June 30th, 2008
Washington, DC – Congressman Ron Paul, ranking member of the Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy, has written a letter to Chairman Barney Frank of the House Financial Services Committee calling for a hearing on the relationship between the falling value of the dollar and the recent rise of oil prices, noting:
“The price of oil is currently among the most pressing issues to American workers. Congress should be examining all factors contributing to the high cost of oil, and monetary policy is one of the key factors in the run-up in price.”
The letter also points out that the price of oil in dollars has risen 39% this year. Oil in Euros has only risen 30% therefore the degraded purchasing power of the dollar accounts for at least 80 cents of the increased price of a gallon of gas.
“Neither the Federal Reserve nor the Treasury Department have been willing to take responsibility for the dollar’s slide over the past several years, while American consumers have been forced to pay continually higher prices for gasoline, heating oil, and numerous other imported products upon which Americans depend… American consumers cannot afford to allow continued lax Congressional oversight of the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department’s duties as stewards of the dollar, especially since the dollar is a major factor in the skyrocketing price of oil,” the letter concludes.
Besides himself, 16 other Representatives signed on to the letter, including ranking member of the House Committee on Financial Services Spencer Bachus, and Chairman of the Republican Study Committee Rep. Jeb Hensarling.
Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off
Similar posts:
June 26th, 2008
Washington, DC – Congressman Ron Paul made the following statement today in reaction to the landmark Supreme Court decision:
“Today is an exciting day for the Bill of Rights as the Supreme Court ruled in a landmark case that individuals do indeed have a Constitutional right to own guns. I am pleased with this ruling. As a strong proponent of 2nd Amendment rights it is encouraging to see the Supreme Court defining this important right as an individual right against federal intrusion. Gun control laws virtually guarantee that only criminals and tyrants remain armed which, like concentration of power, causes crime and tyranny to increase. However, we must now stand guard to ensure this decision does not result in the creeping federalization of gun restrictions.”
Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off
Similar posts:
June 20th, 2008
Madam Speaker, I regret that due to the unexpected last-minute appearance of this measure on the legislative calendar this week, a prior commitment has prevented me from voting on the FISA amendments. I have strongly opposed every previous FISA overhaul attempt and I certainly would have voted against this one as well.
The main reason I oppose this latest version is that it still clearly violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution by allowing the federal government to engage in the bulk collection of American citizens’ communications without a search warrant. That US citizens can have their private communication intercepted by the government without a search warrant is anti-American, deeply disturbing, and completely unacceptable.
In addition to gutting the fourth amendment, this measure will deprive Americans who have had their rights violated by telecommunication companies involved in the Administration’s illegal wiretapping program the right to seek redress in the courts for the wrongs committed against them. Worse, this measure provides for retroactive immunity, whereby individuals or organizations that broke the law as it existed are granted immunity for prior illegal actions once the law has been changed. Ex post facto laws have long been considered anathema in free societies under rule of law. Our Founding Fathers recognized this, including in Article I section 9 of the Constitution that “No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.” How is this FISA bill not a variation of ex post facto? That alone should give pause to supporters of this measure.
Mr. Speaker, we should understand that decimating the protections that our Constitution provides us against the government is far more dangerous to the future of this country than whatever external threats may exist. We can protect this country without violating the Constitution and I urge my colleagues to reconsider their support for this measure.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
May 22nd, 2008
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to congratulate The University of Houston–Victoria (UHV) Jaguars softball team on an amazing inaugural season. The Jaguars completed the season with a 32-18 record and finished fourth in Region VI of the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics, missing the national tournament by one slot.
The Jaguars faced a strong slate of contenders in the regular season, including 14 nationally recognized opponents, nine of which fell to the Jaguars. The team also defeated NCAA teams Houston Baptist University and the University of Mary Hardin-Baylor.
“You’ve got to beat the best to be the best,” head coach Keri Lambeth always tells her players, and the Jaguars showed they are more than capable of competing with the best. On March 17, the softball team ranked No.4 in 18-team Region VI in the first season poll based on play, marking the first rating of a UHV sporting team. On March 19, the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA) ranked the softball team No. 15 in the Nation. The team ended the season in the same impressive position.
The players didn’t just work hard on the field. Coach Lambeth demanded academic and civic excellence. The players were required to attend a number of study hall hours every week based on their grade-point averages. A perfect 4.0 required 10 hours, while anything less required increasingly more. The players also met with Coach Lambeth each week to discuss how their classes were going and what kind of grades they were earning. As a result, a third of the team is expected to hold a 4.0 GPA this semester, and most of the team members are expected to appear on the UHV Dean’s List for the spring semester.
As Coach Lambeth always tells her players, “We’re not just here to play sports. We are here for an education first and foremost.”
As part of their civic activities, the players participated in a mentoring program in which they tutored at-risk elementary school students in reading, and middle and high school students in remedial math. The players also served as role models and life coaches to these students. Many players put in hours above and beyond what was required by the mentoring program.
Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to formally congratulate the women of the Jaguars on their accomplishments, both on and off the softball field, in their historic first season. I would also like to insert the Jaguars roster into the of the team into the Congressional Record: Jessica Salas, Erin Litvik, Samantha Campagna, Kristen Lindley, Curby Ryan, Lindsey Ferguson, Lauren Garza, Chelsi Fitzgerald, Kasey Voyles, Cayla Dluhos, Ashley Falco, Stephanie Lavey, Amber Scott, Whitney Damborsky, Brittany Faas.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
May 20th, 2008
Madam Speaker I rise in opposition to H. Res. 1194 because it is dangerously interventionist and will likely lead to more rather than less violence in the Middle East.
I have noticed that this legislation reads eerily similar to a key clause in the 2002 Iraq war bill, H J Res 114, which authorized the use of force.
The key resolved clause in H. Res. 1194 before us today reads:
Resolved, That the House of Representatives—
(6) urges–
(A) the United States Government and the international community to immediately take all appropriate actions to support and strengthen the legitimate Government of Lebanon under Prime Minister Fouad Siniora;
The Iraq war authorization language from 2002 is strikingly similar, as you can see here:
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to–
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq ;
I am concerned that this kind of similarity is intentional and will inevitably result in US military action in Lebanon , or against Syria or Iran .
I am also concerned over the process of bringing this resolution to the Floor for a vote. I find it outrageous that H. Res. 1194, which calls for more risky US interventionism in the Middle East , is judged sufficiently “non-controversial” to be placed on the suspension calendar for consideration on the House Floor outside of normal order. Have we reached the point where it is no longer controversial to urge the president to use “all appropriate actions” — with the unmistakable implication that force may be used — to intervene in the domestic affairs of a foreign country?
Mr. Speaker, the Arab League has been mediating the conflict between rival political factions in Lebanon and has had some success in halting the recent violence. Currently, negotiations are taking place in Qatar between the Lebanese factions and some slow but encouraging progress is being made. Regional actors – who do have an interest in the conflict – have stepped up in attempt to diffuse the crisis and reach a peaceful solution, and press reports today suggest that a deal between the rival factions may have been reached. Yet at this delicate stage of negotiations the US House is preparing to pass a very confrontational resolution pledging strong support for one side and condemning competing factions. US threats in this resolution to use “all appropriate actions” to support one faction are in fact a strong disincentive for factions to continue peaceful negotiations and could undermine the successes thus far under Arab League moderation.
This legislation strongly condemns Iranian and Syrian support to one faction in Lebanon while pledging to involve the United States on the other side. Wouldn’t it be better to be involved on neither side and instead encourage the negotiations that have already begun to resolve the conflict?
Afghanistan continues to sink toward chaos with no end in sight. The war in Iraq , launched on lies and deceptions, has cost nearly a trillion dollars and more than 4,000 lives with no end in sight. Saber rattling toward Iran and Syria increases daily, including in this very legislation. Yet we are committing ourselves to intervene in a domestic political dispute that has nothing to do with the United States .
This resolution leads us closer to a wider war in the Middle East . It involves the United States unnecessarily in an internal conflict between competing Lebanese political factions and will increase rather than decrease the chance for an increase in violence. The Lebanese should work out political disputes on their own or with the assistance of regional organizations like the Arab League. I urge my colleagues to reject this march to war and to reject H. Res. 1194.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
May 14th, 2008
Washington, DC – This morning at a Joint Economics Committee Hearing Congressman Ron Paul had the opportunity to question former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker on the economy and the credit crisis.
The hearing was entitled “Wall Street to Main Street: Is the Credit Crisis Over and What Can the Federal Government Do to Prevent Unnecessary Systemic Risk in the Future?”
Volcker mentioned in his opening remarks that the United States suffers from overconsumption, and that we cannot sustain the current build up of debt. He postulated that consumers could be realizing that fact and shifting spending habits accordingly.
Congressman Paul decried the ability of the Federal Reserve to now buy virtually anything as an asset to hold as collateral. In addition to mortgage-backed securities, they can also buy credit card securities, student loan securities, and car loan securities.
Congressman Paul pointed out that the roots of the current crisis are a misunderstanding of capital and debt, over-regulation rather than under-regulation, and the Federal Reserve’s distortion of the marketplace with artificially low interest rates and promises of bailouts which encourage malinvestment and irresponsible behavior among banks.
Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off
Similar posts:
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 | Comments Off
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 | Comments Off
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 | Comments Off
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 | Comments Off
Similar posts: