[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.
____________________