March 31st, 2000
Washington, D.C. – Tuesday, Congressman Ron Paul wrote his colleagues asking them to join him in supporting the “Education Savings and School Excellence Act” (HR 7), a bill which allows the American people to devote more of their own resources to education. The bill was originally scheduled for a floor vote Thursday of this week, but it was pulled from the calendar late Wednesday night. Congressman Paul expressed disappointment that he would not have the opportunity to vote on this important piece of legislation.
A key aspect of the bill is that it expands the annual contribution limit to education savings accounts from $500 to $2,000. It also allows the funds to be used for education related expenses for all grade levels. Currently, the accounts are limited to higher education expenses only. Paul said the bill would give parents more flexibility in determining how to educate their children.
“Few proposals considered by this Congress would have done as much to benefit American children as Education Savings Accounts for all levels of schooling. HR 7 would have helped awaken the generosity of the American people by giving them an increased opportunity to invest in K-12 education. HR 7 would have also begun to provide more equitable opportunities for children to receive the best education possible,” said Paul.
The bill also contains language that will lift the 60-month cap on the student loan interest tax deduction. Last week, Paul joined a bipartisan coalition of House members who signed a letter to Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Archer asking him to support the legislation.
“Every child should have the opportunity to go to college, but unless we act soon, that will not be a reality for many working families in my district and in many other communities around the country,” said Paul. “Lifting the 60 month cap on the student loan interest tax deduction would help those who face the greatest burdens in paying off their student loans, including low-income students who borrowed most heavily to pay for higher education.”
Said Paul, “As a member of the House Education and Workforce Committee, I have had the opportunity to consider ways to improve American education. My work in education policy has convinced me the key to education reform lies in giving the American people greater control over the education system by allowing them to devote more of their own resources toward their children’s education. It is my hope that this legislation will eventually come to a vote, and my colleagues will join me in helping millions of children obtain quality education by voting for the ‘Education Savings and School Excellence Act’ (HR 7).”
Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off
Similar posts:
March 30th, 2000
Washington, D.C. – On Tuesday, the House of Representatives passed the final version of HR 5 with Senate amendments. It repeals the Social Security earnings limitation on seniors. Congressman Ron Paul was an original cosponsor of the legislation. Paul praised his colleagues for joining him in true Social Security reform.
Paul said, “The earnings limitation deducts a portion of a senior’s monthly Social Security check if they continue to work and earn an income beyond a set level. This restriction is damaging to the economy, and it punishes individuals for seeking gainful employment, two things that are decidedly un-American. I am proud of my colleagues in the House for standing with me for our seniors.”
“My top priority for this Congress is to pass legislation that will truly reform the Social Security system. Passing HR 5 and removing the earnings limitation is a great first step. When the government takes money every month from people’s paychecks for the Social Security Trust Fund, it promises retirees that the money will be there for them when they retire. The government should keep that promise and not reduce benefits simply because a senior chooses to continue working.”
Paul said the underlying issue of the earning limitation is the fact that money from the trust fund is being spent for things other than paying pensions to beneficiaries. Paul introduced the bipartisan “Social Security Preservation Act” (HR 219) that will make it illegal for politicians to use the trust funds for anything other than paying pensions to our seniors. He called on his colleagues in Congress to continue moving in the right direction by passing HR 219 before the end of this session.
Paul said, “The only way to guarantee a permanent ban on using the trust fund for these illegitimate purposes is to enact the ‘Social Security Preservation Act.’ This bipartisan bill will go a long way to protecting our senior’s retirements from Washington politicians and bureaucrats who constantly raid the trust fund for their pork-barrel projects and other wasteful spending measures.”
“I will continue to promote legislation designed to protect our senior’s retirements, and I am proud to have lead the successful effort to repeal the earnings limitation,” said Paul. “Now senior citizens will have the option of continuing to work after retirement age without being penalized by an overly burdensome federal government.”
Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off
Similar posts:
March 30th, 2000
<br />
FISCAL 2000 SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS/DEA FUNDING CUTS AMENDMENT<br />
Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 5 printed in the Congressional Record offered by Mr. Paul:
At the end of the bill, insert after the last section (preceding the short title) the following new section:
Sec. (a) The amounts otherwise provided in title I for the following accounts are hereby reduced by the following amounts:
(1) ‘DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE–Drug Enforcement Administration–Salaries and Expenses’, $293,048,000.
(2) ‘DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-MILITARY–OTHER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAMS–Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense’, $185,800,000.
(3) ‘BILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE–Funds Appropriated to the President–Department of State–Assistance for Plan Colombia and for Andean Regional Counternarcotics Activities’, $1,099,000,000.
(b) None of the funds made available in title I for ‘Military Construction, Defense-Wide’ may be used for construction outside of the United States or any of its territories or possessions.
(c) None of the funds made available in title II may be used for operations in Kosovo or East Timor, other than the return of United States personnel and property to the United States.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I would first like to assure the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) that I am not dealing with a fly, a gnat, or a flea with my amendment. I would rather not categorize this as dealing with an elephant for obvious reasons.
But I would like to say that my amendment deals with what I consider a monster, and that monster to me is careless foreign military interventionism in which we engage way too often and something we are getting ready to further engage ourselves now in Colombia.
I am quite convinced that, when most of the Members go back to their districts, they never brag and they never say that, ‘I go to Washington, and I always vote for the United States to be the policemen of the world. I enjoy deferring to the United Nations and NATO forces for us to pursue some of our policies overseas.’ Quite frankly, I believe most of us go home and say that we do not believe that the United States should be the policemen of the world.
Earlier on, we debated the issue of whether or not our allies are paying their fair share, and it is obvious they are not. So not only do we defer to them for policy and we extend ourselves throughout the world, we actually end up paying the bill, as most American citizens know.
Last year, when we were dealing with Kosovo and our initial involvement in there, we had several votes on the floor dealing with the sentiment of the Congress. For the most part, the sentiment was strongly opposed to our military troops being placed in Kosovo.
But, unfortunately, when it came time to deal with the funding, we were all too anxious to permit and authorize and appropriate the money to go into Kosovo. Today we are continuing to fund our activities in Kosovo as well as Bosnia, East Timor, and now with plans to go into South America, principally Colombia.
My amendment deals with this. It would strike these funds, and it would permit funds to be used in Kosovo to bring troops home. Some people argue that if we strike funds for areas like Kosovo, that we are deserting our troops and it will be detrimental to their morale. Quite the opposite. I think it would absolutely be helpful, because the morale of our servicemen cannot get much lower. The morale is low because they do not know what their real function is in areas where we’re involved. They have become policemen dealing with local laws as well as Peace Corps type operators.
The morale would be tremendously helped by bringing these troops home. This is what this amendment deals with. And it strikes the funding for the expansion of our efforts in Central America.
In Colombia, there are a lot of weapons already, and we are responsible for 80 percent of them. There is one irony about this bill that strikes me. The administration and many here on the floor who vote for these weapons are the same individuals who are anxious to prohibit the right of an American citizen to own a cheap weapon in self-defense. At the same time, they are quite willing to tax these individuals and take their money to spend it on the weapons of war around the world and become involved in no-win situations.
I cannot think of a worse situation where there is a four-way faction in Colombia for us to get further involved. Buying 63 helicopters is bound to cause trouble and some will be shot down thus requiring more involvement by American troops.
It is time to reassess this policy; to come home. We should not be the policemen of the world. The American people are not anxious for us to do this. They have spoken out. A recent poll has shown that 70 percent of the American people are very anxious for us not to be involved in policing the world. They certainly are not interested in us placing United States troops under the command of U.N. and NATO forces.
This is a good time for the Members of the Congress to decide whether or not they would like to vote clearly and say to the American people, ‘I do not endorse the concept that we should have an open-ended commitment to the world, to be the policemen of the world.’ This is what this amendment says. Quite frankly, the large majority of the American people are strongly supportive of this position.
This is a clear amendment. This is not dealing with a gnat or a flea. This is dealing with a principle. Some say this amendment deals with a principle of foreign policy, and we should defer to the President.
That is not correct. Under the Constitution, the words ‘foreign policy’ do not exist. All the obligations fall on the Congress, especially with the power of the purse. The President is the Commander in Chief. But he should never send troops around the world without permission, which all Presidents continuously have done in the last 50 years. This amendment addresses that subject.
I would have preferred an amendment that would have struck some of these funds from overseas and placed them into beefing up the military, increasing the pay of our military personnel, giving them better housing and better medical care, as well as having some of those funds spent here at home. That amendment was not permissible under the rule.
But this point, if my colleagues are anxious to make it, can be made by voting for this amendment. If you are sick and tired of America being the patsy, sick and tired of us picking up the bill, sick and tired of our troops being exposed around the world, this is the amendment to support.
I think this is a very important amendment, and I think the American people support it.
Mr. Chairman, I do not believe for one minute this is a surrender to the drug war. This is an acknowledgment that the $250 billion we have spent over the last 25 years has not worked; that the strategy against drugs is wrong.
Why continue a war that does not work? This is money down a rat hole. This is totally wasted money and, as far as I am concerned, only an excuse to sell helicopters and go in to Colombia and protect oil interests. That is the real reason why we are down there.
We say this is only replacement of money for Kosovo. Well, what makes us think if we put the money in and replace it the President will not do the same thing over again? Of course he will. The fact that we are not watching the purse strings tightly enough is the problem.
The gentleman suggests that this would mean that there would be no more building and no support for our troops in Korea. My amendment only deals with the money in this supplemental. What about the current year’s budget? Those funds can still be spent. But it also suggests that we shall question how long are we going to be in Korea. It is time to start thinking about these matters. It is time to bring these troops home.
If we want to spend the money, spend it here at home. Spend the money here. Build up our national defense. If we wish to continually expand our interventionism and aggravation overseas, then I guess we have to vote against this amendment and for the bill. But this is a policy statement. Should we continue current policy of forever spending money and being involved overseas? I say it is time to start thinking about what is good for our people, what is good for our taxpayers, what is good for national defense, and what is good for our constitutional republic. Should we be doing this? I do not think so. Are we authorized to do it? No, we are not authorized to police the world.
This is the furtherest stretch of the imagination to believe that what we are spending here on this budget, especially what we are going to do in Colombia, has anything to do with national security. What are we worried about? Are the Colombians going to attack us? This is not national security. This is special interest spending. This is conservative welfarism; that is what it is.
We condemn all the welfare from the left, but we always have our own welfare on the right, and it is not for national defense. We should do less of this military adventurism overseas and put it into national defense, take better care of our troops, which would boost morale, and increase our ability to defend our country. But, instead, what do we do? We subsidize our enemies to the tune of many billions of dollars for a country like China at the same time, when they are aggravated and annoyed with Taiwan, we send more weapons to Taiwan and then promise to send American servicemen to stand in between the two of them.
Some day we should ask the question of whether is this policy in good for us. I am frightened to think that this will only change either when we are in such a mess, a lot worse than Vietnam, or we totally go broke or both. But we should not wait. We should speak out and do what is best for our country. We have a good guideline as to what we should do in foreign policy, and it comes from the constitution, certainly we should note the tradition of the last 50 years. The Constitution gives us the guidance to pursue a proper foreign policy.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were–ayes 45, noes 367, not voting 22, as follows:
Roll No. 92
AYES–45
- Archer
- Brown (OH)
- Campbell
- Cannon
- Chabot
- Coburn
- Collins
- Combest
- Cook
- Danner
- Deal
- DeMint
- Dickey
- Duncan
- Ewing
- Gekas
- Graham
- Gutknecht
- Hill (MT)
- Hilleary
- Hoekstra
- Hulshof
- Jones (NC)
- Largent
- Linder
- Manzullo
- Metcalf
- Moran (KS)
- Paul
- Peterson (MN)
- Petri
- Pitts
- Ramstad
- Rohrabacher
- Royce
- Salmon
- Sanford
- Scarborough
- Sensenbrenner
- Shadegg
- Simpson
- Stark
- Tancredo
- Terry
- Toomey
NOES–367
- Abercrombie
- Ackerman
- Aderholt
- Allen
- Andrews
- Armey
- Baca
- Bachus
- Baird
- Baker
- Baldacci
- Baldwin
- Ballenger
- Barcia
- Barr
- Barrett (NE)
- Barrett (WI)
- Bartlett
- Barton
- Bass
- Bateman
- Bentsen
- Bereuter
- Berkley
- Berman
- Berry
- Biggert
- Bilbray
- Bilirakis
- Bishop
- Blagojevich
- Bliley
- Blumenauer
- Blunt
- Boehlert
- Boehner
- Bonilla
- Bonior
- Bono
- Borski
- Boswell
- Boucher
- Boyd
- Brady (PA)
- Brady (TX)
- Brown (FL)
- Bryant
- Burton
- Buyer
- Callahan
- Calvert
- Camp
- Canady
- Capps
- Capuano
- Cardin
- Carson
- Castle
- Chambliss
- Clay
- Clayton
- Clement
- Clyburn
- Coble
- Condit
- Conyers
- Cooksey
- Costello
- Cox
- Coyne
- Cramer
- Crowley
- Cubin
- Cummings
- Cunningham
- Davis (FL)
- Davis (IL)
- Davis (VA)
- DeFazio
- DeGette
- Delahunt
- DeLauro
- DeLay
- Deutsch
- Diaz-Balart
- Dicks
- Dingell
- Dixon
- Doggett
- Dooley
- Doolittle
- Doyle
- Dreier
- Dunn
- Edwards
- Ehlers
- Ehrlich
- Emerson
- Engel
- English
- Eshoo
- Etheridge
- Evans
- Farr
- Fattah
- Filner
- Fletcher
- Foley
- Forbes
- Ford
- Fossella
- Fowler
- Frank (MA)
- Frelinghuysen
- Frost
- Gallegly
- Ganske
- Gejdenson
- Gephardt
- Gibbons
- Gilchrest
- Gillmor
- Gilman
- Gonzalez
- Goode
- Goodlatte
- Goodling
- Gordon
- Goss
- Green (TX)
- Green (WI)
- Greenwood
- Gutierrez
- Hall (OH)
- Hall (TX)
- Hansen
- Hastings (FL)
- Hastings (WA)
- Hayes
- Hayworth
- Hefley
- Herger
- Hill (IN)
- Hilliard
- Hinojosa
- Hobson
- Hoeffel
- Holden
- Holt
- Hooley
- Horn
- Hostettler
- Houghton
- Hunter
- Hutchinson
- Hyde
- Inslee
- Isakson
- Jackson (IL)
- Jackson-Lee (TX)
- Jefferson
- Jenkins
- John
- Johnson (CT)
- Johnson, E.B.
- Johnson, Sam
- Jones (OH)
- Kanjorski
- Kasich
- Kelly
- Kennedy
- Kildee
- Kilpatrick
- Kind (WI)
- King (NY)
- Kingston
- Kleczka
- Knollenberg
- Kolbe
- Kucinich
- Kuykendall
- LaFalce
- LaHood
- Lampson
- Lantos
- Larson
- Latham
- LaTourette
- Lazio
- Leach
- Lee
- Levin
- Lewis (CA)
- Lewis (GA)
- Lewis (KY)
- Lipinski
- LoBiondo
- Lofgren
- Lowey
- Lucas (KY)
- Lucas (OK)
- Luther
- Maloney (CT)
- Maloney (NY)
- Markey
- Martinez
- Mascara
- Matsui
- McCarthy (MO)
- McCarthy (NY)
- McCollum
- McCrery
- McDermott
- McGovern
- McHugh
- McInnis
- McIntyre
- McKeon
- McKinney
- McNulty
- Meehan
- Meek (FL)
- Meeks (NY)
- Menendez
- Mica
- Millender-McDonald
- Miller (FL)
- Miller, Gary
- Miller, George
- Minge
- Mink
- Moakley
- Mollohan
- Moore
- Moran (VA)
- Morella
- Murtha
- Myrick
- Nadler
- Napolitano
- Neal
- Nethercutt
- Ney
- Northup
- Norwood
- Nussle
- Oberstar
- Obey
- Olver
- Ortiz
- Ose
- Owens
- Oxley
- Packard
- Pallone
- Pascrell
- Pastor
- Payne
- Pease
- Pelosi
- Peterson (PA)
- Phelps
- Pickering
- Pickett
- Pombo
- Pomeroy
- Porter
- Portman
- Price (NC)
- Pryce (OH)
- Radanovich
- Rahall
- Rangel
- Regula
- Reyes
- Reynolds
- Riley
- Rivers
- Rodriguez
- Roemer
- Rogers
- Rothman
- Roukema
- Roybal-Allard
- Ryan (WI)
- Ryun (KS)
- Sabo
- Sanchez
- Sanders
- Sandlin
- Sawyer
- Saxton
- Schaffer
- Schakowsky
- Scott
- Serrano
- Sessions
- Shaw
- Shays
- Sherman
- Sherwood
- Shimkus
- Shows
- Shuster
- Sisisky
- Skeen
- Skelton
- Slaughter
- Smith (MI)
- Smith (NJ)
- Smith (TX)
- Smith (WA)
- Snyder
- Souder
- Spratt
- Stabenow
- Stearns
- Stenholm
- Strickland
- Stump
- Stupak
- Sununu
- Sweeney
- Talent
- Tanner
- Tauscher
- Tauzin
- Taylor (MS)
- Taylor (NC)
- Thomas
- Thompson (CA)
- Thornberry
- Thune
- Thurman
- Tiahrt
- Tierney
- Towns
- Traficant
- Turner
- Udall (CO)
- Udall (NM)
- Upton
- Velazquez
- Visclosky
- Vitter
- Walden
- Walsh
- Wamp
- Waters
- Watkins
- Watt (NC)
- Watts (OK)
- Weldon (FL)
- Weldon (PA)
- Weller
- Wexler
- Weygand
- Whitfield
- Wicker
- Wilson
- Wise
- Wolf
- Woolsey
- Wu
- Wynn
- Young (AK)
- Young (FL)
NOT VOTING–22
- Becerra
- Burr
- Chenoweth-Hage
- Crane
- Everett
- Franks (NJ)
- Granger
- Hinchey
- Hoyer
- Istook
- Kaptur
- Klink
- McIntosh
- Quinn
- Rogan
- Ros-Lehtinen
- Rush
- Spence
- Thompson (MS)
- Vento
- Waxman
- Weiner
So the amendment was rejected.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
March 29th, 2000
Washington, D.C. – Congressman Ron Paul has announced that he will introduce an amendment to a supplemental appropriations bill scheduled to be voted on by the House of Representatives this week. The thrust of the amendment will be to transfer Defense Department Appropriations now earmarked to be used in the Colombian civil war, into accounts that will assure, “that these funds are spent to defend the United States of America rather than to get us involved in the domestic politics of Colombia by way of further proliferation of a failed international war on drugs.”
Although the details of the amendment are still being crafted Paul said that his goal “was to use this money to address a serious recruitment and retention problem that exists in our armed forces.” Paul said that he would release further details on the amendment when they are finalized.
“My main point is this: we know from Defense Department studies that our resources are spread too thin and that men and women are leaving the armed forces because they continually receive lengthy assignments outside of the country and because they are underpaid. Moreover , we know that our military veterans are being denied the health care that was promised them when they agreed to serve our nation.” Paul said it is his hope to craft an amendment that would address both pay and health care issues for veterans as well as for current service men and women, but that he would have to do so in conformity with the rules under which the bill will be considered.
“We need to be taking better care of our armed service personnel, both active duty and retired, it is simply unconscionable that we would consider funding new and expanded missions in Colombia with this bill. Everybody around here keeps saying what sorry shape our military is in and now we have a chance to put our money where our mouths are. We should be fixing the problems of military recruitment and retention by addressing the needs of service personnel, particularly those related to pay and health care. The last thing we need to do is to add yet another significant foreign mission on an already strained military, particularly when personnel have bluntly stated that these missions are a key factor contributing to our retention problems.”
Paul concluded, “I encourage people from across our country to contact their Representative’s offices immediately asking them if their support will go to stretching our military resources even thinner, or if they will support the Paul amendment to provide a fair shake to our service personnel.”
Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off
Similar posts:
March 29th, 2000
<br />
TRIBUTE TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OF HAYS COUNTY, TEXAS<br />
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today I pay tribute to the law enforcement officers of Hays County, Texas. April 8th is the date of the second annual Hays County Law Enforcement Appreciation Day (LEAD) sponsored by SAC-N-PAC Stores Inc. LEAD 2000 committees have been meeting since last October to make this year’s event even more successful than the last, which raised $7,500 for participating law enforcement departments.
As Event Coordinator Cheryl Warren Norton said, ‘With the growing rate of violence, especially among our youth, it is our responsibility and the general public’s responsibility to assist our law enforcement officers in areas in which they are in need.’ The money raised through LEAD 2000 will go toward crime prevention programs aimed at fighting crime and violence on the 8local level. Local law enforcement is the backbone of public safety and protection across America, and I am proud to represent an area that recognizes its law enforcement personnel for the heroes that they are.
Some of the LEAD 2000 exhibits are SWAT, Mounted Patrol, the Dive Team, and possibly a Black Hawk Helicopter or Star Flight. The event will be held at the Hays County Civic Center and begins at 10:00 a.m. with an award presentation of bicycles for youth calendar contest winners, followed by an auction and fish fry.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in saluting our officers in blue across the nation, and I commend the LEAD 2000 organization as a model for other communities. This is an excellent way to show sincere appreciation for those who put their lives on the line for the safety of our communities.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
March 29th, 2000
<br />
UNNECESSARY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS AND UNWISE MILITARY ADVENTURISM IN COLOMBIA<br />
Mr. Speaker, the current budget this year authorizes an expenditure of $1.789 trillion. We would think that would be enough. The President has asked for an additional $4 billion. After the House leadership thought about this, they decided to give him $9 billion.
Quite frankly, I think there is enough waste and fraud in the current budget that we could find the $4 billion if this expenditure were necessary. If we ever considered cutting back on some unconstitutional spending, we would have plenty of funds to take care of additional expenditures and have a lot left over.
But we should be very cautious about what we are doing today by expanding our involvement in Colombia. We are now moving into Colombia and spending a lot of money and expanding our war in this area. We should not be spending our money on military adventurism. We should be taking this money and spending it to build up our military defenses. We should be using this money to pay our military personnel more money, give them better housing and better education and better medical care.
What we are doing today, if we pass this bill, is we are going to move into an another area of the world where we have no constitutional interest.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
March 29th, 2000
<br />
2000 EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT<br />
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill. We have already appropriated $1.7 trillion for this year’s budget. We do not need to appropriate another $9 billion.
It is said that we need to appropriate this money to fight the drug war in Colombia. We have been fighting the drug war for 25 years. We have spent $250 billion on the drug war. Some day we will have to wake up and decide that the way we are fighting the drug war is wrong.
As a physician, I can tell my colleagues, it is a serious problem. There are a lot of people suffering from drug usage in this country. But if something does not work, why are we so determined to pursue a process that does not work?
Quite frankly, I am not sure the real reason why we are in Colombia has anything to do with drugs. I do concede a lot of individuals will be voting for this bill because of the belief that it might help. But it will not help. So we should reconsider it and think about the real reasons why we might be there.
I had an amendment that was not approved. But what I would have done, if I had had the chance, I would have taken all the money from the overseas spending, Kosovo, Bosnia, East Timor, and the funds now for this new adventure down in Colombia, and put it into building up our military defense. That is what we need. We need better salaries, better medical care, and we need better housing for our military personnel. But here we go spreading ourselves thinly again around the world by taking on a new adventure, which will surely lead to trouble and a lot of expense.
Members have referenced the 65 helicopters that will be sent to Colombia. There is one, I guess, cynical hope about what might happen with our involvement in Colombia. Usually when we get involved its only going to be for a short period of time. We were going to go into Bosnia for 6 months. We have been there 5 years. We were going to go to Kosovo for a short period of time. It is open-ended. We are in East Timor for who knows how long. And we will soon be in Colombia.
But there was one time where we backed away, we literally surrendered and ran with our tail between our legs because we went in with helicopters, and that had to do with Somalia. We sent our Blackhawk helicopters in there. We had two of them shot down in Mogadishu. We had two others that crash landed when they returned to the base. Within a couple weeks, we were out of there.
We did not send our Blackhawk helicopters into Kosovo because they would be shot down. Lets face it, it is not a good weapon. It will only lead to further involvement.
Who is going to fly the Blackhawk helicopters? Do my colleagues think the Colombians are going to fly them? You can bet our bottom dollar we are going to have American pilots down there very much involved in training and getting in much deeper than we ever should be.
So I think that, unfortunately, this could end up in a real mess. Maybe then we would have enough sense to leave. But we, in the Congress, ought to have enough sense not to go down there. This money can be better spent on national defense. We should be concerned about national security.
When we get ourselves involved, whether it is the Persian Gulf or Bosnia or wherever, all we do is build up our enemies and expose ourselves more to terrorist attacks because we are not doing it in the name of security and resentment toward America builds.
Under the Constitution, we should have a strong national defense, and we should provide for national security. Going into Colombia has nothing to do with national security and serves to undermine national defense.
Even those who build helicopters are pretty blunt. One lobbyist said, ‘It is business for us, and we are as aggressive as anybody. I am just trying to sell helicopters.’
What about the oil companies who support this war; which several oil companies do? Yes, they want investment security, so they want the military industrial complex to come down there and protect their oil interests. The oil interests are very supportive of this war, as well as the helicopter companies.
But the American people, if they were asked, they would decline. A recent poll by Zogby showed that, essentially, 70 percent of the American people answered no to this particular question: ‘Should the U.S. help defend militarily such-and-such country even though it could cost American soldiers their lives?’ It varied depending on which country. But, basically, 65 to 75 percent of the American people said no. The American people want us to mind our own business and not be the policeman of the world.
Can any Member come to this floor and absolutely assure us that we are not going to lose American lives in Colombia? We are certainly committing ourselves to huge numbers of dollars, dollars that we do not have, dollars that if we wanted to could come out of the current $1.7 trillion budget we already have.
So I would suggest to my colleagues, let us reassess this. It is not really a war on drugs.
The war on drugs, by trying to reduce interdiction does not work. It has not worked. It is not going to work. It is only an excuse. It is an excuse for promoting military intervention in Colombia to satisfy those who are anxious to drill for oil there and for the military industrial complex to sell weapons.
It’s amazing to me to see an administration who strongly opposes law abiding American citizens from owning guns for self defense to be such a promoter of the big guns of war throughout the world.
I ask for a ‘no’ vote.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
March 28th, 2000
Washington, D.C. – On Friday, Congressman Ron Paul introduced a privacy bill that will prohibit the Census Bureau from collecting any information from citizens except for name, address, and the number of people per residence. The bill, HR 4085, was prompted by scores of calls to Paul’s office from constituents who felt the census form was too intrusive. Paul said this bill would protect the privacy of all Americans from the federal government.
Said Paul, “American citizens have the right to be free from the prying eyes of government bureaucrats. This legislation will give Americans the peace of mind that comes from knowing that every detail of their lives is not being filed away and viewed as potentially criminal. It restores and protects the fundamental privacy and due process rights that are the foundation of our system of government.”
Many of the complaints coming into Paul’s office were from constituents who received the “long form” from the Census Bureau which asks for information such as income and religious affiliation. Paul said all that the census needs is a person’s name, address, and the number of occupants in the home.
“All of this additional information being request by the Census Bureau is a major intrusion on the privacy of American citizens,” Paul said. “Some members of Congress will claim that the federal government needs the power to monitor Americans in order to allow the government to operate more efficiently. I would remind my colleagues that in a constitutional republic the people are never asked to sacrifice their liberties to make the job of government officials a little bit easier. We are here to protect the freedom of the American people, not to make privacy invasion more efficient.”
“I urge all of my colleagues to join me in protecting the freedoms and liberties of all Americans by cosponsoring HR 4085,” said Paul. “It’s time we take a stand against federal bureaucrats invading our privacy and recording every detail of our lives.”
Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off
Similar posts:
March 28th, 2000
<br />
NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2000<br />
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today with H. Con. Res. 292 Congress bestows well-deserved congratulations upon the people of Taiwan for the successful conclusion of presidential elections on March 18, 2000, and for their continuing efforts to develop and sustain a free republic that respects individual rights and embraces free markets. President Lee Teng-hui of Taiwan should also be praised for his significant contributions to freedom in Taiwan.
Unfortunately, because the bill pronounces the Taiwan Relations Act (P.L. 96-8) as the legal standard by which U.S. policy toward Taiwan is governed, I cannot support the measure. This Taiwan Relations Act, effectuated a United States policy which recognized an attack against Taiwan as inimical to an attack on the United States.
Just as it is wrong to force our preferences on other countries and cultures, it is wrong to dictate politics. The United States has absolutely no moral or constitutional right to do so. In fact, action of that sort could rightfully be considered an act of aggression on our part, and our founding fathers made it very, very clear that war should be contemplated only when national security is immediately threatened. to play the part of policemen of the world degrades all who seek to follow the Constitution. The Constitution does not allow our government to participate in actions against a foreign country when there is no immediate threat to the United States.
Sadly, the U.S. has in recent years played the role of world interventionist and global policeman. Thomas Jefferson stated in his first inaugural address: ‘Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations–entangling alliances with none, I deem [one of] the essential principles of our government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration.’ Instead, the U.S. government has become the government force that unconstitutionally subsidizes one country and then pledges taxpayer dollars and lives to fight on behalf of that subsidized country’ enemies. It’s the same sort of wisdom that would subsidize tobacco farmers and pay the health care costs of those who then choose to smoke.
Each year the people of the United States write a check to subsidize China, one of the most brutal, anti-American regimes in the world. It has been in vogue of late for everyone in Washington, it seems, to eagerly denounce the egregious abuses of the Chinese people at the hands of the communist dictators. Yet no one in our federal government has been willing to take China on in any meaningful way. Very few people realize that China is one of the biggest beneficiaries of American subsidization. Thanks to the largesse of this Congress, China enjoys the flow of U.S. taxpayers cash into Beijing’s coffers. Yet, today we are asked to pledge support for Taiwan when we could best demonstrate support for Taiwan by terminating subsidies to that country’s enemies.
Again, my congratulations to the Taiwanese on their continuing efforts to develop and sustain a free republic that respects individual rights and embraces free markets and to President Lee Teng-hui for his contributions to that end.
Posted in Speeches and Statements | Comments Off
Similar posts:
March 24th, 2000
Washington, D.C. – Late last week, the Clinton Administration responded to a letter from Congressman Ron Paul calling for the opening of markets in Iran by lifting sanctions on imports of Iranian carpets, dried fruit, nuts and caviar. Although it only applies to a few products, Paul believes it is a step in the right direction.
“It is time for a foreign policy which encourages trade and peaceful engagement with all people throughout the world,” Paul said. “People of the agricultural industry in the U.S. are far ahead of Washington bureaucrats on this issue, as they have long ago awakened to the fact that sanctions and embargoes result in detrimental consequences to U.S. agriculture. I will continue to seek the total removal of all sanctions in Iran, but I am pleased with the first steps the President has taken in response to my request.”
U.S. sanctions in Iran have hurt domestic companies who have lost profits while European companies have reaped the benefits of their contracts with Iran. Paul said the time is right for a total removal of trade restrictions so that all aspects of the U.S. economy, especially the agriculture community, can prosper.
“Last year, we made significant changes to our foreign policy by permitting the sale of food and medicine to specified countries, including Iran, on a case by case basis,” said Paul. “With last week’s developments, now is the perfect time for a total removal of all sanctions in Iran. Only then will all segments of our economy prosper.”
The opening of markets in Iran comes on the heels of the creation of the Congressional Rural Caucus earlier in the week. Paul was a co-founder of the bipartisan group formed to promote legislation that will encourage economic development and help the agriculture industry in rural America. One of Paul’s goals in joining the Caucus was the opening of world markets to U.S. agriculture products.
Said Paul, “In spite of a strong economy, many in the agriculture business are struggling to make ends meet because of policies that are not conducive to doing business. We need to level the playing field, so that those in the agriculture community can reap the benefits of a healthy economy. The lifting of some sanctions last week was an important victory. I will continue to promote legislation and policies to support farmers and ranchers in my district in rural Texas and all over rural America.”
Posted in Press Releases | Comments Off
Similar posts: