely.
The
stronger and more violent we are the greater the resistance becomes.
2005 Ron Paul 58:37
The
neo-conservatives who took us to war under false pretenses either
didn’t know
or didn’t care about the history and traditions of the Iraqi people.
Surely they must have heard of an Islamic defensive jihad that
is easy to
promote when one’s country is being attacked by foreign forces.
Family members have religious obligations to avenge all killings
by
foreign forces, which explains why killing insurgents only causes their
numbers
to multiply.
This family obligation
to seek revenge is closely tied to achieving instant eternal martyrdom
through
vengeful suicide attacks.
Parents
of martyrs do not weep as the parents of our soldiers do; they believe
the
suicide bombers and their families are glorified.
These religious beliefs cannot simply be changed during the war.
The only thing we can do is remove the incentives we give to the
religious leaders of the jihad by leaving them alone.
Without our presence in the Middle East, whether on the Arabian
Peninsula
or in Iraq, the rallying cry for suicidal jihadists would ring hollow.
Was there any fear for our national security from a domestic
terrorist
attack by Islamists before we put a base in Saudi Arabia?
2005 Ron Paul 58:38
Our
freedoms here at home have served the interests of those who are
hell-bent on
pursuing an American empire, though this too will be limited by
economic costs
and the undermining of our personal liberties.
2005 Ron Paul 58:39
A
free society produces more wealth for more people than any other.
That wealth for many years can be confiscated to pay for the
militarism
advocated by those who promote preemptive war.
But militarism and its costs undermine the very market system
that
provided the necessary resources to begin with.
As this happens, productivity and wealth is diminished, putting
pressure
on authorities to ruthlessly extract even more funds from the people.
For what they cannot collect through taxes
they take through
currency inflation-- eventually leading to an inability to finance
unnecessary
and questionable warfare and bringing the process to an end.
It happened to the Soviets and their military machine collapsed.
Hitler destroyed Germany’s economy, but he financed his
aggression for
several years by immediately stealing the gold reserves of every
country he
occupied.
That, too, was
self-limited and he met his military defeat.
For us it’s less difficult since we can confiscate the wealth of
American citizens and the savers of the world merely by printing more
dollars to
support our militarism.
Though
different in detail, we too must face the prospect that this system of
financing
is seriously flawed, and our expensive policy of worldwide
interventionism will
collapse.
Only a profound change in
attitudes regarding our foreign policy, our fiscal policy, and our
monetary
policy will save us from ourselves.
2005 Ron Paul 58:40
If
we did make these changes, we would not need to become isolationists,
despite
what many claim.
Isolationism is
not the only alternative to intervention in other nations’ affairs.
Freedom works!
Free markets
supported by sound money, private property, and respect for all
voluntary
contracts can set an example for the world-- since the resulting
prosperity
would be significant and distributed more widely than any socialist
system.
Instead of using force to make others do it our way, our
influence could
be through the example we set that would motivate others to emulate us.
Trade, travel, exchange of ideas, and friendly relationships
with all
those who seek friendship are a far cry from a protectionist closed
border
nation that would serve no one’s interest.
2005 Ron Paul 58:41
This
type of society would be greatly enhanced with a worldwide commodity
standard of
money.
This would prevent the
imbalances that are a great burden to today’s economy.
Our current account deficits and total foreign indebtedness
would not
occur under an honest non-political commodity money.
Competitive devaluations and abnormally fixed exchanged rates
would not
be possible as tools of protectionism.
We
can be certain that the distortions in trade balance and the WTO trade
wars that
are multiplying will eventually lead to a serious challenge to
worldwide trade.
The tragedy of trade wars is that they frequently lead to
military wars
between nations, and until the wealth is consumed and young men are no
longer
available to fight and die the process will cost plenty.
2005 Ron Paul 58:42
We
must not forget that real peace and prosperity are available to us.
America has a grand tradition in this regard despite her
shortcomings.
It’s just that in recent decades the excessive unearned wealth
available to us to run our welfare/warfare state has distracted us from
our
important traditions-- honoring liberty and emphasizing self-reliance
and
responsibility.
Up until the 20
th
century we were much less eager to go around the world searching for
dragons to
slay.
That tradition is a good one,
and one that we must soon reconsider before the ideal of personal
liberty is
completely destroyed.
2005 Ron Paul 58:43
Summary
1.
The costs of war are always much more than anticipated, while
the
benefits are much less.
2005 Ron Paul 58:44
2.
The cost of war is more than just the dollars spent; it includes
deaths,
injuries, and destruction along with the unintended consequences that
go on for
decades.
2005 Ron Paul 58:45
3.
Support for offensive wars wears thin; especially when they are
not ended
quickly.
2005 Ron Paul 58:46
4.
The Iraq war now has been going on for 15 years with no end in
sight.
2005 Ron Paul 58:47
5.
Ulterior motives too often preempt national security in
offensive wars.
2005 Ron Paul 58:48
6.
Powerful nations too often forget humility in their
relationships to
other countries.
2005 Ron Paul 58:49
7.
World history and religious dogmatism are too often ignored and
misunderstood.
2005 Ron Paul 58:50
8.
World government is no panacea for limiting war.
2005 Ron Paul 58:51
9.
Most wars could be avoided with better diplomacy, a mutual
understanding
of minding one’s own business, and respect for the right of
self-determination.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 59
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Yields To Rep. Duncan
14 June 2005
2005 Ron Paul 59:1
Mr. PAUL. I would be glad to yield to
the gentleman from Tennessee.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 60
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Belief In The Constitution Is A Conservative View
14 June 2005
2005 Ron Paul 60:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. DUNCAN)
for participating, and thank him
for his leadership, his votes and his energy
that he puts in in trying to keep
this Congress straight and the budget
straight.
2005 Ron Paul 60:2
I think the points the gentleman made about the issue of whether the
conservative position is for the war or
against the war is, I think, very appropriate,
because too often it is assumed
if there is a war going on, the conservative
position is you have to promote
that war.
2005 Ron Paul 60:3
As a matter of fact, sometimes I like to think of the term, which is conservative,
and that is belief in the Constitution,
which is a very conservative
view. I believe if we adhered more
strictly to the Constitution, we would
probably be involved much less so in
these kinds of wars.
2005 Ron Paul 60:4
During the time when this resolution came up, I am on the Committee on
International Relations, I offered an
amendment to declare war, not that I
supported the war nor would I vote for
the amendment, but to make the point
that if this country, this Congress
wants to go to war, they ought to be up
front with it and make a declaration of
war, decide what we have to do and go
and win it. But not one single person
voted to declare war. As a matter of
fact, it was turned back to me and said,
why would I think of bringing up such
a frivolous notion about the Constitution
and declaration of war? Another
Member said, That part of the Constitution
is anachronistic. We don’t
look at that anymore.
Mr. DUNCAN. If the gentleman will
yield, just one brief comment. Probably,
unfortunately, one of the weakest
arguments up here against any legislation
is that it is unconstitutional, but
it should be the strongest argument.
2005 Ron Paul 60:5
Mr. PAUL. If we do not use that argument, what good is our oath of office?
What good is our oath to our people
when we talk to them at home? I
think that is our obligation. Sometimes
I will take a vote that I am not
particularly happy with, but I will do
it because I believe I am adhering to
my oath of office and believe it is the
process that is not correct and we have
to change the Constitution if we need
to do it. I think this is so important,
because I do not think we have the authority
in the Constitution to start
preemptive war, to go into nationbuilding
and to change regimes. I just
cannot see that it is there. I think that
has led us to get into these problems
since World War II especially.
2005 Ron Paul 60:6
Of course, I did mention in my prepared text that declaration of war is
important but also if we would restrain,
as the Constitution does, the
monetary authorities from printing
money at will to finance wars like this,
I think we would be fighting a lot less
wars.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 61
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Adjournment
14 June 2005
2005 Ron Paul 61:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I move that
the House do now adjourn.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 62
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
An Article By Mr. Lee Jackson
14 June 2005
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
2005 Ron Paul 62:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to place in today’s record the following article by
Mr. Lee Jackson, a constituent of mine who is
battling a perverse tax law. Mr. Jackson and
several other individuals were the target of a
frivolous lawsuit that rightfully was dismissed
for its lack of merit. Mr. Jackson and his fellow
defendants — all totally blameless — spent many
thousands of dollars in legal fees fighting the
meritless suit. They understandably filed their
own lawsuit against both the original plaintiffs
and the plaintiffs’ law firm. However, they cannot
reach a monetary settlement for damages
because our tax code treats all proceeds from
such a settlement — even the portion Mr. Jackson
owes to his attorneys — as taxable income
for Mr. Jackson. As a result, Mr. Jackson literally
cannot afford to settle his case because
he will owe more in income taxes than he receives
from the settlement! Furthermore, he
cannot deduct his attorneys fees because of
the alternative minimum tax. Mr. Jackson’s
story, as told below, provides a vivid example
of why Congress must change the tax code to
ensure that attorney fees are deemed taxable
income to the attorneys who actually receive
them, not their clients.
2005 Ron Paul 62:2
TAXING JUSTICE
“It is in justice that the ordering of society is
centered.”
Aristotle
“Justice is the constant and perpetual will to
allot to every man his due.”
— Domitus
Ulpian
(By Lee Jackson)
2005 Ron Paul 62:3
There is perversity in using tax policy to reduce the numbers of frivolous lawsuits.
Courts were developed in the first place to
adjudicate impartially the relative merit of
one person’s argument over another’s in a
dispute. The controlling premise was that
courts were best able to sort through facts
and opposing arguments in specific cases and
arrive at impartial resolutions.
2005 Ron Paul 62:4
Distrust in the courts has upset the delicate balance between the legislature and the
judiciary. When judges pick and choose the
laws they will or will not enforce; when they
dictate new law from the bench; when their
standard strays from the Constitution and
looks to current popular thinking and foreign
decisions; or when judges bow before the
force of political money during confirmation
re-election cycles; when those things happen,
citizens lose confidence in the ability to
achieve justice, and turn to the legislature
for relief. Therein lies new danger.
2005 Ron Paul 62:5
Courts are uniquely suited to try the facts of particular cases. Legislatures are not.
However, legislatures must react to concerns
of constituents, and so they have sought solutions
as Americans pressed them to weigh
in on the perceived high volume of seemingly
frivolous cases that drove up medical and
other costs, and seemed to precipitate a
downward spiral in quality of crucial services.
2005 Ron Paul 62:6
Attending these issues were actions of legislatures, courts, and executive branches of
government. Take the case of Cynthia Spina,
the Illinois Forest Preserve policewoman
who won a judgment against her employer
after a six-year sexual-harassment lawsuit.
Instead of netting $300,000 after paying $1
million to her attorney, she was taxed
$400,000 by the IRS. The law that made such
travesty possible was promulgated in 1996
that differentiate between types of damages.
Gone was the concept of damages being a
monetary amount determined by a jury as
the amount necessary to bring a plaintiff
back to equilibrium. Justice is now a taxable
event.
2005 Ron Paul 62:7
A new premise seems to permeate the land: That all plaintiffs are suspect, and likely to
be greedy money-grubbers forwarding spurious
complaints. Such a premise does a disservice
to juries whose members receive negligible
compensation for their services and
to the vast majority of plaintiffs who turn to
courts as a last resort.
2005 Ron Paul 62:8
Consider our case still pending in California. My partner and I appealed to the FBI
and the SEC for alleged corporate malfeasance.
We also alerted the public via the
Internet. For our trouble, we, along with
friends and family were sued personally for
$60 million. The courts in California found
we had done nothing wrong and further, that
we were sued primarily to silence us.
2005 Ron Paul 62:9
In effect, the courts in California were used as a weapon to interfere with our rights to
free speech. Along the way, this case resulted
in a binding precedent extending First
Amendment rights to the Internet. That
precedent has been used all the way to the
US Supreme Court as well as in several state
supreme courts.
2005 Ron Paul 62:10
Left with hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal bills accumulated for our defense, we
sought to recover through the courts. As we
proceeded, we became aware of the Spina
case, and feared that the same tax provisions
could apply to us.
2005 Ron Paul 62:11
What we found was even more perverse. Spina’s debacle resulted because the attorney’s
fee was charged as income to her, and
then Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) was
applied. In tax court, Spina pleaded the unfairness
with the judge, who sympathized
with her but said his hands were tied by the
law (a fine time to be a strict constructionist!
I think it intuitively obvious to the
casual observer that a US government that
taxes a citizen more than the citizen receives
is breaking a Constitutional proscription
somewhere!).
2005 Ron Paul 62:12
In the California case, we (the erstwhile defendants) became plaintiffs in pursuit of
recovery of our legal expense and other damages.
It is worth mentioning that our wives
were also sued, and another couple as well.
Neither our wives nor the other couple were
even alleged to have done anything wrong —
they were sued in order to bring pressure on
us. My partner and I live in Texas. The other
couple lives in Maine.
2005 Ron Paul 62:13
We soon learned of a difference in treatment depending upon residence. In Texas,
the legislature had defined attorneys’ fees as
belonging to attorneys, and therefore not
taxable to plaintiffs. In Maine, no such determination
had been made. Also, the Federal
District court in which Texas lies had
decided that damages were not subject to Alternative
Minimum Taxes. The federal court
district in which Maine lies had decided the
opposite. As a result, the Maine plaintiffs
could expect to realize an after-tax net that
would have been an estimated 1/15 of the net
that the Texas plaintiffs could have expected
on the same estimated award. Ironically, all
we plaintiffs in our case had been subjected
to the exact same set of circumstances; we
would have appeared together in the same
court; and, if damages were awarded, they
would have been determined by the exact
same jury.
2005 Ron Paul 62:14
Enter the Supreme Court. In January, 2005, the Supreme Court issued a decision that decreed
equal federal tax treatment among all
plaintiffs across the breadth of the United
States; that attorneys’ fees should be taxed
to plaintiffs; and that Alternative Minimum
Taxes apply. In effect, the Supreme Court’s
decision put almost all plaintiffs in the same
tax position as Spina. Taken to its logical
and viable extreme, this decision puts civil
courts off limits as an alternative to violence
to resolve bona fide disputes.
2005 Ron Paul 62:15
There is an exemption to that decision. Inspired by the Spina case, Congress last year
passed the Civil Rights Tax Relief Act. It
provided that, in Civil Rights cases, attorneys’
fees would not be taxed to plaintiffs
(on the basis that the amount had been taxed
twice — first to plaintiffs, then to attorneys).
Unfortunately for Spina, the law was not
made retroactive, so as of this moment, she
still contends with the IRS over her tax bill.
However, other plaintiffs with similar cases
realized tremendous relief.
2005 Ron Paul 62:16
Not so for us in our California case, and thousands of other plaintiffs also facing ruinous
taxes after winning their cases. Clearly
the courts in California were used as a weapon
to infringe on our civil rights. However,
in that underlying case, we were then defendants.
When we filed suit to recover damages,
the case was characterized differently
and was no longer, technically, a civil rights
case. Our dilemma had been to seek court assistance
to recover, or face paying our legal
expense for our own defense in the underlying
case for years to come. It did not occur
to us at the time we filed with the court that
we could win and end up owing an even
greater amount to the IRS.
2005 Ron Paul 62:17
That is the effect of the Supreme Court ruling. Because ours is technically not a
civil rights case, we do not enjoy the benefits
of the exemption inspired by the Spina case.
We had properly appealed to our government
for help, and the government has now placed
us in a position where our own best interests
are indeterminate, so we cannot settle (ironic,
since the intent of most tort reform has
been to encourage settlement). When a jury
makes an award, the tax exposure will likely
be ruinous. Another irony is that the higher
the award, the greater our tax exposure. And
we are middle-class citizens.
2005 Ron Paul 62:18
The basis on which the Supreme Court decided that attorneys’ fees are taxed as income
to plaintiffs is that plaintiffs pay
attorneys;
that the amount they pay comes to
them as a result of the award; that money to
pay attorneys was something they did not
have prior to the award, and therefore coming,
as it would from the award, must be income.
The rationale is held irrelevant (in
contingency cases) that attorneys receive
payment only if and after an actual award is
received and that there is shared risk between
plaintiff and attorney.
2005 Ron Paul 62:19
There is another problem with taxing awards as income, and this is even more
poignant. As mentioned earlier, awards are a
jury’s determination of the monetary equivalent
of restoring a client to equilibrium
(without consideration for tax consequences).
By definition, plaintiffs owned
that equivalent value prior to the need to
seek court intervention and thus is not income.
2005 Ron Paul 62:20
Where back wages are sought and won, obviously income is received. However, even in
those cases there should be no more taxes assessed
or collected than would have been had
the plaintiff been paid normally.
2005 Ron Paul 62:21
Another major factor that should weigh in favor of plaintiffs and obviate taxes on
awards is that courts, state legislatures, and
Congress establish the rules under which a
citizen seeks justice. A plaintiff going into
court in pro per is in extreme jeopardy of
losing over factors as innocuous as presenting
the case in a form that violates
local-court determined rules. When citizens
are sued, they often have no choice but to retain
the very best legal expertise possible.
When they win their cases and are left with
oppressive debt, they should have recourse to
the courts for relief without incurring even
more horrendous debt to the government.
The idea is laughable that people would willingly
choose to spend their hard-earned income
and scarce time to be in court for
recreation (i.e. the “pursuit of happiness”).
2005 Ron Paul 62:22
The concept of exemptions presents its own difficulties. By legislatively determining
that some cases are entitled to favorable
tax treatment over others, lawmakers
are making judgments over the relative merits
of cases in advance of either a judge or
jury examining specific facts. On its face,
such policy screams violation of Constitutional
equal protection and equal access to
the courts. Justice is no longer blind. And to
the extent that such laws continue, the Federal
government becomes complicit in
chilling citizen participation on issues such
as the ones in our case in California. Bad
guys already know this, and they know that
as a result, they can do bad things to good
people with impunity. The combined
branches of government have evolved those
conditions.
2005 Ron Paul 62:23
At present, there is legislative effort under way to cure the situation for plaintiffs excluded
by current exemptions. There is also
a strong Congressional move to abolish AMT
altogether. (That would be a great thing for
the country, but a subject for another time.)
A danger for plaintiffs is that, should AMT
be abolished, a strong sense could I devolve
that the plight of plaintiffs would then be resolved.
Such is not the case.
2005 Ron Paul 62:24
AMT only increases the degree of travesty. Eliminating them for plaintiffs still leaves
them exposed to ordinary tax rates (think of
an ordinary citizen paying taxes on a $1 million
award, half of which goes to pay attorneys,
and much which goes to pay other expenses.
The citizen could still be in a break-
even or deficit position, and certainly one
that in no way approaches restoration or justice.).
2005 Ron Paul 62:25
Studying ways to include others in exemptions is self-defeating. There are too many
circumstances to contemplate and leaves
citizens with the dubious proposition of having
to seek a legislative solution after having
won in court. It further requires the impossible
task of timing the court decision
such that it is issued only after the passage
of the legislation in order to be sure that the
new law protects them (retroactivity is
frowned upon in the House).
2005 Ron Paul 62:26
The real issues are: Should any legislature ever be deciding the relative merit of any
civil dispute over any other civil dispute by
creating rapacious tax laws and then establishing
exemptions? (As soon as they do so,
they create violations of equal protection
and access.) Should the government ever be
entitled to a share of what a jury has decided
is the amount required to restore a plaintiff
to equilibrium? (Every dollar taxed on an
award is a dollar subtraction from that
plaintiff’s restoration as determined by a
jury after due deliberation over all facts pertinent
to the case — justice becomes impossible
as a practical and mathematical matter).
Should attorneys’ fees be taxed to
plaintiffs? (The government is going to tax
that amount to the attorney. When the attorney
is retained on a contingency basis,
both attorney and plaintiff are entering into
a transaction that is high risk with no gain
for either unless they win at court. And, it is
the courts, Congress, and state legislators
that set the conditions under which requiring
an attorney for any court proceeding is
mandated as a practical matter for most
citizens.)
2005 Ron Paul 62:27
If the answer to each of the above questions is “no” (and I think a reasonable man
would conclude that is the correct answer for
each of question), then the proper legislative
response is easy: Define attorneys’ fees as belonging
to attorneys; and, do away with
taxes on awards.
2005 Ron Paul 62:28
If both of those actions are taken, plaintiffs with bona fide complaints rightfully
will enjoy a full measure of restoration to
equilibrium as determined by a jury of their
peers. Admittedly, that allows for occasionally
rewarding miscreants. The alternative
ensures penalizing law-abiding citizens who
have already suffered.
2005 Ron Paul 62:29
Adopting the above leaves unsettled how to discourage frivolous cases. There are
other ways to do that including award limits,
and attorney fee caps. However, the solution
cannot and must not include provisions
that deny justice and impose further penalties
on law-abiding citizens who appeal to
their governments.
2005 Ron Paul 62:30
As these things ate contemplated, a figurative call to arms is in order. Taxes imposed
on individual citizens across the breadth of
the original Thirteen Colonies in our early
history were only a fraction of the burden
thrust on individual contemporary citizens
now carrying these burdens. These unjustly
treated citizens already number in thousands;
and their numbers will grow rapidly
as the effects of the Supreme Court decision
become felt.
2005 Ron Paul 62:31
It is hard to conceive of a single congressional district left unaffected. Corrective action
should be swift.
2005 Ron Paul 62:32
Citizens that must contend with government taxes and tax collecting agencies of the
government after prevailing in court are denied
justice. Allowing them to negotiate to a
reduced amount after the fact is neither justice
nor a solution — it is a mockery and refutation
of the most fundamental principles
which gave birth to our great country and
for which patriots gave their lives.
2005 Ron Paul 62:33
In contemplating concepts of taxing justice, it is appropriate to recall that plaintiffs
seek court resolution as an alternative to violence;
that they pay in advance for their
“day in court” through normal taxes; that in
entering the court, they demonstrate tremendous
faith in their fellow citizens and
government; that the aim of the court is to
return prevailing plaintiffs to equilibrium;
and that if plaintiffs are successful, they are
entitled to an assumption of having brought
a bona fide complaint. To require more is to
delay justice, and in that regard, it is well to
remember William Gladstone’s words: “Justice
delayed is justice denied.”
2005 Ron Paul 62:34
Or as Theodore Roosevelt said, “Justice consists not in being neutral between right
and wrong, but in finding out the right and
upholding it, wherever found, against the
wrong.” Leaving citizens stranded in bewildering
circumstances that destroy the pursuit
of happiness and is brought about by
poorly thought out government action is
wrong. Correcting quickly is right.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 63
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Amendment No. 10 Offered By Mr. Paul
15 June 2005
2005 Ron Paul 63:1
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. 10 offered by Mr. PAUL:
Page 108, after line 7, insert the following:
TITLE VIII — ADDITIONAL GENERAL
PROVISIONS
SEC. 801. None of the funds made available
in this Act may be used by the United Nations
to develop or publicize any proposal
concerning taxation or fees on any United
States person in order to raise revenue for
the United Nations or any of its specialized
or affiliated agencies. None of the funds
made available in this Act may be used by
the United Nations to implement or impose
any such taxation or fee on any United
States person.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the
order of the House of June 14, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. PAUL) and a
Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. PAUL).
2005 Ron Paul 63:2
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.)
2005 Ron Paul 63:3
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is a very simple, clear amendment.
It prohibits the use of any funds
in this bill to be used by the United Nations
to promote a world global tax.
2005 Ron Paul 63:4
Over the last 10 years, there were at least five meetings in the United Nations
that talked and met for the sole
purpose of devising a global tax. Not
too long ago the G8 met, and France
and Germany proposed a global tax on
airline tickets. There have been other
proposals on taxes on financial services.
Hans Eichel, Germany’s finance
minister, stated, “No one in the G8 has
said anything against it. It is now on
the agenda.”
2005 Ron Paul 63:5
So it is not like I have dreamed up this possibility. This is very real. It is
on the agenda. They have talked about
it for years.
2005 Ron Paul 63:6
Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that support for my amendment would
be that somebody has responded. They
think that nobody has, but I think the
American people through us are quite
willing to respond and say we are not
ready, we do not think that it is a good
idea that the United Nations be funded
through a global tax.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
2005 Ron Paul 63:7
Mr. PAUL. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I think
the gentleman’s amendment is an excellent
amendment, and I accept it and
I am glad he offered it.
2005 Ron Paul 63:8
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 64
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
PATRIOT Act Violates Fourth Amendment
15 June 2005
Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1
minute to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. PAUL).
2005 Ron Paul 64:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. I want to compliment the gentleman
for bringing this amendment to
the floor, and I want to express my disappointment
if it is ruled out of order
because this is such an important
issue.
2005 Ron Paul 64:2
The fourth amendment is worth fighting for. The Founders of the country
thought it was literally worth
fighting for, and yet I see us here in
the Congress willing to sacrifice it too
easily.
2005 Ron Paul 64:3
One of the arguments is that success has been proven that these easy-to-obtain
search warrants have produced
success in catching certain criminals,
but that does not prove that we could
not have done it legitimately by following
the fourth amendment; so we do
not know whether they would not have
been caught or not. Another thing is;
does sacrificing security and liberty
ever justify more catching of so-called
criminals? What if we had a total police
state? What if we turned our whole
country into a concentration camp? We
could make sure there would be no
crimes whatsoever.
2005 Ron Paul 64:4
The trade-off is too great. We should never trade off safety and security for
our liberties, and I think that is what
we have done with the PATRIOT Act.
2005 Ron Paul 64:5
I want to congratulate the gentleman for bringing this to our attention; and,
hopefully, we will eventually protect
the fourth amendment.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 65
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Protect Privacy
15 June 2005
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.)
2005 Ron Paul 65:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
2005 Ron Paul 65:2
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. I do not see
any necessity for the amendment. It
was put in in the period of time after
9/11 where a lot of people were very
frightened; and I think, quite frankly,
that we as a Congress overreacted.
2005 Ron Paul 65:3
I just do not understand how anybody would feel safer by the government
being able to get a list of books that
the American people read. Now, if
there is a special condition that exists
where they want to know about a particular
individual, nothing precludes a
legitimate search warrant to find out
exactly what this information is about.
But I just think that it is totally unnecessary
to have this.
2005 Ron Paul 65:4
This morning, the gentleman from Vermont was on C–SPAN; and after he
left the studio, a woman called in that
I found very fascinating. She was from
Russia and she talked about how
things were started in Russia and how
the police had an ability to come into
their homes without search warrants.
Then she said her family had an exposure
in Germany and the same thing
happened. It was unrestrained government’s
ability to come in and know
what people were doing. She spoke
about this in generalities; and she was,
in an alarmist sense, she was saying,
and right now, in America, that is what
we are doing with the PATRIOT Act,
and she talked about it in general.
2005 Ron Paul 65:5
I might not be an alarmist about it, but I am very concerned. I do think we
have moved in the wrong direction and
that we should be very cautious and
protect the privacy of all American
citizens.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 66
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Amendment No. 11 Offered By Mr. Paul
16 June 2005
2005 Ron Paul 66:1
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. 11 offered by Mr. PAUL:
Page 108, after line 7, insert the following:
TITLE VIII — ADDITIONAL GENERAL
PROVISIONS
SEC. 801. None of the funds made available
in this Act may be used to pay any United
States contribution to the United Nations or
any affiliated agency of the United Nations.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the
order of the House of June 14, 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.)
2005 Ron Paul 66:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
2005 Ron Paul 66:3
Mr. Chairman, the amendment I have is very simple, and it tells us exactly
what it does, so I am just going to read
it. It says, “None of the funds made
available in this Act may be used to
pay any United States contribution to
the United Nations or any affiliated
agency of the United Nations.”
2005 Ron Paul 66:4
So, very simply, a vote for my amendment would be a vote to defund
the United Nations, and it would be a
policy statement, obviously. We have
had some debate already on the United
Nations, and we will be having another
debate either later today or tomorrow
dealing with reform of the United Nations.
Yesterday we had a vote dealing
with removing half of the funding from
the United Nations. This would be in
the same direction, but it would remove
all of the funding.
2005 Ron Paul 66:5
The United Nations has been under serious attack, and most Americans
know there is a big problem with the
United Nations. There is corruption involved
with the oil-for-food scandal, as
well as the abuse of human rights.
There are a lot of people who believe
that we can reform the United Nations
and make it much more responsive to
our principles. I do not happen to share
that belief.
2005 Ron Paul 66:6
I have been a longtime opponent of the United Nations not so much because
of the goals they seek, but because
of their failure to reach these
goals, as well as the attack on our national
sovereignty. For me, it is a sovereignty
issue, and that is the reason
that I believe that it does not serve our
interests to be in the United Nations,
and we should make a statement for
the many Americans who share that
particular view.
2005 Ron Paul 66:7
But I would like to take a little bit of this time right now to relate my position
on the United Nations with the
bill that is coming up later today or tomorrow,
and that is the reform bill.
The reform bill is very controversial.
We already have former Republican
and Democrat ambassadors, Secretaries
of State who are in opposition to
this, and our own President has expressed
opposition to this. It is not for
the same reasons that I am opposed to
that reform bill, but they are opposed
to it because there is a threat of cutting
some funding.
2005 Ron Paul 66:8
But in their attack on the reform bill, they do say they support the policy
changes. That is what I would like
to emphasize here. Most people see the
reform bill as a mere threat to the
United Nations to shape up, or we are
going to cut half of their funds. Yesterday
we had a much more straightforward
vote, because if you, also, believe
in true reform, all those supporters
of the reform bill should have
supported the Hayworth amendment
and just flat out cut half of the funding.
But the reform bill says that, well,
if you do certain things, we are going
to give you your money. Of course,
those who really like the U.N. find that
offensive and think that is too intrusive
on the functioning of the United
Nations.
2005 Ron Paul 66:9
But I, quite frankly, do not believe that if the U.N. reform bill gets anyplace,
that there is any way, since the
President is opposed to it and so many
individuals are opposed to it, that any
funds will ever be cut. But I do believe
a bill could get passed, and, that bill,
also changes policy, which I think that
too many of my conservative colleagues
on this side of the aisle have
failed to look at, and that is what I am
concerned about, the policy changes.
2005 Ron Paul 66:10
So instead of tightening up the reins and the financial control of the United
Nations and getting them to act more
efficiently and effectively, what they
are doing, if they do not have the ability
to really strike the 50 percent, the
bill institutionalizes new policy
changes.
2005 Ron Paul 66:11
I want to just mention the policies that I believe that are risky, especially
if you are interested in protecting our
national sovereignty.
2005 Ron Paul 66:12
The first thing it would do is it would change the definition of terrorism as
related to United Nations, and it would
change the ability and the responsibility
of the United Nations to become
involved. Today it is currently understood
that if there is an invasion of one
country by another, the United Nations
is called up, and they assume responsibility,
and then they can put in troops
to do whatever they think is necessary.
But if this new policy is adopted, it
will literally institutionalize the policy
that was used by our own government
to go into Iraq, and that is preemptive
war, preemptive strikes, to go
in and either support an insurgency, or
in order to get rid of a regime, or vice
versa. This is a significant change and
an expansion of U.N. authority. I, quite
frankly, think that this is a move in
the wrong direction.
2005 Ron Paul 66:13
Also, the Peacebuilding Commission, I think, is very risky, and also something
that we should look at.
2005 Ron Paul 66:14
So not only do I urge my colleagues to vote for my resolution to defund the
United Nations, I urge my colleagues
to look very cautiously at the U.N. reform
bill, because there is a lot more in
there than one might think. The one
thing we do not need is John Bolton and Paul
Wolfowitz, the authors of our policy for regime
change in Iraq, in charge of the same policy
in the U.N.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 67
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Demands Recorded Vote
16 June 2005
2005 Ron Paul 67:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a
recorded vote.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 68
Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Celebrating Juneteenth
June 21, 2005
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2005 Ron Paul 68:1
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support H.Con.Res. 160, legislation commemorating a monumental day in the history of liberty.
Juneteenth marks
the events of June 19, 1865,when slaves in Galveston, Texas learned
that they
were at last free men and women. The slaves of Galveston were the last
group of
slaves to learn of the end of slavery. Thus, Juneteenth represents the
end of
slavery in America.
2005 Ron Paul 68:2
I hope all Americans will take the time to commemorate Juneteenth. Friends of
human liberty should celebrate the end of slavery in any country. The
end of
American slavery is particularly worthy of recognition since there are
few more
blatant violations of America’s founding principles, as expressed in
the
Declaration of Independence, than slavery. I am particularly pleased to
join the
recognition of Juneteenth because I have the privilege of representing
Galveston.
2005 Ron Paul 68:3
I thank the gentleman from Illinois for introducing this resolution, which I
am proud to cosponsor. I thank the House leadership for bringing this
resolution
to the floor, and I urge all of my colleagues to honor the end of
slavery by
voting for H.Con.Res 160.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 69
Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
June 21, 2005
Rebutting the Critics of the Iraq Withdrawal Resolution
2005 Ron Paul 69:1
Last week HJ Res 55
was introduced.
This resolution
requires the President to develop and implement a plan for the
withdrawal of US
troops from Iraq.
The plan would be
announced before December 31, 2005, with the withdrawal to commence no
later
than October 1, 2006.
The media and
opponents of this plan immediately-- and incorrectly-- claimed it would
set a
date certain for a total withdrawal.
The
resolution, hardly radical in nature, simply restates the policy
announced by
the administration.
We’ve been
told repeatedly that there will be no permanent occupation of Iraq, and
the
management will be turned over to the Iraqis as soon as possible.
2005 Ron Paul 69:2
The resolution merely
pressures the administration to be more precise in its stated goals,
and make
plans to achieve them in a time frame that negates the perception we
are
involved in a permanent occupation of Iraq.
2005 Ron Paul 69:3
The sharpest criticism of this resolution is that it would, if implemented, give
insurgents in Iraq information that is helpful to their cause and
harmful to our
troops.
This is a reasonable
concern, which we addressed by not setting a precise time for exiting
Iraq.
The critics inferred that the enemy should never have any hint
as to our
intentions.
2005 Ron Paul 69:4
Yet as we prepared to
invade Iraq, the administration generously informed the Iraqis exactly
about our
plans to use “shock and awe” military force.
With this information many Iraqi fighters, anticipating
immediate
military defeat, disappeared into the slums and hills to survive to
fight
another day-- which they have.
2005 Ron Paul 69:5
One could argue that
this information made available to the enemy was clearly used against
us.
This argument used to criticize HJ Res 55, that it might reveal
our
intentions, is not automatically valid.
It
could just as easily be argued that conveying to the enemy that we do
not plan
an indefinite occupation-- as is the stated policy-- will save many
American
lives.
2005 Ron Paul 69:6
But what we convey or
do not convey to the Iraqi people is not the most crucial issue.
The more important issues are:
Do
the American people deserve to know more about our goals, the length of
time we
can expect to be in Iraq, and how many more Americans are likely to be
killed
and wounded; will there be a military draft; what is the likelihood of
lingering
diseases that our veterans may suffer (remember Agent Orange and
Persian Gulf
War Syndrome?); and how many more tax dollars are required to fight
this war
indefinitely?
2005 Ron Paul 69:7
The message insurgents need to hear and believe is that we are serious when we say
we have
no desire for a permanent occupation of Iraq.
We
must stick to this policy announced by the administration.
2005 Ron Paul 69:8
A plausible argument
can be made that the guerillas are inspired by our presence in Iraq,
which to
them seems endless.
Iraqi deaths,
whether through direct U.S. military action, collateral damage, or
Iraqis
killing Iraqis, serve to inspire an even greater number of Iraqis to
join the
insurgency.
Because we are in
charge, we are blamed for all the deaths.
2005 Ron Paul 69:9
Continuing to
justify our presence in Iraq
because we must punish those responsible for 9/11 is disingenuous to
say the
least.
We are sadly now at greater
risk than before 9/11.
We refuse to
deal with our own borders while chastising the Syrians for not securing
their
borders with Iraq.
An end game
needs to be in place, and the American people deserve to know exactly
what that
plan is.
They are the ones who must
send their sons and daughters off to war and pay the bills when they
come due.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 70
Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
June 22, 2005
Introduction of the Industrial Hemp Farming Act
2005 Ron Paul 70:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Industrial Hemp Farming Act. The
Industrial
Hemp Farming Act requires the federal government to respect state laws
allowing
the growing of industrial hemp.
2005 Ron Paul 70:2
Six states-Hawaii, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, North Dakota, and West
Virginia-allow
the growing of industrial hemp in accord with state laws. However,
federal law
is standing in the way of farmers in these states growing what may be a
very
profitable crop. Because of current federal law, all hemp included in
products
sold in the United States must be imported instead of being grown by
American
farmers.
2005 Ron Paul 70:3
Since 1970, the federal Controlled Substances Act’s inclusion of industrial
hemp in
the Schedule One definition of marijuana has prohibited American
farmers from
growing industrial hemp, despite the fact that industrial hemp has such
a low
content of THC (the psychoactive chemical in the related marijuana
plant) that
nobody can be psychologically affected by consuming hemp. Federal law
concedes
the safety of industrial hemp by allowing it to be legally imported for
use as
food.
2005 Ron Paul 70:4
The United States is the only industrialized nation that prohibits
industrial hemp
cultivation. The Congressional Research Service has noted that hemp is
grown as
an established agricultural commodity in over 30 nations in Europe,
Asia, and
North America. My Industrial Hemp Farming Act will end this nonsensical
restriction on American farmers and allow them to grow industrial hemp
in
accordance with state law.
2005 Ron Paul 70:5
Industrial hemp is a crop that was grown legally throughout the United States for
most of
our history. In fact, during World War II the federal government
actively
encouraged American farmers to grow industrial hemp to help the war
effort.
The Department of Agriculture even produced a film, “Hemp for
Victory,” encouraging the plant’s cultivation.
2005 Ron Paul 70:6
In recent years, the hemp plant has been put to many popular uses in foods
and in
industry. Grocery stores sell hemp seeds and oil, as well as food
products
containing oil and seeds from the hemp plant. Industrial hemp also is
included
in consumer products such as paper, cloth, cosmetics, and carpet. One
of the
more innovative recent uses of industrial hemp is in the door frames of
about
1.5 million cars.
Hemp even has
been used in alternative automobile fuel.
2005 Ron Paul 70:7
It is unfortunate that the federal government has stood in the way of
American
farmers, including many who are struggling to make ends meet, competing
in the
global industrial hemp market. Indeed the founders of our nation, some
of who
grew hemp, surely would find that federal restrictions on farmers
growing a safe
and profitable crop on their own land are inconsistent with the
constitutional
guarantee of a limited, restrained federal government. Therefore, I
urge my
colleagues to stand up for American farmers and cosponsor the
Industrial Hemp
Farming Act.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 71
Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
June 22, 2005
Statement on the Flag Burning Amendment
2005 Ron Paul 71:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution. The process may
well be legal, but it is unwise.
2005 Ron Paul 71:2
The problem is minimal. This is more like a solution in search of a problem. We
just do not need to amend the Constitution for such a tiny problem.
2005 Ron Paul 71:3
It was stated earlier that this is the only recourse we have since the Supreme
Court ruled the Texas law unconstitutional. That is not true. There are
other
alternatives.
2005 Ron Paul 71:4
One merely would be to use State law. There are a lot of State laws, such as
laws against arson, disturbing the peace, theft, inciting riots,
trespassing. We
could deal with all of the flag desecration with these laws. But there
is
another solution that our side has used and pretends to want to use on
numerous
occasions, and that is to eliminate the jurisdiction of the federal
courts. We
did it on the marriage issue; we can do it right here.
2005 Ron Paul 71:5
So to say this is the only solution is incorrect. It is incorrect. And
besides, a
solution like that would go quickly, pass the House by a majority vote,
pass the
Senate by a majority vote, and be send to the President. The Schiavo
legislation
was expedited and passed quickly. Why not do it with the flag? It is a
solution,
and we should pay attention to it.
2005 Ron Paul 71:6
Desecration is reserved for religious symbols. To me, why this is scary is
because the flag is a symbol today of the State. Why is it, our side
never seems
to answer this question when we bring it up, why is it that we have the
Red
Chinese, Cuba, North Korea, and Saddam Hussein who support the position
that you
severely punished those who burn a flag? No, they just gloss over this.
They
gloss over it. Is it not rather ironic today that we have troops dying
in Iraq,
“spreading freedom” and, yet, we are here trying to pass laws similar
to
what Saddam Hussein had with regard to the flag? I just do not see
where that
makes a lot of sense.
2005 Ron Paul 71:7
Mr. Speaker, a question I would like to ask the proponents of this legislation
is this: What if some military officials arrived at a home to report to
the
family that their son had just been killed in Iraq, and the mother is
totally
overwhelmed by grief which quickly turns to anger. She grabs a flag and
she
burns it? What is the proper punishment for this woman who is grieved,
who acts
out in this manner? We say, well, these are special circumstances, we
will
excuse her for that; or no, she has to be punished, she burned a flag
because
she was making a political statement. That is the question that has to
be
answered. What is the proper punishment for a woman like that? I would
say it is
very difficult to mete out any punishment whatsoever.
2005 Ron Paul 71:8
We do not need a new amendment to the Constitution to take care of a
problem that
does not exist.
2005 Ron Paul 71:9
Another point: The real problem that exists routinely on the House floor is the daily
trashing of
the Constitution by totally ignoring Act I Sec. 8. We should spend a
lot more
time following the rule of law, as defined by our oath of office, and a
lot less
on unnecessary constitutional amendments that expand the role of the
federal
government while undermining the States.
2005 Ron Paul 71:10
Mr. Speaker, let me summarize my views on this proposed amendment.
I have myself served 5 years in the military, and I have great
respect
for the symbol of our freedom. I salute the flag, and I pledge to the
flag. I
also support overriding the Supreme Court case that overturned state
laws
prohibiting flag burning. Under the constitutional principle of
federalism,
questions such as whether or not Texas should prohibit flag burning are
strictly
up to the people of Texas, not the United States Supreme Court. Thus,
if this
amendment simply restored the states’ authority to ban flag burning, I
would
enthusiastically support it.
2005 Ron Paul 71:11
However, I cannot support an amendment to give Congress new power to prohibit
flag
burning. I served my country to protect our freedoms and to protect our
Constitution. I believe very sincerely that today we are undermining to
some
degree that freedom that we have had all these many years.
2005 Ron Paul 71:12
Mr. Speaker, we have some misfits who on occasion burn the flag. We all despise
this behavior, but the offensive conduct of a few does not justify
making an
exception to the First Amendment protections of political speech the
majority
finds offensive. According to the pro-flag amendment Citizens Flag
Alliance,
there were only three incidents of flag desecration in 2004 and there
have only
been two acts of desecration thus far in 2005, and the majority of
those cases
involved vandalism or some other activity that is already punishable by
local
law enforcement!
2005 Ron Paul 71:13
Let me emphasize how the First Amendment is written, “Congress shall
make no
law.” That was the spirit of our nation at that time: “Congress shall
make
no laws.”
2005 Ron Paul 71:14
Unfortunately, Congress has long since disregarded the original intent of the Founders
and has
written a lot of laws regulating private property and private conduct.
But I
would ask my colleagues to remember that every time we write a law to
control
private behavior, we imply that somebody has to arrive with a gun,
because if
you desecrate the flag, you have to punish that person. So how do you
do that?
You send an agent of the government, perhaps an employee of the Bureau
of
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Flags, to arrest him. This is in many ways
patriotism with
a gun--if your actions do not fit the official definition of a
“patriot,” we
will send somebody to arrest you.
2005 Ron Paul 71:15
Congress has models of flag desecration laws. For example, Saddam Hussein made
desecration of the Iraq flag a criminal offense punishable by up to 10
years in
prison.
2005 Ron Paul 71:16
It is assumed that many in the military support this amendment, but in fact
there are veterans who have been great heroes in war on both sides of
this
issue. I would like to quote a past national commander of the American
Legion,
Keith Kreul. He said:
2005 Ron Paul 71:17
” Our Nation was
not founded on devotion to symbolic idols, but on principles, beliefs
and ideals
expressed in the Constitution and its Bill of Rights. American veterans
who have
protected our banner in battle have not done so to protect a golden
calf.
Instead, they carried the banner forward with reverence for what it
represents,
our beliefs and freedom for all. Therein lies the beauty of our flag. A
patriot
cannot be created by legislation.”
2005 Ron Paul 71:18
Former Secretary of
State, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and two-time winner of the
Presidential Medal of Freedom Colin Powell also has expressed
opposition to
amending the Constitution in this manner: “I would not amend that great
shield
of democracy to hammer out a few miscreants. The flag will be flying
proudly
long after they have slunk away.”
2005 Ron Paul 71:19
Mr. Speaker, this amendment will not even reach the majority of cases of
flag
burning. When we see flag burning on television, it is usually not
American
citizens, but foreigners who have strong objections to what we do
overseas.
This is what I see on television and it is the conduct that most
angers
me.
2005 Ron Paul 71:20
One
of the very first laws that Red China passed upon assuming control of
Hong Kong
was to make flag burning illegal. Since that time, they have prosecuted
some
individuals for flag burning. Our State Department keeps records of how
often
the Red Chinese prosecute people for burning the Chinese flag, as it
considers
those prosecutions an example of how the Red Chinese violate human
rights. Those
violations are used against Red China in the argument that they should
not have
most-favored-nation status. There is just a bit of hypocrisy among
those Members
who claim this amendment does not interfere with fundamental liberties,
yet are
critical of Red China for punishing those who burn the Chinese flag.
2005 Ron Paul 71:21
Mr. Speaker, this is ultimately an attack on private property. Freedom of speech
and freedom of expression depend on property. We do not have freedom of
expression of our religion in other people’s churches; it is honored
and
respected because we respect the ownership of the property. The
property conveys
the right of free expression, as a newspaper would or a radio station.
Once
Congress limits property rights, for any cause, no matter how noble, it
limits
freedom.
2005 Ron Paul 71:22
Some claim that this is not an issue of private property rights because the flag
belongs to the country. The flag belongs to everybody. But if you say
that, you
are a collectivist. That means you believe everybody owns everything.
So why do
American citizens have to spend money to obtain, and maintain, a flag
if the
flag is communally owned? If your neighbor, or the federal government,
owns a
flag, even without this amendment you do not have the right to go and
burn that
flag. If you are causing civil disturbances, you are liable for your
conduct
under state and local laws. But this whole idea that there could be a
collective
ownership of the flag is erroneous.
2005 Ron Paul 71:23
Finally,
Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out that by using the word “desecration,”
which
is traditionally reserved for religious symbols, the authors of this
amendment
are placing the symbol of the state on the same plane as symbols of the
church.
The practical effect of this is to either lower religious symbols to
the level
of the secular state, or raise the state symbol to the status of a holy
icon.
Perhaps this amendment harkens back to the time when the state was seen
as
interchangeable with the church. In any case, those who believe we have
“no
king but Christ” should be troubled by this amendment.
2005 Ron Paul 71:24
We must be interested in the spirit of our Constitution. We must be interested
in the principles of liberty. I therefore urge my colleagues to oppose
this
amendment. Instead, my colleagues should work to restore the rights of
the
individual states to ban flag burning, free from unconstitutional
interference
by the Supreme Court.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 72
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Amendment No. 11 Offered By Mr. Paul
24 June 2005
2005 Ron Paul 72:1
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. 11 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 universal mental health screening
program.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the
order of the House of June 23, 2005, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL) and
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. REGULA)
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. PAUL).
2005 Ron Paul 72:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission
to revise and extend his remarks.)
2005 Ron Paul 72:3
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is straightforward: “None of the
funds made available in this a may be
used to create or implement any universal
mental health screening program.”
2005 Ron Paul 72:4
This does not deny any funds for any testing of those individuals who may
show signs of mental illness. It only denies
funding for any universal, read by
many as mandatory, which is a bit of
overkill as far as I am concerned.
There is $26 million in this bill for
these programs. Eight States have already
been involved, and three more
have applied for grants.
2005 Ron Paul 72:5
The main reason why I oppose this is I think there is a lot of overtreatment
of young people with psychotropic
drugs. This has been going on for a lot
of years, and there are a lot of bad results,
and once we talk about universal
testing of everybody, and there is no
age limit, matter of fact, in the recommendation
by the New Freedom
Commission, there is a tendency for
overdiagnosis and overuse of medication.
There are as many complications
from overuse of medication as there is
with prophylactic treatment.
2005 Ron Paul 72:6
There is no evidence now on the books to show that the use of this
medication actually in children reduces
suicide. Matter of fact, there are
studies that do suggest exactly the opposite.
Children on psychotropic drugs
may well be even more likely to commit
suicide. It does not mean that no
child ever qualifies for this, but to assume
there is this epidemic out here
that we have to test everybody is rather
frightening to me.
2005 Ron Paul 72:7
Matter of fact, when the State gets control of children, they tend to overuse
medications like this. Take, for instance,
in Texas, 60 percent of the foster
children are on medication. In Massachusetts,
it is close to 65 percent. In
Florida, 55 percent of the children in
foster home care are receiving these
kinds of medication.
2005 Ron Paul 72:8
Once again, I want to make the point that this does not deny funding for individual
children who show signs that
they may need or they have a problem
and need to be tested. It is just to
make sure that this is not universal
and not be mandatory and that parental
rights are guarded against and that
the parent is very much involved.
2005 Ron Paul 72:9
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 73
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Mandatory Mental health Screening
24 June 2005
2005 Ron Paul 73:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
2005 Ron Paul 73:2
Mr. Chairman, as a physician, having practiced medicine for well over 30
years, let me tell Members, there is a
crisis in this country. There is a crisis
with illegal drugs, but there is a crisis
in this country with an overuse of all
drugs, especially in the area of psychiatry.
2005 Ron Paul 73:3
Psychiatrists, if they are honest with you, will tell you that diagnoses are
very subjective. It is not like diagnosing
appendicitis. It is very, very
subjective. If you push on this type of
testing, the more testing you have, let
me guarantee it, the more drugs you
will have. Sure, there are mental diseases.
I am not excluding any of this
when a person has true mental illness,
but I am talking about the overuse of
Ritalin and Prozac and many of these
drugs that are pushed on these kids.
2005 Ron Paul 73:4
Let me tell Members, there have been some real problems with families
who will not let their kids go on drugs
because the schools pressure them to.
They have been charged with child
abuse, and threatened with taking
their children away because they will
not be put on these drugs. That is the
kind of abuse I am calling to Members’
attention, and that is why you need to
vote for this amendment. It does not
change anything. It does not deny anybody
testing and treatment. All it does
is say universal testing of everybody of
all ages in this country is not the direction
that we want to go. Please vote
for my amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate
on this amendment has expired.
The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. PAUL).
The question was taken; and the
Chairman announced that the noes appeared
to have it.
2005 Ron Paul 73:5
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 74
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Tribute To Rear Admiral John D. Butler
24 June 2005
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Friday, June 24, 2005
2005 Ron Paul 74:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor Rear Admiral (Lower Half)
John D. Butler, a Texas City, Texas, native
who retires after 31 years of faithful service
from the United States Navy on July 1, 2005.
2005 Ron Paul 74:2
Many of us have come to know and recognize Rear Admiral Butler over the past two
years as he has served as the Program Executive
Officer (Submarines) since February
2003. During his tenure as the Navy’s top submarine
acquisition officer, Rear Admiral Butler
delivered USS Virginia (SSN 774) and USS
Jimmy Carter (USS 23). Virginia’s commissioning
in October 2004 ended the longest
drought of submarine commissioning in that
service’s 105-year history. Whereas Virginia is
the first of her class, Jimmy Carter is the last
of the Sea Wolf Class. Jimmy Carter brings a
host of new and revolutionary capabilities to
the fleet that will help the United States to win
the Global War on Terror.
2005 Ron Paul 74:3
Under Rear Admiral Butler’s watch, the submarine construction industry has been, virtually,
reborn. He was a driving force in
transitioning the Virginia Class’ second Block
Buy contract into a Multi-Year agreement that
will save an estimated $80 million per submarine
over the five-hull agreement. Currently,
there are six Virginia Class submarines under
construction and an additional three ships
under contract.
2005 Ron Paul 74:4
Admiral Butler has also made great efforts in converting four Ohio Class Trident Ballistic
Missile Submarines into the transformation
SSGNs. Each of these 560-feet long, 18,000-
ton submarines will be able to carry up to 154
precision-guided Tomahawk Land-Attack
cruise missiles, 66 Navy S and to support covert
Special Operations, each SSGN will be
able to carry two Dry-Deck Shelters, two Advanced
SEAL Delivery Systems, or one of
each top the ships’ integrated lock-in/lock-out
trunks. With the Ohio Class’ inherent stealth,
these SSGNs, the first of which delivers in November
2005, will be a potent warfighter in the
Global War on Terror.
2005 Ron Paul 74:5
Admiral Butler has also acted as an emissary with allied nation’s undersea forces, especially
with both the Royal Australian Navy
and with Great Britain’s Royal Navy. In doing
so, he has not only strengthened our bonds
with these most trusted allies, but has also enhanced
national security.
2005 Ron Paul 74:6
Admiral Butler joined the Navy via the Nuclear Power Officer Candidate Program in
1975 after graduating from the University of
Texas at Austin with a Bachelor’s of Science
in Chemistry. His sea duty assignments have
included: Division Officer on board USS Will
Rogers (SSBN 659); Navigator/Operations Officer
on board USS James K. Polk (SSBN
645); Navigator/Operations Officer on board
USS James Madison (SSBN 627); and Repair
Officer on board USS Proteus (AS 19).
2005 Ron Paul 74:7
Admiral Butler’s shore assignments have included: Attack Submarine Training Head for
the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations (Submarine
Warfare); AN/BSY–1 Submarine Combat
and Acoustic System (PMS417) Chief Engineer
for Program Executive Officer, Submarine
Combat and Weapons Systems; Sea
Wolf Class Submarine (PMS350) Assistant
Program Manager (Design and Construction)
for Program Executive Officer, Submarines;
Strategic and Attack Submarines (PMS392)
Major Program Manager for Naval Sea Systems
Command; and Executive Assistant and
Naval Aide to the Assistant Secretary of the
Navy (Research, Development and Acquisition).
He has also served in temporary assignments
attached to the Applied Physics Laboratory
Ice Station, Arctic Ocean; Supervisor of
Shipbuilding, Groton, CT, and Newport News,
VA; and attached in support of U.S. Embassies
at Cairo, Egypt; Moscow, Russia; and
Panama City, Panama. Over the course of his
career, Admiral Butler has helped to design,
build, and deliver a total of 23 submarines —
nearly one-third of today’s total force.
2005 Ron Paul 74:8
Admiral Butler’s personal awards include the Legion of Merit (3 awards), Meritorious Service
Medal (3 awards), Navy Commendation
Medal, Navy Achievement Medal, in addition
to other service and unit awards.
2005 Ron Paul 74:9
Mr. Speaker, Admiral Butler has given 30 years of service to the Navy, to Congress, and
to the people of the United States of America.
He has served our Nation well and has helped
to ensure that our undersea fleet remains the
best in the world. He has left a large and
meaningful legacy and I am honored to rise
today to express my appreciation for Admiral
Butler and for his wife Eileen who has served
her Nation right along side her husband. Being
a Navy wife is not an easy task, and she has
been nothing less than a model of courage,
patience, and devotion.
2005 Ron Paul 74:10
Mr. Speaker, colleagues, please join me in wishing Admiral and Eileen Butler: “Fair winds
and following seas and long may your big jib
draw!”
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 75
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Introducing The Comprehensive Health Care Act
27 June 2005
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Monday, June 27, 2005
2005 Ron Paul 75:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, America faces a crisis in health care. Health care costs continue
to rise, leaving many Americans unable
to afford health insurance, while those with
health care coverage, and their physicians,
struggle under the control of managed-care
“gatekeepers.” Obviously, fundamental health
care reform should be one of Congress’ top
priorities.
2005 Ron Paul 75:2
Unfortunately, most health care “reform” proposals either make marginal changes or
exacerbate the problem. This is because they
fail to address the root of the problem with
health care, which is that government policies
encourage excessive reliance on third-party
payers. The excessive reliance on third-party
payers removes all incentive from individual
patients to concern themselves with health
care costs. Laws and policies promoting
Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) resulted
from a desperate attempt to control spiraling
costs. However, instead of promoting an
efficient health care system, HMOs further
took control over health care away from the individual
patient and physician.
2005 Ron Paul 75:3
Furthermore, the predominance of third- party payers means there is effectively no
market for individual health insurance policies,
thus those whose employers cannot offer
them health benefits must either pay exorbitant
fees for health insurance or do without
health insurance. Since most health care providers
cater to those with health insurance, it
is very difficult for the uninsured to find health
care that meets their needs at an affordable
price. The result is many of the uninsured turn
to government-funded health care systems, or
use their local emergency room as their primary
care physician. The result of this is declining
health for the uninsured and increased
burden on taxpayer-financed health care system.
2005 Ron Paul 75:4
Returning control over health care to the individual is the key to true health care reform.
The Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act
puts control of health care back into the hands
of the individual through tax credits, tax deductions,
Health Care Savings Accounts
(HSA), and Flexible Savings Accounts. By giving
individuals tax incentives to purchase their
own health care, the Comprehensive Health
Care Act will help more Americans obtain
quality health insurance and health care. Specifically,
the Comprehensive Health Care Act:
2005 Ron Paul 75:5
A. Provides all Americans with a tax credit for 100% of health care expenses. The tax
credit is fully refundable against both income
and payroll taxes.
2005 Ron Paul 75:6
B. Allows individuals to roll over unused amounts in cafeteria plans and Flexible Savings
Accounts (FSA).
2005 Ron Paul 75:7
C. Makes every American eligible for an Health Savings Account (HSA), removes the
requirement that individuals must obtain a
high-deductible insurance policy to open an
HSA; allows individuals to use their HSA to
make premium payments for high-deductible
policy; and allows senior citizens to use their
HSA to purchase Medigap policies.
2005 Ron Paul 75:8
D. Repeals the 7.5 percent threshold for the deduction of medical expenses, thus making
all medical expenses tax deductible.
2005 Ron Paul 75:9
By providing a wide range of options, this bill allows individual Americans to choose the
method of financing health care that best suits
their individual needs. Increasing frustration
with the current health care system is leading
more and more Americans to embrace this approach
to health care reform. For example, a
poll by the respected Zogby firm showed that
over 80 percent of Americans support providing
all Americans with access to a Health
Savings Account. I hope all my colleagues will
join this effort to put individuals back in control
of health care by cosponsoring the Comprehensive
Health Care Reform Act.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 76
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Introducing The Agriculture Education Freedom Act
27 June 2005
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Monday, June 27, 2005
2005 Ron Paul 76:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Agriculture Education Freedom Act. This
bill addresses a great injustice being perpetrated
by the Federal Government on those
youngsters who participate in programs such
as 4–H or the Future Farmers of America.
Under current tax law, children are forced to
pay Federal income tax when they sell livestock
they have raised as part of an agricultural
education program.
2005 Ron Paul 76:2
Think about this for a moment. These kids are trying to better themselves, earn some
money, save some money and what does
Congress do? We pick on these kids by taxing
them. It is truly amazing that with all the hand-
wringing in Congress over the alleged need to
further restrict liberty and grow the size of government
“for the children” we would continue
to tax young people who are trying to lead responsible
lives and prepare for the future.
Even if the serious social problems today’s
youth face could be solved by new Federal
bureaucracies and programs, it is still unfair to
pick on those kids who are trying to do the
right thing.
2005 Ron Paul 76:3
These children are not even old enough to vote, yet we are forcing them to pay taxes!
What ever happened to no taxation without
representation? No wonder young people are
so cynical about government!
2005 Ron Paul 76:4
It is time we stopped taxing youngsters who are trying to earn money to go to college by
selling livestock they have raised through their
participation in programs such as 4–H or Future
Farmers of America. Therefore, I call on
my colleagues to join me in supporting the Agriculture
Education Freedom Act.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 77
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Introducing The Freedom From Unnecessary Litigation Act
27 June 2005
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Monday, June 27, 2005
2005 Ron Paul 77:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation
Act. As its title suggests, this bill provides
an effective means of ensuring that those
harmed during medical treatment receive fair
compensation while reducing the burden of
costly malpractice litigation on the health care
system. This bill achieves its goal by providing
a tax credit for negative outcomes insurance
purchased before medical treatment. The insurance
will provide compensation for any
negative outcomes of the medical treatment.
Patients can receive this insurance without
having to go through lengthy litigation and
without having to give away a large portion of
their award to a trial lawyer.
2005 Ron Paul 77:2
Relying on negative outcomes insurance instead of litigation will also reduce the costs imposed
on physicians, other health care providers,
and hospitals by malpractice litigation.
The Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act
also promotes effective solutions to the malpractice
crisis by making malpractice awards
obtained through binding, voluntary arbitration
tax-free.
2005 Ron Paul 77:3
The malpractice crisis has contributed to the closing of a maternity ward in Philadelphia and
a trauma center in Nevada. Meanwhile, earlier
this year, surgeons in West Virginia walked off
the job to protest increasing liability rates.
These are a few of the examples of how access
to quality health care is jeopardized by
the epidemic of large (and medically questionable)
malpractice awards, and the resulting increase
in insurance rates.
2005 Ron Paul 77:4
As is typical of Washington, most of the proposed solutions to the malpractice problem involve
unconstitutional usurpations of areas
best left to the states. These solutions also ignore
the root cause of the litigation crisis: the
shift away from treating the doctor-patient relationship
as a contractual one to viewing it as
one governed by regulations imposed by insurance
company functionaries, politicians,
government bureaucrats, and trial lawyers.
There is no reason why questions of the assessment
of liability and compensation cannot
be determined by a private contractual agreement
between physicians and patients. The
Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act is
designed to take a step toward resolving these
problems through private contracts.
2005 Ron Paul 77:5
Using insurance, private contracts, and binding arbitration to resolve medical disputes
benefits patients, who receive full compensation
in a timelier manner than under the current
system. It also benefits physicians and
hospitals, which are relieved of the costs associated
with litigation. Since it will not cost as
much to provide full compensation to an injured
patient, these bills should result in a reduction
of malpractice premiums. The Freedom
from Unnecessary Litigation Act benefits
everybody except those trial lawyers who profit
from the current system. I hope all my colleagues
will help end the malpractice crises
while ensuring those harmed by medical injuries
receive just compensation by cosponsoring
my Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation
Act.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 78
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Introducing The Quality Health Care Coalition Act
27 June 2005
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Monday, June 27, 2005
2005 Ron Paul 78:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Quality Health Care Coalition Act,
which takes a first step towards restoring a
true free market in health care by restoring the
rights of freedom of contract and association
to health care professionals. Over the past few
years, we have had much debate in Congress
about the difficulties medical professionals and
patients are having with Health Maintenance
Organizations (HMOs). HMOs are devices
used by insurance industries to ration health
care. While it is politically popular for members
of Congress to bash the HMOs and the insurance
industry, the growth of the HMOs are
rooted in past government interventions in the
health care market though the tax code, the
Employment Retirement Security Act (ERSIA),
and the federal anti-trust laws. These interventions
took control of the health care dollar
away from individual patients and providers,
thus making it inevitable that something like
the HMOs would emerge as a means to control
costs.
2005 Ron Paul 78:2
Many of my well-meaning colleagues would deal with the problems created by the HMOs
by expanding the federal government’s control
over the health care market. These interventions
will inevitably drive up the cost of health
care and further erode the ability of patents
and providers to determine the best health
treatments free of government and third-party
interference. In contrast, the Quality Health
Care Coalition Act addresses the problems associated
with HMOs by restoring medical professionals’
freedom to form voluntary organizations
for the purpose of negotiating contracts
with an HMO or an insurance company.
2005 Ron Paul 78:3
As an OB–GYN with over 30 years in practice, I am well aware of how young physicians
coming out of medical school feel compelled
to sign contracts with HMOs that may contain
clauses that compromise their professional integrity.
For example, many physicians are
contractually forbidden from discussing all
available treatment options with their patients
because the HMO gatekeeper has deemed
certain treatment options too expensive. In my
own practice, I have tried hard not to sign contracts
with any health insurance company that
infringed on my ability to practice medicine in
the best interests of my patients and I have always
counseled my professional colleagues to
do the same. Unfortunately, because of the
dominance of the HMO in today’s health care
market, many health care professionals cannot
sustain a medical practice unless they agree
to conform their practice to the dictates of
some HMO.
2005 Ron Paul 78:4
One way health care professionals could counter the power of the HMOs would be to
form a voluntary association for the purpose of
negotiating with an HMO or an insurance company.
However, health care professionals who
attempt to form such a group run the risk of
persecution under federal anti-trust laws. This
not only reduces the ability of health care professionals
to negotiate with HMOs on a level
playing field, but also constitutes an unconstitutional
violation of medical professionals’ freedom
of contract and association.
2005 Ron Paul 78:5
Under the United States Constitution, the Federal government has no authority to interfere
with the private contracts of American citizens.
Furthermore, the prohibitions on contracting
contained in the Sherman antitrust
laws are based on a flawed economic theory
which holds that Federal regulators can improve
upon market outcomes by restricting the
rights of certain market participants deemed
too powerful by the government. In fact, anti-
trust laws harm consumers by preventing the
operation of the free-market, causing prices to
rise, quality to suffer, and, as is certainly the
case with the relationship between the HMOs
and medical professionals, favoring certain industries
over others.
2005 Ron Paul 78:6
By restoring the freedom of medical professionals to voluntarily come together to negotiate
as a group with HMOs and insurance
companies, this bill removes a government-imposed
barrier to a true free market in health
care. Of course, this bill does not infringe on
the rights of health care professionals by forcing
them to join a bargaining organization
against their will. While Congress should protect
the rights of all Americans to join organizations
for the purpose of bargaining collectively,
Congress also has a moral responsibility
to ensure that no worker is forced by law
to join or financially support such an organization.
2005 Ron Paul 78:7
Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that Congress will not only remove the restraints on medical
professionals’ freedom of contract, but will
also empower patients to control their health
care by passing my Comprehensive Health
Care Reform Act. The Comprehensive Health
Care Reform Act puts individuals back in
charge of their own health care by providing
Americans with large tax credits and tax deductions
for their health care expenses, including
a deduction for premiums for a high-deductible
insurance policy purchased in combination
with a Health Savings Account. Putting
individuals back in charge of their own
health care decisions will enable patients to
work with providers to ensure they receive the
best possible health care at the lowest possible
price. If providers and patients have the
ability to form the contractual arrangements
that they find most beneficial to them, the
HMO monster will wither on the vine without
the imposition of new Federal regulations on
the insurance industry.
2005 Ron Paul 78:8
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Quality Health Care
Coalition Act and restore the freedom of contract
and association to America’s health care
professionals. I also urge my colleagues to
join me in working to promote a true free market
in health care by putting patients back in
charge of the health care dollar by supporting
my Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 79
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Introducing The Cancer And Terminal Illness Patient Health Care Act
27 June 2005
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Monday, June 27, 2005
2005 Ron Paul 79:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to help working Americans stricken with cancer or other
terminal illnesses, and their families, by introducing
the Cancer and Terminal Illness Patient
Health Care Act. This act exempts people
with terminal illnesses from the employee portion
of payroll taxes while they are suffering
from such illnesses or are incurring significant
medical costs associated with their conditions.
The Cancer and Terminal Illness Patient
Health Care Act also provides a payroll deduction
to any worker who is the primary caregiver
for a spouse, parent, or child with a terminal
illness.
2005 Ron Paul 79:2
When stricken with cancer or another terminal disease, many Americans struggle to
pay for the treatment necessary to save, or
extend, their lives. Even employees with
health insurance incur costs such as for transportation
to and from care centers, prescription
drugs not covered by their insurance, or
for child care while they are receiving treatment.
Yet, the federal government continues
to force these employees to pay for retirement
benefits they may never live to see!
2005 Ron Paul 79:3
Many Americans struggle to pay the costs of treating children, a spouse, or a parent with
a terminal illness. My bill also provides much
needed tax relief for those who are providing
care to a loved one with a terminal disease.
2005 Ron Paul 79:4
As a physician who has specialized in women’s health issues for decades, I know how
critical it is that cancer patients and others suffering
from terminal illnesses have the resources
they need to combat these illnesses.
The Cancer and Terminal Illness Patient
Health Care Act provides a realistic way to
help people suffering from cancer or other terminal
illnesses receive quality health care.
2005 Ron Paul 79:5
It is hard to think of a more compassionate tax policy this Congress could enact than to
stop taking the resources away from working
Americans that could help them treat cancer,
AIDS, or other terrible health problems. I hope
all my colleagues will help people suffering
from terminal illnesses, and their caregivers,
by cosponsoring the Cancer and Terminal Illness
Patient Health Care Act.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 80
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Introducing The Child Health Care Affordability Act
27 June 2005
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Monday, June 27, 2005
2005 Ron Paul 80:1
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.
2005 Ron Paul 80:2
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.
2005 Ron Paul 80:3
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.
2005 Ron Paul 80:4
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.
2005 Ron Paul 80:5
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.
2005 Ron Paul 80:6
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.
2005 Ron Paul 80:7
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?
2005 Ron Paul 80:8
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.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 81
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Foreign Aid
28 June 2005
2005 Ron Paul 81:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
2005 Ron Paul 81:2
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. I would only
ask my colleagues on this side of the
aisle, where have all the conservatives
gone? Where are the fiscal conservatives?
A decade or so ago, the conservatives
on this side of the aisle voted
against all foreign aid. Now they are
the champion of foreign aid.
2005 Ron Paul 81:3
We are running a national debt increase right now of nearly $600 billion a
year, and the gentleman from this side
of the aisle suggests that maybe we can
spend $100 million less out of a budget
that is over $20.3 billion, suggesting we
could save $100 million, which sounds
like pretty good sense, and all we hear
are complaints about why we need this
program.
2005 Ron Paul 81:4
One gentleman asked the question, what are we for if we are against this
program down in Colombia, Plan Colombia?
Well, I’ll tell my colleagues
what I am for. I am for the American
taxpayer, and I will tell my colleagues
one thing. I will bet them I am right on
this. I will bet my colleagues, on either
side of the aisle ever goes home and
ever puts it into their campaign brochure
and say, you know what, I voted
$20 billion for foreign aid; and I know
nobody over here will go home and
brag about $100 million that they were
able to vote against cutting from this
side of the aisle. They will not do it.
2005 Ron Paul 81:5
I was here in 2000 when this debate was going on and strongly opposed it
for various reasons, but I remember the
pretext for Plan Colombia. The pretext
was the drug war and this is what we
have heard about today. The evidence
is very flimsy. If there was any success
on the drug war, production would be
down and prices would be up. Production
is up and prices are down, and that
is an economic absolute.
2005 Ron Paul 81:6
So there has been nothing accomplished. There has been more production
in other countries in the Andes,
but the pretext there was only the
drugs, but I remember so clearly in the
year 2000 who lobbied for this bill.
2005 Ron Paul 81:7
Does anybody remember oil companies coming here to get their oil pipelines
protected, and we still protect
them? This is a little private army
that we sent down there. We have 800
troops and advisers in Colombia and
spending these huge sums of money.
Who else lobbied for Plan Colombia?
Do my colleagues remember the debate
on who would get to sell the helicopters?
Would they be Black Hawks or
Hueys?
2005 Ron Paul 81:8
Then we wonder where the lobby is from. It is not from the American people.
I will bet my colleagues nobody
wrote to anybody on this side and said
please make sure you spend this $100
million dollars; this would be tragic if
you would not spend it because it is
doing so much good. That does not happen.
It is the lobbying behind the
scenes of the special interests whose
interests are served by us being down
there. It is part of this military industrial
complex which exists, and I do not
believe it has had one ounce of success.
I think it is a complete waste of
money; and besides, just incidentally it
is unconstitutional for us to do this.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 82
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Congress Lacks Authority To Sell Unocal
30 June 2005
2005 Ron Paul 82:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker I rise with great reservations over this legislation. Why is the federal
government involving itself in the sale of
a private American company? Do we really
believe we have this kind of authority?
2005 Ron Paul 82:2
I would remind my colleagues that Unocal is a private company with shareholders and a
board of directors. That is the governance of
the company — not the U.S. Congress. Do we
really believe that we should be the real board
of governors of Unocal?
2005 Ron Paul 82:3
If in the United States a private company does not have the right to be sold on the free
market, should we really be criticizing the lack
of freedom in China? Many conservatives who
have decried the recent Supreme Court decision
that severely undermines the principle of
private property in the United States are now
on the other side, cheering this blatant Congressional
attempt to do something that may
be even worse than Kelo vs. New London.
2005 Ron Paul 82:4
I voted recently against allowing the EximBank to use U.S. taxpayer money to underwrite
Chinese construction of nuclear
power plants. I do not support subsidizing the
Chinese government’s economic activities. But
I also do not support the U.S. Congress involving
itself in the private economic transactions
of U.S. companies.
2005 Ron Paul 82:5
Some have raised concerns that the purchase of Unocal by a company tied to the Chinese
government will create security problems
for the United States. I would argue the opposite.
International trade and economic activity
tends to diminish, not increase tensions between
countries. Increased economic relationships
between the United States and China
make military conflict much less likely, as it
becomes in neither country’s interest to allow
tensions to get out of hand.
2005 Ron Paul 82:6
Mr. Speaker, we should not criticize a lack of economic freedom in China when Congress,
as evidenced in this legislation, attempts
to restrict the economic freedom of
American citizens.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 83
Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
July 11, 2005
Henry Lamb- A Great Freedom Fighter Documents how your Dietary Supplements are Under Attack
2005 Ron Paul 83:1
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to
read ”Your dietary supplements: Under attack again“ by Henry Lamb,
which I am inserting into the record. Mr. Lamb explains the threat to
American
consumers of dietary supplements and American sovereignty by the Codex
Alimentarius commission, commonly referred to simply as Codex. The
United
Nations created Codex to establish international standards for foods
and
medicines. Just last week, representatives of the United States
government
agreed to a final version of Codex’s standards on dietary supplements
which, if
implemented in the United States, could drastically reduce Americans’
ability to
obtain the supplements of their choice. Members of the American
bureaucracy may
be hoping to achieve via international fiat what they cannot achieve
through the
domestic law-making process--the power to restrict consumers’ access to
dietary
supplements. American bureaucrats may gain this power if the World
Trade
Organization, which considers Codex ”guidelines“ the standard by which
all other regulations are judged, decides that our failure to
”harmonize“ our regulations of dietary supplements to meet Codex’s
recommendations violates international trading standards! This
could occur
despite the fact that American consumers do not want to be subjected to
the
restrictive regulations common in other parts of the world, such as the
European
Union.
2005 Ron Paul 83:2
This article is typical of
Henry Lamb’s
work. For almost twenty years, beginning at an age when most Americans
are
contemplating retirement, Mr. Lamb has worked to expose and stop
threats to
American liberty, sovereignty, and prosperity. Mr. Lamb became involved
in the
battle for liberty when, as the CEO of a Tennessee construction
company, he
founded a state association of contractors to work against excessive
regulations. In 1988, Henry Lamb founded the Environmental Conservation
Organization to defend true environmentalism, which is rooted in the
truth that
there is no better steward of the environment than a private property
owner,
from those who used the environment as a cover for their radical
statist
agendas. Since 1992, Mr. Lamb and ECO have focused on the threat to
economic
liberty and self-government posed by the radical global environmental
agenda.
2005 Ron Paul 83:3
Henry Lamb works to further
the cause
of liberty by giving speeches around the country, editing an on-line
magazine,
making numerous television and radio appearances, and writing a weekly
column to
inform his fellow Americans of the latest scheme to undermine their
freedoms.
Mr. Lamb is the model of a citizen-activist, and all who wish to become
involved
in the battle for freedom can learn from his example. In conclusion, I
once
again urge my colleagues to read Mr. Lamb’s article to learn about the
need to
protect American consumers from Codex, and I thank Mr. Lamb for his
tireless
devotion to the cause of freedom.
2005 Ron Paul 83:4
YOUR DIETARY SUPPLEMENTS: UNDER ATTACK
AGAIN (from WorldNetDaily, June 11, 2005)
2005 Ron Paul 83:5
(By Henry Lamb)
The Codex Alimentarius
Commission
sounds like one of those shadowy, sinister organizations conjured up by
one-world-government nuts to scare people.
2005 Ron Paul 83:6
Truth: It is!
2005 Ron Paul 83:7
The Food and Agriculture
Organization
and the World Health Organization created this commission in the early
1960s to
set standards for food safety and to ”harmonize“ the laws of member
nations.
The commission was endorsed by U.N. Resolution 39/248, which says:
2005 Ron Paul 83:8
”When formulating national
policies
and plans with regard to food, governments should take into account the
need of
all consumers for food security and should support and, as far as
possible,
adopt standards from the ..... Codex Alimentarius. .....“
2005 Ron Paul 83:9
The Codex Alimentarius
Commission
consists of delegates from 163 member nations representing 97 percent
of the
world’s population. It meets every two years, either in Rome or Geneva.
Between
meetings, the commission is governed by an executive committee that
directs the
activities of its many committees.
2005 Ron Paul 83:10
Of immediate concern is the
ongoing
effort to bring dietary supplements in America under the control of
standards
set by this commission. Dietary supplements generate a $17 billion
industry in
the United States, which affects more than 150 million consumers,
according to
Congressional findings (H.R. 2485). Proposed procedures and standards
could
virtually destroy this market and deprive millions of Americans of the
supplements they want to use.
2005 Ron Paul 83:11
The European Union Directive
on Dietary
Supplements, which becomes law in August, severely restricts the types
and
quantities of supplements that may be legally sold. Most forms of
vitamins C and
E, for example, are not available, or are available only in extremely
small
doses. If current plans proceed on course, American consumers are in
for a
shock.
2005 Ron Paul 83:12
How can this little-known
international
commission control what consumers buy in the United States?
2005 Ron Paul 83:13
An even less-known agency,
deep within
the bowels of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is responsible for
U.S.
participation in the Codex Commission and designates delegates to each
of the
commission’s committees. Barbara O. Schneeman is the delegate to the
Codex
Committee on Nutrition and Food for Special Dietary Uses.
2005 Ron Paul 83:14
The effort to regulate dietary
supplements has been under way for more than a decade. In 1994,
Congress adopted
the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act, which kept supplements
beyond
the reach of the drug police. In the past, Codex recommendations have
been
non-binding. Now, however, the Codex Alimentarius Commission is teaming
up with
the World Trade Organization to bring international enforcement to the
dietary-supplement battle.
2005 Ron Paul 83:15
Ironically, it was primarily
the U.S.
that brought the WTO into existence in 1994, as the successor to GATT,
the
General Agreement on Tarriffs and Trade. The WTO agreement specifically
requires
that the member nations--including the U.S.--conform its laws to meet
the
requirements of WTO decisions. Failure to conform results in stiff
financial
penalties. The Codex Commission and the European Union want the WTO to
enforce
Codex standards, which fly directly in the face of the Dietary
Supplement Health
and Education Act.
2005 Ron Paul 83:16
Pascal Lamy of France was just
selected
as director general of the WTO. Lamy served as a member of the French
Socialist
Party’s steering committee and was chief of staff and representative of
the
European Commission for President Jacques Delors. Since 1995, he has
served as a
member of the Central Office of the Mouvement Européen (France)
and as a member
of the European Commission, responsible for trade.
2005 Ron Paul 83:17
The Codex Commission will be
meeting in
Rome July 4-9 to adopt the final rules on dietary supplement use. Dr.
Carolyn
Dean, president of Friends of Freedom International, will attend this
meeting
and return to the U.S. just in time to present her report to the Sixth
Annual
Freedom 21 Conference in Reno, July 14-16.
2005 Ron Paul 83:18
The Codex Alimentarius
Commission’s
reach is much broader than dietary supplements. Its committees are also
working
on standards for pesticide residue, labeling of all kinds of foods,
food
additives and nutrients, veterinary medicine and drugs, as well as
standards and
methods for analysis. The function of this organization is to establish
standards for all food worldwide and to enforce those standards through
the
power of the World Trade Organization.
2005 Ron Paul 83:19
Few people know that there is
such a
thing as the Codex Alimentarius Commission. It was created to promote
food
safety in international trade. It is on the brink of becoming an
Orwellian
bureaucracy--far worse than the worst fantasies of the one-world
conspiracy
theories.
2005 Ron Paul 83:20
The Codex Alimentarius
Commission is
neither fantasy nor theory; it is real.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 84
Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
July 14, 2005
SUICIDE TERRORISM
2005 Ron Paul 84:1
Mr. Speaker, more than half of the American people now
believe that the Iraqi war has made the U.S. less safe. This is a
dramatic shift
in sentiment from 2 years ago. Early support for the war reflected a
hope for a
safer America, and it was thought to be an appropriate response to the
9/11
attacks. The argument was that the enemy attacked us because of our
freedom, our
prosperity, and our way of life. It was further argued that it was
important to
engage the potential terrorists over there rather than here. Many
bought this
argument and supported the war. That is now changing.
2005 Ron Paul 84:2
It is virtually impossible to stop determined suicide bombers. Understanding why
they sacrifice themselves is crucial to ending what appears to be
senseless and
irrational. But there is an explanation.
2005 Ron Paul 84:3
I, like many, have assumed that the driving force behind the suicide attacks was
Islamic fundamentalism. Promise of instant entry into paradise as a
reward for
killing infidels seemed to explain the suicides, a concept that is
foreign to
our way of thinking. The world’s expert on suicide terrorism
has convinced me to rethink this simplistic explanation, that terrorism
is merely an
expression of religious extremism and resentment of a foreign culture.
2005 Ron Paul 84:4
Robert Pape, author of ”Dying to Win,“ explains the strategic logic of suicide terrorism. Pape has collected a
database of every suicide terrorist attack between 1980
and 2004, all 462 of them. His conclusions are enlightening and crucial
to our
understanding the true motivation behind the attacks against Western
nations by
Islamic terrorists. After his exhaustive study, Pape comes to some very
important conclusions.
2005 Ron Paul 84:5
Religious beliefs are less important than supposed. For instance, the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, a Marxist
secular
group, are the world’s leader in suicide terrorism
. The largest Islamic fundamentalist countries have not been
responsible for any
suicide terrorist attack. None have come from Iran or the
Sudan. Until the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Iraq
never had a suicide terrorist attack in all of its history. Between
1995 and
2004, the al Qaeda years, two-thirds of all attacks came from countries
where
the U.S. had troops stationed. Iraq’s suicide missions today are
carried out by
Iraqi Sunnis and Saudis. Recall, 15 of the 19 participants in the 9/11
attacks
were Saudis.
2005 Ron Paul 84:6
The clincher is this: the strongest motivation, according to Pape, is not religion but rather a desire ”to
compel
modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory the
terrorists
view as their homeland.“
2005 Ron Paul 84:7
The best news is that if stopping suicide terrorism is a goal we
seek, a solution is available to us. Cease the occupation of foreign
lands and
the suicide missions will cease. Between 1982 and 1986, there were 41
suicide
terrorist attacks in Lebanon. Once the U.S., the French, and Israel
withdrew
their forces from Lebanon, there were no more attacks. The reason the
attacks
stop, according to Pape, is that the Osama bin Ladens of the world no
longer can
inspire potential suicide terrorists despite their continued fanatical
religious
beliefs.
2005 Ron Paul 84:8
Pape is convinced after his extensive research that the longer and more extensive the occupation of Muslim
territories, the greater the chance of more 9/11-type attacks on the
U.S. He is
convinced that the terrorists strategically are holding off hitting the
U.S. at
the present time in an effort to break up the coalition by hitting our
European
allies. He claims it is just a matter of time if our policies do not
change.
2005 Ron Paul 84:9
It is time for us to consider a strategic reassessment of our policy of foreign interventionism,
occupation, and
nation-building. It is in our national interest to do so and in the
interest of
world peace.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 85
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Tribute To A.J. Pete Reixach
14 July 2005
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, July 14, 2005
2005 Ron Paul 85:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate A.J. Pete Reixach as the celebration of
his having spent 20 years at Port Freeport
rapidly approaches.
2005 Ron Paul 85:2
As American Association of Port Authorities President Kurt J. Nagle said recently, “Pete
deserves congratulations not only for reaching
the remarkable milestone of 20 years at the
Port, but also for the dramatic growth Port
Freeport has achieved during his tenure. In an
industry where the average tenure for a port
director is less than 7 years, Pete’s 20 years
at Port Freeport are a tribute to his effectiveness
in directing the Port and to the Port’s
substantial economic impacts to the region.
He is both well-respected and recognized as
an industry leader by his colleagues.”
2005 Ron Paul 85:3
To learn more about Reixach’s time at the Port one only needs to talk with representatives
of the Port’s many customers such as
American Rice Inc., Dole Fresh Fruit Company,
Chiquita Brands Inc. and Turbana Corp,
the last two of which began their relationship
with the Port during Reixach’s tenure.
2005 Ron Paul 85:4
Mr. Speaker, Port Freeport now ranks 12th among all U.S. ports in international cargo.
The Port has added new berths and continues
to grow. A cool storage facility has been built
and is set for expansion. The harbor channel
was deepened to 45 feet with efforts now
moving forward in this Congress toward approval
of a 60-foot depth, a project I have
been pleased to support. Public dock activity
at the Port has burgeoned; so, too, has that at
berths of such firms as Teppco/Seaway,
ConocoPhillips and The Dow Chemical Co.
This has all happened during Reixach’s time
as Executive Director of the Port.
2005 Ron Paul 85:5
While enrolled at the University of New Orleans Mr. Reixach began working as a clerk in
the New Orleans office of Greek-owned Hellenic
Lines Ltd. By the time Hellenic ceased
operations in 1983, Reixach had worked his
way up to a vice presidency in the line’s Houston
office. Immediately prior to coming to Port
Freeport, he was general manager in the
Houston office of Dutch shipping company
F.A. Voight Inc.
2005 Ron Paul 85:6
Reixach initially was hired to serve as assistant general manager at Freeport. Two
years later, Reixach was promoted to the new
position of executive director, the job he still
holds.
2005 Ron Paul 85:7
Mr. Speaker, Pete Reixach, 62, lives in Lake Jackson with his wife, Susie. I wish the
two of them much happiness and continued
success as Pete approaches 20 years with
Port Freeport.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 86
Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]
The Republican Congress Wastes Billions Overseas
July 20, 2005
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2005 Ron Paul 86:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this foreign relations authorization
bill. Something has gone terribly wrong with our foreign policy when we
feel we
must take almost 21 billion dollars out of the pockets of the American
taxpayer
and ship it overseas. Imagine what the Founders of this country would
say if
they were among us to see this blatant disregard for the Constitution
and for
the founding principles of this country. This bill proceeds from the
view that
with enough money we can buy friends and influence foreign governments.
But as
history shows us, we cannot. The trillions of dollars we have shipped
overseas
as aid, and to influence and manipulate political affairs in sovereign
countries, has not made life better for American citizens. It has made
them much
poorer without much to show for it, however.
2005 Ron Paul 86:2
Now we have a Republican-controlled Congress and White House, and foreign
spending soars. It was not that long ago when conservatives looked at
such
cavalier handling of US tax dollars with consternation. Now it seems
that they
are in a race with the Left to see who can spend more.
2005 Ron Paul 86:3
What is wrong with this bill? Let me just mention a few of the most
egregious items.
In the name of promoting “religious liberty” and “fighting
anti-Semitism” this bill will funnel millions of dollars to the corrupt
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and its
Office of
Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR). This unaccountable
international organization is at the forefront of the manipulation and
meddling
in the internal affairs of other sovereign states, and has repeatedly
dishonored
itself through politically-biased monitoring of foreign elections. The
OSCE does
not deserve a penny from the American taxpayer, but this bill will make
sure
that the lavishly paid bureaucrats that staff the organization will be
able to
maintain their standard of living - at our expense. With regard to
religious
liberty, privately funded voluntary organizations have been shown to be
much
more effective in promoting tolerance. This is mainly true because
these are
true grassroots organizations with a stake in their countries and
communities,
rather than unelected international bureaucrats imposing politically
correct
edicts from above.
2005 Ron Paul 86:4
This bill spends a total of four and a half billion dollars on various
United Nations
activities, UN peacekeeping, and US dues to various international
organizations.
Forcing the taxpayer to continue to underwrite these organizations,
which do not
operate in our best interests, is unconscionable.
2005 Ron Paul 86:5
This bill continues to fund organizations such as the National Endowment for
Democracy, which as I have written before has very little to do with
democracy.
It is an organization that uses US tax money to actually subvert
democracy, by
showering funding on favored political parties or movements overseas.
It
underwrites color-coded “people’s revolutions” overseas that look more
like pages out of Lenin’s writings on stealing power than genuine
indigenous
democratic movements. The NED used American taxpayer dollars to attempt
to
guarantee that certain candidates overseas are winners and others are
losers in
the electoral processes overseas. What kind of message do we think this
sends to
foreign states? The National Endowment for Democracy should receive no
funding
at all, but this bill continues to funnel tens of millions of dollars
to that
unaccountable organization.
2005 Ron Paul 86:6
I am also very concerned about several of the amendments to this
legislation. First,
the extremely misleading UN “reform” act was slipped into this bill
even
though it was already passed on the floor as a separate bill. As I have
written
about this terrible legislation, “it will give the United Nations
unprecedented new authority to intervene in sovereign states.”
2005 Ron Paul 86:7
Another amendment will create a chilling “Active Response Corps,” to be made up
of
US government bureaucrats and members of “non-governmental
organizations.”
Its purpose will be to “stabilize” countries undergoing “democratic
transition.” This means that as soon as the NED-funded “people’s
revolutionaries” are able to seize power in the streets, US funded
teams will
be deployed to make sure they retain power. All in the name of
democracy, of
course.
2005 Ron Paul 86:8
Mr. Speaker, this is a shameful day for the US Congress. We are taking
billions out
of the pockets of Americans and sending the money overseas in violation
of the
Constitution. These are billions that will not be available for
investment
inside the United States: investment in infrastructure, roads, new
businesses,
education. These are billions that will not be available to American
families,
to take care of their children or senior relatives, or to give to their
churches
or favorite charities. We must not continue to spend money like there
is no
tomorrow. We are going broke, and bills like this are like a lead foot
on the
accelerator toward bankruptcy.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 87
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Amend The PATRIOT Act — Part 1
21 July 2005
2005 Ron Paul 87:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk
will designate the amendment.
mBR>
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 19 offered by Mr. PAUL:
Add at the end the following:
mBR>
SEC. 17. SENSE OF CONGRESS RELATING TO LAWFUL
POLITICAL ACTIVITY.
It is the sense of Congress that the Federal
Government should not investigate an American
citizen for alleged criminal conduct
solely on the basis of the citizen’s membership
in a non-violent political organization
or the fact that the citizen was engaging in
other lawful political activity.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to
House Resolution 369, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. PAUL) and a Member
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. PAUL).
2005 Ron Paul 87:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 1/2 minutes.
2005 Ron Paul 87:3
Mr. Chairman, this is a straightforward amendment intended to modestly
improve the PATRIOT Act, and
let me just state exactly what it does.
“It is the sense of Congress that the
Federal government should not investigate
any American citizen for alleged
criminal conduct solely on the basis of
citizen’s membership in a nonviolent
political organization or the fact that
the citizen was engaging in other lawful
political activity.”
2005 Ron Paul 87:4
It seems like this should go without saying. I cannot imagine anybody disagreeing
with this. But our history
shows that there has been abuse in this
area. As far back as the Civil War,
World War I, and World War II, very
often speaking out on political issues
were met with law enforcement officials
actually charging them with
crimes and even having individuals imprisoned.
In the 1960s we remember
that there was wiretapping of Martin
Luther King and other political organizations.
In the 1970s we know about the
illegal wiretapping and other activities
associated with Watergate, and also in
the 1990s we are aware of IRS audits of
a political and religious organization
based only on the fact that they were
religious and political.
2005 Ron Paul 87:5
So this is a restatement of a fundamental principle that should be in our
minds and in our law, but I think it is
worthwhile to restate. And I do recognize
that in the PATRIOT Act they
recognize that the first amendment
should be protected, and in this case I
think it is an additional statement
that we should be respectful of people’s
rights to speak out and not be singled
out for political or religious viewpoints.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
2005 Ron Paul 87:6
Mr. PAUL. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman,
I thank the gentleman from
Texas for yielding.
I support this amendment. I think it
merely restates the fact that people
who are not involved in criminal or
terrorist activities have nothing to
fear from the PATRIOT Act. The first
amendment protects free speech. It
protects political association. As long
as the political association is not involved
in criminal terrorist activities,
we ought to encourage it even if their
views are something that we disagree
with.
The gentleman from Texas has done
a very good service to this bill with
this amendment, and I hope it is adopted
overwhelmingly.
2005 Ron Paul 87:7
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 88
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Amend The PATRIOT Act — Part 2
21 July 2005
2005 Ron Paul 88:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
2005 Ron Paul 88:2
I appreciate the support for the amendment on both sides. I would like
to emphasize the fact that there are
real reasons for this concern. There
have been reports in the paper of different
times when the FBI has actually
intimidated some people at national
conventions. We are aware of the fact
that there are at least reports that federal
officials have encouraged local police
to actually monitor certain political
groups, and we also are aware of
the fact that, because of political activity,
they have been placed on no-fly
lists.
2005 Ron Paul 88:3
But I think this is all reason for concern because we do not want to give
any encouragement to overzealous law
enforcement officials. At the same
time we do want to have enforcement
of the law.
2005 Ron Paul 88:4
But very briefly, I would like to say that the full thrust of this bill bothers
me in the fact that I think we are
treating a symptom and we are really
not doing dealing with the core problem
of why there are suicide terrorists
willing to attack us, and I think as
long as that is ignored we could pass 10
PATRIOT Acts stronger than ever and
it will not solve the problem unless we
eventually get to the bottom of what is
the cause.
2005 Ron Paul 88:5
And, quite frankly, I do not believe the cause is because we are free and
democratic and wealthy. There is no
evidence whatsoever to show that that
is the motivation of terrorist attacks.
And for us to continue to believe that
is the sole reason for attacks, I think
we are misled. And we are driven to
want to protect our people, which I understand
it is well motivated, but it
will not solve the problem unless we
eventually address that subject of why
does it happen. It is not because we are
free. And, ironically, in many ways we
are making ourselves less free with
some of the provisions in this bill.
2005 Ron Paul 88:6
So I would suggest that ultimately we will have to have another solution
because this will not solve all of our
problems.
2005 Ron Paul 88:7
Mr. Chairman, the USA PATRIOT Act and Terrorism Prevention Act (H.R. 3199) in no
way brings the PATRIOT Act into compliance
with the Constitution or allays concerns that
the powers granted to the government in the
act will be used to abuse the rights of the people.
Much of the discussion surrounding this
bill has revolved around the failure of the bill
to extend the sunset clauses.
2005 Ron Paul 88:8
However, simply sunsetting troublesome provisions does not settle the debates around
the PATRIOT Act. If the PATRIOT Act is constitutional
and needed, as its proponents
swear, why were sunset provisions included at
all? If it is unconstitutional and pernicious, why
not abolish it immediately?
2005 Ron Paul 88:9
The sunset clauses do perform one useful service in that they force Congress to regularly
re-examine the PATRIOT Act. As the people’s
representatives, it is our responsibility to keep
a close eye on the executive branch to ensure
it does not abuse its power. Even if the claims
of H.R. 3199’s supporters that there have
been no abuses of PATRIOT Act powers
under this administration are true, that does
not mean that future administrations will not
abuse these powers.
2005 Ron Paul 88:10
H.R. 3199 continues to violate the constitution by allowing searches and seizures of
American citizens and their property without a
warrant issued by an independent court upon
a finding of probable cause. The drafters of
the Bill of Rights considered this essential protection
against an overreaching government.
For example, Section 215 of the PATRIOT
Act, popularly known as the libraries provision,
allows Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Courts, whose standards hardly meet the constitutional
requirements of the Fourth Amendment,
to issue warrants for individual records,
including medical and library records. H.R.
3199 does reform this provision by clarifying
that it can be used to acquire the records of
an American citizen only during terrorist investigations.
However, this marginal change fails
to bring the section up to the constitutional
standard of probable cause.
2005 Ron Paul 88:11
Requiring a showing of probable cause before a warrant may be issued will in no way
hamper terrorist investigations. For one thing,
federal authorities would still have numerous
tools available to investigate and monitor the
activities of non-citizens suspected of terrorism.
Second, restoring the Fourth Amendment
protections would in no way interfere
with the provisions of the PATRIOT Act that
removed the firewalls that prevented the government’s
law enforcement and intelligence
agencies from sharing information.
2005 Ron Paul 88:12
The probable cause requirements will not delay a terrorist investigation. Preparations
can be made for the issuance of a warrant in
the event of an emergency and allowances
can be made for cases where law enforcement
does not have time to obtain a warrant.
In fact, a requirement that law enforcement
demonstrate probable cause may help law enforcement
focus their efforts on true threats,
thus avoiding the problem of information overload
that is handicapping the government’s efforts
to identify sources of terrorists’ financing.
2005 Ron Paul 88:13
The requirement that law enforcement demonstrate probable cause before a judge preserves
the Founders’ system of checks and
balances that protects against one branch
gathering too much power. The Founders recognized
that one of the chief dangers to liberty
was the concentration of power in a few
hands, which is why they carefully divided
power among the three branches. I would remind
those of my colleagues who will claim
that we must set aside the constitutional requirements
during war that the founders were
especially concerned about the consolidation
of power during times of war and national
emergencies. My colleagues should also keep
in mind that PATRIOT Act powers have already
been used in non-terrorism related
cases, most notably in a bribery investigation
in Nevada.
2005 Ron Paul 88:14
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3199 does take some positive steps toward restoring respect for
constitutional liberties and checks and balances
that the original PATRIOT Act stripped
away. However, it still leaves in place large
chunks of legislation that threaten individual
liberty by giving law enforcement power to
snoop into American citizens’ lives without
adequate oversight. This power is unnecessary
to effectively fight terrorism. Therefore, I
urge my colleagues to reject this bill.
2005 Ron Paul 88:15
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 89
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
July 21, 2005
Don’t Reauthorize the Patriot Act
2005 Ron Paul 89:1
Mr. Speaker, the USA PATRIOT Act and Terrorism Prevention Act (HR 3199) in no
way brings the PATRIOT Act into compliance with the Constitution or
allays
concerns that the powers granted to the government in the act will be
used to
abuse the rights of the people. Much of the discussion surrounding this
bill has
revolved around the failure of the bill to extend the sunset clauses.
2005 Ron Paul 89:2
However, simply sunsetting troublesome provisions does not settle the debates
around the PATRIOT Act. If the PATRIOT Act is constitutional and
needed, as its
proponents swear, why include sunset provisions at all? If it is
unconstitutional and pernicious, why not abolish it immediately?
2005 Ron Paul 89:3
The sunset clauses do perform one useful service in that they force Congress
to regularly re-examine the PATRIOT Act. As the people’s
representatives, it
is our responsibility to keep a close eye on the executive branch to
ensure it
does not abuse its power. Even if the claims of HR 3199’s supporters
that
there have been no abuses of PATRIOT Act powers under this
administration are
true, that does not mean that future administrations will not abuse
these
powers.
2005 Ron Paul 89:4
HR 3199 continues to violate the constitution by allowing searches and seizures
of American citizens and their property without a warrant issued by an
independent court upon a finding of probable cause. The drafters of the
Bill of
Rights considered this essential protection against an overreaching
government.
For example, Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, popularly known as the
library
provision, allows Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Courts, whose
standards
hardly meet the constitutional requirements of the Fourth Amendment, to
issue
warrants for individual records, including medical and library records.
HR 3199
does reform this provision by clarifying that it can be used to acquire
the
records of an American citizen only during terrorist investigations.
However,
this marginal change fails to bring the section up to the
constitutional
standard of probable cause.
2005 Ron Paul 89:5
Requiring a showing of probable cause before a warrant may be issued will in
no way hamper terrorist investigations. For one thing, federal
authorities still
would have numerous tools available to investigate and monitor the
activities of
non-citizens suspected of terrorism. Second, restoring the Fourth
Amendment
protections would in no way interfere with the provisions of the
PATRIOT Act
removing the firewalls that prevented the government’s law enforcement
and
intelligence agencies from sharing information.
2005 Ron Paul 89:6
The probable cause requirements will not delay a terrorist investigation.
Preparations can be made for the issuance of a warrant in the event of
an
emergency, and allowances can be made for cases where law enforcement
does not
have time to obtain a warrant. In fact, a requirement that law
enforcement
demonstrate probable cause may help law enforcement focus their efforts
on true
threats, thus avoiding the problem of information overload that is
handicapping
the government’s efforts to identify sources of terrorist financing.
2005 Ron Paul 89:7
The requirement that law enforcement demonstrate probable cause before a
judge preserves the Founders’ system of checks and balances that
protects
against one branch gathering too much power. The Founders recognized
that one of
the chief dangers to liberty was the concentration of power in a few
hands,
which is why they carefully divided power among the three branches. I
would
remind those of my colleagues who claim that we must set aside the
constitutional requirements during war that the founders were
especially
concerned about the consolidation of power during times of war and
national
emergences. My colleagues should also keep in mind that PATRIOT Act
powers have
already been used in non-terrorism related cases, most notably in a
bribery
investigation in Nevada.
2005 Ron Paul 89:8
Mr. Speaker, HR 3199 does take some positive steps toward restoring respect
for constitutional liberties and checks and balances that the original
PATRIOT
Act stripped away. However, it still leaves in place large chunks of
legislation
that threaten individual liberty by giving law enforcement power to
snoop into
American citizens’ lives without adequate oversight. This power is
unnecessary
to effectively fight terrorism. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to
reject this
bill.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 90
Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
July 26, 2005
Statement on HR 3283, the United States Trade Rights Enforcement Act
2005 Ron Paul 90:1
Mr. Speaker: I rise in strong opposition to this legislation. Isn’t it
ironic that
the proponents of “free trade agreements” like CAFTA are lining up
squarely
behind a bill like this that threatens a trade war with China, and at
the least
calls for the United States to initiate protectionist measures such as
punitive
tariffs against “subsidized” sectors of the Chinese economy? In
reality,
this bill, which appeared out of the blue on the House Floor as a
suspension
bill, is part of a deal made with several Members in return for a few
votes on
CAFTA. That is why it is ironic: to get to “free trade” with Central
America
we first need to pass protectionist legislation regarding China.
2005 Ron Paul 90:2
Mr. Speaker, in addition to the irony of the protectionist flavor of this
bill, let
me say that we should be careful what we demand of the Chinese
government. Take
the demand that the government “revalue” its currency, for example.
First,
there is sufficient precedent to suggest that doing this would have
very little
effect on China’s trade surplus with the United States. As
Barron’s
magazine pointed out recently, “the Japanese yen’s value has more than
tripled since the breakdown of the Bretton Woods system, yet Japan’s
trade
surplus remains huge. Why should the unpegging of the Chinese yuan have
any
greater impact?”
2005 Ron Paul 90:3
As was pointed out in the
Wall Street Journal
recently,
with
the yuan tied to several foreign currencies and the value of the dollar
dropping, China could be less inclined to purchase dollars as a way of
keeping
the yuan down. Fewer Treasury bond purchases by China, in turn, would
drive bond
prices down and boost yields--which, subsequently, would cause
borrowing costs
for residential and some corporate customers to increase. Does anyone
want to
guess what a sudden burst of the real estate bubble might mean for the
shaky US
economy? This is not an argument for the
status quo
, however,
but rather
an observation that there are often unforeseen consequences when we
demand that
foreign governments manipulate their currency to US “advantage.”
2005 Ron Paul 90:4
At
the very least, American consumers will immediately feel the
strengthening of
the yuan in the form of higher US retail prices. This will
disproportionately
affect Americans of lower incomes and, as a consequence, slow the
economy and
increase the hardship of those struggling to get by. Is this why our
constituents have sent us here?
2005 Ron Paul 90:5
In
conclusion, I strongly oppose this
ill-considered and potentially destructive bill, and I hope my
colleagues will
join me in rejecting it.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 91
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Introduction Of The Cures Can Be Found Act
26 July 2005
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, July 26, 2005
2005 Ron Paul 91:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Cures Can Be Found Act. This legislation
promotes medical research by providing a tax
credit for investments and donations to promote
adult and umbilical cord blood stem cell
research, and provides a $2,000 tax credit to
new parents for the donation of umbilical cord
blood that can be used to extract stem cells.
2005 Ron Paul 91:2
Mr. Speaker, stem cell research has the potential to revolutionize medicine. Stem cells
could hold the keys to curing many diseases
afflicting millions of Americans, such as diabetes
and Alzheimer’s. Umbilical cord blood
stem cells have already been used to treat 67
diseases, including sickle cell disease, leukemia,
and osteoporosis. Umbilical cord blood
stem cells have also proven useful in treating
spinal cord injuries and certain neurological
disorders. Adult stem cells have shown promise
in treating a wide variety of diseases ranging
from brain, breast, testicular, and other
types of cancers to multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s,
heart damage, and rheumatoid arthritis.
2005 Ron Paul 91:3
By providing tax incentives for adult and umbilical cord blood stem cell research, the
Cures Can Be Found Act will ensure greater
resources are devoted to this valuable research.
The tax credit for donations of umbilical
cord blood will ensure that medical
science has a continuous supply of stem cells.
Thus, this bill will help scientists discover new
cures using stem cells and, hopefully, make
routine the use of stem cells to treat formally
incurable diseases.
2005 Ron Paul 91:4
By encouraging private medical research, the Cures Can Be Found Act enhances a tradition
of private medical research that is responsible
for many medical breakthroughs.
For example, Jonas Salk, discoverer of the
polio vaccine, did not receive one dollar from
the federal government for his efforts. I urge
my colleagues to help the American people
support the efforts of future Jonas Salks by
cosponsoring the Cures Can Be Found Act.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 92
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Congress, Not The President, Should Regulate Foreign Commerce
27 July 2005
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. PAUL).
2005 Ron Paul 92:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
I rise in strong opposition to this legislation.
As many Members know, I frequently
vote no in this House because
I have a very strict rule. The rule is I
look to Article I, section 8 for authority.
Article I, section 8 gives very precise
items that we have authority over.
One is foreign commerce. We, the Congress
alone, have authority over regulating
foreign commerce.
2005 Ron Paul 92:2
This bill is a violation of that provision in the Constitution. We as a Congress
have done something over the
past several years that is unconstitutional
in transferring this power first
to the President and then to an international
bureaucratic agency. This is
wrong. It is not practical. It is not beneficial,
it is unconstitutional, and it is
a threat to our national sovereignty.
2005 Ron Paul 92:3
Members say it is not a threat to our national sovereignty and that we can
veto what they tell us to do; but it does
not happen that way. If we were interested
in free trade, as the pretense is,
you could initiate free trade in one
small paragraph. This bill is over 1,000
pages, and it is merely a pretext for
free trade.
2005 Ron Paul 92:4
At the same time we talk about free trade, we badger China, and that is not
free trade. I believe in free trade, but
this is not free trade. This is regulated,
managed trade for the benefit of special
interests. That is why I oppose it.
2005 Ron Paul 92:5
There is one specific provision in this bill that bothers me a lot, and that has
to do with the Codex Alimentarius.
These are rules and regulations written
by the WTO, accepted by the European
community, and it is specifically mentioned
in this bill in chapter 6, paragraph
number 6, and it talks about a
forum where you can come and complain
about regulation on vitamins and
nutritional products.
2005 Ron Paul 92:6
If Members are interested in freedom to buy vitamins without going to a
doctor for a prescription, you have to
vote against this bill. If you want
international harmonization of nutrition
and vitamins, you can vote for
this bill, but I am opposed to that, and
most Americans are as well. Vote no on
this legislation.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 93
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Introducing The Rice Farmers Fairness Act
6 September 2005
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, September 6, 2005
2005 Ron Paul 93:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am today introducing the Rice Farmers Fairness Act. This
legislation conditions the continuation of farm
subsidies in the state of Texas upon the maintenance
of rice production. Federal law allows
for the continuation of subsidies to landowners
who discontinue tenant rice farming on their
land. In essence, this means that the subsidy
continues to flow in spite of an end to production.
2005 Ron Paul 93:2
This is a “something for nothing” subsidy of the worst kind! As a result of this provision,
there is a very real threat to the agricultural infrastructure.
With landowners receiving subsidies
in spite of lack of production, the entire
warehousing, processing and “value-added”
industries are put at risk.
2005 Ron Paul 93:3
As grain elevators, processors and others see a reduction in demand for their services
because of the diminution of production permitted
by Federal law, they have a disincentive
to continue to provide said services, services
which must remain in place in order for
those who remain in production to be able to
bring to market the rice which they continue to
produce. Thus, by way of the decimation of
the infrastructure, this subsidy to non-producers
comes at the expense of those who
continue to produce rice. Therefore, the provisions
of Federal law which provide this subsidy
actually amount to another form of Federal
welfare, taking from producers and giving
to non-producers. These destructive government
policies have particularly pernicious effect
in Texas, where rice farming, and the related
industries, are a major sector of the
economy in many towns along the Texas
coast.
2005 Ron Paul 93:4
My legislation is very simple and direct in dealing with this problem. It says that those
who have tenant rice farmers producing rice in
Texas must agree to continue to maintain rice
in their crop rotation if they wish to receive
subsidies. In this way, we can remove the perverse
incentive, which the Federal Government
has provided to landowners to exit the
rice business and thereby put the entire rice
infrastructure at risk.
2005 Ron Paul 93:5
America’s rice farmers are the most efficient, effective producers of rice in the world,
despite the many hurdles erected by Washington.
The Rice Farmer Fairness Act helps
removes one of these hurdles and this makes
America’s rice farmers even more efficient. In
order to enhance our competitive position, we
should also end our embargoes of other nations.
Congress should eliminate the burdensome
taxes and regulations imposed on America’s
farmers. I hope my colleagues will join
me in removing these federally imposed burdens
on rice farmers by supporting free trade,
low taxes and regulations, and cosponsoring
my Rice Farmer Fairness Act.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 94
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Introducing The Texas Educator Retirement Equity Act
6 September 2005
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, September 6, 2005
2005 Ron Paul 94:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Texas Educator Retirement Equity Act,
which restores to widowed Texas public
school teachers the means to receive the
same spousal Social Security benefits as
every other American. As I am sure my colleagues
are aware, widowed public school
employees in Texas, like public employees
throughout the Nation, have their spousal Social
Security benefits reduced if they receive a
government pension. This “Government Pension
Offset” affects Texas teachers who work
in school districts that do not participate in Social
Security and even applies if the teacher in
question worked all the quarters necessary to
qualify for full Social Security benefits either
before or after working in the public school
system!
2005 Ron Paul 94:2
Until last year, Texas schoolteachers could qualify for full widow benefits by working one
day in a school that participates in Social Security.
Unfortunately, last year Congress took
that option away from Texas teachers.
2005 Ron Paul 94:3
One consequence of this action is that many teachers have taken early retirement
while others have been discouraged from entering
teaching. Thus, the victims of this action
are not only Texas teachers, but also Texas
school children who are denied access to
quality teachers.
2005 Ron Paul 94:4
Passing the Texas Educator Retirement Equity Act is a good first step toward treating
teachers fairly. Of course, I remain committed
to working to pass H.R. 147, 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.
2005 Ron Paul 94:5
Congress should also be encouraging good people to enter the education profession by
passing my Teacher Tax Cut Act (H.R. 402)
that provides every teacher with a $1,000 tax
credit, as well as my Professional Educators
Tax Relief Act (H.R. 405) that provides a
$1,000 tax credit to counselors, librarians, and
all school personnel.
2005 Ron Paul 94:6
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in enabling Texas teachers
to obtain the Social Security benefits for which
they would be eligible if they were not teachers
by cosponsoring the Texas Educator Retirement
Equity Act.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 95
Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
September 8, 2005
Why We Fight
2005 Ron Paul 95:1
Many reasons have been given for why we fight and our
youth must die in Iraq.
The reasons
now given for why we must continue this war bear no resemblance to the
reasons
given to gain the support of the American people and the United States
Congress
prior to our invasion in March of 2003.
Before
the war, we were told we faced an imminent threat to our national
security from
Saddam Hussein.
This rationale, now
proven grossly mistaken, has been changed. Now we’re told we must honor
the
fallen by “completing the mission.”
To do
otherwise would demean the sacrifice of those who have
died or been wounded.
Any lack of
support for “completing the mission” is said, by the promoters of the
war,
to be unpatriotic, un-American, and detrimental to the troops.
They insist the only way one can support the troops is to never
waver on
the policy of nation building, no matter how ill-founded that policy
may be.
The obvious flaw in this argument is that the mission, of which
they so
reverently speak, has changed constantly from the very beginning.
2005 Ron Paul 95:2
Though most people think this war started in March of
2003, the seeds were sown many years before.
The actual military conflict, involving U.S. troops against
Iraq, began
in January 1991.
The prelude to
this actually dates back over a hundred years, when the value of Middle
East oil
was recognized by the industrialized West.
2005 Ron Paul 95:3
Our use of troops to eject Saddam Hussein from Kuwait was
the beginning of the current conflict with Muslim fundamentalists who
have been,
for the last decade, determined to force the removal of American troops
from all
Muslim countries-- especially the entire Arabian Peninsula, which they
consider
holy.
Though the strategic and
historic reasons for our involvement in the Middle East are complex,
the
immediate reasons given in 2002 and 2003 for our invasion of Iraq were
precise.
The only problem is they were not based on facts.
2005 Ron Paul 95:4
The desire by American policymakers to engineer regime
change in Iraq had been smoldering since the first Persian Gulf
conflict in
1991.
This reflected a dramatic
shift in our policy, since in the 1980s we maintained a friendly
alliance with
Saddam Hussein as we assisted him in his war against our arch nemesis,
the
Iranian Ayatollah.
Most Americans
ignore that we provided assistance to this ruthless dictator with
biological and
chemical weapons technology.
We
heard no complaints in the 1980s about his treatment of the Kurds and
Shiites,
or the ruthless war he waged against Iran.
Our policy toward Iraq played a major role in convincing Saddam
Hussein
he had free reign in the Middle East, and the results demonstrate the
serious
shortcomings of our foreign policy of interventionism that we have
followed now
for over a hundred years.
2005 Ron Paul 95:5
In 1998 Congress capitulated to the desires of the
Clinton administration and overwhelmingly passed the Iraq Liberation
Act, which
stated quite clearly that our policy was to get rid of Saddam Hussein.
This act made it official: “The policy of the United States to
support
efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein.”
This resolution has been cited on numerous occasions by
neo-conservatives
as justification for the pre-emptive, deliberate invasion of Iraq.
When the resolution was debated, I saw it as a significant step
toward a
war that would bear no good fruit.
No
legitimate national security concerns were cited for this dramatic and
serious
shift in policy.
2005 Ron Paul 95:6
Shortly after the new administration took office in
January 2001, this goal of eliminating Saddam Hussein quickly morphed
into a
policy of remaking the entire Middle East, starting with regime change
in Iraq.
This aggressive interventionist policy surprised some people,
since the
victorious 2000 campaign indicated we should pursue a foreign policy of
humility, no nation building, reduced deployment of our forces
overseas, and a
rejection of the notion that we serve as world policemen.
The 9/11 disaster proved a catalyst to push for invading Iraq
and
restructuring the entire Middle East.
Though
the plan had existed for years, it quickly was recognized that the fear
engendered by the 9/11 attacks could be used to mobilize the American
people and
Congress to support this war.
Nevertheless,
supposedly legitimate reasons had to be given for the already planned
pre-emptive war, and as we now know the “intelligence had to be fixed
to the
policy.”
2005 Ron Paul 95:7
Immediately after 9/11 the American people were led to
believe that Saddam Hussein somehow was responsible for the attacks.
The fact that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were enemies,
not
friends, was kept from the public by a compliant media and a lazy
Congress.
Even today many Americans still are convinced of an alliance
between the
two.
The truth is Saddam Hussein
never permitted al Qaeda into Iraq out of fear that his secular
government would
be challenged.
And yet today we
find that al Qaeda is now very much present in Iraq, and causing chaos
there.
2005 Ron Paul 95:8
The administration repeatedly pumped out alarming propaganda that Saddam
Hussein was a threat to us with his weapons of mass destruction,
meaning
nuclear, biological, and chemical.
Since
we helped Saddam Hussein obtain biological and chemical weapons in the
1980s, we
assumed that he had maintained a large supply-- which of course turned
out not
to be true.
The people, frightened
by 9/11, easily accepted these fear-mongering charges.
2005 Ron Paul 95:9
Behind the scenes many were quite aware that Israel’s
influence on our foreign policy played a role. She had argued for
years, along
with the neo-conservatives, for an Iraqi regime change.
This support was nicely coordinated with the Christian Zionists’
enthusiasm for the war.
2005 Ron Paul 95:10
As these reasons for the war lost credibility and
support, other reasons were found for why we had to fight.
As the lone superpower, we were told we had a greater
responsibility to settle the problems of the world lest someone else
gets
involved.
Maintaining and expanding
our empire is a key element of the neo-conservative philosophy.
This notion that we must fight to spread American goodness was
well
received by these neo-Jacobins.
They
saw the war as a legitimate moral crusade, arguing that no one should
be allowed
to stand in our way!
In their minds
using force to spread democracy is legitimate and necessary.
2005 Ron Paul 95:11
We also were told the war was necessary for national
security purposes because of the threat Saddam Hussein presented,
although the
evidence was fabricated.
Saddam
Hussein’s ability to attack us was non-existent, but the American
people were
ripe for alarming predictions by those who wanted this war.
2005 Ron Paul 95:12
Of course the routine canard for our need to fight,
finance, and meddle around the world ever since the Korean War was
repeated
incessantly: UN Resolutions had to be enforced lest the United Nations
be
discredited.
The odd thing was that
on this occasion the United Nations itself did everything possible to
stop our
pre-emptive attack.
And as it
turned out, Saddam Hussein was a lot closer to compliance than anyone
dreamed.
It wasn’t long before concern for the threat of Saddam Hussein
became
near hysterical, drowning out any reasoned opposition to the planned
war.
2005 Ron Paul 95:13
The one argument that was not publicly used by those who
propagandized for the war may well be the most important-- oil.
Though the administration in 1990 hinted briefly that we had to
eject
Saddam Hussein from Kuwait because of oil, the stated reasons for that
conflict
soon transformed into stopping a potential Hitler and enforcing UN
resolutions.
2005 Ron Paul 95:14
Publicly oil is not talked about very much, but behind
the scenes many acknowledge this is the real reason we fight.
This is not only the politicians who say this.
American consumers have always enjoyed cheap gasoline and want
it kept
that way.
The real irony is that the war
has reduced Iraqi oil
production by one-half million barrels per day and prices are soaring--
demonstrating another unintended economic consequence of war.
2005 Ron Paul 95:15
Oil in the Middle East has been a big issue since the
industrial revolution, when it was realized that the black substance
bubbling
out of the ground in places like Iraq had great value.
It’s interesting to note that in the early 20
th
century
Germany, fully aware of oil’s importance, allied itself with the
Turkish
Ottoman Empire and secured the earliest rights to drill Iraqi oil.
They built the Anatalia railroad between
Baghdad and Basra,
and obtained oil and mineral rights on twenty kilometers on each side
of this
right-of-way.
World War I changed
all this, allowing the French and the British to divide the oil wealth
of the
entire Middle East.
2005 Ron Paul 95:16
The Versailles Treaty created the artificial nation of
Iraq, and it wasn’t long before American oil companies were drilling
and
struggling to participate in the control of Middle East oil.
But it was never smooth sailing for any occupying force in Iraq.
After WWI, the British generals upon arriving to secure “their”
oil
said:
“Our armies do not come
into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators.”
Not long afterward a jihad was declared
against Britain and
eventually they were forced to leave.
The
more things change, the more they stay the same!
Too bad we are not better at studying history.
2005 Ron Paul 95:17
After World War II the U.S. emerged as the #1 world
power, and moved to assume what some believed was our responsibility to
control
Middle East oil in competition with the Soviets.
This
role prompted us to use our CIA, along with the help of
the British, to oust democratically elected Mohammed Mosadeh from power
in Iran
and install the Shah as a U.S. puppet.
2005 Ron Paul 95:18
We not only supported Saddam Hussein against Iran, we
also supported Osama bin Laden in the 1980s-- aggravating the situation
in the
Middle East and causing unintended consequences.
With CIA assistance we helped develop the educational program to
radicalize Islamic youth in many Arab nations, especially in Saudi
Arabia to
fight the Soviets.
We even provided
a nuclear reactor to Iran in 1967-- which today leads us to threaten
another
war.
All of this has come back to
haunt us.
Meddling in the affairs
of others has consequences.
2005 Ron Paul 95:19
Finally, after years of plotting and maneuvering, the
neo-conservative plan to invade Iraq came before the U.S. House in
October 2002
to be rubber-stamped.
Though the
plan was hatched years before, and the official policy of the United
States
government was to remove Saddam Hussein ever since 1998, various events
delayed
the vote until this time.
By
October the vote was deemed urgent, so as to embarrass anyone who
opposed it.
This would make them politically vulnerable in the November
election.
The ploy worked.
The
resolution passed easily, and it served the interests of proponents of
war in
the November election.
2005 Ron Paul 95:20
The resolution, HJ RES 114, explicitly cited the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998 as
one of the reasons we had to go to war.
The
authorization granted the President to use force against Iraq cited two
precise
reasons:
2005 Ron Paul 95:21
1.
“To defend the national security of the U.S. against the
continuing
threat posed by Iraq and”
2005 Ron Paul 95:22
2.
“Enforce all relevant United Nations Council resolutions
regarding
Iraq.”
2005 Ron Paul 95:23
Many other reasons were given to stir the emotions of the
American public and the U.S. Congress, reasons that were grossly
misleading and
found not to be true. The pretense of a legal justification was a
sham.
2005 Ron Paul 95:24
The fact that Congress is not permitted under the
Constitution to transfer the war power to a president was ignored. Only
Congress
can declare war, if we were inclined to follow the rule of law.
To add insult to injury, HJ RES 114 cited United Nations
resolutions as
justifications for the war.
Ignoring
the Constitution while using the UN to justify the war showed callous
disregard
for the restraints carefully written in the Constitution.
The authors deliberately wanted to make war difficult to enter
without
legislative debate, and they purposely kept the responsibility out of
the hands
of the executive branch.
Surely
they never dreamed an international government would have influence
over our
foreign policy or tell us when we should enter into armed conflict.
2005 Ron Paul 95:25
The legal maneuvering to permit this war was tragic to
watch, but the notion that Saddam Hussein-- a third world punk without
an air
force, navy, and hardly an army or any anti-aircraft weaponry-- was an
outright
threat to the United States six thousand miles away, tells you how
hysterical
fear can be used to pursue a policy of needless war for quite different
reasons.
2005 Ron Paul 95:26
Today, though, all the old reasons for going to war have
been discredited, and are no longer used to justify continuing the war.
Now we are told we must “complete the mission,” and yet no one
seems
to know exactly what the mission is or when it can be achieved.
By contrast, when war is properly declared against a country we
can
expect an all-out effort until the country surrenders.
Without a declaration of war as the Constitution requires, it’s
left to
the President to decide when to start the war and when the war is over.
We had sad experiences with this process in Korea and especially
in
Vietnam.
2005 Ron Paul 95:27
Pursuing this war merely to save face, or to claim it’s
a way to honor those who already have died or been wounded, is hardly a
reason
that more people should die.
We’re
told that we can’t leave until we have a democratic Iraq.
But what if Iraq votes to have a Shiite theocracy, which it
looks like the majority wants as their form of government-- and women,
Christians, and Sunnis are made second-class citizens?
It’s a preposterous notion and it points out the severe
shortcomings of
a democracy where a majority rules and minorities suffer.
2005 Ron Paul 95:28
Thankfully, our founding fathers understood the great
dangers of a democracy. They insisted on a constitutional republic with
a weak
central government and an executive branch beholden to the legislative
branch in
foreign affairs.
The sooner we
realize we can’t afford this war the better.
We’ve gotten ourselves into a civil war within the Islamic
community.
2005 Ron Paul 95:29
But could it be, as it had been for over a hundred years
prior to our invasion, that oil really is the driving issue behind a
foreign
presence in the Middle East?
It’s
rather ironic that the consequence of our intervention has been
skyrocketing oil
prices, with Iraqi oil production still significantly below pre-war
levels.
2005 Ron Paul 95:30
If democracy is not all it’s cracked up to be, and a
war for oil is blatantly immoral and unproductive, the question still
remains--
why do we fight?
More precisely,
why should we fight?
When is enough
killing enough?
Why does man so
casually accept war, which brings so much suffering to so many, when so
little
is achieved?
Why do those who
suffer and die so willingly accept the excuses for the wars that need
not be
fought?
Why do so many defer to
those who are enthused about war, and who claim it’s a solution to a
problem,
without asking them why they themselves do not fight?
It’s always other men and other men’s children who must
sacrifice
life and limb for the reasons that make no sense, reasons that are said
to be
our patriotic duty to fight and die for.
How
many useless wars have been fought for lies that deserved no hearing?
When will it all end?
2005 Ron Paul 95:31
Why We Should Not Fight
2005 Ron Paul 95:32
Since no logical answers can be given for why we fight,
it might be better to talk about why we should not fight.
A case can be made that if this war does not end soon it will
spread and
engulf the entire region.
We’ve already
been warned that war against Iran is an
option that remains on the table for reasons no more reliable than
those given
for the pre-emptive strike against Iraq.
Let
me give you a few reasons why this war in Iraq should not be fought.
2005 Ron Paul 95:33
It is not in our national interest.
On the contrary, pursuing this war endangers our security,
increases the
chances of a domestic terrorist attack, weakens our defenses, and
motivates our
enemies to join together in opposition to our domineering presence
around the
world.
Does anyone believe that
Russia, China, and Iran will give us free reign over the entire Middle
East and
its oil?
Tragically, we’re
setting the stage for a much bigger conflict.
It’s possible that this war could evolve into something much
worse than
Vietnam.
2005 Ron Paul 95:34
This war has never been declared.
It’s not a constitutional war, and without a proper beginning
there can
be no proper ending.
The vagueness
instills doubts in all Americans, both
supporters and non-supporters, as to what will be accomplished.
Supporters of the war want total victory,
which is not
achievable with a vague mission.
Now
the majority of Americans are demanding an end to this dragged-out war
that many
fear will spread before it’s over.
2005 Ron Paul 95:35
It’s virtually impossible to beat a determined guerrilla resistance to a foreign occupying force.
After 30 years the Vietnam guerillas, following unbelievable
suffering,
succeeded in forcing all foreign troops from their homeland.
History shows that Iraqi Muslims have always been determined to
resist
any foreign power on their soil.
We
ignored that history and learned nothing from Vietnam.
How many lives, theirs and ours, are worth losing to prove the
tenacity
of guerilla fighters supported by a large number of local citizens?
2005 Ron Paul 95:36
Those who argue that it’s legitimate to protect “our
oil” someday must realize that it’s not our oil, no matter how strong
and
sophisticated our military is.
We
know the war so far has played havoc with oil prices, and the market
continues
to discount problems in the region for years to come.
No end is in sight regarding the uncertainty of Middle East
oil production caused by this conflict.
2005 Ron Paul 95:37
So far our policies inadvertently have encouraged the
development of an Islamic state, with Iranian-allied Shiites in charge.
This has led to Iranian support for the insurgents, and has
placed Iran
in a position of becoming the true victor in this war as its alliance
with Iraq
grows.
This could place Iran and
its allies in the enviable position of becoming the oil powerhouse in
the
region, if not the world, once it has control over the oil fields near
Basra.
2005 Ron Paul 95:38
This unintended alliance with Iran, plus the benefit to
Osama bin Laden’s recruiting efforts, will in the end increase the
danger to
Israel by rallying the Arab and Muslim people against us.
2005 Ron Paul 95:39
One of the original stated justifications for the war has
been accomplished.
Since 1998 the
stated policy of the United States government was to bring about regime
change
and get rid of Saddam Hussein.
This
has been done, but instead of peace and stability we have sown the
seeds of
chaos.
Nevertheless, the goal of
removing Saddam Hussein has been achieved and is a reason to stop the
fighting.
2005 Ron Paul 95:40
There were no weapons of mass destruction, no biological
or chemical or nuclear weapons, so we can be assured the Iraqis pose no
threat
to anyone, certainly not to the United States.
2005 Ron Paul 95:41
No evidence existed to show an alliance between Iraq and
al Qaeda before the war, and ironically our presence there is now
encouraging al
Qaeda and Osama bin Laden to move in to fill the vacuum we created.
The only relationship between Iraq and 9/11 is that our policy
in the
Middle East continues to increase the likelihood of another terrorist
attack on
our homeland.
2005 Ron Paul 95:42
We should not fight because it’s simply not worth it.
What are we going to get for nearly 2,000 soldier deaths and 20
thousand
severe casualties?
Was the $350 billion
worth it?
This is a cost that will be passed on to future generations
through an
expanded national debt.
I’ll bet
most Americans can think of a lot better ways to have spent this money.
Today’s program of guns and butter will be more damaging to our
economy
than a similar program was in the 1960s, which gave us the stagflation
of the
1970s.
The economic imbalances
today are much greater than they were in those decades.
2005 Ron Paul 95:43
Eventually, we will come to realize that the Wilsonian
idealism of using America’s resources to promote democracy around the
world
through force is a seriously flawed policy.
Wilson pretended to be spreading democracy worldwide, and yet
women in
the U.S. at that time were not allowed to vote.
Democracy,
where the majority dictates the rules, cannot
protect minorities and individual rights.
And
in addition, using force to impose our will on others almost always
backfires.
There’s no reason that our efforts in the 21
st
century to
impose a western style government in Iraq will be any more successful
than the
British were after World War I.
This
especially can’t work if democracy is only an excuse for our occupation
and
the real reasons are left unrecognized.
2005 Ron Paul 95:44
It boils down to the fact that we don’t really have any
sound reasons for continuing this fight.
The
original reasons for the war never existed, and the new reasons aren’t
credible.
We hear only that we must
carry on so those who have already suffered death and injury didn’t do
so in
vain.
If the original reasons for
starting the war were false, simply continuing in the name of those
fallen makes
no sense.
More loss of life can
never justify earlier loss of life if they died for false reasons.
This being the case, it’s time to reassess the policies that
have
gotten us into this mess.
2005 Ron Paul 95:45
What does all
this mean?
2005 Ron Paul 95:46
The mess we face in the Middle East and Afghanistan, and
the threat of terrorism within our own borders, are not a result of the
policies
of this administration alone.
Problems
have been building for many years, and have only gotten much worse with
our most
recent policy of forcibly imposing regime change in Iraq.
We must recognize that the stalemate in Korea, the loss in
Vietnam, and
the quagmire in Iraq and Afghanistan all result from the same flawed
foreign
policy of interventionism that our government has pursued for over 100
years.
It would be overly simplistic to
say the current
administration alone is responsible for the mess in Iraq.
