HR 180 Help Explain Why Ron Voted Against This

[kylejack]

This vote is killing all my efforts. This bill cuts off federal contracts for companies doing business with the Janjaweed and provides a list of those companies to the public.

 

[Ed W]

...

 

[kylejack]

It doesn't really make those assertions, though. It just acknowledges that the House made those assertions previously.

 

[Gee]

This vote is killing all my efforts. This bill cuts off federal contracts for companies doing business with the Janjaweed and provides a list of those companies to the public.

Not exactly. It prevents future contracts from being made with companies trading in securities in Sudan. Current contracts are not cut off. American companies are already prohibited from doing this, but this bill lists and prevents government involvement in companies which do so inadvertently through other foreign investments. In other words, it doesn't really do a damn thing.

Its really just another case of people criticizing a vote without reading the bill.

 

[angelatc]

This vote is killing all my efforts. This bill cuts off federal contracts for companies doing business with the Janjaweed and provides a list of those companies to the public.

Try calling his office in Washington. They'll tell you.

 

[AMack]

Taken from Kara28277 in a comment on dailykos.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paul would be against these two sections:

"C) urges the Administration to seriously consider multilateral intervention to stop genocide in Darfur should the United Nations Security Council fail to act ; and

(D) calls on the Administration to impose targeted sanctions, including visa bans and the freezing of assets of the Sudanese National Congress and affiliated business and individuals directly responsible for the atrocities in Darfur."

Sounds awful familiar in regards to how we got ourselves into this Iraq War mess - for which Paul was of only a handful of nuts to oppose back in 2003, yet Paul was right on. Does not make Hillary and the Dems look so bright for voting for this mess in Iraq.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/...

Here are Paul's exact words regarding an earlier and similar piece of Darfur legislation. I'll be looking for his comments on this most recent legislation and will post them.

"Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this incredibly dangerous legislation. I hope my colleagues are not fooled by the title of this bill, 'Declaring genocide in Darfur, Sudan.' This resolution is no statement of humanitarian concern for what may be happening in a country thousands of miles from the United States. Rather, it could well lead to war against the African country of Sudan. The resolution 'urges the Bush Administration to seriously consider multilateral or even unilateral intervention to prevent genocide should the United Nations Security Council fail to act.' We must realize the implications of urging the President to commit the United States to intervene in an ongoing civil war in a foreign land thousands of miles away.

"Mr. Speaker, this resolution was never marked-up in the House International Relations Committee, on which I serve. Therefore, Members of that committee had no opportunity to amend it or express their views before it was sent to the Floor for a vote. Like too many highly controversial bills, it was rushed onto the suspension calendar (by House rules reserved for 'non-controversial' legislation) at the last minute. Perhaps there was a concern that if Members had more time to consider the bill they would cringe at the resolution’s call for US military action in Sudan – particularly at a time when our military is stretched to the breaking point. The men and women of the United States Armed Forces risk their lives to protect and defend the United States. Can anyone tell me how sending thousands of American soldiers into harm’s way in Sudan is by any stretch of the imagination in the US national interest or in keeping with the Constitutional function of this country’s military forces? I urge my colleagues in the strongest terms to reject this dangerous resolution."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/...

I see Paul as seeing authorizing "the Administration to seriously consider multilateral intervention" in both the present and past bills as being unconstitutional since only the congress has the authority to wage war with an up and down vote. Paul makes an interesting point without saying it - why does congress not just pass the bill without the unconstitutional presidential intervention clause, and if military intervention is needed, then have congress vote on it?

The answer - same as for the Iraq War resolution. Members of congress don't wan't to vote on miliatry force and have it come back and bite them, so just unconsitutionally pass it on to the president. The whole constitutional point of actually having congress vote to go to war (or intervene in a civil war) is so that the people are behind it and a plan is in place - as opposed to Bush's invasion of Iraq that was a joke with no real planning and with no exit strategy. I'd prefer to trust the whole congress on an up and down vote with using military force in Darfur than Bush, so I agree with Paul.

I also refer you to a previous post in this thread:

"It's not about religion or ethnicity; it's about killing natives off their land so Chinese/Malasian/Indian companies can get the oil.

"The exact same scenario played out in southern Sudan in the early 70's. Chevron found oil. 'Someone' started funding militias which attacked the natives and Chevron for a while. After everyone was driven away, other oil firms moved in, and now all the oil pumped in southern Sudan goes to asia. Even better, none of the local people get any of the money from it; it all goes to Khartoum in the north which uses it to buy weapons to repeat the process in Darfur.

"And for extra great victory, Washington has been funneling money, weapons, and training for Sudanese rebels via Chad, in order to check the power and influence of China/chinese money in the region.

There isn't going to be an easy solution in Darfur."

Hmmmm..... wasn't oil an issue with this great Iraq War, even though it was never admitted? And why is the price of gas so high? THINK a little folks, before jumping to hysterical conclusions.

No doubt Paul is against the genocide in Darfur, and no doubt he would have voted for the bill if it did not authorize Bush to start another unplanned war with no exit strategy that is really based on commercial interests that will cost lives of American soldiers over MONEY, not the honorable notion of stopping genocide.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[LibertyEagle]

You can call his Congressional office and ask them the question. http://www.house.gov/paul/

 

[ZackM]

This is direct text from the bill
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:2:./temp/~c110xiE2cQ:e493:

(C) urges the Administration to seriously consider multilateral intervention to stop genocide in Darfur should the United Nations Security Council fail to act; and

I can't speak for Paul, but considering this bill is congress asking the executive to "strongly consider" military intervention might clue us in.

Why congress wants to give the executive more discretionary authority for military action is kind of puzzling. If they want action, demand it - it's within their power.

 

[kylejack]

Okay, but I did read the bill, and that's not what I'm coming away with. If a multinational company has an American branch, this bill asks that branch to report whether its subsidiaries or parent companies are doing business in Sudan, and if so, the nature of the business. This bill then directs the federal government to stop doing business with such companies if it appears that its Janjaweed business. Frankly, it seems entirely sensible and constitutional.

 

[Ed W]

...

 

[Gee]

AMack, those "urgings" are only listed as being a part of a previous bill.

Okay, but I did read the bill, and that's not what I'm coming away with. If a multinational company has an American branch, this bill asks that branch to report whether its subsidiaries or parent companies are doing business in Sudan, and if so, the nature of the business. This bill then directs the federal government to stop doing business with such companies if it appears that its Janjaweed business. Frankly, it seems entirely sensible and constitutional.

It only refers to companies trading in securities in certain areas of Sudan. And I really doubt most Sudan businesses should be penalized for something their government does, especially in such a completely ineffective way.

 

[kylejack]

This is direct text from the bill
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:2:./temp/~c110xiE2cQ:e493:

(C) urges the Administration to seriously consider multilateral intervention to stop genocide in Darfur should the United Nations Security Council fail to act; and

I can't speak for Paul, but considering this bill is congress asking the executive to "strongly consider" military intervention might clue us in.

Why congress wants to give the executive more discretionary authority for military action is kind of puzzling. If they want action, demand it - it's within their power.

Sure, its taken directly from the bill. But its taken out of context.

(1) In the 108th Congress, the House of Representatives adopted House Concurrent Resolution 467 on July 22, 2004, by a unanimous vote of 422-0, which--

(A) declares that the atrocities unfolding in the Darfur region of Sudan, are genocide;

(B) declares that the Government of Sudan has violated the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide;

(C) urges the Administration to seriously consider multilateral intervention to stop genocide in Darfur should the United Nations Security Council fail to act; and

(D) calls on the Administration to impose targeted sanctions, including visa bans and the freezing of assets of the Sudanese National Congress and affiliated business and individuals directly responsible for the atrocities in Darfur.

(2) In the 109th Congress, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 3127, the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act of 2006, on April 5, 2006, by a vote of 416-3, which--

(A) appeals to the international community, including the United Nations, the European Union, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), to immediately mobilize sufficient political, military, and financial resources to support and expand the African Union Mission in Sudan (AMIS);

(B) blocks assets and restricts travel of any individual the President determines is responsible for acts of genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity in the Darfur region of Sudan; and

(C) offers United States support for the International Criminal Court's efforts to prosecute those responsible for acts of genocide in Darfur.

Thus, the bill simply says: The Congress passed these things in the past.

It does not assert it for THIS bill.

 

[Kregener]

If this one bill is "killing all your efforts", you might be wasting your time on contrarians.

 

[kylejack]

Ahhh, upon closer inspection, section "C" is merely being quoted from an earlier bill... its already history.

However, I have found something else...

In Section 5 subsection B it lists a series of 'Exemptions from the law of divestment. Among the entities 'exempted' from the law are The African Union Mission to Sudan and the United Nations, which would still be allowed to recieve contracts from third parties for military equipment, supplies and weapons. Since Dr. Paul doesn't support these international organizations or their efforts, especially in regards to arming them to carry out international mandates with weapons subsidized by our government, he may have voted against it on that exemtion provision alone...
Example would be: Let's say Americans are investing in A Russian based company... Aramark would be a good example. The government would allow it to continue under Section 5(b). Under the exception provision, Aramark could still recieve American investment, if it was supplying the U.N., African Union Mission, or other international entity with any manner of weapons, equipment or supplies, this creates a logical paradox as well if it was also selling to the Repuiblic of Sudan, but that's just too complicted. The point is it clearly allows American subsidized arms deals to go through with entities in Sudan and the exception simply allows more militarization in the area to continue. That is the only other thing I can find, the rest is just technical legal jargon. I'd be interested to see what his office says.

I've sent e-mail to the campaign. I can try calling the office later.

Even with the exemption, its a net positive. Right now, the federal government can do business with any company currently doing business in Sudan. This takes away new contracts from many of those companies while, yes, those exemptions can still be contracted with, like companies that are selling military equipment to the missions. There's no backslide on this bill, is my point. It doesn't authorize any currently illegal business.

 

[Gee]

Warren Buffet presents a good argument of how divestment in Sudan could very likely aid the genocidal government:
http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/sudan.pdf

As usual in economics, you have to ask "what is unseen?", or as Berkshire Hathaway puts it, "and then what?"

Divestment of hard capital means local sources will only buy up that capital at discount prices, meaning MORE profits for Sudan.

 

[ZackM]

Sure, its taken directly from the bill. But its taken out of context.



Thus, the bill simply says: The Congress passed these things in the past.

It does not assert it for THIS bill.

I stand corrected! I clearly need more practice reading legislation - i'd probably fit right in on capitol hill

Thanks for point that out.

 

[kylejack]

Sure thing.

 

[specsaregood]

I posted this in the other thread on this subject:

Here is RP's official statement. Courtesy of his Congressional office:

Statement of Congressman Paul on HR 180
Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act
7.30.07

Madam Speaker, HR 180 is premised on the assumption that divestment, sanctions, and other punitive measures are effective in influencing repressive regimes, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth. Proponents of such methods fail to remember that where goods cannot cross borders, troops will. Sanctions against Cuba, Iraq, and numerous other countries failed to topple their governments. Rather than weakening dictators, these sanctions strengthened their hold on power and led to more suffering on the part of the Cuban and Iraqi people. To the extent that divestment effected change in South Africa, it was brought about by private individuals working through the market to influence others.

No one denies that the humanitarian situation in Darfur is dire, but the United States government has no business entangling itself in this situation, nor in forcing divestment on unwilling parties. Any further divestment action should be undertaken through voluntary means and not by government fiat.

HR 180 is an interventionist piece of legislation which will extend the power of the federal government over American businesses, force this country into yet another foreign policy debacle, and do nothing to alleviate the suffering of the residents of Darfur. By allowing state and local governments to label pension and retirement funds as state assets, the federal government is giving the go-ahead for state and local governments to play politics with the savings upon which millions of Americans depend for security in their old age. The safe harbor provision opens another dangerous loophole, allowing fund managers to escape responsibility for any potential financial mismanagement, and it sets a dangerous precedent. Would the Congress offer the same safe harbor provision to fund managers who wish to divest from firms offering fatty foods, growing tobacco, or doing business in Europe?

This bill would fail in its aim of influencing the government of the Sudan, and would likely result in the exact opposite of its intended effects. The regime in Khartoum would see no loss of oil revenues, and the civil conflict will eventually flare up again. The unintended consequences of this bill on American workers, investors, and companies need to be considered as well. Forcing American workers to divest from companies which may only be tangentially related to supporting the Sudanese government could have serious economic repercussions which need to be taken into account.

 

[ThePieSwindler]

thats pretty much the response i expected, and it makes sense, especially in context of what warren buffet said. This was predictable. Are your efforts reinstated kylejack?

 

[MusoSpuso]

I posted this in the other thread on this subject:

Here is RP's official statement. Courtesy of his Congressional office:

Statement of Congressman Paul on HR 180
Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act
7.30.07

Madam Speaker, HR 180 is premised on the assumption that divestment, sanctions, and other punitive measures are effective in influencing repressive regimes, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth. Proponents of such methods fail to remember that where goods cannot cross borders, troops will. Sanctions against Cuba, Iraq, and numerous other countries failed to topple their governments. Rather than weakening dictators, these sanctions strengthened their hold on power and led to more suffering on the part of the Cuban and Iraqi people. To the extent that divestment effected change in South Africa, it was brought about by private individuals working through the market to influence others.

No one denies that the humanitarian situation in Darfur is dire, but the United States government has no business entangling itself in this situation, nor in forcing divestment on unwilling parties. Any further divestment action should be undertaken through voluntary means and not by government fiat.

HR 180 is an interventionist piece of legislation which will extend the power of the federal government over American businesses, force this country into yet another foreign policy debacle, and do nothing to alleviate the suffering of the residents of Darfur. By allowing state and local governments to label pension and retirement funds as state assets, the federal government is giving the go-ahead for state and local governments to play politics with the savings upon which millions of Americans depend for security in their old age. The safe harbor provision opens another dangerous loophole, allowing fund managers to escape responsibility for any potential financial mismanagement, and it sets a dangerous precedent. Would the Congress offer the same safe harbor provision to fund managers who wish to divest from firms offering fatty foods, growing tobacco, or doing business in Europe?

This bill would fail in its aim of influencing the government of the Sudan, and would likely result in the exact opposite of its intended effects. The regime in Khartoum would see no loss of oil revenues, and the civil conflict will eventually flare up again. The unintended consequences of this bill on American workers, investors, and companies need to be considered as well. Forcing American workers to divest from companies which may only be tangentially related to supporting the Sudanese government could have serious economic repercussions which need to be taken into account.

P0WNED!