Ron Paul

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to congratulate the Fort Bend Independent School District (ISD) for winning the award for having the best district-wide mock student election program in the nation from the American Association of School Administrators and the National Student/ Parent Mock Election. Fort Bend lSD's program is an innovative educational project combining resources from the social studies, math, and education technology departments to create an interactive website containing election resources, an online voting location, and a database of election results. Fort Bend students can use the database to study election results, create spreadsheets, and draw conclusions about the election process. The website also includes information for parents, including a link to the county registrar's office for voter registration. Another part of the program involved the county election board deputizing teachers so the teachers could register adults, including eligible high school students, to vote in the 2004 election. Each school within the Fort Bend ISD individualized its mock election by having candidates debate and the students decorate the polling places. Students also studied potential campaign strategies for the candidates they supported. Student participation were very strong, with over 40,000 votes cast. The curricula developed to analyze mock election results were made available to elementary, middle and high school students. According to the National Student/Parent Mock Election, which evaluates similar curricula nationwide, Fort Bend lSD's curricula was very strong. Particularly impressive was Fort Bend lSD's utilization of Microsoft Excel to analyze and generate summaries of the election results. Fort Bend lSD's mock student election project was an innovative use of technology and community support to educate children about the electoral process and thus prepare them to be active, and informed, citizens. I am proud to pay tribute to the teachers, administrators, parents, and especially the students of Fort Bend ISD for winning the award for the best mock student election project in the nation from the American Association of School Administrators and the National Student/ Parent Mock Election.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Due Process and Economic Competitiveness Restoration Act, which repeals Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Passed in the hysterical atmosphere surrounding the Enron and WorldCom bankruptcies, Sarbanes-Oxley was rushed into law by a Congress more concerned with doing something than with doing the right thing. Today, American businesses, workers, and investors are suffering as a result of Congress's eagerness to appear ``tough on corporate crime.'' Sarbanes-Oxley imposes costly new regulations on the financial services industry. These regulations are damaging America's capital markets by providing an incentive for small U.S. firms and foreign firms to deregister from U.S. stock exchanges. According to a study by the prestigious Wharton Business School, the number of American companies deregistering from public stock exchanges nearly tripled the year after Sarbanes-Oxley became law, while the New York Stock Exchange had only 10 new foreign listings in all of 2004. The post-Sarbanes-Oxley reluctance of small businesses and foreign firms to register on American stock exchanges is easily understood when one considers the costs this act imposes on businesses. According to a survey by Kron/Ferry International, Sarbanes-Oxley has cost Fortune 500 companies an average of $5.1 million in compliance expenses in 2004, while a study by the law firm of Foley and Lardner found that the act has increased the cost associated with being a publicly held company by 130 percent. Many of the major problems with Sarbanes-Oxley stem from Section 404 that requires that a Chief Executive Officer certify the accuracy of financial statements and that a company's outside auditors must ``attest to'' the soundness of the internal controls used in preparing the statements. The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board defines internal controls as ``controls over all significant accounts and disclosures in the financial statements.'' According to John Berlau, Warren Brookes Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the definition of internal controls is so broad that a CEO could possibly be found liable for not using the latest version of Windows! Financial analysts have identified Section 404 as the major reason why American corporations are hoarding cash instead of investing it in new ventures. Journalist Robert Novak, in his column of April 7, said that, ``[f]or more than a year, CEOs and CFOs have been telling me that 404 is a costly nightmare'' and ``ask nearly any business executive to name the biggest menace facing corporate America, and the answer is apt to be number 404 . . . a dagger aimed at the heart of the economy.'' Compounding the damage done to the economy by Sarbanes-Oxley is the harm the act does to constitutional liberties and due process. CEOs and CFOs can be held criminally liable, and subjected to up to 25 years in prison, for inadvertent errors. Laws criminalizing honest mistakes done with no intent to defraud are more typical of police states than free societies. I hope those who consider themselves ``civil libertarians'' will recognize the danger of imprisoning any citizens for inadvertent mistakes, put aside any prejudice against private businesses, and join my efforts to repel Section 404. Nowhere in the United States Constitution is the federal government given the authority to regulate the accounting standards of private corporations. These questions are to be resolved by private contracts between a company and its shareholders and by state and local regulations. I would remind my colleagues who are skeptical of the ability of markets and local law enforcement to protect against fraud that the market passed judgment on Enron, in the form of declining stock prices, before Congress even held the first hearing on the matter. My colleagues should also keep in mind that certain state attorneys general have been very aggressive in prosecuting financial crimes Far from fulfilling the promise of the authors of Sarbanes-Oxley that it would protect economic growth by creating a favorable investment climate, Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act has raised the costs of doing business, thus causing foreign companies to withdraw from American markets and retarding economic growth. By criminalizing inadvertent mistakes and exceeding Congress's constitutional authority, Section 404 also undermines the rule of law and individual liberty. I, therefore, urge my colleges to cosponsor the Due Process and Economic Competitiveness Restoration Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the American Justice for American Citizens Act, which exercises Congress's Constitutional authority to regulate the federal judiciary to ensure that federal judges base their decisions solely on American Constitutional, statutory, and traditional common law. Federal judges increasing practice of ``transjudicialism'' makes this act necessary. Transjudicialism is a new legal theory that encourages judges to disregard American law, including the United States Constitution, and base their decisions on foreign law. For example, Supreme Court justices have used international law to justify upholding race-based college admissions, overturning all state sodomy laws, and, most recently, to usurp state authority to decide the age at which criminals becomes subject to the death penalty. In an October 28, 2003 speech before the Southern Center for International Studies in Atlanta, Georgia, Justice O'Connor stated: ``[i]n ruling that consensual homosexual activity in one's home is constitutionally protected, the Supreme Court relied in part on a series of decisions from the European Court of Human Rights. I suspect that with time, we will rely increasingly on international and foreign law in resolving what now appear to be domestic issues, as we both appreciate more fully the ways in which domestic issues have an international dimension, and recognize the rich resources available to us in the decisions of foreign courts.'' This statement should send chills down the back of every supporter of Constitutional government. After all, the legal systems of many of the foreign countries that provide Justice O'Connor with ``rich resources'' for her decisions do not respect the same concepts of due process, federalism, and even the presumption of innocence that are fundamental to the American legal system. Thus, harmonizing American law with foreign law could undermine individual rights and limited, decentralized government. There has also been speculation that transjudicialism could be used to conform American law to treaties, such as the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the Senate has not ratified. Mr. Speaker, some of these treaties have not been ratified because of concerns regarding their effects on traditional American legal, political, and social institutions. Judges should not be allowed to implement what could be major changes in American society, short-circuit the democratic process, and usurp the Constitutional role of the Senate to approve treaties, by using unratifed treaties as the bases of their decisions. All federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, take an oath to obey and uphold the Constitution. The Constitution was ordained and ratified by the people of the United States to provide a charter of governance in accord with fixed and enduring principles, not to empower federal judges to impose the transnational legal elites' latest theories on the American people. Mr. Speaker, the drafters of the Constitution gave Congress the power to regulate the jurisdiction of federal courts precisely so we could intervene when the federal judiciary betrays its responsibility to uphold the Constitution and American law. Congress has a duty to use this power to ensure that judges base their decisions solely on American law. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to do their Constitutional duty to ensure that American citizens have American justice by cosponsoring the American Justice for American Citizens Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a concurrent resolution expressing the sense of the Congress that the United States should withdraw from the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Mr. Speaker, in 1984 President Ronald Reagan withdrew the United States from membership in UNESCO, citing egregious financial mis- management, blatant anti-Americanism, and UNESCO's general anti-freedom policies and programs. President Reagan was correct in identifying UNESCO as an organization that does not act in America's interest, and he was correct in questioning why the U.S. should fund 25 percent of UNESCO's budget for that privilege. Since the United States decided to re-join UNESCO in 2003, Congress has appropriated funds to cover some 25 percent of the organization's entire budget. But what are we getting for this money? UNESCO has joined the ``International Network for Cultural Policy'' in seeking a UN ``global diversity initiative'' by this year that would restrict US export of some $70 billion worth of movies, television programs, music recordings, and other cultural products. UNESCO sponsors the International Baccalaureate program, which seeks to indoctrinate US primary and secondary school students through its ``universal curriculum'' for teaching global citizenship, peace studies and equality of world cultures. This program, started in Europe, is infiltrating the American school system. UNESCO has been fully supportive of the United Nations' Population Fund in its assistance to China's brutal coercive population control program. UNESCO has designated 47 U.N. Biosphere Reserves in the United States covering more than 70 million acres, without Congressional consultation. Continued membership in UNESCO is a blatant assault on our sovereignty and an inexcusable waste of U.S. taxpayer dollars. Mr. Speaker, I hope all members of this body will join me in calling for an end to U.S. membership in the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization by co-sponsoring this legislation.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation that will remove current, and prohibit future, embargoes on the export of food, medicine, or medical devices. Embargoes on these items, as we have seen time and time again, do not have the desired policy effect on the targeted country. In fact, they only punish the innocent and most vulnerable people in these countries. Does anyone believe that denying the people of a foreign country food or medicine because of our quarrel with their leader will make them more sympathetic toward the United States? We are fond of talking about ``humanitarian'' treatment in foreign countries. But it is our policy of embargoing the export of food and medicine to certain countries that is most un-humanitarian. We need to practice what we preach. Also, it is very important to remember the harm we do to our own citizens when we deny them the right to sell their products to whoever they like. It is not very humanitarian to deny our own citizens the right to their livelihood because our political leadership does not get along with the political leadership of another country. Mr. Speaker, we do ourselves no favors in denying our citizens the right to export the essentials for life to citizens abroad. And we do no real harm to leaders abroad, who actually benefit by our sanction policies, as they provide a convenient scapegoat for their own economic failures. The fact is that trade promotes peace. Forcibly cutting off trade relations with another country promotes militarism and conflict. I hope my colleagues will join me by co-sponsoring this legislation.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a friend and patriot, Dr. Andrew L. Messenger, of Riverdale, Michigan. As a physician, I know Dr. Messenger is the type of doctor all of us would want to have to take care of us. He is capable, loves his work, genuinely cares about his patients, and is always available if someone needs him. In fact, he loves being a doctor so much that he did not retire until this past year at age 83. Every day he would wake up early to be at the office by 6:45 a.m. He knew that many of his working patients preferred to come in early so he made himself available. Dr. Messenger felt that if he as a doctor was unavailable, he was worthless. Dr. Messenger also applied this principle to being a father. Leaving the house early in the morning allowed him to spend time with his family in the evenings. Most nights and weekends were spent hunting, fishing, playing at the local playground, and attending athletic events with his six children. When Dr. Messenger returned home from work, the whole family would sit around the dinner table and discuss personal and newsworthy events of the day. After dinner was done and homework finished, Dr. Messenger would take the kids out to play. Baseball and going to the park were two of the Messenger family's favorite after dinner activities. His personal involvement in the lives of his children paid off. He has six successful children, three of whom are doctors. Dr. Messenger lives by the principals of honesty, hard work, and caring for his fellow man, and took great care to instill these same principles into his children. After raising a family and running a respected practice, Dr. Messenger continues to make a difference not only in his local community and across the United States through his generous support of the Leadership Institute. When most men embrace the rewards retirement offers, Dr. Messenger pushes on to make a difference in the lives of his countrymen. Dr. Messenger's support of the Leadership Institute gives young people and working professionals the practical tools necessary to advance liberty and protect freedom. Too often freedom has few friends on our college campuses, in our state houses, and in our capitol. Dr. Messenger is providing everyday citizens with the resources necessary to defend the dream of limited government George Washington and the rest of our founding fathers created when they wrote our constitution. Clearly, Dr. Messenger has not only contributed to society by raising six successful children, he has made provisions for future generations through investing in the long-term mission of the Leadership Institute. Thank you, Dr. Messenger, for investing in the lives of the future leaders of this country through your faithful and generous support of the Leadership Institute.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. I thank the chairman for bringing this resolution to the floor, and I strongly support it. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues in paying tribute to the life and legacy of Pope John Paul II. Pope John Paul II was one of the great religious leaders of modern times and an eloquent champion of human freedom and dignity. Unlike all too many misguided religious leaders, the Pope understood that liberty, both personal and economic, is a necessary condition for the flourishing of human virtue. The Pope's commitment to human dignity, grounded in the teachings of Christ, led him to become one of the most eloquent spokespersons for the consistent ethic of life, exemplified by his struggle against abortion, war, euthanasia, and the death penalty. Unfortunately, few in American politics today adhere to the consistent ethic of life. Thus we see some who cheered the Pope's stand against the war and the death penalty while downplaying or even openly defying his teachings against abortion and euthanasia. Others who cheered the Pope's opposition to abortion and euthanasia were puzzled or even hostile to his opposition to war. Many of these pro-life supporters of war tried to avoid facing the inherent contradictions in their position by distorting the just war doctrine which the Pope properly interpreted as denying sanction to the Iraq war. One prominent talk show host even suggested that the Pope was the enemy of the United States for this position. In conclusion, I am pleased to pay tribute to Pope John Paul II. I would encourage those who wish to honor the memory of John Paul to reflect on his teachings regarding war and the sanctity of life and consider the inconsistencies in claiming to be pro-life but supporting the senseless killing of innocent people that inevitably accompanies militarism, or in claiming to be pro-peace and pro-compassion but supporting the legal killing of the unborn.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. On another subject dealing more with foreign policy, I would like to address what is going on in Iraq. Mr. Speaker, whenever the administration is challenged regarding the success of the Iraq War or regarding the false information used to justify the war, the retort is, ``Aren't the people of Iraq better off?'' The insinuation is that anyone who expresses any reservations about supporting the war is an apologist for Saddam Hussein and every ruthless act he ever committed. The short answer to the question of whether the Iraqis are better off is that it is still too early to declare, ``Mission accomplished.'' But more importantly, we should be asking if the mission was ever justified or legitimate in the first place. Is it legitimate to justify an action that some claim yielded good results, if the means used to achieve them are illegitimate? Do the ends justify the means? The information Congress was given prior to the war was false. There were no weapons of mass destruction; the Iraqis did not participate in the 9/11 attacks; Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were enemies and did not conspire against the United States; our security was not threatened; we were not welcomed by cheering Iraqi crowds as we were told; and Iraqi oil has not paid any of the bills. Congress failed to declare war, but instead passed a wishy-washy resolution citing U.N. resolutions as justifications for our invasion. After the fact, now we are told the real reason for the Iraqi invasion was to spread democracy, and that the Iraqis are better off. Anyone who questions the war risks being accused of supporting Saddam Hussein, disapproving of democracy, or ``supporting terrorists.'' It is implied that lack of enthusiasm for the war means one is not patriotic and does not support the troops. In other words, one must march lockstep with the consensus or be ostracized. However, conceding that the world is better off without Saddam Hussein is a far cry from endorsing the foreign policy of our own government that led to regime change. In time it will become clear to everyone that support for the policies of preemptive war and interventionist nation-building will have much greater significance than the removal of Saddam Hussein itself. The interventionist policy should be scrutinized more carefully than the purported benefits of Saddam Hussein's removal from power. The real question ought to be this: Are we better off with a foreign policy that promotes regime change while justifying war with false information? Shifting the stated goals as events unravel should not satisfy those who believe war must be a last resort used only when our national security is threatened. How much better off are the Iraqi people? Hundreds of thousands of former inhabitants of Fallujah are not better off with their city flattened and their homes destroyed. Hundreds of thousands are not better off living with foreign soldiers patrolling their streets, curfews, and the loss of basic utilities. A hundred thousand dead Iraqis, as estimated by the Lancet Medical Journal, certainly are not better off. Better to be alive under Saddam Hussein than lying cold in some grave. Praise for the recent election in Iraq has silenced many critics of the war. Yet the election was held under martial law implemented by a foreign power, mirroring the conditions we rightfully condemned as a farce when carried out in the old Soviet system and more recently in Lebanon. Why is it that what is good for the goose is not always good for the gander? Our government fails to recognize that legitimate elections are the consequence of freedom and that an artificial election does not create freedom. In our own history, we note that freedom was achieved first and elections followed, not the other way around. One news report claimed that the Shiites actually received 56 percent of the vote, but such an outcome could not be allowed for it would preclude a coalition of the Kurds and the Shiites from controlling the Sunnis and preventing a theocracy from forming. This reminds us of the statements made months ago by Secretary Rumsfeld when asked about a Shiite theocracy emerging from a majority democratic vote, and he assured us that would not happen. Democracy, we know, is messy and needs tidying up a bit when we do not like the results. Some have described Baghdad, and especially the Green Zone, as being surrounded by unmanageable territory. The highways in and out of Baghdad are not yet secure. Many anticipate a civil war will break out sometime soon in Iraq. Some claim it is already under way. We have seen none of the promised oil production that was supposed to provide grateful Iraqis with the means to repay us for the hundreds of billions of dollars that American taxpayers have spent on the war. Some have justified our continuous presence in the Persian Gulf since 1990 because of a need to protect ``our'' oil. Yet now that Saddam Hussein is gone and the occupation supposedly is a great success, gasoline at the pumps is reaching record highs, approaching $3 a gallon. Though the Iraqi election has come and gone, there still is no government in place and the next election, supposedly the real one, is not likely to take place on time. Do the American people have any idea who really won the dubious election at all? The Oil-for-Food scandal under Saddam Hussein has been replaced by corruption in the distribution of U.S. funds to rebuild Iraq. Already there is an admitted $9 billion discrepancy in the accounting of these funds. The overbilling by Halliburton is no secret, but the process has not changed. The whole process is corrupt. It just does not make sense to most Americans to see their tax dollars used to fight an unnecessary and unjustified war. First, they see American bombs destroying a country, and then American taxpayers are required to rebuild it. Today it is easier to get funding to rebuild infrastructure in Iraq than it is to build a bridge in the United States. Indeed, we cut the Army Corps of Engineers' budget and operate on the cheap with our veterans as the expenditures in Iraq skyrocket. One question the war promoters do not want to hear asked, because they do not want to face up to the answer, is this: Are Christian Iraqis better off today since we decided to build a new Iraq through force of arms? The answer is plainly, no. Sure, there are 800,000 Christians living in Iraq, but under Saddam Hussein they were free to practice their religion. Tariq Aziz, a Christian, served in Saddam Hussein's cabinet as foreign minister, something that would never happen in Saudi Arabia, Israel, or any other Middle Eastern country. Today, the Christian churches in Iraq are under attack and Christians are no longer safe. Many Christians have been forced to flee Iraq and migrate to Syria. It is strange that the human rights advocates in the U.S. Congress have expressed no concern for the persecution now going on against Christians in Iraq. Both the Sunni and the Shiite Muslims support the attacks on the Christians. In fact, persecuting Christians is one of the few areas in which they agree; the other being the removal of all foreign forces from Iraqi soil. Considering the death, destruction, and continued chaos in Iraq, it is difficult to accept the blanket statement that the Iraqis all feel much better off with the U.S. in control rather than Saddam Hussein. Security in the streets and criminal violence are not anywhere near being under control. But there is another question that is equally important: Are the American people better off because of the Iraq war? One thing for sure, the 1,500-plus dead American soldiers are not better off. The nearly 20,000 injured or sickened American troops are not better off. The families, the wives, the husbands, children, parents, and friends of those who lost so much are not better off. The families and the 40,000 troops who were forced to reenlist against their will, a de facto draft, are not feeling better off. They believe they have been deceived by their enlistment agreements. The American taxpayers are not better off having spent over $200 billion to pursue this war, with billions yet to be spent. The victims of the inflation that always accompanies a guns-and-butter policy are already getting a dose of what will become much worse. Are our relationships with the rest of the world better off? I would say no. Because of the war, our alliances with the Europeans are weaker than ever. The anti-American hatred among a growing number of Muslims around the world is greater than ever. This makes terrorist attacks more likely than they were before the invasion. Al Qaeda recruiting has accelerated. Iraq is being used as a training ground for the al Qaeda terrorists, which it never was under Hussein's rule. So as our military recruitment efforts suffer, Osama bin Laden benefits by attracting pre-terrorist volunteers. Oil was approximately $27 a barrel before the war; now it is more than twice that. I wonder who benefits from this? Because of the war, fewer dollars are available for real national security and defense of this country. Military spending is up, but the way the money is spent distracts from true national defense and further undermines our credibility around the world. The ongoing war's lack of success has played a key role in diminishing morale in our military services. Recruitment is sharply down and most branches face shortages of troops. Many young Americans rightly fear a coming draft, which will be required if we do not reassess and change the unrealistic goals of our foreign policy. The appropriations for the war are essentially off-budget and obscure, but contribute nonetheless to the runaway deficit and increase in the national debt. If these trends persist, inflation with economic stagnation will be the inevitable consequences of a misdirected policy. One of the most significant consequences in times of war that we ought to be concerned about is the inevitable loss of personal liberty. Too often in the patriotic nationalism that accompanies armed conflict, regardless of the cause, there is a willingness to sacrifice personal freedoms in pursuit of victory. The real irony is that we are told we go hither and yon to fight for freedom and our Constitution, while carelessly sacrificing the very freedoms here at home we are supposed to be fighting for. It makes no sense. This willingness to give up hard-fought personal liberties has been especially noticeable in the atmosphere of the post-September 11 war on terrorism. Security has replaced liberty as our main political goal, damaging the American spirit. Sadly, the whole process is done in the name of patriotism and in a spirit of growing militant nationalism. These attitudes and fears surrounding the 9/11 tragedy and our eagerness to go to war in the Middle East against countries not responsible for the attacks have allowed a callousness to develop in our national psyche that justifies torture and rejects due process of law for those who are suspects and not convicted criminals. We have come to accept preemptive war as necessary, constitutional, and morally justifiable. Starting a war without a proper declaration is now of no concern to most Americans or the U.S. Congress. Let us hope and pray the rumors of an attack on Iran in June by U.S. Armed Forces are wrong. A large segment of the Christian community and its leadership think nothing of rationalizing war in the name of a religion that prides itself on the teachings of the Prince of Peace, who instructed us that blessed are the peacemakers, not the warmongers. We casually accept our role as world policemen and believe we have a moral obligation to practice nation-building in our image regardless of the number of people who die in the process. We have lost our way by rejecting the beliefs that made our country great. We no longer trust in trade, friendship, peace, the Constitution, and the principle of neutrality while avoiding entangling alliances with the rest of the world. Spreading the message of hope and freedom by setting an example for the world has been replaced by a belief that the use of armed might is the only practical tool to influence the world. And we have accepted, as the only superpower, the principle of initiating war against others. In the process, Congress and the people have endorsed a usurpation of their own authority, generously delivered to the executive and judicial branches, not to mention international government bodies. The concept of national sovereignty is now seen as an issue that concerns only the fringe in our society. Protection of life and liberty must once again become the issue that drives political thought in this country. If this goal is replaced by an effort to promote world government, use force to plan the economy, regulate the people, and police the world against the voluntary desires of the people, it can be done only with the establishment of a totalitarian state. There is no need for that. It is up to Congress and the American people to decide our fate, and there is still time to correct our mistakes.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today in this Special Order I want to address two subjects, the first being the ordeal of Terri Schiavo and the right-to-life issue. Mr. Speaker, clearly no one wins in the legal and political battles over the death of Terri Schiavo. Although it has been terribly politicized, a valuable debate has emerged. This debate is not about abortion or euthanasia in general, nor about death in the abstract. It is about an individual's right to life and the value of life itself. Without concern for the life of each, individual liberty is meaningless and indefensible. This debate deals with the passive treatment of the critically and terminally ill. This type of decision is manageable most of the time without government interference, but circumstances in this case made it difficult to determine proper guardianship. The unprecedented level of government involvement, questions about which branch of government had the ultimate say, and what the explicit intent of the patient was brought national attention to what was otherwise a family conflict. Terri Schiavo is a unique case, and, unfortunately, her fate ended up in the hands of the lawyers, the judges and the legislators. The media certainly did their part in disrupting her final days. In a free society, the doctor and the patient, or his or her designated spokesperson, make the decision, short of using violence, in dealing with death and dying issues. The government stays out of it. This debate, though, shows that one life is indeed important. It is not an esoteric subject. It is a real life involved and a personal issue we cannot ignore, especially in this age of Medicare, with government now responsible for most of the medical bills. We are rapidly moving toward a time when these decisions will be based on the cost of care alone, since government pays all the bills under national health care. As we defer to the state for our needs, and parental power is transferred to government, it is casually expected that government will be making more and more of these decisions. This has occurred in education, general medical care and psychological testing. The government now can protect the so-called right of a teenager to have an abortion, sometimes paid for by the government, without notifying the parents. Free-market medicine is not perfect, but it is the best system to sort out these difficult problems, and it did so for years. Eventually government medicine surely will ignore the concern for a single patient as a person, and instead, a computer program and cost analysis will make the determination. It will be said to be more efficient, though morally unjustified, to allow a patient to die by court order rather than permitting family and friends to assume responsibility for the cost of keeping patients alive. There is plenty of hypocrisy to go around on both sides of this lingering and prolonged debate. In this instance, we heard some very sound arguments from the left defending States rights and family responsibility while criticizing the Federal Government involvement. I am anxious for the day when those who made these arguments join me in defending the Constitution and States rights, especially the 9th and 10th amendment, on many other economic and social issues. I will not hold my breath. More importantly, where are those who rightfully condemn congressional meddling in the Schiavo case because of federalism and separation of powers on the issue of abortion? These same folks strongly defend Roe v. Wade and the so-called constitutional right to abort healthy human fetuses at any stage. There is no hesitation to demand support of this phony right from both Congress and the Federal courts. Not only do they demand Federal legal protection for abortion, they insist that abortion foes be forced to fund this act that many of them equate with murder. It is too bad that philosophic consistency and strict adherence to the Constitution are not a high priority for many Members, but perhaps this flexibility in administering the rule of law helps create problems such as we faced in the Schiavo ordeal. Though the left produced some outstanding arguments for the Federal Government staying out of this controversy, they frequently used an analogy that could never persuade those of us who believe in a free society guided by the constraints of the Constitution. They argued that if conservatives who supported prolonging Terri's life would only spend more money on welfare, they would demonstrate sincere concern for the right to life. This is false logic and does nothing to build the case for a local government solution to a feeding tube debate. First, all wealth transfers depend on an authoritarian state willing to use lethal force to satisfy the politicians' notion of an unachievable fair society. Robbing Peter to pay Paul, no matter how well intentioned, can never be justified. It is theft plain and simple and morally wrong. Actually, welfare is antiprosperity so it cannot be prolife. Too often good intentions are motivated only by the good that someone believes will result from the transfer program. They never ask who must pay, who must be threatened, who must be arrested and imprisoned. They never ask whether the welfare funds taken by forcible taxation could have helped someone in a private or voluntary way. Practically speaking, welfare rarely works. The hundreds of billions of dollars spent on the war on poverty over the last 50 years has done little to eradicate poverty. Matter of fact, worthwhile studies show that poverty is actually made worse by government efforts to eradicate poverty. Certainly the whole system does nothing to build self-esteem, and more often than not does exactly the opposite. My suggestion to my colleagues who did argue convincingly that Congress should not be involved in the Schiavo case is please consider using these same arguments consistently, and avoid the false accusation that if one opposes increases in welfare, one is not prolife. Being proliberty and pro-Constitution is indeed being prolife, as well as proprosperity. Conservatives, on the other hand, are equally inconsistent in their arguments for life. There is little hesitation by the conservative right to come to Congress to promote their moral agenda, even when it is not within the jurisdiction of the Federal Government to do so. Take, for instance, the funding of faith-based charities. The process is of little concern to conservatives if their agenda is met by passing more Federal laws and increasing spending. Instead of concentrating on the repeal of Roe v. Wade and eliminating Federal judiciary authority over issues best dealt with at the State level, more Federal laws are passed which, strictly speaking, should not be the prerogative of the Federal Government. The biggest shortcoming of the Christian right position is its adamancy for protecting life in its very early, late and weakened stages, while enthusiastically supporting aggressive war that results in hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths. While the killing of the innocent unborn represents a morally decadent society, and all life deserves an advocate, including Terri Schiavo, promoting a policy of deadly sanctions and all-out war against a nation that committed no act of aggression against us cannot come close to being morally consistent or defendable under our Constitution. The one issue generally ignored in the Schiavo debate is the subtle influence the cost of care for the dying had on the debate. Government- paid care clouds the issue, and it must be noted that the courts ruled out any privately paid care for Terri. It could be embarrassing in a government-run nursing home to see some patients receiving extra care from families while others are denied the same. However, as time goes on, the economics of care will play even a greater role since under socialized medicine the state makes all the decisions based on affordability. Then there will be no debate, as we just witnessed in the case of Terri Schiavo. Having practiced medicine in simpler times, agonizing problems like we just witnessed in this case did not arise. Yes, similar medical decisions were made and have been made for many, many years, but lawyers were not involved, nor the courts, nor the legislators, nor any part of the government; only the patient, the patient's family and the doctor. No one would have dreamed of making a Federal case of the dying process. A society and a government that lose respect for life help create dilemmas of this sort. Today there is little respect for life; witness the number of abortions performed each year. There is little respect for liberty; witness the rules and laws that regulate our every move. There is little respect for peace; witness our eagerness to initiate war to impose our will on others. Tragically, government financing of the elderly, out of economic necessity, will usher in an age of euthanasia. The accountants already have calculated that if the baby-boomer generation is treated to allow maximum longevity without quality of life concerns, we are talking about $7 trillion in additional medical costs. Economists will determine the outcome, and personal decisions will vanish. National health care, of necessity, will always conflict with personal choices. Compounding the cost problems that will lead to government-ordered euthanasia is the fact that costs always skyrocket in government-run programs. This is true whether it is a $300 hammer for the Pentagon or an emergency room visit for a broken toe, and in addition, deficit financing, already epidemic because of our flawed philosophy of guns and butter, always leads to inflation when a country operates on a paper money system. Without a renewal in the moral fiber of the country and respect for the constitutional rule of law, we can expect a lot more and worse problems than we witnessed in the case of Terri Schiavo. When dying and medical care becomes solely a commercial event, we will long for the days of debating what was best for Terri. Hopefully this messy debate will lead more Members to be convinced that all life is precious, that family and patient wishes should be respected, and that government jurisprudence and financing fall far short of providing a just solution in these difficult matters. Who's Better Off?

Mr. PAUL

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

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few points regarding the unintended consequences of our foreign policy, as well as what might happen in Lebanon. It has been said about our administration that we hope the Lebanese people will be able to express their view at the ballot box through free elections without interference and outside intimidation. That sounds like a pretty good suggestion, with the conclusion by the administration that when there is outside interference the elections are unreliable. Once again, I ask the question, does that not raise the question of whether or not the elections in Iraq are as reliable, as is supposed? Also, President Bush said that these elections must take place without external forces, and all the troops must be out. The UN resolution calls for the troops out as well as the security forces, but the resolution also calls for disarming the people of Lebanon. In other words, this resolution takes the position that we should go in Lebanon and repeal the Lebanese Second Amendment rights so that nobody has any guns. I just see that as an interference that is going to lead to trouble. We see civil strife precipitating a civil war in Iraq, and I think what our involvement here now is liable to lead to that type of situation, rather than peace and prosperity and elections. It is said that this has all come out from the murder and killing of Hariri, and most people now just assume that the government of Syria had something to do with that. Yet there is no evidence for that. There is absolutely zero benefit for the Syrian government to have killed Hariri. But there is a theory that some of the radical Muslims in Syria that object to Assad, because he is too moderate, because he endorsed the Persian Gulf War and because he takes some of our prisoners and he participates in the interrogations of our prisoners, that he is seen as too liberal, too friendly with the West, and some suppose that that could have been the reason that the murder had occurred, believing that it would bring down the government of Assad. Now, that could be an unintended consequence, that consequence that could have a great deal of significance, and that is that the radicals end up taking over, some individuals more radical than Assad, end up taking over Syria, which is always the possibility. But too often these unintended consequences occur and then we do not know how to respond to them. In Iraq in January of this year there was some polling done, an expression by the people on what they thought about foreign occupation. Eighty-two percent of the Sunnis, I guess understandably so, said that all foreign troops ought to leave, and 69 percent of the Shiites said all foreign troops ought to leave. I wonder why that is not important to anybody? Instead, we are talking about occupation for years, about building 14 bases in Iraq. How long do we stay in these countries and why is it so necessary for us to be telling other people what to do and when to do it and how to do it and stirring up nothing but anti-American sentiment, while at the same time, even though our goals may be well- intentioned, they are never achieved? We just do not achieve them. And to think that the election under the conditions that we are condemning in Lebanon is the salvation, is the evidence that we are having tremendous achievement, I think is something that we are just pulling the wool over our eyes. John Adams gave us some pretty good advice about what we should do overseas. And I think that when we have resolutions like this, and we do have them continuously, and we have done them for decades. It was a preliminary to our invasion of Iraq starting specifically in 1988; But Adams advised, he made a suggestion and he made a statement, he says: ``America goes not abroad seeking monsters to destroy.'' That statement is so appropriate. It looks like we are just looking for problems; and since the results are so poor and we cannot afford it, once again, I want to state my position that I am suggesting not so much that I know or we know exactly what is best for other people. It is that precisely we do not know and we do not have the authority, the moral, the legal, the constitutional authority to do what we do. And besides, it is a threat to our national security. Jefferson's suggestion was for peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations and entangling alliances with none. And we have way too many entangling alliances, making these huge commitments which will come to an end not because anybody is going to pay much attention to what I say, but they will come to an end because this country is on the verge of bankruptcy. We cannot continue to raise our national debt by $650 billion a year and pretend that we can police the world and at the same time increase entitlements here at home. So one day we will have to face up to these realities, and it will all come to an end. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PAUL of Texas

Mr. PAUL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I do want to make one point about the resolution. The statement toward the ends says: The President should direct the United States Representative to the United Nations to present and secure reports for the United Nations Security Council classifying Lebanon as a captive country in calling for the immediate release of Lebanese detainees in Syria and Lebanon. Now that is pretty interesting that we are going to tell them who they can release and who they should release. But the question I have, and maybe the sponsors of the resolution could answer this: Will that include that we insist that they release the prisoners that we have sent to Syria? Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, 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. Speaker, I have taken the time in opposition to this resolution not so much to object to the well-intended notions of the gentlewoman and the promotion of freedom and liberty. It is just that I do not think this is going to achieve it. As a matter of fact, when we pursue resolutions like this and a more aggressive foreign policy of telling other countries what to do, I see it as more of a threat to our security rather than helping our security. I, for one, would admit I personally do not know what is best for the Lebanese and the Syrians, the Iraqis, or anybody else in the region; but I would argue the case that traditionally in this country up until probably the past 100 years, we took a different position on foreign policy. We took a position of nonintervention, one where we strived for neutrality, and we argued the case that we did not have any business in the internal affairs of other nations. No matter how well intended, there always seem to be ramifications. There seem to be unintended consequences. There seems to be a condition called ``blow-back,'' where it comes back and ends up where we suffer more than anybody else. For instance, we are in Iraq right now with all these good intentions. We have been there for a couple of years. We have spent over $200 billion, and this week they came out with a survey and they talked about the most dangerous city in the world and where security is the worst, and that city is not Beirut. In the last 2 years, every one of us would have rather have been in Beirut than we would have been in Iraq. And yet we have 140,000 troops there protecting the Iraqis and promoting freedom and liberty and elections, and it sounds good. But I think if we are honest with ourselves, the results are not nearly as wonderful as we would like them to be. The other thing that concerns me is that we lose credibility when we talk about what we want and what we will impose on other nations, because when we are claiming that the Lebanese cannot possibly have elections with the presence of foreign troops, at the same time we daily hear the bragging about the great election in Iraq where we had these 140,000 troops and total martial law in order for an election to take place. I am all for the elections, and I am a strong supporter of self-determination; but I do not correlate that with our policies. We saw demonstrations, first a little at a demonstration orchestrated in support of getting Syria out of Lebanon, and then there was a response to that where 500,000 showed up supporting Hezbollah claiming they supported Syria, and then of course following that there was a much bigger demonstration. So the people have had freedom to express themselves. But the one thing about all the demonstrations, we never saw a sign that said, America, come save us, come in here, tell us what to do, tell us what to do with our elections. They have had elections going on for you in Lebanon without any violence directed against Syrian troops as we see daily in Iraq. They have an election coming up in May. It has been scheduled all along. It is not like they have been avoiding them. We complain a lot about the Syrians being there, and if I have a personal preference, since I believe in self-determination, I would have the troops out just as I would have our troops out of most other places. But I would have foreign troops out of the Golan Heights. Why are we so excited about the Syrian troops, who were invited by the Lebanese Government? Why are we not excited about foreign troops in the Golan Heights and in the over 100 countries where that we have troops? So I think we lose credibility. I think the Arab people just laugh at us and say, oh, yes, they are for these wonderful elections, and they have got to get these troops out; and at the same time we have troops all over the place. The Syrians went into Lebanon in 1976, and if we go back and look at history, it was at the urging of the Government of the United States because there was about to be an election. And at that time, it was perceived that the election would undermine the minorities, the Christians and the Druse. So, therefore, it was in our interest at that time to interfere with the election, just as we have interfered so many times since then over the world. Just think of the elected leader in 1953 in Iran, the elected leader, Mossadeq. But he did not follow what we wanted him to do with regards to oil. So what did we do? We sent in the CIA. We overthrew him, and then we had our puppet government, the Shah, for 25 years, which did nothing more than provide fodder for the radicals, and we radicalized the ayatollahs against us. In a conversation with a veteran of the CIA, an expert in this region, he explained, at least he sincerely believed, that we did a tremendous favor for Osama bin Laden, and that is to go into Iraq, expose ourselves, and then create the chaos of Iraq. Where there was no al Qaeda before, it is now a haven for al Qaeda. It has served as a recruiting ground for al Qaeda. So no matter how well the intentions are, we should look at the conclusions; what finally happens. Our problem very simply comes from the violation of the basic principle that we should follow, and that is that we should be friends with nations and trade with nations, and that we should be neutral in foreign affairs, because it does not serve our interests. It costs a lot of money and it costs a lot of credibility and it costs a lot of lives. Just think of what the interference in Iraq has cost us: Over 1,500 men; over 11,000 battle casualties, with another 9,000 sent home because of illness; and over $200 billion. And there is no end in sight. Today we had to pass another $82 billion, which was not put into the budget, to continue this process. My argument is it comes not because we make a misjudgment, not that this resolution is simply a misjudgment of the day; it just is that is part of the misjudgments that we have made now for many, many decades in overall foreign policy. It is fully endorsed. The American people certainly have not been up in arms about it and have endorsed it, along with the large majority in the Congress. But long term it does not work. Just look how long the American people supported Vietnam, until finally they had to throw up their arms and demand an end to the senseless war. But, ultimately, not only do the people get very angry and upset and frustrated with the loss of life, there are economic limitations to this as well, and that is something that I do not think anybody here hardly pays any attention to; that is how long can we continue to spend this money and not have this come back to really haunt us economically? The 1960s came back to haunt us in the 1970s, and the basic financial condition of this country is much worse than it was in the 1970s. Yet there is no hesitation. I see resolutions like this as not restraint, but encouragement, without looking back and seeing how we participated in contributing to the problems that we have in the Middle East. So I am making the suggestion, why do we not think about overall policy with consistency, and think almost what is in our best interests? I would like to read a quote from Ronald Reagan, because he was involved in Lebanon and our government was involved in the early 1980s. In his memoirs he admits it was a serious mistake, and we ought to take advice from Ronald Reagan on what he said about his misadventure in Lebanon. We were in there in 1983. This is what he writes in his memoirs several years later. ``Perhaps we didn't appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle. Perhaps the idea of a suicide car bomber committing mass murder to gain instant entry into paradise was so foreign to our own values and consciousness that it did not create in us the concern for the Marines' safety that it should have.'' Further quoting Ronald Reagan, ``In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believed the last thing we should do was turn tail and leave . . . yet, the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policies there.'' He concluded with advising us to stay clear. I would like to suggest that I believe that is pretty good advice. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much this opportunity to talk about the budget. In listening to the debate today on both sides of the aisle, there has been a lot of expression of concern about the deficit; and, of course, I am very concerned about the deficit as well. But I would like to make a suggestion that we are not facing primarily a budgetary crisis or a budgetary problem. I see this more as a philosophic problem, dealing more with the philosophy of government rather than thinking that we can tinker with the budget, dealing with this as a tactical problem when really it is a strategic problem. So as long as we endorse the type of government that we have and there is a willingness for the people as well the Congress to finance it, we are going to continue with this process and the frustrations are going to grow because it is just not likely that these deficits will shrink. And the gentleman from Pennsylvania rightly pointed out the concerns this might have in the financial markets. I am hoping that his optimism pans out because, indeed, if they do not, there could be some ramifications from these expanding deficits and what it means to our dollar. But I would like to suggest that in dealing with the budget itself, I see only one problem that we have. And that problem to me is the budget is too big, and I would like to shrink the budget. I have toyed with the idea over the years to introduce and offer a constitutional budget to the House floor. That would not be too difficult because the budget would be so much smaller. It would mean essentially that if one is a strict constitutionalist that they would cut the budget approximately 80 percent. What would that mean to the economy? It would be a boost because we would be injecting $2 trillion back into the economy, allowing the people to spend their own money. But being pretty realistic, I know that is not likely to happen or be offered or even be able to present that on the House floor. Besides, it could be rather embarrassing to bring something like that to the floor. Not so much embarrassing to me, because I am accustomed to voting in a small group of people on many occasions; but it could be embarrassing to others because, for the most part, most Members would not even conceive of the idea of having a strict interpretation of the Constitution and severely limiting the budget. So we would not want to put everybody on record for that. The other day I heard an interview with one of our Members, and he was asked about a particular program about where the authority came from in the Constitution for that program. And his answer was very straightforward; and he explained that in the Constitution there was no prohibition against that program, so therefore it was permitted. In his mind, as it is in the minds of many Members of Congress, if there is no strict prohibition, it is permitted. And that is just absolutely opposite of what was intended by the authors of the Constitution that we would only be able to do those things which are explicitly permitted in the Congress, and they are spelled out rather clearly in article I, section 8. And then we are given the permission to write the laws that are necessary and proper to implement those powers that are delegated to us. Those powers that are not delegated are reserved to the States and to the people. So it means that those things that are not prohibited are permitted, but I would say that the conventional wisdom today is that people accept the notion that we can do anything that we want as long as it is not prohibited by the Constitution. I think this improper understanding and following of the Constitution has brought us closer to a major crisis in this country, a crisis of our personal liberties, a crisis in our foreign policy, as well as a crisis in our budgeting. But it is not simply the ignoring of the Constitution that I think is our problem. I think our other problem is our country and our people and our Congresses and our Senators have accepted the notion of faith in government, faith in the State, that the State can provide these great services and do it efficiently. Really, there are only two areas that would have to be cut if we were to strive for a constitutional budget. There are only two things that we would have to cut, and it would be welfare and warfare. And then we would get back to some fundamentals. During World War I, a gentleman by the name of Randolph Bourne wrote a pamphlet called ``War is the Health of the State,'' and I truly believe that. When we are at war, we are more likely to sacrifice our liberties; and, of course, we spend more money that we really have. I would like to suggest a corollary, that peace is the foundation of liberty because that is what the goal of all government should be: the preservation of liberty. We have endorsed a program with this interpretation that spending is going to be endlessly increased, and we have devised a system whereby we have ignored the constraints through monetary policy by not only are we taxing too much and borrowing too much; we have now since 1971 endorsed a monetary system that if we come up short we just print the money. And I would suggest to the gentlewoman that one of the reasons why the workers' purchasing power is going down is we print too many dollars and they are the ones who are most likely and first to suffer from inflation. And it is the philosophy of government and our philosophy on money that encourages these problems. And the current account deficits and this huge foreign indebtedness that are encouraged by our ability to maintain a reserve currency, it is going to lead to a crisis where this spending will have to come in check. And that is why the gentleman from Pennsylvania is quite correct that we should be concerned about how the financial markets look at what we do. And hopefully we will be able to deal with this in a budgetary way and institute some restraints. But quite frankly I am a bit pessimistic about that. This program that we follow and this philosophy we followed prompted our Federal Reserve to create $620 billion in order to finance the system. That is the reason that the dollar becomes less valuable, because we just print too many to accommodate the politicians and the people who enjoy the excessive spending.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this $82 billion ``emergency'' supplemental bill. I also am opposed to the manner in which the REAL ID Act, H.R. 418, was attached to the Rule, thereby stealthily making the establishment of a national ID part of an ``emergency'' bill to which it is completely unrelated. Once again we see controversial bills being hidden inside another bill so that they are automatically passed where they otherwise might face opposition. I do not believe this is a wise practice. This ``emergency'' supplemental is the second largest supplemental appropriations bill in United States history, second only to the one last year. The funds will be considered ``emergency'' funds so Congress can ignore spending caps that would require the billions in new spending to be offset by reducing spending elsewhere. We are told that this is emergency spending, and that we therefore must not question this enormous expenditure. Does an emergency require sending billions of American taxpayers' dollars overseas as foreign aid an emergency? This bill is filled with foreign aid spending. If we pass this ill-conceived legislation, we will spend $656 million for tsunami relief; $94 million for Darfur, Sudan; $150 million for food aid, most to Liberia and Sudan; $580 million for ``peacekeeping'' overseas; $582 million to build a new American embassy in Iraq; $76 million to build a new airport in Kuwait (one of the wealthiest countries on earth); $257 million for counter drug efforts in Afghanistan; $372 million for health, reconstruction, and alternative development programs to help farmers stop raising poppy; $200 million in economic aid for the Palestinians; $150 million for Pakistan (run by an unelected dictator); $200 million for Jordan; $34 million for Ukraine. Does anyone really believe that all this foreign aid is ``emergency'' spending? Or is it just an opportunity for some off-budget spending? Just the above foreign aid equals almost $3.5 billion. Does anyone believe that sending this much money abroad as international welfare is a good thing for our economy? Is there a baseball emergency? There must be, because this ``emergency'' supplemental contains a provision to allow Washington, D.C. to use taxpayer money to build a baseball stadium. Mr. Chairman, this bill is almost unimaginably expensive. It is our out-of-control spending that really is the greatest threat to the United States and our way of life. I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation. We have absolutely no constitutional authority to establish a commission to ``assist'' parliaments throughout the world. Despite all the high- sounding rhetoric surrounding this legislation, we should not fool ourselves. This is nothing more than yet another scheme to funnel United States tax dollars to foreign governments. It is an international welfare scheme and an open door to more U.S. meddling in the internal affairs of foreign countries. How can we tell an American family struggling to pay its bills that it must pay more taxes so a foreign parliament can purchase fancy plasma screen televisions, or the latest computer equipment, or ultra- modern communications equipment? Can anyone here justify this? Mr. Speaker, this bill will do more than just take money from Americans. This commission will enable members of Congress and congressional staff employees to travel the world meddling in the affairs of foreign governing bodies. It is counterproductive to tell other nations how they should govern themselves, as even if we come loaded with dollars to hand out, our meddling is always resented by the local population--just as we would resent a foreign government telling us how to govern ourselves. Don't we have enough of our own problems to solve without going abroad in search of foreign parliaments to aid? I urge my colleagues to reject this wasteful and counterproductive scheme.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to re-introduce the American Sovereignty Restoration Act. I submitted this bill, which would end United States membership in the United Nations, in the 106th, 107th, and 108th Congresses and if anything, conditions have made its relevance and importance more evident now than ever. The United Nations assault on the sovereignty of the United States proceeds apace; it shows no signs of slowing. Mr. Speaker, since I last introduced this measure, the United Nations has been embroiled in scandal after scandal, from the Oil for Food Scandal to several recent particularly appalling sex scandals. The United States has wasted more than 30 billion taxpayer dollars on the United Nations and has received in return only contempt from an organization that scoffs at traditional notions of limited government and sovereignty. Indeed, even though the United States pays the lion's share of the UN budget, UN bureaucrats are still not satisfied. They want direct access to U.S. taxpayer money with out the U.S. government middleman. A current example of this determination to tax American citizens is the Law of the Sea Treaty. The ``International Seabed Authority'' created by the Law of the Sea Treaty would have the authority to--for the first time in history--impose taxes on American businesses and citizens. This treaty may be ratified at any time by the U.S. Senate and UN taxation of Americans will become a reality. This legislation would represent a comprehensive and complete U.S. withdrawal from the United Nations. It repeals the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 and other related laws. It directs the President to terminate U.S. participation in the United Nations, including any organ, specialized agency, commission, or other affiliated body. It requires closure of the U.S. Mission to the UN. The legislation also prohibits the authorization of funds for the U.S. assessed or voluntary contribution to the UN; the authorization of funds for any U.S. contribution to any UN military operation; and the expenditure of funds to support the participation of U.S. armed forces as part of any UN military or peacekeeping operation. Finally, this legislation bars U.S. armed forces from serving under UN command. The U.S. Congress, by passing H.R. 1146, and the U.S. President, by signing H.R. 1146, will heed the wise counsel of our first President, George Washington, when he advised his countrymen to ``steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world,'' lest the nation's security and liberties be compromised by endless and overriding international commitments. I urge my colleagues to support this measure and I hope for its quick consideration. In considering the recent United Nations meetings and the United States' relation to that organization and its affront to U.S. sovereignty, we would all do well to again read carefully Professor Herbert W. Titus' paper on the United Nations from which I have provided this excerpt: It is commonly assumed that the Charter of the United Nations is a treaty. It is not. Instead, the Charter of the United Nations is a constitution. As such, it is illegitimate, having created a supranational government, deriving its powers not from the consent of the governed (the people of the United States of America and peoples of other member nations) but from the consent of the peoples' government officials who have no authority to bind either the American people nor any other nation's people to any terms of the Charter of the United Nations. By definition, a treaty is a contract between or among independent and sovereign nations, obligatory on the signatories only when made by competent governing authorities in accordance with the powers constitutionally conferred upon them. I Kent, Commentaries on American Law 163 (1826); Burdick, The Law of the American Constitution section 34 (1922). Even the United Nations Treaty Collection states that a treaty is (1) a binding instrument creating legal rights and duties; (2) concluded by states or international organizations with treaty-making power; (3) governed by international law. By contrast, a charter is a constitution creating a civil government for a unified nation or nations and establishing the authority of that government. Although the United Nations Treaty Collection defines a ``charter'' as a ``constituent treaty,'' leading international political authorities state that--``[t]he use of the word `Charter' [in reference to the founding document of the United Nations] . . . emphasizes the constitutional nature of this instrument.'' Thus, the preamble to the Charter of the United Nations declares ``that the Peoples of the United Nations have resolved to combine their efforts to accomplish certain aims by certain means.'' The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary 46 (B. Simma, ed.) (Oxford Univ. Press, NY: 1995) (Hereinafter U.N. Charter Commentary). Consistent with this view, leading international legal authorities declare that the law of the Charter of the United Nations which governs the authority of the United Nations General Assembly and the United Nations Security Council is ``similar . . . to national constitutional law,'' proclaiming that ``because of its status as a constitution for the world community,'' the Charter of the United Nations must be construed broadly, making way for ``implied powers'' to carry out the United Nations' ``comprehensive scope of duties, especially the maintenance of international peace and security and its orientation towards international public welfare.'' Id. at 27 The United Nations Treaty Collection confirms the appropriateness of this ``constitutional interpretive'' approach to the Charter of the United Nations with its statement that the charter may be traced ``back to the Magna Carta (the Great Charter) of 1215,'' a national constitutional document. As a constitutional document, the Magna Carta not only bound the original signatories, the English barons and the king, but all subsequent English rulers, including Parliament, conferring upon all Englishmen certain rights that five hundred years later were claimed and exercised by the English people who had colonized America. A charter, then, is a covenant of the people and the civil rulers of a nation in perpetuity. Sources of Our Liberties 1- 10 (R. Perry, ed.) (American Bar Foundation: 1978). As Article 1 of Magna Carta, puts it: We have granted moreover to all free men of our kingdom for us and our heirs forever all liberties written below, to be had and holden by themselves and their heirs from us and our heirs. In like manner, the Charter of the United Nations is considered to be a permanent ``constitution for the universal society,'' and consequently, to be construed in accordance with its broad and unchanging ends but in such a way as to meet changing times and changing relations among the nations and peoples of the world. U.N. Charter Commentary at 28-44. According to the American political and legal tradition and the universal principles of constitution making, a perpetual civil covenant or constitution, obligatory on the people ``and their rulers throughout the generations, must, first, be proposed in the name of the people and, thereafter, ratified by the people's representatives elected and assembled for the sole purpose of passing on the terms of a proposed covenant. See 4 The Founders' Constitution 647-58 (P. Kurland and R. Lerner, eds.) (Univ. Chicago Press: 1985). Thus, the preamble of the Constitution of the United States of America begins with ``We the People of the United States'' and Article VII provides for ratification by state conventions composed of representatives of the people elected solely for that purpose. Sources of Our Liberties 408, 416, 418-21 (R. Perry, ed.) (ABA Foundation, Chicago: 1978). Taking advantage of the universal appeal of the American constitutional tradition, the preamble of the Charter of the United Nations opens with ``We the peoples of the United Nations.'' But, unlike the Constitution of the United States of America, the Charter of the United Nations does not call for ratification by conventions of the elected representatives of the people of the signatory nations. Rather, Article 110 of the Charter of the United Nations provides for ratification ``by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.'' Such a ratification process would have been politically and legally appropriate if the charter were a mere treaty. But the Charter of the United Nations is not a treaty; it is a constitution. First of all, Charter of the United Nations, executed as an agreement in the name of the people, legally and politically displaced previously binding agreements upon the signatory nations. Article 103 provides that ``[i]n the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail.'' Because the 1787 Constitution of the United States of America would displace the previously adopted Articles of Confederation under which the United States was being governed, the drafters recognized that only if the elected representatives of the people at a constitutional convention ratified the proposed constitution, could it be lawfully adopted as a constitution. Otherwise, the Constitution of the United States of America would be, legally and politically, a treaty which could be altered by any state's legislature as it saw fit. The Founders' Constitution, supra, at 648- 52. Second, an agreement made in the name of the people creates a perpetual union, subject to dissolution only upon proof of breach of covenant by the governing authorities whereupon the people are entitled to reconstitute a new government on such terms and for such duration as the people see fit. By contrast, an agreement made in the name of nations creates only a contractual obligation, subject to change when any signatory nation decides that the obligation is no longer advantageous or suitable. Thus, a treaty may be altered by valid statute enacted by a signatory nation, but a constitution may be altered only by a special amendatory process provided for in that document. Id. at 652. Article V of the Constitution of the United States of America spells out that amendment process, providing two methods for adopting constitutional changes, neither of which requires unanimous consent of the states of the Union. Had the Constitution of the United States of America been a treaty, such unanimous consent would have been required. Similarly, the Charter of the United Nations may be amended without the unanimous consent of its member states. According to Article 108 of the Charter of the United Nations, amendments may be proposed by a vote of two-thirds of the United Nations General Assembly and may become effective upon ratification by a vote of two-thirds of the members of the United Nations, including all the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. According to Article 109 of the Charter of the United Nations, a special conference of members of the United Nations may be called ``for the purpose of reviewing the present Charter'' and any changes proposed by the conference may ``take effect when ratified by two- thirds of the Members of the United Nations including all the permanent members of the Security Council.'' Once an amendment to the Charter of the United Nations is adopted then that amendment ``shall come into force for all Members of the United Nations,'' even those nations who did not ratify the amendment, just as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America is effective in all of the states, even though the legislature of a state or a convention of a state refused to ratify. Such an amendment process is totally foreign to a treaty. See Id., at 575-84. Third, the authority to enter into an agreement made in the name of the people cannot be politically or legally limited by any preexisting constitution, treaty, alliance, or instructions. An agreement made in the name of a nation, however, may not contradict the authority granted to the governing powers and, thus, is so limited. For example, the people ratified the Constitution of the United States of America notwithstanding the fact that the constitutional proposal had been made in disregard to specific instructions to amend the Articles of Confederation, not to displace them. See Sources of Our Liberties 399-403 (R. Perry ed.) (American Bar Foundation: 1972). As George Mason observed at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, ``Legislatures have no power to ratify'' a plan changing the form of government, only ``the people'' have such power. 4 The Founders' Constitution, supra, at 651. As a direct consequence of this original power of the people to constitute a new government, the Congress under the new constitution was authorized to admit new states to join the original 13 states without submitting the admission of each state to the 13 original states. In like manner, the Charter of the United Nations, forged in the name of the ``peoples'' of those nations, established a new international government with independent powers to admit to membership whichever nations the United Nations governing authorities chose without submitting such admissions to each individual member nation for ratification. See Charter of the United Nations, Article 4, Section 2. No treaty could legitimately confer upon the United Nations General Assembly such powers and remain within the legal and political definition of a treaty. By invoking the name of the ``peoples of the United Nations,'' then, the Charter of the United Nations envisioned a new constitution creating a new civil order capable of not only imposing obligations upon the subscribing nations, but also imposing obligations directly upon the peoples of those nations. In his special contribution to the United Nations Human Development Report 2000, United Nations Secretary- General Annan made this claim crystal clear: Even though we are an organization of Member States, the rights and ideals the United Nations exists to protect are those of the peoples. No government has the right to hide behind national sovereignty in order to violate the human rights or fundamental freedoms of its peoples. Human Development Report 2000 31 (July 2000) [Emphasis added.] While no previous United Nations' secretary general has been so bold, Annan's proclamation of universal jurisdiction over ``human rights and fundamental freedoms'' simply reflects the preamble of the Charter of the United Nations which contemplated a future in which the United Nations operates in perpetuity ``to save succeeding generations from the scourge of ware . . . to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights . . . to establish conditions under which justice . . . can be maintained, and to promote social progress and between standards of life in larger freedom.'' Such lofty goals and objectives are comparable to those found in the preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America: ``to . . . establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the Blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity . . .'' There is, however, one difference that must not be overlooked. The Constitution of the United States of America is a legitimate constitution, having been submitted directly to the people for ratification by their representatives elected and assembled solely for the purpose of passing on the terms of that document. The Charter of the United Nations, on the other hand, is an illegitimate constitution, having only been submitted to the Untied States Senate for ratification as a treaty. Thus, the Charter of the United Nations, not being a treaty, cannot be made the supreme law of our land by compliance with Article II, Section 2 of Constitution of the United States of America. Therefore, the Charter of the United Nations is neither politically nor legally binding upon the United States of America or upon its people.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to support H.R. 841, the Continuity in Representation Act, introduced by my distinguished colleague, House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner. H.R. 841 provides a practical and constitutional way to ensure that the House of Representatives can continue to operate in the event that more than 100 Members are killed, H.R. 841 thus protects the people's right to choose their Representatives at the time when such a right may be most important, while ensuring continuity of the legislative branch. Article I section 2 of the United States Constitution grants State governors the authority to hold special elections to fill vacancies in the House of Representatives. Article I, section 4 of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to designate the time, place and manner of such special elections if States should fail to act expeditiously following a national emergency. Alexander Hamilton, who played a major role in the drafting and ratification of the United States Constitution, characterized authority over Federal elections as shared between the States and Congress, with neither being able to control the process entirety. H.R. 841 exercises Congress's power to regulate the time, place and manner of elections by requiring the holding of special elections within 45 days after the Speaker or Acting Speaker declares 100 Members of the House have been killed. I have no doubt that the people of the States are quite competent to hold elections in a timely fashion. After all, it is in each State's interest to ensure it has adequate elected representation in Washington. The version of H.R. 841 before Congress today was drafted with input from State elections commissioners to make sure it sets realistic goals and will not unduly burden State governments. I am disappointed that some of my colleagues reject the sensible approach of H.R. 841 and instead support amending the Constitution to allow appointed Members to serve in this body. Allowing appointed Members to serve in ``the people's house'' will fundamentally alter the nature of this institution and sever the people's most direct connection with their government. Even with the direct election of Senators, the fact that Members of the House are elected every 2 years while Senators run for statewide office every 6 years means that Members of the House of Representatives are still more accountable to the people than members of any other part of the Federal Government. Appointed Members of Congress simply cannot be truly representative. James Madison and Alexander Hamilton eloquently made this point in Federalist 52: As it is essential to liberty that the government in general should have a common interest with the people, so it is particularly essential that the branch of it under consideration should have an immediate dependence on, and an intimate sympathy with, the people. Frequent elections are unquestionably the only policy by which this dependence and sympathy can be effectively secured. Mr. Chairman, there are those who say that the power of appointment is necessary in order to preserve checks and balances and thus prevent an abuse of executive power during a time of crisis. Of course, I agree that it is very important to carefully guard our constitutional liberties in times of crisis and that an over-centralization of power in the executive branch is one of the most serious dangers to that liberty. However, Mr. Chairman, during a time of crisis it is all the more important to have Representatives accountable to the people. Otherwise, the citizenry has no check on the inevitable tendency of government to infringe on the people's liberties at such a time. I would remind my colleagues that the only reason we are considering reexamining provisions of the PATRIOT Act is because of public concerns that this act gives up excessive liberty for a phantom security. Appointed officials would not be as responsive to public concerns. Supporters of amending the Constitution claim that the appointment power will be necessary in the event of an emergency and that the appointed Representatives will only be temporary. However, the laws passed by these ``temporary'' Representatives will be permanent. Mr. Chairman, this country has faced the possibility of threats to the continuity of this body several times in our history. Yet no one suggested removing the people's right to vote for Members of Congress. For example, the British in the War of 1812 attacked the city of Washington, yet nobody suggested the States could not address the lack of a quorum in the House of Representatives through elections. During the Civil War, the neighboring State of Virginia, where today many Capitol Hill staffers reside and many Members stay while Congress is in session, was actively involved in hostilities against the United States Government. Yet, Abraham Lincoln never suggested that non-elected persons serve in the House. Adopting any of the proposals to deny the people the ability to choose their own Representatives would let the terrorists know that they can succeed in altering our republican institutions. I hope all my colleagues who are considering rejecting H.R. 841 in favor of a constitutional amendment will question the wisdom of handing terrorists a preemptive victory over republican government. As noted above, the Framers gave Congress all the tools it needs to address problems of mass vacancies in the House without compromising this institution's primary function as a representative body. In fact, as Hamilton explains in Federalist 59, the ``time, place, and manner'' clause was specifically designed to address the kind of extraordinary circumstances imagined by those who support amending the Constitution. In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 841, the Continuity in Representation Act, which ensures an elected Congress can continue to operate in the event of an emergency. This is what the drafters of the Constitution intended. Furthermore, passage of H.R. 841 sends a strong message to terrorists that they cannot alter our republican government.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a bill to prohibit any remittance of U.S. voluntary and assessed contributions to the United Nations if the United Nations imposes any tax or fee on any United States person or continues to develop or promote proposals for such a tax or fee. The United Nations has for decades been looking for a way to develop and promote a system of direct taxation on American citizens. It is bad enough that the United States has wasted more than $30 billion thus far on this corrupt and inept organization. U.N. bureaucrats want to find a way to put their hands directly in the taxpayer's pocket and do away with the U.S. Government middle man. A current example of this determination to tax American citizens is the Law of the Sea Treaty. The ``International Seabed Authority'' created by the Law of the Sea Treaty would have the authority to--for the first time in history--impose taxes on American businesses and citizens. This treaty may be ratified at any time by the U.S. Senate and U.N. taxation of Americans will become a reality. This is just one of many examples of the United Nations attempting to impose direct taxes on the American people. If we are to retain our sovereignty and our way of life we must reject completely any such attempt. Our forefathers rebelled against English rule over the issue of ``taxation without representation is tyranny.'' It makes no sense at all more than 230 years later to subject ourselves to such a tyrannical arrangement. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in expressing condolences to the family of Mr. Hariri, the families of others killed in the attack that took Mr. Hariri's life, and the people of Lebanon. While I support this legislation expressing sorrow over the murders, I do have some concerns that H. Res. 91 is being waved as a red flag to call for more U.S. intervention in the Middle East. It is unfortunate that tragic occurrences like these are all too often used by those who wish to push a particular foreign policy. We don't really know who killed Mr. Hariri. Maybe an agent of the Syrian government killed him. Then again any of several other governments or groups in the Middle East or even beyond could be responsible. But already we are hearing from those who want to use this murder to justify tightening sanctions against Syria, forcing Syrian troops to leave Lebanon immediately, or even imposing U.S. military intervention against Syria. Just yesterday we heard that the U.S. ambassador to Syria has been withdrawn. The problem is that these calls for U.S. intervention ignore the complexities of Lebanon's tragic recent history, and its slow return from the chaos of the civil war--a revival in which Mr. Hariri played a praiseworthy role. We should remember, however, that it was the Lebanese government itself that requested assistance from Syria in 1976, to help keep order in the face of a civil war where Maronite Christians battled against Sunnis and Druze. This civil war dragged on until a peace treaty was agreed to in 1989. The peace was maintained by the Syrian presence in Lebanon. So, while foreign occupation of any country against that country's will is to be condemned, it is not entirely clear that this is the case with Syrian involvement in Lebanon. Hariri himself was not a supporter of immediate Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon. What most won't say here is that Syria has indeed been slowly withdrawing forces from Lebanon. Who is to say that this is not the best approach to avoid a return to civil war? Yet, many are convinced that we must immediately blame Syria for this attack and we must ``do something'' to avenge something that has nothing whatsoever to do with the United States. So, while I do wish to express my sympathy over the tragic death of Rafik Hariri, I hope that my colleagues would refrain from using this tragedy to push policies of more U.S. interventionism in the Middle East.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, Americans are right to be outraged at much of the content of broadcast television and radio today. Too many television and radio programs regularly mock the values of millions of Americans and feature lewd, inappropriate conduct. It is totally legitimate and even praiseworthy for people to use market forces, such as boycotts of the sponsors of the offensive programs, to pressure networks to remove objectionable programming. However, it is not legitimate for Congress to censor broadcast programs. The First Amendment says, ``Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech. . . .'' It does not make an expectation for broadcast television. Some argue that broadcast speech is different because broadcasters are using the ``people's airwaves.'' Of course, the people do not really control the airwaves any more than the people control the government in the People's Republic of China. Instead, the people's airwaves is a euphemism for government control of the airwaves. Of course, government exceeded its Constitutional authority when it nationalized the broadcast industry. Furthermore, there was no economic justification for Congress determining who is, and is not, allowed to access the broadcast spectrum. Instead of nationalizing the spectrum, the Federal Government should have allowed private parties to homestead parts of the broadcast spectrum and settle disputes over ownership and use through market processes, contracts, and, if necessary, application of the common law of contracts and torts. Such a market-based solution would have provided a more efficient allocation of the broadcast spectrum than has government regulation. Congress used its unconstitutional and unjustified power-grab over the allocation of broadcast spectrum to justify imposing Federal regulations on broadcasters. Thus, the Federal Government used one unconstitutional action to justify another seizing of regulatory control over the content of a means of communication in direct violation of the first amendment. Congress should reject H.R. 310, the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act, because, by increasing fines and making it easier for governments to revoke the licenses of broadcasters who violate Federal standards, H.R. 310 expands an unconstitutional exercise of Federal power. H.R. 310 also establishes new frontiers in censorship by levying fines on individual artists for violating FCC regulations. Congress should also reject H.R. 310 because the new powers granted to the FCC may be abused by a future administration to crack down on political speech. The bill applies to speech the agency has determined is ``obscene'' or ``indecent.'' While this may not appear to include political speech, I would remind my colleagues that there is a serious political movement that believes that the expression of certain political opinions should be censored by the government because it is ``hate speech.'' Proponents of these views would not hesitate to redefine indecency to include hate speech. Ironically, many of the strongest proponents of H.R. 310 also hold views that would likely be classified as ``indecent hate speech.'' The new FCC powers contained in H.R. 310 could even be used to censor religious speech. Last year, a group filed a petition with the United States Department of Justice asking the agency to use Federal hate crimes laws against the directors, producers, and screenwriters of the popular movie, ``The Passion of the Christ.'' Can anyone doubt that, if H.R. 310 passes, any broadcaster who dares show ``The Passion'' or similar material will risk facing indecency charges? Our founders recognized the interdependence of free speech and religious liberty; this is why they are protected together in the first amendment. The more the Federal Government restricts free speech, the more our religious liberties are endangered. The reason we are considering H.R. 310 is not unrelated to questions regarding state censorship of political speech. Many of this bill's supporters are motivated by the attacks on a Member of Congress, and other statements critical of the current administration and violating the standards of political correctness, by ``shock jock'' Howard Stern. I have heard descriptions of Stern's radio program that suggest this is a despicable program. However, I find even more troubling the idea that the Federal Government should censor anyone because of his comments about a Member of Congress. Such behavior is more suited for members of a Soviet politburo than members of a representative body in a constitutional republic. The Nation's leading conservative radio broadcaster, Rush Limbaugh, has expressed opposition to a Federal crackdown on radio broadcast speech that offends politicians and bureaucrats: If the government is going to ``censor'' what they think is right and wrong. . . . what happens if a whole bunch of John Kerrys . . . start running this country. And decide conservative views are leading to violence? I am in the free speech business. It's one thing for a company to determine if they are going to be party to it. It's another thing for the government to do it. Mr. Speaker, I am also concerned that the new powers H.R. 310 creates will be applied in a manner that gives an unfair advantage to large media conglomerates. While the FCC will occasionally go after one of the major media conglomerates when it does something especially outrageous, the agency will likely spend most of its energies going after smaller outlets such as college and independent radio stations. Because college and independent stations lack the political clout of the large media companies, the FCC can prosecute them without incurring the wrath of powerful politicians. In addition, because these stations often cater to a small, niche audience, FCC actions against them would not incur the public opposition it would if the agency tried to kick ``Desperate Housewives'' off the air. Most significantly, college and independent stations lack the financial and technical resources to absolutely guarantee that no violations of ambiguous FCC regulations occur and to defend themselves adequately if the FCC attempts to revoke their licenses. Thus, college and independent radio stations make tempting targets for the FCC. My colleagues who are concerned about media concentration should consider how giving the FCC extended power to revoke licenses might increase media concentration. H.R. 310 should also be rejected because it is unnecessary. Major broadcasters' profits depend on their ability to please their audiences and thus attract advertisers. Advertisers are oftentimes ``risk adverse,'' that is, afraid to sponsor anything that might offend a substantial portion of the viewing audience, who they hope to turn into customers. Therefore, networks have a market incentive to avoid offending the audience. It was fear of alienating the audience, and thus losing advertising revenue, that led to CBS's quick attempt at ``damage control'' after the last year's Super Bowl. Shortly before the 2004 Super Bowl, we witnessed a remarkable demonstration of the power of private citizens when public pressure convinced CBS to change plans to air the movie ``The Reagans,'' which outraged conservatives concerned about its distortion of the life of Ronald Reagan. Clearly, the American people do not need the government to protect them from ``indecent'' broadcasts. In fact, the unacknowledged root of the problem is that a large segment of the American people has chosen to watch material that fellow citizens find indecent. Once again, I sympathize with those who are offended by the choices of their fellow citizens. I do not watch or listen to the lewd material that predominates on the airwaves today, and I am puzzled that anyone could find that sort of thing entertaining. However, my colleagues should remember that government action cannot improve the people's morals; it can only reduce liberty. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 310 is the latest in an increasing number of attacks on free speech. For years, those who wanted to regulate and restrict speech in the commercial marketplace relied on the commercial speech doctrine that provides a lower level of protection to speech designed to provide a profit to the speaker. However, this doctrine has no constitutional authority because the plain language of the first amendment does not make any exceptions for commercial speech. Even the proponents of the commercial speech doctrine agreed that the Federal Government should never restrict political speech. Yet, this Congress, this administration, and this Supreme Court have restricted political speech with the campaign finance reform law. Meanwhile, the Department of Justice has indicated it will use the war against terrorism to monitor critics of the administration's foreign policy, thus chilling anti-war political speech. Of course, on many college campuses students have to watch what they say lest they run afoul of the rules of ``political correctness.'' Even telling a ``politically incorrect'' joke can bring a student up on charges before the thought police. Now, self-proclaimed opponents of political correctness want to use Federal power to punish colleges that allow the expression of views they consider ``unpatriotic'' and/or punish colleges when the composition of the facility does not meet their definition of diversity. These assaults on speech show a trend away from allowing the free and open expression of all ideas and points of view toward censoring those ideas that may offend some politically powerful group or upset those currently holding government power. Since censorship of speech invariably leads to censorship of ideas, this trend does not bode well for the future of personal liberty in America. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, because H.R. 310 is the latest assault in a disturbing pattern of attacks on the first amendment, I must vote against it and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the Social Security for American Citizens Only Act. This act forbids the federal government from providing Social Security benefits to non-citizens. It also ends the practice of totalization. Totalization is where the Social Security Administration takes into account the number of years an individual worked abroad, and thus was not paying payroll taxes, in determining that individual's eligibility for Social Security benefits. Hard as it may be to believe, the United States Government already provides Social Security benefits to citizens of 17 other countries. Under current law, citizens of those countries covered by these agreements may have an easier time getting Social Security benefits than public school teachers or policemen. Obviously, this program provides a threat to the already fragile Social Security system, and the threat is looming larger. A little- noticed part of the administration's immigration ``reform'' proposal would make hundreds of thousands of Mexican citizens eligible for U.S. Social Security benefits. Totalization is the centerpiece of this proposal, so even if a Mexican citizen did not work in the United States long enough to qualify for Social Security, the number of years worked in Mexico would be added to bring up the total and thus make the Mexican worker eligible for cash transfers from the United States. Mr. Speaker, press reports also indicate that thousands of foreigners who would qualify for U.S. Social Security benefits actually came to the United States and worked here illegally. That's right: the federal government may actually allow someone who came to the United States illegally, worked less than the required number of years to qualify for Social Security, and then returned to Mexico for the rest of his working years, to collect full U.S. Social Security benefits while living in Mexico. That is an insult to the millions of Americans who pay their entire working lives into the system and now face the possibility that there may be nothing left when it is their turn to retire. The proposed agreement is nothing more than a financial reward to those who have willingly and knowingly violated our own immigration laws. Talk about an incentive for illegal immigration. How many more would break the law to come to this country if promised U.S. government paychecks for life? Is creating a global welfare state on the back of the American taxpayer a good idea? The program also establishes a very disturbing precedent of U.S. foreign aid to individual citizens rather than to states. Estimates of what this latest totalization proposal would cost top $1 billion per year. Supporters of the Social Security to Mexico deal may attempt to downplay the effect the agreement would have on the system, but actions speak louder than words: According to several press reports, the State Department and the Social Security Administration are planning to enact a new building in Mexico City to handle the expected rush of applicants for this new program. As the system braces for a steep increase in those who will be drawing from the Social Security trust fund while policy makers seriously consider cutting Social Security benefits to American seniors and raising payroll taxes on American workers, it makes no sense to expand Social Security into a global welfare system. Social Security was designed to provide support for retired American citizens who worked in the United States. We should be shoring up the system for those Americans who have paid in for decades, not expanding it to cover foreigners who have not. It is long past time for Congress to stand up to the internationalist bureaucrats and start looking out for the American worker. I therefore call upon my colleagues to stop the use of the Social Security Trust Fund as yet another vehicle for foreign aid by cosponsoring the Social Security for American Citizens Only Act. Original Cosponsors of the Social Security for American Citizens Only Act: Roscoe Bartlett (MD-06), John Duncan (TN-02), Scott Garrett (NJ- 05), Virgil Goode (VA-03), Thaddeus McCotter (MI-11), Zach Wamp (TN- 03).

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 418, the REAL ID Act. This bill purports to make us safer from terrorists who may sneak into the United States, and from other illegal immigrants. While I agree that these issues are of vital importance, this bill will do very little to make us more secure. It will not address our real vulnerabilities. It will, however, make us much less free. In reality, this bill is a Trojan horse. It pretends to offer desperately needed border control in order to stampede Americans into sacrificing what is uniquely American: our constitutionally protected liberty. What is wrong with this bill? The REAL ID Act establishes a national ID card by mandating that States include certain minimum identification standards on driver's licenses. It contains no limits on the government's power to impose additional standards. Indeed, it gives authority to the Secretary of Homeland Security to unilaterally add requirements as he sees fit. Supporters claim it is not a national ID because it is voluntary. However, any State that opts out will automatically make non-persons out of its citizens. The citizens of that State will be unable to have any dealings with the Federal Government because their ID will not be accepted. They will not be able to fly or to take a train. In essence, in the eyes of the Federal Government they will cease to exist. It is absurd to call this voluntary. Republican Party talking points on this bill, which claim that this is not a national ID card, nevertheless endorse the idea that ``the Federal Government should set standards for the issuance of birth certificates and sources of identification such as driver's licenses.'' So they admit that they want a national ID but at the same time pretend that this is not a national ID. This bill establishes a massive, centrally coordinated database of highly personal information about American citizens: at a minimum their name, date of birth, place of residence, Social Security number, and physical and possibly other characteristics. What is even more disturbing is that, by mandating that states participate in the Drivers License Agreement, this bill creates a massive database of sensitive information on American citizens that will be shared with Canada and Mexico. This bill could have a chilling effect on the exercise of our constitutionally guaranteed rights. It re-defines ``terrorism'' in broad new terms that could well include members of firearms rights and anti-abortion groups, or other such groups as determined by whoever is in power at the time. There are no prohibitions against including such information in the database as information about a person's exercise of first amendment rights or about a person's appearance on a registry of firearms owners. This legislation gives authority to the Secretary of Homeland Security to expand required information on driver's licenses, potentially including such biometric information as retina scans, fingerprints, DNA information, and even radio frequency identification, RFID, radio tracking technology. Including such technology as RFID would mean that the Federal Government, as well as the governments of Canada and Mexico, would know where Americans are at all time of the day and night. There are no limits on what happens to the database of sensitive information on Americans once it leaves the United States for Canada and Mexico--or perhaps other countries. Who is to stop a corrupt foreign government official from selling or giving this information to human traffickers or even terrorists? Will this uncertainty make us feel safer? What will all of this mean for us? When this new program is implemented, every time we are required to show our driver's license we will, in fact, be showing a national identification card. We will be handing over a card that includes our personal and likely biometric information, information which is connected to a national and international database. H.R. 418 does nothing to solve the growing threat to national security posed by people who are already in the U.S. illegally. Instead, H.R. 418 states what we already know: that certain people here illegally are ``deportable.'' But it does nothing to mandate deportation. Although Congress funded an additional 2,000 border guards last year, the administration has announced that it will only ask for an additional 210 guards. Why are we not pursuing these avenues as a way of safeguarding our country? Why are we punishing Americans by taking away their freedoms instead of making life more difficult for those who would enter our country illegally? H.R. 418 does what legislation restricting firearm ownership does. It punishes law abiding citizens. Criminals will ignore it. H.R. 418 offers us a false sense of greater security at the cost of taking a gigantic step toward making America a police state. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the REAL ID Act of 2005.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. I rise also in support of the Sessions amendment. But I also would like to take this time to make a few comments about why I will be voting against the bill. With the utmost sincerity and a deep conviction, I am quite confident that this bill, if you vote for it, you will be voting for a national ID card. I know some will argue against that and they say this is voluntary, but it really cannot be voluntary. If a State opts out, nobody is going to accept their driver's license. So this is not voluntary. As a matter of fact, even the House Republican Conference, which sent a statement around with some points about this bill, said ``the Federal Government should set standards for the issuance of birth certificates and sources of identification such as driver's licenses.'' This is nationalization of all identification. It will be the confirmation of the notion that we will be carrying our papers. As a matter of fact, I think it might be worse than just carrying our papers and showing our papers, because in this bill there are no limitations as to the information that may be placed on this identification card. There are minimum standards, but no maximum limitations. The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security can add anything it wants. So if they would like to put on our driver's license that you belong to a pro-gun group, it may well become mandatory, because there may be an administration some day that might like to have that information. But there is no limitation as far as biometrics and there is no limitation as far as radio frequency identification. That technology is already available and being used on our passports. This means that you do not have to show your papers. All you have to do is walk by somebody that has a radio frequency ability to read your passport or read your driver's license. There is no limitation as to what they can put on these documents. This bill also allows the definition of ``terrorism'' to be re- defined. There are no limitations. In many ways I understand how well intentioned this is, but to me it is sort of like the gun issue. Conservatives always know that you do not register guns, that is just terrible, because the criminals will not register their guns. But what are we doing with this bill? We are registering all the American people, and your goal is to register the criminals and the thugs and the terrorists. Well, why does a terrorist need a driver's license? They can just steal a car or steal an airplane or steal a bus or whatever they want to do. So you are registering all the American people because you are looking for a terrorist, and all the terrorist is going to do is avoid the law. But we all, the American people, will have to obey the law. If we do not, we go to prison. So I rise in strong objection to this bill. I hope there will be a few that will oppose H.R. 418.