April 21st, 2008
New Orleans, LA – Congressman Ron Paul issued a statement which was read at a news conference in New Orleans in advance of a Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) summit meeting between President Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, and Mexican President Felipe Calderon. The Conservative Caucus held the news conference in opposition to the SPP, sharing the belief with Congressman Paul and many others that the SPP threatens national sovereignty.
Congressman Paul’s remarks focused on his continued opposition to the Trans Texas Corridor and the NAFTA Super Highway:
“As we all know, there have been significant moves recently to expand the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) initiated by President Bush and his Mexican and Canadian counterparts in 2005. One such plan is to construct a so-called “NAFTA Superhighway” running from Mexico , through Texas , and up eventually into Canada . I have opposed this project from the beginning, signing on as a co-sponsor of House Concurrent Resolution 40 expressing Congressional disapproval of the NAFTA Superhighway and any moves toward a North American Union.
More recently, I introduced an even stronger piece of legislation, H.R.5191, which would prohibit the use of federal funds to carry out this highway project. The federal government has no business being partner to this outrageous plan, according to which countless landowners would have their private property confiscated under eminent domain. This prohibition of funds, if passed, would go a long way toward derailing this ill-conceived project and would send a clear message that further attempts to undermine US sovereignty would not be unchallenged in Congress. It is long past time the United States House and Senate start taking our Constitutional oversight roles seriously.”
Posted in Press Releases | No Comments »
Similar posts:
April 15th, 2008
Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Mr. Bernie Baltic of Cleveland, Ohio. Mr. Baltic, who recently passed away, was a tireless champion of liberty. His advocacy of applying the freedom philosophy to the issues of the day was made all the more effective by his voracious reading of both the classics of liberty and the latest policy studies.
Any politician or bureaucrat at any level of government who threatened individual liberty was sure to hear from Mr. Baltic. Mr. Baltic also worked to educate and mobilize his fellow citizens in the cause of liberty through writing letters to the editor, and by directly challenging anti-liberty officials at forums such as city council meetings. In addition to his own activities, Mr. Baltic generously shared his support and counsel with numerous organizations that work to advance the cause of liberty.
Perhaps Mr. Baltic’s most lasting contribution to the freedom movement came when then-President of the Advocates for Self Government Marshall Fritz showed Mr. Baltic a computer game Mr. Fritz developed that identified an individual’s political philosophy based on responses to ten questions on economic issues and ten questions on civil liberties. Mr. Baltic, who was quite impressed with the chart, suggested that the Advocates produce business-card sized versions of the graph and quiz. The result was the “World’s Smallest Political Quiz,” one of the freedom movement’s most recognized and effective outreach tools.
Bernie Baltic set an example for all those wishing to effectively advance the cause of liberty. Madam Speaker, I salute Bernie Baltic for his many contributions to the freedom movement and extend my condolences to Mr. Baltic’s family and friends.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | No Comments »
Similar posts:
April 10th, 2008
Madame Speaker, abuses of the earmark process by members of both parties demonstrate the need for reform. However earmarks are hardly the most serious problem facing this country. In fact, many, if not most of the problems with earmarks can be fixed by taking simple steps to bring greater transparency to the appropriations process. While I support reforms designed to shine greater sunlight on the process by which members seek earmarks, I fear that some of my colleagues have forgotten that the abuses of the earmarking process are a symptom of the problems with Washington, not the cause. The root of the problem is an out-of-control federal budget. I am also concerned that some reforms proposed by critics of earmarking undermine the separation of powers by eroding the constitutional role Congress plays in determining how federal funds are spent.
Contrary to popular belief, adding earmarks to a bill does not increase federal spending by even one penny. Spending levels for the appropriation bills are set before Congress adds a single earmark to a bill. The question of whether or not the way the money is spent is determined by earmarks or by another means does not effect the total amount of spending.
Since reforming, limiting, or even eliminating earmarks does nothing to reduce federal spending, I have regarded the battle over earmarks as a distraction from the real issue– the need to reduce the size of government. Recently, opponents of earmarks have embraced an approach to earmark reform that undermines the constitutional separation of powers by encouraging the president to issue an executive order authorizing federal agencies to disregard congressional earmarks placed in committee reports.
Since the president’s executive order would not reduce federal spending, the practical result of such an executive order would be to transfer power over the determination of how federal funds are spent from Congress to unelected federal bureaucrats. Since most earmarks are generated by requests from our constituents, including local elected officials, such as mayors, this executive order has the practical effect of limiting taxpayers’ ability to influence the ways the federal government spends tax dollars.
Madame Speaker, the drafters of the Constitution gave Congress the powers of the purse because the drafters feared that allowing the branch of government charged with executing the laws to also write the federal budget would concentrate too much power in one branch of government. The founders correctly viewed the separation of law-making and law-enforcement powers as a vital safeguard of liberty. Whenever the president blatantly disregards orders from Congress as to how federal funds should be spent, he is undermining the constitutional separation of powers.
Congress has already all but ceded its authority to declare war to the executive branch. Now we are giving away our power of the purse. Madame Speaker, the logical conclusion of the arguments that it is somehow illegitimate for members of Congress to control the distribution of federal funds in their district is that Congress should only meet one week a year to appropriate a lump sum to be given to the president for him to allocate to the federal government as he sees fit.
Madame Speaker, all members should support efforts to bring greater transparency to the earmarking process. However, we must not allow earmarking reform to distract us from what should be our main priority–restricting federal spending by returning the government to its constitutional limitations. I also urge my colleagues not to allow the current hysteria over earmarks to justify further erosion of our constitutional authority to control the federal budget.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | No Comments »
Similar posts:
April 9th, 2008
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for calling this hearing on the current state of affairs in Iraq with General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker. Reviewing the presentations by our panel, I have noted with some concern that they seem more focused on justifying a future attack on Iran than reporting on progress in Iraq . Much of the assertions about Iran in Iraq seem illogical, others seem intended to inflame the situation with little justification.
Particularly, I am concerned about claims that a new enemy in Iraq has emerged with ties to Iran . First we were told that the enemy was Saddam Hussein and his Baathist Party. Then we were told the enemy was the “dead-enders” from Saddam’s former government. Then the prime enemy became “al-Qaeda in Iraq ,” a prime focus of the presentation by Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus last September. Now we are told that the new enemies are mysterious “Special Groups” that are said to have spun off from al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army.
If this phenomenon of constantly emerging enemies bent on destabilizing Iraq is accurate and our presence in Iraq keeps generating new enemies, perhaps the problem is the occupation itself. If this is the case, doesn’t it make sense that our departure from Iraq may actually have a stabilizing effect?
I suspect these allegations that Iranian-supported “Special Groups” are now the prime enemy are in reality designed to provide an excuse for a planned US attack on Iran or are meant as justification for a permanent US military presence in Iraq .
It makes little sense to assert that Iran is funding militias to undermine the Iraqi government. The current Iraqi government may have been approved by the United States , but essentially it was made in Iran . The leading political parties of Iraq , the DAWA and the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council have close ties to Iran . Leaders of these parties were in exile in Iran until the US invasion of Iraq . Iranian president Ahmadinejad is warmly welcomed in Baghdad by Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki. Why would Iran set up militias in the south to destabilize a government with such strong Iranian ties? I find the allegation that Iran just cannot tolerate an elected government next door to be unsatisfying, particularly considering that Iran itself regularly holds elections where a wide variety of political parties compete for power.
It is alleged that the rockets fired into the Green Zone during the recent clashes in Baghdad and Basra were made in 2007 in Iran . Is it not true, however, that if the Iranian government were to actually arm the Iraqi militias, these groups would have more modern weapons to counter U.S. helicopter gunships and heavy tanks? Is there any hard proof that the Iranian government is arming groups in Iraq ? There are reports that thousands of US weapons have gone missing in Iraq . If some of these turn up in the hands of insurgents, would it make sense to suggest that the US government is intentionally arming them?
In fact, there is plenty of evidence that Iran is trying to prevent the further destabilization of Iraq, which makes sense considering that Iran is next door and would keenly feel the effects of an Iraq fallen into civil war. The Associated Press reported yesterday that the Iranian government has condemned attacks on the “Green Zone” in Iraq . According to other press reports, the government of Iran brokered a ceasefire after recent Iraqi government moves against elements of al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army in Basra .
Mr. Chairman, I would like to conclude by again stating my concern that the real purpose of today’s testimony is to further set the stage for an attack on Iran . Congress should make it very clear that there is no authority under current law for an attack on Iran . It is in our best interest to talk with Iran and to work with Iran to help stabilize the situation in Iraq . It is also in our immediate interest to remove US forces from Iraq as quickly as it is safe to do so.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | No Comments »
Similar posts:
April 9th, 2008
WASHINGTON , DC – Congressman Ron Paul deserves applause for a pro-taxpayer voting record last year, according to the 362,000-member National Taxpayers Union (NTU). The nonpartisan citizen group announced that Congressman Paul was one of only a few dozen lawmakers in the House and Senate to win the 2007 “Taxpayers’ Friend Award.”
“While many Members of Congress talked about reducing the size of government last year, Congressman Ron Paul backed up those words with votes,” NTU President Duane Parde said. “This award proves that Congressman Paul is a staunch ally we can count on in our battle to restore fiscal responsibility to Washington .”
The award is presented to those Members who achieve an “A” grade in NTU’s annual Rating of Congress. The Rating, which is based on every roll call vote affecting fiscal policy, assigns a “Taxpayer Score” to each Member of Congress that indicates his or her support for reducing or controlling federal spending, taxes, debt, and regulation.
“If every Member of Congress had voted as responsibly as Congressman Paul did in 2007, Americans could have enjoyed much lower taxes and less waste in government,” Parde concluded. “Overburdened taxpayers in Texas and across the nation owe him a debt of gratitude for his hard work on their behalf. He has truly earned the title ‘Taxpayers’ Friend.’”
NTU is a nonpartisan, nonprofit citizen group founded in 1969 to work for lower taxes, smaller government, and economic freedom at all levels. Note: The 2007 Rating and a searchable Rating database from 1992 to 2006 is available at www.ntu.org. For questions about the Rating, its history, or methodology, please contact NTU Vice President for Policy and Communications Pete Sepp or NTU Communications Manager Natasha Altamirano at (703) 683-5700.
Posted in Press Releases | No Comments »
Similar posts:
April 9th, 2008
Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit several questions to the panel. I know there will not be enough time to answer these, but I want to get them into the record.
Why should the American people continue to support a war that was justified by false information, since Saddam Hussein never aggressed against the United States , Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction?
It is said that we must continue the war because we have already sacrificed so much. But what is moral about demanding even more needless sacrifice of human lives merely to save face for the mistakes of invading and occupying Iraq ?
Doesn’t it seem awfully strange that the Iraqi government we support is an ally of the Iranians who are our declared enemies? Are we not now supporting the Iranians by propping up their allies in Iraq ? If (Iraqi Prime Minister) Maliki is our ally and he has “diplomatic relations” with (Iranian President) Ahmadinejad why can’t we? Why must we continue to provoke Iran , just looking for an excuse to bomb that country? Does our policy in Iraq not guarantee chaos for years to come?
It is estimated that up to 2,000 Iraqi soldiers refused to fight against al-Sadr’s militia. Why should we not expect many of the 80,000 Sunnis we have recently armed to someday turn their weapons against us, since they as well as the Mahdi Army detest any and all foreign occupation?
Is it not true that our ally Malaki broke the ceasefire declared by al-Sadr by initiating the recent violence? Is it not true that the current ceasefire was brokered by the Iranians, who also condemned the attacks on the “Green Zone.” How can we blame all the violence on the Iranians?
Is it not true that with the recent surge in violence in March, attacks are now back at the same levels as they were in 2005?
Does Iran not have a greater justification to be involved in neighboring Iraq than we do, since it is 6,000 from our shores? If China and Russia were occupying Mexico how would we react?
Since no one can define “winning the war,” just who do we expect to surrender? Does this not mean that this war will be endless since the political leaders will not end it – until we go broke, and maybe that’s not be so far off?
Posted in Speeches and Statements | No Comments »
Similar posts:
April 2nd, 2008
I have never been opposed to regulation, although my idea of regulation differs from that of many people in Washington. The free market and its forces of supply and demand are the most effective regulator of the private sector, and have never been known to fail absent government intervention. But piling more public sector regulation on the private sector will have a detrimental effect on the health of our financial system and sow the seeds for the next financial meltdown.
What we in Washington should be discussing is increased regulation and scrutiny of public sector regulatory and oversight agencies such as the Federal Reserve Board, the SEC, and others. The Federal Reserve’s actions got us into at least one depression in the last century, and have led to continued cyclical difficulties, including the current economic slowdown.
Back in the 1970s, government-caused inflation reached levels high enough that the Nixon administration decided to implement wage and price controls. Placing blame on greedy speculators, unscrupulous mortgage originators, or panicky investors, is a common reaction on the part of government.
The solution called for, despite the numerous documented failures of government regulation, is always more regulation, more government involvement in and control over the economy, and less free enterprise. Never is the blame placed squarely where it belongs, which is on the shoulders of legislators and regulators whose actions distort the market, prohibiting legitimate market activities and encouraging the development of labyrinthine and opaque financial schemes.
The latest regulatory plan from the Treasury Department, with the potential to turn the Federal Reserve into a super-regulator overseeing state-chartered banks, bank holding companies, and acting as a guarantor of market stability, is another in a long line of half-baked government responses to financial difficulty. Recession after recession has not impressed upon government leaders the reality that the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy activities are what lead to market instability.
The business cycle, contrary to what Secretary Paulson and others seem to believe, is not endemic to the free market. It is always and everywhere the result of monetary inflation and subsequent malinvestment, which when it is discovered must of necessity be liquidated in order for a true recovery to occur. Delaying the liquidation will only prolong the crisis and ensure that the next crisis will be more severe.
Every government intervention will result in a distortion of the market and a subsequent shock somewhere down the line in the future. It is about time that we recognize the failure of government intervention, get our hands out of the private sector, and for once allow the market to function.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | No Comments »
Similar posts:
April 2nd, 2008
I stand opposed to the regulations being discussed today because I opposed the underlying bill upon which these regulations are based. The ban on Internet gambling infringes upon two freedoms that are important to many Americans: the ability to do with their money as they see fit, and the freedom from government interference with the Internet.
The proper role of the federal government is not that of a nanny, protecting citizens from any and every potential negative consequence of their actions. Although I personally believe gambling to be a dumb waste of money, American citizens should be just as free to spend their money playing online poker as they should be able to buy a used car, enter into a mortgage, or invest in a hedge fund. Risk is inherent in any economic activity, and it is not for the government to determine which risky behaviors Americans may or may not engage in.
The Internet is a powerful tool, and any censorship of Internet activity sets a dangerous precedent. Many Americans rely on the Internet for activities as varied as watching basketball games, keeping up on international news broadcasts, or buying food and clothing. In the last few years we have seen ominous signs of the federal government’s desire to control the Internet. The ostensible reasons are to protect Americans from sex offenders, terrorists, and the evils of gambling, but once the door is open to government intrusion, there is no telling what legitimate activity, especially political activity, might fall afoul of government authorities.
The regulations and underlying bill also force financial institutions to act as law enforcement officers. This is another pernicious trend that has accelerated in the aftermath of the Patriot Act, the deputization of private businesses to perform intrusive enforcement and surveillance functions that the federal government is unwilling to perform on its own.
In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to oppose these new regulations and support Chairman Frank’s HR 2046, of which I am a cosponsor. Although this bill has been criticized by some for its regulatory aspects, this act does not create any new federal laws and merely ensures that Internet gambling firms comply with existing federal law. The passage of HR 2046 would restore the right of Americans to decide for themselves whether or not to gamble online.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | No Comments »
Similar posts:
April 1st, 2008
Mr. Speaker: I rise in strong opposition to this ill-conceived resolution. The US House of Representatives has no business speculating on guilt or innocence in a crime that may have been committed thousands of miles outside US territory. It is arrogant, to say the least, that we presume to pass judgment on crimes committed overseas about which we have seen no evidence.
The resolution purports to express concern over the apparent murder in London of a shadowy former Russian intelligence agent, Alexander Litvinenko, but let us not kid ourselves. The real purpose is to attack the Russian government by suggesting that Russia is involved in the murder. There is little evidence of this beyond the feverish accusations of interested parties. In fact, we may ultimately discover that Litvinenko’s death by radiation poisoning was the result of his involvement in an international nuclear smuggling operation, as some investigative reporters have claimed. The point is that we do not know. The House of Representatives has no business inserting itself in disputes about which we lack information and jurisdiction.
At a time when we should be seeking good relations and expanded trade with Russia , what is the benefit in passing such provocative resolutions? There is none.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into the Congressional Record a very thought-provoking article by Edward Jay Epstein published recently in the New York Sun, which convincingly calls into question many of the assumptions and accusations made in this legislation. I would encourage my colleagues to read this article and carefully consider the wisdom of what we are doing.
Article insert here: http://www2.nysun.com/article/73212
Posted in Speeches and Statements | No Comments »
Similar posts:
April 1st, 2008
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution calling for the further expansion of NATO to the borders of Russia . NATO is an organization whose purpose ended with the end of its Warsaw Pact adversary. When NATO struggled to define its future after the Cold War, it settled on attacking a sovereign state, Yugoslavia , which had neither invaded nor threatened any NATO member state.
This current round of NATO expansion is a political reward to governments in Georgia and Ukraine that came to power as a result of US-supported revolutions, the so-called Orange Revolution and Rose Revolution. The governments that arose from these street protests were eager to please their US sponsor and the US , in turn, turned a blind eye to the numerous political and human rights abuses that took place under the new regimes. Thus the US policy of “exporting democracy” has only succeeding in exporting more misery to the countries it has targeted.
NATO expansion only benefits the US military industrial complex, which stands to profit from expanded arms sales to new NATO members. The “modernization” of former Soviet militaries in Ukraine and Georgia will mean tens of millions in sales to US and European military contractors. The US taxpayer will be left holding the bill, as the US government will subsidize most of the transactions. Providing US military guarantees to Ukraine and Georgia can only further strain our military. This NATO expansion may well involve the US military in conflicts as unrelated to our national interest as the breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia in Georgia . The idea that American troops might be forced to fight and die to prevent a small section of Georgia from seceding is absurd and disturbing.
Mr. Speaker, NATO should be disbanded, not expanded.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | No Comments »
Similar posts: