Ron Paul

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me time. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill. The President has not asked for this piece of legislation; he does not support it. We do not anticipate that it will be passed in the other body. But there is one good part of the bill, and that is the title, ``Freedom Support.'' We all support freedom. It is just that this bill does not support freedom. Really, it undermines the liberties and the taxes of many Americans in order to pump another in $1.2 billion into Afghanistan. One of the moral justifications, maybe, for rebuilding Afghanistan is that it was the American bombs that helped to destroy Afghanistan in our routing of the Taliban. But there is a lot of shortcomings in this method. Nation-building does not work. I think this will fail. I do not think it will help us. I do not think for a minute that this is much different than social engineering that we try here in the U.S. with a lot of duress and a lot of problems; and now we are going to do it over there where we really do not understand the social conditions that exist, and it is not like here. Some, especially those in that part of the world, will see this as neo-colonialism because we are over there for a lot of different reasons. And even in the bill it states one of the reasons. It says, ``We are to design an overall strategy to advance U.S. interests in Afghanistan.'' Well, I wonder what that means? Over 10 years ago there was an explicit desire and a statement made by the administration that until we had a unified government in Afghanistan, we could not build a gas pipeline across northern Afghanistan. And that is in our interests. Does that mean this is one of the motivations? I imagine a lot of people here in the Congress might say no, but that might be the ultimate outcome. It is said that this bill may cut down on the drug trade. But the Taliban was stronger against drugs than the Northern Alliance. Drug production is up since we've been involved this past year in Afghanistan. Madam Chairman, I think it is important to state first off that while it is true that the administration has not actively opposed this legislation, it certainly has not asked for nor does it support the Afghanistan Freedom Support Act. It did not support the bill when we marked it up in the International Relations Committee, it did not support the bill after it was amended in Committee, and it does not support the bill today. Madam Chairman, perhaps the ``Afghanistan Freedom Support Act'' should more accurately be renamed the ``Afghanistan Territorial Expansion Act,'' because this legislation essentially treats that troubled nation like a new American territory. In fact, I wonder whether we give Guam, Puerto Rico, or other American territories anywhere near $1.2 billion every few years--so maybe we just should consider full statehood for Afghanistan. This new State of Afghanistan even comes complete with an American governor, which the bill charitably calls a ``coordinator.'' After all, we can't just give away such a huge sum without installing an American overseer to ensure we approve of all aspects of the fledgling Afghan government. Madam Chairman, when we fill a nation's empty treasury, when we fund and train its military, when we arm it with our weapons, when we try to impose foreign standards and values within it, indeed when we attempt to impose a government and civil society of our own making upon it, we are nation-building. There is no other term for it. Whether Congress wants to recognize it or not, this is neo-colonialism. Afghanistan will be unable to sustain itself economically for a very long time to come, and during that time American taxpayers will pay the bills. This sad reality was inevitable from the moment we decided to invade it and replace its government, rather than use covert forces to eliminate the individuals truly responsible for September 11th. Perhaps the saddest truth is that Bin Laden remains alive and free even as we begin to sweep up the rubble from our bombs. I am sure that supporters of this bill are well-intentioned, but judging from past experience this approach will fail to improve the lives of the average Afghan citizen. Though many will also attempt to claim that this bill is somehow about the attacks of 9/11, let's not fool ourselves: nation-building and social engineering are what this bill is about. Most of the problems it seeks to address predate the 9/ 11 attacks and those it purports to assist had nothing to do with those attacks. If we are operating under the premise that global poverty itself poses a national security threat to the United States, then I am afraid we have an impossible task ahead of us. As is often the case, much of the money authorized by this bill will go toward lucrative contracts with well-connected private firms and individuals. In short, when you look past all the talk about building civil society in Afghanistan and defending against terrorism, this bill is laden with the usual corporate welfare and hand-outs to special interests. Among other harmful things, this legislation dramatically expands the drug war. Under the group we have installed in Afghanistan, opium production has skyrocketed. Now we are expected to go in and clean up the mess our allies have created. In addition, this bill will send some $60 million to the United Nations, to help fund its own drug eradication program. I am sure most Americans agree that we already send the United Nations too much of our tax money, yet this bill commits us to sending even more. The drug war has been a failure. Plan Colombia, an enormously expensive attempt to reduce drug production in that Andean nation, has actually resulted in a 25 percent increase in coca leaf and cocaine production. Does anyone still think our ``war on drugs'' there has been successful? Is it responsible to continue spending money on policies that do not work? The bill also reflects a disturbing effort by the Washington elite to conduct experiments in social engineering in Afghanistan. It demands at least five times that the Afghans create a government that is ``broad- based, multi-ethnic, gender-sensitive, and fully representative.'' We are imposing race and gender quotas on a foreign government that have been found inappropriate and in some cases even illegal in the United States. Is this an appropriate activity to be carried out with taxpayer funds? Madam Chairman, the problem with nation-building and social- engineering, as experience tells us time and time again is that it simply doesn't work. We cannot build multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, gender-sensitive civil society and good governance in Afghanistan on a top-down basis from afar. What this bill represents is a commitment to deepening involvement in Afghanistan and a determination to impose a political system on that country based on a blueprint drawn up thousands of miles away by Washington elites. Does anyone actually believe that we can buy Afghan democracy with even the staggering sum of 1.2 billion dollars? A real democracy is the product of shared values and the willingness of a population to demand and support it. None of these things can be purchased by a foreign power. What is needed in Afghanistan is not just democracy, but freedom--the two are not the same. Release of funds authorized by this legislation is dependent on the holding of a traditional Afghan assembly of tribal representatives--a ``loya jirga''--as a first step toward democratization. It authorizes $10 million dollars to finance this meeting. That this traditional meeting will produce anything like a truly representative body is already in question, as we heard earlier this month that seven out of 33 influential tribal leaders have already announced they will boycott the meeting. Additionally, press reports have indicated that the U.S. government itself was not too long ago involved in an attempted assassination of a non-Taliban regional leader who happened to be opposed to the rule of the American-installed Hamid Karzai. More likely, this ``loya jirga'' will be a stage-managed showpiece, primarily convened to please Western donors. Is this any way to teach democracy? Madam Chairman, some two decades ago the Soviet Union also invaded Afghanistan and attempted to impose upon the Afghan people a foreign political system. Some nine years and 15,000 Soviet lives later they retreated in disgrace, morally and financially bankrupt. During that time, we propped up the Afghan resistance with our weapons, money, and training, planting the seeds of the Taliban in the process. Now the former Soviet Union is gone, its armies long withdrawn from Afghanistan, and we're left cleaning up the mess--yet we won't be loved for it. No, we won't get respect or allegiance from the Afghans, especially now that our bombs have rained down upon them. We will pay the bills, however, Afghanistan will become a tragic ward of the American state, another example of an interventionist foreign policy that is supposed to serve our national interests and gain allies, yet which does neither.

Mr. PAUL. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The President has not been interested in this legislation. I do not see a good reason to give him the burden of reporting back to us in 45 days to explain how he is going to provide for Afghan security for the long term. How long is long term? We have been in Korea now for 50 years. Are we planning to send troops that provide national security for Afghanistan? I think we should be more concerned about the security of this country and not wondering how we are going to provide the troops for long-term security in Afghanistan. We should be more concerned about the security of our ports. Madam Chairman, over the last several days and almost continuously, as a matter of fact, many Members get up and talk about any expenditure or any tax cut as an attack on Social Security, but we do not hear this today because there is a coalition, well built, to support this intervention and presumed occupation of Afghanistan. But the truth is, there are monetary and budget consequences for this. After this bill is passed, if this bill is to pass, we will be close to $2 billion in aid to Afghanistan, not counting the military. Now, that is an astounding amount of money, but it seems like it is irrelevant here. Twelve months ago, the national debt was $365 billion less than it is today, and people say we are just getting away from having surpluses. Well, $365 billion is a huge deficit, and the national debt is going up at that rate. April revenues were down 30 percent from 1 year ago. The only way we pay for programs like this is either we rob Social Security or we print the money, but both are very harmful to poor people and people living on a limited income. Our funds are not unlimited. I know there is a lot of good intention; nobody in this body is saying we are going over there to cause mischief, but let me tell my colleagues, there is a lot of reasons not to be all that optimistic about these wonderful results and what we are going to accomplish over there. Madam Chairman, earlier the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) came up with an astounding reason for us to do this. He said that we owe this to Afghanistan. Now, I have heard all kinds of arguments for foreign aid and foreign intervention, but the fact that we owe this to Afghanistan? Do we know what we owe? We owe responsibility to the American taxpayer. We owe responsibility to the security of this country. One provision of this bill takes a $300 million line of credit from our DOD and just gives the President the authority to take $300 million of weapons away from us and give it to somebody in Afghanistan. Well, that dilutes our defense, that does not help our defense. This is not beneficial. We do not need to have an occupation of Afghanistan for security of this country. There is no evidence for that. The occupation of Afghanistan is unnecessary. It is going to be very costly, and it is very dangerous. My colleagues might say, well, this is all for democracy. For democracy? Well, did we care about democracy in Venezuela? It seemed like we tried to undermine that just recently. Do we care about the democracy in Pakistan? A military dictator takes over and he becomes our best ally, and we use his land, and yet he has been a friend to the Taliban, and who knows, bin Laden may even be in Pakistan. Here we are saying we are doing it all for democracy. Now, that is just pulling our leg a little bit too much. This is not the reason that we are over there. We are over there for a lot of other reasons and, hopefully, things will be improved. But I am terribly concerned that we will spend a lot of money, we will become deeply mired in Afghanistan, and we will not do a lot better than the Soviets did. Now, that is a real possibility that we should not ignore. We say, oh, no, everything sounds rosy and we are going to do this, we are going to do it differently, and this time it is going to be okay. Well, if we look at the history of that land and that country, I would think that we should have second thoughts. It has been said that one of the reasons why we need this legislation is to help pay for drug eradication. Now, that is a good idea. That would be nice if we could do that. But the drug production has exploded since we have been there. In the last year, it is just going wild. Well, that is even more reason we have to spend money because we contributed to the explosion of the drug production. There is money in this bill, and maybe some good will come of this; there is money in this bill that is going to be used to teach the Afghan citizens not to use drugs.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, if this is successful, if we teach the Afghan people not to use drugs, that would be wonderful. Maybe then we can do something about the ravenous appetite of our people for drugs which is the basic cause of so much drug production. So to spend money on these kinds of programs I think is just a little bit of a stretch. Already there have been 33 tribal leaders that have said they will not attend this Loya Jirga, that they are not going to attend. The fact that we are going to spend millions of dollars trying to gather these people together and tell them what to do with their country, I think the odds of producing a secure country are slim. Already in the papers just a few weeks ago it was reported in The Washington Post that our CIA made an attempt to assassinate a former prime minister of Afghanistan. He may have been a bum for all I know, but do Members think that sits well? He was not an ally of bin Laden, he was not a Taliban member, yet our CIA is over there getting involved. As a matter of fact, that is against our law, if that report is true. Yet, that is what the papers have reported. So I would say that we should move cautiously. I think this is very dangerous. I know nobody else has spoken out against this bill, but I do not see much benefit coming from this. I know it is well motivated, but it is going to cost a lot of money, we are going to get further engaged, more troops are going to go over there; and now that we are a close ally of Pakistan, we do know that Pakistan and India both have nuclear weapons, and we are sitting right next to them. So I would hardly think this is advantageous for our security, nor advantageous for the American people, nor advantageous to the American taxpayer. I see this as a threat to our security. It does not reassure me one bit. This is what scares me. It scares me when we send troops into places like Vietnam and Korea and other places, because it ultimately comes back to haunt us.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, as a parent, grandparent, and ob-gyn who has delivered over three thousand babies, I certainly share the desire to protect children from pornography and other inappropriate material available on the internet. However, as a United States Congressman, I cannot support measures which exceed the limitations on constitutional power contained in Article one, Section 8 of the Constitution. The Constitution does not provide Congress with the authority to spend taxpayer funds to create new internet domains. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the federal government is singularly unqualified to act as the arbiter of what material is inappropriate for children. Instead, this is a decision that should be made by parents. Most of the problems pointed to by proponents of increased government control of the internet are the result of a lack of parental, not governmental, control of children's computer habits. Expanding the government's control over the Internet may actually encourage parents to disregard their responsibility to monitor their child's computer habits. After all, why should parents worry about what websites their children is viewing when the government has usurped this parental function? The market is already creating solutions to many of these problems through the development of filtering software that responsible parents can use to protect their children from inappropriate materials. The best way to address this problem is by allowing this market process to develop, not by creating new government regulations. In addition to creating new Internet domains, Congress is also expanding federal wiretapping powers. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues should also remember that the Constitution creates only three federal crimes, namely treason, piracy, and counterfeiting. Expansion of federal police power for crimes outside these well-defined areas thus violates the Constitution. In addition, expansion of federal wiretapping powers raises serious civil liberties concerns, as such powers easily can be abused by federal officials. I therefore hope my colleagues will respect the constitutional limitations on federal power. Instead of usurping powers not granted the federal government, Congress should allow state and local law enforcement, schools, local communities, and most of all responsible parents to devise the best measures to protect children.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3717, the Federal Deposit Insurance Reform Act, expands the federal government's unconstitutional control over the financial services industry and raises taxes on all financial institutions. Furthermore, this legislation could increase the possibility of future bank failures. Therefore, I must oppose this bill. I primarily object to the provisions in H.R. 3717 which may increase the premiums assessed on participating financial institutions. These ``premiums,'' which are actually taxes, are the premier sources of funds for the Deposit Insurance Fund. This fund is used to bail out banks who experience difficulties meeting their commitments to their depositors. Thus, the deposit insurance system transfers liability for poor management decisions from those who made the decisions, to their competitors. This system punishes those financial institutions which follow sound practices, as they are forced to absorb the losses of their competitors. This also compounds the moral hazard problem created whenever government socializes business losses. In the event of a severe banking crisis, Congress will likely transfer funds from the general revenue into the Deposit Insurance Fund, which could make all taxpayers liable for the mistakes of a few. Of course, such a bailout would require separate authorization from Congress, but can anyone imagine Congress saying ``No'' to banking lobbyists pleading for relief from the costs of bailing out their weaker competitors? Government subsidies lead to government control, as regulations are imposed on the recipients of the subsidies in order to address the moral hazard problem. This is certainly the case in banking, which is one of the most heavily regulated industries in America. However, as George Kaufman, the John Smith Professor of Banking and Finance at Loyola University in Chicago, and co-chair of the Shadow Financial Regulatory Committee, pointed out in a study for the CATO Institutes, the FDIC's history of poor management exacerbated the banking crisis of the eighties and nineties. Professor Kaufman properly identifies a key reason for the FDIC's poor track record in protecting individual depositors: regulators have incentives to downplay or even cover-up problems in the financial system such as banking facilities. Banking failures are black marks on the regulators' records. In addition, regulators may be subject to political pressure to delay imposing sanctions on failing institutions, thus increasing the magnitude of the loss. Immediately after a problem in the banking industry comes to light, the media and Congress will inevitably blame it on regulators who were ``asleep at the switch.'' Yet, most politicians continue to believe that giving the very regulators whose incompetence (or worst) either caused or contributed to the problem will somehow prevent future crises! The presence of deposit insurance and government regulations removes incentives for individuals to act on their own to protect their deposits or even inquire as to the health of their financial institutions. After all, why should individuals be concerned with the health of their financial institutions when the federal government is insuring banks following sound practices and has insured their deposits? Finally, I would remind my colleagues that the federal deposit insurance program lacks constitutional authority. Congress' only mandate in the area of money, and banking is to maintain the value of the money. Unfortunately, Congress abdicated its responsibility over monetary policy with the passage of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, which allows the federal government to erode the value of the currency at the will of the central bank. Congress' embrace of fiat money is directly responsible for the instability in the banking system that created the justification for deposit insurance. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3717 imposes new taxes on financial institutions, forces sound institutions to pay for the mistakes of their reckless competitors, increases the chances of taxpayers being forced to bail out unsound financial institutions, reduces individual depositors' incentives to take action to protect their deposits, and exceeds Congress's constitutional authority. I therefore urge my colleagues to reject this bill. Instead of extending this federal program, Congress should work to prevent the crises which justify government programs like deposit insurance, by fulfilling our constitutional responsibility to pursue sound monetary policies.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, no one can deny that welfare programs have undermined America's moral fabric and constitutional system. Therefore, all those concerned with restoring liberty and protecting civil society from the maw of the omnipotent state should support efforts to eliminate the welfare state, or, at the very last, reduce federal control over the provision of social services. Unfortunately, the misnamed Personal Responsibility, Work and Family Promotion Act (H.R. 4737) actually increases the unconstitutional federal welfare state and thus undermines personal responsibility, the work ethic, and the family. H.R. 4737 reauthorizes the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) block grant program, the main federal welfare program. Mr. Speaker, increasing federal funds always increases federal control as the recipients of the funds must tailor their programs to meet federal mandates and regulations. More importantly, since federal funds represent resources taken out of the hands of private individuals, increasing federal funding leaves fewer resources available for the voluntary provision of social services, which, as I will explain in more detail later, is a more effective, moral, and constitutional means of meeting the needs of the poor. H.R. 4737 further increases federal control over welfare policy by increasing federal mandates on welfare recipients. This bill even goes so far as to dictate to states how they must spend their own funds! Many of the new mandates imposed by this legislation concern work requirements. Of course, Mr. Speaker, there is a sound argument for requiring recipients of welfare benefits to work. Among other benefits, a work requirement can help a welfare recipient obtain useful job skills and thus increase the likelihood that they will find productive employment. However, forcing welfare recipients to work does raise valid concerns regarding how much control over one's life should be ceded to the government in exchange for government benefits. In addition, Mr. Speaker, it is highly unlikely that a ``one-size- fits-all'' approach dictated from Washington will meet the diverse needs of every welfare recipient in every state and locality in the nation. Proponents of this bill claim to support allowing states, localities, and private charities the flexibility to design welfare-to- work programs that fit their particular circumstances. Yet, as Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura points out in the attached article, this proposal constricts the ability of the states to design welfare- to-work programs that meet the unique needs of their citizens. As Governor Ventura points out in reference to this proposal's effects on Minnesota's welfare-to-welfare work program, ``We know what we are doing in Minnesota works. We have evidence. And our way of doing things has broad support in the state. Why should we be forced by the federal government to put our system at risk?'' Why indeed, Mr. Speaker, should any state be forced to abandon its individual welfare programs because a group of self-appointed experts in Congress, the federal bureaucracy, and inside-the-beltway ``think tanks'' have decided there is only one correct way to transition people from welfare to work? Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4737 further expands the reach of the federal government by authorizing $100 million dollars for new ``marriage promotion'' programs. I certainly recognize how the welfare state has contributed to the decline of the institution of marriage. As an ob-gyn with over 30 years of private practice. I know better than most the importance of stable, two parent families to a healthy society. However, I am skeptical, to say the least, of claims that government ``education'' programs can fix the deep-rooted cultural problems responsible for the decline of the American family. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, federal promotion of marriage opens the door for a level of social engineering that should worry all those concerned with preserving a free society. The federal government has no constitutional authority to promote any particular social arrangement; instead, the founders recognized that people are better off when they form their own social arrangements free from federal interference. The history of the failed experiments with welfarism and socialism shows that government can only destroy a culture; when a government tries to build a culture, it only further erodes the people's liberty. H.R. 4737 further raises serious privacy concerns by expanding the use of the ``New Hires Database'' to allow states to use the database to verify unemployment claims. The New Hires Database contains the name and social security number of everyone lawfully employed in the United States. Increasing the states' ability to identify fraudulent unemployment claims is a worthwhile public policy goal. However, every time Congress authorizes a new use for the New Hires Database it takes a step toward transforming it into a universal national database that can be used by government officials to monitor the lives of American citizens. As with all proponents of welfare programs, the supporters of H.R. 4737 show a remarkable lack of trust in the American people. They would have us believe that without the federal government, the lives of the poor would be ``nasty, brutish and short.'' However, as scholar Sheldon Richman of the Future of Freedom Foundation and others have shown, voluntary charities and organizations, such as friendly societies that devoted themselves to helping those in need, flourished in the days before the welfare state turned charity into a government function. Today, government welfare programs have supplemented the old-style private programs. One major reason for this is that the policy of high taxes and the inflationary monetary policy imposed on the American people in order to finance the welfare state have reduced the income available for charitable giving. Many over-taxed Americans take the attitude toward private charity that ``I give at the (tax) office.'' Releasing the charitable impulses of the American people by freeing them from the excessive tax burden so they can devote more of their resources to charity, is a moral and constitutional means of helping the needy. By contrast, the federal welfare state is neither moral or constitutional. Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to level excessive taxes on one group of citizens for the benefit of another group of citizens. Many of the founders would have been horrified to see modern politicians define compassion as giving away other people's money stolen through confiscatory taxation. In the words of the famous essay by former Congressman Davy Crockett, this money is ``Not Yours to Give.'' Voluntary charities also promote self-reliance, but government welfare programs foster dependency. In fact, it is the self-interests of the bureaucrats and politicians who control the welfare state to encourage dependency. After all, when a private organization moves a person off of welfare, the organization has fulfilled its mission and proved its worth to donors. In contrast, when people leave government welfare programs, they have deprived federal bureaucrats of power and of a justification for a larger amount of taxpayer funding. In conclusion, H.R. 4737 furthers federal control over welfare programs by imposing new mandates on the states which furthers unconstitutional interference in matters best left to state local governments, and individuals. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose it. Instead, I hope my colleagues will learn the lessons of the failure of the welfare state and embrace a constitutional and compassionate agenda of returning control over the welfare programs to the American people through large tax cuts. Welfare: Not the Fed's Job (By Jesse Ventura) In 1996, the federal government ended 60 years of failed welfare policy that trapped families in dependency rather than helping them to self-sufficiency. The 1996 law scrapped the federally centralized welfare system in favor of broad flexibility so states could come up with their own welfare programs. It was a move that had bipartisan support, was smart public policy and worked. Welfare reform has been a huge success. Even those who criticized the 1996 law now agree it is working. Welfare case loads are down, more families are working, family income is up, and child poverty has dropped. The reason is simple: state flexibility. In six short years the states undid a 60-year-old federally prescribed welfare system and created their own programs which are far better for poor families and for taxpayers. But now it appears the Bush administration is having second thoughts about empowering the states. The administration's proposal would return us to a federally prescribed system. It would impose rules on how states work with each family, forcing a ``one size fits all'' model for a system that for the past six years has produced individualized systems that have been successful in states across the country. I would hope that as a former governor, President Bush would understand that these problems are better handled by the individual states. The administration's proposal would cripple welfare reform in my state and many others. I know that my friend Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson did a wonderful job of reforming Wisconsin's welfare system. But that doesn't mean the Wisconsin system would be as effective in Vermont. My state of Minnesota is also a national model for welfare reform. It is a national model, in part because we make sure welfare reform gets families out of poverty. How do we do this? Exactly the way President Bush and Secretary Thompson would want us to do it: by putting people to work. But here's the rub--it matters how families on welfare get to work. In Minnesota, we work with each family one on one and use a broad range of services to make sure the family breadwinner gets and keeps a decent job. For some families it might take a little longer that what the president is comfortable with, but the results are overwhelmingly positive. A three-year follow-up of Minnesota families on welfare found that more than three-quarters have left welfare or gone to work. Families that have left welfare for work earn more than $9 an hour, higher than comparable figures in other states. The federal government has twice cited Minnesota as a leader among the states in job retention and advancement. An independent evaluation of Minnesota's welfare reform pilot found it to be perhaps the most successful welfare reform effort in the nation. The evaluation found Minnesota's program not only increased employment and earnings but also reduced poverty, reduced domestic abuse, reduced behavioral problems with kids and improved their school performance. It also found that marriage and marital stability increased as a result of higher family incomes. The administration's proposal would have Minnesota set all this aside and focus instead on make-work activities. In Minnesota we believe that success in welfare reform is about helping families progress to a self-sufficiency that will last. While it may be politically appealing to demand that all welfare recipients have shovels in their hands, it makes sense to me that the states--and not the feds--are in the best position to make those decisions. We know what we are doing in Minnesota works. We have evidence. And our way of doing things has broad support in the state. Why should we be forced by the federal government to put our system at risk? I believe in accountable and responsive government, and have no problem with the federal government holding states accountable for results in welfare reform. But I also believe that in this case the people closest to the problem should be trusted to solve the problem and be left alone if they have. Secretary Thompson, with the blessing of the president, seems to be taking us down a road that violates the tenets of states' rights. Say it ain't so, Tommy. As long as it's working, why not let the states do our own thing?

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, while I support this legislation, I would like to make a few observations. It is unfortunate that we are in a position where we must act on such legislation. Because of our unwise policy of foreign interventionism, which has placed thousands of American service members in the Middle East including in Saudi Arabia, we are placed in a no-win situation. Either we disregard and mock the customs and culture of Saudi Arabia by refusing to adhere to dress codes that they have adopted, or we subject American women to a dress code that is offensive to our own culture and customs and is disrespectful to the sacrifices they are making for this country. What a choice, Mr. Speaker! I am voting for this bill because I believe, on the whole, that it is preferable to place concerns about our own citizens over those whose homeland is being defended by American troops. Young Americans join the all-volunteer military as an act of patriotism in hopes of defending their country and their constitution. We in Congress must honor that sacrifice. it is bad enough that our troops are sent around the world to defend foreign soil. Asking them to comply with foreign customs which violate basic American beliefs about freedom in order to appease the very governments our troops are defending adds insult to injury. I do not believe a single female member of the armed forces enlisted for the ``privilege'' of wearing an abaya while defending the House of Saud or that one single male member of the armed forces enlisted in order to force his female colleagues to wear an abaya. The fact remains that we continue to maintain troops in a place where they are not needed. It is the consequences of this dangerous policy that concern me most. Isn't it time to return to a more sound foreign policy, one that respects the culture of others by not intervening in their affairs? Is it not time to bring American troops home to protect America, rather than continuing to station them in far off lands where the protection they offer is not needed?

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues who believe that the current war on terrorism justifies violating the liberty of millions of young men by reinstating a military draft will consider the eloquent argument against conscription in the attached speech by Daniel Webster. Then-representative Webster delivered his remarks on the floor of the House in opposition to a proposal to institute a draft during the War of 1812. Webster's speech remains one of the best statements of the Constitutional and moral case against conscription. Despite the threat posed to the very existence of the young republic by the invading British Empire, Congress ultimately rejected the proposal to institute a draft. If the new nation of America could defeat what was then the most powerful military empire in the world without a draft, there is no reason why we cannot address our current military needs with a voluntary military. Webster was among the first of a long line of prominent Americans, including former President Ronald Reagan and Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, to recognize that a draft violates the fundamental principles of liberty this country was founded upon. In order to reaffirm support for individual liberty and an effective military, I have introduced H. Con. Res. 368, which expresses the sense of Congress against reinstating a military draft. I urge my colleagues to read Daniel Webster's explanation of why the draft is incompatible with liberty government and cosponsor H. Con. Res. 368. On--Conscription (By Daniel Webster) During America's first great war, waged against Great Britain, the Madison Administration tried to introduce a conscription bill into Congress. This bill called forth one of Daniel Webster's most eloquent efforts, in a powerful opposition to conscription. The speech was delivered in the House of Representatives on December 9, 1814; the following is a condensation. This bill indeed is less undisguised in its object, and less direct in its means, than some of the measures proposed. It is an attempt to exercise the power of forcing the free men of this country into the ranks of an army, for the general purposes of war, under color of a military service. It is a distinct system, introduced for new purposes, and not connected with any power, which the Constitution has conferred on Congress. But, Sir, there is another consideration. The services of the men to be raised under this act are not limited to those cases in which alone this Government is entitled to the aid of the militia of the States. These cases are particularly stated in the Constitution--``to repel invasion, suppress insurrection, or execute the laws.'' The question is nothing less, than whether the most essential rights of personal liberty shall be surrendered, and despotism embraced in its worst form. When the present generation of men shall be swept away, and that this Government ever existed shall be a matter of history only, I desire that it may then be known, that you have not proceeded in your course unadmonished and unforewarned. Let it then be known, that there were those, who would have stopped you, in the career of your measures, and held you back, as by the skirts of your garments, from the precipice, over which you are plunging, and drawing after you the Government of your Country. Conscription is chosen as the most promising instrument, both of overcoming reluctance to the Service, and of subduing the difficulties which arise from the deficiencies of the Exchequer. The administration asserts the right to fill the ranks of the regular army by compulsion. It contends that it may now take one out of every twenty-five men, and any part or the whole of the rest, whenever its occasions require. Persons thus taken by force, and put into an army, may be compelled to serve there, during the war, or for life. They may be put on any service, at home or abroad, for defence or for invasion, according to the will and pleasure of Government. This power does not grow out of any invasion of the country, or even out of a state of war. It belongs to Government at all times, in peace as well as in war, and is to be exercised under all circumstances, according to its mere discretion. This, Sir, is the amount of the principle contended for by the Secretary of War (James Monroe). Is this, Sir, consistent with the character of a free Government? Is this civil liberty? Is this the real character of our Constitution? No, Sir, indeed it is not. The Constitution is libelled, foully libelled. The people of this country have not established for themselves such a fabric of despotism. They have not purchased at a vast expense of their own treasure and their own blood a Magna Carta to be slaves. Where is it written in the Constitution, in what article or section is it contained, that you may take children from their parents, and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battles of any war, in which the folly or the wickedness of Government may engage it? Under what concealment has this power lain hidden, which now for the first time comes forth, with a tremendous and baleful aspect, to trample down and destroy the dearest rights of personal liberty? Sir, I almost disdain to go to quotations and references to prove that such an abominable doctrine has no foundation in the Constitution of the country. It is enough to know that that instrument was intended as the basis of a free Government, and that the power contended for is incompatible with any notion of personal liberty. An attempt to maintain this doctrine upon the provisions of the Constitution is an exercise of perverse ingenuity to extract slavery from the substance of a free Government. It is an attempt to show, by proof and argument, that we ourselves are subjects of despotism, and that we have a right to chains and bondage, firmly secured to us and our children, by the provisions of our Government. The supporters of the measures before us act on the principle that it is their task to raise arbitrary powers, by construction, out of a plain written charter of National Liberty. It is their pleasing duty to free us of the delusion, which we have fondly cherished, that we are the subjects of a mild, free and limited Government, and to demonstrate by a regular chain of premises and conclusions, that Government possesses over us a power more tyrannical, more arbitrary, more dangerous, more allied to blood and murder, more full of every form of mischief, more productive of every sort and degree of misery, than has been exercised by any civilized Government in modern times. But it is said, that it might happen that any army would not be raised by voluntary enlistment, in which case the power to raise armies would be granted in vain, unless they might be raised by compulsion. If this reasoning could prove any thing, it would equally show, that whenever the legitimate powers of the Constitution should be so badly administered as to cease to answer the great ends intended by them, such new powers may be assumed or usurped, as any existing administration may deem expedient. This is a result of his own reasoning, to which the Secretary does not profess to go. But it is a true result. For if it is to be assumed, that all powers were granted, which might by possibility become necessary, and that Government itself is the judge of this possible necessity, then the powers of Government are precisely what it chooses they should be. The tyranny of Arbitrary Government consists as much in its means as in its end; and it would be a ridiculous and absurd constitution which should be less cautious to guard against abuses in the one case than in the other. All the means and instruments which a free Government exercises, as well as the ends and objects which it pursues, are to partake of its own essential character, and to be conformed to its genuine spirit. A free Government with arbitrary means to administer it is a contradiction; a free Government without adequate provision for personal security is an absurdity; a free Government, with an, uncontrolled power of military conscription, is a solecism, at once the most ridiculous and abominable that ever entered into the head of man. Into the paradise of domestic life you enter, not indeed by temptations and sorceries, but by open force and violence. Nor is it, Sir, for the defense of his own house and home, that he who is the subject of military draft is to perform the task allotted to him. You will put him upon a service equally foreign to his interests and abhorrent to his feelings. With his aid you are to push your purposes of conquest. The battles which he is to fight are the battles of invasion; battles which he detests perhaps and abhors, less from the danger and the death that gather over them, and the blood with which they drench the plain, than from the principles in which they have their origin. If, Sir, in this strife he fall--if, while ready to obey every rightful command of Government, he is forced from home against right, not to contend for the defense of his country, but to prosecute a miserable and detestable project of invasion, and in that strife he fall, 'tis murder. It may stalk above the cognizance of human law, but in the sight of Heaven it is murder; and though millions of years may roll away, while his ashes and yours lie mingled together in the earth, the day will yet come, when his spirit and the spirits of his children must be met at the bar of ominipotent justice. May God, in his compassion, shield me from any participation in the enormity of this guilt. A military force cannot be raised, in this manner, but by the means of a military force. If administration has found that it can not form an army without conscription, it will find, if it venture on these experiments, that it can not enforce conscription without an army. The Government was not constituted for such purposes. Framed in the spirit of liberty, and in the love of peace, it has no powers which render it able to enforce such laws. The attempt, if we rashly make it, will fail; and having already thrown away our peace, we may thereby throw away our Government. I express these sentiments here, Sir, because I shall express them to my constituents. Both they and myself live under a Constitution which teaches us, that ``the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.'' With the same earnestness with which I now exhort you to forbear from these measures, I shall exhort them to exercise their unquestionable right of providing for the security of their own liberties.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a bill Expressing the Sense of the Congress regarding the International Criminal Court. On Monday, May 6, President George W. Bush directed his representative to inform United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan that the United States ``does not intend to become a party to the treaty [the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC)].'' President Bush is to be highly commended for renouncing the U.S. signature on the ICC treaty, a bold first step toward protecting American servicemembers and citizens from the possibility of unwarranted and politically-motivated persecutions. By taking this action, President Bush has put the international community on notice that the United States will defend its sovereignty and citizens from this global court. The Bush Administration correctly pointed out that the ICC has unchecked power that contradicts our Constitution and its system of checks and balances; that the Court is ``open for exploitation and politically-motivated prosecutions;'' and that ``the ICC asserts jurisdiction over citizens of states that have not ratified the treaty''--which seriously threatens American sovereignty. I applaud President Bush in making it perfectly clear that the United States wants no part of the ICC. He faced enormous pressure from the international community to do otherwise, yet he did the right thing. But this is only a first step. As Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stated this week, upon our renunciation of the ICC: ``Unfortunately, the ICC will not respect the U.S. decision to stay out of the treaty. To the contrary, the ICC provisions claim the authority to detain and try American citizens--U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines, as well as current and future officials--even though the United States has not given its consent to be bound by the treaty.'' Secretary Rumsfeld added, ``When the ICC treaty enters into force this summer, U.S. citizens will be exposed to the risk of prosecution by a court that is unaccountable to the American people, and that has no obligation to respect the Constitutional rights of our citizens.'' Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman, explaining the president's decision to withdraw from the ICC, made the following critical point: ``Notwithstanding our disagreements with the Rome Treaty, the United States respects the decision of those nations who have chosen to join the ICC, but they in turn must respect our decision not to join the ICC or place our citizens under the jurisdiction of the court.'' There is no indication that Undersecretary Grossman's message has been received. Therefore, this legislation makes it clear that Congress should take all steps necessary to grant appropriate authority to the president to defend the American people--servicemember and citizen alike--from the threat of arrest, prosecution and conviction by the International Criminal Court. I am introducing this legislation to also to commend President Bush for his courageous move, to assure the president that this body supports his action to protect the Constitution and American sovereignty. We have all taken an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, and we should stand with the president. I rise, finally, to encourage the president to remain steadfast in his intention of protecting American servicemembers and citizens from the unchecked power of the International Criminal Court. This is only the beginning, however, there is much more to be done.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr).

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, it is unprecedented to repudiate a signature on a treaty, but it is very important. They must have felt it was extremely important for the protection of our soldiers. So it is this discomfort we might feel about the repudiation of a signature versus doing what we think is best to protect our troops. I honestly believe that this is very necessary. Now, the argument that all of a sudden we are going to capture Saddam Hussein and we are not going to have the international criminal court to deal with him, that is really not a good argument because the special tribunals for Yugoslavia as well as Rwanda can and still be set up. It has nothing to do with that, so that would still be available. And it is the jurisdiction, it is the sovereignty, it is the civil liberties of the American soldier that we are dealing with. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) brought this up, and this is very true. These trials, they do not have juries. The judges are appointed in secret. They cannot face their accusers. And we are going to join an organization like that, endorse it, send money and say that our troops may become subject to this? To me, it is an extremely dangerous situation that we have here now, because we did not even ratify the treaty. We have repudiated the signature and they are still saying this is going to apply to our soldiers. We have a serious problem on our hands and we should at least do this very little thing here, because this is a sense of Congress resolution that we would not like to have the President spend any money on this, and this would support his position. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time. (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, first I would like to thank the cosponsors of this amendment, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr), the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon), the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon). This amendment is not complex at all. It is a sense of Congress resolution as put in the bill. It says, ``It is the sense of Congress that none of the funds appropriated pursuant to authorizations of appropriations in this Act should be used for any assistance to, or to cooperate with or to provide any support for the International Criminal Court.'' This amendment is to urge the President not to use any funds for the International Criminal Court. I would like it to be a mandate. It is not, but it is still very, very important. I think this sends a message to our servicemen that they will never have to be taken into court against their will in the International Criminal Court. On December 31, right before the last day of the treaty, the Rome Convention, could be signed, our President signed this convention, but it has never been ratified. It has not been brought to the Senate. It was too late, and our President now does not have any intention. We might say why worry about it, but just recently we all know that the President has essentially rescinded the signature on this treaty to make the point that we do not want our servicemen called in and tried in International Criminal Court as war criminals. So it is a protection of the servicemen. But the interesting thing is that under this Rome Convention, the agreement is once 60 nations sign the treaty, it goes into effect. Even with what the President did by rescinding the signature and saying we do not want any part of it, we are still under international law under the understanding that our servicemen could be called into International Criminal Court. We have to make this message very loud and clear. This is not overly strong, but I think we should make this message and say that none of these funds should be spent, but we still have to offer protection to our personnel that they never be called into this International Criminal Court. To me, it is an issue of national sovereignty, and it is an issue that is important to a lot of Americans. It is what our job should be, to protect our country. For this reason, I think this is very important. I hope I can get Members to agree with the amendment and pass it. Mr. Chairman, earlier this week President Bush took the bold step of renouncing the signature of the United States on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The Bush Administration, in explaining this move, correctly pointed out that this court has unchecked power that contradicts our Constitution and its system of checks and balances; that the Court is ``open for exploitation and politically-motivated prosecutions;'' and that ``the ICC asserts jurisdiction over citizens of states that have not ratified the treaty''--which undermines American sovereignty. President Bush, in renouncing the U.S. signature and declaring that the United States would have nothing to do with the International Criminal Court, has put the Court on notice that the United States will defend its sovereignty and its citizens. The president is to be most highly commended for standing strong for American sovereignty in the face of world-wide attempts to undermine that sovereignty with this deeply flawed global court. But there is no time to rest on this victory. As Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stated this week, upon our renunciation of the ICC: ``Unfortunately, the ICC will not respect the U.S. decision to stay out of the treaty. To the contrary, the ICC provisions claim the authority to detain and try American citizens--U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines, as well as current and future officials--even though the United States has not given its consent to be bound by the treaty.'' Secretary Rumsfeld added, ``When the ICC treaty enters into force this summer, U.S. citizens will be exposed to the risk of prosecution by a court that is unaccountable to the American people, and that has no obligation to respect the Constitutional rights of our citizens.'' Secretary Rumsfeld is correct. It is clear that the International Criminal Court has no intention of honoring our president's decision to neither participate in nor support their global judicial enterprise. According to the Statutes of the court, they do indeed claim jurisdiction over Americans even though the president has now stated forcefully that we do not recognize the Court nor are we a party to the Treaty. I have introduced this amendment to the Defense Authorization Act, therefore, to support the president's decision and to indicate that Congress is behind him in his rejection of this unconstitutional global court. it is imperative that we not award the International Criminal Court a single tax dollar to further its objective of undermining our sovereignty and our Constitutional protections. How could we do anything less: each of us in this body has taken an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States? I am also introducing today a Sense of the Congress bill to commend President Bush for his bold and brave decision to renounce the United States' signature on the Statute of the International Court. We must support the president as he seeks to protect American servicemen and citizens from this court. I hope all of my colleagues here will co- sponsor and support this legislation, and please call my office for more details. In the meantime, I urge enthusiastic support of this amendment before us. We must speak with one voice in denying the International Criminal Court a single American tax dollar! Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, this legislation could not have come at a worse time in the ongoing Middle East crisis. Just when we have seen some positive signs that the two sides may return to negotiations toward a peaceful settlement, Congress has jumped into the fray on one side of the conflict. I do not believe that this body wishes to de-rail the slight progress that seems to have come from the Administration's more even-handed approach over the past several days. So why is it that we are here today ready to pass legislation that clearly and openly favors one side in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? There are many troubling aspects to this legislation. The legislation says that ``the number of Israelis killed during that time [since September 2000] by suicide terrorist attacks alone, on a basis proportional to the United States population, is approximately 9,000, three times the number killed in the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington on September 11, 2001.'' This kind of numbers game with the innocent dead strikes me as terribly disrespectful and completely unhelpful. It is, when speaking of the dead, the one-sidedness of this bill that is so unfortunate. How is it that the side that loses seven people to every one on the other side is portrayed as the sole aggressor and condemned as terrorist? This is only made worse by the fact that Palestinian deaths are seen in the Arab world as being American- inspired, as it is our weapons that are being used against them. This bill just reinforces negative perceptions of the United States in that part of the world. What might be the consequences of this? I think we need to stop and think about that for a while. We in this body have a Constitutional responsibility to protect the national security of the United States. This one-sided intervention in a far-off war has the potential to do great harm to our national security. Perhaps this is why the Administration views this legislation as ``not a very helpful approach'' to the situation in the Middle East. In my view, it is bad enough that we are intervening at all in this conflict, but this legislation strips any lingering notion that the United States intends to be an honest broker. It states clearly that the leadership of one side--the Palestinians--is bad and supports terrorism just at a time when this Administration negotiates with both sides in an attempt to bring peace to the region. Talk about undermining the difficult efforts of the president and the State Department. What incentive does Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat or his organization have to return to the negotiating table if we as ``honest broker'' make it clear that in Congress's eyes, the Palestinians are illegitimate terrorists? Must we become so involved in this far-off conflict that we are forced to choose between Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon? The United States Congress should not, Constitutionally, be in the business of choosing who gets to lead which foreign people. Many people of various religious backgrounds seem determined to portray what is happening in the Middle East as some kind of historic/ religious struggle, where one side is pre-ordained to triumph and destroy the other. Even some in this body have embraced this notion. Surely the religious component that some interject into the conflict rouses emotions and adds fuel to the fire. But this is dangerous thinking. Far from a great holy war, the Middle East conflict is largely about what most wars are about: a struggle for land and resources in a part of the world where both are scarce. We must think and act rationally, with this fact clearly in mind. Just as with our interventionism in other similar struggles around the world, our meddling in the Middle East has unforeseen consequences. Our favoritism of one side has led to the hatred of America and Americans by the other side. We are placing our country in harm's way with this approach. It is time to step back and look at our policy in the Middle East. After 24 years of the ``peace process'' and some 300 million of our dollars, we are no closer to peace than when President Carter concluded the Camp David talks. Mr. Speaker, any other policy that had so utterly failed over such a long period of time would likely come under close scrutiny here. Why is it that when it comes to interventionism in the Middle East conflict we continue down this unproductive and very expensive road?

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, Congress can perform a great service to the American taxpayer, as well as citizens in developing countries, by rejecting HR 2604, which reauthorizes two multilateral development banks, the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) and the Asian Development Fund (AsDF). Congress has no constitutional authority to take money from American taxpayers and send that money overseas for any reason. Furthermore, foreign aid undermines the recipient countries' long-term economic progress by breeding a culture of dependency. Ironically, foreign aid also undermines long-term United States foreign policy goals by breeding resentment among recipients of the aid, which may manifest itself in a foreign policy hostile to the United States. If Congress lacks authority to fund an international food aid program, then Congress certainly lacks authority to use taxpayer funds to promote economic development in foreign lands. Programs such as the AsDF are not only unconstitutional, but, by removing resources from the control of consumers and placing them under the control of bureaucrats and politically-powerful special interests, these programs actually retard economic development in the countries receiving this ``aid!'' This is because funds received from programs like the AsDF are all-too- often wasted on political boondoggles which benefit the political elites in the recipient countries, but are of little benefit to the individual citizens of those countries. In conclusion, HR 2604 authorizes the continued taking of taxpayer funds for unconstitutional and economically destructive programs. I therefore urge my colleagues to reject this bill, return the money to the American taxpayers, and show the world that the United States Congress is embracing the greatest means of generating prosperity: the free market.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise to express some concerns about the process that we are going through today. I am on the Committee on International Relations, and we have not yet had a chance to really debate this. This was brought up rather rapidly last night. We had to not break the rules but bend the rules a little bit to get this resolution to the floor. It seems like it would have been reasonable to bring this up next week, but there may have been some other reasons why this is being pushed through today. Certainly this would not have been the State Department's first choice. In talking with the State Department, matter of fact, they expressed some real reservations about this. They said it is not a very helpful approach, and they said we need to work with the situation as it is to be an honest broker. This legislation is one-sided and, therefore, not very helpful. So here we are, as a Congress, in a desire to please certain people, moving quickly, even though it may affect what is going on in the State Department. And the State Department goes on to say that this one-sided legislation just comes when in the past 48 hours or so we have been making some progress. Even our chairman of the committee was quoted in the paper this morning of saying, well, if he had his way, he would prefer a more balanced resolution. And he is a very, very strong supporter of Israel. Of course, I would like to see a more balanced resolution, too. I would like to see one where we balance America's interests as well as others. There is a lot of talk about democracy and peace. I take a position of nonintervention in the affairs of other people. I believe very sincerely that it is consistent with the Constitution and very sincerely that it works to our best interest for national security and for defense; and that even though this is intended very sincerely to help Israel, motions like this, resolutions like this, can very well backfire and actually hurt Israel more so than they will help.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, this legislation could not have come at a worse time in the ongoing Middle East crisis. Just when we have seen some positive signs that the two sides may return to negotiations toward a peaceful settlement, Congress has jumped into the fray on one side of the conflict. I do not believe that this body wishes to de-rail the slight progress that seems to have come from the Administration's more even-handed approach over the past several days. So why is it that we are here today ready to pass legislation that clearly and openly favors one side in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? There are many troubling aspects to this legislation. The legislation says that ``the number of Israelis killed during that time [since September 2000] by suicide terrorist attacks alone, on a basis proportional to the United States population, is approximately 9,000, three times the number killed in the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington on September 11, 2001.'' This kind of numbers game with the innocent dead strikes me as terribly disrespectful and completely unhelpful. It is, when speaking of the dead, the one-sidedness of this bill that is so unfortunate. How is it that the side that loses seven people to every one on the other side is portrayed as the sole aggressor and condemned as terrorist? This is only made worse by the fact that Palestinian deaths are seen in the Arab world as being American- inspired, as it is our weapons that are being used against them. This bill just reinforces negative perceptions of the United States in that part of the world. What might be the consequences of this? I think we need to stop and think about that for a while. We in this body have a Constitutional responsibility to protect the national security of the United States. This one-sided intervention in a far-off war has the potential to do great harm to our national security. Perhaps this is why the Administration views this legislation as ``not a very helpful approach'' to the situation in the Middle East. In my view, it is bad enough that we are intervening at all in this conflict, but this legislation strips any lingering notion that the United States intends to be an honest broker. It states clearly that the leadership of one side--the Palestinians--is bad and supports terrorism just at a time when this Administration negotiates with both sides in an attempt to bring peace to the region. Talk about undermining the difficult efforts of the president and the State Department. What incentive does Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat or his organization have to return to the negotiating table if we as ``honest broker'' make it clear that in Congress's eyes, the Palestinians are illegitimate terrorists? Must we become so involved in this far-off conflict that we are forced to choose between Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon? The United States Congress should not, Constitutionally, be in the business of choosing who gets to lead which foreign people. Many people of various religious backgrounds seem determined to portray what is happening in the Middle East as some kind of historic/ religious struggle, where one side is pre-ordained to triumph and destroy the other. Even some in this body have embraced this notion. Surely the religious component that some interject into the conflict rouses emotions and adds fuel to the fire. But this is dangerous thinking. Far from a great holy war, the Middle East conflict is largely about what most wars are about: a struggle for land and resources in a part of the world where both are scarce. We must think and act rationally, with this fact clearly in mind. Just as with other interventionism in other similar struggles around the world, our meddling in the Middle East has unforeseen consequences. Our favoritism of one side has led to the hatred of America and Americans by the other side. We are placing our country in harm's way with this approach. It is time to step back and look at our policy in the Middle East. After 24 years of the ``peace process'' and some 300 million of our dollars, we are no closer to peace than when President Carter concluded the Camp David talks. Mr. Speaker, any other policy that had so utterly failed over such a long period of time would likely come under close scrutiny here. Why is it that when it comes to interventionism in the Middle East conflict we continue down this unproductive and very expensive road?

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, Congress can preform a great service to the American taxpayer, as well as citizens in developing countries, by rejecting HR 2604, which reauthorizes two multilateral development banks, the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) and the Asian Development Fund (AsDF). Congress has no constitutional authority to take money from American taxpayers and send that money overseas for any reason. Furthermore, foreign aid undermines the recipient countries' long-term economic progress by breeding a culture of dependency. Ironically, foreign aid also undermines long-term United States foreign policy goals by breeding resentment among recipients of the aid, which may manifest itself in a foreign policy hostile to the United States. If Congress lacks authority to fund an international food aid program, then Congress certainly lacks authority to use taxpayer funds to promote economic development in foreign lands. Programs such as the AsDF are not only unconstitutional, but, by removing resources from the control of consumers and placing them under the control of bureaucrats and politically-powerful special interests, these programs actually retard economic development in the countries receiving this ``aid!'' This is because funds received from programs like the AsDF are all-too- often wasted on political boondoggles which benefit the political elites in the recipient countries, but are of little benefit to the individual citizens of those countries. In conclusion, HR 2604 authorizes the continued taking of taxpayer funds for unconstitutional and economically destructive programs. I therefore urge my colleagues to reject this bill, return the money to the American taxpayers, and show the world that the United States Congress is embracing the greatest means of generating prosperity: the free market.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, we are here today to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank, but it has nothing to do with a bank, do not mislead anybody. This has to do with an agency of the government that allocates credit to special interests and to the benefit of foreign entities. So it is not a bank in that sense. To me it is immoral in the fact that it takes from some who cannot defend themselves to give to the rich who get the benefits. And I just do not see that as being a very good function and a very good program for the U.S. Congress. Besides, I would like to see where somebody gives me the constitutional authority for doing what we do here and we have been doing, of course, for a long time. But I do not want to talk about the immorality of this so-called bank or the unconstitutionality of it. I want to talk just a second or two about the economics of it. It is really bad economics. It is pointed that it helps a company here or there, but what it has never talked about what you do not see. This is credit allocation. In order to take billions of dollars and give it to one single company, it is taken out of the pool of funds available. And nobody talks about that. There is an expense. Why would not a bank loan when it is guaranteed by the government? Because it is guaranteed. So if you are a smaller investor or a marginal investor, there is no way that you are going to get the loan. For that investor to get the loan, the interest rates have to be higher. So it is a form of credit allocation, and it is also a form of protectionism. We do a lot of talk around here about free trade. Of course, there is a lot of tariff activity going on as well, but this is a form of protectionism. Because some argue, well, this company has to compete and another government subsidizes their company so, therefore, we have to compete. So it is competitive subsidization of special interest corporations in order to do this. Now, it seems strange that we here in the Congress are willing to give the beneficiary China the most number of dollars. They qualify for nearly $6 billion worth of credits. And that just does not seem like the reasonable thing for us to do. So I strongly urge a no vote on this bill. Mr. Chairman, Congress should reject H.R. 2871, the Export-Import Reauthorization Act, for economic, constitutional, and moral reasons. The Export-Import Bank (Eximbank) takes money from American taxpayers to subsidize exports by American companies. Of course, it is not just any company that receives Eximbank support; the majority of Eximbank funding benefit large, politically powerful corporations. Enron provides a perfect example of how Eximbank provides politically-powerful corporations competitive advantages they could not obtain in the free market. According to journalist Robert Novak, Enron has received over $640 million in taxpayer-funded ``assistance'' from Eximbank. This taxpayer-provided largesse no doubt helped postpone Enron's inevitable day of reckoning. Eximbank's use of taxpayer funds to support Enron is outrageous, but hardly surprising. The the vast majority of Eximbank funds benefit Enron-like outfits that must rely on political connections and government subsidies to survive and/or multinational corporations who can afford to support their own exports without relying on the American taxpayer. It is not only bad economics to force working Americans, small business, and entrepreneurs to subsidize the export of the large corporations: it is also immoral. In fact, this redistribution from the poor and middle class to the wealthy is the most indefensible aspect of the welfare state, yet it is the most accepted form of welfare. Mr. Speaker, it never ceases to amaze me how members who criticize welfare for the poor on moral and constitutional grounds see no problem with the even more objectionable programs that provide welfare for the rich. The moral case against Eximbank is strengthened when one considers that the government which benefits most from Eximbank funds is communist China. In fact, Eximbank actually underwrites joint ventures with firms owned by the Chinese government! Whatever one's position on trading with China, I would hope all of us would agree that it is wrong to force taxpayers to subsidize in any way this brutal regime. Unfortunately, China is not an isolated case: Colombia and Sudan benefit from taxpayer-subsidized trade, courtesy of the Eximbank! At a time when the Federal budget is going back into deficit and Congress is once again preparing to raid the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, does it really make sense to use taxpayer funds to benefit future Enrons, Fortune 500 companies, and communist China? Proponents of continued American support for the Eximbank claim that the bank ``creates jobs'' and promotes economic growth. However, this claim rests on a version of what the great economist Henry Hazlitt called, the ``broken window'' fallacy. When a hoodlum throws a rock through a store window, it can be said he has contributed to the economy, as the store owner will have to spend money having the window fixed. The benefits to those who repaired the window are visible for all to see, therefore it is easy to see the broken window as economically beneficial. However, the ``benefits'' of the broken window are revealed as an illusion when one takes into account what is not seen: the businesses and workers who would have benefited had the store owner not spent money repairing a window, but rather had been free to spend his money as he chose. Similarly, the beneficiaries of Eximbank are visible to all. What is not seen is the products that would have been built, the businesses that would have been started, and the jobs that would have been created had the funds used for the Eximbank been left in the hands of consumers. Some supporters of this bill equate supporting Eximbank with supporting ``free trade,'' and claim that opponents are ``protectionists'' and ``isolationists.'' Mr. Chairman, this is nonsense, Eximbank has nothing to do with free trade. True free trade involves the peaceful, voluntary exchange of goods across borders, not forcing taxpayers to subsidize the exports of politically powerful companies. Eximbank is not free trade, but rather managed trade, where winners and losers are determined by how well they please government bureacrats instead of how well they please consumers. Expenditures on the Eximbank distort the market by diverting resources from the private sector, where they could be put to the use most highly valued by individual consumers, into the public sector, where their use will be determined by bureaucrats and politically powerful special interests. By distorting the market and preventing resources from achieving their highest valued use, Eximbank actually costs Americans jobs and reduces America's standard of living! Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind my colleagues that there is simply no constitutional justification for the expenditure of funds on programs such as Eximbank. In fact, the drafters of the Constitution would be horrified to think the Federal Government was taking hard-earned money from the American people in order to benefit the politically powerful. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, Eximbank distorts the market by allowing government bureaucrats to make economic decisions in place of individual consumers. Eximbank also violates basic principles of morality, by forcing working Americans to subsidize the trade of wealthy companies that could easily afford to subsidize their own trade, as well as subsidizing brutal governments like Red China and the Sudan. Eximbank also violates the limitations on congressional power to take the property of individual citizens and use it to benefit powerful special interests. It is for these reasons that I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 2871, the Export-Import Bank Reauthorization Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment, being a cosponsor of this amendment. I am opposed to the Export-Import Bank because I see there is no benefit to it, it has nothing to do with capitalism and freedom. It has a lot to do with special interests, and I am opposed to that. One thing I am convinced of over the years from looking at bad agencies of government, tinkering on the edges does not do a lot of good. Members might ask why am I tinkering here? Why do I want to tell corporations what to do? I am a capitalist. I believe in capitalism. I do not want to tell the corporations what to do at all as long as they do not commit fraud and live up to their promises, but this is different because they are getting taxpayer money. That is different than if they were just a corporation making it on their own. The gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) said if we do not give them these loans, the companies will not get any money and they will have to go overseas. This is a fallacy to believe if all of a sudden we took all of the Export-Import Bank money away from corporations, that they would have no funding. That is not true at all. There is a lot of funding available. It is just that they do not get the benefit, they do not get the subsidy. What we are trying to do is make it fair to everyone so that the little guy who is competing for these same funds can compete on a level playing field and not give the advantage to the big guys. What happens so often when government gets involved is there are unintended consequences. The original intent was to boost exports and jobs. After 70 years, there are unintended consequences. The world is a more world market. I am not opposed to that. I believe in free trade; but I think this is more protectionism. This is so minor and so modest that anybody who wants to be on record for fairness into curtailing the political power of the Export-Import Bank, has to vote for this. This will be a little bit of help to a few people in order to say to these corporations that if they are going to get tax subsidies for their loans, and they start laying off people, they better lay them off someplace else other than here. That is pretty modest. I have no interest in ever telling a corporation to do this if they were not getting the special benefits from government. That makes the big difference. Mr. Chairman, there is a market allocation of credit and there is credit allocation by politicians, and that is what we are talking about here. We have credit allocation, and we have mal-investment and over capacity which causes the conditions to exist for the recession. Of course, a lot of this comes from what the Federal Reserve does in artificially lowering interest rates; but this is a compounding problem when government gets in and allocates credit at lower rates. It causes more distortions. This is why allocations to companies like Enron contributes to the bubble that ends up in a major correction.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay honor to the Calhoun High School ``We the People . . . the Citizen and the Constitution'' team from Port Lavaca, Calhoun County, Texas. Under the exemplary leadership of Gennie Burleson Westbrook, the 2001-2002 Calhoun High School team placed third in the statewide competition held on Janaury 5, 2002, at the University of Texas Law School in Austin, Texas, which was hosted by the State Bar of Texas. The team included the following students: Karin Chen, Candice Cook, Chelsea Ghiselin, Tiffany Harvey, Kimberlee Hobizal, Major Hoffman, Stephen Jedlicka, Scott Kelly, Josh McClellan, Thomas Nguyen, Matt Thomas, Vanessa Thorne, and Andrew Wu. The ``We the People'' program was begun in 1987, with the goal of enhancing students' understanding of the institutions of American constitutional democracy, while guiding them to discover modern day applications of the Constitution and the Bill if Rights. It is a time consuming study requiring many hours of preparation, both in and out of the classroom. Each participant takes a multiple-choice test, and prepares for a simulated Congressional hearing in which students ``testify'' before a panel of judges. Following a prepared five-minute presentation covering specific topics demonstrating their knowledge and understanding of constitutional principals, the judges quizzed the students with thought-provoking questions pertaining to their subject. The students took and defended their positions, using both historic and contemporary examples. Preparation for the state contest also required assistance from members of the community who came forward to volunteer to work with the team members. I salute the following volunteers: Connie Hunt, Mark Daigle, Shannon Salyer, Britney Salyer, Edris Montalvo, Darren Hartl, Joane McDonough, Phillip Swope, and Larry Nichols. I am proud to have these students in the 14th Congressional District of Texas. I am proud of the commitment to excellence and perseverance shown by each student. I am proud of the support shown by the parents and volunteers which helped them reach for their goal. I trust all my colleagues join me in congratulating the 2001-2002 ``We the People . . . the Citizen and the Constitution'' team on their third place win in state competition.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay honor to the San Marcos High School ``We the People . . . the Citizen and the Constitution'' team from San Marcos, Hays County, Texas. Under the exemplary leadership of Paula Wolking and Lezlie Wiederhold, the 2001-2002 Calhoun High School team placed second in the statewide competition held on January 5, 2002, at the University of Texas Law School in Austin, Texas, which was hosted by the State Bar of Texas. The team included the following 29 seniors: Kelli Avila, Jason Baen, Marisa Bell-Metereau, Erin Blum, Paul Buntyn, Mariah Campbell, Amy Carlson, John David Carson, Samantha Charleston, Justyn Contreras, Heather Davis, Jacob Delgado, Veronica De La Garza, Matt Diaz, Shelby Eastland, Jessica Gifford, Megan Hansen, Kari Howe, J R Manrique, Rachel Martin, Genesis McCoo, Jenny Morrison, Lani Ogle, Valerie Perez, Amara Richardson, Orlando Sanchez, Francesca Scanio, Kim Spire, and Joshua Yanity. The ``We the People'' program was begun in 1987, with the goal of enhancing students' understanding of the institutions of American constitutional democracy, while guiding them to discover modern day applications of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It is a time consuming study requiring many hours of preparation, both in and out of the classroom. Each participant takes a multiple-choice test, and prepared for a simulated Congressional hearing in which students ``testify'' before a panel of judges. Following a prepared five-minute presentation covering specific topics demonstrating their knowledge and understanding of constitutional principals, the judges quizzed the students with thought-provoking questions pertaining to their subject. The students took and defended their positions, using both historic and contemporary examples. I am proud to have these students in the 14th Congressional District of Texas. I am proud of the commitment to excellence and perseverance shown by each student. I am proud of the support shown by the parents and volunteers which helped them reach their goal. I trust all my colleagues join me in congratulating the 2001-2002 ``We the People . . . the Citizen and the Constitution'' team on their second place win in state competition.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, seldom in history have supporters of increased state power failed to take advantage of a real or perceived crisis to increase government interference in our economic and/or personal lives. Therefore we should not be surprised that the events surrounding the Enron bankruptcy are being used to justify the expansion of Federal regulatory power contained in H.R. 3763, the Corporate and Auditing Accountability, Responsibility, and Transparency Act of 2002 (CARTA). So ingrained is the idea that new Federal regulations will prevent future Enrons, that today's debate will largely be between CARTA's supporters and those who believe this bill does not provide enough Federal regulation and control. I would like to suggest that before Congress imposes new regulations on the accounting profession, perhaps we should consider whether the problems the regulations are designed to address were at least in part caused by prior government interventions into the market. Perhaps Congress could even consider the almost heretical idea that reducing Federal control of the markets is in the public's best interest. Congress should also consider whether the new regulations will have costs which might outweigh any (marginal) gains. Finally, Mr. Speaker, Congress should contemplate whether we actually have any constitutional authorization to impose these new regulations, instead of simply stretching the Commerce Clause to justify the program de jour. CARTA establishes a new bureaucracy with enhanced oversight authority of accounting firms, as well as the authority to impose new mandates on these firms. CARTA also imposes new regulations regarding investing in stocks and enhances the power of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). However, Mr. Speaker, companies are already required by Federal law to comply with numerous mandates, including obtaining audited financial statements from certified accountants. These mandates have enriched accounting firms and may have given them market power beyond what they could obtain in a free market. These laws also give corrupt firms an opportunity to attempt to use political power to gain special treatment for Federal lawmakers and regulators at the expense of their competitors and even, as alleged in the Enron case, their employees and investors. When Congress establishes a regulatory state it creates an opportunity for corruption. Unless CARTA eliminates original sin, it will not eliminate fraud. In fact, by creating a new bureaucracy and further politicizing the accounting profession, CARTA may create new opportunities for the unscrupulous to manipulate the system to their advantage. Even if CARTA transformed all (or at least all accountants) into angels, it could still harm individual investors. First, new regulations inevitably raise the overhead costs of investing. This will affect the entire economy as it lessens the capital available to businesses, thus leading to lower rates of economic growth and job creation. Meanwhile, individual investors will have less money for their retirement, their children's education, or to make a down payment on a new home. Government regulations also harm investors by inducing a sense of complacency. Investors are much less likely to invest prudently and ask tough questions of the companies they are investing in when they believe government regulations are protecting their investments. However, as mentioned above, government regulations are unable to prevent all fraudulent activity, much less prevent all instances of imprudent actions. In fact, as also pointed out above, complex regulations create opportunities for illicit actions by both the regulator and the regulated, Mr. Chairman, publicly held corporations already comply with massive amounts of SEC regulations, including the filing of quarterly reports that disclose minute details of assets and liabilities. If these disclosures rules failed to protect Enron investors, will more red tape really solve anything? In truth, investing carries risk, and it is not the role of the Federal Government to bail our every investor who loses money. In a true free market, investors are responsible for their own decisions, good or bad. This responsibility leads them to vigorously analyze companies before they invest, using independent financial analysts. In our heavily regulated environment, however, investors and analysts equate SEC compliance with reputability. The more we look to the government to protect us from investment mistakes, the less competition there if for truly independent evaluations of investment risk. Increased Federal interference in the market could also harm consumers by crippling innovative market mechanisms to hold corporate managers accountable to their shareholders. Ironically, Mr. Chairman, current SEC regulations make it difficult for shareholders to challenge management decisions. Thus government regulations encourage managers to disregard shareholder interests! Unfortunately, the Federal Government has a history of crippling market mechanisms to protect shareholders. As former Treasury official Bruce Bartlett pointed out in a recent Washington Times column, during the 1980s, so-called corporate raiders helped keep corporate management accountable to shareholders through devices such as the ``junk'' bond, which made corporate takeovers easier. Thanks to the corporate raiders, managers knew they had to be responsive to shareholders needs or they would become a potential target for a takeover. Unfortunately, the backlash against corporate raiders, led by demographic politicians and power-hungry bureaucrats eager to expand the financial police state, put an end to hostile takeovers. Bruce Bartlett, in the Washington Times column sited above, described the effects of this action on shareholders, ``Without the threat of a takeover, manaagers have been able to go back to ignoring shareholders, treating them like a nuisance, and giving themselves bloated salaries and perks, with little oversight from corporate boards. Now insulated from shareholders once again, managers could engage in unsound practices with little fear of punishment for failure.'' Ironically, the Federal power grab which killed the corporate raider may have set the stage for the Enron debacle, which is now being used as an excuse for yet another Federal power grab! If left alone by Congress, the market is perfectly capable of disciplining businesses who engage in unsound practices. After all, before the government intervened, Arthur Andersen and Enron had already begun to pay a stiff penalty, a penalty delivered by individual investors acting through the market. This shows that not only can the market deliver punishment, but it can also deliver this punishment swifter and more efficiently than the government. We cannot know what efficient means of disciplining companies would emerge from a market process but we can know they would be better at meeting the needs of investors than a top-down regulatory approach. Of course, while the supporters of increased regulation claim Enron as a failure of ``ravenous capitalism,'' the truth is Enron was a phenomenon of the mixed economy, rather than the operations of the free market. Enron provides a perfect example of the dangers of corporate subsidies. The company was (and is) one of the biggest beneficiaries of Export-Import (Ex-Im) Bank and Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) subsidies. These programs make risky loans to foreign governments and businesses for projects involving American companies. While they purport to help developing nations, Ex-Im and OPIC are in truth nothing more than naked subsidies for certain politically-favored American corporations, particularly corporations like Enron that lobby hard and give huge amounts of cash to both political parties. Rather than finding ways to exploit the Enron mess to expand Federal power, perhaps Congress should stop aiding corporations like Enron that pick the taxpayer's pockets through Ex-Im and OPIC. If nothing else, Mr. Chairman, Enron's success at obtaining State favors is another reason to think twice about expanding political control over the economy. After all, allegations have been raised that Enron used the same clout by which it received corporate welfare to obtain other ``favors'' from regulators and politicians, such as exemptions from regulations that applied to their competitors. This is not an uncommon phenomenon when one has a regulatory state, the result of which is that winners and losers are picked according to who has the most political clout. Congress should also examine the role the Federal Reserve played in the Enron situation. Few in Congress seem to understand how the Federal Reserve system artificially inflates stock prices and causes financial bubbles. Yet, what other explanation can there be when a company goes from a market value of more than $75 billion to virtually nothing in just a few months? The obvious truth is that Enron was never really worth anything near $75 billion, but the media focuses only on the possibility of deceptive practices by management, ignoring the primary cause of stock overvaluations: Fed expansion of money and credit. The Fed consistently increased the money supply (by printing dollars) throughout the 1990s, while simultaneously lowering interest rates. When dollars are plentiful, and interest rates are artificially low, the cost of borrowing becomes cheap. This is why so many Americans are more deeply in debt than ever before. This easy credit environment made it possible for Enron to secure hundreds of millions in uncollateralized loans, loans that now cannot be repaid. The cost of borrowing money, like the cost of everything else, should be established by the free market--not by government edict. Unfortunately, however, the trend toward overvaluation will continue until the Fed stops creating money out of thin air and stops keeping interest rates artificially low. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would remind my colleagues that Congress has no constitutional authority to regulate the financial markets or the accounting profession. Instead, responsibility for enforcing laws against fraud are under the jurisdiction of the state and local governments. This decentralized approach actually reduces the opportunity for the type of corruption referred to above--after all, it is easier to corrupt one Federal official than 50 State Officials. In conclusion, the legislation before us today expands Federal power over the accounting profession and the financial markets. By creating new opportunities for unscrupulous actors to maneuver through the regulatory labyrinth, increasing the costs of investing, and preempting the market's ability to come up with creative ways to hold corporate officials accountable, this legislation harms the interests of individual workers and investors. Furthermore, this legislation exceeds the constitutional limits on Federal power, interfering in matters the 10th amendment reserves to state and local law enforcement. I therefore urge my colleagues to reject this bill. Instead, Congress should focus on ending corporate welfare programs which provide taxpayer dollars to large politically-connected companies, and ending the misguided regulatory and monetary policies that helped create the Enron debacle.