Designating the Outstation of the Department of Veterans Affairs in North Ogden, Utah, As the Major Brent Taylor Vet Center Outstation

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PAUL. Madam President, our country was founded upon the concept and in the midst of a great boycott. At the time, we were boycotting British goods and, most specifically, British tea. There is likely nothing more American than to protest, to dissent, and to boycott.

In fact, our Founding Fathers--many of them, including Sam Adams and the Sons of Liberty--gathered in 1773, dressed as Indians, and dumped 90,000 pounds of British tea into the harbor. Some of our Founding Fathers were actually involved with trying to smuggle and import Dutch tea to get around the rules and to get around having to be so dependent on England.

But this was a boycott. The sad thing today is that we will be debating whether or not to place limitations on the First Amendment right to boycott, and we will do it because the vast majority of this body disagrees with the concept of what the people are boycotting over.

I would argue that it doesn't matter what the issue is. In fact, the First Amendment is to protect issues of speech and issues of boycott that you may disagree with.

I am not particularly enamored with--in fact, I don't favor--the boycott of Israel. I think Israel has been a good ally. Yet the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the freedom to protest, and the freedom to boycott are fundamentally American. How can we give that up so easily? How can we just say: Oh, well, it is a good ally, and we don't want anybody boycotting them. We are just going to amend the First Amendment because we don't like this boycott.

Our Founding Fathers would roll over in their graves if they knew what we were doing today.

I stand today at Henry Clay's desk. This desk has been passed down to the Senator from Kentucky ever since he left the Senate in 1850. In 1809, before he arrived here, there was a boycott of British goods. In fact, there was an official embargo that Jefferson had put on when we were upset with what the British were doing on the high seas with confiscating our ships, and we decided to have an organized embargo, a boycott.

In Kentucky, Henry Clay was still in the State legislature, and he proposed a rule saying that the legislators themselves should not wear British clothing. It was opposed by a guy named Humphrey Marshall, who was a cousin of the fourth Chief Justice John Marshall. They got into heated words, at which time Henry Clay, wearing his American homespun clothing, was confronted by Humphrey Marshall, who came in wearing what was described as garish English imports, and he called Henry Clay a demagogue for passing this legislation.

Well, Henry Clay gave it right back and called him a liar, at which point the words accelerated, and they were about to come to blows when a massive 6-foot-6-inch German-American legislator jumped in between them and stopped the fight from ensuing on the floor.

Henry cooled down. Henry Clay decided to apologize. He apologizes to the body and gives his apology, and Marshall jumps up and shouts back, ``It is the apology of a poltroon,'' which is an old-fashioned word for coward.

Things didn't get much better after that, and Henry Clay challenged him to a duel. It was illegal--and still is illegal--to have a duel in Kentucky. So they went across the river in Louisville and fought a duel, at which time Henry Clay was wounded in the thigh.

In those days, even though the laws were against dueling, you were often rewarded for dueling by getting a promotion. So the State legislature, within a week or two, elected Henry Clay to go to the U.S. Senate to represent them.

So not only are boycotts a big part of our history, but this particular boycott actually elevated Henry Clay to the U.S. Senate to become one of the most famous Senators in our history.

As for other famous boycotts, there was a boycott of the buses in Montgomery in 1955 and 1956. The boycott went on for 382 days. It was set off, as you will recall, by Rosa Parks' refusing to be seated in the back of the bus. But this boycott was about speech, and it was about law, and it was about justice.

Now, people would say: Well, I agreed with that boycott. That is OK. It is OK to have good boycotts that I agree with, but it is not OK to have boycotts I disagree with.

I will make this argument. If today this body votes to encourage this idea that legislatively we should penalize people who boycott, I will argue today that--guess what--if you can penalize boycotts you disagree with, you may well find some day that people are penalizing boycotts that you agree with. If you have the power to disallow boycotts you don't like, you are now granting to the government the power to ban boycotts that you may well like.

The thing is this: Should the majority get to decide, well, that is a good boycott and that is a bad boycott, and you can say certain types of speech as long as I agree with you?

No, the freedom of speech--the First Amendment--is about allowing language you don't like. It is about allowing boycotts you may not like.

If you go through our history, our history is replete with boycotts, from the Boston Tea Party to the boycott around the War of 1812 of British goods, to the bus boycott in Montgomery--boycott after boycott. It is a fundamental aspect of the First Amendment.

You don't believe me? Listen to the Supreme Court. In NAACP vs. Claiborne Hardware, Blacks were protesting a Whites-only store that wouldn't allow service or allow sales to Blacks. They boycotted the store, and guess what. The Supreme Court said, 8 to 0, that you can boycott, particularly if your boycott is based on speech or it is based on a political viewpoint.

Now, while I don't agree with people who want to boycott Israel, if you live in our country, or wherever you live, and you don't like their policies, do you not have a right to boycott? Are we somehow going to take away your right to boycott because we disagree with what you are boycotting over?

I have a short list here of a few different things that we have boycotted over, and they range, interestingly, on both sides of the coin. Most recently, people on the left who don't like President Trump have boycotted Ivanka Trump's fashion brand.

A year or two ago, Christians boycotted Disney over what they considered to be liberal movies or movies they didn't appreciate because of the families depicted.

In North Carolina, liberals boycotted the North Carolina transgender bathroom law.

People have boycotted Chick-fil-A because the CEO was opposed to same-sex marriage.

The Dixie Chicks criticized George W. Bush, and they were boycotted.

It doesn't matter whether you agree with any of these boycotts. Boycotts are speech. How could we possibly boycott someone's speech? But that is what is going on.

About 20 States have passed these laws, and what we are now considering before our body is putting our imprimatur--our stamp of approval--which we are going to put on these States that are penalizing boycotts.

So who are some of the people that we are going to penalize?

In Texas, there is a speech pathologist who has lost her job. She was working for the school system. She has been in this country 30 years. Her name is Bahia Amawai. She has been here 30 years. She is a U.S. citizen. She speaks three languages. She works with children with autism, disabilities, and speech impediments.

Her contract was not renewed because they told her she had to sign a pledge that she will not boycott Israel. She also had to sign a pledge that she would never do anything economically or refrain from any action--buying a product--with anyone who does business in Israel or does business in an area they call the Israeli-controlled territory.

There has been a dispute for 30 or 40 years over the West Bank, whether the Palestinians should have more autonomy, whether it should be a country, whether it should be a province of Israel, whether they should vote, whether they should not vote. This is a political debate.

This woman has an opinion that she doesn't want to sign this pledge. She no longer works.

We heard on the floor from one of my colleagues yesterday. He said: Well, it is the government's money. The government's money shouldn't be used to allow a boycott.

Well, if you are a teacher and you get a salary, is that still the government's money after you have done your job and you have your paycheck? Should a teacher be prevented from boycotting or expressing their speech through an economic action or, really, through an economic inaction by not buying something?

It is the whole idea of ``not.'' A boycott is not even doing anything. A boycott is refusing to buy someone's product.

How could we possibly be in favor of that? How could we have such clouded judgment that this body, which has such historic importance, is going to vote to place a ban on freedom of speech? How could that possibly happen in our country?

This woman has been denied her job. It is her main job. She worked for the school district. She had a contract. Her contract has been denied because she refuses to sign a pledge saying she will not buy a product from somebody that she disagrees with politically.

How did we get here? How can we possibly even be considering such absurd limitations on the First Amendment?

This one is even worse. In Arkansas, the newspaper, the Arkansas Times, routinely takes ads. That is how newspapers make money. One of the groups that advertises with them is the State university. The State university will no longer advertise with this newspaper unless they fine them first or give them some kind of penalty. They will not advertise with them unless the newspaper signs a statement saying that they will not be critical of policies in Israel.

How could we possibly say to a newspaper that you can't do business with the State if you criticize a policy in Israel? How could that possibly be the American way?

The vast majority of the people here, like sheep, will fall all over themselves today to vote to try to limit your right to boycott.

People say you don't have a right to a job, but what if you are with a State? What if you are a teacher and that is whom you have always worked for and you have worked for the government? Can we start placing rules because the government pays you on what your political viewpoint is?

Arkansas says: Well, the newspaper can do it, but they would have to pay a 20-percent penalty.

So if you have certain viewpoints or you refuse to bow down to the government and bow down to the opinion the government tells you is appropriate, we will let you work for the government, but you get penalized 20 percent.

Imagine when this becomes another view, when this becomes some other issue you are interested in. Probably the most famous boycott in history other than the Montgomery bus boycott over segregation was the anti-apartheid boycott that ultimately led to a change of government and a change of policy. That wasn't done with automatic weapons. That wasn't done with tanks. That wasn't done with planes and bombs. That was done by good old-fashioned protest, peaceful protest, by agreeing not to buy something.

Can you imagine the State is putting into place laws that punish you for not buying something, for refusing to buy something from someone? It is galling. Will this be declared unconstitutional? Nobody knows for sure other than the men and women of the Supreme Court, but in NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware, eight to zero they said it was unconstitutional to ban or limit any boycott if that boycott is about speech or political views. Well, clearly that is what this is about--political views.

In two of the States that have passed these laws--Kansas and Arizona--there have already been protests and court cases.

In Kansas, there is a woman by the name of Esther Koontz. She is a Mennonite, and she is a math teacher. She has been a math teacher for about a decade. She has a contract with the school system to teach other teachers about teaching math and science. She said she couldn't in good conscience sign a pledge saying she would never boycott any group who originated out of Israel. What happened to her? She was fired or she couldn't continue in the job she had been in for I think a decade. Her case went to court. Guess what. The court said it is unconstitutional. You cannot limit behavior. You cannot limit employment with the government based on one's political views. So on the first challenge, it was struck down as unconstitutional.

We go to Arizona. For political reasons, Mikkel Jordahl boycotts consumer goods made in Israel. This is America. You don't have to agree with what he is doing, but in America, you have the right to protest. You have the right to boycott. For 12 years, he has been doing legal services for the local county jail. They brought in his contract, and in his contract, they said: You have to pledge that you will no longer support any activities that agree with your political viewpoint that you don't like Israel's policy. He went to court. Guess what the court said. The law is unconstitutional.

These laws have gone to Federal court twice--once in Kansas and once in Arizona--and have been struck down. So what is this august body going to do? We are going to take it right up, and we are going to say: By golly, keep passing these unconstitutional laws in the States. We got your back.

It has already been struck down twice by two Federal district courts. The Supreme Court has said that the concept of limiting boycotts is unconstitutional. The First Amendment says that Congress can't pass a law limiting speech, and here, we are going to pass a law encouraging the limitation of speech.

One of the famous boycotts was obviously the Montgomery bus boycott. The anti-apartheid boycotts were famous as well, but even if you go further back in our history to about the time of the Boston Tea Party and beyond--another boycott--you find that people were boycotting the slave trade. There were people boycotting buying sugar out of the Caribbean because they didn't want to have any of that money going to supporting the slave trade.

I would argue that the right to boycott is about as fundamental a right as we have in America. It is a big part of the First Amendment. It is an important part of the First Amendment. It is a fundamental aspect of freedom to be able to dissent, to protest, even when everybody thinks you are wrong. That is what America is about--that you have the right to protest and that the government will not squelch your speech.

How did we get to this point where flippantly today we are going to encourage States to put limitations on the First Amendment? I don't know how we got here.

When we look at the First Amendment--and some will say: Well, you know, this is just the State government. We are just allowing States' rights.

Well, here is the thing about States' rights: Ever since the civil rights era, we have decided that the Bill of Rights applies to the States. The 14th Amendment, going all the way back to the time of the Civil War, incorporated the 1st Amendment. Many of the boycotts have actually been in favor of civil rights. Just because this one is a boycott about something else that you may or may not like or may or may not support doesn't mean we should place limitations on it.

If we begin to do this--it is a road that some may say is paved with good intentions--we will be headed toward a time where speech will be regulated by our government, where the idea of dissent and the idea of protest will be judged on whether people think or the majority of the body thinks that the protest is in order, whether the majority of the body thinks you should be allowed to protest. How un-American. I can't think of anything more un-American than trying to limit the ideas and actions of a boycott.

I remember when I was in college, the women of the Southern Baptist Convention said they didn't like pornographic magazines out in the open where kids could see them. They didn't even ask the legislature for a law. They actually did better than asking the legislature for a law; they simply marched out in front of all the convenience stores. They did it for about a month. Guess what. Convenience stores decided they didn't like people protesting and everybody talking about them, so they put the magazines behind the counter. That is the American way. Nobody forced them to do it; they did it under public protest and public pressure.

The idea that we want to pass a law today that says to the States: Oh, we like the First Amendment, but if we don't like what they are saying and we don't like what they are protesting, it is OK to punish these people. It is OK to say to the woman in Texas who feels very strongly about this issue in Israel that she can't be employed anymore by the school district because of her political views.

I can't imagine that this is isn't going to be struck down by the Supreme Court. In NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware, the Supreme Court was unanimous--eight to zero.

How did we get here?

I would say that I hope my colleagues will listen to the debate and that there will be a spirited debate on the First Amendment, but don't hold your breath. You can see there is no one here other than me. They won't listen. The hope is that the American people will listen and say: How did we vote to send people to Washington who are so careless with the Constitution that they are willing to vote to ban boycotting, that they are willing to vote for something that has already been struck down by two Federal district courts, something that has already been ruled on by the U.S. Supreme Court, and they are going to go ahead and vote anyway because they don't like this particular boycott?

The First Amendment isn't about popular speech; the First Amendment is about protecting unpopular speech.

My hope is that across America, people are listening and that they will call their representatives today, call their Senators and say: How could you? How dare you take the First Amendment, crumple it up, and say ``Oh, today we are going to limit the First Amendment to only boycotts we approve of. We are going to limit it to speech we approve of.'' What a disgrace. What a terrible day in our history, that we are going to take the First Amendment, crumple it up, stomp on it, and simply say: Oh, we are afraid of that speech, so we are going to ban it.

I think it has the opposite effect. I think it only encourages the protest.

What I would say to my colleagues is, think long and hard today before you vote to place limitations on the First Amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source