March 31st, 1998
Mr. Chairman, this is a very important part of this legislation. This is not BESTEA, but it is ‘best part.’ By far Section 3002 of this bill is the best part of this entire bill. The only thing I would like to add is that the money being spent in Bosnia and Iraq, $1.8 billion, should not be spent there either, because I am frightened that we will put our men in harm’s way and then a situation will occur, and it will be virtually impossible for the Congress to turn down acceleration and amplification of the conflict over there.
Mr. Chairman, it has been stated that only five times we have declared war in our history. True. But who is going to stand here and say that men that died in Vietnam and in Korea were not in a war? They were illegal. They were unconstitutional. This is a very sound effort to bring back once again the constitutional responsibility of all of us to declare war, and only Congress can do that.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
March 31st, 1998
WASHINGTON, DC – Calling the agriculture industry the backbone of America, US Representative Ron Paul (R-Surfside, Texas), has this week presented his five-point “Agricultural Agenda.”
“America’s farmers are the most productive in the world, despite heavy burdens of taxes and regulations: I want to free them from those taxes and regulations so they can be even more productive. With that in mind, I have put together a consistent agenda which, if enacted, will lead to more freedom and more prosperity for all Americans. This is an agenda which embraces the Constitution and the pro-taxpayer stance I know the people of the 14th District find so important,” said Rep. Paul. “These are all items I have been pursuing since coming to Congress, and will continue to aggressively promote.”
The items in the Ron Paul Agricultural Agenda include:
- Opening Foreign Markets – Through legislation such as the Cuba Humanitarian Trade Act and others, Rep. Paul has been the Congress’ strongest advocate for opening markets to American agriculture.
- Income Averaging – A staunch crusader for lower, simpler, fair taxes, Rep. Paul is pushing for legislation which allows individuals in agriculture to average their taxable income, so they are not hurt by cycles which they cannot control, such as droughts.
- End the Estate Tax – This tax hurts small farmers and middle-income Americans worse than anyone else. Family farms are slowly being sliced to nothing as families are forced to sell land to pay the unreasonable taxes levied at the death of a parent or spouse. Rep. Paul is sponsoring legislation to end the death tax immediately.
- Protecting Property Rights – Rep. Paul is well-known for his efforts to stop the over-extended arm of the EPA and other federal regulators who seek to take land and add costs to farmers and ranchers. He is cosponsoring legislation which will stop the abuse of landowners by federal agencies.
- Rice Farmer Fairness Act – This legislation was recently introduced by Rep. Paul to address the problem of land owners being subsidized for raising rice even when they do not have the crop in their rotation. Under the current system, there is an incentive for land owners to kick tenant farmers off the land, which could jeopardize the agricultural industry’s infrastructure.
“These five items mark a good first step in freeing farmers and ranchers – and, really, everyone who is involved in ag in one way or another – from the burdensome, over-reaching arm of the federal government regulations and taxes,” said Paul. “As I have traveled the 14th District, I know these items are important to District 14′s family farmers. While I expect entrenched special interests to oppose freeing farmers – and all Americans – from the chains of high taxes and high regulation, it won’t be enough to stop us.”
Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off
Similar posts:
March 27th, 1998
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, yesterday the foreign affairs conference report was unfortunately passed without a recorded vote. For weeks, arms had been twisted because the votes were not available to pass it. This surprised some and pleased many who preferred not to be recorded on this crucial issue.
But, unfortunately, the process only adds to the cynicism that many Americans hold for the U.S. Congress. Nearly a billion dollars were appropriated for the controversial back dues to the United Nations, which for many of us was not owed.
It was argued by many right-to-life advocates that the bill was worth passing because the antiabortion language was stronger than ever and would now be codified. Unfortunately, the antiabortion language was weaker than ever with a convenient, huge loophole for the President to continue funding countries and groups that perform and promote abortion, language now to be codified.
Events surrounding the passage of the foreign affairs conference report occurring yesterday should not make any of us proud.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
March 26th, 1998
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, last year’s attempts by some in Congress to tie the Mexico City Policy to the issues of funding for the United Nations (UN) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) this week come back to haunt those of us who believe in the sanctity of human life, the inviolability of US Sovereignty, and the rights of the U.S. taxpayers to keep the fruits of their own labor. This week, we see, the ‘grand deal’ struck which will see liberals back down from their opposition to Mexico City Language in exchange for conservative members voting to support funding of the United Nations, affirmative action, peacekeeping activities, and the National Endowment for Democracy.
MEXICO CITY POLICY DETAILED
The Mexico City Policy was drafted in the Reagan years as an attempt to put some limitations on US foreign aide being used for certain abortions overseas. While I believe that those who put this policy forward were well-motivated, I believe that time has shown this policy to have little real effect. I have continued to vote for this policy when it came up as a stand alone issue in this Congress because, by itself, its effect tends to be positive rather than negative, as I say, I consider it largely ineffective.
I believe that the only real answer to the concerns of sovereignty, property rights, constitutionality and pro-life philosophy is for the United States to totally de-fund any foreign aid for international ‘family planning’ purposes. I introduced a resolution to that effect in 1997 and we received 154 votes in support of cutting off this unconstitutional funding program.
In fact, the deficiencies of the Mexico City Policy are such that the pro-family conservative group Concerned Women for America has withdrawn its support for the Mexico City Policy all together. This, in part, due to the fact that while the policy requires more creative accounting, it does not, by any stretch of the imagination, prohibit funding of many abortions.
UNITED NATIONS
The United Nations is an organization which frequently acts in a manner contrary to the sovereign interests of the United States. As such, I have sponsored legislation to get the United States out of this organization.
Currently, the most pressing battle is to stop the US from paying phony ‘back dues’ which we supposedly ‘owe’ this organization. Congressman Roscoe Bartlett put forward a bill to stop any payment of this phony UN debt and I proudly cosponsored Mr. Bartlett’ s legislation.
LINKING THESE TWO ISSUES
We were able to put the breaks to the funding of the false UN debt and the IMF at the end of the last session of Congress by linking these items with the Mexico City Policy language. For political reasons President Clinton has steadfastly refused to sign any legislation which contains any anti-abortion language at all.
This linkage presented us with a short term tactical victory but its long term costs are now becoming quite apparent. In linking these two issues together an opportunity for a ‘deal’ has become apparent, a deal which will compromise principles on several fronts.
THE SO-CALLED ‘BARGAIN’
The so-called bargain here is maintaining the flawed Mexico City language in exchange for paying the alleged back-dues to the United Nations. But this, from a true conservative standpoint, is a double negative. In a world of so-called give-and-take, this is a double-take. This is no bargain at all. Obviously, the Mexico City policy is riddled with fungibility holes in the first place. Moreover, it is morally repugnant to undermine our nation’s integrity by trading votes in this fashion. Worse still, it is now apparent how willing ‘some’ members have become to water the Mexico City Policy down still further in order to get President Clinton to sign legislation which shouldn’t exist in the first place. Even the abortion restrictive language has been diluted to state that ‘the President could waive the restriction on funding groups that perform or promote abortion, but such a waiver would automatically reduce total U.S. funding for family planning activities to $356 million, 11% less then current appropriations. In other words, Abortion is A-O-K if done with 11% fewer taxpayer dollars. Now that’s not worth compromising principle.
‘PEACEKEEPING’
This compromise authorizes $430 million for U.S. contributions to our ‘police the world’ program carried out through various arms of the United Nations. International peacekeeping operations are currently ongoing in the Middle East, Angola, Cambodia, Western Sahara, and the former Yugoslavia. Additionally, the measure authorizes $146 million to international operation in the Sinai and Cypress.
ADDTIONALLY
This ‘agreement’ authorizes $1.8 Billion for multilateral assistance in excess of the previously mentioned contribution to the United Nations; $60 million dollars for the National Endowment for Democracy; $20 million for the Asia Foundation; $22 million for the East-West Center for the study of Asian and Pacific Affairs; $1.3 billion for international migration and refugee assistance and an additional $160 million to transport refugees from the republics of the former Soviet Union to Israel. Also, $100 million is authorized to fund radio broadcasts to Cuba, Asia and a study on the feasibility of doing so in Iran.
Lastly, foreign policy provisions in this report suggest an ever-increasing role for the United States in our current police-the-world mentality. Strong language to encourage all emerging democracies in Central and Eastern Europe to join NATO area amongst these provisions in the conference report. It also authorizes $20 million for the International Fund for Ireland to support reconciliation, job creation, investment therein. For Iraq, the bill authorizes $10 million to train political opposition forces and $20 million for relief efforts in areas of Iraq not under the control of Hussein.
Apparently contrary to the first amendment, the conference report contains language that the U.S. should recognize the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Istanbul, Turkey, as the spiritual center of the world’s 300 million Orthodox Christians and calls upon the Turkish government to reopen the Halki Patriarchal School of Theology formerly closed in 1971. ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion * * * (Except abroad?)
CONCLUSION
Fortunately, many genuinely conservative pro-life and pro-sovereignty groups are making it known that they do not support this so-called ‘compromise.’ I, for one, refuse to participate in any such illusion and oppose any effort to pay even one penny of U.S. taxpayer dollars to the United Nations, subsidize family planning around the world, and intervene at U.S. taxpayer expense in every corner of the globe.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
March 18th, 1998
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
I rise in strong support of this resolution, and I compliment the gentleman from California for bringing it to this floor.
This is an immensely important constitutional issue and one that we should pay close attention to and obviously support. I would like this same principle, of course, to apply across the board, especially when it comes to bombing foreign countries, like Iraq, because we should not be involved in war efforts without the consent of the Congress.
The Constitution is very, very clear on this. Unfortunately, policy has drifted away from a noninterventionist constitutional approach. Just in the last 2 days we had five resolutions implying that we have the economic strength, we have the military power and the wisdom to tell other people what to do.
Usually it starts just with a little bit of advice that leads next to then sending troops in to follow up with the advice that we are giving. So I think this is very, very important, to get this out on the table, debate this, and for Congress to reassume the responsibility that they have given to an imperial presidency.
Prior to World War II there were always debates in the House of Representatives any time we wanted to use military force. Whether it was 150 years ago, when we decided to spread our borders southward towards Mexico, or whether 100 years ago when we decided to do something in Cuba, it came here. They had the debates, they had the arguments, but they came to the floor and debated this.
Today, ever since World War II, we have reneged on that responsibility. We have turned it over to the President and allowed him to be involved. We have given him words of encouragement that implies that we support his position. We do so often and, as far as I am concerned, too carelessly. But when we do this, the President then assumes this responsibility; and, unfortunately, since World War II, it has not even been for national security reasons.
The Persian Gulf War was fought with the assumption that the administration got the authority from the United Nations. If we are to express ourselves and to defend our national sovereignty, we should have the Congress vote positive on this resolution because it is so critical.
Today, we have been overextended. Our military is not as strong as some people believe. Our economy is probably not nearly as strong as some believe. We have troops that could be attacked in Korea. We have the potentiality of bombing Baghdad at the same time we have troops in harm’s way in Bosnia. So we have spread ourselves too thinly, and we are vulnerable.
We have a responsibility here. The Congress has a responsibility to the American people. We are here to defend the national sovereignty and the protection of the United States. Troops in Bosnia threatens our national security and threatens the lives of the American citizen who is protecting or fighting in this region. So it is up to us to assume this responsibility.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
March 17th, 1998
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw to the attention of my colleagues two House concurrent resolutions that we will be voting on, one today and one tomorrow.
The one tomorrow is offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell ), which I think we should pay close attention to and, hopefully, support. This is H. Con. Res. 227. It is a concurrent resolution directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove United States Armed Forces from the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
The troops should never have been sent there in the first place. There was a lot of controversy. It was far from unanimous consent from the Congress to send the troops there. They were sent there in 1995, and they were to be there for 18 months, and each time we came upon a date for removing the troops, they were extended.
Currently, it is the President’s position that the troops will stay indefinitely. He has not set a date, although the Congress has set a date for this June for all funding to be removed as of June and the troops should come home. This resolution more or less states that same position. I strongly favor this, and I believe that the Congress should send a strong message that we should not casually and carelessly send troops around the world to police the world. This is a good way for us to get into trouble.
Our national security is not threatened. There was no justification for our troops to be sent there. There are always good reasons, though, given because there are problems. Well, there are problems every place in the world. If we try to solve all the problems of the world, we would not have troops in a hundred countries like we have now, we would have them in three or four hundred countries. But it is true that we send troops with the most amount of pressure put upon us to do it.
There are certain countries, like in Rwanda, Africa, we certainly did not apply the same rules to that country as we do to Bosnia and the Persian Gulf and Iraq. We did not do this when we saw the mass killings in the Far East under Pol Pot.
So, under certain circumstances where there is political pressure made by certain allies or by interests of oil, then we are likely to get involved. But the principle of a noninterventionism foreign
policy should make certain that we, the Congress, never condone, never endorse, never promote the placement of troops around the world in harm’s way because it is a good way for men to get killed and, for most purposes, the lives of our American soldiers are too valuable to be put into a situation where there is so much harm and danger.
Fortunately, there has been no American deaths in this region, but there is a good reason for those troops to come out. The peace has not been settled, though, there. It is not going to be. And our 16,000 or 20,000 troops that we have had there will not be able to maintain the peace as long as these warring factions exist. They have existed not for months, not for a few years, but literally for hundreds of years if not thousands of years people in this region have been fighting among themselves.
So it is not our responsibility. Yes, we can condemn the violence; and who would not? But does that justify the taxing of American citizens and imposing a threat to American lives by imposing and sending our troops to all these hot spots around the region?
So I strongly urge my fellow colleagues to look carefully at this resolution tomorrow and assume congressional responsibility. It is not the responsibility of the President to wage war, to put troops around the world. That is a congressional responsibility.
So although there has been no declaration of war, we are sitting ducks for a war to be started. So let us stop the war before it gets started.
I think we should strongly endorse this resolution and make sure these troops come home. It is interesting that there is a fair amount of support for this, and we obviously won the vote on this last year to say the troops should come home in June of this year. I suspect and hope that this will be restated, and there will be no excuse to extend their stay in this region.
But at the same time we win those kind of votes, and there is a strong sentiment here in the Congress when we are required to vote and there is certainly a strong sentiment among the American people that we ought to be dealing with our problems here at home, we ought not to assume the role of world policemen, and we ought to mind our own business, and we ought to be concerned about the sovereignty of the United States, rather than sending our troops around the world under the auspices of the United Nations and NATO and literally giving up our sovereignty to international bodies. We were very confused as to who was really in charge of foreign policy in Iraq, whether it was Kofi Annan or whether it was our President.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
March 11th, 1998
WASHINGTON, DC – In a letter to Rep. Harold Rogers of Kentucky, Chairman of the Appropriations sub-committee responsible for funding the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) has asked him to include language in an upcoming appropriations bill which would stop the NMFS from implementing more stringent rules such as season closures, reductions in allowable catch (TAC) and Bycatch Reduction Devices (ByRDs). If passed the language would stop such measures from being enforced in 1999.
Paul has said he would communicate with House Leadership about his strong desire to have this language included in FY99 appropriations.
In addition, Paul said he is continuing to pursue cosponsors for legislation he will introduce to overturn ByRDs if the Commerce Department promulgates that regulation. But he added that, “the language which I am proposing here (in the letter) is an additional safeguard, it is a very realistic and pragmatic request for a Congress which is very much concerned by the administration’s attempts to pass burdensome new regulations.”
“If we fail to get this language included I will definitely raise the stakes in this battle; if we are unsuccessful here I will immediately propose legislation to repeal in its entirety the Magnuson/Stevens Act,” said Paul, referring to the legislation which allows the Commerce Department to promulgate these regulations.
“It is time for Congress to step up and take responsibility – our constituents will accept nothing less – NMFS has been waging a war on both the snapper and shrimp fisheries, and we need to say ‘enough is enough’. The old bureaucratic strategy of pitting recreational against commercial, and shrimper against snapper fishermen, must end, and must end now. We need to tell NMFS now ‘No New Regulations’, not on our snapper fishermen, not on our shrimpers, not on anyone.”
Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off
Similar posts:
March 10th, 1998
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 419, yet another circumvention of the enumerated powers clause and tenth amendment by this 105th Congress in its continued obliteration of what remains of our national government of limited powers.
For most of the past thirty years, I have worked as physician specializing in obstetrics. In so doing, I delivered more than 4,000 infants. Despite what I believe to be a somewhat unique insight on the topic of birth defect prevention, today, I address the house as a Congressman rather than as a physician.
As a Congressman, I have repeatedly come to the house floor to denounce the further expansion of the federal government into areas ranging from ‘toilet-tank-size mandates’ to ‘public housing pet size;’ areas, that is, where no enumerated power exists and the tenth amendment reserves to state governments and private citizens the exclusive jurisdiction over such matters. My visits to the floor have not gone uncontested–proponents of an enlarged federal government and more government spending have justified their pet spending and expansionist projects by distorting the meaning of the ‘necessary and proper’ and ‘common defense and general welfare’ clauses to encompass the constitutionally illegitimate activities they advocate. Even the Export-Import Bank and Overseas Private Investment Corporation during Foreign Operations Appropriations debate were constitutionally ‘justified’ by the express power to ‘coin money and regulate the value thereof’? In other words, where money exists, credit exists–where credit exists, loans exist–where loans exist, defaulters exist–and from this, the federal government has a duty to bail-out (at taxpayer expense) politically connected corporations who make bad loans in political-risk-laden venues?
In the Federalist Papers, Madison and Hamilton strongly denied such views with respect to the necessary and proper clause. Madison was similarly emphatic that the ‘defense and welfare’ clause did not expand the enumerated powers granted to Congress. To the extent these clauses encompass the enumerated powers (rather than merely serve as their preamble), one must ask why then the federal powers were, in fact, enumerated in Article One, Section 8.
Chiefly to resolve ambiguities about the national powers, the tenth amendment, proposed as part of the Bill of Rights by the Federalist-controlled first Congress, was added, declaring that the ‘powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.’ According to constitutional scholar Bernard Siegan, University of San Diego College of Law, the Constitution might never have been ratified had the Federalists’ representations in this regard not been accepted by a portion of the public. Siegan also reminds us that the Framers rejected the notion of empowering the
national government to grant charters of incorporation; establish seminaries for the promotion of agriculture, commerce, trades, and manufactures; regulate stages on post roads; establish universities; encourage by premiums and provisions, the advancement of useful knowledge; and opening and establishing canals. Each notion was introduced during the convention and voted down or died in committee.
Jefferson, in one of his most famous remarks, when addressing the issue of whether to grant a federal charter to a mining business, recognized below the slippery slope of a lax interpretation of the ‘necessary and proper’ clause:
Congress are [sic] authorized to defend the nation. Ships are necessary for defense, copper is necessary for ships; mines, necessary for copper; a company necessary to work the mines; and who can doubt this reasoning who has ever played at ‘This is the House that Jack Built’? under such a process of filiation of the necessities the sweeping clause makes clean work. [1 c. Warren, The Supreme Court United States History 501 (Rev. ed. 1926]
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
March 10th, 1998
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, last week it was Saddam Hussein and the Iraqis. This week’s Hitler is Slobodon Milosevic and the Serbs. Next week, who knows? Kim Chong-il and the North Koreans? Next year, who will it be, the Ayatollah and the Iranians? Every week we must find a foreign infidel to slay; and, of course, keep the military-industrial complex humming.
Once our ally, Saddam Hussein, with encouragement from us, invaded Iran. Was it not logical that he might believe that we condone border crossings and invasions even into what Iraqis believe rightfully theirs, Kuwait, especially after getting tacit approval from U.S. Ambassador Glaspie?
Last week U.S. Special Envoy to the Balkans Robert Gelbard, while visiting Belgrade, praised Milosevic for his cooperation in Bosnia and called the separatists in Kosova ‘without question a terrorist group.’ So how should we expect a national government to treat its terrorists?
Likewise, our Secretary of State in 1991 gave a signal to Milosevic by saying, ‘All Yugoslavia should remain a monolithic state.’ What followed was to be expected: Serb oppression of the Croats and the Muslims.
All our wise counsel so freely given to so many in this region fails to recognize that the country of Yugoslavia was an artificial country created by the Soviet masters, just as the borders of most Middle Eastern countries were concocted by the British and U.N. resolutions.
The centuries old ethnic rivalries inherent in this region, and aggravated by persistent Western influence as far back as the Crusades, will never be resolved by arbitrary threats and use of force from the United States or the United Nations. All that is being accomplished is to further alienate the factions, festering hate and pushing the region into a war of which we need no part.
Planning any military involvement in Kosova is senseless. Our security is not threatened, and no one has the foggiest notion of whether Kofi Annan or Bill Clinton is in charge of our foreign policy. The two certainly do not speak in unison on Iraq.
But we cannot maintain two loyalties, one to a world government under the United Nations and the other to U.S. sovereignty protected by an American Congress. If we try, only chaos can result and we are moving rapidly in that direction.
Instead of bringing our troops home from Bosnia, as many Members of Congress have expressed an interest in doing, over the President’s objection, we are rapidly preparing for sending more troops into Kosova. This obsession with worldwide military occupation by U.S. troops is occurring at the very time our troops lack adequate training and preparation.
This is not a result of too little money by a misdirected role for our military, a role that contradicts the policy of neutrality, friendship, trade and nonintervention in the affairs of other nations. The question we should ask is: are we entitled to, wealthy enough, or even wise enough to assume the role of world policemen and protector of the world’s natural resources?
Under the Constitution, there is no such authority. Under rules of morality, we have no authority to force others to behave as we believe they should, and force American citizens to pay for it not only with dollars, but with life and limb as well. And by the rules of common sense, the role of world policemen is a dangerous game and not worth playing.
Acting as an honest broker, the U.S. may help bring warring factions to the peace table, but never with threats of war or bribes paid for by the American taxpayers. We should stop sending money and weapons to all factions. Too often our support finds its way into the hands of both warring factions and we never know how long it will be for our friends and allies of today to become our enemy and targets of tomorrow.
Concern for American security is a proper and necessary function of the U.S. Congress. The current policy, and one pursued for decades, threatens our security, drains our wallets, and worst of all, threatens the lives of young Americans to stand tall for Americans’ defense, but not for Kofi Annan and the United Nations.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
March 6th, 1998
WASHINGTON, DC – Saying it was time to free rice farmers and the taxpayers from bad regulations, taxes and policies US Representative Ron Paul on Thursday introduced the Rice Farmer Fairness Act, HR3339.
“Rice farmers and American taxpayers should not bear the cost of subsidizing land-owners who once grew rice and stopped. It’s time we pulled those insane subsidies. Such programs hurt the rice farmer and the taxpayer, and have a devastating impact on the rice farming infrastructure” said Paul.
The legislation will insure that those who had tenant rice farmers producing rice when they began to receive this subsidy must continue to maintain rice in their crop rotation if they wish to continue receiving the subsidy.
“This common sense measure will remove the perverse incentive which the federal government has provided to landowners to exit the rice business, and thereby put the entire rice infrastructure at risk,” said Paul.
The congressman said he has heard from many rice farmers who say practices such as this are hurting the industry, but the big corporate land owners are intent on getting the subsidies without raising the rice.
“I’m pleased to introduce this legislation on behalf of small rice farmers in the 14th District. As I travel through the rice-belt region of the district, family farmers telling me that they are not represented by the big-interest organizations which seek to continue to heavily subsidize unproductive land owners at the expense of the taxpayer. The farmer needs to be free to farm, whether they are growing rice, cotton or raising livestock. This legislation takes the first step in freeing the farmer from the bad policies of Washington agri-crats.”
Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off
Similar posts: