May 31st, 2002
<br />
An Open Letter to O’Neill and Greenspan<br />
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.
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.
Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
May 24th, 2002
Washington, DC: Congressman Ron Paul delivered the following remarks in the House of Representative yesterday to commemorate the 50 th anniversary of the incorporation of the City of Clute, Texas.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
The face of Clute has changed but the people are still the same brave, hardworking Texans that helped mold the Republic.
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.”
Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off
Similar posts:
May 24th, 2002
<br />
Oppose the “Supplemental” Spending Bill<br />
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.
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.
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.
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:
“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.”
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
May 23rd, 2002
<br />
No More Taxpayer Funds for the Failed Drug War in Colombia<br />
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
May 23rd, 2002
<br />
Celebrating the 50th Anniversary of Clute, Texas<br />
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.
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.
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.
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.
The face of Clute has changed but the people are still the same brave, hardworking Texans that helped mold the Republic.
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.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
May 22nd, 2002
Washington, DC- Congressman Ron Paul today introduced legislation that would end taxes on Social Security benefits for millions of American seniors. The “Senior Citizens’ Tax Elimination Act” would change the tax laws that treat Social Security benefits as taxable income, leaving seniors with more retirement dollars and ending a deceptive government practice. Under Paul’s legislation, benefits would not be considered taxable income and would not be reported on an individual’s tax return.
“We should remember that Social Security benefits were not taxed for the first 50 years of the program,” Paul stated. “Since the 1993 Clinton tax increase, however, up to 85% of benefits are subject to income taxes. Congress never intended for these retirement benefits to be treated as ordinary income and taxed to raise revenue for the government. After all, Social Security benefits are financed by taxes in the first place, so the current system represents an insidious form of double taxation. When Congress taxes a benefit funded by taxes, it simply reduces those benefits by subterfuge. Congress likes to talk about protecting Social Security benefits, but it continues to reduce them by stealth through income taxes.”
Paul also introduced legislation last year that would prohibit Congress from spending Social Security funds on unrelated programs. “When the government takes money out of your paycheck for Social Security, it makes a promise that the funds will be there when you retire,” Paul stated. “Congress has a moral obligation to keep that promise and save those funds, rather than holding IOUs and spending the money immediately.”
Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off
Similar posts:
May 22nd, 2002
<br />
Stop Taxing Social Security Benefits!<br />
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.
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.
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.
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.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
May 22nd, 2002
<br />
Don’t Expand Federal Deposit Insurance<br />
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.
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.
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?
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.
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!
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?
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.
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.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
May 21st, 2002
<br />
Don’t Force Taxpayers to Fund Nation-Building in Afghanistan<br />
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.
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.
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.”
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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?
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.
I repeat that 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
May 21st, 2002
<br />
Statement on New Internet Regulations and Expanded Federal Wiretap Powers<br />
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.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the federal government is singularly unqualified to act as the arbiter of what material is inappropriate for children. Instead, this is a decision that should be made by parents. Most of the problems pointed to by proponents of increased government control of the internet are the result of a lack of parental, not governmental, control of children’s computer habits. Expanding the government’s control over the internet may actually encourage parents to disregard their responsibility to monitor their child’s computer habits. After all, why should parents worry about what websites their children is viewing when the government has usurped this parental function?
The 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.
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.
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.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts: