[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.

                          ____________________