[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 95 (Thursday, June 21, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1106-E1107]




         INTRODUCING THE ``SYRIA NON-INTERVENTION ACT OF 2012''

                                 ______
                                 

                             HON. RON PAUL

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 21, 2012

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the Administration is marching toward another 
war in the Middle East, this time against Syria. As with the 
president's war against Libya, Congress has been frozen out of the 
process. The Constitution, which grants Congress and only Congress the 
authority to declare war, is once again being completely ignored.
  The push for a U.S. attack on Syria makes no sense, is not in our 
interest, and will likely make matters worse. Yet the Administration, 
after transferring equipment to the Syrian rebels and facilitating the 
shipment of weapons from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, has 
indicated that its plans for an actual invasion are complete.
  This week there are even press reports that the Central Intelligence 
Agency is distributing assault rifles, anti-tank rocket launchers, and 
other ammunition to the Syrian opposition. These are acts of war by the 
United States government. But where is the authority for the president 
to commit acts of war against Syria? There is no authority. The 
president is acting on his own.
  Today we are introducing legislation to prevent the administration 
from accelerating its plan to overthrow the Syrian government by 
assisting rebel forces that even the administration admits include 
violent Islamic extremists.
  The bill is simple. It states that absent a Congressional declaration 
of war on Syria:
  ``No funds available to the Department of Defense or an element of 
the intelligence community may be obligated or expended for the purpose 
or which would have the effect of supporting, directly or indirectly, 
military or paramilitary operations in Syria by any nation, group, 
organization, movement, or individual.''
  This legislation is modeled after the famous Boland Amendments of the 
early 1980s that were designed to limit the president's assistance to 
the Contras in their attempt to overthrow the government of Nicaragua. 
Congress has an obligation to exercise oversight of the president's 
foreign policy actions and to protect its constitutional prerogatives. 
This legislation will achieve both important functions.

[[Page E1107]]

  Mr. Speaker, the last thing this country needs is yet another war 
particularly in the Middle East. Even worse is the president once again 
ignoring the Legislative Branch and going to war on his own. I hope my 
colleagues will join me in standing up for our Constitutional authority 
and resisting what will be another disastrous war in the Middle East.

                          ____________________

HR 5993 IH

112th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. R. 5993

To prohibit the use of funds available to the Department of Defense or an element of the intelligence community for the purpose of, or which would have the effect of supporting, directly or indirectly, military or paramilitary operations in Syria by any nation, group, organization, movement, or individual.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

June 21, 2012

Mr. PAUL (for himself and Mr. CAMPBELL) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Select Committee on Intelligence (Permanent Select), for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned


A BILL

To prohibit the use of funds available to the Department of Defense or an element of the intelligence community for the purpose of, or which would have the effect of supporting, directly or indirectly, military or paramilitary operations in Syria by any nation, group, organization, movement, or individual.

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR MILITARY OR PARAMILITARY OPERATIONS IN SYRIA.

END

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 98 (Wednesday, June 27, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H4071]




         AMERICA'S FOREIGN POLICY OF MISCHIEF AND INTERVENTION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Paul) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, last week I introduced legislation, H.R. 5993, 
that would prohibit the President from providing military or 
paramilitary aid of any sort to any faction in the internal fighting in 
Syria. Unfortunately, it appears that the administration is already 
very much involved in supporting the overthrow of the Assad government.
  There's nary a whimper of criticism in Congress over our growing 
involvement in the civil war in Syria. The only noise we hear from 
Congress, and repeated in the media, is the complaint that we're not 
doing enough and that immediate, direct U.S. military action must be 
taken.
  Tragically, our political leaders show both bad judgment and short 
memories when it comes to the downside of our foreign policy of 
mischief and intervention. Our compulsion to engage ourselves in every 
conflict around the world is dangerous to our national security.
  In dealing with Syria, the administration pretends to pursue 
diplomacy and provide humanitarian assistance to the people. In 
reality, the U.S. Government facilitates weapons transfers to the 
rebels who are demanding immediate regime change.
  My goal is to stop our dangerous participation in the violence in 
Syria; yet evidence mounts that we're already deeply involved, with no 
expectation that the administration will back away from military 
engagement.

                              {time}  1040

  Recent reports indicate that the U.S. is providing logistics and 
communication assistance to the rebel forces. Assistance in getting 
arms to the rebels through surrogates is hardly a secret. Cooperating 
with the rebels' propaganda efforts has been reported and is used to 
prepare the American people for our coming involvement.
  There is every reason to expect that the well-laid plans to, once 
again, coordinate a favorable regime change will end badly. Even the 
strongest supporters of our direct and immediate military involvement 
in Syria admit that the rebel forces are made up of many groups, 
including al Qaeda, and no one is sure to whom the assistance should be 
given. All they claim is the need for the immediate removal of Assad.
  This policy is nothing new, and too often in our recent history our 
assistance with dollars and weapons used to overthrow a government ends 
up with the weapons being used, instead, against us. The blow-back from 
our policy of intervention has caused a great deal of harm to us since 
World War II:
  Propping up the Shah in Iran for 26 years was a powerful factor in 
motivating radical Islamists to eventually overthrow the Shah in 1979. 
The hostages taken at the U.S. Embassy at that time was as a 
consequence of our putting the Shah into power in 1953;
  In working with the mujahadeen in the 1980s, our CIA supported 
radical Islam in an effort to combat communist occupation in 
Afghanistan. Later, this led to the radical Islamists' hatred being 
turned against us over our occupation and interference in Muslim 
countries;
  The $40 billion given to Egypt for over 30 years to prop up the 
Musharraf dictatorship and to buy an unstable peace with Israel has 
ended with what appears to be the takeover of Egypt by the Muslim 
Brotherhood. They may well turn Egypt into a theocratic Islamic state 
unless our CIA is able to, once again, gain control. Al Qaeda now has a 
presence in parts of Egypt and has been involved in the bombing of the 
pipelines carrying gas to Israel. This is hardly a policy that is 
enhancing Israel's security.
  What are the possible unintended consequences of this policy if we 
foolishly escalate the civil war in Syria?
  The worst scenario would be an all-out war in the region involving 
Russia, the United States, Israel, Iran, Turkey, and others. The 
escalating conflict could rapidly make containment virtually 
impossible.
  Chaos in this region could encourage the Kurds in Syria, Iraq, 
Turkey, and Iran to decide it's an opportunity to move on their long-
sought-after goal of establishing a Kurdish state. Significant 
hostilities in the region would jeopardize the free flow of oil from 
the Middle East, causing sharp increases in the price of oil. The 
already weak economy of the West would suffer immensely. Some will 
argue erroneously that a major war would be beneficial to the economy 
and distract the people from their economic woes.
  War, however, is never an economic benefit, although many have been 
taught that for many decades. If liberty and prosperity are to be our 
goals, peace is a necessary ingredient of that process.

                          ____________________