[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 18 (Thursday, February 8, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H232-H236]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 3, 2001, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) is recognized for
60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I have asked for this special order today to
express my concerns for our foreign policy of interventionism that we
have essentially followed throughout the 20th century.
Mr. Speaker, foreign military interventionism, a policy the U.S. has
followed for over 100 years, encourages war and undermines peace. Even
with the good intentions of many who support this policy, it serves the
interests of powerful commercial entities.
Perpetual conflicts stimulate military spending. Minimal and small
wars too often get out of control and cause more tragedy than
originally anticipated. Small wars, like the Persian Gulf War, are more
easily tolerated, but the foolishness of an out of-control war like
Vietnam is met with resistance from a justifiably aroused Nation.
But both types of conflicts result from the same flawed foreign
policy of foreign interventionism. Both types of conflict can be
prevented. National security is usually cited to justify our foreign
involvement, but this excuse distracts from the real reason we venture
so far from home. Influential commercial interests dictate policy of
when and where we go. Persian Gulf oil obviously got more attention
than genocide in Rwanda.
If one were truly concerned about our security and enhancing peace,
one would always opt for a less militaristic policy. It is not a
coincidence that U.S. territory and U.S. citizens are the most
vulnerable in the world to terrorist attacks.
Escalation of the war on terrorism and not understanding its causes
is a dangerous temptation. Not only does foreign interventionism
undermine chances for peace and prosperity, it undermines personal
liberty. War and preparing for war must always be undertaken at
someone's expense. Someone must pay the bills with higher taxes, and
someone has to be available to pay with their lives.
It is never the political and industrial leaders who promote the
policy who pay. They are the ones who reap the benefits, while at the
same time arguing for the policy they claim is designed to protect
freedom and prosperity for the very ones being victimized.
Many reasons given for our willingness to police the world sound
reasonable: We need to protect our oil; we need to stop cocaine
production in Colombia; we need to bring peace in the Middle East; we
need to punish our adversaries; we must respond because we are the sole
superpower, and it is our responsibility to maintain world order; it is
our moral obligation to settle disputes; we must follow up on our
dollar diplomacy after sending foreign aid throughout the world. In the
old days, it was, we need to stop the spread of communism.
The excuses are endless. But it is rarely mentioned that the
lobbyists and the proponents of foreign intervention are the weapons
manufacturers, the oil companies, and the recipients of huge contracts
for building infrastructures in whatever far corners of the Earth we
send our troops. Financial interests have a lot at stake, and it is
important for them that the United States maintains its empire.
Not infrequently, ethnic groups will influence foreign policy for
reasons other than preserving our security. This type of political
pressure can at times be substantial and emotional. We often try to
please too many, and by doing so support both sides of conflicts that
have raged for centuries. In the end, our effort can end up unifying
our adversaries while alienating our friends.
Over the past 50 years, Congress has allowed our Presidents to usurp
the prerogatives the Constitution explicitly gave only to the Congress.
The term ``foreign policy'' is never mentioned in the Constitution, and
it was never intended to be monopolized by the President. Going to war
was to be strictly a legislative function, not an executive one.
Operating foreign policy by executive orders and invoking unratified
treaties is a slap in the face to the rule of law and our republican
form of government. But that is the way it is currently being done.
U.S. policy over the past 50 years has led to endless illegal
military interventions, from Korea to our ongoing war with Iraq and
military occupation in the Balkans. Many Americans have died and many
others have been wounded or injured or have just simply been forgotten.
Numerous innocent victims living in foreign lands have died as well
from the bombings and the blockades we have imposed. They have been
people with whom we have had no fight but who were trapped between the
bad policy of their own leaders and our eagerness to demonstrate our
prowess in the world. Over 500,000 Iraqi children have reportedly died
as a consequence of our bombing and denying food and medicine by our
embargo.
For over 50 years, there has been a precise move towards one-world
government at the expense of our own sovereignty. Our Presidents claim
that our authority to wage wars come from the United Nations or NATO
resolution, in contradiction to our Constitution and everything our
Founding Fathers believed.
U.S. troops are now required to serve under foreign commanders and
wear U.N. insignias. Refusal to do so prompts a court-martial.
The past President, before leaving office, signed the 1998 U.N.-Rome
treaty indicating our willingness to establish an international
criminal court. This gives the U.N. authority to enforce global laws
against Americans if ratified by the Senate. But even without
ratification, we have gotten to the point where treaties of this sort
can be imposed on non-participating nations.
Presidents have, by executive orders, been willing to follow
unratified treaties in the past. This is a very dangerous precedent. We
already accept the international trade court, the WTO. Trade wars are
fought with the court's supervision, and we are only too ready to
rewrite our tax laws as the WTO dictates.
The only portion of the major tax bill at the end of the last
Congress to be rushed through for the President's signature was the
foreign sales corporation changes dictated to us by the WTO.
[[Page H233]]
For years the U.S. has accepted the international financial and
currency management of the IMF, another arm of one-world government.
The World Bank serves as the distributor of international welfare, of
which the U.S. taxpayer is the biggest donor. This organization helps
carry out a policy of taking money from poor Americans and giving it to
rich foreign leaders, with kickbacks to some of our international
corporations.
Support for the World Bank, the IMF, the international criminal
court, always comes from the elites and almost never from the common
man. These programs, run by the international institutions, are
supposed to help the poor, but they never do. It is all a charade. If
left unchecked, they will bankrupt us and encourage more world
government mischief.
It is the responsibility of Congress to curtail this trend by
reestablishing the principles of the U.S. Constitution and our national
sovereignty. It is time for the United States to give up its membership
in all these international organizations.
Our foreign policy has led to an incestuous relationship between our
military and Hollywood. In December, our Secretary of Defense used
$295,000 of taxpayers' money to host a party in Los Angeles for
Hollywood bigwigs. Pentagon spokesman Kenneth Bacon said it was well
worth it. The purpose was to thank the movie industry for putting the
military in a good light.
A similar relationship has been reported with TV stations licensed by
the U.S. Government. They have been willing to accept suggestions from
the government to place political messages in their programming. This
is a dangerous trend, mixing government and the media. Here is where
real separation is needed.
Our policy should change for several reasons. It is wrong for our
foreign policy to serve any special interest, whether it is for
financial benefits, ethnic pressures, or some contrived moral
imperative. Too often the policy leads to an unintended consequence,
and more people are killed and more property damaged than was intended.
Controlling world events is never easy. It is better to avoid the
chance of one bad decision leading to another. The best way to do that
is to follow the advice of the Founders and avoid all entangling
alliances, and pursue a policy designed solely to protect U.S. national
security interests.
The two areas in the world that currently present the greatest danger
to the United States are Colombia and the Middle East. For decades we
have been engulfed in the ancient wars of the Middle East by
subsidizing and supporting both sides. This policy is destined to fail.
We are in great danger of becoming involved in a vicious war for oil,
as well as being drawn into a religious war that will not end in our
lifetime.
The potential for war in this region is great, and the next one could
make the Persian Gulf War look small. Only a reassessment of our entire
policy will keep us from being involved in a needless and dangerous war
in this region.
It will be difficult to separate any involvement in the Balkans from
a major conflict that breaks out in the Middle East. It is impossible
for us to maintain a policy that both supports Israel and provides
security for western-leaning secular Arab leaders, while at the same
time taunting the Islamic fundamentalists. Push will come to shove, and
when that happens in the midst of an economic crisis, our resources
will be stretched beyond the limit. This must be prevented.
Our involvement in Colombia could easily escalate into a regional
war. For over 100 years, we have been involved in the affairs of
Central America, but the recent escalation of our presence in Colombia
is inviting trouble for us. Although the justification for our enhanced
presence is the war on drugs, protecting U.S. oil interests and selling
helicopters are the real reasons for the last year's $1.3 billion
emergency funding.
Already neighboring countries have expressed concern about our
presence in Colombia. The U.S. policymakers gave their usual response
by promising more money and support to the neighboring countries that
feel threatened.
Venezuela, rich in oil, is quite nervous about our enhanced presence
in the region. Their foreign minister stated that if any of our ships
enter the Gulf of Venezuela, they will be expelled. This statement was
prompted by an overly aggressive U.S. Coast Guard vessel intrusion into
Venezuela's territorial waters on a drug expedition. I know of no one
who believes this expanded and insane drug war will do anything to
dampen drug usage in the United States, yet it will cost us plenty.
Too bad our political leaders cannot take a hint. The war effort in
Colombia is small now, but under current conditions, it will surely
escalate. This is a 30-year-old civil war being fought in the jungles
of South America. We are unwelcome by many, and we ought to have enough
sense to stay out of it.
Recently, new policy has led to the spraying of herbicides to destroy
the coca fields. It has already been reported that the legal crops in
the nearby fields have been destroyed, as well. This is no way to win
friends around the world.
There are many other areas of the world where we ought to take a
second look and then come home. Instead of bullying the European Union
for wanting to have their own rapid deployment force, we should praise
them and bring our troops home.
World War II has been over for 55 years. It is time we look at Korea
and ask why we have to broker, with the use of American dollars and
American soldiers, the final settlement between North and South Korea.
Taiwan and China are now trading and investing in each other's country.
Travel restrictions have been recently liberalized. It is time for us
to let the two of them settle their border dispute.
We continue to support Turkey with dollars and weapons. We once
supported Iraq with the same. Now, we permit Turkey, armed with
American weapons, to kill Kurds in Iraq, while we bomb the Iraqis if
they do the same. It makes no sense.
Selling weapons to both factions of almost all the major conflicts of
the past 50 years reveals that our involvement is more about selling
weapons than spreading the message of freedom. That message can never
be delivered through force to others over their objection. Only a
policy of peace, friendship, trade, and our setting a good example can
inspire others to look to what once was the American tradition of
liberty and justice for all. Entangling alliances will not do it. It is
time for Congress and the American people to wake up.
The political system of interventionism always leads to social
discord. Interventionism is based on relative rights, majoritarianism,
and disrespect for the Constitution. Degenerating moral standards of
the people encourages and feeds on this system of special interest
favoritism, all of which contributes to the friction.
Thomas Jefferson was worried that future generations might one day
squander the liberties the American Revolution secured. Writing about
future generations, Jefferson wondered if, in the enjoyment of plenty,
they would lose the memory of freedom. He believed material abundance
without character is the path to destruction.
{time} 1045
The challenge to America today is clearly evident. We lack character.
And we also suffer from the loss of respect, understanding, and faith
in the liberty that offers so much. The American Republic has been
transformed and only a remnant remains. It appears that, in the midst
of plenty, we have forgotten about freedom.
We have just gone through a roaring decade with many Americans
enjoying prosperity beyond their wildest dreams. Because this wealth
was not always earned and instead resulted from borrowing, speculation
and inflation, the correction that is to come will contribute to the
social discord already inherent in a system of government
interventionism.
If indeed the economy enters a severe recession, which is highly
possible, it will compound the problems characteristic of a system that
encourages government supervision over all that we do.
Conflicts between classes, races and ethnic groups and even
generations are already apparent. This is a consequence of pitting
workers and producers against the moochers and the special-interest
rich. Divvying up half of the GDP through a process of confiscatory
taxation invites trouble. It is
[[Page H234]]
more easily tolerated when wealth abounds. But when the economy slips,
quiescent resentment quickly turns to noisey confrontation.
Those who feel slighted become more demanding at the same time
resources are diminished. But the system of government we have become
accustomed to have has for decades taken over responsibilities that
have never intended to be the prerogative of the Federal Government
under the Constitution.
Although mostly well-intended, the efforts at social engineering have
caused significant damage to our constitutional republic and have
resulted in cynicism toward all politicians.
Our presidents now are elected by less than 20 percent of those old
enough to vote. Government is perceived to be in the business of
passing out favors rather than protecting individual liberty. The
majority of the people are made up of independents and non-voters.
The most dramatic change in the 20th century social attitudes was the
acceptance of abortion. This resulted from a change in personal
morality that then led to legislation nationally through the courts and
only occurred by perverting our constitutional system of government.
The Federal costs should never have been involved, but the Congress
compounded the problem by using taxpayers' funds to perform abortions
both here and overseas. Confrontation between the pro-life and pro-
abortion forces is far from over. If governments were used only to
preserve life rather than act as an accomplice in the taking of life,
this conflict would not nearly be so rancorous.
Once a society and a system of laws deny the importance of life,
privacy and personal choices are difficult to protect. Since abortions
have become commonplace, it has been easier to move the issue of active
euthanasia to center stage. As Government budgets become more
compromised, economic arguments will surely be used to justify
reasonable savings by not wasting vital resources on the elderly.
Issues like abortion and euthanasia do not disappear in a free
society but are handled quite differently. Instead of condoning or
paying for such act, the State is responsible for protecting life
rather than participating in taking it. This is quite a different role
for Government than we currently have.
We can expect the pro-life and pro-abortion and euthanasia groups to
become more vocal and confrontational in time as long as Government is
used to commit acts that a large number of people find abhorrent.
Partial-birth abortion dramatize the issue at hand and clearly
demonstrates how close we are to legalizing infanticide. This problem
should be dealt with by the States and without the Federal courts or
the U.S. Congress involvement.
The ill-conceived drug war of the past 30 years has caused great harm
to our society. It has undermined privacy and challenged the
constitutional rights of all our citizens. The accelerated attack on
drug usage seen since the early 1970s has not resulted in any material
benefit. Over $300 billion has been spent on this war, and we are less
free and poorer because of it. Civil liberties are sacrificed in all
wars, both domestic and foreign.
It is clear that even if it were a legitimate function for Government
to curtail drug usage, eliminating bad habits through Government
regulation is not achievable. Like so much else the Government tries to
do, the harm done is not always evenly distributed. Some groups suffer
more than others, further compounding the problem by causing dissention
and distrust.
Anthony Lewis of The New York Times reported last year, ``The 480,000
men and women now in U.S. prisons on drug charges are 100,000 more than
all prisoners in the European Union, where the population is 100
million more than ours.''
There are 10 times the number of prisoners for drug offenses than
there were in 1980, and 80 percent of the drug arrests are for
nonviolent possession. In spite of all the money spent and energy
wasted, drug usage continues at a record pace.
Some day we must wake up and realize the Federal drug war is a farce,
it has failed, and we must change our approach.
As bad as drug addiction is and the harm it causes, it is minuscule
compared to the dollar cost, the loss of liberty and social conflict
that results from our ill-advised drug war.
Mandatory drug sentencing have done a great deal of harm by limiting
the discretion that judges could use in sentencing victims in this drug
war. Congress should repeal or change these laws just as we found it
beneficial to modify seizure and for forfeiture laws 2 years ago. The
drug laws, I am sure, were never meant to be discriminatory. Yet they
are.
In Massachusetts, 82.9 percent of the drug offenders are minorities,
but they make up only 9 percent of the State population. The fact that
crack-cocaine users are more likely to land in prison than powder-
cocaine users and with harsher sentences discriminates against black
Americans.
A wealthy suburbanite caught using drugs is much less likely to end
up in prison than someone from the inner city. This inequity adds to
the conflict between races and between the poor and the police. And it
is so unnecessary.
There are no documented benefits from the drug war. Even if reduction
in drug usage could have been achieved, the cost in dollars and loss of
liberty would never have justified it. But we do not have that to deal
with since drug usage continues to get worse.
In addition, we have all the problems associated with the drug war.
The effort to diminish the use of drugs and to improve the personal
habits of some of our citizens has been the excuse to undermine our
freedoms.
Ironically, we spend hundreds of billions of dollars waging this
dangerous war on drugs while Government educational policies promote a
huge and dangerous overusage of Ritalin. This makes no sense
whatsoever.
Seizure and forfeiture laws, clearly in violation of the
Constitution, have served as a terrible incentive for many police
departments to raise money for law enforcement projects outside the
normal budgeting process. Nationalizing the police force for various
reasons is a trend that should frighten all Americans. The drug war has
been the most important factor in this trend.
Medicinal use of illegal drugs, in particular, marijuana, has been
prohibited and greater human suffering has resulted. Imprisoning a
person who is dying from cancer and AIDS for using his own self-
cultivated marijuana is absolutely bizarre and cruel.
All addiction, alcohol and illegal drugs, should be seen as a medical
problem, not a legal one. Improving behavior just for the sake of
changing unpopular habits never works. It should never be the
responsibility of government to do so. When government attempts to do
this, the government and its police force become the criminals.
When someone under the influence of drugs, alcohol, also a drug, or
even from the lack of sleep, causes injury to another, local law
enforcement officials have a responsibility. This is a far cry from the
Justice Department using Army tanks to bomb the Davidians because
Federal agents claimed an amphetamine lab was possibly on the premises.
An interventionist government, by its nature, uses any excuse to know
what the people are doing. Drug laws are used to enhance the IRS
agent's ability to collect every dime owed the government. These laws
are used to pressure Congress to use more dollars for foreign military
operations in places, such as Colombia. Artificially high drug prices
allow governments to clandestinely participate in the drug trade to
raise funds to fight the secret controversial wars with off-budget
funding. Both our friends and foes depend on the drug war at times for
revenue to pursue their causes, which frequently are the same as ours.
The sooner we wake up to this seriously flawed approach to fighting
drug usage, the better.
The notion that the Federal Government has an obligation to protect
us from ourselves drives the drug war. But this idea also drives the
do-gooders in Washington to involve themselves in every aspect of our
lives.
American citizens cannot move without being constantly reminded by
consumer advocates, environmentalists, safety experts and
bureaucratic busybodies what they can or cannot do.
Once government becomes our protector, there are no limits. Federal
regulations dictate the amount of water in
[[Page H235]]
our commodes and the size and shape of our washing machines.
Complicated USDA regulations dictate the size of the holes in Swiss
cheese. We cannot even turn off our automobile air bags when they
present a danger to a child without Federal permission.
Riding in a car without a seatbelt may be unwise, but should it be a
federal crime? Why not make us all wear rib pads and football helmets
that would reduce serious injuries and save many dollars for the
government health system.
Regulations on holistic medicine, natural remedies, herbs and
vitamins are now commonplace and continue to grow. Who gave the
Government the right to make these personal decisions for us? Are the
people really so ignorant that only the politicians and bureaucrats can
make these delicate decisions for them?
Today, if a drug shows promise for treating a serious illness and
both patient and doctor would like to try it on an experimental basis,
permission can be given only by the FDA and only after much begging.
Permission frequently is not granted, even if the dying patient is
pleading to take the risk.
The Government is not anxious to give up any of its power to make
these decisions. People in Government think that is what they are
supposed to do for the good of the people. Free choice is what freedom
is all about and it means freedom to take risks, as well.
As a physician deeply concerned about the health of all Americans, I
am convinced that the Government encroachment into the health care
choices has been very detrimental.
There are many areas where the Federal Government has been involved
when they should not have and created more problems than it solved.
There is no evidence that the Federal Government has improved education
or medicine in spite of the massive funding and mandates of the last 40
years, yet all we hear is a call for increased spending and more
mandates.
How bad will it get before we reject the big government approach is
anybody's guess.
Welfarism and government interventionism are failed systems and
always lead to ever more intrusive government.
The issue of privacy is paramount. Most Americans and Members of
Congress recognize the need to protect everyone's privacy. But the loss
of privacy is merely the symptom of an authoritarian government.
Effort can and should be made, even under today's circumstances, to
impede the Government's invasion of privacy. But we must realize that
our privacy and our liberty will always be threatened as long as we
instruct our Government to manage a welfare state and to operate a
foreign policy as if we are the world's policemen.
If the trends we have witnessed over the past 70 years are not
reversed, our economic and political system will soon be transposed
into a fascist system. The further along we go in that direction, the
more difficult it becomes to reverse the tide without undue suffering.
This cannot be done unless respect for the rule of law is restored.
That means all public officials must live up to their promise to follow
the written contract between the people and the Government, the U.S.
Constitution.
{time} 1100
For far too long, we have accepted the idea that government can and
should take care of us. But that is not what a free society is all
about. When government gives us something, it does two bad things.
First, it takes it from someone else; second, it causes dependency on
government. A wealthy country can do this for long periods of time, but
eventually the process collapses. Freedom is always sacrificed and
eventually the victims rebel. As needs grow, the producers are unable
or unwilling to provide the goods the government demands. Wealth then
hides or escapes, going underground or overseas, prompting even more
government intrusion to stop the exodus from the system. This only
compounds the problem.
Endless demands and economic corrections that come with the territory
will always produce deficits. An accommodating central bank then is
forced to steal wealth through the inflation tax by merely printing
money and creating credit out of thin air. Even though these policies
may work for awhile, eventually they will fail. As wealth is
diminished, recovery becomes more difficult in an economy operating
with a fluctuating fiat currency and a marketplace overly burdened with
regulation, taxes and inflation.
The time to correct these mistakes is prior to the bad times, before
tempers flare. Congress needs to consider a new economic and foreign
policy.
Why should any of us be concerned about the future, especially if
prosperity is all around us? America has been truly blessed. We are
involved in no major military conflicts. We remain one of the freest
nations on Earth. Current economic conditions have allowed for low
unemployment and a strong dollar, with cheap purchases from overseas
further helping to keep price inflation in check. Violent crimes have
been reduced; and civil disorder, such as we saw in the 1960s, is
absent.
We have good reason to be concerned for our future. Prosperity can
persist, even after the principles of a sound market economy have been
undermined; but only for a limited period of time.
Our economic, military, and political power, second to none, has
perpetuated a system of government no longer dependent on the
principles that brought our Republic to greatness. Private-property
rights, sound money and self-reliance have been eroded; and they have
been replaced with welfarism, paper money, and collective management of
property. The new system condones special-interest cronyism and rejects
individualism, profits and voluntary contracts.
Concern for the future is real, because it is unreasonable to believe
that the prosperity and relative tranquility can be maintained with the
current system. Not being concerned means that one must be content with
the status quo and that current conditions can be maintained with no
negative consequences. That, I maintain, is a dream.
There is growing concern about our future by more and more Americans.
They are especially concerned about the moral conditions expressed in
our movies, music and television programs. Less concern is expressed
regarding the political and economic system. A nation's moral
foundation inevitably reflects the type of government and, in turn,
affects the entire economic and political system.
In some ways I am pleasantly surprised by the concern expressed about
America's future, considering the prosperity we enjoy. Many Americans
sense a serious problem in general, without specifically understanding
the economic and political ramifications.
Inflation, the erosion of the dollar, is always worse than the
government admits. It may be that more Americans are suffering than
generally admitted. Government intrusion in our lives is commonplace.
Some unemployed are not even counted. Lower middle-class citizens have
not enjoyed an increase in the standard of living others have. The
fluctuation in the stock market may have undermined confidence.
Most Americans still believe everyone has a right to a free
education, but they don't connect this concept to the evidence: That
getting a good education is difficult; that drugs are rampant in public
schools; that safety in public schools is a serious problem; and that
the cost is amazing for a system of free education if one wants a real
education.
The quality of medical care is slipping and the benefits provided by
government are seen by more and more people to not really be benefits
at all. This trend does not make Americans feel more confident about
the future of health care. Let there be no doubt, many Americans are
concerned about their future, even though many still argue that the
problem is only that government has not done enough.
I have expressed concern that our policies are prone to lead to war,
economic weakness, and social discord. Understanding the cause of these
problems is crucial to finding a solution. If we opt for more
government benevolence and meddling in our lives, along with more
military adventurism, we have to expect an even greater attack on the
civil liberties of all Americans, both rich and poor.
America continues to be a great country, and we remain prosperous. We
[[Page H236]]
have a system of freedom and opportunities that motivate many in the
world to risk their lives trying to get here.
The question remains, though, can we afford to be lax in the defense
of liberty at this juncture in our history? I do not think so.
The problems are not complex, and even the big ones can be easily
handled if we pursue the right course. Prosperity and peace can be
continued, but not with the current system that permeates Washington.
To blindly hope our freedom will remain intact without any renewed
effort in its defense or to expect that the good times will
automatically continue places our political system in great danger.
Basic morality, free markets, sound money, and living within the rule
of law, while clinging to the fundamental precepts that made the
American Republic great, are what we need. And it is worth the effort.
____________________