Ron Paul

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I want to compliment the gentleman for bringing this amendment to the floor, and I want to express my disappointment if it is ruled out of order because this is such an important issue. The fourth amendment is worth fighting for. The Founders of the country thought it was literally worth fighting for, and yet I see us here in the Congress willing to sacrifice it too easily. One of the arguments is that success has been proven that these easy- to-obtain search warrants have produced success in catching certain criminals, but that does not prove that we could not have done it legitimately by following the fourth amendment; so we do not know whether they would not have been caught or not. Another thing is; does sacrificing security and liberty ever justify more catching of so- called criminals? What if we had a total police state? What if we turned our whole country into a concentration camp? We could make sure there would be no crimes whatsoever. The trade-off is too great. We should never trade off safety and security for our liberties, and I think that is what we have done with the PATRIOT Act. I want to congratulate the gentleman for bringing this to our attention; and, hopefully, we will eventually protect the fourth amendment.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. I do not see any necessity for the amendment. It was put in in the period of time after 9/11 where a lot of people were very frightened; and I think, quite frankly, that we as a Congress overreacted. I just do not understand how anybody would feel safer by the government being able to get a list of books that the American people read. Now, if there is a special condition that exists where they want to know about a particular individual, nothing precludes a legitimate search warrant to find out exactly what this information is about. But I just think that it is totally unnecessary to have this. This morning, the gentleman from Vermont was on C-SPAN; and after he left the studio, a woman called in that I found very fascinating. She was from Russia and she talked about how things were started in Russia and how the police had an ability to come into their homes without search warrants. Then she said her family had an exposure in Germany and the same thing happened. It was unrestrained government's ability to come in and know what people were doing. She spoke about this in generalities; and she was, in an alarmist sense, she was saying, and right now, in America, that is what we are doing with the PATRIOT Act, and she talked about it in general. I might not be an alarmist about it, but I am very concerned. I do think we have moved in the wrong direction and that we should be very cautious and protect the privacy of all American citizens.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. I would be glad to yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, this evening, I would like to address the subject of the hidden cost of war. The cost of war is always more than anticipated. If all the costs were known prior to beginning a war, fewer wars would be fought. At the beginning, optimism prevails; denial and deception override the concern for the pain and penalties yet to come. Jingoistic patriotism and misplaced militarism too easily silence those who are cautious about the unforeseen expenses and hardships brought on by war. Conveniently forgotten are the goals never achieved by armed conflict and the negative consequences that linger for years. Even some who recognize that the coming war will be costly easily rationalize that the cost will be worth it. Others claim it is unmanly or weak to pursue a negotiated settlement of a political dispute which helps drive the march toward armed conflict. It has been argued by proponents of modern technological warfare in recent decades that sophisticated weapons greatly reduce the human cost by using a smaller number of troops equipped with smart weapons that minimize battle deaths and collateral damage. This belief has led some to be more willing to enter an armed conflict. The challenge will be deciding whether or not modern weapons actually make war more acceptable and less costly. So far, the use of sanctions, the misjudgments of resistance to occupation, and unintended consequences reveal that fancy weapons do not guarantee fancy and painless outcomes. Some old-fashioned rules relating to armed conflicts cannot be easily repealed despite the optimism of the shock-and-awe crowd. It seems that primitive explosive weapons can compete quite effectively with modern technology when the determination exists and guerilla tactics are used. The promised efficiency and the reduced casualties cannot yet be estimated. Costs are measured differently depending on whether or not a war is defensive or offensive in nature. Costs in each situation may be similar, but are tolerated quite differently. The determination of those defending their homeland frequently is underestimated, making it difficult to calculate cost. Consider how long the Vietnamese fought and suffered before routing all foreign armies. For 85 years the Iraqis steadfastly have resisted all foreign occupation, and even their previous history indicates that meddling by Western and Christian outsiders in their country would not be tolerated. Those who fight a defensive war see the costs of the conflict differently. Defenders have the goal of surviving and preserving their homeland, religious culture and their way of life, despite the shortcomings of their prior leaders. Foreigners are seen as a threat. This willingness to defend to the last is especially strong if the entity they fight for affords more stability than a war-torn country. Hardships can be justified in a defensive war, and uses of resources is more easily justified than in an unpopular, far-away conflict. Motivations are stronger, especially when the cause seems to be truly just and the people are willing to sacrifice for the common goal of survival. Defensive war provides a higher moral goal, and this idealism exceeds material concerns. In all wars, however, there are profiteers and special interests looking after their own selfish interests. Truly defensive wars never need a draft to recruit troops to fight. Large numbers voluntarily join to face the foreign threat. In a truly defensive war, huge costs in terms of money, lives and property are endured because so much is at stake; total loss of one's country the alternative. The freer a country is, where the love of liberty is alive and well, the greater the resistance. A free society provides greater economic means to fight than a tyrannical society. For this reason, truly free societies are less likely to be attacked by tyrants, but societies that do not enjoy maximum freedom and economic prosperity still pool together to resist invaders. A spirit of nationalism brings people together when attacked, as do extreme religious beliefs. The cause of liberty or divine emperor or radical Islam can inspire those willing to fight to the death to stop a foreign occupation. These motivations make the costs and risks necessary and justifiable, where a less popular offensive war will not be tolerated for long. Idealism inspires a strong defense. Cynicism eventually curtails offensive wars. The costs of offensive war over time is viewed quite differently by the people who must pay. Offensive wars include those that are initiated by one country to seek some advantage over another without provocation. This includes needless intervention in the internal affairs of others and efforts at nation-building, even when well-intentioned. Offensive war never achieves the high moral ground, in spite of proclamations made by the initiators of the hostilities. Offensive wars eventually fail, but, tragically, only after much pain and suffering. The cost is great and not well accepted by the people who suffer and have nothing to gain. The early calls for patriotism and false claims generate initial support, but the people eventually tire. At the beginning of an offensive war, the people are supportive because of the justifications given by the government authorities who want the war for ulterior reasons, but the demands to sacrifice liberty at home to promote freedom and democracy abroad ring hollow after the costs and policy shortcomings become evident. Initially, the positive propaganda easily overwhelms the pain of the small number who must fight and suffer injury. Offensive wars are fought without as much determination as defensive wars. They tend to be less efficient and more political, causing them to linger and drift into stalemate or worse. In almost all wars, governments use deception about the enemy that needs to be vanquished to gain the support of the people. In our recent history, just since 1941, our government has entirely ignored the requirement that war be fought only after a formal congressional declaration, further setting the stage for disenchantment once the war progresses poorly. Respect for the truth is easily sacrificed in order to rally the people for the war effort. Professional propagandists, by a coalition of the media and the coalition officials, beat the war drums. The people follow out of fear of being labeled unpatriotic and weak in the defense of our Nation, even when there is no national security threat at all. Joining in support for the war are the special interest groups that have other agenda to pursue: profits, religious beliefs and partisan political obligations. Ideologues use war to pursue personal ambitions unrelated to national defense and convert the hesitant with promises of spreading democracy, freedom and prosperity. The tools they use are unrestrained state power to force their ideals on others, no matter how unjust it seems to the unfortunate recipients of the preemptive war. For some, the more chaos, the greater the opportunity to jump in and remake a country or an entire region. At times in history, the opening salvo has been deliberately carried out by the ones anxious to get the war under way, while blaming the opposition for the incident. The deceptions must stir passion for the war through an appeal to patriotism, nationalism, machismo and jingoistic manliness of proving one's self in great feats of battle. This early support before the first costs are felt is easily achieved. Since total victory may not come quickly, however, support by the people is gradually lost. When the war is questioned, the ill-conceived justifications for getting involved are reexamined and found to have been distorted. Frequently the people discover they were lied to so that politicians could gain support for a war that had nothing to do with national security. These discoveries and the disenchantments come first to those directly exposed to danger in the front lines where soldiers die or lose their limbs. Military families and friends bear the burden of grief, while the majority of the citizens still hope the war will end or never affect them directly in any way. But as the casualties grow, the message of suffering spreads, and the questions remain unanswered concerning the real reason an offensive war was necessary in the first place. Just when the human tragedy becomes evident to a majority of the citizens, other costs become noticeable: Taxes are raised, deficits explode, inflation raises its ugly head, and the standard of living for the average citizen is threatened. The funds for the war, even if immediate taxes are not levied, must come from the domestic economy, and everyone suffers. The economic consequences of the Vietnam War were felt throughout the 1970s and even into the early 1980s. As the problems mount, the falsehood and distortions on which the war was based become less believable and collectively resented, the government and the politicians who pursued the policy lose credibility. The tragedy, however, is that once the majority discovers the truth, much more time is needed to change the course of events. This is the sad part. Political leaders who needlessly dragged us into the war cannot and will not admit an error in judgment. In fact, they do the opposite to prove they were right all along. Instead of winding down, the war gets a boost to prove the policy was correct and bring the war to a victorious conclusion. This only motivates the resistance of those fighting the defensive side of the war. More money and more troops must be sacrificed before the policy changes. Using surrogate foreign troops may seem to cut domestic troop losses in the country starting the war, but will only prolong the agony, suffering and the costs and the increase in the need for even more troops. Withdrawing financial support for the effort is seen as being even more unpatriotic than not having supported the war in the first place. Support for the troops becomes evident to supporting the flawed policy that led to the mess. No matter how unwise the policy and how inevitable the results, changing course becomes almost impossible for those individuals who promoted the war. This fear of being labeled unpatriotic and not supportive of the troops on the battlefield ironically drives a policy that is more harmful to the troops and costly to the folks at home. Sometimes it requires a new group of politicians, removed from the original decision-makers who initiated the war to bring about a policy shift. Johnson could not do it in Vietnam, and Nixon did it slowly, awkwardly and not without first expanding the war before agreeing enough was enough. With the seemingly inevitable delays in altering policy, the results are quite predictable. Costs escalate, and the division between the supporters and nonsupporters widens. This adds to economic problems, while further eroding domestic freedoms, as with all wars. On occasion, as we have seen in our own country, dissent invites harsh social and legal repercussions. Those who speak out in opposition will not only be ostracized, but may feel the full force of the law coming down on them. Errors in foreign affairs leading to war are hard to reverse, but even if deliberate action does not change the course of events, flawed policies eventually will fail as economic laws will assert themselves. The more people have faith in and depend upon the state, the more difficult it is to keep the state from initiating wars. If the state is seen as primarily responsible for providing personal and economic security, obedience and dependency becomes a pervasive problem. If the state is limited to protecting liberty and encourages self-reliance and personal responsibility, there is a much better chance for limiting pro-war attitudes. The great danger of war, especially unnecessary war, is that it breeds more dependency while threatening liberty, always allowing the state to grow regardless of existing attitudes before the war. War unfortunately allows the enemies of liberty to justify the sacrifice of personal freedoms, and the people all too often carelessly sacrifice precisely what they are supposed to be fighting for: freedom. Our revolution was a rare exception. It was one war where the people ended up with more freedom, not less. Almost every war has an economic component, some more odious than others. Our own Civil War dealt with slavery. The tariffs and economic oppression by the North were also major factors. Remember, only a small number of Southern soldiers personally owned slaves; yet, they were enthusiastic in their opposition to the Northern invasion. The battles fought in the Middle East since World War I have had a lot to do with securing Arab oil fields for the benefit of Western nations. Not only are wars fought for economic reasons, wars have profound economic consequences for the countries involved, even if one side is spared massive property damage. The economic consequences of war play a major role in bringing hostilities to an end. The consequences are less tolerated by the citizens of countries whose leaders drag them into offensive and unnecessary wars. The determination to fight on cannot compete with those who see their homeland threatened by foreign invaders. There is essentially no one, not even among the neoconservative crowd, claiming that the Iraqi war is defensive in nature for America. Early on, this was an attempt to do so, and it was successful to a large degree in convincing the American people that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and was connected to al Qaeda. Now the justification for the war is completely different and far less impressive. If the current justification had been used to rally the American people and Congress from the beginning, the war would have been rejected. The fact that we are bogged down in an offensive war makes it quite difficult to extricate ourselves from the mess. Without the enthusiasm that a defensive war generates, prolonging the Iraq War will play havoc with our economy. The insult of paying for the war, in addition to the fact that the war was not truly necessary, makes the hardship less tolerable. This leads to domestic turmoil as proponents become more vocal in demanding patriotic support and opponents become angrier for the burden they must bear. So far, the American people have not yet felt the true burden of the cost of this war. Even with over 1,700 deaths and 13,000 wounded, only a small percentage of Americans have suffered directly. But their pain and suffering is growing and more noticeable every day. Taxes have not been raised to pay the bills for the current war, so annual deficits and national debt continues to grow. This helps delay the pain of paying the bills, but the consequences of this process are starting to be felt. Direct tax increases, a more honest way to finance a foreign interventionism, would serve to restrain those who so cavalierly take us to war. The borrowing authority of governments permit wars to be started and prolonged which otherwise would be resisted if the true cost were known to the people from the beginning. Americans have an especially unique ability to finance our war efforts while minimizing the immediate effect. As the issuer of the world's reserve currency, we are able to finance our extravagance through inflating our dollars. We have the special privilege of printing that which the world accepts as money in lieu of gold. This is an invitation to economic disaster, permitting an ill-founded foreign policy that sets the stage for problems for years to come. A system of money that politicians and central bankers could not manipulate would restrain those with grandiose ideas of empire. The Federal Reserve was created in 1913, and shortly thereafter the Fed accommodated the Wilsonians bent on entering World War I by inflating and deficit-financing that ill- begotten involvement. Though it produced the 1921 depression and many other problems since, the process subsequently has become institutionalized in financing our militarism in the 20th century and already in the 21st. Without the Fed's ability to create money out of thin air, our government would be severely handicapped in waging wars that do not serve our interests. The money issue and the ability of our government to wage war are intricately related. Anyone interested in curtailing war-time spending and our militarism abroad is obligated to study the monetary system through which our government seductively and surreptitiously finances foreign adventurism without the responsibility of informing the public of its cost or collecting the revenues required to finance the effort. Being the issuer of the world's premier currency allows a lot more abuse than a country would have otherwise. World businesses, governments, and central banks accept our dollars as if they are as good as gold. This is a remnant of a time when the dollar was as good as gold. This is no longer the case. The trust is still there, but it is misplaced. Since the dollar is simply a paper currency without real value, someday confidence will be lost and our goose will no longer be able to lay the golden egg. That is when reality will set in and the real cost of our extravagance, both domestic and foreign, will be felt by all Americans. We will no longer be able to finance our war machine through willing foreigners, who now gladly take our newly printed dollars for their newly produced goods, then loan them back to us at below-market rates to support our standard of living and our war effort. The payment by American citizens will come as the dollar loses value, interest rates rise, and prices increase. The higher prices become the tax that a more honest government would have levied directly to pay for the war effort. An unpopular war, especially, needs this deception as a method of payment, hiding the true costs which are dispersed and delayed through this neat little monetary trick. The real tragedy is that this inflation tax is not evenly distributed among all the people, and more than not is borne disproportionately by the poor and the middle class as a truly regressive tax in the worst sense. Politicians in Washington do not see inflation as an unfair seductive tax. Our monetary policy, unfortunately, is never challenged, even by the proponents of low taxes who care so little about deficits. But eventually it all comes to an end because economic law overrides the politicians' deceit. Already we are seeing signs on the horizon that this free ride for us is coming to an end. Price inflation is alive and well and much worse than government statistics show. The sluggish economy suggests that the super stimulation of easy credit over the last decades is no longer sufficient to keep the economy strong. Our personal consumption and government spending are dependent on borrowing from foreign lenders. Artificially high standards of living can mask the debt accumulation that it requires while needed savings remain essentially nil. The ability to print the reserve currency of the world, and the willingness of foreigners to take it, causes gross distortions in our current account deficits and total foreign indebtedness. It plays a major role in the erosion of our manufacturing base and causes the exporting of our jobs along with our dollars. Bashing foreigners, and particularly the Chinese and the Japanese, as the cause of our dwindling manufacturing and job base is misplaced. It prevents the evaluation of our own policies, policies that undermine and increase the price of our own manufacturing goods while distorting the trade balance. Though we continue to benefit from the current circumstances through cheap imports on borrowed money, the shaky fundamentals make our economy and financial system vulnerable to sudden and severe adjustments. Foreigners will not finance our excessive standard of living and our expensive war overseas indefinitely. It will end. What we do in the meantime to prepare for that day will make all the difference in the world for the future of freedom in this country. It is the future of freedom in this country that is truly the legitimate responsibility of us as Members of Congress. Centuries ago, the notion of money introduced the world to trade and the principle of division of labor, ushering in for the first time a level of economic existence above mere subsistence. Modern fiat money, with electronic transactions, has given an additional boost to that prosperity. But unlike sound commodity money, fiat money, with easy credit and artificially low interest rates, causes distortions and malinvestments that require corrections. The modernization of electronic global transfers, which with sound money would be beneficial, has allowed for greater distortions and debt to be accumulated, setting the stage for a much more serious period of adjustment, requiring an economic downturn, liquidation of debt, and reallocation of resources that must eventually come from savings rather than a central bank printing press. These economic laws will limit our ability to pursue our foreign intervention no matter how well intentioned and successful they may seem. The Soviet system collapsed on its own weakness. I fear an economic collapse here at home much more than an attack by a foreign country. Above all, the greatest concern should be for the systematic undermining of our personal liberties since 9/11, which will worsen with an ongoing foreign war and the severe economic problems that are coming. Since we are not fighting the war to defend our homeland, and we abuse so many of our professed principles, we face great difficulties in resolving the growing predicament in which we find ourselves. Our options are few, and admitting errors in judgment is not likely to occur. Moral forces are against us as we find ourselves imposing our will on a people 6,000 miles from our shore. How would the American people respond if a foreign country, with people of a different color, religion, and language, imposed itself on us to make us conform to their notions of justice and goodness? None of us would sit idly by. This is why those who see themselves as defenders of their homeland and their way of life have the upper hand regardless of the shock-and-awe military power available to us. At this point, our power works perversely. The stronger and more violent we are, the greater the resistance becomes. The conservatives who took us to war under false pretenses either did not know or did not care about the history and traditions of the Iraqi people. Surely they must have heard of an Islamic defensive jihad that is easy to promote when one's country is being attacked by foreign forces. Family members have religious obligations to avenge all killing by foreign forces, which explains why killing insurgents only causes their numbers to multiply. This family obligation to seek revenge is closely tied to achieving instant eternal martyrdom through vengeful suicide attacks. Parents of martyrs do not weep, as the parents of our soldiers do. They believe the suicide bombers in their families are glorified. These religious beliefs cannot simply be changed during the war. The only thing we can do is remove the incentives we give to the religious leaders of the jihad by leaving them alone. Without our presence in the Middle East, whether on the Arabian Peninsula or in Iraq, the rallying cry for suicidal jihadists would ring hollow. Was there any fear of our national security from a domestic terrorist attack by Islamists before we put a base in Saudi Arabia? Our freedoms here at home have served the interests of those who are hell bent on pursuing an American empire, though this, too, will be limited by economic costs and the undermining of our personal liberties. A free society produces more wealth for more people than any other. That wealth, for many years, can be confiscated to pay for the militarism advocated by those who promote preemptive war. But militarism and its costs undermine the very market system that provided the necessary resources in the first place. As this happens, productivity and wealth are diminished, putting pressure on the authority to ruthlessly extract even more funds from the people. For what they cannot collect through taxes, they take through currency inflation, eventually leading to an inability to finance unnecessary and questionable warfare and bringing the process to an end. It happened to the Soviets, and their military machine collapsed. Hitler destroyed Germany's economy, but he financed his aggression for several years by immediately stealing the gold reserves of every country he occupied. That too was self-limited, and he met his military defeat. For us, it is less difficult, since we can confiscate the wealth of American citizens and the savers of the world merely by printing more dollars to support our militarism. Though different in detail, we too must face the prospect that this system of financing is seriously flawed and our expensive policy of worldwide interventionism will collapse. Only a profound change in attitudes regarding our foreign policy, our fiscal policy, and our monetary policy will save us from ourselves. If we did make these changes, we would not need to become isolationists, despite what many claim. Isolationism is not the only alternative to intervention in other nations' affairs. Freedom works. Free markets supported by sound money, private properties, and respect for all voluntary contracts can set an example for the world, since the resulting prosperity would be significant and distributed more widely than any socialist system. Instead of using force to make others do it our way, our influence could be through the example we set that would motivate others to emulate us. Trade, travel, and exchange of ideas and friendly relationships, with all those who seek friendship, are a far cry from a protectionist closed-border Nation that would serve no one's interest. This type of society would be greatly enhanced with a worldwide commodity standard of money. This would prevent the imbalances that are a great burden to today's economy. Our current account deficits and total foreign indebtedness would not occur under an honest, nonpolitical commodity money. Competitive devaluations and abnormally fixed exchange rates would not be possible as tools of protectionism. We can be certain that the distortions in the trade balance and the WTO trade wars that are multiplying will eventually lead to a serious challenge to worldwide trade. The tragedy of trade wars is that they frequently lead to military wars between nations. And until the wealth is consumed and the young men are no longer available to fight and die, the process will cost plenty. We must not forget that real peace and prosperity are available to us. America has a grand tradition in this regard, despite her shortcomings. It is just that in the recent decades the excessive unearned wealth available to us to run our welfare warfare state has distracted us from our important traditions: honoring liberty and emphasizing self-reliance and responsibility. Up until the 20th century, we were much less eager to go around the world searching for dragons to slay. That tradition is a good one and one that we must reconsider before the ideal of personal liberty is completely destroyed.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) for participating, and thank him for his leadership, his votes and his energy that he puts in in trying to keep this Congress straight and the budget straight. I think the points the gentleman made about the issue of whether the conservative position is for the war or against the war is, I think, very appropriate, because too often it is assumed if there is a war going on, the conservative position is you have to promote that war. As a matter of fact, sometimes I like to think of the term, which is conservative, and that is belief in the Constitution, which is a very conservative view. I believe if we adhered more strictly to the Constitution, we would probably be involved much less so in these kinds of wars. During the time when this resolution came up, I am on the Committee on International Relations, I offered an amendment to declare war, not that I supported the war nor would I vote for the amendment, but to make the point that if this country, this Congress wants to go to war, they ought to be up front with it and make a declaration of war, decide what we have to do and go and win it. But not one single person voted to declare war. As a matter of fact, it was turned back to me and said, why would I think of bringing up such a frivolous notion about the Constitution and declaration of war? Another Member said, That part of the Constitution is anachronistic. We don't look at that anymore.

Mr. PAUL. If we do not use that argument, what good is our oath of office? What good is our oath to our people when we talk to them at home? I think that is our obligation. Sometimes I will take a vote that I am not particularly happy with, but I will do it because I believe I am adhering to my oath of office and believe it is the process that is not correct and we have to change the Constitution if we need to do it. I think this is so important, because I do not think we have the authority in the Constitution to start preemptive war, to go into nation-building and to change regimes. I just cannot see that it is there. I think that has led us to get into these problems since World War II especially. Of course, I did mention in my prepared text that declaration of war is important but also if we would restrain, as the Constitution does, the monetary authorities from printing money at will to finance wars like this, I think we would be fighting a lot less wars.

Mr. PAUL

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

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to place in today's record the following article by Mr. Lee Jackson, a constituent of mine who is battling a perverse tax law. Mr. Jackson and several other individuals were the target of a frivolous lawsuit that rightfully was dismissed for its lack of merit. Mr. Jackson and his fellow defendants--all totally blameless--spent many thousands of dollars in legal fees fighting the meritless suit. They understandably filed their own lawsuit against both the original plaintiffs and the plaintiffs' law firm. However, they cannot reach a monetary settlement for damages because our tax code treats all proceeds from such a settlement--even the portion Mr. Jackson owes to his attorneys--as taxable income for Mr. Jackson. As a result, Mr. Jackson literally cannot afford to settle his case because he will owe more in income taxes than he receives from the settlement! Furthermore, he cannot deduct his attorneys fees because of the alternative minimum tax. Mr. Jackson's story, as told below, provides a vivid example of why Congress must change the tax code to ensure that attorney fees are deemed taxable income to the attorneys who actually receive them, not their clients. Taxing Justice ``It is in justice that the ordering of society is centered.'' Aristotle ``Justice is the constant and perpetual will to allot to every man his due.''--Domitus Ulpian (By Lee Jackson) There is perversity in using tax policy to reduce the numbers of frivolous lawsuits. Courts were developed in the first place to adjudicate impartially the relative merit of one person's argument over another's in a dispute. The controlling premise was that courts were best able to sort through facts and opposing arguments in specific cases and arrive at impartial resolutions. Distrust in the courts has upset the delicate balance between the legislature and the judiciary. When judges pick and choose the laws they will or will not enforce; when they dictate new law from the bench; when their standard strays from the Constitution and looks to current popular thinking and foreign decisions; or when judges bow before the force of political money during confirmation re-election cycles; when those things happen, citizens lose confidence in the ability to achieve justice, and turn to the legislature for relief. Therein lies new danger. Courts are uniquely suited to try the facts of particular cases. Legislatures are not. However, legislatures must react to concerns of constituents, and so they have sought solutions as Americans pressed them to weigh in on the perceived high volume of seemingly frivolous cases that drove up medical and other costs, and seemed to precipitate a downward spiral in quality of crucial services. Attending these issues were actions of legislatures, courts, and executive branches of government. Take the case of Cynthia Spina, the Illinois Forest Preserve policewoman who won a judgment against her employer after a six-year sexual-harassment lawsuit. Instead of netting $300,000 after paying $1 million to her attorney, she was taxed $400,000 by the IRS. The law that made such travesty possible was promulgated in 1996 that differentiate between types of damages. Gone was the concept of damages being a monetary amount determined by a jury as the amount necessary to bring a plaintiff back to equilibrium. Justice is now a taxable event. A new premise seems to permeate the land: That all plaintiffs are suspect, and likely to be greedy money- grubbers forwarding spurious complaints. Such a premise does a disservice to juries whose members receive negligible compensation for their services and to the vast majority of plaintiffs who turn to courts as a last resort. Consider our case still pending in California. My partner and I appealed to the FBI and the SEC for alleged corporate malfeasance. We also alerted the public via the Internet. For our trouble, we, along with friends and family were sued personally for $60 million. The courts in California found we had done nothing wrong and further, that we were sued primarily to silence us. In effect, the courts in California were used as a weapon to interfere with our rights to free speech. Along the way, this case resulted in a binding precedent extending First Amendment rights to the Internet. That precedent has been used all the way to the US Supreme Court as well as in several state supreme courts. Left with hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal bills accumulated for our defense, we sought to recover through the courts. As we proceeded, we became aware of the Spina case, and feared that the same tax provisions could apply to us. What we found was even more perverse. Spina's debacle resulted because the attorney's fee was charged as income to her, and then Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) was applied. In tax court, Spina pleaded the unfairness with the judge, who sympathized with her but said his hands were tied by the law (a fine time to be a strict constructionist! I think it intuitively obvious to the casual observer that a US government that taxes a citizen more than the citizen receives is breaking a Constitutional proscription somewhere!). In the California case, we (the erstwhile defendants) became plaintiffs in pursuit of recovery of our legal expense and other damages. It is worth mentioning that our wives were also sued, and another couple as well. Neither our wives nor the other couple were even alleged to have done anything wrong--they were sued in order to bring pressure on us. My partner and I live in Texas. The other couple lives in Maine. We soon learned of a difference in treatment depending upon residence. In Texas, the legislature had defined attorneys' fees as belonging to attorneys, and therefore not taxable to plaintiffs. In Maine, no such determination had been made. Also, the Federal District court in which Texas lies had decided that damages were not subject to Alternative Minimum Taxes. The federal court district in which Maine lies had decided the opposite. As a result, the Maine plaintiffs could expect to realize an after-tax net that would have been an estimated \1/15\ of the net that the Texas plaintiffs could have expected on the same estimated award. Ironically, all we plaintiffs in our case had been subjected to the exact same set of circumstances; we would have appeared together in the same court; and, if damages were awarded, they would have been determined by the exact same jury. Enter the Supreme Court. In January, 2005, the Supreme Court issued a decision that decreed equal federal tax treatment among all plaintiffs across the breadth of the United States; that attorneys' fees should be taxed to plaintiffs; and that Alternative Minimum Taxes apply. In effect, the Supreme Court's decision put almost all plaintiffs in the same tax position as Spina. Taken to its logical and viable extreme, this decision puts civil courts off limits as an alternative to violence to resolve bona fide disputes. There is an exemption to that decision. Inspired by the Spina case, Congress last year passed the Civil Rights Tax Relief Act. It provided that, in Civil Rights cases, attorneys' fees would not be taxed to plaintiffs (on the basis that the amount had been taxed twice--first to plaintiffs, then to attorneys). Unfortunately for Spina, the law was not made retroactive, so as of this moment, she still contends with the IRS over her tax bill. However, other plaintiffs with similar cases realized tremendous relief. Not so for us in our California case, and thousands of other plaintiffs also facing ruinous taxes after winning their cases. Clearly the courts in California were used as a weapon to infringe on our civil rights. However, in that underlying case, we were then defendants. When we filed suit to recover damages, the case was characterized differently and was no longer, technically, a civil rights case. Our dilemma had been to seek court assistance to recover, or face paying our legal expense for our own defense in the underlying case for years to come. It did not occur to us at the time we filed with the court that we could win and end up owing an even greater amount to the IRS. That is the effect of the Supreme Court ruling. Because ours is technically not a civil rights case, we do not enjoy the benefits of the exemption inspired by the Spina case. We had properly appealed to our government for help, and the government has now placed us in a position where our own best interests are indeterminate, so we cannot settle (ironic, since the intent of most tort reform has been to encourage settlement). When a jury makes an award, the tax exposure will likely be ruinous. Another irony is that the higher the award, the greater our tax exposure. And we are middle-class citizens. The basis on which the Supreme Court decided that attorneys' fees are taxed as income to plaintiffs is that plaintiffs pay attorneys; that the amount they pay comes to them as a result of the award; that money to pay attorneys was something they did not have prior to the award, and therefore coming, as it would from the award, must be income. The rationale is held irrelevant (in contingency cases) that attorneys receive payment only if and after an actual award is received and that there is shared risk between plaintiff and attorney. There is another problem with taxing awards as income, and this is even more poignant. As mentioned earlier, awards are a jury's determination of the monetary equivalent of restoring a client to equilibrium (without consideration for tax consequences). By definition, plaintiffs owned that equivalent value prior to the need to seek court intervention and thus is not income. Where back wages are sought and won, obviously income is received. However, even in those cases there should be no more taxes assessed or collected than would have been had the plaintiff been paid normally. Another major factor that should weigh in favor of plaintiffs and obviate taxes on awards is that courts, state legislatures, and Congress establish the rules under which a citizen seeks justice. A plaintiff going into court in pro per is in extreme jeopardy of losing over factors as innocuous as presenting the case in a form that violates local-court determined rules. When citizens are sued, they often have no choice but to retain the very best legal expertise possible. When they win their cases and are left with oppressive debt, they should have recourse to the courts for relief without incurring even more horrendous debt to the government. The idea is laughable that people would willingly choose to spend their hard-earned income and scarce time to be in court for recreation (i.e. the ``pursuit of happiness''). The concept of exemptions presents its own difficulties. By legislatively determining that some cases are entitled to favorable tax treatment over others, lawmakers are making judgments over the relative merits of cases in advance of either a judge or jury examining specific facts. On its face, such policy screams violation of Constitutional equal protection and equal access to the courts. Justice is no longer blind. And to the extent that such laws continue, the Federal government becomes complicit in chilling citizen participation on issues such as the ones in our case in California. Bad guys already know this, and they know that as a result, they can do bad things to good people with impunity. The combined branches of government have evolved those conditions. At present, there is legislative effort under way to cure the situation for plaintiffs excluded by current exemptions. There is also a strong Congressional move to abolish AMT altogether. (That would be a great thing for the country, but a subject for another time.) A danger for plaintiffs is that, should AMT be abolished, a strong sense could I devolve that the plight of plaintiffs would then be resolved. Such is not the case. AMT only increases the degree of travesty. Eliminating them for plaintiffs still leaves them exposed to ordinary tax rates (think of an ordinary citizen paying taxes on a $1 million award, half of which goes to pay attorneys, and much which goes to pay other expenses. The citizen could still be in a break-even or deficit position, and certainly one that in no way approaches restoration or justice.). Studying ways to include others in exemptions is self- defeating. There are too many circumstances to contemplate and leaves citizens with the dubious proposition of having to seek a legislative solution after having won in court. It further requires the impossible task of timing the court decision such that it is issued only after the passage of the legislation in order to be sure that the new law protects them (retroactivity is frowned upon in the House). The real issues are: Should any legislature ever be deciding the relative merit of any civil dispute over any other civil dispute by creating rapacious tax laws and then establishing exemptions? (As soon as they do so, they create violations of equal protection and access.) Should the government ever be entitled to a share of what a jury has decided is the amount required to restore a plaintiff to equilibrium? (Every dollar taxed on an award is a dollar subtraction from that plaintiff's restoration as determined by a jury after due deliberation over all facts pertinent to the case--justice becomes impossible as a practical and mathematical matter). Should attorneys' fees be taxed to plaintiffs? (The government is going to tax that amount to the attorney. When the attorney is retained on a contingency basis, both attorney and plaintiff are entering into a transaction that is high risk with no gain for either unless they win at court. And, it is the courts, Congress, and state legislators that set the conditions under which requiring an attorney for any court proceeding is mandated as a practical matter for most citizens.) If the answer to each of the above questions is ``no'' (and I think a reasonable man would conclude that is the correct answer for each of question), then the proper legislative response is easy: Define attorneys' fees as belonging to attorneys; and, do away with taxes on awards. If both of those actions are taken, plaintiffs with bona fide complaints rightfully will enjoy a full measure of restoration to equilibrium as determined by a jury of their peers. Admittedly, that allows for occasionally rewarding miscreants. The alternative ensures penalizing law-abiding citizens who have already suffered. Adopting the above leaves unsettled how to discourage frivolous cases. There are other ways to do that including award limits, and attorney fee caps. However, the solution cannot and must not include provisions that deny justice and impose further penalties on law-abiding citizens who appeal to their governments. As these things ate contemplated, a figurative call to arms is in order. Taxes imposed on individual citizens across the breadth of the original Thirteen Colonies in our early history were only a fraction of the burden thrust on individual contemporary citizens now carrying these burdens. These unjustly treated citizens already number in thousands; and their numbers will grow rapidly as the effects of the Supreme Court decision become felt. It is hard to conceive of a single congressional district left unaffected. Corrective action should be swift. Citizens that must contend with government taxes and tax collecting agencies of the government after prevailing in court are denied justice. Allowing them to negotiate to a reduced amount after the fact is neither justice nor a solution--it is a mockery and refutation of the most fundamental principles which gave birth to our great country and for which patriots gave their lives. In contemplating concepts of taxing justice, it is appropriate to recall that plaintiffs seek court resolution as an alternative to violence; that they pay in advance for their ``day in court'' through normal taxes; that in entering the court, they demonstrate tremendous faith in their fellow citizens and government; that the aim of the court is to return prevailing plaintiffs to equilibrium; and that if plaintiffs are successful, they are entitled to an assumption of having brought a bona fide complaint. To require more is to delay justice, and in that regard, it is well to remember William Gladstone's words: ``Justice delayed is justice denied.'' Or as Theodore Roosevelt said, ``Justice consists not in being neutral between right and wrong, but in finding out the right and upholding it, wherever found, against the wrong.'' Leaving citizens stranded in bewildering circumstances that destroy the pursuit of happiness and is brought about by poorly thought out government action is wrong. Correcting quickly is right.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of our position to remove ourselves from the WTO. My economic position is somewhat different from some of my allies, because I come at it from a free trade position. I happen to believe in minimum tariffs, if any, but I do not believe that the process of the WTO and world government is a good way to do it. I do not think the WTO achieves its purpose, and I do not think it is permissible under the Constitution. Therefore, I strongly argue the case that, through the process, that we should defend the position of the Congress which gives us the responsibility of dealing with international trade, with international foreign commerce. That is our responsibility. We cannot transfer that responsibility to the President, and we cannot transfer that responsibility to an international government body. Therefore, there are many of us who ally together to argue that case, although we may have a disagreement on how much tariffs we should have, because the Congress should decide that. We could have no tariffs; we could have a uniform tariff, which the Founders believed in and permitted; or we could have protective tariffs, which some of those individuals on our side defend, and I am not that much interested in. But the issue that unifies us is who should determine it. For me, the determination should be by the U.S. Congress and not to defer to an international government body. Now this always bewilders me, when my conservative friends and those who believe in limited government are so anxious to deliver this to another giant international body. For instance, the WTO employs over 600 people. Free trade, if you are interested in free trade, all you have to do is write a sentence or two, and you can have free trade. You do not need 600 bureaucrats. It costs $133 million to manage the WTO every year. Of course, we pay the biggest sum, over $25 million for this, just to go and get permission or get our instructions from the WTO. We all know that we raised taxes not too long ago, not because the American people rose up and called their Congressmen and said we wanted you to repeal this tax and change the taxes. It was done in order to be an upstanding member of the WTO. We responded and took instructions from the WTO and adapted our tax policy to what they desired. One other issue that I think those who defend the WTO and call themselves free traders ought to recognize is that when we concede the fact that there should be a trade-off, it means they really do not believe in free trade. If you believe in free trade and the people have the right to spend their money the way they want, it would be as simple as that. It would benefit that country, because you could get your goods and services cheaper. But this whole concession to the management of trade through the WTO says, all right, we are going to do this if you do this, and it acknowledges the fact that free trade does not work unless you get something for it. That may be appealing to some, but a free trader should not argue that way. Because free trade, if it is a benefit, it is simply a benefit. In the 1990s when the WTO was originally passed, the former Speaker of the House made a statement about this. I want to quote from him. This is from Newt Gingrich. He was talking about the WTO: ``I am just saying that we need to be honest about the fact that we are transferring from the United States at a practical level significant authority to a new organization. This is a transformational moment. I would feel better if the people who favor this would be honest about the scale of change. This is not just another trade agreement. This is adopting something which twice, once in the 1940s and once in the 1950s, the U.S. Congress rejected. I am not even saying that we should reject it. I, in fact, lean toward it. But I think we have to be very careful, because it is a very big transfer of power.'' I agree with Newt Gingrich on this. It was a huge transfer of power. I happen to believe it was an unconstitutional transfer of power; and, therefore, we are now suffering the consequences because we have lost prerogatives and control of our own trade policy. Now the President of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, a free market think tank, from Auburn, Alabma said, ``The World Trade Organization is supposed to be the great apparatus to push the world to greater economic integration. In reality, it was nothing but the resurrection of the old central planning fallacy that the world needs a central authority to manage it. The WTO has ended up politicizing trade by putting the stamp of officialdom on some very bad policy.'' So my message is to appeal to those who believe in limited government, free markets, free trade and the Constitution. I appeal to those who want to use tariffs in a protective way because they defend the process. But I am really appealing to the conservatives who claim they believe in free trade, because I do not believe what we have here is truly free trade. The WTO has already been able to influence our tax laws. Not too long ago, Utah repealed a ban on electronic gambling for fear the WTO would come in and find that violated free trade. Another area of importance to so many of us, both on the left and the right of the political spectrum, has to do with the Codex Commission regulation set up by the United Nations. How much regulation are we going to have on vitamins and nutrition products? The UN already indicated the type of regulation. Guess who may, most likely, be the enforcer of these regulations? It will be the WTO. The Europeans have much stricter regulations. This means that some day the WTO may well come to us and regulate the distribution of vitamins and nutritional supplements in this country, something that I do not think we should even contemplate. The case can be made that if they have already pressured us to do things, they may well do it once again. Our administration is not too interested in the Kyoto Protocol, but that may well come down the road, and the enforcement of the Kyoto Protocol many believe will be enforced by the WTO. So this is big government, pure and simple. It does not endorse free trade whatsoever. It endorses managed trade; and too often it is managed for the privileges of the very large, well-positioned companies. It does not recognize the basic principle that we should defend as a free society individuals ought to have the right to spend their money the way they want. That is what free trade is, and you can do that unilaterally without pain and suffering. So I ask Members to consider, why should we not reclaim some of our prerogatives, our authorities, our responsibility? We have given up too much over the years. We have clearly given up our prerogatives on the declaration of war, and on monetary issues. That has been given away by the Congress. And here it is on the trade issue. I can remember an ad put out in the 1990s when the WTO was being promoted and they talked directly, it was a full page ad, I believe, in the New York Times. They said, ``This is the third leg of the new world order.'' We had the World Bank, we had the IMF, and now we had the World Trade Organization. So if you are a believer in big government and world government and you believe in giving up the prerogatives of the Congress and not assuming our responsibility, I would say, go with the WTO. But if you believe in freedom, if you believe in the Constitution and if you really believe in free trade, I would say we should vote to get out of the WTO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my remaining time be allotted to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and that he be able to control that time.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I first yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to help America's law enforcement officers by introducing the Police Security Protection Act. This legislation provides police officers a tax credit for the purchase of armored vests. Professional law enforcement officers put their lives on the line each and every day. Reducing the tax liability of law enforcement officers so they can afford armored vests is one of the best ways Congress can help and encourage these brave men and women. After all, an armored vest could literally make the difference between life or death for a police officer, I hope my colleagues will join me in helping our nation's law enforcement officers by cosponsoring the Police Security Protection Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Public Safety Tax Cut Act. This legislation will achieve two important public policy goals. First, it will effectively overturn a ruling of the Internal Revenue Service which has declared as taxable income the waiving of fees by local governments who provide service for public safety volunteers. Many local governments use volunteer firefighters and auxiliary police either in place of, or as a supplement to, their public safety professionals. Often as an incentive to would-be volunteers, the local entities might waive all or a portion of the fees typically charged for city services such as the provision of drinking water, sewerage charges, or debris pick up. Local entities make these decisions for the purpose of encouraging folks to volunteer, and seldom do these benefits come anywhere near the level of a true compensation for the many hours of training and service required of the volunteers. This, of course, not even to mention the fact that these volunteers could very possibly be called into a situation where they may have to put their lives on the line. Rather than encouraging this type of volunteerism, which is so crucial, particularly to America's rural communities, the IRS has decided that the provision of the benefits described above amount to taxable income. Not only does this adversely affect the financial position of the volunteer by foisting new taxes about him or her, it has in fact led local entities to stop providing these benefits, thus taking away a key tool they have used to recruit volunteers. That is why the IRS ruling in this instance has a substantial deleterious impact on the spirit of American volunteerism. How far could this go? For example, would consistent application mean that a local Salvation Army volunteer be taxed for the value of a complimentary ticket to that organization's annual county dinner? This is obviously bad policy. This legislation would rectify this situation by specifically exempting these types of benefits from federal taxation. Next, this legislation would also provide paid professional police and fire officers with a $1,000 per year tax credit. These professional public safety officers put their lives on the line each and every day, and I think we all agree that there is no way to properly compensate them for the fabulous services they provide. In America we have a tradition of local law enforcement and public safety provision. So, while it is not the role of our federal government to increase the salaries of these, it certainly is within our authority to increase their take-home pay by reducing the amount of money that we take from their pockets via federal taxation, and that is something this bill specifically does as well. President George Bush has called on Americans to volunteer their time and energy to enhancing public safety. Shouldn't Congress do its part by reducing taxes that discourage public safety volunteerism? Shouldn't Congress also show its appreciation to police officers and firefighters by reducing their taxes? I believe the answer to both of these questions is a resounding ``yes'' and therefore I am proud to introduce the Public Safety Tax Cut Act. I request that my fellow Members join in support of this key legislation.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of this appropriations bill, although with some reservations. I am pleased that the reorganization of the appropriations bills has brought about a more logical and supportable Veterans Affairs appropriations product. I do retain strong concerns over some of the funds appropriated under the Military Construction and North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program sections of this bill. Although I recognize the need for legitimate funds for military construction, I do remain concerned that the funds appropriated herein will be used to fund the construction of U.S. military installations overseas. At a time when we are closing dozens of military installations in the United States--installations that actually contribute to the defense of the United States--under the auspices of saving money, it is unconscionable to be spending money for the defense of foreign countries. I also strongly object to the appropriation of U.S.taxpayer funds for, as the bill states, ``the acquisition and construction of military facilities and installations (including international military headquarters) and for related expenses for the collective defense of the North Atlantic Treaty Area.'' NATO is a relic of the Cold War and most certainly has no purpose some fifteen years after the fall of the Soviet Union. As we saw in the NATO invasion of Yugoslavia, having outlived its usefulness as a defensive alliance, the Organization has become an arm of aggressive militarism and interventionism. NATO deserves not a dime of American taxpayer's money, nor should the United States remain a member. In conclusion, though I support this appropriations bill, I remain concerned about the construction of military bases overseas and the dangerous interventionist foreign policy that drives this construction.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. Some Members wonder why I would support this amendment, considering the fact that I am the most fiscally conservative Member of Congress and vote for the least amount of spending. But I think this amendment is a good amendment, and I think the closing of these bases represents bad policy. I do not have a base in my district that is being threatened to be closed. Let me tell Members why I think this is a mistake. First, I think the process is very poor. I think we are ducking our responsibility. To turn this responsibility over to a commission and duck the responsibility of facing up to making tough decisions, I think, is something we do too often. Too often in the Congress, we do things we should not be doing, and we forget to assume the responsibilities we have. In this case, I think we are not assuming the responsibility to face up to making this tough decision. It is claimed we will save $5 billion a year on base closings. We spend $5 billion a month in Iraq. We are spending nearly a billion dollars in building an embassy in Iraq. We are going to build four bases in Iraq that are going to be permanent, costing tens of billions of dollars. I think we have our priorities all messed up. I think that it makes a lot more sense to keep a submarine base in Connecticut and keep a deep seaport in Ingleside, Texas, than it does to be closing these down and at the same time building bases up around the world. I think the savings issue is a red herring. Between 1995 and 2001, the last base closing, $6.5 billion was spent, and $6.1 billion was saved. So we are spending more money than we are saving in closing down these bases. I have a quote here I want to read; it comes from a think tank, one of the defense policy think tanks. This to me is important. ``The big story here is not going to be saving money; the big story is going to be preparing the force for future threats by moving it to more logical locations.'' In other words, defending our borders, protecting our homeland, worry about defending this country is less important than spreading our troops and protecting the empire and expanding the empire and exposing us to greater danger. This is an issue of policy. This is an issue of process, and this is a red herring when you think you are saving money. We are not going to be saving money in this process. We are just going to be giving an excuse to build bases around the world. This is the time that we ought to reassess our policies and how we spend our money. This is why a 1-year delay is a perfect time to take time, stand back and figure out when we are going to get our troops home, when are we going to have a defense policy that defends this country and our borders rather than spreading ourselves so thinly around the world and building huge bases in foreign lands. That, to me, is the real issue. I hope we take deep consideration and support this amendment.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the issue of government funding of embryonic stem cell research is one of the most divisive issues facing the country. While I sympathize with those who see embryonic stem cell research as providing a path to a cure for the dreadful diseases that have stricken so many Americans, I strongly object to forcing those Americans who believe embryonic stem cell research is immoral to subsidize such research with their tax dollars. The main question that should concern Congress today is does the United States Government have the constitutional authority to fund any form of stem cell research. The clear answer to that question is no. A proper constitutional position would reject federal funding for stem cell research, while allowing the individual states and private citizens to decide whether to permit, ban, or fund this research. Therefore, I will vote against H.R. 810. Unfortunately, many opponents of embryonic stem cell research are disregarding the Constitution by supporting H.R. 2520, an ``acceptable'' alternative that funds umbilical-cord stem cell research. While this approach is much less objectionable than funding embryonic stem cell research, it is still unconstitutional. Therefore, I must also oppose H.R. 2520. Federal funding of medical research guarantees the politicization of decisions about what types of research for what diseases will be funded. Thus, scarce resources will be allocated according to who has the most effective lobby rather than allocated on the basis of need or even likely success. Federal funding will also cause researchers to neglect potential treatments and cures that do not qualify for federal funds. Ironically, an example of this process may be found in H.R. 2520; some research indicates that adult stem cells may be as useful or more useful to medical science than either embryonic or umbilical cord stem cells. In fact, the supporters of embryonic stem cell research may have a point when they question the effectiveness of umbilical cord stem cells for medical purposes. Yet, if H.R. 2520 becomes law, researchers will have an incentive to turn away from adult stem cell research in order to receive federal funds for umbilical cord stem cell research! Mr. Speaker, there is no question that H.R. 810 violates basic constitutional principles by forcing taxpayers to subsidize embryonic stem cell research. However, H.R. 2520 also exceeds Congress's constitutional authority and may even retard effective adult stem cell research. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote against both H.R. 810 and H.R. 2520.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a bill to postpone the 2005 round of military base closure and realignment. This bill would postpone the conclusion of the Realignment report issued by the Department of Defense on 13 May 2005, as well as any preceding or subsequent plans that may ultimately be enacted to close or realign military bases on U.S. territory. This bill will postpone such closures and realignments until a specific set of criteria have been fulfilled, including until both the Defense Department and Congress have had the opportunity to fully study the recommendations and their implications for the national security and defense of the United States. This round of base closure and realignment also should not go forward while we have hundreds of thousands of troops deployed overseas in major conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. The constant rotation of troops and other personnel to these major theaters of operations has caused great disruption, logistical strain, and terrible burdens on our servicemembers, their families, and the military itself. Also, we should not proceed with this round of base closures and realignments before the 2006 release of the Quadrennial Defense Review. Congress must have ample time to study the recommendations of the QDR before agreeing on any major closure and realignment strategy. To do otherwise just does not make any sense. Mr. Speaker, for these and other reasons I feel it is essential--for the strength of our military, the effectiveness of our defense, and the security of all Americans--that we postpone this round of BRAC closings until we are able to satisfy the critical criteria outlined in this bill. I hope my colleagues will join me by supporting this legislation and I hope for its speedy consideration on the House Floor.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am today introducing legislation to repeal the Selective Service Act and related parts of the United States Code. The Department of Defense, in response to calls to reinstate the draft, has confirmed that conscription serves no military need. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is on record citing the ``notable disadvantages'' of a military draft, adding, ``. . . there is not a draft. . . . There will not be a draft.'' This is only the most recent confirmation that the draft, and thus the Selective Service system, serves no military purpose. Obviously, if there is no military need for the draft, then there is no need for Selective Service registration. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, Selective Service registration is an outdated and outmoded system, which has been made obsolete by technological advances. In fact, in 1993, the Department of Defense issued a report stating that registration could be stopped ``with no effect on military mobilization and no measurable effect on the time it would take to mobilize, and no measurable effect on military recruitment.'' Yet the American taxpayer has been forced to spend over $500 million dollars on an outdated system ``with no measurable effect on military mobilization!'' Shutting down Selective Service will give taxpayers a break without adversely affecting military efforts. Shutting down Selective Service will also end a program that violates the very principals of individual liberty our nation was founded upon. The moral case against the draft was eloquently expressed by former President Ronald Regan in the publication Human Events in 1979: ``. . . it [conscription] 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.'' I hope all my colleagues join me in working to shut down this un- American relic of a bygone era and help realize the financial savings and the gains to individual liberties that can be achieved by ending Selective Service registration.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to enhance the health and liberty of American citizens by introducing the Consumers Access to Health Information Act of 2005. This act ensures consumers can receive truthful information about how foods and dietary supplements can cure, mitigate, and prevent specific diseases. The act does this simply by correcting an erroneous court decision and thus restoring congressional intent to allow consumers to have access to information regarding the health benefits of dietary supplements without government interference. In 1990, responding to the demands of the American people that the federal government respect consumers' right to receive information about the ways foods and dietary supplements can improve their health, Congress passed the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act. The intent of that act was to allow the manufacturers of foods and dietary supplements to provide consumers with accurate and specific information regarding the curative and preventive effects of foods and dietary supplements. However, the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, ignored repeated efforts by Congress to protect consumers' First Amendment rights to receive truthful information about the health benefits of foods and dietary supplements. Incredibly, in the case of Whitaker v. Thompson, 353 F.3d 947 (2004), rehearing den. 2004 U.S.D. App. LEXIS 4617 (D.C. Cir. March 9, 2004) the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit supported the FDA's interpretation of Congress's intent and rejected the clear restraints of the First Amendment by ruling that the FDA had the authority to censor information regarding the specific benefits of foods and dietary supplements. Mr. Speaker, under the D.C. Circuit's absurd interpretation of federal law, the only way food and drug manufacturers can transmit information about the health benefits of their products is by going through the lengthy and expensive FDA drug approval process. Because of this court decision, manufacturers are reluctant to provide all but the most general health information, thus ensuring that consumers remain ignorant about how they can cure or avoid diseases by making simple changes in their diet. There are numerous examples of how the FDA's grocery store censorship negatively impacts Americans' health. Several years ago, the FDA dragged manufacturers of Cholestin, a dietary supplement containing lovastatin, which is helpful in lowering cholesterol, into court. The FDA did not dispute the benefits of Cholestin. Instead, the FDA attempted to deny consumers access to this helpful product simply because the manufacturer did not submit Cholestin to the FDA's drug approval process. The FDA's treatment of the manufacturer of Cholestin is not an isolated example of how current FDA policy harms consumers. Even though coronary heart disease is the nation's number-one killer, the FDA waited nine years until it allowed consumers to learn about how consumption of foods and dietary supplements containing soluble fiber from the husk of psyllium seeds can reduce the risk of coronary heart disease. Thanks to the FDA, the American public is also prevented from learning about possible ways to prevent cancer, Alzheimer's, high blood pressure, urinary tract infection, and numerous other diseases. At a time when health care costs are rising it is absurd for the federal government to prevent Americans from learning about how they increase their chances of staying healthy by making simple changes in their diets. However, this bill is about more than physical health; it is about freedom. The First Amendment forbids Congress from abridging freedom of all speech, including commercial speech. The type of prior restraint the FDA exercises over these health claims has also been thought to be particularly repugnant to the First Amendment. In a free society, the federal government must not be allowed to prevent people from receiving information enabling them to make informed decisions about whether or not they will use dietary supplements or eat certain foods. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to take a step toward restoring freedom by cosponsoring the Consumer Access to Health Information Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, the Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act, (H.R. 1279), is the latest example of Congress disregarding its constitutional limitations in the name of ``getting tough on crime.'' Gang crime is certainly a serious issue in many parts of the country. However, unless criminal gangs are engaging in counterfeiting, treason, or piracy, the federal government has no jurisdiction over the criminal activities of gangs. In fact, by creating new federal crimes related to gang activities, but unrelated to one of the federal crimes enumerated in the Constitution, the new federal crimes and enhanced penalties in this bill usurp state and local authority. H.R. 1279 broadly defines ``criminal street gangs'' and ``gang activity.'' This is a major expansion of Federal criminal jurisdiction. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and former U.S. Attorney General Ed Meese, two men who no one has ever accused of being ``soft on crime,'' have both warned that, although creating more Federal crimes may make politicians feel good, it is neither constitutionally sound nor prudent. Rehnquist has stated that, ``[t]he 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's 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. Those who want the American criminal justice system to actually deliver justice should oppose H.R. I279 because it imposes ``mandatory minimum'' sentences for certain gang-related crimes. Mandatory minimum sentences impose a ``one-size-fits-all'' formula in place of the discretion of a judge, or jury, to weigh all the circumstances surrounding an individual's crime and decide on an appropriate punishment. Taking away judicial discretion over sentencing may represent a legislative usurpation of areas properly left to the judiciary. I have long been critical of judicial usurpation of legislative functions, and have introduced legislation using Congress's constitutional powers to rein in the judiciary. However, I recognize that Congress must make sure it does not overstep its constitutional authority by imposing legislative solutions on matters best resolved by the judicial branch. Mandatory minimums almost guarantee unjust sentences. Reverend Nicholas DiMarzio, Chairman of the Domestic Policy Committee of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, and Reverend Kerry Snyder, President of Catholic Charities USA, summed it up well in a letter to Congress opposing this bill: ``. . . rigid sentencing formulations could prevent judges from properly assessing an individual's culpability during the crime of other factors that have bearing on recidivism, thus sometimes resulting in harsh and inappropriate sentences.'' I am also concerned that removing authority over the prevention and punishment of gang crimes from state and local jurisdictions will prevent states and localities from coming up with innovative ways to prevent gang crimes. Gangs flourish for a multitude of reasons, and no federal ``one-size-fits-all'' program can address all the causes of gang crimes. States and localities should be left free to create the gang prevention and punishment programs that best meet their unique needs. Supporters of this bill make a good point that federal money is being wasted on ineffective ``prevention'' programs like the infamous ``midnight basketball'' program. However, H.R. 1279 in no way reduces funding for ineffective prevention programs. Instead, it spends more taxpayer money on unconstitutional crime programs. The sponsors of this bill could have attempted to stop wasting taxpayer funds on programs such as midnight basketball by defunding such prevention programs and using the funds to pay for the new programs created by H.R. 1279. Finally, I must oppose this bill because it expands the Federal death penalty. While I recognize that nothing in the Constitution forbids Federal, State, or local governments from imposing a death penalty, I have come to the conclusion that a consistent pro-life position requires opposition to any legislation imposing a Federal death penalty for unconstitutional Federal crimes. Mr. Speaker, I do not advocate Federal action to stop individual States from imposing a death penalty, I simply oppose compounding the damage done by creating new Federal crimes by making those crimes subject to a Federal death penalty. H.R. 1279 exceeds Congress's constitutional authority by creating new Federal crimes, thus further burdening the already overwhelmed Federal judiciary system and taking another step toward upending our constitutional system by turning the States into administrative districts of the Federal Government. This bill also creates unwise mandatory minimum sentences, usurping the sentencing decisions of judges and juries. Finally, H.R. 1279 raises serious moral issues by expanding the use of the Federal death penalty. Therefore, I must oppose H.R. 1279 and urge my colleagues to do same.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution. The idea that the United States Congress should demand that Nigeria deport a former president of Liberia to stand trial in a United Nations court in Liberia is absurd! I do not object to this legislation because I dispute the charges against Charles Taylor. Frankly, as a United States Congressman my authority does not extend to deciding whether a foreign leader has committed crimes in his own country. The charges may well be true. I do, however, dispute our authority as the United States Congress to demand that a foreign country transfer a former leader of a third country back to that country to stand trial before a United Nations kangaroo court. As the resolution itself cites, one top U.N. official, Jaques Klein, has already pronounced Taylor guilty, stating ``Charles Taylor is a psychopath and a killer.'' But the resolution concludes that ``Congress urges the Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to expeditiously transfer Charles Ghankay Taylor, former President of the Republic of Liberia, to the jurisdiction of the Special Court for Sierra Leone to undergo a fair and open trial. . .'' So it is probably safe to guess what kind of ``trial'' this will be--a Soviet-style show trial. The United Nations has no business conducting trials for anyone, regardless of the individual or the crime. It is the business of Liberia and Nigeria to determine the fate of Charles Taylor. If we in the United States wish to retain our own Constitutional protections, we must be steadfast in rejecting the idea that a one- world court has jurisdiction over anyone, anywhere, regardless of how heinous the accusations. The sovereignty we undermine will eventually be our own.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1185, the Federal Deposit Insurance Reform Act, expands the federal government's unconstitutional control over the financial services industry and raises taxes on all financial institutions. Furthermore, this legislation could increase the possibility of future bank failures. Therefore, I must oppose this bill. I primarily object to the provisions in H.R. 1185 which may increase the premiums assessed on participating financial institutions. These ``premiums,'' which are actually taxes, are the premier sources of funds for the Deposit Insurance Fund. This fund is used to bail out banks who experience difficulties meeting their commitments to their depositors. Thus, the deposit insurance system transfers liability for poor management decisions from those who made the decisions, to their competitors. This system punishes those financial institutions which follow sound practices, as they are forced to absorb the losses of their competitors. This also compounds the moral hazard problem created whenever government socializes business losses. In the event of a severe banking crisis, Congress will likely transfer funds from the general revenue into the Deposit Insurance Fund, which could make all taxpayers liable for the mistakes of a few. Of course, such a bailout would require separate authorization from Congress, but can anyone imagine Congress saying ``No'' to banking lobbyists pleading for relief from the costs of bailing out their weaker competitors? Government subsidies lead to government control, as regulations are imposed on the recipients of the subsidies in order to address the moral hazard problem. This is certainly the case in banking, which is one of the most heavily regulated industries in America. However, as George Kaufman, the John Smith Professor of Banking and Finance at Loyola University in Chicago, and co-chair of the Shadow Financial Regulatory Committee, pointed out in a study for the CATO Institutes, the FDIC's history of poor management exacerbated the banking crisis of the eighties and nineties. Professor Kaufman properly identifies a key reason for the FDIC's poor track record in protecting individual depositors: regulators have incentives to downplay or even cover-up problems in the financial system such as banking facilities. Banking failures are black marks on the regulators' records. In addition, regulators may be subject to political pressure to delay imposing sanctions on failing institutions, thus increasing the magnitude of the loss. Immediately after a problem in the banking industry comes to light, the media and Congress will inevitably blame it on regulators who were ``asleep at the switch.'' Yet, most politicians continue to believe that giving the very regulators whose incompetence (or worst) either caused or contributed to the problem will somehow prevent future crises! The presence of deposit insurance and government regulations removes incentives for individuals to act on their own to protect their deposits or even inquire as to the health of their financial institutions. After all, why should individuals be concerned with the health of their financial institutions when the federal government is insuring banks following sound practices and has insured their deposits? Finally, I would remind my colleagues that the federal deposit insurance program lacks constitutional authority. Congress' only mandate in the area of money, and banking is to maintain the value of the money. Unfortunately, Congress abdicated its responsibility over monetary policy with the passage of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, which allows the federal government to erode the value of the currency at the will of the central bank. Congress's embrace of fiat money is directly responsible for the instability in the banking system that created the justification for deposit insurance. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1185 imposes new taxes on financial institutions, forces sound institutions to pay for the mistakes of their reckless competitors, increases the chances of taxpayers being forced to bail out unsound financial institutions, reduces individual depositors' incentives to take action to protect their deposits, and exceeds Congress's constitutional authority. I therefore urge my colleagues to reject this bill. Instead of extending this federal program, Congress should work to prevent the crises which justify government programs like deposit insurance, by fulfilling our constitutional responsibility to pursue sound monetary policies.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the American Citizenship Amendment. Currently, any person born on American soil can claim American citizenship, regardless of the citizenship of that child's parents. This means that any alien who happens to give birth in the United States has just given birth to an American citizen, eligible for all the benefits and privileges afforded to citizens. Thus far the U.S. courts have asserted authority by interpreting the 14th Amendment to include the concept of birthright citizenship. However it is up to the U.S. Congress--and not the U.S. Supreme Court-- to define American citizenship. That is why, I am introducing this Constitutional Amendment clarifying that the happenstance of birth on U.S. soil does not a U.S. citizen make. This proposed Constitutional amendment restores the concept of American citizenship to that of our Founders. This legislation simply states that no child born in the United States whose mother and father do not possess citizenship or owe permanent allegiance to the United States shall be a citizen of the United States. It is essential to the future of our constitutional republic that citizenship be something of value, something to be cherished. It cannot be viewed as merely an express train into the welfare state.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, 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 almost 40 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 parental rights, this bill usurps States' rights by creating yet another Federal crime. Our Federal government is, constitutionally, a government of limited powers, article I, section 8, 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 10th 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. 748. H.R. 748 amends title 18, United States Code, to prohibit taking minors across State lines 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's 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 10th 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. 748.