Mr. Speaker, it is currently an accepted cliche to say foreign policy is a presidential matter and Congress should not meddle.

Frequently we hear the pleading it remained bipartisan with no dissent, especially when troops are placed in harm's way.

Yet no place in the Constitution do we find any such explicit instruction. Instead, we find no mention of foreign policy.

To the contrary, we find strict prohibitions placed on the President when it comes to dealing with foreign nations.

The Constitution is clear.

No treaties can be entered into without the consent of the Senate.

No war may be fought without the declaration of war by the Congress.

No money shall be spent overseas without Congress first raising the money, then authorizing it,

and appropriating these funds for specific purposes. Since the Constitution does not even

assume a standing army, let alone stationing troops in peacetime in over 100 countries

with CIA, clandestine activities, and even more,

the current foreign policy that has evolved over the past hundred years would surely be unrecognizable by the authors of that document.

The founders of this country were opposed to standing armings for fear they would be carelessly used.

They were right.

United States' record of foreign intervention and its failures have not yet prompted a serious

discussion of the need for an overall reassessment of this dangerous and out-of-control policy.

Not only has Congress failed in its responsibilities to restrain our adventurous presidents in pursuing war,

spying, and imposing America's will on other nations by installing leaders and at time

eliminating others throughout the world these past 50 years. We now, by default, have allowed

our foreign policy to be commandeered by international bodies

like NATO and the United Nations.

This can only lead to trouble for the United States and further threaten our liberties.

...