2007 Ron Paul 77:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 180 is premised on the assumption that. divestment,
sanctions, and other punitive measures are effective
in influencing repressive regimes, when
in fact nothing could be further from the truth.
Proponents of such methods fail to remember
that where goods cannot cross borders, troops
will. Sanctions against Cuba, Iraq, and numerous
other countries failed to topple their governments.
Rather than weakening dictators,
these sanctions strengthened their hold on
power and led to more suffering on the part of
the Cuban and Iraqi people. To the extent that
divestment effected change in South Africa, it
was brought about by private individuals working
through the market to influence others.
2007 Ron Paul 77:2
No one denies that the humanitarian situation in Darfur is dire, but the United States
Government has no business entangling itself
in this situation, nor in forcing divestment on
unwilling parties. Any further divestment action
should be undertaken through voluntary
means and not by government fiat.
2007 Ron Paul 77:3
H.R. 180 is an interventionist piece of legislation which will extend the power of the Federal
Government over American businesses,
force this country into yet another foreign policy
debacle, and do nothing to alleviate the
suffering of the residents of Darfur. By allowing
State and local governments to label pension
and retirement funds as State assets, the
Federal Government is giving the go-ahead for
State and local governments to play politics
with the savings upon which millions of Americans
depend for security in their old age. The
safe harbor provision opens another dangerous
loophole, allowing fund managers to
escape responsibility for any potential financial
mismanagement, and it sets a dangerous
precedent. Would the Congress offer the
same safe harbor provision to fund managers
who wish to divest from firms offering fatty
foods, growing tobacco, or doing business in
Europe?
2007 Ron Paul 77:4
This bill would fail in its aim of influencing the Government of the Sudan, and would likely
result in the exact opposite of its intended
effects. The regime in Khartoum would see no
loss of oil revenues, and the civil conflict will
eventually flare up again. The unintended consequences
of this bill on American workers, investors,
and companies need to be considered
as well. Forcing American workers to divest
from companies which may only be tangentially
related to supporting the Sudanese
government could have serious economic repercussions
which need to be taken into account.