[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 59 (Wednesday, April 28, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H2457-H2458]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      MORAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL WARS MUST BE FOUGHT IN SELF DEFENSE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, we have heard from several Members already 
about being unhappy with the legislative process today. The votes did 
not go exactly the way I wanted, but I am not all that unhappy with 
what happened because there was a serious effort for this House to 
restore some of the responsibility that they have allowed to gravitate 
to the administration and to our Presidents over the many years.
  Today's legislative process was chaotic, but I think it was chaotic 
for a precise reason. We are trying to rectify something that has been 
going on for more than 50 years, and it is not just this President. It 
is every President that we have had since World War II.

[[Page H2458]]

We have in the Congress permitted our Presidents too much leeway in 
waging war.
  This was an effort today to restore that responsibility to the House. 
It was done sloppily, but considering the alternative of doing nothing, 
this was much better.
  So I am very pleased with what happened today. I am disappointed that 
there was such strong feelings about the outcome. But I suspect they 
were not unhappy with the process as much as they were unhappy with not 
winning the votes.
  But nevertheless the votes were very important today. One of the most 
significant, if not the most significant: we on this House floor today 
voted up and down on a war resolution. This is not done very often and 
under the circumstances that exist today, probably the first time.
  But that was an easy vote. The House overwhelmingly voted not to go 
to war. This makes a lot of sense. This is a very good vote. Why should 
we go to war against a country that has not aggressed against us?
  So this was normal and natural and a very good vote. The problem 
comes with the other votes because they do not follow a consistent 
pattern.
  I think there are too many Members in this House who have enjoyed the 
fact that they have delivered the responsibility to the President. They 
do not want war, but they want war. They do not want a legal war, 
they want an illegal war. They do not want a war to win, they want a 
war that is a half of a war. They want the President to do the dirty 
work, but they do not want the Congress to stand up and decide one way 
or the other.

  Today we saw evidence that the Congress was willing to stand up to 
some degree and vote on this and take some responsibility. For this 
reason I am pleased with what happened. So voting against the war that 
has no significant national security interest makes a lot of sense to 
me.
  Another vote, the vote to withhold ground troops unless Congress 
authorizes the funding for this; this is not micromanaging anything. 
This is just the Congress standing up and accepting their 
responsibilities. So this in many ways was very good. This means that 
the people in this country, as they send their messages to the Members 
of Congress, are saying that this war does not make a whole lot of 
sense. If the people of this country were frightened, if they felt like 
they were being attacked, if they felt like their liberties were 
threatened, believe me the vote would have been a lot different.
  But I am very pleased that this House stood up and said:
  Mr. President, you have overstepped your bounds already. Slow up. Do 
not get this notion that you should send in ground troops. It makes no 
sense to this House.
  Now the interesting thing is that was a resolution, it was a House 
Resolution, that probably really does not have much effect other than a 
public relation effect because it would have to be passed by the 
Senate, it would be vetoed by the President, we would have to override 
his veto. So, in the practical legislative sense it does not mean a 
whole lot, but it means something in the fact that we brought it to the 
floor and we were required to vote on it.
  Another resolution that was defeated unfortunately, and it was 
defeated by a two-to-one margin; this would have said that the 
President would have to cease, we should have told him to cease, 
because we have not given him the right to wage war. As a matter of 
fact, even today we said there will be no war, there will be no 
declaration of war, so we should consistently follow up and say what we 
should do is withdraw and not fight a war.
  Likewise, when we come to the endorsement of the military bombing, 
fortunately it went down narrowly. But it in itself, too, does not have 
any legal effect. That is a House Concurrent Resolution that has no 
effect of law other than the public relations effect of what the 
Congress is saying.
  But I think it is a powerful message that the American people have 
spoke through this House of Representatives today to not rubber stamp 
an illegal, unconstitutional and immoral war. The only moral war is a 
war that is fought in self-defense. Some claim that this is a moral war 
because there are people who have been injured. But that is not enough 
justification. The moral and constitutional war has to be fought in 
self-defense.

                          ____________________