2005 Ron Paul 95:47
By rejecting the advice of the Founders and our early
presidents, our leaders have drifted away from the admonitions against
entangling alliances and nation building.
Policing
the world is not our calling or our mandate.
Besides, the Constitution doesn’t permit it.
Undeclared wars have not enhanced our national security.
2005 Ron Paul 95:48
The consensus on foreign interventionism has been
pervasive.
Both major parties have
come to accept our role as the world’s policeman, despite periodic
campaign
rhetoric stating otherwise.
The
media in particular, especially in the early stages, propagandize in
favor of
war.
It’s only when the costs
become prohibitive and the war loses popular support that the media
criticize
the effort.
2005 Ron Paul 95:49
It isn’t only our presidents that deserve the blame
when they overstep their authority and lead the country into
inappropriate wars.
Congress deserves equally severe criticism for acquiescing to
the demands
of the executive to go needlessly to war.
It
has been known throughout history that kings, dictators, and the
executive
branch of governments are always overly eager to go to war.
This is precisely why our founders tried desperately to keep
decisions
about going to war in the hands of the legislature.
But this process has failed us for the last 65 years.
Congress routinely has rubber stamped the plans of our
presidents and
even the United Nations to enter into war through the back door.
2005 Ron Paul 95:50
Congress at any time can prevent or stop all undue
foreign entanglements pursued by the executive branch merely by
refusing to
finance them.
The current Iraq war,
now going on for 15 years, spans the administration of three presidents
and many
congresses controlled by both parties.
This
makes Congress every bit as responsible for the current quagmire as the
president.
But the real problem is
the acceptance by our country as a whole of the principle of meddling
in the
internal affairs of other nations when unrelated to our national
security.
Intervention, no matter how well intended, inevitably boomerangs
and
comes back to haunt us.
Minding our own
business is not only economical; it’s the
only policy that serves our national security interests and the cause
of peace.
2005 Ron Paul 95:51
The neo-conservatives who want to remake the entire
Middle East are not interested in the pertinent history of this region.
Creating an artificial Iraq after World War I as a unified
country was
like mixing water and oil.
It has only led
to frustration, anger, and hostilities-- with
the resulting instability creating conditions ripe for dictatorships.
The occupying forces will not permit any of the three regions of
Iraq to
govern themselves.
This is strictly
motivated by a desire to exert control over
the oil.
Self-determination and
independence for each region, or even a true republican form of
government with
a minimalist central authority is never considered-- yet it is the only
answer
to the difficult political problems this area faces.
The relative and accidental independence of the Kurds and the
Shiites in the 1990s served those regions well, and no suicide
terrorism existed
during that decade.
2005 Ron Paul 95:52
The claim that our immediate withdrawal from Iraq would
cause chaos is not proven.
It
didn’t happen in Vietnam or even Somalia.
Even today, the militias of the Kurds and the Shiites may well
be able to
maintain order in their regions much better than we can currently.
Certainly the Sunnis can take care of themselves, and it might
be in
their best interests for all three groups not to fight each other when
we leave.
One thing for sure: if we left no more young Americans would
have to die
for an indefinable cause.
2005 Ron Paul 95:53
Instead, we have been forcing on the people of Iraq a
type of democracy that, if implemented, will mean an Islamic state
under Sharia’
law.
Already we read stories of
barbers no longer being safe shaving beards; Christians are threatened
and
forced to leave the country; and burqas are returning out of fear.
Unemployment is over 50%, and oil production is still
significantly below
pre-war levels.
These results are
not worth fighting and dying for.
2005 Ron Paul 95:54
In this war, like all others, the propagandists and
promoters themselves don’t fight, nor do their children.
It’s always worth the effort to wage war when others must suffer
and
die.
Many of those who today pump
the nation up with war fever were nowhere to be found when their
numbers were
called in the 1960s-- when previous presidents and Congresses thought
so little
about sending young men off to war.
Then
it was in their best interests to find more important things to do--
despite the
so-called equalizing draft.
2005 Ron Paul 95:55
The inability of taxpayers to fund both guns-and-butter
has not deterred those who smell the glory of war.
Notoriously, great nations fall once their appetite for
foreign domination outstrips their citizens’ ability or willingness to
pay.
We tried the guns-and-butter approach in the 1960s with bad
results, and
the same will happen again as a consequence of the current political
decision
not to cut back on any expenditure, domestic or foreign.
Veto nothing is current policy!
Tax,
borrow, and print to pay the bills is today’s conventional wisdom.
The problem is that all the bills eventually must be paid.
There’s no free lunch, and no free war.
The economic consequences of such a policy are well known and
documented.
Excessive spending leads to excessive deficits, higher taxes,
and more
borrowing and inflation-- which spells economic problems that always
clobber the
middle class and the poor.
2005 Ron Paul 95:56
Already the suffering has begun.
A lackluster recovery, low paying jobs, outsourcing, and
social unrest already are apparent.
This
economic price we pay, along with the human suffering, is an
extravagant price
for a war that was started with false information and now is prolonged
for
reasons unrelated to our national security.
2005 Ron Paul 95:57
This policy has led to excessive spending overseas and
neglect at home.
It invites enemies
to attack us, and drains the resources needed to defend our homeland
and care
for our own people.
We are
obligated to learn something from the tragedy of Katrina about the
misallocation
of funds away from our infrastructure to the rebuilding of Iraq after
first
destroying it.
If ever there was a
time for us to reassess our policy of foreign interventionism, it is
today.
It’s time to look inward and attend to the constitutional needs
of our
people, and forget about the grandiose schemes to remake the world in
our image
through the use of force.
These
efforts not only are doomed to fail, as they have for the past one
hundred
years, but they invite economic and strategic military problems that
are harmful
to our national security interests.
2005 Ron Paul 95:58
We’ve been told that we must fight to protect our freedoms here at home.
These reasons are given to make the sacrifices more tolerable
and noble.
Without an honorable cause, the
suffering becomes
intolerable.
Hiding from the truth,
though, in the end is no panacea for a war that promises no peace.
2005 Ron Paul 95:59
The most important misjudgment regarding Iraq that must
be dealt with is the charge that Muslim terrorists attack us out of
envy for our
freedoms, our prosperity, and our way of life.
There is no evidence this is the case.
On the contrary, those who have extensively researched this
issue
conclude that the #1 reason suicide terrorists attack anywhere in the
world is
because their land is occupied by a foreign military power.
Pretending otherwise and constantly expanding our military
presence in
more Arab and Muslim countries as we have since 1990 has only increased
the
danger of more attacks on our soil, as well as in those countries that
have
allied themselves with us.
If we
deny this truth we do so at our own peril.
2005 Ron Paul 95:60
It’s not unusual for the war crusaders to condemn those
who speak the truth in an effort to end an unnecessary war.
They claim those who want honest reasons for the enormous
sacrifice are
unpatriotic and un-American, but these charges only serve to exacerbate
the
social unrest.
Any criticism of
policy, no matter how flawed the policy is, is said to be motivated by
a lack of
support for the troops.
Yet it is
preposterous to suggest that a policy that would
have spared the lives of 1900 servicemen and women lacks concern for
the well
being of our troops.
The absence of
good reasoning to pursue this war prompts the supporters of the war to
demonize
the skeptics and critics.
They
have no other defense.
2005 Ron Paul 95:61
Those who want to continue this war accuse those who lost
loved ones in Iraq, and oppose the war, of using the dead for personal
political
gain.
But what do the war
proponents do when they claim the reason we must fight on is to honor
the
sacrifice of the military personnel we lost by completing the mission?
The big difference is that one group argues for saving lives,
while the
other justifies more killing.
And
by that logic, the additional deaths will require even more killing to
make sure
they too have not died in vain.
Therefore,
the greater number who have died, the greater is the motivation to
complete the
mission.
This defies logic.
This argument to persevere has been used throughout history
to continue wars that could and should have ended much sooner.
This was true for World War I and Vietnam.
2005 Ron Paul 95:62
A sad realism struck me recently reading how our Marines
in Afghanistan must now rely on donkey transportation in their efforts
at nation
building and military occupation.
Evidently
the Taliban is alive and well, as Osama bin Laden remains in this
region.
But doesn’t this tell us something about our naïve
assumption that our
economic advantages and technical knowledge can subdue and control
anybody?
We’re traversing Afghan mountains on donkeys, and losing lives
daily in
Baghdad with homemade primitive bombs.
Our
power and dominance clearly is limited by the determination of those
who see us
as occupiers, proving that just more money and sophisticated weapons
won’t
bring us victory.
Sophisticated
weapons and the use of unlimited military power is no substitute for
diplomacy
designed to promote peace while reserving force only for defending our
national
interests.
2005 Ron Paul 95:63
Changing our policy of meddling in the affairs of others
won’t come quickly or easily.
But
a few signals to indicate a change in our attitude would go a long way
to
bringing peace to a troubled land.
2005 Ron Paul 95:64
1.
We must soon, and Congress can do this through the budget
process, stop
the construction of all permanent bases in Iraq and any other Muslim
country in
the region.
Think of how we would
react if the Chinese had the military edge on us and laid claims to the
Gulf of
Mexico, building bases within the U.S. in order to promote their
superior way of
life.
Isn’t it ironic that we
close down bases here at home while building new ones overseas?
Domestic bases might well promote security, while bases in
Muslim nations
only elicit more hatred toward us.
2005 Ron Paul 95:65
2.
The plans for the biggest U.S. embassy in the world, costing
nearly 1
billion dollars, must be canceled.
This
structure in Baghdad sends a message, like the military bases being
built, that
we expect to be in Iraq and running Iraq for a long time to come.
2005 Ron Paul 95:66
3.
All military forces, especially on the Arabian Peninsula, must
be moved
offshore at the earliest time possible. All responsibility for security
and
control of the oil must be transferred to the Iraqis from the United
States as
soon as possible, within months not years.
2005 Ron Paul 95:67
The time will come when our policies dealing with foreign
affairs will change for the better.
But
that will be because we can no longer afford the extravagance of war.
This will occur when the American people realize that war causes
too much
suffering here at home, and the benefits of peace again become
attractive to us
all.
Part of this recognition will
involve a big drop in the value of the dollar, higher interest rates,
and
rampant price inflation.
2005 Ron Paul 95:68
Though these problems are serious and threaten our
freedoms and way of life, there’s every reason to work for the
traditional
constitutional foreign policy that promotes peace over war, while not
being
tempted to mold the world in our image through force.
We should not forget that what we did not achieve by military
force in Vietnam, was essentially achieved with the peace that came
from our
military failure and withdrawal of our armed forces.
Today, through trade and peace, U.S. investment and economic
cooperation has westernized Vietnam far more than our military efforts.
2005 Ron Paul 95:69
We must remember initiating force to impose our will on
others negates all the goodness for which we profess to stand.
We cannot be fighting to secure our freedom if we impose laws
like the
Patriot Act and a national ID card on the American people.
2005 Ron Paul 95:70
Unfortunately, we have lost faith and confidence in the
system of government with which we have been blessed.
Today too many Americans support, at least in the early
stages, the use of force to spread our message of hope and freedom.
They too often are confused by the rhetoric that our armies are
needed to
spread American goodness. Using force injudiciously, instead of
spreading the
worthy message of American freedom through peaceful means, antagonizes
our
enemies, alienates our allies, and threatens personal liberties here at
home
while burdening our economy.
2005 Ron Paul 95:71
If confidence can be restored in our American traditions
of peace and trade, our influence throughout the world would be
enhanced just as
it was once we rejected the military approach in Vietnam.
2005 Ron Paul 95:72
This change in policy can come easily once the people of
this country decide that there is a better way to conduct ourselves
throughout
the world.
Whenever the people turn
against war as a tool to promote certain beliefs, the war ceases.
That’s what we need today.
Then
we can get down to the business of setting an example of how peace and
freedom
brings prosperity in an atmosphere that allows for excellence and
virtue to
thrive.
2005 Ron Paul 95:73
A powerful bureaucratic military state negates all
efforts to preserve these conditions that have served America so well
up until
recent times.
That is not what the
American dream is all about.
Without
a change in attitude, the American dream dies: a simple change that
restates the
principles of liberty enshrined in our Constitution will serve us well
in
solving all the problems we face.
The
American people are up to the task; I hope Congress is as well.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 96
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Statement On H.R. 3673, Making Emergency Supplemental Appropriations For 2005
8 September 2005
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, September 8, 2005
2005 Ron Paul 96:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this ill-considered $51.8 billion disaster relief
appropriation. Many have come to the floor
today to discuss how we must help the victims
of this terrible disaster and its aftermath. But
why do they think that the best way to do so
is simply to write a huge check to the very
government agency that failed so spectacularly?
This does not make sense. We have all
seen the numerous articles detailing the
seemingly inexcusable mistakes FEMA
made — before and after the hurricane. Yet, in
typical fashion, Congress seems to think that
the best way to fix the mess is to throw money
at the very government agency that failed.
2005 Ron Paul 96:2
Mr. Speaker, considering the demonstrated ineptitude of government on both the Federal
and State level in this disaster, the people affected
by the hurricane and subsequent flood
would no doubt be better off if relief money
was simply sent directly to them or to community
organizations dedicated to clean-up and
reconstruction. Indeed, we have seen numerous
examples of private organizations and individuals
attempting to help their fellow Americans
in so many ways over the last 10 days,
only to be turned back by FEMA or held up for
days by government red tape. We have seen
in previous disasters how individuals and non-
governmental organizations were often among
the first to pitch in and help their neighbors
and fellow citizens. Now, FEMA is sending
these good Samaritans a troubling message:
stay away, let us handle it.
2005 Ron Paul 96:3
In several disasters that have befallen my Gulf Coast district, my constituents have over
and over again told me that they prefer to rebuild
and recover without the “help” of Federal
agencies like FEMA, which so often impose
their own bureaucratic solutions on the owners
of private property.
2005 Ron Paul 96:4
Mr. Speaker, we see here once again the Federal Government attempting to impose a
topdown solution to the disaster. No one is
questioning from where this $52 billion will
come. The answer, of course, is that the Federal
Government is going to simply print the
money up. There are no reductions in Federal
spending elsewhere to free up this disaster
aid. Rather, the money will come from a printing
press. The economic devastation created
by such a reckless approach may well be
even more wide-reaching than the disaster
this bill is meant to repair.
2005 Ron Paul 96:5
I ask my colleagues to consider more constructive ways to help New Orleans and the
other affected areas recover from this tragedy.
There are numerous approaches, such as the
creation of no-tax enterprise zones, that would
attract private enterprise and capital to the
area and would result in a much quicker and
more responsive recovery. The citizens of the
affected area and the rest of the country deserve
a more sustainable and financially rational
approach than simply printing and
spending money.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 97
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Providing For Consideration Of H.R. 3132, Children’s Safety Act Pf 2005
14 September 2005
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, September 14, 2005
2005 Ron Paul 97:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, as an OB–GYN who has had the privilege of bringing over
3,000 children into the world, I share the desire
to punish severely those who sexually
abuse children. In fact, it is hard to imagine
someone more deserving of life in prison than
one who preys on children. This is why I have
supported legislation that increases penalties
for sexual assaults on children occurring on
Federal land.
2005 Ron Paul 97:2
However, Mr. Chairman, I cannot support this bill because it infringes on the States’ constitutional
authority over the prevention and
punishment of sex crimes. The late Chief Justice
William H. Rehnquist and former United
States Attorney General Ed Meese, two men
who no one has ever accused of being “soft
on crime,” have both warned that, although
creating more Federal crimes may make politicians
feel good, it is neither constitutionally
sound nor prudent. Rehnquist has stated that,
“[t]he trend to federalize crimes that traditionally
have been handled in state courts . . .
threatens to change entirely the nature of our
federal system.” Meese stated that Congress’s
tendency in recent decades to make Federal
crimes out of offenses that have historically
been State matters has dangerous implications
both for the fair administration of justice
and for the principle that States are something
more than mere administrative districts of a
nation governed mainly from Washington.
2005 Ron Paul 97:3
H.R. 3132 not only creates new Federal programs and crimes, it instructs the States to
change their laws to conform with Federal dictates.
This violates the Constitution, and can
weaken law enforcement. For example, one of
the provisions of the new law requires States
include those convicted of misdemeanors in
their sex offender registries. By definition, misdemeanors
are nonserious crimes, yet under
this legislation State officials must waste valuable
resources tracking non-serious sex offenders
— resources that should be going to
tracking those who are more likely to represent
a real threat to children.
2005 Ron Paul 97:4
Thus, once again we see how increasing the role of the Federal Government in fighting
these crimes — even when it is well intended —
only hamstrings local and State law enforcement
officers and courts and prevents them
from effectively dealing with such criminals as
the locals would have them dealt with — harshly
and finally.
2005 Ron Paul 97:5
Mr. Chairman, Congress could both honor the Constitution and help States and local
governments protect children by using our
power to limit Federal jurisdiction to stop Federal
judges from preventing States and local
governments from keeping these criminals off
the streets. My colleagues should remember
that it was a Federal judge in a Federal court
who ruled that the death penalty is inappropriate
for sex offenders. Instead of endorsing
a bill to let people know when a convicted
child molester or rapist is in their neighborhood
after being released, perhaps we should
respect the authority of State courts and legislators
to give child molesters and rapists the
life or even death sentences, depending on
the will of the people of those States.
2005 Ron Paul 97:6
Just as the Founders never intended the Congress to create a national police force,
they never intended the Federal courts to dictate
criminal procedures to the States. The
Founding Fathers knew quite well that it would
be impossible for a central government to successfully
manage crime prevention programs
for as large and diverse a country as America.
That is one reason why they reserved to the
States the exclusive authority and jurisdiction
to deal with crime. Our children would likely be
safe today if the police powers and budgets
were under the direct and total control of the
States as called for in the Constitution.
2005 Ron Paul 97:7
Finally Mr. Chairman, this legislation poses a threat to constitutional liberty by taking another
step toward creating even more Federal
“hate crimes” laws. So called “hate crimes”
add an extra level of punishment for the
thoughts motivating a crime — as if murder or
robbery motivated by “hate” is somehow more
offensive than murder or robbery motivated by
greed or jealously. Laws criminalizing thought,
instead of simply criminalizing acts of aggression
against persons and property, have no
place in a free society.
2005 Ron Paul 97:8
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, since H.R. 3132 further burdens State and local law enforcement
with unconstitutional Federal mandates
that may make it tougher to monitor true
threats to children, I encourage my colleagues
to reject this bill. Instead, I hope my colleagues
will work to end Federal interference
in State laws that prevent States from effectively
protecting children from sexual predators.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 98
Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
September 15, 2005
The Coming Category 5 Financial Hurricane
2005 Ron Paul 98:1
The tragic scenes of abject poverty in New Orleans revealed on national
TV by Katrina’s destruction were real eye-openers for many.
These scenes prompted two emotional reactions.
One side claims Katrina proved there was not enough government
welfare,
and its distribution was based on race.
The
other side claims we need to pump billions of new dollars into the very
federal
agency that failed (FEMA), while giving it extraordinary new police
powers.
Both sides support more authoritarianism, more centralization,
and even
the imposition of martial law in times of natural disasters.
2005 Ron Paul 98:2
There is no hint that we will resort to reason now that
the failed welfare policies of the past 60 years have been laid bare.
Certainly no one has connected the tragedy of poverty in New
Orleans to
the flawed monetary system that has significantly contributed to the
impoverishment of a huge segment of American society.
2005 Ron Paul 98:3
Congress reacted to Katrina in the expected irresponsible
manner.
It immediately appropriated
over $60 billion with little planning or debate.
Taxes
won’t be raised to pay the bill-- fortunately.
There will be no offsets or spending reductions to pay the bill.
Welfare and entitlement spending is sacrosanct.
Spending for the war in Iraq and the military-industrial complex
is
sacrosanct.
There is no guarantee
that gracious foreign lenders will step forward, especially without
raising
interest rates.
This means the
Federal Reserve and Treasury will print the money needed to pay the
bills.
The sad truth is that monetary debasement hurts poor people the
most--
the very people we saw on TV after Katrina.
Inflating our currency hurts the poor and destroys the middle
class,
while transferring wealth to the ruling class.
This occurs in spite of good intentions and misplaced compassion.
2005 Ron Paul 98:4
We face a coming financial crisis.
Our current account deficit is more than $600 billion annually.
Our foreign debt is more than $3 trillion.
Foreigners now own over $1.4 trillion of our Treasury and
mortgage debt.
We must borrow $3 billion from foreigners every business day to
maintain
our extravagant spending.
Our
national debt now is increasing $600 billion per year, and guess what,
we print
over $600 billion per year to keep the charade going.
But there is a limit and I’m fearful we’re fast approaching it.
2005 Ron Paul 98:5
Runaway inflation is a well-known phenomenon.
It leads to political and economic chaos of the kind we
witnessed in New
Orleans.
Hopefully we’ll come to
our senses and not allow that to happen.
But
we’re vulnerable and we have only ourselves to blame.
The flawed paper money system in existence since 1971 has
allowed for the
irresponsible spending of the past 30 years.
Without a linkage to gold, Washington politicians and the
Federal Reserve
have no restraints placed on their power to devalue our money by merely
printing
more to pay the bills run up by the welfare-warfare state.
2005 Ron Paul 98:6
This system of money is a big contributing factor in the
exporting of American jobs, especially in the manufacturing industries.
2005 Ron Paul 98:7
Since the last link to gold was severed in 1971, the
dollar has lost 92% of its value relative to gold, with gold going from
$35 to
$450 per ounce.
2005 Ron Paul 98:8
Major adjustment of the dollar and the current account
deficit can come any time, and the longer the delay the greater the
distortions
will be in terms of a correction.
2005 Ron Paul 98:9
In the meantime we give leverage to our economic competitors and our political adversaries, especially China.
2005 Ron Paul 98:10
The current system is held together by a false confidence
in the U.S. dollar that is vulnerable to sudden changes in the economy
and
political events.
2005 Ron Paul 98:11
My suggestion to my colleagues: Any new expenditures must
have offsets greater in amount than the new programs.
Foreign military and foreign aid expenditures must be the
first target.
The Federal Reserve
must stop inflating the currency merely for the purpose of artificially
lowering
interest rates to perpetuate a financial bubble. This policy allows
government
and consumer debt to grow beyond sustainable levels, while undermining
incentives to save.
This in turn
undermines capital investment while exaggerating consumption.
If this policy doesn’t change, the dollar must
fall and the
current account deficit will play havoc until the house of cards
collapses.
2005 Ron Paul 98:12
Our spending habits, in combination with our flawed
monetary system, if not changed will bring us a financial whirlwind
that will
make Katrina look like a minor storm.
Loss
of confidence in the dollar and the international financial system is a
frightening possibility-- but it need not happen if Congress can curb
its
appetite for buying the people’s support through unrestrained spending.
2005 Ron Paul 98:13
If Congress does not show some sense of financial
restraint soon, we can expect the poor to become poorer; the middle
class to
become smaller; and the government to get bigger and more
authoritarian-- while
the liberty of the people is diminished.
The
illusion that deficits, printing money, and expanding the welfare and
warfare
states serves the people must come to an end.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 99
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Introduction Of The Affordable Gas Price Act
6 October 2005
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, October 6, 2005
2005 Ron Paul 99:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Affordable Gas Price Act. This legislation
reduces gas prices by reforming government
policies that artificially inflate the price of gas.
As I need not remind my colleagues, the
American people have been hard hit in recent
months by skyrocketing gas prices. In some
parts of the country, gas prices have risen to
as much as $4 per gallon.
2005 Ron Paul 99:2
This increase in the price of gas threatens our already fragile economy and diminishes
the quality of life for all Americans. One industry
that is particularly hard hit is the trucking
industry. The effects of high gas prices on the
trucking industry will be reflected in increased
costs for numerous consumer goods, thus further
harming American consumers.
2005 Ron Paul 99:3
Unfortunately, many proposals to address the problem of higher energy prices involve increasing
government interference in the market
through policies such as price controls.
These big government solutions will, at best,
prove ineffective and, at worst, bring back the
fuel shortages and gas lines of the seventies.
2005 Ron Paul 99:4
Instead of expanding government, Congress should repeal Federal laws and policies that
raise the price of gas, either directly through
taxes or indirectly through regulations that discourage
the development of new fuel sources.
This is why my legislation repeals the Federal
moratorium on offshore drilling and allows oil
exploration in the ANWR reserve in Alaska.
My bill also ensures that the National Environmental
Policy Act’s environmental impact
statement requirement will no longer be used
as a tool to force refiners to waste valuable
time and capital on nuisance litigation. The Affordable
Gas Price Act also provides tax incentives
to encourage investment in new refineries.
2005 Ron Paul 99:5
Federal fuel taxes are a major part of gasoline’s cost. The Affordable Gas Price Act suspends
the Federal gasoline tax any time the
average gas prices exceeds $3 per gallon.
During the suspension, the Federal Government
will have a legal responsibility to ensure
the Federal highway trust fund remains funded.
My bill also raises the amount of mileage
reimbursement not subject to taxes, and, during
times of high oil prices, provides the same
mileage reimbursement benefit to charity and
medical organizations as provided to businesses.
2005 Ron Paul 99:6
Misguided and outdated trade policies are also artificially raising the price of gas. For instance,
even though Russia and Kazakhstan
allow their citizens the right and opportunity to
emigrate, they are still subject to Jackson-
Vanik sanctions, even though Jackson-Vanik
was a reaction to the Soviet Union’s highly restrictive
emigration policy. Eliminating Jackson-
Vanik’s threat of trade-restricting sanctions
would increase the United States access
to oil supplies from non-Arab countries. Thus,
my bill terminates the application of title IV of
the Trade Act of 1974 to Russia and
Kazakhstan, allowing Americans to enjoy the
benefits of free trade with these oil-producing
nations.
2005 Ron Paul 99:7
Finally, the Affordable Gas Price Act creates a Federal study on how the abandonment of
the gold standard and the adoption of freely
floating currencies are affecting the price of
oil. It is no coincidence that oil prices first became
an issue shortly after President Nixon
unilaterally severed the dollar’s last connection
to gold. The system of fiat money makes consumers
vulnerable to inflation and to constant
fluctuations in the prices of essential goods
such as oil.
2005 Ron Paul 99:8
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the Affordable Gas Price
Act and end government policies that increase
the cost of gasoline.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 100
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Introduction Of The Nursing Home Emergency Assistance Act
6 October 2005
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, October 6, 2005
2005 Ron Paul 100:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Nursing Home Emergency Assistance Act.
This act makes private, for-profit nursing
homes eligible for the same federal aid as is
currently available to public nursing homes.
Under current federal law, only public nursing
homes may receive federal disaster assistance.
However, hurricanes, tornadoes, and
earthquakes do not distinguish between private
and public, or for-profit and not-for-profit,
nursing homes.
2005 Ron Paul 100:2
As I have recently seen in my district, all nursing homes face unique challenges coping
with natural disasters and their aftermaths. It
is not fair to the taxpayers who work in, reside
in, or have entrusted the care of their loved
ones to, a private nursing home that private
nursing homes are denied the same federal
aid available to their public counterparts. Mr.
Speaker, the Nursing Home Emergency Assistance
Act ensures all residents of nursing
homes can benefit from federal disaster aid. I
encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 101
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Introduction Of A Bill To Make Amendments To The Iran Nonproliferation Act Of 2000 Related To International Space Station Payments
6 October 2005
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, October 6, 2005
2005 Ron Paul 101:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce a bill to make amendments to the Iran Nonproliferation
Act of 2000 related to International
Space Station payments. It is critical
that we pass this legislation to preserve
NASA’s ability to perform such core functions
as transporting astronauts to the International
Space Station. Indeed, the International Space
Station program may be threatened if the
United States is prevented from purchasing
from Russia the space hardware and services
required to meet U.S. obligations.
2005 Ron Paul 101:2
Currently, the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000 forbids any such purchase because Russia
is said to be assisting Iran in pursuit of its
atomic energy program. Mr. Speaker, this situation
demonstrates very clearly the negative
unintended consequences of our counterproductive
policy of restricting trade and placing
trade sanctions on other countries. It
would be ironic if in our zeal to punish Russia
for engaging in trade with Iran we in fact end
up punishing scores of Americans who work in
the space industry in the United States.
2005 Ron Paul 101:3
I very much hope that my colleagues will join me in this effort to prevent these indirect
sanctions from unfairly harming the American
space program.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 102
Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
October 7, 2005
Staying or Leaving
2005 Ron Paul 102:1
Supporters of the war in Iraq, as well as some non-supporters, warn of
the dangers if we leave.
But
isn’t it quite possible that these dangers are simply a consequence of
having
gone into Iraq in the first place, rather than a consequence of leaving?
Isn’t it possible that staying only makes the situation worse?
If chaos results after our departure, it’s because we occupied
Iraq,
not because we left.
2005 Ron Paul 102:2
The original reasons for our pre-emptive strike are long forgotten, having been
based on false assumptions.
The
justification given now is that we must persist in this war or else
dishonor
those who already have died or been wounded.
We’re also told civil strife likely will engulf all of Iraq.
2005 Ron Paul 102:3
But what is the logic of perpetuating a flawed policy where more Americans die
just because others have suffered?
More
Americans deaths cannot possibly help those who already have been
injured or
killed.
2005 Ron Paul 102:4
Civil strife, if not civil war, already
exists in Iraq-- and despite the
infighting, all factions oppose our occupation.
2005 Ron Paul 102:5
The insistence on using our military to occupy and run Iraq provides convincing evidence to our detractors inside and outside Iraq that we
have no
intention of leaving.
Building
permanent military bases and a huge embassy confirms these fears.
2005 Ron Paul 102:6
We deny the importance of oil and Israel’s influence on our policy, yet we
fail to convince the Arab/Muslim world that our intentions are purely
humanitarian.
2005 Ron Paul 102:7
In truth, our determined
presence in Iraq actually increases the odds of
regional chaos, inciting Iran and Syria while aiding Osama bin Laden in
his
recruiting efforts.
Leaving Iraq
would do the opposite-- though not without some dangers that rightfully
should
be blamed on our unwise invasion rather than our exit.
Many experts believe bin Laden welcomed our invasion and
occupation of two
Muslim countries.
It bolsters his
claim that the U.S. intended to occupy and control the Middle East all
along.
This has galvanized radical Muslim fundamentalists against us.
Osama bin Laden’s campaign surely would suffer if we left.
2005 Ron Paul 102:8
We should remember that losing a war to
China over control of North
Korea ultimately did not enhance communism in China, as she now has
accepted
many capitalist principles.
In
fact, China today outproduces us in many ways-- as reflected by our
negative
trade balance with her.
2005 Ron Paul 102:9
We lost a war in Vietnam, and the domino theory that communism would spread
throughout southeast Asia was proven wrong.
Today,
Vietnam accepts American investment dollars and
technology.
We maintain a trade
relationship with Vietnam that the war never achieved.
2005 Ron Paul 102:10
We contained the USSR and her thousands of nuclear warheads without military
confrontation, leading to the collapse and disintegration of a powerful
Soviet
empire.
Today we trade with Russia
and her neighbors, as the market economy spreads throughout the world
without
the use of arms.
2005 Ron Paul 102:11
We should heed the words of Ronald Reagan
about his experience with a
needless and mistaken military occupation of Lebanon.
Sending troops into Lebanon seemed like a good idea in 1983, but
in 1990
President Reagan said this in his memoirs:
“…we did not appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and
complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle…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 rethink our policy there.”
2005 Ron Paul 102:12
During the occupation of Lebanon by American, French, and Israeli troops between
1982 and 1986, there were 41 suicide terrorist attacks in that country.
One horrific attack killed 241 U.S. Marines.
Yet once these foreign troops were removed, the suicide attacks
literally
stopped.
Today we should once again
rethink our policy in this region.
2005 Ron Paul 102:13
It’s amazing what ending military
intervention in the affairs of
others can achieve.
Setting an
example of how a free market economy works does wonders.
2005 Ron Paul 102:14
We should have confidence in how well
freedom works, rather than relying
on blind faith in the use of military force to spread our message.
Setting an example and using persuasion is always superior to
military
force in showing how others might live.
Force
and war are tools of authoritarians; they are never tools of champions
of
liberty and justice. Force and war inevitably lead to dangerous
unintended
consequences.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 103
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Introducing The Evacuees Tax Relief Act
17 October 2005
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Monday, October 17, 2005
2005 Ron Paul 103:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Evacuees Tax Relief Act of 2005, legislation
providing tax relief to those forced to
abandon their homes because of a natural disaster.
This legislation provides a tax credit or
a tax deduction, depending on the wishes of
the taxpayer, of up to $5,000 for costs incurred
because of a government-ordered mandatory
or voluntary evacuation. Evacuees
could use the credit to cover travel and lodging
expenses associated with the evacuation,
lost wages, property damages not otherwise
compensated, and any other evacuation-related
expenses. The tax credit is refundable
up to the amount of income and payroll taxes
a person would otherwise pay, thus ensuring
working people who pay more in payroll than
in income taxes are able to benefit from this
tax relief. The credit is available retroactive to
August of this year, so it is available to Katrina
and Rita evacuees.
2005 Ron Paul 103:2
Having had parts of my district, including my home county, subject to mandatory evacuation
because of Hurricane Rita, I have seen firsthand
the burdens on those forced to uproot
themselves and their families. Evacuees incur
great costs in getting to safety, as well as loss
from the storm damage. It can take many
months, and even years, to fully recover from
the devastation of a natural disaster. Given
the unpredictable nature of natural disasters
such as hurricanes and tornados, it is difficult
for most families to adequately budget for
these costs. The Evacuees Tax Relief Act
helps Americans manage the fiscal costs of a
natural disaster.
2005 Ron Paul 103:3
Mr. Speaker, it is hard to think of a more timely and more compassionate tax relief proposal
than one aimed at helping families cope
with the costs associated with being uprooted
from their homes, jobs, and communities by a
natural disaster. I hope all my colleagues will
show compassion for those forced to flee their
homes by cosponsoring the Evacuees Tax
Relief Act.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 104
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
The Iraq War
18 October 2005
2005 Ron Paul 104:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for
5 minutes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there
objection to the request of the gentleman
from Texas?
There was no objection.
,BR>
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a
previous order of the House, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. PAUL) is recognized
for 5 minutes.
2005 Ron Paul 104:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, supporters of the preemptive war against Iraq say
it was justified by the unprovoked 9/11
attacks. They claim that Muslim hatred
for our democracy, freedom, Western
values, and prosperity inspired the
19 suicide terrorists who attacked us
on that dreadful day.
2005 Ron Paul 104:3
Opponents of the war argue that al Qaeda radicals who planned the attacks
were not allies of Saddam Hussein,
and that Iraq posed no threat to
our national security. They further
argue that our occupation of Iraq now
inspires a growing number of radical
Islamists to join the ranks of al Qaeda
and support its war against U.S. troops
in Iraq and Afghanistan.
2005 Ron Paul 104:4
But proponents of the war insist that our presence in Iraq is not what motivates
al Qaeda to attack us, since we
had no troops on Iraqi soil on 9/11; and
yet al Qaeda attacked us anyway.
2005 Ron Paul 104:5
The enemy, they claim, is simply a group of radical Islamic fundamentalists
who have hijacked the Muslim religion
and declared war against our values
for no legitimate or logical reason.
2005 Ron Paul 104:6
We should look at the facts if we want to understand why a growing
number of Iraqis and Muslims worldwide
are now motivated to join the insurgents
in a guerrilla resistance that
includes suicide terrorism. It is true
that there were no U.S. troops in Iraq
on 9/11, but it is also true that Saddam
Hussein and Iraq had nothing to do
with that attack.
2005 Ron Paul 104:7
In addition, we have been bombing Iraq since 1991, more than 10 years, on
a regular basis. Stiff economic sanctions
imposed on Iraq for over a decade
by the U.S. and Britain caused extreme
suffering and death of hundreds of
thousands of innocent Iraqis, many of
them children.
2005 Ron Paul 104:8
Most military experts consider an economic blockade an act of war. We
insulted and provoked millions of Muslims,
especially fundamentalists, by
keeping a military base in Saudi Arabia
after the Persian Gulf War.
2005 Ron Paul 104:9
Osama bin Laden specifically expressed outrage at this policy in his
writings. Throughout the 1980s, we allied
ourselves with Saddam Hussein, a
secularist in his fight against Iran and
other Shiite fundamentalists.
2005 Ron Paul 104:10
We involved ourselves in this civil struggle within the Muslim community.
For decades, we supported various
secular Arab governments throughout
the region, always in opposition to religious
fundamentalists. The U.S. never
waivered in its enthusiastic support of
Israel over Arab-Muslim interests.
2005 Ron Paul 104:11
For decades Muslim fundamentalists have viewed U.S. policy as being driven
by religious zealots because of the
strong vocal support from many fundamentalist
Christian leaders.
2005 Ron Paul 104:12
For literally hundreds of years, Europe has continually challenged Muslim
and Arab domination of the Middle
East. We have never, Europe or the
United States, denied our interest in
controlling Middle East oil. From
Woodrow Wilson to the current
neoconservative brand of foreign policy,
the zeal for spreading democracy
and Western values through force of
arms has antagonized most Muslims.
2005 Ron Paul 104:13
If we continue to insist that our policy of foreign intervention has nothing
to do with the ongoing war against an
enemy we refuse to understand, we
guarantee that this war will not soon
end.
2005 Ron Paul 104:14
My suggestion is to change our foreign policy. Stop the war, bring our
troops home, and stop the wasteful
spending overseas. If we do not, the
real security of our homeland will continue
to be in jeopardy and the economic
consequences will get worse and
our freedoms at home will be further
reduced.
2005 Ron Paul 104:15
It is time to say no to undeclared wars. It is time to say no to political
and U.N. wars. It is time to say no to
preemptive war. It is time to say no to
nation building. It is time to say no to
assuming it is our duty to make the
world safe for democracy. It is time to
say no to meddling in the affairs of
others. It is time to say no to fighting
countries that have never threatened
our national security. It is time to stop
financing extravagant war spending by
printing more money. It is time to say
yes to more sensible diplomacy.
2005 Ron Paul 104:16
The senseless death and suffering of so many with nothing to show for it
must end. Peace is a far better goal to
strive for than an undefined victory in
a war that has no end.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 105
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Personal Responsibility In Food Consumption Act
19 October 2005
2005 Ron Paul 105:1
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. 554) usurps State jurisdiction
over lawsuits related to obesity
against food manufacturers.
2005 Ron Paul 105:2
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 restaurant’s
products, and thus are suffering from obesity-
related 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 fries, 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 manufacturers
of cars that go above 65 miles per
hour for speeding tickets?
2005 Ron Paul 105:3
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.”
2005 Ron Paul 105:4
While I oppose the idea of holding food manufacturers responsible for their customers’
misuse of their products, I cannot support addressing
this problem by nationalizing tort law.
It is long past time for Congress to recognize
that not every problem requires a Federal solution.
This country’s founders recognized the
genius of separating power among Federal,
State, and local governments as a means to
maximize individual liberty and make government
most responsive to those persons who
might most responsibly influence it. This separation
of powers strictly limits the role of the
Federal Government in dealing with civil liability
matters; and reserves jurisdiction over matters
of civil tort, such as food related negligence
suits, to the State legislatures.
2005 Ron Paul 105:5
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would remind the food industry that using unconstitutional Federal
powers to restrict State lawsuits makes it
more likely those same powers will be used to
impose additional Federal control over the
food industry. Despite these lawsuits, the
number one threat to business remains a Federal
government freed of its Constitutional restraints.
After all, the Federal government imposes
numerous taxes and regulations on the
food industry, often using the same phony
“pro-consumer” justifications used by the trial
lawyers. Furthermore, while small business,
such as fast-food franchises, can move to another
State to escape flawed State tax, regulatory,
or legal policies, they cannot as easily
escape destructive Federal regulations. Unconstitutional
expansions of Federal power, no
matter how just the cause may seem, are not
in the interests of the food industry or of lovers
of liberty.
2005 Ron Paul 105:6
In conclusion, while share the concern over the lawsuits against the food industry that inspired
H.R. 554, this bill continues the disturbing
trend of federalizing tort law. Enhancing
the power of the Federal government is in
no way in the long-term interests of defenders
of the free market and Constitutional liberties.
Therefore, I must oppose this bill.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 106
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Protection Of Lawful Commerce In Arms Act
20 october 2005
2005 Ron Paul 106:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, while I sympathize with the original objective of S. 397, the Protection
of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, I am
forced to oppose this legislation primarily because
of unconstitutional gun control amendments
added to the bill in the Senate.
2005 Ron Paul 106:2
As a firm believer in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and an
opponent of all Federal gun laws, I cannot
support a bill that imposes new, unconstitutional
gun controls on Americans. I believe
that the Second Amendment is one of the
foundations of our constitutional liberties. In
fact, I have introduced legislation, the Second
Amendment Protection Act (H.R. 1703), which
repeals misguided Federal gun control laws
such as the Brady Bill.
2005 Ron Paul 106:3
Senate amendments added two sections to S. 397 that impose unconstitutional controls
on American gun owners and sellers.
2005 Ron Paul 106:4
First, a section was added to the bill to outlaw any licensed gun importer, manufacturer,
or dealer from selling, delivering, or transferring
a handgun without a “secure gun storage
or safety device.” Each and any violation of
this requirement can result in a person being
fined up to $2,500 or having his license revoked.
This gun lock requirement amounts to
the imposition of a new Federal tax on each
handgun sale because gun buyers will be
forced to pay the cost of the “secure gun storage
or safety device” that is required with a
handgun, irrespective of if that device is desired.
Further, the severe penalties for noncompliance
— whether intentional or accidental
— add yet more weight to the crippling
regulations that hang over gun transactions in
the United States.
2005 Ron Paul 106:5
Second, a section was added to the bill to create draconian penalties for people who
possess “armor piercing” bullets. Just like the
Democratic Congress before it that passed the
“assault weapons” ban, the Republican Congress
is poised to give in to anti-gun rights
scare tactics by selectively banning bullets. Instead
of each gun owner being able to decide
what ammunition he uses in his gun, Federal
bureaucrats will make that decision. To recognize
the threat such regulation places on gun
owners, just consider that a gun without ammunition
is nothing more than an expensive
club. Regulating ammunition is the back door
path to gun regulation.
2005 Ron Paul 106:6
The “armor piercing” bullets restriction imposes a 15 years mandatory minimum sentence
for just carrying or possessing such bullets
— even without a gun — during or in “relation
to” a crime of violence or drug trafficking.
Given the wide scope of criminal laws and the
fact that people are on occasion accused of
crimes they did not commit, this provision
promises to discourage many non-violent, law-
abiding individuals from possessing ammunition
protected under the Second Amendment.
Further, it does not take much imagination to
see how such a provision could be used by an
anti-gun prosecutor in the prosecution of an
individual who used a gun in self defense, especially
considering that use of such bullets to
murder can result in a death sentence. In such
instances, a defendant who exercised self defense
may well accept a guilty plea bargain to
avoid the severe enhanced penalties imposed
under S. 397.
2005 Ron Paul 106:7
I am particularly disturbed that the House of Representatives’ leadership has taken the unusual
step of bringing S. 397 to the floor for
a vote without House members at least having
an opportunity to vote on removing the gun
control amendments. Instead of voting on a
bill that contains the new gun control provisions,
we should be considering H.R. 800, the
House version of S. 397 prior to its perversion
by gun control amendments. Notably, Gun
Owners of America has written to House
members to request that they oppose S. 397
and, instead, support H.R. 800. Last month, I
wrote to House Speaker DENNIS HASTERT, Majority
Leader TOM DELAY, and Committee on
the Judiciary Chairman JAMES SENSENBRENNER
of my opposition to these anti-gun
rights provisions in S. 397. While I am concerned
about some of the federalism implications
of H.R. 800, it is a far superior bill because
it neither requires gun locks nor restricts
gun owners’ ammunition choices.
2005 Ron Paul 106:8
With 258 sponsors and cosponsors, H.R. 800 would easily pass the House. The House
voting for H.R. 800 would allow the differences
between H.R. 800 and S. 397 to be reconciled
in conference committee. In conference, every
expectation would be that the new gun control
provisions would be stripped from the legislation
given that the original, unamended S. 397
had 62 Senate sponsors and cosponsors — a
filibuster proof majority — in the Senate.
2005 Ron Paul 106:9
I regret that, under the guise of helping gun owners, the House of Representatives is today
considering imposing new unconstitutional gun
controls. I, thus, must oppose S. 397.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 107
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Introducing The Improve Interoperable Communications For First Responders Act
20 october 2005
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, October 20, 2005
2005 Ron Paul 107:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Improve Interoperable Communications for
First Responders Act of 2005. This act provides
Federal assistance to local first responders
for developing an interoperable means of
communications. Ensuring first responders at
the local, state, and Federal level have the
ability to effectively communicate with each
other should be one of the Federal Government’s
top priorities. The ability of first responders
to effectively communicate with each
other, and with their counterparts at different
levels of governments, is key to their ability to
save lives in the crucial time immediately after
a natural disaster or a terrorist attack.
2005 Ron Paul 107:2
My bill helps first responders by establishing a Director of Interoperability and Compatibility
to help develop a national strategy and architecture
for an interoperable system, as well as
to bring together Federal, State, local, and
tribal officials to work on a coordinated effort
to develop and coordinate efforts to implement
an interoperable communications system. The
bill also provides a grant program so state and
local governments can receive Federal assistance
for planning and designing an interoperable
system, as well as in training first responders
how to use the system.
2005 Ron Paul 107:3
Rather than simply further burdening taxpayers, or increasing the already skyrocketing
national debt, my legislation is financed
through cuts in corporate welfare and foreign
aid programs, which subsidize large corporations
and even American businesses’ overseas
competitors such as the Export-Import
Bank use of taxpayer money to underwrite
trade with countries such as Communist
China. It is time for the Federal Government to
begin prioritizing spending by cutting unnecessary
programs that benefit powerful special interests
in order to met our constitutional responsibilities
to ensure America’s first responders
can effectively respond to terrorists’
attacks.
2005 Ron Paul 107:4
Mr. Speaker, reducing spending on corporate welfare and foreign aid to strengthen
first responders’ interoperable capability is a
win-win for the American people. I hope my
colleagues will help strengthen America’s first
responders’ ability to help the American people
in times of terrorists attacks and natural
disasters by cosponsoring the Improve Interoperable
Communications for First Responders
Act.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 108
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Government Sponsored Enterprises
26 October 2005
2005 Ron Paul 108:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1461 fails to address the core problems with the Government
Sponsored Enterprises, GSEs. Furthermore,
since this legislation creates new government
programs that will further artificially
increase the demand for housing, H.R. 1461
increases the economic damage that will
occur when the housing bubble bursts. The
main problem with the GSEs is the special
privileges the Federal Government gives the
GSEs. According to the Congressional Budget
Office, the housing-related GSEs received almost
20 billion dollars worth of indirect federal
subsidies in fiscal year 2004 alone.
2005 Ron Paul 108:2
One of the major privileges the Federal Government grants to the GSEs is a line of
credit from the United States Treasury. According
to some estimates, the line of credit
may be worth over two billion dollars. GSEs
also benefit from an explicit grant of legal authority
given to the Federal Reserve to purchase
the debt of the GSEs. GSEs are the
only institutions besides the United States
Treasury granted explicit statutory authority to
monetize their debt through the Federal Reserve.
This provision gives the GSEs a source
of liquidity unavailable to their competitors.
2005 Ron Paul 108:3
This implicit promise by the government to bail out the GSEs in times of economic difficulty
helps the GSEs attract investors who
are willing to settle for lower yields than they
would demand in the absence of the subsidy.
Thus, the line of credit distorts the allocation
of capital. More importantly, the line of credit
is a promise on behalf of the government to
engage in a massive unconstitutional and immoral
income transfer from working Americans
to holders of GSE debt. This is why I am offering
an amendment to cut off this line of credit.
I hope my colleagues join me in protecting
taxpayers from having to bail out Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac when the housing bubble
bursts.
2005 Ron Paul 108:4
The connection between the GSEs and the government helps isolate the GSEs’ managements
from market discipline. This isolation
from market discipline is the root cause of the
mismanagement occurring at Fannie and
Freddie. After all, if investors did not believe
that the Federal Government would bail out
Fannie and Freddie if the GSEs faced financial
crises, then investors would have forced
the GSEs to provide assurances that the
GSEs are following accepted management
and accounting practices before investors
would consider Fannie and Freddie to be good
investments.
2005 Ron Paul 108:5
Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has expressed concern that the government
subsidies provided to the GSEs makes investors
underestimate the risk of investing in
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Although he
has endorsed many of the regulatory “solutions”
being considered here today, Chairman
Greenspan has implicitly admitted the subsidies
are the true source of the problems with
Fannie and Freddie.
2005 Ron Paul 108:6
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1461 compounds these problems by further insulating the GSEs from
market discipline. By creating a “world-class”
regulator, Congress would send a signal to investors
that investors need not concern themselves
with investigating the financial health
and stability of Fannie and Freddie since a
“world-class” regulator is performing that function.
2005 Ron Paul 108:7
However, one of the forgotten lessons of the financial scandals of a few years ago is that
the market is superior at discovering and punishing
fraud and other misbehavior than are
government regulators. After all, the market
discovered, and began to punish, the accounting
irregularities of Enron before the government
regulators did.
2005 Ron Paul 108:8
Concerns have been raised about the new regulator’s independence from the Treasury
Department. This is more than a bureaucratic
“turf battle” as there are legitimate worries
that isolating the regulator from Treasury oversight
may lead to regulatory capture. Regulatory
capture occurs when regulators serve
the interests of the businesses they are
supposed
to be regulating instead of the public interest.
While H.R. 1461 does have some provisions
that claim to minimize the risk of regulatory
capture, regulatory capture is always a
threat where regulators have significant control
over the operations of an industry. After all,
the industry obviously has a greater incentive
than any other stakeholder to influence the behavior
of the regulator.
2005 Ron Paul 108:9
The flip side of regulatory capture is that mangers and owners of highly subsidized and
regulated industries are more concerned with
pleasing the regulators than with pleasing consumers
or investors, since the industries know
that investors will believe all is well if the regulator
is happy. Thus, the regulator and the regulated
industry may form a symbiosis where
each looks out for the other’s interests while
ignoring the concerns of investors.
2005 Ron Paul 108:10
Furthermore, my colleagues should consider the constitutionality of an “independent regulator.”
The Founders provided for three
branches of government — an executive, a judiciary,
and a legislature. Each branch was created
as sovereign in its sphere, and there
were to be clear lines of accountability for
each branch. However, independent regulators
do not fit comfortably within the three
branches; nor are they totally accountable to
any branch. Regulators at these independent
agencies often make judicial-like decisions,
but they are not part of the judiciary. They
often make rules, similar to the ones regarding
capital requirements, that have the force of
law, but independent regulators are not legislative.
And, of course, independent regulators
enforce the laws in the same way, as do other
parts of the executive branch; yet independent
regulators lack the day-to-day accountability to
the executive that provides a check on other
regulators.
2005 Ron Paul 108:11
Thus, these independent regulators have a concentration of powers of all three branches
and lack direct accountability to any of the
democratically chosen branches of government.
This flies in the face of the Founders’
opposition to concentrations of power and
government bureaucracies that lack accountability.
These concerns are especially relevant
considering the remarkable degree of power
and autonomy this bill gives to the regulator.
For example, in the scheme established by
H.R. 1461 the regulator’s budget is not subject
to appropriations. This removes a powerful
mechanism for holding the regulator accountable
to Congress. While the regulator is accountable
to a board of directors, this board
may conduct all deliberations in private because
it is not subject to the sunshine act.
2005 Ron Paul 108:12
Ironically, by transferring the risk of widespread mortgage defaults to the taxpayers
through government subsidies and convincing
investors that all is well because a “world-
class” regulator is ensuring the GSEs’ soundness,
the government increases the likelihood
of a painful crash in the housing market. This
is because the special privileges of Fannie
and Freddie have distorted the housing market
by allowing Fannie and Freddie to attract capital
they could not attract under pure market
conditions. As a result, capital is diverted from
its most productive uses into housing. This reduces
the efficacy of the entire market and
thus reduces the standard of living of all
Americans.
2005 Ron Paul 108:13
Despite the long-term damage to the economy inflicted by the government’s interference
in the housing market, the government’s policy
of diverting capital into housing creates a
short-term boom in housing. Like all artificially
created bubbles, the boom in housing prices
cannot last forever. When housing prices fall,
homeowners will experience difficulty as their
equity is wiped out. Furthermore, the holders
of the mortgage debt will also have a loss.
These losses will be greater than they would
have been had government policy not actively
encouraged over-investment in housing.
2005 Ron Paul 108:14
H.R. 1461 further distorts the housing market by artificially inflating the demand for housing
through the creation of a national housing
trust fund. This fund further diverts capital to
housing that, absent government intervention,
would be put to a use more closely matching
the demands of consumers. Thus, this new
housing program will reduce efficacy and create
yet another unconstitutional redistribution
program.
2005 Ron Paul 108:15
Perhaps the Federal Reserve can stave off the day of reckoning by purchasing the GSEs’
debt and pumping liquidity into the housing
market, but this cannot hold off the inevitable
drop in the housing market forever. In fact,
postponing the necessary and painful market
corrections will only deepen the inevitable fall.
The more people are invested in the market,
the greater the effects across the economy
when the bubble bursts.
2005 Ron Paul 108:16
Instead of addressing government polices encouraging the misallocation of resources to
the housing market, H.R. 1461 further introduces
distortion into the housing market by
expanding the authority of Federal regulators
to approve the introduction of new products by
the GSEs. Such regulation inevitability delays
the introduction of new innovations to the market,
or even prevents some potentially valuable
products from making it to the market. Of
course, these new regulations are justified in
part by the GSEs’ government subsidies. We
once again see how one bad intervention in
the market (the GSEs’ government subsidies)
leads to another (the new regulations).
2005 Ron Paul 108:17
In conclusion, H.R. 1461 compounds the problems with the GSEs and may increases
the damage that will be inflicted by a bursting
of the housing bubble. This is because this bill
creates a new unaccountable regulator and introduces
further distortions into the housing
market via increased regulatory power. H.R.
1461 also violates the Constitution by creating
yet another unaccountable regulator with
quasi-executive, judicial, and legislative powers.
Instead of expanding unconstitutional and
market distorting government bureaucracies,
Congress should act to remove taxpayer support
from the housing GSEs before the bubble
bursts and taxpayers are once again forced to
bailout investors who were misled by foolish
government interference in the market.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 109
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Amendment No. 6 Offered By Mr. Paul — Part 1
26 October 2005
2005 Ron Paul 109:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk
will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. PAUL:
Page 64, after line 12, insert the following
new section:
SECTION 117. ELIMINATION OF AUTHORITY TO
BORROW FROM TREASURY OF THE
UNITED STATES.
(a) FANNIE MAE. — Section 304 of the Federal
National Mortgage Association Charter
Act (12 U.S.C. 1719) is amended by striking
subsection (c).
(b) FREDDIE MAC. — Section 306 of the Federal
Home Loan Mortgage Corporation Act
(12 U.S.C. 1455) is amended by striking subsection
(c).
(c) FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS. — Section 11
of the Federal Home Loan Bank Act (12
U.S.C. 1431) is amended by striking subsection
(i).
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to
House Resolution 509, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. PAUL) and the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr.
FRANK) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. PAUL).
2005 Ron Paul 109:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission
to revise and extend his remarks.)
2005 Ron Paul 109:3
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is straightforward. It cuts off a
line of credit to the Treasury. The
GSEs have a line of credit of $2 billion.
It is said that it is not important because
they never use it. The answer
really to that is if they never use it,
why leave it on the books. But we do
know they indirectly use it. It has been
described as a subsidy, because the
GSEs can go into the market and get a
discount on their loan costs; therefore,
they can out-compete the private sector.
My amendment merely eliminates
that line of credit, puts a greater burden
on the marketplace to regulate the
GSEs rather than depending on regulation.
2005 Ron Paul 109:4
I think Members can see there is a problem with our GSEs. The debt is
horrendous. Today, the administration
sent a letter around and said that the
debt of the GSEs totals $2.5 trillion,
and they also guarantee in addition
$2.4 trillion. That adds up to more
money than the Federal Government
has borrowed. So it is a tremendous
amount of money and credit that is in
the system; and people have become
frightened about this, including chairman
of the Federal Reserve Board,
Alan Greenspan.
2005 Ron Paul 109:5
But what we are doing here today is not addressing the real problem: Why
is it out of control? Why is there a financial
housing bubble that everybody
is afraid is going to undergo a severe
correction?
2005 Ron Paul 109:6
One of the major reasons is the fact that it has this special line of credit.
So if we want to address the real cause
of the problem, we have to eliminate
the line of credit. So it rather amazes
me that we do this much legislating
without addressing the real cause of
our problem.
2005 Ron Paul 109:7
Of course, there are other things that contribute to the housing bubble,
something that we cannot deal with
today, but the fact that there is easy
credit and low interest rates, interest
rates below the market level, that is
then directed into the housing market.
This also contributes to the size and
the scope of the borrowing capacity of
the GSEs.
2005 Ron Paul 109:8
Also in this bill, of course, we are adding into this a brand new housing
program which is said to probably involve
another billion dollars in the
next 2 years. I guess it is not surprising
when The Wall Street Journal editorializes
against this. Unfortunately,
they are not very kind. They say this
bill is another “Republican policy embarrassment”.
2005 Ron Paul 109:9
This housing bubble, a housing program that we are starting up, how do
we finance it? Well, we tax the GSEs.
Instead of arguing the case for the
marketplace and letting people earn
money legitimately without subsidies,
what we do, we keep allowing the system
to continue. They do make profits,
and then we tax them. We are talking
about an additional tax, and this might
very well be the reason the administration
has come out against this bill, because
of this new tax.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 110
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Amendment No. 6 Offered By Mr. Paul — Part 2
26 October 2005
2005 Ron Paul 110:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
2005 Ron Paul 110:2
If we had a bill that was a little cleaner, we probably would be dealing
with the problems we face with the
GSEs and we would be dealing with a
housing program, a new housing program,
probably with a different bill.
2005 Ron Paul 110:3
I see one attempt is to deal with this problem that we face. Another attempt
is we are deciding that we need more
money directed into the housing industry,
and of course your building friends
like this, too. And those are Republican
allies as well. The builders love
this because we will pump more money
into the market so they can make
more profits. So it is another government
housing project. From a market
viewpoint, this is not good because we
want the money in the market to be allocated
purely by the market and not
by government direction.
2005 Ron Paul 110:4
It is the government direction first from the inflation, the artificial interest
rates, and then from the allocation
of funds that cause distortion. That is
what we are dealing with here, the distortion
that people are literally frightened
about because nobody can even
measure the amount of derivatives
that are involved with Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac. People are holding their
breath for an accident to happen.
2005 Ron Paul 110:5
I see this as an opportunity to talk about the marketplace, why we should
move Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into
the market.
2005 Ron Paul 110:6
A lot of people complained about the problems we had with Enron, and we
needed that as an excuse to pass a lot
more regulation. The truth is the market
dealt with Enron. Enron was dealt
with rather cruelly by the marketplace
before the regulators got there. What
we need to do is not, and especially as
Republicans and conservatives, talk
about a world-class regulator and that
it is going to solve all of these problems.
2005 Ron Paul 110:7
My argument is if we do not solve the problem of basic underlying inflation
distortion of interest rates, allocation
of funds through housing programs, as
well as this line of credit, believe me,
we are not going to solve this problem.
Please vote to strike this line of credit
to the Treasury.
2005 Ron Paul 110:8
As it was stated earlier on this floor, we may have some regulations built
into this that may even precipitate the
puncturing of the housing bubble. That
nobody can predict. But without addressing
the basic flaw in the system
that has created this $5 trillion worth
of debt, believe me, we will not have an
answer. I urge a “yes” vote on this
amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. BISHOP
of Utah). The time of the gentleman
from Texas has expired.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr.
Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
The gentleman’s amendment actually
does not go quite far enough, but
he has a germaneness problem. What
he really wants to do is abolish HUD,
given his philosophy. He does not think
there should be a Federal housing program.
Since he cannot get at HUD, he
goes after Fannie and Freddie in ways
that would reduce substantially what
we do in housing.
And, by the way, the administration’s
objection to this bill is not, as
says the gentleman, that it is too much
regulation. It is that we do not give the
regulator enough powers. So the administration’s
position is somewhat
opposite to the gentleman from Texas’,
not for the first time, to his credit.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 11/2 minutes to
the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms.
WASSERMAN SCHULTZ).
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 111
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Demands Recorded Vote
26 October 2005
2005 Ron Paul 111:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a
recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to
clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PAUL)
will be postponed.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 112
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Requests Time In Opposition
26 October 2005
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant
to the rule, the gentleman from
California (Mr. ROHRABACHER) and the
gentleman from California (Mr. LANTOS)
each will control 20 minutes.
2005 Ron Paul 112:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I request the time in opposition if neither gentleman
is opposed to the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the
gentleman from California (Mr. LANTOS)
opposed to the bill?
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, no, I am
not. I am supporting the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant
to clause 1 of rule XV, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. PAUL) will control
20 minutes in opposition.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 113
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
U.S. Interfering In Middle East
26 October 2005
2005 Ron Paul 113:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
2005 Ron Paul 113:2
I want to reiterate that the portion of the bill that deals with our ability
to pursue our space program I strongly
endorse. It is the portion that deals
with Syria that was added on at the
last minute that I am concerned about.
2005 Ron Paul 113:3
I want to say that portion of the bill, I believe, further destabilizes the Middle
East and we should move with
great caution. We have been warned.
We should be prepared for a broader
war in the Middle East as plans are
being laid for the next U.S.-led regime
change in Syria.
2005 Ron Paul 113:4
A U.N. report of the death of Lebanese Prime Minister Hariri elicited
this comment from a senior U.S. policy
maker: “Out of a tragedy comes an extraordinary
strategic opportunity.”
This statement reflects the continued
neoconservative, Machiavellian influence
on our foreign policy.
2005 Ron Paul 113:5
The “opportunity” refers to the long- held neoconservative plan for regime
change in Syria, similar to what was
carried out in Iraq.
2005 Ron Paul 113:6
This plan for remaking the Middle East has been around for a long time.
Just as 9/11 served the interests of
those who longed for changes in Iraq,
the sensationalism surrounding
Hariri’s death is being used to advance
plans to remove Assad.
2005 Ron Paul 113:7
Congress already has assisted these plans by authorizing the sanctions
placed on Syria last year. Harmful
sanctions, as applied to Iraq in the
1990s, inevitably represent a major step
toward war since they bring havoc to
so many innocent people. Syria already
has been charged with developing
weapons of mass destruction based on
no more evidence than was available
when Iraq was similarly charged.
2005 Ron Paul 113:8
Syria has been condemned for not securing its borders by the same U.S.
leaders who cannot secure our own borders.
Syria was castigated for placing
its troops in Lebanon, a neighboring
country, although such action was invited
by an elected government and encouraged
by the United States. The
Syrian occupation of Lebanon elicited
no suicide terrorist attacks, as was suffered
by Western occupiers.
2005 Ron Paul 113:9
Condemning Syria for having troops in Lebanon seems strange considering
most of the world sees our 150,000
troops in Iraq as unwarranted foreign
intervention. Syrian troops were far
more welcome in Lebanon.
2005 Ron Paul 113:10
Secretary Rice likewise sees the problem in Syria that we helped to create
as an opportunity to advance our
Middle Eastern agenda. In recent testimony
she stated that it was always the
administration’s intent to redesign the
greater Middle East, and Iraq was only
part of that plan. And once again we
have been told that all options are still
on the table for dealing with Syria, including
war.
2005 Ron Paul 113:11
The statement that should scare all Americans and the world is the assurance
by Secretary Rice that the President
needs no additional authority
from Congress to attack Syria. She argues
that authority already has been
granted by the resolutions on 9/11 and
Iraq. This is not true, but if Congress
remains passive to the powers assumed
by the executive branch, it will not
matter. As the war spreads, the only
role for the Congress will be to provide
funding lest they be criticized for not
supporting the troops. In the meantime,
the Constitution and our liberties
here at home will be further
eroded as more Americans die.
2005 Ron Paul 113:12
This escalation of conflict with Syria comes as a result of the U.N. report
concerning Hariri’s death. When we
need an excuse for our actions, it is always
nice to rely on the organization
our administration routinely condemns,
one that brought us the multi-
million-dollar oil-for-food scandal and
the sexual crimes by U.N. representatives.
2005 Ron Paul 113:13
It is easy to ignore the fact that the report did not implicate Assad, who is
targeted for the next regime change.
The U.N. once limited itself to disputes
between nations; yet now it assumes
the U.N., like the United States, has a
legal and moral right to inject itself
into the internal policies of sovereign
nations. Yet what is the source of this
presumed wisdom? Where is the moral
imperative that allows us to become
the judge and jury of a domestic murder
in a country 6,000 miles from our
shores?
2005 Ron Paul 113:14
Moral, constitutional, and legal arguments for a less aggressive foreign policy
receives little attention in Washington,
but the law of unintended consequences
serves as a thorough teacher
for the slow learners and the morally
impaired.
2005 Ron Paul 113:15
Is Iraq not yet a headache for the proponents of the shock and awe policy?
Are 2,000 lives lost not enough to
get their attention? How many hundreds
of billions of dollars must be
drained from our economy before it is
noticed? Is it still plausible that deficits
do not matter? Is the apparent victory
for Iran in the Shiite theocracy
we have created in Iraq not yet seen as
a disturbing consequence of the ill-
fated Iraq regime change effort? When
we have our way with the next election
in Lebanon and Hezbollah becomes a
governing party, what do we do then?
2005 Ron Paul 113:16
If our effort to destabilize Syria is no more successful than our efforts in
Iraq, then what? If destabilizing Syria
leads to the same in Iran, what are our
options? If we cannot leave now, we
will surely not leave then. We will be
told we must stay to honor the fallen
to prove the cause was just.
2005 Ron Paul 113:17
We should remember Ronald Reagan’s admonition regarding this area of
the world. Ronald Reagan reflected on
Lebanon in his memoirs, describing the
Middle East as a “jungle” and Middle
Eastern politics as “irrational.” It
forced him to rethink his policy in the
region. It is time we do some rethinking
as well.
2005 Ron Paul 113:18
This bill today does not help.
2005 Ron Paul 113:19
Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to be equally divided between
the gentleman from California (Mr.
LANTOS) and the gentleman from California
(Mr. ROHRABACHER), and I ask
unanimous consent that they be allowed
to control that time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.
POE). Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 114
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
October 26, 2005
We Have Been Warned
2005 Ron Paul 114:1
We have been warned.
Prepare for a
broader war in the Middle East, as plans are being laid for the next
U.S. led
regime change-- in Syria.
A UN report on
the death of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafig
Hariri elicited this comment from a senior U.S. policy maker:
“Out of tragedy comes an extraordinary strategic opportunity.”
This statement reflects the continued neo-conservative,
Machiavellian
influence on our foreign policy. The “opportunity” refers to the
long-held
neo-conservative plan for regime change in Syria, similar to what was
carried
out in Iraq.
2005 Ron Paul 114:2
This
plan for remaking the Middle East has been around for a long time.
Just as 9/11 served the interests of those who longed for
changes in
Iraq, the sensationalism surrounding Hariri’s death is being used to
advance
plans to remove Assad.
2005 Ron Paul 114:3
Congress
already has assisted these plans by authorizing the sanctions placed on
Syria
last year.
Harmful sanctions, as applied
to Iraq in the 1990s,
inevitably represent a major step toward war since they bring havoc to
so many
innocent people.
Syria already has
been charged with developing weapons of mass destruction based on no
more
evidence than was available when Iraq was similarly charged.
2005 Ron Paul 114:4
Syria
has been condemned for not securing its borders, by the same U.S.
leaders who
cannot secure our own borders.
Syria
was castigated for placing its troops in Lebanon, a neighboring
country,
although such action was invited by an elected government and
encouraged by the
United States.
The Syrian
occupation of Lebanon elicited no suicide terrorist attacks, as was
suffered by
Western occupiers.
2005 Ron Paul 114:5
Condemning
Syria for having troops in Lebanon seems strange, considering most of
the world
sees our 150,000 troops in Iraq as an unwarranted foreign occupation.
Syrian troops were far more welcome in Lebanon.
2005 Ron Paul 114:6
Secretary
Rice likewise sees the problems in Syria-- that we helped to create--
as an
opportunity to advance our Middle Eastern agenda.
In recent testimony she stated that it was always the
administration’s
intent to redesign the greater Middle East, and Iraq was only one part
of that
plan.
And once again we have been
told that all options are still on the table for dealing with Syria--
including
war.
2005 Ron Paul 114:7
The
statement that should scare all Americans (and the world) is the
assurance by
Secretary Rice that the President needs no additional authority from
Congress to
attack Syria.
She argues that authority
already has been granted by the
resolutions on 9/11 and Iraq.
This
is not true, but if Congress remains passive to the powers assumed by
the
executive branch it won’t matter.
As
the war spreads, the only role for Congress will be to provide funding
lest they
be criticized for not supporting the troops.
In
the meantime, the Constitution and our liberties here at
home will be further eroded as more Americans die.
2005 Ron Paul 114:8
This
escalation of conflict with Syria comes as a result of the UN report
concerning
the Hariri death.
When we need an excuse
for our actions, it’s always nice to
rely on the organization that our administration routinely condemns,
one that
brought us the multi-billion dollar oil-for-food scandal and sexual
crimes by UN
representatives.
2005 Ron Paul 114:9
It’s
easy to ignore the fact that the report did not implicate Assad, who is
targeted
for the next regime change.
The UN
once limited itself to disputes between nations; yet now it’s assumed
the UN,
like the United States, has a legal and moral right to inject itself
into the
internal policies of sovereign nations.
Yet
what is the source of this presumed wisdom?
Where is the moral imperative that allows us to become the judge
and jury
of a domestic murder in a country 6,000 miles from our shores?
2005 Ron Paul 114:10
Moral,
constitutional, and legal arguments for a less aggressive foreign
policy receive
little attention in Washington.
But
the law of unintended consequences serves as a thorough teacher for the
slow
learners and the morally impaired.
2005 Ron Paul 114:11
Is
Iraq not yet enough of a headache for the braggarts of the shock and
awe policy?
2005 Ron Paul 114:12
Are 2,000 lives lost not enough to get their attention?
2005 Ron Paul 114:13
How many hundreds of billions of dollars must be drained from our economy
before
it’s noticed?
2005 Ron Paul 114:14
Is it still plausible that deficits don’t matter?
2005 Ron Paul 114:15
Is the apparent victory for Iran in the Shiite theocracy we’ve created in
Iraq
not yet seen as a disturbing consequence of the ill-fated Iraq regime
change
effort?
2005 Ron Paul 114:16
When we have our way with the next election in Lebanon and Hezbollah wins, what
do we do?
2005 Ron Paul 114:17
If our effort to destabilize Syria is no more successful than our efforts in
Iraq, then what?
2005 Ron Paul 114:18
If destabilizing Syria leads to the same in Iran, what are our options?
2005 Ron Paul 114:19
If we can’t leave now, we’ll surely not leave then-- we’ll be told we must
stay to honor the fallen to prove the cause was just.
2005 Ron Paul 114:20
We should remember Ronald Reagan’s admonition regarding this area of the
world.
Ronald Reagan reflected on Lebanon
in his memoirs, describing
the Middle East as a jungle and Middle East politics as irrational. It
forced
him to rethink his policy in the region.
It’s
time we do some rethinking as well.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 115
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Ahmadinejad’s Statement No Excuse To Escalate War Of Words
28 October 2005
2005 Ron Paul 115:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I join with my colleagues here in condemning the statement reportedly
made by Iranian President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad that “Israel must be wiped off
the map.” I reject this statement and any such
statement by any government anywhere because
I reject the notion that the use or threat
of violence is an appropriate way to solve
international disputes.
2005 Ron Paul 115:2
While rejecting comments by Iran that seem to advocate the use of force, I must also
strongly object to using Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad’s statement as an excuse to escalate
our own rhetoric and strengthen our
anti-Iranian and anti-Muslim policies. This condemnable
statement is nevertheless being
conveniently used to expand our policy of remaking
the Middle East in our own image.
2005 Ron Paul 115:3
I do find it interesting to hear my colleagues condemning Iran’s implied threat of force while
in the same breath calling for the use of force
against Iran. Ironically, it is small step from repeatedly
calling Iran “our enemy” with increasingly
militaristic rhetoric to calling for Iran to be
“wiped off the map.” We should keep this in
mind as we condemn the rhetoric of others
while repeating similar rhetoric ourselves.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 116
Ron Paul’s Congressional website
HON.
RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
November 2, 2005
Big Lies and Little Lies
2005 Ron Paul 116:1
Scooter Libby has been indicted for lying.
Many
suspect Libby, and perhaps others, deliberately outed Joe Wilson’s wife
as a
covert CIA agent.
This was done to
punish and discredit Wilson for bringing attention to the false
information
regarding Iraq’s supposed efforts to build a nuclear weapon —
information made
public in President Bush’s State of the Union message in January 2003.
Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald was chosen to determine if
this
revelation regarding Valerie Plame, Wilson’s wife, violated the
Intelligence
Identification Protection Act.
The
actual indictment of Libby did not claim such a violation occurred.
Instead, he has been charged with lying and participating in a
cover-up
during the two-year investigation.
I
believe this is a serious matter that should not be ignored, but it is
not an
earth-shattering event.
2005 Ron Paul 116:2
This case, like almost everything in Washington, has been driven by politics — not truth,
justice, or
the Constitution.
It’s about
seeking political power, pure and simple, not unlike the impeachment
process
during the last administration.
2005 Ron Paul 116:3
There are much more serious charges of lying and cover-ups that deserve congressional attention.
The country now knows the decision to go to
war in Iraq was
based on information that was not factual.
Congress and the people of this country were misled.
Because of this, more than 2,000 U. S. troops and many innocent
people
have died.
Tens of thousands have
been severely wounded, their lives forever changed if not totally
ruined.
2005 Ron Paul 116:4
The lies Scooter Libby may or may not have told deserve a thorough investigation.
But in the scheme of
things, the indictment about questions regarding the release of Valerie
Plame’s name, a political dirty trick, is minor compared to the
disinformation
about weapons of mass destruction and other events that propelled us
into an
unnecessary war.
Its costs — in
life, suffering, and money — have proven to be prohibitive.
2005 Ron Paul 116:5
The Libby indictment, unless it opens the door to more profound questions
concerning
why we went to war, may serve only as a distraction from much more
serious
events and lies.
2005 Ron Paul 116:6
The decision to go to war is profound.
It
behooves Congress to ask more questions and investigate exactly how the
President, Congress, and the people were misled into believing that
invading
Iraq was necessary for our national security.
2005 Ron Paul 116:7
Why do we still not know who forged the documents claiming Saddam Hussein
was about
to buy uranium from Niger?
2005 Ron Paul 116:8
Was this information concocted by those who were overly eager to go to war?
2005 Ron Paul 116:9
Why was CIA reluctance regarding this assessment ignored, allowing it to be
presented by the President as a clincher for our need to go to war?
2005 Ron Paul 116:10
Other reasons used to justify the war deserve equal attention, since the
results have
been so painful for our country.
2005 Ron Paul 116:11
If lies were told to justify the invasion of Iraq, the American people
deserve to
know the truth.
Congress has a
responsibility to seek this truth and change our policies accordingly.
The
sooner this is done the better.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 117
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Rosa Parks
2 November 2005
2005 Ron Paul 117:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I support S. 1285, a bill naming a federal building in Detroit,
Michigan after Rosa Parks and I join my colleagues
in paying tribute to Mrs. Parks’s courage
and high ideals. Rosa Parks’s simple act
of refusing to get up from her seat to comply
with an unjust law inspired a movement that
brought an end to state-mandated racial segregation.
Mrs. Parks was inspired to challenge
government power by her conviction that laws
that treated African-Americans as second-
class citizens violated the natural rights all humans
receive from their creator — rights which
no government can justly infringe.
2005 Ron Paul 117:2
Rosa Parks’s use of peaceful means of civil disobedience to challenge unjust laws stands
as a shinning example of how peaceful
means, such as civil disobedience and boycotts,
can overcome seemingly insurmountable
obstacles and advance the cause of liberty.
The example of Rosa Parks shows how
an individual with the courage and conviction
to stand alone against injustice can make a
difference by inspiring others to take a stand.
I hope all friends of freedom will draw inspiration
from the example of Rosa Parks.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 118
Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Free Speech and Dietary Supplements
November 10, 2005
HON.
RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2005 Ron Paul 118:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Health Freedom Protection Act. This bill
restores the First Amendment rights of consumers to receive truthful
information
regarding the benefits of foods and dietary supplements by codifying
the First
Amendment standards used by federal courts to strike down the Food and
Drug
Administration (FDA) efforts to censor truthful health claims. The
Health
Freedom Protection Act also stops the Federal Trade Commissions (FTC)
from
censoring truthful health care claims.
2005 Ron Paul 118:2
The American people have made it clear they do not want the federal government to interfere with their access to dietary supplements, yet
the FDA
and the FTC continue to engage in heavy-handed attempts to restrict
such access.
The FDA continues to frustrate consumers’ efforts to learn how they can
improve their health even after Congress, responding to a record number
of
constituents’ comments, passed the Dietary Supplement and Health and
Education
Act of 1994 (DSHEA). FDA bureaucrats are so determined to frustrate
consumer
access to truthful information that they are even evading their duty to
comply
with four federal court decisions vindicating consumers’ First
Amendment
rights to discover the health benefits of foods and dietary supplements.
2005 Ron Paul 118:3
FDA bureaucrats have even refused to abide by the DSHEA section allowing the
public to have access to scientific articles and publications regarding
the role
of nutrients in protecting against diseases by claiming that every
article
concerning this topic is evidence of intent to sell a drug.
2005 Ron Paul 118:4
Because of the FDA’s censorship of truthful health claims, millions of
Americans may suffer with diseases and other health care problems they
may have
avoided by using dietary supplements. For example, the FDA prohibited
consumers
from learning how folic acid reduces the risk of neural tube defects
for four
years after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended
every
woman of childbearing age take folic acid supplements to reduce neural
tube
defects. This FDA action contributed to an estimated 10,000 cases of
preventable
neutral tube defects!
2005 Ron Paul 118:5
The FDA also continues to prohibit consumers from learning about the scientific
evidence that glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate are effective in the
treatment
of osteoarthritis; that omega-3 fatty acids may reduce the risk of
sudden death
heart attack; and that calcium may reduce the risk of bone fractures.
2005 Ron Paul 118:6
The Health Freedom Protection Act will force the FDA to at last comply with
the commands of Congress, the First Amendment, and the American people
by
codifying the First Amendment standards adopted by the federal courts.
Specifically, the Health Freedom Protection Act stops the FDA from
censoring
truthful claims about the curative, mitigative, or preventative effects
of
dietary supplements, and adopts the federal court’s suggested use of
disclaimers as an alternative to censorship. The Health Freedom
Protection Act
also stops the FDA from prohibiting the distribution of scientific
articles and
publications regarding the role of nutrients in protecting against
disease.
2005 Ron Paul 118:7
This legislation also addresses the FTC’s violations of the First Amendment. Under traditional First Amendment jurisprudence, the federal
government bears the burden of proving an advertising statement false
before
censoring that statement. However, the FTC has reversed the standard in
the case
of dietary supplements by requiring supplement manufactures to satisfy
an
unobtainable standard of proof that their statement is true. The FTC’s
standards are blocking innovation in the marketplace.
2005 Ron Paul 118:8
The Health Freedom Protection Act requires the government bear the burden of
proving that speech could be censored. This is how it should be in a
free,
dynamic society. The bill also requires that the FTC warn parties that
their
advertising is false and give them a chance to correct their mistakes.
2005 Ron Paul 118:9
Mr. Speaker, if we are serious about putting people in charge of their health
care, then shouldn’t we stop federal bureaucrats from preventing
Americans
from learning about simple ways to improve their health. I therefore
call on my
colleagues to stand up for good health care and the First Amendment by
cosponsoring the Health Freedom Protection Act.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 119
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Congressional Recognition Of Orene Schweinle Jordan
15 November 2005
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
2005 Ron Paul 119:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mrs. Orene Schweinle Jordan on the
occasion of her 100th birthday. Mrs. Jordan is
a great example of the determination and
dedication the citizens of America possessed
in striving to improve their lives and the lives
of their family members during the stressful
years of the early 1900’s. She has seen first-
hand this great country develop from the
horse-and-buggy era to the age of Internet.
2005 Ron Paul 119:2
Born in a remote area of rural Texas on December 4, 1905 into a family of seven children,
Mrs. Jordan had limited formal education
and learned early that hard work and self-improvement
were her only avenues to a better
life. She developed the philosophy that, “You
can do anything if you set your mind to it and
never quit.” That philosophy has sustained her
to age 100 and she has set an example for
her children and those around her.
2005 Ron Paul 119:3
Mrs. Jordan has been an outstanding mother to her children and is the recognized force
that molded their lives. Her son, Don D. Jordan,
became Chairman & Chief Executive Officer
of Houston Lighting & Power Company,
Houston Industries, and Reliant Energy in
which capacity he served for 23 years. He
also served as the International President of
the World Energy Council in London, England.
Mrs. Jordan’s daughter, Shirley A. Jordan
Flanagan, perhaps made the biggest contribution
as she energized young lives while serving
as an elementary school teacher in the
public schools of Texas for 35 years.
2005 Ron Paul 119:4
Married to W.G. Jordan for 60 years, Mrs. Orene Jordan was always a working partner.
When the family moved from a small town in
south Texas, they opened a small grocery
store in La Marque, Texas even though they
had no real business experience. Mrs. Jordan
put her “hard work” philosophy into action by
working 12 hours a day, 7 days a week to
make her family’s business thrive. In 1956, Mr.
and Mrs. Jordan sold their store and started a
cattle ranch in Van Vleck, Texas in Matagorda
County.
2005 Ron Paul 119:5
Mrs. Jordan still lives on the ranch, which she has helped operate for the past 49 years.
During that time, she has developed as an artist,
written several short stories, built her own
furniture, become a recognized horticulturist,
been active in her church, and touched the
lives of numerous people.
2005 Ron Paul 119:6
Above all else, Orene Jordan is a patriot. She loves America and has never wavered
from honesty, personal integrity, respect for
the rule of law, and consideration of others.
She has made the United States of America,
Texas and Matagorda County a better place,
and she is not finished yet!
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 120
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
General Leave
16 November 2005
2005 Ron Paul 120:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to
revise and extend their remarks and include
extraneous material on H.R. 1065.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there
objection to the request of the gentleman
from Texas?
There was no objection.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 121
Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]
HON.
RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
November 16, 2005
Congress Erodes Privacy
2005 Ron Paul 121:1
The privacy issue has been around for a long time.
The brutal abuse of privacy and property of early Americans
played a big
role in our revolt against the King.
The 1
st
, 4
th
, and 5
th
amendments
represented attempts to protect private property and privacy from an
overzealous
federal government.
Today those attempts appear to have failed.
2005 Ron Paul 121:2
There have been serious legal debates in recent decades about whether
“privacy” is
protected by the Constitution.
Some argue that since the word does not appear in the text of
that
document, it is not protected.
Others argue that privacy protection grants the federal
government power
to dictate to all states limits or leniency in enforcing certain laws.
But the essence of liberty is privacy.
2005 Ron Paul 121:3
In recent years—especially since 9-11—Congress has been totally negligent
in
its duty to protect U.S. citizens from federal government encroachment
on the
rights of privacy.
Even prior to 9-11, the Echelon worldwide surveillance system
was well
entrenched, monitoring telephones, faxes, and emails.
2005 Ron Paul 121:4
From the 1970s forward, national security letters were used sparingly in
circumventing the legal process and search warrant requirements.
Since 9-11 and the subsequent passage of the Patriot Act,
however, use of
these instruments has skyrocketed, from 300 annually to over 30,000.
There is essentially no oversight nor understanding by the U.S.
Congress
of the significance of this pervasive government surveillance.
It’s all shrugged off as necessary to make us safe from
terrorism.
Sacrificing personal liberty and privacy, the majority feels, is
not a
big deal.
2005 Ron Paul 121:5
We soon will vote on the conference report reauthorizing the Patriot Act.
Though one could argue there’s been a large grass-roots effort
to
discredit the Patriot Act, Congress has ignored the message.
Amazingly, over 391 communities and 7 states have passed
resolutions
highly critical of the Patriot Act.
2005 Ron Paul 121:6
The debate in Congress—if that’s what one wants to call it—boils down to
whether the most egregious parts of the Act will be sunsetted after 4
years or
7.
The
conference report will adjust the numbers, and members will vote
willingly for
the “compromise” and feel good about their effort to protect individual
privacy.
2005 Ron Paul 121:7
But if we’re honest with ourselves we would admit that the 4
th
amendment is essentially a dead letter.
There has been no effort to curb the abuse of national security
letters
nor to comprehend the significance of Echelon.
Hard-fought liberties are rapidly slipping away from us.
2005 Ron Paul 121:8
Congress is not much better when it comes to protecting against the erosion of
the
centuries-old habeas corpus doctrine.
By declaring anyone an “enemy combatant”—a totally arbitrary
designation by the President— the government can deny an individual his
right
to petition a judge or even speak with an attorney.
Though there has been a good debate on the insanity of our
policy of
torturing prisoners, holding foreigners and Americans without charges
seems
acceptable to many.
Did it never occur to those who condemn torture that unlimited
detention
of individuals without a writ of habeas corpus is itself
torture—especially
for those who are totally innocent?
Add this to the controversial worldwide network of secret CIA
prisons now
known of for 2 years, and we should be asking ourselves what we have
become as a
people.
Recent
evidence that we’re using white phosphorus chemical weapons in Iraq
does
nothing to improve our image.
2005 Ron Paul 121:9
Our prestige in the world is slipping.
The war is going badly.
Our financial system is grossly overburdened.
And we spend hundreds of hours behind the scenes crafting a mere
$5
billion spending cut while pretending no one knows we can spend tens of
billions
in off-budget supplemental bills- sometimes under unanimous consent!
2005 Ron Paul 121:10
It’s time we reconsider the real purpose of government in a society that
professes to
be free—protection of liberty, peaceful commerce, and keeping itself
out of
our lives, our economy, our pocketbooks, and certainly out of the
affairs of
foreign nations.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 122
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Introducing We The People
17 November 2005
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, November 17, 2005
2005 Ron Paul 122:1
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 polices 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.
2005 Ron Paul 122:2
The United States Constitution gives Congress the authority to establish and limit the
jurisdiction of the lower Federal courts and
limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The
Founders intended Congress to use this authority
to correct abuses of power by the federal
judiciary.
2005 Ron Paul 122:3
Some may claim that an activist judiciary that strikes down State laws at will expands
individual liberty. Proponents of this claim
overlook the fact that the best guarantor of
true liberty is decentralized political institutions,
while the greatest threat to liberty is
concentrated power. This is why the Constitution
carefully limits the power of the Federal
Government over the States.
2005 Ron Paul 122:4
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 polices on State and local governments,
instead of respecting the polices
adopted by those elected by, and thus accountable
to, the people, republican government
is threatened. Article IV, section 40 of
the Untied 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.
2005 Ron Paul 122:5
Mr. Speaker, even some supporters of liberalized abortion laws have admitted that the
Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, which
overturned the abortion laws of all 50 States,
is flawed. The Supreme Court’s Establishment
Clause jurisdiction has also drawn criticism
from across the political spectrum. Perhaps
more importantly, attempts to resolve, by judicial
fiat, important issues like abortion and the
expression of religious belief in the public
square increase social strife and conflict The
only way to resolve controversial social issues
like abortion and school prayer is to restore
respect for the right of State and local governments
to adopt polices that reflect the beliefs
of the citizens of those jurisdictions. I would
remind my colleagues and the Federal judiciary
that, under our Constitutional system,
there is no reason why the people of New
York and the people of Texas should have the
same polices regarding issues such as marriage
and school prayer.
2005 Ron Paul 122:6
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.
2005 Ron Paul 122:7
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.
2005 Ron Paul 122:8
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.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 123
Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]
HON.
RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
November 18, 2005
Statement on So-Called "Deficit Reduction Act"
2005 Ron Paul 123:1
Mr. Speaker, as one who has long urged my colleagues to cut spending, and who
has consistently voted against excessive and unconstitutional
expenditures, I am
sure many in this body expect me to be an enthusiastic supporter of HR
4241, the
Deficit Reduction Act. After all, supporters of this bill are claiming
it
dramatically reforms federal programs and puts Congress back on the
road to
fiscal responsibility.
2005 Ron Paul 123:2
For all the passionate debate this bill has generated, its effect on the
federal government and taxpayers are relatively minor. HR 4241 does not
even
reduce federal expenditures! That’s right--if HR 4241 passes, the
federal
budget, including entitlement programs, will continue to grow. HR 4241
simply
slows down the rate of growth of federal spending. The federal
government may
spend less in the future if this bill passes then it otherwise would,
but it
will still spend more than it does today. To put HR 4241 in
perspective,
consider that this bill reduces spending by less than $50 billion over
10 years,
while the most recent “emergency” supplemental passed by this Congress
appropriated $82 billion dollars to be spent this year.
2005 Ron Paul 123:3
HR 4241 reduces total federal entitlement expenditures by one half of one
percent over the next five years. For all the trumpeting about how this
bill
gets “runaway entitlement spending” under control, HR 4241 fails to
deal
with the biggest entitlement problem facing our nation--the
multi-billion dollar
Medicare prescription drug plan, which actually will harm many seniors
by
causing them to lose their private coverage, forcing them into an
inferior
government-run program. In fact, the Medicare prescription drug plan
will cost
$55 billion in fiscal year 2006 alone, while HR 4241 will reduce
spending by
only $5 billion next year. Yet some House members who voted for every
expansion
of the federal government considered by this Congress will vote for
these small
reductions in spending and then brag about their fiscal conservatism to
their
constituents.
2005 Ron Paul 123:4
As is common with bills claiming to reduce spending, the majority of spending
reductions occur in the later years of the plan. Since it is impossible
to bind
future Congresses, this represents little more than a suggestion that
spending
in fiscal years 2009 and 2010 reflect the levels stated in this bill.
My
fiscally responsible colleagues should keep in mind that rarely, if
ever, does a
Congress actually follow through on spending reductions set by a
previous
Congress. Thus, relying on future Congresses to cut spending in the
“out years”
is a recipe for failure.
2005 Ron Paul 123:5
One provision of the bill that undeniably would have benefited the American
people, the language opening up the ANWR region of Alaska and expanding
offshore
drilling, was removed from the bill. As my colleagues know, increased
gas prices
are a top concern of the American people. Expanding the supply of
domestically
produced oil is an obvious way to address these concerns, yet Congress
refuses
to take this reasonable step.
2005 Ron Paul 123:6
Mr. Speaker, some of the entitlement reforms in HR 4241 are worthwhile. For
example, I am hopeful the provision allowing states to require a
co-payment for
Medicaid will help relieve physicians of the burden of providing
uncompensated
care, which is an issue of great concern to physicians in my district.
Still, I
am concerned that the changes in pharmaceutical reimbursement proposed
by the
bill may unfairly impact independent pharmacies, and I am disappointed
we will
not get to vote on an alterative that would have the same budgetary
impact
without harming independent pharmacies.
2005 Ron Paul 123:7
I also question the priorities of singling out programs, such as Medicaid and
food stamps, that benefit the neediest Americans, while continuing to
increase
spending on corporate welfare and foreign aid. Just two weeks ago,
Congress
passed a bill sending $21 billion overseas. That is $21 billion that
will be
spent this fiscal year, not spread out over five years. Then, last
week,
Congress passed, on suspension of the rules, a bill proposing to spend
$130
million dollars on water projects--not in Texas, but in foreign
nations!
Meanwhile, the Financial Services Committee, on which I sit, has begun
the
process of reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank, which uses taxpayer
money to
support business projects that cannot attract capital in the market.
Mr.
Speaker, the Export-Import Bank’s biggest beneficiaries are Boeing and
communist China. I find it hard to believe that federal funding for
Fortune 500
companies and China is a higher priority for most Americans than
Medicaid and
food stamps.
2005 Ron Paul 123:8
HR 4241 fails to address the root of the spending problem--the belief that
Congress can solve any problem simply by creating a new federal program
or
agency. However, with the federal government’s unfunded liabilities
projected
to reach as much as $50 trillion by the end of this year, Congress no
longer can
avoid serious efforts to rein in spending. Instead of the
smoke-and-mirrors
approach of HR 4241, Congress should begin the journey toward fiscal
responsibility by declaring a ten percent reduction in real spending,
followed
by a renewed commitment to reduce spending in a manner consistent with
our
obligation to uphold the Constitution and the priorities of the
American people.
This is the only way to make real progress on reducing spending without
cutting
programs for the poor while increasing funding for programs that
benefit foreign
governments and corporate interests.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 124
Ron Paul’s Congressional website
Congressional Record [.PDF]
HON.
RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
December 7, 2005
The Blame Game
2005 Ron Paul 124:1
Our country faces major problems.
No
longer can they remain hidden from the American people.
Most Americans are aware the federal budget is in dismal shape.
Whether it’s Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, or even the
private
pension system, most Americans realize we’re in debt over our heads.
2005 Ron Paul 124:2
The welfare state is unmanageable and severely overextended.
In spite of hopes that supposed reform would restore sound
financing and
provide for all the needs of the people, it’s becoming more apparent
every day
that the entire system of entitlements is in a precarious state and may
well
collapse.
It doesn’t take a
genius to realize that increasing the national debt by over six hundred
billion
dollars per year is not sustainable.
Raising
taxes to make up the shortfall is unacceptable, while continuing to
print the
money needed will only accelerate the erosion of the dollar’s value.
2005 Ron Paul 124:3
Our foreign policy is no less of a threat to us.
Our worldwide military presence and our obsession with remaking
the
entire Middle East frightens a lot of people both here and abroad.
Our role as world policeman and nation builder places undue
burdens on
the American taxpayer.
Our enormous
overseas military expenditures — literally hundreds of billion of
dollars — are
a huge drain on the American economy.
2005 Ron Paul 124:4
All wars invite abuses of civil liberties at home, and the vague
declaration of war
against terrorism is worse than most in this regard.
As our liberties here at home are diminished by the Patriot
Act and national ID card legislation, we succumb to the temptation of
all
empires to neglect habeas corpus, employ torture tactics, and use
secret
imprisonment. These domestic and foreign policy trends reflect a
morally
bankrupt philosophy, devoid of any concern for liberty and the rule of
law.
2005 Ron Paul 124:5
The American people are becoming more aware of the serious crisis this
country
faces.
Their deep concern is
reflected in the current mood in Congress.
The recent debate over Iraq shows the parties are now looking
for someone
to blame for the mess we’re in.
It’s
a high stakes political game.
The
fact that a majority of both parties and their leadership endorsed the
war, and
accept the same approach toward Iran and Syria, does nothing to tone
down the
accusatory nature of the current blame game.
2005 Ron Paul 124:6
The argument in Washington is over tactics, quality of intelligence, war
management, and diplomacy, except for the few who admit that tragic
mistakes
were made and now sincerely want to establish a new course for Iraq.
Thank goodness for those who are willing to reassess and admit
to these
mistakes.
Those of us who have
opposed the war all along welcome them to the cause of peace.
2005 Ron Paul 124:7
If we hope to pursue a more sensible foreign policy, it is imperative that
Congress
face up to its explicit constitutional responsibility to declare war.
It’s easy to condemn the management of a war one endorsed, while
deferring the final decision about whether to deploy troops to the
president.
When Congress accepts and assumes its awesome responsibility to
declare
war, as directed by the Constitution, fewer wars will be fought.
2005 Ron Paul 124:8
Sadly, the acrimonious blame game is motivated by the leadership of both
parties for
the purpose of gaining, or retaining, political power.
It doesn’t approach a true debate over the wisdom, or lack
thereof, of
foreign military interventionism and pre-emptive war.
2005 Ron Paul 124:9
Polls indicate ordinary Americans are becoming uneasy with our prolonged war
in Iraq,
which has no end in sight.
The fact
that no one can define victory precisely, and most American see us
staying in
Iraq for years to come, contribute to the erosion of support for this
war.
Currently 63% of Americans disapprove of the handling of the
war, and 52%
say it’s time to come home.
42%
say we need a foreign policy of minding our own business.
This is very encouraging.
2005 Ron Paul 124:10
The percentages are even higher for the Iraqis.
82% want us to leave, while 67% claim they are less secure with
our
troops there.
Ironically, our
involvement has produced an unusual agreement among the Kurds, Shiites,
and
Sunnis, the three factions at odds with each other.
At the recent 22-member Arab League meeting in Cairo, the
three groups agreed on one issue: they all want foreign troops to leave.
At the end of the meeting an explicit communiqué was
released: “We
demand the withdrawal of foreign forces in accordance with a timetable,
and the
establishment of a national and immediate program for rebuilding the
armed
forces… that will allow them to guard Iraq’s borders and get control of
the
security situation.”
Since the
administration is so enamored with democracy, why
not have a national referendum in Iraq to see if the people want us to
leave?
2005 Ron Paul 124:11
After we left Lebanon in the 1980s, the Arab League was instrumental in
brokering an
end to that country’s 15-year civil war.
Its chances of helping to stop the fighting in Iraq are far
better than
depending on the UN, NATO, or the United States.
This
is a regional dispute that we stirred up but cannot
settle.
The Arab League needs to
assume a lot more responsibility for the mess that our invasion has
caused.
We need to get out of the way and let them solve their own
problems.
2005 Ron Paul 124:12
Remember, once we left Lebanon suicide terrorism stopped and peace finally came.
The same could happen in Iraq.
2005 Ron Paul 124:13
Everyone is talking about the downside of us leaving, and the civil war that
might erupt.
Possibly so, but no one knows with certainty what will happen.
There was no downside when we left Vietnam.
But one thing for sure, after a painful decade of killing in the
1960s,
the killing stopped and no more Americans died once we left.
We now trade with Vietnam and enjoy friendly relations with them.
This was achieved through peaceful means, not military force.
The real question is how many more Americans must be sacrificed
for a
policy that is not working?
Are we
going to fight until we go broke and the American people are
impoverished?
Common sense tells us it’s time to reassess the politics of
military
intervention and not just look for someone to blame for falling once
again into
the trap of a military quagmire.
2005 Ron Paul 124:14
The blame game is a political event, designed to avoid the serious
philosophic
debate over our foreign policy of interventionism.
The mistakes made by both parties in dragging us into an
unwise war are obvious, but the effort to blame one group over the
other
confuses the real issue.
Obviously
Congress failed to meet its constitutional obligation regarding war.
Debate over prewar intelligence elicits
charges of errors,
lies, and complicity.
It is now
argued that those who are critical of the outcome in Iraq are just as
much at
fault, since they too accepted flawed intelligence when deciding to
support the
war.
This charge is leveled at
previous administrations, foreign governments, Members of Congress, and
the
United Nations-- all who made the same mistake of blindly accepting the
prewar
intelligence.
Complicity, errors of
judgment, and malice are hardly an excuse for such a serious commitment
as a
pre-emptive war against a non-existent enemy.
2005 Ron Paul 124:15
Both sides accepted the evidence supposedly justifying the war, evidence
that was not
credible.
No weapons of mass
destruction were found.
Iraq had no
military capabilities. Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein were not allies
(remember, we
were allies of both Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden), and Saddam
Hussein
posed no threat whatsoever to the United States or his neighbors.
2005 Ron Paul 124:16
We hear constantly that we must continue the fight in
Iraq, and possibly in Iran and Syria, because, “It’s better to fight
the
terrorists over there than here.”
Merely
repeating this justification, if it is based on a major analytical
error, cannot
make it so.
All evidence shows that
our presence in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and other Muslim countries benefits
al Qaeda
in its recruiting efforts, especially in its search for suicide
terrorists.
This one fact prompts a rare agreement among all religious and
secular
Muslim factions; namely, that the U.S. should leave all Arab lands.
Denying this will not keep terrorists from
attacking us, it
will do the opposite.
2005 Ron Paul 124:17
The fighting and terrorist attacks are happening overseas because of a
publicly
stated al Qaeda policy that they will go for soft targets-- our allies
whose
citizens object to the war like Spain and Italy.
They
will attack Americans who are more exposed in Iraq.
It is a serious error to conclude that “fighting them over
there”
keeps them from fighting us “over here,” or that we’re winning the war
against terrorism.
As long as our
occupation continues, and American forces continue killing Muslims, the
incentive to attack us will grow.
It
shouldn’t be hard to understand that the responsibility for violence in
Iraq--
even violence between Iraqis-- is blamed on our occupation.
It is more accurate to say, “the longer we fight them over there
the
longer we will be threatened over here.”
2005 Ron Paul 124:18
The final rhetorical refuge for those who defend the war, not yet refuted,
is the
dismissive statement that “the world is better off without Saddam
Hussein.”
It implies no one can question anything we have done because of
this
fact.
Instead of an automatic concession
it should be legitimate,
though politically incorrect, to challenge this disarming assumption.
No one has to like or defend Saddam Hussein to point out we
won’t know
whether the world is better off until someone has taken Saddam
Hussein’s
place.
2005 Ron Paul 124:19
This argument was never used to justify removing murderous dictators with
much more
notoriety than Saddam Hussein, such as our ally Stalin; Pol Pot, whom
we helped
get into power; or Mao Tse Tung.
Certainly
the Soviets, with their bloody history and thousands of nuclear weapons
aimed at
us, were many times over a greater threat to us than Saddam Hussein
ever was.
If containment worked with the Soviets and the Chinese, why is
it assumed
without question that deposing Saddam Hussein is obviously and without
question
a better approach for us than containment?
2005 Ron Paul 124:20
The “we’re all better off without Saddam Hussein” cliché doesn’t
address
the question of whether the 2,100 troops killed or the 20,000 wounded
and sick
troops are better off.
We refuse to
acknowledge the hatred generated by the deaths of tens of thousands of
Iraqi
citizens who are written off as collateral damage.
Are the Middle East and Israel better off with the turmoil
our occupation has generated?
Hardly!
Honesty would have us conclude that conditions in the Middle
East are
worse since the war started: the killing never stops, and the cost is
more than
we can bear-- both in lives and limbs lost and dollars spent.
2005 Ron Paul 124:21
In spite of the potential problems that may or may not come with our
withdrawal,
the greater mistake was going in the first place.
We
need to think more about how to avoid these military
encounters, rather than dwelling on the complications that result when
we meddle
in the affairs of others with no moral or legal authority to do so.
We need less blame game and more reflection about the root cause
of our
aggressive foreign policy.
2005 Ron Paul 124:22
By limiting the debate to technical points over intelligence, strategy,
the number
of troops, and how to get out of the mess, we ignore our continued
policy of
sanctions, threats, and intimidation of Iraq’s neighbors, Iran and
Syria.
Even as Congress pretends to argue about how or when we might
come home,
leaders from both parties continue to support the policy of spreading
the war by
precipitating a crisis with these two countries.
2005 Ron Paul 124:23
The likelihood of agreeing about who deliberately or innocently misled
Congress, the
media, and the American people is virtually nil.
Maybe
historians at a later date will sort out the whole
mess.
The debate over tactics and
diplomacy will go on, but that only serves to distract from the
important issue
of policy.
Few today in Congress
are interested in changing from our current accepted policy of
intervention to
one of strategic independence:
No
nation building, no policing the world, no dangerous alliances.
2005 Ron Paul 124:24
But the results of our latest military incursion into a foreign country
should not
be ignored.
Those who dwell on
pragmatic matters should pay close attention to the results so far.
2005 Ron Paul 124:25
Since March 2003 we have seen:
2005 Ron Paul 124:26
Death and destruction; 2,100 Americans killed and nearly 20,000 sick or
wounded, plus
tens of thousands of Iraqis caught in the crossfire;
2005 Ron Paul 124:27
A Shiite theocracy has been planted;
2005 Ron Paul 124:28
A civil war has erupted;
2005 Ron Paul 124:29
Iran’s arch nemesis, Saddam Hussein, has been removed;
2005 Ron Paul 124:30
Osama bin Laden’s arch nemesis, Saddam Hussein, has been removed;
2005 Ron Paul 124:31
Al Qaeda now operates freely in Iraq, enjoying a fertile training field
not
previously available to them;
2005 Ron Paul 124:32
Suicide terrorism, spurred on by our occupation, has significantly increased;
2005 Ron Paul 124:33
Our military industrial complex thrives in Iraq without competitive bids;
2005 Ron Paul 124:34
True national defense and the voluntary army have been undermined;
2005 Ron Paul 124:35
Personal liberty at home is under attack; assaults on free speech and privacy,
national
ID cards, the Patriot Act, National Security letters, and challenges to
habeas
corpus all have been promoted;
2005 Ron Paul 124:36
Values have changed, with more Americans supporting torture and secret prisons;
2005 Ron Paul 124:37
Domestic strife, as recently reflected in arguments over the war on the House
floor, is
on the upswing;
2005 Ron Paul 124:38
Pre-emptive war has been codified and accepted as legitimate and necessary, a bleak
policy
for our future;
2005 Ron Paul 124:39
The Middle East is far more unstable, and oil supplies are less secure, not
more;
2005 Ron Paul 124:40
Historic relics of civilization protected for thousands of years have been lost
in a
flash while oil wells were secured;
2005 Ron Paul 124:41
U.S. credibility in the world has been severely damaged; and
2005 Ron Paul 124:42
The national debt has increased enormously, and our dependence on China has
increased significantly as our federal government borrows more and more
money.
2005 Ron Paul 124:43
How many more years will it take for civilized people to realize that war has no
economic or political value for the people who fight and pay for it?
Wars are always started by governments, and individual soldiers
on each
side are conditioned to take up arms and travel great distances to
shoot and
kill individuals that never meant them harm.
Both sides drive their people into an hysterical frenzy to
overcome their
natural instinct to live and let live.
False
patriotism is used to embarrass the good-hearted into succumbing to the
wishes
of the financial and other special interests who agitate for war.
2005 Ron Paul 124:44
War reflects the weakness of a civilization that refuses to offer peace as
an
alternative.
2005 Ron Paul 124:45
This does not mean we should isolate ourselves from the world.
On the contrary, we need more rather than less interaction with
our world
neighbors.
We should encourage
travel, foreign commerce, friendship, and exchange of ideas-- this
would far
surpass our misplaced effort to make the world like us through armed
force.
And this can be achieved without increasing the power of the
state or
accepting the notion that some world government is needed to enforce
the rules
of exchange.
Governments should
just get out of the way and let individuals make their own decisions
about how
they want to relate to the world.
2005 Ron Paul 124:46
Defending the country against aggression is a very limited and proper function of
government.
Our military
involvement in the world over the past 60 years has not met this test,
and
we’re paying the price for it.
2005 Ron Paul 124:47
A policy that endorses peace over war, trade over
sanctions, courtesy over arrogance, and liberty over coercion is in the
tradition of the American Constitution and American idealism.
It deserves consideration.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 125
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Terrorism Insurance Program
7 December 2005
2005 Ron Paul 125:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, 4 years ago, when the Congress considered the bill creating the
terrorism insurance program, I urged my colleagues
to reject it. One of the reasons I opposed
the bill was my concern that, contrary
to the claims of the bill’s supporters, terrorism
insurance would not be allowed to sunset after
3 years. As I said then:
2005 Ron Paul 125:2
The drafters of H.R. 3210 claim that this creates a “temporary” government program.
However, Mr. Speaker, what happens in 3
years if industry lobbyists come to Capitol
Hill to explain that there is still a need for
this program because of the continuing
threat of terrorist attacks. Does anyone seriously
believe that Congress will refuse to reauthorize
this “temporary” insurance program
or provide some other form of taxpayer
help to the insurance industry? I would like
to remind my colleagues that the Federal
budget is full of expenditures for long-lasting
programs that were originally intended to be
“temporary.”
2005 Ron Paul 125:3
I am disappointed to be proven correct. I am also skeptical that, having renewed the program
once, Congress will ever allow it to expire,
regardless of the recommendations made
by the commission created by this bill.
2005 Ron Paul 125:4
As Congress considers extending this program, I renew my opposition to it for substantially
the same reasons I stated 4 years ago.
However, I do have a suggestion on how to
improve the program. Since one claimed problem
with allowing the private market to provide
terrorism insurance is the difficulty of quantifying
the risk of an attack, the taxpayers’ liability
under the terrorism reinsurance program
should be reduced for an attack occurring
when the country is under orange or red alert.
After all, because the point of the alert system
is to let Americans know when there is an increased
likelihood of an attack it is reasonable
to expect insurance companies to demand
that their clients take extra precautionary
measures during periods of high alert. Reducing
taxpayer subsidies will provide an incentive
to ensure private parties take every possible
precaution to minimize the potential damage
from possible terrorists attack.
2005 Ron Paul 125:5
While this bill does contain some provisions making it more favorable to taxpayers than the
original program, my fundamental objections
to the program remain the same as 4 years
ago. Therefore, I am attaching my statement
regarding H.R. 3210, which created the terrorist
insurance program in the 107th Congress:
2005 Ron Paul 125:6
Mr. Speaker, no one doubts that the government has a role to play in compensating
American citizens who are victimized by terrorist
attacks. However, Congress should not
lose sight of fundamental economic and constitutional
principles when considering how
best to provide the victims of terrorist attacks
just compensation. I am afraid that H.R. 3210,
the Terrorism Risk Protection Act, violates
several of those principles and therefore passage
of this bill is not in the best interests of
the American people.
2005 Ron Paul 125:7
Under H.R. 3210, taxpayers are responsible for paying 90 percent of the costs of a terrorist
incident when the total cost of that incident exceeds
a certain threshold. While insurance
companies technically are responsible under
the bill for paying back monies received from
the Treasury, the administrator of this program
may defer repayment of the majority of the
subsidy in order to “avoid the likely insolvency
of the commercial insurer,” or avoid “unreasonable
economic disruption and market instability.”
This language may cause administrators
to defer indefinitely the repayment of the
loans, thus causing taxpayers to permanently
bear the loss. This scenario is especially likely
when one considers that “avoid . . . likely insolvency,
unreasonable economic disruption,
and market instability” are highly subjective
standards, and that any administrator who attempts
to enforce a strict repayment schedule
likely will come under heavy political pressure
to be more “flexible” in collecting debts owed
to the taxpayers.
2005 Ron Paul 125:8
The drafters of H.R. 3210 claim that this creates a “temporary” government program.
However, Mr. Speaker, what happens in 3
years if industry lobbyists come to Capitol Hill
to explain that there is still a need for this program
because of the continuing threat of terrorist
attacks. Does anyone seriously believe
that Congress will refuse to reauthorize this
“temporary” insurance program or provide
some other form of taxpayer help to the insurance
industry? I would like to remind my colleagues
that the Federal budget is full of expenditures
for long-lasting programs that were
originally intended to be “temporary.”
2005 Ron Paul 125:9
H.R. 3210 compounds the danger to taxpayers because of what economists call the
“moral hazard” problem. A moral hazard is
created when individuals have the costs incurred
from a risky action subsidized by a
third party. In such a case individuals may engage
in unnecessary risks or fail to take steps
to minimize their risks. After all, if a third party
will bear the costs of negative consequences
of risky behavior, why should individuals invest
their resources in avoiding or minimizing risk?
2005 Ron Paul 125:10
While no one can plan for terrorist attacks, individuals and businesses can take steps to
enhance security. For example, I think we
would all agree that industrial plants in the
United States enjoy reasonably good security.
They are protected not by the local police, but
by owners putting up barbed wire fences, hiring
guards with guns, and requiring identification
cards to enter. One reason private firms
put these security measures in place is because
insurance companies provide them with
incentives, in the form of lower premiums, to
adopt security measures. H.R. 3210 contains
no incentives for this private activity. The bill
does not even recognize the important role insurance
plays in providing incentives to minimize
risks. By removing an incentive for private
parties to avoid or at least mitigate the
damage from a future terrorist attack, the government
inadvertently increases the damage
that will be inflicted by future attacks.
2005 Ron Paul 125:11
Instead of forcing taxpayers to subsidize the costs of terrorism insurance, Congress should
consider creating a tax credit or deduction for
premiums paid for terrorism insurance, as well
as a deduction for claims and other costs
borne by the insurance industry connected
with offering terrorism insurance. A tax credit
approach reduces government’s control over
the insurance market. Furthermore, since a
tax credit approach encourages people to devote
more of their own resources to terrorism
insurance, the moral hazard problems associated
with federally funded insurance is avoided.
2005 Ron Paul 125:12
The version of H.R. 3210 passed by the Financial Services committee took a good first
step in this direction by repealing the tax penalty
which prevents insurance companies from
properly reserving funds for human-created
catastrophes. I am disappointed that this sensible
provision was removed from the final bill.
Instead, H.R. 3210 instructs the Treasury Department
to study the benefits of allowing insurers
to establish tax-free reserves to cover
losses from terrorist events. The perceived
need to study the wisdom of cutting taxes
while expanding the federal government without
hesitation demonstrates much that is
wrong with Washington.
2005 Ron Paul 125:13
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3210 may reduce the risk to insurance companies from
future losses, but it increases the costs incurred
by American taxpayer. More significantly,
by ignoring the moral hazard problem
this bill may have the unintended consequence
of increasing the losses suffered in
any future terrorist attacks. Therefore, passage
of this bill is not in the long-term interests
of the American people.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 126
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Pension Protection Act
15 December 2005
2005 Ron Paul 126:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, while H.R. 2830, the Pension Protection Act of 2005, is not perfect,
it does decrease the risk that employees
will be deprived of pension benefits they were
promised as part of their employment contracts.
H.R. 2830 also decreases the likelihood
that American taxpayers will be forced to bailout
private pensions, and reduces the tax burden
on American workers to provide them with
greater incentives and opportunities to save
for their own retirements. Therefore, I will vote
for this bill on final passage.
2005 Ron Paul 126:2
However, I oppose this rule, because I do not like the process under which this bill is
being brought to the floor. The rule before us
today does not allow any member to offer, or
vote on, amendments that may improve this
bill. In particular, I was hoping to vote on an
amendment protecting United Airline retirees
from having their pension benefits reduced or
terminated even though United expects to
make $1 billion in profit within 1 year of being
discharged from bankruptcy. The Senate
version of the bill does address same problems
of the airline industry. However it fails to
protect United Airlines retirees. The Federal
Government should not facilitate a large companies
getting out of its contractual obligations
to their retired workers. I, therefore, urge my
colleagues to protect the pensions of retired
United Airline employees by rejecting this rule
and voting for a rule that allows us to consider
adding, language helping the United Airline retirees
to the bill. If this rule does pass, I urge
my colleagues to move the process foreword
by voting for the bill and working to add language
protecting the United Airline pilots to
the bill when it goes to conference with the
Senate.
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 127
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Border Protection Antiterrorism, And Illegal Immigration Control Act Of 2005
16 December 2005
SPEECH OF
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Friday, December 16, 2005
The House in Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union had under
consideration the bill (H.R. 4437) to amend
the Immigration and Nationality Act to
strengthen enforcement of the immigration
laws, to enhance border security, and for
other purposes:
2005 Ron Paul 127:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise with serious concerns over this legislation, which although
it does address some illegal immigration problems
is woefully weak on real substance. I
fear that should this bill become law as is, six
months or even a year down the road we will
see no substantial improvement on the critical
issue of deporting illegal aliens and protecting
our borders.
2005 Ron Paul 127:2
Some measures in the bill sound good, but are in effect superfluous. Do we need new
legislation requiring the Department of Homeland
Security to achieve “operational control of
the borders”? Shouldn’t the federal government
already have “operational control of the
borders”?
2005 Ron Paul 127:3
Here is a road map for real immigration reform. First we need better enforcement of the
laws we’ve got — which plainly call for illegal
immigrants to be arrested and deported and
for our borders to be secure. These things are
already law, but the executive branch over the
past decades has failed to enforce them. Congress
can pass any law it wants, but unless
federal agencies enforce those laws they are
meaningless.
2005 Ron Paul 127:4
Second we need to eliminate the two main magnets attracting illegal immigrants to illegally
enter the country, the welfare magnet
and the citizenship magnet. Failure to address
these in an immigration bill raises questions
about achieving real results. That is why I introduced
three amendments to this bill, in the
hopes that we can finally do something about
the problem of illegal immigration. I introduced
an amendment to end so-called “birth-right
citizenship,” whereby anyone born on U.S. soil
is automatically an American citizen. I introduced
an amendment to end the practice of
providing U.S. Social Security payments to
non-U.S. citizens. And finally I introduced an
amendment to prohibit illegal aliens from receiving
food stamps, student loans, or other
federally-provided assistance. Unfortunately,
none of my amendments were even allowed
to reach the Floor for a vote.
2005 Ron Paul 127:5
There are some elements of this new bill to be applauded. Measures to require detention
of and expedited removal of aliens, for example,
are a good step. Also to be applauded is
the requirement for an additional 250 inspectors
at U.S. ports of entry each year from
2007 through 2010, although this is unfortunately
subject to the availability of funds. But
overall this bill is a weak substitute for real immigration
and border reform. As the Federation
for American Immigration Reform (FAIR)
says, H.R. 4437 “treats some of the symptoms,
it does not, in fact, do enough to actually
cure the illness.”
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 128
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Foreign Policy
17 December 2005
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.
DENT). Under the Speaker’s announced
policy of January 4, 2005, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. PAUL) is recognized
for 60 minutes as the designee of
the majority leader.
2005 Ron Paul 128:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, our country faces major problems. No longer can
they remain hidden from the American
people. Most Americans are aware the
Federal budget is in dismal shape.
Whether it is Social Security, Medicare,
Medicaid, or even the private pension
system, most Americans realize
we are in debt over our heads. The welfare
state is unmanageable and severely
overextended.
2005 Ron Paul 128:2
In spite of hopes that supposed reform would restore sound financing and
provide for all the needs of the people,
it is becoming more apparent every day
that the entire system of entitlements
is in a precarious state and may well
collapse. It does not take a genius to
realize that increasing the national
debt by over $600 billion per year is not
sustainable. Raising taxes to make up
the shortfall is unacceptable, while
continuing to print the money needed
will only accelerate the erosion of the
dollar’s value.
2005 Ron Paul 128:3
Our foreign policy is no less of a threat to us. Our worldwide military
presence and our obsession with remaking
the entire Middle East frighten
a lot of people both here and abroad.
Our role as world policeman and nation-
builder places undue burdens on
the American taxpayer. Our enormous
overseas military expenditures, literally
hundreds of billions of dollars,
are a huge drain on the American economy.
2005 Ron Paul 128:4
All wars invite abuses of civil liberties at home, and this vague declaration
of war against terrorism is worse
than most in this regard. As our liberties
here at home are diminished by
the PATRIOT Act and national ID card
legislation, we succumb to the temptation
of all empires to spy on American
citizens, neglect habeas corpus, employ
torture tactics, and use secret
imprisonments. These domestic and
foreign policy trends reflect a morally
bankrupt philosophy devoid of any concern
for liberty and the rule of law.
2005 Ron Paul 128:5
The American people are becoming more aware of the serious crisis this
country faces. Their deep concern is reflected
in the current mood in Congress.
The recent debate over Iraq
shows the parties are now looking for
someone to blame for the mess we are
in. It is a high-stakes political game.
The fact that a majority of both parties
and their leadership endorsed the
war and accept the same approach towards
Syria and Iran does nothing to
tone down the accusatory nature of the
current blame game.
2005 Ron Paul 128:6
The argument in Washington is over tactics, quality of intelligence, war
management, and diplomacy, except
for the few who admit that tragic mistakes
were made and now sincerely
want to establish a new course for Iraq.
Thank goodness for those who are willing
to reassess and admit to those mistakes.
Those of us who have opposed
the war all along welcome them to the
cause of peace.
2005 Ron Paul 128:7
If we hope to pursue a more sensible foreign policy, it is imperative that
Congress face up to its explicit constitutional
responsibility to declare
war. It is easy to condemn the management
of a war, one endorsed, while deferring
to the final decision about
whether to deploy the troops to the
President. When Congress accepts and
assumes its awesome responsibility to
declare or not declare war as directed
by the Constitution, fewer wars will be
fought.
2005 Ron Paul 128:8
Sadly, the acrimonious blame game is motivated by the leadership of both
parties for the purpose of gaining or retaining
political power. It does not approach
a true debate over the wisdom
or lack thereof of foreign military
interventionism and preemptive war.
2005 Ron Paul 128:9
Polls indicate ordinary Americans are becoming uneasy with our prolonged
war in Iraq which has no end in
sight. The fact that no one can define
victory precisely, and most Americans
see us staying in Iraq for years to
come, contributes to the erosion of
support for this war. Currently, 63 percent
of Americans disapprove of the
handling of the war, and 52 percent say
it is time to come home. Forty-two
percent say we need a foreign policy of
minding our own business. This is very
encouraging. The percentages are even
higher for the Iraqis. Eighty-two percent
want us to leave, and 67 percent
claim they are less secure with our
troops there.
2005 Ron Paul 128:10
Ironically, our involvement has produced an unusual agreement among the
Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis, the three
factions at odds with each other. At
the recent 22-member Arab League
meeting in Cairo, the three groups
agreed on one issue. They all want foreign
troops to leave. At the end of the
meeting, an explicit communique was
released: “We demand the withdrawal
of foreign forces in accordance with a
timetable and the establishment of a
national and immediate program for
rebuilding the armed forces that will
allow them to guard Iraq’s borders and
get control of the security situation.”
2005 Ron Paul 128:11
Since the administration is so enamored of democracy, why not have a national
referendum in Iraq to see if the
people want us to leave? After we left
Lebanon in the 1980s, the Arab League
was instrumental in brokering an end
to that country’s 15-year civil war. Its
chances of helping to stop the fighting
in Iraq are far better than depending
on the United Nations, NATO, or the
United States.
2005 Ron Paul 128:12
This is a regional dispute that we stirred up, but cannot settle. The Arab
League needs to assume a lot more responsibility
for the mess that our invasion
has caused. We need to get out of
the way and let them solve their own
problems. Remember, once we left Lebanon,
suicide terrorism stopped and
peace finally came. The same could
happen in Iraq.
2005 Ron Paul 128:13
Everyone is talking about the downside of us leaving and the civil war that
might erupt. Possibly so. But no one
knows with certainty what will happen.
There was no downside when we
left Vietnam. But one thing for sure,
after a painful decade of the 1960s, the
killing stopped and no more Americans
died once we left. We now trade with
Vietnam and enjoy friendly relations
with them. This was achieved through
peaceful means, not military force.
2005 Ron Paul 128:14
The real question is how many more Americans must be sacrificed for a policy
that is not working. Are we going
to fight until we go broke and the
American people are impoverished?
Common sense tells us it is time to reassess
the politics of military intervention
and not just look for someone to
blame for falling once again into the
trap of a military quagmire.
2005 Ron Paul 128:15
The blame game is a political event designed to avoid the serious philosophic
debate over our foreign policy of
interventionism. The mistakes made
by both parties in dragging us into an
unwise war are obvious, but the effort
to blame one group over the other confuses
the real issue. Obviously, Congress
failed to meet its constitutional
obligation regarding war. Debate over
prewar intelligence elicits charges of
errors, lies, and complicity.
2005 Ron Paul 128:16
It is argued that those who are now critical of the outcome are just as
much at fault since they too accepted
flawed intelligence when in deciding to
support the war. This charge is leveled
at previous administrations, foreign
governments, Members of Congress,
and the United Nations, all who made
the same mistake of blindly accepting
the pre-war intelligence.
2005 Ron Paul 128:17
But complicity, errors of judgment, and malice are hardly an excuse for
such a serious commitment as a preemptive
war against a nonexistent
enemy. Both sides accepted the evidence
supposedly justifying the war,
evidence that was not credible. No
weapons of mass destruction were
found. Iraq had no military capabilities.
Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein
were not allies. Remember, we were
once allies of both Saddam Hussein and
Osama bin Laden. And Saddam Hussein
posed no threat whatsoever to the
United States or his neighbors.
2005 Ron Paul 128:18
We hear constantly that we must continue the fight in Iraq and possibly
in Iran and Syria because it is better to
fight the terrorists over there than
here. Merely repeating this justification,
if it is based on a major analytical
error, cannot make it so. All evidence
shows that our presence in Iraq,
Saudi Arabia, and other Muslim countries
benefits al Qaeda in its recruiting
efforts, especially in its search for suicide
terrorists.
2005 Ron Paul 128:19
This one fact prompts a rare agreement among all religious and secular
Muslim factions, namely, that the U.S.
should leave all Arab lands. Denying
this will not keep terrorists from attacking
us. It will do the opposite. The
fighting and terrorist attacks are happening
overseas because of a publicly
stated al Qaeda policy that they will go
for soft targets: our allies, whose citizens
object to the war, like Spain and
Italy. They will attack Americans who
are more exposed in Iraq.
2005 Ron Paul 128:20
It is a serious error to conclude that fighting them over there keeps them
from fighting us over here or that we
are winning the war against terrorism.
As long as our occupation continues
and American forces continue killing
Muslims, the incentive to attack us
will grow. It should not be hard to understand
that the responsibility for violence
in Iraq, even violence between
Iraqis, is blamed on our occupation. It
is more accurate to say the longer we
fight them over there, the longer we
will be threatened over here.
2005 Ron Paul 128:21
The final rhetorical refuge for those who defend the war not yet refuted is
the dismissive statement that the
world is better off without Saddam
Hussein. It implies no one can question
anything we have done because of this
fact. Instead of an automatic concession,
it should be legitimate, even if
politically incorrect, to challenge this
disarming assumption. No one has to
like or defend Saddam Hussein to point
out, we will not know whether the
world is better off until we know exactly
what will take Saddam Hussein’s
place. This argument was never used to
justify removing murderous dictators
with much more notoriety than Saddam
Hussein such as our ally Stalin,
Pol Pot whom we helped to get into
power, or Mao Tse Tung. Certainly the
Soviets, with their bloody history and
thousands of nuclear weapons aimed at
us, were many times over greater a
threat to us than Saddam Hussein ever
was. If containment worked with the
Soviets and the Chinese, why is it assumed
without question that deposing
Saddam Hussein is obviously and without
question a better approach for us
than containment?
2005 Ron Paul 128:22
The “we are all better off without Saddam Hussein” cliche does not address
the question of whether the 2,100-
plus American troops killed or the
20,000 wounded and sick troops are better
off. We refuse to acknowledge the
hatred generated by the deaths of tens
of thousands of Iraqi citizens who are
written off as collateral damage. Are
the Middle East and Israel better off
with the turmoil our occupation has
generated? Hardly. Honesty would have
us conclude that conditions in the Middle
East are worse since the war started.
The killing never stops, and the
cost is more than we can bear both in
lives and limbs lost and dollars spent.
In spite of the potential problems that
may or may not come from our withdrawal,
the greater mistake was going
in in the first place.
2005 Ron Paul 128:23
We need to think more about how to avoid these military encounters rather
than dwelling on the complications
that result when we meddle in the affairs
of others with no moral or legal
authority to do so. We need less blame
game and more reflection about the
root cause of our aggressive foreign
policy. By limiting the debate to technical
points over intelligence, strategy,
the number of troops and how to get
out of the mess, we ignore our continued
policy of sanctions, threats and intimidation
of Iraqi neighbors, Iran and
Syria. Even as Congress pretends to
argue about how or when we might
come home, leaders from both parties
continue to support the policy of
spreading the war by precipitating a
crisis with these two countries. The
likelihood of agreeing about who deliberately
or innocently misled Congress,
the media and the American people is
virtually nil. Maybe historians at a
later date will sort out the whole mess.
The debate over tactics and diplomacy
will go on, but that only serves to distract
from the important issue of policy.
Few today in Congress are interested
in changing from our current accepted
policy of intervention to one of
strategic independence. No nation
building, no policing the world, no dangerous
alliances. But the result of this
latest military incursion into a foreign
country should not be ignored. Those
who dwell on pragmatic matters should
pay close attention to the result so far.
2005 Ron Paul 128:24
Since March 2003, we have seen death and destruction, 2,100-plus Americans
killed and nearly 20,000 sick and
wounded, plus tens of thousands of
Iraqis caught in the crossfire. A Shiite
theocracy has been planted. A civil war
has erupted. Iran’s arch nemesis, Saddam
Hussein, has been removed. Osama
bin Laden’s arch nemesis, Saddam Hussein,
has been removed. Al Qaeda now
operates freely in Iraq, enjoying a fertile
training field not previously available
to them. Suicide terrorism spurred
on by our occupation has significantly
increased. Our military-industrial complex
thrives in Iraq without competitive
bids. True national defense and the
voluntary Army have been undermined.
2005 Ron Paul 128:25
Personal liberty at home is under attack; assaults on free speech and privacy,
national ID cards, the PATRIOT
Act, National Security Letters, and
challenges to habeas corpus all have
been promoted.
2005 Ron Paul 128:26
Values have changed, with more Americans supporting torture and secret
prisons. Domestic strife, as recently
reflected in arguments over the
war on the House floor, is on the upswing.
Preemptive war has been codified
and accepted as legitimate and
necessary, a bleak policy for our future.
2005 Ron Paul 128:27
The Middle East is far more unstable, and oil supplies are less secure, not
more. Historic relics of civilization
protected for thousands of years were
lost in the flash while oil wells were secured.
U.S. credibility in the world has
been severely damaged, and the national
debt has increased enormously,
and our dependence on China has increased
significantly as our Federal
Government borrows more and more
money.
2005 Ron Paul 128:28
How many more years will it take for civilized people to realize that war has
no economic or political value for the
people who fight and pay for it? Wars
are always started by governments,
and individual soldiers on each side are
conditioned to take up arms and travel
great distances to shoot and kill individuals
that never meant them harm.
Both sides drive their people into a
hysterical frenzy to overcome the natural
instinct to live and let live. False
patriotism is used to embarrass the
good-hearted into succumbing to the
wishes of the financial and other special
interests who agitate for war. War
reflects the weakness of a civilization
that refuses to offer peace as an alternative.
2005 Ron Paul 128:29
This does not mean we should isolate ourselves from the world. On the contrary,
we need more rather than less
interaction with our world neighbors.
We should encourage travel, foreign
commerce, friendship and exchange of
ideas. This would far surpass our misplaced
effort to make the world like us
through armed force. This can be
achieved without increasing the power
of the state or accepting the notion
that some world government is needed
to enforce the rules of exchange. Governments
should get out of the way and
let the individuals make their own decisions
about how they want to relate
to the world.
2005 Ron Paul 128:30
Defending our country against aggression is a very limited and proper
function of government. Our military
involvement in the world over the past
60 years has not met this test, and we
are paying the price.
2005 Ron Paul 128:31
A policy that endorses peace over war, trade over sanctions, courtesy
over arrogance and liberty over coercion
is in the tradition of the American
Constitution and American idealism. It
deserves consideration.