‘Meet the Press’ transcript for Dec. 23, 2007

MR. RUSSERT:  When I looked at your record, you talked about big government and how opposed you are to it, but you seem to have a different attitude about your own congressional district.  For example, "Congress decided to send billions of dollars to victims of Hurricane Katrina.  Guess how Ron Paul voted.  `Is bailing out people" that choose--"that chose to live on the coastline a proper function of the federal government?' he asks." And you said no.  And yet, this:  "Paul's current district, which includes Galveston and reaches into" the "Brazoria County, draws a substantial amount of federal flood insurance payments." For your own congressional district.  This is the Houston Chronicle:  "Representative Ron Paul has long crusaded against a big central government.  But he also" "represented a congressional district that's consistently among the top in Texas in its reliance on dollars from Washington.  In the first nine months of the federal government's" fiscal "2006 fiscal year," "it received more than $4 billion." And they report, The Wall Street Journal, 65 earmark-targeted projects, $400 million that you have put into congressional bills for your district, which leads us to the Congressional Quarterly.  "The Earmark Dossier of `Dr. No.' There isn't much that" Ron--Dr. "Ron Paul thinks the federal government should do. Apparently, though, earmarks" for his district "are OK.  Paul is the sponsor of no fewer than 10 earmarks in the water resources bill," all benefiting his district.  The Gulf Intercoastal Waterway:  $32 million.  The sunken ship you want to be moved from Freeport Harbor.  The Bayou Navigation Channel.  They talk about $8 million for shrimp fishermen.

REP. PAUL:  You, you know...

MR. RUSSERT:  Why, why would you load up...

REP. PAUL:  You got it completely wrong.  I've never voted for an earmark in my life.

MR. RUSSERT:  No, but you put them in the bill.

REP. PAUL:  I put it in because I represent people who are asking for some of their money back.  But it doesn't cut any spending to vote against an earmark. And the Congress has the responsibility to spend the money.  Why leave the money in the executive branch and let them spend the money?

MR. RUSSERT:  Well, that's like, that's like saying you voted for it before you voted against it.

REP. PAUL:  Nah!  Come on, Tim.  That has nothing to do with that.

MR. RUSSERT:  If, if, if you put it in the bill and get the headlight back home...

REP. PAUL:  No, I, I make the request.  They're not in the bills.

MR. RUSSERT:  ...and then you, then you know it's going to pass Congress and so you, you don't refuse the money.

REP. PAUL:  Well, no, of course not.  It's like taking a tax credit.  If you have a tax credit, I'm against the taxes but I take all my tax credits.  I want to get...

MR. RUSSERT:  But if you were true...

REP. PAUL:  ...the money back for the people.

MR. RUSSERT:  If you were true to your philosophy, you would say no pork spending in my district.

REP. PAUL:  No, no, that's not it.  They steal our money, that's like saying that people shouldn't take Social Security money.

MR. RUSSERT:  For...

REP. PAUL:  I don't advocate that.

MR. RUSSERT:  All right, let me ask you this...

REP. PAUL:  I'm trying to save the system, make the system work.

MR. RUSSERT:  Let me ask you this...

REP. PAUL:  But no, I think you have it all mixed up.  Now, you're confused.

MR. RUSSERT:  All right.  It's all facts.

REP. PAUL:  You're confused.

MR. RUSSERT:  This is The Wall Street Journal.  You load up the bills with special projects...

REP. PAUL:  I--no, no, no.  No, you don't.

MR. RUSSERT:  You do.  You do.  You deny that you have, you have...

REP. PAUL:  How many of them ever got passed?  But the whole point is, we have a right and an...

MR. RUSSERT:  They pass.  You vote against them, but you take the money.

REP. PAUL:  You don't quite understand.

MR. RUSSERT:  OK.

REP. PAUL:  They take our money from us, and the Congress has the authority to appropriate, not the executive branch.  And I'm saying that I represent my people.  They have a request, it's like taking a tax credit, and I put it in--the whole process is corrupt so that I vote against everything.

MR. RUSSERT:  All right, let me ask you this.  But if...

REP. PAUL:  I vote against it, so I don't endorse the system.

MR. RUSSERT:  But when it passes overwhelmingly, you take the money back home.

REP. PAUL:  I don't take it.  That's the system.

MR. RUSSERT:  The system.

REP. PAUL:  I'm trying to change that system.  To turn it around and say I'm supporting this system, I find it...

MR. RUSSERT:  Well.  Well...

REP. PAUL:  ...rather ironic and entertaining.

MR. RUSSERT:  Well, when you stop taking earmarks or putting earmarks in the, in the spending bills, then I think you'll be consistent.

Let me ask you about this...

REP. PAUL:  Turn--you...

MR. RUSSERT:  Let me ask this.  Term limits.  You ran on term limits.  "I think we should have term limits for our elected leaders." You've been in Congress 18 years.

REP. PAUL:  But I never ran on voluntary term limits.  There's a big difference.  I didn't sign a pledge for a voluntary term limit.  Matter of fact, some of the best people that I worked with, who were the most principled, came in on voluntary term limits.  Some of them broke their promises, and some didn't, and they were very good people.  So some of the good people left.  And it's true, I, I didn't run on that, Tim, you're wrong on that.  I support term limits.  You know, I, I, and I voted all--we had 16 votes one time on term limits, and I voted yes for them.

MR. RUSSERT:  Yeah.

REP. PAUL:  But voluntary term limits is a lot different than compulsory term limits.  It's good to have a turnover, but that isn't the solution either. It's the philosophy of government that counts.  It's only...

MR. RUSSERT:  But if you believe in the philosophy of term limits, why wouldn't you voluntarily...

REP. PAUL:  Well, it's, it's one of those, it's one of those things that's not on--I mean, you don't see that out I'm campaigning on that.  I mean, I don't think it's--I don't think it's the solution.  Philosophy is the solution.  What the role of government ought to be, so if you have a turnover and the same people come in and they believe in big government, nothing good is going to come of it.

MR. RUSSERT:  Let me ask you about immigration because that's a big issue here, and there has been a profound change.  Back when you ran for president, 1988, libertarian, you said, "As in our country's first 150 years, there shouldn't be any immigration policy at all.  We should welcome everyone who wants to come here and work." You've changed your view.

REP. PAUL:  And, and during that campaign, I remember I got into trouble with Libertarians because I said there may well be a time when immigration is like an invasion and we have to treat it differently.  And I think, in one sense, with the welfare state out of control--see, my approach to immigration is somewhat different than the others.  Mine is you deal with it economically. We're in worse shape now because we subsidize immigration.  We give food stamps, Social Security, free medical care, free education and amnesty.  So you subsidize it, and you have a mess.  Our hospitals are being closed. Conditions have changed.  And I think that we should have--and, and 9/11 has occurred.  Why shouldn't we be looking at people coming in?  So there's--this, this means that we should look at immigration differently.  It's an economic issue more than anything.  If our economy was in good health, I--believe me, I don't think there'd be an immigration problem.  We'd be looking for workers and we would be very generous.

MR. RUSSERT:  You say you're a strict constructionist of the Constitution, and yet you want to amend the Constitution to say that children born here should not automatically be U.S. citizens.

REP. PAUL:  Well, amending the Constitution is constitutional.  What's a--what's the contradiction there?

MR. RUSSERT:  So in the Constitution as written, you want to amend?

REP. PAUL:  Well, that's constitutional, to do it.  Besides, it was the 14th Amendment.  It wasn't in the original Constitution.  And there's a, there's a confusion on interpretation.  In the early years, it was never interpreted that way, and it's still confusing because people--individuals are supposed to have birthright citizenship if they're under the jurisdiction of the government.  And somebody who illegally comes in this country as a drug dealer, is he under the jurisdiction and their children deserve citizenship? I think it's awfully, awfully confusing, and, and I, I--matter of fact, I have a bill to change that as well as a Constitutional amendment to clarify it.

MORE FROM MEET THE PRESS

Meet the Press Section Front

Nov. 22: Senate roundtable, Brinker, Snyderman Nov. 15: Clinton, Duncan, Gingrich, Sharpton Nov. 8: Casey, Barbour, Rendell, roundtable, Brokaw Nov. 1: Tim Geithner, David Plouffe, roundtable Oct. 25: Cornyn, Schumer, Burnett, Sorkin, roundtable Oct. 18: Jarrett, Dodd, Kyl, Shriver, Podesta Oct. 11: Levin, Graham, McCaffrey, Myers, roundtable Oct. 4: Ambassador Susan Rice, roundtable Sept. 27: Bill Clinton, Paterson, Kyl, Webb Sept. 20: President Obama, Sen. Graham, Rep. Boehner, roundtable Meet the Press Section Front   Add Meet the Press headlines to your news reader: