July 31st, 2002
Washington, DC- The United Seniors Association (USA) recently honored Congressman Ron Paul for his work in the House of Representatives on Social Security, Medicare, prescription drugs, taxes, and other issues important to American seniors. USA named Paul a “Hero of the Generations” for his favorable votes on key pieces of legislation during 2001.
“I want to get government off the backs of our nation’s seniors,” Paul stated. “It time to eliminate the unconscionable tax on Social Security benefits, abolish the estate tax, and put an end to harmful regulations and subsidies that keep prescription drug prices high. Senior citizens should be enjoying retirement and spending time with their grandchildren, not worrying about taxes and Medicare red tape. I applaud USA for working to expand health freedom, retirement and investment freedom, and economic freedom for American seniors.”
USA Chairman Charles Jarvis praised Paul as “Working energetically and effectively for seniors, their children, and their grandchildren. Congressman Paul has shown dynamic leadership in supporting critical legislation to protect and strengthen Social Security and Medicare, as well as working to reduce the tax burden for seniors and future generations.”
“Congressman Paul’s extremely high rating on important issues is impressive,” Jarvis continued. “I only wish we had more members of Congress like Ron Paul.”
USA is a nonpartisan, grassroots network of more than 1.5 million Americans.
Posted in Press Releases | No Comments »
Similar posts:
July 26th, 2002
Washington, DC- Congressman Ron Paul today voted for several amendments to a homeland security bill that would maintain the strength and independence of federal agencies that are vitally important to the 14th congressional district in Texas. Paul believes some agencies would suffer from neglect and increased bureaucratic inefficiency if they are transferred into the new Department of Homeland Security (DHS). In particular, Paul wants the Coast Guard, Customs Service, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to remain independent and directly responsible to the local communities they serve.
“I believe the nation needs a strong, independent Coast Guard,” Paul stated. “So does Congressman Don Young, who chairs the Transportation committee. He expressed serious reservations about shifting the Coast Guard into DHS, and we should recognize his expertise on coastal security issues. The Coast Guard and its mission are very important to the Texas Gulf coast, and I don’t want that mission relegated to the back burner in a huge bureaucracy.”
“My district also relies on FEMA for disaster services, especially after recent flooding in Texas,” Paul continued. “My office works closely with FEMA to help constituents who suffered flood losses, and we risk seeing FEMA become less responsive as part of DHS. FEMA needs to be a flexible, locally focused, hands-on agency that helps people quickly after a disaster.”
“My coastal district also relies heavily on shipping for jobs,” Paul stated. “Last year alone, more than one million tons of goods moved through ports in my district. The Customs Service must operate efficiently in these ports, or shipping jobs go elsewhere. I fear the Customs Service will become less focused on the vitality of local ports if its management is further centralized in Washington.”
“Finally, my constituents and my staff caseworkers worry that INS red tape will get worse under DHS,” Paul concluded. “In my district close to the Mexican border, the INS directly affects the lives of thousands of people. Immigration matters are best decided by people familiar with border communities, not by DHS officials 1500 miles away in Washington. I’ve fought to make the INS more responsive and streamlined, and I believe placing the agency in a giant department defeats that goal.”
Posted in Press Releases | No Comments »
Similar posts:
July 26th, 2002
<br />
Statement on Homeland Security Vote<br />
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | No Comments »
Similar posts:
July 26th, 2002
<br />
Comments on HR 5095, Legislation Repealing the FSC/ETI Tax Rules<br />
MR. PAUL: Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to submit my statement regarding the corporate tax bill recently marked up by this committee.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | No Comments »
Similar posts:
July 24th, 2002
Washington, DC- Congressman Ron Paul yesterday offered two different amendments to a homeland security bill that will strengthen our borders against future terrorist attacks. Both amendments offer practical, immediate steps Congress can take to fight terrorism without infringing on the constitutional rights of American citizens.
One amendment prohibits the issuance of student and diversity visas to individuals from terror-sponsoring states. The current State department list of countries labeled “not fully cooperating” with the war on terror includes Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, Syria, North Korea, and Cuba.
“Common sense dictates that we should not be handing out new visas to residents of the very countries that openly despise America and refuse to cooperate with our State department,” Paul stated. “If we are serious about preventing terrorism, we cannot simultaneously give aid and comfort to our enemies by allowing them to live in the U.S.”
A second amendment severely restricts the issuance of new visas to individuals from Saudi Arabia, which he wants added to the State department list of terror-sponsoring states.
“Evidence that Saudi Arabia fosters and promotes terrorism is overwhelming,” Paul stated. “The majority of al-Qaeda members are Saudis, as were most of the September 11th hijackers. The Saudi government encourages radical Islamic Wahabbi sects that call for the destruction of America and the West. The Saudis incubate and spread radical anti-Americanism throughout the Middle East, yet we continue to issue visas to Saudi citizens without any special scrutiny. It’s time to restrict new visas for Saudi nationals.”
Both amendments will be considered by a House committee responsible for crafting homeland security legislation.
Posted in Press Releases | No Comments »
Similar posts:
July 24th, 2002
<br />
The Tragedy of Partial-Birth Abortion<br />
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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…”
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.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | No Comments »
Similar posts:
July 24th, 2002
<br />
Statement on Expulsion of Congressman Jim Traficant<br />
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | No Comments »
Similar posts:
July 23rd, 2002
Washington, DC- Congressman Ron Paul today praised the Bush administration for its decision to eliminate US taxpayer funding for a United Nations program that Paul has long opposed. Secretary of State Powell recently announced that $34 million originally earmarked for the UN Population Fund would instead go to child health programs. Paul hailed the decision as a victory for decency and taxpayer rights.
“The bureaucrats at the UN think they should decide how many children the people of certain nations can have,” Paul stated. “It’s unconscionable that Americans are forced to pay taxes to fund overseas abortions and population schemes that so many find abhorrent. The UN Population Fund in particular promotes a birth quota system in China, where forced abortions and forced sterilizations are commonplace. This despicable social engineering offends most Americans, and their tax dollars should not be funding such a dehumanizing program.”
Paul introduces amendments each year to various spending bills that would defund UN programs, including the UN Population Fund. His opposition to foreign aid is based on the Constitution, which gives Congress no authority whatsoever to send American tax dollars overseas.
“This terrible UN program shows why we should rethink our foreign aid giveaways of taxpayer dollars,” Paul concluded. “The administration should be commended for taking a stand against the UN Population Fund, but ultimately we cannot control what the UN does with the fungible tax dollars we give them. The better approach would be to follow the Constitution, allow taxpayers to keep more of their money, and allow private American charities that fight poverty overseas to flourish.”
Posted in Press Releases | No Comments »
Similar posts:
July 23rd, 2002
<br />
Department of Homeland Security- Who Needs It?<br />
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | No Comments »
Similar posts:
July 17th, 2002
Washington, DC: Congressman Ron Paul is working with several congressional colleagues this week to end trade restrictions that hurt Texas farmers. While the House considers several large spending bills, including a bill that funds agricultural programs, Paul and others plan to use the amendment process to block the Cuban agricultural embargo. More than 270 members of the House voted in April to allow private financing for agricultural sales to Cuba by American banks, and Paul hopes that momentum from that vote will spill over into this week.
“Decades of agricultural trade sanctions have done nothing to topple the Castro regime, but they have hurt American farmers and the Cuban people,” Paul stated. “Our farmers should not be denied access to markets because of a misguided and ineffective State department policy. Our current approach simply opens the door for farmers around the world to exploit the Cuban market. Rather than punishing our farmers with trade embargoes, Congress should be eliminating barriers and opening new markets like Cuba.”
Paul notes that trade advisory groups estimate U.S. exports of food to Cuba could amount to $400 million within five years. He introduced legislation last year that would allow free trade and travel with Cuba, while banning and federal aid or subsidies for the island nation.
Posted in Press Releases | No Comments »
Similar posts: