November 18th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, as one who has long urged my colleagues to cut spending, and who has consistently voted against excessive and unconstitutional expenditures, I am sure many in this body expect me to be an enthusiastic supporter of HR 4241, the Deficit Reduction Act. After all, supporters of this bill are claiming it dramatically reforms federal programs and puts Congress back on the road to fiscal responsibility.
For all the passionate debate this bill has generated, its effect on the federal government and taxpayers are relatively minor. HR 4241 does not even reduce federal expenditures! That’s right–if HR 4241 passes, the federal budget, including entitlement programs, will continue to grow. HR 4241 simply slows down the rate of growth of federal spending. The federal government may spend less in the future if this bill passes then it otherwise would, but it will still spend more than it does today. To put HR 4241 in perspective, consider that this bill reduces spending by less than $50 billion over 10 years, while the most recent “emergency” supplemental passed by this Congress appropriated $82 billion dollars to be spent this year.
HR 4241 reduces total federal entitlement expenditures by one half of one percent over the next five years. For all the trumpeting about how this bill gets “runaway entitlement spending” under control, HR 4241 fails to deal with the biggest entitlement problem facing our nation–the multi-billion dollar Medicare prescription drug plan, which actually will harm many seniors by causing them to lose their private coverage, forcing them into an inferior government-run program. In fact, the Medicare prescription drug plan will cost $55 billion in fiscal year 2006 alone, while HR 4241 will reduce spending by only $5 billion next year. Yet some House members who voted for every expansion of the federal government considered by this Congress will vote for these small reductions in spending and then brag about their fiscal conservatism to their constituents.
As is common with bills claiming to reduce spending, the majority of spending reductions occur in the later years of the plan. Since it is impossible to bind future Congresses, this represents little more than a suggestion that spending in fiscal years 2009 and 2010 reflect the levels stated in this bill. My fiscally responsible colleagues should keep in mind that rarely, if ever, does a Congress actually follow through on spending reductions set by a previous Congress. Thus, relying on future Congresses to cut spending in the “out years” is a recipe for failure.
One provision of the bill that undeniably would have benefited the American people, the language opening up the ANWR region of Alaska and expanding offshore drilling, was removed from the bill. As my colleagues know, increased gas prices are a top concern of the American people. Expanding the supply of domestically produced oil is an obvious way to address these concerns, yet Congress refuses to take this reasonable step.
Mr. Speaker, some of the entitlement reforms in HR 4241 are worthwhile. For example, I am hopeful the provision allowing states to require a co-payment for Medicaid will help relieve physicians of the burden of providing uncompensated care, which is an issue of great concern to physicians in my district. Still, I am concerned that the changes in pharmaceutical reimbursement proposed by the bill may unfairly impact independent pharmacies, and I am disappointed we will not get to vote on an alterative that would have the same budgetary impact without harming independent pharmacies.
I also question the priorities of singling out programs, such as Medicaid and food stamps, that benefit the neediest Americans, while continuing to increase spending on corporate welfare and foreign aid. Just two weeks ago, Congress passed a bill sending $21 billion overseas. That is $21 billion that will be spent this fiscal year, not spread out over five years. Then, last week, Congress passed, on suspension of the rules, a bill proposing to spend $130 million dollars on water projects–not in Texas, but in foreign nations! Meanwhile, the Financial Services Committee, on which I sit, has begun the process of reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank, which uses taxpayer money to support business projects that cannot attract capital in the market. Mr. Speaker, the Export-Import Bank’s biggest beneficiaries are Boeing and communist China. I find it hard to believe that federal funding for Fortune 500 companies and China is a higher priority for most Americans than Medicaid and food stamps.
HR 4241 fails to address the root of the spending problem–the belief that Congress can solve any problem simply by creating a new federal program or agency. However, with the federal government’s unfunded liabilities projected to reach as much as $50 trillion by the end of this year, Congress no longer can avoid serious efforts to rein in spending. Instead of the smoke-and-mirrors approach of HR 4241, Congress should begin the journey toward fiscal responsibility by declaring a ten percent reduction in real spending, followed by a renewed commitment to reduce spending in a manner consistent with our obligation to uphold the Constitution and the priorities of the American people. This is the only way to make real progress on reducing spending without cutting programs for the poor while increasing funding for programs that benefit foreign governments and corporate interests.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
November 16th, 2005
The privacy issue has been around for a long time. The brutal abuse of privacy and property of early Americans played a big role in our revolt against the King. The 1 st , 4 th , and 5 th amendments represented attempts to protect private property and privacy from an overzealous federal government. Today those attempts appear to have failed.
There have been serious legal debates in recent decades about whether “privacy” is protected by the Constitution. Some argue that since the word does not appear in the text of that document, it is not protected. Others argue that privacy protection grants the federal government power to dictate to all states limits or leniency in enforcing certain laws. But the essence of liberty is privacy.
In recent years-especially since 9-11-Congress has been totally negligent in its duty to protect U.S. citizens from federal government encroachment on the rights of privacy. Even prior to 9-11, the Echelon worldwide surveillance system was well entrenched, monitoring telephones, faxes, and emails.
From the 1970s forward, national security letters were used sparingly in circumventing the legal process and search warrant requirements. Since 9-11 and the subsequent passage of the Patriot Act, however, use of these instruments has skyrocketed, from 300 annually to over 30,000. There is essentially no oversight nor understanding by the U.S. Congress of the significance of this pervasive government surveillance. It’s all shrugged off as necessary to make us safe from terrorism. Sacrificing personal liberty and privacy, the majority feels, is not a big deal.
We soon will vote on the conference report reauthorizing the Patriot Act. Though one could argue there’s been a large grass-roots effort to discredit the Patriot Act, Congress has ignored the message. Amazingly, over 391 communities and 7 states have passed resolutions highly critical of the Patriot Act.
The debate in Congress-if that’s what one wants to call it-boils down to whether the most egregious parts of the Act will be sunsetted after 4 years or 7. The conference report will adjust the numbers, and members will vote willingly for the “compromise” and feel good about their effort to protect individual privacy.
But if we’re honest with ourselves we would admit that the 4 th amendment is essentially a dead letter. There has been no effort to curb the abuse of national security letters nor to comprehend the significance of Echelon. Hard-fought liberties are rapidly slipping away from us.
Congress is not much better when it comes to protecting against the erosion of the centuries-old habeas corpus doctrine. By declaring anyone an “enemy combatant”-a totally arbitrary designation by the President- the government can deny an individual his right to petition a judge or even speak with an attorney. Though there has been a good debate on the insanity of our policy of torturing prisoners, holding foreigners and Americans without charges seems acceptable to many. Did it never occur to those who condemn torture that unlimited detention of individuals without a writ of habeas corpus is itself torture-especially for those who are totally innocent? Add this to the controversial worldwide network of secret CIA prisons now known of for 2 years, and we should be asking ourselves what we have become as a people. Recent evidence that we’re using white phosphorus chemical weapons in Iraq does nothing to improve our image.
Our prestige in the world is slipping. The war is going badly. Our financial system is grossly overburdened. And we spend hundreds of hours behind the scenes crafting a mere $5 billion spending cut while pretending no one knows we can spend tens of billions in off-budget supplemental bills- sometimes under unanimous consent!
It’s time we reconsider the real purpose of government in a society that professes to be free-protection of liberty, peaceful commerce, and keeping itself out of our lives, our economy, our pocketbooks, and certainly out of the affairs of foreign nations.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
November 15th, 2005
Washington, DC: Congressman Ron Paul recently introduced legislation that provides significant tax relief for Texans affected by Hurricane Rita. HR 4066, the Evacuees Tax Relief Act, addresses the out-of-pocket expenses incurred and income lost by people in south Texas forced to flee Hurricane Rita.
Residents in Chambers, Galveston, Fort Bend, and other evacuated counties will benefit under Paul’s bill. It provides tax relief designed to offset evacuations costs, and applies to both income and payroll taxes so that working people benefit regardless of their tax bracket.
Taxpayers can choose either a $5,000 tax credit or $5,000 tax deduction for expenses resulting from government-ordered evacuations, whether mandatory or voluntary. Such expenses might include food, lodging, and gas, along with lost wages from missing work. HR 4066 is retroactive, so those affected by Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma can claim the benefit for this year.
Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off
Similar posts:
November 10th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Health Freedom Protection Act. This bill restores the First Amendment rights of consumers to receive truthful information regarding the benefits of foods and dietary supplements by codifying the First Amendment standards used by federal courts to strike down the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) efforts to censor truthful health claims. The Health Freedom Protection Act also stops the Federal Trade Commissions (FTC) from censoring truthful health care claims.
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 and the FTC continue to engage in heavy-handed attempts to restrict such access. The FDA continues to frustrate consumers’ efforts to learn how they can improve their health even after Congress, responding to a record number of constituents’ comments, passed the Dietary Supplement and Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA). FDA bureaucrats are so determined to frustrate consumer access to truthful information that they are even evading their duty to comply with four federal court decisions vindicating consumers’ First Amendment rights to discover the health benefits of foods and dietary supplements.
FDA bureaucrats have even refused to abide by the DSHEA section allowing the public to have access to scientific articles and publications regarding the role of nutrients in protecting against diseases by claiming that every article concerning this topic is evidence of intent to sell a drug.
Because of the FDA’s censorship of truthful health claims, millions of Americans may suffer with diseases and other health care problems they may have avoided by using dietary supplements. For example, the FDA prohibited consumers from learning how folic acid reduces the risk of neural tube defects for four years after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended every woman of childbearing age take folic acid supplements to reduce neural tube defects. This FDA action contributed to an estimated 10,000 cases of preventable neutral tube defects!
The FDA also continues to prohibit consumers from learning about the scientific evidence that glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate are effective in the treatment of osteoarthritis; that omega-3 fatty acids may reduce the risk of sudden death heart attack; and that calcium may reduce the risk of bone fractures.
The Health Freedom Protection Act will force the FDA to at last comply with the commands of Congress, the First Amendment, and the American people by codifying the First Amendment standards adopted by the federal courts. Specifically, the Health Freedom Protection Act stops the FDA from censoring truthful claims about the curative, mitigative, or preventative effects of dietary supplements, and adopts the federal court’s suggested use of disclaimers as an alternative to censorship. The Health Freedom Protection Act also stops the FDA from prohibiting the distribution of scientific articles and publications regarding the role of nutrients in protecting against disease.
This legislation also addresses the FTC’s violations of the First Amendment. Under traditional First Amendment jurisprudence, the federal government bears the burden of proving an advertising statement false before censoring that statement. However, the FTC has reversed the standard in the case of dietary supplements by requiring supplement manufactures to satisfy an unobtainable standard of proof that their statement is true. The FTC’s standards are blocking innovation in the marketplace.
The Health Freedom Protection Act requires the government bear the burden of proving that speech could be censored. This is how it should be in a free, dynamic society. The bill also requires that the FTC warn parties that their advertising is false and give them a chance to correct their mistakes.
Mr. Speaker, if we are serious about putting people in charge of their health care, then shouldn’t we stop federal bureaucrats from preventing Americans from learning about simple ways to improve their health. I therefore call on my colleagues to stand up for good health care and the First Amendment by cosponsoring the Health Freedom Protection Act.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
November 2nd, 2005
Washington, DC: Decades after the conclusion of wars in Korea and Vietnam, are American prisoners of war still alive? This is the question explored in a provocative new Documentary entitled Missing, Presumed Dead; The Search for America’s POWs.
Documentary filmmaker Bill Dumas, whose uncle Roger Dumas has been missing in Korea since the 1950s, visited Washington last week to screen the film and garner support for the creation of a congressional committee to investigate cases of missing servicemen. The ultimate message of the film is very simple: the best way to support our troops is to make sure each and every one of them comes home.
The documentary has received support from many groups, including Rolling Thunder; Task Force Omega; Korea/Cold War Families of the Missing; National Alliance of Families for the Return of America’s Missing Servicemen; and VietNow.
Congressman Paul’s office held a screening of the documentary last week for members of Congress and their staffs, and copies of the film (donated by veterans groups) were provided to every House and Senate office.
Paul issued a brief statement in support of the film, urging his colleagues to co-sponsor H. Res. 123. H. Res. 123, introduced by Representative Peter King of New York, would establish a select committee on POW and MIA affairs. Paul stated that “Establishment of this select committee is long overdue, and Congress must not ignore its obligations any longer.”
Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off
Similar posts:
November 2nd, 2005
<br />
Big Lies and Little Lies<br />
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
November 2, 2005
Scooter
Libby has been indicted for lying.Many
suspect Libby, and perhaps others, deliberately outed Joe Wilson’s wife as a
covert CIA agent.This was done to
punish and discredit Wilson for bringing attention to the false information
regarding Iraq’s supposed efforts to build a nuclear weapon– information made
public in President Bush’s State of the Union message in January 2003.
Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald was chosen to determine if this
revelation regarding Valerie Plame, Wilson’s wife, violated the Intelligence
Identification Protection Act.The
actual indictment of Libby did not claim such a violation occurred.
Instead, he has been charged with lying and participating in a cover-up
during the two-year investigation.I
believe this is a serious matter that should not be ignored, but it is not an
earth-shattering event.
This case, like almost
everything in Washington, has been driven by politics– not truth, justice, or
the Constitution.It’s about
seeking political power, pure and simple, not unlike the impeachment process
during the last administration.
There are much more serious
charges of lying and cover-ups that deserve congressional attention.
The country now knows the decision to go to war in Iraq was
based on information that was not factual.
Congress and the people of this country were misled.
Because of this, more than 2,000 U. S. troops and many innocent people
have died.Tens of thousands have
been severely wounded, their lives forever changed if not totally ruined.
The lies Scooter Libby may or may not have told deserve a thorough
investigation.But in the scheme of
things, the indictment about questions regarding the release of Valerie
Plame’s name, a political dirty trick, is minor compared to the disinformation
about weapons of mass destruction and other events that propelled us into an
unnecessary war.Its costs– in
life, suffering, and money– have proven to be prohibitive.
The
Libby indictment, unless it opens the door to more profound questions concerning
why we went to war, may serve only as a distraction from much more serious
events and lies.
The
decision to go to war is profound.It
behooves Congress to ask more questions and investigate exactly how the
President, Congress, and the people were misled into believing that invading
Iraq was necessary for our national security.
Why
do we still not know who forged the documents claiming Saddam Hussein was about
to buy uranium from Niger?
Was this information concocted by those who were overly eager to go to war?
Why was CIA reluctance regarding this assessment ignored, allowing it to be
presented by the President as a clincher for our need to go to war?
Other
reasons used to justify the war deserve equal attention, since the results have
been so painful for our country.
If
lies were told to justify the invasion of Iraq, the American people deserve to
know the truth.Congress has a
responsibility to seek this truth and change our policies accordingly. The
sooner this is done the better.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts: