[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 100 (Tuesday, July 15, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H5188-H5189]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        AMERICA'S FOREIGN POLICY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 21, 1997, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Paul] is recognized 
during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, it is currently an accepted cliche to say 
foreign policy is a Presidential matter and Congress should not meddle. 
Frequently we hear the pleading to remain bipartisan with no dissent, 
especially when troops are placed in harm's way. Yet no place in the 
Constitution do we find any such explicit instruction. Instead, we find 
no mention of foreign policy.
  To the contrary, we find strict prohibitions placed on the President 
when it comes to dealing with foreign nations.
  The Constitution is clear. No treaties can be entered into without 
the consent of the Senate. No war may be fought without the declaration 
of war by the Congress.
  No money shall be spent overseas without Congress first raising the 
money and then authorizing it and appropriating these funds for 
specific purposes.
  Since the Constitution does not even assume a standing army, let 
alone stationing troops in peacetime in over 100 countries, with CIA 
clandestine activities in even more, the current foreign policy that 
has evolved over the past 100 years would surely be unrecognizable by 
the authors of that document.
  The founders of this country were opposed to standing armies for fear 
they would be carelessly used. They were right.
  The U.S. record of foreign intervention and its failures have not yet 
prompted a serious discussion of the need for an overall reassessment 
of this dangerous and out-of-control policy. Not only has Congress 
failed in its responsibilities to restrain our adventurous Presidents 
in pursuing war, spying, and imposing America's will on other nations 
by installing leaders and at times eliminating others throughout the 
world these past 50 years, we now, by default, have allowed our foreign 
policy to be commandeered by international bodies like NATO and the 
United Nations nations. This can only lead to trouble for the United 
States and further threaten our liberties, and we have already seen 
plenty of that in this century.
  It looks like our current President, who was less than excited about 
serving in the military himself, was quite eager to promote U.S. 
complicity in the escalating dangerous activity in Bosnia. What has 
been done so frequently in the name of peace more often than not has 
led to war and suffering, considering Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, and even 
the Persian Gulf war.
  Clinton has not been willing to phase out the Selective Service 
Department and has actually asked for additional funding to include the 
Selective Service process in his domestic so-called voluntary 
AmeriCorps program.
  But this failed policy of foreign intervention is being pursued once 
again in Bosnia with full acknowledgment and funding by the Congress. 
Congress has failed to exert its veto over this dangerous game our 
President is determined to play in this region.
  Sensing that maybe soon the Congress will finally cut the purse 
strings on this ill-advised military operation, pushed hard by 
Secretary of State Albright, policymakers are quietly and aggressively 
escalating the tension, placing our nearly 8,000 troops in even greater 
danger while further destabilizing a region never prone to be stable 
over this century, with the certain outcome that Congress will further 
capitulate and provide funding for extension and escalation of the 
military operation.
  In spite of some resistance in the Congress, the current escalation 
is likely to prevent any chance of withdrawal of our troops by next 
summer.
  The recent $2 billion additional funds in the supplemental 
appropriation bill

[[Page H5189]]

was the cue to the President that the Congress will not act to stop the 
operation when under pressure to support the troops. Of course, common 
sense will tell us that the best way to support our troops is to bring 
them home as quickly as possible. This idea, that support for the 
troops once they are engaged means we must continue the operation no 
matter how ill-advised and perpetuate a conflict that makes no sense, 
but that is what President Clinton is depending on.
  Last week the whole operation in Bosnia changed. The arrest and 
killing of war criminals by occupation forces coming from thousands of 
miles away is a most serious escalation of the Bosnia conflict. For 
outside forces to pronounce judgment on the guilt or innocence of 
warring factions in a small region of the world is a guarantee that the 
conflict will escalate. I think those pursuing this policy know this. 
Prosecuting war criminals is so fraught with danger it seems the need 
to escalate surpassed all reason.
  Yet immediately after the NATO operation, supported by the United 
States, that resulted in the death of a Serb leader, Clinton strongly 
suggested that the troops may well not be able to leave in June of 1998 
as promised. They were first supposed to leave in December of 1996, and 
now 18 months after their arrival, the departure date is indefinite, 
and we in the Congress tragically continue to fund the operation.
  This illegal and dangerous military operation will not go unnoticed 
and will embolden the Serbs and further stir the hatred of the region. 
Is this policy based on stupidity or is there a sinister motive behind 
what our world leaders do?
  Must we have perpetual war to keep the military appropriations 
flowing? Does our military work hand in glove in securing new markets? 
It is not a hidden fact that our own CIA follows our international 
corporate interests around the globe engaging in corporate espionage 
and installing dictators when they serve these special interests.
  Why would an Air Force plane, with a dozen leading industrialists, be 
flying into a war-torn region like Bosnia, along with the Secretary of 
Commerce? I doubt they were on a humanitarian mission to feed the poor 
and house the homeless.
  The lobbyists who pushed the hardest to send troops to Bosnia came 
from corporations who are now reaping great profits from construction 
work in Bosnia. It may be the calculation is for a slight escalation of 
the conflict--that inevitably will accompany any attempt to try war 
criminals--and no one plans for another great war breaking out in this 
region.
  What might be planned is just enough conflict to keep the 
appropriations coming. But the possibility of miscalculation is very 
real. The history of this region should surely warn us of the dangers 
that lurk around the corner.
  We, in the Congress, have a great responsibility in reversing this 
policy. We must once again assume this responsibility in formulating 
foreign policy and not acquiesce to the President's pressure to 
perpetuate a serious misdirected policy of foreign meddling 4,000 miles 
away from home. We must not fall for the old line that we cannot leave, 
because to do so, we would not be patriotically ``supporting our 
troops.'' That is blatant nonsense.
  We have already invested $7.7 billion in this ill-advised military 
adventure. That money should have either remained in the pockets of 
working Americans or spent here in the United States.
  The New York Times has praised this recent action by Clinton and the 
NATO forces and has called for more of the same. The New York Times and 
the Washington Post also support the notion that our troops will have 
to stay in this region for a lot longer than the middle of next year.
  The military industrial complex and its powerful political supporters 
continue to be well represented in the media and in Washington. 
Unfortunately, the idea that America is responsible to police the world 
and provide the funding and the backup military power to impose 
``peace'' in all the disturbed regions of the world remains a policy 
endorsed by leaders in both parties.
  The sooner this policy is challenged and changed, the better off we 
will be. Our budget will not permit it; it threatens our national 
security, and worst of all, it threatens our personal liberties.

                          ____________________