Transcripts For CSPAN2 Capital News Today 20130307 : vimarsa

CSPAN2 Capital News Today March 7, 2013

Senator from florida, i know he and i both know, as i hope does every member of this body, just how precious and fragile the freedom is that we enjoy in this country. As president reagan continued in that speech, if we lose freedom here, theres no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth. And this idea that government is beholding to the people, that it has no other source of power except the sovereign people, is still the newest and most unique idea in all the long history of mans relation to man. This is the issue of this election. Whether we believe in our capacity for selfgovernment or whether we abandon the American Revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far distant capital can plan for our lives better than we can plan them ourselves. You and i are increasingly told that we have to choose between a left or right. Well, id like to suggest theres no such thing as left or right. Theres only up or down. Up, mans old age dream, the ultimate and individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of owe toa tal tehranism totalitarianism. Those who would trade freedom for security have embarked on this downward course. Given the top of this discussion, the asserted power of the president to take the life of a u. S. Citizen on u. S. Soil without due process of law, that last portion bears reading again. Those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course to the ant heap of totalitarianism. In this vote harvesting time, they use terms like the great society, or as we were told a few days ago by the president , we must accept a greater government activity in the affairs of the people. But theyve been a little more ex applies it in the past and among themselves. And of all of the things i now will quote have appeared in print. These are not republican accusations. For example, they have voices that say quote the cold war will end through our acceptance of a not undemocratic socialism. Another voice says the profit motive has become outdated. It must be replaced by the incentives of the welfare state. Or quote our traditional system of individual freedom is incapable of solving the complex problems of the 20th century. Senator fulbright has said at Stanford University that the constitution is outmoated outmoded. He referred to the president as quote our moral teacher and our leader, and he says he is hobbled in his tasks by the restrictions of power imposed on him by this antiquated document. Let me read that one again, too, because that also is very applicable to the discussion this evening. He referred to the president as quote our moral leader and our moral teacher and our leader, and he says he is quote hobbled in his task by the restrictions of power imposed on him by this antiquated document. The constitution. He must quote be freed so he can do what he knows is best. And senator clark from pennsylvania, another articulate spokesman defines liberalism as meeting the needs of the masses through the full power of the centralized government. I for one resent it when a representative of the people refers to you and me, the free men of this country as quote the masses. That is a term we havent applied to ourselves in america. But beyond that, the quote full power of our centralized government, this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that governments dont control things, that government cant control the economy without controlling people. And they know that when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also know these Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy. Now, we have no better example of this than governments involvement in the farm economy over the last 30 years. Since 1955, the cost of this program has nearly doubled. One fourth of farming in america is responsible for 85 of the farm surplus. Three four of threefourths of the farming has known a 21 increase in the per capita consumption of all its produce. And i am going to skip further along. To the end of this speech, which i will confess not unlike the speeches given on this floor, was not a short speech. I will move to the end where president reagan continued and said, those who would trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state have told us they have a utopian solution of peace without victory. They call their policy accommodation. And they say well only avoid direct confrontation with the enemy, hell forget his evil ways and learn to love us. We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat by committing an immorality so great as saying to a billion human beings now enslaved behind the iron curtain give up your dreams of freedom because to save your skins were making a deal with your slavemasters. Alexander hamilton said a nation said a nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master and deserved one. Now, lets set the record straight. Theres no argument over the choice between peace and war. But theres only one guaranteed way you can have peace and you can have it in the next second. Surrender. Admitally theres a admitally theres a risk but every lesson tells us the greater risk lies in appeasement and this is the specter that we face. You and i know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin . You and i have the courage to say to our enemies there is a price we will not pay. There is a point beyond which they must not advance. And this, this is the meaning in the phrase of Barry Goldwaters peace through strength. Winston churchill said the destiny of man is not measured by material k078 pew taitions computations. When great forces are on the move in the world we learn were spirits, not animals. And he said theres something going on in time and space that beyond time and space which, whether we like it or not, spells duty. You and i have a rendezvous with destiny. Well preserve for our children, the last best hope of man on earth, or well sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness. We will keep in mind and remember that Barry Goldwater has faith in us. He has faith in you and i to have the ability and the right to make our own decisions and determine our own destiny. That path, the path of standing and fighting for freedom, even when it seems daunting, even when it seems the gestalt of the moment, is on the other side. , is a path with many only forebears and i can tell you speaking and echoing the sentiment of the millions in twitter, of the people following this stand for principle tonight, that if the 100 senators of this body stand together and say regardless of party, liberty will always prevail, regardless of party, the constitution is the governing body, the governing document in this nation, then we will be doing our jobs. And i commend you, senator paul, for a lonely stand that as the night has worn on has not proven quite so lonely. And indeed, were you the only senator standing at his desk this evening, it would not be lonely in that circumstance, either, because you would be Standing Shoulder to shoulder with millions of americans that do not wish the federal government to assert arbitrary power over our lives, over our liberty, over our property, but who instead want a government that remains a limited government of enumerated powers that protects the godgiven rights each of us is blessed to have. And the question i ask of you, what in your judgment is america without liberty . Who are we if we are not a free people . Mr. Paul mr. President , i want to thank the senator from texas for his remarks. I think hes hit it exactly on the head and the question is a very pertinent question. The question is really where do we go from here . I see this as a struggle, i see that were engaged in an epic struggle but its not a struggle between republicans and democrats. Its a struggle between the president and the constitution. The question is, does the president have the power and the prerogative to have his way regardless of the constitution . The question is, does the attorney general get to say that he will adhere to the fifth amendment when he chose chooses to . Is there a cloudy skies for american citizens on american soil that they either get the fifth amendment protections or they dont get the fifth amendment protections . So this really is a struggle, not only between the president and the constitution but between the senate and the congress and the president to say whether or not the president gets to determine this policy or whether this is a policy that should come from congress. I think we should be asking not just for the president to give his memos on drones, we should be giving him our memos on drones. We need to be dictating the law to the president and not action questioning and giving the president this authority. This should be a battle between the executive and the legislative, it should involve republicans and democrats trying to restrain the president from saying he has the ability to decide when you get fifth amendment protections and when you dont. At this time i would without yielding the floor like to entertain a question from the senator from florida. Mr. Rubio mr. President . The presiding officer the senator from florida. Mr. Rubio thank you. First of all let me congratulate the junior senator from texas on a fantastic question. In that question he referred, he used shakespeare references, used reference to the movie patton one of the great movies. I didnt bring my Shakespeare Book so let me begin by quoting a modernday poet, whiz califa, work hard, play hard. You look at the time, i think its a time when many of our colleagues expected to be back in the home state playing hard, but im happy that were here still working hard on this issue. Itsle the twng stng request if you watch from home, here in the audience of people watching on the news or whatever whats going on here because i think its important to explain whats happening here. Whats happening is pretty straightforward. The senator from kentucky has asked a question of the administration. Its a pretty straightforward question. Is it constitutional for the federal government to kill a noncombatant u. S. Citizen in the United States . And we all have strong feelings about that program, we all have strong feelings about the war on terror, these are all legitimate issues but this is a very direct question thats been asked. And what would have resolved this hours ago from my understanding and if im incorrect, the senator from kentucky will correct me in a moment, my understanding is he has offered two ways to bring this to a resolution. One is just a statement from the white house, a clear, unequivocal statement that says, of course, its unconstitutional, its not going to happen, just a straightforward statement of that magnitude. In fact, ive been watching on television over the last few hours, i saw the senator from kentucky say they reached out the white house, theyve been unable to get a direct response. Maybe thats changed in the interim. I dont know, well hear from him in a moment. The other is and i hear he made a motion to have a resolution here that made it clear that was the sense of this body. That the sense of this body would be that this is unconstitutional. Again, pretty straightforward. Im not sure even those among us who are, lets just say those among us who believe this program is necessary, i dont know anybody in this body who believes a noncombatant u. S. Citizen in the United States not doing anything of imminent danger should somehow be killed by the u. S. Government. Nor do people at home believe that either. So that was the sense of the senate that this is the case, and in exchange for that vote, the vote for mr. Brennan would move forward and thats been rejected. This doesnt make a lot of sense to me. I go to a Great American phaou shreu, the Great American movie, the godfather. He says im going to make him an offer he cant refuse. To me, these are straightforward offers he cant refuse. They have been refused. I think that is pretty stunning. The third thing i want to say is i want to you imagine what this conversation would be like tonight if the president was george w. Bush and if this issue was about george w. Bush. Just imagine that for a moment now. If he had been asked this direct question and refused to answer, what this chamber would look like tonight, what the arguments being made would be like tonight. Imagine that for a moment. That takes me back to another modernday he poet by the name of jayz. One of the things he wrote its funny how seven days can change. It was all good a week ago. Things really have changed. If the president was george w. Bush and this was a question being asked of him and his response was the silence weve gotten, wed have a very different scenario tonight except i actually believe the senator from kentucky would be on the floor making the exact same arguments hes making. I want everybody thats watching to clearly understand, and if im wrong the senator from kentucky is going to correct me in a moment, what hes asking is a simple, straightforward response. Or if we cant get that, a simple and straightforward response from the members of this body in a sense of the senate resolution. Both have been rejected. The last observation that i would have tonight is that there have been some pretty phenomenal legal analysis done on the floor. That reminds me of the most famous quote from the godfather never actually used in the movie. I dont know how that happened. Maybe they cut it out. Heres the quote a lawyer with his briefcase can steal more than 100 men with guns can steal. I dont know how that is relevant to this but i thought it was a pretty good quote and i thought id bring it up. I went to law school. I was a land use and zoning attorney which meant if i wound up in court something went horribly wrong with the land use application. Weve had good arguments tonight on constitutional issues with regard to this. I think its important to discuss. Its important for the people at home to fully understand what the legal arguments are here because they are important. They go to the heart of our constitution. They go to the heart of our Civil Liberties. They go to the heart of the things that distinguish our nation. I think whats really stunning to me, clearly the constitutional issue is important, is how simple and straightforward this issue is and how easily it could have been resolved. I dont know how many hours were into this now, but i think its about 11 hours and 15 minutes, because we cant get a straightforward answer. And the members of this body deserve that. The members of this body deserve an answer, no matter what party youre in, no matter what party the president is in. This is a legitimate question thats being asked. And all this could be over if we could just get a straightforward answer. And i think thats something every member of this body should care about. Its not a republican question. Its not a conservative question. Its a constitutional question, a relevant question, one that should be easy to answer. And the idea that theyre refusing to answer it for some reason i dont know if its pride or because they think its beneath them or they got Something Else going on or maybe it snowed too much today and the answer department was shut down. Either way, i just dont understand how they cant answer this straightforward question. It reminds me of another line from the godfather when he says dont ever take sides against the family again. That is kind of whats happening here. As an institution, we deserve to have answers to these questions. We have a job that were held responsible for, that were held accountable for. 30 years from now, 40 years from now, 20 years from now, 10 years from now, these sorts of decisions will have ramifications long after all of us here are gone, there will be other people here in these chairs. Maybe its our children, our grandchildren or our greatgrandchildren will visit this building and they will read about the time we served here. And if were making mistakes, history will record those mistakes and hold us accountable for those mistakes. If things are happening today that set the groundwork for things in the future because thats the other thing we need to remember, no matter how you feel about the current president , hes not going to be president forever. But the precedents he sets could very well guide what future president s do. And so the point is that if we are laying the groundwork here today, making mistakes by not asking certain questions, history will hold us accountable for that. And thats all of us. Not one of us, not five of us. Not the republican part of the senate. All of us. We have a right to ask these questions and to get these questions answered. Thats not being obstructionist. Thats not being partisan. Thats being a senator. And ill tell you ive only been here two years, but i know enough of this process already to know that every single one of us at some point when the majority changes, when a new president is elected, at some point every single one of us is going to want to know an answer to a question to the administration or some other branch or element of government, and theyre going to hold us off. Theyre going to give us the heisman. Theyre going to stiff arm us and try to push us aside and not answer the question. I would hope at that moment whether you agree with that person or not, that you would stand and defend their prerogative and their right as a representative of their state to get legitimate questions answered in a straightforward way. And so as i said earlier today when i came to the floor, this issue is about this institution as much as anything else, about the right of every Single Member of this body to be able to ask legitimate questions of the administration or other branches of government and get a straightforward answer. And so i guess the question that i would have for the senator from kentucky, the junior senator from kentucky, that ill ask here in just a moment, the question that i would ask of the junior senator from kentucky, just to clarify, my understanding is that this issue could have been brought to resolution quite a long time ago if the white house had either, a, made their feelings well known in a statement. You can put that out there in 30 seconds and it will be done. Just come out and say it, that it is unconstitutional to kill u. S. Citizens that are noncombatants who are in the United States. Thats one route. The other thing that could have ended this is the unanimous consent motion that he made to have this body vote on a sense of the senate. That would have b

© 2025 Vimarsana