September 30th, 1999
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, pro-life Members of Congress are ecstatic over the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, touting it as a good step toward restoring respect for life, and once again criminalizing abortion. This optimism and current effort must be seriously challenged.
As a pro-life obstetrician-gynecologist, I strongly condemn the events of the last third of the 20th century in which we have seen the casual acceptance of abortion on demand.
The law’s failure to protect the weakest, smallest and most innocent of all the whole human race has undermined our respect for all life, and therefore for all liberty. As we have seen, once life is no longer unequivocally protected, the loss of personal liberty quickly follows.
The Roe v. Wade ruling will in time prove to be the most significantly flawed Supreme Court ruling of the 20th century. Not only for its codification, through an unconstitutional court action, of a social consensus that glorified promiscuity and abortion of convenience and for birth control, but for flaunting as well the constitutional system that requires laws of this sort be left to the prerogative of the states alone. A single ‘Roe v. Wade’ ruling by one state would be far less harmful than a Supreme Court ruling that nullifies all state laws protecting the unborn.
Achieving the goal of dehumanizing all human life, by permitting the casting aside all pre-born life, any time prior to birth, including partially born human beings, Roe v. Wade represents a huge change in attitudes toward all life and liberty. Now pro-life Members are engaged in a similar process of writing more national laws in hopes of balancing the court’s error. This current legislative effort is just as flawed.
Traditionally, throughout our history, except for the three constitutional provisions, all crimes of violence have been–and should remain–state matters. Yet this legislation only further undermines the principle of state jurisdiction, and our system of law enforcement, which has served us well for most of our history.
Getting rid of Roe v. Wade through a new court ruling or by limiting federal jurisdiction would return this complex issue to the states.
Making the killing of an unborn infant a federal crime, as this bill does, further institutionalizes the process of allowing federal courts to destroy the constitutional jurisdiction of the states. But more importantly, the measure continues the practice of only protecting some life, by allowing unborn children to be killed by anyone with an ‘M.D.’ after his name.
By protecting the abortionist, this legislation carves out a niche in the law that further ingrains in the system the notion that the willful killing of an innocent human being is not deserving of our attention. With more than a million children a year dying at the hands of abortionists, it is unwise that we ignore these acts for the sake of political expediency.
Pro-abortion opponents of this legislation are needlessly concerned regarding its long-term meaning, and supporters are naively hoping that unintended consequences will not occur.
State laws have already established clearly that a fetus is a human being deserving protection; for example, inheritance laws acknowledge that the unborn child does enjoy the estate of his father. Numerous states already have laws that correctly punishes those committing acts of murder against a fetus.
Although this legislation is motivated by the best of intentions of those who strongly defend the inalienable rights of the unborn, it is seriously flawed, and will not achieve its intended purpose. For that reason I shall vote against the bill and for the sanctity of life and the rights of the states, and against the selected protection of abortionists.
Mr. Chairman, today Congress will vote to further instill and codify the ill-advised Roe versus Wade decision. While it is the independent duty of each branch of the federal government to act Constitutionally, Congress will likely ignore not only its Constitutional limits but earlier criticisms from Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
September 28th, 1999
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution, not because I lack concern for the serious problems that the East Timorese are undergoing, and not for lack of humanitarian concerns for this group of people or anybody in the world. It is just that there is another side to the argument for us intervening. And, besides, we helped create the problem in Indonesia.
In the 1970′s, we were very supportive of the Indonesian Government in their takeover of East Timor after it became independent from Portugal. So once again, here we are intervening.
I would like to advise my colleagues that we are not just endorsing a humanitarian effort to help people who are suffering. We are literally giving the President carte blanche to go and commit war in this area. We are committing ourselves to troops, and it is an open-ended policy.
We complained a whole lot about what was happening in Kosovo. And that operation has not ended. It is continuing. This is just another example of being involved, although with good intentions, but with unintended consequences just hanging around the corner. I would like to point out that some of those unintended consequences can be rather serious.
I would like to call my colleagues’ attention to number 11 under the resolve clause, making these points. Number 11 says it ‘expresses support for a rapid and effective deployment throughout East Timor of the United Nations Security Council-endorsed multilateral force.’ This means troops.
Our Security Council has already decided to send troops to East Timor. What we are doing today is rubber stamping this effort to send troops into another part of the world in a place where we have no national security interests. We do not know what victory means. We do not know what lies ahead.
In addition, under number 13, it ‘expresses approval of United States logistical and other technical support for deployment of a multinational force for East Timor.’ Troops, that is what it means, endangerment and risk that this could escalate.
Under number 13, there is another part that concerns me a great deal. In the 1970s, we passed the War Powers Resolution. Both conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats endorsed the notion that Presidents should be restrained in their effort to wage war without declaration.
Once again, we are endorsing the concept that, if we just subtly and quietly endorse a President’s ability and authority to go into a foreign country under the auspices of the United Nations, we do not have to deal with the real issue of war. But under 13(B), it explicitly restates the fact that a President in this situation can at least wage war for 60 days before we have much to say about it.
I think this is dangerous. We should be going in the other direction. This is certainly what was expressed many, many times on the floor during the Kosovo debates. But we lost that debate, although we had a large number of colleagues that argued for non-involvement. We are now entrenched in Kosovo, and we are about to become entrenched in East Timor, not under the auspices of the United States, but under the United Nations.
I do not see that the sanctity and the interests of the United States will be benefitted by what we are getting ready to do.
Number 16 under the resolved clause, ‘recognizes that an effective United States foreign policy for this region requires both an effective near-term response to the ongoing humanitarian violence in, and progress toward independence for, East Timor.’
If we decide that we have to fight for and engage troops for everybody who wants to be independent, we have a lot of work ahead of us. And, in addition, in the same clause, ‘and a long-term strategy for supporting stability, security and democracy.’
This is a major commitment. This is not just a resolution that is saying that we support humanitarian aid. This is big stuff. The American people ought to know it, the Members of Congress ought to know it.
This resolution became available to me just within the last 20 minutes. It has been difficult to know exactly what is in it, and yet it is very significant, very important; and we in the Congress should not vote casually and carelessly on this issue. This is a major commitment. I think it is going in the wrong direction, and we should consider the fact that there are so often unintended consequences from our efforts to do what is right.
I understand the motivation behind this, but tragically this type of action tends to always backfire because we do not follow the rule of law. And the rule of law says if we commit troops, we ought to get the direct and explicit authority from the Congress with a war resolution. This, in essence, is a baby war resolution, but it is a war resolution.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I want to commend my colleague from Texas for stating the case for isolationism and appeasement as eloquently as he has. It is appropriate when we are discussing a major international issue that the various positions be laid out clearly so we can make an intelligent decision.
In this century we have had numerous instances when in this body the voices of isolationism presented their case. And whenever they prevailed–and they prevailed from time to time–the cost in blood and treasure later on was infinitely greater than it would have been had the perpetrators of violence and human rights abuse–whether they were called Hitler or Saddam Hussein or the Indonesian militia or the thugs of Milosevic–had they been stopped early on, the cost would have been infinitely less in both blood and treasure.
Here now we have the case of East Timor. My friend from Texas, instead of placing the burden of blame on the thugs who have persecuted a small Catholic minority in a large Muslim nation, the largest Muslim nation on the face of this planet, blames the United States for contributing 200 individuals and providing logistical and technical assistance to an international peacekeeping armada. I could not disagree with him more strongly.
One of the great victories that I am sure we all cherished was the collapse of the Soviet empire. The Soviet empire and the threat it represented to civilized democratic peace-loving nations across the globe was clearly one of the greatest threats of the 20th Century. And it was the determination of the United States and our allies, in facing up to the mighty Soviet Union, that resulted in the collapse of the Soviet empire and the fact that large numbers of countries, from Poland to the Czech Republic, are now democratic and free, and three of them are now members of NATO.
Now, if we did not yield to the threats of the gigantic Soviet Union, a powerful nuclear nation with vast conventional forces, it would be intriguing to know why we should now yield to the militia thugs in East Timor who are denying the Catholic population of that little island their right to live under rules and authorities and leadership of their own choosing. I have difficulty following the logic.
If the Soviet Union could be resisted by Democratic and peace-loving nations, it is hard to see why Milosevic should not be resisted in Kosovo and why the thugs of the militia in East Timor should not be resisted by democratic forces.
Let me also point out to my friend, as he well knows, it is our ally, Australia, which is carrying the bulk of the load in East Timor. That is as it should be. Australia is the most powerful military force in the whole region, and our friends in Australia willingly and proudly accepted their international responsibility. For the United States to bail out on this effort would undermine our long-term policy, conducted by Democratic and Republican presidents, supported by Democratically controlled and Republican controlled Congresses, of speaking out for and taking a stand on the matter of collective security.
I think it is important to realize that there is a common thread running through our opposition to the Japanese warlords in the Second World War, to Mussolini and Hitler, to the long regime of Joseph Stalin, and to other dictators ranging from Saddam Hussein through Milosevic to the militia, the thugs, in East Timor. To argue at the end of the 20th century that we should revert to isolationism is really a sorry spectacle. What it reveals is that nothing, nothing has been learned from the bloody experiences of this entire century, which so clearly demonstrate that neither appeasement nor isolationism are proper policies for the United States.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LANTOS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. The gentleman makes a good case for the humanitarian needs of the people. My point is that sometimes our efforts do not do what we want.
For instance, the gentleman talks about the thugs that are in Indonesia, those who are violating the rights of the East Timorese. We have to realize that they have been our allies and we helped set up the situation. So our interventions do not always do what we want.
Also, the gentleman talks about the Soviets. We supported the Soviets.
Mr. LANTOS. Reclaiming my time, if I may, Mr. Speaker. If I may remind my colleague of history, it was President Ford and under President Ford’s tenure that we acquiesced in the occupation of East Timor by the Indonesian military.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I think the gentleman is absolutely correct. But I happen to see these things in a very nonpartisan manner. So to turn this into a Republican versus Democrat issue, I think, is in error.
I would like to suggest that the careless use of the word isolationism does not apply to me because I am not a protectionist. I believe in openness. I want people and capital and goods and services to go back and forth. When we trade with people, we are less likely to fight with them.
So the proposal and the program I am suggesting is a constitutional program. I believe it is best for the people. It has nothing to do with isolating ourselves from the rest of the world. It is to isolate ourselves from doing dumb things that get us involved in things like Korea and Vietnam, where we do not even know why we are there and we end up losing. That is what I am opposed to.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I must say to my colleague from Texas that we have heard voices in the last few days on the part of one presidential candidate calling our participation in the Second World War against Hitler a mistake. Now, this is a free country, and people can choose to accept any position that they are inclined to do so.
But let me state for myself that I think our participation in the Second World War was one of the most glorious aspects of the whole of American history. Our standing up to the regime of Stalin and other Communist dictators in the second half of this century is among the most glorious aspects of our history. The work of President Bush in pulling together a coalition in facing up to Saddam Hussein was an important and glorious chapter in our history.
And what we are seeing unfolding in East Timor now represents just another chapter in the determination of the American people and the American government to stand up to the horrendous dictatorships that still are present in many parts of this globe.
And I hope that as we enter the 21st century, this bipartisan policy of rejecting isolationism will continue.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time both sides have?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gibbons ). The gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos ) has 4 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman ) has 11 minutes remaining.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul ).
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond. To try to tie in World War II is not quite fair. I think the gentleman has to admit that we are not talking about that. Besides, I am talking as much about procedure as I am talking about the policy itself.
In World War II there was a serious problem around the world. It was brought to this Congress. We voted on a war resolution. We went to war. The country was unified, and we won. That is what I endorse, that procedure. What I do not endorse is us getting involved the back-door way; getting involved carelessly and casually. Not realizing what we are doing.
I come to the floor only to try to warn my colleagues of what they are voting on today; that this is not just a simple humanitarian resolution. It is the process I’m concerned about. If we bring a war resolution to the floor and say, look, we need to go to war to defend the East Timorese, we can vote it up and down and decide to go over and settle it in 2 or 3 months. But we should not do what we are doing now, to endorse internationalism, or interventionism that inevitably fails.
I think there is a better way to proceed, and it is written in the Constitution.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
September 27th, 1999
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 202. ‘Preserving Housing for Senior Citizens and Families into the 21st Century.’ While my views on respecting our Constitution limitations regarding Federal issues are well known and need not be repeated here now, I have other concerns regarding this bill specifically.
That the House of Representatives would consider any bill authorizing about a billion dollars of taxpayer funds annually on the suspension calendar (an expedited procedure reserved for ‘non controversial’ bills) show how far we have moved from our posturing that we claim to respect the concerns of taxpayers.
The consideration of this bill succumbs to the misperception that the best course of action to any perceived problem is further (Federal) governmental response. Clearly, that is not the case. Recently, John Stossel hosted an ABC television special, ‘Is America Number One!’ In that show, he examined the premise of governmental solutions to problems always being best and concluded:
“Intuition would suggest that countries with the most government planning, places where you’re taken care of, would be the best places to live. But in fact the opposite is true, countries with the most planning are the most poor. Several organizations rank countries by economic freedom. At one end are places with lots of government planning. Invariably, these are the worst places to live. At the other end on the list–Hong Kong, New Zealand, Switzerland, and the United States. The best places to live are places with the fewest rules. Freedom isn’t everything. Climate matters. Religion, geography, even luck can make a difference. But nothing matters as much as . . . Liberty.
“In the show, Peter Jennings said that ‘Nearly 37 million Americans now live below the official poverty line.’ Federal Reverse economist Machael Cox explained, ‘The government says now 13.3 percent of households are in poverty. Let’s go see what households in poverty have. Ninety-seven percent of households in poverty have color televisions. Two thirds have microwave ovens and live in air-conditioned buildings. Seventy-five percent have one or more cars.’”
Unfortunately, H.R. 202 makes the situation worse by diluting our current policy of helping the truly needy in favor of creating a middle class entitlement by expanding eligibility for occupancy to as high as 80% of the area median income for existing housing developments for seniors. I commend Mr. Stossel for illustrating clearly that choosing liberty is the best path for making a difference. I wish more of my colleagues heeded his advise.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
September 15th, 1999
WASHINGTON, DC — Calling on Congress to help make college affordable to millions of Americans while simultaneously increasing the choices available, US Rep. Ron Paul (R, Texas) has cosponsored the “Make College Affordable Act of 1999,” HR2750. Rep. Harold Ford (D, Tenn.) authored the bill.
The measure allows single filers who make incomes up to $55,000 a year, and joint filers with incomes up to $85,000 a year, to write-off the full amount of a college education, including tuition, fees and room and board for themselves and their dependents.
“Working families are struggling to pay college tuition bills, and for good reason: the cost of attending college continues to skyrocket,” said Rep. Paul.
Every year, public concern about rising tuition costs increases as the cost of post-secondary education rises and families find themselves in the challenging position of trying to fund their child’s education. According to the National Commission on the Cost of Higher Education, between 1976 and 1996, the average tuition at public universities increased from $642 to $3,151. During the same period, the average tuition at private universities increased from $2,881 to $15,581 and for public two-year institutions, tuition increased from $245 to $1,245.
“Careful planning, saving and investments by families can facilitate the process of funding a student’s college education,” said Rep. Paul. “What do families do when savings are not enough and college tuition continues to skyrocket? The Make College Affordable Act will increase accessibility to higher education and help working families deal with the sticker shock when writing tuition checks every semester.”
Both Rep. Paul and Rep. Ford are members of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.
Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off
Similar posts:
September 14th, 1999
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, campaign finance reform is once again being painted as the solution to political corruption in Washington. Indeed, political corruption is a problem, but today’s reformers hardly offer a solution. The real problem is that government has too much influence over our economy and lives, creating a tremendous incentive to protect one’s own interests by ‘investing’ in politicians. The problem is not a lack of federal laws, or rules regulating campaign spending, therefore more laws won’t help. We hardly suffer from too much freedom. Any effort to solve the campaign finance problem with more laws will only make things worse by further undermining the principles of liberty and private property ownership.
The reformers are sincere in their effort to curtail special interest influence on government, but this cannot be done while ignoring the control government has assumed over our lives and economy. Current reforms address only the symptoms while the root cause of the problem is ignored. Since reform efforts involve regulating political speech through control of political money, personal liberty is compromised. Tough enforcement of spending rules will merely drive the influence underground since the stakes are too high and much is to be gained by exerting influence over government–legal or not. The more open and legal campaign expenditures are, with disclosure, the easier it is for voters to know who’s buying influence from whom.
There’s tremendous incentive for every special interest group to influence government. Every individual, bank or corporation that does business with government invests plenty in influencing government. Lobbyists spend over a hundred million dollars per month trying to influence Congress. Taxpayers dollars are endlessly spent by bureaucrats in their effort to convince Congress to protect their own empires. Government has tremendous influence over the economy, and financial markets through interest rate controls, contracts, regulations, loans, and grants. Corporations and others are ‘forced’ to participate in the process out of greed as well as self-defense–since that’s the way the system works. Equalizing competition and balancing power such as between labor and business is a common practice. As long as this system remains in place, the incentive to buy influence will continue.
Many reformers recognize this and either like the system or believe that it’s futile to bring about changes and argue that curtailing influence is the only option left even if it involves compromising the liberty of political speech through regulating political money.
It’s naive to believe stricter rules will make a difference. If enough honorable men and women served in Congress and resisted the temptation to be influenced by any special interest group, of course this whole discussion would be unnecessary. Because Members do yield to the pressure, the reformers believe that more rules regulating political speech will solve the problem.
The reformers argue that it’s only the fault of those trying to influence government and not the fault of the Members who yield to the pressure or the system that generates the abuse. This allows Members of Congress to avoid assuming responsibility for their own acts and instead places the blame on those who exert pressure on Congress through the political process which is a basic right bestowed on all Americans. The reformer’s argument is ‘stop us before we succumb to the special interest groups.’
Politicians unable to accept this responsibility clamor for a system that diminishes the need for politicians to persuade individuals and groups to donate money to their campaign. Instead of persuasion they endorse coercing taxpayers to finance campaigns.
This only changes the special interest groups that control government policy. Instead of voluntary groups making their own decisions with their own money, politicians and bureaucrats dictate how political campaigns will be financed. Not only will politicians and bureaucrats gain influence over elections, other nondeservers will benefit. Clearly, incumbents will greatly benefit by more controls over campaign spending–a benefit to which the reformers will never admit.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
September 9th, 1999
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize and join with the Brazosport RehabCare Center in Lake Jackson, Texas in observing and celebrating National Rehabilitation Awareness Week beginning September 12 through September 18, 1999.
The Brazosport RehabCare Center opened its doors on December 31, 1992. Construction was completed at the end of April 1993, for a total of 14 acute rehabilitation beds.
The Brazosport RehabCare center is located in Brazosport Memorial Hospital in Lake Jackson, Texas. The primary service areas include the cities of Lake Jackson, Clute, Freeport, Angleton, Danbury and Brazoria. This service area has a combined population of approximately 95,000. The secondary service area includes the cities of Sweeny, West Columbia and Old Ocean with a population of approximately 16,000. The RehabCare Center has also attracted patients from Bay City and Alvin.
Comprehensive inpatient rehabilitation services are provided to individuals with orthopedic, neurological and other medical conditions of recent onset or regression. These patients have experienced a loss of function in activities of daily living, mobility, cognition or communication. Types of patients admitted into the Brazosport RehabCare Center may include those with a diagnosis of stroke, spinal cord injury or dysfunction, brain injury, amputation, multiple trauma, hip fracture or joint replacement, arthritis, congenial deformity, burns or other progressive neuralgic syndromes such as Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis and Gullian Barre.
The services Brazosport RehabCare Center provides include rehabilitation medicine, rehabilitation nursing, physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech/language pathology, social work, psychology and recreational activities. in addition, prosthetics/orthodics, vocational rehabilitation, audiology and driver education are provided when necessary through affiliate agreements with external organizations. The goal of each service is to maximize the individual’s potential in the restoration of function or adjustment by integrating with other services.
By addressing the multiple effects that disability has on the patient and family and by integrating the combined resources of patient, family and interdisciplinary rehabilitation team, comprehensive rehabilitation programming can maximize the abilities and esteem of the patient and family and foster a healthy re-integration into the community. At the Brazosport RehabCare Center, patient outcomes are exceptionally positive. Eighty-six percent of their patients are able to return home and lead an independent lifestyle.
I am proud and honored to have the Brazosport RehabCare rehabilitation facilities at Brazosport Memorial Hospital, Lake Jackson, Texas. Please join me in recognizing the Brazosport RehabCare Center for its outstanding services and remarkable accomplishments as we celebrate National Rehabilitation Awareness Week.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
September 9th, 1999
WASHINGTON, DC — Wednesday’s announcement by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York that it will expand the collateral accepted in repurchase transactions to include pass-through mortgage securities of GNMA, FHLMC and FNMA, STRIP securities of the U.S. Treasury and “stripped” securities of other government agencies raises troubling questions, US Rep. Ron Paul (R, Texas) said.
“I have contacted the office of Rep. Spencer Bachus, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy of the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services, to call for hearings on this important question,” said Rep. Paul, vice-chairman of the subcommittee. “Hopefully, hearings would put to rest serious questions raised by this announcement.”
Paul said the decision — which the Federal Reserve said was made because of “century date change” concerns — sets a risky precedent, especially in light of Deputy Secretary of the Treasury Stuart Eizenstat’s earlier suggestion to monetize not only government sponsored enterprises’ (GSE) debt but corporate debt as well.
Paul added, “I commend Rep. Richard Baker’s call for greater oversight of the GSE’s and to eliminate their line of credit to the Treasury.” Baker is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Capitol Markets, Securities, and Government Sponsored Enterprises of the House Banking Committee.
“This decision, though approved only through April 2000, bolsters the value of the implied government guarantee — this action is highly risky when viewed from the perspective of potential taxpayer liability. These highly-leveraged institutions are already leveraged off the Treasury balance sheet. A further expansion of collateral with mortgage securities, which the Fed can use as collateral for monetary expansion, must be closely scrutinized.”
Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off
Similar posts:
September 9th, 1999
WASHINGTON, DC — The House of Representatives voted Wednesday night to terminate the Selective Service System, saving taxpayers $250 million over the next 10 years while ending the “systematic abuse of the civil liberties” of millions of Americans. The vote was 232 to 187.
“Not only is the notion of involuntary servitude at odds with our system of law and tradition of liberty, but it is not in keeping with the needs and demands of a 21 st Century defense program,” said US Rep. Ron Paul (R, Texas), who championed the cause to end the Selective Service program. He introduced HR 1812, the Selective Service Stand-by Act. The measure would have put the system into a deep hibernation, while transferring the funds to veterans programs.
“I’m pleased my colleagues in Congress have sided with me in saying that the time to end the draft is long overdue. Under the misguided rhetoric of national defense, our nation has for far too long acted in a manner contrary to liberty; it is illogical to assume one can protect liberty by violating it.”
Rep. Paul said the inconsistency of the program was brought closer to home just prior to his grandson’s 18th birthday. His grandson received a card in the mail from Selective Service reminding him to register.
“By sending him the card, the government demonstrated that even without registering they knew who he was, how old he was and where he was. Selective Service is a needless program.”
The bipartisan vote was to defeat an amendment to the Veterans Administration/HUD appropriation package that would have restored full funding to the Selective Service program, funding that was removed by the legislation.
Besides saving several hundred million dollars, Members of Congress recognized the wisdom of such men as the late US Senator Robert Taft and former President Ronald Reagan.
Senator Taft once said, “A compulsory draft … is far more typical of totalitarian nations than of democratic nations. The theory behind it leads directly to totalitarianism. It is absolutely opposed to the principles of individual liberty.”
President Reagan said, “[T]he most fundamental objection to draft registration is moral… a draft or draft registration destroys the very values that our society is committed to defending.”
In addition, a Department of Defense report found that Selective Service could be ended “with no effect on military mobilization requirements, little effect on the time it would take to mobilize, and no measurable effect on military recruitment.”
Instead, Rep. Paul said, military recruitment and retention would be greatly improved by ending the practice of putting American troops in harms’ way when there is no national security interest at stake, while at the same time improving benefits and living up to commitments made to veterans.
Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off
Similar posts:
September 8th, 1999
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much this opportunity to address this amendment. I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. I compliment the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. WALSH), for deleting these funds, in this bill.
This to me is a heroic step in the right direction. We have an agency of Government spending more than $24 million a year accomplishing nothing. We live in an age when we do not need a draft. We live in an age of technology that makes the draft obsolete. Not only is it unnecessarily militarily to have a draft, it is budgetarily not wise to spend this type of money.
More importantly, I rise in strong objection on moral principles that the draft is wrong. In most of our history we did not have a draft. The gentleman from California early on pointed out that essentially since World War I we have had a draft, and that is true. Since in this century we have seen a diminished respect for personal liberty with the growth of the state we have seen much more willingness to accept the idea that young men belong to the state.
That is what the registration is all about. I have a young grandson that had to register not too long ago, and he came to me and said, You know, “they sent me a notice that I better go register. Why do I have to register, if they already know where I am and how old I am?” That is the case. The purpose of registration is nothing more than putting an emphasis on the fact that the state owns all 18-year-olds.
The unfortunate part about a draft is that too often draftees are used in wars that are not legitimate. This is so often the case. If this country faced an attack, we should have volunteers. We should all volunteer. But, unfortunately, the generation of politicians who declare the wars too often never serve. Some of them have not even served in the past. But they are willing to start wars that are not legitimate, and yet they depend on the draft. They depend on the draft for the men to go out and fight and die.
The one really strong reason we should all reject the idea of the draft is it is so unfair.
Let us say an argument is made that it is necessary. I happen to believe it is never necessary to violate somebody’s liberty, but let us say there is a sincere belief that it is necessary to impose a draft.
There is no such thing as a fair draft. This is why the sixties were in such turmoil in this country, because the elite frequently evaded the draft. If they are smart enough to get a deferment, they got off. Who suffers from the draft? The poor and the less educated, the inner city teenagers. They end up getting the draft, and they do not get the deferments. They cannot avoid it.
It is very important that we consider not only this vote on fiscal reasons and where we are taking the money. Quite frankly, I would much rather see this money stay in the programs where, as a fiscal conservative, I would not have otherwise voted for those funds nay. But any funding of that sort is so much better on principle than voting to perpetuate a system that has no purpose other than to conscript.
Conscription is not part of the American dream. It is not part of the American philosophy. It is not part of liberty. It is a totalitarian notion. Congress has the authority to raise an army, but it does not have the constitutional authority to enslave a certain group to bear the brunt of the fighting. A society that cherishes liberty will easily find its volunteer defenders if it is attacked. A free society that cannot find those willing to defend itself without coercion cannot survive, and probably does not deserve to.
A free society that depends on the vicious totalitarian principle of conscription is, by its very nature, no longer free.
We gradually lost our love for individual liberty throughout the 20th century as the people and the Congresses capitulated to the notion of the military draft. The vote on the Selective Service System funding will determine whether or not we are willing to take a very welcome, positive step in the direction of more liberty by rejecting the appropriations for the Selective Service System.
There is no other vote that a Member of Congress can cast that defines one’s belief and understanding regarding the principle of personal liberty than a vote supporting or rejecting the draft. This vote gives us a rare opportunity to reverse the trend toward bigger and more oppressive government.
Yes, preserving liberty is worth fighting and even dying for, but conscription is incompatible with that goal. We cannot make men free by first enslaving them and forcing them to sacrifice their lives and liberty for the policies conceived by misdirected politicians and international warmongers.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
September 8th, 1999
Mr. Chairman, I would like to compliment the committee, as well as the chairman of the subcommittee, for deleting the $24.5 million for the selective service system. That was a good move. To me it was a heroic step in the direction of more liberty for the individual.
There is no place in a free society to have a program of conscription and drafting of young people to fight unconstitutional wars. It saves $24 million, and I urge my colleagues not to support the funding for the selective service.
Ronald Reagan was a strong opponent of the draft. He spoke out against it. We do not need it. It is wasted money. It is absolutely unnecessary. The Department of Defense has spoken out clearly that it is not necessary for national security reasons to have a selective service system, and yet we continually spend $24.5 million annually for this program. So I urge all Members, all my colleagues, to oppose putting this money back in for the Selective Service System.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts: