[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 2 (Thursday, January 24, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H59-H62]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     THE CASE FOR DEFENDING AMERICA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Akin). 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.


             Discharge Petition on Campaign Finance Reform

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, before I get into my Special Order that deals 
with foreign policy, in which I make the case for defending America, I 
would like to make a few comments about the campaign finance reform and 
the discharge petition that was just mentioned by our previous 
colleagues.
  I do not share the enthusiasm that they do about bringing such a bill 
to the floor. I certainly do not share the enthusiasm of passing such 
legislation, because it sets us backwards if our goal here is to defend 
liberty and minimize the size of government.
  The one thing I agree with him entirely on is that the problem 
exists. There is no doubt there is a huge influence of money here in 
Washington, and even in my prepared statement I mention how 
corporations influence our foreign policy and that something ought to 
be done about it; but campaign finance reform goes in exactly the wrong 
direction. It just means more regulations, more controls, telling the 
American people how they can spend their money and how they can lobby 
Congress and how they can campaign. That is not the problem.
  The problem is that we have Members of Congress that yield to the 
temptation and influence of money. If we had enough Members around here 
that did not yield to the temptation, we would not have to have 
campaign finance reform, we would not have to regulate money, we would 
not have to undermine the first amendment, and we would not have to 
undermine the Constitution in that effort.
  I agree we have a problem, but I believe the resistance could be here 
without much change. The ultimate solution to the need for campaign 
finance reform comes only when we have a constitutional-type 
government, where government is not doing the things they should be 
doing. There is a logical incentive for corporations and many 
individuals to come to Washington, because they can buy influence and 
buy benefits and buy contracts. The government was never meant to do 
that.
  The government was set up to protect liberty, and yet we have devised 
a system here where money talks and it is important; but let me tell my 
colleagues one thing, the Campaign Finance Reform Act that is coming 
down the pike will do nothing to solve the problem and will do a lot to 
undermine our freedoms, a lot to undermine the first amendment and do 
nothing to preserve the Constitution.
  My Special Order, as I said, has to do with foreign policy. It is 
entitled ``The Case for Defending America.'' As we begin this new 
legislative session, we cannot avoid reflecting on this past year. All 
Americans will remember the moment and place when tragedy hit us on 
September 11. We also know that a good philosophy to follow is to turn 
adversity into something positive, if at all possible.
  Although we have suffered for years from a flawed foreign policy and 
we were already in a recession before the attacks, the severity of 
these events has forced many of us to reassess our foreign and domestic 
policies. Hopefully, positive changes will come of this.
  It is just as well that the economy was already in a recession for 6 
months prior to the September attacks. Otherwise the temptation would 
have been too great to blame the attacks for the weak economy rather 
than look for the government policies responsible for the recession. 
Terrorist attacks alone, no matter how disruptive, could never be the 
source of a significant economic downturn.
  A major debate over foreign policy has naturally resulted from this 
crisis. Dealing with the shortcomings of our policies of the past is 
essential. We were spending $40 billion a year on intelligence 
gathering. That, we must admit, failed. This tells us a problem exists. 
There are shortcomings with our $320 billion DOD budget that did not 
provide the protection Americans expect. Obviously, a proper response 
to the terrorists requires sound judgment in order to prevent further 
suffering of the innocent or foolishly bringing about a worldwide 
conflict.
  One of the key responsibilities of the Federal Government in 
providing for national defense is protection of liberty here at home. 
Unwisely responding to the attacks could undermine our national defense 
while threatening our liberties.
  What we have done so far since last September is not very reassuring. 
What we do here in the Congress in the coming months may well determine 
the survival of our Republic. Fear and insecurity must not drive our 
policy. Sacrificing personal liberty should never be an option. 
Involving ourselves in every complex conflict around the globe hardly 
enhances our national security.
  The special interests that were already lined up at the public trough 
should not be permitted to use the ongoing crisis as an opportunity to 
demand even more benefits. Let us all remember why the U.S. Congress 
was established, what our responsibilities are, and what our oath of 
office means.
  It has been reported that since the 9-11 attacks, Big Government 
answers have gained in popularity and people fearful for their security 
have looked to the Federal Government for help. Polls indicate that 
acceptance of government solutions to our problems is at the highest 
level in decades. This may be true to some degree, or it may merely 
reflect the sentiments of the moment or even the way the questions were 
asked. Only time will tell. Since the welfare state is no more viable 
in the long run than a communist or fascist state, most Americans will 
eventually realize the fallacy of depending on the government for 
economic security and know that personal liberty should not be 
sacrificed out of fear.
  Even with this massive rush to embrace all the bailouts offered up by 
Washington, a growing number of Americans are rightfully offended by 
the enormity of it all and annoyed that powerful and wealthy special 
interests seem to be getting the bulk of the benefits.
  In one area, though, a very healthy reaction has occurred. Almost all 
Americans, especially those still flying commercial airlines, now know 
that they have a personal responsibility to react to any threat on any 
flight. Passengers have responded magnificently. Most people recognize 
that armed citizens best protect our homes because it is impossible for 
the police to be everywhere and prevent crimes from happening. A 
homeowner's ability to defend himself serves as a strong deterrent.
  Our government's ridiculous policy regarding airline safety and 
prohibiting guns on airplanes has indoctrinated us all, pilots, 
passengers and airline owners, to believe we should never

[[Page H60]]

resist hijackers. This sets up perfect conditions for terrorists to 
take over domestic flights just as they did on September 11.
  The people of this country now realize more than ever their own 
responsibility for personal self-defense, using guns if necessary. The 
anti-gun fanatics have been very quiet since 9-11, and more Americans 
are ready to assume responsibility for their own safety than ever 
before. This is all good.
  Sadly, the Congress went in the opposite direction in providing 
safety on commercial flights. Pilots are not carrying guns, and 
security has been socialized in spite of the fact that security 
procedures authorized by the FAA prior to 9-11 were not compromised. 
The problem did not come from failure to follow the FAA rules. The 
problem resulted from precisely following FAA rules. No wonder so many 
Americans were wisely assuming they better be ready to protect 
themselves when necessary.
  This attitude is healthy, practical, and legal under the 
Constitution. Unfortunately, too many people who have come to this 
conclusion still cling to the notion that economic security is a 
responsibility of the U.S. Government. That, of course, is the reason 
we have a $2 trillion annual budget and a growing $6 trillion national 
debt.
  Another positive result of last year's attack was the uniting of many 
Americans in an effort to deal with many problems this country faces. 
This applies more to the people who reflect true patriotism than it 
does to some of the politicians and special interests who took 
advantage of this situation. If this renewed energy and sense of unity 
could be channeled correctly, much good could come of it, if 
misdirected, actual harm would result.
  Give less credit to the Washington politicians who sing the songs of 
patriotism but used the crisis to pursue their endless personal goal to 
gain more political power; but the greatest combination should be 
directed toward the special interests' lobbyists who finance the 
politicians in order to secure their power by using patriotism as a 
cover and a crisis as a golden opportunity. Indeed, those who are using 
the crisis to promote their own agenda are many. There is no doubt, as 
many have pointed out, our country changed dramatically with the horror 
that hit us on 9-11.
  The changes obviously are a result of something other than the tragic 
loss of over 3,900 people. We kill that many people every month on our 
government highways. We lost 60,000 young people in the Vietnam War; 
yet the sense of fear in our country then was not the same as it is 
today. The major difference is that last year's attacks made us feel 
vulnerable because it was clear that our Federal Government had failed 
in its responsibility to provide defense against such an assault, and 
the anthrax scare certainly did not help to diminish that fear.
  Giving up our civil liberties has made us feel even less safe from 
our own government's intrusion in our lives. The two seem to be in 
conflict. How can we be safer from outside threats while making 
ourselves more exposed to our own government's threat to our liberty? 
The most significant and dangerous result of last year's attacks has 
been the bold expansion of the Federal police state in our enhanced 
international role as the world's policeman. Although most of the 
legislation pushing the enhanced domestic and international role for 
our government passed by huge majorities, I am convinced that the 
people's support for much of it is less enthusiastic than Washington 
politicians believe.
  As time progresses, the full impact of homeland security and the 
unintended consequences of our growing overseas commitments will become 
apparent, and a large majority of our Americans will appropriately ask 
why did the Congress do it. Unless we precisely understand the proper 
role of government in a free society, our problems will not be solved 
without sacrificing liberty.
  The wonderful thing is that our problems can be easily solved when 
protecting individual liberty becomes our goal rather than the 
erroneous assumption that solutions must always be in conflict with 
liberty and that sacrificing some liberty is to be expected during 
trying times. This is not necessary.
  Our Attorney General established a standard for disloyalty to the 
United States Government by claiming that those who talk of lost 
liberty serve to erode our national unity and give ammunition to 
America's enemies and only aid terrorists. This dangerous assumption 
is, in the eyes of our top law enforcement officials, that perceived 
disloyalty or even criticism of the government is approximating an act 
of terrorism.

                              {time}  1315

  The grand irony is that this criticism is being directed towards 
those who, Heaven forbid, are expressing concern for losing our 
cherished liberties here at home. This, of course, is what the whole 
war on terrorism is supposed to be about, protecting liberty, and that 
includes the right of free expression.
  Our government leaders have threatened foreign countries by claiming 
that if they are not with us, they are against us, which leaves no room 
for the neutrality that has been practiced by some nations for 
centuries. This position could easily result in perpetual conflicts 
with dozens of nations around the world.
  Could it ever come to a point where those who dissent at home against 
our military operations overseas will be considered too sympathetic to 
the enemy? The Attorney General's comments suggest just that, and it 
has happened here in our past. We indeed live in dangerous times. We 
are unable to guarantee protection for outside threats and may be 
approaching a time when our own government poses a threat to our 
liberties.
  No matter how sincere and well motivated the effort to fight 
terrorism and provide for homeland security, if ill-advised it will 
result neither in vanquishing terrorism nor in preserving our 
liberties. I am fearful that here in Washington there is little 
understanding of the real cause of the terrorist attacks on us, little 
remembrance of the grand purpose of the American experiment with 
liberty, or even how our Constitution was written to strictly limit 
government officials and all that they do.
  The military operation against the Taliban has gone well. The Taliban 
has been removed from power, and our government, with the help of the 
U.N., is well along the way toward establishing a new Afghan 
government. We were not supposed to be in the business of nation 
building, but I guess 9-11 changed all that. The one problem is that 
the actual number of al-Qaeda members captured or killed is uncertain. 
Also, the number of Taliban officials that had any direct contact or 
knowledge of the attacks on us is purely speculative. Since this war is 
carried out in secrecy, we will probably not know the details of what 
went on for years to come.
  I wonder how many civilians have been killed so far. I know a lot of 
Members could care less, remembering innocent American civilians who 
were slaughtered in New York and Washington. But a policy that shows no 
concern for the innocent will magnify our problems rather than lessen 
them. The hard part to understand in all this is that Saudi Arabia 
probably had more to do with these attacks than did Afghanistan. But 
then again, who wants to offend our oil partners?
  Our sterile approach to the bombing with minimal loss of American 
life is to be commended, but it may generate outrage toward us by this 
lopsided killing of persons totally unaware of events of September 11. 
Our President wisely has not been anxious to send in large numbers of 
occupying forces into Afghanistan. This also guarantees chaos among the 
warring tribal factions. The odds of a stable Afghan government 
evolving out of this mess are remote. The odds of our investing large 
sums of money to buy support for years to come are great.
  Unfortunately, it has been seen only as an opportunity for Pakistan 
and India to resume their warring ways, placing us in a very dangerous 
situation. This could easily get out of control since China will not 
allow a clear-cut Indian victory over Pakistan. The danger of a nuclear 
confrontation is real. Even the British have spoken sympathetically 
about Pakistan's interest over India. The tragedy is that we have 
helped both India and Pakistan financially and, therefore, the American 
taxpayer has indirectly contributed funds for the weapons on both

[[Page H61]]

sides. Our troops in this region are potential targets of either or 
both countries.
  Fortunately, due to the many probable repercussions, a swift attack 
on Iraq now seems unlikely. Our surrogate army, organized by the Iraqi 
National Congress, is now known to be a charade, prompting our 
administration to correctly stop all funding of this organization. The 
thought of relying on the Kurds to help remove Hussein defies logic, as 
the U.S.-funded Turkish army continues its war on the Kurds. There is 
just no coalition in the Persian Gulf to take on Iraq and, fortunately, 
our Secretary of State knows it.
  Our terrorist enemy is vague and elusive. Our plans to expand our 
current military operations into many other countries are fraught with 
great risk, risk of making our problems worse. Not dealing with the 
people actually responsible for the attacks and ignoring the root 
causes of terrorism will needlessly perpetuate and expand a war that 
will do nothing to enhance the security and the safety of the American 
people.
  Since Iraq is now less likely to be hit, it looks like another 
poverty-ridden rudderless nation, possibly Somalia, will be the next 
target. No good can come of this process. It will provide more fodder 
for the radicals' claim that the war is about America against Islam. 
Somalia poses no threat to the United States, but bombing Somalia, as 
we have Afghanistan and Iraq for 12 years, will only incite more hatred 
towards the United States and increase the odds of our someday getting 
hit again by some frustrated, vengeful, radicalized Muslim.
  Our presence in the Persian Gulf is not necessary to provide for 
America's defense. Our presence in the region makes all Americans more 
vulnerable to attacks and defending America much more difficult. The 
real reason for our presence in the Persian Gulf, as well as our 
eagerness to assist in building a new Afghan government under U.N. 
authority, should be apparent to us all. Stuart Eizenstat, Under 
Secretary of Economics, Business and Agricultural Affairs for the 
previous administration, succinctly stated U.S. policy for Afghanistan 
testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Trade Committee October 
13, 1997. He said, ``One of five main foreign policy interests in the 
Caspian region is to continue support for U.S. companies and the least 
progress has been made in Afghanistan, where gas and oil pipeline 
proposals designed to carry Central Asian energy to world markets have 
been delayed indefinitely pending establishment of a broad-based, 
multiethnic government.''
  This was a rather blunt acknowledgment of our intentions. It is 
apparent that our policy has not changed with this administration. Our 
new Special Envoy to Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, was at one time a 
lobbyist for the Taliban and worked for Unocal, the American oil 
company seeking rights to build oil and gas pipelines through northern 
Afghanistan. During his stint as a lobbyist, he urged approval of the 
Taliban and defended them in the U.S. press. He now, of course, sings a 
different tune with respect to the Taliban, but I am sure his views on 
the pipeline by U.S. companies has not changed.
  Born in Afghanistan, Khalilzad is a controversial figure, to say the 
least, due to his close relationship with the oil industry and 
previously with the Taliban. His appointment to the National Security 
Council, very conveniently, did not require confirmation by the Senate. 
Khalilzad also is a close ally of the Secretary of Defense Paul 
Wolfowitz in promoting early and swift military action against Iraq.
  The point being, of course, that it may be good to have a new Afghan 
government, but the question is whether that is our responsibility and 
whether we should be doing it under the constraints of our 
Constitution. There is a real question of whether it will serve our 
best interests in the long term.
  CIA support for the Shah of Iran for 25 years led to the long-term 
serious problems with that nation that persists even today. Could oil 
be the reason we have concentrated on bombing Afghanistan while 
ignoring Saudi Arabia, even though we have never found Osama bin Laden? 
Obviously, Saudi Arabia is culpable in these terrorist attacks on the 
United States, and yet little is done about it.
  There are quite a few unintended consequences that might occur if our 
worldwide commitment to fighting terrorism is unrestrained. Russia's 
interest in the Afghan region are much more intense than Putin would 
have us believe, and Russia's active involvement in a spreading 
regional conflict should be expected.
  An alliance between Iraq and Iran against the United States is a more 
likely possibility now than ever before. Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji 
Sabri is optimistically working on bringing those two nations together 
in a military alliance. His hope is that this would be activated if we 
attacked Iraq. The two nations have already exchanged prisoners of war 
as a step in that direction.
  U.S. military planners are making preparations for our troops to stay 
in Central Asia for a long time. A long time could mean 50 years. We 
have been in Korea for that long and we have been in Japan and Europe 
even longer. But the time will come when we will wear out our welcome 
and have to leave these areas. The Vietnam War met with more 
resistance, and we left relatively quickly in a humiliating defeat. 
Similarly, episodes of a more minor nature occurred in Somalia and 
Lebanon.
  Why look for more of these kinds of problems when it does not serve 
our interests? Jeopardizing our security violates the spirit of the 
Constitution and inevitably costs us more than we can afford. Our 
permanent air bases built in Saudi Arabia are totally unessential to 
our security, contributed to the turmoil in the Middle East, and they 
continue to do so. We are building a giant new air base in Kyrgyzstan, 
a country once part of the Soviet Union and close to Russia. China, 
also a neighbor with whom we eagerly seek a close relationship as a 
trading partner, will not ignore our military buildup in that region.
  Islamic fundamentalists may overthrow the current government of Saudi 
Arabia, a fear that drives her to cooperate openly with the terrorists 
while flaunting her relationship with the United States. The Wall 
Street Journal has editorialized that the solution to this ought to be 
our forcibly seizing the Saudi Arabian oil fields and replacing the 
current government with an even more pro-Western government. All along 
I thought we condemned regimes that took over their neighbors' oil 
fields.
  The editorial, unbelievably explicit, concluded by saying, ``Finally, 
we must be prepared to seize the Saudi oil fields and administer them 
for the greater good.'' The greater good? I just wonder who they are 
referring to when they talk about the greater good.
  If the jingoism of the Wall Street Journal prevails and the 
warmongers in the Congress and the administration carry the day, we can 
assume with certainty that these efforts being made will precipitate an 
uncontrollable breakout of hostilities in the region that could lead to 
World War III. How a major publication can actually print an article 
that openly supports such aggression as a serious proposal is difficult 
to comprehend.
  Two countries armed with nuclear weapons on the verge of war in the 
region, and we are being urged to dig a deeper hole for ourselves by 
seizing the Saudi oil fields? Already the presence of our troops in the 
Muslim holy land of Saudi Arabia has inflamed the hatred that drove the 
terrorists to carry out their tragic act of 9-11. Pursuing such an 
aggressive policy would only further undermine our ability to defend 
the American people and will compound the economic problems we face 
here at home.
  Something, anything, regardless of its effectiveness, had to be done, 
since the American people expected it and Congress and the 
administration willed it. An effort to get the terrorists and their 
supporters is obviously in order and, hopefully, that has been 
achieved. But a never-ending commitment to end all terrorism throughout 
the world, whether it is related to September 11 or not, is neither a 
legitimate nor a wise policy. H.J. Res. 64 gives the President 
authority to pursue only those guilty of the attack on us, not every 
terrorist in the entire world.
  Let there be no doubt, for every terrorist identified, others will 
see only a freedom fighter. That was the case when we aided Osama bin 
Laden in the

[[Page H62]]

1980s. He was a member of the Mujahidien, and they were the freedom 
fighters waging a just war against the Soviet army. Of course, now he 
is our avowed enemy. A broad definition of terrorism outside the 
understanding of those who attacked the United States opens a Pandora's 
box in our foreign policy commitments.
  If we concentrate on searching for all terrorists throughout the 
world and bombing dozens of countries, but forget to deal with the 
important contributing factors that drove those who killed our fellow 
citizens, we will only make ourselves more vulnerable to new attacks.

                              {time}  1330

  How can we forever fail to address the provocative nature of U.S. 
taxpayers' money being used to suppress and kill Palestinians and 
ignore the affront to the Islamic people that our military presence on 
their holy land of Saudi Arabia causes, not to mention the persistent 
12 years of bombing Iraq?
  I am fearful that an unlimited worldwide war against all terrorism 
will distract from the serious consideration that must be given to our 
policy of foreign interventionism, driven by the powerful commercial 
interests and a desire to promote world government. This is done while 
ignoring our principal responsibility of protecting national security 
and liberty here at home.
  There is a serious problem with a policy that has allowed a 
successful attack of our homeland. It cannot be written off as a result 
of irrational, yet efficient, evildoers who are merely jealous of our 
success and despise our freedoms.
  We have had enemies throughout our history, but never before have we 
suffered such an attack that has made us feel so vulnerable. The cause 
of this crisis is much more profound and requires looking inwardly as 
well as outwardly at our own policies as well as those of others.
  The founders of this country were precise in their beliefs regarding 
foreign policy. Our Constitution reflects these beliefs, and all of our 
early Presidents endorsed these views. It was not until the 20th 
century that our Nation went off to far-away places looking for dragons 
to slay. This past century reflects the new and less-traditional 
American policy of foreign interventionism. Our economic and military 
power, a result of our domestic freedoms, has permitted us to survive 
and even thrive while dangerously expanding our worldwide influence.
  There is no historic precedent that such a policy can be continued 
forever. All empires and great nations throughout history have ended 
when they stretched their commitments overseas too far and abused their 
financial system at home. The overcommitment of a country's military 
forces when forced with budgetary constraints can only lead to a lower 
standard of living for its citizens. That has already started to happen 
here in the United States. Who today is confident the government and 
our private retirement systems are sound and the benefits guaranteed?
  The unfortunate complicating factor that all great powers suffer is 
the buildup of animosity of the nation currently at the top of the 
heap, which is aggravated by arrogance and domination over the weaker 
nations. We are beginning to see this, and the Wall Street Journal 
editorial clearly symbolizes this arrogance.
  The traditional American foreign policy of the founders and our 
Presidents for the first 145 years of our history entailed three 
points: one, friendship with all nations desiring of such; two, as much 
free trade and travel with those countries as possible; three, avoiding 
entangling alliances.
  This is good advice. The framers also understood that the important 
powers for dealing with other countries and the issue of war were to be 
placed in the hands of Congress. This principle has essentially been 
forgotten.
  The executive branch now has much more power than does the Congress. 
Congress continues to allows its authority to be transferred to the 
executive branch as well as to the international agencies such as the 
U.N., NAFTA, IMF and the WTO. Through executive orders, our Presidents 
routinely use powers once jealously guarded and held by the Congress.
  Today, through altering aid and sanctions, we buy and sell our 
``friendship'' with all kinds of threats and bribes in our effort to 
spread our influence around the world. To most people in Washington, 
free trade means internationally managed trade, with subsidies and 
support for the WTO, where influential corporations can seek sanctions 
against their competitors. Our alliances, too numerous to count, have 
committed our dollars and our troops to such an extent that, under 
today's circumstances, there is not a border war or civil disturbance 
in the world in which we do not have a stake. And more than likely, we 
have a stake, foreign aid, on both sides of each military conflict.
  After the demise of our nemesis, the Soviet Union, many believed that 
we could safely withdraw from some of our worldwide commitments. It was 
hoped we would start minding our own business, save some money, and 
reduce the threat to our military personnel. But the opposite has 
happened. Without any international competition for superpower status, 
our commitments have grown and spread so that today we provide better 
military protection to Taiwan and South Korea and Saudi Arabia than we 
do for New York and Washington.
  I am certain that national security and defense of our own cities can 
never be adequately provided unless we reconsider our policy of foreign 
interventionism. Conventional wisdom in Washington today is that we 
have no choice but to play the role of the world's only superpower. 
Recently we had to cancel flights of our own Air Force over our cities 
because of spending restraints, and we rely on foreign AWACS to fly 
over to protect our air spaces.
  The American people are not in sync with the assumption that we must 
commitment ourselves endlessly to being the world's policemen. If we do 
not reassess our endless entanglements as we march toward world 
government, economic law will one day force us to do so anyway under 
very undesirable circumstances. In the meantime, we can expect plenty 
more military confrontations around the world while becoming even more 
vulnerable to attack by terrorists here at home. A constitutional 
policy and informed relations of nonintervention is the policy that 
will provide America the greatest and best national defense.

                          ____________________