[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 2 (Thursday, January 4, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H133-H134]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
BALANCING THE BUDGET IN 7 YEARS IS NEITHER RADICAL OR EXTREME
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan] is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I have two things to say about the budget
debate: First, the overwhelming majority of the American people do not
believe it is radical or extreme, in any way, to require the Federal
Government to balance its budget in 7 years; and second, if this was a
Republican President in office, the national media would be pointing
out every day and in fact harping on the fact that the President has
still not submitted a balanced budget plan some 6 or 7 weeks after he
promised to do so.
Apparently he is keeping the Government shut down because he sees
partisan political advantage in doing so.
Now on the something else, also related to the budget, and that is
the spending of billions and billions of our tax dollars in Rwanda,
Haiti, Somalia, and now Bosnia.
Anyone who opposed all this waste has been insulted with the
description of isolationist, even if that description was totally
inaccurate and even if they wanted trade and friendly relations with
all nations. It is just not politically correct or fashionable today to
be an isolationist.
That is why I read with such great interest a syndicated column this
past Tuesday by Charley Reese, which I include for the Record.
Mr. Reese does not live inside the beltway, and he frequently writes
with such great commonsense that he is about as plain spoken and
politically incorrect as you can get these days.
Time will not permit me to read all of his column, but I would like
to read most of it. These are words you do not often hear in
Washington, at least in polite company.
The column previously referred to is as follows:
[From The Sentinel, Jan. 2, 1996]
(By Charley Reese)
Those of us who oppose squandering American flesh and
treasure in foreign places where we have no national
interests are called isolationists by the internationalists.
That's OK. It is intended as an insult, as when Alan Ladd
called Jack Palance a ``low-down lying Yankee dog'' in Shane.
We Americans understand that because the internationalists
are too embarrassed (or afraid of prosecution) to tell the
truth, they have no choice but to resort to name-calling and
wind-bagging to rationalize these misadventures.
Wind-bagging is when you toss out a lot of undefinable
words and phrases such as ``saving America's soul,''
``maintaining American leadership,'' ``preserving
stability,'' or ``moral obligation.''
It would be embarrassing indeed if the internationalists
were forced to explain why they have a moral obligation to
intervene in a foreign civil war while they feel no moral
obligation at all to tell the American people the truth,
rebuild their infrastructure or balance their budget.
[[Page H134]]
. . . Washington said ``It is our policy to steer clear of
permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.
The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign
nations, is in extending commercial relations to have with
them as little political connection as possible.''
America prospered under that policy and could prosper under
it again. Why do Americans have to defend 300 million
Europeans from 150 million bankrupt Russians? That's the
question Pat Buchanan asks, and it's a question Americans
ought to ask of every internationalist politician. Why do
Americans have to enforce peace in Bosnia? Why do Americans
have to finance peace treaties in the Middle East? Why do
Americans have to rebuild Bosnia when (a) we didn't tear it
up, and (b) our own cities need rebuilding?
Medal of Honor winner and Marine Gen. Smedley Butler, who
became an isolationist, said, ``I spent 33 years [in the
Marines] * * * most of my time being a high-class muscleman
for big business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short,
I was a racketeer for capitalism.''
What we isolationists are in favor of are: peace, friendly
relations with all countries, trade, independence and respect
for the independence of others, American prosperity, American
liberty and American security. We are also in favor of sound
war-making capability to defend America, and no place else.
____________________