2002 Ron Paul Chapter 1
Congressman Ron Paul
January 24, 2002
January 24, 2002, in the House of Representatives
The Case for Defending America

2002 Ron Paul 1:1
As we begin this new legislative session, we cannot avoid reflecting on this past year. All Americans will remember the moment and place when tragedy hit us on September 11 th . We also all know that a good philosophy to follow is to turn adversity into something positive, if at all possible. Although we have suffered for years from a flawed foreign policy and were already in a recession before the attacks, the severity of these events has forced many of us to reassess our foreign and domestic policies. Hopefully, positive changes will come of this.

2002 Ron Paul 1:2
It is just as well that the economy was already in recession for six months prior to the September attacks. Otherwise, the temptation would have been too great to blame the attacks for the weak economy rather than look for the government policies responsible for the recession. Terrorist attacks alone, no matter how disruptive, could never be the sole source of a significant economic downturn.

2002 Ron Paul 1:3
A major debate over foreign policy has naturally resulted from this crisis. Dealing with the shortcomings of our policies of the past is essential. We were spending $40 billion a year on intelligence gathering that, we must admit, failed. This tells us a problem exists. There are shortcomings with our $320 billion DOD budget that did not provide the protection Americans expect.

2002 Ron Paul 1:4
Obviously, a proper response to the terrorists requires sound judgment in order to prevent further suffering of the innocent or foolishly bring about a worldwide conflict.

2002 Ron Paul 1:5
One of the key responsibilities of the federal government in providing for national defense is protection of liberty here at home. Unwisely responding to the attacks could undermine our national defense while threatening our liberties. What we have done so far since last September is not very reassuring. What we do here in the Congress in the coming months may well determine the survival of our republic. Fear and insecurity must not drive our policies. Sacrificing personal liberty should never be an option.

2002 Ron Paul 1:6
Involving ourselves in every complex conflict around the globe hardly enhances our national security. The special interests that were already lined up at the public trough should not be permitted to use the ongoing crisis as an opportunity to demand even more benefits. Let us all remember why the U.S. Congress was established, what our responsibilities are and what our oath of office means.

2002 Ron Paul 1:7
It’s been reported that since the 9-11 attacks, big-government answers have gained in popularity, and people, fearful for their security, have looked to the federal government for help. Polls indicate that acceptance of government solutions to our problems is at its highest level in decades. That may be true to some degree, or it may merely reflect the sentiments of the moment, or even the way the questions were asked. Only time will tell. Since the welfare state is no more viable in the long run than a communist or fascist state, most Americans will eventually realize the fallacy of depending on the government for economic security and know that personal liberty should not be sacrificed out of fear.

2002 Ron Paul 1:8
Even with this massive rush to embrace all the bailouts offered up by Washington, a growing number of Americans are rightfully offended by the enormity of it all and annoyed that powerful and wealthy special interests seem to be getting the bulk of the benefits. In one area, though, a very healthy reaction has occurred. Almost all Americans- especially those still flying commercial airlines- now know that they have a personal responsibility to react to any threat on any flight. Passengers have responded magnificently. Most people recognize that armed citizens best protect our homes, because it is impossible for the police to be everywhere and prevent crimes from happening. A homeowner’s ability to defend himself serves as a strong deterrent.

2002 Ron Paul 1:9
Our government’s ridiculous policy regarding airline safety and prohibiting guns on airplanes had indoctrinated us all- pilots, passengers and airline owners- to believe we should never resist hijackers. This set up the perfect conditions for terrorists to take over domestic flights, just as they did on September 11 th .

2002 Ron Paul 1:10
The people of this country now realize, more than ever, their own responsibility for personal self-defense, using guns if necessary. The anti-gun fanatics have been very quiet since 9-11, and more Americans are ready to assume responsibility for their own safety than ever before. This is all good.

2002 Ron Paul 1:11
But sadly, the Congress went in the opposite direction in providing safety on commercial flights. Pilots are not carrying guns, and security has been socialized- in spite of the fact that security procedures authorized by the FAA prior to 9-11 were not compromised. The problem did not come from failure to follow FAA rules; the problem resulted from precisely following FAA rules. No wonder so many Americans are wisely assuming they’d better be ready to protect themselves when necessary!

2002 Ron Paul 1:12
This attitude is healthy, practical and legal under the Constitution. Unfortunately, too many people who have come to this conclusion still cling to the notion that economic security is a responsibility of the U.S. government. That’s the reason we have a $2 trillion annual budget and a growing $6 trillion national debt.

2002 Ron Paul 1:13
Another positive result of last year’s attacks was the uniting of many Americans in an effort to deal with the problems the country faced. This applies more to the people who reflect true patriotism than it does to some of the politicians and special interests who took advantage of the situation. If this renewed energy and sense of unity could be channeled correctly, much good could come of it. If misdirected, actual harm will result.

2002 Ron Paul 1:14
I give less credit to the Washington politicians who sing the songs of patriotism, but use the crisis to pursue their endless personal goal to gain more political power. But the greatest condemnation should be directed toward the special-interest lobbyists who finance the politicians in order to secure their power, while using patriotism as a cover and the crisis as a golden opportunity. Indeed, those who are using the crisis to promote their own agenda are many.

2002 Ron Paul 1:15
There is no doubt, as many have pointed out, our country changed dramatically with the horror that hit us on 9-11. The changes obviously are a result of something other than the tragic loss of over 3,900 people. We kill that many people every month on our government highways. We lost 60,000 young people in the Vietnam War, yet the sense of fear in our country then was not the same as it is today. The major difference is that last year’s attacks made us feel vulnerable, because it was clear that our federal government had failed in its responsibility to provide defense against such an assault. And the anthrax scare certainly didn’t help to diminish that fear.

2002 Ron Paul 1:16
Giving up our civil liberties has made us feel even less safe from our own government’s intrusion in our lives. The two seem to be in conflict. How can we be safer from outside threats while making ourselves more exposed to our own government’s threat to our liberty?

2002 Ron Paul 1:17
The most significant and dangerous result of last year’s attacks has been the bold expansion of the federal police state and our enhanced international role as the world’s policeman.

2002 Ron Paul 1:18
Although most of the legislation pushing the enhanced domestic and international role for our government passed by huge majorities, I’m convinced that the people’s support for much of it is less enthusiastic than Washington politicians believe. As time progresses, the full impact of Homeland Security, and the unintended consequences of our growing overseas commitments, will become apparent. And a large majority of Americans will appropriately ask, “Why did the Congress do it?”

2002 Ron Paul 1:19
Unless we precisely understand the proper role of government in a free society, our problems will not be solved without sacrificing liberty. The wonderful thing is that our problems can be easily solved when protecting individual liberty becomes our goal, rather than the erroneous assumption that solutions must always be in conflict with liberty and that sacrificing some liberty is to be expected during trying times. This is not necessary.

2002 Ron Paul 1:20
Our Attorney General established a standard for disloyalty to the U.S. government by claiming that those who talk of “lost liberty” serve to “erode our national unity” and “give ammunition to America’s enemies” and “only aid terrorists.”

2002 Ron Paul 1:21
The dangerous assumption is that, in the eyes of our top law-enforcement official, perceived disloyalty or even criticism of the government is approximating an act of terrorism. The grand irony is that this criticism is being directed toward those who, heaven forbid, are expressing concern for losing our cherished liberties here at home. This, of course, is what the whole war on terrorism is supposed to be about- protecting liberty, and that includes the right of free expression.

2002 Ron Paul 1:22
Our government leaders have threatened foreign countries by claiming that if they “are not with us, they are against us,” which leaves no room for the neutrality that has been practiced by some nations for centuries. This position could easily result in perpetual conflicts with dozens of nations around the world.

2002 Ron Paul 1:23
Could it ever come to a point where those who dissent at home against our military operations overseas will be considered too sympathetic to the enemy? The Attorney General’s comments suggest just that, and it has happened here in our past. We indeed live in dangerous times. We are unable to guarantee protection from outside threats and may be approaching a time when our own government poses a threat to our liberties.

2002 Ron Paul 1:24
No matter how sincere and well motivated, the effort to fight terrorism and provide for homeland security, if ill advised, will result neither in vanquishing terrorism nor in preserving our liberties. I am fearful that, here in Washington, there’s little understanding of the real cause of the terrorist attacks on us, little remembrance of the grand purpose of the American experiment with liberty, or even how our Constitution was written to strictly limit government officials in all that they do.

2002 Ron Paul 1:25
The military operation against the Taliban has gone well. The Taliban has been removed from power, and our government, with the help of the UN, is well along the way toward establishing a new Afghan government. We weren’t supposed to be in the business of nation building, but I guess 9-11 changed all that. The one problem is that the actual number of al-Qaida members captured or killed is uncertain. Also the number of Taliban officials that had any direct contact or knowledge of the attacks on us is purely speculative. Since this war is carried out in secrecy, we’ll probably not know the details of what went on for years to come.

2002 Ron Paul 1:26
I wonder how many civilians have been killed so far. I know a lot of Members could care less, remembering innocent American civilians who were slaughtered in New York and Washington. But a policy that shows no concern for the innocent will magnify our problems rather than lessen them. The hard part to understand in all of this is that Saudi Arabia probably had more to do with these attacks than did Afghanistan.

2002 Ron Paul 1:27
But then again, who wants to offend our oil partners?

2002 Ron Paul 1:28
Our sterile approach to the bombing, with minimal loss of American life is to be commended, but it may generate outrage toward us by this lopsided killing of persons totally unaware of the events of September 11 th .

2002 Ron Paul 1:29
Our President wisely has not been anxious to send in large numbers of occupying forces into Afghanistan. This also guarantees chaos among the warring tribal factions. The odds of a stable Afghan government evolving out of this mess are remote . The odds of our investing large sums of money to buy support for years to come are great .

2002 Ron Paul 1:30
Unfortunately, it has been seen only as an opportunity for Pakistan and India to resume their warring ways, placing us in a dangerous situation. This could easily get out of control, since China will not allow a clear-cut Indian victory over Pakistan. The danger of a nuclear confrontation is real. Even the British have spoken sympathetically about Pakistan’s interests over India. The tragedy is that we have helped both India and Pakistan financially, and, therefore, the American taxpayer has indirectly contributed funds for the weapons on both sides. Our troops in this region are potential targets of either or both countries.

2002 Ron Paul 1:31
Fortunately, due to the many probable repercussions, a swift attack on Iraq now seems less likely. Our surrogate army, organized by the Iraqi National Congress, is now known to be a charade, prompting our administration to stop all funding of this organization. Relying on the Kurds to help remove Hussein defies logic, as the U.S.-funded Turkish army continues its war on the Kurds. There is just no coalition in the Persian Gulf to take on Iraq, and, fortunately, our Secretary of State knows it.

2002 Ron Paul 1:32
Our terrorist enemy is vague and elusive. Our plans to expand our current military operations into many other countries are fraught with great risks- risks of making our problems worse. Not dealing with the people actually responsible for the attacks and ignoring the root causes of the terrorism will needlessly perpetuate and expand a war that will do nothing to enhance the security and safety of the American people.

2002 Ron Paul 1:33
Since Iraq is now less likely to be hit, it looks like another poverty-ridden, rudderless nation, possibly Somalia, will be the next target. No good can come of this process. It will provide more fodder for the radicals’ claim that the war is about America against Islam. Somalia poses no threat to the United States, but bombing Somalia as we have Afghanistan- and Iraq for 12 years- will only incite more hatred toward the U.S. and increase the odds of our someday getting hit again by some frustrated, vengeful, radicalized Muslim.

2002 Ron Paul 1:34
Our presence in the Persian Gulf is not necessary to provide for America’s defense. Our presence in the region makes all Americans more vulnerable to attacks and defending America much more difficult.

2002 Ron Paul 1:35
The real reason for our presence in the Persian Gulf, as well as our eagerness to assist in building a new Afghan government under UN authority, should be apparent to us all.

2002 Ron Paul 1:36
Stewart Eizenstat, Undersecretary of Economics, Business, and Agricultural Affairs for the previous administration, succinctly stated U.S. policy for Afghanistan, testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations “Trade” Subcommittee on October 13, 1997:

2002 Ron Paul 1:37
[One of] “Five main foreign policy interests in the Caspian region [is] continued support for U.S. companies” [and] “the least progress has been made in Afghanistan, where gas and oil pipeline proposals designed to carry central Asian energy to world markets have been delayed indefinitely pending establishment of a broad-based multi-ethnic government.”

2002 Ron Paul 1:38
This was a rather blunt acknowledgment of our intentions.

2002 Ron Paul 1:39
It is apparent that our policy has not changed with this administration. Our new special envoy to Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, was at one time a lobbyist for the Taliban and worked for Unocal- the American oil company seeking rights to build oil and gas pipelines through northern Afghanistan. During his stint as a lobbyist, he urged approval of the Taliban and defended them in the U.S. press. He now, of course, sings a different tune with respect to the Taliban, but I am sure his views on the pipeline by U.S. companies have not changed.

2002 Ron Paul 1:40
Born in Afghanistan, Khalilzad is a controversial figure, to say the least, due to his close relationship with the oil industry and previously with the Taliban. His appointment to the National Security Council very conveniently did not require confirmation by the Senate. Khalilzad also is a close ally of the Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz, in promoting early and swift military action against Iraq.

2002 Ron Paul 1:41
The point being, of course, that it may be good to have a new Afghan government, but the question is whether that is our responsibility and whether we should be doing it under the constraints of our Constitution. There’s a real question of whether it will serve our best interests in the long-term.

2002 Ron Paul 1:42
CIA support for the Shah of Iran for 25 years led to the long-term serious problems with that nation that persist even to this day. Could oil be the reason we have concentrated on bombing Afghanistan while ignoring Saudi Arabia, even though we have never found Osama bin Laden? Obviously, Saudi Arabia is culpable in these terrorist attacks in the United States, and yet little is done about it.

2002 Ron Paul 1:43
There are quite a few unintended consequences that might occur if our worldwide commitment to fighting terrorism is unrestrained.

2002 Ron Paul 1:44
Russia’s interests in the Afghan region are much more intense than Putin would have us believe, and Russia’s active involvement in a spreading regional conflict should be expected.

2002 Ron Paul 1:45
An alliance between Iraq and Iran against the U.S. is a more likely possibility now than ever before. Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri is optimistically working on bringing the two nations together in a military alliance. His hope is that this would be activated if we attacked Iraq. The two nations have already exchanged prisoners of war as a step in that direction.

2002 Ron Paul 1:46
U.S. military planners are making preparations for our troops to stay in Central Asia for a long time. A long time could mean 50 years! We have been in Korea for that long, and have been in Japan and Europe even longer, but the time will come when we will wear out our welcome and have to leave these areas. The Vietnam War met with more resistance, and we left relatively quickly in humiliating defeat. Similarly, episodes of a more minor nature occurred in Somalia and Lebanon.

2002 Ron Paul 1:47
Why look for more of these kinds of problems when it does not serve our interests? Jeopardizing our security violates the spirit of our Constitution and inevitably costs us more than we can afford.

2002 Ron Paul 1:48
Our permanent air bases built in Saudi Arabia are totally unessential to our security, contributed to the turmoil in the Middle East, and they continue to do so.

2002 Ron Paul 1:49
We’re building a giant new air base in Kyrgyzstan, a country once part of the Soviet Union and close to Russia. China, also a neighbor, with whom we eagerly seek a close relationship as a trading partner, will not ignore our military buildup in this region.

2002 Ron Paul 1:50
Islamic fundamentalists may overthrow the current government of Saudi Arabia- a fear that drives her to cooperate openly with the terrorists while flaunting her relationship with the United States. The Wall Street Journal has editorialized that the solution ought to be our forcibly seizing the Saudi Arabian oil fields and replacing the current government with an even more pro-Western government. All along I thought we condemned regimes that took over their neighbors’ oil fields!

2002 Ron Paul 1:51
The editorial, unbelievably explicit, concluded by saying: “Finally, we must be prepared to seize the Saudi oil fields and administer them for the greater good.”  The greater good? I just wonder whose greater good?

2002 Ron Paul 1:52
If the jingoism of the Wall Street Journal prevails, and the warmongers in the Congress and the administration carry the day, we can assume with certainty that these efforts being made will precipitate an uncontrollable breakout of hostilities in the region that could lead to World War III.

2002 Ron Paul 1:53
How a major publication can actually print an article that openly supports such aggression as a serious proposal is difficult to comprehend! Two countries armed with nuclear weapons, on the verge of war in the region, and we’re being urged to dig a deeper hole for ourselves by seizing the Saudi oil fields?

2002 Ron Paul 1:54
Already the presence of our troops in the Muslim holy land of Saudi Arabia has inflamed the hatred drove the terrorists to carry out their tragic acts of 9-11. Pursuing such an aggressive policy would only further undermine our ability to defend the American people and will compound the economic problems we face.

2002 Ron Paul 1:55
Something, anything, regardless of its effectiveness, had to be done, since the American people expected it, and Congress and the Administration willed it. An effort to get the terrorists and their supporters is obviously in order, and hopefully that has been achieved. But a never-ending commitment to end all terrorism in the world, whether it is related to the attack on September 11 th or not, is neither a legitimate nor wise policy.

2002 Ron Paul 1:56
HJ RES 64 gives the President authority to pursue only those guilty of the attack on us- not every terrorist in the entire world. Let there be no doubt: for every terrorist identified, others will see only a freedom fighter .

2002 Ron Paul 1:57
When we aided Osama bin Laden in the 1980s, he was a member of the Mujahidien, and they were the freedom fighters waging a just war against the Soviet Army. A broad definition of terrorism outside the understanding of “those who attack the United States” opens a Pandora’s box in our foreign policy commitments.

2002 Ron Paul 1:58
If we concentrate on searching for all terrorists throughout the world and bombing dozens of countries, but forget to deal with the important contributing factors that drove those who killed our fellow citizens, we will only make ourselves more vulnerable to new attacks.

2002 Ron Paul 1:59
How can we forever fail to address the provocative nature of U.S. taxpayer money being used to suppress and kill Palestinians and ignore the affront to the Islamic people that our military presence on their holy land of Saudi Arabia causes- not to mention the persistent 12 years of bombing Iraq?

2002 Ron Paul 1:60
I’m fearful that an unlimited worldwide war against all terrorism will distract from the serious consideration that must be given to our policy of foreign interventionism, driven by the powerful commercial interests and a desire to promote world government. This is done while ignoring our principle responsibility of protecting national security and liberty here at home.

2002 Ron Paul 1:61
There is a serious problem with a policy that has allowed a successful attack on our homeland. It cannot be written off as a result of irrational yet efficient evildoers who are merely jealous of our success and despise our freedoms.

2002 Ron Paul 1:62
We’ve had enemies throughout our history, but never before have we suffered such an attack that has made us feel so vulnerable. The cause of this crisis is much more profound and requires looking inwardly as well as outwardly at our own policies as well as those of others.

2002 Ron Paul 1:63
The Founders of this country were precise in their beliefs regarding foreign policy. Our Constitution reflects these beliefs, and all of our early presidents endorsed these views. It was not until the 20 th Century that our nation went off to far away places looking for dragons to slay. This past century reflects the new and less-traditional American policy of foreign interventionism. Our economic and military power, a result of our domestic freedoms, has permitted us to survive and even thrive while dangerously expanding our worldwide influence.

2002 Ron Paul 1:64
There’s no historic precedent that such a policy can be continued forever. All empires and great nations throughout history have ended when they stretched their commitments overseas too far and abused their financial system at home. The over-commitment of a country’s military forces when forced with budgetary constraints can only lead to a lower standard of living for its citizens. That has already started to happen here in the United States. Who today is confident the government and our private retirement systems are sound and the benefits guaranteed?

2002 Ron Paul 1:65
The unfortunate complicating factor that all great powers suffer is the buildup of animosity toward the nation currently at the top of the heap, which is aggravated by arrogance and domination over the weaker nations. We are beginning to see this, and the Wall Street Journal editorial clearly symbolizes this arrogance.

2002 Ron Paul 1:66
The traditional American foreign policy of the Founders and our presidents for the first 145 years of our history entailed three points:

2002 Ron Paul 1:67
Friendship with all nations desiring of such

2002 Ron Paul 1:68
As much free trade and travel with those countries as possible

2002 Ron Paul 1:69
Avoiding entangling alliances

2002 Ron Paul 1:70
This is still good advice. The Framers also understood that the important powers for dealing with other countries and the issue of war were to be placed in the hands of the Congress. This principle has essentially been forgotten.

2002 Ron Paul 1:71
The executive branch now has much more power than does the Congress. Congress continues to allow its authority to be transferred to the executive branch, as well as to international agencies, such as the UN, NAFTA, IMF, and the WTO. Through executive orders, our presidents routinely use powers once jealously guarded and held by the Congress.

2002 Ron Paul 1:72
Today, through altering aid and sanctions, we buy and sell our “friendship” with all kinds of threats and bribes in our effort to spread our influence around the world. To most people in Washington, free trade means international managed trade, with subsidies and support for the WTO, where influential corporations can seek sanctions against their competitors. Our alliances, too numerous to count, have committed our dollars and our troops to such an extent that, under today’s circumstances, there’s not a border war or civil disturbance in the world in which we do not have a stake. And more than likely, we have a stake- foreign aid- in both sides of each military conflict.

2002 Ron Paul 1:73
After the demise of our nemesis, the Soviet Union, many believed that we could safely withdraw from some of our worldwide commitments. It was hoped we would start minding our own business, save some money, and reduce the threat to our military personnel. But the opposite has happened. Without any international competition for super-power status, our commitments have grown and spread, so that today we provide better military protection to Taiwan and South Korea and Saudi Arabia than we do for our own cities like New York and Washington.

2002 Ron Paul 1:74
I am certain that national security and defense of our own cities can never be adequately provided unless we reconsider our policy of foreign interventionism.

2002 Ron Paul 1:75
Conventional wisdom in Washington today is that we have no choice but to play the role of the world’s only superpower. Recently, we had to cancel flights of our own Air Force over our cities because of spending constraints, and we rely on foreign AWACS aircraft to patrol our airspace.

2002 Ron Paul 1:76
The American people are not in sync with the assumption that we must commit ourselves endlessly to being the world’s policemen. If we do not wisely step back and reassess our worldwide commitments and our endless entanglements as we march toward world government, economic law will one day force us to do so anyway under undesirable circumstances. In the meantime, we can expect plenty more military confrontations around the world while becoming even more vulnerable to attack by terrorists here at home.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 2

Statement of Congressman Ron Paul
House Financial Services Committee, Capital Markets Subcommittee
Monday, February 4, 2002
Statement before the House Capital Markets Subcommittee

2002 Ron Paul 2:1
Mr. Chairman, the collapse of Enron has so far been the cause of numerous hearings, as well as calls for increased federal control over the financial markets and the accounting profession. For example, legislation has been introduced to force all publicly traded companies to submit to federal audits.

2002 Ron Paul 2:2
I fear that many of my well-meaning colleagues are reacting to media reports portraying Enron as a reckless company whose problems stemmed from a lack of federal oversight. It is a mistake for Congress to view the Enron collapse as a justification for more government regulation. Publicly held corporations already comply with massive amounts of SEC regulations, including the filing of quarterly reports that disclose minute details of assets and liabilities. If these disclosure rules failed to protect Enron investors, will more red tape really solve anything? The real problem with SEC rules is that they give investors a false sense of security, a sense that the government is protecting them from dangerous investments.

2002 Ron Paul 2:3
In truth, investing carries risk, and it is not the role of the federal government to bail out every investor who loses money. In a true free market, investors are responsible for their own decisions, good or bad. This responsibility leads them to vigorously analyze companies before they invest, using independent financial analysts. In our heavily regulated economy, however, investors and analysts equate SEC compliance with reputability. The more we look to the government to protect us from investment mistakes, the less competition there is for truly independent evaluations of investment risk.

2002 Ron Paul 2:4
The SEC, like all government agencies, is not immune from political influence or conflicts of interest. In fact, the new SEC chief used to represent the very accounting companies now under SEC scrutiny. If anything, the Enron failure should teach us to place less trust in the SEC. Yet many in Congress and the media characterize Enron’s bankruptcy as an example of unbridled capitalism gone wrong. Few in Congress seem to understand how the Federal Reserve system artificially inflates stock prices and causes financial bubbles. Yet what other explanation can there be when a company goes from a market value of more than $75 billion to virtually nothing in just a few months? The obvious truth is that Enron was never really worth anything near $75 billion, but the media focuses only on the possibility of deceptive practices by management, ignoring the primary cause of stock overvaluation: Fed expansion of money and credit.

2002 Ron Paul 2:5
The Fed consistently increased the money supply (by printing dollars) throughout the 1990s, while simultaneously lowering interest rates. When dollars are plentiful, and interest rates are artificially low, the cost of borrowing becomes cheap. This is why so many Americans are more deeply in debt than ever before. This easy credit environment made it possible for Enron to secure hundreds of millions in uncollateralized loans, loans that now cannot be repaid. The cost of borrowing money, like the cost of everything else, should be established by the free market- not by government edict. Unfortunately, however, the trend toward overvaluation will continue until the Fed stops creating money out of thin air and stops keeping interest rates artificially low. Until then, every investor should understand how Fed manipulations affect the true value of any company and the level of the markets.

2002 Ron Paul 2:6
Therefore, if Congress wishes to avoid future bankruptcies like Enron, the best thing it can do is repeal existing regulations which give investors a false sense of security and reform the country’s monetary policy to end the Fed-generated boom-and-bust cycle. Congress should also repeal those programs which provide taxpayer subsidies to large, politically-powerful corporations such as Enron.

2002 Ron Paul 2:7
Enron provides a perfect example of the dangers of corporate subsidies. The company was (and is) one of the biggest beneficiaries of Export-Import Bank subsidies. The Ex-Im bank, a program that Congress continues to fund with tax dollars taken from hard-working Americans, essentially makes risky loans to foreign governments and businesses for projects involving American companies. The Bank, which purports to help developing nations, really acts as a naked subsidy for certain politically-favored American corporations- especially corporations like Enron that lobbied hard and gave huge amounts of cash to both political parties. Its reward was more that $600 million in cash via six different Ex-Im financed projects.

2002 Ron Paul 2:8
One such project, a power plant in India, played a big part in Enron’s demise. The company had trouble selling the power to local officials, adding to its huge $618 million loss for the third quarter of 2001. Former president Clinton worked hard to secure the India deal for Enron in the mid-90s; not surprisingly, his 1996 campaign received $100,000 from the company. Yet the media makes no mention of this favoritism. Clinton may claim he was “protecting” tax dollars, but those tax dollars should never have been sent to India in the first place.

2002 Ron Paul 2:9
Enron similarly benefited from another federal boondoggle, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. OPIC operates much like the Ex-Im Bank, providing taxpayer-funded loan guarantees for overseas projects, often in countries with shaky governments and economies. An OPIC spokesman claims the organization paid more than one billion dollars for 12 projects involving Enron, dollars that now may never be repaid. Once again, corporate welfare benefits certain interests at the expense of taxpayers. The point is that Enron was intimately involved with the federal government. While most of my colleagues are busy devising ways to “save” investors with more government, we should be viewing the Enron mess as an argument for less government. It is precisely because government is so big and so thoroughly involved in every aspect of business that Enron felt the need to seek influence through campaign money. It is precisely because corporate welfare is so extensive that Enron cozied up to DC-based politicians of both parties. It’s a game every big corporation plays in our heavily regulated economy, because they must when the government, rather than the marketplace, distributes the spoils.

2002 Ron Paul 2:10
This does not mean Enron is to be excused. There seems to be little question that executives at Enron deceived employees and investors, and any fraudulent conduct should of course be fully prosecuted. However, Mr. Chairman, I hope we will not allow criminal fraud in one company, which constitutionally is a matter for state law, to justify the imposition of burdensome new accounting and stock regulations. Instead, we should focus on repealing those monetary and fiscal policies that distort the market and allow the politically powerful to enrich themselves at the expense of the American taxpayer.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 3

February 6 2002 Congressman Ron Paul
House Financial Services committee, February 6 2002
Statement on the Argentine crisis

2002 Ron Paul 3:1
Mr. Chairman, the recent economic difficulties in Argentina provide many valuable lessons for policy makers, both in America and the rest of the world. Unfortunately, early signals indicate that many are drawing the wrong lesson from this crisis.

2002 Ron Paul 3:2
In the last several months, too many commentators and policy makers have pointed the finger of blame for Argentina’s economic crisis at deregulation, free markets, and free trade. The logical conclusion of this analysis is that Argentina should embrace protectionism, increased welfare spending, regulation, and maybe even return to the days when all major industry in the country was nationalized. However, those familiar with the economic history of the twentieth century will find this analysis shocking- after all, if state control of the economy was the path to prosperity, then Cuba and North Korea would be the world’s richest countries and leading economies!

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

2002 Ron Paul 3:4
Despite clear signs over the past several years that the Argentine economy was in serious trouble, the IMF continued pouring taxpayer-subsidized loans with an incredibly low interest rate of 2.6% into the country. In 2001, as Argentina’s fiscal position steadily deteriorated, the IMF funneled over 8 billion dollars to the Argentine government!

2002 Ron Paul 3:5
According to our colleague, Congressman Jim Saxton, Chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, this “Continued lending over many years sustained and subsidized a bankrupt Argentine economic policy, whose collapse is now all the more serious. The IMF’s generous subsidized bailouts lead to moral hazard problems, and enable shaky governments to pressure the IMF for even more funding or risk disaster.”

2002 Ron Paul 3:6
Argentina is just the latest example of the folly of IMF policies. Only three years ago the world economy was rocked by an IMF-created disaster in Asia. The IMF regularly puts taxpayers on the hook for the mistakes of the big banks. Oftentimes, Mr. Chairman, IMF funds end up in the hands of corrupt dictators who use the taxpayer-provided largesse to prop up their regimes by rewarding their supporters and depriving their opponents access to capital.

2002 Ron Paul 3:7
Even if they are not corrupt, most IMF borrowers are governments of countries with little economic productivity. Either way, most recipient nations end up with huge debts that they cannot service, which only adds to their poverty and instability. IMF money ultimately corrupts those countries it purports to help, by keeping afloat reckless political institutions that destroy their own economies.

2002 Ron Paul 3:8
IMF policies ultimately are based on a flawed philosophy that says the best means of creating economic prosperity is government-to-government transfers. Such programs cannot produce growth, because they take capital out of private hands, where it can be allocated to its most productive use as determined by the choices of consumers in the market, and place it in the hands of politicians. Placing economic resources in the hands of politicians and bureaucrats inevitably results in inefficiencies, shortages, and an economic crisis, as even the best intentioned politicians cannot know the most efficient use of resources.

2002 Ron Paul 3:9
In addition, Mr. Chairman, the IMF violates basic constitutional and moral principles. The federal government has no constitutional authority to fund international institutions such as the IMF, and it is simply immoral to take money form hard-working Americas to support the economic schemes of politically-powerful special interests and third-world dictators.

2002 Ron Paul 3:10
The only constituency for the IMF are the huge multinational banks and corporations. Big banks used IMF funds- taxpayer funds- to bail themselves out from billions in losses after the Asian financial crisis. Big corporations obtain lucrative contracts for a wide variety of construction projects funded with IMF loans. It’s a familiar game in Washington, with corporate welfare disguised as compassion for the poor.

2002 Ron Paul 3:11
Mr. Chairman, the damage inflicted by the IMF on Argentina is immense and inexcusable. This is yet further proof that the IMF was a bad idea from the very beginning- economically, constitutionally, and morally. However, perhaps some good can come out of this debacle if it causes Congress to at last rethink America’s foolish participation in the IMF. This is why I will soon be introducing legislation to withdraw America from the IMF. I hope my colleagues will join me in working to protect the American taxpayer from underwriting the destruction of countries like Argentina, by working with me to end America’s support for the IMF.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 4

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
February 7, 2002
Economic Concerns

Mr. Speaker:

2002 Ron Paul 4:1
Dealing with the slumping economy will prove every bit as challenging to Congress as fighting terrorism.

2002 Ron Paul 4:2
No one challenges the need to protect American citizens from further terrorist attacks, but there is much debate throughout the country as to how it should be done and whether personal liberty here at home must be sacrificed. Many are convinced that our efforts overseas might escalate the crisis and actually precipitate more violence. A growing number of Americans are becoming concerned that our efforts to preserve our freedoms and security will result in the unnecessary sacrifice of that which we’ve pledge to protect- our constitutionally protected liberty.

2002 Ron Paul 4:3
A similar conflict also exists once government attempts to legislate an end to a recession. In the 1970s, wage and price controls were used to suppress price inflation and to help the economy, without realizing the futility of such a policy. Not only did it not work, the economy was greatly harmed. Legislation, per se, is not necessarily harmful, but if it reflects bad policy, it is. The policy of wage and price controls makes things worse and represents a serious violation of people’s rights.

2002 Ron Paul 4:4
Today, we hear from strong advocates of higher taxation, increased spending, higher budget deficits, tougher regulations, bailouts and all kinds of subsidies and support programs as tools to restore economic growth. The Federal Reserve recognized early on the severity of the problems and, over the past year, lowered short-term interest rates an unprecedented 11 times, dropping the Fed funds rate from 6 1/2 % to 1 3/4 %. This has not helped, and none of these other suggestions can solve the economic problems we face either. Some may temporarily help a part of the economy, but the solution to restoring growth lies not in more government but less. It is precisely too much government, and especially manipulation of credit by the Federal Reserve, that precipitated the economic downturn in the first place. Increasing that which caused the recession can’t possibly, at the same time, be the solution.

2002 Ron Paul 4:5
The magnitude of the distortions of the 1990s brought on by artificially low interest rates orchestrated by the Fed, on top of 30 years of operating with a fiat currency worldwide, suggests that this slowdown will not abort quickly.

2002 Ron Paul 4:6
The Japanese economy has been in a slump for over 10 years and shows no signs of recovery. The world economies are more integrated than ever before. When they are growing, it is a benefit to all, but in a contraction, globalism based on fiat money and international government assures that most economies will be dragged down together. Evidence is abundant that most countries of the world are feeling the pressure of a weakening economy.

2002 Ron Paul 4:7
Many of our political and economic leaders have been preaching that more consumer spending can revitalize the economy. This admonition, of course, fails to address the reality of a record-high $7.5 trillion-and rising consumer debt. “Today, a party- tomorrow an economic hangover” has essentially been our philosophy for decades. But there’s always a limit to deficit spending, whether it’s private or governmental, and the short-term benefits must always be paid for in one form or another later on.

2002 Ron Paul 4:8
Those who felt and acted wealthy in holding the dot-com and Enron stocks were brought back to earth with a shattering correction. There’s a lot more of this type of correction yet to come in the financial sector.

2002 Ron Paul 4:9
In recessions, to remain solvent, consumers ought to tighten their belts, pay off debt, and save. In a free market, this would lower market interest rates to once again make investments attractive. The confusing aspect of today’s economy is that consumers and even businesses continue profligate borrowing, in spite of problems on the horizon. Interest rates, instead of rising, are pushed dramatically downward by the Federal Reserve, creating massive amounts of new credit.

2002 Ron Paul 4:10
This new credit, according to economic law, must in time push the value of the dollar down and general prices up. When this happens and the dollar is threatened on exchange markets, the cost of living is pushed sharply upward. The central bank is then forced to raise interest rates, as they did in 1979 when the rates hit 21%.

2002 Ron Paul 4:11
But even before any need to tighten, interest rates may rise or not fall as expected. This has just happened in 2001. Even with Fed fund rates at 40-year lows, the 10 and 30-year rates have not fallen accordingly. Many corporate-bond rates have stayed high, and credit-card rates have stayed in double digits. This happens because the market discounts for debt quality and future depreciation of the dollar.

2002 Ron Paul 4:12
The Fed can’t control these rates, and they can’t control where the new credit they create goes. This means that resorting to, or trusting in, the Fed to bail out the economy and accommodate congressional spending is foolhardy and dangerous. This policy has led to a record default for U.S. corporate bonds. Worldwide, $110 billion of bonds were defaulted on last year.

2002 Ron Paul 4:13
Monetary inflation is the chief cause of recessions. Therefore, we must never expect that this same policy will reverse the economic dislocations it has caused.

2002 Ron Paul 4:14
For over a year, the Fed has been massively inflating the money supply, and there is no evidence that it has done much good. This continuous influx of new credit instead delays the correction that must eventually come- the liquidation of bad debt, and the reduction of overcapacity. This is something Japan has not accomplished in 12 years of interest rates around 1%. The market must be left to eliminate the misdirected investments and allow the sound investments to survive.

2002 Ron Paul 4:15
There are other policies that will assist in a recovery that the Congress could implement. All taxes ought to be lowered, government spending should be reduced, controls on labor costs should be removed, and onerous regulations should be reduced or eliminated.

2002 Ron Paul 4:16
We should not expect any of this to happen unless the people and the Congress decide that free-market capitalism and sound money are preferable to a welfare state and fiat money. Whether this downturn is the one that will force that major decision upon us is not known, but eventually we will have to make it. Welfarism and our expanding growing foreign commitments, financed seductively through credit creation by the Fed, are not viable options.

2002 Ron Paul 4:17
Transferring wealth to achieve a modicum of economic equality and assuming the role of world policeman, while ignoring economic laws regarding money and credit, must lead to economic distortions and a lower standard of living for most citizens. In the process, dependency on the government develops and Congress attempts to solve all the problems with a much more visible hand than Adam Smith recommended. The police efforts overseas and the effort to solve the social and economic problems here at home cannot be carried out without undermining the freedoms that we all profess to care about.

2002 Ron Paul 4:18
Sadly lacking in the Congress is a conviction that free markets- that is truly free markets- and sound money can provide the highest standard of living for the greatest number of people. Instead, we operate with a system that compromises free markets and causes economic injury to a growing number of people, while rewarding special interests and steadily undermining the principles of liberty. Unfortunately, the policy of monetary inflation is most harmful to the poor and the middle class, especially in the early stages.

2002 Ron Paul 4:19
Since rejecting the current system and endorsing economic freedom diminishes the power and influence of politicians, it’s difficult to get political support for such a program. The necessary changes will only come when the American people wake up to the reality and insist that the Congress pursues only those goals permitted under the Constitution.

2002 Ron Paul 4:20
Instead of moving in that direction of freer markets, the more problems the western countries face, the more government programs are demanded. If one looks at Europe, the United States, or even Japan as their economies weaken, government involvement in the economy increases. But in China and Russia, the horrible conditions that communism causes, ironically, made these two countries move toward freer markets when they encountered serious troubles. Even the central banks of these two countries today are accumulating gold, while western central banks are selling.

2002 Ron Paul 4:21
The reason for this is that the conventional wisdom of the west’s political and economic leaders is that there’s a third way that is best, or an alternative to the extremes of too much freedom- laissez faire capitalism- and too little freedom- authoritarianism, socialism or communism.

2002 Ron Paul 4:22
But this is a myth. One can only justify intervention in the market on principle or argue against it. There’s always the hope that government will be prudent and limit its intrusion in the economy with low taxes, minimal regulations, a little inflation, and only a few special interest favors. Yet the record is clear. Any sign of distress prompts government action for any and every conceivable problem. Since each action by the government not only fails in its attempt to solve the problem it addresses, it creates several new problems in addition while prompting even more government intervention.

2002 Ron Paul 4:23
Here in the United States we have seen the process at work for several decades with steady growth in the size and scope of the federal bureaucracy and the corresponding reduction in our personal freedoms. This principle also applies to overseas intervention. One episode of meddling in the affairs of other nations leads to several new problems requiring even more of our attention and funding.

2002 Ron Paul 4:24
This system leads to a huge bureaucratic government, manipulated by politicians, and generates an army of special interests that flood the system with money and demands. To achieve and maintain political power in Washington, these powerful special interests must be satisfied.

2002 Ron Paul 4:25
This is a well-known problem and prompts some serious-minded and well-intentioned Members to want to legislate campaign finance reforms. But the reforms proposed would actually make the whole mess worse. They would regulate access to the members of Congress, and dictate how private money is spent in campaigns. This merely curtails liberty, while ignoring the real problem- a government that ignores the Constitution naturally passes out largesse. Even under today’s conditions, where money talks in Washington, if enough members would refuse either to accept or be influenced by the special interests, government favors would no longer be up for sale. Since politicians are far from perfect, the solution is having a government of limited size acting strictly within the framework of the Constitution. No matter how strictly campaign finance laws are written, they will do only harm if the rule of law is not restored and if Congress refuses to stop being manipulated by the special interests.

2002 Ron Paul 4:26
Most people recognize the horrible mess that Washington is and how campaign money and lobbyists influence the system. But the reforms proposed only deal with the symptoms and not the root cause. There is sharp disagreement in what to do about it, but no one denies the existence of the problem. It=s just hard for most to acknowledge that the welfare state is out of control and shouldn’t be in existence anyway. Therefore, they misdirect our attention toward campaign-finance reform rather than deal with the real problem.

2002 Ron Paul 4:27
Very few in Washington, however, recognize the dire consequences to economic prosperity that welfarism, warfarism, and inflationism cause. Most believe that the occasional recession can be easily handled by government programs and a Federal Reserve policy designed to stimulate growth. It’s happened many times already, and almost everyone believes that in a few months our economy and stock market will be roaring once again.

2002 Ron Paul 4:28
This is where I disagree.

2002 Ron Paul 4:29
Every recession in the last 30 years, since the dollar became a purely fiat currency, has ended after a significant correction and resumption of all the bad policies that caused the recession in the first place. Each rebound required more spending, debt and easy credit than the previous recovery did. And with each cycle, the government got bigger and more intrusive.

2002 Ron Paul 4:30
Bigger government with more monetary debasement and deficit spending means a steady erosion of the free market and personal freedoms. This is not tolerated, because the people enjoy or even endorse higher taxes, more regulations and fewer freedoms. It’s tolerated because most people believe that their financial and economic security is the responsibility of the government. They believe they are better off with government assistance in facilitating the free market, having been taught for decades that it is necessary for government to put a human face on capitalism. Extreme capitalism, i.e. freedom, we have been told is just as dangerous as extreme socialism. As long as this belief prevails, our system will continue in its inexorable march toward fascist-type socialism.

2002 Ron Paul 4:31
However, support for today’s policies is built on the fallacy that material wealth and general prosperity are best achieved with this third way- interventionism- while avoiding the dangers of communism and socialism. This is coupled with the firm conviction that the sacrifice of freedom will be minimal and limited and that the very rich can be adequately taxed and regulated to help the poor.

2002 Ron Paul 4:32
This is a fallacy because more freedom will be lost than is expected, and the productivity of the market will suffer more than anticipated. Once this realization occurs, it will suddenly be discovered that the apparent wealth of the nation is a lot less than calculated.

2002 Ron Paul 4:33
An economy that depends on ever-increasing rates of monetary inflation will appear much healthier and the people much richer than is the actual case. Owners of the dot-com companies or Enron stocks know what it’s like to feel rich one day and very poor the next. This is not a unique experience but one that should be expected and is predictable.

2002 Ron Paul 4:34
Countries that inflate their currencies must adjust their values periodically with sudden devaluations, which destroy the pseudo-wealth of the middle class and poor. The wealthy, more often than not, can protect themselves from the sudden shocks to the monetary system. However, they can’t protect from the insidious loss of liberty that accompanies these adjustments, and eventually everyone suffers.

2002 Ron Paul 4:35
Our dollar system is quite similar to the Argentine and Mexican peso systems that periodically make sudden and painful adjustments. But ours is different in one respect, because the dollar is accepted as the reserve currency of the world- the paper gold of the world financial system. This gives us license to inflate- that is, steal- for longer periods of time, and we can avoid sudden and sharp devaluations since the world’s currencies are “defined” by our dollar. But this doesn’t permit the ultimate devaluation that will bring a significant increase in the cost of living to all Americans, but hurt the poor and the middle class the most.

2002 Ron Paul 4:36
This special status of the dollar only makes the problem of the illusion of wealth much worse. Since our bubble can last longer due to our perceived military and economic strength, it appears that our wealth is much greater than it actually is. Because of our unique position as the economic powerhouse of the world, we’re able to borrow more than anyone else. Foreigners loan us exorbitant sums, as our current account deficit soars out of sight. The U.S. now has a foreign debt of over $2 trillion. Perceptions and illusions and easy credit allow our consumers to spend, even in recessions, by rolling up even more debt in a time when market forces are saying that borrowing should decrease and the debt burden lessen. Our corporations follow the same pattern, keeping afloat with more borrowing.

2002 Ron Paul 4:37
Ideas regarding the national debt have been transformed. Presidents Jefferson and Jackson despised government debt and warned against it. Likewise, both detested central banking, which they knew inevitably, would be used to liquidate the real debt through the mischievous process of monetary debasement.

2002 Ron Paul 4:38
Today, few decry the debt, except for the purpose of political demagoguery when convenient. The concern about deficits expressed by liberal big spenders does not merit credibility, but even conservative spenders now are less likely to decry deficits and some actually praise them.

2002 Ron Paul 4:39
Just recently, the conservative Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI) announced in a national press release: “National debt can lead to a growing economy,” claiming government borrowing, “produces steady long-term growth, greater security, and a higher standard of living.”

2002 Ron Paul 4:40
This wouldn’t be so bad if it came from a typically Keynesian think tank. But this is the growing conventional wisdom of many conservatives whose goal is to generate government revenues, painlessly of course, not to drastically shrink the size of government and restore personal liberty.

2002 Ron Paul 4:41
What they fail to recognize, once they lose interest in shrinking the size of government, is that government borrowing always takes money from productive enterprises, while placing these funds in the hands of politicians whose prime job is to serve special interests. Deficits are a political expedience that also forces the Federal Reserve to inflate the currency while reducing in real terms the debt owed by the government by depreciating the value of the currency.

2002 Ron Paul 4:42
Those who would belittle the critics of the deficit and national debt are merely supporting a system of big government, whether it’s welfare or warfare, or both.

2002 Ron Paul 4:43
Debt, per se, is not the only issue. It’s also because debt always encourages the growth in the size of government. Allowing it to be seductively financed through inflation or borrowing is what makes it so bad. Just because it’s less painful at first and payment is delayed, we should not be tempted to endorse this process.

2002 Ron Paul 4:44
If liberty is our goal and minimal government a benefit to a sound economy, we must always reject debt and deficits as a legitimate tool for improving the economy and the welfare of the greatest number of people. The principle of authoritarian government is endorsed whenever deficits are legitimatised. All those who love liberty must reject the notion that deficits and debt perform a useful function.

2002 Ron Paul 4:45
It’s possible this recession may end in a few months as the optimists predict, but if it does, our problems are only delayed. The fundamental correction will still be necessary to preserve the productivity of a market economy. If we do not change our ways, the financial bubble will just go back to inflating again. The big correction, like that which Argentina is now experiencing with rapid disappearance of paper wealth, will eventually hit our economy. The longer the delay, the bigger will be the bust and greater the threat to our freedoms and institutions.

2002 Ron Paul 4:46
Since we’re moving toward the big correction, we’re going to see a lot more wealth removed from our balance sheets and our retirement accounts. The rampant price inflation that results will erode the purchasing power of all fixed-income retirement funds like Social Security and mean a lower standard living for most people. The routine government response of increasing benefits for living expenses and medical care will never keep up with the needs or demands. Eventually we will have to give up, and a new economic system will have to be devised, as occurred in the Soviet system after 1989.

2002 Ron Paul 4:47
Wealth- the product of labor, investment and savings- can never be substituted by government spending or by a central bank that creates new money out of thin air. Governments can only give things they first take away from someone else. Printing money only diminishes the value of each monetary unit. Neither can create wealth; both can destroy it.

2002 Ron Paul 4:48
The dilemma is that early on, and sometimes for many years as we have experienced, transferring wealth and printing money seem to help more than it hurts. That’s because the wealth is not real, and the trust funds, like Social Security hold no actual wealth. A pension fund with dot-com and Enron stock held no wealth either. Unfortunately, the stocks and bonds remaining are worth a lot less than most people realize.

2002 Ron Paul 4:49
The Social Security system depends on the value of the dollar and on future taxation. The Fed can create unlimited amounts of money that Congress needs, and Congress can raise taxes as it wants. But this policy guarantees that the dollar cannot maintain its purchasing power and that there won’t be enough young people to tax in the future. Increasing benefits under these circumstances can only be done at the expense of the dollar. Catching up with the current system of money and transfer payments is equivalent to a person on a treadmill who expects to get to the next town. It tragically doesn’t work.

2002 Ron Paul 4:50
The economic loss is bad enough, but whether it’s fighting the war on terrorism, acting as the world’s policeman, or solving the problems of vanishing wealth, the real insult will come from the freedoms we lose. These freedoms, vital to production and wealth formation, are necessary and represent what the American dream is all about. They are what made us the richest nation in all of history, but this we will lose if Congress is not careful with what it does in the coming months.

2002 Ron Paul 4:51
The Dangers We Face

2002 Ron Paul 4:52
Mr. Speaker, if nothing else, the knowledge that we are now vulnerable from outside attack is shared by all Americans. The danger is clear and present and everyone wants something done about it.

2002 Ron Paul 4:53
There is, however, no unanimity as to the cause of the attacks, who is responsible, and what exactly has to be done. The President has been given congressional authority to use force “against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.” A large majority of Americans are quite satisfied that his efforts have been carried out with due diligence.

2002 Ron Paul 4:54
But a growing number of Americans are becoming aware that anti-terrorist efforts, both at home and abroad, will have unintended consequences that few anticipated and that, in time, will not be beneficial to U.S. security and will undermine our liberties here at home.

2002 Ron Paul 4:55
Let me name a few potential dangers we face.

2002 Ron Paul 4:56
1. There’s a danger that the definition of terrorism will become so vague and broad that almost any act internationally or domestically will qualify. If our response in Afghanistan becomes the standard for all countries in their retaliation, negotiated settlements of conflicts will become a thing of the past. Acts of terror occur on a regular basis around the world, whether involving Northern Ireland and Britain, India and Pakistan, the Palestinians and Israel, Turkey and Greece, or many other places. Traditionally, the United States has always urged restraint and negotiations. This approach may end if our response in Afghanistan sets the standard.

2002 Ron Paul 4:57
2. Another danger is that the administration may take it upon itself to broadly and incorrectly interpret House Joint Resolution 64- the resolution granting authority to the President to use force to retaliate against only “those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.” Congress did not authorize force against all terrorist attacks throughout the world if the individuals involved were not directly involved in the 9-11 attacks. It would be incorrect and dangerous to use this authority to suppress uprisings throughout the world. This authority cannot be used to initiate an all-out attack on Iraq or any other nation we might find displeasing but that did not participate in the 9-11 attacks.

2002 Ron Paul 4:58
3. An imprecise definition of who is or who is not a terrorist may be used to justify our massively expanding military might throughout the world. For every accused terrorist, there will be a declared “freedom fighter.” To always know the difference is more than one can expect. Our record in the past 50 years for choosing the right side in the many conflicts in which we have been involved is poor, to say the least. Many times, there is no “right side,” from the viewpoint of American security, and our unnecessary entanglements have turned out to be the greater threat to our security.

2002 Ron Paul 4:59
4. There’s risk that our massive deployment of troops in the many countries of the world may contribute to a greater conflict. We are today in the middle of a dangerous situation between Pakistan and India over Kashmir, both of whom possess nuclear weapons and both of whom we generally finance. Exposing ourselves to such risk, while spending endless sums supporting both sides, makes no sense.

2002 Ron Paul 4:60
5. Our pervasive military presence may well encourage alliances that would have been unheard of a few years ago. Now that we’ve committed ourselves internationally to destroying Afghanistan and rebuilding it, with a promise that we’ll be there for a long time, might encourage closer military alliances between Russia and China, and even others like Pakistan, Iran and Iraq, and even Saudi Arabia- countries all nervous about our military permanency in this region. Control of Caspian Sea oil is not a forgotten item for these countries, and it will not be gracefully conceded to U.S. oil interests. If these alliances develop, even U.S. control of Persian Gulf oil could be challenged as well.

2002 Ron Paul 4:61
6. Limits exist on how extensive our foreign commitments should be. We have our military limits. It’s difficult to be everyplace at one time, especially if significant hostilities break out in more than one place. For instance, if we were to commit massive troops to the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, and Iran were to decide to help Iraq, and at the same time the North Koreans were to decide to make a move, our capacity to wage war in both places would be limited. Already we’re short of bombs from the current Afghanistan war. We had to quit flying sorties over our own cities due to cost, while depending on NATO planes to provide us AWACs cover over U.S. territory. In addition, our financial resources are not unlimited, and any significant change in the value of the dollar, as well as our rapidly growing deficits, could play a significant role in our ability to pay our bills.

2002 Ron Paul 4:62
7. In the area of personal liberty, we face some real dangers. Throughout our history, starting with the Civil War, our liberties have been curtailed and the Constitution has been flaunted. Although our government continued to grow with each crisis, many of the liberties curtailed during wartime were restored. War was precise and declared, and when the war was over, there was a desire to return to normalcy. With the current war on terrorism, there is no end in sight and there is no precise enemy, and we’ve been forewarned that this fight will go on for a long time. This means that a return to normalcy after the sacrifices we are making with our freedoms is not likely. The implementation of a national ID card, pervasive surveillance, easy-to-get search warrants, and loss of financial and medical privacy will be permanent. If this trend continues, the Constitution will become a much weaker document.

2002 Ron Paul 4:63
8. A danger exists that the United States is becoming a police state. Just a few decades ago, this would have been unimaginable. As originally designed, in the American republic, police powers were the prerogative of the states and the military was not to be involved. Unfortunately today, most Americans welcome the use of military troops to police our public places, especially the airports. Even before 9-11, more than 80,000 armed federal bureaucrats patrolled the countryside, checking for violations of federal laws and regulations. That number since 9-11 has increased by nearly 50%- and it will not soon shrink. A military takeover of homeland security looks certain. Can freedom and prosperity survive if the police state continues to expand? I doubt it. It never has before in all of history, and this is a threat the Congress should not ignore.

2002 Ron Paul 4:64
9. There is a danger that personal privacy will be a thing of the past. Even before 9-11, there were attacks on the privacy of all Americans- for good reasons, or so it was argued. The attacks included plans for national ID cards, a national medical data bank, and “Know Your Customer” type banking regulations. The need for enforcement powers for the DEA and the IRS routinely prompted laws that violated the Fourth amendment. The current crisis has emboldened those who already were anxious to impose restrictions on the American people. With drug and tax laws, and now with anti-terrorist legislation sailing through Congress, true privacy enjoyed by a free people is fast becoming something that we will only read about in our textbooks. Reversing this trend will not be easy.

2002 Ron Paul 4:65
10. Flying commercial airlines will continue to be a hassle and dangerous. Even travel by other means will require close scrutiny by all levels of government in the name of providing security. Unfortunately, the restrictions and rules on travel on all American citizens will do little, if anything, to prevent another terrorist attack.

2002 Ron Paul 4:66
11. The economic ramifications of our war on terrorism are difficult to ascertain but could be quite significant. Although the recession was obviously not caused by the attacks, the additional money spent and the effect of all the new regulations cannot help the recovery. When one adds up the domestic costs, the military costs and the costs of new regulations, we can be certain that deficits are going to grow significantly, and the Federal Reserve will be further pressured to pursue a dangerous monetary inflation. This policy will result in higher rather than lower interest rates, a weak dollar and certainly rising prices. The danger of our economy spinning out of control should not be lightly dismissed.

2002 Ron Paul 4:67
12. In this crisis, as in all crises, the special interests are motivated to increase their demands. It’s a convenient excuse to push for the benefits they were already looking for. Domestically, this includes everyone from the airlines to the unions, insurance companies, travel agents, state and local governments, and anyone who can justify a related need. It’s difficult for the military-industrial complex to hide their glee with their new contracts for weapons and related technology. Instead of the events precipitating a patriotic fervor for liberty, we see enthusiasm for big government, more spending, more dependency, greater deficits and military confrontations that are unrelated to the problems of terrorism. We are supposed to be fighting terrorism to protect our freedoms, but if we are not careful, we will lose our freedoms and precipitate more terrorist attacks.

2002 Ron Paul 4:68
13. Understandably, not much empathy is being expressed for members of the Taliban that we now hold as prisoners. The antipathy is easily understood. It’s not only that as a nation we should set a good example under the rules of the Geneva Convention, but if we treat the Taliban prisoners inhumanly, there is the danger it will surely be used as an excuse to treat U.S. prisoners in the same manner in the future. This certainly is true when we use torture to extract information, which is now being advised. Not only does that reflect on our own society as a free nation, but torture notoriously rarely generates reliable information. This danger should not be ignored. Besides, we have nothing to gain by mistreating prisoners who may have no knowledge of the 9-11 attacks. The idea that those captured are “terrorists” responsible for the 9-11 attacks begs the obvious question.

2002 Ron Paul 4:69
Optimism or Pessimism?

2002 Ron Paul 4:70
Many realists who see the world as it really is and who recognize the dilemma we face in the United States to preserve our freedoms in this time of crisis are despondent and pessimistic, believing little can be done to reverse the tide against liberty. Others who share the same concern are confident that efforts to preserve the true spirit of the Constitution can be successful. Maybe next month or next year or at some later date, I’m convinced that, in time, the love for liberty can be rejuvenated. Once it’s recognized that government has no guarantee of future success, promoting dependency and security can quickly lose it allure.

2002 Ron Paul 4:71
The Roman poet, Horace, two thousand years ago spoke of adversity: “Adversity has the effect of eliciting talents which in times of prosperity would have lain dormant.” Since I believe we will be a lot less prosperous in the not-too-distant future, we will have plenty of opportunity to elicit the talents of many Americans.

2002 Ron Paul 4:72
Leonard Read, one of the greatest champions of liberty in the 20 th Century, advised optimism:

2002 Ron Paul 4:73
    In every society there are persons who have the intelligence to figure out the requirements of liberty and the character to walk in its ways.  This is a scattered fellowship of individuals- mostly unknown to you or me- bound together by a love of ideas and a hunger to know the plain truth of things.

He was convinced that this remnant would rise to the occasion and do the necessary things to restore virtue and excellence to a people who had lost their way. Liberty would prevail.

2002 Ron Paul 4:74
Let us be convinced that there is not enough hate or anger to silence the cries for liberty or to extinguish the flame of justice and truth .

2002 Ron Paul 4:75
We must have faith that those who now are apathetic, anxious for security at all costs, forgetful of the true spirit of American liberty, and neglectful of the Constitution, will rise to the task and respond accordingly.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 5

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
February 13, 2002

So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional

2002 Ron Paul 5:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the Enron bankruptcy and the subsequent revelations regarding Enron’s political influence have once again brought campaign finance to the forefront of the congressional agenda. Ironically, many of the strongest proponents of campaign finance reform are among those who receive the largest donations from special interests seeking state favors. In fact, some legislators who where involved in the government-created savings and loan scandal of the late eighties and early nineties today pose as born again advocates of “good government” via campaign finance reform!

2002 Ron Paul 5:2
Mr. Speaker, this so-called “reform” legislation is clearly unconstitutional. Many have pointed out that the First amendment unquestionably grants individuals and businesses the free and unfettered right to advertise, lobby, and contribute to politicians as they choose. Campaign reform legislation blows a huge hole in these First amendment protections by criminalizing criticism of elected officials. Thus, passage of this bill will import into American law the totalitarian concept that government officials should be able to use their power to silence their critics.

2002 Ron Paul 5:3
The case against this provision was best stated by Herb Titus, one of America’s leading constitutional scholars, in his paper Campaign-Finance Reform: A Constitutional Analysis : “At the heart of the guarantee of the freedom of speech is the prohibition against any law designed to protect the reputation of the government to the end that the people have confidence in their current governors. As seditious libel laws protecting the reputation of the government unconstitutionally abridge the freedom of speech, so also do campaign-finance reform laws.”

2002 Ron Paul 5:4
The damage this bill does to the First amendment is certainly a sufficient reason to oppose it. However, as Professor Titus demonstrates in his analysis of the bill, the most important reason to oppose this bill is that the Constitution does not grant Congress the power to regulate campaigns. In fact, article II expressly authorizes the regulation of elections, so the omission of campaigns is glaring.

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

2002 Ron Paul 5:6
It is the power of the welfare-regulatory state which creates a tremendous incentive to protect one’s own interests by “investing” in politicians. Since the problem is not a lack of federal laws, or rules regulating campaign spending, more laws won’t help. We hardly suffer from too much freedom. Any effort to solve the campaign finance problem with more laws will only make things worse by further undermining the principles of liberty and private property ownership.

2002 Ron Paul 5:7
Attempts to address the problems of special interest influence through new unconstitutional rules and regulations address only the symptoms while ignoring the root cause of the problem. Tough enforcement of spending rules will merely drive the influence underground, since the stakes are too high and much is to be gained by exerting influence over government- legally or not. The more open and legal campaign expenditures are, the easier it is for voters to know who’s buying influence from whom.

2002 Ron Paul 5:8
There is a tremendous incentive for every special interest group to influence government.  Every individual, bank, or corporation that does business with government invests plenty in influencing government. Lobbyists spend over a hundred million dollars per month trying to influence Congress. Taxpayer dollars are endlessly spent by bureaucrats in their effort to convince Congress to protect their own empires. Government has tremendous influence over the economy and financial markets through interest rate controls, contracts, regulations, loans, and grants. Corporations and others are “forced” to participate in the process out of greed as well as self-defense- since that’s the way the system works. Equalizing competition and balancing power- such as between labor and business- is a common practice. As long as this system remains in place, the incentive to buy influence will continue.

2002 Ron Paul 5:9
Many reformers recognize this, and either like the system or believe that it’s futile to bring about changes. They argue that curtailing influence is the only option left, even if it involves compromising freedom of political speech by regulating political money.

2002 Ron Paul 5:10
It’s naive to believe stricter rules will make a difference. If members of Congress resisted the temptation to support unconstitutional legislation to benefit special interests, this whole discussion would be unnecessary. Because members do yield to the pressure, the reformers believe that more rules regulating political speech will solve the problem.

2002 Ron Paul 5:11
The reformers argue that it’s only the fault of those trying to influence government and not the fault of the members of Congress who yield to the pressure, or the system that generates the abuse. This allows members to avoid assuming responsibility for their own acts, and instead places the blame on those who exert pressure on Congress through the political process- which is a basic right bestowed on all Americans. The reformer’s argument is “Stop us before we succumb to the special interest groups.”

2002 Ron Paul 5:12
Politicians unable to accept this responsibility clamor for a system that diminishes the need for them to persuade individuals and groups to donate money to their campaigns. Instead of persuasion, they endorse coercing taxpayers to finance campaigns.

2002 Ron Paul 5:13
This only changes the special interest groups that control government policy. Instead of voluntary groups making their own decisions with their own money, politicians and bureaucrats dictate how political campaigns will be financed. Not only will politicians and bureaucrats gain influence over elections, other nondeserving people will benefit. Clearly, incumbents will greatly benefit by more controls over campaign spending- a benefit to which the reformers will never admit.

2002 Ron Paul 5:14
Mr. Speaker, the freedoms of the American people should not be restricted because some politicians cannot control themselves. We need to get money out of government. Only then will money not be important in politics. Campaign finance laws, such as those before us today, will not make politicians more ethical, but they will make it harder for average Americans to influence Washington.

2002 Ron Paul 5:15
The case against this bill was eloquently made by Herb Titus in the paper referenced above: ACampaign-finance reform is truly a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Promising reform, it hides incumbent perquisites. Promising competition, it favors monopoly. Promising integrity, it fosters corruption. Real campaign-finance reform calls for a return to America’s original constitutional principles of limited and decentralized governmental power, thereby preserving the power of the people.”

2002 Ron Paul 5:16
I urge my colleagues to listen to Professor Titus and reject this unconstitutional proposal. Instead, I hope my colleagues will work to reduce special interest influence in Washington and restore integrity to politics by reducing the federal government to its constitutional limits.  I would like to take this opportunity to introduce the excellent article by Mr. Titus into the record:

2002 Ron Paul 5:17

2002 Ron Paul 5:18
Campaign-Finance Reform A Constitutional Analysis

2002 Ron Paul 5:19
by Herbert W. Titus

    2002 Ron Paul 5:20
  1. Introduction
  2. Congress Has No Constitutional Authority to Pass Any Campaign-Finance

  3. 2002 Ron Paul 5:21
    Reform Legislation
  4. Campaign-Finance Reform Violates Separation of Powers and Federalism

  5. 2002 Ron Paul 5:22
  6. Campaign-Finance Reform Abridges the Freedom of Speech and the Press
  7. Campaign-Finance Reform Abridges the Right of the People to Assemble

  8. 2002 Ron Paul 5:23
  9. Conclusion

    2002 Ron Paul 5:24
    I. Introduction

    2002 Ron Paul 5:25
    To date, the legislative debate over campaign-finance reform has focused upon the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech, as interpreted and applied by the courts. The constitutional issues, however, are not limited to the First Amendment, neither are they resolved by citation to Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) nor by the latest Supreme Court opinion, including the one handed down on June 25, 2001 in FEC v . Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee . To the contrary, pursuant to their oaths of office, members of Congress have an independent duty to determine the constitutionality of legislation before them and to decide, before ever reaching the First Amendment, whether they have been vested by the Constitution with any authority, at all, to regulate federal election campaigns.

    2002 Ron Paul 5:26
    The original Constitution did not contain the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment. Writing in Federalist No. 84, Alexander Hamilton defended this omission, claiming that a bill of rights was not needed in a republic with a written constitution expressly enumerating the powers of government. Indeed, Hamilton observed a bill of rights attached to such a constitution might well prove dangerous because placing express limits upon the exercise of a power might give rise to the assumption that such a power had been previously granted.

    2002 Ron Paul 5:27
    Hamilton’s warning has proved prophetic in the case of campaign-finance reform. As the debate swirls around the impact of such reform measures on the freedom of speech and association, the question whether Congress has the constitutional authority to regulate federal election campaigns is being ignored. Yet, that question would have been hotly debated and quickly answered in America’s founding era in light of the constitutional text carefully circumscribing Congress’s authority in relation to federal elections. (See Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 and Article II, Section 1, Clause 4; Federalist No. 60 and Federalist No. 68, I Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution , Sections 814-826 and II Story’s Commentaries , Sections 1453-75, 5th ed. 1891.)

    2002 Ron Paul 5:28
    Additionally, the issue of constitutional authority would have been examined, in the first instance, by Congress and the president without their being bound by previous court opinions. It had already been well established that each representative, each senator, and the president and his cabinet had a constitutional duty, independent of the judiciary, to determine the constitutionality of legislation before them. As President Andrew Jackson observed, in his 1832 veto message rejecting a bill extending the charter of the Bank of the United States:

    2002 Ron Paul 5:29
    It is maintained by the advocates of the bank that its constitutionality in all its features ought to be considered as settled by precedent and by the decision of the Supreme Court. To this conclusion I cannot assent. Mere precedent is a dangerous source of authority...[and] the opinion of the Supreme Court...ought not to control the coordinate authorities of this Government. The Congress, the Executive, and the Court must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others. It is as much the duty of the House of Representatives, of the Senate, and of the President to decide upon the constitutionality of any bill...presented to them for passage...as it is of the supreme judges when it may be brought before them for judicial decision.

    2002 Ron Paul 5:30
    It is in light of these principles, then, that the issue of constitutional authority to enact any campaign-finance reform bill is addressed in sections II and III below, before reaching the First Amendment issues raised by particular campaign-finance measures in sections IV and V. Furthermore, those issues are examined in light of the constitutional duty of Congress to decide for itself whether it has the constitutional authority to enact campaign-finance reform legislation and whether any such legislation violates the First Amendment, regardless of the opinion of the United States Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) and its progeny, including the high court’s most recent pronouncement on June 25, 2001.

    2002 Ron Paul 5:31
    II.Congress Has No Constitutional Authority to Pass Any Campaign-Finance Reform Legislation

    2002 Ron Paul 5:32
    According to Article I, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, Congress is a legislature of enumerated powers, having only those “powers herein granted.” As a legislature of enumerated powers, Congress may enact laws only for constitutionally authorized purposes. ( McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S., 4 Wheat. 316, 1819) (“Let the end be legitimate, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end which are not prohibited, are constitutional.”) The stated purpose of all campaign-finance reform legislation, like the Federal Election Campaign Act that it amends, is to “reform the financing of campaigns for election to Federal office,” thereby preventing the “corruption and the appearance of corruption” in government and “equaliz[ing] the relative ability of all citizens to affect the outcomes of elections.” ( Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 25-26, 1976) Congress has been granted no such power.

    2002 Ron Paul 5:33
    The threshold question concerning any campaign-finance reform bill is whether the Constitution has conferred upon Congress any authority to regulate federal election campaigns . Such authority is not found among any enumerated power conferred upon Congress. Therefore, Congress may not justify any campaign-finance reform measure on the grounds that its purpose is to reform the financing of campaigns for federal office. Thus, campaign-finance reform laws may be constitutionally justified only if enacted as a means to achieve some other purpose that is constitutionally authorized. ( McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S., 4 Wheat. 316, 1819)

    2002 Ron Paul 5:34
    The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended in 1974, presumed that the Constitution authorized Congress to regulate federal election campaigns for the purposes of “the prevention of corruption and the appearance of corruption” in government and of the equalization of “the relative ability of all citizens to affect the outcome of elections.” ( Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 25-26, 1976) According to the proponents of campaign-finance reform, both then and now, Congress has power to regulate federal election campaigns because it has the general power “to regulate federal elections....” ( Id., 424 U.S. at 13-14) A careful examination of the Constitution, as it is written, uncovers no such broad power, but only a carefully circumscribed one.

    2002 Ron Paul 5:35
    As for congressional elections, Article I, Section 4 limits Congress to the making of regulations prescribing the “times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives.” As for the election of the president and vice president Article II, Section 1 limits Congress only to “determin[ing] the time of choosing the [presidential] electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.” (Emphasis added.) As for the place and manner of the selection of the presidential electors, and hence the president and vice president of the United States, the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution determines the place and, according to Article II, Section 1, the state legislatures choose the manner by which the electors are chosen. ( Bush v. Gore , 531 U.S. --, 148 L.Ed.2d 388, 2000)

    2002 Ron Paul 5:36
    Given these express restrictions upon congressional power over federal elections, it was not until the 1930s that Congress, with court approval, began to assume broad powers over federal elections, including the regulation of campaigns for the office of the president. ( Burroughs v. United States, 290 U.S. 534, 1934) At the time of America’s founding, and extending for a period of nearly 135 years, such was not the case.

    2002 Ron Paul 5:37
    As for congressional elections, Alexander Hamilton observed, in Federalist No. 60, that congressional authority was “expressly restricted to the regulation of the times, the places , the manner of elections,” and did not, for example, extend to the qualifications of voters. Likewise, Joseph Story noted that congressional authority over federal elections was explicitly confined to regulations concerning the mechanics and integrity of the election process itself, and did not extend to the integrity of government generally or the relative power of voters. ( I Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution , Section 826, 5th ed., 1891)

    2002 Ron Paul 5:38
    As for presidential elections, Hamilton noted that the detailed plan set forth in the original constitution was deliberately designed to ensure that the president would not be elected according to rules promulgated by Congress, lest the president be too dependent upon that body. ( Federalist No. 68 ) Likewise, Justice Story asserted that both the original Constitution and the Twelfth Amendment immunized the “mode of election of the President and Vice-President” from congressional regulation, limiting congressional authority only to setting the “time” of the election. ( II Story’s Commentaries , Sections 1453-75, 5th ed., 1891)

    2002 Ron Paul 5:39
    In 1892, a unanimous Supreme Court rehearsed the history and text governing the election of the president and vice president, concluding that the manner of selection of presidential electors was “placed absolutely and wholly with the legislatures of the several states” and that this “power and jurisdiction of the State” was “so framed that congressional and Federal influence might be excluded.” ( McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 34-36, 1892) (See also Bush v. Gore , supra.) Because the Constitution grants to Congress no authority to regulate the “manner” of the election of the president and vice president, it follows that Congress has no authority over presidential and vice presidential election campaigns.

    2002 Ron Paul 5:40
    As for congressional regulation of the campaigns of candidates for the United States House of Representatives and United States Senate, four justices of the United States Supreme Court, in 1921, struck down a federal law limiting contributions and expenditures in congressional elections, observing:

    2002 Ron Paul 5:41
    We find no support in reason or authority for the argument that because the offices were created by the Constitution, Congress has some indefinite, undefined power over elections for Senators and Representatives not derived from [Article I] Section 4. ( Newberry v. United States , 256 U.S. 232, 249, 1921)

    2002 Ron Paul 5:42
    From this constitutional premise, these justices ruled that the “authority to regulate the manner of holding... [elections] gives no right to control” things that are “prerequisites to elections or [that] may affect their outcomes - voters, education, means of transportation, health, public discussion , immigration, private animosities, even the face and figure of the candidate....” ( Id., 256 U.S. at 257 [emphasis added]) Therefore, they concluded that Congress had authority only to regulate congressional elections to protect voters from fraud { Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371, 382-88 (1880)}, from intimidation { Ex Parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 660-62 (1884)} and from other acts designed to protect the integrity of the election process, as such. ( Newberry v. United States, supra, 256 U.S. at 255)

    2002 Ron Paul 5:43
    This was the original understanding, as set forth in the constitutional text and as stated by Hamilton and Story. Congressional regulation of political campaigns, beginning in the 1930’s, disregards the founding principle of limited federal authority. Instead, such regulation is based upon the assumption that Congress is a legislature of plenary power, rather than enumerated powers as stated in Article I, Section 1.

    2002 Ron Paul 5:44
    (See Burroughs v. United States, supra, 290 U.S. at 545.) Such precedents as these should be rejected, lest Congress overstep the limited authority granted to it by the sovereign people of the United States.

    2002 Ron Paul 5:45
    III. Campaign-Finance Reform Violates Separation of Powers and Federalism

    2002 Ron Paul 5:46
    Under the Constitution, Congress has no role in the manner by which the president and vice president are selected. In order to ensure the independence of the president from Congress, the electors of the president and vice president are state officers, governed exclusively by the Constitution and by state law. (See Bush v. Gore , supra.) All current campaign-finance measures, such as the Federal Campaign Act of 1971, as amended in 1974, subvert these separation of powers and federalism principles by imposing a national uniform rule governing the conduct of election campaigns for president and vice-president. They also undermine the federalism principle underpinning the limited role of Congress in the governance of elections of representatives and senators.

    2002 Ron Paul 5:47
    According to Article II, Section 1, the state legislatures, not Congress, determine the “manner” of the election of presidential electors who, in turn, are governed by the Twelfth Amendment as to the “manner” of the election of the president and vice president of the United States. The only constitutionally prescribed role for the Senate in that election process is to serve as an objective observer of the final count of votes cast by the presidential electors. The House also is limited to the role of an objective observer, unless on final count of the electors’ votes, no person achieves a majority of votes for president. Then, and only then, may the House intervene in the manner of electing a president, casting one vote per state until a candidate achieves a majority. As for the vice president, both houses of Congress are limited to serving as objective observers of the final tally of votes, except that the Senate plays the same role as the House if no candidate for vice president receives a majority.

    2002 Ron Paul 5:48
    This detailed scheme limiting the role of Congress in the manner of electing the president and the vice president of the United States was deliberately chosen by America’s founders to insulate the federal executive branch from the legislative branch in order to ensure independence of the former from the latter. As Alexander Hamilton put it in Federalist No. 68, the Constitution entrusts the selection of the president and vice president not to “any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose....” The electoral college was designed, therefore, as a buffer between the people and Congress to guard against the risk of corruption of the presidency by congressional participation in the election process.

    2002 Ron Paul 5:49
    Thus, the electoral college system was designed to prevent corruption and the appearance of corruption of the offices of the president and the vice president. That system was set up in such a way as to deny to Congress any authority over the manner of selecting those two officers, leaving the selection process to be exclusively and absolutely determined by the legislatures of the several states. This delegation to the several state legislatures necessarily precludes Congress from imposing any uniform rule governing the election of the president and the vice president. (See McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 1892.) By continuing the regulation of presidential election campaigns as provided for in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended in 1974, and by adding new regulations that extend to candidates for the presidency and vice presidency, all current campaign-finance reform measures subvert the constitutionally prescribed decentralized manner by which the president and vice president of the United States are selected.

    2002 Ron Paul 5:50
    By design and effect, such measures perpetuate the current regulations governing the selection of presidential and vice presidential electors who are, according to the Constitution, state officers, and not federal ones. ( In re Green, 134 U.S. 377, 1890) (“Although the electors are appointed and act under and pursuant to the Constitution of the United States, they are no more officers or agents of the United States than are... the people of the States when acting as electors of representatives in Congress.”); Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214, 224-25 (1952) (“The presidential electors exercise a federal function in balloting for President and Vice-President but they are not federal officers or agents any more than the state elector who votes for congressmen.”) Thus, all current campaign-finance reform bills violate the principles of separation of powers and federalism protecting the independence of the federal executive branch.

    2002 Ron Paul 5:51
    Additionally, campaign-finance regulations applied to the election of members of Congress also intrude upon the power of their electors who, like presidential electors, are state officers. According to Article I, Section 2 and the Seventeenth Amendment, the qualifications of the electors of United States representatives and senators are set by state law, not by federal law. ( In re Green, supra, 134 U.S. 379; Ray v. Blair, supra, 343 U.S. at 224-25) The Constitution did not grant to Congress any power to determine the eligibility of their electors, and thus insulated those electors from having their power reduced, or otherwise affected, by their representatives in Congress.

    2002 Ron Paul 5:52
    Although no current campaign-finance reform bill sets the qualifications of electors for Congress, each one does, like its predecessors, impose a uniform system of campaign rules designed to govern the power to be exercised by citizens at the voting booth. Some of the measures, like the McCain-Feingold bill passed in the Senate and Shays-Meehan bill pending before the House, extend that uniform system, exercising power over the state, district and local committees of political parties as well as the national committees of those parties. While such laws do not change state laws governing voter eligibility, as such, they do change the power exercised by those eligible voters. Indeed, one of the stated purposes of campaign reform legislation is to “equalize” the power of citizens “to affect the outcome of elections.” ( Buckley v. Valeo, supra, 424 U.S. at 25-26) Such a purpose, however, is illegitimate. It imposes a national uniform standard limiting the power of voters to the detriment of a constitutionally prescribed system of state diversity.

    2002 Ron Paul 5:53
    In his Commentaries on the Constitution , Justice Story observed that the framers deliberately chose not to impose a standard of “equality” among the voters of the several states, but rather to accommodate a “mixed system, embracing and representing and combining distinct interests, classes and opinions.” ( I Story , Commentaries on the Constitution Sections 583-84, 5th ed., 1891) More recently, in a column published in the September 5, 1999, issue of The Washington Post, columnist George Will reminded his fellow Americans that the Constitution does not authorize one federal election, but many. All current campaign-finance reform measures disregard this decentralized federal structure governing elections to Congress and to the presidency and, for that reason, are unconstitutional.

    2002 Ron Paul 5:54
    IV. Campaign-Finance Reform Abridges the Freedom of Speech and the Press

    2002 Ron Paul 5:55
    At the heart of campaign-finance reform legislation, is the desire of Congress to eliminate even the “appearance of corruption” to the end that the people have confidence in the current system of representative government. ( Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 27, 1976) At the heart of the guarantee of the freedom of speech is the prohibition against any law designed to protect the reputation of the government to the end that the people have confidence in their current governors. As seditious libel laws protecting the reputation of the government unconstitutionally abridge the freedom of speech so also do campaign-finance reform laws.

    2002 Ron Paul 5:56
    In Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 27-28 (1976), the Supreme Court recognized that the contribution and other limitations imposed by the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 could not be justified on the grounds that they prevented only “the most blatant and specific attempts of those with money to influence governmental action.” Rather, the court found, that such limitations served a much broader purpose, namely, the prevention of “the appearance of corruption” to the end that “confidence in the system of representative government is not to be eroded....” ( Id., 424 U.S. at 27)

    2002 Ron Paul 5:57
    Since Buckley, the proponents of ever more stringent limits upon campaign contributions have emphasized that such laws are needed not to prevent actual government corruption, but to eliminate all appearances of such corruption. Indeed, these proponents have contended that the elimination of the appearance of corruption is compelling because, if the appearance is allowed to remain, people will lose faith in our current system of government and their confidence in their elected leaders, such faith and confidence lying at the heart of a healthy democracy.

    2002 Ron Paul 5:58
    This same theme has been struck by leading proponents of reform in the House of Representatives. Four years ago, House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt urged the adoption of more restrictive measures “for healthy campaigns in a healthy democracy” even at the expense of the freedom of speech. (Gibbs, “The Wake-Up Call,” Time, p. 25, Feb. 3, 1997) Representative Gephardt has not changed his mind, continuing his adamant support of the speech-restrictive Shays-Meehan bill to this day. (Mitchell, “2 Election Bills Go to the House Floor,” The New York Times , June 29, 2001) Indeed, Senator John McCain has not changed his mind either. Having urged in 1997 the enactment of a law placing limits on public policy organizations’ political advertising in the waning days of an election campaign, and thus calling off the political “attack dogs” (NBC News, Meet the Press, Feb. 3, 1997), Senator McCain is waging an all-out war to make sure that his version of campaign-finance reform passes the House. (Shenon, “House Critics Call McCain a Bully on Campaign Bill,” The New York Times, July 9, 2001) As McCain’s Democrat colleague, Russell Feingold, put it upon the introduction of Shays-Meehan in the Senate in 1999: “The prevalence – no – the dominance of money in our system of elections and our legislature will…cause them to crumble.” (Cong. Rec. S422, 423, daily ed., Jan. 19, 1999)

    2002 Ron Paul 5:59
    What these advocates of campaign-finance reform really want is to protect incumbent office holders from the people. Under the guise of preserving the present governmental structure, they support campaign-finance reform measures that are nothing more than “incumbent-protection” legislation that would make entrenched politicians even less responsive to the people. (See e.g., James C. Miller, Monopoly Politics 88-101, Hoover Inst. 1999.)

    2002 Ron Paul 5:60
    Such contentions and consequences as these undermine the foundation of America’s constitutional republic. Our nation’s continued existence - its sovereignty - is not embodied in its current system of government or in its current elected and appointed leaders. Instead, the civil sovereignty of the nation resides in the people. To preserve popular sovereignty, the First Amendment secures to the people the freedom of speech, which, in turn, protects the people from any legislation the purpose of which is to preserve the current government and its leaders.

    2002 Ron Paul 5:61
    Twice in America’s history, the sovereignty of the people came under direct attack from Congress. Both times the attack came in the form of laws prohibiting “seditious libel” (writing or speaking in such a way as to bring the government into ridicule or disrepute), and thereby threatening the current system of government and its leaders. Finally, in 1964, the United States Supreme Court put an end to seditious libel, ruling that the freedom of speech guarantees a nation in which “debate on the public issues should be uninhibited, robust and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.” ( New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270, 1964)

    2002 Ron Paul 5:62
    Had the court applied the same standard to the Campaign Reform Act of 1971, that law, too, would have been cast into the dustbin of history. For, campaign-finance reform laws - like seditious libel laws - exist solely to protect the present government and her leaders from the people. While this goal may be permissible in England where the Parliament embodies the sovereignty of the nation, it has no place in America where, as James Madison put it in the 1800 Virginia Resolutions in opposition to the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798, the “people, not the government, possess absolute sovereignty.”

    2002 Ron Paul 5:63
    Campaign-finance reform also constitutes a direct attack on the First Amendment freedom of the press. By giving politicians and their appointed bureaucrats the right to decide what the people can say about them in the heat of an election campaign, as McCain-Feingold and Shays-Meehan do with respect to issue advertising in the closing weeks of a campaign, these so-called reformers reject the very idea of a republican form of government, granting to the government “censorial power over the people,” instead of preserving the censorial power of the people over their government. (See New York Times v. Sullivan, supra, 376 U.S. at 275.)

    2002 Ron Paul 5:64
    Such intrusions into the campaign process put the government into the role of editor of campaign literature, a role that is absolutely forbidden to the government by the freedom of the press. ( Miami Herald Tribune v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241, 258, 1974) Indeed, if the Supreme Court would apply the same principle to election-campaign literature that it has applied to election editorials and stories carried by newspapers, all campaign-finance reform legislation would be clearly unconstitutional. Not only do all campaign-finance reform measures transfer editorial control over an election campaign from the people to the government, but they also continue the unconstitutional licensing system of the Federal Election Commission established by the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. In order to engage in a campaign for federal office, a candidate must register and report to the commission. Anyone who does not meet the commission’s registration and reporting rules is denied the right to participate and is subject not only to civil and criminal penalties, but to an injunction. Such a regulatory scheme strikes at the very heart of the freedom of the press which, as Sir William Blackstone wrote in 1769:

    2002 Ron Paul 5:65
    The liberty of the press...consists of laying...no previous restraints on publications.... Every freeman has the undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public: to forbid this is to destroy the freedom of the press.

    2002 Ron Paul 5:66
    (IV W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 151-52,1769 [emphasis added])

    2002 Ron Paul 5:67
    Campaign-finance reform, then, is not progressive, but reactive, turning the clock back to the days of the English Star Chamber that enforced the King’s rules governing the conduct of elections for the ostensible purpose of keeping his realm free of moral and political corruption. ( Sources of Our Liberties 130, 242, Perry, ed., American Bar Found., 1978) A free nation may only be preserved when the people have the liberty of the press to censor their own speech about the government and about candidates for governmental office, not when the government has censorship power of the people, as campaign-finance reform inevitably dictates.

    2002 Ron Paul 5:68
    V. Campaign-Finance Reform Abridges the Right of the People to Assemble

    2002 Ron Paul 5:69
    The right of the people to assemble is the right of the people to associate freely together to consult for the common good, subject only to the requirement that their association be “peaceable.” Any law that is not designed to keep the physical peace of the community is, therefore, unconstitutional. No campaign-finance reform measure has ever been designed to keep the “physical peace”; rather, each is designed to keep the “political peace;” a constitutionally impermissible goal abridging the right of the people to assemble.

    2002 Ron Paul 5:70
    Since Watergate, Congress has been scrambling to “purify” the political process in order to restore public confidence in the federal government. Campaign-finance reform has been one of the centerpieces of this purification effort. Two central goals have dominated this reform effort: (1) to limit the amounts that any one person or entity may contribute to an election campaign; (2) to force disclosure of the identity of those contributors. Both of these aims violate the First Amendment right of the people to assemble.

    2002 Ron Paul 5:71
    At the heart of the right of the people to assemble is the right of the people to choose how they are going to associate with one another “for the ‘common advancement of political beliefs.’” ( Democratic Party v. Wisconsin, 450 U.S. 107, 121-22, 1981) This right extends to associations of people for the purpose of electing persons to federal office who share those political beliefs. ( Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 57, 1976) Indeed, as Justice Clarence Thomas recently observed: “Political associations allow citizens to pool their resources and make their advocacy more effective and such efforts are fully protected by the First Amendment.” ( Colo. Rep. Fed. Camp. Comm. v. FEC, 518 U.S. 604, 135 Led2d 795, 818, 1996, Thomas, J., concurring in the judgment and dissenting)

    2002 Ron Paul 5:72
    Had the Supreme Court applied this principle consistently in its review of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, it would have held that the individual contribution limits of that act violated the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of association. As Justice Thomas has pointed out: “If an individual is limited in the amount of resources he can contribute to...a pool, he is certainly limited in his ability to associate for the purposes of effective advocacy.” ( Id., 135 L.Ed.2d at 819) Instead, the court has attempted to distinguish between “issue advocacy” - where the right of the people to associate must remain unfettered - and “express advocacy” for or against individual candidates - where the right of the people to associate may be limited.

    2002 Ron Paul 5:73
    Both McCain-Feingold and Shays-Meehan exploit this distinction in their attempt to muzzle political advertisements in the final weeks of an election campaign, claiming that issue advocacy becomes express candidate advocacy when conducted during the crucial weeks before election day. In so doing, both bills seriously undermine the people’s right to choose for themselves how they will associate to advance or defeat certain measures or to promote specific principles of public policy. Constraining the people who speak out on the issues in conjunction with an election campaign may make for a more “orderly” political process, but people are not horses or mules to be hooked up to the political bandwagons of government-subsidized incumbent politicians. Additionally, limits on so-called “soft money” to political parties are really designed to place incumbent office holders in control of the political parties whose name they sport. By placing controls on how political parties may raise and spend money, “independent” politicians like John McCain seek to transmute America’s political parties into political eunuchs, impotent to affect the outcome of any election.

    2002 Ron Paul 5:74
    Compounding these intrusions upon the people’s right to choose how and with whom they will associate to advance their political agenda, all campaign-finance reform measures depend upon forced disclosure of the names and addresses of even the smallest contributor to an election campaign. Such required public disclosure hearkens back to the days when the English monarchy required the publication of the names and addresses of all printers of all publications circulated throughout the realm. Requiring disclosure of the names of contributors to federal election campaigns departs from an American tradition and practice that dates back to the founding of the nation and from a long line of cases affording constitutional protection of anonymity in associative relationships. ( McIntyre v. Ohio, 514 U.S. 334, 1995; NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 1958) Forced divulgence of the names of contributors to federal election campaigns exposes people not only to retaliation by employers and union leaders, whose political choices are not the same as their employees and their members, but it also exposes people who support challengers to the inevitable cold shoulder of a re-elected incumbent. ( Buckley v. Valeo, supra, 424 U.S. at 237, Burger, C.J., dissenting)

    2002 Ron Paul 5:75
    Keeping the political peace, as campaign-finance reform is designed to do, exacts a high price, costing the people their precious liberty of choosing how much energy and resources they wish to devote to politics. While full freedom of association, including anonymity, risks corruption of the political process, nothing is more corrosive of that process than placing election campaigns in the discretionary hands of unelected bureaucrats. (Miller, Monopoly Politics 95-100, 1999)

    2002 Ron Paul 5:76
    VI. Conclusion

    2002 Ron Paul 5:77
    Campaign-finance reform is truly a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Promising reform, it hides incumbent perquisites. Promising competition, it favors monopoly. Promising integrity, it fosters corruption. Real campaign-finance reform calls for a return to America’s original constitutional principles of limited and decentralized governmental power, thereby preserving the power of the people.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 6

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
February 14, 2002
Introduction of the Monetary Freedom and Accountability Act

2002 Ron Paul 6:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Monetary Freedom and Accountability Act. This simple bill takes a step toward restoring Congress’ constitutional authority over U.S. monetary policy by requiring congressional approval before the President or the Treasury secretary buys or sells gold.

2002 Ron Paul 6:2
Federal dealings in the gold market have the potential to seriously disrupt the free market by either artificially inflating or deflating the price of gold. Given gold’s importance to America’s (and the world’s) monetary system, any federal interference in the gold market will have ripple effects through the entire economy. For example, if the government were to intervene to artificially lower the price of gold, the result would be to hide the true effects of an inflationary policy until the damage was too severe to remain out of the public eye.

2002 Ron Paul 6:3
By artificially deflating the price of gold, federal intervention in the gold market can reduce the values of private gold holdings, adversely affecting millions of investors. These investors rely on their gold holdings to protect them from the effects of our misguided fiat currency system. Federal dealings in gold can also adversely affect those countries with large gold mines, many of which are currently ravished by extreme poverty. Mr. Speaker, restoring a vibrant gold market could do more than any foreign aid program to restore economic growth to those areas.

2002 Ron Paul 6:4
While the Treasury denies it is dealing in gold, the Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee (GATA) has uncovered evidence suggesting that the Federal Reserve and the Treasury, operating through the Exchange-Stabilization Fund and in cooperation with major banks and the International Monetary Fund, have been interfering in the gold market with the goal of lowering the price of gold. The purpose of this policy has been to disguise the true effects of the monetary bubble responsible for the artificial prosperity of the 1990s, and to protect the politically-powerful banks that are heavy invested in gold derivatives. GATA believes federal actions to drive down the price of gold help protect the profits of these banks at the expense of investors, consumers, and taxpayers around the world.

2002 Ron Paul 6:5
GATA has also produced evidence that American officials are involved in gold transactions. Alan Greenspan himself referred to the federal government’s power to manipulate the price of gold at hearings before the House Banking Committee and the Senate Agricultural Committee in July, 1998: “Nor can private counterparts restrict supplies of gold, another commodity whose derivatives are often traded over-the-counter, where central banks stand ready to lease gold in increasing quantities should the price rise .” [Emphasis added].

2002 Ron Paul 6:6
Mr. Speaker, in order to allow my colleagues to learn more about this issue, I am enclosing “All that Glitters is Not Gold” by Kelly Patricia O’Meara, an investigative reporter from Insight magazine. This article explains in detail GATA’s allegations of federal involvement in the gold market.

2002 Ron Paul 6:7
Mr. Speaker, while I certainly share GATA’s concerns over the effects of federal dealings in the gold market, my bill in no way interferes with the ability of the federal government to buy or sell gold. It simply requires that before the executive branch engages in such transactions, Congress has the chance to review it, debate it, and approve it.

2002 Ron Paul 6:8
Given the tremendous effects on the American economy from federal dealings in the gold market, it certainly is reasonable that the people’s representatives have a role in approving these transactions, especially since Congress has a neglected but vital constitutional role in overseeing monetary policy. Therefore, I urge all my colleagues to stand up for sound economics, open government, and Congress’ constitutional role in monetary policy by cosponsoring the Monetary Freedom and Accountability Act.

2002 Ron Paul 6:9

All That Glitters Is Not Gold
By Kelly Patricia O’Meara
Insight Magazine
March 4, 2002, edition

2002 Ron Paul 6:10
Even though Enron employees and the company’s accounting firm, Arthur Andersen, have destroyed mountains of documents, enough information remains in the ruins of the nation’s largest corporate bankruptcy to provide a clear picture of what happened to wreck what once was the seventh-largest U.S. corporation.

2002 Ron Paul 6:11
Obfuscation, secrecy, and accounting tricks appear to have catapulted the Houston-based trader of oil and gas to the top of the Fortune 100, only to be brought down by the same corporate chicanery. Meanwhile, Wall Street analysts and the federal government’s top bean counters struggle to convince the nation that the Enron crash is an isolated case, not in the least reflective of how business is done in corporate America.

2002 Ron Paul 6:12
But there are many in the world of high finance who aren’t buying the official line and warn that Enron is just the first to fall from a shaky house of cards.

2002 Ron Paul 6:13
Many analysts believe that this problem is nowhere more evident than at the nation’s bullion banks, and particularly at the House of Morgan (J.P. Morgan Chase). One of the world’s leading banking institutions and a major international bullion bank, Morgan Chase has received heavy media attention in recent weeks both for its financial relationships with bankrupts Enron and Global Crossing Ltd. as well as the financial collapse of Argentina.

2002 Ron Paul 6:14
It is no secret that Morgan Chase was one of Enron’s biggest lenders, reportedly losing at least $600 million and, perhaps, billions. The banking giant’s stock has gone south, and management has been called before its shareholders to explain substantial investments in highly speculative derivatives C hidden speculation of the sort that overheated and blew up on Enron.

2002 Ron Paul 6:15
In recent years Morgan Chase has invested much of its capital in derivatives, including gold and interest-rate derivatives, about which very little information is provided to shareholders. Among the information that has been made available, however, is that as of June 2000, J.P. Morgan reported nearly $30 billion of gold derivatives and Chase Manhattan Corp., although merged with J.P. Morgan, still reported separately in 2000 that it had $35 billion in gold derivatives. Analysts agree that the derivatives have exploded at this bank and that both positions are enormous relative to the capital of the bank and the size of the gold market.

2002 Ron Paul 6:16
It gets worse. J.P. Morgan’s total derivatives position reportedly now stands at nearly $29 trillion, or three times the U.S. annual gross domestic product. Wall Street insiders speculate that if the gold market were to rise, Morgan Chase could be in serious financial difficulty because of its “short positions” in gold. In other words, if the price of

2002 Ron Paul 6:17
gold were to increase substantially, Morgan Chase and other bullion banks that are highly leveraged in gold would have trouble covering their liabilities. One financial analyst, who asked not to be identified, explained the situation this way: “Gold is borrowed by Morgan Chase from the Bank of England at 1 percent interest and then Morgan Chase sells the gold on the open market, then reinvests the proceeds into interest-bearing vehicles at maybe 6 percent.

2002 Ron Paul 6:18
At some point, though, Morgan Chase must return the borrowed gold to the Bank of England, and if the price of gold were significantly to increase during any point in this process, it would make it prohibitive and potentially ruinous to repay the gold.”

2002 Ron Paul 6:19
Bill Murphy, chairman of the Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee, a nonprofit organization that researches and studies what he calls the “gold cartel” (J.P. Morgan Chase, Deutsche Bank, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Bank for International Settlements (BIS), the U.S. Treasury, and the Federal Reserve), and owner of www.LeMetropoleCafe.com, tells Insight that “Morgan Chase and other bullion banks are another Enron waiting to happen.” Murphy says, “Enron occurred because the nature of their business was obscured, there was no oversight and someone was cooking the books. Enron was deceiving everyone about their business operations C and the same thing is happening with the gold and bullion banks.”

2002 Ron Paul 6:20
According to Murphy, “The price of gold always has been a barometer used by many to determine the financial health of the United States. A steady gold price usually is associated by the public and economic analysts as an indication or a reflection of the stability of the financial system. Steady gold; steady dollar. Enron structured a financial system that put the company at risk and eventually took it down. The same structure now exists at Morgan Chase with their own interest-rate/gold-derivatives position. There is very little information available about its position in the gold market and, as with the case of Enron, it could easily bring them down.”

2002 Ron Paul 6:21
In December 2000, attorney Reginald H. Howe, a private investor and proprietor of the Website www.goldensextant.com, which reports on gold, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Boston. Named as defendants were J.P. Morgan & Co., Chase Manhattan Corp., Citigroup Inc., Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Deutsche Bank, Lawrence Summers (former secretary of the Treasury), William McDonough (president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York), Alan Greenspan (chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System), and the BIS.

2002 Ron Paul 6:22
Howe’s claim contends that the price of gold has been manipulated since 1994 “by conspiracy of public officials and major bullion banks, with three objectives: 1) to prevent rising gold prices from sounding a warning on U.S. inflation; 2) to prevent rising gold prices from signaling weakness in the international value of the dollar; and 3) to prevent banks and others who have funded themselves through borrowing gold at low interest rates and are thus short physical gold from suffering huge losses as a consequence of rising gold prices.”

2002 Ron Paul 6:23
While all the defendants flatly deny participation in such a scheme, Howe’s case is being heard. Howe tells Insight he has provided the court with very compelling evidence to support his claim, including sworn testimony by Greenspan before the House Banking Committee in July 1998. Greenspan assured the committee, “Nor can private counterparties restrict supply of gold, another commodity whose derivatives are often traded over the counter, where central banks stand ready to lease gold in increasing quantities should the price rise.” Howe and other “gold bugs” cite this as a virtual public announcement “that the price of gold had been and would continue to be controlled if necessary.”

2002 Ron Paul 6:24
According to Howe, “There is a great deal of evidence, but this is a very complicated issue. The key, though, is the short position of the banks and their gold derivatives. The central banks have ‘leased’ gold for low returns to the bullion banks for the purpose of keeping the price of gold low. Greenspan’s remarks in 1998 explain how the price of gold has been suppressed at times when it looked like the price of gold was increasing.”

2002 Ron Paul 6:25
Furthermore, Howe’s complaint also cites remarks made privately by Edward George, governor of the Bank of England and a director of the BIS, to Nicholas J. Morrell, chief executive of Lonmin Plc: “We looked into the abyss if the gold price rose further. A further rise would have taken down one or several trading houses, which might have

2002 Ron Paul 6:26
taken down all the rest in their wake. Therefore, at any price, at any cost, the central banks had to quell the gold price, manage it. It was very difficult to get the gold price under control, but we have now succeeded. The U.S. Fed was very active in getting the gold price down. So was the U.K. [United Kingdom].”

2002 Ron Paul 6:27
Whether the Fed and others in the alleged “gold cartel” have conspired to suppress the price of gold may, in the end, be secondary to the growing need for financial transparency. Wall Street insiders agree that as long as regulators, analysts, accountants, and politicians can be lobbied and “corrupted” to permit special privileges, there will be more Enron-size failures.

2002 Ron Paul 6:28
Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Harvey L. Pitt, well aware of the seriousness of these problems, recently testified before the House Financial Services Committee that “it is my hope there are not other Enrons out there, but I’m not willing to rely on hope.”

2002 Ron Paul 6:29
Robert Maltbie, chief executive officer of www.stockjock.com and an independent analyst, long has followed Morgan Chase. He tells Insight that “there are a lot of things going on in these companies, but we don’t know for sure because much of what they’re doing is off the balance sheet. The market is scared and crying out to see what’s under the hood. Like Enron, much of what the banks are doing is off the balance sheet, and it’s a time bomb ticking as we speak.”

2002 Ron Paul 6:30
Just what would happen if a bank the size of Morgan Chase were unable to meet its financial obligations? “It’s tough to go there,” Maltbie says, “because it could shake the financial markets to the core.”  

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 7

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
February 26, 2002
Before We Bomb Iraq...

2002 Ron Paul 7:1
The war drums are beating, louder and louder. Iraq, Iran, and North Korea have been forewarned. Plans have been laid and, for all we know, already initiated, for the overthrow and assassination of Saddam Hussein.

2002 Ron Paul 7:2
There’s been talk of sabotage, psychological warfare, arming domestic rebels, killing Hussein, and even an outright invasion of Iraq with hundreds of thousands of US troops. All we hear about in the biased media is the need to eliminate Saddam Hussein, with little regard for how this, in itself, might totally destabilize the entire Middle East and Central Asia. It could, in fact, make the Iraq “problem” much worse.

2002 Ron Paul 7:3
The assumption is that, with our success in Afghanistan, we should now pursue this same policy against any country we choose, no matter how flimsy the justification. It hardly can be argued that it is because authoritarian governments deserve our wrath, considering the number of current and past such governments that we have not only tolerated but subsidized.

2002 Ron Paul 7:4
Protestations from our Arab allies are silenced by our dumping more American taxpayer dollars upon them.

2002 Ron Paul 7:5
European criticism that the United States is now following a unilateral approach is brushed off, which only causes more apprehension in the European community. Widespread support from the eager media pumps the public to support the warmongers in the administration.

2002 Ron Paul 7:6
The pro and cons of how dangerous Saddam Hussein actually is are legitimate. However, it is rarely pointed out that the CIA has found no evidence whatsoever that Iraq was involved in the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

2002 Ron Paul 7:7
Rarely do we hear that Iraq has never committed any aggression against the United States. No one in the media questions our aggression against Iraq for the past 12 years by continuous bombing and imposed sanctions responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children.

2002 Ron Paul 7:8
Iraq’s defense of her homeland can hardly be characterized as aggression against those who rain bombs down on them. We had to go over 6,000 miles to pick this fight against a third-world nation with little ability to defend itself.

2002 Ron Paul 7:9
Our policies have actually served to generate support for Saddam Hussein, in spite of his brutal control of the Iraq people. He is as strong today- if not stronger- as he was prior to the Persian Gulf War 12 years ago.

2002 Ron Paul 7:10
Even today, our jingoism ironically is driving a closer alliance between Iraq and Iran, two long-time bitter enemies.

2002 Ron Paul 7:11
While we trade with, and subsidize to the hilt, the questionable government of China, we place sanctions on and refuse to trade with Iran and Iraq, which only causes greater antagonism. But if the warmongers’ goal is to have a war, regardless of international law and the Constitution, current policy serves their interests.

2002 Ron Paul 7:12
Could it be that only through war and removal of certain governments we can maintain control of the oil in this region? Could it be all about oil, and have nothing to do with US national security?

2002 Ron Paul 7:13
Too often when we dictate who will lead another country, we only replace one group of thugs with another- as we just did in Afghanistan- with the only difference being that the thugs we support are expected to be puppet-like and remain loyal to the US, or else.

2002 Ron Paul 7:14
Although bits and pieces of the administration’s plans to wage war against Iraq and possibly Iran and North Korea are discussed, we never hear any mention of the authority to do so. It seems that Tony Blair’s approval is more important than the approval of the American people!

2002 Ron Paul 7:15
Congress never complains about its lost prerogative to be the sole declarer of war. Astoundingly, Congress is only too eager to give war power to our presidents through the back door, by the use of some fuzzy resolution that the president can use as his justification. And once the hostilities begin, the money always follows, because Congress fears criticism for not “supporting the troops.” But putting soldiers in harm’s way without proper authority, and unnecessarily, can hardly be the way to “support the troops.”

2002 Ron Paul 7:16
Let it be clearly understood- there is no authority to wage war against Iraq without Congress passing a Declaration of War. HJ RES 65, passed in the aftermath of 9/11, does not even suggest that this authority exists. A UN Resolution authorizing an invasion of Iraq, even if it were to come, cannot replace the legal process for the United States going to war as precisely defined in the Constitution. We must remember that a covert war is no more justifiable, and is even more reprehensible.

2002 Ron Paul 7:17
Only tyrants can take a nation to war without the consent of the people. The planned war against Iraq without a Declaration of War is illegal. It is unwise because of many unforeseen consequences that are likely to result. It is immoral and unjust, because it has nothing to do with US security and because Iraq has not initiated aggression against us.

2002 Ron Paul 7:18
We must understand that the American people become less secure when we risk a major conflict driven by commercial interests and not constitutionally authorized by Congress. Victory under these circumstances is always elusive, and unintended consequences are inevitable.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 8

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
February 27, 2002
Statement on Ending US Membership in the IMF

2002 Ron Paul 8:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation to withdraw the United States from the Bretton Woods Agreement and thus end taxpayer support for the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Rooted in a discredited economic philosophy and a complete disregard for fundamental constitutional principles, the IMF forces American taxpayers to subsidize large, multinational corporations and underwrite economic destruction around the globe. This is because the IMF often uses the $37 billion line of credit provided to it by the American taxpayers to bribe countries to follow destructive, statist policies.

2002 Ron Paul 8:2
For example, Mr. Speaker, the IMF played a major role in creating the Argentine economic crisis. Despite clear signs over the past several years that the Argentine economy was in serious trouble, the IMF continued pouring taxpayer-subsidized loans with an incredibly low interest rate of 2.6% into the country. In 2001, as Argentina’s fiscal position steadily deteriorated, the IMF funneled over 8 billion dollars to the Argentine government!

2002 Ron Paul 8:3
According to Congressman Jim Saxton, Chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, this “Continued lending over many years sustained and subsidized a bankrupt Argentine economic policy, whose collapse is now all the more serious. The IMF’s generous subsidized bailouts lead to moral hazard problems, and enable shaky governments to pressure the IMF for even more funding or risk disaster.”

2002 Ron Paul 8:4
Argentina is just the latest example of the folly of IMF policies. Only four years ago the world economy was rocked by an IMF-created disaster in Asia. The IMF regularly puts the taxpayer on the hook for the mistakes of the big banks. Oftentimes, Mr. Speaker, IMF funds end up in the hands of corrupt dictators who use our taxpayer-provided largesse to prop up their regimes by rewarding their supporters and depriving their opponents of access to capital.

2002 Ron Paul 8:5
If not corrupt, most IMF borrowers are governments of countries with little economic productivity. Either way, most recipient nations end up with huge debts that they cannot service, which only adds to their poverty and instability. IMF money ultimately corrupts those countries it purports to help, by keeping afloat reckless political institutions that destroy their own economies.

2002 Ron Paul 8:6
IMF policies ultimately are based on a flawed philosophy that says the best means of creating economic prosperity is through government-to-government transfers. Such programs cannot produce growth, because they take capital out of private hands, where it can be allocated to its most productive use as determined by the choices of consumers in the market, and place it in the hands of politicians. Placing economic resources in the hands of politicians and bureaucrats inevitably results in inefficiencies, shortages, and economic crises, as even the best intentioned politicians cannot know the most efficient use of resources.

2002 Ron Paul 8:7
In addition, the IMF violates basic constitutional and moral principles. The federal government has no constitutional authority to fund international institutions such as the IMF. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, it is simply immoral to take money from hard-working Americans to support the economic schemes of politically-powerful special interests and third-world dictators.

2002 Ron Paul 8:8
In all my years in Congress, I have never been approached by a taxpayer asking that he or she be forced to provide more subsidies to Wall Street executives and foreign dictators. The only constituency for the IMF is the huge multinational banks and corporations. Big banks used IMF funds- taxpayer funds- to bail themselves out from billions in losses after the Asian financial crisis. Big corporations obtain lucrative contracts for a wide variety of construction projects funded with IMF loans. It’s a familiar game in Washington, with corporate welfare disguised as compassion for the poor.

2002 Ron Paul 8:9
The Argentine debacle is yet further proof that the IMF was a bad idea from the very beginning- economically, constitutionally, and morally. The IMF is a relic of an era when power-hungry bureaucrats and deluded economists believed they could micromanage the world’s economy. Withdrawal from the IMF would benefit American taxpayers, as well as workers and consumers around the globe. I hope my colleagues will join me in working to protect the American taxpayer from underwriting the destruction of countries like Argentina, by cosponsoring my legislation to end America’s support for the IMF.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 9

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
February 27, 2002
Health Information Independence Act of 2002

2002 Ron Paul 9:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Health Information Independence Act of 2002. This act takes a major step toward restoring the right of consumers to purchase the dietary supplements of their choice and receive accurate information about the health benefits of foods and dietary supplements. The Health Information Independence Act
repeals the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) authority to approve health claims of foods and dietary supplements.

2002 Ron Paul 9:2
Instead, that authority is vested in an independent review board. The board is comprised of independent scientific experts randomly chosen by the FDA. However, anyone who is, or has ever been, on the FDA’s payroll is disqualified from serving on the commission. The FDA is forbidden from exercising any influence over the review board. If the board recommends approval of a health claim then the FDA must approve the claim. 

2002 Ron Paul 9:3
The board also must consider whether any claims can be rendered non-misleading by adopting a disclaimer before rejecting a claim out of hand. For example, if the board finds that the scientific evidence does not conclusively support a claim, but the claim could be rendered non-misleading if accompanied with a disclaimer then the board must approve the claim provided the claim is always accompanied by an appropriate disclaimer. The disclaimer would be a simple statement to the effect that “scientific studies on these claims are inconclusive” and/or “these claims are not approved by
the FDA.” Thus, the bill tilts the balance of federal law in favor of allowing consumers access to information regarding the health benefits of foods and dietary supplements, which is proper in a free society. 

2002 Ron Paul 9:4
The procedures established by the Health Information Independence Act are a fair and balanced way to ensure consumers have access to truthful information about dietary supplements. Over the past decade, the American people have made it clear they do not want the federal government to interfere with their access to dietary supplements, yet the FDA continues to engage in heavy-handed attempts to restrict access to dietary supplements. 

2002 Ron Paul 9:5
In 1994, Congress responded to the American people’s desire for greater access to information about the benefits of dietary supplements by passing the Dietary Supplements and Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA), which
liberalized rules regarding the regulation of dietary supplements. Congressional offices received a record number of comments in favor of DSHEA.

2002 Ron Paul 9:6
Despite DSHEA, FDA officials continued to attempt to enforce regulations aimed at keeping the American public in the dark about the benefits of dietary supplements. Finally, in the case of Pearson v. Shalala, 154 F.3d 650 (DC Cir. 1999),
reh’g denied en banc, 172 F.3d 72 (DC Cir. 1999), the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit Court reaffirmed consumers’ First Amendment right to learn about dietary supplements without unnecessary interference from
the FDA. The Pearson court anticipated my legislation by suggesting the FDA adopt disclaimers in order to render some health claims non-misleading.

2002 Ron Paul 9:7
In the more than two years since the Pearson decision, members of Congress have had to continually intervene with the FDA to ensure it followed the court order. The FDA continues to deny consumers access to truthful health information. Clearly, the FDA is determined to continue to (as the Pearson court pointed out) act as though liberalizing regulations regarding health claims is the equivalent of “asking consumers to buy something while hypnotized and therefore they are bound to be misled.” Therefore, if Congress is serious about respecting the First Amendment rights of the people, we must remove FDA authority to censor non-misleading health claims, and those claims which can be rendered non-misleading by the simple device of adopting a disclaimer, by passing my Health Information Independence Act. 

2002 Ron Paul 9:8
In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to help establish an objective process that respects consumers’ First Amendment rights to non-misleading information regarding the health benefits of foods and dietary supplements by cosponsoring the Health Information Independence Act.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 10

Congressman Ron Paul
House Financial Services committee
February 28, 2002
Statement on the Financial Services committee’s “Views and Estimates for Fiscal Year 2003”

2002 Ron Paul 10:1
Supporters of limited, constitutional government and free markets will find little, if anything, to view favorably in the Financial Services committee’s “Views and Estimates for Fiscal Year 2003.” Almost every policy endorsed in this document is unconstitutional and a threat to the liberty and prosperity of the American people.

2002 Ron Paul 10:2
For example, this document gives an unqualified endorsement to increased taxpayer support for the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FINCEN). According to the committee, these increased funds are justified by FINCEN’s new authority under the PATRIOT Act. However, Mr. Chairman, FINCEN’s powers to snoop into the private financial affairs of American citizens raise serious constitutional issues. Whether the expansion of FINCEN’s power threatens civil liberties is ignored in this document; instead, the report claims the only problem with the PATRIOT Act is that the federal financial police state does not have enough power and taxpayer money to invade the privacy of United States citizens!

2002 Ron Paul 10:3
The committee also expresses unqualified support for programs such as the Export-Import Bank (EX-IM) which use taxpayer dollars to subsidize large, multinational corporations. Ex-Im exists to subsidize large corporations that are quite capable of paying the costs of their own export programs! Ex-Im also provides taxpayer funding for export programs that would never obtain funding in the private market. As Austrian economists Ludwig Von Mises and F.A. Hayek demonstrated, one of the purposes of the market is to determine the highest value of resources. Thus, the failure of a project to receive funding through the free market means the resources that could have gone to that project have a higher-valued use. Government programs that take funds from the private sector and use them to fund projects that cannot get market funding reduce economic efficiency and lower living standards. Yet Ex-Im actually brags about its support for projects rejected by the market!

2002 Ron Paul 10:4
Finally, the committee’s views support expanding the domestic welfare state, particularly in the area of housing. This despite the fact that federal housing subsidies distort the housing market by taking capital that could be better used elsewhere, and applying it to housing at the direction of politicians and bureaucrats. Housing subsidies also violate the constitutional prohibitions against redistributionism. The federal government has no constitutional authority to abuse its taxing power to fund programs that reshape the housing market to the liking of politicians and bureaucrats.

2002 Ron Paul 10:5
Rather than embracing an agenda of expanded statism, I hope my colleagues will work to reduce government interference in the market that only benefits the politically powerful. For example, the committee could take a major step toward ending corporate welfare by holding hearings and a mark-up on my legislation to withdrawal the United States from the Bretton Woods Agreement and end taxpayer support for the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The Financial Services committee can also take a step toward restoring Congress’ constitutional role in monetary policy by acting on my Monetary Freedom and Accountability Act (HR 3732), which requires Congressional approval before the federal government buys or sells gold.

2002 Ron Paul 10:6
This committee should also examine seriously the need for reform of the system of fiat currency which is responsible for the cycle of booms and busts which have plagued the American economy. Many members of the committee have expressed outrage over the behavior of the corporate executives of Enron. However, Enron was created by federal policies of easy credit and corporate welfare. Until this committee addresses those issues, I am afraid the American economy may suffer many more Enron-like disasters in the future.

2002 Ron Paul 10:7
In conclusion, the “Views and Estimates” presented by the Financial Services committee endorses increasing the power of the federal police state, as well as increasing both international and corporate welfare, while ignoring the economic problems created by federal intervention into the economy. I therefore urge my colleagues to reject this document and instead embrace an agenda of ending federal corporate welfare, protecting financial privacy, and reforming the fiat money system which is the root cause of America’s economic instability.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 11

Congressman Ron Paul
House International Relations committee
February 28, 2002
Statement on the International Criminal Court

2002 Ron Paul 11:1
Mr. Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing on the important topic of the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. For Americans, the most important aspect of these international criminal tribunals is that they are the model for the UN’s International Criminal Court. Indeed, it is the perceived need to make these ad hoc tribunals permanent that really led to the creation of the ICC in the first place. This permanent UN court will attempt to claim jurisdiction over the rest of the world within the next few weeks, as it has claimed that ratification by 60 countries confers world jurisdiction upon it.

2002 Ron Paul 11:2
This means that even though the United States has not ratified the treaty- though it was signed by President Clinton’s representative at midnight on the last day- the Court will claim jurisdiction over every American citizen, from President Bush on down. The Bush Administration has admirably stated its opposition to the International Criminal Court, but it unfortunately has taken no proactive measures to “unsign” Clinton’s initial signature or to make it known that the United States has no intention of cooperating with, providing funding to, or recognizing any authority of this international court. The clock is ticking, however, and the day of reckoning is close at hand.

2002 Ron Paul 11:3
This court is every American’s worst nightmare. Currently, there are no protections for either US military personnel or civilians from the tentacles of this International Court. This means when it claims jurisdiction, you, I, or any of our 240,000 military personnel stationed across the globe can be kidnapped, dragged off a foreign land and be put on trial by foreign judges, without benefit of the basic protections of the American legal system, for crimes that may not even be considered crimes in the United States.

2002 Ron Paul 11:4
Pro-life groups in America have already expressed concern that the Court’s claimed jurisdiction over “enforced pregnancy” could make it criminal for groups to work to restrict access to abortions- or even reduce government funding of abortions. The pro-ICC Woman’s Caucus for Gender Justice has already stated that countries’ domestic laws may need to be changed to conform to ICC Statutes. Former Assistant to the US Solicitor General, Dr. Richard Wilkins, said recently that the ICC could eventually be used to try “the Pope and other religious leaders,” because issues such as abortion and homosexuality would ultimately fall within the Court’s jurisdiction.

2002 Ron Paul 11:5
Supporters of the International Criminal Court are quick to say that the Court is modeled on the Nuremberg tribunal set up after World War II, but nothing could be further from the truth. Nuremberg was a trial initiated and prosecuted by sovereign nations. It was a reassertion of national sovereignty over the crimes of a regime that disregarded the concept, that saw other sovereign countries as merely “living space” for their own people. As one analyst recently wrote, “the Nuremberg tribunal, unlike the Hague tribunal, was not really an international tribunal at all. The judges quite specifically stated that the act of promulgating the Nuremberg charter was ‘the exercise of sovereign legislative power of the countries to which the German Reich unconditionally surrendered.’  There was no pretense that the ‘international community’ was prosecuting the Germans.”

2002 Ron Paul 11:6
The International Criminal Court is to be modeled after the tribunals dealing with Rwanda and Yugoslavia, that is a fact. Knowing how these tribunals operate should therefore terrify any American who loves our Constitution and our system of justice. In the Yugoslav and Rwandan tribunals, anonymous witnesses and secret testimony are permitted; the defendant cannot identify his accusers. There is no independent appeals procedure. As one observer of the Hague in action noted, “the prosecutor’s use of conspiracy as a charge recalls the great Soviet show trials of 1936-1938. In one case, the Orwellian proportions of the Prosecution mindset was revealed as the accused was charged with conspiring, despite the admitted lack of evidence.  It is not the destruction of evidence but its very absence which can be used to convict!”

2002 Ron Paul 11:7
Indeed in the showcase trial of the ICTY, that of former Serb leader Slobodan Milosevic, chief prosecutor Carla del Ponte told the French paper Le Monde last year that no genocide charge had been brought against Milosevic for Kosovo “because there is no evidence for it.” What did the Court do in the face of this lack of evidence? They simply disregarded a basic principle of extradition law and announced that they would try Milosevic for crimes other than those for which he had been extradited. Thus they added two additional sets of charges- for Bosnia and Croatia- to the indictment for Kosovo. The Kosovo extradition itself was nothing more than bribery and kidnapping. Milosevic was snatched up off the streets of Serbia after the United States promised the government it had helped install millions of dollars in aid. That national sovereignty was to be completely disregarded by this international tribunal was evident in its ignoring a ruling by the Yugoslav Constitutional Court that extradition was illegal and unconstitutional. Yugoslav officials preferred to put Milosevic on trial in Yugoslavia, under the Yugoslav system of jurisprudence, for whatever crimes he may have committed in Yugoslavia. The internationalists completely ignored this legitimate right of a sovereign state.

2002 Ron Paul 11:8
Supporters of the International Criminal Court, like the World Federalist Association, claim that ICC procedures are in full accordance with the Bill of Rights. They aren’t. One pro-ICC website sponsored by the World Federalist Association, attempting to dispel “myths” about the Court, perhaps unintentionally provided some real insight. In response to the “myth” that the ICC is unconstitutional, the website argues that “The Rome Treaty establishing the International Criminal Court provides almost all the same due process protections as the U.S. Constitution. Every due process protection provided for in the Constitution is guaranteed by the Rome Treaty, with the exception of a trial by jury.” Since when is “almost all” equal to “all”? Either the Rome Treaty provides all the protections or it does not provide all the protections, and here we have by its own admission that the ICC is indeed at odds with American due process protections. So what else are they not telling the truth about? Another claim on the World Federalist Association website is that the ICC is that the rights of the accused to a presumption of innocence is guaranteed. Interestingly, on the very same website the accused Slobodan Milosevic is referred to as a “criminal.” Not very reassuring.

2002 Ron Paul 11:9
It is very convenient for supporters of this International Criminal Court that the high profile test case in the Yugoslav tribunal is the widely reviled Slobodan Milosevic. They couldn’t have hoped for a better case. Any attack on the tribunal is immediately brushed off as a defense of Milosevic. It is illustrative for us to take a look at how the Milosevic trial is being prosecuted thus far. After all, today it is Milosevic but tomorrow it could be any of us. And with the Milosevic trial, the signs are very troubling. We have all seen the arrogance of the judge in the case, who several times has turned off Milosevic’s microphone in mid-sentence. Thus far, the prosecution has attempted to bring as witnesses people who are on the payroll of the tribunal itself, as in the case of Besnik Sokoli. Other witnesses have turned out to have been members of the Kosovo Liberation Army, which is the armed force that initiated the insurgent movement within Yugoslavia. Remember, Milosevic was extradited for Kosovo and for Kosovo only, but the weakness of the case forced the Court to add other charges in other countries. Now, after Milosevic has shown himself adept at cross-examination, the prosecution is seeking to have the judge limit Milosevic’s ability to cross-examine the prosecution’s witnesses. This in itself flies in the face of our system of evidence law, which allows the defendant nearly unlimited ability to cross-examine a witness as long as it is relevant to testimony.

2002 Ron Paul 11:10
Mr. Chairman, these international tribunals and the International Criminal Court that they spawned are bad for America and bad for the rest of the world. The concept of a permanent criminal court, run by unelected bureaucrats, third rate judges, and political hacks, and answerable to no one, undermines everything that free peoples should hold dear. It is about American sovereignty, the sovereignty of our American legal system, but that is not all. It should also be important for Americans that the sovereignty of the rest of the world be maintained as well, as when sovereignty is undermined anywhere by an un-elected international body, it is under threat everywhere.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 12

Congressman Ron Paul
House International Relations committee
March 6, 2002
Statement on wasteful foreign aid to Colombia

2002 Ron Paul 12:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House International Relations committee and the subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, I would like to state my strong objections to the manner in which this piece of legislation was raised. I was only made aware of the existence of this legislation this morning, just a couple of hours before I was expected to vote on it. There was no committee markup of the legislation, nor was there any notice that this legislation would appear on today’s suspension calendar.

2002 Ron Paul 12:2
This legislation represents a very serious and significant shift in United States policy toward Colombia. It sets us on a slippery slope toward unwise military intervention in a foreign civil war that has nothing to do with the United States.

2002 Ron Paul 12:3
Our policy toward Colombia was already ill-advised when it consisted of an expensive front in our failed “war on drugs.”  Plan Colombia, launched nearly two years ago, sent $1.3 billion to Colombia under the guise of this war on drugs. A majority of that went to the Colombian military; much was no doubt lost through corruption. Though this massive assistance program was supposed to put an end to the FARC and other rebel groups involved in drug trafficking, two years later we are now being told- in this legislation and elsewhere- that the FARC and rebel groups are stronger than ever. So now we are being asked to provide even more assistance in an effort that seems to have had a result the opposite of what was intended. In effect, we are being asked to redouble failed efforts. That doesn’t make sense.

2002 Ron Paul 12:4
At the time Plan Colombia was introduced, President Clinton promised the American people that this action would in no way drag us into the Colombian civil war. This current legislation takes a bad policy and makes it much worse. This legislation calls for the United States “to assist the Government of Colombia protect its democracy from United States-designated foreign terrorist organizations . . .” In other words, this legislation elevates a civil war in Colombia to the level of the international war on terror, and it will drag us deep into the conflict.

2002 Ron Paul 12:5
Mr. Speaker, there is a world of difference between a rebel group fighting a civil war in a foreign country and the kind of international terrorist organization that targeted the United States last September. As ruthless and violent as the three rebel groups in Colombia no doubt are, their struggle for power in that country is an internal one. None of the three appears to have any intention of carrying out terrorist activities in the United States. Should we become involved in a civil war against them, however, these organizations may well begin to view the United States as a legitimate target. What possible reason could there be for us to take on such a deadly risk? What possible rewards could there be for the United States support for one faction or the other in this civil war?

2002 Ron Paul 12:6
As with much of our interventionism, if you scratch the surface of the high-sounding calls to “protect democracy” and “stop drug trafficking” you often find commercial interests driving U.S. foreign policy. This also appears to be the case in Colombia. And like Afghanistan, Kosovo, Iraq, and elsewhere, that commercial interest appears to be related to oil. The U.S. administration request for FY 2003 includes a request for an additional $98 million to help protect the Cano-Limon Pipeline- jointly owned by the Colombian government and Occidental Petroleum. Rebels have been blowing up parts of the pipeline and the resulting disruption of the flow of oil is costing Occidental Petroleum and the Colombian government more than half a billion dollars per year. Now the administration wants American taxpayers to finance the equipping and training of a security force to protect the pipeline, which much of the training coming from the U.S. military. Since when is it the responsibility of American citizens to subsidize risky investments made by private companies in foreign countries? And since when is it the duty of American service men and women to lay their lives on the line for these commercial interests?

2002 Ron Paul 12:7
Further intervention in the internal political and military affairs of Colombia will only increase the mistrust and anger of the average Colombian citizen toward the United States, as these citizens will face the prospect of an ongoing, United States-supported war in their country. Already Plan Colombia has fueled the deep resentment of Colombian farmers toward the United States. These farmers have seen their legitimate crops destroyed, water supply polluted, and families sprayed as powerful herbicides miss their intended marks. An escalation of American involvement will only make matters worse.

2002 Ron Paul 12:8
Mr. Speaker, at this critical time, our precious military and financial resources must not be diverted to a conflict that has nothing to do with the United States and poses no threat to the United States. Trying to designate increased military involvement in Colombia as a new front on the “war on terror” makes no sense at all. It will only draw the United States into a quagmire much like Vietnam. The Colombian civil war is now in its fourth decade; pretending that the fighting there is somehow related to our international war on terrorism is to stretch the imagination to the breaking point. It is unwise and dangerous.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 13

Congressman Ron Paul
Wednesday, March 13, 2002
Steel Protectionism

2002 Ron Paul 13:1
Mr. Speaker, I am disheartened by the administration’s recent decision to impose a 30 percent tariff on steel imports. This measure will hurt far more Americans than it will help, and it takes a step backwards toward the protectionist thinking that dominated Washington in decades past. Make no mistake about it, these tariffs represent naked protectionism at its worst, a blatant disregard of any remaining free-market principles to gain the short-term favor of certain special interests. These steel tariffs also make it quite clear that the rhetoric about free trade in Washington is abandoned and replaced with talk of “fair trade” when special interests make demands. What most Washington politicians really believe in is government-managed trade, not free trade. True free trade, by definition, takes place only in the absence of government interference of any kind, including tariffs. Government-managed trade means government, rather than competence in the marketplace, determines what industries and companies succeed or fail.

2002 Ron Paul 13:2
We’ve all heard about how these tariffs are needed to protect the jobs of American steelworkers, but we never hear about the jobs that will be lost or never created when the cost of steel rises 30 percent. We forget that tariffs are taxes, and that imposing tariffs means raising taxes. Why is the administration raising taxes on American steel consumers? Apparently no one in the administration has read Henry Hazlitt’s classic book, Economics in one Lesson . Professor Hazlitt’s fundamental lesson was simple: We must examine economic policy by considering the long-term effects of any proposal on all groups. The administration instead chose to focus only on the immediate effects of steel tariffs on one group, the domestic steel industry. In doing so, it chose to ignore basic economics for the sake of political expediency. Now I grant you that this is hardly anything new in this town, but it’s important that we see these tariffs as the political favors that they are. This has nothing to do with fairness. The free market is fair; it alone justly rewards the worthiest competitors. Tariffs reward the strongest Washington lobbies.

2002 Ron Paul 13:3
We should recognize that the cost of these tariffs will not only be borne by American companies that import steel, such as those in the auto industry and building trades. The cost of these import taxes will be borne by nearly all Americans, because steel is widely used in the cars we drive and the buildings in which we live and work. We will all pay, but the cost will be spread out and hidden, so no one complains. The domestic steel industry, however, has complained- and it has the corporate and union power that scares politicians in Washington. So the administration moved to protect domestic steel interests, with an eye toward the upcoming midterm elections. It moved to help members who represent steel-producing states. We hear a great deal of criticism of special interests and their stranglehold on Washington, but somehow when we prop up an entire industry that has failed to stay competitive, we’re “protecting American workers.” What we’re really doing is taxing all Americans to keep some politically-favored corporations afloat. Sure, some rank and file jobs may also be saved, but at what cost? Do steelworkers really have a right to demand that Americans pay higher taxes to save an industry that should be required to compete on its own?

2002 Ron Paul 13:4
If we’re going to protect the steel industry with tariffs, why not other industries? Does every industry that competes with imported goods have the same claim for protection? We’ve propped up the auto industry in the past, now we’re doing it for steel, so who should be next in line? Virtually every American industry competes with at least some imports.

2002 Ron Paul 13:5
What happened to the wonderful harmony that the WTO was supposed to bring to global trade? The administration has been roundly criticized since the steel decision was announced last week, especially by our WTO “partners.” The European Union is preparing to impose retaliatory sanctions to protect its own steel industry. EU trade commissioner Pascal Lamy has accused the U.S. of setting the stage for a global trade war, and several other steel producing nations such as Japan and Russia also have vowed to fight the tariffs. Even British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who has been tremendously supportive of the President since September 11th, recently stated that the new American steel tariffs were totally unjustified. Wasn’t the WTO supposed to prevent all this squabbling? Those of us who opposed U.S. membership in the WTO were scolded as being out of touch, unwilling to see the promise of a new global prosperity. What we’re getting instead is increased hostility from our trading partners and threats of economic sanctions from our WTO masters. This is what happens when we let government-managed trade schemes pick winners and losers in the global trading game. The truly deplorable thing about all of this is that the WTO is touted as promoting free trade!

2002 Ron Paul 13:6
Mr. Speaker, it’s always amazing to me that Washington gives so much lip service to free trade while never adhering to true free trade principles. Free trade really means freedom- the freedom to buy and sell goods and services free from government interference. Time and time again, history proves that tariffs don’t work. Even some modern Keynesian economists have grudgingly begun to admit that free markets allocate resources better than centralized planning. Yet we cling to the idea that government needs to manage trade, when it really needs to get out of the way and let the marketplace determine the cost of goods. I sincerely hope that the administration’s position on steel does not signal a willingness to resort to protectionism whenever special interests make demands in the future.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 14

Congressman Ron Paul
Wednesday, March 20, 2002
Statement against Meddling in Domestic Ukrainian Politics

2002 Ron Paul 14:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose H. Res. 339, a bill by the United States Congress which seeks to tell a sovereign nation how to hold its own elections. It seems the height of arrogance for us to sit here and lecture the people and government of Ukraine on what they should do and should not do in their own election process. One would have thought after our own election debacle in November 2000, that we would have learned how counterproductive and hypocritical it is to lecture other democratic countries on their electoral processes. How would members of this body- or any American- react if countries like Ukraine demanded that our elections here in the United States conform to their criteria? So I think we can guess how Ukrainians feel about this piece of legislation.

2002 Ron Paul 14:2
Mr. Speaker, Ukraine has been the recipient of hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign aid from the United States. In fiscal year 2002 alone, Ukraine was provided $154 million. Yet after all this money- which we were told was to promote democracy- and more than ten years after the end of the Soviet Union, we are told in this legislation that Ukraine has made little if any progress in establishing a democratic political system.

2002 Ron Paul 14:3
Far from getting more involved in Ukraine’s electoral process, which is where this legislation leads us, the United States is already much too involved in the Ukrainian elections. The U.S. government has sent some $4.7 million dollars to Ukraine for monitoring and assistance programs, including to train their electoral commission members and domestic monitoring organizations. There have been numerous reports of U.S.-funded non-governmental organizations in Ukraine being involved in pushing one or another political party. This makes it look like the United States is taking sides in the Ukrainian elections.

2002 Ron Paul 14:4
The legislation calls for the full access of Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) monitors to all aspects of the parliamentary elections, but that organization has time and time again, from Slovakia to Russia and elsewhere, shown itself to be unreliable and politically biased. Yet the United States continues to fund and participate in OSCE activities. As British writer John Laughland observed this week in the Guardian newspaper, “Western election monitoring has become the political equivalent of an Arthur Andersen audit. This supposedly technical process is now so corrupted by political bias that it would be better to abandon it. Only then will countries be able to elect their leaders freely.” Mr. Speaker, I think this is advice we would be wise to heed.

2002 Ron Paul 14:5
Other aspects of this bill are likewise troubling. This bill seeks, from thousands of miles away and without any of the facts, to demand that the Ukrainian government solve crimes within Ukraine that have absolutely nothing to do with the United States. No one knows what happened to journalist Heorhiy Gongadze or any of the alleged murdered Ukrainian journalists, yet by adding it into this ill-advised piece of legislation we are sitting here suggesting that the government has something to do with the alleged murders. This meddling into the Ukrainian judicial system is inappropriate and counter-productive.

2002 Ron Paul 14:6
Mr. Speaker, we are legislators in the United States Congress. We are not in Ukraine. We have no right to interfere in the internal affairs of that country and no business telling them how to conduct their elections. A far better policy toward Ukraine would be to eliminate any U.S.-government imposed barrier to free trade between Americans and Ukrainians.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 15

Congressman Ron Paul
March 20, 2002
Why Initiate War on Iraq?

2002 Ron Paul 15:1
I was recently asked why I thought it was a bad idea for the President to initiate a war against Iraq. I responded by saying that I could easily give a half a dozen reasons why; and if I took a minute, I could give a full dozen. For starters, here is a half a dozen.

2002 Ron Paul 15:2
Number one, Congress has not given the President the legal authority to wage war against Iraq as directed by the Constitution, nor does he have U.N. authority to do so. Even if he did, it would not satisfy the rule of law laid down by the Framers of the Constitution.

2002 Ron Paul 15:3
Number two, Iraq has not initiated aggression against the United States. Invading Iraq and deposing Saddam Hussein, no matter how evil a dictator he may be, has nothing to do with our national security. Iraq does not have a single airplane in its air force and is a poverty-ridden third world nation, hardly a threat to U.S. security. Stirring up a major conflict in this region will actually jeopardize our security.

2002 Ron Paul 15:4
Number three, a war against Iraq initiated by the United States cannot be morally justified. The argument that someday in the future Saddam Hussein might pose a threat to us means that any nation, any place in the world is subject to an American invasion without cause. This would be comparable to the impossibility of proving a negative.

2002 Ron Paul 15:5
Number four, initiating a war against Iraq will surely antagonize all neighboring Arab and Muslim nations as well as the Russians, the Chinese, and the European Union, if not the whole world. Even the English people are reluctant to support Tony Blair’s prodding of our President to invade Iraq. There is no practical benefit for such action. Iraq could end up in even more dangerous hands like Iran.

2002 Ron Paul 15:6
Number five, an attack on Iraq will not likely be confined to Iraq alone. Spreading the war to Israel and rallying all Arab nations against her may well end up jeopardizing the very existence of Israel. The President has already likened the current international crisis more to that of World War II than the more localized Vietnam war. The law of unintended consequences applies to international affairs every bit as much as to domestic interventions, yet the consequences of such are much more dangerous.

2002 Ron Paul 15:7
Number six, the cost of a war against Iraq would be prohibitive. We paid a heavy economic price for the Vietnam war in direct cost, debt and inflation. This coming war could be a lot more expensive. Our national debt is growing at a rate greater than $250 billion per year. This will certainly accelerate. The dollar cost will be the least of our concerns compared to the potential loss of innocent lives, both theirs and ours. The systematic attack on civil liberties that accompanies all wars cannot be ignored. Already we hear cries for resurrecting the authoritarian program of constriction in the name of patriotism, of course.

2002 Ron Paul 15:8
Could any benefit come from all this warmongering? Possibly. Let us hope and pray so. It should be evident that big government is anathema to individual liberty. In a free society, the role of government is to protect the individual’s right to life and liberty. The biggest government of all, the U.N. consistently threatens personal liberties and U.S. sovereignty. But our recent move toward unilateralism hopefully will inadvertently weaken the United Nations. Our participation more often than not lately is conditioned on following the international rules and courts and trade agreements only when they please us, flaunting the consensus, without rejecting internationalism on principle- as we should.

2002 Ron Paul 15:9
The way these international events will eventually play out is unknown, and in the process we expose ourselves to great danger. Instead of replacing today’s international government, (the United Nations, the IMF, the World Bank, the WTO, the international criminal court) with free and independent republics, it is more likely that we will see a rise of militant nationalism with a penchant for solving problems with arms and protectionism rather than free trade and peaceful negotiations.

2002 Ron Paul 15:10
The last thing this world needs is the development of more nuclear weapons, as is now being planned in a pretense for ensuring the peace. We would need more than an office of strategic information to convince the world of that.

2002 Ron Paul 15:11
What do we need? We need a clear understanding and belief in a free society, a true republic that protects individual liberty, private property, free markets, voluntary exchange and private solutions to social problems, placing strict restraints on government meddling in the internal affairs of others.

2002 Ron Paul 15:12
Indeed, we live in challenging and dangerous times.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 16

Congressman Ron Paul
March 20, 2002
Statement Opposing Military Conscription

2002 Ron Paul 16:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation expressing the sense of Congress that the United States government should not revive military conscription. Supporters of conscription have taken advantage of the events of September 11 to renew efforts to reinstate the military draft. However, reviving the draft may actually weaken America’s military. Furthermore, a military draft violates the very principles of individual liberty this country was founded upon. It is no exaggeration to state that military conscription is better suited for a totalitarian government, such as the recently dethroned Taliban regime, than a free society.

2002 Ron Paul 16:2
Since military conscription ended over 30 years ago, voluntary armed services have successfully fulfilled the military needs of the United States. The recent success of the military campaign in Afghanistan once again demonstrates the ability of the volunteer military to respond to threats to the lives, liberty, and property of the people of the United States.

2002 Ron Paul 16:3
A draft weakens the military by introducing tensions and rivalries between those who volunteer for military service and those who have been conscripted. This undermines the cohesiveness of military units, which is a vital element of military effectiveness. Conscripts also are unlikely to choose the military as a career; thus, a draft will do little to address problems with retention. With today’s high-tech military, retention is the most important personnel issue and it seems counter-productive to adopt any policy that will not address this important issue.

2002 Ron Paul 16:4
If conscription helps promote an effective military, then why did General Vladisova Putilin, Chief of the Russian General Staff, react to plans to end the military draft in Russia, by saying “This is the great dream of all servicemen, when our army will become completely professional...?”

2002 Ron Paul 16:5
Instead of reinstating a military draft, Congress should make military service attractive by finally living up to its responsibility to provide good benefits and pay to members of the armed forces and our nation’s veterans. It is an outrage that American military personnel and veterans are given a lower priority in the federal budget than spending to benefit politically powerful special interests. Until this is changed, we will never have a military which reflects our nation’s highest ideals.

2002 Ron Paul 16:6
Mr. Speaker, the most important reason to oppose reinstatement of a military draft is that conscription violates the very principles upon which this country was founded. The basic premise underlying conscription is that the individual belongs to the state, individual rights are granted by the state, and therefore politicians can abridge individual rights at will. In contrast, the philosophy which inspired America’s founders, expressed in the Declaration of Independence, is that individuals possess natural, God-given rights which cannot be abridged by the government. Forcing people into military service against their will thus directly contradicts the philosophy of the Founding Fathers. A military draft also appears to contradict the constitutional prohibition of involuntary servitude.

2002 Ron Paul 16:7
During the War of 1812, Daniel Webster eloquently made the case that a military draft was unconstitutional: “ Where is it written in the Constitution , in what article or section is it contained, that you may take children from their parents, and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battles of any war, in which the folly or the wickedness of Government may engage it? Under what concealment has this power lain hidden, which now for the first time comes forth, with a tremendous and baleful aspect, to trample down and destroy the dearest rights of personal liberty? Sir, I almost disdain to go to quotations and references to prove that such an abominable doctrine had no foundation in the Constitution of the country. It is enough to know that the instrument was intended as the basis of a free government, and that the power contended for is incompatible with any notion of personal liberty. An attempt to maintain this doctrine upon the provisions of the Constitution is an exercise of perverse ingenuity to extract slavery from the substance of a free government. It is an attempt to show, by proof and argument, that we ourselves are subjects of despotism, and that we have a right to chains and bondage, firmly secured to us and our children, by the provisions of our government.”

2002 Ron Paul 16:8
Another eloquent opponent of the draft was former President Ronald Reagan who in a 1979 column on conscription said: “...it 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.”

2002 Ron Paul 16:9
President Reagan and Daniel Webster are not the only prominent Americans to oppose conscription. In fact, throughout American history the draft has been opposed by Americans from across the political spectrum, from Henry David Thoreau to Barry Goldwater to Bill Bradley to Jesse Ventura. Organizations opposed to conscription range from the American Civil Liberties Union to the United Methodist Church General Board of Church and Society, and from the National Taxpayers Union to the Conservative Caucus. Other major figures opposing conscription include current Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman.

2002 Ron Paul 16:10
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to stand up for the long-term military interests of the United States, individual liberty, and values of the Declaration of Independence by cosponsoring my sense of Congress resolution opposing reinstatement of the military draft.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 17

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
April 10, 2002
America’s Entangling Alliances in the Middle East

2002 Ron Paul 17:1
We were warned, and in the early years of our Republic, we heeded that warning. Today, though, we are entangled in everyone’s affairs throughout the world, and we are less safe as a result. The current Middle-East crisis is one that we helped create, and it is typical of how foreign intervention fails to serve our interests. Now we find ourselves smack-dab in the middle of a fight that will not soon end. No matter what the outcome, we lose.

2002 Ron Paul 17:2
By trying to support both sides we, in the end, will alienate both sides. We are forced, by domestic politics here at home, to support Israel at all costs, with billions of dollars of aid, sophisticated weapons, and a guarantee that America will do whatever is necessary for Israel’s security.

2002 Ron Paul 17:3
Political pressure compels us to support Israel, but it is oil that prompts us to guarantee security for the western puppet governments of the oil-rich Arab nations.

2002 Ron Paul 17:4
Since the Israeli-Arab fight will not soon be resolved, our policy of involving ourselves in a conflict unrelated to our security guarantees that we will suffer the consequences.

2002 Ron Paul 17:5
What a choice! We must choose between the character of Arafat versus that of Sharon.

2002 Ron Paul 17:6
The information the average American gets from the major media outlets, with their obvious bias, only makes the problem worse. Who would ever guess that the side that loses seven people to every one on the other side is portrayed as the sole aggressor and condemned as terrorists? We should remember that Palestinian deaths are seen by most Arabs as being American-inspired, since our weapons are being used against them, and they’re the ones whose land has been continuously taken from them.

2002 Ron Paul 17:7
Yet there are still some in this country who can’t understand why many in the Arab/Muslim world hate America.

2002 Ron Paul 17:8
Is it any wonder that the grassroots people in Arab nations, even in Kuwait, threaten their own governments that are totally dominated by American power and money?

2002 Ron Paul 17:9
The arguments against foreign intervention are many. The chaos in the current Middle-East crisis should be evidence enough for all Americans to reconsider our extensive role overseas and reaffirm the foreign policy of our early leaders- a policy that kept us out of the affairs of others.

2002 Ron Paul 17:10
But here we are in the middle of a war that has no end and serves only to divide us here at home, while the unbalanced slaughter continues with tanks and aircraft tearing up a country that does not even have an army.

2002 Ron Paul 17:11
It is amazing that the clamor of support for Israel here at home comes from men of deep religious conviction in the Christian faith, who are convinced they are doing the Lord’s work. That, quite frankly, is difficult for me as a Christian to comprehend. We need to remember the young people who will be on the front lines when the big war starts- which is something so many in this body seem intent on provoking.

2002 Ron Paul 17:12
Ironically, the biggest frustration in Washington, for those who eagerly resort to war to resolve differences, is that the violence in the Middle East has delayed plans for starting another war against Iraq.

2002 Ron Paul 17:13
Current policy prompts our government on one day to give the go-ahead to Sharon to do what he needs to do to combat terrorism (a term that now has little or no meaning); on the next day, however, our government tells him to quit, for fear that we may overly aggravate our oil pals in the Arab nations and jeopardize our oil supplies. This is an impossible policy that will inevitably lead to chaos.

2002 Ron Paul 17:14
Foreign interventionism is bad for America. Special interests control our policies, while true national security is ignored. Real defense needs, the defense of our borders, are ignored, and the financial interests of corporations, bankers, and the military-industrial complex gain control- and the American people lose.

2002 Ron Paul 17:15
It’s costly, to say the least. Already our military budget has sapped domestic spending and caused the deficit to explode. But the greatest danger is that one day these contained conflicts will get out of control. Certainly the stage is set for that to happen in the Middle East and south central Asia. A world war is a possibility that should not be ignored. Our policy of subsidizing both sides is ludicrous. We support Arabs and Jews, Pakistanis and Indians, Chinese and Russians. We have troops in 140 countries around the world just looking for trouble. Our policies have led us to support Al Qaeda in Kosovo and bomb their Serb adversaries. We have, in the past, allied ourselves with bin Laden, as well as Saddam Hussein, only to find out later the seriousness of our mistake. Will this foolishness ever end?

2002 Ron Paul 17:16
A non-interventionist foreign policy has a lot to say for itself, especially when one looks at the danger and inconsistency of our current policy in the Middle East.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 18

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
April 11, 2002
Statement on the “American Servicemember and Civilian Protection Act of 2002”

2002 Ron Paul 18:1
Mr. Paul. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the “American Servicemember and Civilian Protection Act of 2002.”

2002 Ron Paul 18:2
This bill expresses the sense of the Congress that President Bush should formally rescind the signature approving the International Criminal Court made on behalf of the United States, and should take necessary steps to prevent the establishment of that Court. It also prohibits funds made available by the United States Government from being used for the establishment or operation of the Court.

2002 Ron Paul 18:3
Perhaps the most significant part of the bill makes clear that any action taken by or on behalf of the Court against members of the United States Armed Forces shall be considered an act of aggression against the United States; and that any action taken by or on behalf of the Court against a United States citizen or national shall be considered an offense against the law of nations.

2002 Ron Paul 18:4
Mr. Speaker, today in New York and Rome celebrations are underway to mark the formal establishment of this International Criminal Court. Though the United States has not ratified the treaty establishing the Court, as required by the U.S. Constitution, this body will claim jurisdiction over every American citizen -- military personnel and civilian alike.

2002 Ron Paul 18:5
The Court itself, however, is an illegitimate body even by the United Nations’ own standards. The Statute of the International Criminal Court was enacted by a Conference of Diplomats convened by the United Nations General Assembly, whereas according to the UN Charter, the authority to create such a body lies only in the UN Security Council.

2002 Ron Paul 18:6
The International Criminal Court was established contrary to the American Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. It puts United States citizens in jeopardy of unlawful and unconstitutional criminal prosecution.

2002 Ron Paul 18:7
The International Criminal Court does not provide many of the Constitutional protections guaranteed every American citizen, including the right to trial by jury, the right to face your accuser, and the presumption of innocence, and the protection against double jeopardy.

2002 Ron Paul 18:8
Members of the United States Armed Forces are particularly at risk for politically motivated arrests, prosecutions, fines, and imprisonment for acts engaged in for the protection of the United States. These are the same brave men and women who place their lives on the line to protect and defend our Constitution. Do they not deserve the full protections of that same Constitution?

2002 Ron Paul 18:9
Mr. Speaker, I hope all members of this body will join me in opposing this illegitimate and illegal court by co-sponsoring the “American Servicemember and Civilian Protection Act of 2002.”

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 19

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
May 1, 2002
Statement Opposing Taxpayer Funding of Multinational Development Banks

2002 Ron Paul 19:1
Mr. Speaker, Congress can perform a great service to the American taxpayer, as well as citizens in developing countries, by rejecting HR 2604, which reauthorizes two multilateral development banks, the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) and the Asian Development Fund (AsDF).

2002 Ron Paul 19:2
Congress has no constitutional authority to take money from American taxpayers and send that money overseas for any reason . Furthermore, foreign aid undermines the recipient countries’ long-term economic progress by breeding a culture of dependency. Ironically, foreign aid also undermines long-term United States foreign policy goals by breeding resentment among recipients of the aid, which may manifest itself in a foreign policy hostile to the United States.

2002 Ron Paul 19:3
If Congress lacks authority to fund an international food aid program, then Congress certainly lacks authority to use taxpayer funds to promote economic development in foreign lands. Programs such as the AsDF are not only unconstitutional, but, by removing resources from the control of consumers and placing them under the control of bureaucrats and politically-powerful special interests, these programs actually retard economic development in the countries receiving this “aid!” This is because funds received from programs like the AsDF are all-too-often wasted on political boondoggles which benefit the political elites in the recipient countries, but are of little benefit to the individual citizens of those countries.

2002 Ron Paul 19:4
In conclusion, HR 2604 authorizes the continued taking of taxpayer funds for unconstitutional and economically destructive programs. I therefore urge my colleagues to reject this bill, return the money to the American taxpayers, and show the world that the United States Congress is embracing the greatest means of generating prosperity: the free market.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 20

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
May 1, 2002
Statement Opposing Export-Import Bank Subsidies

2002 Ron Paul 20:1
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment, being a cosponsor of this amendment. I am opposed to the Export-Import Bank because I see there is no benefit to it, it has nothing to do with capitalism and freedom. It has a lot to do with special interests, and I am opposed to that.

2002 Ron Paul 20:2
One thing I am convinced of over the years from looking at bad agencies of government, tinkering on the edges does not do a lot of good. Members might ask why am I tinkering here? Why do I want to tell corporations what to do? I am a capitalist. I believe in capitalism. I do not want to tell the corporations what to do at all as long as they do not commit fraud and live up to their promises, but this is different because they are getting taxpayer money. That is different than if they were just a corporation making it on their own.

2002 Ron Paul 20:3
The gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) said if we do not give them these loans, the companies will not get any money and they will have to go overseas. This is a fallacy to believe if all of a sudden we took all of the Export-Import Bank money away from corporations, that they would have no funding. That is not true at all. There is a lot of funding available. It is just that they do not get the benefit, they do not get the subsidy.

2002 Ron Paul 20:4
What we are trying to do is make it fair to everyone so that the little guy who is competing for these same funds can compete on a level playing field and not give the advantage to the big guys. What happens so often when government gets involved is there are unintended consequences. The original intent was to boost exports and jobs. After 70 years, there are unintended consequences. The world is a more world market. I am not opposed to that. I believe in free trade; but I think this is more protectionism. This is so minor and so modest that anybody who wants to be on record for fairness into curtailing the political power of the Export-Import Bank, has to vote for this. This will be a little bit of help to a few people in order to say to these corporations that if they are going to get tax subsidies for their loans, and they start laying off people, they better lay them off someplace else other than here. That is pretty modest. I have no interest in ever telling a corporation to do this if they were not getting the special benefits from government. That makes the big difference.

2002 Ron Paul 20:5
Mr. Chairman, there is a market allocation of credit and there is credit allocation by politicians, and that is what we are talking about here. We have credit allocation, and we have mal-investment and over capacity which causes the conditions to exist for the recession. Of course, a lot of this comes from what the Federal Reserve does in artificially lowering interest rates; but this is a compounding problem when government gets in and allocates credit at lower rates. It causes more distortions. This is why allocations to companies like Enron contributes to the bubble that ends up in a major correction.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 21

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
May 1, 2002
Statement Opposing Export-Import Bank Corporate Welfare

2002 Ron Paul 21:1
Mr. Chairman, we are here today to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank, but it has nothing to do with a bank, do not mislead anybody. This has to do with an agency of the government that allocates credit to special interests and to the benefit of foreign entities. So it is not a bank in that sense. To me it is immoral in the fact that it takes from some who cannot defend themselves to give to the rich who get the benefits. And I just do not see that as being a very good function and a very good program for the U.S. Congress. Besides, I would like to see where somebody gives me the constitutional authority for doing what we do here and we have been doing, of course, for a long time.

2002 Ron Paul 21:2
But I do not want to talk about the immorality of this so-called bank or the unconstitutionality of it. I want to talk just a second or two about the economics of it. It is really bad economics. It is pointed out that it helps a company here or there, but what is never talked about what you do not see. This is credit allocation.

2002 Ron Paul 21:3
In order to take billions of dollars and give it to one single company, it is taken out of the pool of funds available. And nobody talks about that. There is an expense. Why would not a bank loan when it is guaranteed by the government? Because it is guaranteed. So if you are a smaller investor or a marginal investor, there is no way that you are going to get the loan. For that investor to get the loan, the interest rates have to be higher. So it is a form of credit allocation, and it is also a form of protectionism. We do a lot of talk around here about free trade. Of course, there is a lot of tariff activity going on as well, but this is a form of protectionism. Because some argue, well, this company has to compete and another government subsidizes their company so, therefore, we have to compete. So it is competitive subsidization of special interest corporations in order to do this.

2002 Ron Paul 21:4
Now, it seems strange that we here in the Congress are willing to give the beneficiary China the most number of dollars. They qualify for nearly $6 billion worth of credits. And that just does not seem like the reasonable thing for us to do. So I strongly urge a no vote on this bill.

2002 Ron Paul 21:5
Mr. Chairman, Congress should reject H.R. 2871, the Export-Import Reauthorization Act, for economic, constitutional, and moral reasons. The Export-Import Bank (Eximbank) takes money from American taxpayers to subsidize exports by American companies. Of course, it is not just any company that receives Eximbank support; the majority of Eximbank funding benefit large, politically powerful corporations.

2002 Ron Paul 21:6
Enron provides a perfect example of how Eximbank provides politically-powerful corporations competitive advantages they could not obtain in the free market. According to journalist Robert Novak, Enron has received over $640 million in taxpayer-funded “assistance” from Eximbank. This taxpayer-provided largesse no doubt helped postpone Enron’s inevitable day of reckoning.

2002 Ron Paul 21:7
Eximbank’s use of taxpayer funds to support Enron is outrageous, but hardly surprising. The the vast majority of Eximbank funds benefit Enron-like outfits that must rely on political connections and government subsidies to survive and/or multinational corporations who can afford to support their own exports without relying on the American taxpayer.

2002 Ron Paul 21:8
It is not only bad economics to force working Americans, small business, and entrepreneurs to subsidize the export of the large corporations: it is also immoral. In fact, this redistribution from the poor and middle class to the wealthy is the most indefensible aspect of the welfare state, yet it is the most accepted form of welfare. Mr. Speaker, it never ceases to amaze me how members who criticize welfare for the poor on moral and constitutional grounds see no problem with the even more objectionable programs that provide welfare for the rich.

2002 Ron Paul 21:9
The moral case against Eximbank is strengthened when one considers that the government which benefits most from Eximbank funds is communist China. In fact, Eximbank actually underwrites joint ventures with firms owned by the Chinese government! Whatever one’s position on trading with China, I would hope all of us would agree that it is wrong to force taxpayers to subsidize in any way this brutal regime. Unfortunately, China is not an isolated case: Colombia and Sudan benefit from taxpayer-subsidized trade, courtesy of the Eximbank!

2002 Ron Paul 21:10
At a time when the Federal budget is going back into deficit and Congress is once again preparing to raid the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, does it really make sense to use taxpayer funds to benefit future Enrons, Fortune 500 companies, and communist China?

2002 Ron Paul 21:11
Proponents of continued American support for the Eximbank claim that the bank creates jobs and promotes economic growth. However, this claim rests on a version of what the great economist Henry Hazlitt called, the “broken window” fallacy. When a hoodlum throws a rock through a store window, it can be said he has contributed to the economy, as the store owner will have to spend money having the window fixed. The benefits to those who repaired the window are visible for all to see, therefore it is easy to see the broken window as economically beneficial. However, the “benefits” of the broken window are revealed as an illusion when one takes into account what is not seen: the businesses and workers who would have benefited had the store owner not spent money repairing a window, but rather had been free to spend his money as he chose. Similarly, the beneficiaries of Eximbank are visible to all. What is not seen is the products that would have been built, the businesses that would have been started, and the jobs that would have been created had the funds used for the Eximbank been left in the hands of consumers.

2002 Ron Paul 21:12
Some supporters of this bill equate supporting Eximbank with supporting “free trade,” and claim that opponents are “protectionists” and “isolationists.” Mr. Chairman, this is nonsense, Eximbank has nothing to do with free trade. True free trade involves the peaceful, voluntary exchange of goods across borders, not forcing taxpayers to subsidize the exports of politically powerful companies. Eximbank is not free trade, but rather managed trade, where winners and losers are determined by how well they please government bureacrats instead of how well they please consumers.

2002 Ron Paul 21:13
Expenditures on the Eximbank distort the market by diverting resources from the private sector, where they could be put to the use most highly valued by individual consumers, into the public sector, where their use will be determined by bureaucrats and politically powerful special interests. By distorting the market and preventing resources from achieving their highest valued use, Eximbank actually costs Americans jobs and reduces America’s standard of living!

2002 Ron Paul 21:14
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind my colleagues that there is simply no constitutional justification for the expenditure of funds on programs such as Eximbank. In fact, the drafters of the Constitution would be horrified to think the Federal Government was taking hard-earned money from the American people in order to benefit the politically powerful.

2002 Ron Paul 21:15
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, Eximbank distorts the market by allowing government bureaucrats to make economic decisions in place of individual consumers. Eximbank also violates basic principles of morality, by forcing working Americans to subsidize the trade of wealthy companies that could easily afford to subsidize their own trade, as well as subsidizing brutal governments like Red China and the Sudan. Eximbank also violates the limitations on congressional power to take the property of individual citizens and use it to benefit powerful special interests. It is for these reasons that I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 2871, the Export-Import Bank Reauthorization Act.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 22

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
May 2, 2002
Statement in Support of a Balanced Approach to the Middle East Peace Process

2002 Ron Paul 22:1
MR. PAUL: Mr. Speaker, this legislation could not have come at a worse time in the ongoing Middle East crisis. Just when we have seen some positive signs that the two sides may return to negotiations toward a peaceful settlement, Congress has jumped into the fray on one side of the conflict. I do not believe that this body wishes to de-rail the slight progress that seems to have come from the Administration’s more even-handed approach over the past several days. So why is it that we are here today ready to pass legislation that clearly and openly favors one side in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

2002 Ron Paul 22:2
There are many troubling aspects to this legislation. The legislation says that “the number of Israelis killed during that time [since September 2000] by suicide terrorist attacks alone, on a basis proportional to the United States population, is approximately 9,000, three times the number killed in the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington on September 11, 2001.” This kind of numbers game with the innocent dead strikes me as terribly disrespectful and completely unhelpful.

2002 Ron Paul 22:3
It is, when speaking of the dead, the one-sidedness of this bill that is so unfortunate. How is it that the side that loses seven people to every one on the other side is portrayed as the sole aggressor and condemned as terrorist? This is only made worse by the fact that Palestinian deaths are seen in the Arab world as being American-inspired, as it is our weapons that are being used against them. This bill just reinforces negative perceptions of the United States in that part of the world. What might be the consequences of this? I think we need to stop and think about that for a while. We in this body have a Constitutional responsibility to protect the national security of the United States. This one-sided intervention in a far-off war has the potential to do great harm to our national security.

2002 Ron Paul 22:4
Perhaps this is why the Administration views this legislation as “not a very helpful approach” to the situation in the Middle East. In my view, it is bad enough that we are intervening at all in this conflict, but this legislation strips any lingering notion that the United States intends to be an honest broker. It states clearly that the leadership of one side - the Palestinians - is bad and supports terrorism just at a time when this Administration negotiates with both sides in an attempt to bring peace to the region. Talk about undermining the difficult efforts of the president and the State Department. What incentive does Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat or his organization have to return to the negotiating table if we as “honest broker” make it clear that in Congress’s eyes, the Palestinians are illegitimate terrorists? Must we become so involved in this far-off conflict that we are forced to choose between Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon? The United States Congress should not, Constitutionally, be in the business of choosing who gets to lead which foreign people.

2002 Ron Paul 22:5
Many people of various religious backgrounds seem determined to portray what is happening in the Middle East as some kind of historic/religious struggle, where one side is pre-ordained to triumph and destroy the other. Even some in this body have embraced this notion. Surely the religious component that some interject into the conflict rouses emotions and adds fuel to the fire. But this is dangerous thinking. Far from a great holy war, the Middle East conflict is largely about what most wars are about: a struggle for land and resources in a part of the world where both are scarce. We must think and act rationally, with this fact clearly in mind.

2002 Ron Paul 22:6
Just as with our interventionism in other similar struggles around the world, our meddling in the Middle East has unforeseen consequences. Our favoritism of one side has led to the hatred of America and Americans by the other side. We are placing our country in harm’s way with this approach. It is time to step back and look at our policy in the Middle East. After 24 years of the “peace process” and some 300 billion of our dollars, we are no closer to peace than when President Carter concluded the Camp David talks.

2002 Ron Paul 22:7
Mr. Speaker, any other policy that had so utterly failed over such a long period of time would likely come under close scrutiny here. Why is it that when it comes to interventionism in the Middle East conflict we continue down this unproductive and very expensive road?

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 23

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
May 9, 2002
Say No to Conscription

2002 Ron Paul 23:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues who believe that the current war on terrorism justifies violating the liberty of millions of young men by reinstating a military draft will consider the eloquent argument against conscription in the attached speech by Daniel Webster. Then-representative Webster delivered his remarks on the floor of the House in opposition to a proposal to institute a draft during the War of 1812. Webster’s speech remains one of the best statements of the Constitutional and moral case against conscription.

2002 Ron Paul 23:2
Despite the threat posed to the very existence of the young republic by the invading British Empire, Congress ultimately rejected the proposal to institute a draft. If the new nation of America could defeat what was then the most powerful military empire in the world without a draft, there is no reason why we cannot address our current military needs with a voluntary military.

2002 Ron Paul 23:3
Webster was among the first of a long line of prominent Americans, including former President Ronald Reagan and Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, to recognize that a draft violates the fundamental principles of liberty this country was founded upon. 

2002 Ron Paul 23:4
 In order to reaffirm support for individual liberty and an effective military, I have introduced H. Con. Res. 368, which expresses the sense of Congress against reinstating a military draft. I urge my colleagues to read Daniel Webster’s explanation of why the draft is incompatible with liberty government and cosponsor H. Con. Res. 368.

2002 Ron Paul 23:5
ON CONSCRIPTION (By Daniel Webster)
During America’s first great war, waged against Great Britain, the Madison Administration tried to introduce a conscription bill into Congress. This bill called forth one of Daniel Webster’s most eloquent efforts, in a powerful opposition to conscription. The speech was delivered in the House of Representatives on December 9, 1814; the following is a condensation:

2002 Ron Paul 23:6
This bill indeed is less undisguised in its object, and less direct in its means, than some of the measures proposed. It is an attempt to exercise the power of forcing the free men of this country into the ranks of an army, for the general purposes of war, under color of a military service. It is a distinct system, introduced for new purposes, and not connected with any power, which the Constitution has conferred on Congress.

2002 Ron Paul 23:7
But, Sir, there is another consideration. The services of the men to be raised under this act are not limited to those cases in which alone this Government is entitled to the aid of the militia of the States. These cases are particularly stated in the Constitution--“to repel invasion, suppress insurrection, or execute the laws.”

2002 Ron Paul 23:8
The question is nothing less, than whether the most essential rights of personal liberty shall be surrendered, and despotism embraced in its worst form. When the present generation of men shall be swept away, and that this Government ever existed shall be a matter of history only, I desire that it may then be known, that you have not proceeded in your course unadmonished and unforewarned. Let it then be known, that there were those, who would have stopped you, in the career of your measures, and held you back, as by the skirts of your garments, from the precipice, over which you are plunging, and drawing after you the Government of your Country.

2002 Ron Paul 23:9
Conscription is chosen as the most promising instrument, both of overcoming reluctance to the Service, and of subduing the difficulties which arise from the deficiencies of the Exchequer. The administration asserts the right to fill the ranks of the regular army by compulsion. It contends that it may now take one out of every twenty-five men, and any part or the whole of the rest, whenever its occasions require. Persons thus taken by force, and put into an army, may be compelled to serve there, during the war, or for life. They may be put on any service, at home or abroad, for defense or for invasion, according to the will and pleasure of Government. This power does not grow out of any invasion of the country, or even out of a state of war. It belongs to Government at all times, in peace as well as in war, and is to be exercised under all circumstances, according to its mere discretion. This, Sir, is the amount of the principle contended for by the Secretary of War (James Monroe).

2002 Ron Paul 23:10
Is this, Sir, consistent with the character of a free Government? Is this civil liberty? Is this the real character of our Constitution? No, Sir, indeed it is not. The Constitution is libeled, foully libeled. The people of this country have not established for themselves such a fabric of despotism. They have not purchased at a vast expense of their own treasure and their own blood a Magna Carta to be slaves. Where is it written in the Constitution, in what article or section is it contained, that you may take children from their parents, and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battles of any war, in which the folly or the wickedness of Government may engage it? Under what concealment has this power lain hidden, which now for the first time comes forth, with a tremendous and baleful aspect, to trample down and destroy the dearest rights of personal liberty?  Sir, I almost disdain to go to quotations and references to prove that such an abominable doctrine has no foundation in the Constitution of the country. It is enough to know that that instrument was intended as the basis of a free Government, and that the power contended for is incompatible with any notion of personal liberty. An attempt to maintain this doctrine upon the provisions of the Constitution is an exercise of perverse ingenuity to extract slavery from the substance of a free Government. It is an attempt to show, by proof and argument, that we ourselves are subjects of despotism, and that we have a right to chains and bondage, firmly secured to us and our children, by the provisions of our Government.

2002 Ron Paul 23:11
The supporters of the measures before us act on the principle that it is their task to raise arbitrary powers, by construction, out of a plain written charter of National Liberty. It is their pleasing duty to free us of the delusion, which we have fondly cherished, that we are the subjects of a mild, free and limited Government, and to demonstrate by a regular chain of premises and conclusions, that Government possesses over us a power more tyrannical, more arbitrary, more dangerous, more allied to blood and murder, more full of every form of mischief, more productive of every sort and degree of misery, than has been exercised by any civilized Government in modern times.

2002 Ron Paul 23:12
But it is said, that it might happen that any army would not be raised by voluntary enlistment, in which case the power to raise armies would be granted in vain, unless they might be raised by compulsion. If this reasoning could prove any thing, it would equally show, that whenever the legitimate powers of the Constitution should be so badly administered as to cease to answer the great ends intended by them, such new powers may be assumed or usurped, as any existing administration may deem expedient. This is a result of his own reasoning, to which the Secretary does not profess to go. But it is a true result.  For if it is to be assumed, that all powers were granted, which might by possibility become necessary, and that Government itself is the judge of this possible necessity, then the powers of Government are precisely what it chooses they should be.

2002 Ron Paul 23:13
The tyranny of Arbitrary Government consists as much in its means as in its end; and it would be a ridiculous and absurd constitution which should be less cautious to guard against abuses in the one case than in the other. All the means and instruments which a free Government exercises, as well as the ends and objects which it pursues, are to partake of its own essential character, and to be conformed to its genuine spirit. A free Government with arbitrary means to administer it is a contradiction; a free Government without adequate provision for personal security is an absurdity; a free Government, with an uncontrolled power of military conscription, is a solecism, at once the most ridiculous and abominable that ever entered into the head of man.

2002 Ron Paul 23:14
Into the paradise of domestic life you enter, not indeed by temptations and sorceries, but by open force and violence.

2002 Ron Paul 23:15
Nor is it, Sir, for the defense of his own house and home, that he who is the subject of military draft is to perform the task allotted to him. You will put him upon a service equally foreign to his interests and abhorrent to his feelings. With his aid you are to push your purposes of conquest. The battles which he is to fight are the battles of invasion; battles which he detests perhaps and abhors, less from the danger and the death that gather over them, and the blood with which they drench the plain, than from the principles in which they have their origin. If, Sir, in this strife he fall — if, while ready to obey every rightful command of Government, he is forced from home against right, not to contend for the defense of his country, but to prosecute a miserable and detestable project of invasion, and in that strife he fall, ’tis murder. It may stalk above the cognizance of human law, but in the sight of Heaven it is murder; and though millions of years may roll away, while his ashes and yours lie mingled together in the earth, the day will yet come, when his spirit and the spirits of his children must be met at the bar of omnipotent justice. May God, in his compassion, shield me from any participation in the enormity of this guilt.

2002 Ron Paul 23:16
A military force cannot be raised, in this manner, but by the means of a military force. If administration has found that it can not form an army without conscription, it will find, if it venture on these experiments, that it can not enforce conscription without an army. The Government was not constituted for such purposes. Framed in the spirit of liberty, and in the love of peace, it has no powers which render it able to enforce such laws. The attempt, if we rashly make it, will fail; and having already thrown away our peace, we may thereby throw away our Government.

2002 Ron Paul 23:17
I express these sentiments here, Sir, because I shall express them to my constituents. Both they and myself live under a Constitution which teaches us, that “the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.” With the same earnestness with which I now exhort you to forbear from these measures, I shall exhort them to exercise their unquestionable right of providing for the security of their own liberties.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 24

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
May 9, 2002
Statement on the Paul Amendment to H.R. 4546, the Defense Authorization Act of 2003

2002 Ron Paul 24:1
Not One American Tax Dollar to the International Criminal Court

2002 Ron Paul 24:2
Mr. PAUL: Mr. Speaker, earlier this week President Bush took the bold step of renouncing the signature of the United States on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The Bush Administration, in explaining this move, correctly pointed out that this court has unchecked power that contradicts our Constitution and its system of checks and balances; that the Court is “open for exploitation and politically-motivated prosecutions;” and that “the ICC asserts jurisdiction over citizens of states that have not ratified the treaty” – which undermines American sovereignty.

2002 Ron Paul 24:3
President Bush, in renouncing the U.S. signature and declaring that the United States would have nothing to do with the International Criminal Court, has put the Court on notice that the United States will defend its sovereignty and its citizens. The president is to be most highly commended for standing strong for American sovereignty in the face of world-wide attempts to undermine that sovereignty with this deeply flawed global court.

2002 Ron Paul 24:4
But there is no time to rest on this victory. As Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stated this week, upon our renunciation of the ICC: “Unfortunately, the ICC will not respect the U.S. decision to stay out of the treaty. To the contrary, the ICC provisions claim the authority to detain and try American citizens-U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines, as well as current and future officials-even though the United States has not given its consent to be bound by the treaty.” Secretary Rumsfeld added, “When the ICC treaty enters into force this summer, U.S. citizens will be exposed to the risk of prosecution by a court that is unaccountable to the American people, and that has no obligation to respect the Constitutional rights of our citizens.”

2002 Ron Paul 24:5
Secretary Rumsfeld is correct. It is clear that the International Criminal Court has no intention of honoring our president’s decision to neither participate in nor support their global judicial enterprise. According to the Statutes of the court, they do indeed claim jurisdiction over Americans even though the president has now stated forcefully that we do not recognize the Court nor are we a party to the Treaty.

2002 Ron Paul 24:6
I have introduced this amendment to the Defense Authorization Act, therefore, to support the president’s decision and to indicate that Congress is behind him in his rejection of this unconstitutional global court. It is imperative that we not award the International Criminal Court a single tax dollar to further its objective of undermining our sovereignty and our Constitutional protections. How could we do anything less: each of us in this body has taken an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States?

2002 Ron Paul 24:7
I am also introducing today a Sense of the Congress bill to commend President Bush for his bold and brave decision to renounce the United States’ signature on the Statute of the International Court. We must support the president as he seeks to protect American servicemen and citizens from this court. I hope all of my colleagues here will co-sponsor and support this legislation, and please call my office for more details.

2002 Ron Paul 24:8
In the meantime, I urge enthusiastic support of this amendment before us. We must speak with one voice in denying the International Criminal Court a single American tax dollar!

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 25

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
May 9, 2002
Statement on the introduction of H. Res. 416, Expressing the Sense of the Congress regarding the International Criminal Court

2002 Ron Paul 25:1
We Want No Part of the ICC: Commending President Bush Mr. PAUL: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a bill Expressing the Sense of the Congress regarding the International Criminal Court.

2002 Ron Paul 25:2
On Monday, May 6, President George W. Bush directed his representative to inform United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan that the United States “does not intend to become a party to the treaty [the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC)].” President Bush is to be highly commended for renouncing the U.S. signature on the ICC treaty, a bold first step toward protecting American servicemembers and citizens from the possibility of unwarranted and politically-motivated persecutions.

2002 Ron Paul 25:3
By taking this action, President Bush has put the international community on notice that the United States will defend its sovereignty and citizens from this global court. The Bush Administration correctly pointed out that the ICC has unchecked power that contradicts our Constitution and its system of checks and balances; that the Court is “open for exploitation and politically-motivated prosecutions;” and that “the ICC asserts jurisdiction over citizens of states that have not ratified the treaty” – which seriously threatens American sovereignty.

2002 Ron Paul 25:4
I applaud President Bush in making it perfectly clear that the United States wants no part of the ICC. He faced enormous pressure from the international community to do otherwise, yet he did the right thing.

2002 Ron Paul 25:5
But this is only a first step. As Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stated this week, upon our renunciation of the ICC: “Unfortunately, the ICC will not respect the U.S. decision to stay out of the treaty. To the contrary, the ICC provisions claim the authority to detain and try American citizens-U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines, as well as current and future officials-even though the United States has not given its consent to be bound by the treaty.” Secretary Rumsfeld added, “When the ICC treaty enters into force this summer, U.S. citizens will be exposed to the risk of prosecution by a court that is unaccountable to the American people, and that has no obligation to respect the Constitutional rights of our citizens.”

2002 Ron Paul 25:6
Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman, explaining the president’s decision to withdraw from the ICC, made the following critical point: “Notwithstanding our disagreements with the Rome Treaty, the United States respects the decision of those nations who have chosen to join the ICC; but they in turn must respect our decision not to join the ICC or place our citizens under the jurisdiction of the court.” There is no indication that Undersecretary Grossman’s message has been received.

2002 Ron Paul 25:7
Therefore, this legislation makes it clear that Congress should take all steps necessary to grant appropriate authority to the president to defend the American people – servicemember and citizen alike -- from the threat of arrest, prosecution and conviction by the International Criminal Court.

2002 Ron Paul 25:8
I am introducing this legislation to also to commend President Bush for his courageous move, to assure the president that this body supports his action to protect the Constitution and American sovereignty. We have all taken an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, and we should stand with the president.

2002 Ron Paul 25:9
I rise, finally, to encourage the president to remain steadfast in his intention of protecting American servicemembers and citizens from the unchecked power of the International Criminal Court. This is only the beginning, however, there is much more to be done.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 26

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
May 14, 2002
No Forced Dress Code for U.S. Soldiers Abroad

2002 Ron Paul 26:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, while I support this legislation, I would like to make a few observations. It is unfortunate that we are in a position where we must act on such legislation.  Because of our unwise policy of foreign interventionism, which has placed thousands of American service members in the Middle East including in Saudi Arabia, we are placed in a no-win situation. Either we disregard and mock the customs and culture of Saudi Arabia by refusing to adhere to dress codes that they have adopted, or we subject American women to a dress code that is offensive to our own culture and customs and is disrespectful to the sacrifices they are making for this country. What a choice, Mr. Speaker!

2002 Ron Paul 26:2
I am voting for this bill because I believe, on the whole, that it is preferable to place concerns about our own citizens over those whose homeland is being defended by American troops.  Young Americans join the all-volunteer military as an act of patriotism in hopes of defending their country and their constitution. We in Congress must honor that sacrifice. it is bad enough that our troops are sent around the world to defend foreign soil. Asking them to comply with foreign customs which violate basic American beliefs about freedom in order to appease the very governments our troops are defending adds insult to injury. I do not believe a single female member of the armed forces enlisted for the “privilege” of wearing an abaya while defending the House of Saud or that one single male member of the armed forces enlisted in order to force his female colleagues to wear an abaya.

2002 Ron Paul 26:3
The fact remains that we continue to maintain troops in a place where they are not needed. It is the consequences of this dangerous policy that concern me most. Isn’t it time to return to a more sound foreign policy, one that respects the culture of others by not intervening in their affairs? Is it not time to bring American troops home to protect America, rather than continuing to station them in far off lands where the protection they offer is not needed?

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 27

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
May 16, 2002
Stop Perpetuating the Welfare State

2002 Ron Paul 27:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, no one can deny that welfare programs have undermined America’s moral fabric and constitutional system. Therefore, all those concerned with restoring liberty and protecting civil society from the maw of the omnipotent state should support efforts to eliminate the welfare state, or, at the very last, reduce federal control over the provision of social services. Unfortunately, the misnamed Personal Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act (H.R. 4737) actually increases the unconstitutional federal welfare state and thus undermines personal responsibility, the work ethic, and the family.

2002 Ron Paul 27:2
H.R. 4737 reauthorizes the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) block grant program, the main federal welfare program. Mr. Speaker, increasing federal funds always increases federal control as the recipients of the funds must tailor their programs to meet federal mandates and regulations. More importantly, since federal funds represent resources taken out of the hands of private individuals, increasing federal funding leaves fewer resources available for the voluntary provision of social services, which, as I will explain in more detail later, is a more effective, moral, and constitutional means of meeting the needs of the poor.

2002 Ron Paul 27:3
H.R. 4737 further increases federal control over welfare policy by increasing federal mandates on welfare recipients. This bill even goes so far as to dictate to states how they must spend their own funds! Many of the new mandates imposed by this legislation concern work requirements. Of course, Mr. Speaker, there is a sound argument for requiring recipients of welfare benefits to work. Among other benefits, a work requirement can help a welfare recipient obtain useful job skills and thus increase the likelihood that they will find productive employment. However, forcing welfare recipients to work does raise valid concerns regarding how much control over one’s life should be ceded to the government in exchange for government benefits.

2002 Ron Paul 27:4
In addition, Mr. Speaker, it is highly unlikely that a “one-size-fits-all” approach dictated from Washington will meet the diverse needs of every welfare recipient in every state and locality in the nation. Proponents of this bill claim to support allowing states, localities, and private charities the flexibility to design welfare-to-work programs that fit their particular circumstances. Yet, as Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura points out in the attached article, this proposal constricts the ability of the states to design welfare-to-work programs that meet the unique needs of their citizens.

2002 Ron Paul 27:5
As Governor Ventura points out in reference to this proposal’s effects on Minnesota’s welfare-to-welfare work program, “We know what we are doing in Minnesota works. We have evidence. And our way of doing things has broad support in the state. Why should we be forced by the federal government to put our system at risk?” Why indeed, Mr. Speaker, should any state be forced to abandon its individual welfare programs because a group of self-appointed experts in Congress, the federal bureaucracy, and inside-the-beltway think tanks have decided there is only one correct way to transition people from welfare to work?

2002 Ron Paul 27:6
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4737 further expands the reach of the federal government by authorizing $100 million dollars for new “marriage promotion” programs. I certainly recognize how the welfare state has contributed to the decline of the institution of marriage. As an ob-gyn with over 30 years of private practice. I know better than most the importance of stable, two parent families to a healthy society. However, I am skeptical, to say the least, of claims that government education programs can fix the deep-rooted cultural problems responsible for the decline of the American family.

2002 Ron Paul 27:7
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, federal promotion of marriage opens the door for a level of social engineering that should worry all those concerned with preserving a free society. The federal government has no constitutional authority to promote any particular social arrangement; instead, the founders recognized that people are better off when they form their own social arrangements free from federal interference. The history of the failed experiments with welfarism and socialism shows that government can only destroy a culture; when a government tries to build a culture, it only further erodes the people’s liberty.

2002 Ron Paul 27:8
H.R. 4737 further raises serious privacy concerns by expanding the use of the “New Hires Database” to allow states to use the database to verify unemployment claims. The New Hires Database contains the name and social security number of everyone lawfully employed in the United States. Increasing the states’ ability to identify fraudulent unemployment claims is a worthwhile public policy goal. However, every time Congress authorizes a new use for the New Hires Database it takes a step toward transforming it into a universal national database that can be used by government officials to monitor the lives of American citizens.

2002 Ron Paul 27:9
As with all proponents of welfare programs, the supporters of H.R. 4737 show a remarkable lack of trust in the American people. They would have us believe that without the federal government, the lives of the poor would be “nasty, brutish and short.” However, as scholar Sheldon Richman of the Future of Freedom Foundation and others have shown, voluntary charities and organizations, such as friendly societies that devoted themselves to helping those in need, flourished in the days before the welfare state turned charity into a government function.

2002 Ron Paul 27:10
Today, government welfare programs have supplemented the old-style private programs. One major reason for this is that the policy of high taxes and the inflationary monetary policy imposed on the American people in order to finance the welfare state have reduced the income available for charitable giving. Many over-taxed Americans take the attitude toward private charity that “I give at the (tax) office.”

2002 Ron Paul 27:11
Releasing the charitable impulses of the American people by freeing them from the excessive tax burden so they can devote more of their resources to charity, is a moral and constitutional means of helping the needy. By contrast, the federal welfare state is neither moral or constitutional. Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to level excessive taxes on one group of citizens for the benefit of another group of citizens. Many of the founders would have been horrified to see modern politicians define compassion as giving away other people’s money stolen through confiscatory taxation. In the words of the famous essay by former Congressman Davy Crockett, this money is “Not Yours to Give.”

2002 Ron Paul 27:12
Voluntary charities also promote self-reliance, but government welfare programs foster dependency. In fact, it is the self-interests of the bureaucrats and politicians who control the welfare state to encourage dependency. After all, when a private organization moves a person off welfare, the organization has fulfilled its mission and proved its worth to donors. In contrast, when people leave government welfare programs, they have deprived federal bureaucrats of power and of a justification for a larger amount of taxpayer funding.

2002 Ron Paul 27:13
In conclusion, H.R. 4737 furthers federal control over welfare programs by imposing new mandates on the states which furthers unconstitutional interference in matters best left to state local governments, and individuals. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose it. Instead, I hope my colleagues will learn the lessons of the failure of the welfare state and embrace a constitutional and compassionate agenda of returning control over the welfare programs to the American people through large tax cuts.

2002 Ron Paul 27:14
Welfare: Not the Fed’s Job  (By Jesse Ventura) In 1996, the federal government ended 60 years of failed welfare policy that trapped families in dependency rather than helping them to self-sufficiency. The 1996 law scrapped the federally centralized welfare system in favor of broad flexibility so states could come up with their own welfare programs. It was a move that had bipartisan support, was smart public policy and worked.

2002 Ron Paul 27:15
Welfare reform has been a huge success. Even those who criticized the 1996 law now agree it is working. Welfare case loads are down, more families are working, family income is up, and child poverty has dropped.

2002 Ron Paul 27:16
The reason is simple: state flexibility. In six short years the states undid a 60-year-old federally prescribed welfare system and created their own programs which are far better for poor families and for taxpayers.

2002 Ron Paul 27:17
But now it appears the Bush administration is having second thoughts about empowering the states. The administration’s proposal would return us to a federally prescribed system. It would impose rules on how states work with each family, forcing a “one size fits all” model for a system that for the past six years has produced individualized systems that have been successful in states across the country.

2002 Ron Paul 27:18
I would hope that as a former governor, President Bush would understand that these problems are better handled by the individual states. The administration’s proposal would cripple welfare reform in my state and many others.

2002 Ron Paul 27:19
I know that my friend Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson did a wonderful job of reforming Wisconsin’s welfare system. But that doesn’t mean the Wisconsin system would be as effective in Vermont. My state of Minnesota is also a national model for welfare reform. It is a national model, in part because we make sure welfare reform gets families out of poverty. How do we do this? Exactly the way President Bush and Secretary

2002 Ron Paul 27:20
Thompson would want us to do it: by putting people to work. But here’s the rub- it matters how families on welfare get to work. In Minnesota, we work with each family one on one and use a broad range of services to make sure the family breadwinner gets and keeps a decent job. For some families it might take a little longer that what the president is comfortable with, but the results are overwhelmingly positive. A three-year follow-up of Minnesota families on welfare found that more than three-quarters have left welfare or gone to work. Families that have left welfare for work earn more than $9 an hour, higher than comparable figures in other states. The federal government has twice cited Minnesota as a leader among the states in job retention and advancement.

2002 Ron Paul 27:21
An independent evaluation of Minnesota’s welfare reform pilot found it to be perhaps the most successful welfare reform effort in the nation. The evaluation found Minnesota’s program not only increased employment and earnings but also reduced poverty, reduced domestic abuse, reduced behavioral problems with kids and improved their school performance. It also found that marriage and marital stability increased as a result of higher family incomes.

2002 Ron Paul 27:22
The administration’s proposal would have Minnesota set all this aside and focus instead on make-work activities. In Minnesota we believe that success in welfare reform is about helping families progress to a self-sufficiency that will last. While it may be politically appealing to demand that all welfare recipients have shovels in their hands, it makes sense to me that the states- and not the feds- are in the best position to make those decisions.

2002 Ron Paul 27:23
We know what we are doing in Minnesota works. We have evidence. And our way of doing things has broad support in the state. Why should we be forced by the federal government to put our system at risk?

2002 Ron Paul 27:24
I believe in accountable and responsive government, and have no problem with the federal government holding states accountable for results in welfare reform. But I also believe that in this case the people closest to the problem should be trusted to solve the problem and be left alone if they have.

2002 Ron Paul 27:25
Secretary Thompson, with the blessing of the president, seems to be taking us down a road that violates the tenets of states’ rights.

2002 Ron Paul 27:26
Say it ain’t so, Tommy. As long as it’s working, why not let the states do our own thing?

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 28

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
May 21, 2002
Don’t Force Taxpayers to Fund Nation-Building in Afghanistan

2002 Ron Paul 28:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill. The President has not asked for this piece of legislation; he does not support it. We do not anticipate that it will be passed in the other body. But there is one good part of the bill, and that is the title, “Freedom Support.” We all support freedom. It is just that this bill does not support freedom. Really, it undermines the liberties and the taxes of many Americans in order to pump another in $1.2 billion into Afghanistan.

2002 Ron Paul 28:2
One of the moral justifications, maybe, for rebuilding Afghanistan is that it was the American bombs that helped to destroy Afghanistan in our routing of the Taliban. But there is a lot of shortcomings in this method. Nation-building does not work. I think this will fail. I do not think it will help us.

2002 Ron Paul 28:3
I do not think for a minute that this is much different than social engineering that we try here in the U.S. with a lot of duress and a lot of problems; and now we are going to do it over there where we really do not understand the social conditions that exist, and it is not like here. Some, especially those in that part of the world, will see this as neo-colonialism because we are over there for a lot of different reasons. And even in the bill it states one of the reasons. It says, “We are to design an overall strategy to advance U.S. interests in Afghanistan.”

2002 Ron Paul 28:4
Well, I wonder what that means? Over 10 years ago there was an explicit desire and a statement made by the administration that until we had a unified government in Afghanistan, we could not build a gas pipeline across northern Afghanistan. And that is in our interests. Does that mean this is one of the motivations?

2002 Ron Paul 28:5
I imagine a lot of people here in the Congress might say no, but that might be the ultimate outcome. It is said that this bill may cut down on the drug trade. But the Taliban was stronger against drugs than the Northern Alliance. Drug production is up since we’ve been involved this past year in Afghanistan.

2002 Ron Paul 28:6
Madam Chairman, I think it is important to state first off that while it is true that the administration has not actively opposed this legislation, it certainly has not asked for nor does it support the Afghanistan Freedom Support Act. It did not support the bill when we marked it up in the International Relations Committee, it did not support the bill after it was amended in Committee, and it does not support the bill today.

2002 Ron Paul 28:7
Madam Chairman, perhaps the “Afghanistan Freedom Support Act” should more accurately be renamed the “Afghanistan Territorial Expansion Act,” because this legislation essentially treats that troubled nation like a new American territory. In fact, I wonder whether we give Guam, Puerto Rico, or other American territories anywhere near $1.2 billion every few years- so maybe we just should consider full statehood for Afghanistan. This new State of Afghanistan even comes complete with an American governor, which the bill charitably calls a “coordinator.” After all, we can’t just give away such a huge sum without installing an American overseer to ensure we approve of all aspects of the fledgling Afghan government.

Madam Chairman, when we fill a nation’s empty treasury, when we fund and train its military, when we arm it with our weapons, when we try to impose foreign standards and values within it, indeed when we attempt to impose a government and civil society of our own making upon it, we are nation-building. There is no other term for it. Whether Congress wants to recognize it or not, this is neo-colonialism. Afghanistan will be unable to sustain itself economically for a very long time to come, and during that time American taxpayers will pay the bills. This sad reality was inevitable from the moment we decided to invade it and replace its government, rather than use covert forces to eliminate the individuals truly responsible for September 11th. Perhaps the saddest truth is that Bin Laden remains alive and free even as we begin to sweep up the rubble from our bombs.

2002 Ron Paul 28:8
I am sure that supporters of this bill are well-intentioned, but judging from past experience this approach will fail to improve the lives of the average Afghan citizen. Though many will also attempt to claim that this bill is somehow about the attacks of 9/11, let’s not fool ourselves: nation-building and social engineering are what this bill is about. Most of the problems it seeks to address predate the 9/11 attacks and those it purports to assist had nothing to do with those attacks.

2002 Ron Paul 28:9
If we are operating under the premise that global poverty itself poses a national security threat to the United States, then I am afraid we have an impossible task ahead of us.

2002 Ron Paul 28:10
As is often the case, much of the money authorized by this bill will go toward lucrative contracts with well-connected private firms and individuals. In short, when you look past all the talk about building civil society in Afghanistan and defending against terrorism, this bill is laden with the usual corporate welfare and hand-outs to special interests.

2002 Ron Paul 28:11
Among other harmful things, this legislation dramatically expands the drug war. Under the group we have installed in Afghanistan, opium production has skyrocketed. Now we are expected to go in and clean up the mess our allies have created. In addition, this bill will send some $60 million to the United Nations, to help fund its own drug eradication program. I am sure most Americans agree that we already send the United Nations too much of our tax money, yet this bill commits us to sending even more.

2002 Ron Paul 28:12
The drug war has been a failure. Plan Colombia, an enormously expensive attempt to reduce drug production in that Andean nation, has actually resulted in a 25 percent increase in coca leaf and cocaine production. Does anyone still think our war on drugs there has been successful? Is it responsible to continue spending money on policies that do not work?

2002 Ron Paul 28:13
The bill also reflects a disturbing effort by the Washington elite to conduct experiments in social engineering in Afghanistan. It demands at least five times that the Afghans create a government that is “broad-based, multi-ethnic, gender-sensitive, and fully representative.” We are imposing race and gender quotas on a foreign government that have been found inappropriate and in some cases even illegal in the United States. Is this an appropriate activity to be carried out with taxpayer funds?

2002 Ron Paul 28:14
Madam Chairman, the problem with nation-building and social-engineering, as experience tells us time and time again is that it simply doesn’t work. We cannot build multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, gender-sensitive civil society and good governance in Afghanistan on a top-down basis from afar. What this bill represents is a commitment to deepening involvement in Afghanistan and a determination to impose a political system on that country based on a blueprint drawn up thousands of miles away by Washington elites. Does anyone actually believe that we can buy Afghan democracy with even the staggering sum of 1.2 billion dollars? A real democracy is the product of shared values and the willingness of a population to demand and support it. None of these things can be purchased by a foreign power. What is needed in Afghanistan is not just democracy, but freedom- the two are not the same.

2002 Ron Paul 28:15
Release of funds authorized by this legislation is dependent on the holding of a traditional Afghan assembly of tribal representatives –a “loya jirga” – as a first step toward democratization. It authorizes $10 million dollars to finance this meeting. That this traditional meeting will produce anything like a truly representative body is already in question, as we heard earlier this month that seven out of 33 influential tribal leaders have already announced they will boycott the meeting. Additionally, press reports have indicated that the U.S. government itself was not too long ago involved in an attempted assassination of a non-Taliban regional leader who happened to be opposed to the rule of the American-installed Hamid Karzai. More likely, this “loya jirga” will be a stage-managed showpiece, primarily convened to please Western donors. Is this any way to teach democracy?

2002 Ron Paul 28:16
 Madam Chairman, some two decades ago the Soviet Union also invaded Afghanistan and attempted to impose upon the Afghan people a foreign political system. Some nine years and 15,000 Soviet lives later they retreated in disgrace, morally and financially bankrupt. During that time, we propped up the Afghan resistance with our weapons, money, and training, planting the seeds of the Taliban in the process. Now the former Soviet Union is gone, its armies long withdrawn from Afghanistan, and we’re left cleaning up the mess- yet we won’t be loved for it. No, we won’t get respect or allegiance from the Afghans, especially now that our bombs have rained down upon them. We will pay the bills, however, Afghanistan will become a tragic ward of the American state, another example of an interventionist foreign policy that is supposed to serve our national interests and gain allies, yet which does neither.

2002 Ron Paul 28:17
I repeat that t he President has not been interested in this legislation. I do not see a good reason to give him the burden of reporting back to us in 45 days to explain how he is going to provide for Afghan security for the long term. How long is long term? We have been in Korea now for 50 years. Are we planning to send troops that provide national security for Afghanistan? I think we should be more concerned about the security of this country and not wondering how we are going to provide the troops for long-term security in Afghanistan. We should be more concerned about the security of our ports. 

2002 Ron Paul 28:18
Madam Chairman, over the last several days and almost continuously, as a matter of fact, many Members get up and talk about any expenditure or any tax cut as an attack on Social Security, but we do not hear this today because there is a coalition,
well built, to support this intervention and presumed occupation of Afghanistan. But the truth is, there are monetary and budget consequences for this. 

2002 Ron Paul 28:19
After this bill is passed, if this bill is to pass, we will be close to $2 billion in aid to Afghanistan, not counting the military.  Now, that is an astounding amount of money, but it seems like it is irrelevant here. Twelve months ago, the national debt was
$365 billion less than it is today, and people say we are just getting away from having surpluses. Well, $365 billion is a huge deficit, and the national debt is going up at that rate. April revenues were down 30 percent from 1 year ago. The only way we
pay for programs like this is either we rob Social Security or we print the money, but both are very harmful to poor people and people living on a limited income. Our funds are not unlimited.  I know there is a lot of good intention; nobody in this body is saying we are going over there to cause mischief, but let me tell my colleagues, there is a lot of reasons not to be all that optimistic about these wonderful results and what we are going to accomplish over there. 

2002 Ron Paul 28:20
Madam Chairman, earlier the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) came up with an astounding reason for us to do this. He said that we owe this to Afghanistan. Now, I have heard all kinds of arguments for foreign aid and foreign intervention, but the fact that we owe this to Afghanistan? Do we know what we owe? We owe responsibility to the American taxpayer. We owe responsibility to the security of this country. 

One provision of this bill takes a $300 million line of credit from our DOD and just gives the President the authority to take $300 million of weapons away from us and give it to somebody in Afghanistan. Well, that dilutes our defense, that does not
help our defense. This is not beneficial. We do not need to have an occupation of Afghanistan for security of this country. There is no evidence for that. 

2002 Ron Paul 28:21
The occupation of Afghanistan is unnecessary. It is going to be very costly, and it is very dangerous.  My colleagues might say, well, this is all for democracy. For democracy? Well, did we care about democracy in Venezuela? It seemed like we tried to undermine that just recently. Do we care about the democracy in Pakistan? A military dictator takes over and he becomes our best ally, and we use his land, and yet he has been a friend to the Taliban, and who knows, bin Laden may even be in Pakistan. Here we are saying we are doing it all for democracy. Now, that is just pulling our leg a little bit too much. This is not the reason that we are over there. We are over there for a lot of other reasons and, hopefully, things will be improved. 

2002 Ron Paul 28:22
But I am terribly concerned that we will spend a lot of money, we will become deeply mired in Afghanistan, and we will not do a lot better than the Soviets did.  Now, that is a real possibility that we should not ignore. We say, oh, no, everything sounds rosy and we are going to do this, we are going to do it differently, and this time it is going to be okay. Well, if we look at the history of that land and that country, I would think that we should have second thoughts. 

2002 Ron Paul 28:23
It has been said that one of the reasons why we need this legislation is to help pay for drug eradication. Now, that is a good idea. That would be nice if we could do that. But the drug production has exploded since we have been there. In the last year,
it is just going wild. Well, that is even more reason we have to spend money because we contributed to the explosion of the drug production. There is money in this bill, and maybe some good will come of this; there is money in this bill that is going to
be used to teach the Afghan citizens not to use drugs. 

2002 Ron Paul 28:24
Mr. Speaker, if this is successful, if we teach the Afghan people not to use drugs, that would be wonderful.  Maybe then we can do something about the ravenous appetite of our people for drugs which is the basic cause of so much drug production. 

2002 Ron Paul 28:25
So to spend money on these kinds of programs I think is just a little bit of a stretch. Already there have been 33 tribal leaders that have said they will not attend this Loya Jirga, that they are not going to attend. The fact that we are going to spend millions
of dollars trying to gather these people together and tell them what to do with their country, I think the odds of producing a secure country are slim. 

2002 Ron Paul 28:26
Already in the papers just a few weeks ago it was reported in The Washington Post that our CIA made an attempt to assassinate a former prime minister of Afghanistan. He may have been a bum for all I know, but do Members think that sits well? He was not an ally of bin Laden, he was not a Taliban member, yet our CIA is over there getting involved. As a matter of fact, that is against our law, if that report is true. Yet, that is what the papers have reported. 

2002 Ron Paul 28:27
So I would say that we should move cautiously. I think this is very dangerous. I know nobody else has spoken out against this bill, but I do not see much benefit coming from this. I know it is well motivated, but it is going to cost a lot of money, we are
going to get further engaged, more troops are going to go over there; and now that we are a close ally of Pakistan, we do know that Pakistan and India both have nuclear weapons, and we are sitting right next to them. So I would hardly think this is
advantageous for our security, nor advantageous for the American people, nor advantageous to the American taxpayer. 

2002 Ron Paul 28:28
I see this as a threat to our security. It does not reassure me one bit. This is what scares me. It scares me when we send troops into places like Vietnam and Korea and other places, because it ultimately comes back to haunt us.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 29

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
May 21, 2002
Statement on New Internet Regulations and Expanded Federal Wiretap Powers

2002 Ron Paul 29:1
Mr. Speaker, as a parent, grandparent, and OB-GYN who has delivered over three thousand babies, I certainly share the desire to protect children from pornography and other inappropriate material available on the internet. However, as a United States Congressman, I cannot support measures which exceed the limitations on constitutional power contained in Article one, Section 8 of the Constitution. The Constitution does not provide Congress with the authority to spend taxpayer funds to create new internet domains.

2002 Ron Paul 29:2
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the federal government is singularly unqualified to act as the arbiter of what material is inappropriate for children. Instead, this is a decision that should be made by parents. Most of the problems pointed to by proponents of increased government control of the internet are the result of a lack of parental, not governmental, control of children’s computer habits. Expanding the government’s control over the internet may actually encourage parents to disregard their responsibility to monitor their child’s computer habits. After all, why should parents worry about what websites their children is viewing when the government has usurped this parental function?

2002 Ron Paul 29:3
The market is already creating solutions to many of these problems through the development of filtering software that responsible parents can use to protect their children from inappropriate materials. The best way to address this problem is by allowing this market process to develop, not by creating new government regulations.

2002 Ron Paul 29:4
In addition to creating new internet domains, Congress is also expanding federal wiretapping powers. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues should also remember that the Constitution creates only three federal crimes, namely treason, piracy, and counterfeiting. Expansion of federal police power for crimes outside these well-defined areas thus violates the Constitution. In addition, expansion of federal wiretapping powers raises serious civil liberties concerns, as such powers easily can be abused by federal officials.

2002 Ron Paul 29:5
I therefore hope my colleagues will respect the constitutional limitations on federal power. Instead of usurping powers not granted the federal government, Congress should allow state and local law enforcement, schools, local communities, and most of all responsible parents to devise the best measures to protect children.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 30

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
May 22, 2002
Stop Taxing Social Security Benefits!

2002 Ron Paul 30:1
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to commemorate Older Americans Month by introducing two pieces of legislation to reduce taxes on senior citizens. The first bill, the Social Security Beneficiary Tax Reduction Act, repeals the 1993 tax increase on Social Security benefits. Repealing this increase on Social Security benefits is a good first step toward reducing the burden imposed by the federal government on senior citizens. However, imposing any tax on Social Security benefits is unfair and illogical. This is why I am also introducing the Senior Citizens’ Tax Elimination Act, which repeals all taxes on Social Security benefits.

2002 Ron Paul 30:2
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.

2002 Ron Paul 30:3
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.

2002 Ron Paul 30:4
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.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 31

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
May 22, 2002
Don’t Expand Federal Deposit Insurance

2002 Ron Paul 31:1
Mr. Speaker, HR 3717, the Federal Deposit Insurance Reform Act, expands the federal government’s unconstitutional control over the financial services industry and raises taxes on all financial institutions. Furthermore, this legislation could increase the possibility of future bank failures. Therefore, I must oppose this bill.

2002 Ron Paul 31:2
I primarily object to the provisions in HR 3717 which may increase the premiums assessed on participating financial institutions. These “premiums,” which are actually taxes, are the premier sources of funds for the Deposit Insurance Fund. This fund is used to bail out banks who experience difficulties meeting their 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 which 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.

2002 Ron Paul 31:3
In the event of a severe banking crisis, Congress likely will transfer funds from general revenues into the Deposit Insurance Fund, which could 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?

2002 Ron Paul 31:4
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 is certainly the case in banking, which is one of the most heavily regulated industries in America. However, as George Kaufman, the 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 failures. 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.

2002 Ron Paul 31:5
Immediately after a problem in the banking industry comes to light, the media and Congress inevitably will blame it on regulators who were “asleep at the switch.” Yet, most politicians continue to believe the very regulators whose incompetence (or worse) either caused or contributed to the problem will somehow prevent future crises!

2002 Ron Paul 31:6
The presence of deposit insurance and government regulations removes incentives for individuals to act on their own to protect their deposits or even inquire as to the health of their financial institutions. After all, why should individuals be concerned with the health of their financial institutions when the federal government insures their deposits?

2002 Ron Paul 31:7
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.

2002 Ron Paul 31:8
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, HR 3717 imposes new taxes on financial institutions, forces sound institutions to pay for the mistakes of their reckless competitors, increases the chances of taxpayers being forced to bail out unsound financial institutions, reduces individual depositors’ incentives to take action to protect their deposits, and exceeds Congress’s constitutional authority. I therefore urge my colleagues to reject this bill. Instead of extending this federal program, Congress should work to prevent the crises which justify government programs like deposit insurance, by fulfilling our constitutional responsibility to pursue sound monetary policies.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 32

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
May 23, 2002
No More Taxpayer Funds for the Failed Drug War in Colombia

2002 Ron Paul 32:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment, and I compliment the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern ) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton ) for bringing this to us. There has been a lot of discussion in the last 2 days, a lot about the deficit; and it strikes me as a bit of an irony, especially because it comes from many, and I have to say on both sides of the aisle, that do a lot to raise the national debt and the spending, and yet the debate went on and on. For some reason, I think there has been a lot of politics in the debate.

2002 Ron Paul 32:2
The interesting thing about what is going on right now, there is no politics in this. This is about war, and this is important, and this is about policy. It is said that we would like to get things like this through without a full discussion; but this, to me, is a key issue. This amendment is about whether or not we will change our policy in central America and, specifically, in Colombia.

2002 Ron Paul 32:3
Mr. Chairman, a year or so ago we appropriated $1.6 billion, and we went into Colombia with the intent of reducing drug usage. Instead it is up 25 percent. Drug usage is going up! They sprayed 210,000 acres, and now there are 53,000 more acres than ever before. It reminds me of Afghanistan. We have been in Afghanistan for less than a year and drug production is going up! I just wonder about the effectiveness of our drug program in Colombia.

2002 Ron Paul 32:4
But the theory is that we will be more effective if we change the policy. Pastrana tried to negotiate a peace and we were going too deal with the drugs, and we were going to have peace after 40 years of a civil war. Now Uribi is likely to become President and the approach is to different. He said, no more negotiations. We will be fighting and we want American help, and we want a change in policy, and we do not want spraying fields; we want helicopters to fight a war. That is what we are dealing with here. We should not let this go by without a full discussion and a full understanding, because in reality, there is no authority to support a military operation in Colombia.

2002 Ron Paul 32:5
What we are doing is we are appropriating for something for the administration to do without a proper authority. He has no authority to get involved in the civil war down there. We cannot imply that the issue of war is granted through the appropriation process. It is not the way the system works. The constitutional system works with granting explicit authority to wage war. The President has no authority, and now he wants the money; and we are ready to capitulate. Let me tell my colleagues, if we care about national defense, we must reconsider this.

2002 Ron Paul 32:6
This dilutes our national defense, it dilutes our forces, exposes our troops, takes away our weapons, increases the expenditures. If we ignore this issue I guess we can go back to demagoging the national debt limit.

2002 Ron Paul 32:7
So I would say, please, take a close look at this. We do not need to be expanding our role in Colombia. The drug war down there has not worked, and I do not expect this military war that we are about to wage to work either. We need to talk about national defense, and this does not help our national defense. I fear this. I feel less secure when we go into areas like this, because believe me, this is the way that we get troops in later on. We already have advisory forces in Colombia. Does anybody remember about advisors and then eventually having military follow in other times in our history. Yes, this is a very risky change in policy. This is not just a minor little increase in appropriation.

2002 Ron Paul 32:8
So I would ask, once again, where is the authority? Where does the authority exists for our President to go down and expand a war in Colombia when it has nothing to do with our national defense or our security? It has more to do with oil than our national security, and we know it. There is a pipeline down there that everybody complains that it is not well protected. It is even designated in legislation, and we deal with this at times. So I would say think about the real reasons behind us going down there.

2002 Ron Paul 32:9
It just happens that we have spread ourselves around the world; we are now in nine countries of the 15 countries that used to be part of the Soviet Union. And every country has something to do with oil. The Caspian Sea, Georgia, and why are we in the Persian Gulf? We are in the Persian Gulf to protect “our” oil. Why are we involved with making and interfering with the democratically elected leader of Venezuela? I thought we were for democracy, and yet the reports are that we may well have participated in the attempt to have a democratically elected official in Venezuela removed. I think there is a little bit of oil in Venezuela as well. Could that have been the reason.

2002 Ron Paul 32:10
So I would say, once again, please take a look at this amendment. This amendment is a “yes” vote, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 33

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
May 23, 2002

2002 Ron Paul 33:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to commemorate the 50th Anniversary of the incorporation of the City of Clute, Texas, which will be celebrated on June 2, 2002. Clute is a city of just over 10,000 citizens in Brazoria County on the coast of Texas. Clute has a very rich heritage and played an important role in the development of the proud state of Texas.

2002 Ron Paul 33:2
The City of Clute began as land deeded to Alexander Calvit by Stephen F. Austin when holdings were parceled out to the “Old 300,” the first settlers in Texas. These settlers had to be tough as living on the Texas coastland in the early days was not for the weak or faint of heart.

2002 Ron Paul 33:3
Though the living was hard these early settlers contributed many things to the advancement of our state. The first milled lumber plantation house was built in Clute. Bricks used to build homes and buildings all over the coast of Texas were made from the high grade clay that was found only in Clute. That clay was used to make structures at Ft. Velasco, where in 1832 the Brazoria Militia staged the first battle for Texas Independence.

2002 Ron Paul 33:4
Now, many years later, Clute is still growing and achieving. Citizens raise their families in quiet and serene neighborhoods while contributing to some of the greatest chemical and industrial achievements in modern America.

2002 Ron Paul 33:5
The face of Clute has changed but the people are still the same brave, hardworking Texans that helped mold the Republic.

2002 Ron Paul 33:6
I am pleased to extend my best wishes to the people of Clute as the town celebrates its 50th birthday of incorporation and over 170 years of habitation by the original settlers of Texas. I am sure all my colleagues join me in extending congratulations and wishes for many more years of progress to the community of Clute, Texas.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 34

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
May 24, 2002
Oppose the “Supplemental” Spending Bill

2002 Ron Paul 34:1
Mr. Speaker, supporters of fiscal responsibility, a rational foreign policy, and constitutional government can find little, it anything, to support in the Supplemental Appropriations bill (HR 4775). HR 4775 enlarges the federal deficit, increases the size of the federal government, jeopardizes the Social Security trust fund, and, by removing resources from individuals and placing them under government control, depresses economic growth.

2002 Ron Paul 34:2
Despite being sold as a national security bill, most of the spending in this bill bears little relationship to protecting the American people from terrorism. For example, this bill contains funding for the Securities and Exchange Commission, federal courts, and various welfare programs. In addition, this bill spends millions on unconstitutional foreign aid. Mr. Speaker, some may say that foreign aid promotes national security, but if that were true America would be the most beloved country on earth. After all, almost every country in the world has in some way benefited from Congress’ willingness to send the American people’s money oversees.

2002 Ron Paul 34:3
Even much of the military spending in this bill has no relationship to legitimate national security needs. Instead it furthers an interventionist foreign policy which is neither constitutional nor in the best interests of the American people. For example, this supplemental contains a stealth attempt to shift our policy toward Colombia, expanding our already failed drug war to include direct participation in Colombia’s 38-year civil war. Though a bill on Colombia was scheduled for markup in the International Relations committee, for some reason it was pulled at the last minute. Therefore, the committee has not been able to debate this policy shift on Colombia. We are instead expected just not to notice, I suppose, that the policy shift has been included in this bill.

2002 Ron Paul 34:4
Our expanded interventionism in Colombia is called “counterterrorism,” but no one has even attempted to demonstrate that Colombia’s civil war poses even a remote terrorist threat to the United States. In fact, the only terrorist threat from Colombia I have seen actually counsels against our deepening involvement. According to House International Relations Committee briefing materials made available last month:

2002 Ron Paul 34:5
“We have hundreds of temporary duty personnel in Colombia on any given day, in addition to our agents from the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), military advisors, contractors, and embassy personnel. If U.S. presence expands to help Colombia fight terrorism as well, these alarming IRA explosives tactics could be used directly and intentionally against American facilities and employees.”

2002 Ron Paul 34:6
If anything, this is an argument against getting more deeply involved in Colombia’s internal affairs, as it rightly recognizes that our involvement will only inflame the other side and thus open the door to retaliation against our interventionism.

2002 Ron Paul 34:7
The war on drugs in Colombia is failing miserably. Under “Plan Colombia,” coca production has increased 25 percent in the period between 2000 and 2001. The production of cocaine increased by roughly the same amount. More cocaine was coming out of Colombia into the United States at the end of 2001, during Plan Colombia, than at the end of 2000, before Plan Colombia. Is this a reason to expand our involvement into Colombia’s civil war?

2002 Ron Paul 34:8
US commercial interests- not national security- are a big factor in our shifting policy toward Colombia. We have already seen an administration request for an additional $98 million to help protect the Caño-Limon Pipeline - jointly owned by the Colombian national oil company and Occidental Petroleum. This supplemental will provide for the first installment of this money to be paid to protect Occidental’s pipeline.

2002 Ron Paul 34:9
We are being dragged into a civil war in Colombia that has nothing to do with us and nothing to do with international terrorism. Those who want to send American money and troops into the Colombian quagmire do not want debate, because their claims that a 38 year civil war somehow has something to do with 9/11 ring hollow.

2002 Ron Paul 34:10
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I must object to this bill on the grounds that it enables further increases in government spending by providing a method to increases the debt ceiling. It is bad enough that Congress is increasing the debt limit, but this rule provides a procedure whereby the debt limit will be raised in conference, away from public scrutiny. It makes a mockery of open government to impose more government debt on hardworking Americans and future generations by subterfuge.

2002 Ron Paul 34:11
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, HR 4775 contains increases in unconstitutional spending on wide variety of welfare programs and foreign aid. It also ignores the true security interests of the American people by spending valuable resources on a flawed Colombian policy. This bill also creates conditions for further expansions in spending by providing a procedure to raise the debt ceiling safe from public scrutiny. HR 4775 thus threatens the liberty and prosperity of all Americans so I urge my colleagues to reject this bill.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 35

May 31, 2002

2002 Ron Paul 35:1
Why Does the IMF Prohibit Gold-Backed Currency for its Member States?

2002 Ron Paul 35:2
(Congressman Ron Paul sent this letter to both the Treasury and the Federal Reserve Bank in April.  Neither has responded)

2002 Ron Paul 35:3
Dear Sirs: I am writing regarding Article 4, Section 2b of the International Monetary Fund (IMF)’s Articles of Agreement. As you may be aware, this language prohibits countries who are members of the IMF from linking their currency to gold. Thus, the IMF is forbidding countries suffering from an erratic monetary policy from adopting the most effective means of stabilizing their currency. This policy could delay a country’s recovery from an economic crisis and retard economic growth, thus furthering economic and political instability.

2002 Ron Paul 35:4
I would greatly appreciate an explanation from both the Treasury and the Federal Reserve of the reasons the United States has continued to acquiesce in this misguided policy. Please contact Mr. Norman Singleton, my legislative director, if you require any further information regarding this request. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

2002 Ron Paul 35:5
Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 36

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
June 5, 2002
Gold and the Dollar

2002 Ron Paul 36:1

Mr. Speaker, I have for several years come to the House floor to express my concern for the value of the dollar. It has been, and is, my concern that we in the Congress have not met our responsibility in this regard. The constitutional mandate for Congress should only permit silver and gold to be used as legal tender and has been ignored for decades and has caused much economic pain for many innocent Americans. Instead of maintaining a sound dollar, Congress has by both default and deliberate action promoted a policy that systematically depreciates the dollar. The financial markets are keenly aware of the minute-by-minute fluctuations of all the fiat currencies and look to these swings in value for an investment advantage. This type of anticipation and speculation does not exist in a sound monetary system.

2002 Ron Paul 36:2
But Congress should be interested in the dollar fluctuation not as an investment but because of our responsibility for maintaining a sound and stable currency, a requirement for sustained economic growth.

2002 Ron Paul 36:3
The consensus now is that the dollar is weakening and the hope is that the drop in its value will be neither too much nor occur too quickly; but no matter what the spin is, a depreciating currency, one that is losing its value against goods, services, other currencies and gold, cannot be beneficial and may well be dangerous. A sharply dropping dollar, especially since it is the reserve currency of the world, can play havoc with the entire world economy.

2002 Ron Paul 36:4
Gold is history’s oldest and most stable currency. Central bankers and politicians hate gold because it restrains spending and denies them the power to create money and credit out of thin air. Those who promote big government, whether to wage war and promote foreign expansionism or to finance the welfare state here at home, cherish this power.

2002 Ron Paul 36:5
History and economic law are on the side of the gold. Paper money always fails. Unfortunately, though, this occurs only after many innocent people have suffered the consequences of the fraud that paper money represents. Monetary inflation is a hidden tax levied more on the poor and those on fixed incomes than the wealthy, the bankers, or the corporations.

2002 Ron Paul 36:6
In the past 2 years, gold has been the strongest currency throughout the world in spite of persistent central bank selling designed to suppress the gold price in hopes of hiding the evil caused by the inflationary policies that all central bankers follow. This type of depreciation only works for short periods; economic law always rules over the astounding power and influence of central bankers.

2002 Ron Paul 36:7
That is what is starting to happen, and trust in the dollar is being lost. The value of the dollar this year is down 18 percent compared to gold. This drop in value should not be ignored by Congress. We should never have permitted this policy that was deliberately designed to undermine the value of the currency.

2002 Ron Paul 36:8
There are a lot of reasons the market is pushing down the value of the dollar at this time. But only one is foremost. Current world economic and political conditions lead to less trust in the dollar’s value. Economic strength here at home is questionable and causes concerns. Our huge foreign debt is more than $2 trillion, and our current account deficit is now 4 percent of GDP and growing. Financing this debt requires borrowing $1.3 billion per day from overseas. But these problems are ancillary to the real reason that the dollar must go down in value. For nearly 7 years the U.S. has had the privilege of creating unlimited amounts of dollars with foreigners only too eager to accept them to satisfy our ravenous appetite for consumer items. The markets have yet to discount most of this monetary inflation. But they are doing so now; and for us to ignore what is happening, we do so at the Nation’s peril. Price inflation and much higher interest rates are around the corner.

2002 Ron Paul 36:9
Misplaced confidence in a currency can lead money managers and investors astray, but eventually the piper must be paid. Last year’s record interest rate drop by the Federal Reserve was like pouring gasoline on a fire. Now the policy of the past decade is being recognized as being weak for the dollar; and trust and confidence in it is justifiably being questioned.

2002 Ron Paul 36:10
Trust in paper is difficult to measure and anticipate, but long-term value in gold is dependable and more reliably assessed. Printing money and creating artificial credit may temporarily lower interest rates, but it also causes the distortions of malinvestment, overcapacity, excessive debt and speculation. These conditions cause instability, and market forces eventually overrule the intentions of the central bankers. That is when the apparent benefits of the easy money disappear, such as we dramatically have seen with the crash of the dot-coms and the Enrons and many other stocks.

2002 Ron Paul 36:11
Now it is back to reality. This is serious business, and the correction that must come to adjust for the Federal Reserve’s mischief of the past 30 years has only begun. Congress must soon consider significant changes in our monetary system.

2002 Ron Paul 36:12
Congress must soon consider significant changes in our monetary system if we hope to preserve a system of sound growth and wealth preservation. Paper money managed by the Federal Reserve System cannot accomplish this. In fact, it does the opposite.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 37

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
June 5, 2002

2002 Ron Paul 37:1

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. This bill is nothing more than subsidies for big corporations. If one were to look at the Constitution and look for authority for legislation of this sort in article I, section 8, it would not be found. That in itself should be reason to stop and think about this, but we do not look at that particular article too often any more. 

2002 Ron Paul 37:2
Also for moral reasons, I object to this. Even if we accepted the idea that we should interfere and be involved in this type of activity, it is unfair because the little guy gets squeezed and the big guy gets all of the money. It is not morally fair because it
cannot be. 

2002 Ron Paul 37:3
One thing that annoys me the most is when Members come to the floor and in the name of free trade say we have to support the Export-Import Bank. This is the opposite of free trade. Free trade is good. Low tariffs are good, which lead to lower
prices; but subsidies to our competitors is not free trade. We should call it for what it is. We have Members who claim they are free traders, and yet support managed trade through NAFTA and WTO and all these special interest management schemes, as
well as competitive devaluation of currencies with the notion that we might increase exports. This has nothing to do with free trade. 

2002 Ron Paul 37:4
I am a strong advocate for free trade, and for that reason I think this bill should not be passed. There are good economic reasons not to support this. Because some who favor this bill argue that some of these companies are doing risky things and
they do not qualify in the ordinary banking system for these loans and, therefore, they need a little bit of help. That is precisely when we should not be helping. If there is a risk, it is telling us there is something wrong and we should not do it. It is transferring the liability from the company to the taxpayer. So the risk argument does not hold water at all. 

The other reason why economically it is unsound, is that this is a form of credit allocation. If a bank has money and they can get a guarantee from the Export-Import Bank, they will always choose the guarantee over the nonguarantee, so who gets
squeezed. The funds are taken out of the investment pool. The little people get squeezed. They do not get the loan, but they are totally unknown. Nobody sees those who did not get a loan. All we see is the loan that benefits somebody on the short run. But really on the long run, it benefits the big corporations. Many times it doesn’t even do that. 

2002 Ron Paul 37:5
Take a look at Enron. We have mentioned Enron quite a few times already. If we add up all of the subsidies to Enron, it adds up to $1.9 billion. That is if we add up the subsidies from OPIC as well. And look at what Enron did. They ran a few risks,
and then they lost it. Who was left holding the bag? The taxpayers. 

2002 Ron Paul 37:6
Madam Speaker, I strongly urge a no vote on this bill. If Members are for free trade, they will vote against this bill, and will vote for true free trade.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 38

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
June 12, 2002

2002 Ron Paul 38:1
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. The tax credit would be available to all citizens regardless of whether or not they itemize their deductions.

2002 Ron Paul 38:2
The tax credits provided in this bill will be especially helpful to those Americans whose employers cannot afford to provide their employees health insurance. 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, which requires long-term or specialized health care.

2002 Ron Paul 38:3
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 to health care is the local emergency room.

2002 Ron Paul 38:4
Sometimes parents are forced to delay seeking care for their children until minor health concern 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 room facilities would be relieved of the burden of having to provide routine care for people who otherwise cannot afford it.

2002 Ron Paul 38:5
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 dollars a 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.

2002 Ron Paul 38:6
Under the Child Health Care Affordability Act, a struggling single 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.

2002 Ron Paul 38:7
Mr. Speaker, this Congress has a moral responsibility to provide tax relief for low-income parents struggling to care for a sick child, in order to help them 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?

2002 Ron Paul 38:8
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.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 39

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
June 12, 2002

2002 Ron Paul 39:1

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I wish to call my colleagues’ attention to the following article entitled “Bad Tax Policy: You Can Run .....” by Daniel Mitchell, McKenna Senior Fellow at the Heritage Foundation. Mr. Mitchell discusses the practice of companies reincorporating in foreign jurisdictions to reduce their tax liability. As Mr. Mitchell points out, reincorporation benefits shareholders and American workers. This is because reincorporation In a low-tax foreign jurisdiction makes companies more competitive, thus enabling the companies to create new and better jobs for working Americans. Furthermore, reincorporation helps protect American companies from corporate takeovers by foreign investors. America’s anti-competitive tax system is a major reason why several US companies have been taken over by foreign business interests.

2002 Ron Paul 39:2
In the vast majority of cases, when a company moves its corporate headquarters to a foreign jurisdiction, it maintains its physical operations in America. In fact, Mr. Speaker, Stanley Company, whose recently-announced decision to incorporate in Bermuda has caused much handwringing over reincorporation, will not be laying off a single American worker as a consequence of their action!

2002 Ron Paul 39:3
Though reincorporation benefits American investors and workers, some of my colleagues have objected to reincorporation because this action deprives the government of revenue. Some have even gone so far as to question the patriotism of companies that reincorporate. However, there is nothing unpatriotic about trying to minimize one’s tax burden to enhance economic competitiveness. In fact, it could be argued that since reincorporation helps companies create new jobs and expand the American economy, those who reincorporate are behaving patriotically.

2002 Ron Paul 39:4
One also could argue that it is those who oppose reincorporation who do not grasp the essence of the American system. After all, two of the main principles underlying the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are limited government and respect for private property. In contrast, opponents of reincorporation implicitly assume that the government owns all of a nation’s assets; therefore taxpayers never should take any actions to deny government what the politicians have determined to be their “fair share.” Mr. Speaker, this philosophy has more in common with medieval feudalism than with the constitutional republic created by the drafters of the Constitution.

2002 Ron Paul 39:5
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I once again urge my colleagues to read Mr. Mitchell’s article, which forcefully makes the case that taxing offshore income is economically destructive. Such taxation also is inconsistent with the respect for individual liberty and private property rights which forms the foundation of America’s constitutional republic, as well as a threat to the sovereign right of nations to determine the tax treatment of income earned inside national borders. I hope my colleagues will reject efforts to subject companies that reincorporate overseas to burdensome new taxes and regulations. Expanding federal power in order to prevent companies from reincorporating will only kill American jobs and further weaken America’s economy.

2002 Ron Paul 39:6

[From the Washington Times, May 8, 2002]
(By Daniel Mitchell)

2002 Ron Paul 39:7
The worst Supreme Court decision of all time? One of the leading candidates has to be the infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision, in which the Supreme Court ruled that slaves did not gain freedom by escaping to nonslave states.

2002 Ron Paul 39:8
Instead, they were considered property and had to be returned to their “owners.”

2002 Ron Paul 39:9
Some U.S. companies soon may be treated in a similar manner, thanks to legislation being touted by Sens. Max Baucus, Montana Democrat, and Charles Grassley, Iowa Republican.

2002 Ron Paul 39:10
It all starts with the Internal Revenue Code, which forces U.S.-based companies to pay an extra layer of tax on income earned in other countries.

2002 Ron Paul 39:11
In an effort to protect the interests of workers, shareholders and consumers, some of these companies are escaping bad U.S. tax law by rechartering in Bermuda.

2002 Ron Paul 39:12
This is a win-win situation for America. We get to keep factories and headquarters in America, and our companies remain on a level playing field with businesses based in Europe and elsewhere.

2002 Ron Paul 39:13
Not so fast, Sens. Baucus and Grassley are saying. They want to stop “corporate expatriations,” even though they keep American jobs in America and help U.S. companies compete with their counterparts in Europe and Asia.

2002 Ron Paul 39:14
Their legislation would forbid U.S. companies from re-chartering in countries with better tax laws.

2002 Ron Paul 39:15
The politicians who support this are acting as if these companies belonged to the government. Yet when House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, Missouri Democrat, for instance, accuses them of being “unpatriotic,” he never explains what’s so patriotic about higher taxes and noncompetitive tax policy.

2002 Ron Paul 39:16
Republicans are doing their share of business-bashing, too. Mr. Grassley claims that corporate expatriations are :immoral,'' as if companies would be moral if they instead kept their U.S. charters and fired some of their workers.

2002 Ron Paul 39:17
If politicians are upset that some companies want to recharter, they should blame themselves for trying to tax “worldwide” income. An American firm competing against a Dutch firm for a contract in Ireland, for instance, must pay a 35 percent tax on its income &#ndash; and the lion’s share goes to the IRS.

2002 Ron Paul 39:18
The Dutch firm, by contrast, pays only the 10 percent Irish tax on its Irish-source income because the Netherlands doesn’t tax income earned outside its borders.

2002 Ron Paul 39:19
Before giving the IRS more power, politicians should consider the following:

2002 Ron Paul 39:20
Expatriation helps control government waste. High-tax California can’t stop companies from moving to low-tax Nevada. Knowing this helps deter the big-spenders in the state capitol from wasting even more money. The politicians in Massachusetts must exercise some restraint because they know local businesses can flee to low-tax New Hampshire. Nations also should be subject to market discipline. This is why Washington politicians shouldn’t stop companies from escaping bad U.S. tax law.

2002 Ron Paul 39:21
Expatriation protects American jobs. Rechartering in another jurisdiction doesn’t mean factories will go overseas. Nor does it require a company to move its headquarters. It simply means a company is chartered under the laws of a different jurisdiction, much as many American companies are chartered in Delaware, but operate factories and have their home offices in other states. In the case of expatriations, the newly formed foreign company still maintains its U.S. operations, but now won’t have to fire workers since it can compete more effectively with overseas businesses.

2002 Ron Paul 39:22
Expatriation is not tax evasion. All corporations, regardless of where they’re based, pay tax to the IRS on all profits they earn in the United States. This is true of U.S.-based companies, and it’s true of all foreign-based companies- including those that expatriate. All that changes is that expatriating companies no longer have to pay taxes on income earned outside America’s borders. Since worldwide taxation is misguided tax policy, this is a positive result. Indeed, every tax reform plan, including the flat tax, is based on this common-sense principle of “territorial” taxation.

2002 Ron Paul 39:23
Now is hardly the time, with the economy in the midst of recovery, for Washington politicians to make U.S. companies less competitive. Nor is it the time to give the IRS the power to prohibit businesses from rechartering in jurisdictions with more sensible tax laws. Instead of treating companies as if they’re federal property, Sens. Grassley and Baucus should be fixing the problems in the tax code.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 40

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
June 13, 2002

2002 Ron Paul 40:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation restoring First amendment protections of religion and religious speech. For fifty years, the personal religious freedom of this nation’s citizens has been infringed upon by courts that misread and distort the First amendment. The framers of the Constitution never in their worst nightmares imagined that the words, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech .....” would be used to ban children from praying in school, prohibit courthouses from displaying the Ten Commandments, or prevent citizens from praying before football games. The original meaning of the First amendment was clear on these two points: The federal government cannot enact laws establishing one religious denomination over another, and the federal government cannot forbid mention of religion, including the Ten Commandments and references to God.

2002 Ron Paul 40:2
In case after case, the Supreme Court has used the infamous “separation of church and state” metaphor to uphold court decisions that allow the federal government to intrude upon and deprive citizens of their religious liberty. This “separation” doctrine is based upon a phrase taken out of context from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802. In the letter, Jefferson simply reassures the Baptists that the First amendment would preclude an intrusion by the federal government into religious matters between denominations. It is ironic and sad that a letter defending the principle that the federal government must stay out of religious affairs. should be used two hundred years later to justify the Supreme Court telling a child that he cannot pray in school!

2002 Ron Paul 40:3
The Court completely disregards the original meaning and intent of the First amendment. It has interpreted the establishment clause to preclude prayer and other religious speech in a public place, thereby violating the free exercise clause of the very same First amendment. Therefore, it is incumbent upon Congress to correct this error, and to perform its duty to support and defend the Constitution. My legislation would restore First amendment protections of religion and speech by removing all religious freedom-related cases from federal district court jurisdiction, as well as from federal claims court jurisdiction. The federal government has no constitutional authority to reach its hands in the religious affairs of its citizens or of the several states.

2002 Ron Paul 40:4
As James Madison said, “There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.” I sincerely hope that my colleagues will fight against the “gradual and silent encroachment” of the courts upon our nation’s religious liberties by supporting this bill.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 41

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
June 24, 2002
Inspection or Invasion in Iraq?

2002 Ron Paul 41:1

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I call my colleagues’ attention to a recent article by Scott Ritter, former chief UN weapons inspector in Iraq, published in the Los Angeles Times. In this article, Mr. Ritter makes a salient point that deserves careful and serious consideration in this body: how will it be possible to achieve the stated administration goal of getting weapons inspectors back into Iraq when the administration has made it known that it intends to assassinate the Iraqi leader?

2002 Ron Paul 41:2
If nothing else, Saddam Hussein has proven himself a survivor. Does anyone believe that he will allow inspectors back into his country knowing that any one of them might kill him? Is it the intention of the administration to get inspectors back into Iraq and thus answers to lingering and critical questions regarding Iraq’s military capabilities, or is the intent to invade that country regardless of the near total absence of information and actually make it impossible for Suddam Hussein to accept the inspectors?

2002 Ron Paul 41:3
Mr. Ritter, who as former chief UN inspector in Iraq probably knows that country better than any of us here, made some excellent points in a recent meeting with Republican members of Congress. According to Mr. Ritter, no American-installed regime could survive in Iraq. Interestingly, Mr. Ritter noted that though his rule is no doubt despotic, Saddam Hussein has been harsher toward Islamic fundamentalism than any other Arab regime. He added that any U.S. invasion to remove Saddam from power would likely open the door to an anti-American fundamentalist Islamic regime in Iraq. That can hardly be viewed in a positive light here in the United States. Is a policy that replaces a bad regime with a worse regime the wisest course to follow?

2002 Ron Paul 41:4
Much is made of Iraqi National Congress leader Ahmed Chalabi, as a potential post-invasion leader of Iraq. Mr. Ritter told me that in his many dealings with Chalabi, he found him to be completely unreliable and untrustworthy. He added that neither he nor the approximately 100 Iraqi generals that the US is courting have any credibility inside Iraq, and any attempt to place them in power would be rejected in the strongest manner by the Iraqi people. Hundreds, if not thousands, of American military personnel would be required to occupy Iraq indefinitely if any American-installed regime is to remain in power. Again, it appears we are creating a larger problem than we are attempting to solve.

2002 Ron Paul 41:5
Similarly, proponents of a US invasion of Iraq often cite the Kurds in the northern part of that country as a Northern Alliance-like ally, who will do much of our fighting on the ground and unseat Saddam. But just last week the Washington Times reported that neither of the two rival Kurdish groups in northern Iraq want anything to do with an invasion of Iraq.

2002 Ron Paul 41:6
In the meeting last month, Scott Ritter reminded members of Congress that a nation cannot go to war based on assumptions and guesses, that a lack of knowledge is no basis on which to initiate military action. Mr. Ritter warned those present that remaining quiescent in the face of the administration’s seeming determination to exceed the authority granted to go after those who attacked us, will actually hurt the president and will hurt Congress. He concluded by stating that going in to Iraq without Congressionally-granted authority would be a “failure of American democracy.” Those pounding the war drums loudest for an invasion of Iraq should pause for a moment and ponder what Scott Ritter is saying. Thousands of lives are at stake.

[From the Los Angeles Times, June 19, 2002]
(By Scott Ritter)

2002 Ron Paul 41:7
President Bush has reportedly authorized the CIA to use all of the means at its disposal- including U.S. military special operations forces and CIA paramilitary teams- to eliminate Iraq’s Saddam Hussein. According to reports, the CIA is to view any such plan as “preparatory” for a larger military strike.

2002 Ron Paul 41:8
Congressional leaders from both parties have greeted these reports with enthusiasm. In their rush to be seen as embracing the president’s hard-line stance on Iraq, however, almost no one in Congress has questioned why a supposedly covert operation would be made public, thus undermining the very mission it was intended to accomplish.

2002 Ron Paul 41:9
It is high time that Congress start questioning the hype and rhetoric emanating from the White House regarding Baghdad, because the leaked CIA plan is well timed to undermine the efforts underway in the United Nations to get weapons inspectors back to work in Iraq. In early July, the U.N. secretary-general will meet with Iraq’s foreign minister for a third round of talks on the return of the weapons monitors. A major sticking point is Iraqi concern over the use- or abuse- of such inspections by the U.S. for intelligence collection.

2002 Ron Paul 41:10
I recall during my time as a chief inspector in Iraq the dozens of extremely fit “missile experts” and “logistics specialists” who frequented my inspection teams and others. Drawn from U.S. units such as Delta Force or from CIA paramilitary teams such as the Special Activities Staff (both of which have an ongoing role in the conflict in Afghanistan), these specialists had a legitimate part to play in the difficult cat-and-mouse effort to disarm Iraq. So did the teams of British radio intercept operators I ran in Iraq from 1996 to 1998- which listened in on the conversations of Hussein’s inner circle- and the various other intelligence specialists who were part of the inspection effort.

2002 Ron Paul 41:11
The presence of such personnel on inspection teams was, and is, viewed by the Iraqi government as an unacceptable risk to its nation’s security.

2002 Ron Paul 41:12
As early as 1992, the Iraqis viewed the teams I led inside Iraq as a threat to the safety of their president. They were concerned that my inspections were nothing more than a front for a larger effort to eliminate their leader.

2002 Ron Paul 41:13
Those concerns were largely baseless while I was in Iraq. Now that Bush has specifically authorized American covert-operations forces to remove Hussein, however, the Iraqis will never trust an inspection regime that has already shown itself susceptible to infiltration and manipulation by intelligence services hostile to Iraq, regardless of any assurances the U.N. secretary-general might give.

2002 Ron Paul 41:14
The leaked CIA covert operations plan effectively kills any chance of inspectors returning to Iraq, and it closes the door on the last opportunity for shedding light on the true state of affairs regarding any threat in the form of Iraq weapons of mass destruction.

2002 Ron Paul 41:15
Absent any return of weapons inspectors, no one seems willing to challenge the Bush administration’s assertions of an Iraqi threat. If Bush has a factual case against Iraq concerning weapons of mass destruction, he hasn’t made it yet.

2002 Ron Paul 41:16
Can the Bush administration substantiate any of its claims that Iraq continues to pursue efforts to reacquire its capability to produce chemical and biological weapons, which was dismantled and destroyed by U.N. weapons inspectors from 1991 to 1998? The same question applies to nuclear weapons. What facts show that Iraq continues to pursue nuclear weapons aspirations?

2002 Ron Paul 41:17
Bush spoke ominously of an Iraqi ballistic missile threat to Europe. What missile threat is the president talking about? These questions are valid, and if the case for war is to be made, they must be answered with more than speculative rhetoric.

2002 Ron Paul 41:18
Congress has seemed unwilling to challenge the Bush administration’s pursuit of war against Iraq. The one roadblock to an all- out U.S. assault would be weapons inspectors reporting on the facts inside Iraq. Yet without any meaningful discussion and debate by Congress concerning the nature of the threat posed by Baghdad, war seems all but inevitable.

2002 Ron Paul 41:19
The true target of the supposed CIA plan may not be Hussein but rather the weapons inspection program itself. The real casualty is the last chance to avoid bloody conflict.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 42

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
June 25, 2002
Introduction of the Public Safety Tax Cut Act:

2002 Ron Paul 42:1
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.

2002 Ron Paul 42:2
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 waive all or a portion of the fees typically charged for city services such as the provision of drinking water, sewer charges, or debris pick up.

2002 Ron Paul 42:3
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, does not even mention the fact that these volunteers very possibly could be called into a situation where they have to put their lives on the line.

2002 Ron Paul 42:4
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 imposing new taxes upon 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 negative impact on the spirit of American volunteerism. How far could this go? For example, would consistent application mean that a local Salvation Army volunteer must be taxed for the value of a complimentary ticket to that organization’s annual county dinner? This is obviously bad policy.

2002 Ron Paul 42:5
This legislation would rectify the situation by specifically exempting these types of benefits from federal taxation.

2002 Ron Paul 42:6
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, as opposed to federal, law enforcement and public safety provision. So, while it is not the role of our federal government to increase the salaries of local officers, 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.

2002 Ron Paul 42:7
President George Bush has called on Americans to volunteer their time and energy to enhance 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 fire fighters 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.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 43

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
June 25, 2002
Introduction of the Police Security Protection Act

2002 Ron Paul 43:1
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to help America’s law enforcement officers by introducing the Police Security Protection Act. This legislation provides police officers with a tax credit for the purchase of armored vests.

2002 Ron Paul 43:2
As recent events have reminded us, 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 these brave men and women. After all, an armored vest literally could 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.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 44

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
June 27, 2002
Is America a Police State?

2002 Ron Paul 44:1
Mr. Speaker: Most Americans believe we live in dangerous times, and I must agree. Today I want to talk about how I see those dangers and what Congress ought to do about them.

2002 Ron Paul 44:2
Of course, the Monday-morning quarterbacks are now explaining, with political overtones, what we should have done to prevent the 9/11 tragedy. Unfortunately, in doing so, foreign policy changes are never considered.

2002 Ron Paul 44:3
I have, for more than two decades, been severely critical of our post-World War II foreign policy. I have perceived it to be not in our best interest and have believed that it presented a serious danger to our security.

2002 Ron Paul 44:4
For the record, in January of 2000 I stated the following on this floor:

2002 Ron Paul 44:5
Our commercial interests and foreign policy are no longer separate...as bad as it is that average Americans are forced to subsidize such a system, we additionally are placed in greater danger because of our arrogant policy of bombing nations that do not submit to our wishes. This generates hatred directed toward America ...and exposes us to a greater threat of terrorism, since this is the only vehicle our victims can use to retaliate against a powerful military state...the cost in terms of lost liberties and unnecessary exposure to terrorism is difficult to assess, but in time, it will become apparent to all of us that foreign interventionism is of no benefit to American citizens, but instead is a threat to our liberties.

2002 Ron Paul 44:6
Again, let me remind you I made these statements on the House floor in January 2000. Unfortunately, my greatest fears and warnings have been borne out.

2002 Ron Paul 44:7
I believe my concerns are as relevant today as they were then. We should move with caution in this post-9/11 period so we do not make our problems worse overseas while further undermining our liberties at home.

2002 Ron Paul 44:8
So far our post-9/11 policies have challenged the rule of law here at home, and our efforts against the al Qaeda have essentially come up empty-handed. The best we can tell now, instead of being in one place, the members of the al Qaeda are scattered around the world, with more of them in allied Pakistan than in Afghanistan. Our efforts to find our enemies have put the CIA in 80 different countries. The question that we must answer some day is whether we can catch enemies faster than we make new ones. So far it appears we are losing.

2002 Ron Paul 44:9
As evidence mounts that we have achieved little in reducing the terrorist threat, more diversionary tactics will be used. The big one will be to blame Saddam Hussein for everything and initiate a major war against Iraq, which will only generate even more hatred toward America from the Muslim world.

2002 Ron Paul 44:10
But, Mr. Speaker, my subject today is whether America is a police state. I’m sure the large majority of Americans would answer this in the negative. Most would associate military patrols, martial law and summary executions with a police state, something obviously not present in our everyday activities. However, those with knowledge of Ruby Ridge, Mount Carmel and other such incidents may have a different opinion.

2002 Ron Paul 44:11
The principal tool for sustaining a police state, even the most militant, is always economic control and punishment by denying disobedient citizens such things as jobs or places to live, and by levying fines and imprisonment. The military is more often used in the transition phase to a totalitarian state. Maintenance for long periods is usually accomplished through economic controls on commercial transactions, the use of all property, and political dissent. Peaceful control through these efforts can be achieved without storm troopers on our street corners.

2002 Ron Paul 44:12
Terror and fear are used to achieve complacency and obedience, especially when citizens are deluded into believing they are still a free people. The changes, they are assured, will be minimal, short-lived, and necessary, such as those that occur in times of a declared war. Under these conditions, most citizens believe that once the war is won, the restrictions on their liberties will be reversed. For the most part, however, after a declared war is over, the return to normalcy is never complete. In an undeclared war, without a precise enemy and therefore no precise ending, returning to normalcy can prove illusory.

2002 Ron Paul 44:13
We have just concluded a century of wars, declared and undeclared, while at the same time responding to public outcries for more economic equity. The question, as a result of these policies, is: “Are we already living in a police state?” If we are, what are we going to do about it? If we are not, we need to know if there’s any danger that we’re moving in that direction.

2002 Ron Paul 44:14
Most police states, surprisingly, come about through the democratic process with majority support. During a crisis, the rights of individuals and the minority are more easily trampled, which is more likely to condition a nation to become a police state than a military coup. Promised benefits initially seem to exceed the cost in dollars or lost freedom. When people face terrorism or great fear- from whatever source- the tendency to demand economic and physical security over liberty and self-reliance proves irresistible. The masses are easily led to believe that security and liberty are mutually exclusive, and demand for security far exceeds that for liberty.

2002 Ron Paul 44:15
Once it’s discovered that the desire for both economic and physical security that prompted the sacrifice of liberty inevitably led to the loss of prosperity and no real safety, it’s too late. Reversing the trend from authoritarian rule toward a freer society becomes very difficult, takes a long time, and entails much suffering. Although dissolution of the Soviet empire was relatively non-violent at the end, millions suffered from police suppression and economic deprivation in the decades prior to 1989.

2002 Ron Paul 44:16
But what about here in the United States? With respect to a police state, where are we and where are we going?

2002 Ron Paul 44:17
  Let me make a few observations:

2002 Ron Paul 44:18
Our government already keeps close tabs on just about everything we do and requires official permission for nearly all of our activities.

2002 Ron Paul 44:19
One might take a look at our Capitol for any evidence of a police state. We see: barricades, metal detectors, police, military soldiers at times, dogs, ID badges required for every move, vehicles checked at airports and throughout the Capitol. The people are totally disarmed, except for the police and the criminals. But worse yet, surveillance cameras in Washington are everywhere to ensure our safety.

2002 Ron Paul 44:20
The terrorist attacks only provided the cover for the do-gooders who have been planning for a long time before last September to monitor us “for our own good.” Cameras are used to spy on our drug habits, on our kids at school, on subway travelers, and on visitors to every government building or park. There’s not much evidence of an open society in Washington, DC, yet most folks do not complain- anything goes if it’s for government-provided safety and security.

2002 Ron Paul 44:21
If this huge amount of information and technology is placed in the hands of the government to catch the bad guys, one naturally asks, What’s the big deal? But it should be a big deal, because it eliminates the enjoyment of privacy that a free society holds dear. The personal information of law-abiding citizens can be used for reasons other than safety- including political reasons. Like gun control, people control hurts law-abiding citizens much more than the law-breakers.

2002 Ron Paul 44:22
Social Security numbers are used to monitor our daily activities. The numbers are given at birth, and then are needed when we die and for everything in between. This allows government record keeping of monstrous proportions, and accommodates the thugs who would steal others’ identities for criminal purposes. This invasion of privacy has been compounded by the technology now available to those in government who enjoy monitoring and directing the activities of others. Loss of personal privacy was a major problem long before 9/11.

2002 Ron Paul 44:23
Centralized control and regulations are required in a police state. Community and individual state regulations are not as threatening as the monolith of rules and regulations written by Congress and the federal bureaucracy. Law and order has been federalized in many ways and we are moving inexorably in that direction.

2002 Ron Paul 44:24
Almost all of our economic activities depend upon receiving the proper permits from the federal government. Transactions involving guns, food, medicine, smoking, drinking, hiring, firing, wages, politically correct speech, land use, fishing, hunting, buying a house, business mergers and acquisitions, selling stocks and bonds, and farming all require approval and strict regulation from our federal government. If this is not done properly and in a timely fashion, economic penalties and even imprisonment are likely consequences.

2002 Ron Paul 44:25
Because government pays for much of our health care, it’s conveniently argued that any habits or risk-taking that could harm one’s health are the prerogative of the federal government, and are to be regulated by explicit rules to keep medical-care costs down. This same argument is used to require helmets for riding motorcycles and bikes.

2002 Ron Paul 44:26
Not only do we need a license to drive, but we also need special belts, bags, buzzers, seats and environmentally dictated speed limits- or a policemen will be pulling us over to levy a fine, and he will be toting a gun for sure.

2002 Ron Paul 44:27
The states do exactly as they’re told by the federal government, because they are threatened with the loss of tax dollars being returned to their state- dollars that should have never been sent to DC in the first place, let alone used to extort obedience to a powerful federal government.

2002 Ron Paul 44:28
Over 80,000 federal bureaucrats now carry guns to make us toe the line and to enforce the thousands of laws and tens of thousands of regulations that no one can possibly understand. We don’t see the guns, but we all know they’re there, and we all know we can’t fight “City Hall,” especially if it’s “Uncle Sam.”

2002 Ron Paul 44:29
All 18-year-old males must register to be ready for the next undeclared war. If they don’t, men with guns will appear and enforce this congressional mandate. “Involuntary servitude” was banned by the 13th Amendment, but courts don’t apply this prohibition to the servitude of draftees or those citizens required to follow the dictates of the IRS- especially the employers of the country, who serve as the federal government’s chief tax collectors and information gatherers. Fear is the tool used to intimidate most Americans to comply to the tax code by making examples of celebrities. Leona Helmsley and Willie Nelson know how this process works.

2002 Ron Paul 44:30
Economic threats against business establishments are notorious. Rules and regulations from the EPA, the ADA, the SEC, the LRB, OSHA, etc. terrorize business owners into submission, and those charged accept their own guilt until they can prove themselves innocent. Of course, it turns out it’s much more practical to admit guilt and pay the fine. This serves the interest of the authoritarians because it firmly establishes just who is in charge.

2002 Ron Paul 44:31
Information leaked from a government agency like the FDA can make or break a company within minutes. If information is leaked, even inadvertently, a company can be destroyed, and individuals involved in revealing government-monopolized information can be sent to prison. Even though economic crimes are serious offenses in the United States, violent crimes sometimes evoke more sympathy and fewer penalties. Just look at the O.J. Simpson case as an example.

2002 Ron Paul 44:32
Efforts to convict Bill Gates and others like him of an economic crime are astounding, considering his contribution to economic progress, while sources used to screen out terrorist elements from our midst are tragically useless. If business people are found guilty of even the suggestion of collusion in the marketplace, huge fines and even imprisonment are likely consequences.

2002 Ron Paul 44:33
Price fixing is impossible to achieve in a free market. Under today’s laws, talking to, or consulting with, competitors can be easily construed as “price fixing” and involve a serious crime, even with proof that the so-called collusion never generated monopoly-controlled prices or was detrimental to consumers.

2002 Ron Paul 44:34
Lawfully circumventing taxes, even sales taxes, can lead to serious problems if a high-profile person can be made an example.

2002 Ron Paul 44:35
One of the most onerous controls placed on American citizens is the control of speech through politically correct legislation. Derogatory remarks or off-color jokes are justification for firings, demotions, and the destruction of political careers. The movement toward designating penalties based on the category to which victims belong, rather the nature of the crime itself, has the thought police patrolling the airways and byways. Establishing relative rights and special penalties for subjective motivation is a dangerous trend.

2002 Ron Paul 44:36
All our financial activities are subject to “legal” searches without warrants and without probable cause. Tax collection, drug usage, and possible terrorist activities “justify” the endless accumulation of information on all Americans.

2002 Ron Paul 44:37
Government control of medicine has prompted the establishment of the National Medical Data Bank. For efficiency reasons, it is said, the government keeps our medical records for our benefit. This, of course, is done with vague and useless promises that this information will always remain confidential- just like all the FBI information in the past!

2002 Ron Paul 44:38
Personal privacy, the sine qua non of liberty, no longer exists in the United States. Ruthless and abusive use of all this information accumulated by the government is yet to come. The Patriot Act has given unbelievable power to listen, read, and monitor all our transactions without a search warrant being issued after affirmation of probably cause. “Sneak and peak” and blanket searches are now becoming more frequent every day. What have we allowed to happen to the 4th amendment?

2002 Ron Paul 44:39
It may be true that the average American does not feel intimidated by the encroachment of the police state. I’m sure our citizens are more tolerant of what they see as mere nuisances because they have been deluded into believing all this government supervision is necessary and helpful- and besides they are living quite comfortably, material wise. However the reaction will be different once all this new legislation we’re passing comes into full force, and the material comforts that soften our concerns for government regulations are decreased. This attitude then will change dramatically, but the trend toward the authoritarian state will be difficult to reverse.

2002 Ron Paul 44:40
What government gives with one hand- as it attempts to provide safety and security- it must, at the same time, take away with two others. When the majority recognizes that the monetary cost and the results of our war against terrorism and personal freedoms are a lot less than promised, it may be too late.

2002 Ron Paul 44:41
I’m sure all my concerns are unconvincing to the vast majority of Americans, who not only are seeking but also are demanding they be made safe from any possible attack from anybody, ever. I grant you this is a reasonable request.

2002 Ron Paul 44:42
The point is, however, there may be a much better way of doing it. We must remember, we don’t sit around and worry that some Canadian citizen is about to walk into New York City and set off a nuclear weapon. We must come to understand the real reason is that there’s a difference between the Canadians and all our many friends and the Islamic radicals. And believe me, we’re not the target because we’re “free and prosperous”.

2002 Ron Paul 44:43
The argument made for more government controls here at home and expansionism overseas to combat terrorism is simple and goes like this: “If we’re not made safe from potential terrorists, property and freedom have no meaning.” It is argued that first we must have life and physical and economic security, with continued abundance, then we’ll talk about freedom.

2002 Ron Paul 44:44
It reminds me of the time I was soliciting political support from a voter and was boldly put down: “Ron,” she said, “I wish you would lay off this freedom stuff; it’s all nonsense. We’re looking for a Representative who will know how to bring home the bacon and help our area, and you’re not that person.” Believe me, I understand that argument; it’s just that I don’t agree that is what should be motivating us here in the Congress.

2002 Ron Paul 44:45
That’s not the way it works. Freedom does not preclude security. Making security the highest priority can deny prosperity and still fail to provide the safety we all want.

2002 Ron Paul 44:46
The Congress would never agree that we are a police state. Most members, I’m sure, would argue otherwise. But we are all obligated to decide in which direction we are going. If we’re moving toward a system that enhances individual liberty and justice for all, my concerns about a police state should be reduced or totally ignored. Yet, if, by chance, we’re moving toward more authoritarian control than is good for us, and moving toward a major war of which we should have no part, we should not ignore the dangers. If current policies are permitting a serious challenge to our institutions that allow for our great abundance, we ignore them at great risk for future generations.

2002 Ron Paul 44:47
That’s why the post-9/11 analysis and subsequent legislation are crucial to the survival of those institutions that made America great. We now are considering a major legislative proposal dealing with this dilemma- the new Department of Homeland Security- and we must decide if it truly serves the interests of America.

2002 Ron Paul 44:48
Since the new department is now a forgone conclusion, why should anyone bother to record a dissent? Because it’s the responsibility of all of us to speak the truth to our best ability, and if there are reservations about what we’re doing, we should sound an alarm and warn the people of what is to come.

2002 Ron Paul 44:49
In times of crisis, nearly unanimous support for government programs is usual and the effects are instantaneous. Discovering the error of our ways and waiting to see the unintended consequences evolve takes time and careful analysis. Reversing the bad effects is slow and tedious and fraught with danger. People would much prefer to hear platitudes than the pessimism of a flawed policy.

2002 Ron Paul 44:50
Understanding the real reason why we were attacked is crucial to crafting a proper response. I know of no one who does not condemn the attacks of 9/11. Disagreement as to the cause and the proper course of action should be legitimate in a free society such as ours. If not, we’re not a free society.

2002 Ron Paul 44:51
Not only do I condemn the vicious acts of 9/11, but also, out of deep philosophic and moral commitment, I have pledged never to use any form of aggression to bring about social or economic changes.

2002 Ron Paul 44:52
But I am deeply concerned about what has been done and what we are yet to do in the name of security against the threat of terrorism.

2002 Ron Paul 44:53
Political propagandizing is used to get all of us to toe the line and be good “patriots,” supporting every measure suggested by the administration. We are told that preemptive strikes, torture, military tribunals, suspension of habeas corpus, executive orders to wage war, and sacrificing privacy with a weakened 4th Amendment are the minimum required to save our country from the threat of terrorism.

2002 Ron Paul 44:54
Who’s winning this war anyway?

2002 Ron Paul 44:55
To get popular support for these serious violations of our traditional rule of law requires that people be kept in a state of fear. The episode of spreading undue concern about the possibility of a dirty bomb being exploded in Washington without any substantiation of an actual threat is a good example of excessive fear being generated by government officials.

2002 Ron Paul 44:56
To add insult to injury, when he made this outlandish announcement, our Attorney General was in Moscow. Maybe if our FBI spent more time at home, we would get more for the money we pump into this now- discredited organization. Our FBI should be gathering information here at home, and the thousands of agents overseas should return. We don’t need these agents competing overseas and confusing the intelligence apparatus of the CIA or the military.

2002 Ron Paul 44:57
I’m concerned that the excess fear, created by the several hundred al Qaeda functionaries willing to sacrifice their lives for their demented goals, is driving us to do to ourselves what the al Qaeda themselves could never do to us by force.

2002 Ron Paul 44:58
So far the direction is clear: we are legislating bigger and more intrusive government here at home and are allowing our President to pursue much more military adventurism abroad. These pursuits are overwhelmingly supported by Members of Congress, the media, and the so-called intellectual community, and questioned only by a small number of civil libertarians and anti-imperial, anti-war advocates.

2002 Ron Paul 44:59
The main reason why so many usually levelheaded critics of bad policy accept this massive increase in government power is clear. They, for various reasons, believe the official explanation of “Why us?” The several hundred al Qaeda members, we were told, hate us because: “We’re rich, we’re free, we enjoy materialism, and the purveyors of terror are jealous and envious, creating the hatred that drives their cause. They despise our Christian-Judaic values and this, is the sole reason why they are willing to die for their cause.” For this to be believed, one must also be convinced that the perpetrators lied to the world about why they attacked us.

2002 Ron Paul 44:60
The al Qaeda leaders say they hate us because: -We support Western puppet regimes in Arab countries for commercial reasons and against the wishes of the populace of these countries.

2002 Ron Paul 44:61
-This partnership allows a military occupation, the most confrontational being in Saudi Arabia, that offends their sense of pride and violates their religious convictions by having a foreign military power on their holy land. We refuse to consider how we might feel if China’s navy occupied the Gulf of Mexico for the purpose of protecting “their oil” and had air bases on U.S. territory.

2002 Ron Paul 44:62
-We show extreme bias in support of one side in the fifty-plus-year war going on in the Middle East.

2002 Ron Paul 44:63
What if the al Qaeda is telling the truth and we ignore it? If we believe only the official line from the administration and proceed to change our whole system and undermine our constitutional rights, we may one day wake up to find that the attacks have increased, the numbers of those willing to commit suicide for their cause have grown, our freedoms are diminished, and all this has contributed to making our economic problems worse. The dollar cost of this “war” could turn out to be exorbitant, and the efficiency of our markets can be undermined by the compromises placed on our liberties.

2002 Ron Paul 44:64
Sometimes it almost seems that our policies inadvertently are actually based on a desire to make ourselves “less free and less prosperous”- those conditions that are supposed to have prompted the attacks. I’m convinced we must pay more attention to the real cause of the attacks of last year and challenge the explanations given us.

2002 Ron Paul 44:65
  The question that one day must be answered is this:

2002 Ron Paul 44:66
What if we had never placed our troops in Saudi Arabia and had involved ourselves in the Middle East war in an even-handed fashion. Would it have been worth it if this would have prevented the events of 9/11?

2002 Ron Paul 44:67
If we avoid the truth, we will be far less well off than if we recognize that just maybe there is some truth in the statements made by the leaders of those who perpetrated the atrocities. If they speak the truth about the real cause, changing our foreign policy from foreign military interventionism around the globe supporting an American empire would make a lot of sense. It could reduce tensions, save money, preserve liberty and preserve our economic system.

2002 Ron Paul 44:68
This, for me, is not a reactive position coming out of 9/11, but rather is an argument I’ve made for decades, claiming that meddling in the affairs of others is dangerous to our security and actually reduces our ability to defend ourselves.

2002 Ron Paul 44:69
This in no way precludes pursuing those directly responsible for the attacks and dealing with them accordingly- something that we seem to have not yet done. We hear more talk of starting a war in Iraq than in achieving victory against the international outlaws that instigated the attacks on 9/11. Rather than pursuing war against countries that were not directly responsible for the attacks, we should consider the judicious use of Marque and Reprisal.

2002 Ron Paul 44:70
I’m sure that a more enlightened approach to our foreign policy will prove elusive. Financial interests of our international corporations, oil companies, and banks, along with the military-industrial complex, are sure to remain a deciding influence on our policies.

2002 Ron Paul 44:71
Besides, even if my assessments prove to be true, any shift away from foreign militarism- like bringing our troops home- would now be construed as yielding to the terrorists. It just won’t happen. This is a powerful point and the concern that we might appear to be capitulating is legitimate.

2002 Ron Paul 44:72
Yet how long should we deny the truth, especially if this denial only makes us more vulnerable? Shouldn’t we demand the courage and wisdom of our leaders to do the right thing, in spite of the political shortcomings?

2002 Ron Paul 44:73
President Kennedy faced an even greater threat in October 1962, and from a much more powerful force. The Soviet/Cuban terrorist threat with nuclear missiles only 90 miles off our shores was wisely defused by Kennedy’s capitulating and removing missiles from Turkey on the Soviet border. Kennedy deserved the praise he received for the way he handled the nuclear standoff with the Soviets. This concession most likely prevented a nuclear exchange and proved that taking a step back from a failed policy is beneficial, yet how one does so is crucial. The answer is to do it diplomatically- that’s what diplomats are supposed to do.

2002 Ron Paul 44:74
Maybe there is no real desire to remove the excuse for our worldwide imperialism, especially our current new expansion into central Asia or the domestic violations of our civil liberties. Today’s conditions may well be exactly what our world commercial interests want. It’s now easy for us to go into the Philippines, Columbia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, or wherever in pursuit of terrorists. No questions are asked by the media or the politicians- only cheers. Put in these terms, who can object? We all despise the tactics of the terrorists, so the nature of the response is not to be questioned!

2002 Ron Paul 44:75
A growing number of Americans are concluding that the threat we now face comes more as a consequence of our foreign policy than because the bad guys envy our freedoms and prosperity. How many terrorist attacks have been directed toward Switzerland, Australia, Canada, or Sweden? They too are rich and free, and would be easy targets, but the Islamic fundamentalists see no purpose in doing so.

2002 Ron Paul 44:76
There’s no purpose in targeting us unless there’s a political agenda, which there surely is. To deny that this political agenda exists jeopardizes the security of this country. Pretending something to be true that is not is dangerous.

2002 Ron Paul 44:77
It’s a definite benefit for so many to recognize that our $40 billion annual investment in intelligence gathering prior to 9/11 was a failure. Now a sincere desire exists to rectify these mistakes. That’s good, unless, instead of changing the role for the CIA and the FBI, all the past mistakes are made worse by spending more money and enlarging the bureaucracies to do the very same thing without improving their efficiency or changing their goals. Unfortunately that is what is likely to happen.

2002 Ron Paul 44:78
One of the major shortcomings that led to the 9/11 tragedies was that the responsibility for protecting commercial airlines was left to the government, the FAA, the FBI, the CIA, and the INS. And they failed. A greater sense of responsibility for the owners to provide security is what was needed. Guns in the cockpit would have most likely prevented most of the deaths that occurred on that fateful day.

2002 Ron Paul 44:79
But what does our government do? It firmly denies airline pilots the right to defend their planes, and we federalize the security screeners and rely on F16s to shoot down airliners if they are hijacked.

2002 Ron Paul 44:80
Security screeners, many barely able to speak English, spend endless hours harassing pilots, confiscating dangerous mustache scissors, mauling grandmothers and children, and pestering Al Gore, while doing nothing about the influx of aliens from Middle-Eastern countries who are on designated watch lists.

2002 Ron Paul 44:81
We pump up the military in India and Pakistan, ignore all the warnings about Saudi Arabia, and plan a secret war against Iraq to make sure no one starts asking where Osama bin Laden is. We think we know where Saddam Hussein lives, so let’s go get him instead.

2002 Ron Paul 44:82
Since our government bureaucracy failed, why not get rid of it instead of adding to it? If we had proper respect and understood how private property owners effectively defend themselves, we could apply those rules to the airlines and achieve something worthwhile.

2002 Ron Paul 44:83
If our immigration policies have failed us, when will we defy the politically correct fanatics and curtail the immigration of those individuals on the highly suspect lists? Instead of these changes, all we hear is that the major solution will come by establishing a huge new federal department- the Department of Homeland Security.

2002 Ron Paul 44:84
According to all the pundits, we are expected to champion this big-government approach, and if we don’t jolly well like it, we will be tagged “unpatriotic.” The fear that permeates our country cries out for something to be done in response to almost daily warnings of the next attack. If it’s not a real attack, then it’s a theoretical one; one where the bomb could well be only in the mind of a potential terrorist.

2002 Ron Paul 44:85
Where is all this leading us? Are we moving toward a safer and more secure society? I think not. All the discussions of these proposed plans since 9/11 have been designed to condition the American people to accept major changes in our political system. Some of the changes being made are unnecessary, and others are outright dangerous to our way of life.

2002 Ron Paul 44:86
There is no need for us to be forced to choose between security and freedom. Giving up freedom does not provide greater security. Preserving and better understanding freedom can. Sadly today, many are anxious to give up freedom in response to real and generated fears..

2002 Ron Paul 44:87
The plans for a first strike supposedly against a potential foreign government should alarm all Americans. If we do not resist this power the President is assuming, our President, through executive order, can start a war anyplace, anytime, against anyone he chooses, for any reason, without congressional approval. This is a tragic usurpation of the war power by the executive branch from the legislative branch, with Congress being all too accommodating.

2002 Ron Paul 44:88
Removing the power of the executive branch to wage war, as was done through our revolution and the writing of the Constitution, is now being casually sacrificed on the altar of security. In a free society, and certainly in the constitutional republic we have been given, it should never be assumed that the President alone can take it upon himself to wage war whenever he pleases.

2002 Ron Paul 44:89
The publicly announced plan to murder Saddam Hussein in the name of our national security draws nary a whimper from Congress. Support is overwhelming, without a thought as to its legality, morality, constitutionality, or its practicality. Murdering Saddam Hussein will surely generate many more fanatics ready to commit their lives to suicide terrorist attacks against us.

2002 Ron Paul 44:90
Our CIA attempt to assassinate Castro backfired with the subsequent assassination of our president. Killing Saddam Hussein, just for the sake of killing him, obviously will increase the threat against us, not diminish it. It makes no sense. But our warriors argue that someday he may build a bomb, someday he might use it, maybe against us or some yet-unknown target. This policy further radicalizes the Islamic fundamentalists against us, because from their viewpoint, our policy is driven by Israeli, not U.S. security interests.

2002 Ron Paul 44:91
Planned assassination, a preemptive strike policy without proof of any threat, and a vague definition of terrorism may work for us as long as we’re king of the hill, but one must assume every other nation will naturally use our definition of policy as justification for dealing with their neighbors. India can justify a first strike against Pakistan, China against India or Taiwan, as well as many other such examples. This new policy, if carried through, will make the world much less safe.

2002 Ron Paul 44:92
This new doctrine is based on proving a negative, which is impossible to do, especially when we’re dealing with a subjective interpretation of plans buried in someone’s head. To those who suggest a more restrained approach on Iraq and killing Saddam Hussein, the war hawks retort, saying: “Prove to me that Saddam Hussein might not do something someday directly harmful to the United States.” Since no one can prove this, the warmongers shout: “Let’s march on Baghdad.”

2002 Ron Paul 44:93
We all can agree that aggression should be met with force and that providing national security is an ominous responsibility that falls on Congress’ shoulders. But avoiding useless and unjustifiable wars that threaten our whole system of government and security seems to be the more prudent thing to do.

2002 Ron Paul 44:94
Since September 11th, Congress has responded with a massive barrage of legislation not seen since Roosevelt took over in 1933. Where Roosevelt dealt with trying to provide economic security, today’s legislation deals with personal security from any and all imaginable threats, at any cost- dollar or freedom-wise. These efforts include:

2002 Ron Paul 44:95
-The Patriot Act, which undermines the 4th Amendment with the establishment of an overly broad and dangerous definition of terrorism.

2002 Ron Paul 44:96
- The Financial Anti-Terrorism Act, which expands the government’s surveillance of the financial transactions of all American citizens through increased power to FinCen and puts back on track the plans to impose “Know Your Customer” rules on all Americans, which had been sought after for years.

2002 Ron Paul 44:97
-The airline bailout bill gave $15 billion, rushed through shortly after 9/11.

2002 Ron Paul 44:98
- The federalization of all airline security employees. -Military tribunals set up by executive order-undermining the rights of those accused- rights established as far back in history as 1215.

2002 Ron Paul 44:99
- Unlimited retention of suspects without charges being made, even when a crime has not been committed- a serious precedent that one day may well be abused.

2002 Ron Paul 44:100
- Relaxation of FBI surveillance guidelines of all political activity.

2002 Ron Paul 44:101
- Essentially monopolizing vaccines and treatment for infectious diseases, permitting massive quarantines and mandates for vaccinations.

2002 Ron Paul 44:102
Almost all significant legislation since 9/11 has been rushed through in a tone of urgency with reference to the tragedy, including the $190 billion farm bill as well as fast track.

2002 Ron Paul 44:103
Guarantees to all insurance companies now are moving quickly through the Congress.
Increasing the billions already flowing into foreign aid is now being planned as our interventions overseas continue to grow and expand.

2002 Ron Paul 44:104
There’s no reason to believe that the massive increase in spending, both domestic and foreign, along with the massive expansion of the size of the federal government, will slow any time soon. The deficit is exploding as the economy weakens. When the government sector drains the resources needed for capital expansion, it contributes to the loss of confidence needed for growth.

2002 Ron Paul 44:105
Even without evidence that any good has come from this massive expansion of government power, Congress is in the process of establishing a huge new bureaucracy, the Department of Homeland Security, hoping miraculously through centralization to make all these efforts productive and worthwhile.

2002 Ron Paul 44:106
There is no evidence, however, that government bureaucracy and huge funding can solve our nation’s problems. The likelihood is that the unintended consequences of this new proposal will diminish our freedoms and do nothing to enhance our security.

2002 Ron Paul 44:107
Opposing currently proposed and recently passed legislation does not mean one is complacent about terrorism or homeland security. The truth is that there are alternative solutions to these problems we face, without resorting to expanding the size and scope of government at the expense of liberty.

2002 Ron Paul 44:108
As tempting as it may seem, a government is incapable of preventing crimes. On occasion, with luck it might succeed. But the failure to tip us off about 9/11, after spending $40 billion annually on intelligence gathering, should have surprised no one. Governments, by nature, are very inefficient institutions. We must accept this as fact.

2002 Ron Paul 44:109
I’m sure that our intelligence agencies had the information available to head off 9/11, but bureaucratic blundering and turf wars prevented the information from being useful. But, the basic principle is wrong. City policeman can’t and should not be expected to try to preempt crimes. That would invite massive intrusions into the everyday activities of every law-abiding citizen.

2002 Ron Paul 44:110
But that’s exactly what our recent legislation is doing. It’s a wrong-headed goal, no matter how wonderful it may sound. The policemen in the inner cities patrol their beats, but crime is still rampant. In the rural areas of America, literally millions of our citizens are safe and secure in their homes, though miles from any police protection. They are safe because even the advantage of isolation doesn’t entice the burglar to rob a house when he knows a shotgun sits inside the door waiting to be used. But this is a right denied many of our citizens living in the inner cities.

2002 Ron Paul 44:111
The whole idea of government preventing crime is dangerous. To prevent crimes in our homes or businesses, government would need cameras to spy on our every move; to check for illegal drug use, wife beating, child abuse, or tax evasion. They would need cameras, not only on our streets and in our homes, but our phones, internet, and travels would need to be constantly monitored- just to make sure we are not a terrorist, drug dealer, or tax evader.

2002 Ron Paul 44:112
This is the assumption now used at our airports, rather than allowing privately owned airlines to profile their passengers to assure the safety for which the airline owners ought to assume responsibility. But, of course, this would mean guns in the cockpit. I am certain that this approach to safety and security would be far superior to the rules that existed prior to 9/11 and now have been made much worse in the past nine months.

2002 Ron Paul 44:113
This method of providing security emphasizes private-property ownership and responsibility of the owners to protect that property. But the right to bear arms must also be included. The fact that the administration is opposed to guns in the cockpit and the fact that the airline owners are more interested in bailouts and insurance protection mean that we’re just digging a bigger hole for ourselves- ignoring liberty and expecting the government to provide something it’s not capable of doing.

2002 Ron Paul 44:114
Because of this, in combination with a foreign policy that generates more hatred toward us and multiplies the number of terrorists that seek vengeance, I am deeply concerned that Washington’s efforts so far sadly have only made us more vulnerable. I’m convinced that the newly proposed Department of Homeland Security will do nothing to make us more secure, but it will make us all a lot poorer and less free. If the trend continues, the Department of Homeland Security may well be the vehicle used for a much more ruthless control of the people by some future administration than any of us dreams. Let’s pray that this concern will never materialize.

2002 Ron Paul 44:115
America is not now a ruthless authoritarian police state. But our concerns ought to be whether we have laid the foundation of a more docile police state. The love of liberty has been so diminished that we tolerate intrusions into our privacies today that would have been abhorred just a few years ago. Tolerance of inconvenience to our liberties is not uncommon when both personal and economic fear persists. The sacrifices being made to our liberties will surely usher in a system of government that will please only those who enjoy being in charge of running other people’s lives.

2002 Ron Paul 44:116
Mr. Speaker, what, then, is the answer to the question: “Is America a Police State?” My answer is: “Maybe not yet, but it is fast approaching.” The seeds have been sown and many of our basic protections against tyranny have been and are constantly being undermined. The post-9/11 atmosphere here in Congress has provided ample excuse to concentrate on safety at the expense of liberty, failing to recognize that we cannot have one without the other.

2002 Ron Paul 44:117
When the government keeps detailed records on every move we make and we either need advance permission for everything we do or are penalized for not knowing what the rules are, America will be declared a police state. Personal privacy for law-abiding citizens will be a thing of the past. Enforcement of laws against economic and political crimes will exceed that of violent crimes (just look at what’s coming under the new FEC law). War will be the prerogative of the administration. Civil liberties will be suspended for suspects, and their prosecution will not be carried out by an independent judiciary. In a police state, this becomes common practice rather than a rare incident.

2002 Ron Paul 44:118
Some argue that we already live in a police state, and Congress doesn’t have the foggiest notion of what they’re dealing with. So forget it and use your energy for your own survival. Some advise that the momentum towards the monolithic state cannot be reversed. Possibly that’s true, but I’m optimistic that if we do the right thing and do not capitulate to popular fancy and the incessant war propaganda, the onslaught of statism can be reversed.

2002 Ron Paul 44:119
To do so, we as a people will once again have to dedicate ourselves to establishing the proper role a government plays in a free society. That does not involve the redistribution of wealth through force. It does not mean that government dictates the moral and religious standards of the people. It does not allow us to police the world by involving ourselves in every conflict as if it’s our responsibility to manage a world American empire.

2002 Ron Paul 44:120
But it does mean government has a proper role in guaranteeing free markets, protecting voluntary and religious choices and guaranteeing private property ownership, while punishing those who violate these rules – whether foreign or domestic.

2002 Ron Paul 44:121
In a free society, the government’s job is simply to protect liberty – the people do the rest. Let’s not give up on a grand experiment that has provided so much for so many. Let’s reject the police state.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 45

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
June 28, 2002
Unintended Consequences of the Drug War

2002 Ron Paul 45:1
Mr. Speaker, I highly recommend the attached article “Unintended Consequences” by Thomas G. Donlan, from Barron’s magazine, to my colleagues. This article provides an excellent explanation of the way current federal drug policy actually encourages international terrorist organizations, such as Al Queda, to use the drug trade to finance their activities. Far from being an argument to enhance the war on drugs, the reliance of terrorist organizations upon the drug trade is actually one more reason to reconsider current drug policy. Terrorist organizations are drawn to the drug trade because federal policy still enables drug dealers to reap huge profits from dealing illicit substances. As Mr. Donlan points out, pursuing a more rational drug policy would remove the exorbitant profits from the drug trade and thus remove the incentive for terrorists to produce and sell drugs.

2002 Ron Paul 45:2
In conclusion, I once again recommend Mr. Donlan’s article to my colleagues. I hope the author’s explanation of how the war on drugs is inadvertently strengthening terrorist organizations will lead them to embrace a more humane, constitutional and rational approach to dealing with the legitimate problems associated with drug abuse.

2002 Ron Paul 45:3
From Barron’s, June 24, 2002
By Thomas G. Donlan

2002 Ron Paul 45:4
It’s harvest time in Afghanistan. While the delegates to its grand council, the loya jurga, met under the great tent in Kabul and grudgingly acknowledged Hamid Karza as the president of a “transitional government,” the impoverished farmers of Afghanistan reaped the rewards of their best cash crop, the despised opium poppy.

2002 Ron Paul 45:5
A few months ago, newspaper correspondents reported that the American proconsuls in Afghanistan had abandoned their hopes of reducing the opium harvest. They had considered buying the crop or paying farmers to destroy their poppies, but concluded that in the lawless Afghan hinterland they would simply be paying a bonus for non-delivery.

2002 Ron Paul 45:6
Karzai’s previous “interim administration” had banned opium production, but its writ did not run many miles beyond the city of Kabul. Warlords and provincial governors did as they pleased, and they were pleased to tax the opium trade and indeed participate in it as traders and transporters and protectors.

2002 Ron Paul 45:7
That’s what the Taliban did for most of the years that the mullahs ruled and protected the al Qaeda terrorist network. In 2000, Afghanistan accounted for 71% of the world’s opium supply. (Opium in turn is the building block for heroin, which most drug-fighters believe takes the greatest human toll and provides the greatest profit in the whole illicit industry.)

2002 Ron Paul 45:8
In 2001, the Taliban decreed an end to opium cultivation, not so much to carry favor with the West but to maintain the price: A bumper crop provided enough for two years of commerce. Indeed, the Taliban and al Qaeda may have earned more from their stockpiles in 2001 than they did from high production in 2000.

2002 Ron Paul 45:9
“As ye sow, so shall ye reap.” The Biblical passage is an apt reminder that America’s undercover agents nurtured Islamic fundamentalism to strengthen Afghan resistance to the Soviet Union. We reaped chaos in Afghanistan and a corps of well-trained fanatics bent on our destruction. America has also sown a war on drugs, and those same fanatics have harvested the profits.

2002 Ron Paul 45:10
This was not what we intended. Nor did we intend to let huge profits earned by terrorists and common criminals be used to corrupt police in every country where the trade reaches, including our own. Nor did we intend to put hundreds of thousands of Americans in prison for their participation in the drug trade. Nor did we intend to create periodic drug scarcities that turn addicts to crime to pay for their habits.

2002 Ron Paul 45:11
But all those things are unintended consequences of the war on drugs. Drug use is eventually a self-punishing mistake; the drug war turns out to be the same.

2002 Ron Paul 45:12
Now the war on drugs and the war on terrorism are beginning to look like two currents in a single river. Nearly half of the international terrorist groups on the State Department’s list are involved in drug trafficking, either to raise money for their political aims or because successful drug commerce requires a ruthlessness indistinguishable from terrorism.

2002 Ron Paul 45:13
The currents don’t always run together: The FBI and other federal law enforcement agencies acknowledge that the extra resources they are devoting to the detection and apprehension of terrorists are not new resources; the money agents and equipment come to the war on terror at the expense of the war on drugs.

2002 Ron Paul 45:14
In the domestic war on drugs, officials are trying to make the two currents serve their purposes. The government runs TV ads portraying young Americans confessing, “I killed grandmas. I killed daughters. I killed firemen. I killed policemen,” and then warning the viewers, “Where do terrorists get their money? If you buy drugs, some of it may come from you.”

2002 Ron Paul 45:15

2002 Ron Paul 45:16
Like they wanted to do that? The buyers of drugs would be perfectly happy to buy them in a clean, well-lit store at reasonable prices, with the profits heavily taxed to support schools, medical benefits, or any other legitimate function of government – even police. That’s how they buy cigarettes and liquor, neither of which finances international terrorists. (In a current prosecution, smuggling cigarettes from low-tax North Carolina to high-tax Michigan allegedly raised $1,500 for an alleged affiliate of Hamas. But big violence needs bigger sums from more lucrative sources.)

2002 Ron Paul 45:17
It was bad when drug laws gave the Mafia an opportunity to do big business. It was worse when the laws encouraged Colombian and Mexican drug cartels to obtain aircraft and heavy weapons. Now that the drug laws provide profits to people who want to kill Americans wholesale instead of retail, it’s time to change the laws.

2002 Ron Paul 45:18
Using drugs is stupid enough; making the users finance international terrorists is even more foolish.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 46

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
July 9, 2002
Has Capitalism Failed?

2002 Ron Paul 46:1
It is now commonplace and politically correct to blame what is referred to as the excesses of capitalism for the economic problems we face, and especially for the Wall Street fraud that dominates the business news. Politicians are having a field day with demagoguing the issue while, of course, failing to address the fraud and deceit found in the budgetary shenanigans of the federal government- for which they are directly responsible. Instead, it gives the Keynesian crowd that run the show a chance to attack free markets and ignore the issue of sound money.

2002 Ron Paul 46:2
So once again we hear the chant: “Capitalism has failed; we need more government controls over the entire financial market.”  No one asks why the billions that have been spent and thousands of pages of regulations that have been written since the last major attack on capitalism in the 1930s didn’t prevent the fraud and deception of Enron, WorldCom, and Global Crossings. That failure surely couldn’t have come from a dearth of regulations.

2002 Ron Paul 46:3
What is distinctively absent is any mention that all financial bubbles are saturated with excesses in hype, speculation, debt, greed, fraud, gross errors in investment judgment, carelessness on the part of analysts and investors, huge paper profits, conviction that a new era economy has arrived and, above all else, pie-in-the-sky expectations.

2002 Ron Paul 46:4
When the bubble is inflating, there are no complaints. When it bursts, the blame game begins. This is especially true in the age of victimization, and is done on a grand scale. It quickly becomes a philosophic, partisan, class, generational, and even a racial issue. While avoiding the real cause, all the finger pointing makes it difficult to resolve the crisis and further undermines the principles upon which freedom and prosperity rest.

2002 Ron Paul 46:5
Nixon was right- once- when he declared “We’re all Keynesians now.” All of Washington is in sync in declaring that too much capitalism has brought us to where we are today. The only decision now before the central planners in Washington is whose special interests will continue to benefit from the coming pretense at reform. The various special interests will be lobbying heavily like the Wall Street investors, the corporations, the military-industrial complex, the banks, the workers, the unions, the farmers, the politicians, and everybody else.

2002 Ron Paul 46:6
But what is not discussed is the actual cause and perpetration of the excesses now unraveling at a frantic pace. This same response occurred in the 1930s in the United States as our policymakers responded to the very similar excesses that developed and collapsed in 1929. Because of the failure to understand the problem then, the depression was prolonged. These mistakes allowed our current problems to develop to a much greater degree. Consider the failure to come to grips with the cause of the 1980s bubble, as Japan’s economy continues to linger at no-growth and recession level, with their stock market at approximately one-fourth of its peak 13 years ago. If we’re not careful- and so far we’ve not been- we will make the same errors that will prevent the correction needed before economic growth can be resumed.

2002 Ron Paul 46:7
In the 1930s, it was quite popular to condemn the greed of capitalism, the gold standard, lack of regulation, and a lack government insurance on bank deposits for the disaster. Businessmen became the scapegoat. Changes were made as a result, and the welfare/warfare state was institutionalized. Easy credit became the holy grail of monetary policy, especially under Alan Greenspan, “the ultimate Maestro.” Today, despite the presumed protection from these government programs built into the system, we find ourselves in a bigger mess than ever before. The bubble is bigger, the boom lasted longer, and the gold price has been deliberately undermined as an economic signal. Monetary inflation continues at a rate never seen before in a frantic effort to prop up stock prices and continue the housing bubble, while avoiding the consequences that inevitably come from easy credit. This is all done because we are unwilling to acknowledge that current policy is only setting the stage for a huge drop in the value of the dollar. Everyone fears it, but no one wants to deal with it.

2002 Ron Paul 46:8
Ignorance, as well as disapproval for the natural restraints placed on market excesses that capitalism and sound markets impose, cause our present leaders to reject capitalism and blame it for all the problems we face. If this fallacy is not corrected and capitalism is even further undermined, the prosperity that the free market generates will be destroyed.

2002 Ron Paul 46:9
Corruption and fraud in the accounting practices of many companies are coming to light. There are those who would have us believe this is an integral part of free-market capitalism. If we did have free-market capitalism, there would be no guarantees that some fraud wouldn’t occur. When it did, it would then be dealt with by local law-enforcement authority and not by the politicians in Congress, who had their chance to “prevent” such problems but chose instead to politicize the issue, while using the opportunity to promote more Keynesian useless regulations.

2002 Ron Paul 46:10
Capitalism should not be condemned, since we haven’t had capitalism. A system of capitalism presumes sound money, not fiat money manipulated by a central bank. Capitalism cherishes voluntary contracts and interest rates that are determined by savings, not credit creation by a central bank. It’s not capitalism when the system is plagued with incomprehensible rules regarding mergers, acquisitions, and stock sales, along with wage controls, price controls, protectionism, corporate subsidies, international management of trade, complex and punishing corporate taxes, privileged government contracts to the military- industrial complex, and a foreign policy controlled by corporate interests and overseas investments. Add to this centralized federal mismanagement of farming, education, medicine, insurance, banking and welfare. This is not capitalism!

2002 Ron Paul 46:11
To condemn free-market capitalism because of anything going on today makes no sense. There is no evidence that capitalism exists today. We are deeply involved in an interventionist-planned economy that allows major benefits to accrue to the politically connected of both political spectrums. One may condemn the fraud and the current system, but it must be called by its proper names- Keynesian inflationism, interventionism, and corporatism.

2002 Ron Paul 46:12
What is not discussed is that the current crop of bankruptcies reveals that the blatant distortions and lies emanating from years of speculative orgy were predictable.

2002 Ron Paul 46:13
First, Congress should be investigating the federal government’s fraud and deception in accounting, especially in reporting future obligations such as Social Security, and how the monetary system destroys wealth. Those problems are bigger than anything in the corporate world and are the responsibility of Congress. Besides, it’s the standard set by the government and the monetary system it operates that are major contributing causes to all that’s wrong on Wall Street today. Where fraud does exist, it’s a state rather than federal matter, and state authorities can enforce these laws without any help from Congress.

2002 Ron Paul 46:14
Second, we do know why financial bubbles occur, and we know from history that they are routinely associated with speculation, excessive debt, wild promises, greed, lying, and cheating. These problems were described by quite a few observers as the problems were developing throughout the 90s, but the warnings were ignored for one reason. Everybody was making a killing and no one cared, and those who were reminded of history were reassured by the Fed Chairman that “this time” a new economic era had arrived and not to worry. Productivity increases, it was said, could explain it all.

2002 Ron Paul 46:15
But now we know that’s just not so. Speculative bubbles and all that we’ve been witnessing are a consequence of huge amounts of easy credit, created out of thin air by the Federal Reserve. We’ve had essentially no savings, which is one of the most significant driving forces in capitalism. The illusion created by low interest rates perpetuates the bubble and all the bad stuff that goes along with it. And that’s not a fault of capitalism. We are dealing with a system of inflationism and interventionism that always produces a bubble economy that must end badly.

2002 Ron Paul 46:16
So far the assessment made by the administration, Congress, and the Fed bodes badly for our economic future. All they offer is more of the same, which can’t possibly help. All it will do is drive us closer to national bankruptcy, a sharply lower dollar, and a lower standard of living for most Americans, as well as less freedom for everyone.

2002 Ron Paul 46:17
This is a bad scenario that need not happen. But preserving our system is impossible if the critics are allowed to blame capitalism and sound monetary policy is rejected. More spending, more debt, more easy credit, more distortion of interest rates, more regulations on everything, and more foreign meddling will soon force us into the very uncomfortable position of deciding the fate of our entire political system.

2002 Ron Paul 46:18
If we were to choose freedom and capitalism, we would restore our dollar to a commodity or a gold standard. Federal spending would be reduced, income taxes would be lowered, and no taxes would be levied upon savings, dividends, and capital gains. Regulations would be reduced, special-interest subsidies would be stopped, and no protectionist measures would be permitted. Our foreign policy would change, and we would bring our troops home.

2002 Ron Paul 46:19
We cannot depend on government to restore trust to the markets; only trustworthy people can do that. Actually, the lack of trust in Wall Street executives is healthy because it’s deserved and prompts caution. The same lack of trust in politicians, the budgetary process, and the monetary system would serve as a healthy incentive for the reform in government we need.

2002 Ron Paul 46:20
Markets regulate better than governments can. Depending on government regulations to protect us significantly contributes to the bubble mentality.

2002 Ron Paul 46:21
These moves would produce the climate for releasing the creative energy necessary to simply serve consumers, which is what capitalism is all about. The system that inevitably breeds the corporate-government cronyism that created our current ongoing disaster would end.

2002 Ron Paul 46:22
Capitalism didn’t give us this crisis of confidence now existing in the corporate world. The lack of free markets and sound money did. Congress does have a role to play, but it’s not proactive. Congress’ job is to get out of the way.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 47

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
July 16, 2002
Government Mortgage Schemes Distort the Housing Market

2002 Ron Paul 47:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Free Housing Market Enhancement Act. This legislation restores a free market in housing by repealing special privileges for housing-related government sponsored enterprises (GSEs). These entities are the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie), the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie), and the National Home Loan Bank Board (HLBB). According to the Congressional Budget Office, the housing-related GSEs received $13.6 billion worth of indirect federal subsidies in fiscal year 2000 alone.

2002 Ron Paul 47:2
One of the major government privileges granted these GSEs is a line of credit to the United States Treasury. According to some estimates, the line of credit may be worth over $2 billion. This explicit promise by the Treasury to bail out these GSEs in times of economic difficulty helps them 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.

2002 Ron Paul 47:3
The Free Housing Market Enhancement Act also repeals the explicit grant of legal authority given to the Federal Reserve to purchase the debt of housing-related GSEs. GSEs are the only institutions besides the United States Treasury granted explicit statutory authority to monetize their debt through the Federal Reserve. This provision gives the GSEs a source of liquidity unavailable to their competitors.

2002 Ron Paul 47:4
Ironically, by transferring the risk of a widespread mortgage default, the government increases the likelihood of a painful crash in the housing market. This is because the special privileges of Fannie, Freddie, and HLBB have distorted the housing market by allowing them to attract capital they could not attract under pure market conditions. As a result, capital is diverted from its most productive use into housing. This reduces the efficacy of the entire market and thus reduces the standard of living of all Americans.

2002 Ron Paul 47:5
However, despite the long-term damage to the economy inflicted by the government’s interference in the housing market, the government’s policies of diverting capital to other uses creates a short-term boom in housing. Like all artificially-created bubbles, the boom in housing prices cannot last forever. When housing prices fall, homeowners will experience difficulty as their equity is wiped out. Furthermore, the holders of the mortgage debt will also have a loss. These losses will be greater than they would have otherwise been had government policy not actively encouraged over-investment in housing.

2002 Ron Paul 47:6
Perhaps the Federal Reserve can stave off the day of reckoning by purchasing GSE debt and pumping liquidity into the housing market, but this cannot hold off the inevitable drop in the housing market forever. In fact, postponing the necessary but painful market corrections will only deepen the inevitable fall. The more people invested in the market, the greater the effects across the economy when the bubble bursts.

2002 Ron Paul 47:7
No less an authority than Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has expressed concern that government subsidies provided to the GSEs make investors underestimate the risk of investing in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

2002 Ron Paul 47:8
Mr. Speaker, it is time for Congress to act to remove taxpayer support from the housing GSEs before the bubble bursts and taxpayers are once again forced to bail out investors misled by foolish government interference in the market. I therefore hope my colleagues will stand up for American taxpayers and investors by cosponsoring the Free Housing Market Enhancement Act.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 48

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives, Financial Services Committee
July 17, 2002
Hard Questions for Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan

2002 Ron Paul 48:1
Rep. Paul: “Welcome Chairman Greenspan. I’ve listened carefully to your testimony but I get the sense I may be listening to the Chairman of the Board of Central Economic planning rather than the chairman of a board that has been entrusted with protecting the value of the dollar.

2002 Ron Paul 48:2
“I have for quite a few years now expressed concern about the value of the dollar which I think we neglect here in the Congress, here in the committee and I do not think that the Federal Reserve has done a good job in protecting the value of the dollar. And it seems that maybe others are coming around to this viewpoint because I see that the head of the IMF this week, Mr. Koehler has expressed a concern and made a suggestion that all the central bankers of the world need to lay plans in the near future to possibly prop up the dollar. So others have this same concern.

2002 Ron Paul 48:3
“You have in your testimony expressed concern about the greed factor which obviously is there. And you implied that this has come out from the excessive capitalization/excessive valuations, which may be true. But I believe where you have come up short is in failing to explain why we have financial bubbles. I think when you have fiat money and excessive credit you create financial bubbles and you also undermine the value of the dollar and now we are facing that consequence. We see the disintegration of some of these markets. At the same time we have potential real depreciation of the value of our dollar. And we have pursued rampant inflation of the money supply. Since you have been Chairman of the Federal Reserve we have literally created $4.7 trillion worth of new money in M-3. Even in this last year with this tremendous burst of inflation of the money supply has gone up since last January over $1 trillion. You can’t have anything but lower value of that unit of account if you keep printing and creating new money.

2002 Ron Paul 48:4
“Now I would like to bring us back to sound money. And I would like to quote an eminent economist by the name of Alan Greenspan who gives me some credibility on what I am interested in. A time ago you said, “In the absence of the gold standard there is no way to protect savings from the confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value without gold. This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists’ tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the hidden confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process that stands as a protector of property rights.’”

2002 Ron Paul 48:5
Congressman Paul then added the he strongly believed this statement by Greenspan taken from a 1966 article that was included in an article he had written titled, “Gold & Economic Freedom” was true. Congressman Paul continued,

2002 Ron Paul 48:6
“But gold has always had to be undermined if fiat money is to work and there has to be an illusion of trust for paper to work. And I think this has been happening for thousands of years. At one time the kings clipped coins. Then they debased the metals. Then we learned how to print money. Even as recently as the 1960’s for us to perpetuate a myth about our monetary system, we dumped 2/3 of our gold, or 500 million ounces of gold at $35 per ounce in order to try to convince people to trust the money. And even today, there is a fair amount of trading by central banks, the dumping of hundreds of tonnes of gold, loaning of gold for the sole purpose that this indicator of gold does not discredit the paper money and I think there is a definite concerted effort to do that.

2002 Ron Paul 48:7
“My questions are two fold relating to gold. One, I have been trying to desperately to find out the total amount of gold either dumped and sold on to the markets by all the central banks of the world or loaned by the central banks of the world. And this is in hundreds and hundreds of tons. But those figures are not available to me. Maybe you can help me find this. I think it would be important to know since all central banks still deal with and hold gold whether they are dumping, or loaning or buying for that matter.

2002 Ron Paul 48:8
“But along this line, I have a bill that would say that our government, our Treasury could not deal in gold and could not be involved in the gold market unless the Congress knows about it. Now that to me seems like such a reasonable approach and reasonable request. But they say they don’t use it (gold) so we don’t need the bill. But if they are not trading in gold, what would be the harm in the Congress knowing about handling and dealing about this asset, gold?”

2002 Ron Paul 48:9
Chairman Greenspan: “Well first of all, neither we nor the Treasury trade gold. And my impression is that were we to do so, we would announce it. It is certain the case that others do. There are data published monthly or quarterly which shows the reported gold holdings of central banks throughout the world, so you do know who holds what. The actual trading data, ah, I don’t think is available though the London gold exchange does show what its volume numbers are. And periodically, individual central banks do indicate when they are planning to sell gold. But they all report what they own. So it may well be the case that you can’t find specific transactions. I think what you can find is the net result of those transactions and they are published. But so far as the United States is concerned, we don’t do it.”

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 49

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
July 23, 2002

2002 Ron Paul 49:1
Mr. Speaker, the Department of Homeland Security, who needs it? Mr. Speaker, everyone agrees the 9-11 tragedy confirmed a problem that exists in our domestic security and dramatized our vulnerability to outside attacks. Most agree that the existing bureaucracy was inept. The CIA, the FBI, the INS, and Customs failed to protect us.

2002 Ron Paul 49:2
It was not a lack of information that caused this failure; they had plenty. But they failed to analyze, communicate, and use the information to our advantage.

2002 Ron Paul 49:3
The flawed foreign policy of interventionism that we have followed for decades significantly contributed to the attacks. Warnings had been sounded by the more astute that our meddling in the affairs of others would come to no good. This resulted in our inability to defend our own cities, while spending hundreds of billions of dollars providing more defense for others than for ourselves. In the aftermath, we were even forced to ask other countries to patrol our airways to provide security for us.

2002 Ron Paul 49:4
A clear understanding of private property and an owner’s responsibility to protect it has been seriously undermined. This was especially true for the airline industry. The benefit of gun ownership and second amendment protections were prohibited. The government was given the responsibility for airline safety through FAA rules and regulations, and it failed miserably.

2002 Ron Paul 49:5
The solution now being proposed is a giant new federal department, and it is the only solution we are being offered, and one which I am certain will lead to tens of billions of dollars of new spending.

2002 Ron Paul 49:6
What is being done about the lack of emphasis on private property ownership? The security services are federalized. The airlines are bailed out and given guaranteed insurance against all threats. We have made the airline industry a public utility that gets to keep its profits and pass on its losses to the taxpayers, like Amtrak and the post office. Instead of more ownership responsibility, we get more government controls.

2002 Ron Paul 49:7
Is the first amendment revitalized, and are owners permitted to defend their property, their passengers, and personnel? No, no hint of it, unless you are El Al airlines, which enjoys this right, while no others do.

2002 Ron Paul 49:8
Has anything been done to limit immigration from countries placed on the terrorist list? Hardly. Have we done anything to slow up immigration of individuals with Saudi passports? No, oil is too important to offend the Saudis.

2002 Ron Paul 49:9
Yet, we have done plenty to undermine the liberties and privacy of all Americans through legislation such as the PATRIOT Act. A program is being planned to use millions of Americans to spy on their neighbors, an idea appropriate for a totalitarian society. Regardless of any assurances, we all know that the national ID card will soon be instituted.

2002 Ron Paul 49:10
Who believes for a moment that the military will not be used to enforce civil law in the near future? Posse comitatus will be repealed by executive order or by law, and liberty, the Constitution, and the republic will suffer another major setback.

2002 Ron Paul 49:11
Unfortunately, foreign policy will not change, and those who suggest that it be strictly designed for American security will be shouted down for their lack of patriotism. Instead, war fever will build until the warmongers get their wish and we march on Baghdad, making us even a greater target of those who despise us for our bellicose control of the world.

2002 Ron Paul 49:12
A new department is hardly what we need. That is more of the same, and will surely not solve our problems. It will, however, further undermine our liberties and hasten the day of our national bankruptcy.

2002 Ron Paul 49:13
A common sense improvement to homeland security would allow the DOD to provide protection, not a huge, new, militarized domestic department. We need to bring our troops home, including our Coast Guard; close down the base in Saudi Arabia; stop expanding our presence in the Muslim portion of the former Soviet Union; and stop taking sides in the long, ongoing war in the Middle East.

2002 Ron Paul 49:14
If we did these few things, we would provide a lot more security and protect our liberties a lot better than any new department ever will, and it will cost a lot less.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 50

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
July 24, 2002
The Tragedy of Partial-Birth Abortion

2002 Ron Paul 50:1
Mr. Speaker, like many Americans, I am greatly concerned about abortion. Abortion on demand is no doubt the most serious social-political 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.

2002 Ron Paul 50:2
Whether a civilized society treats human life with dignity or contempt determines the outcome of that civilization. Reaffirming the importance of the sanctity of life is crucial for the continuation of a civilized society. There is already strong evidence that we are indeed on the slippery slope toward euthanasia and human experimentation. Although the real problem lies within the hearts and minds of the people, the legal problems of protecting life stem from the ill-advised Roe v. Wade ruling, a ruling that constitutionally should never have occurred.

2002 Ron Paul 50:3
The best solution, of course, is not now available to us. That would be a Supreme Court that recognizes that for all criminal laws, the several states retain jurisdiction. Something that Congress can do is remove the issue from the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts, so that states can deal with the problems surrounding abortion, thus helping to reverse some of the impact of Roe v. Wade.

2002 Ron Paul 50:4
Unfortunately, H.R. 4965 takes a different approach, one that is not only constitutionally flawed, but flawed in principle, as well. Though I will vote to ban the horrible partial-birth abortion procedure, I fear that the language and reasoning used in this bill do not further the pro-life cause, but rather cement fallacious principles into both our culture and legal system.

2002 Ron Paul 50:5
For example, 14G in the “Findings” section of this bill states, “...such a prohibition [upon the partial-birth abortion procedure] will draw a bright line that clearly distinguishes abortion and infanticide...” The question I wish to pose in response is this: Is not the fact that life begins at conception the main tenet of the pro-life community? By stating that we are drawing a “bright line” between abortion and infanticide, I fear that we are simply reinforcing the dangerous idea underlying Roe v. Wade, which is the belief that we as human beings can determine which members of the human family are “expendable,” and which are not.

2002 Ron Paul 50:6
The belief that we as a society can decide which persons are “expendable,” leads us directly down a slippery slope of violence and apathy toward humanity. Though many decry such ethicists as Peter Singer of Princeton, who advocates the “right” of parents to choose infanticide, as well as euthanasia, his reasoning is simply a logical extension of the ethic underlying Roe v. Wade, which is that if certain people are not “useful” or “convenient,” they should be done away with.

2002 Ron Paul 50:7
H.R. 4965 also depends heavily upon a “distinction” made by the Court in both Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which established that a child within the womb is not protected under law, but one outside of the womb is. By depending upon this false and illogical “distinction,” I fear that H.R. 4965, as I stated before, ingrains the principles of Roe v. Wade into our justice system, rather than refutes them as it should.

2002 Ron Paul 50:8
Despite its severe flaws, this bill nonetheless has the possibility of saving innocent human life, and should therefore be supported. I fear, though, that when the pro-life community uses the arguments of the opposing side to advance its agenda, it does more harm than good.

2002 Ron Paul 50:9
I wish to conclude with a quote from Mother Theresa, who gave a beautiful and powerful speech about abortion on February 3, 1994, at the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington DC: “...From here, a sign of care for the weakest of the weak- the unborn child- must go out to the world. If you (in the United States) become a burning light of justice and peace in the world, then really you will be true to what the founders of this country stood for...”

2002 Ron Paul 50:10
May we see bills in the future that stay true to the solid principles the founders of this country stood for, rather than waver and compromise these principles.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 51

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
July 24, 2002
Statement on Expulsion of Congressman Jim Traficant

2002 Ron Paul 51:1
Mr. Speaker, many of Congressman Traficant’s actions are impossible to defend. Mr. Traficant likely engaged in unethical behavior. I hope all my colleagues would join me in condemning any member who abused his office by requiring staff to pay kick-backs to him and/or do personal work as a condition of employment. I also condemn in the strongest terms possible using one’s office to obtain personal favors from constituents, the people we are sent here to represent. Such behavior should never be tolerated.

2002 Ron Paul 51:2
However, before expelling a member we must consider more than eccentric behavior and ethical standards. We must first consider whether Mr. Traficant’s received a fair trial and a fair ethics hearing. His constitutional right to a fair trial, and the right to be judged by those who elected him to office, are every bit as important.

2002 Ron Paul 51:3
Many Americans believe that Congress routinely engages in ethically questionable and unconstitutional actions, actions which are far more injurious to the liberty and prosperity of the American people than the actions of Mr. Traficant. Some question the ability of Congress to judge the moral behavior of one individual when, to use just one example, we manage to give ourselves a pay raise without taking a direct vote.

2002 Ron Paul 51:4
Mr. Speaker, after listening carefully to last week’s ethics hearing, I have serious concerns about whether Mr. Traficant received a fair trial. In particular, I am concerned whether the change of venue denied Mr. Traficant a meaningful opportunity to present his case to a jury of his peers. Usually a change of venue is appropriate in cases where the defendant cannot receive a fair trial. I am unaware of any other case where the venue was changed for the benefit of the state.

2002 Ron Paul 51:5
However, the most disturbing accusations concern the possibility that Mr. Traficant was denied basic due process by not being allowed to present all of his witnesses at the trial. This failure raises serious questions whether Mr. Traficant had the opportunity to present an adequate defense. These questions are especially serious since one of the jurors from Mr. Traficant’s criminal trial told the Cleveland Plain Dealer that had he heard the testimony of Richard Detore at Mr. Traficant’s trial, he would have voted “not guilty.”

2002 Ron Paul 51:6
Mr. Speaker, I also question the timing of this resolution and the process by which this resolution is being brought to the floor. Mr. Traficant’s conviction is currently on appeal. Many Americans reasonably wonder whether the case, and the question of Mr. Traficant’s guilt, can be considered settled before the appeals process is completed. I fail to see the harm that would be done to this body if we waited until Mr. Traficant exhausts his right to appeal.

2002 Ron Paul 51:7
Before voting to expel Mr. Traficant while his appeal is pending, my colleagues should consider the case of former Representative George Hansen. Like Mr. Traficant, Mr. Hansen was convicted in federal court, censured by Congress, and actually served time in federal prison. However, Mr. Hansen was acquitted on appeal- after his life, career, and reputation were destroyed.

2002 Ron Paul 51:8
If my colleagues feel it is important to condemn Mr. Traficant before the August recess, perhaps we should consider censure. Over the past twenty years, this body has censured, rather than expelled, members who have committed various ethical and even criminal violations, ranging from bribery to engaging in sexual activity with underage subordinates.

2002 Ron Paul 51:9
I also am troubled that Mr. Traficant will have only 30 minutes to plead his case before the full House. Spending only an hour to debate this resolution, as though expelling a member of Congress is no more important than honoring Paul Ecke’s contributions to the Poinsettia industry, does this Congress a disservice.

2002 Ron Paul 51:10
In conclusion Mr. Speaker, because of my concerns over the fairness of Mr. Traficant’s trial, I believe it is inappropriate to consider this matter until Mr. Traficant has exhausted his right to appeal.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 52

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
July 26, 2002
Statement on Homeland Security Vote

2002 Ron Paul 52:1
MR. PAUL: Mr. Speaker, I do not oppose this rule because I would like to consider this important issue, but I am very concerned with the process of bringing this legislation before this body.

2002 Ron Paul 52:2
Mr. Speaker, since we began looking at proposals here in the House of Representatives, more questions have arisen than have been answered. We have put this legislation on a “fast track” to passage, primarily for reasons of public relations, and hence have short-circuited the deliberative process. It has been argued that the reason for haste is the seriousness of the issue, but frankly I have always held that the more serious the issue is, the more deliberative we here ought to be.

2002 Ron Paul 52:3
Instead of a carefully-crafted product of meaningful deliberations, I fear we are once again about to pass a hastily-drafted bill in order to appear that we are “doing something.” Over the past several months, Congress has passed a number of hastily crafted measures that do little, if anything, to enhance the security of the American people. Instead, these measures grow the size of the federal government, erode constitutional liberties, and endanger our economy by increasing the federal deficit and raiding the social security trust fund. The American people would be better severed if we gave the question of how to enhance security from international terrorism the serious consideration it deserves rather than blindly expanding the federal government. Congress should also consider whether our hyper-interventionist foreign policy really benefits the American people.

2002 Ron Paul 52:4
Serious and substantive questions about this reorganization have been raised. Many of these questions have yet to be resolved. Just because a bill has been reported from the Select Committee does not mean that a consensus exists. Indeed, even a couple of days before consideration, this bill it was impossible to get access to the legislation in the form introduced in the committee, let alone as amended by the committee.

2002 Ron Paul 52:5
In the course of just one week, the President’s original 52-page proposal swelled to 232 pages, with most members, including myself, unable to review the greatly expanded bill. While I know that some of those additions are positive, such as Mr. Armey’s amendments to protect the privacy of American citizens, it is impossible to fully explore the implications of this, the largest departmental reorganization in the history of our federal government, without sufficient time to review the bill. This is especially the case in light of the fact that a number of the recommendations of the standing committees were not incorporated in the legislation, thus limiting our ability to understand how our constituents will be affected by this legislation.

2002 Ron Paul 52:6
I have attempted to be a constructive part of this very important process. From my seat on the House International Relations Committee I introduced amendments that would do something concrete to better secure our homeland. Unfortunately, my amendments were not adopted in the form I offered them. Why? Was it because they did not deal substantively with the issues at hand? Was it because they addressed concerns other than those this new department should address? No, amazingly I was told that my amendments were too “substantive.” My amendments would have made it impossible for more people similar to those who hijacked those aircraft to get into our country. They would have denied certain visas and identified Saudi Arabia as a key problem in our attempt to deal with terrorism. Those ideas were deemed too controversial, so they are not included in this bill.

2002 Ron Paul 52:7
I also introduced four amendments to the bill itself, including those that would prohibit a national identification card, that would prohibit the secretary of this new department from moving money to other agencies and departments without Congressional oversight, that would deny student visas to nationals of Saudi Arabia, and that would deny student and diversity visas to nationals from terrorist-sponsoring countries. All of these amendments, which would have addressed some of the real issues of our security, were rejected. They were not even allowed onto the floor for a debate. This is yet more evidence of the failure of this process.

2002 Ron Paul 52:8
Mr. Speaker, the move to create a federal Department of Homeland Security was initiated in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11 and subsequent revelations regarding bureaucratic bungling and ineptness related to those attacks. Leaving aside other policy initiatives that may be more successful in reducing the threat of future terror attacks, I believe the President was well-intentioned in suggesting that a streamlining of functions might be helpful.

2002 Ron Paul 52:9
Mr. Speaker, as many commentators have pointed out, the creation of this new department represents the largest reorganization of federal agencies since the creation of the Department of Defense in 1947. Unfortunately, the process by which we are creating this new department bears little resemblance to the process by which the Defense Department was created. Congress began hearings on the proposed department of defense in 1945 -- two years before President Truman signed legislation creating the new Department into law! Despite the lengthy deliberative process through which Congress created the new department, turf battles and logistical problems continued to bedevil the military establishment, requiring several corrective pieces of legislation. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the Goldwater-Nicholas Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 (PL 99-433) was passed to deal with problems steaming from the 1947 law! The experience with the Department of Defense certainly suggests the importance of a more deliberative process in the creation of this new agency.

2002 Ron Paul 52:10
This current proposed legislation suggests that merging 22 government agencies and departments — comprising nearly 200,000 federal employees — into one department will address our current vulnerabilities. I do not see how this can be the case. If we are presently under terrorist threat, it seems to me that turning 22 agencies upside down, sparking scores of turf wars and creating massive logistical and technological headaches - does anyone really believe that even simple things like computer and telephone networks will be up and running in the short term? — is hardly the way to maintain the readiness and focus necessary to defend the United States. What about vulnerabilities while Americans wait for this massive new bureaucracy to begin functioning as a whole even to the levels at which its component parts were functioning before this legislation was taken up? Is this a risk we can afford to take? Also, isn’t it a bit ironic that in the name of “homeland security” we seem to be consolidating everything except the government agencies most critical to the defense of the United States: the multitude of intelligence agencies that make up the Intelligence Community?

2002 Ron Paul 52:11
Mr. Speaker, I come from a Coastal District in Texas. The Coast Guard and its mission are important to us. The chairman of the committee of jurisdiction over the Coast Guard has expressed strong reservations about the plan to move the Coast Guard into the new department. Recently my district was hit by the flooding in Texas, and we relied upon the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to again provide certain services. Additionally, as a district close to our border, much of the casework performed in my district offices relates to requests made to the Immigration and Naturalization Service. There has been a difference of opinion between committees of jurisdiction and the administration in regard to all these functions. In fact, the President’s proposal was amended in no fewer than a half dozen of the dozen committees to which it was originally referred.

2002 Ron Paul 52:12
My coastal district also relies heavily on shipping. Our ports are essential for international trade and commerce. Last year, over one million tons of goods was moved through just one of the Ports in my district! However, questions remain about how the mission of the Customs Service will be changed by this new department. These are significant issues to my constituents, and may well affect their very livelihoods. For me to vote for this bill would amount to giving my personal assurance that the creation of this new department will not adversely impact the fashion in which the Coast Guard and Customs Service provide the services which my constituents have come to rely upon. Based on the expedited process we have followed with this legislation, I do not believe I can give such an assurance.

2002 Ron Paul 52:13
We have also received a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) cost estimate suggesting that it will cost no less than $3 billion just to implement this new department. That is $3 billion dollars that could be spent to capture those responsible for the attacks of September 11 or to provide tax-relief to the families of the victims of that attack. It is three billion dollars that could perhaps be better spent protecting against future attacks, or even simply to meet the fiscal needs of our government. Since those attacks this Congress has gone on a massive spending spree. Spending three billion additional dollars now, simply to rearrange offices and command structures, is not a wise move. In fact, Congress is actually jeopardizing the security of millions of Americans by raiding the social security trust fund to rearrange deck chairs and give big spenders yet another department on which to lavish pork-barrel spending. The way the costs of this department have skyrocketed before the Department is even open for business leads me to fear that this will become yet another justification for Congress to raid the social security trust fund in order to finance pork-barrel spending. This is especially true in light of the fact that so many questions remain regarding the ultimate effect of these structural changes. Moreover, this legislation will give the Executive Branch the authority to spend money appropriated by Congress in ways Congress has not authorized. This clearly erodes Constitutionally-mandated Congressional prerogatives relative to control of federal spending.

2002 Ron Paul 52:14
Recently the House passed a bill allowing for the arming of pilots. This was necessary because the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) simply ignored legislation we had passed previously. TSA is, of course, a key component of this new department. Do we really want to grant authority over appropriations to a Department containing an agency that has so brazenly ignored the will of Congress as recently as has the TSA?

2002 Ron Paul 52:15
In fact, there has been a constant refusal of the bureaucracy to recognize that one of the best ways to enhance security is to legalize the second amendment and allow private property owners to defend their property. Instead, the security services are federalized. The airlines are bailed out and given guaranteed insurance against all threats. We have made the airline industry a public utility that gets to keep its profits and pass on its losses to the taxpayers, like Amtrak and the post office. Instead of more ownership responsibility, we get more government controls. I am reluctant, to say the least, to give any new powers to bureaucrats who refuse to recognize the vital role free citizens exercising their second amendment rights play in homeland security.

2002 Ron Paul 52:16
Mr. Speaker, government reorganizations, though generally seen as benign, can have a deleterious affect not just on the functioning of government but on our safety and liberty as well. The concentration and centralization of authority that may result from today’s efforts should give us all reason for pause. But the current process does not allow for pause. Indeed, it militates toward rushing decisions without regard to consequence. Furthermore, this particular reorganization, in an attempt to provide broad leeway for the new department, undermines our Congressional oversight function. Abrogating our Constitutionally-mandated responsibilities so hastily now also means that future administrations will find it much easier to abuse the powers of this new department to violate constitutional liberties.

2002 Ron Paul 52:17
Perhaps a streamlined, reconfigured federal government with a more clearly defined and limited mission focused on protecting citizens and their freedoms could result from this reorganization, but right now it seems far more likely that the opposite will occur. That is why I must oppose creation of this new department.

2002 Ron Paul 52:18
Until we deal with the substance of the problem — serious issues of American foreign policy about which I have spoken out for years, and important concerns with our immigration policy in light of the current environment — attempts such as we undertake today at improved homeland security will amount to, more or less, rearranging deck chairs — or perhaps more accurately office chairs in various bureaucracies. Until we are prepared to have serious and frank discussions of policy this body will not improve the security of American citizens and their property. I stand ready to have that debate, but unfortunately this bill does nothing to begin the debate and nothing substantive to protect us. At best it will provide an illusion of security, and at worst these unanswered questions will be resolved by the realization that entities such as the Customs Service, Coast Guard and INS will be less effective, less efficient, more intrusive and mired in more bureaucratic red tape. Therefore, we should not pass this bill today.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 53

Congressman Ron Paul
July 23, 2002
Before the House Ways and Means Committee
Member comment period on HR 5095

2002 Ron Paul 53:1
MR. PAUL: Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to submit my statement regarding the corporate tax bill recently marked up by this committee.  

2002 Ron Paul 53:2
I hope Congress understands the historical significance of this bill.  Once again, as when we created the ETI (“extraterritorial”) tax regime in 2000, we are acting at the behest on an international body.  We are changing our domestic laws, and changing the way we tax domestic parent corporations on the activities of their subsidiaries operating wholly outside of the U.S., because an international body demands it.  The WTO appellate panel has spoken, and their will trumps Congress.  Yet we were assured in 1994 that our membership in the WTO would never diminish American sovereignty.

2002 Ron Paul 53:3
The Europeans argue, quite correctly, that we treat some foreign-source corporate earnings preferentially, i.e. we exempt from tax a portion of the earnings of foreign sales corporations (FSCs).  This is not, however, an argument for abolishing the FSC — it is an argument for adopting a territorial tax system like many of our European critics!

2002 Ron Paul 53:4
Putting politics aside, however, the reality is that we must craft a bill that satisfies the WTO to avoid further trade sanctions.  While reform of our overall tax system remains an issue for another day, it is vital that Congress begin to consider comprehensive overhaul of U.S. international tax rules.

2002 Ron Paul 53:5
The FSC, created by Congress in 1984 under IRC sections 921-927, provides needed relief from the subpart F anti-deferral rules for the foreign subsidiaries of our domestic corporations.   FSCs make it possible for U.S. corporations to better compete with companies incorporated in territorial-system nations — which is to say companies that generally pay no corporate tax at all on the foreign-source income of their subsidiaries.

I urge the committee to reconsider repealing the FSC, an entity utilized by several corporations in my district that employ thousands of people, including Marathon Oil, Dow Chemical, and British Petroleum.  Since competing legislation recently introduced in this committee seeks to encourage American manufacturing and exports, it is imperative that any manufacturing deduction (for “qualified production activities”) include income derived from the production of finished energy products — refined gasoline, liquefied natural gas, etc.  

2002 Ron Paul 53:6
It may not be possible to design a replacement that will replicate the same benefits (of the FSC) to the same taxpayers and still satisfy the WTO.  On this point, I concur with Chairman Thomas.  The committee should  recognize that there will be winners and losers with any change to the existing rules.  However, I believe it is important to balance the needs of various affected industries and implement any proposed legislation in a manner that avoids disruption of current business plans and activities.

2002 Ron Paul 53:7
Current international tax rules are grossly outdated.  The basic Subpart F rules were enacted in 1962.  These rules reflect the economic climate of that time.  In 1962, the United States was a net exporter of capital and enjoyed a trade surplus.  Imports and exports were only one-half of the percentage of GDP that they are today.  The world has changed.  Our tax laws need to change too.

2002 Ron Paul 53:8
The impact of U.S. tax rules on the international competitiveness of U.S. multinationals is much more significant an issue than it was forty years ago. Today, foreign markets provide an increasing amount of the growth opportunities for U.S. businesses.  At the same time, competition from multinationals headquartered outside of the United States is becoming greater.  Of the world’s 20 largest corporations, the number headquartered in the United States has declined from 18 in 1960 to just 8 in 1996.  Around the world, 21,000 foreign affiliates of U.S. multinationals compete with about 260,000 foreign affiliates of foreign multinationals.

2002 Ron Paul 53:9
If U.S. rules for taxing foreign source income are more burdensome than those of other countries, U.S. businesses will be less successful in global markets, with negative consequences for exports and jobs at home.  I think a fair comparison of U.S. international tax rules and those of other nations shows that American businesses are increasingly put at a competitive disadvantage in the world marketplace.

2002 Ron Paul 53:10
First, about half of OECD countries have a territorial tax system under which a company generally is not subject to tax on the active income earned by a foreign subsidiary.  By contrast, the United States taxes income of a U.S.-controlled foreign corporation either when repatriated or when earned in cases where income is subject to U.S. anti-deferral rules.

2002 Ron Paul 53:11
Second, the scope of U.S. anti-deferral rules under subpart F is unusually broad compared to those of other countries.  While some countries tax passive income earned by controlled foreign subsidiaries, the United States stands out for taxing (as a deemed dividend) a wide range of active income under various subpart F provisions.

2002 Ron Paul 53:12
Third, the U.S. foreign tax credit, which is intended to prevent double taxation of foreign source income, has a number of deficiencies that increase complexity and prevent full double tax relief.

2002 Ron Paul 53:13
Taken all together, you find that a U.S.-based business operating internationally frequently pays a greater share of its income in foreign and U.S. tax than does a competing multinational company headquartered outside of the United States. Yet Congress wonders why corporate inversions are at an all-time high!

2002 Ron Paul 53:14
One indication of the impact of an overly burdensome and complex tax regime on the U.S. economy is in the area of corporate mergers and reorganizations.  U.S. international tax rules can play a key role in determining the location of a corporate headquarter, as we witnessed with the DaimlerChrysler merger.  In fact, recent studies have shown that between 73 and 86 percent of large cross-border transactions involving U.S. companies have resulted in the merged company being headquartered abroad.

2002 Ron Paul 53:15
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I urge the committee to craft a final bill (or conference report) that satisfies the WTO without punishing those U.S. corporations that have relied on the FSC structure to maintain their international competitiveness.  I also urge the committee to use this debate as a springboard for wholesale reform of our international tax rules.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 54

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
September 4, 2002
Arguments Against a War in Iraq

2002 Ron Paul 54:1
Mr. Speaker; I rise to urge the Congress to think twice before thrusting this nation into a war without merit- one fraught with the danger of escalating into something no American will be pleased with.

2002 Ron Paul 54:2
Thomas Jefferson once said:
“Never was so much false arithmetic employed on any subject as that which has been employed to persuade nations that it is in their interests to go to war.”

2002 Ron Paul 54:3
We have for months now heard plenty of false arithmetic and lame excuses for why we must pursue a preemptive war of aggression against an impoverished third world nation 6000 miles from our shores that doesn’t even possess a navy or air force, on the pretense that it must be done for national security reasons.

2002 Ron Paul 54:4
For some reason such an attack makes me feel much less secure, while our country is made more vulnerable.

2002 Ron Paul 54:5
Congress must consider the fact that those with military experience advocate a “go slow” policy, while those without military experience are the ones demanding this war.

2002 Ron Paul 54:6
We cannot ignore the fact that all of Iraq’s neighbors oppose this attack, and our European allies object as well.

2002 Ron Paul 54:7
If the military and diplomatic reasons for a policy of restraint make no sense to those who want a war, I advise they consider the $100 billion cost that will surely compound our serious budget and economic problems we face here at home. We need no more false arithmetic on our budget or false reasons for pursuing this new adventure into preemptive war and worldwide nation-building.

2002 Ron Paul 54:8
Mr. Speaker, allow me to offer another quote from Jefferson. Jefferson said: “No country perhaps was ever so thoroughly against war as ours. These dispositions pervade every description of its citizens, whether in or out of office. We love and we value peace, we know its blessings from experience.”

2002 Ron Paul 54:9
We need this sentiment renewed in this Congress in order to avoid a needless war that offers us nothing but trouble. Congress must deal with this serious matter of whether or not we go to war. I believe it would be a mistake with the information that is available to us today. I do not see any reason whatsoever to take young men and young women and send them 6,000 miles to attack a country that has not committed any aggression against this country. Many American now share my belief that it would be a serious mistake.

2002 Ron Paul 54:10
First, there is a practical reason to oppose a war in Iraq. Our military now has been weakened over the last decade, and when we go into Iraq we will clearly dilute our ability to defend our country. We do not enhance our national defense by initiating this war. Besides, it is impractical because of unintended consequences which none of us know about. We do not know exactly how long this will last. It could be a six-day war, a six-month war, or six years or even longer.

2002 Ron Paul 54:11
There is a military reason for not going to war. We ought to listen to the generals and other military experts, including Colin Powell, Brent Scowcroft, Anthony Zinni, and Norman Schwarzkopf, who are now advising us NOT to go to war. Some have even cautioned against the possibility of starting World War III. They understand that our troops have been spread too thin around the world, and it is dangerous from a purely military standpoint to go to war today.

2002 Ron Paul 54:12
There is a constitutional argument and a constitutional mistake that could be made. If we once again go to war, as we have done on so many occasions since World War II, without a clear declaration of war by Congress, we blatantly violate the Constitution. I fear we will once again go to war in a haphazard way, by executive order, or even by begging permission from the rotten, anti-American United Nations. This haphazard approach, combined with a lack of clearly defined goal for victory, makes it almost inevitable that true victory will not come. So we should look at this from a constitutional perspective. Congress should assume its responsibility, because war is declared by Congress, not by a President and not by a U.N.

2002 Ron Paul 54:13
This is a very important matter, and I am delighted to hear that there will be congressional hearings and discussion. I certainly believe we should have a balanced approach. We have already had some hearings in the other body, where we heard only one side of the issue. If we want to have real hearings, we should have a debate and hear evidence on both sides, rather than just hearing pro-war interests arguing for war.

2002 Ron Paul 54:14
There are even good political reasons for not initiating this conflict. War is not popular. It may seem popular in the short run, when there appears to be an immediate victory and everyone is gloating, but war is not popular. People get killed, and body bags end up coming back. War is very unpopular, and it is not the politically smart thing to do.

2002 Ron Paul 54:15
There are economic reasons to avoid this war. We can do serious damage to our economy. It is estimated that this venture into Iraq may well cost over a hundred billion dollars. Our national debt right now is increasing at a rate of over $450 billion yearly, and we are talking about spending another hundred billion dollars on an adventure when we do not know what the outcome will be and how long it will last? What will happen to oil prices? What will happen to the recession that we are in? What will happen to the deficit? We must expect all kinds of economic ramifications.

2002 Ron Paul 54:16
There are countless diplomatic reasons for not going. All the Arab nations near Iraq object to and do not endorse our plans, and none of our European allies are anxious for this to happen. So diplomatically we make a serious mistake by doing this. I hope we have second thoughts and are very cautious in what we do.

2002 Ron Paul 54:17
There are philosophical reasons for those who believe in limited government to oppose this war. “War is the health of the state,” as the saying goes. War necessarily means more power is given to the state. This additional power always results in a loss of liberty. Many of the worst government programs of the 20th century began during wartime “emergencies” and were never abolished. War and big government go hand in hand, but we should be striving for peace and freedom.

2002 Ron Paul 54:18
Finally, there is a compelling moral argument against war in Iraq. Military force is justified only in self-defense; naked aggression is the province of dictators and rogue states. This is the danger of a new “preemptive first strike” doctrine. America is the most moral nation on earth, founded on moral principles, and we must apply moral principles when deciding to use military force.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 55

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
September 5, 2002
A Foreign Policy for Peace, Prosperity, and Liberty

2002 Ron Paul 55:1
Introduction Mr. Speaker:

2002 Ron Paul 55:2
Thomas Jefferson spoke for the founders and all our early presidents when he stated:  “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none...”  which is, “one of the essential principles of our government”. The question is: Whatever happened to this principle and should it be restored?

2002 Ron Paul 55:3
We find the 20 th Century was wracked with war, peace was turned asunder, and our liberties were steadily eroded. Foreign alliances and meddling in the internal affairs of other nations became commonplace. On many occasions, involvement in military action occurred through UN resolutions or a presidential executive order, despite the fact that the war power was explicitly placed in the hands of Congress.

2002 Ron Paul 55:4
Since World War II, nearly 100,000 deaths and over a quarter million wounded (not counting the many thousands that have been affected by Agent Orange and the Persian Gulf War Syndrome) have all occurred without a declaration of war and without a clear-cut victory. The entire 20 th century was indeed costly, with over 600,000 killed in battle and an additional million wounded.

2002 Ron Paul 55:5
If liberty had been truly enhanced during that time, less could be said about the imperfections of the policy. The evidence, however, is clear that we as a people are less free, and the prosperity we still enjoy may be more illusionary than many realize. The innocent victims who have suffered at the hands of our militarism abroad are rarely considered by our government. Yet they may well be a major factor in the hatred now being directed toward America. It is not currently popular to question corporate and banking influence over a foreign policy that replaced the wisdom of Washington and Jefferson. Questioning foreign government influence on our policies, although known about for years, is not acceptable in the politically correct environment in which we live.

2002 Ron Paul 55:6
There’s little doubt that our role in the world dramatically changed in the 20 th century, inexorably evolving from that of strict non-interventionism to that of sole superpower, with the assumption that we were destined to be the world policeman. By the end of the 20 th century, in fact, this occurred. We have totally forgotten that for well over a hundred years we followed the advice of the founders by meticulously avoiding overseas conflicts. Instead we now find ourselves in charge of an American hegemony spread to the four corners of the earth.

2002 Ron Paul 55:7
Now we have entered the 21 st century, and there is not a country in the world that does not either depend on the U.S. for protection, or fear her wrath if they refuse to do her bidding. As the 20 th century progressed, American taxpayers were required to finance, with great sacrifices to their pocketbooks and their liberty, the buying of loyalty through foreign aid and intimidation of those countries that did not cooperate.

2002 Ron Paul 55:8
The question remains, however: Has this change been beneficial to freedom and prosperity here at home, and has it promoted peace and trade throughout the world? Those who justify our interventionist policies abroad argue that the violation of the rule of law is not a problem, considering the benefits we receive for maintaining the American empire. But has this really taken into consideration the cost in lives lost, the damage to long-term prosperity, as well as the dollar cost and freedoms we have lost? And what about the future? Has this policy of foreign intervention set the stage for radically changing America- and the world- in ways not yet seen? Were the founders completely off track because they lived in different times, or was the foreign policy they advised based on an essential principle of lasting value? Choosing the wrong answer to this question could very well be deadly to the grand experiment in liberty begun in 1776.

2002 Ron Paul 55:9
The Slippery Road to World Policeman

2002 Ron Paul 55:10
The transition from non-interventionism to our current role as world arbiter in all conflicts was insidious and fortuitous. In the early part of the 20 th century, the collapse of the British Empire left a vacuum, which was steadily filled by a US presence. In the latter part of the century, the results of World War II and the collapse of the Soviet system propelled us into our current role. Throughout most of the 20 th century, it was our competition with the Soviets that prompted our ever-expanded presence around the world. We are where we are today almost by default. But does that justify interventionism or prove it is in our best interest?

2002 Ron Paul 55:11
Disregarding for the moment the moral and constitutional arguments against foreign intervention, a strong case can be made against it for other reasons. It is clear that one intervention begets another. The first problem is rarely solved, and new ones are created. Indeed, in foreign affairs a slippery slope exists. In recent years, we too often slipped into war through the back door, with the purpose rarely defined or understood and the need for victory ignored.

2002 Ron Paul 55:12
A restrained effort of intervention frequently explodes into something that we did not foresee. Policies end up doing the opposite of their intended purpose- with unintended consequences. The result is that the action taken turns out to actually be detrimental to our national security interests. Yet no effort is made to challenge the fundamental principle behind our foreign policy. It is this failure to adhere to a set of principles that has allowed us to slip into this role, and if unchallenged, could well undo the liberties we all cherish.

2002 Ron Paul 55:13
Throughout history, there has always been a great temptation for rulers to spread their influence and pursue empire over liberty. Few resist this temptation to power. There always seems to be a natural inclination to yield to this historic human passion. Could it be that progress and civilization and promoting freedom require ignoring this impulse to control others, as the founders of this great nation advised?

2002 Ron Paul 55:14
Historically, the driving force behind world domination is usually an effort to control wealth. The Europeans were searching for gold when they came to the Americas. Now it =s our turn to seek control over the black gold which drives much of what we do today in foreign affairs. Competing with the Soviet Union prompted our involvement in areas of the world where the struggle for the balance of power was the sole motivating force.

2002 Ron Paul 55:15
The foreign policy of the 20 th century replaced the policy endorsed by all the early presidents. This permitted our steadily growing involvement overseas in an effort to control the world’s commercial interests, with a special emphasis on oil.

2002 Ron Paul 55:16
Our influence in the Middle East evolved out of concern for the newly created state of Israel in 1947, and our desire to secure control over the flow of oil in that region. Israel’s needs and Arab oil have influenced our foreign policy for more than a half a century.

2002 Ron Paul 55:17
In the 1950s, the CIA installed the Shah in Iran. It was not until the hostage crisis of the late 1970s that the unintended consequences of this became apparent. This generated Iranian hatred of America and led to the takeover by the reactionary Khoumini and the Islamic fundamentalists. It caused greater regional instability than we anticipated. Our meddling in the internal affairs of Iran was of no benefit to us and set the stage for our failed policy in dealing with Iraq.

2002 Ron Paul 55:18
We allied ourselves in the 1980s with Iraq in its war with Iran, and assisted Saddam Hussein in his rise to power. As recent reports reconfirm, we did nothing to stop Hussein’s development of chemical and biological weapons and at least indirectly assisted in their development. Now, as a consequence of that needless intervention, we =re planning a risky war to remove him from power. And as usual, the probable result of such an effort will be something our government does not anticipate- like a takeover by someone much worse. As bad as Hussein is, he’s an enemy of the Al Qaeda, and someone new may well be a close ally of the Islamic radicals.

2002 Ron Paul 55:19
Although our puppet dictatorship in Saudi Arabia has lasted for many decades, it’s becoming shakier every day. The Saudi people are not exactly friendly toward us, and our military presence on their holy soil is greatly resented. This contributes to the radical fundamentalist hatred directed toward us. Another unfavorable consequence to America, such as a regime change not to our liking, could soon occur in Saudi Arabia. It is not merely a coincidence that 15 of the 9/11 terrorists are Saudis.

2002 Ron Paul 55:20
The Persian Gulf War, fought without a declaration of war, is in reality still going on. It looks now like 9/11 may well have been a battle in that war, perpetrated by fanatical guerillas. It indicates how seriously flawed our foreign policy is. In the 1980s, we got involved in the Soviet/Afghan war and actually sided with the forces of Osama bin Laden, helping him gain power. This obviously was an alliance of no benefit to the United States, and it has now come back to haunt us. Our policy for years was to encourage Saudi Arabia to oppose communism by financing and promoting Islamic fundamentalism. Surely the shortcomings of that policy are now evident to everyone.

2002 Ron Paul 55:21
Clinton’s bombing of Sudan and Afghanistan on the eve of his indictment over Monica Lewinsky shattered a Taliban plan to expel Osama bin Laden from Afghanistan. Clinton’s bombing of Baghdad on the eve of his impeachment hardly won any converts to our cause or reassured Muslim people in the Middle East of a balanced American policy.

2002 Ron Paul 55:22
The continued bombing of Iraq over these past 12 years, along with the deadly sanctions resulting in hundreds of thousands of needless Iraqi civilian deaths, has not been beneficial to our security. And it has been used as one of the excuses for recruiting fanatics ready to sacrifice their lives in demonstrating their hatred toward us.

2002 Ron Paul 55:23
Essentially all Muslims see our policy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as being openly favorable toward Israel and in opposition to the Palestinians. It is for this reason they hold us responsible for Palestinian deaths, since all the Israeli weapons are from the United States. Since the Palestinians don’t even have an army and must live in refugee camps, one should understand why the animosity builds, even if our pro-Israeli position can be explained.

2002 Ron Paul 55:24
There is no end in sight. Since 9/11, our involvement in the Middle East and Saudi Arabia has grown significantly. Though we can badger those countries- whose leaders depend upon us to keep them in power- to stay loyal to the United States, the common people of the region become more alienated. Our cozy relationship with the Russians may not be as long-lasting as our current administration hopes, considering the $40 billion trade deal recently made between Russia and Saddam Hussein. It’s more than a bit ironic that we find the Russians now promoting free trade as a solution to a difficult situation while we’re promoting war.

2002 Ron Paul 55:25
This continuous escalation of our involvement overseas has been widespread. We’ve been in Korea for more than 50 years. We have promised to never back away from the China-Taiwan conflict over territorial disputes. Fifty-seven years after World War II, we still find our military spread throughout Europe and Asia.

2002 Ron Paul 55:26
And now, the debate rages over whether our national security requires that we, for the first time, escalate this policy of intervention to include “anticipatory self-defense and preemptive war.”  If our interventions of the 20 th century led to needless deaths, unwinnable wars, and continuous unintended consequences, imagine what this new doctrine is about to unleash on the world.

2002 Ron Paul 55:27
Our policy has prompted us to announce that our CIA will assassinate Saddam Hussein whenever it gets the chance and that the government of Iraq is to be replaced. Evidence now has surfaced that the United Nations inspection teams in the 1990s definitely included American CIA agents who were collecting information on how to undermine the Iraqi government and continue with the routine bombing missions. Why should there be a question of why Saddam Hussein might not readily accept UN inspectors without some type of assurances? Does anybody doubt that control of Iraqi oil supplies, second only to Saudi Arabia, is the reason U.S. policy is belligerent toward Saddam Hussein? If our goal is honestly to remove dictators around the world, then this is the beginning of an endless task.

2002 Ron Paul 55:28
In the transition from the original American foreign policy of peace, trade, and neutrality to that of world policeman, we have sacrificed our sovereignty to world government organizations, such as the UN, the IMF, the World Bank, and the WTO. To further confuse and undermine our position, we currently have embarked on a policy of unilateralism within these world organizations. This means we accept the principle of globalized government when it pleases us, but when it doesn’t, we ignore it for the sake of our own interests.

2002 Ron Paul 55:29
Acting in our own interest is to be applauded, but what we’re getting is not a good alternative to a one-world government. We don’t get our sovereignty back, yet we continue to subject ourselves to a great potential financial burden and loss of liberty as we shift from a national government, with constitutional protection of our rights, to an international government, where our citizens’ rights are threatened by treaties we haven =t ratified, like the Kyoto and International Criminal Court treaties. We cannot depend on controlling the world government at some later date, even if we seem to be able to do that now.

2002 Ron Paul 55:30
The unilateralist approach of dominating world leaders and arbitrarily ignoring certain mandates- something we can do with impunity because of our intimidating power- serves only to further undermine our prestige and acceptability throughout the world. And this includes the Muslim countries as well as our European friends. This merely sets the stage for both our enemies and current friends to act in concert against our interests when the time comes. This is especially true if we become financially strapped and our dollar is sharply weakened and we are in a much more vulnerable bargaining position.

2002 Ron Paul 55:31
Unilateralism within a globalist approach to government is the worst of all choices. It ignores national sovereignty, dignifies one-world government, and places us in the position of demanding dictatorial powers over the world community. Demanding the right to set all policy and exclude ourselves from jurisdictional restraints sows the seeds of future discontent and hostility.

2002 Ron Paul 55:32
The downside is we get all the bills, risk the lives of our people without cause, and make ourselves the target for every event that goes badly. We get blamed for the unintended, unforeseen consequences and become the target of terrorists that evolve from the radicalized fringes.

2002 Ron Paul 55:33
Long-term, foreign interventionism does not serve our interests. Tinkering on the edges of our current policy will not help. An announced policy of support for globalist government, assuming the financial and military role of world policeman, maintaining an American world empire, while flaunting unilateralism, is a recipe for disaster. US unilateralism is a far cry from the non-intervention that the founders advised.

2002 Ron Paul 55:34
The Principle Behind Foreign Policy

2002 Ron Paul 55:35
The term “foreign policy” does not exist in the Constitution. All members of the federal government have sworn to uphold the Constitution, and should do only those things that are clearly authorized. Careful reading of the Constitution reveals Congress has a lot more responsibility than the President in dealing with foreign affairs. The President is the Commander-in-Chief, but can =t declare war or finance military action without explicit congressional approval. A good starting point would be for Congress to assume the responsibility given it and to make sure the executive branch does not usurp any authority explicitly granted to Congress.

2002 Ron Paul 55:36
A proper foreign policy of non-intervention is built on friendship with other nations, free trade, and open travel, maximizing the exchanges of goods and services and ideas. Nations that trade with each other are definitely less likely to fight against each other. Unnecessary bellicosity and jingoism is detrimental to peace and prosperity, and incites unnecessary confrontation. And yet, today, that’s about all we hear coming from the politicians and the media pundits who are so anxious for this war against Iraq.

2002 Ron Paul 55:37
We should avoid entangling alliances and stop meddling in the internal affairs of other nations- no matter how many special interests demand otherwise. The entangling alliances that we should avoid include the complex alliances in the UN, the IMF, the World Bank, and the WTO. One-world government goals are anathema to non-intervention and free trade. The temptation to settle disputes and install better governments abroad is fraught with great danger and many uncertainties.

2002 Ron Paul 55:38
Protecting our national sovereignty and guaranteeing constitutional protection of our citizens’ rights are crucial. Respecting the sovereignty of other nations, even when we =re in disagreement with some of their policies, is also necessary. Changing others then becomes a job of persuasion and example- not force and intimidation- just as it is in trying to improve personal moral behavior of our fellow citizens here at home.

2002 Ron Paul 55:39
Defending our country from outside attack is legitimate and is of the highest priority. Protecting individual liberty should be our goal. This does not mean, however, that our troops should follow our citizens or their investments throughout the world. While foreign visitors should be welcomed, no tax-supported services should be provided. Citizenship should be given with caution, and not automatically by merely stepping over a national boundary for the purpose of giving birth.

2002 Ron Paul 55:40
A successful and prosperous society comes from such policies and is impossible without a sound free-market economy, one not controlled by a central bank. Avoiding trade wars, devaluations, inflations, deflations, and disruption of free trade with protectionist legislation is impossible under a system of international trade dependent on fluctuating fiat currencies controlled by world central banks and influenced by powerful financial interests. Instability in trade is one of the prime causes of creating conditions that lead to war.

2002 Ron Paul 55:41
The basic moral principle underpinning a non-interventionist foreign policy is that of rejecting the initiation of force against others. It is based on non-violence and friendship unless attacked, self-determination, and self-defense while avoiding confrontation, even when we disagree with the way other countries run their affairs. It simply means that we should mind our own business and not be influenced by special interests that have an ax to grind or benefits to gain by controlling our foreign policy. Manipulating our country into conflicts that are none of our business and unrelated to national security provides no benefits to us, while exposing us to great risks financially and militarily.

2002 Ron Paul 55:42
What Would a Foreign Policy For Peace Look Like?

2002 Ron Paul 55:43
Our troops would be brought home, systematically but soon. Being in Europe and Japan for over 50 years is long enough. The failure in Vietnam resulted in no occupation and a more westernized country now doing business with the United States. There =s no evidence that the military approach in Vietnam was superior to that of trade and friendship. The lack of trade and the imposition of sanctions have not served us well in Cuba or in the Middle East. The mission for our Coast Guard would change if our foreign policy became non-interventionist. They, too, would come home, protect our coast, and stop being the enforcers of bureaucratic laws that either should not exist or should be a state function.

2002 Ron Paul 55:44
All foreign aid would be discontinued. Most evidence shows that this money rarely helps the poor, but instead solidifies power in the hands of dictators. There’s no moral argument that can justify taxing poor people in this country to help rich people in poor countries. Much of the foreign aid, when spent, is channeled back to weapons manufacturers and other special interests in the United States who are the strong promoters of these foreign-aid expenditures. Yet it’s all done in the name of humanitarian causes.

2002 Ron Paul 55:45
A foreign policy of freedom and peace would prompt us to give ample notice before permanently withdrawing from international organizations that have entangled us for over a half a century. US membership in world government was hardly what the founders envisioned when writing the Constitution. The principle of Marque and Reprisal would be revived and specific problems such as terrorist threats would be dealt with on a contract basis incorporating private resources to more accurately target our enemies and reduce the chances of needless and endless war. This would help prevent a continual expansion of conflicts into areas not relating to any immediate threat. By narrowing the target, there’s less opportunity for special interests to manipulate our foreign policy to serve the financial needs of the oil and military-weapon industries.

2002 Ron Paul 55:46
The Logan Act would be repealed, thus allowing maximum freedom of our citizens to volunteer to support their war of choice. This would help diminish the enthusiasm for wars the proponents have used to justify our world policies and diminish the perceived need for a military draft.

2002 Ron Paul 55:47
If we followed a constitutional policy of non-intervention, we would never have to entertain the aggressive notion of preemptive war based on speculation of what a country might do at some future date. Political pressure by other countries to alter our foreign policy for their benefit would never be a consideration. Commercial interests and our citizens investing overseas could not expect our armies to follow them and protect their profits. A non-interventionist foreign policy would not condone subsidies to our corporations through programs like the Export/Import Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. These programs guarantee against losses, while the risk takers want our military to protect their investments from political threats. This current flawed policy removes the tough decisions of when to invest in foreign countries and diminishes the pressure on those particular countries to clean up their political acts in order to entice foreign capital to move into their country. Today’s foreign policy encourages bad investments. Ironically this is all done in the name of free trade and capitalism, but it does more to export jobs and businesses than promote free trade. And yet when it fails, capitalism and freedom are blamed.

2002 Ron Paul 55:48
A non-interventionist foreign policy would go a long way toward preventing 9/11 type attacks. The Department of Homeland Security would be unnecessary, and the military, along with less bureaucracy in our intelligence-gathering agencies, could instead provide the security the new department is supposed to provide. A renewed respect for gun ownership and responsibility for defending one =s property would provide additional protection against potential terrorists.

2002 Ron Paul 55:49

2002 Ron Paul 55:50
There are many reasons why a policy of peace is superior to a policy of war. The principle that we do not have the moral authority to forcibly change governments in foreign lands just because we don’t approve of their shortcomings should be our strongest argument- but rarely today is a moral argument in politics worth much.

2002 Ron Paul 55:51
The practical argument against intervention, because of its record of failure, should certainly prompt all thoughtful people to reconsider what we have been doing for the past many decades.

2002 Ron Paul 55:52
We should all be aware that war is a failure of relationship between foreign powers. Since this is such a serious matter, our American tradition as established by the founders made certain that the executive is subservient to the more democratically responsive legislative branch on the issue of war. Therefore, no war is ever to be the prerogative of a president through his unconstitutional use of executive orders, nor should it ever be something where the legal authority comes from an international body such as NATO or the United Nations. Up until 50 years ago, this had been the American tradition.

2002 Ron Paul 55:53
Non-intervention prevents the unexpected and unintended consequences that inevitably result from well-intended meddling in the affairs of others.

2002 Ron Paul 55:54
Countries like Switzerland and Sweden who promote neutrality and non-intervention have benefited for the most part by remaining secure and free of war over the centuries. Non-intervention consumes a lot less of the nation’s wealth- and with less wars, a higher standard of living for all citizens results. But this, of course, is not attractive to the military-industrial complex, which enjoys a higher standard of living at the expense of the taxpayer when a policy of intervention and constant war preparation is carried out.

2002 Ron Paul 55:55
Wisdom, morality, and the Constitution are very unlikely to invade the minds of the policy makers that control our foreign affairs. We have institutionalized foreign intervention over the past 100 years through the teachings of all our major universities and the propaganda that the media spews out. The powerful influence over our policy, both domestic and foreign, is not soon going to go away.

2002 Ron Paul 55:56
I’m convinced however, that eventually restraint in our interventions overseas will be guided by a more reasonable constitutional policy. Economic reality will dictate it. Although political pressure in times of severe economic downturn and domestic strife encourage planned distractions overseas, these adventures always cause economic harm due to the economic costs. When the particular country or empire involved overreaches, as we are currently doing, national bankruptcy and a severely weakened currency call the whole process to a halt.

2002 Ron Paul 55:57
The Soviet system armed with an aggressive plan to spread its empire worldwide collapsed, not because we attacked it militarily, but for financial and economic reasons. They no longer could afford it, and the resources and wealth that it drained finally turned the people against its authoritarian rule.

2002 Ron Paul 55:58
Maintaining an overseas empire is incompatible with the American tradition of liberty and prosperity. The financial drain and the antagonism that it causes with our enemies, and even our friends, will finally force the American people to reject the policy outright. There will be no choice. Gorbachev just walked away and Yeltsin walked in, with barely a ripple. A non-violent revolution of unbelievable historic magnitude occurred and the Cold War ended. We are not immune from such a similar change.

2002 Ron Paul 55:59
This Soviet collapse ushered in the age of unparalleled American dominance over the entire world, and along with it allowed the new expanded hot war between the West and the Muslim East. All the hostility directed toward the West built up over the centuries between the two factions is now directed toward the United States. We are now the only power capable of paying for and literally controlling the Middle East and its cherished wealth, and we have not hesitated. Iraq, with its oil and water and agricultural land, is a prime target of our desire to further expand our dominion. The battle is growing more tense with our acceptance and desire to control the Caspian Sea oil riches. But Russia, now licking its wounds and once again accumulating wealth, will not sit idly by and watch the American empire engulf this region. When time runs out for us, we can be sure Russia will once again be ready to fight for control of all those resources in countries adjacent to her borders. And expect the same for China and India. And who knows, maybe one day even Japan will return to the ancient art of using force to occupy the cherished territories in her region of the world.

2002 Ron Paul 55:60
The most we can hope for will be, once the errors of our ways are acknowledged and we can no longer afford our militarism, we will reestablish the moral principle that underpins the policy of  “peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.”  Our modern-day war hawks do not respect this American principle, nor do they understand how the love of liberty drove the founders in their great battle against tyranny.

2002 Ron Paul 55:61
We must prepare for the day when our financial bankruptcy and the failure of our effort at world domination are apparent. The solution to such a crisis can be easily found in our Constitution and in our traditions. But ultimately, the love of liberty can only come from a change in the hearts and minds of the people and with an answered prayer for the blessings of divine intervention.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 56

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
September 10, 2002

2002 Ron Paul 56:1
Soon we hope to have hearings on the pending war with Iraq. I am concerned there are some questions that won’t be asked- and maybe will not even be allowed to be asked.  Here are some questions I would like answered by those who are urging us to start this war.

2002 Ron Paul 56:2
1. Is it not true that the reason we did not bomb the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War was because we knew they could retaliate?

2002 Ron Paul 56:3
2. Is it not also true that we are willing to bomb Iraq now because we know it cannot retaliate- which just confirms that there is no real threat ?

2002 Ron Paul 56:4
3. Is it not true that those who argue that even with inspections we cannot be sure that Hussein might be hiding weapons, at the same time imply that we can be more sure that weapons exist in the absence of inspections?

2002 Ron Paul 56:5
4. Is it not true that the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency was able to complete its yearly verification mission to Iraq just this year with Iraqi cooperation?

2002 Ron Paul 56:6
5. Is it not true that the intelligence community has been unable to develop a case tying Iraq to global terrorism at all, much less the attacks on the United States last year? Does anyone remember that 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and that none came from Iraq?

2002 Ron Paul 56:7
6. Was former CIA counter-terrorism chief Vincent Cannistraro wrong when he recently said there is no confirmed evidence of Iraq’s links to terrorism?

2002 Ron Paul 56:8
7. Is it not true that the CIA has concluded there is no evidence that a Prague meeting between 9/11 hijacker Atta and Iraqi intelligence took place?

2002 Ron Paul 56:9
8. Is it not true that northern Iraq, where the administration claimed al-Qaeda were hiding out, is in the control of our “allies,” the Kurds?

2002 Ron Paul 56:10
9. Is it not true that the vast majority of al-Qaeda leaders who escaped appear to have safely made their way to Pakistan, another of our so-called allies?

2002 Ron Paul 56:11
10. Has anyone noticed that Afghanistan is rapidly sinking into total chaos, with bombings and assassinations becoming daily occurrences; and that according to a recent UN report the al-Qaeda “is, by all accounts, alive and well and poised to strike again, how, when, and where it chooses”?

2002 Ron Paul 56:12
11. Why are we taking precious military and intelligence resources away from tracking down those who did attack the United States- and who may again attack the United States- and using them to invade countries that have not attacked the United States?

2002 Ron Paul 56:13
12. Would an attack on Iraq not just confirm the Arab world’s worst suspicions about the US, and isn’t this what bin Laden wanted?

2002 Ron Paul 56:14
13. How can Hussein be compared to Hitler when he has no navy or air force, and now has an army 1/5 the size of twelve years ago, which even then proved totally inept at defending the country?

2002 Ron Paul 56:15
14. Is it not true that the constitutional power to declare war is exclusively that of the Congress? Should presidents, contrary to the Constitution, allow Congress to concur only when pressured by public opinion? Are presidents permitted to rely on the UN for permission to go to war?

2002 Ron Paul 56:16
15. Are you aware of a Pentagon report studying charges that thousands of Kurds in one village were gassed by the Iraqis, which found no conclusive evidence that Iraq was responsible, that Iran occupied the very city involved, and that evidence indicated the type of gas used was more likely controlled by Iran not Iraq?

2002 Ron Paul 56:17
16. Is it not true that anywhere between 100,000 and 300,000 US soldiers have suffered from Persian Gulf War syndrome from the first Gulf War, and that thousands may have died?

2002 Ron Paul 56:18
17. Are we prepared for possibly thousands of American casualties in a war against a country that does not have the capacity to attack the United States?

2002 Ron Paul 56:19
18. Are we willing to bear the economic burden of a 100 billion dollar war against Iraq, with oil prices expected to skyrocket and further rattle an already shaky American economy? How about an estimated 30 years occupation of Iraq that some have deemed necessary to “build democracy” there?

2002 Ron Paul 56:20
19. Iraq’s alleged violations of UN resolutions are given as reason to initiate an attack, yet is it not true that hundreds of UN Resolutions have been ignored by various countries without penalty?

2002 Ron Paul 56:21
20. Did former President Bush not cite the UN Resolution of 1990 as the reason he could not march into Baghdad, while supporters of a new attack assert that it is the very reason we can march into Baghdad?

2002 Ron Paul 56:22
21. Is it not true that, contrary to current claims, the no-fly zones were set up by Britain and the United States without specific approval from the United Nations?

2002 Ron Paul 56:23
22. If we claim membership in the international community and conform to its rules only when it pleases us, does this not serve to undermine our position, directing animosity toward us by both friend and foe?

2002 Ron Paul 56:24
23. How can our declared goal of bringing democracy to Iraq be believable when we prop up dictators throughout the Middle East and support military tyrants like Musharaf in Pakistan, who overthrew a democratically-elected president?

2002 Ron Paul 56:25
24. Are you familiar with the 1994 Senate Hearings that revealed the U.S. knowingly supplied chemical and biological materials to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war and as late as 1992- including after the alleged Iraqi gas attack on a Kurdish village?

2002 Ron Paul 56:26
25. Did we not assist Saddam Hussein’s rise to power by supporting and encouraging his invasion of Iran? Is it honest to criticize Saddam now for his invasion of Iran, which at the time we actively supported?

2002 Ron Paul 56:27
26. Is it not true that preventive war is synonymous with an act of aggression, and has never been considered a moral or legitimate US policy?

2002 Ron Paul 56:28
27. Why do the oil company executives strongly support this war if oil is not the real reason we plan to take over Iraq?

2002 Ron Paul 56:29
28. Why is it that those who never wore a uniform and are confident that they won’t have to personally fight this war are more anxious for this war than our generals?

2002 Ron Paul 56:30
29. What is the moral argument for attacking a nation that has not initiated aggression against us, and could not if it wanted?

2002 Ron Paul 56:31
30. Where does the Constitution grant us permission to wage war for any reason other than self-defense?

2002 Ron Paul 56:32
31. Is it not true that a war against Iraq rejects the sentiments of the time-honored Treaty of Westphalia, nearly 400 years ago, that countries should never go into another for the purpose of regime change?

2002 Ron Paul 56:33
32. Is it not true that the more civilized a society is, the less likely disagreements will be settled by war?

2002 Ron Paul 56:34
33. Is it not true that since World War II Congress has not declared war and- not coincidentally- we have not since then had a clear-cut victory?

2002 Ron Paul 56:35
34. Is it not true that Pakistan, especially through its intelligence services, was an active supporter and key organizer of the Taliban?

2002 Ron Paul 56:36
35. Why don’t those who want war bring a formal declaration of war resolution to the floor of Congress?

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 57

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
September 10, 2002

2002 Ron Paul 57:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation to restore financial stability to America’s economy by abolishing the Federal Reserve. I also ask unanimous consent to insert the attached article by Lew Rockwell, president of the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, which explains the benefits of abolishing the Fed and restoring the gold standard, into the record.

2002 Ron Paul 57:2
Since the creation of the Federal Reserve, middle and working-class Americans have been victimized by a boom-and-bust monetary policy. In addition, most Americans have suffered a steadily eroding purchasing power because of the Federal Reserve’s inflationary policies. This represents a real, if hidden, tax imposed on the American people.

2002 Ron Paul 57:3
From the Great Depression, to the stagflation of the seventies, to the burst of the dotcom bubble last year, every economic downturn suffered by the country over the last 80 years can be traced to Federal Reserve policy. The Fed has followed a consistent policy of flooding the economy with easy money, leading to a misallocation of resources and an artificial “boom” followed by a recession or depression when the Fed-created bubble bursts.

2002 Ron Paul 57:4
With a stable currency, American exporters will no longer be held hostage to an erratic monetary policy. Stabilizing the currency will also give Americans new incentives to save as they will no longer have to fear inflation eroding their savings. Those members concerned about increasing America’s exports or the low rate of savings should be enthusiastic supporters of this legislation.

2002 Ron Paul 57:5
Though the Federal Reserve policy harms the average American, it benefits those in a position to take advantage of the cycles in monetary policy. The main beneficiaries are those who receive access to artificially inflated money and/or credit before the inflationary effects of the policy impact the entire economy. Federal Reserve policies also benefit big spending politicians who use the inflated currency created by the Fed to hide the true costs of the welfare-warfare state. It is time for Congress to put the interests of the American people ahead of the special interests and their own appetite for big government.

2002 Ron Paul 57:6
Abolishing the Federal Reserve will allow Congress to reassert its constitutional authority over monetary policy. The United States Constitution grants to Congress the authority to coin money and regulate the value of the currency. The Constitution does not give Congress the authority to delegate control over monetary policy to a central bank. Furthermore, the Constitution certainly does not empower the federal government to erode the American standard of living via an inflationary monetary policy.

2002 Ron Paul 57:7
In fact, Congress’ constitutional mandate regarding monetary policy should only permit currency backed by stable commodities such as silver and gold to be used as legal tender. Therefore, abolishing the Federal Reserve and returning to a constitutional system will enable America to return to the type of monetary system envisioned by our nation’s founders: one where the value of money is consistent because it is tied to a commodity such as gold.  Such a monetary system is the basis of a true free-market economy.

2002 Ron Paul 57:8
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stand up for working Americans by putting an end to the manipulation of the money supply which erodes Americans’ standard of living, enlarges big government, and enriches well-connected elites, by cosponsoring my legislation to abolish the Federal Reserve.

2002 Ron Paul 57:9
By Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

2002 Ron Paul 57:10
As with all matters of investment, everything is clear in hindsight. Had you bought gold mutual funds earlier this year, they might have appreciated more than 100 percent. Gold has risen $60 since March 2001 to the latest spot price of $326.

2002 Ron Paul 57:11
Why wasn’t it obvious? The Fed has been inflating the dollar as never before, driving interest rates down to absurdly low levels, even as the federal government has been pushing a mercantile trade policy, and New York City, the hub of the world economy, continues to be threatened by terrorism. The government is failing to prevent more successful attacks by not backing down from foreign policy disasters and by not allowing planes to arm themselves.  These are all conditions that make gold particularly attractive.

2002 Ron Paul 57:12
Or perhaps it is not so obvious why this is true. It’s been three decades since the dollar’s tie to gold was completely severed, to the hosannas of mainstream economists. There is no stash of gold held by the Fed or the Treasury that backs our currency system. The government owns gold but not as a monetary asset. It owns it the same way it owns national parks and fighter planes. It’s just another asset the government keeps to itself.

2002 Ron Paul 57:13
The dollar, and all our money, is nothing more and nothing less than what it looks like: a cut piece of linen paper with fancy printing on it. You can exchange it for other currency at a fixed rate and for any good or service at a flexible rate. But there is no established exchange rate between the dollar and gold, either at home or internationally.

2002 Ron Paul 57:14
The supply of money is not limited by the amount of gold. Gold is just another good for which the dollar can be exchanged, and in that sense is legally no different from a gallon of milk, a tank of gas, or an hour of babysitting services.

2002 Ron Paul 57:15
Why, then, do people turn to gold in times like these? What is gold used for? Yes, there are industrial uses and there are consumer uses in jewelry and the like. But recessions and inflations don’t cause people to want to wear more jewelry or stock up on industrial metal. The investor demand ultimately reflects consumer demand for gold. But that still leaves us with the question of why the consumer demand exists in the first place. Why gold and not sugar or wheat or something else?

2002 Ron Paul 57:16
There is no getting away from it: investor markets have memories of the days when gold was money. In fact, in the whole history of civilization, gold has served as the basic money of all people wherever it’s been available. Other precious metals have been valued and coined, but gold always emerged on top in the great competition for what constitutes the most valuable commodity of all.

2002 Ron Paul 57:17
There is nothing intrinsic about gold that makes it money. It has certain properties that lend itself to monetary use, like portability, divisibility, scarcity, durability, and uniformity. But these are just descriptors of certain qualities of the metal, not explanations as to why it became money. Gold became money for only one reason: because that’s what the markets chose.

2002 Ron Paul 57:18
Why isn’t gold money now? Because governments destroyed the gold standard. Why? Because they regarded it as too inflexible. To be sure, monetary inflexibility is the friend of free markets. Without the ability to create money out of nothing, governments tend to run tight financial ships. Banks are more careful about the lending when they can’t rely on a lender of last resort with access to a money-creation machine like the Fed.

2002 Ron Paul 57:19
A fixed money stock means that overall prices are generally more stable. The problems of inflation and business cycles disappear entirely. Under the gold standard, in fact, increased market productivity causes prices to generally decline over time as the purchasing power of money increases.

2002 Ron Paul 57:20
In 1967, Alan Greenspan once wrote an article called Gold and Economic Freedom. He wrote that:

2002 Ron Paul 57:21
“An almost hysterical antagonism toward the gold standard is one issue which unites statists of all persuasions. They seem to sense — perhaps more clearly and subtly than many consistent defenders of laissez-faire — that gold and economic freedom are inseparable, that the gold standard is an instrument of laissez-faire and that each implies and requires the other. . . . This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists’ tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights.”

2002 Ron Paul 57:22
He was right. Gold and freedom go together. Gold money is both the result of freedom and its leading protector. When money is as good as gold, the government cannot manipulate the supply for its own purposes. Just as the rule of law puts limits on the despotic use of police power, a gold standard puts extreme limits on the government’s ability to spend, borrow, and otherwise create crazy unworkable programs. It is forced to raise its revenue through taxation, not inflation, and generally keep its house in order.

2002 Ron Paul 57:23
Without the gold standard, government is free to work with the Fed to inflate the currency without limit. Even in our own times, we’ve seen governments do that and thereby spread mass misery. 

2002 Ron Paul 57:24
Now, all governments are stupid but not all are so stupid as to pull stunts like this. Most of the time, governments are pleased to inflate their currencies so long as they don’t have to pay the price in the form of mass bankruptcies, falling exchange rates, and inflation.

2002 Ron Paul 57:25
In the real world, of course, there is a lag time between cause and effect. The Fed has been inflating the currency at very high levels for longer than a year. The consequences of this disastrous policy are showing up only recently in the form of a falling dollar and higher gold prices. And so what does the Fed do? It is pulling back now. For the first time in nearly ten years, some measures of money (M2 and MZM) are showing a falling money stock, which is likely to prompt a second dip in the continuing recession.

2002 Ron Paul 57:26
Greenspan now finds himself on the horns of a very serious dilemma. If he continues to pull back on money, the economy could tip into a serious recession. This is especially a danger given rising protectionism, which mirrors the events of the early 1930s. On the other hand, a continuation of the loose policy he has pursued for a year endangers the value of the dollar overseas.

2002 Ron Paul 57:27
How much easier matters were when we didn’t have to rely on the wisdom of exalted monetary central planners like Greenspan. Under the gold standard, the supply of money regulated itself. The government kept within limits. Banks were more cautious. Savings were high because credit was tight and saving was rewarded. This approach to economics is the foundation of a sustainable prosperity.

2002 Ron Paul 57:28
We don’t have that system now for the country or the world, but individuals are showing their preferences once again. By driving up the price of gold, prompting gold producers to become profitable again, the people are expressing their lack of confidence in their leaders. They have decided to protect themselves and not trust the state. That is the hidden message behind the new luster of gold.

2002 Ron Paul 57:29
Is a gold standard feasible again? Of course. The dollar could be redefined in terms of gold. Interest rates would reflect the real supply and demand for credit. We could shut down the Fed and we would never need to worry again what the chairman of the Fed wanted. There was a time when Greenspan was nostalgic for such a system. Investors of the world have come to embrace this view even as Greenspan has completely abandoned it. 

2002 Ron Paul 57:30
What keeps the gold standard from becoming a reality again is the love of big government and war. If we ever fall in love with freedom again, the gold standard will once more become a hot issue in public debate.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 58

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
September 18, 2002
War is a Political Mistake

2002 Ron Paul 58:1
Mr. Speaker, I have for years advocated a moral and constitutional approach to our foreign policy.  This has been done in the sincerest belief that a policy of peace, trade, and friendship with all nations is far superior in all
respects to a policy of war, protectionism, and confrontation. But in the Congress I find, with regards to foreign affairs, no interest in following the precepts of the Constitution and the advice of our early Presidents. 

2002 Ron Paul 58:2
Interventionism, internationalism, inflationism, protectionism, jingoism, and bellicosity are much more popular in our nation’s capital than a policy of restraint. 

2002 Ron Paul 58:3
I have heard all the arguments on why we must immediately invade and occupy Iraq and have observed that there are only a few hardy souls left in the Congress who are trying to stop this needless, senseless, and dangerous war. They have adequately refuted every one of the excuses for this war of aggression; but, obviously, either no one listens, or the unspoken motives for this invasion silence those tempted to dissent. 

2002 Ron Paul 58:4
But the tragic and most irresponsible excuse for the war rhetoric is now emerging in the political discourse. We now hear rumblings that the vote is all about politics, the November elections, and the control of the U.S. Congress, that is, the main concern is political power.  Can one imagine delaying the declaration of war against Japan after Pearl Harbor for political reasons? Or can one imagine forcing a vote on the issue of war before an election for political gain? Can anyone believe there are those who would foment war rhetoric for political gain at the expense of those who are called to fight and might even die if the war does not go as planned? 

2002 Ron Paul 58:5
I do not want to believe it is possible, but rumors are rampant that looking weak on the war issue is considered to be unpatriotic and a risky political position to take before the November elections. Taking pleasure in the fact that this might place many politicians in a difficult position is a sobering thought indeed. 

2002 Ron Paul 58:6
There is a bit of irony over all of this political posturing on a vote to condone a war of aggression and force some Members into a tough vote. Guess what, contrary to conventional wisdom, war is never politically beneficial to the politicians who promote it.  Presidents Wilson and Roosevelt were reelected by promising to stay out of war. Remember, the party in power during the Korean War was routed in 1952 by a general who promised to stop the bloodshed. Vietnam, which started with overwhelming support and hype and jingoistic fervor, ended President Johnson’s political career in disgrace and humiliation. The most significant plight on the short term of President Kennedy was his effort at regime change in Cuba and the fate he met at the Bay of Pigs. Even Persian Gulf War I, thought at the time to be a tremendous victory, with its aftermath still lingering, did not serve President Bush, Sr.’s reelection efforts in 1992. 

2002 Ron Paul 58:7
War is not politically beneficial for two reasons: innocent people die, and the economy is always damaged. These two things, after the dust settles from the hype and the propaganda, always make the people unhappy. The euphoria associated with the dreams of grandiose and painless victories is replaced by the stark reality of death, destruction, and economic pain. Instead of euphoria, we end up with heartache as we did after the Bay of Pigs, Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, and Lebanon. 

2002 Ron Paul 58:8
Since no one wants to hear anymore of morality and constitutionality and justice, possibly some will listen to the politics of war, since that is what drives so many. A token victory at the polls this fall by using a vote on the war as a lever will be to little avail. It may not even work in the short run. Surely, history shows that war is never a winner, especially when the people who have to pay, fight, and die for it come to realize that the war was not even necessary and had nothing to do with national security or fighting for freedom, but was promoted by special interests who stood to gain from taking over a sovereign country. 

2002 Ron Paul 58:9
Mr. Speaker, peace is always superior to war; it is also a political winner.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 59

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
September 24, 2002

Can We Afford this War?

2002 Ron Paul 59:1
Mr. Speaker, a casual analysis of the world economy shows it rapidly deteriorating into recession, with a possible depression on the horizon. Unemployment is sharply rising with price inflation rampant, despite official government inflationary reports. The world’s stock markets continue to collapse, even after trillions of dollars in losses have been recorded in the past 2 years. These losses already have set historic records.

2002 Ron Paul 59:2
With government revenues shrinking at all levels, we find deficits exploding. Our national debt is currently rising at a $450 billion per year. Confidence in corporate America has shrunk to levels usually reserved for governments alone.

2002 Ron Paul 59:3
Government spending in all areas is skyrocketing, much of it out of the control of the politicians, who show little concern. Yet we are expected to believe our government leaders who say that we are experiencing a recovery and that a return to grand prosperity is just around the corner. The absence of capital formation, savings, and corporate profits are totally ignored.

2002 Ron Paul 59:4
Evidence abounds that our $350 billion DOD budget and the $40 billion spent on intelligence gathering and our immigration policies have failed miserably in protecting our homeland. In spite of the rhetoric and new legislation attacking our civil liberties, we are as vulnerable to outside attack as before.

2002 Ron Paul 59:5
Our military is drastically smaller than a decade ago, and we are spread around the world and involved in world conflicts more than we have ever been before.

2002 Ron Paul 59:6
We have run a huge current account deficit for 15 years and massively expanded our money supply. No one should be surprised that the dollar is weakening and the commodity, natural resources, and precious metal prices are rising.

2002 Ron Paul 59:7
Oil prices are over $31 a barrel, and predictions are that they can easily go up another $15 to $20 if international tensions grow.

2002 Ron Paul 59:8
But the only talk here in the nation’s capitol is about when, not if, we must initiate a war that even the administration admits could cost $200 billion. Some are not even embarrassed to gloat about the political benefits for those who preach war over those who prefer negotiations, diplomacy and containment. The fact that the Arab nations are overwhelmingly opposed to an attack on Iraq and are joined by the European Community is of no concern to those who demand war regardless of any circumstance.

2002 Ron Paul 59:9
Eighty percent of the American people now report that they believe that a war with Iraq will increase the chances of our suffering from a new terrorist attack. If this is true, we become less secure with an attack on Iraq, since little has been done to correct the deficiencies in the intelligence gathering agencies and our immigration policies.

2002 Ron Paul 59:10
No credible evidence has been produced that Iraq has or is close to having nuclear weapons. No evidence exists to show that Iraq harbors al Qaeda terrorists. Quite to the contrary, experts on this region recognize Hussein as an enemy of the al Qaeda and a foe to Islamic fundamentalism. Many other nations pose much greater threats to world peace. Yet no one is clamoring for war against them. Saddam Hussein is now weaker than ever.

2002 Ron Paul 59:11
Reports are now appearing that we are negotiating with allies to share in the oil bounty once Iraq is occupied in order to get support for our invasion from various countries around the world.

2002 Ron Paul 59:12
Our national debt is over $6 trillion and is increasing by nearly half a trillion dollars a year. Since Social Security funds are all placed in the general revenues and spent and all funds are fungible, honest accounting, of which there has been a shortage lately, dictates that a $200 billion war must jeopardize Social Security funding. This is something the American people deserve to know.

2002 Ron Paul 59:13
Since there are limits to borrowing and taxing, but no limits to the Fed printing money to cover our deficit, we can be assured this will occur. This guarantees that Social Security checks will never stop coming, but it also guarantees that the dollars that all retired people receive will buy less. We have already seen this happening in providing medical services. A cheap dollar; that is, an inflated dollar, is a sinister and deceitful way of cutting benefits.

2002 Ron Paul 59:14
Rest assured, a $200 billion hit on the economy will have economic consequences, and the elderly retirees on fixed incomes, and especially Social Security beneficiaries, will suffer the greatest burden of policy, reflecting a belief that our country is so rich that it can afford both guns and butter. Remember, we have tried that before.

2002 Ron Paul 59:15
The tragedy is that once the flaw in policy is discovered, it is too late to prevent the pain and suffering, and only finger pointing occurs. Now is the only time we can give serious attention to the true cost of assuming the burden of an endless task of being the world’s policeman and starting wars that have nothing to do with defense or national security.

2002 Ron Paul 59:16
A nation suffering from recession can ill afford a foreign policy that encourages unnecessary military action that will run up huge deficits. Congress ought to pause a moment, and carefully contemplate the consequences of the decisions we are about to make in the coming days.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 60

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
September 26, 2002
Statement on Medical Malpractice Legislation

2002 Ron Paul 60:1
Mr. Speaker, as an OB-GYN with over 30 years in private practice, I understand better than perhaps any other member of Congress the burden imposed on both medical practitioners and patients by excessive malpractice judgments and the corresponding explosion in malpractice insurance premiums. Malpractice insurance has skyrocketed to the point where doctors are unable to practice in some areas or see certain types of patients because they cannot afford the insurance premiums. This crisis has particularly hit my area of practice, leaving some pregnant woman unable to find a qualified obstetrician in their city. Therefore, I am pleased to see Congress address this problem.

2002 Ron Paul 60:2
However this bill raises several question of constitutionality, as well as whether it treats those victimized by large corporations and medical devices fairly. In addition, it places de facto price controls on the amounts injured parties can receive in a lawsuit and rewrites every contingency fee contract in the country. Yet, among all the new assumptions of federal power, this bill does nothing to address the power of insurance companies over the medical profession. Thus, even if the reforms of HR 4600 become law, there will be nothing to stop the insurance companies from continuing to charge exorbitant rates.

2002 Ron Paul 60:3
Of course, I am not suggesting Congress place price controls on the insurance industry, Instead, Congress should reexamine those federal laws such as ERISA and the HMO Act of 1973, which have allowed insurers to achieve such a prominent role in the medical profession. As I will detail below, Congress should also take steps to encourage contractual means of resolving malpractice disputes. Such an approach may not be beneficial to the insurance companies or the trial lawyers, but will certainly benefit the patients and physicians which both sides in this debate claim to represent.

2002 Ron Paul 60:4
HR 4600 does contain some positive elements. For example, the language limiting joint and several liability to the percentage of damage someone actually caused, is a reform I have long championed. However, Mr. Speaker, HR 4600 exceeds Congress’ constitutional authority by preempting state law. Congressional dissatisfaction with the malpractice laws in some states provides no justification for Congress to impose uniform standards on all 50 states. The 10th amendment does not authorize federal action in areas otherwise reserved to the states simply because some members of Congress are unhappy with the way the states have handled the problem. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, by imposing uniform laws on the states, Congress is preventing the states from creating innovative solutions to the malpractice problems.

2002 Ron Paul 60:5
The current governor of my own state of Texas has introduced a far reaching medical litigation reform plan that the Texas state legislature will consider in January. However, if HR 4600 becomes law, Texans will be deprived of the opportunity to address the malpractice crisis in the way that meets their needs. Ironically, HR 4600 actually increases the risk of frivolous litigation in Texas by lengthening the statue of limitations and changing the definition of comparative negligence!

2002 Ron Paul 60:6
I am also disturbed by the language that limits liability for those harmed by FDA-approved products. This language, in effect, establishes FDA approval as the gold standard for measuring the safety and soundness of medical devices. However, if FDA approval guaranteed safety, then the FDA would not regularly issue recalls of approved products later found to endanger human health and/or safety.

2002 Ron Paul 60:7
Mr. Speaker, HR 4600 also punishes victims of government mandates by limiting the ability of those who have suffered adverse reactions from vaccines to collect damages. Many of those affected by these provisions are children forced by federal mandates to receive vaccines. Oftentimes, parents reluctantly submit to these mandates in order to ensure their children can attend public school. HR 4600 rubs salt in the wounds of those parents whose children may have been harmed by government policies forcing children to receive unsafe vaccines.

2002 Ron Paul 60:8
Rather than further expanding unconstitutional mandates and harming those with a legitimate claim to collect compensation, Congress should be looking for ways to encourage physicians and patients to resolve questions of liability via private, binding contracts. The root cause of the malpractice crisis (and all of the problems with the health care system) is the shift away from treating the doctor-patient relationship as a contractual one to viewing it as one governed by regulations imposed by insurance company functionaries, politicians, government bureaucrats, and trial lawyers. There is no reason why questions of the assessment of liability and compensation cannot be determined by a private contractual agreement between physicians and patients.

2002 Ron Paul 60:9
I am working on legislation to provide tax incentives to individuals who agree to purchase malpractice insurance, which will automatically provide coverage for any injuries sustained in treatment. This will insure that those harmed by spiraling medical errors receive timely and full compensation. My plan spares both patients and doctors the costs of a lengthy, drawn-out trial and respects Congress’ constitutional limitations.

2002 Ron Paul 60:10
Congress could also help physicians lower insurance rates by passing legislation that removes the antitrust restrictions preventing physicians from forming professional organizations for the purpose of negotiating contracts with insurance companies and HMOs. These laws give insurance companies and HMOs, who are often protected from excessive malpractice claims by ERISA, the ability to force doctors to sign contracts exposing them to excessive insurance premiums and limiting their exercise of professional judgment. The lack of a level playing field also enables insurance companies to raise premiums at will. In fact, it seems odd that malpractice premiums have skyrocketed at a time when insurance companies need to find other sources of revenue to compensate for their recent losses in the stock market.

2002 Ron Paul 60:11
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I support the efforts of the sponsors of HR 4600 to address the crisis in health care caused by excessive malpractice litigation and insurance premiums, I cannot support this bill. HR 4600 exceeds Congress’ constitutional limitations and denies full compensation to those harmed by the unintentional effects of federal vaccine mandates. Instead of furthering unconstitutional authority, my colleagues should focus on addressing the root causes of the malpractice crisis by supporting efforts to restore the primacy of contract to the doctor-patient relationships.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 61

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
October 2, 2002
Introduction of the Television Consumer Freedom Act

2002 Ron Paul 61:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Television Consumer Freedom Act, legislation repealing regulations that interfere with a consumers’ ability to avail themselves of desired television programming.

2002 Ron Paul 61:2
My office has received numerous calls from rural satellite and cable TV customers who are upset because their satellite or cable service providers have informed them that they will lose access to certain network television programs and/or cable networks. The reason my constituents cannot obtain their desired satellite and cable services is that the satellite and cable “marketplace” is fraught with government interventionism at every level. Cable companies have historically been granted franchises of monopoly privilege at the local level. Government has previously intervened to invalidate “exclusive dealings” contracts between private parties, namely cable service providers and program creators, and has most recently assumed the role of price setter. The Library of Congress has even been delegated the power to determine prices at which program suppliers must make their programs available to cable and satellite programming service providers.

2002 Ron Paul 61:3
It is, of course, within the constitutionally enumerated powers of Congress to “promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.” However, operating a clearing-house for the subsequent transfer of such property rights in the name of setting a just price or “instilling competition” via “central planning” seems not to be an economically prudent nor justifiable action under this enumerated power. This process is one best reserved to the competitive marketplace.

2002 Ron Paul 61:4
Government’s attempt to set the just price for satellite programming outside the market mechanism is inherently impossible. This has resulted in competition among service providers for government privilege rather than the consumer benefits inherent to the genuine free market. Currently, while federal regulation does leave satellite programming service providers free to bypass the governmental royalty distribution scheme and negotiate directly with owners of programming for program rights, there is a federal prohibition on satellite service providers making local network affiliates’ programs available to nearby satellite subscribers. This bill repeals that federal prohibition and allows satellite service providers to more freely negotiate with program owners for programming desired by satellite service subscribers. Technology is now available by which viewers will be able to view network programs via satellite as presented by their nearest network affiliate. This market-generated technology will remove a major stumbling block to negotiations that should currently be taking place between network program owners and satellite service providers.

2002 Ron Paul 61:5
This bill also repeals federal laws that force cable companies to carry certain programs. These federal “must carry” mandates deny cable companies the ability to provide the programming desired by their customers. Decisions about what programming to carry on a cable system should be made by consumers, not federal bureaucrats.

2002 Ron Paul 61:6
Mr. Speaker, the federal government should not interfere with a consumer’s ability to purchase services such as satellite or cable television in the free market. I therefore urge my colleagues to take a step toward restoring freedom by cosponsoring my Television Consumer Freedom Act.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 62

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
October 3, 2002
Is Congress Relevant with Regards to War?

2002 Ron Paul 62:1
The last time Congress declared war was on December 11, 1941, against Germany in response to its formal declaration of war against the United States. This was accomplished with wording that took less than one-third of a page, without any nitpicking arguments over precise language, yet it was a clear declaration of who the enemy was and what had to be done. And in three-and-a-half years, this was accomplished. A similar resolve came from the declaration of war against Japan three days earlier. Likewise, a clear-cut victory was achieved against Japan.

2002 Ron Paul 62:2
Many Americans have been forced into war since that time on numerous occasions, with no congressional declaration of war and with essentially no victories. Today’s world political condition is as chaotic as ever. We’re still in Korea and we’re still fighting the Persian Gulf War that started in 1990.

2002 Ron Paul 62:3
The process by which we’ve entered wars over the past 57 years, and the inconclusive results of each war since that time, are obviously related to Congress’ abdication of its responsibility regarding war, given to it by Article I Section 8 of the Constitution.

2002 Ron Paul 62:4
Congress has either ignored its responsibility entirely over these years, or transferred the war power to the executive branch by a near majority vote of its Members, without consideration of it by the states as an amendment required by the Constitution.

2002 Ron Paul 62:5
Congress is about to circumvent the Constitution and avoid the tough decision of whether war should be declared by transferring this monumental decision-making power regarding war to the President. Once again, the process is being abused. Odds are, since a clear-cut decision and commitment by the people through their representatives are not being made, the results will be as murky as before. We will be required to follow the confusing dictates of the UN, since that is where the ultimate authority to invade Iraq is coming from- rather than from the American people and the U.S. Constitution.

2002 Ron Paul 62:6
Controversial language is being hotly debated in an effort to satisfy political constituencies and for Congress to avoid responsibility of whether to go to war. So far the proposed resolution never mentions war, only empowering the President to use force at his will to bring about peace. Rather strange language indeed!

2002 Ron Paul 62:7
A declaration of war limits the presidential powers, narrows the focus, and implies a precise end point to the conflict. A declaration of war makes Congress assume the responsibilities directed by the Constitution for this very important decision, rather than assume that if the major decision is left to the President and a poor result occurs, it will be his fault, not that of Congress. Hiding behind the transfer of the war power to the executive through the War Powers Resolution of 1973 will hardly suffice.

2002 Ron Paul 62:8
However, the modern way we go to war is even more complex and deceptive. We must also write language that satisfies the UN and all our allies. Congress gladly transfers the legislative prerogatives to declare war to the President, and the legislative and the executive branch both acquiesce in transferring our sovereign rights to the UN, an un-elected international government. No wonder the language of the resolution grows in length and incorporates justification for starting this war by citing UN Resolutions.

2002 Ron Paul 62:9
In order to get more of what we want from the United Nations, we rejoined UNESCO, which Ronald Reagan had bravely gotten us out of, and promised millions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer support to run this international agency started by Sir Julian Huxley. In addition, we read of promises by our administration that once we control Iraqi oil, it will be available for allies like France and Russia, who have been reluctant to join our efforts.

2002 Ron Paul 62:10
What a difference from the days when a declaration of war was clean and precise and accomplished by a responsible Congress and an informed people!

2002 Ron Paul 62:11
A great irony of all this is that the United Nations Charter doesn’t permit declaring war, especially against a nation that has been in a state of peace for 12 years. The UN can only declare peace. Remember, it wasn’t a war in Korea; it was only a police action to bring about peace. But at least in Korea and Vietnam there was fighting going on, so it was a bit easier to stretch the language than it is today regarding Iraq. Since Iraq doesn’t even have an Air Force or a Navy, is incapable of waging a war, and remains defenseless against the overwhelming powers of the United States and the British, it’s difficult to claim that we’re going into Iraq to restore peace.

2002 Ron Paul 62:12
History will eventually show that if we launch this attack the real victims will be the innocent Iraqi civilians who despise Saddam Hussein and are terrified of the coming bombs that will destroy their cities.

2002 Ron Paul 62:13
The greatest beneficiaries of the attack may well be Osama bin Ladin and the al Qaeda. Some in the media have already suggested that the al Qaeda may be encouraging the whole event. Unintended consequences will occur- what will come from this attack is still entirely unknown.

2002 Ron Paul 62:14
It’s a well-known fact that the al Qaeda are not allies of Saddam Hussein and despise the secularization and partial westernization of Iraqi culture. They would welcome the chaos that’s about to come. This will give them a chance to influence post-Saddam Hussein Iraq. The attack, many believe, will confirm to the Arab world that indeed the Christian West has once again attacked the Muslim East, providing radical fundamentalists a tremendous boost for recruitment.

2002 Ron Paul 62:15
An up or down vote on declaring war against Iraq would not pass the Congress, and the President has no intention of asking for it. This is unfortunate, because if the process were carried out in a constitutional fashion, the American people and the U.S. Congress would vote “No” on assuming responsibility for this war.

2002 Ron Paul 62:16
Transferring authority to wage war, calling it permission to use force to fight for peace in order to satisfy the UN Charter, which replaces the Article I, Section 8 war power provision, is about as close to 1984 “newspeak” that we will ever get in the real world.

2002 Ron Paul 62:17
Not only is it sad that we have gone so far astray from our Constitution, but it’s also dangerous for world peace and threatens our liberties here at home.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 63

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
October 8, 2002
Statement Opposing the use of Military Force against Iraq

2002 Ron Paul 63:1
Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. The wisdom of the war is one issue, but the process and the philosophy behind our foreign policy are important issues as well. But I have come to the conclusion that I see no threat to our national security. There is no convincing evidence that Iraq is capable of threatening the security of this country, and, therefore, very little reason, if any, to pursue a war.

2002 Ron Paul 63:2
But I am very interested also in the process that we are pursuing. This is not a resolution to declare war. We know that. This is a resolution that does something much different. This resolution transfers the responsibility, the authority, and the power of the Congress to the President so he can declare war when and if he wants to. He has not even indicated that he wants to go to war or has to go to war; but he will make the full decision, not the Congress, not the people through the Congress of this country in that manner.

2002 Ron Paul 63:3
It does something else, though. One-half of the resolution delivers this power to the President, but it also instructs him to enforce U.N. resolutions. I happen to think I would rather listen to the President when he talks about unilateralism and national security interests, than accept this responsibility to follow all of the rules and the dictates of the United Nations. That is what this resolution does. It instructs him to follow all of the resolutions.

2002 Ron Paul 63:4
But an important aspect of the philosophy and the policy we are endorsing here is the preemption doctrine. This should not be passed off lightly. It has been done to some degree in the past, but never been put into law that we will preemptively strike another nation that has not attacked us. No matter what the arguments may be, this policy is new; and it will have ramifications for our future, and it will have ramifications for the future of the world because other countries will adopt this same philosophy.

2002 Ron Paul 63:5
I also want to mention very briefly something that has essentially never been brought up. For more than a thousand years there has been a doctrine and Christian definition of what a just war is all about. I think this effort and this plan to go to war comes up short of that doctrine. First, it says that there has to be an act of aggression; and there has not been an act of aggression against the United States. We are 6,000 miles from their shores.

2002 Ron Paul 63:6
Also, it says that all efforts at negotiations must be exhausted. I do not believe that is the case. It seems to me like the opposition, the enemy, right now is begging for more negotiations.

2002 Ron Paul 63:7
Also, the Christian doctrine says that the proper authority must be responsible for initiating the war. I do not believe that proper authority can be transferred to the President nor to the United Nations.

2002 Ron Paul 63:8
But a very practical reason why I have a great deal of reservations has to do with the issue of no-win wars that we have been involved in for so long. Once we give up our responsibilities from here in the House and the Senate to make these decisions, it seems that we depend on the United Nations for our instructions; and that is why, as a Member earlier indicated, essentially we are already at war. That is correct. We are still in the Persian Gulf War. We have been bombing for 12 years, and the reason President Bush, Sr., did not go all the way? He said the U.N. did not give him permission to.

2002 Ron Paul 63:9
My argument is when we go to war through the back door, we are more likely to have the wars last longer and not have resolution of the wars, such as we had in Korea and Vietnam. We ought to consider this very seriously.

2002 Ron Paul 63:10
Also it is said we are wrong about the act of aggression, there has been an act of aggression against us because Saddam Hussein has shot at our airplanes. The fact that he has missed every single airplane for 12 years, and tens of thousands of sorties have been flown, indicates the strength of our enemy, an impoverished, Third World nation that does not have an air force, anti-aircraft weapons, or a navy.

2002 Ron Paul 63:11
But the indication is because he shot at us, therefore, it is an act of aggression. However, what is cited as the reason for us flying over the no-fly zone comes from U.N. Resolution 688, which instructs us and all the nations to contribute to humanitarian relief in the Kurdish and the Shiite areas. It says nothing about no-fly zones, and it says nothing about bombing missions over Iraq.

2002 Ron Paul 63:12
So to declare that we have been attacked, I do not believe for a minute that this fulfills the requirement that we are retaliating against aggression by this country. There is a need for us to assume responsibility for the declaration of war, and also to prepare the American people for the taxes that will be raised and the possibility of a military draft which may well come.

2002 Ron Paul 63:13
I must oppose this resolution, which regardless of what many have tried to claim will lead us into war with Iraq. This resolution is not a declaration of war, however, and that is an important point: this resolution transfers the Constitutionally-mandated Congressional authority to declare wars to the executive branch. This resolution tells the president that he alone has the authority to determine when, where, why, and how war will be declared. It merely asks the president to pay us a courtesy call a couple of days after the bombing starts to let us know what is going on. This is exactly what our Founding Fathers cautioned against when crafting our form of government: most had just left behind a monarchy where the power to declare war rested in one individual. It is this they most wished to avoid.

2002 Ron Paul 63:14
As James Madison wrote in 1798, “The Constitution supposes what the history of all governments demonstrates, that the executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has, accordingly, with studied care, vested the question of war in the legislature.”

2002 Ron Paul 63:15
Some- even some in this body- have claimed that this Constitutional requirement is an anachronism, and that those who insist on following the founding legal document of this country are just being frivolous. I could not disagree more.

2002 Ron Paul 63:16
Mr. Speaker, for the more than one dozen years I have spent as a federal legislator I have taken a particular interest in foreign affairs and especially the politics of the Middle East. From my seat on the international relations committee I have had the opportunity to review dozens of documents and to sit through numerous hearings and mark-up sessions regarding the issues of both Iraq and international terrorism.

2002 Ron Paul 63:17
Back in 1997 and 1998 I publicly spoke out against the actions of the Clinton Administration, which I believed was moving us once again toward war with Iraq. I believe the genesis of our current policy was unfortunately being set at that time. Indeed, many of the same voices who then demanded that the Clinton Administration attack Iraq are now demanding that the Bush Administration attack Iraq. It is unfortunate that these individuals are using the tragedy of September 11, 2001 as cover to force their long-standing desire to see an American invasion of Iraq. Despite all of the information to which I have access, I remain very skeptical that the nation of Iraq poses a serious and immanent terrorist threat to the United States. If I were convinced of such a threat I would support going to war, as I did when I supported President Bush by voting to give him both the authority and the necessary funding to fight the war on terror.

2002 Ron Paul 63:18
Mr. Speaker, consider some of the following claims presented by supporters of this resolution, and contrast them with the following facts:

2002 Ron Paul 63:19
Claim: Iraq has consistently demonstrated its willingness to use force against the US through its firing on our planes patrolling the UN-established “no-fly zones.”

2002 Ron Paul 63:20
Reality: The “no-fly zones” were never authorized by the United Nations, nor was their 12 year patrol by American and British fighter planes sanctioned by the United Nations. Under UN Security Council Resolution 688 (April, 1991), Iraq’s repression of the Kurds and Shi’ites was condemned, but there was no authorization for “no-fly zones,” much less airstrikes. The resolution only calls for member states to “contribute to humanitarian relief” in the Kurd and Shi’ite areas. Yet the US and British have been bombing Iraq in the “no-fly zones” for 12 years. While one can only condemn any country firing on our pilots, isn’t the real argument whether we should continue to bomb Iraq relentlessly? Just since 1998, some 40,000 sorties have been flown over Iraq.

2002 Ron Paul 63:21
Claim: Iraq is an international sponsor of terrorism.

2002 Ron Paul 63:22
Reality: According to the latest edition of the State Department’s Patterns of Global Terrorism, Iraq sponsors several minor Palestinian groups, the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), and the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). None of these carries out attacks against the United States. As a matter of fact, the MEK (an Iranian organization located in Iraq) has enjoyed broad Congressional support over the years. According to last year’s Patterns of Global Terrorism, Iraq has not been involved in terrorist activity against the West since 1993 – the alleged attempt against former President Bush.

2002 Ron Paul 63:23
Claim: Iraq tried to assassinate President Bush in 1993.

2002 Ron Paul 63:24
Reality: It is far from certain that Iraq was behind the attack. News reports at the time were skeptical about Kuwaiti assertions that the attack was planned by Iraq against former. President Bush. Following is an interesting quote from Seymore Hersh’s article from Nov. 1993:

2002 Ron Paul 63:25
Three years ago, during Iraq’s six-month occupation of Kuwait, there had been an outcry when a teen-age Kuwaiti girl testified eloquently and effectively before Congress about Iraqi atrocities involving newborn infants. The girl turned out to be the daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador to Washington, Sheikh Saud Nasir al-Sabah, and her account of Iraqi soldiers flinging babies out of incubators was challenged as exaggerated both by journalists and by human-rights groups. ( Sheikh Saud was subsequently named Minister of Information in Kuwait, and he was the government official in charge of briefing the international press on the alleged assassination attempt against George Bush .) In a second incident, in August of 1991, Kuwait provoked a special session of the United Nations Security Council by claiming that twelve Iraqi vessels, including a speedboat, had been involved in an attempt to assault Bubiyan Island, long-disputed territory that was then under Kuwaiti control. The Security Council eventually concluded that, while the Iraqis had been provocative, there had been no Iraqi military raid, and that the Kuwaiti government knew there hadn’t. What did take place was nothing more than a smuggler-versus-smuggler dispute over war booty in a nearby demilitarized zone that had emerged, after the Gulf War, as an illegal marketplace for alcohol, ammunition, and livestock.

2002 Ron Paul 63:26
This establishes that on several occasions Kuwait has lied about the threat from Iraq. Hersh goes on to point out in the article numerous other times the Kuwaitis lied to the US and the UN about Iraq. Here is another good quote from Hersh:

2002 Ron Paul 63:27
The President was not alone in his caution. Janet Reno, the Attorney General, also had her doubts. “The A.G. remains skeptical of certain aspects of the case,” a senior Justice Department official told me in late July, a month after the bombs were dropped on Baghdad…Two weeks later, what amounted to open warfare broke out among various factions in the government on the issue of who had done what in Kuwait. Someone gave a Boston Globe reporter access to a classified C.I.A. study that was highly skeptical of the Kuwaiti claims of an Iraqi assassination attempt. The study, prepared by the C.I.A.’s Counter Terrorism Center, suggested that Kuwait might have “cooked the books” on the alleged plot in an effort to play up the “continuing Iraqi threat” to Western interests in the Persian Gulf . Neither the Times nor the Post made any significant mention of the Globe dispatch, which had been written by a Washington correspondent named Paul Quinn-Judge, although the story cited specific paragraphs from the C.I.A. assessment. The two major American newspapers had been driven by their sources to the other side of the debate.

2002 Ron Paul 63:28
At the very least, the case against Iraq for the alleged bomb threat is not conclusive.

2002 Ron Paul 63:29
Claim: Saddam Hussein will use weapons of mass destruction against us – he has already used them against his own people (the Kurds in 1988 in the village of Halabja).

2002 Ron Paul 63:30
Reality: It is far from certain that Iraq used chemical weapons against the Kurds. It may be accepted as conventional wisdom in these times, but back when it was first claimed there was great skepticism. The evidence is far from conclusive. A 1990 study by the Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College cast great doubts on the claim that Iraq used chemical weapons on the Kurds. Following are the two gassing incidents as described in the report:

2002 Ron Paul 63:31
In September 1988, however – a month after the war (between Iran and Iraq) had ended – the State Department abruptly, and in what many viewed as a sensational manner, condemned Iraq for allegedly using chemicals against its Kurdish population. The incident cannot be understood without some background of Iraq’s relations with the Kurds…throughout the war Iraq effectively faced two enemies – Iran and elements of its own Kurdish minority. Significant numbers of the Kurds had launched a revolt against Baghdad and in the process teamed up with Tehran. As soon as the war with Iran ended, Iraq announced its determination to crush the Kurdish insurrection. It sent Republican Guards to the Kurdish area, and in the course of the operation – according to the U.S. State Department – gas was used, with the result that numerous Kurdish civilians were killed. The Iraqi government denied that any such gassing had occurred. Nonetheless, Secretary of State Schultz stood by U.S. accusations, and the U.S. Congress, acting on its own, sought to impose economic sanctions on Baghdad as a violator of the Kurds’ human rights.

2002 Ron Paul 63:32
Having looked at all the evidence that was available to us, we find it impossible to confirm the State Department’s claim that gas was used in this instance . To begin with. There were never any victims produced . International relief organizations who examined the Kurds – in Turkey where they had gone for asylum – failed to discover any. Nor were there ever any found inside Iraq . The claim rests solely on testimony of the Kurds who had crossed the border into Turkey, where they were interviewed by staffers of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee

2002 Ron Paul 63:33
It appears that in seeking to punish Iraq, the Congress was influenced by another incident that occurred five months earlier in another Iraqi-Kurdish city, Halabjah. In March 1988, the Kurds at Halabjah were bombarded with chemical weapons, producing many deaths. Photographs of the Kurdish victims were widely disseminated in the international media. Iraq was blamed for the Halabjah attack, even though it was subsequently brought out that Iran too had used chemicals in this operation and it seemed likely that it was the Iranian bombardment that had actually killed the Kurds .

2002 Ron Paul 63:34
Thus, in our view, the Congress acted more on the basis of emotionalism than factual information , and without sufficient thought for the adverse diplomatic effects of its action.

2002 Ron Paul 63:35
Claim: Iraq must be attacked because it has ignored UN Security Council resolutions – these resolutions must be backed up by the use of force.

2002 Ron Paul 63:36
Reality: Iraq is but one of the many countries that have not complied with UN Security Council resolutions. In addition to the dozen or so resolutions currently being violated by Iraq, a conservative estimate reveals that there are an additional 91Security Council resolutions by countries other than Iraq that are also currently being violated. Adding in older resolutions that were violated would mean easily more than 200 UN Security Council resolutions have been violated with total impunity. Countries currently in violation include: Israel, Turkey, Morocco, Croatia, Armenia, Russia, Sudan, Turkey-controlled Cyprus, India, Pakistan, Indonesia. None of these countries have been threatened with force over their violations.

2002 Ron Paul 63:37
Claim: Iraq has anthrax and other chemical and biological agents.

2002 Ron Paul 63:38
Reality: That may be true. However, according to UNSCOM’s chief weapons inspector 90-95 percent of Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons and capabilities were destroyed by 1998; those that remained have likely degraded in the intervening four years and are likely useless. A 1994 Senate Banking Committee hearing revealed some 74 shipments of deadly chemical and biological agents from the U.S. to Iraq in the 1980s. As one recent press report stated:

2002 Ron Paul 63:39
One 1986 shipment from the Virginia-based American Type Culture Collection included three strains of anthrax, six strains of the bacteria that make botulinum toxin and three strains of the bacteria that cause gas gangrene. Iraq later admitted to the United Nations that it had made weapons out of all three

2002 Ron Paul 63:40
The CDC, meanwhile, sent shipments of germs to the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission and other agencies involved in Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs. It sent samples in 1986 of botulinum toxin and botulinum toxoid — used to make vaccines against botulinum toxin — directly to the Iraqi chemical and biological weapons complex at al-Muthanna, the records show.

2002 Ron Paul 63:41
These were sent while the United States was supporting Iraq covertly in its war against Iran. U.S. assistance to Iraq in that war also included covertly-delivered intelligence on Iranian troop movements and other assistance. This is just another example of our policy of interventionism in affairs that do not concern us – and how this interventionism nearly always ends up causing harm to the United States.

2002 Ron Paul 63:42
Claim: The president claimed last night that: “Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles; far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey and other nations in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work.”

2002 Ron Paul 63:43
Reality: Then why is only Israel talking about the need for the U.S. to attack Iraq? None of the other countries seem concerned at all. Also, the fact that some 135,000 Americans in the area are under threat from these alleged missiles is just makes the point that it is time to bring our troops home to defend our own country.

2002 Ron Paul 63:44
Claim: Iraq harbors al-Qaeda and other terrorists.

2002 Ron Paul 63:45
Reality: The administration has claimed that some Al-Qaeda elements have been present in Northern Iraq. This is territory controlled by the Kurds – who are our allies – and is patrolled by U.S. and British fighter aircraft. Moreover, dozens of countries – including Iran and the United States – are said to have al-Qaeda members on their territory. Other terrorists allegedly harbored by Iraq, all are affiliated with Palestinian causes and do not attack the United States.

2002 Ron Paul 63:46
Claim: President Bush said in his speech on 7 October 2002: “ Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear weapon. Well, we don’t know exactly, and that’s the problem …”

2002 Ron Paul 63:47
Reality: An admission of a lack of information is justification for an attack?

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 64

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
October 8, 2002
The Shrimp Importation Financing Fairness Act

2002 Ron Paul 64:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Shrimp Importation Financing Fairness Act. This bill aids America’s struggling domestic shrimping industry by placing a moratorium on restrictive regulations affecting the shrimping industry. This bill also prevents tax dollars from going to the domestic shrimping industry’s major foreign competitors.

2002 Ron Paul 64:2
The United States domestic shrimping industry is a vital social and economic force in many coastal communities across the United States, including several in my congressional district. A thriving shrimping industry benefits not only those who own and operate shrimp boats, but also food processors, hotels and restaurants, grocery stores, and all those who work in and service these industries. Shrimping also serves as a key source of safe domestic foods at a time when the nation is engaged in hostilities abroad.

2002 Ron Paul 64:3
Given the importance of a strong shrimping industry to so many Americans, it seems strange that the federal government continues to burden shrimpers with excessive regulations. For example, the federal government has imposed costly regulations on this industry dealing with usage of items such as by catch reduction devices and turtle excluder devices (TEDS). The mandatory use of these devices results in a significant reduction in the amount of shrimp caught by domestic shrimpers, thus damaging their competitive position and market share.

2002 Ron Paul 64:4
Many members of Congress have let the National Marine Fisheries Service, which is the lead federal agency with responsibility to regulate the domestic shrimp industry, know of their displeasure with the unreasonable regulatory burden imposed upon the industry. In response, the agency recently held briefings with House and Senate staffers as well as industry representatives to discuss how the agency’s actions are harming shrimpers.

2002 Ron Paul 64:5
However, even after hearing first-hand testimony from industry representatives and representatives of communities whose economies rely on a thriving shrimping industry, the agency refuses to refrain from placing regulatory encumbrances upon the domestic shrimping industry. Therefore it is up to Congress to protect this industry from overzealous regulators. The Shrimp Importation Financing Fairness Act provides this protection by placing an indefinite moratorium on all future restrictive regulations on the shrimping industry.

2002 Ron Paul 64:6
Seven foreign countries (Thailand, Vietnam, India, China, Ecuador, Indonesia, and Brazil) have taken advantage of the domestic shrimping industry’s government-created vulnerabilities. These countries have each exported in excess of 20,000,000 pounds of shrimp to the United States in the first 6 months of this year. These seven countries account for nearly 70 percent of all shrimp consumed in the United States in the first six months of this year and nearly 80 percent of all shrimp imported to this country in the same period!

2002 Ron Paul 64:7
Adding insult to injury the federal government is forcing American shrimpers to subsidize their competitors! In the last three years, the United States Government has provided more than $1,800,000,000 in financing and insurance for these foreign countries through the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC). Furthermore, the U.S. current exposure relative to these countries through the Export-Import Bank totals some $14,800,000,000. Thus, the United States taxpayer is providing a total subsidy of $16,500,000,000 to the home countries of the leading foreign competitors of American shrimpers! Of course, the American taxpayer could be forced to shovel more money to these countries through the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

2002 Ron Paul 64:8
Many of the countries in question do not have free-market economics. Thus, the participation of these countries in United States-supported international financial regimes amounts to a direct subsidy by American shrimpers to their international competitors. In any case, providing aid to any of these countries indirectly grants benefits to foreign shrimpers because of the fungibility of money.

2002 Ron Paul 64:9
In order to ensure that American shrimpers are not forced to subsidize their competitors, the Shrimp Importation Financing Fairness Act ends all Export-Import and OPIC subsidizes to the seven countries who imported more than 20 million pounds of shrimp in the first six months of 2002. The bill also reduces America’s contribution to the IMF by America’s pro rata share of any IMF aid provided to one of those seven countries. Mr. Speaker, it is time for Congress to rein in regulation-happy bureaucrats and stop subsidizing the domestic shrimping industries’ leading competitors. Otherwise, the government-manufactured depression in the price of shrimp will decimate the domestic shrimping industry and the communities whose economies depend on this industry. I, therefore, hope all my colleagues will stand up for shrimpers by cosponsoring the Shrimp Importation Financing Fairness Act.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 65

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
November 13, 2002
Oppose The New Homeland Security Bureaucracy!

2002 Ron Paul 65:1
Mr. Speaker, when the process of creating a Department of Homeland Security commenced, Congress was led to believe that the legislation would be a simple reorganization aimed at increasing efficiency, not an attempt to expand federal power. Fiscally conservative members of Congress were even told that the bill would be budget neutral! Yet, when the House of Representatives initially considered creating a Department of Homeland Security, the legislative vehicle almost overnight grew from 32 pages to 282 pages- and the cost had ballooned to at least $3 billion. Now we are prepared to vote on a nearly 500-page bill that increases federal expenditures and raises troubling civil liberties questions. Adding insult to injury, this bill was put together late last night and introduced only this morning. Worst of all, the text of the bill has not been made readily available to most members, meaning this Congress is prepared to create a massive new federal agency without even knowing the details. This is a dangerous and irresponsible practice.

2002 Ron Paul 65:2
The last time Congress attempted a similarly ambitious reorganization of the government was with the creation of the Department of Defense in 1947. However, the process by which we are creating this new department bears little resemblance to the process by which the Defense Department was created. Congress began hearings on the proposed Department of Defense in 1945 – two years before President Truman signed legislation creating the new Department into law! Despite the lengthy deliberative process through which Congress created that new department, turf battles and logistical problems continued to bedevil the military establishment, requiring several corrective pieces of legislation. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the Goldwater-Nicholas Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 was passed to deal with problems steaming from the 1947 law! The experience with the Department of Defense certainly suggests the importance of a more deliberative process in the creation of this new agency.

2002 Ron Paul 65:3
HR 5710 grants major new powers to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) by granting HHS the authority to “administer” the smallpox vaccine to members of the public if the Department unilaterally determines that there is a public health threat posed by smallpox. HHS would not even have to demonstrate an actual threat of a smallpox attack, merely the “potential” of an attack. Thus, this bill grants federal agents the authority to force millions of Americans to be injected with a potentially lethal vaccine based on nothing more than a theoretical potential smallpox incident. Furthermore, this provision continues to restrict access to the smallpox vaccine from those who have made a voluntary choice to accept the risk of the vaccine in order to protect themselves from smallpox. It is hard to think of a more blatant violation of liberty than allowing government officials to force people to receive potentially dangerous vaccines based on hypothetical risks.

2002 Ron Paul 65:4
While this provision appears to be based on similar provisions granting broad mandatory vaccination and quarantine powers to governors from the controversial “Model Health Emergency Powers Act,” this provision has not been considered by the House. Instead, this provision seems to have been snuck into the bill at the last minute. At the very least, Mr. Speaker, before Congress grants HHS such sweeping powers, we should have an open debate instead of burying the authorization in a couple of paragraphs tucked away in a 484 page bill!

2002 Ron Paul 65:5
HR 5710 also expands the federal police state by allowing the attorney general to authorize federal agency inspectors general and their agents to carry firearms and make warrantless arrests. One of the most disturbing trends in recent years is the increase in the number of federal officials authorized to carry guns. This is especially disturbing when combined with the increasing trend toward restricting the ability of average Americans to exercise their second amendment rights. Arming the government while disarming the public encourages abuses of power.

2002 Ron Paul 65:6
Mr. Speaker, HR 5710 gives the federal government new powers and increases federal expenditures, completely contradicting what members were told about the bill. Furthermore, these new power grabs are being rushed through Congress without giving members the ability to debate, or even properly study, this proposal. I must oppose this bill and urge my colleagues to do the same.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 66

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
November 14, 2002
Unintended Consequences

2002 Ron Paul 66:1
Mr. Speaker, government efforts at benevolence always backfire. Inevitably, unintended consequences overwhelm the short-term and narrow benefits of authoritarian programs designed to make the economic system fair, the people morally better, and the world safe for democracy. One hundred years of intense government “benevolence” in the United States has brought us to the brink of economic collapse, a domestic police state, and perpetual war overseas. And now our obsession with conquering and occupying Iraq is about to unleash consequences that no one can accurately foresee. The negative possibilities are unlimited and the benefits negligible.

2002 Ron Paul 66:2
Some have warned that the planned pre-emptive invasion of Iraq could prove so destabilizing to the region and the world that it literally could ignite a worldwide conflict big enough to be called World War III. Nuclear exchanges are perhaps even more likely to occur under the conditions of an expanded Middle east war than they were at the height of the Cold War, when the Soviets and U.S. had literally thousands of nuclear weapons pointed at each other. If we carry out our threats to invade and occupy Iraq, especially if we do so unilaterally, the odds are at least 50-50 that this worst case scenario will result.

2002 Ron Paul 66:3
The best-case scenario would be a short war, limited to weeks and involving few American and Iraqi civilian casualties. This, in combination with a unified Iraqi welcome, the placing into power of a stable popular government that is long lasting, contributing to regional stability and prosperity, and free elections, just is what our planners are hoping for. The odds of achieving this miraculous result are probably one in 10,000.

2002 Ron Paul 66:4
More likely, the consequences will be severe and surprising and not what anyone planned for or intended. It will likely fall somewhere between the two extremes, but closer to the worst scenario than the best.

2002 Ron Paul 66:5
There are numerous other possible consequences. Here are a few worth contemplating:

2002 Ron Paul 66:6
No local Iraqi or regional Arab support materializes. Instead of a spontaneous uprising as is hoped, the opposite occurs. The Iraqi citizens anxious to get rid of Hussein join in his defense, believing foreign occupation and control of their oil is far worse than living under the current dictator. Already we see that sanctions have done precisely that. Instead of blaming Saddam Hussein and his dictatorial regime for the suffering of the past decade, the Iraqi people blame the U.S.-led sanctions and the constant bombing by the U.S. and British. Hussein has increased his power and the people have suffered from the war against Iraq since 1991. There are a lot of reasons to believe this same reaction will occur with an escalation of our military attacks. Training dissidents like the Iraqi National Congress will prove no more reliable than the training and the military assistance we provided in the 70’s and the 80’s for Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein when they qualified as U.S. “allies.”

2002 Ron Paul 66:7
Pre-emptive war against Iraq may well prompt traditional enemies in the regions to create new alliances, as the hatred for America comes to exceed age-old hatreds that caused regional conflicts. Iraq already has made overtures and concessions to Iran and Kuwait, with some signs of conciliation being shown by both sides. Total domination of the entire Persian Gulf and the Caspian Sea regions by the U.S. will surely stir survival instincts in these countries as well as in Russia. As the balance of power continues to shift in the U.S.’s favor, there will be even more reasons for countries like China and Pakistan to secretly support the nations that are being subjected to U.S. domination in the region. The U.S. will never have a free ride in its effort to control the entire world’s oil supply. Antagonisms are bound to build, and our ability to finance the multiple military conflicts that are bound to come is self-limited.

2002 Ron Paul 66:8
The Kurds may jump at the chance, if chaos ensues, to fulfill their dream of an independent Kurdish homeland. This, of course, will stir the ire of the Turks and the Iranians. Instead of stability for northern Iraq, the war likely will precipitate more fighting than the war planners ever imagined. Delivering Kurdish Iraq to Turkey as a prize for its cooperation with our war plans will not occur without a heated and deadly struggle. Turkey is already deeply concerned about the prospect for Kurdish independence, and only remains loyal to America because U.S. taxpayers are forced to subsidize an already depressed Turkish economy caused by our Iraqi policies. More money will pacify for a while, but either frustration with the perpetual nature of the problem or our inability to continue the financial bailout will lead Turkey to have second thoughts about its obedience to our demands to wage war from their country. All of this raises the odds that Islamic radicals will once more take control of the Turkish government. These developing conditions increase the odds of civil strife erupting in Turkey.

2002 Ron Paul 66:9
Islamic fundamentalism in the entire region will get a shot in the arm once the invasion of Iraq begins, especially in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Turkey. Our placing the Shah in power in Iran in the 1950’s was a major reason that the Ayatollah eventually made it to power in the late 1970’s- a delayed but nevertheless direct consequence of our policy. Balance of power in this area of the world has always been delicate, and outside interference serves only to destabilize. There’s no evidence that our current efforts will lead to more stability. Promoting democracy, as it’s said we’re doing, is a farce. If elections were to occur in most of the Arab countries today, Osama bin Laden and his key allies would win. Besides, it seems we adapt quite well to working with military dictators that have ousted elected leaders, as we do in Pakistan by rewarding their cooperation with huge subsidies and future promises.

2002 Ron Paul 66:10
In the chaos that may erupt, several countries might see an opportunity to move on their neighbors. Already we have been warned that cooperation from Russia means no American criticism or resistance to its moves in Georgia or Chechnya. China could attack Taiwan. North Korea could renew its struggle against South Korea. India may see this as an opportunity to settle the Kashmir dispute with Pakistan- with the real risk of nuclear war breaking out. It seems the obsession about Iraq’s improbable possession of nuclear weapons far exceeds the more realistic possibility that our pre-emptive strike against Iraq may precipitate a nuclear exchange between these two countries, or even a first strike with nuclear weapons by Israel against Iraq.

2002 Ron Paul 66:11
Expect Israel to use the chaos to further promote their occupation and settlements in the Palestinian homeland and possibly even in Lebanon. Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons in a period of outright war will surely serve to intimidate her neighbors and intensify her efforts to further expand the Israeli homeland.

2002 Ron Paul 66:12
If massive Iraqi civilian casualties result, as indeed is possible though not deliberate, expect more worldwide condemnation and even a UN resolution condemning what others will call American War Crimes. Our refusal to be subject to the International Criminal Court, while demanding others be tried in the court, will never sit well with the world community. Our position is a far cry from what it ought to be- demanding national sovereignty while promoting neutrality and friendship with all nations.

2002 Ron Paul 66:13
Our own CIA has warned that war with Iraq will more likely cause Saddam Hussein to use any massively lethal weapons that he might have than if we don’t attack him. Also, they warned that the likelihood of al Qaeda attacks on our own soil will increase once an invasion begins. This, of course, could cause a wave of well-placed snipers around the United States.

2002 Ron Paul 66:14
It is now admitted that over 150,000 U.S. servicemen are suffering from Persian Gulf War Syndrome as a result of the first Persian Gulf War. Our government would like to ignore this fact, but a new war literally could create an epidemic of casualties of the same sort, since the exact etiology is not completely understood. The number of deaths and injuries that might occur from an occupation of Iraq is unknown, but conceivably could be much higher than anyone wants to imagine.

2002 Ron Paul 66:15
Anti Americanism now sweeping the world will significantly increase once we launch our attack. Already we have seen elections swayed in Europe, Turkey, and Pakistan by those unfriendly to the United States. The attitude that the world’s “King of the Hill” must be brought down will escalate, especially if the war goes poorly and does not end quickly with minimal civilian deaths.

2002 Ron Paul 66:16
Al Qaeda likely will get a real boost in membership once the war breaks out. Membership is already pervasive throughout the world without any centralized control. We should expect this to continue, with an explosion in membership and a negative impact around the world. Our attack will confirm to the doubters that bin Laden was right in assessing our desire to control the Middle Eastern resources and dictate policy to the entire region while giving support to Israel over the Palestinians.

2002 Ron Paul 66:17
Our very weak economy could easily collapse with the additional burden of a costly war. War is never a way to make the people of a country better off. It does not end recessions, and is much more likely to cause one or make one much worse. A significant war will cause revenues to decrease, taxes to increase, inflation to jump, encourage trade wars, and balloon the deficit. Oil prices will soar and the dollar will retreat ever further.

2002 Ron Paul 66:18
Already we’re hearing demands for a military draft to be instituted for both men and women. I see that coming, and it will serve as another source of domestic friction as our economy deteriorates and unemployment rises. Under these conditions the standard of living for all Americans is destined to go down.

2002 Ron Paul 66:19
This war, if of any significant duration, in time will be seen as a Republican war plain and simple. Along with a weak economy, it could easily usher in a “regime change” here in the United States. The conditions may justify a change in leadership, but the return of control to the opposition party will allow them to use the opportunity to promote their domestic liberal agenda and socialize the entire economy.

2002 Ron Paul 66:20
The net result, regardless of the size and duration of the coming war, will be that the people of the United States will be less free and much poorer. The bigger the war, the greater will be the suffering.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 67

Thursday, November 14, 2002
Oppose the New Homeland Security Bureaucracy!

2002 Ron Paul 67:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to read “You are a Suspect” by William Safire in today’s New York Times. Mr. Safire, who has been one of the media’s most consistent defenders of personal privacy, details the Defense Department’s plan to establish a system of  “Total Information Awareness.”  According to Mr. Safire, once this system is implemented, no American will be able to use the internet to fill a prescription, subscribe to a magazine, buy a book, send or receive e-mail, or visit a web site free from the prying eyes of government bureaucrats. Furthermore, individual internet transactions will be recorded in “a virtual centralized grand database.” Implementation of this project would shred the Fourth Amendment’s requirement that the government establish probable cause and obtain a search warrant before snooping into the private affairs of its citizens. I hope my colleagues read Mr. Safire’s article and support efforts to prevent the implementation of this program, including repealing any legislation weakening privacy protections that Congress may inadvertently have passed in the rush to complete legislative business this year. 

2002 Ron Paul 67:2
New York Times, Nov. 14, 2002
(By William Safire) 

Washington--If the Homeland Security Act is not amended before passage, here is what will happen to you: Every purchase you make with a credit card, every magazine subscription you buy and medical prescription you fill, every Web site you visit and e-mail you send or receive, every academic grade you receive, every bank deposit you make, every trip you book and every event you attend--all these transactions and communications will go into what the Defense Department describes as “a virtual, centralized grand database.”

2002 Ron Paul 67:3
To this computerized dossier on your private life from commercial sources, add every piece of information that government has about you--passport application, driver’s license and bridge toll records, judicial and divorce records, complaints from nosy neighbors to the F.B.I., your lifetime paper trail plus the latest hidden camera surveillance — and you have the supersnoop’s dream: a “Total Information Awareness” about every U.S. citizen. 

2002 Ron Paul 67:4
This is not some far-out Orwellian scenario. It is what will happen to your personal freedom in the next few weeks if John Poindexter gets the unprecedented power he seeks. 

2002 Ron Paul 67:5
Remember Poindexter? Brilliant man, first in his class at the Naval Academy, later earned a doctorate in physics, rose to national security adviser under President Ronald Reagan. He had this brilliant idea of secretly selling missiles to Iran to pay ransom for hostages, and with the illicit proceeds to illegally support contras in Nicaragua. 

2002 Ron Paul 67:6
A jury convicted Poindexter in 1990 on five felony counts of misleading Congress and making false statements, but an appeals court overturned the verdict because Congress had given him immunity for his testimony. He famously asserted, “The buck stops here,” arguing that the White House staff, and not the president, was responsible for fateful decisions that might prove embarrassing. 

2002 Ron Paul 67:7
This ring-knocking master of deceit is back again with a plan even more scandalous than Iran-contra. He heads the “Information Awareness Office” in the otherwise excellent Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, which spawned the Internet and stealth aircraft technology. Poindexter is now realizing his 20-year dream: getting the “data-mining” power to snoop on every public and private act of every American. 

2002 Ron Paul 67:8
Even the hastily passed U.S.A. Patriot Act, which widened the scope of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and weakened 15 privacy laws, raised requirements for the government to report secret eavesdropping to Congress and the courts. But Poindexter’s assault on individual privacy rides roughshod over such oversight. 

2002 Ron Paul 67:9
He is determined to break down the wall between commercial snooping and secret government intrusion. The disgraced admiral dismisses such necessary differentiation as bureaucratic “stovepiping.” And he has been given a $200 million budget to create computer dossiers on 300 million Americans. 

2002 Ron Paul 67:10
When George W. Bush was running for president, he stood foursquare in defense of each person’s medical, financial and communications privacy. But Poindexter, whose contempt for the restraints of oversight drew the Reagan administration into its most serious blunder, is still operating on the presumption that on such a sweeping theft of privacy rights, the buck ends with him and not with the president. 

2002 Ron Paul 67:11
This time, however, he has been seizing power in the open. In the past week John Markoff of The Times, followed by Robert O’Harrow of The Washington Post have revealed the extent of Poindexter’s operation, but editorialists have not grasped its undermining of the Freedom of Information Act. 

2002 Ron Paul 67:12
Political awareness can overcome “Total Information Awareness,” the combined force of commercial and government snooping. In a similar overreach, Attorney General Ashcroft tried his Terrorism Information and Prevention System (TIPS), but public outrage at the use of gossips and postal workers as snoops caused the House to shoot it down. The Senate should now do the same to this other exploitation of fear. 

2002 Ron Paul 67:13
The Latin motto over Poindexter’s new Pentagon office reads “Scientia Est Potentia” “knowledge is power.”  Exactly: the government’s infinite knowledge about you is its power over you. “We’re just as concerned as the next person with protecting privacy,” this brilliant mind blandly assured The Post. A jury found he spoke falsely before.

2002 Ron Paul Chapter 68

December 19th, 2002
Important Questions Concerning the Administration’s Smallpox Vaccine Proposals

2002 Ron Paul 68:1
(This letter was sent by Congressman Ron Paul to Tommy Thompson, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, in response to announcements that the administration plans mandatory smallpox vaccines for approximately one million soldiers and frontline medical providers)

2002 Ron Paul 68:2
Dear Secretary Thompson:

2002 Ron Paul 68:3
Please provide answers to the following questions regarding the administration’s smallpox vaccination policy:

2002 Ron Paul 68:4
1. Does the administration believe it has the legal authority to institute a mandatory vaccine program for any group of Americans?

2002 Ron Paul 68:5
2. If the answer to question one is yes, would the administration consider implementing a mandatory vaccine program for first responders, if the current voluntary program does not produce what the administration considers a sufficient number of vaccinated first responders to handle a smallpox emergency?

2002 Ron Paul 68:6
3. Are those who voluntarily receive the smallpox vaccine eligible for compensation from the National Vaccine Compensation Fund?

2002 Ron Paul 68:7
4. Are individuals who are injured by inadvertent exposure to the smallpox vaccine because of contact with a vaccinated person eligible for compensation from the National Vaccine Compensation Fund?

2002 Ron Paul 68:8
5. Have any states made plans to mandate smallpox vaccines as part of their bioterrorism defense plan?

2002 Ron Paul 68:9
6. Does the administration support the provisions in the Model Emergency Health Powers Act, which were drafted with the assistance of the Center for Disease Control, which appear to grant individual governors the ability to implement a mandatory smallpox vaccine program?

2002 Ron Paul 68:10
7. If the answer to questions 5 or 6 is yes, how will the administration support and/or assist a governor who has decided to implement a mandatory smallpox vaccination plan?