[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.
____________________