Ron Paul

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, our government intervention in the economy and in the private affairs of citizens and the internal affairs of foreign countries leads to uncertainty and many unintended consequences. Here are some of the consequences about which we should be concerned. I predict U.S. taxpayers will pay to rebuild Palestine, both the West Bank and the Gaza, as well as Afghanistan. U.S. taxpayers paid to bomb these areas, so we will be expected to rebuild them. Peace, of sorts, will come to the Middle East, but will be short- lived. There will be big promises of more U.S. money and weapons flowing to Israel and to Arab countries allied with the United States. U.S. troops and others will be used to monitor the ``peace.'' In time, an oil boycott will be imposed, with oil prices soaring to historic highs. Current Israeli-United States policies will solidify Arab Muslim nations in their efforts to avenge the humiliation of the Palestinians. That will include those Muslim nations that in the past have fought against each other. Some of our moderate Arab allies will be overthrown by Islamic fundamentalists. The U.N. will continue to condemn, through resolutions, Israeli-U.S. policies in the Middle East, and they will be ignored. Some European countries will clandestinely support the Muslim countries and their anti-Israel pursuits. China, ironically assisted by American aid, much more openly will sell to militant Muslims the weapons they want, and will align herself with the Arab nations. The United States, with Tony Blair as head cheerleader, will attack Iraq without proper authority, and a major war, the largest since World War II, will result. Major moves will be made by China, India, Russia, and Pakistan in Central Asia to take advantage of the chaos for the purpose of grabbing land, resources, and strategic advantages sought after for years. The Karzai government will fail, and U.S. military presence will end in Afghanistan. An international dollar crisis will dramatically boost interest rates in the United States. Price inflation, with a major economic downturn, will decimate U.S. Federal Government finances, with exploding deficits and uncontrolled spending. Federal Reserve policy will continue at an expanding rate, with massive credit expansion, which will make the dollar crisis worse. Gold will be seen as an alternative to paper money as it returns to its historic role as money. Erosion of civil liberties here at home will continue as our government responds to political fear in dealing with the terrorist threat by making generous use of the powers obtained with the Patriot Act. The draft will be reinstated, causing domestic turmoil and resentment. Many American military personnel and civilians will be killed in the coming conflict. The leaders of whichever side loses the war will be hauled into and tried before the International Criminal Court for war crimes. The United States will not officially lose the war, but neither will we win. Our military and political leaders will not be tried by the International Criminal Court. The Congress and the President will shift radically toward expanding the size and scope of the Federal Government. This will satisfy both the liberals and the conservatives. Military and police powers will grow, satisfying the conservatives. The welfare state, both domestic and international, will expand, satisfying the liberals. Both sides will endorse military adventurism overseas. This is the most important of my predictions: Policy changes could prevent all of the previous predictions from occurring. Unfortunately, that will not occur. In due course, the Constitution will continue to be steadily undermined and the American Republic further weakened. During the next decade, the American people will become poorer and less free, while they become more dependent on the government for economic security. The war will prove to be divisive, with emotions and hatred growing between the various factions and special interests that drive our policies in the Middle East. Agitation from more class warfare will succeed in dividing us domestically, and believe it or not, I expect lobbyists will thrive more than ever during the dangerous period of chaos. I have no timetable for these predictions, but just in case, keep them around and look at them in 5 to 10 years. Let us hope and pray that I am wrong on all accounts. If so, I will be very pleased.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, in the name of a truly laudable cause (preventing abortion and protecting parental rights), today the Congress could potentially move our nation one step closer to a national police state by further expanding the list of federal crimes and usurping power from the states to adequately address the issue of parental rights and family law. Of course, it is much easier to ride the current wave of criminally federalizing all human malfeasance in the name of saving the world from some evil than to uphold a Constitutional oath which prescribes a procedural structure by which the nation is protected from what is perhaps the worst evil, totalitarianism carried out by a centralized government. Who, after all, wants to be amongst those members of Congress who are portrayed as trampling parental rights or supporting the transportation of minor females across state lines for ignoble purposes. As an obstetrician of more than thirty years, I have personally delivered more than 4,000 children. During such time, I have not performed a single abortion. On the contrary, I have spoken and written extensively and publicly condemning this ``medical'' procedure. At the same time, I have remained committed to upholding the constitutional procedural protections which leave the police power decentralized and in control of the states. In the name of protecting states' rights, this bill usurps states' rights by creating yet another federal crime. Our federal government is, constitutionally, a government of limited powers, Article one, Section eight, enumerates the legislative area for which the U.S. Congress is allowed to act or enact legislation. For every other issues, the federal government lacks any authority or consent of the governed and only the state governments, their designees, or the people in their private market actions enjoy such rights to governance. The tenth amendment is brutally clear in stating ``The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.'' Our nation's history makes clear that the U.S. Constitution is a document intended to limit the power of central government. No serious reading of historical events surrounding the creation of the Constitution could reasonably portray it differently. Nevertheless, rather than abide by our constitutional limits, Congress today will likely pass H.R. 476. H.R. 476 amends title 18, Untied States Code, to prohibit taking minors across State line to avoid laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions. Should parents be involved in decisions regarding the health of their children? Absolutely. Should the law respect parents rights to not have their children taken across state lines for contemptible purposes? Absolutely. Can a state pass an enforceable statute to prohibit taking minors across State lines to avoid laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions? Absolutely. But when asked if there exists constitutional authority for the federal criminalizing of just such an action the answer is absolutely not. This federalizing may have the effect of nationalizing a law with criminal penalties which may be less than those desired by some states. To the extent the federal and state laws could co-exist, the necessity for a federal law is undermined and an important bill of rights protection is virtually obliterated. Concurrent jurisdiction crimes erode the right of citizens to be free of double jeopardy. The fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifies that no ``person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . .'' In other words, no person shall be tried twice for the same offense. However, in United States v. Lanza, the high court in 1922 sustained a ruling that being tried by both the federal government and a state government for the same offense did not offend the doctrine of double jeopardy. One danger of the unconstitutionally expanding the federal criminal justice code is that it seriously increases the danger that one will be subject to being tried twice for the same offense. Despite the various pleas for federal correction of societal wrongs, a national police force is neither prudent nor constitutional. We have been reminded by both Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and former U.S. Attorney General Ed Meese that more federal crimes, while they make politicians feel good, are neither constitutionally sound nor prudent. Rehnquist has stated that ``The trend to federalize crimes that traditionally have been handled in state courts . . . threatens to change entirely the nature of our federal system.'' Meese stated that Congress' tendency in recent decades to make federal crimes out of offenses that have historically been state matters has dangerous implications both for the fair administration of justice and for the principle that states are something more than mere administrative districts of a nation governed mainly from Washington. The argument which springs from the criticism of a federalized criminal code and a federal police force is that states may be less effective than a centralized federal government in dealing with those who leave one state jurisdiction for another. Fortunately, the Constitution provides for the procedural means for preserving the integrity of state sovereignty over those issues delegated to it via the tenth amendment. The privilege and immunities clause as well as full faith and credit clause allow states to exact judgments from those who violate their state laws. The Constitution even allows the federal government to legislatively preserve the procedural mechanisms which allow states to enforce their substantive laws without the federal government imposing its substantive edicts on the states. Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2 makes provision for the rendition of fugitives from one state to another. While not self-enacting, in 1783 Congress passed an act which did exactly this. There is, of course, a cost imposed upon states in working with one another rather than relying on a national, unified police force. At the same time, there is a greater cost to state autonomy and individual liberty from centralization of police power. It is important to be reminded of the benefits of federalism as well as the costs. There are sound reasons to maintain a system of smaller, independent jurisdictions. An inadequate federal law, or an ``adequate'' federal law improperly interpreted by the Supreme Court, preempts states' rights to adequately address public health concerns. Roe v. Wade should serve as a sad reminder of the danger of making matters worse in all states by federalizing an issue. It is my erstwhile hope that parents will become more involved in vigilantly monitoring the activities of their own children rather than shifting parental responsibility further upon the federal government. There was a time when a popular bumper sticker read ``It's ten o'clock; do you know where your children are?'' I suppose we have devolved to the point where it reads ``It's ten o'clock; does the federal government know where your children are.'' Further socializing and burden-shifting of the responsibilities of parenthood upon the federal government is simply not creating the proper incentive for parents to be more involved. For each of these reasons, among others, I must oppose the further and unconstitutional centralization of police powers in the national government and, accordingly, H.R. 476.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the ``American Servicemember and Civilian Protection Act of 2002.'' This bill expresses the sense of the Congress that President Bush should formally rescind the signature approving the International Criminal Court made on behalf of the United States, and should take necessary steps to prevent the establishment of that Court. It also prohibits funds made available by the United States Government from being used for the establishment or operation of the Court. Perhaps the most significant part of the bill makes clear that any action taken by or on behalf of the Court against members of the United States Armed Forces shall be considered an act of aggression against the United States; and that any action taken by or on behalf of the Court against a United States citizen or national shall be considered an offense against the law of nations. Mr. Speaker, today in New York and Rome celebrations are underway to mark the formal establishment of this International Criminal Court. Though the United States has not ratified the treaty establishing the Court, as required by the U.S. Constitution, this body will claim jurisdiction over every American citizen--military personnel and civilian alike. The Court itself, however, is an illegitimate body even by the United Nations' own standards. The Statute of the International Criminal Court was enacted by a Conference of Diplomats convened by the United Nations General Assembly, whereas according to the UN Charter, the authority to create such a body lies only in the UN Security Council. The International Criminal Court was established contrary to the American Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. It puts United States citizens in jeopardy of unlawful and unconstitutional criminal prosecution. The International Criminal Court does not provide many of the Constitutional protections guaranteed every American citizen, including the right to trial by jury, the right to face your accuser, and the presumption of innocence, and the protection against double jeopardy. Members of the United States Armed Forces are particularly at risk for politically motivated arrests, prosecutions, fines, and imprisonment for acts engaged in for the protection of the United States. These are the same brave men and women who place their lives on the line to protect and defend our Constitution. Do they not deserve the full protections of that same Constitution? Mr. Speaker, I hope all members of this body will join me in opposing this illegitimate and illegal court by co-sponsoring the ``American Servicemember and Civilian Protection Act of 2002.''

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, we were warned, and in the earlier years of our Republic, we heeded that warning. Today, though, we are entangled in everyone's affairs throughout the world and we are less safe as a result. The current Middle East crisis is one that we helped create, and it is typical of how foreign intervention fails to serve our interests. Now we find ourselves smack-dab in the middle of a fight that will not soon end. No matter what the outcome, we lose. By trying to support both sides we, in the end, will alienate both sides. We are forced, by domestic politics here at home, to support Israel at all costs, with billions of dollars of aid, sophisticated weapons, and a guarantee that America will do whatever is necessary for Israel's security. Political pressure compels us to support Israel, but it is oil that prompts us to guarantee security for the western puppet governments of the oil-rich Arab nations. Since the Israeli-Arab fight will not soon be resolved, our policy of involving ourselves in a conflict unrelated to our security guarantees that we will suffer the consequences. What a choice. We must choose between the character of Arafat versus that of Sharon. The information the average American gets from the major media outlets, with their obvious bias, only makes the problem worse. Who would ever guess that the side that loses seven people to every one on the other side is portrayed as a sole aggressor and condemned as terrorists? We should remember that the Palestinian deaths are seen by most Arabs as being American-inspired, since our weapons are being used against them and they are the ones whose land has been continuously taken from them. Yet there are still some in this country who cannot understand why many in the Arab Muslim world hate America. Is it any wonder that the grass-roots people in the Arab nations, even in Kuwait, threaten their own government that is totally dominated by American power and money? The arguments against foreign intervention are many. The chaos in the current Middle East crisis should be evidence enough for all Americans to reconsider our extensive role overseas and reaffirm the foreign policy of our early leaders, a policy that kept us out of the affairs of others. But here we are in the middle of a war that has no end and serves only to divide us here at home, while the unbalanced slaughter continues with tanks and aircraft, tearing up a country that does not even have an army. It is amazing that the clamor for support for Israel here at home comes from men of deep religious conviction in the Christian faith, who are convinced they are doing the Lord's work. That, quite frankly, is difficult for me as a Christian to comprehend. And, we need to remember the young people who will be on the front lines when the big war starts, which is something so many in this body seems intent on provoking. Ironically, the biggest frustration in Washington, for those who eagerly resort to war to resolve differences, is that the violence in the Middle East has delayed plans for starting another war against Iraq. Current policy prompts our government on one day to give the go- ahead to Sharon to do what he needs to do to combat terrorism, a term that now has little meaning. On the next day, however, our government tells him to quit, for fear that we may overly aggravate our oil pals in the Arab nations and jeopardize our oil supplies. This is an impossible policy that will inevitably lead to chaos. Foreign interventionism is bad for America. Special interests control our policies, while true national security is ignored. Real defense needs, the defense of our borders, are ignored and the financial interests of corporations, bankers, and the military-industrial complex gain control, and the American people lose. It is costly, to say to least. Already, our military budget has sapped domestic spending and caused the deficit to explode. But the greatest danger is that one of these days, these contained conflicts will get out of control. Certainly, the stage is set for that to happen in the Middle East and in south central Asia. A world war is a possibility that should not be ignored. Our policy of subsidizing both sides is ludicrous. We support Arabs and Jews, Pakistanis and Indians, Chinese and Russians. We have troops in 140 countries around the world just looking for trouble. Our policies have led us to support the al Qaeda in Kosovo and bomb their Serb adversaries. We have, in the past, allied ourselves with bin Laden as well as Saddam Hussein, only to find out later the seriousness of our mistake. Will this foolishness ever end? A noninterventionist foreign policy has a lot to say for itself, especially when one looks at the danger and inconsistency of our current policy in the Middle East.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation expressing the sense of Congress that the United States government should not revive military conscription. Supporters of conscription have taken advantage of the events of September 11 to renew efforts to reinstate the military draft. However, reviving the draft may actually weaken America's military. Furthermore, a military draft violates the very principles of individual liberty this country was founded upon. It is no exaggeration to state that military conscription is better suited for a totalitarian government, such as the recently dethroned Taliban regime, than a free society. Since military conscription ended over 30 years ago, voluntary armed services have successfully fulfilled the military needs of the United States. The recent success of the military campaign in Afghanistan once again demonstrates the ability of the volunteer military to respond to threats to the lives, liberty, and property of the people of the United States. A draft weakens the military by introducing tensions and rivalries between those who volunteer for military service and those who have been conscripted. This undermines the cohesiveness of military units, which is a vital element of military effectiveness. Conscripts are also unlikely to choose the military as a career; thus, a draft will do little to address problems with retention. With today's high-tech military, retention is the most important personnel issue and it seems counter-productive to adopt any policy that will not address this important issue. If conscription helps promote an effective military, then why did General Vladisova Putilin, Chief of the Russian General Staff, react to plans to end the military draft in Russia, by saying ``This is the great dream of all servicemen, when our army will become completely professional . . .?'' Instead of reinstating a military draft, Congress should make military service attractive by finally living up to its responsibility to provide good benefits and pay to members of the Armed Forces and our nation's veterans. It is an outrage that American military personnel and veterans are given a lower priority in the federal budget than spending to benefit politically powerful special interests. Until this is changed, we will never have a military which reflects our nation's highest ideals. Mr. Speaker, the most important reason to oppose reinstatement of a military draft is that conscription violates the very principles upon which this country was founded. The basic premise underlying conscription is that the individual belongs to the state, individual rights are granted by the state, and therefore politicians can abridge individual rights at will. In contrast, the philosophy which inspired America's founders, expressed in the Declaration of Independence, is that individuals possess natural, God-given rights which cannot be abridged by the government. Forcing people into military service against their will thus directly contradicts the philosophy of the Founding Fathers. A military draft also appears to contradict the constitutional prohibition of involuntary servitude. During the War of 1812, Daniel Webster eloquently made the case that a military draft was unconstitutional: ``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 had no foundation in the Constitution of the country. It is enough to know that the 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.'' Another eloquent opponent of the draft was former President Ronald Reagan who in a 1979 column on conscription said: ``. . . it rests on the assumption that your kids belong to the state. If we buy that assumption then it is for the state--not for parents, the community, the religious institutions or teachers--to decide who shall have what values and who shall do what work, when, where and how in our society. That assumption isn't a new one. The Nazis thought it was a great idea.'' President Reagan and Daniel Webster are not the only prominent Americans to oppose conscription. In fact, throughout American history the draft has been opposed by Americans from across the political spectrum, from Henry David Thoreau to Barry Goldwater to Bill Bradley to Jesse Ventura. Organizations opposed to conscription range from the American Civil Liberties Union to the United Methodist Church General Board of Church and Society, and from the National Taxpayers Union to the Conservative Caucus. Other major figures opposing conscription include current Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to stand up for the long-term military interests of the United States, individual liberty, and values of the Declaration of Independence by cosponsoring my sense of Congress resolution opposing reinstatement of the military draft.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I was recently asked why I thought it was a bad idea for the President to initiate a war against Iraq. I responded by saying that I could easily give a half a dozen reasons why; and if I took a minute, I could give a full dozen. For starters, here is a half a dozen. Number one, Congress has not given the President the legal authority to wage war against Iraq as directed by the Constitution, nor does he have U.N. authority to do so. Even if he did, it would not satisfy the rule of law laid down by the Framers of the Constitution. Number two, Iraq has not initiated aggression against the United States. Invading Iraq and deposing Saddam Hussein, no matter how evil a dictator he may be, has nothing to do with our national security. Iraq does not have a single airplane in its air force and is a poverty- ridden Third World nation, hardly a threat to U.S. security. Stirring up a major conflict in this region will actually jeopardize our security. Number three, a war against Iraq initiated by the United States cannot be morally justified. Arguing that someday in the future Saddam Hussein might pose a threat to us means that any nation any place in the world is subject to an American invasion without cause. This would be comparable to the impossibility of proving a negative. Number four, initiating a war against Iraq will surely antagonize all neighboring Arab and Muslim nations as well as the Russians, the Chinese and the European Union, if not the whole world. Even the English people are reluctant to support Tony Blair's prodding of our President to invade Iraq. There is no practical benefit for such action. Iraq could end up in even more dangerous hands like Iran. Number five, an attack on Iraq will not likely be confined to Iraq alone. Spreading the war to Israel and rallying all Arab nations against her may well end up jeopardizing the very existence of Israel. The President has already likened the current international crisis more to that of World War II than the more localized Viet Nam war. The law of unintended consequences applies to international affairs every bit as much as to domestic interventions, yet the consequences of such are much more dangerous. Number six, the cost of a war against Iraq would be prohibited. We paid a heavy economic price for the Vietnam war in direct cost, debt and inflation. This coming war could be a lot more expensive. Our national debt is growing at a rate greater than $250 billion per year. This will certainly accelerate. The dollar cost will be the least of our concerns compared to the potential loss of innocent lives, both theirs and ours. The systematic attack on civil liberties that accompanies all wars cannot be ignored. Already we hear cries for resurrecting the authoritarian program of constriction in the name of patriotism, of course. Could any benefit come from all this war mongering? Possibly. Let us hope and pray so. It should be evident that big government is anathema to individual liberty. In a free society, the role of government is to protect the individual's right to life and liberty. The biggest government of all, the U.N. consistently threatens personal liberties and U.S. sovereignty. But our recent move toward unilateralism hopefully will inadvertently weaken the United Nations. Our participation more often than not lately is conditioned on following the international rules and courts and trade agreements only when they please us, flaunting the consensus without rejecting internationalism on principle, as we should. The way these international events will eventually play out is unknown, and in the process we expose ourselves to great danger. Instead of replacing today's international government, the United Nations, the IMF, the World Bank, the WTO, the international criminal court, with free and independent republics, it is more likely that we will see a rise of militant nationalism with a penchant for solving problems with arms and protectionism rather than free trade and peaceful negotiations. The last thing this world needs is the development of more nuclear weapons, as is now being planned in a pretense for ensuring the peace. We would need more than an office of strategic information to convince the world of that. What do we need? We need a clear understanding and belief in a free society, a true republic that protects individual liberty, private property, free markets, voluntary exchange and private solutions to social problems, placing strict restraints on government meddling in the internal affairs of others. Indeed, we live in challenging and dangerous times.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose H. Res. 339, a bill by the United States Congress which seeks to tell a sovereign nation how to hold its own elections. It seems the height of arrogance for us to sit here and lecture the people and government of Ukraine on what they should do and should not do in their own election process. One would have thought after our own election debacle in November 2000, that we would have learned how counterproductive and hypocritical it is to lecture other democratic countries on their electoral processes. How would members of this committee--or any American--react if countries like Ukraine demanded that our elections here in the United States conform to their criteria? So I think we can guess how Ukrainians feel about this piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, Ukraine has been the recipient of hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign aid from the United States. In fiscal year 2002 alone, Ukraine was provided $154 million. Yet after all this money-- which we were told was to promote democracy--and more then ten years after the end of the Soviet Union, we are told in this legislation that Ukraine has made little if any progress in establishing a democratic political system. Far from getting more involved in Ukraine's electoral process, which is where this legislation leads us, the United States is already much too involved in the Ukrainian elections. The U.S. government has sent some $4.7 million dollars to Ukraine for monitoring and assistance programs, including to train their electoral commission members and domestic monitoring organizations. There have been numerous reports of U.S.-funded non-governmental organizations in Ukraine being involved in pushing one or another political party. This makes it look like the United States is taking sides in the Ukrainian elections. The legislation calls for the full access of Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) monitors to all aspects of the parliamentary elections, but that organization has time and time again, from Slovakia to Russia and elsewhere, shown itself to be unreliable and politically biased. Yet the United States continues to fund and participate in OSCE activities. As British writer John Laughland observed this week in the Guardian newspaper, ``Western election monitoring has become the political equivalent of an Arthur Andersen audit. This supposedly technical process is now so corrupted by political bias that it would be better to abandon it. Only then will countries be able to elect their leaders freely.'' Mr. Speaker, I think this is advice we would be wise to heed. Other aspects of this bill are likewise troubling. This bill seeks, from thousands of miles away and without any of the facts, to demand that the Ukrainian government solve crimes within Ukraine that have absolutely nothing to do with the United States. No one knows what happened to journalist Heorhiy Gongadze or any of the alleged murdered Ukrainian journalists, yet by adding it into this ill-advised piece of legislation we are sitting here suggesting that the government has something to do with the alleged murders. This meddling into the Ukrainian judicial system is inappropriate and counter-productive. Mr. Speaker, we are legislators in the United States Congress. We are not in Ukraine. We have no right to interfere in the internal affairs of that country and no business telling them how to conduct their elections. A far better policy toward Ukraine would be to eliminate any U.S.-government imposed barrier to free trade between Americans and Ukrainians.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, reauthorizing taxpayer support for the Export- Import Reauthorization Act for every 1 day, much less for a month violates basic economic, constitutional, and moral principles. Therefore, Congress should reject S. 2019. 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--rather, the majority of Eximbank funding benefits large, politically powerful corporations. 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 ``projectionists'' and ``isolationists.'' Mr. Speaker, 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 lowers are determined by how well they please government bureaucrats 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! The case for Eximbank is further weakened considering that small businesses receive only 12-15 percent of Eximbank funds; the vast majority of Eximbank funds benefit large corporations. These corporations can certainly 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 exports 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, Yemen, and even the Sudan benefit from taxpayer-subsidized trade courtesy of the Eximbank! 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. Speaker, 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 them to benefit powerful special interests. It is for these reasons that I urge my colleagues to reject S. 2019.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, as an OB-GYN who has had the privilege of bringing over 3,000 children into the world, I share the desire to punish severely those guilty of sexual abuse of children. In fact, it is hard to imagine someone more deserving of life in prison than one who preys on children. However, I must offer a cautionary note to the legislation before us, which would establish a mandatory lifetime sentence for anyone convicted of two child sexual abuse crimes. The bill before us today simply expands Federal penalties for already existing Federal crimes, and does not in any way infringe on the jurisdiction of the States. However, Mr. Chairman, I would ask my colleagues to consider whether child sexual abuse should be a Federal crime at all. The Constitution specifies three Federal crimes, namely treason, piracy, and counterfeiting. It is a stretch, to say the least, to define child abuse as a form of treason, piracy, or counterfeiting. Therefore, perhaps the best means of dealing with child sexual abuse occurring on Federal lands across State lines is to turn the suspected perpetrator over to the relevant local jurisdiction and allow the local authorities to prosecute the crime. As I stated before, it certainly is a legitimate exercise of government power to impose a lifetime sentence on those guilty of multiple sex crimes against children. However, I would ask my colleagues to consider the wisdom of Congress' increased reliance on mandatory minimums. Over the past several years we have seen a number of cases with people sentenced to life, or other harsh sentences, that appear to offend basic principles of justice. Even judges in many of these cases admit that the sentences imposed are in no way just, but the judiciary's hands are tied by the statutorily imposed mandatory minimums. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, while I believe this is a worthy piece of legislation, I hope someday we will debate whether expanding Federal crimes (along with the use of congressionally mandated mandatory minimum sentences) is consistent with constitutional government and fundamental principles of justice.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am disheartened by the administration's recent decision to impose a 30 percent tariff on steel imports. This measure will hurt far more Americans than it will help, and it takes a step backward toward the protectionist thinking that dominated Washington in decades past. Make no mistake about it, these tariffs represent naked protectionism at its worst, a blatant disregard of any remaining free market principles to gain the short-term favor of certain special interests. These steel tariffs also make it quite clear that the rhetoric about free trade in Washington is abandoned and replaced with talk of ``fair trade'' when special interests make demands. What most Washington politicians really believe in is government-managed trade, not free trade. True free trade, by definition, takes place only in the absence of government interference of any kind, including tariffs. Government- managed trade means government, rather than competence in the marketplace, determines what industries and companies succeed or fail. We have all heard about how these tariffs are needed to protect the jobs of American steelworkers, but we never hear about the jobs that will be lost or never created when the cost of steel rises 30 percent. We forget that tariffs are taxes and that imposing tariffs means raising taxes. Why is the administration raising taxes on American steel consumers? Apparently no one in the administration has read Henry Hazlitt's classic book ``Economics in One Lesson.'' Professor Hazlitt's fundamental lesson was simple: we must examine economic policy by considering the long-term effects of any proposal on all groups. The administration, instead, chose to focus on the immediate effects of steel tariffs on one group, the domestic steel industry. In doing so, it chose to ignore basic economics for the sake of political expediency. Now, I grant you that this is hardly anything new in this town, but it is important that we see these tariffs as the political favors that they are. This has nothing to do with fairness. The free market is fair. It alone justly rewards the worthiest competitors. Tariffs reward the strongest Washington lobbies. We should recognize that the cost of these tariffs will not only be borne by American companies that import steel, such as those in the auto industry and building trades. The cost of these import taxes will be borne by nearly all Americans, because steel is widely used in the cars we drive and in the buildings in which we live and work. We will all pay, but the cost will be spread out and hidden, so no one complains. The domestic steel industry, however, has complained; and it has the corporate and union power that scares politicians in Washington. So the administration moved to protect domestic steel interests, with an eye towards upcoming elections. It moved to help members who represent steel-producing States. We hear a great deal of criticism of special interests and their stranglehold on Washington, but somehow when we prop up an entire industry that has failed to stay competitive, ``we are protecting American workers.'' What we are really doing is taxing all Americans to keep some politically favored corporations afloat. Some rank-and-file jobs may also be saved, but at what cost? Do steelworkers really have a right to demand Americans pay higher taxes to save an industry that should be required to compete on its own? If we are going to protect the steel industry with tariffs, why not other industries? Does every industry that competes with imported goods have the same claim for protection? We have propped up the auto industry in the past; now we are doing it for steel. So who should be next in line? Virtually every American industry competes with at least some imports. What happened to the wonderful harmony that the WTO was supposed to bring to the global market? The administration has been roundly criticized since the steel decision was announced last week, especially by our WTO ``partners.'' The European Union is preparing to impose retaliatory sanctions to protect its own steel industry. EU Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy has accused the U.S. of setting the stage for a global trade war; and several other steel producing nations, such as Japan and Russia, also have vowed to fight the tariffs. Even British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who has been a tremendous supporter of the President since September 11, recently stated that the new American steel tariffs were totally unjustified. The WTO was supposed to prevent all this squabbling, was it not? Those of us who opposed U.S. membership in the WTO were scolded as being out of touch, unwilling to see the promise of a new global prosperity. What we are getting instead is increased hostility from our trading partners and threats of economic sanctions from our WTO masters. This is what happens when we let government-managed trade schemes pick winners and losers in the global trading game. The truly deplorable thing about all this is that the WTO is touted as promoting free trade. Mr. Speaker, it is always amazing to me that Washington gives so much lip service to free trade while never adhering to true free trade principles. Free trade really means freedom, the freedom to buy and sell goods and services free from government interference. Time and time again, history proves that tariffs do not work. Even some modern Keynesian economists have grudgingly begun to admit that free markets allocate resources better than centralized planning. Yet we cling to the idea that government needs to manage trade when it really needs to get out of the way and let the marketplace determine the cost of goods. I sincerely hope that the administration's position on steel does not signal a willingness to resort to protectionism whenever special interests make demands in the future.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House International Relations Committee and the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, I would like to state my strong objections to the manner in which this piece of legislation was raised. I was only made aware of the existence of this legislation this morning, just a couple of hours before I was expected to vote on it. There was no committee markup of the legislation, nor was there any notice that this legislation would appear on today's suspension calendar. This legislation represents a very serious and significant shift in United States policy toward Colombia. It sets us on a slippery slope toward unwise military intervention in a foreign civil war that has nothing to do with the United States. Our policy toward Colombia was already ill-advised when it consisted of an expensive front in our failed ``war on drugs.'' Plan Colombia, launched nearly 2 years ago, sent $1.3 billion to Colombia under the guise of this war on drugs. A majority of that went to the Colombian military; much was no doubt lost through corruption. Though this massive assistance program was supposed to put an end to the FARC and other rebel groups involved in drug trafficking, 2 years later we are now being told--in this legislation and elsewhere--that the FARC and rebel groups are stronger than ever. So now we are being asked to provide even more assistance in an effort that seems to have had a result the opposite of what was intended. In effect, we are being asked to redouble failed efforts. That doesn't make sense. At the time Plan Colombia was introduced, President Clinton promised the American people that this action would in no way drag us into the Colombian civil war. This current legislation takes a bad policy and makes it much worse. This legislation calls for the United States ``to assist the Government of Colombia protect its democracy from United States-designated foreign terrorist organizations . . . '' In other words, this legislation elevates a civil war in Colombia to the level of the international war on terror, and it will drag us deep into the conflict. Mr. Speaker, there is a world of difference between a rebel group fighting a civil war in a foreign country and the kind of international terrorist organization that targeted the United States last September. As ruthless and violent as the three rebel groups in Colombia no doubt are, their struggle for power in that country is an internal one. None of the three appears to have any intention of carrying out terrorist activities in the United States. Should we become involved in a civil war against them, however, these organizations may well begin to view the United States as a legitimate target. What possible reason could there be for us to take on such a deadly risk? What possible rewards could there be for the United States support for one faction or the other in this civil war? As with much of our interventionism, if you scratch the surface of the high-sounding calls to ``protect democracy'' and ``stop drug trafficking'' you often find commercial interests driving U.S. foreign policy. This also appears to be the case in Colombia. And like Afghanistan, Kosovo, Iraq, and elsewhere, that commercial interest appears to be related to oil The U.S. administration request for FY 2003 includes a request for an additional $98 million to help protect the Cano-Limon Pipeline--jointly owned by the Colombian Government and Occidental Petroleum. Rebels have been blowing up parts of the pipeline and the resulting disruption of the flow of oil is costing Occidental Petroleum and the Colombian Government more than half a billion dollars per year. Now the administration wants the American taxpayer to finance the equipping and training of a security force to protect the pipeline, which much of the training coming from the U.S. military. Since when is it the responsibility of the American citizen to subsidize risky investments made by private companies in foreign countries? And since when is it the duty of American service men and women to lay their lives on the line for these commercial interests? Further intervention in the internal political and military affairs of Colombia will only increase the mistrust and anger of the average Colombian citizen toward the United States, as these citizens will face the prospect of an ongoing, United States-supported war in their country. Already Plan Colombia has fueled the deep resentment of Colombian farmers toward the United States. These farmers have seen their legitimate crops destroyed, water supply polluted, and families sprayed as powerful herbicides miss their intended marks. An escalation of American involvement will only make matters worse. Mr. Speaker, at this critical time, our precious military and financial resources must not be diverted to a conflict that has nothing to do with the United States and poses no threat to the United States. Trying to designate increased military involvement in Colombia as a new front on the ``war on terror'' makes no sense at all. It will only draw the United States into a quagmire much like Vietnam. The Colombian civil war is now in its fourth decade; pretending that the fighting there is somehow related to our international war on terrorism is to stretch the imagination to the breaking point. It is unwise and dangerous.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation to withdraw the United States from the Breton Woods Agreement and thus end taxpayer support for the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Rooted in a discredited economic philosophy and a complete disregard for fundamental constitutional principles, the IMF forces American taxpayers to subsidize large, multinational corporations and underwrite economic destruction around the globe. This is because the IMF often uses the $37 billion line of credit provided to it by the American taxpayers to bribe countries to follow destructive, statist policies. For example, Mr. Speaker, the IMF played a major role in creating the Argentine economic crisis. Despite clear signs over the past several years that the Argentine economy was in serious trouble, the IMF continued pouring taxpayer-subsidized loans with an incredibly low interest rate of 2.6 percent into the country. In 2001, as Argentina's fiscal position steadily deteriorated, the IMF funneled over 8 billion dollars to the Argentine government. According to Congressman Jim Saxton, chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, this continued lending over many years sustained and subsidized a bankrupt Argentine economic policy, whose collapse is now all the more serious. The IMF's generous subsidized bailouts lead to moral hazard problems, and enable shaky governments to pressure the IMF for even more funding or risk disaster. Argentina is just the latest example of the folly of IMF policies. Only 4 years ago the world economy was rocked by an IMF-created disaster in Asia. The IMF regularly puts the taxpayer on the hook for the mistakes of the big banks. Often times, Mr. Speaker, IMF funds end up in the hands of corrupt dictators who use our taxpayer-provided largesse to prop up their regimes by rewarding their supporters and depriving their opponents of access to capital. If not corrupt, most IMF borrowers are governments of countries with little economic productivity. Either way, most recipient nations end up with huge debts that they cannot service, which only adds to their poverty and instability. IMF money ultimately corrupts those countries it purports to help, by keeping afloat reckless political institutions that destroy their own economies. IMF policies ultimately are based on a flawed philosophy that says the best means of creating economic prosperity is through government- to-government transfers. Such programs cannot produce growth, because they take capital out of private hands, where it can be allocated to its most productive use as determined by the choices of consumers in the market, and place it in the hands of politicians. Placing economic resources in the hands of politicians and bureaucrats inevitably results in inefficiencies, shortages, and economic crises, as even the best intentioned politicians cannot know the most efficient use of resources. In addition, the IMF violates basic constitutional and moral principles. The federal government has no constitutional authority to fund international institutions such as the IMF. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, it is simply immoral to take money from hard-working Americans to support the economic schemes of politically-powerful special interests and third-world dictators. In all my years in Congress, I have never been approached by a taxpayer asking that he or she be forced to provide more subsidies to Wall Street executives and foreign dictators. The only constituency for the IMF are the huge multinational banks and corporations. Big banks used IMF funds--taxpayer funds--to bail themselves out from billions in losses after the Asian financial crisis. Big corporations obtain lucrative contracts for a wide variety of construction projects funded with IMF loans. It's a familiar game in Washington, with corporate welfare disguised as compassion for the poor. The Argentine debacle is yet further proof that the IMF was a bad idea from the very beginning--economically, constitutionally, and morally. The IMF is a relic of an era when power-hungry bureaucrats and deluded economists believed they could micro-manage the world's economy. Withdrawal from the IMF would benefit American taxpayers, as well as workers and consumers around the globe. I hope my colleagues will join me in working to protect the American taxpayer from underwriting the destruction of countries like Argentina, by cosponsoring my legislation to end America's support for the IMF.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Health Information Independence Act of 2002. This act takes a major step toward restoring the right of consumers to purchase the dietary supplements of their choice and receive accurate information about the health benefits of foods and dietary supplements. The Health Information Independence Act repeals the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) authority to approve health claims of foods and dietary supplements. Instead, that authority is vested in an independent review board. The board is comprised of independent scientific experts randomly chosen by the FDA. However, anyone who is, or has ever been, on the FDA's payroll is disqualified from serving on the commission. The FDA is forbidden from exercising any influence over the review board. If the board recommends approval of a health claim then the FDA must approve the claim. The board also must consider whether any claims can be rendered non- misleading by adopting a disclaimer before rejecting a claim out of hand. For example, if the board finds that the scientific evidence does not conclusively support a claim, but the claim could be rendered non- misleading if accompanied with a disclaimer then the board must approve the claim provided the claim is always accompanied by an appropriate disclaimer. The disclaimer would be a simple statement to the effect that ``scientific studies on these claims are inconclusive'' and/or ``these claims are not approved by the FDA.'' Thus, the bill tilts the balance of federal law in favor of allowing consumers access to information regarding the health benefits of foods and dietary supplements, which is proper in a free society. The procedures established by the Health Information Independence Act are a fair and balanced way to ensure consumers have access to truthful information about dietary supplements. Over the past decade, the American people have made it clear they do not want the federal government to interfere with their access to dietary supplements, yet the FDA continues to engage in heavy-handed attempts to restrict access to dietary supplements. In 1994, Congess responded to the American people's desire for greater access to information about the benefits of dietary supplements by passing the Dietary Supplements and Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA), which liberalized rules regarding the regulation of dietary supplements. Congressional offices received a record number of comments in favor of DSHEA. Despite DSHEA, FDA officials continued to attempt to enforce regulations aimed at keeping the American public in the dark about the benefits of dietary supplements. Finally, in the case of Pearson v. Shalala, 154 F.3d 650 (DC Cir. 1999), reh'g denied en banc, 172 F.3d 72 (DC Cir. 1999), the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit Court reaffirmed consumers' First Amendment right to learn about dietary supplements without unnecessary interference from the FDA. The Pearson court anticipated my legislation by suggesting the FDA adopt disclaimers in order to render some health claims non-misleading. In the more than two years since the Pearson decision, members of Congress have had to continually intervene with the FDA to ensure it followed the court order. The FDA continues to deny consumers access to truthful health information. Clearly, the FDA is determined to continue to (as the Pearson court pointed out) act as though liberalizing regulations regarding health claims is the equivalent of ``asking consumers to buy something while hypnotized and therefore they are bound to be misled.'' Therefore, if Congress is serious about respecting the First Amendment rights of the people, we must remove FDA authority to censor non-misleading health claims, and those claims which can be rendered non-misleading by the simple device of adopting a disclaimer, by passing my Health Information Independence Act. In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to help establish an objective process that respects consumers' First Amendment rights to non- misleading information regarding the health benefits of foods and dietary supplements by cosponsoring the Health Information Independence Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the war drums are beating, louder and louder. Iraq, Iran, and North Korea have been forewarned. Plans have been laid and, for all we know, already initiated for the overthrow and assassination of Saddam Hussein. There has been talk of sabotage, psychological warfare, arming domestic rebels, killing Hussein and even an outright invasion of Iraq with hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops. All we hear about in the biased media is the need to eliminate Saddam Hussein, with little regard of how this, in itself, might totally destabilize the entire Middle East and Central Asia. It could, in fact, make the Iraqi problem much worse. The assumption is that, with our success in Afghanistan, we should now pursue this same policy against any country we choose, no matter how flimsy the justification. It hardly can be argued that it is because authoritarian governments deserve our wrath, considering the number of current and past such governments that we have not only tolerated but subsidized. Protestations from our Arab allies are silenced by our dumping more American taxpayers' dollars on them. European criticism that the U.S. is now following a unilateral approach is brushed off by the United States, which only causes more apprehension in the European Community. Widespread support from the eager media pumps the public to support the warmongers in the administration. The pros and cons of how dangerous Saddam Hussein actually is are legitimate. However, it is rarely pointed out that the CIA has found no evidence whatsoever that Iraq was involved in the terrorist attacks of 9-11. Rarely do we hear that Iraq has never committed any aggression against the United States. No one in the media questions our aggression against Iraq for the past 12 years by continuous bombing and imposed sanctions responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands of children in Iraq. The Iraqis' defense of their homeland can hardly be characterized as aggression against those who rain bombs down on them. We had to go over 6,000 miles to pick this fight against a Third-World nation with little ability to defend itself. Our policies have actually served to generate support for Saddam Hussein, in spite of his brutal control of the Iraqi people. He is as strong today, if not stronger, as he was prior to the Persian Gulf War 12 years ago. Even today, our jingoism ironically is driving a closer alliance between Iraq and Iran, long-time, bitter enemies. While we trade with and subsidize to the hilt the questionable government of China, we place sanctions on and refuse to trade with Iran and Iraq, which only causes greater antagonism. But if the warmongers' goal is to have a war regardless of international law and the Constitution, current policy serves their interests. Could it be that only by war and removal of certain governments we can maintain control of the oil in this region? Could it be all about oil and have nothing to do with U.S. national security? Too often when we dictate who will lead another country, we only replace one group of thugs with another, as we just did in Afghanistan, with the only difference being that the thugs who we support are expected to be puppet-like and remain loyal to the United States, or else. Although bits and pieces of the administration's plans to wage war against Iraq and possibly Iran and North Korea are garnered, we never hear any mention of the authority to do so. It seems that Tony Blair's approval is more important than the approval of the American people. Congress never complains about its lost prerogatives to be the sole declarer of war. Astoundingly, Congress is only too eager to give war powers to our presidents through the back door by the use of some fuzzy resolution that the president can use as his justification. Once the hostilities begin, the money always follows, because Congress fears criticism for not ``supporting the troops.'' But putting troops in harm's way without proper authority and unnecessarily can hardly be the way to ``support the troops.'' Let it be clearly understood: There is no authority to wage war against Iraq without the Congress passing a Declaration of War. H.J. Res. 65, passed in the aftermath of 9-11, does not even suggest that this authority exists. A U.N. resolution authorizing an Iraqi invasion, even if it were to come, cannot replace the legal process for the United States going to war as precisely defined in the Constitution. We must remember, a covert war is no more justifiable and is even more reprehensible. Only tyrants can take a nation to war without the consent of the people. The planned war against Iraq without a declaration of war is illegal. It is unwise because of the many unforeseen consequences that are likely to result. It is immoral and unjust, because it has nothing to do with U.S. security and because Iraq has not initiated aggression against us. Besides, the American people become less secure when we risk a major conflict driven by commercial interests and not authorized in a proper manner by the Congress. Victory under these circumstances is always elusive, and unintended consequences are inevitable.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Monetary Freedom and Accountability Act. This simple bill takes a step toward restoring Congress' constitutional authority over the monetary policy of the United States by requiring Congressional approval before the President or the Treasury Secretary buys or sells gold. Federal dealings in the gold market have the potential to seriously disrupt the free market by either artificially inflating or deflating the price of gold. Given gold's importance to America's (and the world's) monetary system, any federal interference in the gold market will have ripple effects through the entire economy. For example, if the government were to intervene to artificially lower the price of gold, the result would be to hide the true effects of an inflationary policy until the damage was too severe to remain out of the public eye. By artificially deflating the price of gold, federal actions in the gold market can reduce the values of private gold holdings, adversely effecting millions of investors. These investors rely on their gold holdings to protect them from the effects of our misguided fiat currency system. Federal dealings in gold can also adversely affect those countries with large gold mines, many of which are currently ravished by extreme poverty. Mr. Speaker, restoring a vibrant gold market could do more than any foreign aid program to restore economic growth to these areas. While the Treasury denies it is dealing in gold, the Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee (GATA) has uncovered evidence suggesting that the Federal Reserve and the Treasury, operating through the Exchange- Stabilization Fund and in cooperation with major banks and the International Monetary Fund, have been interfering in the gold market with the goal of lowering the price of gold. The purpose of this policy has been to disguise the true effects of the monetary bubble responsible for the artificial prosperity of the 1990s and to protect the politically-powerful banks who are heavily invested in gold derivatives. GATA believes federal actions to drive down the price of gold help protect the profits of these banks at the expense of investors, consumers, and taxpayers around the world. GATA has also produced evidence that American officials are involved in gold transactions. Alan Greenspan himself referred to the federal government's power to manipulate the price of gold at a hearing before the House Banking Committee and the Senate Agricultural Committee in July, 1998: ``Nor can private counterparties restrict supplies of gold, another commodity whose derivatives are often traded over-the-counter, where central banks stand ready to lease gold in increasing quantities should the price rise.'' [Emphasis added]. Mr. Speaker, in order to allow my colleagues to learn more about this issue, I am enclosing ``All that Glitters is Not Gold'' by Kelly Patricia O'Meara, an investigative reporter from Insight magazine. This article explains in detail GATA's allegations of Federal involvement in the gold market. Mr. Speaker, while I certainly share GATA's concerns over the effects of federal dealings in the gold market, my bill in no way interferes with the ability of the federal government to buy or sell gold. It simply requires that before the executive branch engages in such transactions, Congress has the chance to review it, debate it, and approve it. Given the tremendous effects on the American economy from the federal dealings in the gold market, it certainty is reasonable that the people's representatives have a role in approving these transactions, especially since Congress has an all-too-neglected Constitutional role in overseeing monetary policy. Therefore, I urge all my colleagues to stand up for sound economics, open government and Congress' constitutional role in monetary policy by cosponsoring the Monetary Freedom and Accountability Act. [Insight Magazine, March 4, 2002] All That Glitters Is Not Gold (By Kelly Patricia O'Meara) Even though Enron employees and the company's accounting firm, Arthur Andersen, have destroyed mountains of documents, enough information remains in the ruins of the nation's largest corporate bankruptcy to provide a clear picture of what happened to wreck what once was the seventh-largest U.S. corporation. Obfuscation, secrecy, and accounting tricks appear to have catapulted the Houston-based trader of oil and gas to the top of the Fortune 100, only to be brought down by the same corporate chicanery. Meanwhile, Wall Street analysts and the federal government's top bean counters struggle to convince the nation that the Enron crash is an isolated case, not in the least reflective of how business is done in corporate America. But there are many in the world of high finance who aren't buying the official line and warn that Enron is just the first to fall from a shaky house of cards. Many analysts believe that this problem is nowhere more evident than at the nation's bullion banks, and particularly at the House of Morgan (J.P. Morgan Chase). One of the world's leading banking institutions and a major international bullion bank, Morgan Chase has received heavy media attention in recent weeks both for its financial relationships with bankrupts Enron and Global Crossing Ltd. as well as the financial collapse of Argentina. It is no secret that Morgan Chase was one of Enron's biggest lenders, reportedly losing at least $600 million and, perhaps, billions. The banking giant's stock has gone south, and management has been called before its shareholders to explain substantial investments in highly speculative derivatives--hidden speculation of the sort that overheated and blew up on Enron. In recent years Morgan Chase has invested much of its capital in derivatives, including gold and interest-rate derivatives, about which very little information is provided to shareholders. Among the information that has been made available, however, is that as of June 2000, J.P. Morgan reported nearly $30 billion of gold derivatives and Chase Manhattan Corp., although merged with J.P. Morgan, still reported separately in 2000 that it had $35 billion in gold derivatives. Analysts agree that the derivatives have exploded at this bank and that both positions are enormous relative to the capital of the bank and the size of the gold market. It gets worse. J,P. Morgan's total derivatives position reportedly now stands at nearly $29 trillion, or three times the U.S. annual gross domestic product. Wall Street insiders speculate that if the gold market were to rise, Morgan Chase could be in serious financial difficulty because of its ``short positions'' in gold. In other words, if the price of gold were to increase substantially, Morgan Chase and other bullion banks that are highly leveraged in gold would have trouble covering their liabilities. One financial analyst, who asked not to be identified, explained the situation this way: ``Gold is borrowed by Morgan Chase from the Bank of England at 1 percent interest and then Morgan Chase sells the gold on the open market, then reinvests the proceeds into interest-bearing vehicles at maybe 6 percent. At some point, though, Morgan Chase must return the borrowed gold to the Bank of England, and if the price of gold were significantly to increase during any point in this process, it would make it prohibitive and potentially ruinous to repay the gold.'' Bill Murphy, chairman of the Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee, a nonprofit organization that researches and studies what he calls the ``gold cartel'' (J.P. Morgan Chase, Deutsche Bank, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Bank for International Settlements (BIS), the U.S. Treasury, and the Federal Reserve), and owner of www.LeMetropoleCafe.com, tells Insight that ``Morgan Chase and other bullion banks are another Enron waiting to happen.'' Murphy says, ``Enron occurred because the nature of their business was obscured, there was no oversight and someone was cooking the books. Enron was deceiving everyone about their business operations--and the same thing is happening with the gold and bullion banks.'' According to Murphy, ``The price of gold always has been a barometer used by many to determine the financial health of the United States. A steady gold price usually is associated by the public and economic analysts as an indication or a reflection of the stability of the financial system. Steady gold; steady dollar. Enron structured a financial system that put the company at risk and eventually took it down. The same structure now exists at Morgan Chase with their own interest- rate/gold-derivatives position. There is very little information available about its position in the gold market and, as with the case of Enron, it could easily bring them down.'' In December 2000, attorney Reginald H. Howe, a private investor and proprietor of the Website www.goldensextant.com, which reports on gold, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Boston. Named as defendants were J.P. Morgan & Co., Chase Manhattan Corp., Citigroup Inc., Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Deutsche Bank, Lawrence Summers (former secretary of the Treasury), William McDonough (president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York), Alan Greenspan (chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System), and the

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, the Enron bankruptcy and the subsequent revelations regarding Enron's political influence have once again brought campaign finance to the forefront of the congressional agenda. Ironically, many of the strongest proponents of campaign finance reform are among those who receive the largest donations from special interests seeking state favors. In fact, some legislators who were involved in the government-created savings and loan scandal of the late eighties and early nineties today pose as born again advocates of ``good government'' via campaign finance reform! Mr. Chairman, this so-called ``reform'' legislation is clearly unconstitutional. Many have pointed out that the First amendment unquestionably grants individuals and businesses the free and unfettered right to advertise, lobby, and contribute to politicians as they choose. Campaign reform legislation blows a huge hole in these First amendment protections by criminalizing criticism of elected officials. Thus, passage of this bill will import into American law the totalitarian concept that government officials should be able to use their power to silence their critics. The case against this provision was best stated by Herb Titus, one of America's leading constitutional scholars, in his paper Campaign- Finance Reform: A Constitutional Analysis: ``At the heart of the guarantee of the freedom of speech is the prohibition against any law designed to protect the reputation of the government to the end that the people have confidence in their current governors. As seditious libel laws protecting the reputation of the government unconstitutionally abridge the freedom of speech, so also do campaign- finance reform laws.'' The damage this bill does to the First amendment is certainly a sufficient reason to oppose it. However, as Professor Titus demonstrates in his analysis of the bill, the most important reason to oppose this bill is that the Constitution does not grant Congress the power to regulate campaigns. In fact, article II expressly authorizes the regulation of elections, so the omission of campaigns is glaring. This legislation thus represents an attempt by Congress to fix a problem created by excessive government intervention in the economy with another infringement on the people's constitutional liberties. The real problem is not that government lacks power to control campaign financing, but that the federal government has excessive power over our economy and lives. It is the power of the welfare-regulatory state which creates a tremendous incentive to protect one's own interests by ``investing'' in politicians. Since the problem is not a lack of federal laws, or rules regulating campaign spending, more laws won't help. We hardly suffer from too much freedom. Any effort to solve the campaign finance problem with more laws will only make things worse by further undermining the principles of liberty and private property ownership. Attempts to address the problems of special interest influence through new unconstitutional rules and regulations address only the symptoms while ignoring the root cause of the problem. Tough enforcement of spending rules will merely drive the influence underground, since the stakes are too high and much is to be gained by exerting influence over government-legally or not. The more open and legal campaign expenditures are, the easier it is for voters to know who's buying influence from whom. There is a tremendous incentive for every special interest group to influence government. Every individual, bank, or corporation that does business with government invests plenty in influencing government. Lobbyists spend over a hundred million dollars per month trying to influence Congress. Taxpayer dollars are endlessly spent by bureaucrats in their effort to convince Congress to protect their own empires. Government has tremendous influence over the economy and financial markets through interest rate controls, contracts, regulations, loans, and grants. Corporations and others are ``forced'' to participate in the process out of greed as well as self-defense--since that's the way the system works. Equalizing competition and balancing power--such as between labor and business--is a common practice. As long as this system remains in place, the incentive to buy influence will continue. Many reformers recognize this, and either like the system or believe that it's futile to bring about changes. They argue that curtailing influence is the only option left, even if it involves compromising freedom of political speech by regulating political money. It's naive to believe stricter rules will make a difference. If members of Congress resisted the temptation to support unconstitutional legislation to benefit special interests, this whole discussion would be unnecessary. Because members do yield to the pressure, the reformers believe that more rules regulating political speech will solve the problem. The reformers argue that it's only the fault of those trying to influence government and not the fault of the members of Congress who yield to the pressure, or the system that generates the abuse. This allows members to avoid assuming responsibility for their own acts, and instead places the blame on those who exert pressure on Congress through the political process--which is a basic right bestowed on all Americans. The reformer's argument is ``Stop us before we succumb to the special interest groups.'' Politicans unable to accept this responsibility clamor for a system that diminishes the need for them to persuade individuals and groups to donate money to their campaigns. Instead of persuasion, they endorse coercing taxpayers to finance campaigns. This only changes the special interest groups that control government policy. Instead of voluntary groups making their own decisions with their own money, politicians and bureaucrats dictate how political campaigns will be financed. Not only will politicians and bureaucrats gain influence over elections, other nondeserving people will benefit. Clearly, incumbents will greatly benefit by more controls over campaign spending--a benefit to which the reformers will never admit. Mr. Chairman, the freedoms of the American people should not be restricted because some politicians cannot control themselves. We need to get money out of government. Only then will money not be important in politics. Campaign finance laws, such as those before us today, will not make politicians more ethical, but they will make it harder for average Americans to influence Washington. The case against this bill was eloquently made by Herb Titus in the paper referenced above: ``Campaign-finance reform is truly a wolf in sheep's clothing. Promising reform, it hides incumbent perquisites. Promising competition, it favors monopoly. Promising integrity, it fosters corruption. Real campaign-finance reform calls for a return to America's original constitutional principles of limited and decentralized government power, thereby preserving the power of the people.'' I urge my colleagues to listen to Professor Titus and reject this unconstitutional proposal. Instead, I hope my colleagues will work to reduce special interest influence in Washington and restore integrity to politics by reducing the federal government to its constitutional limits.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, dealing with the slumping economy will prove every bit as challenging to the Congress as fighting terrorism. No one challenges the need to protect American citizens from further terrorist attacks, but there is much debate throughout the country as to how it should be done and whether personal liberty here at home must be sacrificed. Many are convinced that our efforts overseas might escalate the crisis and actually precipitate more violence. A growing number of Americans are becoming concerned that our efforts to preserve security will result in the unnecessary sacrifice of that which we have pledged to protect, our constitutionally protected liberty. A similar conflict also exists once government attempts to legislate an end to a recession. In the 1970s, wage and price controls were used to suppress price inflation and to help the economy without realizing the futility of such a policy. Not only did it not work, the economy was greatly harmed. Legislation per se is not necessarily harmful; but if it reflects bad policy, it is. The policy of wage and price controls makes things worse and represents a serious violation of people's rights. Today, we hear from strong advocates of higher taxation, increased spending, higher budget deficits, tougher regulations, bailouts and all kinds of subsidies and support programs as tools to restore economic growth. The Federal Reserve recognized early on the severity of the problems, and over the past year lowered short-term interest rates in an unprecedented 11 times, dropping the Fed funds rate from 6\1/2\ percent to 1\3/4\. This has not helped, and none of these other suggestions can solve the economic problems we face either. Some may temporarily help a part of the economy, but the solution to restoring growth lies not in more government but less. It is precisely too much government and especially manipulation of credit by the Federal Reserve that precipitated the economic downturn in the first place. Increasing that which caused the recession cannot possibly at the same time be the solution. The magnitude of the distortions of the 1990s brought on by artificially low interest rates orchestrated by the Fed on top of 30 years of operating with a fiat currency worldwide suggests that this slow down will not abort quickly. The Japanese economy has been in a slump for over 10 years and shows no signs of recovery. The world economies are more integrated than ever before. When they are growing, it is a benefit to all; but in a contraction, globalism based on fiat money and an international government assures that most economies will be dragged down together. Evidence is abundant that most countries of the world are feeling the pressure of a weakening economy. Many of our political and economic leaders have been preaching that more consumer spending can revitalize the economy. This admonition, of course, fails to address the reality of a record high $7.5 trillion, and rising, consumer debt. ``Today a party, tomorrow an economic hangover'' has essentially been our philosophy for decades; but there is always a limit to deficit spending, whether it is private or governmental, and the short-term benefits must always be paid for in one form or another later on. Those who felt and acted wealthy in holding the dot-com and Enron stocks were brought back to Earth with a shattering correction. There is a lot more of this type of correction yet to come in the financial sector. In recessions, to remain solvent consumers ought to tighten the belts, pay off debt and save. In a free market, this would lower interest rates to once again make investments attractive. The confusing aspect of today's economy is that consumers and even businesses continue profligate borrowing in spite of the problems on the horizon. Interest rates, instead of rising, are pushed dramatically downward by the Federal Reserve creating massive amounts of new credit. This new credit, according to economic law, must in time push the value of the dollar down and general prices up. When this happens and the dollar is threatened on exchange markets, the cost of living is pushed sharply upward. The Central Bank is then forced then to raise interest rates, as they did in 1979, when the rates hit 21 percent. Even before any need to tighten, interest rates may rise or not fall as expected. This has just happened in the year 2001. Even with Fed fund rates at 40-year lows, the 10- and 30-year rates have not fallen accordingly. Many corporate bond rates have stayed high, and credit card rates have stayed in double digits. This happens because the market discounts for debt quality and future depreciation of the dollar. The Fed cannot control these rates, and they cannot control where the new credit they create goes. This means that resorting to or trusting in the Fed to bail out the economy and accommodate a congressional spending is foolhardy and dangerous. This policy has led to a record default for U.S. corporate bonds, and worldwide $110 billion of bonds were defaulted on last year. Monetary inflation is the chief cause of recessions. Therefore, we must never expect that this same policy will reverse the economic dislocations it has caused. For over a year the Fed has been massively inflating the money supply, and there is no evidence that it has done much good. This continuous influx of new credit, instead, delays the correction that must inevitably come, the liquidation of bad debt and the reduction of overcapacity. This is something Japan has not accomplished in 12 years of interest rates of around 1 percent. The market must be left to eliminate the misdirected investments and allow the sound investments to survive. There are other policies that will assist in a recovery that the Congress could implement: all taxes ought to be lowered, government spending should be reduced, controls of labor costs should be removed, and onerous regulations should be reduced or eliminated. We should not expect any of this to happen unless the people and the Congress decide that free market capitalism and sound money are preferable to a welfare state and fiat money. Whether this downturn is the one that will force that major decision upon us is not known, but eventually we will have to make it. Welfareism and our expanding growing foreign commitments, financed seductively through credit creation by the Fed, are not viable options. Transferring wealth to achieve a modicum of economic equality and assuring the role and assuming the role of world policemen, while ignoring economic laws regarding money and credit, must lead to economic distortions and a lower standard of living for most citizens. In the process, dependency on the government develops and Congress attempts to solve all the problems with a much more visible hand than Adam Smith recommended. The police efforts overseas and the effort to solve the social and economic problems here at home cannot be carried out without undermining the freedoms that we all profess to care about. Sadly lacking in the Congress is a conviction that free markets, that is, truly free markets, and sound money can provide the highest standard of living for the greatest number of people. Instead, we operate with a system that compromises free markets and causes economic injury to a growing number of people while rewarding special interests and steadily undermining the principles of liberty. Unfortunately, the policy of monetary inflation is most harmful to the poor and the middle class, especially in the early stages. Since rejecting the current system and endorsing economic freedom diminishes the power and influence of politicians, it is difficult to get political support for such a program. The necessary changes will only come when the American people wake up to the reality and insist that the Congress pursue only those goals permitted under the Constitution. Instead of moving in the direction of freer markets, the more problems the Western countries face, the more government programs are demanded. If one looks at Europe, the United States, or even Japan, as their economies weaken, government involvement in the economy increases. But in China and Russia, where the horrible conditions that communism caused, ironically made those two countries move toward freer markets when they encountered serious problems. Even the central banks of these two countries today are accumulating gold, while Western central banks are selling. The reason for this is that the conventional wisdom of the West's political and economic leaders is that there is a third way that is best, or an alternative to the extremes of too much freedom, laissez- faire capitalism, and too little freedom, authoritarianism socialism, and communism. But this is a myth. One can only justify intervention in the market on principle or against it. There is always the hope that government will be prudent and limit its intrusion in the economy with low taxes, minimal regulations, a little inflation, and only a few special interest favors. Yet the record is clear. Any sign of distress prompts government action for any and every conceivable problem. Since each action by the government not only fails in its attempt to solve the problem it addresses, it creates several new problems in addition while prompting even more government intervention. Here in the United States, we have seen the process at work for several decades with steady growth in the size and scope of the Federal bureaucracy and the corresponding reduction of our personal liberties. This principle also applies to overseas intervention. One episode of meddling in the affairs of other nations leads to several new problems, requiring even more of our attention and funding. This system leads to a huge bureaucratic government manipulated by politicians and generates an army of special interests that flood the system with money and demands. To achieve and maintain political power in Washington, these powerful special interests must be satisfied. This is a well-known problem and prompts some serious-minded and well-intentioned Members to want to legislate campaign finance reforms. But the reforms proposed would actually make the whole mess worse. They would regulate access to the Members of Congress and dictate how private money is spent in campaigns. This merely curtails liberty while ignoring the real problem: a government that ignores the Constitution naturally passes out largess. Even under today's conditions, where money talks in Washington, if enough Members would just refuse either to accept or be influenced by the special interests, government favors would no longer be up for sale. Since politicians are far from perfect, the solution is having a government of limited size acting strictly within the framework of the Constitution. No matter how strictly campaign finance laws are written, they will do only harm if the rule of law is not restored and if Congress refuses to stop being manipulated by the special interests. Most people recognize the horrible mess that Washington is and how campaign money and lobbyists influence the system. But the reforms proposed only deal with the symptoms and not the cause. There is a sharp disagreement in what to do about it, but no one denies the existence of the problem. It is just hard for most to acknowledge that the welfare state is out of control and should not be in existence anyway. Therefore, they misdirect our attention toward campaign finance reform, rather than deal with the real problem. Very few in Washington, however, recognize the dire consequences to economic prosperity that welfareism, warfarism, and inflationism cause. Most believe that the occasional recession can be easily handled by government programs and a Federal Reserve policy designed to stimulate growth. It has happened many times already and almost everyone believes that in a few months our economy and stock market will be roaring once again. This is where I disagree. Every recession in the last 30 years, since the dollar became a purely fiat currency, has ended after a significant correction and resumption of all the bad policies that caused the recession in the first place. Each rebound required more spending, more debt, and easy credit than the previous recovery did. And with each cycle the government got bigger and more intrusive. Bigger government with more monetary debasement and deficit spending means a steady erosion of the free market and personal freedoms. This is not tolerated because the people enjoy or even endorse higher taxes, more regulations and fewer freedoms. It is tolerated because most people believe that their financial and economic security is the responsibility of the government. They believe they are better off with government assistance in facilitating the free market, having been taught for decades that it is necessary for government to put a human face on capitalism. Extreme capitalism, that is, freedom, we have been told, is just as dangerous as extreme socialism. As long as this belief prevails, our system will continue in its inexorable march towards fascist-type socialism. However, support for today's policies is built on the fallacy that material wealth and general prosperity are best achieved with this third way: interventionism, while avoiding the dangers of communism and socialism. This is coupled with the firm conviction that the sacrifice of freedom will be minimal and limited and that the very rich can be adequately taxed and regulated to help the poor. This is a fallacy because more freedom will be lost than is expected and the productivity of the market will suffer more than anticipated. Once this realization occurs, it will suddenly be discovered that the apparent wealth of the Nation is a lot less than calculated. An economy that depends on ever-increasing rates of monetary inflation will appear much healthier and the people much richer than is the actual case. Owners of the dot-com companies or the Enron stocks know what it is like to feel rich one day and very poor the next. This is not a unique experience, but one that should be expected and is predictable. Countries that inflate their currencies must adjust their values periodically with sudden devaluations which destroy the pseudowealth of the middle class and the poor. The wealthy, more often than not, can protect themselves from the sudden shocks to the monetary system. However, they cannot protect from the insidious loss of liberty that accompanies these adjustments, and eventually everyone suffers. Our dollar system is quite similar to the Argentine and Mexico peso systems that periodically make sudden and painful adjustments. But ours is different in one respect because the dollar is accepted as the reserve currency of the world, the paper gold of the world financial system. This gives us license to inflate, that is, steal, for longer periods of time. And we can avoid sudden and sharp devaluations since the world's currencies are defined by our dollar. But this does not permit the ultimate devaluation that will bring a significant increase in the cost of living to all Americans but hurt the poor and the middle class the most. This special status of the dollar only makes the problem of the illusion of wealth much worse. Since our bubble can last a lot longer due to our perceived military and economic strength, it appears that our wealth is much greater than it actually is. Because of our unique position as the economic powerhouse of the world, we are able to borrow more than anyone else. Foreigners loan us exorbitant sums as our current account deficits soar out of sight. The U.S. now has a foreign debt of over $2 trillion. Perceptions and illusions and easy credit allow our consumers to spend even in recessions, by rolling up even more debt in a time when market forces are saying that borrowing should decrease and the debt burden lessen. Our corporations follow the same pattern, keeping afloat with more borrowing. Ideas regarding the national debt have been transformed. Presidents Jefferson and Jackson despised government debt and warned against it. Likewise, both detested central banking, which they knew inevitably would be used to liquidate the real debt through the mischievous process of monetary debasement. Today, few decry the debt, except for the purpose of political demagoguery when convenient. The concern about deficits expressed by liberal big spenders does not merit credibility. But even conservative spenders now are less likely to decry deficits, and some actually praise them. Just recently, the Conservative Institute for Policy Innovation announced in a national press release, ``National debt can lead to a growing economy and it produces steady long-term growth, greater security and a higher standard of living.'' This would not be so bad if it came from a typical Keynesian think tank; but this is the growing conventional wisdom of many conservatives whose goal it is to generate government revenues, painlessly, of course, not to drastically shrink the size of government and restore personal liberty. What they fail to recognize, once they lose interest in shrinking the size of government, is that government borrowing always takes money from productive enterprises while placing these funds in the hands of politicians whose prime job is to serve special interests. Deficits are a political expedience that also forces the Federal Reserve to inflate the currency while reducing in real terms the debt owed by the government by depreciating the value of the currency. Those who would belittle the critics of the deficit and national debt are merely supporting a system of big government, whether it is welfare or warfare or both. Debt per se is not the only issue. It is also because the debt always encourages the growth in the size of government, allowing it to be seductively financed through inflation or borrowing, is what makes it so bad. Just because it is less painful at first and payment is delayed, we should not be tempted to endorse this process. If liberty is our goal and minimal government a benefit to a sound economy, we must always reject debt and deficits as a legitimate tool for improving the economy and the welfare of the greatest number of people. The principle of authoritarian government is endorsement whenever deficits are legitimatized. All those who love liberty must reject the notion that deficits and debt perform a useful function. It is possible this recession may end in a few months, as the optimists predict. But if it does, other problems are only delayed. The fundamental correction will still be necessary to preserve the productivity of a market economy. If we do not change our ways, the financial bubble will just go back to inflating again. The big correction, like that which Argentina is now experiencing, with rapid disappearance of paper wealth, will eventually hit our economy. The longer the delay, the bigger will be the bust and greater the threat to our freedoms and institutions. Since we are moving toward the big correction, we are going to see a lot more wealth removed from our balance sheets and our retirement accounts. The rampant price inflation that results will erode the purchasing power of all fixed-income retirement funds, like Social Security, and mean a lower standard of living for most people. The routine government response of increasing benefits for living expenses and medical care will never keep up with the needs or the demands. Eventually, we will have to give up and a new economic system will have to be devised, as occurred in the Soviet system after 1989. Wealth, the product of labor, investment, and savings, can never be substituted by government spending or by a central bank that creates new money out of thin air. Governments can only give things they first take from someone else. Printing money only diminishes the value of each monetary unit. Neither can create wealth. Both can destroy it. The dilemma is that early on, and sometimes for many years, as we have experienced, transferring wealth and printing money seems to help more than it hurts. That is because the wealth is not real and the trust funds, like Social Security, hold no actual wealth. A pension fund with dot-coms and Enron stock hold no wealth either. Unfortunately, the stocks and bonds remaining are worth a lot less than most people realize. The Social Security System depends on the value of the dollar and on future taxation. The Fed can create unlimited amounts of money that Congress needs, and Congress can raise taxes as it wants, but this policy guarantees that the dollar cannot maintain its purchasing power, and that there will not be enough young people to tax in the future. Increasing benefits under these circumstances can only be done at the expense of the dollar. Catching up with the current system of money and transfer payments is equivalent to a person on a treadmill who expects to get to the next town. It does not work. The economic loss is bad enough, but whether it is fighting the war on terrorism, acting as the world's policeman or solving the problems of vanishing wealth, the real insult will come from the freedoms we lose. These freedoms, vital to production and wealth formation, are necessary and represent what the American dream is all about. They are what made us the richest Nation in all of history, but this we will lose if Congress is not careful with what it does in the coming months. Mr. Speaker, if nothing else, the knowledge that we are now vulnerable from outside attacks is shared by all Americans. The danger is clear and present, and everybody wants something done about it. There is, however, no unanimity as to the cause of the attacks, who is responsible, and what has to be done. The President has been given congressional authority to use force against ``those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.'' A large majority of Americans are quite satisfied that his efforts have been carried out with due diligence, but a growing number of Americans are becoming aware that antiterrorist efforts both at home and abroad will have unintended consequences that few anticipated, and that in time will not be beneficial to U.S. security and will undermine our liberties here at home. Let me name a few potential dangers we face. Number one, there is a danger that the definition of terrorism will become so vague and broad that almost any act internationally or domestically will qualify. If our response in Afghanistan becomes the standard for all countries in their retaliation, negotiated settlements of conflicts will become a thing of the past; acts of terror occurring on a regular basis around the world, whether involving Northern Ireland and Britain, India and Pakistan, the Palestinians and Israel, Turkey and Greece, or many other places. Traditionally, the United States has always urged restraint and negotiations. This approach may end if our response in Afghanistan sets the standard. Number 2. Another danger is that the administration may take it upon itself to broadly and incorrectly interpret H.J. Res. 64, the resolution granting authority to the President to use force to retaliate against only those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States. Congress did not authorize force against all terrorist attacks throughout the world if the individuals involved were not directly involved in the September 11 attacks. It would be incorrect and dangerous to use this authority to suppress uprising throughout the world. This authority cannot be used to initiate an all-out attack on Iraq or any other nation we might find displeasing, but that did not participate in the September 11 attacks. Number 3. An imprecise definition of who is or who is not a terrorist may be used to justify massively expanding our military might around the world. For every accused terrorist, there will be a declared freedom fighter. To always know the difference is more than one can expect. Our record in the past 50 years for choosing the right side in many conflicts is poor, to say the least. Many times there is no right side from the viewpoint of American security, and our unnecessary entanglements have turned out to be the greatest threat to our security. Number 4. There is a risk that our massive deployment of troops in many countries of the world may contribute to a greater conflict. We are today in the middle of a dangerous situation between Pakistan and India over Kashmir, both of whom possess nuclear weapons, and both of whom we generally finance. Exposing ourselves to such risk, while spending endless sums supporting both sides, makes no sense. Number 5. Our pervasive military presence may well encourage alliances that would have been unheard of a few years ago. Now that we have committed ourselves internationally to destroying Afghanistan and rebuilding it, with a promise that we will be there for a long time, might encourage closer military alliances between Russia and China, and even others like Pakistan, Iran and Iraq, and even Saudi Arabia, countries all nervous about our military permanency in this region. Control of Caspian Sea oil is not a forgotten item for these countries, and it will not be gracefully conceded to United States oil interests. If these alliances develop, even U.S. control of the Persian Gulf oil could be challenged as well. Number 6. Limits exist on how extensive our foreign commitments should be. It is difficult to be everyplace at one time, especially if hostilities break out in more than one place. For instance, if we were to commit our troops to the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, and Iran were to decide to help Iraq at the same time the North Koreans were to decide to make a move, our capacity to wage war in both places would be limited. Already we are short of bombs from the current Afghanistan war. We had to quit flying sorties over our own cities due to costs, while depending on NATO planes to provide AWACS cover of U.S. territory. In addition, our financial resources are not unlimited, and any significant change in the value of the dollar as well as our rapidly growing deficits could play a significant role in our ability to pay our bills. Number 7. In the area of personal liberty, we face some real dangers. Throughout our history, starting with the Civil War, our liberties have been curtailed, and the Constitution has been flaunted. Although our government continued to grow with each crisis, many of the liberties curtailed during wartime were restored. War was precise and declared, and when the war was over, there was a desire to return to normalcy. With the current war on terrorism, there is no end in sight, and there is no precise enemy. We have been forewarned that this fight will go on for a long time. This means that a return to normalcy after the sacrifices that we are making with our freedoms is not likely. The implementation of a national ID card, national surveillance, easy-to- get search warrants and loss of financial and medical privacy will be permanent. If this trend continues, the Constitution will become a much weaker document. Number 8. A danger exists that the United States is becoming a police state. Just a few decades ago, this would have become unimaginable. As originally designed, in the American Republic, police powers were to be the prerogative of the States, and the military was not to be involved. Unfortunately today most Americans welcome the use of military troops to police our public places, especially the airports. Each before September 11, more than 80,000 armed Federal bureaucrats patrolled the countryside checking for violations of Federal laws and regulations. That number since September 11 has increased by nearly 50 percent, and it will not shrink. Military takeover of homeland security looks certain. Can freedom and prosperity survive if the police state continues to expand? I doubt it. It never has before in all of history, and this is a threat that Congress should not ignore. Number 9. There is a danger that personal privacy will be a thing of the past. Even before September 11, there were attacks on the privacy of all Americans for good reasons, or so it was argued. The attacks included plans for national ID cards, a national medical data bank, and know-your-customer-type banking regulations. The need for enforcement powers for the DEA and IRS routinely prompted laws that violated the fourth amendment. The current crisis has emboldened those who already were anxious to impose restrictions on the American people. With drug and tax laws, and now with antiterrorist legislation sailing through Congress, true privacy enjoyed by a free people is fast becoming something that we will only read about in our textbooks. Reversing this trend will not be easy. Number 10. Flying commercial airlines will continue to be a hassle and dangerous. Even travel by other means will require close scrutiny by all levels of government in the name of providing security. Unfortunately, the restrictions and rules on travel on all American citizens will do little, if anything, to prevent another terrorist attack. Number 11. The economic ramifications of our war on terrorism are difficult to ascertain, but could be quite significant. Although the recession was obviously not caused by the attacks, the additional money spent and the effect of all regulations cannot help the recovery. When one adds up the domestic costs, the military costs and the costs of our new regulations, we can be certain that deficits are going to grow significantly, and the Federal Reserve will be required to further pursue a dangerous monetary policy of inflation. This policy will result in higher rather than lower interest rates, a weak dollar, and certainly rising prices. The danger of our economy spinning out of control should not be lightly dismissed. Number 12. In this crisis, as in all crises, the special interests are motivated to increase their demands. It is a convenient excuse to push for the benefits they were already looking for. Domestically this includes everyone from the airlines to the unions, insurance companies, travel agents, State and local governments, and anyone who can justify a related need. It is difficult for the military-industrial complex to hide their glee with their new contracts for weapons and related technology. Instead of the events precipitating a patriotic fervor for liberty, we see enthusiasm for big government, more spending, more dependency, greater deficits, and military confrontations that are unrelated to the problems of terrorism. We are supposed to be fighting terrorism to protect our freedoms, but if we are not careful, we will lose our freedoms and precipitate more terrorist attacks. Lastly, not much empathy is being expressed for members of the Taliban that we now hold as prisoners. The antipathy is easily understood. It is not just as a Nation we should set a good example under the rules of the Geneva Convention, but if we treat the Taliban prisoners inhumanely, there is the danger it will be surely used as an excuse to treat American prisoners in the same manner in the future. This certainly is true when we use torture to extract information, which is now being advised. Not only does that reflect on our own society as a free Nation, but torture notoriously rarely generates reliable information. This danger should not be ignored. Besides, we have nothing to gain by mistreating prisoners who have no knowledge of the September 11 attacks. The idea that those captured are terrorists responsible for the September 11 attacks begs an obvious question. Mr. Speaker, many realists who see the world as it really is and who recognize the dilemma we face in the United States to preserve our freedoms in this time of crisis are despondent and pessimistic, believing little can be done to reverse the tide against freedom. Others who share the same concern are confident that efforts to preserve the true spirit of the Constitution can be successful. Maybe next month or next year or at some later date, I am convinced in time the love of liberty can be rejuvenated. Once it is recognized that government has no guarantee of future successes, promoting dependency and security can quickly lose its allure. The Roman poet, Horace, 2,000 years ago spoke of adversity: ``Adversity has the effect of eliciting talents which in times of prosperity would have lain dormant.'' Since I believe we will be a lot less prosperous in the not-too-distant future, we will have plenty of opportunity to elicit the talents of many Americans. Leonard Read, one of the greatest champions of liberty in the 20th century, advised optimism: ``In every society there are persons who have the intelligence to figure out the requirements of liberty and the character to walk in its ways. This is a scattered fellowship of individuals--mostly unknown to you and me--bound together by a love of ideas and a hunger to know the plain truth of things.'' Mr. Read was convinced that this remnant would rise to the occasion and do the necessary things to restore virtue and excellence to a people who had lost their way. Liberty would prevail. Let us be convinced that there is not enough hate or anger to silence the cries for liberty or to extinguish the flame of truth and justice. We must have faith that those who now are apathetic, anxious for security at all costs, forgetful of the true spirit of American liberty, and neglectful of the Constitution, will rise to the task and respond accordingly.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the sponsors of the H. Res. 335 in honoring the success of Catholic Schools in providing a quality education to millions of children around the country. However, I am concerned that this resolution also contains language that violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the establishment clause of the first amendment, thus insulting the millions of religious Americans who are struggling to educate their children free from federal control and endangering religious liberty. The success of Catholic schools has been remarkable. Catholic schools operating in the inner-city have been able to provide an excellent education to students written off by the educational establishment as ``unteachable.'' Contrary to the claims of their critics, Catholic schools do not turn away large numbers of children in order to limit their enrollment to the ``best and the brightest.'' In fact, a few years ago the Archdiocese of New York offered to enroll all students who had been expelled from New York's public schools! Mr. Speaker, I have introduced legislation, the Family Education Freedom Act (H.R. 368) which would help more parents afford to send their children to Catholic, or other religious schools, by providing them with a $3,000 tax credit for K-12 education expenses. While I join with the sponsors of this legislation in praising Catholic schools, I am disturbed by the language explicitly endorsing the goals of the United States Catholic Conference. The Catholic Conference is an organization devoted to spreading and advancing Catholicism. While the Conference may advance other social goods through its work, these purposes are secondary to its primary function of advancing the Catholic faith. This is especially true in the case of Catholic schools which were founded and are operated with the explicit purpose of integrating Catholic doctrine into K-12 education. Therefore, even though Congress intends to honor the ways Catholic schools help fulfill a secular goal, the fact is Congress cannot honor Catholic schools without endorsing efforts to promulgate the Catholic faith. By singling out one sect over another, Congress is playing favorites among religions. While this does not compare to the type of religious persecution experienced by many of the founders of this country, it is still an example of the type of federal favoritism among religions that the first amendment forbids. What is the superintendent of a Baptist private school or a Pentecostal home schooler going to think when reading this resolution? That Congress does not think they provide children with an excellent education or that Congress does not deem their religious goals worthy of federal endorsement? In a free republic the legislature should not be in the business of favoring one religion over another. I would also like to point out the irony of considering government favoritism of religion in the context of praising the Catholic schools, when early in this century Catholic schools were singled out for government- sanctioned discrimination because they were upholding the teachings of the Catholic Church. Allowing Congress to single out certain religions for honors not only insults those citizens whose faith is not recognized by Congress, it also threatens the religious liberty of those honored by Congress. This is because when the federal government begins evaluating religious institutions, some religious institutions may be tempted to modify certain of their teachings in order to curry favor with political leaders. I will concede that religious institutions may not water down their faith in order to secure passage of ``Sense of Congress resolutions,'' however, the belief that it is proper to judge religious institutions by how effectively they fulfill secular objectives is at the root of the proposals to entangle the federal government with state-approved religions by providing taxpayer dollars to religious organizations in order to perform various social services. Providing taxpayer money to churches creates the very real risk that a church may, for example, feel the need to downplay its teaching against abortion or euthanasia in order to maintain favor with a future pro- abortion administration and thus not lose its federal funding. Of course, the idea that politicians should bestow favors on religions based on how well they fulfill the aims of the politicians is one that should be insulting to all believers no matter their faith. After all, despite what a few of my colleagues seem to think, Mr. Speaker, we in Congress are neither omnipotent nor divine. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I join the sponsors of H. Res. 335 in their admiration for the work of Catholic schools. However, I also have reservations about the language singling out the religious goals of one faith for praise.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, before I get into my Special Order that deals with foreign policy, in which I make the case for defending America, I would like to make a few comments about the campaign finance reform and the discharge petition that was just mentioned by our previous colleagues. I do not share the enthusiasm that they do about bringing such a bill to the floor. I certainly do not share the enthusiasm of passing such legislation, because it sets us backwards if our goal here is to defend liberty and minimize the size of government. The one thing I agree with him entirely on is that the problem exists. There is no doubt there is a huge influence of money here in Washington, and even in my prepared statement I mention how corporations influence our foreign policy and that something ought to be done about it; but campaign finance reform goes in exactly the wrong direction. It just means more regulations, more controls, telling the American people how they can spend their money and how they can lobby Congress and how they can campaign. That is not the problem. The problem is that we have Members of Congress that yield to the temptation and influence of money. If we had enough Members around here that did not yield to the temptation, we would not have to have campaign finance reform, we would not have to regulate money, we would not have to undermine the first amendment, and we would not have to undermine the Constitution in that effort. I agree we have a problem, but I believe the resistance could be here without much change. The ultimate solution to the need for campaign finance reform comes only when we have a constitutional-type government, where government is not doing the things they should be doing. There is a logical incentive for corporations and many individuals to come to Washington, because they can buy influence and buy benefits and buy contracts. The government was never meant to do that. The government was set up to protect liberty, and yet we have devised a system here where money talks and it is important; but let me tell my colleagues one thing, the Campaign Finance Reform Act that is coming down the pike will do nothing to solve the problem and will do a lot to undermine our freedoms, a lot to undermine the first amendment and do nothing to preserve the Constitution. My Special Order, as I said, has to do with foreign policy. It is entitled ``The Case for Defending America.'' As we begin this new legislative session, we cannot avoid reflecting on this past year. All Americans will remember the moment and place when tragedy hit us on September 11. We also know that a good philosophy to follow is to turn adversity into something positive, if at all possible. Although we have suffered for years from a flawed foreign policy and we were already in a recession before the attacks, the severity of these events has forced many of us to reassess our foreign and domestic policies. Hopefully, positive changes will come of this. It is just as well that the economy was already in a recession for 6 months prior to the September attacks. Otherwise the temptation would have been too great to blame the attacks for the weak economy rather than look for the government policies responsible for the recession. Terrorist attacks alone, no matter how disruptive, could never be the source of a significant economic downturn. A major debate over foreign policy has naturally resulted from this crisis. Dealing with the shortcomings of our policies of the past is essential. We were spending $40 billion a year on intelligence gathering. That, we must admit, failed. This tells us a problem exists. There are shortcomings with our $320 billion DOD budget that did not provide the protection Americans expect. Obviously, a proper response to the terrorists requires sound judgment in order to prevent further suffering of the innocent or foolishly bringing about a worldwide conflict. One of the key responsibilities of the Federal Government in providing for national defense is protection of liberty here at home. Unwisely responding to the attacks could undermine our national defense while threatening our liberties. What we have done so far since last September is not very reassuring. What we do here in the Congress in the coming months may well determine the survival of our Republic. Fear and insecurity must not drive our policy. Sacrificing personal liberty should never be an option. Involving ourselves in every complex conflict around the globe hardly enhances our national security. The special interests that were already lined up at the public trough should not be permitted to use the ongoing crisis as an opportunity to demand even more benefits. Let us all remember why the U.S. Congress was established, what our responsibilities are, and what our oath of office means. It has been reported that since the 9-11 attacks, Big Government answers have gained in popularity and people fearful for their security have looked to the Federal Government for help. Polls indicate that acceptance of government solutions to our problems is at the highest level in decades. This may be true to some degree, or it may merely reflect the sentiments of the moment or even the way the questions were asked. Only time will tell. Since the welfare state is no more viable in the long run than a communist or fascist state, most Americans will eventually realize the fallacy of depending on the government for economic security and know that personal liberty should not be sacrificed out of fear. Even with this massive rush to embrace all the bailouts offered up by Washington, a growing number of Americans are rightfully offended by the enormity of it all and annoyed that powerful and wealthy special interests seem to be getting the bulk of the benefits. In one area, though, a very healthy reaction has occurred. Almost all Americans, especially those still flying commercial airlines, now know that they have a personal responsibility to react to any threat on any flight. Passengers have responded magnificently. Most people recognize that armed citizens best protect our homes because it is impossible for the police to be everywhere and prevent crimes from happening. A homeowner's ability to defend himself serves as a strong deterrent. Our government's ridiculous policy regarding airline safety and prohibiting guns on airplanes has indoctrinated us all, pilots, passengers and airline owners, to believe we should never resist hijackers. This sets up perfect conditions for terrorists to take over domestic flights just as they did on September 11. The people of this country now realize more than ever their own responsibility for personal self-defense, using guns if necessary. The anti-gun fanatics have been very quiet since 9-11, and more Americans are ready to assume responsibility for their own safety than ever before. This is all good. Sadly, the Congress went in the opposite direction in providing safety on commercial flights. Pilots are not carrying guns, and security has been socialized in spite of the fact that security procedures authorized by the FAA prior to 9-11 were not compromised. The problem did not come from failure to follow the FAA rules. The problem resulted from precisely following FAA rules. No wonder so many Americans were wisely assuming they better be ready to protect themselves when necessary. This attitude is healthy, practical, and legal under the Constitution. Unfortunately, too many people who have come to this conclusion still cling to the notion that economic security is a responsibility of the U.S. Government. That, of course, is the reason we have a $2 trillion annual budget and a growing $6 trillion national debt. Another positive result of last year's attack was the uniting of many Americans in an effort to deal with many problems this country faces. This applies more to the people who reflect true patriotism than it does to some of the politicians and special interests who took advantage of this situation. If this renewed energy and sense of unity could be channeled correctly, much good could come of it, if misdirected, actual harm would result. Give less credit to the Washington politicians who sing the songs of patriotism but used the crisis to pursue their endless personal goal to gain more political power; but the greatest combination should be directed toward the special interests' lobbyists who finance the politicians in order to secure their power by using patriotism as a cover and a crisis as a golden opportunity. Indeed, those who are using the crisis to promote their own agenda are many. There is no doubt, as many have pointed out, our country changed dramatically with the horror that hit us on 9-11. The changes obviously are a result of something other than the tragic loss of over 3,900 people. We kill that many people every month on our government highways. We lost 60,000 young people in the Vietnam War; yet the sense of fear in our country then was not the same as it is today. The major difference is that last year's attacks made us feel vulnerable because it was clear that our Federal Government had failed in its responsibility to provide defense against such an assault, and the anthrax scare certainly did not help to diminish that fear. Giving up our civil liberties has made us feel even less safe from our own government's intrusion in our lives. The two seem to be in conflict. How can we be safer from outside threats while making ourselves more exposed to our own government's threat to our liberty? The most significant and dangerous result of last year's attacks has been the bold expansion of the Federal police state in our enhanced international role as the world's policeman. Although most of the legislation pushing the enhanced domestic and international role for our government passed by huge majorities, I am convinced that the people's support for much of it is less enthusiastic than Washington politicians believe. As time progresses, the full impact of homeland security and the unintended consequences of our growing overseas commitments will become apparent, and a large majority of our Americans will appropriately ask why did the Congress do it. Unless we precisely understand the proper role of government in a free society, our problems will not be solved without sacrificing liberty. The wonderful thing is that our problems can be easily solved when protecting individual liberty becomes our goal rather than the erroneous assumption that solutions must always be in conflict with liberty and that sacrificing some liberty is to be expected during trying times. This is not necessary. Our Attorney General established a standard for disloyalty to the United States Government by claiming that those who talk of lost liberty serve to erode our national unity and give ammunition to America's enemies and only aid terrorists. This dangerous assumption is, in the eyes of our top law enforcement officials, that perceived disloyalty or even criticism of the government is approximating an act of terrorism. The grand irony is that this criticism is being directed towards those who, Heaven forbid, are expressing concern for losing our cherished liberties here at home. This, of course, is what the whole war on terrorism is supposed to be about, protecting liberty, and that includes the right of free expression. Our government leaders have threatened foreign countries by claiming that if they are not with us, they are against us, which leaves no room for the neutrality that has been practiced by some nations for centuries. This position could easily result in perpetual conflicts with dozens of nations around the world. Could it ever come to a point where those who dissent at home against our military operations overseas will be considered too sympathetic to the enemy? The Attorney General's comments suggest just that, and it has happened here in our past. We indeed live in dangerous times. We are unable to guarantee protection for outside threats and may be approaching a time when our own government poses a threat to our liberties. No matter how sincere and well motivated the effort to fight terrorism and provide for homeland security, if ill-advised it will result neither in vanquishing terrorism nor in preserving our liberties. I am fearful that here in Washington there is little understanding of the real cause of the terrorist attacks on us, little remembrance of the grand purpose of the American experiment with liberty, or even how our Constitution was written to strictly limit government officials and all that they do. The military operation against the Taliban has gone well. The Taliban has been removed from power, and our government, with the help of the U.N., is well along the way toward establishing a new Afghan government. We were not supposed to be in the business of nation building, but I guess 9-11 changed all that. The one problem is that the actual number of al-Qaeda members captured or killed is uncertain. Also, the number of Taliban officials that had any direct contact or knowledge of the attacks on us is purely speculative. Since this war is carried out in secrecy, we will probably not know the details of what went on for years to come. I wonder how many civilians have been killed so far. I know a lot of Members could care less, remembering innocent American civilians who were slaughtered in New York and Washington. But a policy that shows no concern for the innocent will magnify our problems rather than lessen them. The hard part to understand in all this is that Saudi Arabia probably had more to do with these attacks than did Afghanistan. But then again, who wants to offend our oil partners? Our sterile approach to the bombing with minimal loss of American life is to be commended, but it may generate outrage toward us by this lopsided killing of persons totally unaware of events of September 11. Our President wisely has not been anxious to send in large numbers of occupying forces into Afghanistan. This also guarantees chaos among the warring tribal factions. The odds of a stable Afghan government evolving out of this mess are remote. The odds of our investing large sums of money to buy support for years to come are great. Unfortunately, it has been seen only as an opportunity for Pakistan and India to resume their warring ways, placing us in a very dangerous situation. This could easily get out of control since China will not allow a clear-cut Indian victory over Pakistan. The danger of a nuclear confrontation is real. Even the British have spoken sympathetically about Pakistan's interest over India. The tragedy is that we have helped both India and Pakistan financially and, therefore, the American taxpayer has indirectly contributed funds for the weapons on both sides. Our troops in this region are potential targets of either or both countries. Fortunately, due to the many probable repercussions, a swift attack on Iraq now seems unlikely. Our surrogate army, organized by the Iraqi National Congress, is now known to be a charade, prompting our administration to correctly stop all funding of this organization. The thought of relying on the Kurds to help remove Hussein defies logic, as the U.S.-funded Turkish army continues its war on the Kurds. There is just no coalition in the Persian Gulf to take on Iraq and, fortunately, our Secretary of State knows it. Our terrorist enemy is vague and elusive. Our plans to expand our current military operations into many other countries are fraught with great risk, risk of making our problems worse. Not dealing with the people actually responsible for the attacks and ignoring the root causes of terrorism will needlessly perpetuate and expand a war that will do nothing to enhance the security and the safety of the American people. Since Iraq is now less likely to be hit, it looks like another poverty-ridden rudderless nation, possibly Somalia, will be the next target. No good can come of this process. It will provide more fodder for the radicals' claim that the war is about America against Islam. Somalia poses no threat to the United States, but bombing Somalia, as we have Afghanistan and Iraq for 12 years, will only incite more hatred towards the United States and increase the odds of our someday getting hit again by some frustrated, vengeful, radicalized Muslim. Our presence in the Persian Gulf is not necessary to provide for America's defense. Our presence in the region makes all Americans more vulnerable to attacks and defending America much more difficult. The real reason for our presence in the Persian Gulf, as well as our eagerness to assist in building a new Afghan government under U.N. authority, should be apparent to us all. Stuart Eizenstat, Under Secretary of Economics, Business and Agricultural Affairs for the previous administration, succinctly stated U.S. policy for Afghanistan testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Trade Committee October 13, 1997. He said, ``One of five main foreign policy interests in the Caspian region is to continue support for U.S. companies and the least progress has been made in Afghanistan, where gas and oil pipeline proposals designed to carry Central Asian energy to world markets have been delayed indefinitely pending establishment of a broad-based, multiethnic government.'' This was a rather blunt acknowledgment of our intentions. It is apparent that our policy has not changed with this administration. Our new Special Envoy to Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, was at one time a lobbyist for the Taliban and worked for Unocal, the American oil company seeking rights to build oil and gas pipelines through northern Afghanistan. During his stint as a lobbyist, he urged approval of the Taliban and defended them in the U.S. press. He now, of course, sings a different tune with respect to the Taliban, but I am sure his views on the pipeline by U.S. companies has not changed. Born in Afghanistan, Khalilzad is a controversial figure, to say the least, due to his close relationship with the oil industry and previously with the Taliban. His appointment to the National Security Council, very conveniently, did not require confirmation by the Senate. Khalilzad also is a close ally of the Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz in promoting early and swift military action against Iraq. The point being, of course, that it may be good to have a new Afghan government, but the question is whether that is our responsibility and whether we should be doing it under the constraints of our Constitution. There is a real question of whether it will serve our best interests in the long term. CIA support for the Shah of Iran for 25 years led to the long-term serious problems with that nation that persists even today. Could oil be the reason we have concentrated on bombing Afghanistan while ignoring Saudi Arabia, even though we have never found Osama bin Laden? Obviously, Saudi Arabia is culpable in these terrorist attacks on the United States, and yet little is done about it. There are quite a few unintended consequences that might occur if our worldwide commitment to fighting terrorism is unrestrained. Russia's interest in the Afghan region are much more intense than Putin would have us believe, and Russia's active involvement in a spreading regional conflict should be expected. An alliance between Iraq and Iran against the United States is a more likely possibility now than ever before. Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri is optimistically working on bringing those two nations together in a military alliance. His hope is that this would be activated if we attacked Iraq. The two nations have already exchanged prisoners of war as a step in that direction. U.S. military planners are making preparations for our troops to stay in Central Asia for a long time. A long time could mean 50 years. We have been in Korea for that long and we have been in Japan and Europe even longer. But the time will come when we will wear out our welcome and have to leave these areas. The Vietnam War met with more resistance, and we left relatively quickly in a humiliating defeat. Similarly, episodes of a more minor nature occurred in Somalia and Lebanon. Why look for more of these kinds of problems when it does not serve our interests? Jeopardizing our security violates the spirit of the Constitution and inevitably costs us more than we can afford. Our permanent air bases built in Saudi Arabia are totally unessential to our security, contributed to the turmoil in the Middle East, and they continue to do so. We are building a giant new air base in Kyrgyzstan, a country once part of the Soviet Union and close to Russia. China, also a neighbor with whom we eagerly seek a close relationship as a trading partner, will not ignore our military buildup in that region. Islamic fundamentalists may overthrow the current government of Saudi Arabia, a fear that drives her to cooperate openly with the terrorists while flaunting her relationship with the United States. The Wall Street Journal has editorialized that the solution to this ought to be our forcibly seizing the Saudi Arabian oil fields and replacing the current government with an even more pro-Western government. All along I thought we condemned regimes that took over their neighbors' oil fields. The editorial, unbelievably explicit, concluded by saying, ``Finally, we must be prepared to seize the Saudi oil fields and administer them for the greater good.'' The greater good? I just wonder who they are referring to when they talk about the greater good. If the jingoism of the Wall Street Journal prevails and the warmongers in the Congress and the administration carry the day, we can assume with certainty that these efforts being made will precipitate an uncontrollable breakout of hostilities in the region that could lead to World War III. How a major publication can actually print an article that openly supports such aggression as a serious proposal is difficult to comprehend. Two countries armed with nuclear weapons on the verge of war in the region, and we are being urged to dig a deeper hole for ourselves by seizing the Saudi oil fields? Already the presence of our troops in the Muslim holy land of Saudi Arabia has inflamed the hatred that drove the terrorists to carry out their tragic act of 9-11. Pursuing such an aggressive policy would only further undermine our ability to defend the American people and will compound the economic problems we face here at home. Something, anything, regardless of its effectiveness, had to be done, since the American people expected it and Congress and the administration willed it. An effort to get the terrorists and their supporters is obviously in order and, hopefully, that has been achieved. But a never-ending commitment to end all terrorism throughout the world, whether it is related to September 11 or not, is neither a legitimate nor a wise policy. H.J. Res. 64 gives the President authority to pursue only those guilty of the attack on us, not every terrorist in the entire world. Let there be no doubt, for every terrorist identified, others will see only a freedom fighter. That was the case when we aided Osama bin Laden in the 1980s. He was a member of the Mujahidien, and they were the freedom fighters waging a just war against the Soviet army. Of course, now he is our avowed enemy. A broad definition of terrorism outside the understanding of those who attacked the United States opens a Pandora's box in our foreign policy commitments. If we concentrate on searching for all terrorists throughout the world and bombing dozens of countries, but forget to deal with the important contributing factors that drove those who killed our fellow citizens, we will only make ourselves more vulnerable to new attacks. How can we forever fail to address the provocative nature of U.S. taxpayers' money being used to suppress and kill Palestinians and ignore the affront to the Islamic people that our military presence on their holy land of Saudi Arabia causes, not to mention the persistent 12 years of bombing Iraq? I am fearful that an unlimited worldwide war against all terrorism will distract from the serious consideration that must be given to our policy of foreign interventionism, driven by the powerful commercial interests and a desire to promote world government. This is done while ignoring our principal responsibility of protecting national security and liberty here at home. There is a serious problem with a policy that has allowed a successful attack of our homeland. It cannot be written off as a result of irrational, yet efficient, evildoers who are merely jealous of our success and despise our freedoms. We have had enemies throughout our history, but never before have we suffered such an attack that has made us feel so vulnerable. The cause of this crisis is much more profound and requires looking inwardly as well as outwardly at our own policies as well as those of others. The founders of this country were precise in their beliefs regarding foreign policy. Our Constitution reflects these beliefs, and all of our early Presidents endorsed these views. It was not until the 20th century that our Nation went off to far-away places looking for dragons to slay. This past century reflects the new and less-traditional American policy of foreign interventionism. Our economic and military power, a result of our domestic freedoms, has permitted us to survive and even thrive while dangerously expanding our worldwide influence. There is no historic precedent that such a policy can be continued forever. All empires and great nations throughout history have ended when they stretched their commitments overseas too far and abused their financial system at home. The overcommitment of a country's military forces when forced with budgetary constraints can only lead to a lower standard of living for its citizens. That has already started to happen here in the United States. Who today is confident the government and our private retirement systems are sound and the benefits guaranteed? The unfortunate complicating factor that all great powers suffer is the buildup of animosity of the nation currently at the top of the heap, which is aggravated by arrogance and domination over the weaker nations. We are beginning to see this, and the Wall Street Journal editorial clearly symbolizes this arrogance. The traditional American foreign policy of the founders and our Presidents for the first 145 years of our history entailed three points: one, friendship with all nations desiring of such; two, as much free trade and travel with those countries as possible; three, avoiding entangling alliances. This is good advice. The framers also understood that the important powers for dealing with other countries and the issue of war were to be placed in the hands of Congress. This principle has essentially been forgotten. The executive branch now has much more power than does the Congress. Congress continues to allows its authority to be transferred to the executive branch as well as to the international agencies such as the U.N., NAFTA, IMF and the WTO. Through executive orders, our Presidents routinely use powers once jealously guarded and held by the Congress. Today, through altering aid and sanctions, we buy and sell our ``friendship'' with all kinds of threats and bribes in our effort to spread our influence around the world. To most people in Washington, free trade means internationally managed trade, with subsidies and support for the WTO, where influential corporations can seek sanctions against their competitors. Our alliances, too numerous to count, have committed our dollars and our troops to such an extent that, under today's circumstances, there is not a border war or civil disturbance in the world in which we do not have a stake. And more than likely, we have a stake, foreign aid, on both sides of each military conflict. After the demise of our nemesis, the Soviet Union, many believed that we could safely withdraw from some of our worldwide commitments. It was hoped we would start minding our own business, save some money, and reduce the threat to our military personnel. But the opposite has happened. Without any international competition for superpower status, our commitments have grown and spread so that today we provide better military protection to Taiwan and South Korea and Saudi Arabia than we do for New York and Washington. I am certain that national security and defense of our own cities can never be adequately provided unless we reconsider our policy of foreign interventionism. Conventional wisdom in Washington today is that we have no choice but to play the role of the world's only superpower. Recently we had to cancel flights of our own Air Force over our cities because of spending restraints, and we rely on foreign AWACS to fly over to protect our air spaces. The American people are not in sync with the assumption that we must commitment ourselves endlessly to being the world's policemen. If we do not reassess our endless entanglements as we march toward world government, economic law will one day force us to do so anyway under very undesirable circumstances. In the meantime, we can expect plenty more military confrontations around the world while becoming even more vulnerable to attack by terrorists here at home. A constitutional policy and informed relations of nonintervention is the policy that will provide America the greatest and best national defense.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. It has been said that there have been no inspections in Iraq; and yet the International Atomic Energy Agency was in Iraq this very year and this was the report: I am pleased to confirm that between 20 and 23 January 2001, a 4-person IAEA team carried out a physical inventory verification of the declared nuclear material remaining in Iraq under IAEA seal. For its part, Iraq provided the necessary cooperation for the inspection team to perform its activities effectively and efficiently. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott). (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I ask permission to have the time in opposition if neither gentleman is opposed to the bill.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, would the gentleman do the same thing to Pakistan and Syria and Saudi Arabia and Egypt?

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman was to find out that China was much more involved in the Taliban and the terrorist attacks on 9-11 than anything Saddam Hussein has done, would the gentleman be willing to do to China what the gentleman is willing to do to Iraq?