Freedom From War

This document was implemented in 1961 and has never been rescinded. Please pay attention to last section (stage III) and the appendix Freedom From War The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE DEPARTMENT OF STATE PUBLICATION 7277 Disarmament Series 5 Released September 1961 Office of Public Services BUREAU OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington 25, D.C. - Price 15 cents INTRODUCTION The revolutionary development of modern weapons within a world divided by serious ideological differences has produced a crisis in human history. In order to overcome the danger of nuclear war now confronting mankind, the United States has introduced at the Sixteenth General Assembly of the United Nations a Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World. This new program provides for the progressive reduction of the war-making capabilities of nations and the simultaneous strengthening of international institutions to settle disputes and maintain the peace. It sets forth a series of comprehensive measures which can and should be taken in order to bring about a world in which there will be freedom from war and security for all states. It is based on three principles deemed essential to the achievement of practical progress in the disarmament field: First, there must be immediate disarmament action: A strenuous and uninterrupted effort must be made toward the goal of general and complete disarmament; at the same time, it is important that specific measures be put into effect as soon as possible. Second, all disarmament obligations must be subject to effective international controls: The control organization must have the manpower, facilities, and effectiveness to assure that limitations or reductions take place as agreed. It must also be able to certify to all states that retained forces and armaments do not exceed those permitted at any stage of the disarmament process. Third, adequate peace-keeping machinery must be established: There is an inseparable relationship between the scaling down of national armaments on the one hand and the building up of international peace-keeping machinery and institutions on the other. Nations are unlikely to shed their means of self-protection in the absence of alternative ways to safeguard their legitimate interests. This can only be achieved through the progressive strengthening of international institutions under the United Nations and by creating a United Nations Peace Force to enforce the peace as the disarmament process proceeds. There follows a summary of the principal provisions of the United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World. The full text of the program is contained in an appendix to this pamphlet. FREEDOM FROM WAR THE UNITED STATES PROGRAM FOR GENERAL AND COMPLETE DISARMAMENT IN A PEACEFUL WORLD SUMMARY DISARMAMENT GOAL AND OBJECTIVES The over-all goal of the United States is a free, secure, and peaceful world of independent states adhering to common standards of justice and international conduct and subjecting the use of force to the rule of law; a world which has achieved general and complete disarmament under effective international control; and a world in which adjustment to change takes place in accordance with the principles of the United Nations. In order to make possible the achievement of that goal, the program sets forth the following specific objectives toward which nations should direct their efforts: The disbanding of all national armed forces and the prohibition of their reestablishment in any form whatsoever other than those required to preserve internal order and for contributions to a United Nations Peace Force; The elimination from national arsenals of all armaments, including all weapons of mass destruction and the means for their delivery, other than those required for a United Nations Peace Force and for maintaining internal order; The institution of effective means for the enforcement of international agreements, for the settlement of disputes, and for the maintenance of peace in accordance with the principles of the United Nations; The establishment and effective operation of an International Disarmament Organization within the framework of the United Nations to insure compliance at all times with all disarmament obligations. TASK OF NEGOTIATING STATES The negotiating states are called upon to develop the program into a detailed plan for general and complete disarmament and to continue their efforts without interruption until the whole program has been achieved. To this end, they are to seek the widest possible area of agreement at the earliest possible date. At the same time, and without prejudice to progress on the disarmament program, they are to seek agreement on those immediate measures that would contribute to the common security of nations and that could facilitate and form part of the total program. GOVERNING PRINCIPLES The program sets forth a series of general principles to guide the negotiating states in their work. These make clear that: As states relinquish their arms, the United Nations must be progressively strengthened in order to improve its capacity to assure international security and the peaceful settlement of disputes; Disarmament must proceed as rapidly as possible, until it is completed, in stages containing balanced, phased, and safeguarded measures; Each measure and stage should be carried out in an agreed period of time, with transition from one stage to the next to take place as soon as all measures in the preceding stage have been carried out and verified and as soon as necessary arrangements for verification of the next stage have been made; Inspection and verification must establish both that nations carry out scheduled limitations or reductions and that they do not retain armed forces and armaments in excess of those permitted at any stage of the disarmament process; and Disarmament must take place in a manner that will not affect adversely the security of any state. DISARMAMENT STAGES The program provides for progressive disarmament steps to take place in three stages and for the simultaneous strengthening of international institutions. FIRST STAGE The first stage contains measures which would significantly reduce the capabilities of nations to wage aggressive war. Implementation of this stage would mean that: The nuclear threat would be reduced: All states would have adhered to a treaty effectively prohibiting the testing of nuclear weapons. The production of fissionable materials for use in weapons would be stopped and quantities of such materials from past production would be converted to non-weapons uses. States owning nuclear weapons would not relinquish control of such weapons to any nation not owning them and would not transmit to any such nation information or material necessary for their manufacture. States not owning nuclear weapons would not manufacture them or attempt to obtain control of such weapons belonging to other states. A Commission of Experts would be established to report on the feasibility and means for the verified reduction and eventual elimination of nuclear weapons stockpiles. Strategic delivery vehicles would be reduced: Strategic nuclear weapons delivery vehicles of specified categories and weapons designed to counter such vehicles would be reduced to agreed levels by equitable and balanced steps; their production would be discontinued or limited; their testing would be limited or halted. Arms and armed forces would be reduced: The armed forces of the United States and the Soviet Union would be limited to 2.1 million men each (with appropriate levels not exceeding that amount for other militarily significant states); levels of armaments would be correspondingly reduced and their production would be limited. An Experts Commission would be established to examine and report on the feasibility and means of accomplishing verifiable reduction and eventual elimination of all chemical, biological and radiological weapons. Peaceful use of outer space would be promoted: The placing in orbit or stationing in outer space of weapons capable of producing mass destruction would be prohibited. States would give advance notification of space vehicle and missile launchings. U.N. peace-keeping powers would be strengthened: Measures would be taken to develop and strengthen United Nations arrangements for arbitration, for the development of international law, and for the establishment in Stage II of a permanent U.N. Peace Force. An International Disarmament Organization would be established for effective verification of the disarmament program: Its functions would be expanded progressively as disarmament proceeds. It would certify to all states that agreed reductions have taken place and that retained forces and armaments do not exceed permitted levels. It would determine the transition from one stage to the next. States would be committed to other measures to reduce international tension and to protect against the chance of war by accident, miscalculation, or surprise attack: States would be committed to refrain from the threat or use of any type of armed force contrary to the principles of the U.N. Charter and to refrain from indirect aggression and subversion against any country. A U.N. peace observation group would be available to investigate any situation which might constitute a threat to or breach of the peace. States would be committed to give advance notice of major military movements which might cause alarm; observation posts would be established to report on concentrations and movements of military forces. SECOND STAGE The second stage contains a series of measures which would bring within sight a world in which there would be freedom from war. Implementation of all measures in the second stage would mean: Further substantial reductions in the armed forces, armaments, and military establishments of states, including strategic nuclear weapons delivery vehicles and countering weapons; Further development of methods for the peaceful settlement of disputes under the United Nations; Establishment of a permanent international peace force within the United Nations; Depending on the findings of an Experts Commission, a halt in the production of chemical, bacteriological and radiological weapons and a reduction of existing stocks or their conversion to peaceful uses; On the basis of the findings of an Experts Commission, a reduction of stocks of nuclear weapons; The dismantling or the conversion to peaceful uses of certain military bases and facilities wherever located; and The strengthening and enlargement of the International Disarmament Organization to enable it to verify the steps taken in Stage II and to determine the transition to Stage III. THIRD STAGE During the third stage of the program, the states of the world, building on the experience and confidence gained in successfully implementing the measures of the first two stages, would take final steps toward the goal of a world in which: States would retain only those forces, non-nuclear armaments, and establishments required for the purpose of maintaining internal order; they would also support and provide agreed manpower for a U.N. Peace Force. The U.N. Peace Force, equipped with agreed types and quantities of armaments, would be fully functioning. The manufacture of armaments would be prohibited except for those of agreed types and quantities to be used by the U.N. Peace Force and those required to maintain internal order. All other armaments would be destroyed or converted to peaceful purposes. The peace-keeping capabilities of the United Nations would be sufficiently strong and the obligations of all states under such arrangements sufficiently far-reaching as to assure peace and the just settlement of differences in a disarmed world. Appendix DECLARATION ON DISARMAMENT THE UNITED STATES PROGRAM FOR GENERAL AND COMPLETE DISARMAMENT IN A PEACEFUL WORLD The Nations of the world, Conscious of the crisis in human history produced by the revolutionary development of modern weapons within a world divided by serious ideological differences; Determined to save present and succeeding generations from the scourge of war and the dangers and burdens of the arms race and to create conditions in which all peoples can strive freely and peacefully to fulfill their basic aspirations; Declare their goal to be: A free, secure, and peaceful world of independent states adhering to common standards of justice and international conduct and subjecting the use of force to the rule of law; a world where adjustment to change takes place in accordance with the principles of the United Nations; a world where there shall be a permanent state of general and complete disarmament under effective international control and where the resources of nations shall be devoted to man's material, cultural, and spiritual advance; Set forth as the objectives of a program of general and complete disarmament in a peaceful world: (a) The disbanding of all national armed forces and the prohibition of their reestablishment in any form whatsoever other than those required to preserve internal order and for contributions to a United Nations Peace Force; (b) The elimination from national arsenals of all armaments, including all weapons of mass destruction and the means for their delivery, other than those required for a United Nations Peace Force and for maintaining internal order; (c) The establishment and effective operation of an International Disarmament Organization within the framework of the United Nations to ensure compliance at all times with all disarmament obligations; (d) The institution of effective means for the enforcement of international agreements, for the settlement of disputes, and for the maintenance of peace in accordance with the principles of the United Nations. Call on the negotiating states: (a) To develop the outline program set forth below into an agreed plan for general and complete disarmament and to continue their efforts without interruption until the whole program has been achieved; (b) To this end to seek to attain the widest possible area of agreement at the earliest possible date; (c) Also to seek --- without prejudice to progress on the disarmament program --- agreement on those immediate measures that would contribute to the common security of nations and that could facilitate and form a part of that program. Affirm that disarmament negotiations should be guided by the following principles: (a) Disarmament shall take place as rapidly as possible until it is completed in stages containing balanced, phased and safeguarded measures, with each measure and stage to be carried out in an agreed period of time. (b) Compliance with all disarmament obligations shall be effectively verified from their entry into force. Verification arrangements shall be instituted progressively and in such a manner as to verify not only that agreed limitations or reductions take place but also that retained armed forces and armaments do not exceed agreed levels at any stage. (c) Disarmament shall take place in a manner that will not affect adversely the security of any state, whether or not a party to an international agreement or treaty. (d) As states relinquish their arms, the United Nations shall be progressively strengthened in order to improve its capacity to assure international security and the peaceful settlement of differences as well as to facilitate the development of international cooperation in common tasks for the benefit of mankind. (e) Transition from one stage of disarmament to the next shall take place as soon as all the measures in the preceding stage have been carried out and effective verification is continuing and as soon as the arrangements that have been agreed to be necessary for the next stage have been instituted. Agree upon the following outline program for achieving general and complete disarmament: STAGE I A. To Establish an International Disarmament Organization: (a) An International Disarmament Organization (IDO) shall be established within the framework of the United Nations upon entry into force of the agreement. Its functions shall be expanded progressively as required for the effective verification of the disarmament program. (b) The IDO shall have: (1) a General Conference of all the parties; (2) a Commission consisting of representatives of all the major powers as permanent members and certain other states on a rotating basis; and (3) an Administrator who will administer the Organization subject to the direction of the Commission and who will have the authority, staff, and finances adequate to assure effective impartial implementation of the functions of the Organization. (c) The IDO shall: (1) ensure compliance with the obligations undertaken by verifying the execution of measures agreed upon; (2) assist the states in developing the details of agreed further verification and disarmament measures; (3) provide for the establishment of such bodies as may be necessary for working out the details of further measures provided for in the program and for such other expert study groups as may be required to give continuous study to the problems of disarmament; (4) receive reports on the progress of disarmament and verification arrangements and determine the transition from one stage to the next. B. To Reduce Armed Forces and Armaments: (a) Force levels shall be limited to 2.1 million each for the U.S. and U.S.S.R. and to appropriate levels not exceeding 2.1 million each for all other militarily significant states. Reductions to the agreed levels will proceed by equitable, proportionate, and verified steps. (b) Levels of armaments of prescribed types shall be reduced by equitable and balanced steps. The reductions shall be accomplished by transfers of armaments to depots supervised by the IDO. When, at specified periods during the Stage I reduction process, the states party to the agreement have agreed that the armaments and armed forces are at prescribed levels, the armaments in depots shall be destroyed or converted to peaceful uses. (c) The production of agreed types of armaments shall be limited. (d) A Chemical, Biological, Radiological (CBR) Experts Commission shall be established within the IDO for the purpose of examining and reporting on the feasibility and means for accomplishing the verifiable reduction and eventual elimination of CBR weapons stockpiles and the halting of their production. C. To Contain and Reduce the Nuclear Threat: (a) States that have not acceded to a treaty effectively prohibiting the testing of nuclear weapons shall do so. (b) The production of fissionable materials for use in weapons shall be stopped. (c) Upon the cessation of production of fissionable materials for use in weapons, agreed initial quantities of fissionable materials from past production shall be transferred to non-weapons purposes. (d) Any fissionable materials transferred between countries for peaceful uses of nuclear energy shall be subject to appropriate safeguards to be developed in agreement with the IAEA. (e) States owning nuclear weapons shall not relinquish control of such weapons to any nation not owning them and shall not transmit to any such nation information or material necessary for their manufacture. States not owning nuclear weapons shall not manufacture such weapons, attempt to obtain control of such weapons belonging to other states, or seek or receive information or materials necessary for their manufacture. (f) A Nuclear Experts Commission consisting of representatives of the nuclear states shall be established within the IDO for the purpose of examining and reporting on the feasibility and means for accomplishing the verified reduction and eventual elimination of nuclear weapons stockpiles. D. To Reduce Strategic Nuclear Weapons Delivery Vehicles: (a) Strategic nuclear weapons delivery vehicles in specified categories and agreed types of weapons designed to counter such vehicles shall be reduced to agreed levels by equitable and balanced steps. The reduction shall be accomplished in each step by transfers to depots supervised by the IDO of vehicles that are in excess of levels agreed upon for each step. At specified periods during the Stage I reduction process, the vehicles that have been placed under supervision of the IDO shall be destroyed or converted to peaceful uses. (b) Production of agreed categories of strategic nuclear weapons delivery vehicles and agreed types of weapons designed to counter such vehicles shall be discontinued or limited. (c) Testing of agreed categories of strategic nuclear weapons delivery vehicles and agreed types of weapons designed to counter such vehicles shall be limited or halted. E. To Promote the Peaceful Use of Outer Space: (a) The placing into orbit or stationing in outer space of weapons capable c,f producing mass destruction shall be prohibited. (b) States shall give advance notification to participating states and to the IDO of launchings of space vehicles and missiles, together with the track of the vehicle. F. To Reduce the Risks of War by Accident, Miscalculation, and Surprise Attack: (a) States shall give advance notification to the participating states and to the IDO of major military movements and maneuvers, on a scale as may be agreed, which might give rise to misinterpretation or cause alarm and induce countermeasures. The notification shall include the geographic areas to be used and the nature, scale and time span of the event. (b) There shall be established observation posts at such locations as major ports, railway centers, motor highways, and air bases to report on concentrations and movements of military forces. (c) There shall also be established such additional inspection arrangements to reduce the danger of surprise attack as may be agreed. (d) An international commission shall be established immediately within the IDO to examine and make recommendations on the possibility of further measures to reduce the risks of nuclear war by accident, miscalculation, or failure of communication. G. To Keep the Peace: (a) States shall reaffirm their obligations under the U.N. Charter to refrain from the threat or use of any type of armed force--including nuclear, conventional, or CBR--contrary to the principles of the U.N. Charter. (b) States shall agree to refrain from indirect aggression and subversion against any country. (c) States shall use all appropriate processes for the peaceful settlement of disputes and shall seek within the United Nations further arrangements for the peaceful settlement of international disputes and for the codification and progressive development of international law. (d) States shall develop arrangements in Stage I for the establishment in Stage II of a U.N. Peace Force. (e) A U.N. peace observation group shall be staffed with a standing cadre of observers who could be dispatched to investigate any situation which might constitute a threat to or breach of the peace. STAGE II A. International Disarmament Organization: The powers and responsibilities of the IDO shall be progressively enlarged in order to give it the capabilities to verify the measures undertaken in Stage II. B. To Further Reduce Armed Forces and Armaments: (a) Levels of forces for the U.S., U.S.S.R., and other militarily significant states shall be further reduced by substantial amounts to agreed levels in equitable and balanced steps. (b) Levels of armaments of prescribed types shall be further reduced by equitable and balanced steps. The reduction shall be accomplished by transfers of armaments to depots supervised by the IDO. When, at specified periods during the Stage II reduction process, the parties have agreed that the armaments and armed forces are at prescribed levels, the armaments in depots shall be destroyed or converted to peaceful uses. (c) There shall be further agreed restrictions on the production of armaments. (d) Agreed military bases and facilities wherever they are located shall be dismantled or converted to peaceful uses. (e) Depending upon the findings of the Experts Commission on CBR weapons, the production of CBR weapons shall be halted, existing stocks progressively reduced, and the resulting excess quantities destroyed or converted to peaceful uses. C. To Further Reduce the Nuclear Threat: Stocks of nuclear weapons shall be progressively reduced to the minimum levels which can be agreed upon as a result of the findings of the Nuclear Experts Commission; the resulting excess of fissionable material shall be transferred to peaceful purposes. D. To Further Reduce Strategic Nuclear Weapons Delivery Vehicles: Further reductions in the stocks of strategic nuclear weapons delivery vehicles and agreed types of weapons designed to counter such vehicles shall be carried out in accordance with the procedure outlined in Stage I. E. To Keep the Peace: During Stage II, states shall develop further the peace-keeping processes of the United Nations, to the end that the United Nations can effectively in Stage III deter or suppress any threat or use of force in violation of the purposes and principles of the United Nations: (a) States shall agree upon strengthening the structure, authority, and operation of the United Nations so as to assure that the United Nations will be able effectively to protect states against threats to or breaches of the peace. (b) The U.N. Peace Force shall be established and progressively strengthened. (c) States shall also agree upon further improvements and developments in rules of international conduct and in processes for peaceful settlement of disputes and differences. STAGE III By the time Stage II has been completed, the confidence produced through a verified disarmament program, the acceptance of rules of peaceful international behavior, and the development of strengthened international peace-keeping processes within the framework of the U.N. should have reached a point where the states of the world can move forward to Stage III. In Stage III progressive controlled disarmament and continuously developing principles and procedures of international law would proceed to a point where no state would have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened U.N. Peace Force and all international disputes would be settled according to the agreed principles of international conduct. The progressive steps to be taken during the final phase of the disarmament program would be directed toward the attainment of a world in which: (a) States would retain only those forces, non-nuclear armaments, and establishments required for the purpose of maintaining internal order; they would also support and provide agreed manpower for a U.N Peace Force. (b) The U.N. Peace Force, equipped with agreed types and quantities of armaments, would be fully functioning. (c) The manufacture of armaments would be prohibited except for those of agreed types and quantities to be used by the U.N. Peace Force and those required to maintain internal order. All other armaments would be destroyed or converted to peaceful purposes. (d) The peace-keeping capabilities of the United Nations would be sufficiently strong and the obligations of all states under such arrangements sufficiently far-reaching as to assure peace and the just settlement of differences in a disarmed world. U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1961 O 609147

Tennessee Trade Votes - NAFTA to CAFTA

H R 3450 RECORDED VOTE 17-Nov-1993 10:36 PM QUESTION: On Passage BILL TITLE: NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 575 Ayes Noes PRES NV Republican 132 43 Democratic 102 156 Independent 1 TOTALS 234 200 01 James H. (Jimmy) Quillen ......Aye 02 John J. Duncan Jr.......Aye 03 Marilyn Lloyd ......Aye 04 Jim Cooper ......Aye 05 Bob Clement ......Aye 06 Bart Gordon ......Aye 07 Don Sundquist ......Aye 08 John S. Tanner ......Aye 09 Harold E. Ford ......Aye -- Senate: Vote Number: 395 Vote Date: November 20, 1993, 07:28 PM Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Bill Passed Tennessee: Mathews (D-TN), Yea Sasser (D-TN), Nay ------------------------------------------------------------- H R 5110 YEA-AND-NAY 29-Nov-1994 6:39 PM QUESTION: On Passage BILL TITLE: GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 507 Yeas Nays PRES NV Republican 121 56 Democratic 167 89 Independent 1 TOTALS 288 146 01 James H. (Jimmy) Quillen ......Yea 02 John J. Duncan Jr......Nay 03 Marilyn Lloyd ......Yea 04 Jim Cooper ......Yea 05 Bob Clement ......Yea 06 Bart Gordon ......Yea 07 Don Sundquist ......Yea 08 John S. Tanner ......Yea 09 Harold E. Ford ......Yea -- Senate Vote Number: 329 Vote Date: December 1, 1994, 06:48 PM Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Bill Passed Tennessee: Mathews (D-TN), Yea Sasser (D-TN), Yea ------------------------------------------------------------- H J RES 90 YEA-AND-NAY 21-Jun-2000 9:44 PM QUESTION: On Passage BILL TITLE: Withdrawing the Approval of the United States from the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 310 Yeas Nays PRES NV Republican 33 182 6 Democratic 21 181 3 6 Independent 2 TOTALS 56 363 3 12 01 William L. Jenkins......Nay 02 John J. Duncan Jr.......Yea 03 Zach Wamp ......Yea 04 Van Hilleary ......Yea 05 Bob Clement ......Nay 06 Bart Gordon ......Nay 07 Ed Bryant ......Nay 08 John S. Tanner ......Nay 09 Harold E. Ford Jr.......Nay -------------------------------------------------------------- H R 3009 YEA-AND-NAY 27-Jul-2002 3:30 AM QUESTION: On Agreeing to the Conference Report BILL TITLE: Andean Trade Preference Act (4) Trade Promotion Authority. This legislation (the conference report on H.R. 3009) gave President Bush Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), formerly known as “fast track,” for congressional consideration of trade agreements reached before June 1, 2005. Under fast track FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 370 Yeas Nays PRES NV Republican 190 27 5 Democratic 25 183 2 Independent 2 TOTALS 215 212 7 01 William L. Jenkins......Yea 02 John J. Duncan Jr.......Nay 03 Zach Wamp ......Yea 04 Van Hilleary ......Yea 05 Bob Clement ......Nay 06 Bart Gordon ......Nay 07 Ed Bryant ......Yea 08 John S. Tanner ......Yea 09 Harold E. Ford Jr.......Yea --- Senate Vote Number: 207 Vote Date: August 1, 2002, 04:18 PM Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Conference Report Agreed to Tennessee: Frist (R-TN), Yea Thompson (R-TN), Yea ------------------------------------------------------------------ H R 2739 RECORDED VOTE 24-Jul-2003 2:54 PM QUESTION: On Passage BILL TITLE: United States-Singapore Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 432 Ayes Noes PRES NV Republican 197 27 4 Democratic 75 127 3 Independent 1 TOTALS 272 155 7 01 William L. Jenkins......Aye 02 John J. Duncan Jr.......Noe 03 Zach Wamp ......Aye 04 Lincoln Davis ......Aye 05 Jim Cooper ......Aye 06 Bart Gordon ......Noe 07 Marsha Blackburn......Aye 08 John S. Tanner ......Aye 09 Harold E. Ford Jr.......Aye -- Senate Vote Number: 318 Vote Date: July 31, 2003, 09:04 PM Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Bill Passed Tennessee: Alexander (R-TN), Yea Frist (R-TN), Yea ------------------------------------------------------------------ H R 2738 RECORDED VOTE 24-Jul-2003 3:47 PM QUESTION: On Passage BILL TITLE: United States-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 436 Ayes Noes PRES NV Republican 195 27 6 Democratic 75 128 2 Independent 1 TOTALS 270 156 8 01 William L. Jenkins......Aye 02 John J. Duncan Jr.......Noe 03 Zach Wamp ......Aye 04 Lincoln Davis ......Aye 05 Jim Cooper ......Aye 06 Bart Gordon ......Noe 07 Marsha Blackburn ......Aye 08 John S. Tanner ......Aye 09 Harold E. Ford Jr.......Aye --- Senate Vote Number: 319 Vote Date: July 31, 2003, 09:22 PM Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Bill Passed Tennessee: Alexander (R-TN), Yea Frist (R-TN), Yea ------------------------------------------------------------------ H R 4759 YEA-AND-NAY 14-Jul-2004 5:19 PM QUESTION: On Passage BILL TITLE: United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 375 Yeas Nays PRES NV Republican 198 24 1 4 Democratic 116 84 5 Independent 1 TOTALS 314 109 1 9 01 William L. Jenkins......Aye 02 John J. Duncan Jr.......Aye 03 Zach Wamp ......Aye 04 Lincoln Davis ......Aye 05 Jim Cooper ......Aye 06 Bart Gordon ......Aye 07 Marsha Blackburn ......Aye 08 John S. Tanner ......Aye 09 Harold E. Ford Jr.......Aye ---- Senate Vote Number: 156 Vote Date: July 15, 2004, 06:23 PM Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Bill Passed Tennessee: Alexander (R-TN), Yea Frist (R-TN), Yea ------------------------------------------------------------------ H R 4842 YEA-AND-NAY 22-Jul-2004 6:32 PM QUESTION: On Passage BILL TITLE: United States-Morocco Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 413 Yeas Nays PRES NV Republican 203 18 6 Democratic 120 80 6 Independent 1 TOTALS 323 99 12 01 William L. Jenkins......Aye 02 John J. Duncan Jr.......Aye 03 Zach Wamp ......Nay 04 Lincoln Davis ......Aye 05 Jim Cooper ......Aye 06 Bart Gordon ......Aye 07 Marsha Blackburn ......Aye 08 John S. Tanner ......Aye 09 Harold E. Ford Jr.......Aye --- Sentate Vote Number: 159 Vote Date: July 21, 2004, 11:30 AM Tennessee: Alexander (R-TN), Yea Frist (R-TN), Yea TN votes on hjr27 withdraw from wto (Aye means to withdraw) 06/09/05 House ROLL CALL 239 Yeas Nays PRES NV Republican 39 185 6 Democratic 46 153 1 2 Independent 1 TOTALS 86 338 1 8 01 William L. Jenkins......Aye 02 John J. Duncan Jr.......Aye 03 Zach Wamp ......Aye 04 Lincoln Davis ......Aye 05 Jim Cooper ......Nay 06 Bart Gordon ......Nay 07 Marsha Blackburn ......Nay 08 John S. Tanner ......Nay 09 Harold E. Ford Jr.......Nay TN CAFTA votes: --- Senate: On Passage of the Bill (S. 1307 ) Vote Number: 170 Vote Date: June 30, 2005, 09:34 PM Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Bill Passed Measure Number: S. 1307 (Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act ) YEAs 54 NAYs 45 Not Voting 1 Alexander – Yea Frist – Yea --- House: H R 3045 RECORDED VOTE 28-Jul-2005 12:03 AM QUESTION: On Passage BILL TITLE: Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act Vote roll call 443 Ayes Noes PRES NV Republican 202 27 2 Democratic 15 187 Independent 1 TOTALS 217 215 2 01 William L. Jenkins......Aye 02 John J. Duncan Jr.......Aye 03 Zach Wamp ......Aye 04 Lincoln Davis ......Nay 05 Jim Cooper ......Aye 06 Bart Gordon ......Nay 07 Marsha Blackburn ......Aye 08 John S. Tanner ......Aye 09 Harold E. Ford Jr.......Nay

Marsha Blackburn spending your Tax Dollars 001

Congressman Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee: Our country is alomost 8,000,000,000,000.00 (TRILLION) dollars in debt. Would you please explain to me why you voted for $2.88 million to construct a bike/pedestrian path in Delta Ponds, Oregon (H.R. 3, roll call 65) ?

A Humbling Lesson: Congressman Davy Crockett learns about limited government

In the following, excerpted from the book The Life of Colonel David Crockett (1884), compiled by Edward S. Ellis, the famous American frontiersman, war hero, and congressman from Tennessee relates how he learned -- from one of his own backwoods constituents -- the vital importance of heeding the Constitution and the dangers of disregarding its restraints. Crockett was then the lion of Washington. I was a great admirer of his character, and, having several friends who were intimate with him, I found no difficulty in making his acquaintance. I was fascinated with him, and he seemed to take a fancy to me. I was one day in the lobby of the House of Representatives when a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support, rather, as I thought, because it afforded the speakers a fine opportunity for display than from the necessity of convincing anybody, for it seemed to me that everybody favored it. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose. Everybody expected, of course, that he was going to make one of his characteristic speeches in support of the bill. He commenced: "Mr. Speaker -- I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him. This government can owe no debts but for services rendered, and at a stipulated price. If it is a debt, how much is it? Has it been audited, and the amount due ascertained? If it is a debt, this is not the place to present it for payment, or to have its merits examined. If it is a debt, we owe more than we can ever hope to pay, for we owe the widow of every soldier who fought in the War of 1812 precisely the same amount. There is a woman in my neighborhood, the widow of as gallant a man as ever shouldered a musket. He fell in battle. She is as good in every respect as this lady, and is as poor. She is earning her daily bread by her daily labor; but if I were to introduce a bill to appropriate five or ten thousand dollars for her benefit, I should be laughed at, and my bill would not get five votes in this House. There are thousands of widows in the country just such as the one I have spoken of, but we never hear of any of these large debts to them. Sir, this is no debt. The government did not owe it to the deceased when he was alive; it could not contract it after he died. I do not wish to be rude, but I must be plain. Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much of our own money as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks." He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost. Like many other young men, and old ones too, for that matter, who had not thought upon the subject, I desired the passage of the bill, and felt outraged at its defeat. I determined that I would persuade my friend Crockett to move a reconsideration the next day. Previous engagements preventing me from seeing Crockett that night, I went early to his room the next morning and found him engaged in addressing and franking letters, a large pile of which lay upon his table. I broke in upon him rather abruptly, by asking him what devil had possessed him to make that speech and defeat that bill yesterday. Without turning his head or looking up from his work, he replied: "You see that I am very busy now; take a seat and cool yourself. I will be through in a few minutes, and then I will tell you all about it." He continued his employment for about ten minutes, and when he had finished he turned to me and said: "Now, sir, I will answer your question. But thereby hangs a tale, and one of considerable length, to which you will have to listen." I listened, and this is the tale which I heard: "Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. When we got there, I went to work, and I never worked as hard in my life as I did there for several hours. But, in spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made houseless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them, and everybody else seemed to feel the same way. "The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done. I said everybody felt as I did. That was not quite so; for, though they perhaps sympathized as deeply with the sufferers as I did, there were a few of the members who did not think we had the right to indulge our sympathy or excite our charity at the expense of anybody but ourselves. They opposed the bill, and upon its passage demanded the yeas and nays. There were not enough of them to sustain the call, but many of us wanted our names to appear in favor of what we considered a praiseworthy measure, and we voted with them to sustain it. So the yeas and nays were recorded, and my name appeared on the journals in favor of the bill. "The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up, and I thought it was best to let the boys know that I had not forgot them, and that going to Congress had not made me too proud to go to see them. "So I put a couple of shirts and a few twists of tobacco into my saddlebags, and put out. I had been out about a week and had found things going very smoothly, when, riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly, and was about turning his horse for another furrow when I said to him: 'Don't be in such a hurry, my friend; I want to have a little talk with you, and get better acquainted.' He replied: "'I am very busy, and have but little time to talk, but if it does not take too long, I will listen to what you have to say.' "I began: 'Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and --' "'Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.' "This was a sockdolager .... I begged him to tell me what was the matter. "'Well, Colonel, it is hardly worthwhile to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest .... But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is.' "'I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question.' "'No, Colonel, there's no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?' "'Certainly it is, and I thought that was the last vote which anybody in the world would have found fault with.' "'Well, Colonel, where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away the public money in charity?' "Here was another sockdolager; for, when I began to think about it, I could not remember a thing in the Constitution that authorized it. I found I must take another tack, so I said: "'Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.' "'It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be intrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.'" "I have given you," continued Crockett, "an imperfect account of what he said. Long before he was through, I was convinced that I had done wrong. He wound up by saying: "'So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.' "I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him: "'Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.' "He laughingly replied: 'Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and, perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.' "'If I don't,' said I, 'I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them, Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it.' "'No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.' "'Well, I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-by. I must know your name.' "'My name is Bunce.' "'Not Horatio Bunce?' "'Yes.' "'Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend. You must let me shake your hand before I go.' "We shook hands and parted. "It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity, and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote. "At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before. "Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before. "I have told you Mr. Bunce converted me politically. He came nearer converting me religiously than I had ever been before. He did not make a very good Christian of me, as you know; but he has wrought upon my mind a conviction of the truth of Christianity, and upon my feelings a reverence for its purifying and elevating power such as I had never felt before. "I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him -- no, that is not the word -- I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if every one who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the word by storm. "But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue, and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted -- at least, they all knew me. "In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying: "'Fellow-citizens -- I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only.' "I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation as I have told it to you, and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying: "'And now, fellow-citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error. "'It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit of it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.' "He came upon the stand and said: "'Fellow-citizens -- It affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today.' "He went down, and there went up from that crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before. "I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress. "Now, sir," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech yesterday. I have had several thousand copies of it printed, and was directing them to my constituents when you came in. "There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week's pay. There are in that House many' very wealthy men -- men who think nothing of spending a week's pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased -- a debt which could not be paid by money -- and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000, when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it."

Ed Bryant UnConstitutional Votes

The U.S. Constitution allows the House of Representatives to vote on a limited number of issues and states in amendment 10 that: 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. Ed Bryant has repeatedly ignored this amendment and his responsibility to keep his oath to God and follow it. Federal Funding of State Prisons, Amendment to H.R. 667. During consideration of the state prison construction bill, Representative Robert Scott (D-VA) offered this amendment to delete $2.5 billion in new money from the bill, leaving only the $8 billion already authorized by last year’s crime bill. In addition to the fact that the federal government does not have any constitutional authority to administer or finance the crime and prison policies of the states, the funds, Representative Tim Roemer (D-IN) noted, constitute a “bailout bill for States that have not made the tough decisions to build [new] prisons.” (February 10, 1995 Congressional Record pages H1582-83, roll call 115) Ed Bryant voted against this taxpayer money saving amendment. (Source: The New American July 24, 1995) Preempting State Courts, Amendment to H.R. 956. During consideration of the Product Liability and Legal Reform bill, Representative Melvin Watt (D-NC) offered this amendment to remove provisions of the bill preempting state laws on the burden of proof for punitive damages in product liability cases. Taking a states’ rights position, Watt counseled removal of provisions which tell the states “how to apply [the] law [in liability suits] and how much of the evidence will be required to win a case and how you should try the case.” (March 9, 1995 Congressional Record, page H2935, roll call 222) Ed Bryant voted against this constitutional amendment. (Source: The New American July 24, 1995) War Powers Act Repeal, Amendment to H.R. 1561. During consideration of the fiscal 1996-97 Foreign Assistance and State Department Authorization bill, Representative Henry Hyde (R-IL) offered this amendment to repeal the 1973 War Powers Resolution. That resolution, which was passed during the Vietnam War era to curb presidential abuse of war powers, requires the President to bring home within 60 days troops deployed abroad in combat situations unless Congress acts affirmatively to approve the deployment. Representative Richard Durbin (D-IL) explained, “Our Constitution could not make it clearer. Article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution confers on Congress – the House of Representatives and the Senate alone – the power to declare war, and the War Powers Act, imperfect though it may be, is an effort to carry out the intent of our Constitution, the clear unambiguous intent of that Constitution, to require Congress, and the American people through them, to enter into a debate and deliberation before we send our sons and daughters off to die.” Repeal of the War Powers Resolution would signal that the Congress is willing to abdicate its constitutional power to declare war and to give a blank check to the President. It would effectively make the U.S. Armed Forces the President’s personal army that can be sent into battle at the President’s personal whim. (June 7, 1995 Congressional Record, pages H5673-74, roll call 359) Ed Bryant voted for this amendment. (Source: The New American July 24, 1995) Abolition of the Tennessee Valley Authority, Amendment to H.R. 1905. During consideration of the fiscal 1996 energy and water development appropriations bill, Representative Scott Klug (R-WI) offered this amendment to eliminate the $103 million provided in the bill for the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), effectively abolishing the agency. The TVA, a regional federal entity, is a holdout from the “make work” legislation that President Franklin Roosevelt had pushed as part of his “New Deal.” The TVA was originally charged with electrifying rural areas within the Tennessee River Valley. Its task long ago accomplished, the TVA developed new purposes such as “tourism and marketing,” for which the bill earmarked $19 million. (July 12, 1995 Congressional Record, pages H6877-78, roll call 492) Ed Bryant voted against this amendment. (Source: The New American January 22, 1996) Juvenile Crime Control Act, H.R. 3. This bill would authorize $1.5 billion dollars over the next three years for states to build prisons. In addition, it would require states to prosecute certain juveniles as adults and mandate that juvenile records be transmitted to the FBI. Noting that the federal government does not have the constitutional authority to establish a national juvenile criminal justice system, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) opposed the bill for that reason and because it “represents yet another step toward a national police-state…” (May 8, 1997 Congressional Record, pages H2397-98, roll call 118) Ed Bryant voted for this act. (Source: The New American August 18, 1997) Constitutional Disclosure of Intelligence Spending, Amendment to H.R. 1775. During consideration of the fiscal 1998 intelligence authorization bill Representative John Conyers (D-MI) offered this amendment to require publication of the amount spent for intelligence activities and the mount requested by the President for such purposes for the following year. Spending levels for U.S. intelligence agencies (CIA, DIA, NSA, NRO, etc.) are classified but are estimated by news agencies to total about $30 billion per year. This secrecy conflicts with the constitutional provisions stating that “a regular statement and account of the receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.” The CIA has simply exempted itself from this constitutional requirement. (July 9, 1997 Congressional Record, pages H4984-85, roll call 254) Ed Bryant voted against this amendment. (Source: The New American January 5, 1998) Subversive misapplication of the First Amendment, House Joint Resolution 78. The so-called “Religious Freedom Restoration Amendment” would add 86 vague words to the Constitution for the stated purpose of improving the protection of religious freedom under the First Amendment. Representative John Hostletter (R-IN) opposed the amendment as unnecessary and even potentially dangerous, noting that it “legitimizes the Supreme Court’s [unconstitutional] application of the establishment clause of the First Amendment [which prohibits Federal law “respecting an establishment of religion”] to the states.” That subversive misapplication has enabled the Supreme Court to strike down school prayer in public schools across the nation. “[I] f this amendment is ratified,” Hostettler continued, “our states will forever lose their ability to define the appropriate level of public expression of religion.” Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) suggested that instead of weakening the First Amendment, “Another recourse… is for Congress to use its constitutional authority to remove jurisdiction form the courts in the areas where the courts have been the most abusive of free expression.” (June 4, 1998 Congressional Record, page H4112, roll call 201) Ed Bryant voted for this resolution. (Source: The New American October 26, 1998) Gun Control, H.R. 2122. This legislation would clamp down on gun sales at gun shows, which for the purposes of this bill are defined as any event “at which 50 or more firearms are offered or exhibited for sale, transfer, or exchange” or at which there are ten or more vendors. Under this bill, a person offering a firearm for sale who is not himself licensed is prevented form selling that firearm directly to the buyer. The licensed vendor must complete a background check before the transfer of the weapon. (June 18, 1999 Congressional Record, pages H4656-57, roll call 244) Ed Bryant voted for this gun control bill. (Source: The New American August 16, 1999) Money for Foreign Intervention. The Fiscal 2000 supplemental appropriations bull provides $13.2 billion for a number of measures, including funding for operations in Kosovo and East Timor ($5 billion), aid to combat drugs in Colombia ($1.7 billion), and Defense Department funding ($4 billion). (March 30, 2000 Roll Call 95) Ed Bryant voted for this intervention. (Source: The New American July 17, 2000) Television for “Underserved” Areas. As a way of providing local television to 30 million households in areas of the country that cannot receive over-the-air signals or do not have local television through a satellite provider, this bill would create a new program that would provide $1.25 billion in loan guarantees to telecommunication providers. The loans would offer a competitive edge to satellite providers since cable companies cannot apply for the loans to expand their service. The loans would be administered by the Department of Agriculture’s Rural Utilities Service. Representative Christopher Cox (R-CA) in floor debate asserted that the Rural Utilities Service is “writing off billions of dollars in their existing loan portfolio left and right, at taxpayer expense, and … about 30 to 40 percent of the loans that are going to get made under this program are likely to be written off. So one can look at the cost of this program [and see that] right up front [it] is about $400 million.” (April 13, 2000 Roll Call 128) Ed Bryant voted for this measure. (Source: The New American July 17, 2000) Funds for Asian Elephants. This bill would authorize up to $5 million per year for four years to help preserve the habitat of the Asian elephant. The program is merely another pretense to waste U.S. taxpayer dollars abroad. (June 12, 2001 Roll Call 156) Ed Bryant voted for this authorization. (Source: The New American July 30, 2001) Prescription Drug Plan. This bill (H.R. 4954) would subsidize private insurance companies for offering prescription drug policies to Medicare beneficiaries. Under this plan, the cost would be $33 per month with a $250 annual deductible. Patients would pay 20 percent of costs from $251 to $1,000 and 50 percent from $1,001 to $2,000. Patients would pay all costs from $2,001 to $3,700, with anything above that covered 100% by the insurers. The estimated cost of this socialist-lite prescription plan for seniors is $350 billion over 10 years. (June 28,2002 Roll Call 282) Ed Bryant voted for this drug plan.

Ed Bryant Budget Votes

As a congressman Ed Bryant had a responsibility to help balance the federal budget. But he never felt obligated enough to do it in these instances. Fiscal 1996 Republican Deficit Budget, House Concurrent Resolution 67. This budget resolution would continue the congressional tradition of increasing overall government spending and passing the buck on balancing the budget to a future Congress. This nonbonding seven-year budget plan would run the federal government $155.6 billion in the red during fiscal year 1996 and continue deficit spending until 2002. Even after 2002, the budget would only be “balanced” by stealing $120.7 billion in surplus funds from Social Security and other trust funds, surplus funds that would be needed when the baby boom generation reaches retirement age. This bill called for spending $74 billion more than the fiscal 1995 budget. (May 18, 1995 Congressional Record, page H5309, roll call 345) Ed Bryant voted for this resolution. (Source: The New American Jan 22, 1996) Fiscal 1996 Budget, Conference Report on House Concurrent Resolution 67. Continuing the congressional tradition of passing the balanced budget buck to a future Congress, this budget resolution calls for fiscal 1996 outlays of $1,587 billion (nearly $69 billion more than in fiscal 1995) and a deficit of 170.3 billion, followed by deficits for at least another three Congresses. The bill actually lists a $108.4 billion deficit for fiscal 2002 but claims a “balanced budget” by stealing that amount from Social Security, the Federal Employee Retirement Trust Fund, and other trust funds. (June 29, 1995 Congressional Record, page H6594, roll call 458) Ed Bryant voted for this resolution. (Source: The New American Jan 22, 1996) Temporary Increase in the National Debt Limit/Stealing From Trust Funds, H.R. 3021. This legislation would allow the President to access the surpluses from federal trust funds such as Social Security for two weeks in order to circumvent the $4.9 trillion statutory debt limit which the federal government would exceed within days of the vote. Failure to pass this legislation would require the federal government to spend within its means by preventing further borrowing. (March 7, 1996 Congressional Record, page H1792, roll call 48) Ed Bryant voted for this increase. (Source: The New American July 8, 1996) Increase in the National Debt Limit, H.R. 3136. This legislation would increase the statutory debt limit from $4.9 trillion to $5.5 trillion. (March 28, 1996 Congressional Record, page H3028, roll call 102) Ed Bryant voted for this increase. (Source: The New American July 8, 1996) Fiscal 1997 Republican Deficit Budget, Conference Report on House Concurrent Resolution 178. With this non-binding budget blueprint, the 104th Congress continues to pass the buck for balancing the budget to a future Congress. The practice of government by deficit continues unabated under this conference report. This legislation calls for a planned deficit of $153.4 billion in fiscal 1997, an increase in the national debt by more than $1 trillion over six years, and increases in total federal government spending by several hundred billion annually by 2002. (June 12, 1996 Congressional Record, page H6267, roll call 236) Ed Bryant voted for this resolution. (Source: The New American October 28, 1996) Automatic Funding of Federal Government, Amendment to H.R. 1469. This amendment would put the federal government’s spending on auto-pilot at the previous year’s funding level if Congress and the President fail to pass a budget by the start of the next fiscal year. Rep. David Obey (D-WI) observed that such an action “rewards inaction by the Congress. It rewards lack of hard choices by the Congress… [It] means we cannot increase the [appropriations] that we agree ought to be increased [or] cut the ones that ought to be cut.” In addition, this amendment would allow Congress to side-step its constitutionally derived spending authority. (May 15, 1997 Congressional Record, pages H2761-62, roll call 134) Ed Bryant voted for this amendment. (Source: The New American August 18, 1997) Fiscal 1998 Budget Resolution, Conference Report on House Concurrent Resolution 84. This budget resolution continues the tradition of calling for more deficit spending for the next fiscal year while postponing the “promised” budget for a future Congress to achieve. Specifically, the five-year blueprint contains fiscal 1998 outlays of $1,692 billion and a projected deficit of $90.5 billion. (June 5, 1997 Congressional Record, page H3516, roll call 166) Ed Bryant voted for this resolution. (Source: The New American August 18, 1997) Debt Limit. This bill (S.2578) would increase the public debt limit by $450 billion for a new ceiling of $6.4 trillion on the National Debt. The supposed need for increasing the debt ceiling by $450 billion demonstrates that the federal government is still on a trajectory of out-of-control spending. Instead of raising the legal limit on what the federal government may borrow. Congress should cut spending. (June 27, 2002 Roll Call 279) Ed Bryant voted for this increase. (Source: The New American November 4, 2002)

Ed Bryant’s unconstitutional Corporate Welfare votes.

Ed Bryant’s unconstitutional Corporate Welfare votes. Our founding fathers never intended for taxpayers to finance private corporations. Elimination of OPIC, Amendment to H.R. 1868. Representative Bernie Sanders (I-VT) offered this amendment to abolish the federal Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), leaving $1 million for the State Department to close the agency. Sanders argued that “the issue here is whether or not multibillion-dollar corporations … need [tax-payer] subsidies and incentives to start factories and plants in other countries[.]” (June 27, 1995 Congressional Record, pages H6336-37, roll call 421) Ed Bryant voted against this amendment. (Source: The New American January 22, 1996) Elimination of the Market Promotion Program, Amendment to H.R. 1976. Representative Dick Zimmer (R-NJ) offered this amendment to eliminate the $110 million in the bill slated for the Market Promotion Program (MPP). Zimmer explained that the MPP “epitomizes corporate welfare and congressional pork at its worst. Since 1986, one and a quarter billion taxpayer dollars have been used by MPP to underwrite the overseas advertising budgets of some of America’s largest and most profitable businesses like Gallo, Blue Diamond, McDonald’s, Burger King, Jim Beam, Hershey’s. “ Noting that the current Congress had given extensive consideration to getting the poor off of welfare, Zimmer reasoned that “it is time we showed the same commitment to getting the rich off welfare.” (July 21, 1995 Congressional Record, Pages H7426-27, roll call 550) Ed Bryant voted against this amendment. (Source: The New American January 22, 1996) Abolition of the Economic Development Administration, Amendment to H.R. 2076. Representative Joel Helfley (R-CO) offered this amendment to the Fiscal 1996 Commerce, Justice, and State Departments appropriations bill to eliminate the $348.5 million funding for the Economic Development Administration (EDA). The EDA makes public works grants and loan guarantees for private corporations in economically distressed areas. Representative Wayne Allard (R-CO), a supporter of the amendment argued: “When we pass out federal dollars or government dollars and then businesses go ahead and compete, it becomes a system of grantsmanship: Who can write up the best grant, who can plead the hardest for what they need.” (July 26, 1995 Congressional Record, page H7751, roll call 579) Ed Bryant voted against this amendment. (Source The New American January 22, 1996) Eliminate Corporate Welfare (Market Access Program), Amendment to H.R. 4101. “This program provides $90 million in taxpayer subsidies per year to agribusinesses to support their international advertising. This is a relic,” Representative Ed Royce (R-CA) said of the USDA’s Market Access Program. (June 24, 1998 Congressional Record, page H5197, roll call 262) Ed Bryant voted against this amendment. (Source: The New American October 26, 1998 Amendment to H.R. 2606 prohibiting corporate subsidy programs. This measure proposed by Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) would prohibit federal funding of three corporate export subsidy programs: The Export-Import Bank, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, and the Trade and Development Agency. The Export-Import Bank alone has approximately $6 billion in outstanding subsidies sunk into Communist China, and Rep. Paul noted that “67 percent of all the funding of the Export-import Bank goes to, not a large number of companies, [but] to five companies… We give them the money. But where do the Goods go? Do the goods go to the American taxpayers? No. They get all of the liabilities. The subsidies help the Chinese.” Hypocritically, several representatives who had supported Normal Trade Relations (MFN) for China on the basis of “free trade” opposed the Paul amendment. To that opposition, Paul exclaimed, “please do not call it free trade anymore. Call it managed trade. Call it subsidized trade. Call it special interest trade.” (August 3, 1999 Roll Call 361) Ed Bryant voted against this amendment. (Source: The New American January 3, 2000) Small Business Administration Reauthorization. This legislation would reauthorize programs and funding levels for the Small Business Administration through fiscal year 2003. This corporate welfare program would be authorized to guarantee $77.3 billion in business loans (and to make direct loans) over a three-year period. The Congressional. Budget Office estimates that enacting this legislation would result in $3.5 billion in new discretionary spending by 2005. (March 15, 2000 Roll Call 49) Ed Bryant voted for this bill. (Source: The New American July 17, 2000) Amendment to defund corporate welfare. During consideration of the agriculture appropriations bill (H.R. 2330), Rep. ED Royce (R-Calif).) offered an amendment to defund the Market Access Program. This program, a form of corporate welfare, provides businesses with funding to promote their agricultural products overseas. (July 11, 2001 Roll Call 220) Ed Bryant voted against this amendment. (Source: The New American December 3, 2001)

Ed Bryant’s unconstitutional Foreign Aid votes.

Ed Bryant’s unconstitutional Foreign Aid votes. The U.S. Constitution does not permit representative's to give taxpayer money to foreign governments. H.R. 1561 This legislation would authorize funding levels for most foreign aid programs and the Department of State at $16.5 billion in fiscal year 1996 and $15.3 billion in fiscal year 1997. Representative Gene Taylor (D-MS) labeled this a “terrible bill.” Taylor remarked that “it is going to waste $16 billion American dollars, money we have to borrow in order to give away…” There is no authorization in the U.S. Constitution for foreign aid giveaways. (June 8, 1995 Congressional Record, page H5734, roll call 366) Ed Bryant voted for this bill. (Source: The New American July 24, 1995) One Percent Foreign Aid Cut, Amendment to H.R. 1868. This amendment by Representative James Traficant (D-OH) would cut by one percent most of the programs in the $12 billion fiscal 1996 foreign aid appropriations bill and would save about $100 million. (June 28, 1995 Congressional Record, page H6521, roll call 442) Ed Bryant voted against this amendment. (Source: The New American January 22, 1996) Foreign Aid Appropriations, Conference Report on H.R. 1868. This Conference report would appropriate $12.1 billion for America’s foreign aid programs during fiscal 1996. (October 31, 1995 Congressional Record, page H11537, roll call 752) Ed Bryant voted for this report. (Source: The New American January 22, 1996) Foreign Aid Appropriations for Fiscal 1997, H.R. 3540. This legislation would give $11.9 billion on giveaways to foreign governments during fiscal 1997. The dollars added to the budget for this program are, in effect, borrowed taxpayer dollars. (June 11, 1996 Congressional Record, pages H6158-59, roll call 228) Ed Bryant voted for this foreign aid. (Source: The New American October 28, 1996) Foreign Aid Appropriations, H.R. 2159. This legislation would appropriate $12.3 billion in foreign aid giveaways during fiscal 1998. (September 4, 1997 Congressional Record, page H6848, roll call 364) Ed Bryant voted for this bill. (Source: The New American July 6, 1998) Foreign Aid Under “Microcredit” Program, H.R. 1129. This legislation would require the director of the U.S. Agency for International Development to provide no-interest loans of up to $300 each to foreign nationals for the purpose of establishing “micro-enterprises.” The loans would be provided through non-governmental organizations and foreign government agencies. (November 9, 1997 Congressional Record, page H10527, roll call 624) Ed Bryant voted for this program. (Source: The New American July 6, 1998) Foreign Aid Appropriations for Fiscal 1998, Conference Report on H.R. 2159. This $13 billion conference report represents the main foreign aid money bill passed by Congress every year. The bill increases the amount of the giveaway by $530 million compared with 1997. (November 13, 1997 Congressional Record, page H107.63, roll call 631) Ed Bryant voted for this report. (Source: The New American July 6 1998) Foreign Aid Appropriations, H.R. 4569. This legislation would appropriate $12.5 billion for foreign aid over fiscal 1999, in addition to a $3.4 billion credit commitment to the International Monetary Fund for recapitalization. (September 17 1998 Congressional Record, page H8013, roll call 449) Ed Bryant voted for this bill. (Source: The New American October 26, 1998) Foreign Aid Cut amendment proposal to H.R. 2606. Representative Tom Campbell (R-CA) proposed this measure to cut $50 million from the foreign aid budget. (July 29, 1999 Roll Call 351) Ed Bryant voted against this proposal. (Source: The New American January 3, 2000) Foreign Aid Appropriations. This legislation would appropriate $12.7 billion during fiscal 2000 for wasteful and unconstitutional foreign aid programs abroad. (August 3, 1999 Roll Call 362) Ed Bryant voted for this bill. (Source: The New American January 3, 2000) Fiscal 2001 Foreign Aid. This bill would direct $13.3 billion for international giveaways and export subsidies. (July 13, 2000 Roll Call 400) Ed Bryant voted for this bill. (Source: The New American November 6, 2000) Foreign Aid and State Department Authorization H.R. 1646. This two-year foreign relations authorization bill would authorize outlays of $16.2 billion over fiscal years 2002-06. The foreign operations bill includes funds for a wide range of foreign aid programs, contributions to international organizations such as the United Nations and the World Bank, and funds for the operations of the Department of State. The bill contains authorizations of $844 million in fiscal 2002 for U.S. participation in United Nations “peacekeeping” wars and $65 million per year for U.S. re-entry into UNESCO. (May 16, 2001 Roll Call 121) Ed Bryant voted for this bill. (Source: The New American July 30, 2001) Foreign Aid for fiscal 2002 H.R. 2506. This bill appropriates $15.2 billion for foreign aid programs in fiscal 2002. (July 24, 2001 Roll Call 266) Ed Bryant voted for this foreign aid. (Source: The New American December 3, 2001) Foreign Aid conference report of H.R. 2506. The final version of H.R. 2506 would appropriate $15.4 billion for foreign aid in fiscal 2002, $403 million more than fiscal 2001. Nearly $1 billion would be earmarked for the Export-import Bank and another $1 billion for the World Bank. Also included is $34 million for United Nations Fund for Population activates, $ 9 million more than last year. (December 19, 2001 Roll Call 505) Ed Bryant voted for this final version. (Source: The New American July 15, 2002)

Ed Bryant MFN votes

Most Favored Nation status lowers import tariff’s to the lowest levels granted and allows U.S. companies and foreign governments to qualify for federally subsidized trade. The Export-Import Bank alone subsidized $2 billion in exports to Communist China in 1996. Representative James Traficant (D-OH) stated “I say a Congress that today will prop up Communism is a Congress that today endangers every worker, every one of our kids, and every one of our grandkids by giving a country $80 billion a year whose missiles are pointed at every major American city, and Taiwan, who we have turned our backs on,” Ed Bryant has repeatedly voted to build up the economy of our Communist enemies. MFN Trade Status for Communist China, House Joint Resolution 182. This joint resolution would disapprove of President Clinton’s decision to grant most favored nation (MFN) trade status to Communist China. MFN not only guarantees a nation the lowest possible tariff rates, but allows the Export-Import Bank, the Commodity Credit Corporation, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, and numerous other federal program to subsidize U.S. exports to the recipient nation with taxpayer dollars. The Export-Import Bank alone has subsidized $3.8 billion in exports to communist China in the last four years under MFN status. Ed Bryant voted against this resolution. (June 27, 1996 Congressional Record, pages H7025-26, roll call 284) (Source: The New American October 28, 1996) Most Favored Nation Trade Status for China, House Joint Resolution 79. This joint resolution would have disapproved of President Clinton’s decision to grant most favored nation (MFN) trade status to Communist China. MFN not only guarantees Red China the lowest possible tariff rates but allows the U.S. Export-Import Bank, the Commodity Credit Corporation, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, and numerous other federal programs to subsidize U.S. exports to the Beijing regime with taxpayer dollars. The Export-Import Bank alone has subsidized $2 billion in exports to Communist China during the past year. Ed Bryant voted against this resolution. (Source: The New American, August 18, 1997) Taxpayer-subsidized Trade With China, House Joint Resolution 121. This resolution would have overturned the President’s decision to grant “Normal Trade Relations” trade status to China for another year. Revocation of Normal Trade Relations (NTR) would have put an end to the communist government’s prodigious use of U.S. government-financed export subsidy programs and raised tariffs on imports from China to a slightly higher rate than the Chinese levy on American exports to China. The brutal Chinese communist government is currently the largest Asian beneficiary of loans and loan guarantees from the U.S. Export-Import Bank, with the taxpayers subsidizing China’s purchase of more than $1.1 billion worth of U.S. goods over the last year. The communist government was also the recipient of hundreds of millions of dollars worth of subsidized agricultural trade through the USDA’s Export Enhancement Program and Export Credit Guarantee Program during fiscal 1998. (July 22, 1998 Congressional Record, page H6119, roll call 317) Ed Bryant voted against this resolution. (Source: The New American, October 26, 1998) MFN/NTR Trade with Red China. Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) proposed that Congress express its disapproval of President Clinton’s waiver granting Communist China U.S. taxpayer subsidized trade under “Normal Trade Relations” (formerly “Most Favored Nation”) status. Revocation of NTR status would impose tariffs on Chinese imports at a slightly higher duty than are levied upon U.S. exports to China, and prevent the U.S. Export-Import Bank and similar agencies from giving lucrative subsidies to China. China is the Ex-Im Bank’s largest customer, with $6 billion in outstanding loans and guarantees. (July 27, 1999 Roll Call 338) Ed Bryant voted against this disapproval. (Source: The New American, January 3, 2000) Permanent Normal Trade Relations for China. This bill would confer Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) status on China and end the annual review process that kept attention on Red China’s espionage and human rights abuses. Although China has yet to comply completely with any trade agreement, granting PNTR would clear the way for China’s entry into the WTO. Although this bill contained some provisions to protect U.S. businesses from import surges, establishes a commission to monitor human rights, and requires the administration to report annually on China’s compliance with trade agreements, none of these measures has the teeth that annual review of Normal Trade Relations has had. Representative James Traficant (D-OH) said” I say a Congress that today will prop up Communism is a Congress that today endangers every worker, every one of our kids, and every one of our grandkids by giving a country $80 billion a year whose missiles are pointed at every major American city, and Taiwan, who we have turned our backs on.” (May 24, 2000 Roll Call 228) Ed Bryant voted for this bill. (Source: The New American July 17, 2000) China NTR Disapproval. This resolution would formally disapprove of the president’s decision to grant Communist China “Normal Trade Relations” (NTR) status and revoke NTR. Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) explained that “the reason why the American corporate community is insisting on normal trade relations status, which is a specific status, is so that those corporations can receive taxpayer subsidies and loan guarantees so they can close up their factories in the United States and open up factories in China to exploit a near slave labor, where people are not permitted to join unions, and do so at the taxpayers risk, U.S. taxpayers’ risk.” (July 18, 2000 Roll Call 405) Ed Bryant voted against this resolution. (Source: The New American November 6, 2000) Disapproval of Normal Trade Relations for Vietnam. This resolution would formally disapprove of the president’s decision to grant Communist Vietnam “Normal Trade Relations” (NTR) status and revoke NTR. It is wrong to grant NTR status to communist Vietnam for the same reasons that it is wrong to grant NTR status to Communist China. “[W]e should put our foot down here today and say dictatorships should not receive this kind of subsidy, especially the dictatorship in Vietnam that has not cooperated in finding our missing in action and POW’s” Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) argued form the House floor. (July 26, 2000 Roll Call 441) Ed Bryant voted against this resolution. (Source: The New American November 6, 2000) China “Normal Trade Relations” Disapproval. House Joint Resolution 50 would have overturned President George W. Bush’s decision to extend Normal Trade Relations (NTR) with China for another year. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), the sponsor of H.J. Res. 50, pointed out that NTR “has nothing to do with free trade… It has everything to do with subsidizing and guaranteeing big businessmen who cannot get their loans guaranteed in the private sector because it is too risky to go and set up factories in China.” (July 19, 2001 Roll Call 255) Ed Bryant voted against this resolution. (Source: The New American December 3, 2001) Vietnam Trade. House Joint Resolution 55 would have disapproved a presidential waiver that allows U.S. companies doing business with Vietnam to qualify for federal aid, including import and export financing and loan guarantees. (July 26, 2001 Roll Call 275) Ed Bryant voted against this resolution. (Source: The New American December 3, 2001) Vietnam Trade. This measure, sponsored by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), would reverse President Bush’s decision in June to extend normal trade relations status to Vietnam for next year. To grant this extension, Bush waived a provision of the 1974 Trade Act restricting U.S. trade with Communist nations limiting emigration. However, the president’s decision can be repealed by Congress under expedited procedures. “It is this procedure that was undertaken again this year by Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., who views the Vietnamese government as ‘gagsters that repress their own people’ and who should not be rewarded with the expanded economy that freer trade might bring, Congressional Quarterly summarized. (July 23, 2002 Roll Call 329) Ed Bryant voted against this measure. (Source: The New American November 4, 2002)

Ed Bryant’s votes against U.S. sovereignty.

Ed Bryant’s votes against U.S. sovereignty. Foreign Aid for NATO Expansion, H.R. 3564. This legislation calls for the inclusion of all former members of the Warsaw Pact nations (except Russia) into a NATO membership track and would fund $60 million in military assistance to speed the inclusion of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is a military alliance formed under the auspices of chapter eight of the United Nations Charter, and member nations pledge that “an armed attack against one or more of them… shall be considered and attack against them all.” Representative Harry Johnston (D-FL) protested: “How many of you have any idea what the expansion of our military obligation will be when we expand NATO?… Are you willing now to commit American soldiers to a border dispute between Lithuania and Russia over the enclave of Kaliningrad? Are you willing to send troops to Latvia because they have a fight with Belarus? Are you willing to send troops to Ukraine because of a conflict with Russia over the Black Sea fleet and Crimea?” (July 23, 1996 Congressional Record, pages H8147-48, roll call 338) Ed Bryant voted for this expansion. (Source: The New American October 28, 1996) Withdrawal from the United Nations, Amendment to H.R. 1757. During consideration of the State Department authorization bill, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) introduced this amendment to get the U.S. out of the United Nations. This measure also called for repealing the United Nations Participation Act of 1945, closing the United States Mission to the United Nations, repealing the United Nations Headquarters Agreement Act, and terminating U.S. participation in UN peacekeeping operations. (June 4, 1997 Congressional Record page H3343, roll call 163) Ed Bryant voted against this amendment. (Source: The New American August 18, 1997) Creation of a Global Criminal Court, Motion on H. Con. Res. 137. This non-binding resolution would urge the President and the Secretary of State to “work actively and urgently within the international community for the adoption of a United Nations Security Council resolution establishing an International Criminal Court for Iraq.” The orders of this new UN court would likely be enforced by risking the lives of American servicemen, and the court could easily be expanded into a general global criminal court, which could try Americans. Opposing the measure, Rep Ron Paul (R-TX) asked: “Where is it the authority of the Constitution for us to police the world?” (November 13, 1997 Congressional Record, pages H10916-17, roll call 637) Ed Bryant voted for this motion. (Source: The New American July 6, 1998) De-funding the United Nations. Representative Ron Paul (R-TX), proposed a measure that would eliminate all funding for the United Nations from the State Department Reauthorization bill, H.R. 2415. Rep. Paul explained that “this does not get us out of the United Nations. It is a step in the right direction, obviously,” A necessary step because this year alone the United Nations has called for confiscation of nearly all civilian-owned firearms, global taxation without representation, a world central bank, world financial controls with a redistributive mechanism, an unlimited ability to intervene in a nation’s internal affairs, and a global criminal court without the habeas corpus guarantee and other rights Americans are accustomed to in our courts. (July 20, 1999 Roll Call 314) Ed Bryant voted against this bill. (Source: The New American January 3, 2000) WTO Withdrawal. Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) offered this resolution to withdraw the United States from the World Trade Organization. Paul explained that U.S. membership in the WTO “is an unconstitutional approach to managing trade. We cannot transfer the power to manage trade from the Congress to anyone. The Constitution is explicit. ‘Congress shall have the power to regulate foreign commerce.’ We cannot transfer that authority. Transferring that authority to the WTO is like the President transferring his authority as Commander in Chief to the Speaker of the House.” (June 21, 2000 Roll Call 310) Ed Bryant voted against withdrawal. (Source: The New American November 6, 2000) De-funding the United Nations. During consideration of the appropriations bill for the Commerce, Justice, and State Departments (H.R. 2500), Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) offered an amendment that stated: “None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be used for any United States contribution to the United Nations or any affiliated agency of the United Nations.” Paul’s intent was to effectively get the U.S. out of the UN by cutting off U.S. contributions to the UN. (July 18, 2001 Roll Call 245). Ed Bryant Voted against this amendment. (Source: The New American December 3, 2001) NATO Expansion. This bill’s self-described purpose (H.R. 3167) is: “To endorse the vision of further enlargement of the NATO Alliance articulated by President George W. Bush on June 15, 2001, and by former President William J. Clinton on October 22, 1996…” In this bill the House “… reaffirms its [Congress’] previous expressions of support for continued enlargement of the NATO Alliance contained in the NATO Participation Act of 1994, the NATO Enlargement Facilitation Act of 1996, and the European Security Act of 1998…” This bill also authorizes a total of $55.5 million in military aid for fiscal 2002 for Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Bulgaria, and Romania. However, Congress should be acting to preserve our national sovereignty by getting our nation out of NATO. NATO was established as a subsidiary of the United Nations by the North Atlantic Treaty (April 4, 1949), which stated in its Article 1: “The Parties undertake, as set fourth in the Charter of the United Nations, … to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.” (November 7, 2001 Roll Call 431) Ed Bryant voted for this expansion. (Source: The New American July 15, 2002) War Authorization Against Iraq. This joint resolution (House Joint Resolution 114) authorizes the president “to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.” However, since the Constitution gives Congress the sole responsibility for declaring war, this resolution represents congressional abdication of its responsibility. Furthermore, the main thrust of the joint resolution is that the president is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States to “strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.” That is, the purpose of the resolution is to enforce UN Security Council dictates. (October 10, 2002 Roll Call 455) Ed Bryant voted for this authorization. (Source: The New American November 4, 2002)