Chapter 10. 1999

The UN inspired war with Iraq continued during the Clinton Administration without congressional authorization and without any real accountability as Congress forsook its constitutional duties.

February 2, 1999
HOW LONG WILL THE WAR WITH IRAQ GO ON
BEFORE CONGRESS NOTICES?
HON. RON PAUL of TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. Speaker, I ask my fellow colleagues, how long will the war go on before Congress notices? We have been bombing and occupying Iraq since 1991, longer than the occupation of Japan after World War II. Iraq has never committed aggression against the United States. The recent escalation of bombing in Iraq has caused civilian casualties to mount. The Clinton administration claims UN resolution 687, passed in 1991, gives him the legal authority to continue this war. We have perpetuated hostilities and sanctions for more than 8 years on a country that has never threatened our security, and the legal justification comes not from the U.S. Congress, as the Constitution demands, but from a clearly unconstitutional authority, the United Nations.

In the past several months, the airways have been filled with Members of Congress relating or restating their fidelity to their oath of office to uphold the Constitution. That is good, and I am sure it is done with the best of intentions. But when it comes to explaining our constitutional responsibility to make sure unconstitutional sexual harassment laws are thoroughly enforced, while disregarding most people’s instincts towards protecting privacy, it seems to be overstating a point, compared to our apathy toward the usurping of congressional power to declare and wage war. That is something we ought to be concerned about.

A major reason for the American Revolution was to abolish the King’s power to wage war, tax, and invade personal privacy without representation and due process of law. For most of our history, our presidents and our congresses understood that war was a prerogative of the congressional authority alone. Even minimal military interventions by our early presidents were, for the most part, only with constitutional approval.

This all changed after World War II with our membership in the United Nations. As bad as it is to allow our presidents to usurp congressional authority to wage war, it is much worse for the president to share this sovereign right with an international organization that requires us to pay more than our fair share while we get a vote no greater than the rest.

The Constitution has been blatantly ignored by the president, while Congress has acquiesced in endorsing the eight-year war against Iraq. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 has done nothing to keep our presidents from policing the world, spending billions of dollars, killing many innocent people, and jeopardizing the very troops that should be defending America.

The continual ranting about stopping Hussein—who is totally defenseless against our attacks—from developing weapons of mass destruction ignores the fact that more than 30,000 very real nuclear warheads are floating around the old Soviet empire.

Our foolish policy in Iraq invites terrorist attacks against U.S. territory and incites Islamic fundamentalists against us. As a consequence, our efforts to develop long-term peaceful relations with Russia are now ending. This policy cannot enhance world peace. Instead of changing it, the president is about to expand it in another no-win centuries-old fight in Kosovo.

It is time for Congress to declare its interest in the Constitution and take responsibility on issues that matter, like the war powers.

My “State of the Republic” for 1999 was a broad overview of federal policy, but specifically looked at the drift of the war-making power from Congress, where the Constitution places it, to the Executive. I also consider how our foreign policy dovetails with the general trend toward bigger government.

February 2, 1999
THE STATE OF THE REPUBLIC
or CONGRESS RELINQUISHING THE
POWER TO WAGE WAR
HON. RON PAUL of TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Madam Speaker, I have great concern for the future of the American Republic. Many Americans argue that we now enjoy the best of times. Others concern themselves with problems less visible but smoldering beneath the surface. Those who are content point out that the economy is booming, we are not at war, crime rates are down, and the majority of Americans feel safe and secure in their homes and community. Others point out that economic booms, when brought about artificially with credit creation, are destined to end with a bang. The absence of overt war does not negate the fact that tens of thousands of American troops are scattered around the world in the middle of ancient fights not likely to be settled by our meddling and which may escalate at any time.

Madam Speaker, the relinquishing of the power to wage war by Congress to the President, although ignored or endorsed by many, raises serious questions regarding the status of our Republic, and although many Americans are content with their routine activities, much evidence demonstrating that our personal privacy is routinely being threatened. Crime still remains a concern for many with questions raised as to whether or not violent crimes are accurately reported, and ironically there are many Americans who now fear that dreaded federal bureaucrat and possible illegal seizure of their property by the government more than they do the thugs in the street. I remain concerned about the economy, our militarism and internationalism, and the systemic invasion of our privacy in every aspect of our lives by nameless bureaucrats. I am convinced that if these problems are not dealt with, the Republic for which we have all sworn an oath to protect will not survive.

Madam Speaker, all Members should be concerned about the war powers now illegitimately assumed by the president, the financial bubble that will play havoc with the standard of living of most Americans when it bursts, and the systemic undermining of our privacy even in this age of relative contentment.

The Founders of this great nation abhorred tyranny and loved liberty. The power of the King to wage war, tax and abuse the personal rights of the American colonists drove them to rebel, win a revolution, and codify their convictions in a new Constitution. It was serious business, and every issue was thoroughly debated and explained most prominently in the Federalist Papers. Debate about trade among the States and with other countries, sound money, and the constraints on presidential power occupied a major portion of their time.

Initially the Articles of Confederation spoke clearly of just who would be responsible for waging war. It gave the constitutional Congress, “sole and exclusive right and power of determining on peace and war.” In the debate at the Constitutional Convention, it was clear that this position was maintained as the power of the British King was not to be “a proper guide in defining executive war powers” for the newly formed Republic. The result was a Constitution that gave Congress the power to declare war, issue letters of mark and reprisal, call up the militia, raise and train an Army and Navy, and regulate foreign commerce, a tool often used in international conflict. The president was also required to share power with the Senate in ratifying treaties and appointing ambassadors.

Let there be no doubt: the president, according to the Constitution, has no power to wage war. However it has been recognized throughout our history that certain circumstances might require the president to act in self-defense if Congress is not readily available to act if the United States is attacked.

Recent flagrant abuse of the power to wage war by modern-day presidents—including the most recent episodes in Iraq, Afghanistan and Sudan—should prompt this Congress to revisit this entire issue of war powers. Certain abuses of power are obviously more injurious than others. The use of the FBI and the IRS to illegally monitor and intimidate citizens is a power that should be easy to condemn, yet it continues to thrive. The illegal and immoral power to create money out of thin air for the purpose of financing a welfare-warfare state serving certain financial interests, while causing the harmful business cycle, is a process that most in Washington do not understand nor care about. These are ominous powers of great magnitude that were never meant to be permitted under the Constitution.

But as bad as these abuses are, the power of a single person, the president, to wage war is the most egregious of all presidential powers: and Congress deserves the blame for allowing such power to gravitate into the hands of the president. The fact that nary a complaint was made in Congress for the recent aggressive military behavior of our president in Iraq for reasons that had nothing to do with national security should not be ignored. Instead, Congress unwisely and quickly rubber-stamped this military operation. We should analyze this closely and decide whether or not we in the Congress should promote a war powers policy that conforms to the Constitution or continue to allow our presidents ever greater leverage to wage war any time, any place and for any reason.

This policy of allowing our presidents unlimited authority to wage war has been in place since the end of World War II, although abuse, to a lesser degree, has occurred since the beginning of the 20th Century. Specifically since joining the United Nations, congressional authority to determine when and if our troops will fight abroad has been seriously undermined. From Truman’s sending of troops to Korea to Bush’s Persian Gulf War, we have seen big wars fought, tens of thousands killed, hundreds of thousands wounded, and hundreds of billions of dollars wasted. U.S. security, never at risk, has been needlessly jeopardized by the so-called peacekeeping missions and police exercises, while constitutional law has been seriously and dangerously undermined.

Madam Speaker, something must be done. The cost of this policy has been great in terms of life and dollars and our constitutional system of law. Nearly 100,000 deaths occurred in the Vietnam and Korean Wars. If we continue to allow our presidents to casually pursue war for the flimsiest of reasons, we may well be looking at another major conflict somewhere in the world in which we have no business or need to be involved.

The correction of this problem requires a concerted effort on the part of Congress to reclaim and reassert its responsibility under the Constitution with respect to war powers. Efforts were made to do exactly that after Vietnam in 1973 and more recently in 1995. Neither effort was successful, and ironically, the president emerged with more power, with each effort being undermined by supporters in the Congress of presidential authoritarianism and internationalism. Few objected to the Truman-ordered UN police actions in Korea in the 1950s, but they should have. This illegal and major war encouraged all subsequent presidents to assume greater authority to wage war than was ever intended by the Constitution, or assumed by all the presidents prior to World War II. It is precisely because of the way we have entered in each military action since the 1940s without declaring war that their purposes have been vague and victory elusive; yet pain, suffering and long-term negative consequences have resulted. The road on which this country embarked 50 years ago has led to the sacrifice of a lot of congressional prerogatives and citizen control over the excessive powers that have fallen into the hands of presidents quite willing to abuse this authority. No one person, if our society is to remain free, should be allowed to provoke war with aggressive military acts. Congress and the people are obligated to rein in this flagrant abuse of presidential power.

Not only did we suffer greatly from the unwise and illegal Korean and Vietnam wars, Congress has allowed a continuous abuse of military power by our presidents in an ever-increasing frequency. We have seen: troops needlessly die in Lebanon; Grenada invaded for questionable reasons; Libya bombed with innocent civilians killed; persistent naval operations in the Persian Gulf; Panama invaded; Iraq bombed on numerous occasions; Somalia invaded; a secret and illegal war fought in Nicaragua; Haiti occupied; and troops stationed in Bosnia, and now possibly soon in Kosovo.

Even the congressional permission to pursue the Persian Gulf War was an afterthought, since President Bush emphatically stated that it was unnecessary, since he received his authority from the United Nations.

Without an actual declaration of war and support from the American people, victory is unachievable. This has been the case with the ongoing war against Iraq. Without a legitimate concern for our national security, the willingness to declare war and achieve victory is difficult. The war effort becomes narrowly political, serving special interests, not fought for the defense of the United States against a serious military threat. If we can win a Cold War against the Soviets, we hardly need a hot war with a third-world nation unable to defend itself, Iraq.

Great concern in the 1960s over the excessive presidential war powers was expressed by the American people, and, thus, the interests of the U.S. Congress after Vietnam in the early 1970s. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 resulted, but due to shrewd manipulation and political chicanery, the effort resulted in giving the president more authority, allowing him to wage war for 60 to 90 days without congressional approval.

Prior to the Korean War, when the Constitution and historic precedent had been followed, the president could not and, for the most part, did not engage in any military effort not directly defensive in nature without explicit congressional approval.

The result of the passage of the War Powers Resolution was exactly opposite to its authors’ intentions. More power is granted to the president to send troops hither and yon, with the various presidents sometimes reporting to the Congress and sometimes not. But Congress has unwisely and rarely objected, and has not in recent years demanded its proper role in decisions of war, nor hesitated to continue the funding that the various presidents have demanded.

Approval of presidentially directed aggression, disguised as "support for the troops," comes routinely, and if any Member does not obediently endorse every action a president might take, for whatever reason, it is implied the Member lacks patriotism and wisdom. It is amazing how we have drifted from the responsibility the Founders imagined that the Congress and the people would jealously protect.

It is too often and foolishly argued that we must permit great flexibility for the president to retaliate when American troops are in danger. But this is only after the president has invaded and placed our troops in harm’s way.

By what stretch of the imagination can one say that these military actions can be considered defensive in nature? The best way we can promote support for our troops is to employ them in a manner that is the least provocative. They must be given a mission confined to defending the United States, not policing the world or taking orders from the United Nations, or serving the special commercial interests of U.S. corporations around the world.

The 1995 effort to repeal the War Powers Resolution failed because it was not a clean repeal, but one still requiring consultation and reporting to the Congress. This led to enough confusion to prevent its passage.

What is needed is a return to the Constitution as a strict guide to who has the authority to exert the war powers and, as has been scrupulously followed in the 19th Century by essentially all political parties and presidents.

The effort to curtail presidential powers, while requiring consultation and reporting to the Congress, implies that is all that is needed to avoid the strict rules laid out by the Constitution.

It was admitted in the House debate by the House leadership that the repeal actually gave the president more power to use troops overseas and they, therefore, urged passage of the measure. This accurate assessment prompted antiwar, pro-peace Republicans and Democrats to narrowly reject the proposal.

The message here is that clarification of the War Powers Resolution and a return to constitutional law are the only way presidential authority to wage war can be curtailed. If our presidents do not act accordingly, Congress must quickly and forcefully meet its responsibility by denying funds for foreign intervention and aggression initiated by the president.

The basic problem here is that there are still too many Members of Congress who endorse a presidency armed with the authority of a tyrant to wage war. But if this assumption of power by the president with Congress’ approval is not reversed, the Republic cannot be maintained.

Putting the power in the hands of a single person, the president, to wage war, is dangerous and costly, and it destroys the notion that the people, through their congressional representatives, decide when military action should start and when war should take place.

The sacrifice of this constitutional principle, guarded diligently for 175 years and now severely eroded in the past 50, must be restored if we hope to protect our liberties and avoid yet another unnecessary and, heaven-forbid, major world conflict. Merely changing the law will not be enough to guarantee that future presidents will not violate their trust.

A moral commitment to the principle of limited presidential war powers in the spirit of the Republic is required. Even with the clearest constitutional restriction on the president to wage undeclared wars, buffered by precise legislation, if the sentiment of the Congress, the courts and the people or the president is to ignore these restraints, they will.

The best of all situations is when the spirit of the Republic is one and the same as the law itself, and honorable men are in positions of responsibility to carry out the law. Even though we cannot guarantee the moral commitment of future congresses or our presidents to the principles of liberty by changing the law, we still must make every effort possible to make the law and the Constitution as morally sound as possible.

Our responsibility here in the Congress is to protect liberty and do our best to ensure peace and trade with all who do not aggress against us. But peace is more easily achieved when we reject the notion that some Americans must subsidize foreign nations for a benefit that is intended to flow back to a select few Americans. Maintaining an empire or striving for a world government, while allowing excessive war powers to accrue to an imperial president, will surely lead to needless military conflicts, loss of life and liberty, and a complete undermining of our constitutional republic.

On another issue, privacy is the essence of liberty. Without it, individual rights cannot exist. Privacy and property are interlocked. If both were protected, little would need to be said about other civil liberties. If one’s home, church or business is one’s castle, and the privacy of one’s person, papers and effects are rigidly protected, all rights desired in a free society will be guaranteed. Diligently protecting the right to privacy and property guarantees religious, journalistic and political experience, as well as a free market economy and sound money. Once a careless attitude emerges with respect to privacy, all other rights are jeopardized.

Today we find a systematic and pervasive attack on the privacy of American citizens, which undermines the principle of private property ownership. Understanding why the attack on privacy is rapidly expanding and recognizing a need to reverse this trend are necessary if our Republic is to survive.

Lack of respect for the privacy and property of the American colonists by the British throne was a powerful motivation for the American Revolution and resulted in the strongly worded and crystal-clear Fourth Amendment.

Emphatically, searches and seizures are prohibited except when warrants are issued upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, with details given as to place, person and things to be seized.

This is a far cry from the routine seizure by the federal government and forfeiture of property which occurs today. Our papers are no longer considered personal and their confidentiality has been eliminated. Private property is searched by federal agents without announcement. Huge fines are levied when federal regulations appear to have been violated, and proof of innocence is demanded if one chooses to fight the abuse in court and avoid the heavy fines.

Eighty thousand armed federal bureaucrats and law enforcement officers now patrol our land and business establishments. Suspicious religious groups are monitored and sometimes destroyed without due process of law, with little or no evidence of wrongdoing. Local and state jurisdiction is rarely recognized once the feds move in.

Today, it is routine for government to illegally seize property, requiring the victims to prove their innocence in order to retrieve their property. Many times they fail due to the expense and legal roadblocks placed in the victim’s way.

Although the voters in the 1990s have cried out for a change in direction and demanded a smaller, less-intrusive government, the attack on privacy by the Congress, the administration and the courts has, nevertheless, accelerated. Plans have now been laid or implemented for a national I.D. card, a national medical data bank, a data bank on individual MDs, deadbeat dads, intrusive programs monitoring our every financial transaction.

The Social Security number has been established as the universal identifier. The Social Security number is now commonly used for just about everything: getting a birth certificate, buying a car, seeing an MD, getting a job, opening up a bank account, getting a driver’s license, making many routine purchases, and, of course, a death certificate. Cradle-to-the-grave government surveillance is here and daily getting more pervasive.

The attack on privacy is not a coincidence or an event that arises for no explainable reason. It results from a philosophy that justifies it and requires it. A government not dedicated to preserving liberty must, by its very nature, allow this precious right to erode.

A political system designed as ours was to protect life, liberty and property would vigorously protect all citizens’ rights to privacy; this cannot occur unless the property and the fruits of one’s labor, of every citizen, is protected from confiscation by thugs in the street as well as those in our legislative bodies.

The promoters of government intrusion into our privacy characteristically use wornout clichés to defend what they do. The most common argument is that if you have nothing to hide, why worry about it?

This is ludicrous. We have nothing to hide in our homes or our bedrooms, but that is no reason why Big Brother should be permitted to monitor us with a surveillance camera.

The same can be argued about our churches, our businesses, or any peaceful action we may pursue. Our personal activities are no one else’s business. We may have nothing to hide, but, if we are not careful, we have plenty to lose—our right to be left alone.

Others argue that to operate government programs efficiently and without fraud, close monitoring is best achieved with a universal identifier, the Social Security number.

Efficiency and protection from fraud may well be enhanced with the use of a universal identifier, but this contradicts the whole notion of the proper role for government in a free society.

Most of the federal programs are unconstitutional to begin with, so eliminating waste and fraud and promoting efficiency for a program that requires a violation of someone else’s rights should not be a high priority of the Congress. But the temptation is too great, even for those who question the wisdom of the government programs, and compromise of the Fourth Amendment becomes acceptable.

I have never heard of a proposal to promote the national I.D. card, or anything short of this for any reasons other than a good purpose. Essentially all those who vote to allow the continual erosion of our privacy and other constitutional rights never do it because they consciously support a tyrannical government; it is always done with good intentions.

Believe me, most of the evil done by elected congresses and parliaments throughout all of history has been justified by good intentions. But that does not change anything. It just makes it harder to stop.

Therefore, we cannot ignore the motivation behind those who promote the welfare state. Bad ideas, if implemented, whether promoted by men of bad intentions or good, will result in bad results.

Well-intentioned people, men of goodwill, should, however, respond to a persuasive argument. Ignorance is the enemy of sound policy, every bit as much as political corruption.

Various management problems in support of welfarism motivate those who argue for only a little sacrifice of freedom to achieve a greater good for society. Each effort to undermine our privacy is easily justified.

The national I.D. card is needed, it is said, to detect illegal aliens, yet all Americans will need it to open up a bank account, get a job, fly on an airplane, see a doctor, go to school or drive a car.

Financial privacy must be sacrificed, it is argued, in order to catch money launderers, drug dealers, mobsters and tax cheats. Privacy for privacy’s sake, unfortunately for many, is a nonissue.

The recent know-your-customer plan was designed by Richard Small, Assistant Director of the Division of Banking Supervision Regulation at the Federal Reserve. He is not happy with all of the complaints that he has received regarding this proposal. His program will require that every bank keep a detailed profile on every customer, how much is deposited, where it comes from, and when and how the money is spent. If there is any deviation from the profile on record, the bank is required to report this to a half dozen government agencies, which will require the customer to do a lot of explaining. This program will catch a few drug dealers, but will surely infringe on the liberty of every law-abiding citizen.

After thousands of complaints were registered at the Federal Reserve and the other agencies, Richard Small was quoted as saying that, in essence, the complaints were coming from these strange people who are overly concerned about the Constitution and privacy. Legal justification for the program, Small explained, comes from a court case that states that our personal papers, when in the hands of a third party like a bank, do not qualify for protection under the Fourth Amendment.

He is accurate in quoting the court case, but that does not make it right. Courts do not have the authority to repeal a fundamental right as important as that guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment. Under this reasoning, when applied to our medical records, all confidentiality between the doctor and the patient is destroyed.

For this reason, the proposal for a national medical data bank to assure us there will be no waste or fraud, that doctors are practicing good medicine, that the exchange of medical records between the HMOs will be facilitated and statistical research made easier, should be strenuously opposed. The more the government is involved in medicine or anything else, the greater the odds that personal privacy will be abused.

The IRS and the DEA, with powers illegally given them by the Congress and the courts, have prompted a flood of seizures and forfeitures in the last several decades without due process and, frequently, without search warrants or probable cause. Victims then are required to prove themselves innocent to recover the goods seized.

This flagrant and systematic abuse of privacy may well turn out to be a blessing in disguise. Like the public schools, it may provide the incentive for Americans finally to do something about the system.

The disaster state of the public school system has prompted millions of parents to provide private or home schooling for their children. The worse the government schools get, the more the people resort to private option, even without tax relief from the politicians. This is only possible as long as some remnant of our freedom remains, and these options are permitted. We cannot become complacent.

Hopefully, a similar reaction will occur in the area of privacy, but overcoming the intrusiveness of government into our privacy in nearly every aspect of our lives will be difficult. Home schooling is a relatively simple solution compared to avoiding the roving and snooping eye of Big Brother. Solving the privacy problem requires an awakening by the American people, with a strong message being sent to the U.S. Congress that we have had enough.

Eventually, stopping this systematic intrusion into our privacy will require challenging the entire welfare state. Socialism and welfarism self-destruct after a prolonged period of time due to their natural inefficiencies and national bankruptcy. As the system ages, more and more efforts are made to delay its demise by borrowing, inflating and coercion. The degree of violation of our privacy is a measurement of the coercion thought necessary by the proponents of authoritarianism to continue the process.

The privacy issue invites a serious discussion between those who seriously believe welfare redistribution helps the poor and does not violate anyone’s rights, and others who promote policies that undermine privacy in an effort to reduce fraud and waste to make the programs work efficiently, even if they disagree with the programs themselves. This opportunity will actually increase as it becomes more evident that our country is poorer than most believe and sustaining the welfare state at current levels will prove impossible. An ever-increasing invasion of our privacy will force everyone eventually to reconsider the efficiency of the welfare state, if the welfare of the people is getting worse and their privacy invaded.

Our job is to make a principled, moral, constitutional and practical case for respecting everyone’s privacy, even if it is suspected some private activities, barring violence, do not conform to our own private moral standards. We could go a long way to guaranteeing privacy for all Americans if we, as Members of Congress, would take our oath of office more seriously and do exactly what the Constitution says.

THE FINANCIAL BUBBLE

On a third item, the financial bubble: a huge financial bubble engulfs the world financial markets. This bubble has been developing for a long time, but has gotten much larger the last couple of years. Understanding this issue is critical to the economic security of all Americans that we all strive to protect.

Credit expansion is the root cause of all financial bubbles. Fiat monetary systems inevitably cause unsustainable economic expansion that results in a recession and/or depression. A correction always results, with the degree and duration being determined by government fiscal policy and central-bank monetary policy. If wages and prices are not allowed to adjust and the correction is thwarted by invigorated monetary expansion, new and sustained economic growth will be delayed or prevented. Financial dislocation caused by central banks in the various countries will differ from one another due to political perceptions, military considerations, and reserve currency status.

The U.S.’s ability to inflate has been dramatically enhanced by other countries’ willingness to absorb our inflated currency, our dollar being the reserve currency of the world. Foreign central banks now hold in reserve over $600 billion, an amount significantly greater than that even held by our own Federal Reserve System. Our economic and military power gives us additional license to inflate our currency, thus delaying the inevitable correction inherent in a paper money system. This only allows for a larger bubble to develop, further jeopardizing our future economy.

Because of the significance of the dollar to the world economy, our inflation and the dollar-generated bubble is much more dangerous than single currency inflation such as that of Mexico, Brazil, South Korea, Japan and others. The significance of these inflations, however, cannot be dismissed.

Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan, when the Dow was at approximately 6,500, cautioned the nation about irrational exuberance; and for a day or two, the markets were subdued. But while openly worrying about an unsustained stock market boom, he nevertheless accelerated the very credit expansion that threatened the market and created the irrational exuberance.

From December 1996, at the time that Greenspan made this statement, to December 1998, the money supply soared. Over $1 trillion of new money, as measured by M-3, was created by the Federal Reserve. MZM, another monetary measurement, is currently expanding at a rate greater than 20 percent. This generous dose of credit has sparked even more irrational exuberance, which has taken the Dow to over 9,000 for a 30 percent increase in just two years.

When the foreign registered corporation long-term capital management was threatened in 1998; that is, the market demanding a logical correction to its own exuberance with its massive $ 1 trillion speculative investment in the derivatives market, Greenspan and company quickly came to its rescue with an even greater acceleration of credit expansion.

The pain of market discipline is never acceptable when compared to the pleasure of postponing hard decisions and enjoying, for a while longer, the short-term benefits gained by keeping the financial bubble inflated. But the day is fast approaching when the markets and Congress will have to deal with the attack on the dollar, once it is realized that exporting our inflation is not without limits.

A hint of what can happen when the world gets tired of holding too many of our dollars was experienced in the dollar crisis of 1979 and 1980, and we saw at that time interest rates over 21 percent. There is abundant evidence around warning us of the impending danger. According to Federal Reserve statistics, household debt reached 81 percent of personal income in the second quarter of 1998. For 20 years prior to 1985, household debt averaged around 50 percent of personal income. Between 1985 and 1998, due to generous Federal Reserve credit, competent American consumers increased this to 81 percent; now it is even higher. At the same time, our savings rate has dropped to zero percent.

The conviction that stock prices will continue to provide extra cash and confidence in the economy have fueled wild consumer spending and personal debt expansion. The home refinance index between 1997 and 1999 increased 700 percent. Secondary mortgages are now offered up to 120 percent of a home’s equity, with many of these funds finding their way into the stock market. Generous credit and quasi-government agencies make these mortgage markets robust, but a correction will come when it is realized that the builders and the lenders have gotten ahead of themselves.

The willingness of foreign entities to take and hold our dollars has generated a huge current account deficit for the United States. It is expected that the $200 billion annual deficit that we are running now will accelerate to over $300 billion in 1999, unless the financial bubble bursts.

This trend has made us the greatest international debtor in the world, with a negative net international asset position of more than $1.7 trillion. A significantly weakened dollar will play havoc when this bill comes due and foreign debt holders demand payment.

Contributing to the bubble and the dollar strength has been the fact that even though the dollar has problems, other currencies are even weaker and thus make the dollar look strong in comparison. Budgetary figures are frequently stated in a falsely optimistic manner. In 1969, when there was a surplus of approximately $3 billion, the national debt went down approximately the same amount. In 1998, however, with a so-called surplus of $70 billion, the national debt went up $113 billion. Instead of the surpluses which are not really surpluses running forever, the deficits will rise with a weaker economy and current congressional plans to increase welfare and warfare spending.

Government propaganda promotes the false notion that inflation is no longer a problem. Nothing could be further from the truth. The dangerous financial bubble, a result of the Federal Reserve’s deliberate policy of inflation, and the Fed’s argument that there is no inflation according to government-concocted CPI figures, is made to justify a continuous policy of monetary inflation, because they are terrified of the consequence of deflation. The Federal Reserve may sincerely believe maintaining the status quo, preventing price inflation and delaying deflation is possible, but it really is not.

The most astute money manager cannot balance inflation against deflation as long as there is continued credit expansion. The system inevitably collapses, as it finally did in Japan in the 1990s. Even the lack of CPI inflation as reported by the Federal Reserve is suspect.

A CPI of all consumer items measured by the private source shows an approximate 400-percent increase in prices since 1970. Most Americans realize their dollars are buying less each year and no chance exists for the purchasing power of the dollar to go up. Just because prices of TVs and computers may go down, the cost of medicine, food, stocks and entertainment, and of course, government, certainly can rise rapidly.

One characteristic of an economy that suffers from a constantly debased currency is sluggish or diminished growth in real income. In spite of our so-called great economic recovery, two-thirds of U.S. workers for the past 25 years have had stagnant or falling wages. The demands for poverty relief from government agencies continue to increase. Last year alone, 678,000 jobs were lost due to downsizing. The new service sector jobs found by many of those laid off are rarely as good paying.

In the last year and a half, various countries have been hit hard with deflationary pressures. In spite of the IMF-led bailouts of nearly $200 billion, the danger of a worldwide depression remains. Many countries, even with the extra dollars sent to them courtesy of the American taxpayer, suffer devaluation and significant price inflation in their home currency.

Although helpful to banks lending overseas, this has clearly failed, has cost a lot of money, and prevents the true market correction of liquidation of debt that must eventually come. The longer the delay and the more dollars used, the greater the threat to the dollar in the future.

There is good reason why we in the Congress should be concerned. A dollar crisis is an economic crisis that will threaten the standard of living of many Americans. Economic crises frequently lead to political crises, as is occurring in Indonesia.

Congress is responsible for the value of the dollar. Yet, just as we have done too often in other areas, we have passed this responsibility on to someone else; in this case, to the Federal Reserve.

The Constitution is clear that the Congress has responsibility for guaranteeing the value of the currency, and no authority has ever been given to create a central bank. Creating money out of thin air is counterfeiting, even when done by a bank that the Congress tolerates.

It is easy to see why Congress, with its own insatiable desire to spend money and perpetuate a welfare and military state, cooperates with such a system. A national debt of $5.6 trillion could not have developed without a willing Federal Reserve to monetize this debt and provide for artificially low interest rates. But when the dollar crisis hits and it is clearly evident that the short-term benefits were not worth it, we will be forced to consider monetary reform.

Reconsidering the directives given us in the Constitution with regard to money would go a long way toward developing a sound monetary system that best protects our economy and guides us away from casually going to war. Monetary reform is something we ought to be thinking about now.

Mr. Speaker, let me summarize. We in the Congress, along with the President, will soon have to make a decision that will determine whether or not the American Republic survives. Allowing our presidents to wage war without the consent of Congress, ignoring the obvious significance of fiat money to a healthy economy, and perpetuating pervasive government intrusion into the privacy of all Americans will surely end the American experiment with maximum liberty for all unless we reverse this trend.

Too often the American people have chosen security over liberty. Allowing the president a little authority to deal with world problems under a UN banner has been easier than reversing the trend of the past 50 years. Accepting the financial bubble, when on the short run, it helps everyone’s portfolio and helps to finance government spending is easy, even if it only delays the day of reckoning when the bills come due, as they already have in so many other countries in the world.

Giving up a little privacy seems a small price to pay for the many who receive the generous benefits of big government, but when the prosperity comes to an end and the right to privacy has been squandered, it will be most difficult to restore the principles of a free society.

Materialistic concerns and complacency toward the principles of liberty will undo much of what has been built in America over the past 200 years, unless there is a renewed belief that our God-given rights to life and liberty are worth working for. False economic security is no substitute for productive effort in a free society, where the citizens are self-reliant, generous and nonviolent. Insisting on a limited government designed to protect life and property, as is found in a republic, must be our legislative goal.

As we moved toward direct military conflict with Serbia and the NATO bombing campaign, I made several statements indicating the folly of interventionism and the constitutionally suspect means by which we were undertaking these policies.

February 24, 1999
PRESIDENT HAS NO AUTHORITY TO WAGE WAR
WITHOUT CONGRESSIONALAPPROVAL
HON. RON PAUL of TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. Speaker, the threats of bombing did not bring a peace agreement to Kosovo. The president has no authority to wage war, yet Congress says nothing. When will Congress assume its war power authority to rein in the president? An endless military occupation of Bosnia is ignored by Congress, and the spending rolls on, yet there is no lasting peace.

For nine years, bombing Iraq and killing innocent Iraqi children with sanctions has done nothing to restore stability to Iraq, but it has served to instill an ever-growing hatred toward America. It is now clear that the threats of massive bombing of Serbia have not brought peace to Kosovo.

Congress must assume its responsibility. It must be made clear that the president has no funds available to wage war without congressional approval. This is our prerogative. Therefore, the endless threats of bombing should cease. Congress should not remain timid.

Merely telling the president to reconsider his actions will have little effect. We must be firm and deny the funds to wage war without our consent. We live in a republic, not a monarchy.

March. 9, 1999
WAR POWER AUTHORITY SHOULD BE RETURNED TO
CONGRESS
HON. RON PAUL of TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. Speaker, the president has stated that should a peace treaty be signed between Serbia and Kosovo he plans to send in at least 4,000 American soldiers as part of a NATO peacekeeping force.

We, the Congress, have been informed—through a public statement by the president—that troops will be sent. We have not been asked to act in a constitutional fashion to grant the president permission to act. He is not coming to us to fully explain his intentions. The president is making a public statement as to his intentions and we are expected to acquiesce, to go along with the funding, and not even debate the issue, just as we are doing in Iraq.

That is not a proper constitutional procedure, and it should be condemned. Silence in the past, while accommodating our presidents in all forms of foreign adventurism—from Korea and Vietnam to Iraq and Bosnia—should not be the standard Congress follows.

The Constitution is clear: Our presidents, from Washington to Roosevelt, all knew that initiating war was clearly the prerogative of the Congress, but our memories are flawed and our reading of the law is careless. The president should not be telling us what he plans to do; he should be giving us information and asking our advice. We are responsible for the safety of our troops, how taxpayers’ dollars are spent, the security of our nation, and especially the process whereby our nation commits itself to war.

Citing NATO agreements or UN resolutions as authority for moving troops into war zones should alert us all to the degree to which the rule of law has been undermined. The president has no war power; only the Congress has that. When one person can initiate war, by its definition, a republic no longer exists.

The war power, taken from the Congress 50 years ago, must be restored. If not, the conclusion must be that the Constitution of the United States can and has been amended by presidential fiat or treaty—both excluding the House of Representatives from performing its duty to the American people in preventing casual and illegal wars.

Some claim that the Kosovo involvement must be clarified as to where the money will come to finance it, the surplus or Social Security. This misses the point. We have and should exert the power of the purse, but a political argument over surpluses versus Social Security is hardly the issue.

Others have said that support should be withheld until an exit strategy is clearly laid out. But the debate should not be over the exit strategy. It is the entry process that counts.

The war powers process was set early on by our presidents in dealing with the North African pirates in the early 19th Century. Jefferson and Madison, on no less than 10 occasions, got Congress to pass legislation endorsing each military step taken. It has clearly been since World War II that our presidents have assumed power not granted to them by the Constitution, and Congress has been negligent in doing little to stop this usurpation.

In the case of Kosovo, no troops should be sent without the consent of Congress. Vague discussion about whether or not the money will come out of Social Security or the budget surplus or call for an exit strategy will not suffice. If the war power is taken from the president and returned to the Congress, we would then automatically know the funds would have to be appropriated and the exit strategy would be easy: when we win the war.

Vague police actions authorized by the United Nations or NATO, and implemented by the president without congressional approval, invite disasters with perpetual foreign military entanglements. The concept of national sovereignty and the rule of law must be respected, or there is no purpose for the Constitution.

March 11, 1999
PEACEKEEPING OPERATIONS IN KOSOVO RESOLUTION
HON. RON PAUL of TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the leadership for allowing this debate to come to the floor. I have, for quite a few weeks, advocated that we talk about this and have urged that the troops never be sent to Kosovo without our consent. I do believe, though, that the process here is less than perfect. The fact that we are talking about a House Concurrent Resolution at the same time we are authorizing troop deployment raises serious questions.

Since World War II, we have not been diligent here in the Congress to protect our prerogatives with respect to the declaration of war. The Korea and Vietnam Wars were fought without a declaration of war. And these wars were not won.

Since 1973, since the War Powers Resolution was passed, we have further undermined the authority of the Congress and delivered more authority to the president, because the resolution essentially has given the president more power to wage war up to 90 days without the Congress granting authority. It is to our credit at least that we are bringing this matter up at this particular time.

We must remember that there are various things involved here. First, whether or not we should be the world policeman. That answer should be easy. We should not be. It costs a lot of money to do what we are doing, and it undermines our military strength. So we should consider that.

We should consider the law and the process in the War Powers Resolution, and just exactly how we grant authority to the president to wage war. We should be more concerned about the Constitution and how we should give this authority. We should be concerned about this procedure.

The bigger question here, however, is if we vote for this—and I strongly oppose passing this, because if we vote for this, we authorize the moving of troops into a dangerous area. We should ask ourselves, if we are willing to vote for this resolution; are we ourselves willing to go to Kosovo and expose our lives on the front lines? Are we willing to send our children, or our grandchildren, to not only be exposed to the danger, with the pretext we are going to save the world, but with the idea that we may lose our life? That is what we have to consider.

March 17, 1999
WAR POWERS RESOLUTION
HON. RON PAUL of TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. Speaker, last week the House narrowly passed a watered-down House Concurrent Resolution originally designed to endorse President Clinton’s plan to send U.S. troops to Kosovo. A House Concurrent Resolution, whether strong or weak, has no effect of law. It is merely a sense of Congress statement.

If last week’s meager debate and vote are construed as merely an endorsement, without dissent, of Clinton’s policy in Yugoslavia, the procedure will prove a net negative. It will not be seen as a congressional challenge to unconstitutional presidential war power. If, however, the debate is interpreted as a serious effort to start the process to restore congressional prerogatives, it may yet be seen as a small step in the right direction. We cannot know with certainty which it will be. That will depend on what Congress does in the future.

Presently, those of us who argued for congressional responsibility with regards to declaring war and deploying troops cannot be satisfied that the trend of the last 50 years has been reversed. Since World War II, the war power has fallen into the hands of our presidents, with Congress doing little to insist on its own constitutional responsibility. From Korea and Vietnam, to Bosnia and Kosovo, we have permitted our presidents to “wag the Congress,” generating a perception that the United States can and should police the world. Instead of authority to move troops and fight wars coming from the people through a vote of their congressional representatives, we now permit our presidents to cite NATO declarations and UN resolutions.

This is even more exasperating, knowing that upon joining both NATO and the United Nations it was made explicitly clear that no loss of sovereignty would occur and all legislative bodies of member States would retain their legal authority to give or deny support for any proposed military action.

Today it is erroneously taken for granted that the president has authority to move troops and fight wars without congressional approval. It would be nice to believe that this vote on Kosovo was a serious step in the direction of Congress once again reasserting its responsibility for committing U.S. troops abroad. But the president has already notified Congress that, regardless of our sense of Congress resolution, he intends to do what he thinks is right—not what is legal and constitutional, only what he decides for himself.

Even with this watered-down endorsement of troop deployment with various conditions listed, the day after the headlines blared, “The Congress approves troop deployments to Kosovo.”

If Congress is serious about this issue, it must do more. First, Congress cannot in this instance exert its responsibility through a House Concurrent Resolution. The president can and will ignore this token effort. If Congress decides that we should not become engaged in the civil war in Serbia, we must deny the funds for that purpose. That we can do. Our presidents have assumed the war power, but as of yet, Congress still controls the purse.

Any effort on our part to enter a civil war in a country 5,000 miles away for the purpose of guaranteeing autonomy and/or a separate state against the avowed objections of the leaders of that country involved—that is, Yugoslavia—can and will lead to a long-term serious problem for us.

Our policy, whether it is with Iraq or Serbia, of demanding that if certain actions are not forthcoming, we will unleash massive bombing attacks on them, I find reprehensible, immoral, illegal, and unconstitutional. We are seen as a world bully, and a growing anti-American hatred is the result. This policy cannot contribute to long-term peace. Political instability will result and innocent people will suffer. The billions we have spent bombing Iraq, along with sanctions, have solidified Saddam Hussein’s power, while causing the suffering and deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi children. Our policy in Kosovo will be no more fruitful.

The recent flare-up of violence in Serbia has been blamed on the United States’ plan to send troops to the region. The Serbs have expressed outrage at the possibility that NATO would invade their country with the plan to reward the questionable Kosovo Liberation Army. If ever a case could be made for the wisdom of non-intervention, it is here. Who wants to defend all that the KLA had done and at the same time justify a NATO invasion of a sovereign nation for the purpose of supporting secession? “This violence is all America’s fault,” one Yugoslavian was quoted as saying. And who wants to defend Milosevic?

Every argument given for our bombing Serbia could be used to support the establishment of Kurdistan. Actually a stronger case can be made to support an independent Kurdistan, since their country was taken from them by outsiders. But how would Turkey feel about that? Yet the case could be made that the mistreatment of the Kurds by Saddam Hussein and others compel us to do something to help, since we are pretending that our role is an act as the world’s humanitarian policeman.

Humanitarianism, delivered by a powerful government through threats of massive bombing attacks, will never be a responsible way to enhance peace. It will surely have the opposite effect.

It was hoped that the War Powers Resolution of 1973 would rein in our president’s authority to wage war without congressional approval. It has not happened, because all subsequent presidents have essentially ignored its mandates. Unfortunately the interpretation, since 1973, has been to give the president greater power to wage war with congressional approval for at least 60 to 90 days as long as he reports to the Congress. These reports are rarely made, and the assumption has been, since 1973, that Congress need not participate in any serious manner in the decision to send troops.

It could be argued that this resulted from a confused understanding of the War Powers Resolution, but more likely it’s the result of the growing imperial Presidency that has developed with our presidents assuming power, not legally theirs, and Congress doing nothing about it.

Power has been gravitating into the hands of our presidents throughout this century, both in domestic and foreign affairs. Congress has created a maze of federal agencies, placed under the president, that have been granted legislative, police, and judicial powers, thus creating an entire administrative judicial system, outside our legal court system, where constitutional rights are ignored. Congress is responsible for this trend, and it’s Congress’ responsibility to restore constitutional government.

As more and more power has been granted in international affairs, presidents have readily adapted to using Executive Orders, promises and quasi-treaties to expand the scope and size of the presidency far above anything even the federalist ever dreamed of.

We are at a crossroads, and if the people and the Congress do not soon insist on the reining in of presidential power, both foreign and domestic, individual liberty cannot be preserved.

Presently, unless the people exert a lot more pressure on the Congress to do so, not much will be done. Specifically, Congress needs a strong message from the people insisting that the Congress continues the debate over Kosovo before an irreversible quagmire develops. The president today believes he is free to pursue any policy he wants in the Balkans and the Persian Gulf without congressional approval. It shouldn’t be that way. It’s dangerous politically, militarily and morally, and above all else, it undermines our entire system of the rule of law.

March 24, 1999
U.S. MILITARY ACTION TAKING PLACE
IN SERBIA IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
HON. RON PAUL of TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. Speaker, U.S. military forces are now bombing a foreign nation halfway around the world. This cannot be a proud moment for America. The reason given for doing so is that Serbian leaders have not done what we have told them to do.

Serbia has not invaded another country but is involved in a nasty civil war, with both sides contributing to the violence. There is no American security interest involved in Serbia. Serbia has not threatened us nor used any force against any American citizen.

As bad as the violence is toward the ethnic Albanians in Kosovo, our ability to police and stop all ethnic fighting around the world is quite limited and the efforts are not permitted under constitutional law. We do not even pretend to solve the problems of sub-Saharan Africa, Tibet, East Timor, Kurdistan, or many other places around the world where endless tragic circumstances prevail.

Our responsibility as U.S. Members of Congress is to preserve liberty here at home and uphold the rule of law. Meddling in the internal and dangerous affairs of a nation involved in civil war is illegal and dangerous. Congress has not given the president authority to wage war.

The House resolution regarding Kosovo was narrowly, reluctantly, and conditionally passed. It was a nonbinding resolution and had no effect of law. Even if it did, the resolution dealt with sending troops as a peacekeeping force to Kosovo only if a peace agreement was signed. There was no mention of endorsing an act of war against Serbia. Besides, the resolution was not the proper procedure for granting war powers to a president.

The Senate resolution, now claimed to be congressional consent for the president to wage war, is not much better. It, too, was a sense of Congress resolution without the force of law. It implies the president can defer to NATO for authority to pursue a war effort.

Only Congress can decide the issue of war. Congress cannot transfer the constitutional war power to the president or to NATO or to the United Nations. The Senate resolution, however, specifically limits the use of force to air operations and missile strikes, but no war has ever been won with air power alone. The Milosevic problem will actually get worse with our attacks, and ground troops will likely follow.

It has been argued that we are needed to stop the spread of war throughout the Balkans. Our presence will do the opposite, and it will certainly help the military-industrial complex. Peaceful and cooperative relations with Russia, a desired goal, have now ended; and we have provoked the Russians into now becoming a much more active ally of Serbia.

U.S. and NATO policy against Serbia will certainly encourage the Kurds. Every argument for Kosovo’s independence can be used by the Kurds for their long-sought-after independence. This surely will drive the Turks away from NATO.

Our determination to be involved in the dangerous civil war may well prompt a stronger Greek alliance with their friends in Serbia, further splitting NATO and offending the Turks, who are naturally inclined to be sympathetic to the Albanian Muslims. No good can come of our involvement in this Serbian civil war, no matter how glowing and humanitarian the terms used by our leaders.

Sympathy and compassion for the suffering and voluntary support for the oppressed is commendable. The use of force and acts of war to pick and choose between two sides fighting for hundreds of years cannot achieve peace. It can only spread the misery and suffering, weaken our defenses and undermine our national sovereignty.

Only when those who champion our war effort in Serbia are willing to volunteer for the front lines and offer their own lives for the cause will they gain credibility. Promoters of war never personalize it. It is always some other person or some other parent’s child whose life who will be sacrificed, not their own.

With new talk of reinstating the military draft, since many disillusioned military personnel are disgusted with the morale of our armed forces, Americans should all pay close attention as our leaders foolishly and carelessly rush our troops into a no-win war of which we should have no part.

While NATO’s Serbia campaign was ongoing, I became acquainted with some speeches of past conservative thinkers, such as Edmund Burke, who clearly stated the principles of non-intervention. By applying these ideas to current events, my hope was to renew truths that are timeless.

March 25, 1999
CLOSER TO EMPIRE
HON. RON PAUL of TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. Speaker, I rise again today to consider the effect of our current actions in Kosovo, but this time I do not wish to address the folly of war, for attempts to prevent war measures against that nation are now futile. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to address a long-term concern, a problem larger even than war. I am referring to the folly of empire.

Our involvement in Kosovo and in Iraq and in Bosnia—when combined with America’s role in Korea, and in the Middle East and other places around the world—is now lurching our republic ever closer to empire. Empire is something that all Americans ought to oppose.

I remind those who believe in the Judeo-Christian tradition that opposition to empire is to be found in the warnings found in the Book of Ezekiel, warnings against the empowerment of a king. And it is this same principle which is evident in the story of the Tower of Babel, and in that admonition of Christ, which reminds us that those things which are of Caesar are not of God.

To pragmatists, agnostics and such, I point to the decline and fall which has historically attended every other empire. The Ottomans and Romans, the Spanish and the British, all who have tried empire have faltered, and at great costs to their own nations.

Mr. Speaker, to liberals I would remind that these interventions, however well-intended, all require the use of forces of occupation. This is the key step toward colonialism, itself always leading to subjugation and to oppression.

To conservatives, I want to recall the founding of our Republic, our nation’s breaking from the yoke of empire in order that we might realize the benefits of liberty and self-determination, and that we might obtain the blessings that flow naturally from limitations on centralized power—empire reflecting the most perfect means yet devised to concentrate power in the fewest hands.

Now, Mr. Speaker, our own nation faces a choice, and we may well be at the very precipice. Indeed, to move even one step further down the road to empire may mean that there will be no turning back, short of the eventual decline and fall. Will we act now to restore our Republic?

It is oft repeated that we do not realize the import of our most critical actions at the time that we begin to undertake them. How true, Mr. Speaker, this statement is. Were Mr. Townshend, or the King in England in the least contemplative of the true cost which would eventuate as a result of the tea tax or the stamp act?

Now we must ask, is our nation on the verge of empire? Some will say no, because, they say we do not seek to have direct control over the governments of foreign lands. But how close are we to doing just that? And is it so important whether the dictates of empire come from the head of our government or from the Secretary General of some multilateral entity which we direct?

Today we attempt, directly or indirectly, to dictate to other sovereign nations who they ought and ought not have as leader, which peace accords they should sign, and what form of government they must enact. How limited is the distinction between our actions today and those of the emperors of history? How limited indeed. In fact, one might suggest that this is a distinction without a substantive difference.

Where now are we willing to commit troops and under what conditions? If we are to stop all violations of human rights, what will we do of Cuba, which recently announced new crackdowns?

And what of Communist China? Not only do they steal our secrets, but they violate their own citizens. Who should be more upset, for example, about forced abortion? Is it those who proclaim the inviolable right to life or those who argue for so-called reproductive rights? Even these polar opposites recognize the crimes of the Chinese government in forced abortion. Should we then stop this oppression of millions? Are we committed to lob missiles at this massive nation until it ceases this program?

Will the principle upon which we are now claiming to act lead us to impose our political solutions upon the nations that now contain Tibet and Kurdistan, and should the sentiment bear, even Quebec and Chechnya?

The most dangerous thing about where we are headed is our lack of historical memory and our disastrous inattention to the effect of the principles upon which we act, for ideas do indeed have consequences, Mr. Speaker, and they pick up a momentum that becomes all their own.

I do believe that we are on the brink, Mr. Speaker, but it is not yet too late. Soon I fear the train, as it is said, will have left the station. We stand on the verge of crossing the line that so firmly distinguishes empire from republic. This occurs not so much by an action, or series of actions, but by the acceptance of an idea, the idea that we have a right, a duty, an obligation, or a national interest to perfect foreign nations, even while we remain less than principled ourselves.

When will we, as a people and as an institution, say “We choose to keep our Republic; your designs for empire interest us not in the least.” I can only hope it will be soon, for it is my sincerest fear that failing to do so much longer will put us beyond this great divide.

March 25, 1999
PEACE
HON. RON PAUL of TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. Speaker, today I rise with gratitude to Edmund Burke and paraphrase words he first spoke 224 years ago this week. It is presently true that to restore liberty and dignity to a nation so great and distracted as ours is indeed a significant undertaking. For, judging of what we are by what we ought to be, I have persuaded myself that this body might accept this reasonable proposition.

The proposition is peace. Not peace through the medium of war, not peace to be hunted through the labyrinth of intricate and endless negotiations; not peace to arise out of universal discord, fomented from principle, in all part of the earth; not peace to depend on juridical determination of perplexing questions, or the precise marking the shadowy boundaries of distant nations. It is simply peace, sought in its natural course and in its ordinary haunts.

Let other nations always keep the idea of their sovereign self-government associated with our Republic and they will befriend us, and no force under heaven will be of power to tear them from our allegiance. But let it be once understood that our government may be one thing and their sovereignty another; that these two things exist without mutual regard one for the other—and the affinity will be gone, the friendship loosened and the alliance hastened to decay and dissolution. As long as we have the wisdom to keep this country as the sanctuary of liberty, the sacred temple consecrated to our common faith, wherever mankind worships freedom, they will turn their faces toward us. The more they multiply, the more friends we will have; the more ardently they love liberty, the more perfect will be our relations. Slavery they can find anywhere, as near to us as Cuba or as remote as China. But until we become lost to all feeling of our national interest and natural legacy, freedom and self-rule they can find in none but the American founding. These are precious commodities, and our nation alone was founded on them. This is the true currency which binds to us the commerce of nations and through them secures the wealth of the world. But deny others their national sovereignty and self-government, and you break that sole bond which originally made, and must still preserve, friendship among nations. Do not entertain so weak an imagination as that UN Charters and Security Councils, GATT and international laws, World Trade Organizations and General Assemblies are what promote commerce and friendship. Do not dream that NATO and peacekeeping forces are the things that can hold nations together. It is the spirit of community that gives nations their lives and efficacy. And it is the spirit of the Constitution of our Founders that can invigorate every nation of the world, even down to the minutest of these.

For is it not the same virtue which would do the thing for us here in these United States? Do you imagine then that it is the Income Tax that pays our revenue? That it is the annual vote of the Ways and Means Committee that provide us an army? Or that it is the Court Martial that inspires it with bravery and discipline? No! Surely, no! It is the private activity of citizens which gives government revenue, and it is the defense of our country that encourages young people to not only populate our Army and Navy, but also has infused them with a patriotism, without which our Army will become a base rubble and our Navy nothing but rotten timber.

All this, I know well enough, will sound wild and chimerical to the profane herd of those vulgar and mechanical politicians who have no place among us: a sort of people who think that nothing exists but what is gross and material, and who, therefore, far from being qualified to be directors of the great movement of this nation, are not fit to turn a wheel in the machinery of our government. But to men truly initiated and rightly taught these ruling and master principles, which in the opinion of such men as I have mentioned have no substantial existence, are in truth everything. Magnanimity in politics is often the truest wisdom, and a great nation and little minds go ill together. If we are conscious of our situation, and work zealously to fill our places, as becomes the history of this great institution, we ought to auspicate all our public proceedings on Kosovo with the old warning of the Church, Sursum corda! We ought to elevate our minds to the greatness of that trust to which the order of Providence has called us. By averting to the dignity of this high calling, our forefathers turned a savage wilderness into a glorious nation, and have made the most extensive and the only honorable conquests, not by bombing and sabre-rattling, but by promoting the wealth, the liberty, and the peace of mankind. Let us gain our allies as we obtain our own liberty. Respect of self-government has made our nation all that it is. Peace and neutrality alone will make ours the Republic that it can yet still be.

NATO was an institution I had long pointed to as a potential problem. This series of talks focuses attention on the role of NATO in the current conflict, and the pitfalls of a continued U.S. role in NATO.

April 12, 1999
IF NATO HAS ITS WAY, ALBANIAN KOSOVORS
WILL NOT REMAIN PART OF SERBIA
HON. RON PAUL of TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Madam Speaker, the U.S.-NATO war against Serbia is illegal by all standards. Congress has not declared war. Therefore, the president has no authority to wage war. Attacking a sovereign nation violates longstanding international law as well as the NATO and UN charters.

NATO’s aggression is immoral as well. It forces U.S. citizens and others in Europe opposed to the war to pay for it, and some are even forced to fight in it against their will. If the war expands, we can expect the return of the draft to make sure there are enough soldiers to participate.

As ugly as the Yugoslavian civil war may be in Kosovo, and as heart-wrenching as the pictures of mass refugees fleeing their homeland is, one evil can never justify another. If one is disinclined to be persuaded by law and morality and responds only to emotions, propaganda and half-truths, then one must consider the practical failure of compulsive intervention in the affairs of other nations.

Prior to NATO’s expanding the war in Yugoslavia, approximately 2,000 deaths in the past year were recorded in Kosovo. As a consequence of NATO’s actions, the killing has now escalated, and no one can be pleased just because now Serbs, our once-valiant allies against the Nazis, are dying. Those who are motivated by good intentions while ignoring facts cannot be excused for the escalating and dangerous crisis in Yugoslavia.

The humanitarian concerns for Albanian refugees is justified, but going to war because of emotional concerns while ignoring other millions of refugees around the world only stirs the passions of the oppressed—whether they are Kurds, Palestinians, Tibetans, East Timorans or Rwandans.

When NATO talks of returning Albanians to their homes in Kosovo, I wonder why there is no reference or concern for the more than 50,000 Serbs thrown out of their homes in Bosnia, Slovenia and Croatia. Current NATO policy in Yugoslavia will surely encourage more ethnic minorities around the world to revolt and demand independence.

Some in Congress are now saying that although they were strongly opposed to the administration’s policy of bombing in Yugoslavia prior to its onset, conditions are now different and an all-out effort to win with ground troops, if necessary, must be undertaken. This, it is said, is required to preserve NATO’s credibility.

Who cares about NATO’s credibility? Are American lives to be lost and a greater war precipitated to preserve NATO’s credibility? Should the rule of law and morality be thrown out in an effort to preserve NATO’s credibility? Can something be wrong and misguided before it is started and all of a sudden deserve to be blindly supported?

This reasoning makes no sense.

No one has quite figured out the secret motivation of why this war must be fought, but I found it interesting that evidence of our weapons shortage is broadcast to the world and to the Serbs. Surely one result of the war will be a rapid rush by Congress this year to massively increase the military budget. But a serious discussion of our flawed foreign policy of intervention that has served us so poorly unfortunately will not occur.

Political leaders and pundits are struggling to define an exit strategy for the war. In the old days when wars were properly declared for national security reasons, no one needed to ask such a question. A moral war fought against an aggressor for national security reasons was over when it was won. It has only been since Congress has reneged on its responsibility with regards to war power that it has become necessary to discuss how we exit a war not legitimately entered into and without victory as a goal.

The political wars, fought without declaration, starting with the Korean War to the present, have not enhanced the long-term security and liberty of the American people. Institutionalizing a collective approach to war seems a result of the obsession to save face for NATO. Never before in our history have we Americans accepted so casually the turning over of a military operation to foreign control with non-American spokesmen briefing us each day.

This is a major step in further solidifying the world-government approach to all political problems. There is, however, one major contradiction to the internationalists’ desire to assimilate all countries and ethnic groups and have them governed by a single world government.

Quite ironically, ethnic diversity will surely be the casualty of all of this mischief. NATO and the U.S. are co-conspirators and military allies of a Serbian province that is seeking to become a separate ethnic country. Let there be no doubt, if NATO has its way, Albanian Kosovors will not remain part of Serbia.

Current NATO and U.S. policy completely contradict the professed goal of multi-ethnicity and assimilation of all people. NATO’s operation, by its very nature, is bureaucratically burdened by the effort to appease the political concerns of 19 different countries. This inefficiency and the contradiction of supporting the establishment of an ethnic state will guarantee NATO’s deserved demise. The sooner we get out of Yugoslavia the better off everyone will be.

April 14, 1999
CRISIS IN KOSOVO
HON. RON PAUL of TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to address the crisis that is ongoing now in Yugoslavia. For a war to be moral, we must have a reason to go in. National defense is a moral justification. If we are attacked, it is a moral war. Getting involved in any other kind of war is not considered to be moral.

A legal war in this country is one that is declared, declared by the Congress. Any other war is illegal. The war in Yugoslavia now pursued by our administration and with NATO is both immoral and illegal, and it should not be pursued. We will soon be voting on an appropriation, probably next week. There may be a request for $5 billion to pursue the war in Yugoslavia. I do not believe that we should continue to finance a war that is both immoral and illegal.

It has been said that we are in Yugoslavia to stop ethnic cleansing, but it is very clear that the goal of the NATO forces is to set up an ethnic state.

It is totally contradictory. There is a civil war, and it is horrible, going on in Yugoslavia today, but this is no justification for outsiders, and especially United States of America, to become involved without the proper proceedings.

I believe that our colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell), deserves to be complemented because he is making a determined effort to put the burden on the Members of Congress to vote one way or the other. Since World War II we have fought numerous wars, and they have never been fought with a declaration of war. It is precisely for that reason, because they have not been fought for truly national security reasons, that we have not won these wars. If a war is worth fighting, it is worth declaring, and it is worth winning.

I am delighted that this effort is being made by the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) and others here in the Congress, because for so long, for 50 years now, we have permitted our presidents to casually and carelessly involve our troops overseas. So I see this trend as putting more pressure on the Congress to respond to their responsibilities. I think this is a very, very good move and going in the right direction.

It has been asked why in the world might we be there if it is not a concern for the refugees, because obviously we have hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of refugees in many, many places around the world. We do not go to Rwanda to rescue the refugees, we did not go into Yugoslavia to rescue the Serbian refugees when they were being routed from Bosnia and Croatia, but all of a sudden the refugees seem to have an importance.

Most people know why we went to the Persian Gulf. It was not because we were attacked. It was because of a financial commercial interest: oil. But what is the interest in this area in Yugoslavia? I am not sure exactly what it is. There have been a lot of postulations about this, but I am not convinced that it is all of a sudden the concern for the refugees.

Yesterday in the Washington Post, an interesting article occurred on this subject; but it was not in the news section; it was in the business section. The headline yesterday said: “Count Corporate America Among NATO’s Staunchest Allies.” Very interesting article because it explains why so many corporations have an intense interest in making sure that the credibility of NATO is maintained, and they go on to explain that it is not just the arms manufacturers but the technology people who expect to sell weapons in Eastern Europe, in Yugoslavia. They are very interested in making use of the NATO forces to ensure that their interests are protected. I think this is not the reason for us to go to war.

There is talk now of calling up all our Reserves, or many of our Reserves, at the same time there are hints now that there may be the institution of the draft. So this is a major problem that this country is facing, the world is facing; and up until now we, the Congress, have not spoken.

On February 9 of this year, I introduced a bill that would have prevented this by prohibiting any funds being spent on a war in Yugoslavia. I say it is too bad we did not pass that legislation a long time ago.

April 21, 1999
U.S. FOREIGN POLICY AND NATO’S INVOLVEMENT
IN YUGOSLAVIA AND KOSOVO
HON. RON PAUL of TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. Speaker, supporters of internationalism celebrated NATO’s 50th anniversary with the Senate’s 1998 overwhelming approval for expanding NATO to include Eastern European countries. This year’s official inclusion of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic made all NATO’s supporters proud, indeed. But in reality, NATO now is weaker and more chaotic than ever.

In the effort to expand NATO and promote internationalism, we see reaction in the rise of ugly nationalism. The U.S. and NATO policy of threats and intimidation to establish an autonomous Kosovo without true independence from Serbia, and protected by NATO’s forces for the foreseeable future, has been a recipe for disaster. This policy of nation-building and interference in a civil war totally contradicts the mission of European defense set out in the NATO charter.

Without the Soviet enemy to justify the European military machine, NATO had to find enemies and humanitarian missions to justify its existence. The centuries-old ethnic hatreds found in Yugoslavia and the militant leaders on all sides have served this purpose well. Working hard to justify NATO’s policy in this region has totally obscured any objective analysis of the turmoil now raging.

Some specific policy positions of NATO guaranteed that the ongoing strife would erupt into a full-fledged and dangerous conflict. Once it was determined in the early 1990s that outsiders would indict and try Yugoslavian war criminals, it was certain that cooperation with Western negotiators would involve risks. Fighting to the end became a practical alternative to a mock international trial. Forcing a treaty settlement on Serbia where Serbia would lose the sovereign territory of Kosovo guaranteed an escalation of the fighting and the forced removal of the Kosovors from their homes.

Ignoring the fact that more than 500,000 Serbs were uprooted from Croatia and Bosnia with the encouragement of NATO intervention did great harm to the regional effort to reestablish more stable borders.

The sympathy shown Albanian refugees by our government and our media, although justified, stirred the flames of hatred by our refusing to admit that over a half million Serbs suffered the same fate, yet elicited no concern from the internationalists bent on waging war. No one is calling for the return of certain property and homes.

Threatening a country to do what we the outsiders tell them or their cities will be bombed is hardly considered good diplomacy. Arguing that the Serbs must obey and give up what they see as sovereign territory after suffering much themselves, as well as face war crimes trials run by the West, makes no sense. Anyone should have been able to predict what the results would be.

The argument that, because of humanitarian concerns for the refugees, we were forced to act is not plausible. Our efforts dramatically increased the refugee problem. Milosevic, as he felt cornered by the Western threats, reacted the only way he could to protect what he considered Serbia, a position he defends with international law while being supported by unified Serb people.

If it is the suffering and the refugees that truly motivate our actions, there is no answer to the perplexing question of why no action was taken to help the suffering in Rwanda, Sudan, East Timor, Tibet, Chechnya, Kurdish Turkey, and for the Palestinians in Israel. This is not a reason; it is an excuse.

Instead, we give massive foreign aid to the likes of China and Russia, countries that have trampled on the rights of ethnic minorities.

How many refugees, how many children’s deaths has U.S. policy caused by our embargo and bombing for nine years of a defenseless, poverty-ridden Iraq. Just as our bombs in Iraq have caused untold misery and death, so have our bombs in Serbia killed the innocent on both sides, solidified support for the ruthless leaders, and spread the war.

This policy of intervention is paid for by the U.S. taxpayer and promoted illegally by our president without congressional authority, as required by the Constitution.

The United States government has, in the past, referred to the Kosovo Liberation Army leaders as thugs, terrorists, Marxists, and drug dealers. This current fight was initiated by Kosovo’s desire for independence from Serbia.

The KLA took on the Serbs, not the other way around. Whether or not one is sympathetic to Kosovo’s secession is irrelevant. I, for one, prefer many small independent governments pledged not to aggress against their neighbors over the international special-interest authoritarianism of NATO, the CIA, and the United Nations.

But my sympathies do not justify our taxing and sending young Americans to fight for Kosovo’s independence. It is wrong legally and morally; and besides, the KLA is not likely to institute a model nation respecting civil liberties of all its citizens.

The biggest irony of this entire mess is to see the interventionists, whose goal is one world government, so determined to defend a questionable group of local leaders, the KLA, bent on secession. This action will not go unnoticed and will provide the philosophic framework for the establishment of a Palestinian state, Kurdistan, and independent Tibet; and it will encourage many other ethnic minorities to demand independence.

Our policy of intervention in the internal affairs of other nations and their border disputes is not one that comes from American tradition or constitutional law. It is a policy based on our current leaders’ belief that we are the policemen of the world, something we have earnestly and foolishly pursued since World War II, and in a more aggressive fashion since the demise of the Soviet Union.

Interventionism is done with a pretense of wisdom believing we always know the good guys from the bad guys and that we will ignore the corporate and political special interests always agitating for influence. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Instead of being lucky enough on occasion to pick the right side of a conflict, we instead end up supporting both sides of nearly every conflict. In the 1980s, we helped arm, and allied ourselves with, the Iraqis against Iran. Also in the 1980s we supported the Afghan freedom fighters, which included Osama bin Laden. Even in the current crisis in Yugoslavia, we have found ourselves on both sides.

The United States, along with the United Nations, in 1992, supported an arms embargo against Kosovo essentially making it impossible for the Kosovors to defend themselves against Serbia. Helping the Albanian Muslims is interpreted by some as token appeasement to the Arab oil countries unhappy with the advantage the Serbs got from the arms embargo.

This balancing act between three vicious warring factions was doomed to fail and has only led to more instability and the spread of the war in the region.

Instead of pretending to be everything to everyone, while shifting alliances and blindly hoping for good to come of it, we should reconsider the advice of the Founders and take seriously the strict restraints on waging war placed in the Constitution.

Not much long-term good can come of a foreign policy designed to meddle and manipulate in places where we have no business or authority. It cannot help the cause of peace.

Unfortunately, our policies usually backfire and do more harm than good. When weaker nations are intimidated by more powerful ones, striking back very often can be done only through terrorism, a problem that will continue to threaten all Americans as our leaders incite those who oppose our aggressive stands throughout the world.

War has been used throughout history to enhance the state against the people. Taxes, conscription and inflation have been used as tools of the state to pursue wars not popular with the people. Government size and authority always grows with war, as the people are told that only the sacrifice of their liberties can save the nation. Propaganda and threats are used to coerce the people into carelessly giving up their liberties.

This has always been true with military wars, but the same can be said of the war mentality associated with the war on drugs, the war on poverty, the war against illiteracy, or any other war proposed by some social do-gooder or intentional mischief-maker.

But when a foreign war comes to our shores in the form of terrorism, we can be sure that our government will explain the need for further sacrifice of personal liberties to win this war against terrorism as well. Extensive preparations are already being made to fight urban and domestic violence, not by an enhanced local police force, but by a national police force with military characteristics.

Even the war against national disasters led by FEMA usurps local authority while imposing restraints on movement and controlling recovery efforts that should be left to local police, private insurance, and voluntary groups.

Our overseas efforts to police the world imply that, with or without success, resulting injuries and damage imposed by us and others will be rectified with U.S. tax dollars in the form of more foreign aid, as we always do. Nation building and international social work have replaced national defense as the proper responsibility of our government.

What will the fate of NATO be in the coming years? Many are fretting that NATO may dissolve over a poor showing in Yugoslavia, despite the 50th anniversary hype and its recent expansion. Fortunately for those who cherish liberty and limited government, NATO has a questionable future.

When our leaders sanctioned NATO in 1949, there were many patriotic Americans who questioned the wisdom and the constitutionality of this organization. It was by its charter to be strictly a defensive organization designed to defend Western Europe from any Soviet threat. The NATO charter clearly recognized the Security Council of the United Nations was responsible for the maintenance of international peace and security.

Likewise, the legislative history and congressional testimony maintained NATO could not usurp from Congress and the people the power to wage war. We have drifted a long way from that acknowledgment; the fears expressed by Robert Taft and others in 1949 were certainly justified.

The United States and NATO, while deliberately avoiding a UN vote on the issue, have initiated war against a sovereign state in the middle of a civil war. A civil war that caused thousands of casualties and refugees on both sides has been turned into a war with hundreds of thousands of casualties and refugees with NATO’s interference. The not-so-idle U.S. threats cast at Milosevic did not produce compliance. It only expanded the violence and the bloodshed.

The foolishness of this policy has become apparent, but Western leaders are quick to justify their warmongering. It was not peace or liberty or national security they sought as they sent the bombs flying. It was to save face for NATO.

Without the Soviets to worry about, NATO needed a mission, and stopping the evil Serbs fit the bill. It was convenient to ignore the evil Croates and the Kosovors, and it certainly was easy to forget the United Nations’, NATO’s, and the United States’ policies over the past decade that contributed to the mess in Yugoslavia.

It was soon apparent that bombing was no more a successful diplomatic tool than were the threats of dire consequences if the treaty, unfavorable to the Serbs, was not quickly signed by Milosevic. This drew demands that policy must be directed toward saving NATO by expanding the war. NATO’s credibility was now at stake. How could Europe or the United States war machine survive if NATO were to disintegrate?

Hopes as expressed by Ron Brown and his corporate friends were not extinguished by the unfortunate and mysterious Air Force crash while on their way to Bosnia to do business deals. Nobody even bothers to find out what U.S. policy condones business trips of our corporate leaders in a war zone on an Air Force aircraft. Corporate interests and the military-industrial complex continue to play a role in our Yugoslavian war policy. Corporate America loves NATO.

Most politicians and the public do not know what NATO’s real mission is, and today’s policy cannot be explained by reading its mission statement written in 1949. Certainly our vital interests and national security cannot justify our escalation of the war in Yugoslavia.

The excuse that we are the only superpower is hardly a moral reason to justify bombing nations that are seen as uncooperative. Military strength gives neither a right to bully nor a monopoly on wisdom. This strength too often, when held by large political entities, is used criminally to serve the powerful special interests.

The Persian Gulf and Yugoslavia obviously are much more economically intriguing than Rwanda and Sudan. There are clearly no business benefits for taking on the Chinese over its policy toward Tibet. Quite the contrary, we do business with China and subsidize her, to boot.

In spite of the powerful political and industrial leaders’ support behind NATO, and the budgets of 19 Western countries, NATO’s days appear numbered. We shall not weep when NATO goes the way of the Soviet Empire and the Warsaw Pact. Managing a war with 19 vetoes makes it impossible for a coherent strategy to evolve. Chaos, bickering, bureaucratic blundering, waste and political infighting will surely result.

There is no natural tendency for big government to enjoy stability without excessive and brute force, as was used in the Soviet system. Eventually the natural tendency towards instability, as occurred in the Soviet Empire, will bring about NATO’s well-deserved demise. NATO, especially since it has embarked on a new and dangerous imperialistic mission, will find using brute force to impose its will on others is doomed to fail.

It has been said that, in numbers, there is strength. But in politics, it can also be said that, in numbers, there is confusion as differences become magnified.

Nationalism is alive and well even within the 19-member NATO group. When nationalism is non-militaristic, peace-loving, and freedom-oriented, it is a force that will always undermine big-government planners, whether found in a Soviet system or a NATO/UN system.

The smaller the unit of government, the better it is for the welfare of all those who seek only peace and freedom. NATO no longer can hide its true intent behind an anti-Communist commitment.

Some have wondered how a 1960s generation administration could be so prone to war. The 1960s were known for their rebellion against the Vietnam War and a preference for lovemaking and drugs over fighting, even Communists. In recent months, four separate sovereign nations were bombed by the United States. This has to be some kind of a record. Bombing Belgrade on Easter has to tell us something about an administration that is still strangely seen by some as not having the determination to fight a real war. There is a big difference between being anti-war when one’s life is at risk as compared to when it is someone else’s. That may tell us something about character, but there is more to it than that.

Many who were opposed to the Persian Gulf and Vietnam Wars are now strongly supporting this so-called just and humanitarian war to punish those who are said to be totally responsible for the Yugoslavian refugee problem. The fact that Serbia is not Communist in the sense of North Vietnam may play a part for some in making the decision to support this war, but not the war in Vietnam. But the Persian Gulf War was not at all about communism; it was about oil.

Some from the left, if strongly inclined toward internationalism, supported the Persian Gulf War, but for the most part, the opposition came from those who chose not to support a president of the opposite party, while today, supporting one’s own party’s position to bomb the Serbs becomes politically correct.

The same can be said of those who are opposed to the Yugoslavian war. Where they supported the Persian Gulf War, this administration has not garnered their support for partisan reasons. The principles of interventionism, constitutionality and morality have not been applied consistently to each war effort by either political party; and there is a precise reason for this, over and above the petty partisanship of many.

The use of government force to mold personal behavior, manipulate the economy and interfere in the affairs of other nations is an acceptable practice endorsed by nearly everyone in Washington, regardless of party affiliation. Once the principle of government force is acknowledged as legitimate, varying the when and to what degree becomes the only issue. It is okay to fight Communists overseas but not Serbs; it is okay to fight Serbs but not Arabs. The use of force becomes completely arbitrary and guided by the politicians’ good judgment. When it pleases one group to use constitutional restraint, it does, but forget about the restraints when it is not convenient.

The 1960s crowd, although having a reputation for being anti-war due to their position on Vietnam, has never been bashful about its bold authoritarian use of force to mold economic conditions, welfare, housing, medical care, job discrimination, environment, wages and working conditions, combined with a love for taxes and inflation to pay the bills. When in general the principle of government force to mold society is endorsed, using force to punish Serbs is no great leap of faith, and for the interventionists is entirely consistent—likewise, the interventionists who justified unconstitutional fighting in Vietnam, Panama, Nicaragua, Grenada, Libya and the Persian Gulf, even if they despise the current war in Yugoslavia, can easily justify using government force when it pleases them and their home constituency.

Philosophic interventionism is a politician’s dream. It allows arbitrary intervention, domestic or international, and when political circumstances demand opposition, it is easy to cite the Constitution, which always and correctly rejects the use of government force, except for national self-defense and for the protection of life, liberty and property.

Politicians love interventionism and pragmatism—the prevailing philosophy of our age and a philosophy based on relative ethics. No rigid adherence to law or morality is required. Even the Constitution can be used in this delicate debate of just when and for whom we go to war. The trick is to grab the political moral high ground while rejecting the entire moral foundation upon which the law rests, natural rights, rejection of force and the requirement that politicians be strictly bound by a contract which all of us take an oath to uphold.

What does this hodgepodge philosophy here in the Congress mean for the future of peace and prosperity in general, and NATO and the United Nations in particular? Pragmatism cannot prevail. Economically and socially, it breeds instability, bankruptcy, economic turmoil and factionalism here at home. Internationally it will lead to the same results.

NATO’s days are surely numbered. That is the message of the current chaos in Yugoslavia. NATO may hold together in name only for a while, but its effectiveness is gone forever. The U.S. has the right to legally leave NATO with a one-year’s notice. We should leave, but we will not. We will continue to allow ourselves to bleed financially and literally for many years to come before it is recognized that governance of diverse people is best done by diverse and small governments—not by a one-world government dependent on the arbitrary use of force determined by politically correct reasons and manipulated by the powerful financial interests around the world.

Our more immediate problem is the financing of the ongoing war in Yugoslavia. On February 9 of this year I introduced legislation to deny funds to the president to wage war in Yugoslavia. The Congress chose to ignore this suggestion and missed an opportunity to prevent the fiasco now ongoing in Yugoslavia.

The president, as so many other presidents have done since World War II, took it upon himself to wage an illegal war against Yugoslavia under NATO’s authority, and Congress again chose to do nothing. By ignoring our constitutional responsibility with regards to war power, the Congress implicitly endorsed the president’s participation in NATO’s illegal war against Yugoslavia. We neither declared war nor told the president to cease and desist.

Now we have a third chance, and maybe our last, before the war gets out of control. We are being asked to provide all necessary funding for the war. Once we provide funds for the war, the Congress becomes an explicit partner in this ill-conceived NATO-inspired intervention in the civil war of a sovereign nation, making Congress morally and legally culpable.

Appropriating funds to pursue this war is not the way to peace. We have been bombing, boycotting and killing thousands in Iraq for nine years with no end in sight. We have been in Bosnia for three years, with no end in sight. And once Congress endorses the war in Yugoslavia with funding, it could take a decade, billions of dollars, and much more suffering on both sides, before we put it to an end.

Bellicosity and jingoism associated with careless and illegal intervention can never replace a policy of peace and friendship whenever possible—and when it is not, at least neutrality. NATO’s aggressive war of destruction and vengeance can only make the situation worse. The sooner we disengage ourselves from this ugly civil war, the better. It is the right thing to do.

In 1999 Chairman James Walsh of New York made an effort to end the Selective Service System. We worked closely with Citizens Against Government Waste and other groups but were opposed by Duke Cunningham of California. On September 8, 1999, we won the vote 232-187. Unfortunately, the Senate restored the funding in conference committee.

September 8, 1999
THE APPROPRIATION FOR THE SELECTIVE SERVICE
SYSTEM SHOULD NOT BE REINSTATED
HON. RON PAUL of TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Madam Speaker, later today we will be dealing with the VAHUD bill, and I want to compliment the Committee on Appropriations for deleting the $24.5 million for the selective service system. There will be an attempt to put that money back into the bill. I think that is a serious mistake.

The military has not asked for the selective service to continue. We do not need it. It is a serious abuse of the civil liberties of all 18- and 19-year-olds to continue this registration. The registration is totally unnecessary. This $24.5 million could be better spent on veterans’ affairs or some other worthy cause, but to put the money back in is a serious mistake.

I would like to remind my conservative colleagues that Ronald Reagan had a very strong position on the draft and selective service. He agreed that it was a totalitarian notion to conscript young people and strongly spoke out against the draft whenever he had the opportunity.

I also would like to remind my conservative colleagues that if somebody came to the House floor and asked that we register all the guns of America, there would be a hue and cry about why this would be unconstitutional and unfair, yet they are quite willing to register their 18-and 19-year-olds. I do not understand why there is less respect given for 18- and 19-year-olds than for their own guns.

I strongly urge that we not fund the selective service system today.

In 1999 events seemed to me to be providing an impetus and excuse for foreign terrorists to strike at us again. My hope was tha,t by reconsidering our policy, we might avoid a disaster on our own shores.

November 17, 1999
U.S. FOREIGN POLICY OF MILITARY INTERVENTIONISM
BRINGS DEATH, DESTRUCTION, AND LOSS OF LIFE
HON. RON PAUL of TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. Speaker, demonstrators are once again condemning America in a foreign city. This time, it is in Kabul, Afghanistan. Shouting “Death to America,” burning our flag, and setting off bombings, the demonstrators express their hatred toward America.

The United States has just placed sanctions on yet another country to discipline those who do not obey our commands. The nerve of them! Do they not know we are the most powerful nation in the world and we have to meet our responsibilities? They should do as we say and obey our CIA directives.

This process is not new. It has been going on for 50 years, and it has brought us grief and multiplied our enemies. Can one only imagine what the expression of hatred might be if we were not the most powerful nation in the world?

Our foreign policy of military interventionism has brought us death and destruction to many foreign lands and loss of life for many Americans. From Korea and Vietnam to Serbia, Iran, Iraq and now Afghanistan, we have ventured far from our shores in search of wars to fight. Instead of more free trade with our potential adversaries, we are quick to slap on sanctions that hurt American exports and help to solidify the power of the tyrants, while seriously penalizing innocent civilians in fomenting anti-America hatred.

The most current anti-American demonstrations in Kabul were understandable and predictable. Our one-time ally, Osama bin Laden, who served as a freedom fighter against the Soviets in Afghanistan and when we bombed his Serbian enemies while siding with his friends in Kosovo, has not been fooled and knows that his cause cannot be promoted by our fickle policy.

Sanctions are one thing, but seizures of bank assets of any related business to the Taliban government infuriates and incites the radicals to violence. There is no evidence that this policy serves the interests of world peace. It certainly increases the danger to all Americans as we become the number one target of terrorists. Conventional war against the United States is out of the question, but acts of terrorism, whether it is the shooting down of a civilian airliner or bombing a New York City building, are almost impossible to prevent in a reasonably open society.

Likewise, the bombings in Islamabad, and possibly the UN plane crash in Kosovo, are directly related to our meddling in the internal affairs of these nations.

General Musharraf’s successful coup against Prime Minister Sharif of Pakistan was in retaliation for America’s interference with Sharif’s handling of the Pakistan-India border war. The recent bombings in Pakistan are a clear warning to Musharraf that he, too, must not submit to U.S.-CIA directives.

I see this as a particularly dangerous time for a U.S. president to be traveling to this troubled region, since many blame us for the suffering, whether it is the innocent victims in Kosovo, Serbia, Iraq, or Afghanistan. It is hard for the average citizens of these countries to understand why we must be so involved in their affairs, and resort so readily to bombing and boycotts in countries thousands of miles away from our own.

Our foreign policy is deeply flawed and does not serve our national security interest. In the Middle East, it has endangered some of the moderate Arab governments and galvanized Muslim militants.

The recent military takeover of Pakistan and the subsequent anti-American demonstration in Islamabad should not be ignored. It is time we in Congress seriously rethink our role in the region and in the world. We ought to do more to promote peace and trade with our potential enemies, rather than resorting to bombing and sanctions.