2001 Ron Paul 12:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today I reluctantly
rise in opposition to H. Res. 34. This resolution
is unclear and, hence, leaves the ability
for much mischief. As the resolution’s introductory
sentence makes clear, this legislation
is considered for “other purposes,” which is to
say, unspecified purposes.
2001 Ron Paul 12:2
Certainly Israel has been a longstanding
friend to the United States, sharing many of
our interests including peace, open trade, and
free movement across international borders. It
is equally clear that the people of Israel and
the Middle East have long been torn by violence
and, as such, share our desire to seek
peace. We should, in fact, call for an end to
the violence and hope all parties will see why
this must be achieved. We are also right to
congratulate Mr. Sharon, as is customary to
be done with the victor of any election. We
have all fought those battles ourselves and
rightly understand the commitment needed to
succeed in that arena.
2001 Ron Paul 12:3
What then is the problem with this resolution?
In fact, there are two problems and they
are closely related. The substantive problem
here is summed up in that last clause which
“restates the commitment of the United States
to a secure peace for Israel.” Certainly we
wish peace upon all the people of the world,
and in this sense, we are committed to peace.
However, we must ask what other sorts of
commitments are implied here. The vagary of
this resolution leaves open the possibility that
those who support it are endorsing unwise
and constitutionally-suspect financial and military
commitments abroad. Moreover, peace
will not best be secured for Israel by the further
injection of the United States into regional
affairs; rather, it will come when Israel has the
unfettered sovereignty necessary to protect its
own security.
2001 Ron Paul 12:4
As written, this resolution can be interpreted
as an endorsement of unconstitutional acts of
aggression upon Israel’s sovereignty. In this I
cannot engage. Thus, it is the less-than-clear
nature of the resolution upon which we are
voting that makes it necessary for me to object.
2001 Ron Paul 12:5
This brings me to the second problem, the
procedural laxity involved here. This resolution
was submitted by a number of distinguished
members and referred to the Committee on
International Relations. The highly-regarded
chairman of that committee is the primary
sponsor of this legislation and a number of
other committee members are among its original
cosponsors. Nonetheless, a number of
other members of the committee and I were
not included in the process. Perhaps, had this
bill traveled through the commonly established
processes of this institution we would have
had the ability to clarify the “commitments”
and “other purposes” to which this bill refers.
In short, had the committee held a hearing
and mark-up, the vagaries could’ve been removed
in the markup process. In such an instance
it would be likely that we could achieve
the kind of unanimous support for these resolutions,
for which I often hear personal appeals.
In the future, those who are interested
in gaining such unanimous support might consider
these procedural concerns if they seek
unanimity on this floor. In the instant case,
however I must vote “no” for the reasons I
have here expressed.
2001 Ron Paul 12:6
Hopefully these reasons will be considered
so that in future instances the opportunity to
make clarifications will be offered to those
duly-elected members of the committees of
this House.
