March 30th, 2004
<br />
Don’t Expand NATO!<br />
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. I do so because further expansion of NATO, an outdated alliance, is not in our national interest and may well constitute a threat to our national security in the future.
More than 50 years ago the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was formed to defend Western Europe and the United States against attack from the communist nations of Eastern Europe. It was an alliance of sovereign nations bound together in common purpose - for mutual defense. The deterrence value of NATO helped kept the peace throughout the Cold War. In short, NATO achieved its stated mission. With the fall of the Soviet system and the accompanying disappearance of the threat of attack, in 1989-1991, NATO’s reason to exist ceased. Unfortunately, as with most bureaucracies, the end of NATO’s mission did not mean the end of NATO. Instead, heads of NATO member states gathered in 1999 desperately attempting to devise new missions for the outdated and adrift alliance. This is where NATO moved from being a defensive alliance respecting the sovereignty of its members to an offensive and interventionist organization, concerned now with “economic, social and political difficulties…ethnic and religious rivalries, territorial disputes, inadequate or failed efforts at reform, the abuse of human rights, and the dissolution of states,” in the words of the Washington 1999 Summit.
And we saw the fruits of this new NATO mission in the former Yugoslavia, where the US, through NATO, attacked a sovereign state that threatened neither the United States nor its own neighbors. In Yugoslavia, NATO abandoned the claim it once had to the moral high ground. The result of the illegal and immoral NATO intervention in the Balkans speaks for itself: NATO troops will occupy the Balkans for the foreseeable future. No peace has been attained, merely the cessation of hostilities and a permanent dependency on US foreign aid.
The further expansion of NATO is in reality a cover for increased US interventionism in Europe and beyond. It will be a conduit for more unconstitutional US foreign aid and US interference in the internal politics of member nations, especially the new members from the former East.
It will also mean more corporate welfare at home. As we know, NATO membership demands a minimum level of military spending of its member states. For NATO’s new members, the burden of significantly increased military spending when there are no longer external threats is hard to meet. Unfortunately, this is where the US government steps in, offering aid and subsidized loans to these members so they can purchase more unneeded and unnecessary military equipment. In short, it is nothing more than corporate welfare for the US military industrial complex.
The expansion of NATO to these seven countries, we have heard, will open them up to the further expansion of US military bases, right up to the border of the former Soviet Union. Does no one worry that this continued provocation of Russia might have negative effects in the future? Is it necessary?
Further, this legislation encourages the accession of Albania, Macedonia, and Croatia - nations that not long ago were mired in civil and regional wars. The promise of US military assistance if any of these states are attacked is obviously a foolhardy one. What will the mutual defense obligations we are entering into mean if two Balkan NATO members begin hostilities against each other (again)?
In conclusion, we should not be wasting US tax money and taking on more military obligations expanding NATO. The alliance is a relic of the Cold War, a hold-over from another time, an anachronism. It should be disbanded, the sooner the better.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | No Comments »
Similar posts:
March 25th, 2004
<br />
Oppose the Spendthrift 2005 Federal Budget Resolution<br />
Mr. Speaker, I once again find myself compelled to vote against the annual budget resolution (HConRes 393) for a very simple reason: it makes government bigger. Like many of my Republican colleagues who curiously voted for today’s enormous budget, I campaign on a simple promise that I will work to make government smaller. This means I cannot vote for any budget that increases spending over previous years. In fact, I would have a hard time voting for any budget that did not slash federal spending by at least 25%, a feat that becomes less unthinkable when we remember that the federal budget in 1990 was less than half what it is today. Did anyone really think the federal government was uncomfortably small just 14 years ago? It once took more than 100 years for the federal budget to double, now it takes less than a decade. We need to end the phony rhetoric about “priorities” and recognize federal spending as the runaway freight train that it is.A federal government that spends 2.4 trillion dollars in one year and consumes roughly one-third of the nation’s GDP is far too large.
Neither political party wants to address the fundamental yet unspoken issue lurking beneath any budget debate: What is the proper role for government in our society?Are these ever-growing social services and defense expenditures really proper in a free country?We need to understand that the more government spends, the more freedom is lost. Instead of simply debating spending levels, we ought to be debating whether the departments, agencies, and programs funded by the budget should exist at all.My Republican colleagues especially ought to know this. Unfortunately, however, the GOP has decided to abandon principle and pander to the entitlements crowd. But this approach will backfire, because Democrats will always offer to spend even more than Republicans. When Republicans offer to spend $500 billion on Medicare, Democrats will offer $600 billion. Why not?It’s all funny money anyway, and it helps them get reelected.
I object strenuously to the term “baseline budget.” In Washington, this means that the previous year’s spending levels represent only a baseline starting point. Both parties accept that each new budget will spend more than the last, the only issue being how much more. If Republicans offer a budget that grows federal spending by 3%, while Democrats seek 6% growth, Republicans trumpet that they are the party of smaller government! But expanding the government slower than some would like is not the same as reducing it.
Furthermore, today’s budget debate further entrenches the phony concept of discretionary versus nondiscretionary spending. An increasing percentage of the annual federal budget is categorized as “nondiscretionary” entitlement spending, meaning Congress ostensibly has no choice whether to fund certain programs. In fact, roughly two-thirds of the fiscal year 2005 budget is consumed by nondiscretionary spending. When Congress has no say over how two-thirds of the federal budget is spent, the American people effectively have no say either. Why in the world should the American people be forced to spend 1.5 trillion dollars funding programs that cannot even be reviewed at budget time? The very concept of nondiscretionary spending is a big-government statist’s dream, because it assumes that we as a society simply have accepted that most of the federal leviathan must be funded as a matter of course. NO program or agency should be considered sacred, and no funding should be considered inevitable.
The assertion that this budget will reduce taxes is nonsense. Budget bills do not change the tax laws one bit. Congress can pass this budget today and raise taxes tomorrow- budget and tax bills are completely separate and originate from different committees. The budget may make revenue projections based on tax cuts, but the truth is that Congress has no idea what federal revenues will be in any future year. Similarly, the deficit reduction supposedly contained in the budget is illusory. The federal government always spends more in future years than originally projected, and always runs single-year deficits when one factors in raids on funds supposedly earmarked for Social Security. The notion that today’s budget will impose fiscal restraint on Congress in the future is laughable- Congress will vote for new budgets every year without the slightest regard for what we do today.
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues have discussed the details of this budget ad nauseam. The increases in domestic, foreign, and military spending would not be needed if Congress stopped trying to build an empire abroad and a nanny state at home. Our interventionist foreign policy and growing entitlement society will bankrupt this nation if we do not change the way we think about the proper role of the federal government.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | No Comments »
Similar posts:
March 24th, 2004
Washington, DC- For the sixth year in a row, Congressman Ron Paul has returned a substantial portion of his annual office budget to taxpayers. Preliminary reports from the congressional Office of Finance indicate that Paul’s office had approximately $210,000 left in its operating account at the end of 2003, a figure representing more than 20% of the annual office budget. By contrast, nearly all federal departments, agencies, and programs spend every last penny (and more) of their yearly budgets.
Congressman Paul maintains an office in Washington and two district offices in Freeport and Victoria. The district offices provide critical personal services, helping constituents with everything from veterans’ issues and Social Security benefits to IRS and immigration problems. Paul maintains high-quality constituent service through low staff turnover, which keeps retraining costs to a minimum. His experienced district staff directors consistently receive high marks for providing excellent customer service, but they also operate their offices efficiently.
Paul introduced cost-cutting measures several years ago that included negotiating low office rents, reducing costly postage by using electronic mail, and using flexible part-time staff to help with overflow work. The result has been a steady savings of hundreds of thousands of dollars. Since returning to Congress in 1997, Paul’s office has returned nearly one million dollars to the federal Treasury.
Posted in Press Releases | No Comments »
Similar posts:
March 22nd, 2004
<br />
Don’t Let the FDA Block Access to Needed Health Care Information<br />
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Health Information Independence Act. This Act restores the right of consumers to purchase the dietary supplements of their choice and receive accurate information about the health benefits of foods and dietary supplements. The Act restricts the Food and Drug Administration’s power to impede consumers access to truthful claims regarding the benefits of foods and dietary supplements to those cases where the FDA has evidence that a product poses a threat to safety and well-being, or that a product does not have a disclaimer informing consumers that the claims are not FDA-approved.
Claims that could threaten public safety, or that are marketed without a disclaimer, would have to be reviewed by an independent review board, comprised of independent scientific experts randomly chosen by the FDA. Anyone who is (or has been) on the FDA’s payroll is disqualified from serving on the board. The FDA is forbidden from exercising any influence over the review board. If the board recommends approval of a health claim, then the FDA must approve the claim.
The board also must consider whether any claims can be rendered non-misleading by adopting a disclaimer before rejecting a claim out of hand. For example, if the board finds the scientific evidence does not conclusively support a claim, but the claim could be rendered non-misleading if accompanied with a disclaimer, then the board must approve the claim- provided it is always accompanied by an appropriate disclaimer. The disclaimer would be a simple statement to the effect that “scientific studies on these claims are inconclusive” and/or “these claims are not approved by the FDA.” Thus, the bill tilts the balance of federal law in favor of allowing consumers access to information regarding the health benefits of foods and dietary supplements, which is proper in a free society.
The procedures established by the Health Information Independence Act are a fair and balanced way to ensure consumers have access to truthful information about dietary supplements. Over the past decade, the American people have made it clear they do not want the federal government to interfere with their access to dietary supplements, yet the FDA continues to engage in heavy-handed attempts to restrict such access.
In 1994, Congress responded to the American people’s desire for greater access to information about the benefits of dietary supplements by passing the Dietary Supplements and Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA), liberalizing rules regarding the regulation of dietary supplements. Congressional offices received a record number of comments in favor of DSHEA.
Despite DSHEA, FDA officials continued to attempt to enforce regulations aimed at keeping the American public in the dark about the benefits of dietary supplements. Finally, in the case of Pearson v. Shalala, the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit Court reaffirmed consumers’ First Amendment right to learn about dietary supplements without unnecessary interference from the FDA. The Pearson decision anticipated my legislation by suggesting the FDA adopt disclaimers in order to render some health claims non-misleading.
In the years since the Pearson decision, members of Congress have had to continually intervene with the FDA to ensure it followed the court order. The FDA continues to deny consumers access to truthful health information. Clearly, the FDA is determined to continue to (as the Pearson court pointed out) act as though liberalizing regulations regarding health claims is the equivalent of “asking consumers to buy something while hypnotized and therefore they are bound to be misled.”
The FDA’s “grocery store censorship” not only violates consumers’ First Amendment rights- by preventing consumers from learning about the benefits of foods and dietary supplements, the FDA’s policies are preventing consumers from taking easy steps to improve their own health!
If Congress is serious about respecting First Amendment rights, and the people’s right to improve their own health, we must remove the FDA’s authority to censor non-misleading health claims, and claims that can be rendered non-misleading by the simple device of adopting a disclaimer.
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.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | No Comments »
Similar posts:
March 17th, 2004
The Federal Reserve, acting through its rate-setting Federal Open Market Committee, announced Tuesday that it would leave interest rates unchanged. The financial press dutifully reported this latest development, never questioning why, in a supposedly free, capitalist country, centralized economic planners set interest rates at all.
The problem for Mr. Greenspan and company is that the Fed simply has run out of room to cut rates. The federal funds rate already stands at 1%, a 46-year low. Greenspan has cut interest rates 13 times just since 2000, but Wall Street’s thirst for cheap money cannot be satisfied. However, the markets have not responded. The trend that developed steadily throughout the 1990’s, with the Fed cutting rates each time the economy showed signs of a downturn, has run its course.
The Japanese economy provides a vivid example of the futility of manipulating interest rates. Japan’s central bank began cutting rates more than a decade ago, but the country remains mired in a stagnant economy. Ultimately, interest rates were cut to zero, where they have remained for several years. This rate cutting has failed to stimulate the economy, however. The Nikkei stock market index remains at 1980s levels, while Japanese unemployment recently exceeded 5%, the highest rate in decades. The Japanese experience should tell us that prosperity cannot be created out of thin air by a central bank.
In a truly free economy, interest rates are determined by market forces rather than central economic planners. The availability of investment capital, and the interest rate at which it is available, depends on savings, not fiat money and credit. The Fed’s easy credit policies simply have made the cost of borrowing money artificially low. With lots of cheap money available, businesses and individuals spend with less discipline and incur more debt. Cheap credit created a wildly overvalued stock market, with many companies trading at outrageous prices. Eventually the bubble had to burst, resulting in record numbers of both personal and business bankruptcies.
The laws of supply and demand work better than any central bank bureaucrat in determining the correct cost of money, without the political favoritism and secrecy that characterize central banks. Americans should not tolerate the manipulation of our economy and the inflation of our currency by an unaccountable institution. The turbulent period we have entered may serve to remind Americans that the Fed cannot suspend the laws of economics. The key to lasting prosperity is a return to true private banking, where interest rates are set by the free market and dollars are backed by gold.
Posted in Press Releases | No Comments »
Similar posts:
March 17th, 2004
<br />
Oppose a Flawed Policy of Preemptive War<br />
Mr. Speaker, today during the floor debate on H. Res. 557 (the Iraq resolution), I unfortunately was denied time to express my dissent on the policy of preemptive war in Iraq- even though I am a member of the International Relations committee. The fact that the committee held no hearings and did not mark up the resolution further challenges the fairness of the process.
I wish to express my opposition to H. Res. 557, obviously not because our armed forces do not deserve praise, but rather because our policy in the Persian Gulf is seriously flawed. A resolution commending our forces should not be used to rubber-stamp a policy of folly. To do so is disingenuous. Though the resolution may have political benefits, it will prove to be historically incorrect.
Justifying preemption is not an answer to avoiding appeasement. Very few wars are necessary. Very few wars are good wars. And this one does not qualify. Most wars are costly beyond measure, in life and limb and economic hardship. In this regard, this war does qualify: 566 deaths, 10,000 casualties, and hundreds of billions of dollars for a victory requiring self-deception.
Rather than bragging about victory, we should recognize that the war raging on between the Muslim East and the Christian West has intensified and spread, leaving our allies and our own people less safe. Denying we have an interest in oil, and denying that occupying an Islamic country is an affront to the sensitivities of most Arabs and Muslims, is foolhardy.
Reasserting U.N. Security Council resolutions as a justification for the war further emphasizes our sacrifice of sovereignty, and only underscores how Congress has reneged its constitutional responsibility over war.
This resolution dramatizes how we have forgotten that for too long we were staunch military and economic allies of Saddam Hussein, confirming the folly of our policy of foreign meddling over many decades. From the days of installing the Shah of Iran to the current worldwide spread of hostilities and hatred, our unnecessary involvement shows so clearly how unintended consequences come back to haunt generation after generation.
Someday our leaders ought to ask why Switzerland, Sweden, Canada, Mexico, and many others are not potential targets of an Islamic attack. Falsely believing that al Qaeda was aligned with Saddam Hussein has resulted in al Qaeda now having a strong presence and influence in Iraq. Falsely believing that Iraq had a supply of weapons of mass destruction has resulted in a dramatic loss of U.S. credibility, as anti-Americanism spreads around the world. Al Qaeda recruitment, sadly, has been dramatically increased.
We all praise our troops and support them. Challenging one’s patriotism for not supporting this resolution and/or policy in the Persian Gulf is not legitimate. We should all be cautious about endorsing and financing a policy that unfortunately expands the war rather than ends it.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | No Comments »
Similar posts:
March 10th, 2004
<br />
An Indecent Attack on the First Amendment<br />
We will soon debate the “Broadcast Indecency Act of 2004″ on the House Floor. This atrocious piece of legislation should be defeated. It cannot improve the moral behavior of U.S. citizens, but it can do irreparable harm to our cherished right to freedom of speech.
This attempt at regulating and punishing indecent and sexually provocative language suggests a comparison to the Wahhabi religious police of Saudi Arabia, who control the “Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice. “Though both may be motivated by the good intentions of improving moral behavior, using government force to do so is fraught with great danger and has no chance of success.
Regulating speech is a dangerous notion, and not compatible with the principles of a free society.The Founders recognized this, and thus explicitly prohibited Congress from making any laws that might abridge freedom of speech or of the press.
But we have in recent decades seen a steady erosion of this protection of free speech.
This process started years ago when an arbitrary distinction was made by the political left between commercial and non-commercial speech, thus permitting government to regulate and censor commercial speech. Since only a few participated in commercial speech, few cared– and besides, the government was there to protect us from unethical advertisements. Supporters of this policy failed to understand that anti-fraud laws and state laws could adequately deal with this common problem found in all societies.
Disheartening as it may be, the political left, which was supposed to care more about the 1st Amendment than the right, has ventured in recent years to curtail so-called “hate speech” by championing political correctness. In the last few decades we’ve seen the political-correctness crowd, in the name of improving personal behavior and language, cause individuals to lose their jobs, cause careers to be ruined, cause athletes to be trashed, and cause public speeches on liberal campuses to be disrupted and even banned. These tragedies have been caused by the so-called champions of free speech. Over the years, tolerance for the views of those with whom campus liberals disagree has nearly evaporated. The systematic and steady erosion of freedom of speech continues.
Just one year ago we saw a coalition of both left and right push through the radical Campaign Finance Reform Act, which strictly curtails the rights all Americans to speak out against particular candidates at the time of elections. Amazingly, this usurpation by Congress was upheld by the Supreme Court, which showed no concern for the restrictions on political speech during political campaigns. Instead of admitting that money and corruption in government is not a consequence of too much freedom of expression, but rather a result of government acting outside the bounds of the Constitution, this new law addressed a symptom rather than the cause of special interest control of our legislative process.
And now comes the right’s attack on the 1st Amendment, with its effort to stamp out “indecent” language on the airways. And it will be assumed that if one is not with them in this effort, then one must support the trash seen and heard in the movie theaters and on our televisions and radios. For social rather than constitutional reasons, some on the left express opposition to this proposal.
But this current proposal is dangerous. Since most Americans- I hope- are still for freedom of expression of political ideas and religious beliefs, no one claims that anyone who endorses freedom of speech therefore endorses the nutty philosophy and religious views that are expressed. We should all know that the 1st Amendment was not written to protect non-controversial mainstream speech, but rather the ideas and beliefs of what the majority see as controversial or fringe.
The temptation has always been great to legislatively restrict rudeness, prejudice, and minority views, and it’s easiest to start by attacking the clearly obnoxious expressions that most deem offensive. The real harm comes later. But “later” is now approaching.
The failure to understand that radio, TV, and movies more often than not reflect the peoples’ attitudes prompts this effort. It was never law that prohibited moral degradation in earlier times. It was the moral standards of the people who rejected the smut that we now see as routine entertainment. Merely writing laws and threatening huge fines will not improve the moral standards of the people. Laws like the proposed “Broadcast Indecency Act of 2004″ merely address the symptom of a decaying society, while posing a greater threat to freedom of expression. Laws may attempt to silence the bigoted and the profane, but the hearts and minds of those individuals will not be changed. Societal standards will not be improved. Government has no control over these standards, and can only undermine liberty in its efforts to make individuals more moral or the economy fairer.
Proponents of using government authority to censor certain undesirable images and comments on the airwaves resort to the claim that the airways belong to all the people, and therefore it’s the government’s responsibility to protect them. The mistake of never having privatized the radio and TV airwaves does not justify ignoring the 1st Amendment mandate that “Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech.” When everyone owns something, in reality nobody owns it. Control then occurs merely by the whims of the politicians in power. From the very start, licensing of radio and TV frequencies invited government censorship that is no less threatening than that found in totalitarian societies.
We should not ignore the smut and trash that has invaded our society, but laws like this will not achieve the goals that many seek. If a moral society could be created by law, we would have had one a long time ago. The religious fundamentalists in control of other countries would have led the way. Instead, authoritarian violence reigns in those countries.
If it is not recognized that this is the wrong approach to improve the quality of the airways, a heavy price will be paid. The solution to decaying moral standards has to be voluntary, through setting examples in our families, churches, and communities- never by government coercion.
But the argument is always that the people are in great danger if government does not act by:
-Restricting free expression in advertising;
-Claiming insensitive language hurts people, and political correctness guidelines are needed to protect the weak;
-Arguing that campaign finance reform is needed to hold down government corruption by the special interests;
-Banning indecency on the airways that some believe encourages immoral behavior.
If we accept the principle that these dangers must be prevented through coercive government restrictions on expression, it must logically follow that all dangers must be stamped out, especially those that are even more dangerous than those already dealt with. This principle is adhered to in all totalitarian societies. That means total control of freedom of expression of all political and religious views. This certainly was the case with the Soviets, the Nazis, the Cambodians, and the Chinese communists. And yet these governments literally caused the deaths of hundreds of millions of people throughout the 20th Century. This is the real danger, and if we’re in the business of protecting the people from all danger, this will be the logical next step.
It could easily be argued that this must be done, since political ideas and fanatical religious beliefs are by far the most dangerous ideas known to man. Sadly, we’re moving in that direction, and no matter how well intended the promoters of these limits on the 1st Amendment are, both on the left and the right, they nevertheless endorse the principle of suppressing any expressions of dissent if one chooses to criticize the government.
When the direct attack on political and religious views comes, initially it will be on targets that most will ignore, since they will be seen as outside the mainstream and therefore unworthy of defending- like the Branch Davidians or Lyndon LaRouche.
Rush Limbaugh has it right (at least on this one), and correctly fears the speech police. “I’m in the free speech business,” as he defends Howard Stern and criticizes any government effort to curtail speech on the airways, while recognizing the media companies’ authority and responsibility to self-regulate.
Congress has been a poor steward of the 1st Amendment. This newest attack should alert us all to the dangers of government regulating freedom of speech– of any kind.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | No Comments »
Similar posts:
March 3rd, 2004
For years, the central planners at the Federal Reserve have assured us that inflation is dormant, if not dead. Fed Governor Ben Bernanke, during a recent speech in Washington, took pains to emphasize that inflation is “Under very good control.” But considering the relentless increase in the money supply engineered by the Fed over the last decade, one wonders whether Messrs. Bernanke, Greenspan, and company protest too much.
The most widely used measurement of inflation is the CPI, an index that many economists believe grossly understates true inflation. The most glaring problem is that CPI excludes housing prices, instead tracking rents. The Fed’s easy credit policies have created an artificial mortgage boom, with many Americans who would not have met credit standards 30 years ago now buying houses. With more demand for houses, demand for rentals has diminished, causing rental prices to drop- distorting the CPI downward. However, everyone knows that housing prices have risen dramatically over the last decade in most parts of the country. So the single biggest expense for most Americans- their mortgage- certainly has inflated!
But not only housing prices are on the rise. London economist Sean Corrigan reports that the prices of many other goods and services, including medical care and energy, have also increased substantially. Commodity prices in particular have risen recently. In fact, the Journal of Commerce index for widely traded commodities has risen 49% since last spring! Fed Chairman Greenspan may dismiss commodities as mere “physical” assets in his vision of an increasingly “conceptual” economy, but average Americans should understand how these dramatic increases in commodity prices will affect our pocketbooks:
-gold is around $400, near its 14-year high; platinum is at a 25-year high;
-steel prices are up 160%; aluminum 50%; copper 120%;
-lumber has soared 93% in less than a year;
-coal prices are up 50% over one year ago;
-lead is at a 17-year high; nickel is at a 13-year high;
-beans, corn, rice, and soy have all risen at least 40%.
With all due respect to Mr. Greenspan and his colleagues, real inflation as measured by an increase in the money supply is not so easy to disguise. As Mr. Corrigan deftly defines it, inflation is ultimately “A perceived surfeit of money compared to all the other goods (and the other kinds of money) into which it thus becomes ever more eagerly exchanged.” The surfeit of U.S. dollars created by the Fed can only cause consumer prices to rise, no matter what our government officials tell us.
Posted in Press Releases | No Comments »
Similar posts: