May 27th, 1999
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. I would like to point out that this is a rule of which I do not believe the authors should be proud. This rule, I believe, strictly limits a serious debate with regards to our national defense and our involvement in war at this particular time.
Today, the International War Crimes Tribunal decided to indict Milosevic. Milosevic is obviously a character that deserves severe criticism, but at this particular junction in the debate over this erroneous and ill-gotten war in Yugoslavia, this indicates to most of the world that there is no attempt whatsoever on the part of NATO to attempt any peace negotiations. This is a guarantee of the perpetuation of war.
Milosevic is going to be further strengthened by this. He will not be weakened. It was said the bombing would weaken Milosevic, and yet he was strengthened. This same move, this pretense that this kangaroo court can indict Milosevic and carry this to fruition indicates only that there are some who will enjoy perpetuating this war, because there is no way this can enhance peace. This is a sign of total hypocrisy, I believe, on the part of NATO. NATO, eventually, by history, will be indicted.
But today we are dealing with this process, and this is related to the bill that is about to be brought to the floor because, specifically, as this bill came out of committee, it said that monies in this bill should be used for defense, not for aggressive warfare in Kosovo, and yet that was struck in the Committee on Rules. That is a serious change in the bill. I think all our colleagues must remember this when it comes time to vote for the final passage.
We could have had a bill that made a statement against spending this money to perpetuate this illegal NATO war, and yet it was explicitly removed from the bill. I think this is reason to question the efforts on this rule. Certainly it should challenge all of us on the final passage of this bill, because much of this money will not be spent on the national defense, but to perpetuate war, which is a direct distraction from our national defense because it involves increasing threats to our national security. It does not protect our national security.
It might be well to also note that this bill does not do much more for fiscal conservatives. The President asked for a certain amount for the defense of this country, but we have seen fit to raise him more than $8 billion, spend more money, more money that is so often not spent in our national defense. At the same time, we must also remember that when we vote on this bill, and this rule allows it, more than $10 billion will be in excess of the budget agreement of 1997.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
May 25th, 1999
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, organizations like the Center for Missing and Exploited Children should be commended and supported for their work on this critical issue. However, I must oppose this legislation as it is outside the proper Constitutional role for the federal government to spend money in this way; such spending is more appropriate coming from the states and private donations. As always, I am amazed that Members of Congress are so willing to be generous with their constituent’s tax dollars, yet do not seem willing to support such causes out of their own pockets.
This legislation would spend more than $268 million on issues that are simply outside the constitutional jurisdiction of the federal government. In addition, legislation like this blurs the lines between public and private funds, and opens good organizations to needless regulatory control for Congress. The legislation even opens the door to public money being used to support sectarian organizations, in direct violation of the First Amendment.
The moral decay of our nation is a serious issue that must be addressed. However, after some forty years of federal meddling in education and other social issues, it is clear politicians on Capitol Hill have made matters worse for our children, not better.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
May 25th, 1999
WASHINGTON, DC — With the pending public release of the so-called Cox Report, which is reported to outline charges of cover-up and administrative mismanagement regarding alleged Chinese espionage, US Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) said Congress has a constitutional obligation to act quickly on substantiated information.
“The allegations are very troubling and must be taken seriously,” said Rep. Paul. “I supported an Inquiry of Impeachment against the President long before the Lewinski scandal precisely because of these allegations of Chinese spying and meddling in US elections.”
Rep. Paul said the House of Representatives should not delay investigations into the allegations.
“I would rather see the complete report issued, rather than just the 70 percent which is slated to be released on Tuesday. This could represent the greatest breach of national security ever, and the American people deserve all the details,” said Rep. Paul.
One action the Congressman said should be immediately taken is the complete cessation of all foreign aid to China, as well as forbidding the Export-Import Bank from using American tax dollars to assist China. China is the second-largest recipient of Export-Import Bank subsidies.
“For far too long the American people have been forced to subsidize the communist Chinese, under the false guise of free trade. Free trade is allowing individuals to exchange goods and services, not forcing Americans to subsidize with their involuntary tax dollars a brutal regime that runs completely contrary to our system of government, and has apparently been working to actually subvert our laws and institutions.”
The “Cox Report,” being issued by a special select committee of the House of Representatives chaired by US Rep. Christopher Cox (R-California), is to be released on Tuesday. The report is reported to cover illegal technology transfers, stealing of nuclear secrets and the illegal campaign contributions of the Chinese in the 1996 election.
Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off
Similar posts:
May 19th, 1999
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay honor to the best drill team in the nation and in the world: the Victoria High School Victoriadores from Victoria, Texas. Under the exemplary leadership of D.J. Jaynes, Victoriadore Director, assisted by Laura Klimist, Choreographer, this outstanding group of ladies and gentlemen won many national honors at the marching Auxiliaries/Seaworld National Championship Competition. Their awards include the Choreography Award for all dances–jazz, high kick, military, lyrical and show production; Winner’s Circle (all dances scored 95 or above from all judges); named Best in Class for having the highest overall scores in the competition; and the National Champion Jacket Winners for earning the highest score from all categories and all dances.
After this impressive victory, the Victoriadores aimed for the championship at the Miss Dance/Drill Team USA Pageant and Competition. They easily took first place in military, high kick and show production and second place in lyrical, and they earned the Producers Award for the best overall presentation.
The taste of victory was so sweet, the Victoriadores decided to take the International Championship, competing against Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Channel Islands, Mexico and South America. The team won first and second place in Military and High Kick, with New Zealand placing third.
This group of students deserves the honors it has earned. I commend each one of them to you:
Brooke Adams
Chelsea Akin
Andrea Alvarez
Jennifer Alvarez
Pia Arifiles
Iza Arifiles
Rachel Barber
Samantha Bernal
April Blackwell
Liz Boldt
Meredyth Bryant
Lisa Buckler
Monica Canchola
Misty Cavazos
Stephanie Cernosek
Krysta Chacon
Melissa Chavez
Cody Cole
Kyra Coleman
Cari Collett
Kristin Creech
Carrie Dahlstrom
Nichol Dally
Katie Dayoc
D’Lisa DeLuna
Joey Dominquez
Cash Donahoe
Wendy Dry
Carly Dunnam
Jamie Dybala
Dyann Erwin
Bianca Estrada
Nicole Garcia
Michelle Garcia
Mandy Gaskamp
Clarisa Gonzales
Valarie Gonzales
Amber Grunewald
Lacey Hall
Erin Hanzelka
Megan Hearn
Theresa Hernandez
Brandy Hill
Blair Hunt
Amy Innocenti
Melissa Jecker
Laura Jecker
Eric Jentsch
Ida Jimenez
Kelly Johnson
Allison Jones
Morgan Kallus
Jill Kauffman
Lindsey Klein
Hilary Koenig
Emily Loeb
Amanda Lott
Aimee Lovik
Waverly Lynch
Tara Marek
Kelly Martin
Ashley Martin
Erin Martin
Nina Martinez
Stacy McCants
Sarah McKay
Taysha McKibbon
Tyler Meador
Valerie Medina
Corie Meinke
Garrett Middleton
James Miller
Lori Monclova
Tammy Newbern
Jamie O’Quinn
Jennifer Padilla
Dusty Patek
Aaron Pearson
Matina Pflaum
Sara Quitta
Melissa Ragsdale
Katie Reimann
Natalie Ricks
Brandi Roth
Jennifer Salinas
Brianne Schmidt
Penny Schumacher
Sara Schweke
Jamie Sedlacek
Tenille Shafer
Loren Shafer
Heather Shannon
Justin Sheppard
Brett Shoemaker
Amanda Stewart
Stacey Talley
Juli Teeters
Bianca Tilley
Amanda Trevino
Lauren Tuso
Elane Urbano
Pam Urbish
Jessica Vaughan
Whitney Wilkinson
Lindsey Williams
Laura Windwehen
Melanie Winston
D.J. Jaynes, Victoriadore Director/Choreographer
Laura Klimist, Choreographer
I am proud to have these national and international championships in the 14th Congressional District of Texas. I am proud of the commitment to excellence and perserverance shown by each student which was necessary to reach these goals. I am proud of the support shown by the parents and guardians of these students which helped them reach their goals.
I trust all my colleagues join me in congratulating the Victoria High School Victoriadores on these impressive achievements.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
May 18th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule but in strong opposition to the supplemental appropriation.
The President came to us and asked us to fund the NATO war, asked for $7.9 billion, but we in the conservative Congress have decided that not only would we give it to him, but we would bump that up to $15 billion, which does not make a whole lot of sense, especially if Congress has spoken out on what they think of the war.
And Congress has. We have had several votes already. We have voted and said that we did not think that ground troops should be sent in. And most military people tell us that the only way we are going to win the war is with ground troops. So we have taken a strong position. We have had a chance to vote on declaration of war and make a decision one way or the other. We have strongly said we are not going to declare war.
We have spoken out on the air war. We did not even endorse the air war. And the President has spent a lot of money. They are hoping to get a lot of this money back from the European nations, but all that makes us are professional mercenaries fighting wars for other people, which I do not agree with.
But here we are getting ready to fund Europe, fund a war that is undeclared. It does not make any sense. We are giving more money to the President than he asked for in a war that cannot be won and a war that we are not even determined to fight. It just does not make any sense. So in order to get enough votes to pass the bill, of course we put a little bit of extras on there to satisfy some special interests in order to get some more votes.
But the real principle here today that we are voting on is whether or not we are going to fund an illegal, unconstitutional war. It does not follow the rules of our Constitution. It does not follow the rules of the United Nations Treaty. It does not follow the NATO Treaty. And here we are just permitting it, endorsing it but further funding it. This does not make any sense.
We have to finally say, ‘enough is enough.’ This is how we get into trouble. This is how we make mistakes. And every day we hear of another mistake and apologies being made, innocent people dying. We should not vote for this supplemental funding.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
May 18th, 1999
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to enlist support for a bill I have introduced to repeal statutes which have now resulted in more than one hundred years of government intervention in the marketplace. In 1890, at the behest of Senator Sherman, the Sherman Antitrust Act was passed allowing the federal government to intervene in the process of competition, inter alia, whenever a firm captured market share by offering a better product at a lower price. The Market Process Restoration Act of 1999, H.R. 1789, will preclude such intervention.
Antitrust statutes governmentally facilitate interference in the voluntary market transactions of individuals. Evaluation of the antitrust laws has not proceeded from an analysis of their nature or of their necessary consequences, but from an impressionistic reaction to their announced gain.
Alan Greenspan, now Chairman of the Federal Reserve, described the ‘world of antitrust’ as ‘reminiscent of Alice’s Wonderland: Everything seemingly is, yet apparently isn’t, simultaneously.’ Antitrust is, according to Greenspan ‘a world in which competition is lauded as the basic axiom and guiding principle, yet, ‘too much’ competition is condemned as ‘cutthroat’. * * * A world in which actions designed to limit competition are branded as criminal when taken by businessmen, yet praised as ‘enlightened’ when initiated by government. A world in which the law is so vague that businessmen have no way of knowing whether specific actions will be declared illegal until they hear the judge’s verdict–after the fact.’ And, of course, obscure, incoherent, and vague legislation can make legality unattainable by anyone, or at least unattainable without an unauthorized revision which itself impairs legality.
The Sherman Act was a tool used to regulate some of the most competitive industries in America, which were rapidly expanding their output and reducing their prices, much to the dismay of their less efficient (but politically influential) competitors. The Sherman Act, moreover, was used as a political fig leaf to shield the real cause of monopoly in the late 1880′s–protectionism. the chief sponsor of the 1890 tariff bill, passed just three months after the Sherman Act, was none other than Senator Sherman himself.
One function of the Sherman Act was to divert public attention from the certain source of monopoly–Government’s grant of exclusive privilege. But, as George Reisman, Professor of Economics at Pepperdine University’s Graziadio School of Business and Management in Los Angeles, explains ‘everyone, it seems, took for granted the prevailing belief that the essential feature of monopoly is that a given product or service is provided by just one supplier. On this view of things, Microsoft, like Alcoa and Standard Oil before it, belongs in the same category as the old British East India Company or such more recent instances of companies with exclusive government franchises as the local gas or electric company or the U.S. Postal Service with respect to the delivery of first class mail. What all of these cases have in common, and which is considered essential to the existence of monopoly, according to the prevailing view, is that they all represent instances in which there is only one seller. By the same token, what is not considered essential, according to the prevailing view of monopoly, is whether the sellers position depends on the initiation of physical force or, to the contrary, is achieved as the result of freedom of competition and the choice of the market.’
Microsoft, Alcoa,and Standard Oil represent cases of a sole supplier, or at least come close to such a case. However, totally unlike the cases of exclusive government franchises, their position in the market is not (or was not) the result of the initiation of physical force but rather the result of their successful free competition. That is, they became sole suppliers by virtue of being able to produce products profitably at prices too low for other suppliers to remain in or enter the market, or to produce products whose performance and quality others simply could not match.
Even proponents of antitrust prosecution acknowledge this. In the Standard Oil case, the U.S. Supreme Court declared in its 1911 decision breaking up the company: ‘Much has been said in favor of the objects of the Standard Oil Trust, and what it has accomplished. It may be true that it has improved the quality and cheapened the costs of petroleum and its products to the consumer.’
It is the dynamic model of competition under which only ‘free’ entry is required that insures maximization of consumer welfare within the nature-given condition of scarcity and reconciles the ideal of pure liberty with that of economic efficiency. The free market in the world of production may be termed ‘free competition’ or ‘free entry’, meaning that in a free society anyone is free to compete and produce in any field he chooses. ‘Free competition’ is the application of liberty to the sphere of production: the freedom to buy, sell, and transform one’s property without violent interference by an external power.
As argued by Alan Greenspan, ‘the ultimate regulator of competition in a free economy is the capital market. So long as capital is free to flow, it will tend to seek those areas which offer the maximum rate of return.’
The purpose of my bill is to restore the inherent benefits of the market economy by repealing the Federal body of statutory law which currently prevents efficiency-maximizing voluntary exchange.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
May 13th, 1999
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I have come forward in the past to suggest that the history of this century has shown us that the foreign policy of so-called ‘pragmatic interventionists’ has created a disastrous situation. Specifically, I have pointed to the unintended consequences of our government’s interventions. Namely, I have identified how World War One helped create the environment for the holocaust and how it thus helped create World War Two and thermonuclear war. And, I’ve mentioned how the Second World War resulted in the enslavement of much of Europe behind an iron curtain setting off the cold war, and spread the international communism and then our own disastrous foray into Vietnam. Yes, all of these wars and tragedies, wars hot and cold, were in part caused by the so-called ‘war to end all wars.’
Today I do not wish to investigate yet again the details of this history but rather to examine, at a deeper level, why this sort of policy is doomed to fail.
The base reason is that pragmatism is illogical and interventionism does not work. The notion that we can have successes without regard to the ends to be sought is absurd.
It should be obvious to practical people that you cannot have ‘progress,’ for example, without progressing toward some end. Equally as apparent ought to be the fact that human effectiveness cannot occur without considering the ends of human beings. Peace, freedom and virtue are ends toward which we ought to progress, but all reference to ends is rejected by the so-called pragmatists.
Because of this lack of clarity of purpose we come to accept an equally unclear contortion of our language. Our military is ‘too thin,’ it has been ‘hollowed out’ and it is ‘unprepared.’ But for what are we unprepared? And what policy is our army ‘too hollow’ to carry out?
If we remain unprepared to conduct total warfare across the globe, we should be thankful of this fact. If we are unprepared to police the world or to project power into every civil war, or ‘to win two different regional conflicts,’ this is good.
We are distracted by these dilemmas which result from unclear thought and unclear language. We convince ourselves that we need to be effective without having a goal in mind. Certainly we have no just end in mind because our pragmatic interventionists deny that ends exist.
‘Preparedness’ is a word that has been thrown around a lot recently, but it begs the question ‘prepared for what?’ No nation attacked ours, no nation has threatened ours, no sane leader would do so as it would be the death warrant of his own nation, his own people, and likely his own self. We are prepared to repel an attack and meet force with force but not necessarily to protect our nation and the populace. We are still vulnerable to a missile attack and have done little to protect against such a possibility.
Thus or contortions and distortions that have led to dilemmas in our thoughts and dilemmas in our policy have led also to real paradoxes. Because our policy of globaloney is so bad, so unprincipled and so bound up with the notions of interventionism, we now face this strange truth: we ought to spend less on our military but we should spend more on defense. Our troops are underpaid, untertrained and poorly outfitted for the tasks we have given them. We are vulnerable to missile attack, and how do we spend our constituents money? What priorities have we set in this body? We vote to purchase a few more bombs to drop over Serbia or Iraq.
Our policy is flawed. Our nation is at risk. Our defenses are weakened by those people who say they are ‘hawks’ and those who claim they ‘support the troops.’ Our policy is the end to which we must make ourselves effective, and currently our policy is all wrong. Our constitution grants us the obligation to defend this nation, and the right to defend only this nation. I should hope that we will never be prepared to police the world. We should not be militarily prepared nor philosophically prepared for such a policy. We need to refocus our military force policy and the way to do that is clear. It is to return it to the constitutionally authorized role of defending our country. Again, this is not simply a question of policy, and not merely a political question. No Mr. Speaker, the source of our quandary is the minds and hearts of human beings. Bad philosophy will always lead to bad policy precisely because ideas do have consequences.
Here the bad idea to be found at the source of our malady is absurd pragmatism, a desire to be ‘effective’ without having any idea what the end is that we trying to affect. It becomes evident in our policy and in our language.
‘Now we are in it we must win it.’ But we know not what ‘win’ means, other than ‘be effective.’ But we are ‘unprepared,’ but unprepared for what? Unprepared to be effective! But what is it, we are ineffective at achieving? ‘Well, winning,’ is the reply. Without ends our policies become tautological. And with the wrong policy, our execution becomes disastrous. We must reject this absurd pragmatism and reestablish a military policy based on the defense of our nation. Only then we will be able to take the steps necessary for effectiveness, and preparedness. No billions in appropriations can make our present policy effective.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
May 6th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, the Jack C. Hays School Rebel Band of Buda, Texas, recently earned the distinct honor of being selected for the 1999 ‘Sudler Flag of Honor’ award from the John Philip Sousa Foundation. This award is the highest recognition of excellence in concert performance that a high school band can receive. During the 17 years the award has been in existence, only 39 bands from the entire United States and Canada have been selected for the Flag of Honor award. Conductor Gerald Babbitt and his Rebel band deserve our praise and recognition on the occasion of receiving this prestigious award.
The John Philip Sousa Foundation designed this award to identify and recognize high school concert band programs of very special excellence at the international level. To be eligible for nomination, a band must have maintained excellence over a period of many years in several areas including concert, marching, small ensemble and soloists. The director must have been the conductor of the band for at least the previous seven consecutive years including the year of the award.
Each recipient receives a four-by-six foot ‘Flag of Honor’ which becomes the property of the band. The flag is designed in red, white and blue and bears the logo of the John Philip Sousa Foundation. The conductor receives a personal plaque and each student in the band receives a personalized diploma.
Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honor to have such an outstanding high school band in the 14th Congressional District. I am delighted to extend my hearty congratulations to them. Their hard work and dedication is an inspiration to us all.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
May 6th, 1999
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Istook amendment. I think that this would send a strong message that we do not endorse this war. It was said that this is the same vote that we had last week, but last week’s vote is sitting on the table and it is going to sit there.
This one may well go someplace and have an effect. So this is a much more important vote that we had last week. It is very important that we vote the same way as we did last week.
I think it is interesting, I think we have an interesting constitutional question here, because I agree with the chairman of the committee and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey ) that it is not the prerogative of the Congress to micromanage a war. That is correct. It is the job of the Congress to declare the war. But here we have a Congress involved in diplomacy and micromanaging a war that has not been declared. That is the issue. The issue is not the micromanaging.
I can support this amendment because the war has not been declared. The issue is how do we permit the President to wage a war without us declaring the war. Once we declare the war, it is true, we should not be talking about whether or not we use airplanes or foot soldiers or whatever. We do not micromanage. We do not get involved in diplomacy maneuvers.
But today we have things turned upside down. We have the President declaring where and we say nothing and the Congress micromanaging the war that should not exist. We need to consider that. And we can straighten this mess out by rejecting these funds.
It is suggested that this amendment would go a long way to doing it. I am not all that optimistic. For us to say to the President ‘thou shalt not use these funds for the ground war,’ well, he has not had the authority to wage his air war. Why would he listen to us now?
Can we trust him and say that he is going to listen to what we tell him? Of course not. He is already fighting his air war and he will continue to. And he has set the standard, and not he alone, all our Presidents from World War II have set the standard that they will do what they darn well please.
This is why I have been encouraged in the last couple weeks that this debate has been going on, because it is an important debate. I have finally seen this Congress at least addressing the subject on whether or not they should take back the prerogatives of war and not allow it to remain in the hands of the President.
This is very, very good. I have come to the House floor on numerous occasions since February, taking this position that we should not be involved. As a matter of fact, we had a couple dozen, maybe three dozen Members in this Congress who signed on a bill in February, a month or so before we even saw the bombs dropping in Yugoslavia, that would have prevented this whole mess if we would have stood up and assumed our responsibilities.
It is said that we must move in now to help the refugees. Have we looked at the statistics? How many refugees did we have before the bombing started? Others say, well, we must move in because Milosevic is so strong. Prior to the bombing, Milosevic was weak.
Talk about unintended consequences. They are so numerous. What about the unintended consequence of supporting the KLA who are supported by Osama Bin Laden? How absurd can it get? Osama Bin Laden was our good friend because he was a freedom fighter in Afghanistan and we gave him our weapons and supported him. But then we found out he was not quite so friendly, so we captured a few of his men and he retaliated by bombing our embassies. Of course, we retaliated by bombing innocent chemical plants as well as people in Afghanistan that had nothing to do with it.
So where are we now? We are back to supporting and working hard and just deliberating over whether we should give weapons to the KLA. I mean, the whole thing is absurd.
There is only one thing that we should do, and that is stop this funding and stop the war. My colleagues say, oh, no, we are already too far in that we cannot. It is not supporting the troops. Well, who wants to get down here and challenge me and say that I do not support our troops? I support our troops. I served in the military for 5 years. That is not a worthwhile challenge. We all support our troops.
They say, well, no, they are in a quagmire and we have to help them and this is the only way we can do it. So the President comes and asks us for $6 billion and then, in Congress’s infinite wisdom, we give him $13 billion. And yet, we do not declare war.
This appropriation should be defeated.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
May 6th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate National Teacher Appreciation week by expressing my appreciation for the valuable work of America’s teachers and to ask my colleagues to support two pieces of legislation I have introduced to get the government off the backs, and out of the pockets, of America’s teachers. Yesterday I introduced legislation to prohibit the expenditure of federal funds for national teacher testing or certification. A national teacher test would force all teachers to be trained in accordance with federal standards, thus dramatically increasing the Department of Education’s control over the teaching profession.
I have also introduced the Teacher Tax Cut Act (HR 937) which provides every teacher in America with a $1,000 tax credit. The Teacher Tax Cut Act thus increases teachers’ salaries without raising federal expenditures. It lets America’s teachers know that the American people and the Congress respect their work. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, by raising teacher take-home pay, the Teacher Tax Cut Act encourages high-quality people to enter, and remain in, the teaching profession.
Mr. Speaker, these two bills send a strong signal to America’s teachers that we in Congress are determined to encourage good people to enter and remain in the teaching profession and that we want teachers to be treated as professionals, not as Education Department functionaries. I urge my colleagues to support my legislation to prohibit the use of federal funds for national teacher testing and to give America’s teachers a $1,000 tax credit.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts: