July 26th, 2005
<br />
Don’t Start a Trade War with China<br />
Mr. Speaker: I rise in strong opposition to this legislation. Isn’t it ironic that the proponents of “free trade agreements” like CAFTA are lining up squarely behind a bill like this that threatens a trade war with China, and at the least calls for the United States to initiate protectionist measures such as punitive tariffs against “subsidized” sectors of the Chinese economy? In reality, this bill, which appeared out of the blue on the House Floor as a suspension bill, is part of a deal made with several Members in return for a few votes on CAFTA. That is why it is ironic: to get to “free trade” with Central America we first need to pass protectionist legislation regarding China.
Mr. Speaker, in addition to the irony of the protectionist flavor of this bill, let me say that we should be careful what we demand of the Chinese government. Take the demand that the government “revalue” its currency, for example. First, there is sufficient precedent to suggest that doing this would have very little effect on China’s trade surplus with the United States. As Barron’s magazine pointed out recently, “the Japanese yen’s value has more than tripled since the breakdown of the Bretton Woods system, yet Japan’s trade surplus remains huge. Why should the unpegging of the Chinese yuan have any greater impact?”
As was pointed out in the Wall Street Journal recently, with the yuan tied to several foreign currencies and the value of the dollar dropping, China could be less inclined to purchase dollars as a way of keeping the yuan down. Fewer Treasury bond purchases by China, in turn, would drive bond prices down and boost yields–which, subsequently, would cause borrowing costs for residential and some corporate customers to increase. Does anyone want to guess what a sudden burst of the real estate bubble might mean for the shaky US economy? This is not an argument for the status quo , however, but rather an observation that there are often unforeseen consequences when we demand that foreign governments manipulate their currency to US “advantage.”
At the very least, American consumers will immediately feel the strengthening of the yuan in the form of higher US retail prices. This will disproportionately affect Americans of lower incomes and, as a consequence, slow the economy and increase the hardship of those struggling to get by. Is this why our constituents have sent us here?
In conclusion, I strongly oppose this ill-considered and potentially destructive bill, and I hope my colleagues will join me in rejecting it.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | No Comments »
Similar posts:
July 22nd, 2005
Washington, DC: The U.S. House of Representatives yesterday voted unanimously in favor of legislation offered by Congressman Ron Paul that will help preserve the right of American citizens to participate in political activity without fear of government surveillance. Paul’s amendment to a bill reauthorizing the Patriot Act makes it clear that the Act should not serve to chill political protest.
“I’m very concerned that the Patriot Act could be used to justify surveillance or intimidation of individuals solely because of their lawful political activities,” Paul stated. “The Act defines terrorism so broadly that legitimate protest or other political action could be chilled. For example, a scuffle at an otherwise peaceful pro-life demonstration might allow the federal government to label the sponsoring organization and its members as terrorists. Similarly, you could be placed under federal surveillance if you belong to a gun rights group that a future administration doesn’t like.”
“These concerns are very real, as evidenced by the abuse of Internal Revenue Service power by both Democratic and Republican administrations,” Paul continued. “Congress must ensure that no future administration uses the Patriot Act to silence or punish political opponents. I’m grateful that my congressional colleagues unanimously agree, and appreciate their support in sending a strong message that the Patriot Act does not give the federal government a green light to suppress political dissent.”
Posted in Press Releases | No Comments »
Similar posts:
July 21st, 2005
<br />
Don’t Reauthorize the Patriot Act<br />
Mr. Speaker, the USA PATRIOT Act and Terrorism Prevention Act (HR 3199) in no way brings the PATRIOT Act into compliance with the Constitution or allays concerns that the powers granted to the government in the act will be used to abuse the rights of the people. Much of the discussion surrounding this bill has revolved around the failure of the bill to extend the sunset clauses.
However, simply sunsetting troublesome provisions does not settle the debates around the PATRIOT Act. If the PATRIOT Act is constitutional and needed, as its proponents swear, why include sunset provisions at all? If it is unconstitutional and pernicious, why not abolish it immediately?
The sunset clauses do perform one useful service in that they force Congress to regularly re-examine the PATRIOT Act. As the people’s representatives, it is our responsibility to keep a close eye on the executive branch to ensure it does not abuse its power. Even if the claims of HR 3199’s supporters that there have been no abuses of PATRIOT Act powers under this administration are true, that does not mean that future administrations will not abuse these powers.
HR 3199 continues to violate the constitution by allowing searches and seizures of American citizens and their property without a warrant issued by an independent court upon a finding of probable cause. The drafters of the Bill of Rights considered this essential protection against an overreaching government. For example, Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, popularly known as the library provision, allows Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Courts, whose standards hardly meet the constitutional requirements of the Fourth Amendment, to issue warrants for individual records, including medical and library records. HR 3199 does reform this provision by clarifying that it can be used to acquire the records of an American citizen only during terrorist investigations. However, this marginal change fails to bring the section up to the constitutional standard of probable cause.
Requiring a showing of probable cause before a warrant may be issued will in no way hamper terrorist investigations. For one thing, federal authorities still would have numerous tools available to investigate and monitor the activities of non-citizens suspected of terrorism. Second, restoring the Fourth Amendment protections would in no way interfere with the provisions of the PATRIOT Act removing the firewalls that prevented the government’s law enforcement and intelligence agencies from sharing information.
The probable cause requirements will not delay a terrorist investigation. Preparations can be made for the issuance of a warrant in the event of an emergency, and allowances can be made for cases where law enforcement does not have time to obtain a warrant. In fact, a requirement that law enforcement demonstrate probable cause may help law enforcement focus their efforts on true threats, thus avoiding the problem of information overload that is handicapping the government’s efforts to identify sources of terrorist financing.
The requirement that law enforcement demonstrate probable cause before a judge preserves the Founders’ system of checks and balances that protects against one branch gathering too much power. The Founders recognized that one of the chief dangers to liberty was the concentration of power in a few hands, which is why they carefully divided power among the three branches. I would remind those of my colleagues who claim that we must set aside the constitutional requirements during war that the founders were especially concerned about the consolidation of power during times of war and national emergences. My colleagues should also keep in mind that PATRIOT Act powers have already been used in non-terrorism related cases, most notably in a bribery investigation in Nevada.
Mr. Speaker, HR 3199 does take some positive steps toward restoring respect for constitutional liberties and checks and balances that the original PATRIOT Act stripped away. However, it still leaves in place large chunks of legislation that threaten individual liberty by giving law enforcement power to snoop into American citizens’ lives without adequate oversight. This power is unnecessary to effectively fight terrorism. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to reject this bill.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | No Comments »
Similar posts:
July 20th, 2005
<br />
The Republican Congress Wastes Billions Overseas<br />
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this foreign relations authorization bill. Something has gone terribly wrong with our foreign policy when we feel we must take almost 21 billion dollars out of the pockets of the American taxpayer and ship it overseas. Imagine what the Founders of this country would say if they were among us to see this blatant disregard for the Constitution and for the founding principles of this country. This bill proceeds from the view that with enough money we can buy friends and influence foreign governments. But as history shows us, we cannot. The trillions of dollars we have shipped overseas as aid, and to influence and manipulate political affairs in sovereign countries, has not made life better for American citizens. It has made them much poorer without much to show for it, however.
Now we have a Republican-controlled Congress and White House, and foreign spending soars. It was not that long ago when conservatives looked at such cavalier handling of US tax dollars with consternation. Now it seems that they are in a race with the Left to see who can spend more.
What is wrong with this bill? Let me just mention a few of the most egregious items. In the name of promoting “religious liberty” and “fighting anti-Semitism” this bill will funnel millions of dollars to the corrupt Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and its Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR). This unaccountable international organization is at the forefront of the manipulation and meddling in the internal affairs of other sovereign states, and has repeatedly dishonored itself through politically-biased monitoring of foreign elections. The OSCE does not deserve a penny from the American taxpayer, but this bill will make sure that the lavishly paid bureaucrats that staff the organization will be able to maintain their standard of living - at our expense. With regard to religious liberty, privately funded voluntary organizations have been shown to be much more effective in promoting tolerance. This is mainly true because these are true grassroots organizations with a stake in their countries and communities, rather than unelected international bureaucrats imposing politically correct edicts from above.
This bill spends a total of four and a half billion dollars on various United Nations activities, UN peacekeeping, and US dues to various international organizations. Forcing the taxpayer to continue to underwrite these organizations, which do not operate in our best interests, is unconscionable.
This bill continues to fund organizations such as the National Endowment for Democracy, which as I have written before has very little to do with democracy. It is an organization that uses US tax money to actually subvert democracy, by showering funding on favored political parties or movements overseas. It underwrites color-coded “people’s revolutions” overseas that look more like pages out of Lenin’s writings on stealing power than genuine indigenous democratic movements. The NED used American taxpayer dollars to attempt to guarantee that certain candidates overseas are winners and others are losers in the electoral processes overseas. What kind of message do we think this sends to foreign states? The National Endowment for Democracy should receive no funding at all, but this bill continues to funnel tens of millions of dollars to that unaccountable organization.
I am also very concerned about several of the amendments to this legislation. First, the extremely misleading UN “reform” act was slipped into this bill even though it was already passed on the floor as a separate bill. As I have written about this terrible legislation, “it will give the United Nations unprecedented new authority to intervene in sovereign states.”
Another amendment will create a chilling “Active Response Corps,” to be made up of US government bureaucrats and members of “non-governmental organizations.” Its purpose will be to “stabilize” countries undergoing “democratic transition.” This means that as soon as the NED-funded “people’s revolutionaries” are able to seize power in the streets, US funded teams will be deployed to make sure they retain power. All in the name of democracy, of course.
Mr. Speaker, this is a shameful day for the US Congress. We are taking billions out of the pockets of Americans and sending the money overseas in violation of the Constitution. These are billions that will not be available for investment inside the United States: investment in infrastructure, roads, new businesses, education. These are billions that will not be available to American families, to take care of their children or senior relatives, or to give to their churches or favorite charities. We must not continue to spend money like there is no tomorrow. We are going broke, and bills like this are like a lead foot on the accelerator toward bankruptcy.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | No Comments »
Similar posts:
July 14th, 2005
<br />
Suicide Terrorism<br />
Mr. Speaker, more than half of the American people now believe that the Iraqi war has made the U.S. less safe. This is a dramatic shift in sentiment from 2 years ago. Early support for the war reflected a hope for a safer America, and it was thought to be an appropriate response to the 9/11 attacks. The argument was that the enemy attacked us because of our freedom, our prosperity, and our way of life. It was further argued that it was important to engage the potential terrorists over there rather than here. Many bought this argument and supported the war. That is now changing.
It is virtually impossible to stop determined suicide bombers. Understanding why they sacrifice themselves is crucial to ending what appears to be senseless and irrational. But there is an explanation.
I, like many, have assumed that the driving force behind the suicide attacks was Islamic fundamentalism. Promise of instant entry into paradise as a reward for killing infidels seemed to explain the suicides, a concept that is foreign to our way of thinking. The world’s expert on suicide terrorism has convinced me to rethink this simplistic explanation, that terrorism is merely an expression of religious extremism and resentment of a foreign culture.
Robert Pape, author of “Dying to Win,” explains the strategic logic of suicide terrorism. Pape has collected a database of every suicide terrorist attack between 1980 and 2004, all 462 of them. His conclusions are enlightening and crucial to our understanding the true motivation behind the attacks against Western nations by Islamic terrorists. After his exhaustive study, Pape comes to some very important conclusions.
Religious beliefs are less important than supposed. For instance, the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, a Marxist secular group, are the world’s leader in suicide terrorism . The largest Islamic fundamentalist countries have not been responsible for any suicide terrorist attack. None have come from Iran or the Sudan. Until the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Iraq never had a suicide terrorist attack in all of its history. Between 1995 and 2004, the al Qaeda years, two-thirds of all attacks came from countries where the U.S. had troops stationed. Iraq’s suicide missions today are carried out by Iraqi Sunnis and Saudis. Recall, 15 of the 19 participants in the 9/11 attacks were Saudis.
The clincher is this: the strongest motivation, according to Pape, is not religion but rather a desire “to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory the terrorists view as their homeland.”
The best news is that if stopping suicide terrorism is a goal we seek, a solution is available to us. Cease the occupation of foreign lands and the suicide missions will cease. Between 1982 and 1986, there were 41 suicide terrorist attacks in Lebanon. Once the U.S., the French, and Israel withdrew their forces from Lebanon, there were no more attacks. The reason the attacks stop, according to Pape, is that the Osama bin Ladens of the world no longer can inspire potential suicide terrorists despite their continued fanatical religious beliefs.
Pape is convinced after his extensive research that the longer and more extensive the occupation of Muslim territories, the greater the chance of more 9/11-type attacks on the U.S. He is convinced that the terrorists strategically are holding off hitting the U.S. at the present time in an effort to break up the coalition by hitting our European allies. He claims it is just a matter of time if our policies do not change.
It is time for us to consider a strategic reassessment of our policy of foreign interventionism, occupation, and nation-building. It is in our national interest to do so and in the interest of world peace.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | No Comments »
Similar posts:
July 11th, 2005
<br />
Henry Lamb- A Great Freedom Fighter Documents how your Dietary<br />
Supplements are Under Attack<br />
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to read “Your dietary supplements: Under attack again” by Henry Lamb, which I am inserting into the record. Mr. Lamb explains the threat to American consumers of dietary supplements and American sovereignty by the Codex Alimentarius commission, commonly referred to simply as Codex. The United Nations created Codex to establish international standards for foods and medicines. Just last week, representatives of the United States government agreed to a final version of Codex’s standards on dietary supplements which, if implemented in the United States, could drastically reduce Americans’ ability to obtain the supplements of their choice. Members of the American bureaucracy may be hoping to achieve via international fiat what they cannot achieve through the domestic law-making process–the power to restrict consumers’ access to dietary supplements. American bureaucrats may gain this power if the World Trade Organization, which considers Codex “guidelines” the standard by which all other regulations are judged, decides that our failure to “harmonize” our regulations of dietary supplements to meet Codex’s recommendations violates international trading standards! This could occur despite the fact that American consumers do not want to be subjected to the restrictive regulations common in other parts of the world, such as the European Union.
This article is typical of Henry Lamb’s work. For almost twenty years, beginning at an age when most Americans are contemplating retirement, Mr. Lamb has worked to expose and stop threats to American liberty, sovereignty, and prosperity. Mr. Lamb became involved in the battle for liberty when, as the CEO of a Tennessee construction company, he founded a state association of contractors to work against excessive regulations. In 1988, Henry Lamb founded the Environmental Conservation Organization to defend true environmentalism, which is rooted in the truth that there is no better steward of the environment than a private property owner, from those who used the environment as a cover for their radical statist agendas. Since 1992, Mr. Lamb and ECO have focused on the threat to economic liberty and self-government posed by the radical global environmental agenda.
Henry Lamb works to further the cause of liberty by giving speeches around the country, editing an on-line magazine, making numerous television and radio appearances, and writing a weekly column to inform his fellow Americans of the latest scheme to undermine their freedoms. Mr. Lamb is the model of a citizen-activist, and all who wish to become involved in the battle for freedom can learn from his example. In conclusion, I once again urge my colleagues to read Mr. Lamb’s article to learn about the need to protect American consumers from Codex, and I thank Mr. Lamb for his tireless devotion to the cause of freedom.
YOUR DIETARY SUPPLEMENTS: UNDER ATTACK AGAIN (from WorldNetDaily, June 11, 2005)
The Codex Alimentarius Commission sounds like one of those shadowy, sinister organizations conjured up by one-world-government nuts to scare people.
The Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization created this commission in the early 1960s to set standards for food safety and to “harmonize” the laws of member nations. The commission was endorsed by U.N. Resolution 39/248, which says:
“When formulating national policies and plans with regard to food, governments should take into account the need of all consumers for food security and should support and, as far as possible, adopt standards from the ….. Codex Alimentarius. …..”
The Codex Alimentarius Commission consists of delegates from 163 member nations representing 97 percent of the world’s population. It meets every two years, either in Rome or Geneva. Between meetings, the commission is governed by an executive committee that directs the activities of its many committees.
Of immediate concern is the ongoing effort to bring dietary supplements in America under the control of standards set by this commission. Dietary supplements generate a $17 billion industry in the United States, which affects more than 150 million consumers, according to Congressional findings (H.R. 2485). Proposed procedures and standards could virtually destroy this market and deprive millions of Americans of the supplements they want to use.
The European Union Directive on Dietary Supplements, which becomes law in August, severely restricts the types and quantities of supplements that may be legally sold. Most forms of vitamins C and E, for example, are not available, or are available only in extremely small doses. If current plans proceed on course, American consumers are in for a shock.
How can this little-known international commission control what consumers buy in the United States?
An even less-known agency, deep within the bowels of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is responsible for U.S. participation in the Codex Commission and designates delegates to each of the commission’s committees. Barbara O. Schneeman is the delegate to the Codex Committee on Nutrition and Food for Special Dietary Uses.
The effort to regulate dietary supplements has been under way for more than a decade. In 1994, Congress adopted the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act, which kept supplements beyond the reach of the drug police. In the past, Codex recommendations have been non-binding. Now, however, the Codex Alimentarius Commission is teaming up with the World Trade Organization to bring international enforcement to the dietary-supplement battle.
Ironically, it was primarily the U.S. that brought the WTO into existence in 1994, as the successor to GATT, the General Agreement on Tarriffs and Trade. The WTO agreement specifically requires that the member nations–including the U.S.–conform its laws to meet the requirements of WTO decisions. Failure to conform results in stiff financial penalties. The Codex Commission and the European Union want the WTO to enforce Codex standards, which fly directly in the face of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act.
Pascal Lamy of France was just selected as director general of the WTO. Lamy served as a member of the French Socialist Party’s steering committee and was chief of staff and representative of the European Commission for President Jacques Delors. Since 1995, he has served as a member of the Central Office of the Mouvement Européen (France) and as a member of the European Commission, responsible for trade.
The Codex Commission will be meeting in Rome July 4-9 to adopt the final rules on dietary supplement use. Dr. Carolyn Dean, president of Friends of Freedom International, will attend this meeting and return to the U.S. just in time to present her report to the Sixth Annual Freedom 21 Conference in Reno, July 14-16.
The Codex Alimentarius Commission’s reach is much broader than dietary supplements. Its committees are also working on standards for pesticide residue, labeling of all kinds of foods, food additives and nutrients, veterinary medicine and drugs, as well as standards and methods for analysis. The function of this organization is to establish standards for all food worldwide and to enforce those standards through the power of the World Trade Organization.
Few people know that there is such a thing as the Codex Alimentarius Commission. It was created to promote food safety in international trade. It is on the brink of becoming an Orwellian bureaucracy–far worse than the worst fantasies of the one-world conspiracy theories.
The Codex Alimentarius Commission is neither fantasy nor theory; it is real.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | No Comments »
Similar posts: