[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 16]
[House]
[Page 22150]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     REJECT IRAQ WAR APPROPRIATION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the neo-conservative media machine has been 
hard at work lately drumming up support for the $87 billion 
appropriation to extend the precarious occupation of Iraq. Opposition 
to this funding, according to the Secretary of Defense, encourages our 
enemies and hinders the war against terrorism. This is a distortion of 
the facts and is nothing more than destroying the messenger when one 
disapproves of the message.
  Those within the administration, prior to the war, who warned of the 
dangers and real costs were fired. Yet it now turns out that they were 
more right, that it would not be a cakewalk, that it would require a 
lot more troops, and costs would far exceed original expectations.
  The President recently reminded us that we went into Iraq to force 
Iraq's compliance with U.N. resolutions since the U.N. itself was not 
up to the task. It was not for national security reasons. Yet we all 
know that the U.N. never endorsed this occupation.
  The question we in the Congress ought to ask is this: What if our 
efforts to Westernize and democratize Iraq do not work? Who knows? Many 
believe that our pursuit of nation building in Iraq will actually make 
things worse in Iraq, in the entire Middle East, through the entire 
Muslim world, and even here in the United States.
  This is a risky venture and this new funding represents an escalation 
of our efforts to defend a policy that has little chance of working.
  Since no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq, nor any 
evidence that the army of Saddam Hussein could have threatened the 
security of any nation, let alone the United States, a new reason is 
now given for the endless entanglement in a remote area of the world 
6,000 miles from our homeland.
  We are now told that the need to be in Iraq is to fight the 
terrorists that attacked us on 9/11. Yet, not one shred of evidence has 
been produced to show that the Iraqi government had anything to do with 
9/11 or the al-Qaeda.
  The American people are first told they have to sacrifice to pay for 
the bombing of Iraq. Now they must accept the fact that they must pay 
to rebuild it. If they complain, they will be accused of being 
unpatriotic and not supporting the troops. I wonder what a secret poll 
of our troops would show on whether or not they thought coming home 
next week indicated a lack of support for their well-being.
  Some believe that not raising taxes to pay for the war is a way to 
pay for the war on the cheap. It is not. When deficits skyrocket the 
Federal Government prints the money and the people are taxed by losing 
value in their savings and in their paychecks. The inflation tax is a 
sinister and evil way to pay for unpopular wars. It has been done that 
way for centuries.
  Mr. Speaker, I guess we shouldn't worry because we can find a way to 
pay for it. Already we are charging our wounded soldiers $8.10 a day 
for food when recuperating in a hospital from war injuries.
  We also know that other soldiers are helping out by buying their own 
night vision goggles, GPSs, short wave radios, backpacks and even 
shoes. That is sure to help as well.
  It does not seem like much of a bother to cut veterans' benefits. 
Besides, many conservatives for years have argued that deficits do not 
really matter, only tax rates do. So let us just quit worrying about 
deficits and this $87 billion supplemental.
  Seriously, though, funding for this misadventure should be denied no 
matter how well-meaning its supporters are. To expect a better world to 
come from force of arms abroad and confiscatory taxation at home is 
nothing but a grand illusion. The sooner we face the reality, the 
better.
  While we nation-build in Iraq in the name of defeating terrorism, we 
ignore our responsibilities to protect our borders at home and we 
compromise the liberties of our citizens with PATRIOT Act types of 
legislation.
  There are two main reasons we need to reject the foreign policy of 
the past 50 years that has been used to rationalize our presence in 
Iraq. First, the practical: We cannot expect to force Western, U.S.-
style democracy on a nation that for over 1,000 years learned to live 
with and accept an Islamic based legal system.
  No matter what we say or believe, to the Iraqis they have been 
invaded by the Christian West, and whether it is the United States, 
U.N. or European troops that are sent to teach them the ways of the 
West it will not matter.
  Second, we have no constitutional authority to police the world or 
involve ourselves in nation building, in making the world safe for our 
style of democracy. Our founders advised against it and the early 
Presidents followed that advice. If we believe strongly in our ideals, 
the best way to spread them is to set a good example so that others 
will voluntarily emulate us. Force will not work. Besides, we do not 
have the money. The $87 billion appropriations request should be 
rejected.

                          ____________________