October 29th, 1999
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congressional Quarterly magazine has announced its issue featuring the first ever “CQ 50.” The magazine chronicles 50 of the most effective members of Congress, and included in that list is Representative Ron Paul. The list includes just fifty Members of Congress, both from the US Senate and the House of Representatives.
In the story entitled, “50 Ways To Do the Job of Congressman,” the magazine notes Paul’s effective advocacy of a strict interpretation of the Constitution and his consistent application of that standard through his votes on the House floor.
“When CQ first contacted my offices some time back saying I would be named one of the 50 most effective legislators in Congress, I was obviously pleased to be recognized by this important institution. It is indeed gratifying to be honored in this way. It is sometimes difficult to take a strong and principled stand in light of how Washington operates, but I think my being included in this list goes to show that a person can stick to his principles and still have an effect on the direction of the country,” Paul said.
Over the past year, Paul has had a number of significant legislative accomplishments; he introduced legislation to take away regulatory authority for the Know Your Customer regulation (the regulation was later rescinded). Paul also introduced amendments to end the pursuit of a National Identification card as well as to ban federal teacher tests, both of which successfully made their way into federal law.
Paul has also introduced and cosponsored numerous bills aimed at reducing federal taxes. His tax reduction efforts have been aimed at parents and educators, senior citizens, agricultural producers, health care consumers and public safety personnel. And the first bill Paul introduced this Congress was the Social Security Preservation Act, calling for all Social Security receipts to be kept in a separate fund so that they might not be used for other spending.
Commenting on his goals for the remainder of this Congress, Paul continued, “I start every day the same. I do the very best I can to represent the people of the 14 th District, to look after their interests and help them with the problems they have with their federal government. It is also my priority to keep the pledges I made to them when I sought this office, namely, to keep my oath to uphold the constitution of the United States and to protect their rights and liberties as well as America’s national sovereignty.”
Paul said he would continue to advance this agenda throughout his tenure in the House.
Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off
Similar posts:
October 28th, 1999
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congressman Ron Paul said he is “both pleased and grateful” that two House sub-committees held hearings this week regarding presidential abuse of executive orders. The Legislative and Budget Process Subcommittee of the House Rules Committee meets today to discuss the issue, which is the topic of Congressman Ron Paul’s HR 2655, the Separation of Powers Restoration Act.
Paul’s bill will also get a hearing tomorrow at 10 a.m. in Room 2237 of the Rayburn House Office Building in the Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee. Paul will testify on the bill and will spell out why it continues to be necessary. He will address both past presidential abuses of executive orders and the immediate potential for further abuses, as well detailing how this legislation specifically provides remedies when such abuses are attempted. Paul introduced the bill on July 30, just prior to the August recess of Congress. The bill currently has more than a dozen cosponsors.
In his testimony, Paul states, “For far too many years, the illegitimate uses (of executive orders) have overshadowed the legitimate. Presidents have issued executive orders that have mistakenly taken on the semblance of law. . . The Separation of Powers Restoration Act is designed to restore the separation of powers between Congress and the president as set forth in Articles I and II of the United States Constitution by: (1) terminating all existing states of national emergency and removing from the executive branch any power to declare national emergencies; (2) vesting power in Congress alone to declare states of national emergency; (3) restricting presidential power to issue executive orders by denying to them any force of law except as provided for by Congress; and (4) repealing the 1973 War Powers Resolution.”
Paul also points, as an example of potential further abuse, to the November 1 st , 1999, issue of U.S. News & World Report, which states that “Clinton plans a series of executive orders and changes to federal rules that he can sign into law without first getting the ok from GOP naysayers. White House Chief of Staff John Podesta was quoted as saying, ‘There’s a pretty wide sweep of things we’re looking to do, and we’re going to be very aggressive in pursuing it.’”
Paul further says, “That powers have been usurped is undeniable, and that our system is out of balance is evident to the most casual of observers. We have the opportunity to more perfectly balance our system and restrict potential abuses. That is what this bill, HR 2655, is designed to do.”
Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off
Similar posts:
October 27th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule, but I would like to make a couple of comments about why I do not think we should support this bill.
I am strongly pro-life. I think one of the most disastrous rulings of this century was Roe versus Wade. I do believe in the slippery slope theory. I believe that if people are careless and casual about life at the beginning of life, we will be careless and casual about life at the end. Abortion leads to euthanasia. I believe that.
I disagree with the Oregon law. If I were in Oregon, I would vote against that law. But I believe the approach here is a legislative slippery slope. What we are doing is applying this same principle of Roe versus Wade by nationalizing law and, therefore, doing the wrong thing.
This bill should be opposed. I think it will backfire. If we can come here in the Congress and decide that the Oregon law is bad, what says we cannot go to Texas and get rid of the Texas law that protects life and prohibits euthanasia. That is the main problem with this bill.
Also, I believe it will indeed dampen the ability of doctors to treat dying patients. I know this bill has made an effort to prevent that, compared to last year, but it does not. The Attorney General and a DEA agent will decide who has given too much medication. If a patient is dying and they get too much medicine, and they die, the doctor could be in big trouble. They could have criminal charges filed against them. They could lose their license or go to jail.
Just recently, I had a member of my family pass away with a serious illness and required a lot of medication. But nurses were reluctant to give the medicine prescribed by the doctor for fear of lawsuit and fear of charges that something illegal was being done. With a law like this, it is going to make this problem much, much worse.
Another thing is this sets up a new agency. For those conservative colleagues of mine who do not like the nationalization of medical care, what my colleagues are looking at here is a new agency of government setting up protocols, educating doctors and hospitals, and saying this is the way palliative care must be administered. My colleagues will have to answer with reports to the Federal Government.
As bad as the Oregon law is, this is not the way we should deal with the problem. This bill applies the same principle as Roe versus Wade.
I maintain that this bill is deeply flawed. I believe that nobody can be more pro-life than I am, nobody who could condemn the trends of what is happening in this country in the movement toward euthanasia and the chances that one day euthanasia will be determined by the national government because of economic conditions. But this bill does not deal with life and makes a difficult situation much worse.
- Mr. Speaker, the Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999 (H.R. 2260) is designed for one purpose. It is to repeal the state of Oregon’s law dealing with assisted suicide and euthanasia.
- Being strongly pro-life, I’m convinced that the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision of 1973 is one of the worst, if not the worst, Supreme Court ruling of the 20th century. It has been this institutionalizing into our legal system the lack of respect for life and liberty that has and will continue to play havoc with liberty and life until it is changed. It has been said by many since the early 1970s that any legalization of abortion would put us on a slippery slope to euthanasia. I agree with this assessment.
- However, I believe that if we are not careful in our attempt to clarify this situation we also could participate in a slippery slope unbeknownst to us and just as dangerous. Roe vs. Wade essentially has nationalized an issue that should have been handled strictly by the states. Its repeal of a Texas State law set the stage for the wholesale of millions of innocent unborn. And yet, we once again are embarking on more nationalization of law that will in time backfire. Although the intention of H.R. 2260 is to repeal the Oregon law and make a statement against euthanasia it may well just do the opposite. If the nationalization of law dealing with abortion was designed to repeal state laws that protected life there is nothing to say that once we further establish this principle that the federal government, either the Congress or the Federal Courts, will be used to repeal the very laws that exist in 49 other states than Oregon that prohibit euthanasia. As bad as it is to tolerate an unsound state law, it’s even worse to introduce the notion that our federal congresses and our federal courts have the wisdom to tell all the states how to achieve the goals of protecting life and liberty.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
October 27th, 1999
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. This will improve the bill. I am very concerned, as a physician, that this bill will do great harm to the practice of medicine. This is micromanaging the palliative care of the dying.
So I strongly support this amendment because it will remove the severe penalties and the threats. Physicians are accustomed to practicing with lawyers over their shoulders. Now we are going to add another DEA agent over our shoulders to watch what we do.
It is said, well, there is not going to be any change in law. Well, if there is not, why the bill? Certainly there is a change in law. This bill does not state that it is dealing with euthanasis. It says it is a pain relief promotion act.
Generally speaking, I look at the names of bills and sometimes intentionally and sometimes just out of the way things happen here, almost always the opposite happens from the bill that we raise up. So I would call this the pain promotion act. I really sincerely believe, as a physician, that this will not help.
Too often physicians are intimidated and frightened about giving the adequate pain medication that is necessary to relieve pain. This amendment will be helpful. This is what we should do. We should not intimidate. The idea of dealing with the issue of euthanasis, euthanasia is killing. It is murder.
I am pro-life. I am against abortion. I am absolutely opposed to euthanasis. But euthanasis is killing. Under our Constitution, that is a State issue, not a congressional issue.
I strongly urge the passage of this amendment.
- Mr. Chairman, today Congress will take a legislative step which is as potentially dangerous to protecting the sanctity of life as was the Court’s ill-advised Roe versus Wade decision.
- The Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999, H.R. 2260, would amend Title 21, United States Code, for the laudable goal of protecting palliative care patients from the scourge of ‘assisted’ suicide. However, by preempting what is the province of States–most of which have already enacted laws prohibiting ‘assisted suicide’–and expanding its use of the Controlled Substances Act to further define what constitutes proper medical protocol, the federal government moves yet another step closer to both a federal medical bureau and a national police state.
- Our federal government is, constitutionally, a government of limited powers. Article one, section eight, enumerates the legislative areas for which the U.S. Congress is allowed enact legislation. For every other issue, the federal government lacks any authority or consent of the governed and only the state governments, their designees, or the people in their private market actions enjoy such rights to governance. The tenth amendment is brutally clear in stating ‘The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.’ Our nation’s history makes clear that the U.S. Constitution is a document intended to limit the power of central government. No serious reading of historical events surrounding the creation of the Constitution could reasonably portray it differently.
- In his first formal complaint to Congress on behalf of the federal Judiciary, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said ‘the trend to federalize crimes that have traditionally been handled in state courts . . . threatens to change entirely the nature of our federal system.’ Rehnquist further criticized Congress for yielding to the political pressure to ‘appear responsive to every highly publicized societal ill or sensational crime.’
- However, Congress does significantly more damage than simply threatening physicians with penalties for improper prescription of certain drugs–it establishes (albeit illegitimately) the authority to dictate the terms of medical practice and, hence, the legality of assisted suicide nationwide. Even though the motivation of this legislation is clearly to pre-empt the Oregon Statute and may be protective of life in this instance, we mustn’t forget that the saw (or scalpel) cuts both ways. The Roe versus Wade decision–the Court’s intrusion into rights of states and their previous attempts to protect by criminal statute the unborn’s right not to be aggressed against–was quite clearly less protective of life than the Texas statute it obliterated. By assuming the authority to decide for the whole nation issues relating to medical practice, palliative care, and assisted suicide, the foundation is established for a national assisted suicide standard which may not be protective of life when the political winds shift and the Medicare system is on the verge of fiscal collapse. Then, of course, it will be the federal government’s role to make the tough choices of medical procedure rationing and for whom the cost of medical care doesn’t justify life extension. Current law already prohibits private physicians from seeing privately funded patients if they’ve treated a Medicaid patient within two years.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
October 23rd, 1999
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Calling on Congress to rescue America’s public safety officers and volunteers from crippling IRS taxes, US Rep. Ron Paul (R, Texas) has introduced the “Public Safety Tax Cut Act,” H.R. 3124. Paul said he introduced the bill in response to outcry among volunteers in Texas Congressional District 14 against the negative impacts of recent IRS audits.
The legislation will effectively overturn a ruling of the Internal Revenue Service which has declared as taxable income those fees which are waived by local governments for volunteers of public safety service. Rep. Paul said that local entities have provided these waivers to encourage volunteerism, though “seldom do these benefits come anywhere near the level of a true compensation for the many hours of training and service required of volunteers.” Still, the IRS has issued rulings that strip away this powerful volunteer recruitment incentive and compensation, and penalize volunteers for providing services. As a result, many local entities have decided to withhold these benefits.
Additionally, the “Public Safety Tax Cut Act” would provide paid professional police and fire officers with a $1,000 per year tax credit. “These professional public safety officers put their lives on the line each and every day,” said Rep. Paul, “and I think we all agree that there is no way to properly compensate them for the fabulous service they provide.”
Many rural communities across the country depend upon volunteer forces for public safety, and communities everywhere in America have a tradition of local law enforcement. Congressman Paul’s legislation would to reinforce the traditions of public safety in this nation by reducing federal taxation and regulations, raising the take-home pay of professional public safety officers.
Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off
Similar posts:
October 22nd, 1999
WASHINGTON, DC — Next week, a subcommittee of the House of Representatives will hold a hearing on legislation introduced by US Rep. Ron Paul (R, TX) that would restrict the power of presidents to legislate by Executive Order.
The Committee on the Judiciary’s Subcommittee on Commerce and Administrative Law will hold the hearing on Thursday, October 28, 1999, in room B-353 of the Rayburn House Office Building. The legislation is HR 2655, the Separation of Powers Restoration Act. Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde (R, IL) issued the formal invitation for Rep. Paul to testify on behalf of the legislation.
“The American public has grown increasingly weary of the use of Executive Orders, as presidents have used them to bypass Congress and legislate from the Oval Office,” said Rep. Paul. “Presidents must be able to direct their employees, but this power must be closely confined by the laws which they are constitutionally and legislatively empowered to execute.”
Former Clinton Advisor Paul Begala was quoted in the New York Times on July 5, 1998, as saying of Executive Orders, “Stroke of the pen. Law of the Land. Kinda cool.”
But the US Constitution does not give presidents this power, said Rep. Paul.
“I’m pleased the Judiciary Committee has decided to hold hearings on this important issue which affects every American.”
HR2655 would limit the scope of the Executive Orders a president can issue to only directing his staff and executive branch employees in carrying out authorized activities. It would also give legal standing to Members of Congress and average citizens to bring court cases against an administration if an Executive Order deprives them of their rights or harms them economically. It also repeals the 1973 War Powers Resolution, returning exclusive authority to Congress to declare national emergencies, while repealing all “national emergencies” currently on the books — most dating from the late 1970s and early 1980s.
The legislation currently has nine cosponsors, including Don Young (R, AK), chairman of the Committee on Resources.
Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off
Similar posts:
October 21st, 1999
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Public Safety Tax Cut Act. This legislation will achieve two important public policy goals.
First, it will effectively overturn a ruling of the Internal Revenue Service which has declared as taxable income the waiving of fees by local governments who provide service for public safety volunteers.
Many local governments use volunteer firefighters and auxiliary police either in place of, or as a supplement to, their public safety professionals. Often as an incentive to would-be volunteers, the local entities might waive all or a portion of the fees typically charged for city services such as the provision of drinking water, sewerage charges, or debris pick up. Local entities make these decisions for the purpose of encouraging folks to volunteer, and seldom do these benefits come anywhere near the level of a true compensation for the many hours of training and service required of the volunteers. This, of course, not even to mention the fact that these volunteers could very possibly be called into a situation where they may have to put their lives on the line.
Rather than encouraging this type of volunteerism, which is so crucial, particularly to America’s rural communities, the IRS has decided that the provision of the benefits described above amount to taxable income. Not only does this adversely affect the financial position of the volunteer by foisting new taxes about him or her, it has in fact led local entities to stop providing these benefits, thus taking away a key tool they have used to recruit volunteers. That is why the IRS ruling in this instance has a substantial deleterious impact on the spirit of American volunteerism. How far could this go? For example, would consistent application mean that a local Salvation Army volunteer be taxed for the value of a complimentary ticket to that organization’s annual county dinner? This is obviously bad policy.
This legislation would rectify this situation by specifically exempting these types of benefits from federal taxation.
Next, this legislation would also provide paid professional police and fire officers with a $1,000 per year tax credit. These professional public safety officers put their lives on the line each and every day, and I think we all agree that there is no way to properly compensate them for the fabulous services they provide. In America we have a tradition of local law enforcement and public safety provision. So, while it is not the role of our federal government to increase the salaries of these, it certainly is within our authority to increase their take-home pay by reducing the amount of money that we take from their pockets via federal taxation, and that is something this bill specifically does as well.
Mr. Speaker I am proud to introduce the Public Safety Tax Cut Act, and I request that my fellow Members join in support of this key legislation.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
October 21st, 1999
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, those who wish to diminish federal control over education should cast an unenthusiastic yes vote for the Academic Achievement for All Students Freedom and Accountability Act (STRAIGHT ‘A’s'). While this bill does increase the ability of state and local governments to educate children free from federal mandates and regulations, and is thus a marginal improvement over existing federal law, STRAIGHT ‘A’s’ fails to challenge the federal government’s unconstitutional control of education. In fact, under STRAIGHT ‘A’s’ states and local school districts will still be treated as administrative subdivisions of the federal education bureaucracy. Furthermore, this bill does not remove the myriad requirements imposed on states and local school districts by federal bureaucrats in the name of promoting ‘civil rights.’ Thus, a school district participating in STRAIGHT ‘A’s’ will still have to place children in failed bilingual education programs or face the wrath of the Department of Education’s misnamed Office of Civil Rights.
The fact that this bill increases, however marginally, the ability of states and localities to control education, is a step forward. As long as the federal government continues to levy oppressive taxes on the American people, and then funnel that money back to the states to use for education programs, defenders of the Constitution should support all efforts to reduce the hoops through which states must jump in order to reclaim some of the people’s tax monies.
However, there are a number of both practical and philosophical concerns regarding this bill. While the additional flexibility granted under this bill will be welcomed by the ten states allowed by the federal overseers to participate in the program, there is no justification to deny this flexibility to the remaining forty states. After all, federal education money represents the return of funds illegitimately taken from the American taxpayers to their states and communities. It is the pinnacle of arrogance for Congress to pick and choose which states are worthy of relief from federal strings in how they use what is, after all, the people’s money.
The primary objection to STRAIGHT ‘A’s’ from a constitutional viewpoint, is embedded in the very mantra of ‘accountability’ stressed by the drafters of the bill. Talk of accountability begs the question: accountable to whom? Under this bill, schools remain accountable to federal bureaucrats and those who develop the state tests upon which a participating school’s performance is judged. Should the schools not live up to their bureaucratically-determined ‘performance goals,’ they will lose the flexibility granted to them under this act. So federal and state bureaucrats will determine if the schools are to be allowed to participate in the STRAIGHT ‘A’s’ programs and bureaucrats will judge whether the states are living up to the standards set in the state’s five-year education plan–yet this is supposed to debureaucratize and decentralize education!
Under the United States Constitution, the federal government has no authority to hold states ‘accountable’ for their education performance. In the free society envisioned by the founders, schools are held accountable to parents, not federal bureaucrats. However, the current system of leveling oppressive taxes on America’s families and using those taxes to fund federal education programs denies parental control of education by denying them control over the education dollar. Because ‘he who pays the piper calls the tune,’ when the federal government controls the education dollar schools will obey the dictates of federal ‘educrats’ while ignoring the wishes of the parents.
In order to provide parents with the means to hold schools accountable, I have introduced the Family Education Freedom Act (H.R. 935). The Family Education Freedom Act restores parental control over the classroom by providing American parents a tax credit of up to $3,000 for the expenses incurred in sending their child to private, public, parochial, other religious school, or for home schooling their children.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
October 21st, 1999
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, Congress is once again preparing to exceed its constitutional limits as well as ignore the true lesson of the last thirty years of education failure by reauthorizing Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (SEA). Like most federal programs, Title I was launched with the best of intentions, however, good intentions are no excuse for Congress to exceed its constitutional limitations by depriving parents, local communities and states of their rightful authority over education. The tenth amendment does not contain an exception for ‘good intentions!’
The Congress that created Title I promised the American public that, in exchange for giving up control over their schools and submitting to increased levels of taxation, federally-empowered ‘experts’ would create an educational utopia. However, rather than ushering in a new golden age of education, increased federal involvement in education has, not coincidently, coincided with a decline in American public education. In 1963, when federal spending on education was less than nine hundred thousand dollars, the average Scholastic Achievement Test (SAT) score was approximately 980. Thirty years later, when federal education spending ballooned to 19 billion dollars, the average SAT score had fallen to 902. Furthermore, according to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 1992 Survey, only 37% of America’s 12th graders were actually able to read at a 12th grade level!
Supporters of a constitutional education policy should be heartened that Congress has finally recognized that simply throwing federal taxpayer money at local schools will not improve education. However, too many in Congress continue to cling to the belief that the ‘right federal program’ conceived by enlightened members and staffers will lead to educational nirvana. In fact, a cursory review of this legislation reveals at least five new mandates imposed on the states by this bill; this bill also increases federal expenditures by $27.7 billion over the next five years–yet the drafters of this legislation somehow manage to claim with a straight face that this bill promotes local control!
One mandate requires states to give priority to K-6 education programs in allocating their Title I dollars. At first glance this may seem reasonable, however, many school districts may need to devote an equal, or greater, amount of resources to high school education. In fact, the principal of a rural school in my district has expressed concern that they may have to stop offering programs that use Title I funds if this provision becomes law! What makes DC-based politicians and bureaucrats better judges of the needs of this small East Texas school district than that school’s principal?
Another mandate requires teacher aides to be ‘fully qualified’ if the aides are to be involved in instructing students. Again, while this may appear to be simply a matter of following sound practice, the cost of hiring qualified teaching assistants will add a great burden to many small and rural school districts. Many of these districts may have to go without teachers aides, placing another burden on our already overworked public school teachers.
Some may claim that this bill does not contain ‘mandates’ as no state must accept federal funds. However, since obeying federal educrats is the only way states and localities can retrieve any of the education funds unjustly taken from their citizens by oppressive taxation, it is the rare state that will not submit to federal specifications.
One of the mantras of those who promote marginal reforms of federal education programs is the need to ‘hold schools accountable for their use of federal funds.’ This is the justification for requiring Title I schools to produce ‘report cards’ listing various indicators of school performance. Of course, no one would argue against holding schools should be accountable, but accountable to whom? The Federal Government? Simply requiring schools to provide information about the schools, without giving parents the opportunity to directly control their child’s education does not hold schools accountable to parents. As long as education dollars remain in the hands of bureaucrats not parents, schools will remain accountable to bureaucrats instead of parents.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
October 20th, 1999
Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to this legislation. I know that the goal of everyone here is to have quality education for everyone in this country. I do not like the approach. The approach has been going on for 30 years with us here in the Congress at the national level controlling and financing education. But the evidence is pretty clear there has been no success. It is really a total failure. Yet the money goes up continuously. This year it is an 8 percent increase for Title I over last year.
In 1963, the Federal Government spent less than $900,000 on education programs. This year, if we add up all the programs, it is over $60 billion. Where is the evidence? The scores keep going down. The violence keeps going up. We cannot keep drugs out of the schools. There is no evidence that our approach to education is working.
I just ask my colleagues to think about whether or not we should continue on this same course. I know the chairman of the committee has made a concerted effort in trying to get more local control over the schools, and I think this is commendable. I think there should be more local control. But I am also convinced that once the money comes from Washington, you really never can deliver the control back to the local authorities. So that we should give it serious thought on whether or not this approach is correct.
Now, I know it is not a very powerful argument, but I might just point out that if Members read carefully the doctrine of enumerated powers, we find that it does not mention that we have the authority, but I concede that we have gotten around that for more than 35 years so we are not likely to reconsider that today. But as far as the practicality goes, we should rethink it.
If we had a tremendous success with our educational system, if everybody was being taken care of, if these $60 billion were really doing the job, if we were not having the violence and the drugs in the school, maybe you could say, well, let us change the Constitution or let me reassess my position. But I think we are on weak grounds if we think we can continue to do this.
There are more mandates in this bill. Even though we like to talk about local control, there are more mandates, and this bill will authorize not only the $8 billion and an 8 percent increase this year, but over the next 5 years there will be an additional $28 billion added to the budget because of this particular piece of legislation.
I ask my colleagues, give it serious thought. This does not deserve passage.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts: