March 25th, 1999
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise again today to consider the effect of our current actions in Kosovo, but this time I do not wish to address the folly of war, for attempts to prevent war measures against that nation are now futile. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to address a long term concern, a problem larger even than war. I am referring to the folly of empire.
Our involvement in Kosovo and in Iraq, and in Bosnia–when combined with America’s role in Korea, and in the Middle East and other places around the world, is now lurching our republic ever closer to empire. Empire is something that all Americans ought to oppose.
I remind those who believe in the Judeo-Christian tradition that opposition to empire is to be found in the warnings found in the book of Ezekiel, warnings against the empowerment of a king. And it is this same principle which is evident in the story of the Tower of Babel, and in that admonition of Christ, which reminds that those things which are of Caesar are not of God.
To pragmatists, agnostics and such, I point to the decline and fall which has historically attended every other empire. The Ottomans and Romans, the Spanish and the British, all who have tried empire have faltered, and at great costs to their own nations.
Mr. Speaker, to liberals I would remind that these interventions, however well-intended they may be, all require the use of forces of occupation, and this is the key step toward colonialism, itself always leading to subjugation and to oppression.
To conservatives, I want to recall the founding of our Republic, our nation’s breaking from the yoke of empire in order that we might realize the benefits of liberty and self-determination, and that we might obtain the blessings that flow naturally from limitations on centralized power. Empire reflecting the most perfect means yet devised to concentrate power in the fewest hands.
Now, Mr. Speaker, our own nation faces a choice and we may well be at the very precipice. Indeed, to move even one step further down the road to empire may mean that there will be no turning back short of the eventual decline and fall. Will we act now to restore our Republic?
It is oft repeated that we do not realize the import of our most critical actions at the time that we begin to undertake them. How true, Mr. Speaker, this statement is. Were Mr. Townshend, or the King in England the least contemplative of the true cost which would eventuate as a result of the tea tax or the stamp act?
Now we must ask, is our nation on the verge of empire? Some will say no, because, they say, we do not seek to have direct control over the governments of foreign lands, but how close are we to doing just that? And is it so important whether the dictates of empire come from the head of our government or from the Secretary General of some multilateral entity which we direct?
Today we attempt, directly or indirectly, to dictate to other sovereign nations who they ought and ought not have as leader, which peace accords they should sign, and what form of governments they must enact. How limited is the distinction between our actions today and those of the emperors of history? How limited indeed. In fact, one might suggest that this is a distinction without a substantive difference.
And where now are we willing to commit troops and under what conditions? If we are to stop all violations of human rights, what will we do of Cuba, which recently announced new crackdowns?
And what of communist China? Not only do they steal our secrets, but they violate their own citizens. Who should be more upset, for example, about forced abortion? Is it those who proclaim the inviolable right to life or those who argue for so-called reproductive rights? Even these polar opposites recognize the crimes of the Chinese government in forced abortion. Should we then stop this oppression of millions? Are we committed to lob missiles at this massive nation until it ceases this program?
Will the principle upon which we are now claiming to act lead us to impose our political solutions upon the nations that now contain Tibet, and Kurdistan, and should the sentiment rear, even Quebec and Chechnya?
The most dangerous thing about where we are headed is our lack of historical memory and our disastrous inattention to the effect of the principles upon which we act, for ideas do indeed have consequences, Mr. Speaker, and they pick up a momentum that becomes all their own.
I do believe that we are on the brink, Mr. Speaker, but it is not yet too late. Soon I fear the train, as it is said, will have left the station. We stand on the verge of crossing that line that so firmly distinguishes empire from republic. This occurs not so much by an action or series of actions but by the acceptance of an idea, the idea that we have a right, a duty, an obligation, or a national interest to perfect foreign nations even while we remain less than principled ourselves.
When will we, as a people and as an institution, say ‘we choose to keep our republic, your designs for empire interest us not in the least.’ I can only hope it will be soon, for it is my sincerest fear that failing to do so much longer will put us beyond this great divide.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
March 25th, 1999
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today I rise and with gratitude to Edmund Burke and paraphrase words he first spoke 224 years ago this week. As it is presently true that to restore liberty and dignity to a nation so great and distracted as ours is indeed a significant undertaking. For, judging of what we are by what we ought to be, I have persuaded myself that this body might accept this reasonable proposition.
The proposition is peace. Not peace through the medium of war, not peace to be hunted through the labyrinth of intricate and endless negotiations; not peace to arise out of universal discord, fomented from principle, in all part of the earth; not peace to depend on juridical determination of perplexing questions, or the precise marking the shadowy boundaries of distant nations. It is simply peace, sought in its natural course and in it ordinary haunts.
Let other nations always keep the idea of their sovereign self-government associated with our Republic and they will befriend us, and no force under heaven will be of power to tear them from our allegiance. But let it be once understood that our government may be one thing and their sovereignty another, that these two things exist without mutual regard one for the other–and the affinity will be gone, the friendship loosened and the alliance hasten to decay and dissolution. As long as we have the wisdom to keep this country as the sanctuary of liberty, the sacred temple consecrated to our common faith, wherever mankind worships freedom they will turn their faces toward us. The more they multiply, the more friends we will have, the more ardently they love liberty, the more perfect will be our relations. Slavery they can find anywhere, as near to us as Cuba or as remote as China. But until we become lost to all feeling of our national interest and natural legacy, freedom and self-rule they can find in none but the American founding. These are precious commodities, and our nation alone was founded them. This is the true currency which binds to us the commerce of nations and through them secures the wealth of the world. But deny others of their national sovereignty and self-government, and you break that sole bond which originally made, and must still preserve, friendship among nations. Do not entertain so weak an imagination as that UN Charters and Security Councils, GATT and international laws, World Trade Organizations and General Assemblies, are what promote commerce and friendship. Do not dream that NATO and peacekeeping forces are the things that can hold nations together. It is the spirit of community that gives nations their lives and efficacy. And it is the spirit of the constitution of our founders that can invigorate every nation of the world, even down to the minutest of these.
For is it not the same virtue which would do the thing for us here in these United States? Do you imagine than that it is the Income Tax which pays our revenue? That it is the annual vote of the Ways and Means Committee, which provide us an army? Or that it is the Court Martial which inspires it with bravery and discipline? No! Surely, no! It is the private activity of citizens which gives government revenue, and it is the defense of our country that encourages young people to not only populate our army and navy but also has infused them with a patriotism without which our army will become a base rubble and our navy nothing but rotten timber.
All this, I know well enough, will sound wild and chimerical to the profane herd of those vulgar and mechanical politicians who have no place among us: a sort of people who think that nothing exists but what is gross and material, and who, therefore, far from begin qualified to be directors of the great movement of this nation, are not fit to turn a wheel in the machinery of our government. But to men truly initiated and rightly taught, these ruling and master principles, which in the opinion of such men as I have mentioned have no substantial existence, are in truth everything. Magnanimity in politics is often the truest wisdom, and a great nation and little minds go ill together. If we are conscious of our situation, and work zealously to fill our places as becomes the history of this great institution, we ought to auspiciate all our public proceedings on Kosovo with the old warning of the Church, Sursum corda! We ought to elevate our minds to the greatness of that trust to which the order of Providence has called us. By adverting to the dignity of this high calling, our forefathers turned a savage wilderness into a glorious nation, and have made the most extensive and the only honorable conquests, not by bombing and sabre-rattling, but by promoting the wealth, the liberty, and the peace of mankind. Let us gain our allies as we obtain our own liberty. Respect of self-government has made our nation all that it is, peace and neutrality alone will makes ours the Republic that it can yet still be.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
March 24th, 1999
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, U.S. military forces are now bombing a foreign nation halfway around the world. This cannot be a proud moment for America. The reason given for doing so is that Serbian leaders have not done what we have told them to do.
Serbia has not invaded another country but is involved in a nasty civil war, with both sides contributing to the violence. There is no American security interest involved in Serbia. Serbia has not threatened us nor used any force against any American citizen.
As bad as the violence is toward the ethnic Albanians in Kosovo, our ability to police and stop all ethnic fighting around the world is quite limited and the efforts are not permitted under constitutional law. We do not even pretend to solve the problems of sub-Saharan Africa, Tibet, East Timor, Kurdistan, and many other places around the world where endless tragic circumstances prevail.
Our responsibility as U.S. Members of Congress is to preserve liberty here at home and uphold the rule of law. Meddling in the internal and dangerous affairs of a nation involved in civil war is illegal and dangerous. Congress has not given the President authority to wage war.
The House resolution regarding Kosovo was narrowly, reluctantly, and conditionally passed. It was a nonbinding resolution and had no effect of law. Even if it did, the resolution dealt with sending troops as a peacekeeping force to Kosovo only if a peace agreement was signed. There was no mention of endorsing an act of war against Serbia. Besides, the resolution was not the proper procedure for granting war powers to a president.
The Senate resolution, now claimed to be congressional consent for the President to wage war, is not much better. It, too, was a sense of Congress resolution without the force of law. It implies the President can defer to NATO for authority to pursue a war effort.
Only Congress can decide the issue of war. Congress cannot transfer the constitutional war power to the President or to NATO or to the United Nations. The Senate resolution, however, specifically limits the use of force to air operations and missile strikes, but no war has ever been won with air power alone. The Milosevic problem will actually get worse with our attacks, and ground troops will likely follow.
It has been argued we are needed to stop the spread of war throughout the Balkans. Our presence will do the opposite, but it will certainly help the military-industrial complex. Peaceful and cooperative relations with Russia, a desired goal, has now ended; and we have provoked the Russians into now becoming a much more active ally of Serbia.
U.S. and NATO policy against Serbia will certainly encourage the Kurds. Every argument for Kosovo’s independence can be used by the Kurds for their long-sought-after independence. This surely will drive the Turks away from NATO.
Our determination to be involved in the dangerous civil war may well prompt a stronger Greek alliance with their friends in Serbia, further splitting NATO and offending the Turks, who are naturally inclined to be sympathetic to the Albanian Muslims. No good can come of our involvement in this Serbian civil war, no matter how glowing and humanitarian the terms used by our leaders.
Sympathy and compassion for the suffering and voluntary support for the oppressed is commendable. The use of force and acts of war to pick and choose between two sides fighting for hundreds of years cannot achieve peace. It can only spread the misery and suffering, weaken our defenses and undermine our national sovereignty.
Only when those who champion our war effort in Serbia are willing to volunteer for the front lines and offer their own lives for the cause will they gain credibility. Promoters of war never personalize it. It is always some other person or some other parent’s child’s life who will be sacrificed, not their own.
With new talk of reinstituting the military draft since many disillusioned military personnel are disgusted with the morale of our armed forces, all Americans should pay close attention as our leaders foolishly and carelessly rush our troops into a no-win war of which we should have no part.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
March 24th, 1999
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the committee as well as our leadership for bringing a resolution to the floor that is one that I can support. It is supporting of the troops but it does not go that one step further to rubber-stamp a foreign policy that is very questionable, so I appreciate that very much.
But in another sense, I think it is awful strange that every time we do find our troops in harm’s way that we need to come to the House floor to reassure ourselves that we support the troops. I have never been challenged, and I take controversial votes on occasion, and I have never seen another Member challenge anybody as being unpatriotic and not supportive of our troops. So it sort of bewilders me a little bit that we always have to say, ‘We support the troops.’ I think that should go without saying.
Nevertheless, we do have this resolution on the floor, and I will support it. But I just wonder why that occurs, that we feel compelled to do so. I think sometimes it is because we have not met up to our responsibilities, because we have allowed our troops to be placed in harm’s way, and usually in an improper manner. We have not done this properly according to the Constitution. The President did not get permission from the House and the Senate. We may have a little bit of a guilt feeling about having these troops placed in harm’s way without the proper permission, and, therefore, we have to reassure ourselves that we are taking care of the troops.
Now, if we really want to support our troops, I think we would defend the sovereignty of this country, we should provide for a strong national defense and we certainly should avoid putting our troops in harm’s way. The real question that comes up is by putting the troops in this region right now, we are invading the sovereignty of a nation which is very questionable. This is not done very often. Yet Serbia is a sovereign nation. They are involved in a civil war, and there are bad guys on both sides. For us here in the Congress to decide who the good guys and who the bad guys are is not possible, nor is it our job.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
March 23rd, 1999
WASHINGTON, DC — With the President Clinton and NATO making “final threats” — again — against Serbia and Kosovo, demanding them to make peace with each other or face bombings, Rep. Ron Paul (R, Texas) said Monday that the Administration’s policies seem geared to turning the US from a “superpower” to a “super-bully.”
“What many people do not realize is that for almost eighty years there was a kind of peace between the Serbs and the Kosovars; it is a ‘peace’ brought by the iron fist of Soviet totalitarianism,” said Dr. Paul. “I do not believe that the United States’ first action in this region following the collapse of the Soviet Union and its puppet governments of Eastern Europe should be to adopt the same bully-thug tactics of the Stalinist communists.”
Rep. Paul introduced legislation in February that would prohibit President Clinton from initiating military action in Kosovo without an Act of Congress. He recently voted against a non-binding resolution of endorsement of the president’s activities.
“This president, like his Republican and Democratic predecessors of the last 50 years, has engaged in reckless interventionism that is completely contrary to the principles outlined by our Founding Fathers.”
It is Congress, not the presidency, the Constitution empowers to declare war, which is what an initiation of force is, said Dr. Paul, a former Air Force flight surgeon.
“When we initiate force by sending our troops into hostile situations where there are no pressing American security interests, we risk retaliation against our forces on the ground and Americans everywhere. Our troops are at risk and our nation is less secure,” he said.
“The United States has gone from a nation which tried very hard — in the words of George Washington — to be friends with all and enemies with none, to an international cop seeking to right wrongs in every corner of the globe, to now mindlessly poking its nose into every situation. No longer content with simply trying to overwhelm American citizens with intrusive federal bureaucracies, President Clinton is now shaping foreign policy into one which the entire world must bow to US demands, or face its wrath.”
Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off
Similar posts:
March 23rd, 1999
WASHINGTON, DC — Facing heated protests from more than a quarter-million Americans, federal regulators today announced they are withdrawing the proposed “Know Your Customer” regulations that would have forced banks to spy on American citizens. The agencies proposing the regulations were the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, the Office of Comptroller of the Currency, and the Office of Thrift Supervision
Leading the charge against “Know Your Customer” has been US Rep. Ron Paul (R, Texas), the only member of the House’s Committee on Banking and Financial Services to oppose a blueprint of the plan the rest of the committee endorsed in 1998.
“This has been a minor skirmish in the battle over privacy rights and the protection of civil liberties, but it is a victory for which many people have worked very hard,” said Rep. Paul, who early this year introduced H.R. 516, to overturn the regulations if implemented. “I’m pleased so many organizations and individuals were willing to stand up against these agencies. Besides having an obvious effect on the regulators, their actions helped convince some of my colleagues to change their position and oppose this blatantly unconstitutional privacy violation.”
The danger facing proponents of privacy rights and limited government, said Rep. Paul, is complacency.
“Just because ‘Know Your Customer’ has been withdrawn for now, nothing stops them from turning around in a week, a month or a year and trying this again. What needs to be challenged is power of regulators to implement these gross violations of constitutional liberty in the first place,” said Rep. Paul.
Rep. Paul has introduced the Bank Secrecy Sunset Act (HR518), which would require Congress to re-write the Nixon-era legislation that has allowed bank regulators to implement regulations such as “Know Your Customer.”
“There are many such rules and regulations already on the books, and there is no indication these agencies are changing their position on wanting to delve into minute details of every American citizen’s life, regardless of inconvenient legal requirements like probable cause and search warrants.”
The Federal Reserve’s Bank Secrecy Act compliance manual devotes a section detailing why a bank “needs” to have an effective “Know Your Customer” policy. Since bank examiners look for compliance with the manual’s recommendations, there is already an informal requirement that banks follow the hated “Know Your Customer” rules.
“While shameful that regulators refuse to respect the constitutional liberties of American citizens as a matter of right, I am reassured to know that when a quarter-million people speak, agencies will at least try to appear responsive,” said Rep. Paul. “That ‘Know Your Customer’ was completely ignored by the mainstream media until very recently speaks volumes about the ability of Americans to effectively organize and communicate over the Internet in an effort to protect their rights from zealous government regulators.”
Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off
Similar posts:
March 17th, 1999
“The Clinton Administration’s proposal for the International Monetary Fund to sell some of their gold holdings should be rejected outright as misguided and historically offensive.
“I am pleased Rep. Jim Saxton’s Joint Economic Committee has today criticized the proposed gold sales, stating in a press release that it ‘will accommodate more IMF loans, subsidies, and moral hazard problems.’ A renewed IMF would further distort the market pricing of credit and aid the transfer of wealth from taxpayers to a few select groups: officials of inept, and often corrupt and brutal, governments; already over-paid international bureaucrats who don’t pay taxes themselves; and Wall Street fat cats.
“In short, the debt relief proposal is an admission of failure of the IMF’s ‘paper gold’ policies. The IMF pushes irresponsible monetary policies with ever-larger debt burdens on client countries. These policies only exacerbate human suffering around the world as citizens of poor countries suffer the burden of a higher cost of government,higher cost of capital and reduced economic growth.
“This is a prime example of harming nations with the very mechanism which purports to be helping them. For example, Ghana is one of the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries(HIPC) the debt relief proposal is meant to help. However, 40% of Ghana’s total exports come from gold whose price would fall. Such a move will also destabilize Nelson Mandela’s South Africa, which is the largest producer of gold in the world. Needless to say,producers of gold in the United States will be similarly hard hit.
“It is ironic that proponents of U.S. membership in the IMF argue we have a claim to an asset. However, by selling off the IMF’s only real ‘assets,’ any possible value to the US evaporates.
“It should not be forgotten that the money the U.S. used to pay our initial contribution to the IMF came from the ‘paper profit’ of President Franklin Roosevelt’s forced confiscation of gold from the American people. The gold that the U.S. government transferred to the IMF should be returned to the American people, from whom it was forcibly taken.
“I am so amazed by the cavalier attitude toward the American people and the citizens of countries around the world, that I today introduced HR1147 to withdraw the US from the IMF and HR1148 to abolish the Federal Reserve.”
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
March 17th, 1999
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, last week the House narrowly passed a watered-down House concurrent resolution originally designed to endorse President Clinton’s plan to send U.S. troops to Kosovo. A House concurrent resolution, whether strong or weak, has no effect of law. It is merely a sense of Congress statement.
If last week’s meager debate and vote are construed as merely an endorsement, without dissent, of Clinton’s policy in Yugoslavia, the procedure will prove a net negative. It will not be seen as a Congressional challenge to unconstitutional presidential war power. If, however, the debate is interpreted as a serious effort to start the process to restore Congressional prerogatives, it may yet be seen as a small step in the right direction. We cannot know with certainty which it will be. That will depend on what Congress does in the future.
Presently, those of us who argued for Congressional responsibility with regards to declaring war and deploying troops cannot be satisfied that the trend of the last 50 years has been reversed. Since World War II, the war power has fallen into the hands of our presidents, with Congress doing little to insist on its own constitutional responsibility. From Korea and Vietnam, to Bosnia and Kosovo, we have permitted our presidents to ‘wag the Congress,’ generating a perception that the United States can and should police the world. Instead of authority to move troops and fight wars coming from the people through a vote of their Congressional representatives, we now permit our presidents to cite NATO declarations and U.N. resolutions.
This is even more exasperating knowing that upon joining both NATO and the United Nations it was made explicitly clear that no loss of sovereignty would occur and all legislative bodies of member States would retain their legal authority to give or deny support for any proposed military action.
Today it is erroneously taken for granted that the President has authority to move troops and fight wars without Congressional approval. It would be nice to believe that this vote on Kosovo was a serious step in the direction of Congress once again reasserting its responsibility for committing U.S. troops abroad. But the President has already notified Congress that, regardless of our sense of Congress resolution, he intends to do what he thinks is right, not what is legal and constitutional, only what he decides for himself.
Even with this watered-down endorsement of troop deployment with various conditions listed, the day after the headlines blared ‘the Congress approves troop deployments to Kosovo.’
If Congress is serious about this issue, it must do more. First, Congress cannot in this instance exert its responsibility through a House concurrent resolution. The President can and will ignore this token effort. If Congress decides that we should not become engaged in the civil war in Serbia, we must deny the funds for that purpose. That we can do. Our presidents have assumed the war power, but as of yet Congress still controls the purse.
Any effort on our part to enter a civil war in a country 5,000 miles away for the purpose of guaranteeing autonomy and/or a separate state against the avowed objections of the leaders of that country involved, that is Yugoslavia, can and will lead to a long-term serious problem for us.
Our policy, whether it is with Iraq or Serbia, of demanding that if certain actions are not forthcoming, we will unleash massive bombing attacks on them, I find reprehensible, immoral, illegal, and unconstitutional. We are seen as a world bully, and a growing anti-American hatred is the result. This policy cannot contribute to long-term peace. Political instability will result and innocent people will suffer. The billions we have spent bombing Iraq, along with sanctions, have solidified Saddam Hussein’s power, while causing the suffering and deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi children. Our policy in Kosovo will be no more fruitful.
The recent flare-up of violence in Serbia has been blamed on United States’ plan to send troops to the region. The Serbs have expressed rage at the possibility that NATO would invade their country with the plan to reward the questionable Kosovo Liberation Army. If ever a case could be made for the wisdom of non-intervention, it is here. Who wants to defend all that the KLA had done and at the same time justify a NATO invasion of a sovereign nation for the purpose of supporting secession? ‘This violence is all America’s fault,’ one Yugoslavian was quoted as saying. And who wants to defend Milosevic?
Every argument given for our bombing Serbia could be used to support the establishment of Kurdistan. Actually a stronger case can be made to support an independent Kurdistan since their country was taken from them by outsiders. But how would Turkey feel about that? Yet the case could be made that the mistreatment of the Kurds by Saddam Hussein and others compel us to do something to help, since we are pretending that our role is an act as the world’s humanitarian policeman.
Humanitarianism, delivered by a powerful government through threats of massive bombing attacks will never be a responsible way to enhance peace. It will surely have the opposite effect.
It was hoped that the War Powers Resolution of 1973 would reign in our president’s authority to wage war without Congressional approval. It has not happened because all subsequent Presidents have essentially ignored its mandates. And unfortunately the interpretation since 1973 has been to give the President greater power to wage war with Congressional approval for at least 60 to 90 days as long as he reports to the Congress. These reports are rarely made and the assumption has been since 1973 that Congress need not participate in any serious manner in the decision to send troops.
It could be argued that this resulted from a confused understanding of the War Powers Resolution but more likely it’s the result of the growing imperial Presidency that has developed with our presidents assuming power, not legally theirs, and Congress doing nothing about it.
Power has been gravitating into the hands of our presidents throughout this century, both in domestic and foreign affairs. Congress has created a maze of federal agencies, placed under the President, that have been granted legislative, police, and judicial powers, thus creating an entire administrative judicial system outside our legal court system where constitutional rights are ignored. Congress is responsible for this trend and it’s Congress’ responsibility to restore Constitutional government.
As more and more power has been granted in international affairs, presidents have readily adapted to using Executive Orders, promises and quasi-treaties to expand the scope and size of the presidency far above anything even the Federalist ever dreamed of.
We are at a crossroads and if the people and the Congress do not soon insist on the reigning in of presidential power, both foreign and domestic, individual liberty cannot be preserved.
Presently, unless the people exert a lot more pressure on the Congress to do so, not much will be done. Specifically, Congress needs a strong message from the people insisting that the Congress continues the debate over Kosovo before an irreversible quagmire develops. The President today believes he is free to pursue any policy he wants in the Balkans and the Persian Gulf without Congressional approval. It shouldn’t be that way. It’s dangerous politically, military, morally, and above all else undermines our entire system of the rule of law.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
March 11th, 1999
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the leadership for allowing this debate to come to the floor. I have, for quite a few weeks, advocated that we talk about this and have urge that the troops never be sent to Kosovo without our consent. I do believe, though, that the process here is less than perfect. The fact that we are talking about a House Concurrent Resolution at the same time authorizing troop deployment raises serious questions.
Since World War II we have not been diligent here in the Congress to protect our prerogatives with respect to the declaration of war. Korean and Vietnam wars were fought without a declaration of war. And these wars were not won.
Since 1973, since the War Powers Resolution was passed, we have further undermined the authority of the Congress and delivered more authority to the President because the resolution essentially has given the President more power to wage war up to 90 days without the Congress granting authority. It is to our credit at least that we are bringing this matter up at this particular time.
We must remember that there are various things involved here. First, whether or not we should be the world policeman. That answer should be easy. We should not be. It costs a lot of money to do what we are doing, and it undermines our military strength. So we should consider that.
We should consider the law and the process in the War Powers Resolution and just exactly how we grant authority to the President to wage war. We should be more concerned about the Constitution and how we should give this authority. We should be concerned about this procedure.
The bigger question here, however, is if we vote for this, and I strongly oppose passing this, because if we vote for this, we authorize the moving of troops into a dangerous area. We should ask ourselves, if we are willing to vote for this resolution; are we ourselves willing to go to Kosovo and expose our lives on the front lines? Are we willing to send our children or our grandchildren; to not only be exposed to the danger, with the pretext we are going to save the world, but with the idea that we may lose our life? That is what we have to consider.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
March 11th, 1999
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce my Consumer Protection Package–consisting of two pieces of legislation which will benefit consumers by repealing federal regulations. The first piece of legislation, the Consumer Health Free Speech Act, stops the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from interfering with consumers’ access to truthful information about foods and dietary supplements in order to make informed choices about their health. The second bill, the Television Consumer Freedom Act, repeals federal regulations which interfere with a consumers ability to avail themselves of desired television programming.
The Consumer Health Free Speech Act accomplishes its goal by making two simple changes in the Food and Drug Act. First, it adds the six words ‘other than foods, including dietary supplements’ to the statutory definition of ‘drug,’ thus allowing food and dietary supplement producers to provide consumers with more information regarding the health benefits of their products, without having to go through the time-consuming and costly process of getting FDA approval. This bill does not affect the FDA’s jurisdiction over those who make false claims about their products.
Scientific research in nutrition over the past few years has demonstrated how various foods and other dietary supplements are safe and effective in preventing or mitigating many diseases. Currently, however, disclosure of these well-documented statements triggers more extensive drug-like FDA regulation. The result is consumers cannot learn about simple and inexpensive ways to improve their health. Just last year, the FDA dragged manufacturers of Cholestin, a dietary supplement containing lovastatin, which is helpful in lowering cholesterol, into court. The FDA did not dispute the benefits of Cholestin, rather the FDA attempted to deny consumers access to this helpful product simply because the manufacturers did not submit Cholestin to the FDA’s drug approval process!
The FDA’s treatment of the manufacturers of Cholestin is not an isolated example of how current FDA policy harms consumers. Even though coronary heart disease is the nation’s number-one killer, the FDA waited nine years until it allowed consumers to learn about how consumption of foods and dietary supplements containing soluble fiber from the husk of psyllium seeds can reduce the risk of coronary heart disease! The Consumer Health Free Speech Act ends this breakfast table censorship.
The bill’s second provision prevents the FDA’s arbitrary removal of a product from the marketplace, absent finding a dietary supplement ‘presents a significant and unreasonable risk of illness or injury.’ Current law allows the FDA to remove a supplement if it prevents a ‘significant or unreasonable’ risk of disease. This standard has allowed the FDA to easily remove a targeted herb or dietary supplement since every food, herb, or dietary supplement contains some risk to at least a few sensitive or allergic persons. Under this bill, the FDA will maintain its ability to remove products from the marketplace under an expedited process if they determine the product causes an ‘imminent danger.’
Allowing American consumers access to information about the benefits of foods and dietary supplements will help America’s consumers improve their health. However, this bill is about more than physical health, it is about freedom. The first amendment forbids Congress from abridging freedom of all speech, including commercial speech.
My second bill, the Television Consumer Freedom Act, repeals federal regulations which interfere with a consumers ability to avail themselves of desired television programming. For the last several weeks, congressional offices have been flooded with calls from rural satellite TV customers who are upset because their satellite service providers have informed them that they will lose access to certain network television programs.
In an attempt to protect the rights of network program creators and affiliate local stations, a federal court in Florida properly granted an injunction to prevent the satellite service industry from making certain programming available to its customers. This is programming for which the satellite service providers had not secured from the program creator-owners the right to rebroadcast. At the root of this problem, of course, is that we have a so-called marketplace fraught with interventionism at every level. Cable companies have historically been granted franchises of monopoly privilege at the local level. Government has previously intervened to invalidate ‘exclusive dealings’ contracts between private parties, namely cable service providers and program creators, and have most recently assumed the role of price setter. The Library of Congress, if you can imagine, has been delegated the power to determine prices at which program suppliers must make their programs available to cable and satellite programming service providers.
It is, of course, within the constitutionally enumerated powers of Congress to ‘promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.’ However, operating a clearing-house for the subsequent transfer of such property rights in the name of setting a just price or ‘instilling competition’ via ‘central planning’ seems not to be an economically prudent nor justifiable action under this enumerated power. This process is one best reserved to the competitive marketplace.
Government’s attempt to set the just price for satellite programming outside the market mechanism is inherently impossible. This has resulted in competition among service providers for government privilege rather than consumer-benefits inherent to the genuine free market. Currently, while federal regulation does leave satellite programming service providers free to bypass the governmental royalty distribution scheme and negotiate directly with owners of programming for program rights, there is a federal prohibition on satellite service providers making local network affiliate’s programs available to nearby satellite subscribers. This bill repeals that federal prohibition and allows satellite service providers to more freely negotiate with program owners for programming desired by satellite service subscribers. Technology is now available by which viewers will be able to view network programs via satellite as presented by their nearest network affiliate. This market-generated technology will remove a major stumbling block to negotiations that should currently be taking place between network program owners and satellite service providers.
Mr. Speaker, these two bills take a step toward restoring the right of free speech in the marketplace and restoring the American consumer’s control over the means by which they cast their ‘dollar votes.’ In a free society, the federal government must not be allowed to prevent people from receiving information enabling them to make informed decisions about whether or not to use dietary supplements or eat certain foods. The federal government should also not interfere with a consumer’s ability to purchase services such as satellite or cable television on the free market. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to take a step toward restoring freedom by cosponsoring my Consumer Protection Package: the Consumer Health Free Speech Act and the Television Consumer Freedom Act.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts: