May 22nd, 1998
WASHINGTON, DC – US Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tx) and other members of Texas delegation to Congress on Thursday signed a letter to Secretary of Defense William Cohen asking that when the US Army South is moved from Panama to the United States, that the HQ be located in Texas.
Rep. Henry Bonilla (R-Tx) organized the bipartisan effort, along with Reps. Silvestre Reyes (D-Tx) and Ciro Rodriguez (D-Tx).
The congressmen explained in their letter that setting Texas as the new base for the Army South is fiscally responsible, and represents the best choice for both defense needs and the needs of military personnel. The US Army South is responsible for operations in the central and southern regions of the Americas.
“Sites in Texas are available with existing infrastructure and access to both commercial and military airfields,” the letter states. “Utilizing existing infrastructure would reduce concerns about high military construction costs or problems with leasing commercial space.”
Continuing, the congressmen’s letter states that, “We also urge you not to repeat past mistakes in locating to high-cost areas… Recent news accounts indicate that (moving the US Southern Command to Miami, Florida) has resulted in staff sergeants forced to subsist on food stamps.” The congressmen cited Texas low-cost of living as compared with other states as being a benefit to military officers and enlisted personnel, alike.
Paul, a former Air Force flight surgeon, said moving the Army South HQ to Texas is a good move for both the military and Texas.
“Our troops need to be in the United States, protecting our borders. By moving Army South to Texas we will ensure that our military can readily defend our borders while still affording them easy access to their Area of Operational Responsibility,” said Paul. “Because the headquarters is going to be moved to the U.S. anyway and still keep its operational mission, it only makes sense that it be located in Texas.”
Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off
Similar posts:
May 21st, 1998
WASHINGTON, DC – Calling it an important step in protecting the interests and defense of the United States, US Rep. Ron Paul praised the House for approving by an overwhelming majority an amendment Wednesday night to the Department of Defense’s Fiscal year 1999 authorization legislation (HR3616, the National Defense Authorization Act). The amendment passed 250 to 172.
The amendment, introduced by Rep. Joel Hefley (R-Colo.), prohibits the use of Department of Defense funds or personnel from being used in a proposed “United Nations Rapidly Deployable Mission Headquarters,” which UN officials have said is the first step in creating a standing UN military force to be under the command of the UN Secretary-General and based in New York. The Clinton Administration has admitted to using DoD funds in the past for this project.
“The idea of a UN military force is repugnant to Americans. But even worse is the thought that this UN army would be stationed on our land, potentially mobilizing our sons and daughters, using our money, but without anyone in Congress having any oversight,” said Paul after the measure passed.
In his comments on the House floor, Paul said using Defense funds and personnel to equip a UN military force is not only an unconstitutional use of taxpayer resources and military personnel, but weakens America’s defense.
“I’m glad that so many of my colleagues agreed that it is time we stopped handing our sovereignty over to the UN; we have drawn a line in the sand and said, ‘No more.’ Every dollar we hand over to the UN is a dollar not being used to protect our borders and interests,” said Paul, a former Air Force flight surgeon. And every soldier we transfer under their command is one more American soldier who will be placed in harms’ way for reasons other than defending his nation and liberty.”
Members of Congress were upset to learn that the Administration, without congressional approval, has already been using DoD funds to help create this new UN army.
“The overall Defense authorization bill has some real problems, and continues some very bad, interventionist policies. But this amendment, ensuring the safety of American citizens, soldiers and interests, is a very good first step.”
Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off
Similar posts:
May 20th, 1998
WASHINGTON, DC – Calling the legislation an important tool for farmers and ranchers trying to provide for themselves, US Representative Ron Paul on Tuesday became a cosponsor of HR 3659, the Farm and Ranch Risk Management Act (FARRM Act). This measure provides farmers and ranchers with a big tax incentive to set aside money for bad years.
Under the FARRM Act, farmers and ranchers can put up to 20% of their annual farm income into a specially-designated account, with the amount being tax-deductible. Money could be kept in the account for up to five years and be used at any time to supplement income in bad years.
“Farming and ranching are financially risky endeavors, and by removing tax-policy obstacles and providing tools like FARRM, those who make their living in agriculture will be able to be more self-reliant,” said Paul. “These accounts will allow farmers and ranchers to achieve a level of income stability, by allowing them to shift funds from good years and use them in bad years.”
Paul is also a cosponsor of HR429, legislation which would allow farmers and ranchers to utilize “income averaging.” This process prevents farmers and ranchers from being saddled with large tax burdens in a “good” year, when they are simply making up for losses from a previous “bad” year.
“We need to be encouraging people to remain in agriculture, not penalizing them for participating in what is the backbone of 14 th District’s economy,” added Paul.
The FARRM Act is sponsored by more than 45 Members of Congress, including Texas Reps. Pete Sessions (R), Lamar Smith (R), Max Sandlin (D), and Larry Combest (R). The legislation has been endorsed by the American Farm Bureau Federation.
Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off
Similar posts:
May 19th, 1998
BACKGROUND
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the Soviet system, along with the Berlin Wall, came crashing down in 1989, the same year the new, never-to-end, era came to a screeching halt in Japan. The Japanese economic miracle of the 1970′s and the 1980′s, with its ‘guaranteed’ safeguards, turned out to be a lot more vulnerable than any investor wanted to believe. Today the Nikkei stock average is still down 60% from 1989, and the Japanese banking system remains vulnerable to its debt burden, a weakening domestic economy and a growing Southeast Asian crisis spreading like a wild fire. That which started in 1989 in Japan–and possibly was hinted at even in the 1987 stock market ‘crash’–is now sweeping the Asian markets. The possibility of what is happening in Asia spreading next to Europe and then to America should not be summarily dismissed.
ECONOMIC FALLACY
Belief that an artificial boom, brought about by Central Bank credit creation, can last forever is equivalent to finding the philosopher’s stone. Wealth cannot be created out of thin air, and new money and credit, although it can on the short-term give an illusion of wealth creation, is destructive of wealth on the long run. This is what we are witnessing in Indonesia–the long run–and it’s a much more destructive scenario than the currently collapsing financial system in Japan. All monetary inflation, something all countries of the world are now participating in, must by their very nature lead to an economic slump.
The crisis in Indonesia is the predictable consequence of decades of monetary inflation. Timing, severity, and duration of the correction, is unpredictable. These depend on political perceptions, realities, subsequent economic policies, and the citizen’s subjective reaction to the ongoing events. The issue of trust in the future and concerns for personal liberties greatly influences the outcome. Even a false trust, or an ill-founded sense of security from an authoritarian leader, can alter the immediate consequences of the economic corrections, but it cannot prevent the inevitable contraction of wealth as is occurring slowly in the more peaceful Japan and rapidly and violently in Indonesia.
The illusion of prosperity created by inflation, and artificially high currency values, encourage over-expansion, excessive borrowing and delusions that prosperity will last forever. This attitude was certainly present in Indonesia prior to the onset of the economic crisis in mid 1997. Even military spending by the Indonesian government was enjoying hefty increases during the 1990′s. All that has quickly ended as the country now struggles for survival.
But what we cannot lose sight of is that the Indonesia economic bubble was caused by a flawed monetary policy which led to all the other problems. Monetary inflation is the mother of all crony ‘capitalism.’
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CORRECTION
One important characteristic of an economic correction, after a period of inflation (credit expansion) is its unpredictable nature because subjective reactions of all individuals concerned influence both political and economic events. Therefore, it’s virtually impossible to predict when and how the bubble will burst. It’s duration likewise is not scientifically ascertainable.
A correction can be either deflationary or inflationary or have characteristics of both. Today, in Indonesia, the financial instruments and real estate are deflating in price, while consumer prices are escalating at the most rapid rate in 30 years due to the depreciation of the rupiah. Indonesia is in the early stages of an inflationary depression–a not unheard of result of sustained Central Bank inflationary policy. Many believe price inflation only occurs with rapid growth. This is not so.
Blame is misplaced. Rarely is the Central Bank and paper money blamed–unless a currency value goes to zero. In Indonesia the most vulnerable scapegoat has been the Chinese businessmen, now in threat of their lives and fleeing the country.
A much more justifiable ‘scapegoat’ is the IMF and the American influence on the stringent reforms demanded in order to receive the $43 billion IMF bailout. IMF policy on aggravates and prolongs the agony while helping the special interest rich at the expense of the poor. The IMF involvement should not be a distraction from the fundamental cause of the financial problem, monetary inflation, even if it did allow three decades of sustained growth.
‘Crony capitalism’ was not the cause of Indonesia’s trouble. Inflationism and political corruption allows crony capitalism to exist. It would be better to call it economic interventionism for the benefit of special interests–a mild form of fascism–than to abuse the free market term of capitalism.
Any serious economic crisis eventually generates political turmoil, especially if political dissent has been held in check by force for any significant period of time. There should be no surprise to see the blood in the streets of Jakarta–soon to spread and build. Political events serve to aggravate and magnify the logical but subjectively sensitive declining currency values and the faltering economy. The snowballing effect makes the political crisis much more serious than the economic crisis since it distracts from the sound reforms that could restore economic growth. These circumstances, instead of leading to more freedom, invite marshal law for the purpose of restoring stability and the dangers that go with it.
Errors in economic thinking prompt demands from the masses for more government programs to ‘take care’ of the rapidly growing number of poor. Demands for more socialism and price controls results whether it’s in education, medical care, unemployment benefits or whatever–all programs that Indonesia cannot afford even if they tried to appease the rioting populous.
[Page: H3480]
SOLUTIONS ATTEMPTED
The IMF’s $43 billion bailout promise has done nothing to quell the panic in the streets of Jakarta. If anything, conditions have worsened the Indonesians deeply resent the austere conditions demanded by the IMF. Since the U.S. is the biggest contributor to the IMF and the world financial and military cop, resentment toward the United States is equal to that of the IMF. The Indonesian people know they won’t be helped by the bailout. They already see their jobs disappearing and prices soaring. The political and economic future, just a few months ago looking rosy, but it is now bleak beyond all description. Indonesians know what the American taxpayers know; the IMF bailout helps the rich lenders who for decades made millions but now want their losses covered by weak victims. Is there any wonder resentment and rage prevails in Indonesia?
The U.S. has just sent a military delegation to study and obviously advise the Indonesian government regarding the law and order crisis now in process. Our officials say that we’re there to watch that the Indonesian military do not abuse the rights of Indonesian citizens. Even if true, and well motivated, where did this authority come from for us to run to the scene of the crime–on the other side of the world and pretend we have all the answers. Proper authority or not put aside, the Indonesian people perceive even a few U.S. military advisors as a further threat to them. The U.S. is seen as an extension of the IMF and is expected to more likely side with the Indonesian military than with the demonstrators. No government likes to see any dissolution of government power even the questionable ones. It might encourage others unhappy with their own government. And it is not like the U.S. government is innocent and benign, considering our recent history at Kent State, Waco, and Ruby Ridge and the hundreds of no-knock entries made in error, causing loss of life, multiple injuries and destruction of property. Let us make sure our own government acts responsibly in all matters of law and order here at home before we pretend we can save the world–a responsibility not achievable even if motivated with the best of intentions.
Effort to prop up an ailing economy after the financial bubble has been popped, prolongs the agony and increases the severity of the correction. Japan’s bubble burst in 1989 and there is not yet any sign of the cleansing of the system of bad debt and mal-investment which is necessary before sound growth will resume. And Indonesia is embarking on the same predictable course. Restoration of free markets, and establishing sound monetary policy has not yet been considered. The people of Indonesia and the rest of the world should prepare for the worst as this crisis spreads. For Congress, the most important thing is to forget the notion that further taxing American workers to finance a bail-out, that won’t work, is the worst policy of all for us to pursue.
The Indonesian government had one idea worth considering under these very difficult circumstances. They wanted to replace their central bank with a currency board. It’s not the gold standard, but it would have been a wise choice under current conditions. But the United States and the IMF insisted that in order to qualify for IMF funding this idea had to be rejected outright and the new central bank for Indonesia had to be patterned after the Federal Reserve with, I’m sure, ties to it for directions from Greenspan and company. A currency board would allow a close linkage of the rupiah to the dollar, its value controlled by market forces, and would have prevented domestic Indonesia monetary inflation–the principle cause of the economic bubble now collapsed. The shortcoming of a currency board is that the Indonesian currency and economy would be dependent on dollar stability which is far from guaranteed.
REFUSAL
In the approximately 8 months since the crisis hit Indonesia there has been no serious look at the underlying cause–monetary inflation brought about by a central bank. Nor has any serious thought gone into the internationalization of credit as United States exports of billions of dollars, and thus our own inflation, to most nations of the world who hold these dollars in reserve and use them to further inflate their own currencies. Our huge negative trade balance and foreign debt is not considered by conventional wisdom to be relevant to the Asian currency problems, yet undoubtedly it is. True reform to deal with the growing worldwide crisis can only be accomplished by us first recognizing the underlying economic errors that caused the current crisis.
The philosophy of the free market, holds a lot of answers, yet the difference between free market capitalism and interventionist political cronyism has not been considered by any of the world banking and political leaders currently addressing the exploding Southeast Asian crisis.
Concern for personal liberty is not a subject associated with the crisis and is an ongoing casualty of past and current policy. A greater concern for individual liberty will be required if a positive outcome is to be expected from the fall-out of the Indonesian crisis. Let’s hope we can get our priorities straight. Congress has an obligation not to worsen the crisis by capitulating to more bail-outs and to remain vigilant enough to keep the administration from accomplishing the same bail-out through Executive Orders outside the law.
MESSAGE
What should the message be to the Congress and the American people regarding this sudden and major change in the economic climate in Indonesia? First and foremost is that since we operate with a fiat currency, as do all the countries of the world, we are not immune from a sudden and serious economic adjustment–at any time. Dollar strength and our ability to spend dollars overseas, without penalty, will not last forever. Confidence in the U.S. economy, and the dollar will one day be challenged. The severity of the repercussion is not predictable but it could be enormous. Our obligation, as Members of Congress, is to protect the value of the dollar, not to deliberately destroy it, in an attempt to prop up investors, foreign governments or foreign currencies. That policy will only lead to a greater crisis for all Americans.
As the Asian crisis spreads, I would expect Europe to feel the crunch next. Unemployment is already at a 12% level in Germany and France. The events can be made worse and accelerated by outside events like a Middle Eastern crisis or a war between India and Pakistan both now rattling their nuclear weapons. Eventually though, our system of ‘crony capitalism’ and fiat money system will come under attack. Our system of favoring industries is different than the family oriented favoritism of Suharto, but none-the-less is built on a system of corporate welfare that prompts constant lobbying of Congress and the Administration for each corporation’s special interests. We have little to talk about as we preach austerity, balanced budgets and sound money to the current victims. Our day will come when we will humble ourselves before world opinion as our house of cards comes crashing down.
We will all know we are on the right track when the people and our leaders are talking of restoring liberty to all equally, and establishing a sound money system that prevents the Fed from manufacturing money and credit out of thin air for the benefit of politicians, corporations and bankers who directly benefit.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
May 13th, 1998
Mr. PAUL. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Chairman’s amendment and in strong support of the amendment of the gentlewoman from New Jersey.
There are two positions that one could take on this. We could have zero integration, which this amendment would do; or we could think about the market. The market would just allow it to exist.
Earlier, somebody quoted Hamilton as being opposed to an integration of commerce in banking. Well, of course, at that particular time in history we had the Jeffersonians, and they were strongly in support of the market and even against central banking.
So I think, considering all things, that I cannot get my 100 percent, and we certainly do not want zero. We need to move in a direction, so I would say this very modest request is very justified.
I think this FDIC insurance is something we should be concerned about, but that is a different issue for the moment. I object to that, but I do not believe this will solve the FDIC problem.
We have to think about how we got here. In the 1920s, the Federal Reserve created a lot of credit. They created a boom and a booming stock market and good times. Then the Federal Reserve raised the interest rates and there was a stock market crash and a depression. And out of the depression came the desire to regulate banking and commerce. That caused the depression, which was erroneous, because the cause of the depression was excessive credit and then a deflated bubble, which should be all laid at the doorstep of the Federal Reserve.
This is the size of the Glass-Steagall Act, a few pages, in order to solve a problem that did not exist. But we have been living with this for all these years. And now, over these several years, we have been trying to solve the problem. Now, this is the size of the solution. This is H.R. 10, this is the version of the Committee on Commerce as well as the version of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services that went to the Committee on Rules.
We need to look at the fundamental cause of our problems and not jump off a cliff and do the wrong thing. I strongly support the Roukema amendment.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
May 12th, 1998
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today the Congress will collectively move our nation two steps closer to a national police state by further expanding a federal crime and paving the way for a deluge of federal drug prohibition legislation. Of course, it is much easier to ride the current wave of federalizing every human misdeed in the name of saving the world from some evil than to uphold a Constitutional oath which prescribes a procedural structure by which the nation is protected from what is perhaps the worst evil, totalitarianism. Who, after all, and especially in an election year, wants to be amongst those members of Congress who are portrayed as soft on drugs or deadbeat parents irrespective of the procedural transgressions and individual or civil liberties one tramples in their zealous approach.
Our federal government is, constitutionally, a government of limited powers. Article one, Section eight, enumerates the legislative areas for which the U.S. Congress is allowed to act or enact legislation. For every other issue, the federal government lacks any authority or consent of the governed and only the state governments their designees, or the people in their private market actions enjoy such rights to governance. The tenth amendment is brutally clear in stating ‘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.’ Our nation’s history makes clear that the U.S. Constitution is a document intended to limit the power of central government. No serious reading of historical events surrounding the creation of the Constitution could reasonably portray it differently. Of course, there will be those who will hang their constitutional ‘hats’ on the interstate commerce general welfare clauses, both of which have been popular ‘headgear’ since the FDR’s headfirst plunge into New Deal Socialism.
The interstate commerce clause, however, was included to prevent states from engaging in protectionism and mercantilist policies as against other states. Those economists who influenced the framers did an adequate job of educating them as to the necessarily negative consequences for consumers of embracing such a policy. The clause was never intended to give the federal government carte blanche to intervene in private economic affairs anytime some special interest could concoct a ‘rational basis’ for the enacting such legislation.
Likewise, while the general welfare provides an additional condition upon each of the enumerated powers of the U.S. Congress detailed in Article I, Section eight, it does not, in itself, provide any latitude for Congress to legislatively take from A and give to B or ignore every other government-limiting provision of Constitution (of which there are many), each of which are intended to limit the central government’s encroachment on liberty.
Nevertheless, rather than abide by our constitutional limits, Congress today will likely pass H. Res. 423 and H.R. 3811 under suspension of the rules meaning, of course, they are ‘non-controversial.’ House Resolution 423 pledges the House to ‘pass legislation that provides the weapons and tools necessary to protect our children and our communities from the dangers of drug addiction and violence’. Setting aside for the moment the practicality of federal prohibition laws, an experiment which failed miserably in the so-called ‘Progressive era’, the threshold question must be: ‘under what authority do we act?’ There is, after all, a reason why a Constitutional amendment was required to empower the federal government to share jurisdiction with the States in fighting a war on a different drug (alcohol)–without it, the federal government had no constitutional authority. One must also ask, ‘if the general welfare and commerce clause were all the justification needed, why bother with the tedious and time-consuming process of amending the Constitution?’ Whether any governmental entity should be in the ‘business’ of protecting competent individuals against themselves and their own perceived stupidity is certainly debatable–Whether the federal government is empowered to do so is not. Being stupid or brilliant to one’s sole disadvantage or advantage, respectively, is exactly what liberty is all about.
Today’s second legislative step towards a national police state can be found in H.R. 3811, the Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act of 1998. This bill enhances a federal criminal felony law for those who fail to meet child support obligations as imposed by the individual states. Additionally, the bills shifts some of the burden of proof from the federal government to the accused. The United States Constitution prohibits the federal government from depriving a person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Pursuant to this constitutional provision, a criminal defendant is presumed to be innocent of the crime charged and, pursuant to what is often called ‘the Winship doctrine,’ the prosecution is allocated the burden of persuading the fact-finder of every fact necessary to constitute the crime . . . charged.’ The prosecution must carry this burden because of the immense interests at stake in a criminal prosecution, namely that a conviction often results in the loss of liberty or life (in this case, a sentence of up to two years). This departure from the long held notion of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ alone warrants opposition to this bill.
Perhaps, more dangerous is the loss of another Constitutional protection which comes with the passage of more and more federal criminal legislation. Constitutionally, there are only three federal crimes. These are treason against the United States, piracy on the high seas, and counterfeiting (and, as mentioned above, for a short period of history, the manufacture, sale, or transport of alcohol was concurrently a federal and state crime). ‘Concurrent’ jurisdiction crimes, such as alcohol prohibition in the past and federalization of felonious child support delinquency today, erode the right of citizens to be free of double jeopardy. The fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifies that no ‘person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . .’ In other words, no person shall be tried twice for the same offense. However, in United States v. Lanza, the high court in 1922 sustained a ruling that being tried by both the federal government and a state government for the same offense did not offend the doctrine of double jeopardy. One danger of unconstitutionally expanding the federal criminal justice code is that it seriously increases the danger that one will be subject to being tried twice for the same offense. Despite the various pleas for federal correction of societal wrongs, a national police force is neither prudent nor constitutional.
The argument which springs from the criticism of a federalized criminal code and a federal police force is that states may be less effective than a centralized federal government in dealing with those who leave one state jurisdiction for another. Fortunately, the Constitution provides for the procedural means for preserving the integrity of state sovereignty over those issues delegated to it via the tenth amendment. The privilege and immunities clause as well as full faith and credit clause allow states to exact judgments from those who violate their state laws. The Constitution even allows the federal government to legislatively preserve the procedural mechanisms which allow states to enforce their substantive laws without the federal government imposing its substantive edicts on the states. Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2 makes provision for the rendition of fugitives from one state to another. While not self-enacting, in 1783 Congress passed an act which did exactly this. There is, of course, a cost imposed upon states in working with one another than relying on a national, unified police force. At the same time, there is a greater cost to centralization of police power.
It is important to be reminded of the benefits of federalism as well as the costs. There are sound reasons to maintain a system of smaller, independent jurisdictions–it is called competition and, yes, governments must, for the sake of the citizenry, be allowed to compete. We have obsessed so much over the notion of ‘competition’ in this country we harangue someone like Bill Gates when, by offering superior products to every other similarly-situated entity, he becomes the dominant provider of certain computer products. Rather than allow someone who serves to provide values as made obvious by their voluntary exchanges in the free market, we lambaste efficiency and economies of scale in the private marketplace. Yet, at the same time, we further centralize government, the ultimate monopoly and one empowered by force rather than voluntary exchange.
When small governments becomes too oppressive, citizens can vote with their feet to a ‘competing’ jurisdiction. If, for example, I do not want to be forced to pay taxes to prevent a cancer patient from using medicinal marijuana to provide relief from pain and nausea, I can move to Arizona. If I want to bet on a football game without the threat of government intervention, I can move to Nevada. If I want my income tax at 4% instead of 10%, I can leave Washington, DC, for the surrounding state suburbs. Is it any wonder that many productive people leave DC and then commute in on a daily basis? (For this, of course, DC will try to enact a commuter tax which will further alienate those who will then, to the extent possible, relocate their workplace elsewhere). In other words, governments pay a price (lost revenue base) for their oppression.
As government becomes more and more centralized, it becomes much more difficult to vote with one’s feet to escape the relatively more oppressive governments. Governmental units must remain small with ample opportunity for citizen mobility both to efficient governments and away from those which tend to be oppressive. Centralization of criminal law makes such mobility less and less practical.
For each of these reasons, among others, I must oppose the further and unconstitutional centralization of power in the national government and, accordingly, H. Res. 423 and H.R. 3811.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
May 6th, 1998
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak for 80 percent of Americans who support the National Right to Work Act, H.R. 59.
The National Right to Work Act repeals those sections of Federal law that give union officials the power to force workers to pay union dues as a condition of employment.
Compulsory unionism violates employers’ and employees’ constitutional rights of freedom of contract and association. Congress has no constitutional authority to force employees to pay union dues to a labor union as a condition of getting or keeping a job.
Passage of the National Right to Work Act would be a major step forward in ending Congress’ illegitimate interference in the labor markets and liberating America’s economy from heavy-handed government intervention. Since Congress created this injustice, we have the moral responsibility to work to end it, Mr. Speaker.
The 80 percent of Americans who support right-to-work deserve to know which Members of Congress support worker freedom. I, therefore, urge the congressional leadership, the majority of which have promised to place a National Right to Work Act on the floor, to fulfill their promise to the American people and schedule a time certain for a vote on H.R. 59.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
May 5th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill, not so much in any objection to what the goals are. The goals are very laudable. The first time I read this resolution, I was in agreement with everything until the very end. Then I had some disagreements with it.
I have taken this time so I would have adequate time to explain my position and why I oppose this bill. Obviously, this country is facing a serious problem with drugs. As a physician, I can attest to it. We have major problems in this country, something should be done. But I thought it was necessary to take some time to point out that what we have done for 20 to 25 years has not been all that good. And I see this resolution as an endorsement of the status quo, not an introduction of one single new idea about how to approach this problem. And it is for this reason that I have taken this time to try to get people to think about maybe an alternative some day that we might look at, because so far the spending of the money and the abuse of our civil liberties that has occurred with the war on drugs has not accomplished a whole lot.
I object strongly to the Federal approach to law enforcement. That is one of the major issues I have contention with. When we think about when we tried to make a better world in 1919, and we thought we should prohibit certain substances being used in this country, in those days we had enough respect for the Constitution that we actually believed then that we should amend the Constitution, and we did and we had an experiment and after 14 years of a failed program, we repealed that amendment on alcohol.
In 1937, it was decided that possibly we should restrict marijuana, even for medical use, and even then it was not assumed that this was a Federal prerogative. It was not banned, it was not outlawed. It was still assumed that it was the responsibility of the States to deal with problems of drugs and marijuana and law enforcement.
In 1937, and I am sure some of my conservative colleagues might be interested in this because it was the great FDR who decided to impose a great tax on marijuana, putting $100 tax on a pound of marijuana, essentially making it illegal. And even today those States who would like to legalize marijuana even for the sick and dying AIDS patients and the cancer patients are not even permitted to. It is because we have carelessly assumed that all regulation and all controls and all policing activities should be done here in Washington.
I am here just to suggest quite possibly our attack on drugs has not been correct, that we have possibly made some mistakes. Maybe we spent some money that we have not gotten our dollars’ worth. Maybe we are going in the wrong direction.
It is estimated that we have spent over $200 billion in the last 25 years fighting drugs. And yet it is the same old thing again. Play on the emotions of the people, condemn drug usage, which I do. As I said as a physician, I know they are horrible. But as a politician and somebody in the legislature, we should think about the efficiency and the effectiveness of our laws.
The evidence quite frankly is not there to show that we are doing a very good job. And even though I commend the individuals who are promoting this legislation, the motivations are there, the desires are there, but I think, in my view, that it is the same old program of the Federal war on drugs that has a lot of shortcomings.
The first ‘whereas’ of this resolution, I strongly agree with. It says, ‘Whereas recently revealed statistics demonstrate America is not winning the battle to keep young Americans drug-free.’ This is my point. This is conceded by everyone. We are not winning this fight, so why pursue the same policies over and over again, and especially since there are some shortcomings with the policy. Not only have they not been effective, there are some serious shortcomings, shortcomings on civil liberty and property rights and other things.
We ought to put the war on drugs in a proper perspective. Yes, it is easy to talk about a heroin addict and a crime committed and people narrowing in on one instance, but we ought to look at this in a proper manner.
There is talk that there are 20,000 deaths with illegal drugs. But that, in the best of my estimates, includes all the violent drugs which, to me, are a consequence of the war on drugs.
I have statistics that say there is about 6,000 people who die from overdosing and taking illegal drugs. A horrible figure. It is horrible. Nobody should be using these drugs. But let us put this in a different perspective.
We lose 37,000 people on highways every year, government-managed highways. And 36,000 people die each year from guns. But we do not take the guns away from the innocent people because there are gun accidents and gun deaths. It is 36,000 in comparison to 6,000.
There is one other figure that is astounding that was in the media, recorded in the media here the last couple of days. The medical profession has a responsibility here. It is estimated that we are losing 106,000 people a year. These are reports from 1994; 106,000 a year from drug reactions, legal prescription drugs coming from doctors.
If we want to go after a problem, let us go after the highways, let us go after the guns, let us go after the drug reaction. What about alcohol? There are 200,000 deaths, approximately, from alcohol. But do we come here and propose that we go back to prohibition? No. We do not. It is a serious problem. It is really the big problem.
Cigarette killing may be up to 400,000 a year. But if we make the suggestion that we want to go after them, then we have a President that says, yes, we will go after the kids that are taking a puff on the cigarette and apply the same rules.
There are 10 million new cases of sexually transmitted diseases diagnosed each year. It is probably higher because most of those cases do not get reported. So that is a serious problem. I mean, look for serious problems.
To dwell on the drug war and casually and carelessly violate civil liberties, as we so often do, and have confiscation and seizure of property that we just blow it off because we are fighting the drug war, I think we are going in the wrong direction. We need some new ideas and new proposals on this drug war. I hope today to have time to make some of these suggestions on what we might do about the drug war.
Former HEW Secretary Joseph Califano said, not too long ago, he was comparing the drug war to the problem of alcohol, he said: The drug war is a grain of sand compared to alcohol.
If we look at the college issue, the overwhelming drug that is a problem on college campuses is alcohol. Yet, 99 percent of our concerns and our expression of horror is directed toward a narrower group of people; that is, on the illegal drugs.
Why might it be that we dwell on the illegal drugs? Alcohol of course is legal, but why would it be that maybe this Congress might not be as aggressive against the abuses of alcohol and the deaths? If we have compassion, should we show less compassion to the 200,000 people dying of alcohol deaths or the 400,000 dying from cigarette deaths? But we do.
It just happens that those who produce alcohol happen to come to Washington quite frequently. They make donations to candidates. They have a lobby. They do have a presence here in Washington. Not only those who make the alcohol, but what about the hotels or the restaurants?
I mean, if we even thought about doing anything or saying anything about alcohol, of course we would hear from the hotels and the restaurants, and maybe rightfully so, if we argue that people have a right to have a glass of wine with their dinner in their hotel or restaurant. But the point I am trying to make is that we dwell on certain things out of proportion to its danger.
Also, one reason why we might not talk about the tremendous abuse with alcohol is the fact that, quite possibly, a few Members of Congress actually participate in using such a thing. There are now probably 13 million people in this United States suffering from abuse or alcoholism, a serious, serious number.
Now, there is a lot more that has to be said, especially if we can someday open up the debate and go in a new direction, have some new ideas dealing with the drug program. But I want to pause here for a minute, and I want to emphasize just one thing; that is, that, constitutionally, it was never intended that the Federal Government fight the war on drug. And they never did until recent years. For 25 years now, we have done it. We have spent $200 billion.
It is failing, and we are not willing to stand up and say, hey, maybe we are doing something wrong. Maybe we ought to have another idea. Maybe we ought to have a new approach.
I think when we talk about not only looking at this outer perspective of other problems that we have in the country, but also the serious consequences of the drug laws which we all should be concerned about because it involves property rights and civil liberty rights, maybe we can get around to the point of saying maybe could there be a new approach.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, as I said, in most of our history, the control of drug abuse has never been a Federal issue. This is only very recent. This does not diminish one’s concern. It is respecting the Constitution. It is also emphasizing the fact that the more we have centralized our control and the more that we have tried to enforce the thing at the national level, the worse the problem has gotten.
I have many conservatives say we have an educational problem, and all they want to do is throw more money at it. I cannot see how this is different. Yes, we have a major problem. But it gets worse, and all we do is throw more money at it with exactly the same programs.
My goal today is just to suggest, just to bring it to the Congress’ attention, that possibly we are not doing the right things. If we would ever come to admitting that, then maybe we will not have to suffer the abuse of how the war on drugs goes awry.
For instance, we have had this war on drugs, and there is no evidence even that we have been able to keep drugs out of our prisons. So maybe there is something we are doing wrong. Maybe we are treating a symptom rather than the cause of the problem. Maybe the cause is not legislatively correctable. That is a possibility. Obviously there is a problem there, but we need to think about it. We need to take a consideration, and not ever to write off those of us who might say we do not endorse the current approach as being one that might not be concerned about the issue.
Obviously I am concerned. I have five children, and I have 13 grandchildren. I am a physician. I have a great deal of concern. But I have also been involved and I have seen people who have suffered, and, therefore, I have probably a slightly different approach to the problem.
But I do think that we ought to look for a minute at the harm done with the war on drugs. So often there are victims from the war on drugs that go unnoticed. How often have we seen on television, how often have we read in our newspaper of a drug bust with hooded FBI agents and hooded DEA agents barging into the wrong apartment and really tearing the place up, confiscating property of people who have never committed a crime?
Why are we at the point now that we permit the war on drugs to be fought without due process of law? All they have to be is a suspect. All we have to do is have cash these days, and the government will come and take it from us. Then we have to prove our innocence. That is not the Constitution. We have gone a long way from the due process.
Our job here is to protect the civil liberties of individuals. Yes, we ought to try to influence behavior. Yes, we ought to make laws against illegal behavior; national, when necessary, but local when the Constitution dictates it. At the rate we are going, we are making very, very little progress.
I have a suspicion that there are motivations behind the invasion of privacy. Because government so often likes to know what people are doing, especially in the financial area, this has been a tremendous excuse to accuse anybody who spends anything in cash of being a drug dealer, because they want to know where the cash is. This is part of the IRS collection agency, because they are worried about collecting enough revenues.
Yet we carelessly say, well, a little violation of civil liberties is okay, because we are doing so much good for the country and we are collecting revenues for the government. But we cannot casually dismiss these important issues, especially, if anything I suggest, that this war on drugs is, or the problem of drugs in perspective is not nearly what some people claim it to be, and that many people are dying from other problems rather than these.
I would like to suggest in closing some of the things that we can consider. First, let us consider the Constitution, for instance. We have no authority to create a Federal police force. That is not in the Constitution. So we ought to consider that. It is a State problem. It is a State law enforcement problem. Most of our history, it was dealt that way.
I think education is very important; people who know what is going on. We should, if anything, be emphasizing the educational process. Possibly my medical background influences me into what I am going to say next; and that is, could we conceive of looking at some of this problem of addiction as a disease rather than a criminal act? We do this with alcohol. Maybe that would help the problem.
Is it conceivable that we are looking at a symptom that the drug problem, the drug craze, is a reflection of moral values in the society?
We cannot get rid of teenage illegitimacy by writing a national law against teenage pregnancy. We are not likely, we have not been able to get rid of drug usage, teenage drug usage, by writing national laws and coming down with the armed might of the Federal Government. So I do not think the current process is going to work.
Kids go on drugs because they are seeking happiness, they are alone, they are in broken families. This is a problem that will not be solved by more laws and a greater war on drugs. We have 80,000 Federal policemen now carrying drugs. Character is what is needed. Laws do not create character. This does not dismiss us from expressing concern about this problem, but let us not make the problem worse.
In 1974, Switzerland passed a law that said that the doctor could prescribe medication for addicts. I, as a physician, if an addict comes into my office and I agree to give him drugs which would support his habit, because I figure for him to go out on the street and shoot somebody for it is a little worse than me trying to talk him into a program by giving him drugs for a while, I am a criminal. I am a criminal today if I decide that somebody should use or could use marijuana if they are dying with cancer or AIDS and they are dying of malnutrition because they cannot eat. There should be a little bit of compassion in this movement.
Again, we cannot distract from the serious problem of the drug war, but I do beg and plead for my colleagues to just look at the truth. Let us read the news carefully, let us look at the Constitution, like we do when it is convenient, and let us consider another option. It cannot be any worse than what we are doing.
We have too many people on drugs, and this resolution makes my point. The war on drugs has failed. Let us do something different. Let us not pursue this any longer.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to point out, once again, that up until just very recently in our history, it was assumed that the Federal Government did not have this authority. To assume that we do have this, I guess that is why we call it a war, to say that this is national defense.
But prohibition, obviously, when they passed that amendment to the Constitution, recognized that the Congress could not pass laws. And like I mentioned in 1937, when Roosevelt decided that we should attack medical marijuana, that he would do it through raising taxes. So it is only in recent history that we have decided that this is a Federal project. The record is just not very clear it has been very successful.
I am concerned not only about the drug usage, obviously, and the fact that the war has failed, but with those things that are so negative when it comes to violation of liberties.
The other day there was a story in the media that said there was a child suffering from an acute attack of asthma. Now, there was another asthmatic in the class, and she did what seemed to come natural to her: She went and gave her a whiff of her nebulizer and the girl immediately came out of her acute asthma attack. She was quickly apprehended under a Federal statute saying that she was disobeying the Federal law on the use of drugs.
Now, it might be advisable to caution a young child about giving medications to another, but this was very obvious and very clear. She happened to have been a hero with the other students and she was certainly a hero for the girl she helped.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts: