[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 17950-17952]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                        FOREIGN INTERVENTIONISM

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). 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.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the last 2 weeks have been tough for all 
Americans. The best we can say is that the events have rallied the 
American spirit of shared love and generosity. Partisanship was put on 
hold as it well should have been. We now, as a free people, must deal 
with this tragedy in the best way possible. Punishment and prevention 
is mandatory.
  We must not, however, sacrifice our liberties at the hand of an 
irrational urgency. Calm deliberation in our effort to restore normalcy 
is crucial. Cries for dropping nuclear bombs on an enemy not yet 
identified cannot possibly help in achieving this goal.
  Mr. Speaker, I returned to Congress 5 years ago out of deep concern 
about our foreign policy of international interventionism and a 
monetary and fiscal policy, I believe, would lead to a financial and 
dollar crisis.
  Over the past 5 years, I have frequently expressed my views on these 
issues and why I believe our policies should be changed. This deep 
concern prompted me to seek and receive seats on the Committee on 
Financial Services and the Committee on International Relations.
  I sought to thwart some of the dangers I saw coming, but as the 
horrific attacks shows, these efforts were to no avail. As concerned as 
I was, the enormity of the two-pronged crisis that we now face came 
with a ferocity no one ever wanted to imagine. Now we must deal with 
what we have and do our best to restore our country to a more normal 
status.
  I do not believe this can happen if we ignore the truth. We cannot 
close our eyes to the recent history that has brought us to this 
international crisis. We should guard against emotionally driven 
demands to kill many bystanders in an effort to liquidate our enemy. 
These efforts could well fail to punish the perpetrators while only 
expanding the war and making things worse by killing innocent 
noncombatants and further radicalizing Muslim people.
  It is obviously no easy task to destroy an almost invisible 
ubiquitous enemy spread throughout the world without expanding the war 
or infringing on our liberties here at home. Above all else that is our 
mandate and our key constitutional responsibility, protecting liberty 
and providing for national security.
  My strong belief is that in the past efforts in the U.S. Congress to 
do much more than this has diverted our attention and, hence, led to 
our neglect of these responsibilities. Following the September 11 
disasters, a militant Islamic group in Pakistan held up a sign for all 
the world to see. It said: ``Americans, think! Why you are hated all 
over the world.'' We abhor the messenger, but we should not ignore the 
message.
  Here at home we are told that the only reason for the suicidal mass 
killing we experienced on September 11 is that we are hated because we 
are free and prosperous. If these two conflicting views are not 
reconciled we cannot wisely fight nor win the war in which we now find 
ourselves. We must understand why the hatred is directed toward 
Americans and not any other Western country.
  In studying history, I, as many others, have come to the conclusion 
that war is most often fought for economic reasons, but economic wars 
are driven by moral and emotional overtones. Our own revolution was 
fought to escape from the excessive taxation but was inspired and 
driven by our desire to protect our God-given right to liberty.
  The War Between the States, fought primarily over tariffs, was 
nonetheless inspired by the abhorrence of slavery. It is this moral 
inspiration that drives people to suicidally fight to the death as so 
many Americans did between 1861 and 1865.
  Both economic and moral causes of war must be understood. Ignoring 
the importance of each is dangerous. We should not casually ignore the 
root causes of our current fight nor pursue this fight by merely 
accepting the explanation that they terrorize us out of jealousy.
  It has already been written that Islamic militants are fighting a 
holy war, a jihad. This drives them to commit acts that to us are 
beyond comprehension. It seems that they have no concern for economic 
issues since they have no regard even for their own lives, but an 
economic issue does exist in this war. It is oil.
  When the conflict broke out between Iraq and Iran in the early 1980s, 
we helped to finance and arm Iraq and Saddam Hussein. At that time, 
Anwar Sadat of Egypt profoundly stated, ``This is the beginning of the 
war for oil.'' Our crisis today is part of this long-lasting war over 
oil.
  Osama bin Laden, a wealthy man, left Saudi Arabia in 1979 to join 
American-sponsored so-called freedom fighters in Afghanistan. He 
received financial assistance, weapons and training from our CIA, just 
as his allies in Kosovo continue to receive the same from us today.
  Unbelievably, to this day our foreign aid continues to flow into 
Afghanistan, even as we prepare to go to war against her. My suggestion 
is, not only should we stop this aid immediately, but we should never 
have started it in the first place.
  It is during this time, bin Laden learned to practice terror 
tragically with money from the U.S. taxpayer, but it was not until 1991 
during what we referred to as the Persian Gulf War that he turned fully 
against the United States. It was this war, said to protect our oil, 
that brought out the worst in him. Of course, it is not our oil. The 
oil, in fact, belongs to the Arabs and other Muslim Nations on the 
Persian gulf.
  Our military presence in Saudi Arabia is what most Muslims believe to 
be a sacred violation of holy land. The continuous bombing and embargo 
of Iraq has intensified the hatred and contributed to more than a 
million deaths in Iraq. It is clear that protecting certain oil 
interests and our presence in the Persian Gulf helps drive this holy 
war.
  Muslims see this as an invasion and domination by a foreign enemy 
which inspires radicalism. This is not new. This war, from their 
viewpoint, has been going on since the Crusades 1,000 years ago. We 
ignore this history at our own peril.
  The radicals react as some Americans might react if China dominated 
the Gulf of Mexico and had air bases in Texas and Florida. Dominating 
the Persian Gulf is not a benign activity. It has consequences. The 
attack on the U.S.S. Cole was a warning we ignored. Furthermore, our 
support for secular governments in the moderate Arab country is 
interpreted by the radicals as more American control over their region 
that they want.
  There is no doubt that our policies that are seen by the radicals as 
favoring one faction over another in the

[[Page 17951]]

long-lasting Middle East conflict adds to the distrust and hatred of 
America.
  The hatred has been suppressed because we are a powerful economic and 
military force and wield a lot of influence. But this suppressed hatred 
is now becoming more visible. And we, as Americans, for the most part, 
are not even aware of how this could be. Americans have no animosity 
toward a people they hardly even know. Instead, our policies have been 
driven by the commercial interests of a few, and now the innocent 
suffer.
  I am hopeful that shedding a light on the truth will be helpful in 
resolving this conflict in the very dangerous period that lies ahead. 
Without some understanding of the recent and past history of the Middle 
East and the Persian Gulf, we cannot expect to punish the evildoers 
without expanding the nightmare of hatred that is now sweeping the 
world. Punishing the evildoers is crucial. Restoring safety and 
security to our country is critical. Providing for a strong defense is 
essential. But extricating ourselves from a holy war that we do not 
understand is also necessary if we expect to achieve the above-
mentioned goals.
  Let us all hope and pray for guidance in our effort to restore the 
peace and tranquility we all desire. We did a poor job in providing the 
security that all Americans should expect, and this is our foremost 
responsibility. Some Members have been quick to point out the 
shortcomings of the FBI, the CIA, and the FAA, and to claim more money 
will rectify the situation. I am not so sure. Bureaucracies, by nature, 
are inefficient. The FBI and CIA records come up short. The FBI loses 
computers and guns and is careless with records. The CIA rarely 
provides timely intelligence. The FAA's idea of security against 
hijackers is asking all passengers who packed their bags.
  The clamor now is to give more authority and money to these agencies. 
But remember, important industries like our chemical plants and 
refineries do not depend on government agencies for security. They 
build fences and hire guards with guns. The airlines have not been 
allowed to do the same thing. There was a time when airline pilots were 
allowed and did carry guns, and yet this has been prohibited by 
government regulations. If this responsibility had been left with the 
airlines to provide safety, they may well have had armed guards and 
pilots on the planes, just as our industrial sites have.
  Privatizing the FAA, as other countries have, would also give 
airlines more leeway in providing security. My bill, H.R. 2896, should 
be passed immediately to clarify that the Federal Government will never 
place a prohibition on pilots being armed. We do not need more laws 
restricting our civil liberties, we need more freedom to defend 
ourselves.
  We face an enormous task to restore the sense of security we have 
taken for granted for so long, but it can be done. Destroying the 
evildoers while extricating ourselves from this unholiest of wars is no 
small challenge. The job is somewhat like getting out of a pit filled 
with venomous snakes. The sooner we shoot the snakes that immediately 
threaten us, the sooner we can get safely away. If we are not careful, 
though, we will breed more snakes; and they will come out of every nook 
and cranny from around the world and little will be resolved.
  It is no easy task, but before we fight, we had better be precise 
about whom we are fighting and how many there are and where they are 
hiding; or we will never know when the war is over and our goals are 
achieved. Without this knowledge, the war can go on for a long, long 
time. And the war for oil has already been going on for more than 20 
years. To this point, our President and his administration has 
displayed the necessary deliberation. This is a positive change from 
unauthorized and ineffective retaliatory bombings in past years that 
only worsened various conflicts. If we cannot or will not define the 
enemy, the cost to fight such a war will be endless.
  How many American troops are we prepared to lose? How much money are 
we prepared to spend? How many innocent civilians in our Nation and 
others are we willing to see killed? How many American civilians will 
be jeopardized? How much of our civil liberties are we prepared to give 
up? How much prosperity will we sacrifice?
  The founders and authors of our Constitution provided an answer for 
the difficult task that we now face. When a precise declaration of war 
was impossible due to the vagueness of our enemy, the Congress was 
expected to take it upon themselves to direct the reprisal against an 
enemy not recognized as a government. In the early days, the concern 
was piracy on the high seas. Piracy was one of only three Federal 
crimes named in the original Constitution. Today, we have a new type of 
deadly piracy in the high sky over our country.
  The solution the founders came up with under these circumstances was 
for Congress to grant letters of marque and reprisal. This puts the 
responsibility in the hands of Congress to direct the President to 
perform the task, with permission to use and reward private sources to 
carry out the task, such as the elimination of Osama bin Laden and his 
key supporters. This narrows targeting the enemy.
  This effort would not preclude the President's other efforts to 
resolve the crisis but, if successful, would preclude a foolish 
invasion of a remote country with a forbidding terrain like 
Afghanistan, a country that no foreign power has ever successfully 
conquered throughout all of history. Lives could be saved, billions of 
dollars could be saved, and escalation due to needless and senseless 
killing could be prevented.

                              {time}  2130

  Mr. Speaker, we must seriously consider this option. This answer is a 
world apart from the potential disaster of launching nuclear weapons or 
endless bombing of an unseen enemy. Marque and reprisal demands the 
enemy be seen and precisely targeted with minimal danger to others. It 
should be considered, and for various reasons, is far superior to any 
effort that could be carried out by the CIA.
  We must not sacrifice the civil liberties that generations of 
Americans have enjoyed and fought for over the past 225 years. Unwise 
decisions in response to the terror inflicted on us may well fail to 
destroy our enemy, while undermining our liberties here at home. That 
will not be a victory worth celebrating.
  The wise use of marque and reprisal could negate the need to 
undermine the privacy and rights of our citizens. As we work through 
this civil task, let us resist the temptation to invoke the most 
authoritarian of all notions that not too many years ago tore this 
Nation apart, the military draft.
  The country is now unified against the enemy. The military draft does 
nothing to contribute to unity, nor as the Pentagon again has 
confirmed, does it promote an efficient military.
  Precise identification of all travelers on our air flights is a 
desired goal. A national ID issued by the Federal Government would 
prove to be disastrous to our civil liberties and should not be 
considered. This type of surveillance power should never be given to an 
intrusive, overbearing government no matter how well intentioned the 
motives.
  The same result can be better achieved by the marketplace. Passenger 
IDs voluntarily issued by the airlines could be counterfeit-proof, and 
loss or theft of an ID could be immediately reported to the proper 
authorities. An ID, fingerprints, birth certificates, or any other 
information can be required without any violations of anyone's personal 
liberty.
  This delicate information would not be placed in the hands of the 
Government agents, but could be made available to law enforcement 
officers, like any other information obtained with probable cause in a 
search warrant.
  The heat of the moment has prompted calls by some of our officials 
for great sacrifice of our liberties and privacy. This poses great 
danger to our way of life and will provide little help in dealing with 
our enemies.
  Efforts of this sort will only punish the innocent and have no effect 
on a would-be terrorist. We should be careful not to do something just 
to do something, even something harmful.
  Mr. Speaker, I fear that some big mistakes could be made in pursuit 
of our enemies if we do not proceed with

[[Page 17952]]

great caution, wisdom, and deliberation. Action is necessary. Inaction 
is unacceptable.
  No doubt others recognize the difficulties in targeting such an 
elusive enemy. This is why the principle behind the marque and reprisal 
must be given serious consideration. In retaliation, an unintended 
consequence of a policy of wanton destruction without benefit to our 
cause could result in the overthrow of moderate Arab nations by the 
radicals that support bin Laden. This will not serve our interests and 
will surely exacerbate the threat to all Americans.
  As we search for a solution to the mess we are in, it behooves us to 
look at how John F. Kennedy handled the Cuban crisis in 1962. 
Personally, that crisis led to a 5-year tour in the U.S. Air Force for 
me. As horrible and dangerous as the present crisis is, those of us 
that held our breath during some very tense moments that October 
realized we were on the brink of a worldwide nuclear holocaust.
  That crisis represented the greatest potential danger to the world in 
all of human history. President Kennedy held firm and stood up to the 
Soviets as he should have and the confrontation was resolved. What was 
not known at the time was the reassessment of our foreign policy that 
placed nuclear missiles in the Soviet's back yard in Turkey. These 
missiles were quietly removed a few months later, and the world became 
a safer place in which to live. Eventually we won the Cold War without 
starting World War III.
  Our enemy today, as formidable as he is, cannot compare to the armed 
might of the Soviet Union in the fall of 1962. Wisdom and caution on 
Kennedy's part in dealing with the crisis was indeed a profile in 
courage. But his courage was not only in his standing up to the 
Soviets, but his willingness to reexamine our nuclear missile presence 
in Turkey which, if it had been known at the time, would have been 
condemned as an act of cowardice.
  President Bush now has the challenge to do something equally 
courageous and wise. This is necessary if we expect to avert a 
catastrophic World War III. When the President asks for patience as he 
and his advisors
deliberate seek a course of action, all Americans should surely heed 
this request.
  Mr. Speaker, I support President Bush and voted for the authority and 
the money to carry out his responsibilities to defend this country. But 
the degree of death and destruction and chances of escalation must be 
carefully taken into consideration.
  It is, though, only with sadness that I reflect on the support, the 
dollars, the troops, the weapons and training provided by U.S. 
taxpayers that are now being used against us. Logic should tell us that 
intervening in all the wars of the world has been detrimental to our 
own self-interest and should be reconsidered.
  The efforts of a small minority in Congress to avoid this 
confrontation by voting for the foreign policy of George Washington, 
John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson and all the 19th century Presidents 
went unheeded.
  The unwise policy of supporting so many militants who later became 
our armed enemies makes little sense, whether it is bin Laden or Saddam 
Hussein. A policy designed to protect America is wise and frugal, and 
hopefully it will once again be considered.
  George Washington, as we all know, advised strongly, as he departed 
his Presidency, that we should avoid all entangling alliances with 
foreign nations.
  The call for a noninterventionist policy over the past year has 
fallen on deaf ears. My suggestions made here today will probably meet 
the same fate. Yet, if truth is spoken, ignoring it will not negate it. 
In that case, something will be lost. But if something is said to be 
true and it is not and it is ignored, nothing is lost. My goal is to 
contribute to the truth and to the security of this Nation.
  What I have said today is different from what is said and accepted in 
Washington as conventional wisdom, but it is not in conflict with our 
history and our Constitution. It is a policy that has, whenever tried, 
generated more peace and prosperity than any other policy for dealing 
with foreign affairs. The authors of the Constitution clearly 
understood this. Since the light of truth shines brightest in the 
darkness of evil and ignorance, we should all strive to shine that 
light.

                          ____________________