[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 38 (Wednesday, April 6, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H1835-H1838]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           THE ORDEAL OF TERRI SCHIAVO AND THE RIGHT TO LIFE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dent). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) is 
recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today in this Special Order I want to address 
two subjects, the first being the ordeal of Terri Schiavo and the 
right-to-life issue.
  Mr. Speaker, clearly no one wins in the legal and political battles 
over the death of Terri Schiavo. Although it has been terribly 
politicized, a valuable debate has emerged. This debate is not about 
abortion or euthanasia in general, nor about death in the abstract. It 
is about an individual's right to life and the value of life itself. 
Without concern for the life of each, individual liberty is meaningless 
and indefensible.
  This debate deals with the passive treatment of the critically and 
terminally ill. This type of decision is manageable most of the time 
without government interference, but circumstances in this case made it 
difficult to determine proper guardianship. The unprecedented level of 
government involvement, questions about which branch of government had 
the ultimate say, and what the explicit intent of the patient was 
brought national attention to what was otherwise a family conflict.
  Terri Schiavo is a unique case, and, unfortunately, her fate ended up 
in the hands of the lawyers, the judges and the legislators. The media 
certainly did their part in disrupting her final days.
  In a free society, the doctor and the patient, or his or her 
designated spokesperson, make the decision, short of using violence, in 
dealing with death and dying issues. The government stays out of it.

[[Page H1836]]

  This debate, though, shows that one life is indeed important. It is 
not an esoteric subject. It is a real life involved and a personal 
issue we cannot ignore, especially in this age of Medicare, with 
government now responsible for most of the medical bills.
  We are rapidly moving toward a time when these decisions will be 
based on the cost of care alone, since government pays all the bills 
under national health care. As we defer to the state for our needs, and 
parental power is transferred to government, it is casually expected 
that government will be making more and more of these decisions. This 
has occurred in education, general medical care and psychological 
testing. The government now can protect the so-called right of a 
teenager to have an abortion, sometimes paid for by the government, 
without notifying the parents.
  Free-market medicine is not perfect, but it is the best system to 
sort out these difficult problems, and it did so for years.
  Eventually government medicine surely will ignore the concern for a 
single patient as a person, and instead, a computer program and cost 
analysis will make the determination. It will be said to be more 
efficient, though morally unjustified, to allow a patient to die by 
court order rather than permitting family and friends to assume 
responsibility for the cost of keeping patients alive.
  There is plenty of hypocrisy to go around on both sides of this 
lingering and prolonged debate. In this instance, we heard some very 
sound arguments from the left defending States rights and family 
responsibility while criticizing the Federal Government involvement. I 
am anxious for the day when those who made these arguments join me in 
defending the Constitution and States rights, especially the 9th and 
10th amendment, on many other economic and social issues. I will not 
hold my breath.
  More importantly, where are those who rightfully condemn 
congressional meddling in the Schiavo case because of federalism and 
separation of powers on the issue of abortion? These same folks 
strongly defend Roe v. Wade and the so-called constitutional right to 
abort healthy human fetuses at any stage. There is no hesitation to 
demand support of this phony right from both Congress and the Federal 
courts. Not only do they demand Federal legal protection for abortion, 
they insist that abortion foes be forced to fund this act that many of 
them equate with murder.
  It is too bad that philosophic consistency and strict adherence to 
the Constitution are not a high priority for many Members, but perhaps 
this flexibility in administering the rule of law helps create problems 
such as we faced in the Schiavo ordeal.
  Though the left produced some outstanding arguments for the Federal 
Government staying out of this controversy, they frequently used an 
analogy that could never persuade those of us who believe in a free 
society guided by the constraints of the Constitution. They argued that 
if conservatives who supported prolonging Terri's life would only spend 
more money on welfare, they would demonstrate sincere concern for the 
right to life. This is false logic and does nothing to build the case 
for a local government solution to a feeding tube debate.

  First, all wealth transfers depend on an authoritarian state willing 
to use lethal force to satisfy the politicians' notion of an 
unachievable fair society. Robbing Peter to pay Paul, no matter how 
well intentioned, can never be justified. It is theft plain and simple 
and morally wrong. Actually, welfare is antiprosperity so it cannot be 
prolife. Too often good intentions are motivated only by the good that 
someone believes will result from the transfer program. They never ask 
who must pay, who must be threatened, who must be arrested and 
imprisoned. They never ask whether the welfare funds taken by forcible 
taxation could have helped someone in a private or voluntary way.
  Practically speaking, welfare rarely works. The hundreds of billions 
of dollars spent on the war on poverty over the last 50 years has done 
little to eradicate poverty. Matter of fact, worthwhile studies show 
that poverty is actually made worse by government efforts to eradicate 
poverty. Certainly the whole system does nothing to build self-esteem, 
and more often than not does exactly the opposite.
  My suggestion to my colleagues who did argue convincingly that 
Congress should not be involved in the Schiavo case is please consider 
using these same arguments consistently, and avoid the false accusation 
that if one opposes increases in welfare, one is not prolife. Being 
proliberty and pro-Constitution is indeed being prolife, as well as 
proprosperity.
  Conservatives, on the other hand, are equally inconsistent in their 
arguments for life. There is little hesitation by the conservative 
right to come to Congress to promote their moral agenda, even when it 
is not within the jurisdiction of the Federal Government to do so.
  Take, for instance, the funding of faith-based charities. The process 
is of little concern to conservatives if their agenda is met by passing 
more Federal laws and increasing spending. Instead of concentrating on 
the repeal of Roe v. Wade and eliminating Federal judiciary authority 
over issues best dealt with at the State level, more Federal laws are 
passed which, strictly speaking, should not be the prerogative of the 
Federal Government.
  The biggest shortcoming of the Christian right position is its 
adamancy for protecting life in its very early, late and weakened 
stages, while enthusiastically supporting aggressive war that results 
in hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths. While the killing of 
the innocent unborn represents a morally decadent society, and all life 
deserves an advocate, including Terri Schiavo, promoting a policy of 
deadly sanctions and all-out war against a nation that committed no act 
of aggression against us cannot come close to being morally consistent 
or defendable under our Constitution.
  The one issue generally ignored in the Schiavo debate is the subtle 
influence the cost of care for the dying had on the debate. Government-
paid care clouds the issue, and it must be noted that the courts ruled 
out any privately paid care for Terri. It could be embarrassing in a 
government-run nursing home to see some patients receiving extra care 
from families while others are denied the same. However, as time goes 
on, the economics of care will play even a greater role since under 
socialized medicine the state makes all the decisions based on 
affordability. Then there will be no debate, as we just witnessed in 
the case of Terri Schiavo.
  Having practiced medicine in simpler times, agonizing problems like 
we just witnessed in this case did not arise. Yes, similar medical 
decisions were made and have been made for many, many years, but 
lawyers were not involved, nor the courts, nor the legislators, nor any 
part of the government; only the patient, the patient's family and the 
doctor. No one would have dreamed of making a Federal case of the dying 
process.
  A society and a government that lose respect for life help create 
dilemmas of this sort. Today there is little respect for life; witness 
the number of abortions performed each year. There is little respect 
for liberty; witness the rules and laws that regulate our every move. 
There is little respect for peace; witness our eagerness to initiate 
war to impose our will on others. Tragically, government financing of 
the elderly, out of economic necessity, will usher in an age of 
euthanasia.
  The accountants already have calculated that if the baby-boomer 
generation is treated to allow maximum longevity without quality of 
life concerns, we are talking about $7 trillion in additional medical 
costs. Economists will determine the outcome, and personal decisions 
will vanish. National health care, of necessity, will always conflict 
with personal choices.
  Compounding the cost problems that will lead to government-ordered 
euthanasia is the fact that costs always skyrocket in government-run 
programs. This is true whether it is a $300 hammer for the Pentagon or 
an emergency room visit for a broken toe, and in addition, deficit 
financing, already epidemic because of our flawed philosophy of guns 
and butter, always leads to inflation when a country operates on a 
paper money system.
  Without a renewal in the moral fiber of the country and respect for 
the constitutional rule of law, we can expect a lot more and worse 
problems than we

[[Page H1837]]

witnessed in the case of Terri Schiavo. When dying and medical care 
becomes solely a commercial event, we will long for the days of 
debating what was best for Terri.
  Hopefully this messy debate will lead more Members to be convinced 
that all life is precious, that family and patient wishes should be 
respected, and that government jurisprudence and financing fall far 
short of providing a just solution in these difficult matters.


                           Who's Better Off?

  Mr. PAUL. On another subject dealing more with foreign policy, I 
would like to address what is going on in Iraq.
  Mr. Speaker, whenever the administration is challenged regarding the 
success of the Iraq War or regarding the false information used to 
justify the war, the retort is, ``Aren't the people of Iraq better 
off?'' The insinuation is that anyone who expresses any reservations 
about supporting the war is an apologist for Saddam Hussein and every 
ruthless act he ever committed.
  The short answer to the question of whether the Iraqis are better off 
is that it is still too early to declare, ``Mission accomplished.'' But 
more importantly, we should be asking if the mission was ever justified 
or legitimate in the first place. Is it legitimate to justify an action 
that some claim yielded good results, if the means used to achieve them 
are illegitimate? Do the ends justify the means?

                              {time}  1815

  The information Congress was given prior to the war was false. There 
were no weapons of mass destruction; the Iraqis did not participate in 
the 9/11 attacks; Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were enemies and 
did not conspire against the United States; our security was not 
threatened; we were not welcomed by cheering Iraqi crowds as we were 
told; and Iraqi oil has not paid any of the bills.
  Congress failed to declare war, but instead passed a wishy-washy 
resolution citing U.N. resolutions as justifications for our invasion. 
After the fact, now we are told the real reason for the Iraqi invasion 
was to spread democracy, and that the Iraqis are better off. Anyone who 
questions the war risks being accused of supporting Saddam Hussein, 
disapproving of democracy, or ``supporting terrorists.'' It is implied 
that lack of enthusiasm for the war means one is not patriotic and does 
not support the troops. In other words, one must march lockstep with 
the consensus or be ostracized.
  However, conceding that the world is better off without Saddam 
Hussein is a far cry from endorsing the foreign policy of our own 
government that led to regime change. In time it will become clear to 
everyone that support for the policies of preemptive war and 
interventionist nation-building will have much greater significance 
than the removal of Saddam Hussein itself.
  The interventionist policy should be scrutinized more carefully than 
the purported benefits of Saddam Hussein's removal from power. The real 
question ought to be this: Are we better off with a foreign policy that 
promotes regime change while justifying war with false information? 
Shifting the stated goals as events unravel should not satisfy those 
who believe war must be a last resort used only when our national 
security is threatened.
  How much better off are the Iraqi people? Hundreds of thousands of 
former inhabitants of Fallujah are not better off with their city 
flattened and their homes destroyed. Hundreds of thousands are not 
better off living with foreign soldiers patrolling their streets, 
curfews, and the loss of basic utilities. A hundred thousand dead 
Iraqis, as estimated by the Lancet Medical Journal, certainly are not 
better off. Better to be alive under Saddam Hussein than lying cold in 
some grave.
  Praise for the recent election in Iraq has silenced many critics of 
the war. Yet the election was held under martial law implemented by a 
foreign power, mirroring the conditions we rightfully condemned as a 
farce when carried out in the old Soviet system and more recently in 
Lebanon. Why is it that what is good for the goose is not always good 
for the gander?
  Our government fails to recognize that legitimate elections are the 
consequence of freedom and that an artificial election does not create 
freedom. In our own history, we note that freedom was achieved first 
and elections followed, not the other way around.
  One news report claimed that the Shiites actually received 56 percent 
of the vote, but such an outcome could not be allowed for it would 
preclude a coalition of the Kurds and the Shiites from controlling the 
Sunnis and preventing a theocracy from forming. This reminds us of the 
statements made months ago by Secretary Rumsfeld when asked about a 
Shiite theocracy emerging from a majority democratic vote, and he 
assured us that would not happen. Democracy, we know, is messy and 
needs tidying up a bit when we do not like the results.
  Some have described Baghdad, and especially the Green Zone, as being 
surrounded by unmanageable territory. The highways in and out of 
Baghdad are not yet secure. Many anticipate a civil war will break out 
sometime soon in Iraq. Some claim it is already under way.
  We have seen none of the promised oil production that was supposed to 
provide grateful Iraqis with the means to repay us for the hundreds of 
billions of dollars that American taxpayers have spent on the war. Some 
have justified our continuous presence in the Persian Gulf since 1990 
because of a need to protect ``our'' oil. Yet now that Saddam Hussein 
is gone and the occupation supposedly is a great success, gasoline at 
the pumps is reaching record highs, approaching $3 a gallon.
  Though the Iraqi election has come and gone, there still is no 
government in place and the next election, supposedly the real one, is 
not likely to take place on time. Do the American people have any idea 
who really won the dubious election at all?
  The Oil-for-Food scandal under Saddam Hussein has been replaced by 
corruption in the distribution of U.S. funds to rebuild Iraq. Already 
there is an admitted $9 billion discrepancy in the accounting of these 
funds. The overbilling by Halliburton is no secret, but the process has 
not changed.
  The whole process is corrupt. It just does not make sense to most 
Americans to see their tax dollars used to fight an unnecessary and 
unjustified war. First, they see American bombs destroying a country, 
and then American taxpayers are required to rebuild it. Today it is 
easier to get funding to rebuild infrastructure in Iraq than it is to 
build a bridge in the United States. Indeed, we cut the Army Corps of 
Engineers' budget and operate on the cheap with our veterans as the 
expenditures in Iraq skyrocket.
  One question the war promoters do not want to hear asked, because 
they do not want to face up to the answer, is this: Are Christian 
Iraqis better off today since we decided to build a new Iraq through 
force of arms? The answer is plainly, no.
  Sure, there are 800,000 Christians living in Iraq, but under Saddam 
Hussein they were free to practice their religion. Tariq Aziz, a 
Christian, served in Saddam Hussein's cabinet as foreign minister, 
something that would never happen in Saudi Arabia, Israel, or any other 
Middle Eastern country. Today, the Christian churches in Iraq are under 
attack and Christians are no longer safe. Many Christians have been 
forced to flee Iraq and migrate to Syria. It is strange that the human 
rights advocates in the U.S. Congress have expressed no concern for the 
persecution now going on against Christians in Iraq. Both the Sunni and 
the Shiite Muslims support the attacks on the Christians. In fact, 
persecuting Christians is one of the few areas in which they agree; the 
other being the removal of all foreign forces from Iraqi soil.
  Considering the death, destruction, and continued chaos in Iraq, it 
is difficult to accept the blanket statement that the Iraqis all feel 
much better off with the U.S. in control rather than Saddam Hussein. 
Security in the streets and criminal violence are not anywhere near 
being under control.
  But there is another question that is equally important: Are the 
American people better off because of the Iraq war?
  One thing for sure, the 1,500-plus dead American soldiers are not 
better off. The nearly 20,000 injured or sickened American troops are 
not better off. The families, the wives, the husbands, children, 
parents, and friends of those who lost so much are not better off. The 
families and the 40,000 troops who were forced to reenlist against 
their will, a

[[Page H1838]]

de facto draft, are not feeling better off. They believe they have been 
deceived by their enlistment agreements.
  The American taxpayers are not better off having spent over $200 
billion to pursue this war, with billions yet to be spent. The victims 
of the inflation that always accompanies a guns-and-butter policy are 
already getting a dose of what will become much worse.

  Are our relationships with the rest of the world better off? I would 
say no. Because of the war, our alliances with the Europeans are weaker 
than ever. The anti-American hatred among a growing number of Muslims 
around the world is greater than ever. This makes terrorist attacks 
more likely than they were before the invasion. Al Qaeda recruiting has 
accelerated. Iraq is being used as a training ground for the al Qaeda 
terrorists, which it never was under Hussein's rule.
  So as our military recruitment efforts suffer, Osama bin Laden 
benefits by attracting pre-terrorist volunteers.
  Oil was approximately $27 a barrel before the war; now it is more 
than twice that. I wonder who benefits from this?
  Because of the war, fewer dollars are available for real national 
security and defense of this country. Military spending is up, but the 
way the money is spent distracts from true national defense and further 
undermines our credibility around the world.
  The ongoing war's lack of success has played a key role in 
diminishing morale in our military services. Recruitment is sharply 
down and most branches face shortages of troops. Many young Americans 
rightly fear a coming draft, which will be required if we do not 
reassess and change the unrealistic goals of our foreign policy.
  The appropriations for the war are essentially off-budget and 
obscure, but contribute nonetheless to the runaway deficit and increase 
in the national debt. If these trends persist, inflation with economic 
stagnation will be the inevitable consequences of a misdirected policy.
  One of the most significant consequences in times of war that we 
ought to be concerned about is the inevitable loss of personal liberty. 
Too often in the patriotic nationalism that accompanies armed conflict, 
regardless of the cause, there is a willingness to sacrifice personal 
freedoms in pursuit of victory. The real irony is that we are told we 
go hither and yon to fight for freedom and our Constitution, while 
carelessly sacrificing the very freedoms here at home we are supposed 
to be fighting for. It makes no sense.
  This willingness to give up hard-fought personal liberties has been 
especially noticeable in the atmosphere of the post-September 11 war on 
terrorism. Security has replaced liberty as our main political goal, 
damaging the American spirit. Sadly, the whole process is done in the 
name of patriotism and in a spirit of growing militant nationalism.
  These attitudes and fears surrounding the 9/11 tragedy and our 
eagerness to go to war in the Middle East against countries not 
responsible for the attacks have allowed a callousness to develop in 
our national psyche that justifies torture and rejects due process of 
law for those who are suspects and not convicted criminals.
  We have come to accept preemptive war as necessary, constitutional, 
and morally justifiable. Starting a war without a proper declaration is 
now of no concern to most Americans or the U.S. Congress. Let us hope 
and pray the rumors of an attack on Iran in June by U.S. Armed Forces 
are wrong.
  A large segment of the Christian community and its leadership think 
nothing of rationalizing war in the name of a religion that prides 
itself on the teachings of the Prince of Peace, who instructed us that 
blessed are the peacemakers, not the warmongers.
  We casually accept our role as world policemen and believe we have a 
moral obligation to practice nation-building in our image regardless of 
the number of people who die in the process.
  We have lost our way by rejecting the beliefs that made our country 
great. We no longer trust in trade, friendship, peace, the 
Constitution, and the principle of neutrality while avoiding entangling 
alliances with the rest of the world. Spreading the message of hope and 
freedom by setting an example for the world has been replaced by a 
belief that the use of armed might is the only practical tool to 
influence the world. And we have accepted, as the only superpower, the 
principle of initiating war against others.
  In the process, Congress and the people have endorsed a usurpation of 
their own authority, generously delivered to the executive and judicial 
branches, not to mention international government bodies. The concept 
of national sovereignty is now seen as an issue that concerns only the 
fringe in our society.
  Protection of life and liberty must once again become the issue that 
drives political thought in this country. If this goal is replaced by 
an effort to promote world government, use force to plan the economy, 
regulate the people, and police the world against the voluntary desires 
of the people, it can be done only with the establishment of a 
totalitarian state. There is no need for that. It is up to Congress and 
the American people to decide our fate, and there is still time to 
correct our mistakes.

                          ____________________