C-SPAN:
Source: C-SPAN, Washington Journal, February 6, 2003
___________________________________
Full text of Ron Paul's speeches for 6 of the better known Congressional Gold Medals he voted against as well as a memorial that he voted against.
Remember. He votes against all of these, no matter what.
___________________________________
Exhibit A: September 13, 2006 - Congressional Medal Of Honor For The Dalai Lama
Mr. PAUL: Mr. Speaker, with great sadness I must rise to oppose this measure granting a congressional gold medal to the 14th Dalai Lama. While I greatly admire and respect His Holiness the Dalai Lama, and fully recognize his tremendous status both as a Buddhist leader and international advocate for peace, I must object to the manner in which this body chooses to honor him.
I wonder if my colleagues see the irony in honoring a devout Buddhist monk with a material gift of gold. The Buddhist tradition, of course, eschews worldly possessions in favor of purity of thought and action. Buddhism urges its practitioners to alleviate the suffering of others whenever possible. I'm sure His Holiness the Dalai Lama would rather see $30,000 spent to help those less fortunate, rather than for a feel-good congressional gesture.
We
cannot forget that Congress has no authority under the Constitution
to spend taxpayer money on medals and awards, no matter how richly
deserved. And I reiterate my offer of $100 from my own pocket to pay
for this medal--if members wish to honor the Dalai Lama, all we need
to do is pay for it ourselves. If all 435 of us contribute, the cost
will be roughly $70 each. So while a gold medal sounds like a great
idea, it becomes a bit strange when we see the actual cost involved.
If
Congress truly wishes to honor the Dalai Lama, it could instead start
by showing more respect for his views in the areas of foreign policy,
war, and terrorism. The bellicosity often demonstrated on the floor
of this institution toward entire nations and their people conflicts
sharply with the peaceful teachings of the Dalai Lama.
Consider the following words of His Holiness:
‘‘When
September 11 happened, the next day I wrote a letter to President
Bush as a friend—because I know him personally. I wrote this letter
and expressed, besides my condolences and sadness, a countermeasure to
this tragedy: a nonviolent response because that would have been more
effective. So this is my stance. And then just before the Iraq crisis
started, millions of people from countries like Australia and America
expressed their opposition to violence. I really admired and
appreciated this.’’
‘‘When
the war started, some people immediately asked me if it was justified
or not, whether it was right or wrong. In principle, any resort to
violence is wrong.’’
Consider also these thoughts from the Dalai Lama regarding the terrible pointlessness of war:
‘We
have seen that we cannot solve human problems by fighting. Problems
resulting from differences in opinion must be resolved through the
gradual process of dialogue. Undoubtedly, wars produce victors and
losers; but only temporarily. Victory or defeat resulting from wars
cannot be long-lasting. Secondly, our world has become so interdependent
that the defeat of one country must impact the rest of the world, or
cause all of us to suffer losses either directly or indirectly.’’
‘
‘Today,
the world is so small and so interdependent that the concept of war
has become anachronistic, an outmoded approach. As a rule, we always
talk about reform and changes. Among the old traditions, there are many
aspects that are either ill-suited to our present reality or are
counterproductive due to their shortsightedness. These, we have
consigned to the dustbin of history. War too should be relegated to the
dustbin of history.’’
‘‘Of
course, the militaristic tradition may not end easily. But, let us
think of this. If there were bloodshed, people in positions of power,
or those who are responsible, will find safe places; they will escape
the consequent hardship. They will find safety for themselves, one way
or the other. But what about the poor people, the defenseless people,
the children, the old and infirm. They are the ones who will have to
bear the brunt of devastation. When weapons are fired, the result will
be death and destruction. Weapons will not discriminate between the
innocent and guilty. A missile, once fired, will show no respect to the
innocent, poor, defenseless, or those worthy of compassion.
Therefore, the real losers will be the poor and defenseless, ones who
are completely innocent, and those who lead a hand-to-mouth
existence.’’
Mr. Speaker, in closing let me join my colleagues in stating my tremendous respect for His Holiness the Dalai Lama. While I cannot agree with forcible taxation to pay for gold medals, I certainly hope Congress takes the teaching of His Holiness to heart and begins to rethink our aggressive, interventionist foreign policy."
_____________________________________
Exhibit B: June 25, 2003 - Does Tony Blair Deserve A Congressional Medal?
Mr. Speaker, I
rise in strong opposition to this legislation for a number of
reasons. First, forcing the American people to pay tens of thousands
of dollars to give a gold medal to a foreign leader is immoral and
unconstitutional. I will continue in my uncompromising opposition to
appropriations not authorized within the enumerated powers of the
Constitution- a Constitution that each member of Congress swore to
uphold.
Second, though these gold medals are an unconstitutional appropriation of American tax dollars, at least in the past we have awarded them to great humanitarians and leaders like Mother Theresa, President Reagan, Pope John Paul II, and others. These medals generally have been proposed to zecognize a life of service and leadership, and not for political reasons - as evidenced by the overwhelming bi-partisan support for awarding President Reagan, a Republican, a gold medal.
These awards normally go to deserving individuals, which is why I have many times offered to contribute $100 of my own money, to be matched by other members, to finance these medals.
I
sense that this current proposal is different, however. No one is
claiming that British Prime Minister Tony Blair has given a lifetime of
humanitarian service like Mother Theresa, or demonstrated the
historical leadership of a Ronald Reagan. No one suggests the British
Prime Minister, leading the avowedly socialist Labour Party, has
embraced American values such as freedom and limited government, as
Margaret Thatcher attempted before him.
No, Tony Blair is being given this medal for one reason: he provided political support when international allies were sought for Americas attack on Iraq. Does this overtly political justification not cheapen both the medal itself and the achievements of those who have been awarded it previously?
I find it particularly unfortunate that the Republican-controlled Congress would nominate Tony Blair to receive this award. His political party is socialist: Britain under Blair has a system of socialized medicine and government intervention in all aspects of the commercial and personal lives of its citizens. Socialism is an enemy of freedom and liberty – as the 20th century taught us so well. It is the philosophical basis for a century of mass-murder and impoverishment.
In May, a British television poll found that Prime Minister Blair is the most unpopular man in Great Britain. A brief look at his rule leaves little question why this is so. He has eroded Britains constitutional base- recently abolishing the ancient position of Lord Chancellor without any debate. He has overseen a huge expansion of government, with the creation of costly “assemblies” in Wales and Scotland. He also has overseen changes in Britains voting system that many believe open the door to widespread voting fraud. In short, he is no Margaret Thatcher and certainly no Winston Churchill. Yet today Congress is voting to give him its highest honor.
Mr. Speaker, it is very easy to be generous with other people’s money. I believe the politicization of this medal, as we are seeing here today, really makes my own point on such matters: Congress should never spend tax money for appropriations not authorized within the enumerated powers of the Constitution. When it does so, it charts a dangerous course away from the rule of law and away from liberty. I urge a No vote on this unfortunate bill.
_____________________________________
Exhibit C: April 3, 2000- Awarding Gold Medal To Former President And Mrs. Ronald Reagan
Mr.
Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3591. At the same time, I
am very supportive of President Reagan’s publicly stated view of
limiting the federal government to it’s proper and constitutional role.
In fact, I was one of only four sitting members of the United States
House of Representatives who endorsed Ronald Reagan’s candidacy for
President in 1976. The United States enjoyed sustained economic
prosperity and employment growth during Ronald Reagan’s presidency.
I must, however, oppose the Gold Medal for Ronald and Nancy Reagan because appropriating $30,000 of taxpayer money is neither constitutional nor, in the spirit of Ronald Reagan’s notion of the proper, limited role for the federal government.
Because
of my continuing and uncompromising opposition to appropriations not
authorized within the enumerated powers of the Constitution, I would
maintain my resolve and commitment to the Constitution–a Constitution,
which only last year, each Member of Congress, swore to uphold. In
each of these instances, I offered to do a little more than uphold my
constitutional oath.
In fact, as a means of demonstrating my personal regard and enthusiasm for Ronald Reagan’s advocacy for limited government, I invited each of these colleagues to match my private, personal contribution of $100 which, if accepted by the 435 Members of the House of Representatives, would more than satisfy the $30,000 cost necessary to mint and award a gold medal to Ronald and Nancy Reagan. To me, it seemed a particularly good opportunity to demonstrate one’s genuine convictions by spending one’s own money rather that of the taxpayers who remain free to contribute, at their own discretion, to commemorate the work of the Reagans. For the record, not a single Representative who solicited my support for spending taxpayer’s money, was willing to contribute their own money to demonstrate their generosity and allegiance to the Reagan’s stated convictions.
It is, of course, very easy to be generous with the people’s money.
_____________________________________
Exhibit D: February 15, 2000 - On Presenting Congressional Gold Medal To John Cardinal O’Conner
“Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3557. At the( same time, I rise in total support of, and with complete respect for, the work of Cardinal O’Connor. Cardinal O’Connor is a true hero as he labors tirelessly on behalf of the most needy and vulnerable in our society; promotes racial and religious harmony; advocates the best education for all children regardless of race, religion, or financial status; ministers to the poor, sick, and disabled; all the while standing up for that which he believes even in the face of hostility.
I must, however, oppose the Gold Medal for Cardinal O’Connor because appropriating $30,000 of taxpayer money is neither constitutional nor, in the spirit of Cardinal O’Connor who dedicates his life to voluntary and charitable work, particularly humanitarian. Because of my continuing and uncompromising opposition to appropriations not authorized within the enumerated powers of the Constitution, several of my colleagues felt compelled to personally challenge me as to whether, on this issue, I would maintain my resolve and commitment to the Constitution–a Constitution, which only last year, each Member of Congress, swore to uphold. In each of these instances, I offered to do a little more than uphold my constitutional oath.
In fact, as a means of demonstrating my personal regard and enthusiasm for the work of Cardinal O’Connor,I invited each of these colleagues to match my private, personal contribution of $100 which, if accepted by the 435 Members of the House of Representatives, would more than satisfy the $30,000 cost necessary to mint and award a gold medal to the well-deserving Cardinal O’Connor. To me, it seemed a particularly good opportunity to demonstrate one’s genuine convictions by spending one’s own money rather than that of the taxpayers who remain free to contribute, at their own discretion, to the work of Cardinal O’Connor as they have consistently done in the past.
For the record, not a single Representative who solicited my support for spending taxpayer’s money, was willing to contribute their own money to demonstrate the courage of their so-called convictions and generosity. It is, of course, very easy to be generous with other peoxle’s money.”
_____________________________________
Exhibit E: April 20, 1999 - During Debate On HR 573, Authorizing President To Award Congressional Gold Medal To Rosa Parks
Mr.
Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 573. At the same time, I
rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks
who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust
laws and oppressive governmental policies. However, I oppose the
Congressional Gold Medal for Rosa Parks Act because authorizing $30,000
of taxpayer money is neither constitutional nor, in the spirit of Rosa
Parks who is widely recognized and admired for standing up against an
overbearing government infringing on individual rights.
Because of my continuing and uncompromising opposition to appropriations not authorized within the enumerated powers of the Constitution, I must remain consistent in my defense of a limited government whose powers are explicitly delimited under(the enumerated powers of the Constitution–a Constitution, which only months ago, each Member of Congress, swore to uphold.
Perhaps we should begin a debate among us on more appropriate processes by which we spend other people’s money. Honorary medals and commemorative coins, under the current process, come from allocated other people’s money. We should look for another way.
It is, of course, easier to be generous with other people’s money.
_____________________________________
Exhibit F: May 20, 1997- During Debate On Awarding A Gold Medal To Mother Teresa
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1650. At the same time, I rise in total support of, and with complete respect for, |he work of Mother Teresa, the Missionaries of Charity organization, and each of Mother Teresa’s Nobel Peace Prize-winning humanitarian efforts. I oppose the Gold Medal for Mother Teresa Act because appropriating $30,000 of taxpayer money is neither constitutional nor, in the spirit of Mother Teresa who dedicated here entire life to voluntary, charitable work, particularly humanitarian.
Because
of my continuing and uncompromising opposition to appropriations not
authorized within the enumerated powers of the Constitution, several
of my colleagues found it amusing to question me personally as to
whether, on this issue, I would maintain my resolve and commitment of
the Constitution–a Constitution, which only months ago, each Member of
Congress, swore to uphold. In each of these instances, I offered to
do a little more than uphold my constitutional oath.
In
fact, as a means of demonstrating my personal regard and enthusiasm
for the work of Mother Teresa, I invited each of these colleagues to
match my private, personal contribution of $100 which, if accepted by
the 435 Members of the House of Representatives, would more than
satisfy the $30,000 cost necessary to mint and award a gold medal to
the well-deserving Mother Teresa. To me, it seemed a particularly good
opportunity to demonstrate one’s genuine convictions by spending
one’s own money rather than that of the taxpayers who remain free to
contribute, at their own discretion, to the work of Mother Teresa and
have consistently done so.
For
the record, not a single Representative who solicited my support for
spending taxpayer’s money, was willing to contribute their own money
to demonstrate the courage of their so-called convictions and
generosity.
It is, of course, very easy to be generous with other people’s money.
http://www.ronpaularchive.com/1997/05/during-deba
_____________________________________
Exhibit G: September 7, 2000, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
* Mr. Chairman, I rise today in hesitant opposition to H.R. 4115, the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum Authorization Act. We is vigilant Americans must never forget the horrific lessons of the past and those attendant consequences of corporatism, fascism, and tyrannical government; that is, governmental deprivation of individual rights. A government which operates beyond its proper limits of preserving liberty never bodes well for individual rights to life, liberty and property. Particularly, Adolph Hitler’s tyrannical regime is most indicative of the necessary consequences of a government dominated by so-called `government-business’ partnerships, gun-confiscation schemes, protectionism, and abandonment of speech and religious freedom in the name of `compelling government interests.’
* Ironically, this measure’s language permanently authorizes the appropriation of such sums as may be necessary for the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum; a purpose which propels our very own federal government beyond its constitutionally enumerated limits. This nation’s foundmrs were careful to limit the scope of our federal government to those enumerated powers within Article One, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. These limits were further instilled within the bill of rights’ tenth amendment which reserves to States and private parties those powers not specifically given to the federal government.
* Evidence that such private contributions can properly memorialize this most important historical abhorration can be found given that this museum receives approximately $20 million in private donations annually.
* Mr. Chairman, while I agree it is most important to remember and memorialize with a heavy heart the consequences of tyrannical governments operating beyond their proper limits, ignoring our own government’s limits of power and, thus, choosing a means incompatible with its ends to do so must not be tolerated. Hence, I must oppose H.R. 4115.
No comments:
Post a Comment