[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 101 (Tuesday, July 23, 2002)]
[House]
[Page H5094]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, WHO NEEDS IT?

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
January 23, 2002, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) is recognized 
during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the Department of Homeland Security, who needs 
it? Mr. Speaker, everyone agrees the 9-11 tragedy confirmed a problem 
that exists in our domestic security and dramatized our vulnerability 
to outside attacks. Most agree that the existing bureaucracy was inept. 
The CIA, the FBI, the INS, and Customs failed to protect us.
  It was not a lack of information that caused this failure; they had 
plenty. But they filed to analyze, communicate, and use the information 
to our advantage.
  The flawed foreign policy of interventionism that we have followed 
for decades significantly contributed to the attacks. Warnings had been 
sounded by the more astute that our meddling in the affairs of others 
would come to no good. This resulted in our inability to defend our own 
cities, while spending hundreds of billions of dollars providing more 
defense for others than for ourselves. In the aftermath, we were even 
forced to ask other countries to patrol our airways to provide security 
for us.
  A clear understanding of private property and an owner's 
responsibility to protect it has been seriously undermined. This was 
especially true for the airline industry. The benefit of gun ownership 
and second amendment protections were prohibited. The government was 
given the responsibility for airline safety through FAA rules and 
regulations, and it failed miserably.
  The solution now being proposed is a giant new Federal department, 
and it is the only solution we are being offered, and one which I am 
certain will lead to tens of billions of dollars of new spending.
  What is being done about the lack of emphasis on private property 
ownership? The security services are federalized. The airlines are 
bailed out and given guaranteed insurance against all threats. We have 
made the airline industry a public utility that gets to keep its 
profits and pass on its losses to the taxpayers, like Amtrak and the 
post office. Instead of more ownership responsibility, we get more 
government controls.
  Is the first amendment revitalized, and are owners permitted to 
defend their property, their passengers, and personnel? No, no hint of 
it, unless you are El Al airlines, which enjoys this right, while no 
others do.
  Has anything been done to limit immigration from countries placed on 
the terrorist list? Hardly. Have we done anything to slow up 
immigration of individuals with Saudi passports? No, oil is too 
important to offend the Saudis.
  Yet, we have done plenty to undermine the liberties and privacy of 
all Americans through legislation such as the PATRIOT Act. A program is 
being planned to use millions of Americans to spy on their neighbors, 
an idea appropriate for a totalitarian society. Regardless of any 
assurances, we all know that the national ID card will soon be 
instituted.
  Who believes for a moment that the military will not be used to 
enforce civil law in the near future? Posse comitatus will be repealed 
by executive order or by law, and liberty, the Constitution, and the 
Republic will suffer another major setback.
  Unfortunately, foreign policy will not change, and those who suggest 
that it be strictly designed for American security will be shouted down 
for their lack of patriotism. Instead, war fever will build until the 
warmongers get their wish and we march on Baghdad, making us even a 
greater target of those who despise us for our bellicose control of the 
world.
  A new department is hardly what we need. That is more of the same, 
and will surely not solve our problems. It will, however, further 
undermine our liberties and hasten the day of our national bankruptcy.
  A common sense improvement to homeland security would allow the DOD 
to provide protection, not a huge, new, militarized domestic 
department. We need to bring our troops home, including our Coast 
Guard; close down the base in Saudi Arabia; stop expanding our presence 
in the Muslim portion of the former Soviet Union; and stop taking sides 
in the long, ongoing war in the Middle East.
  If we did these few things, we would provide a lot more security and 
protect our liberties a lot better than any new department ever will, 
and it will cost a lot less.

                          ____________________