Ron Paul

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.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce a Resolution expressing the Sense of the Congress that the United States should not ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty (``LOST''). The Law of the Sea Treaty was conceived in the early 1970s by the ``New International Economic Order,'' a United Nations political movement designed to transfer wealth and technology from the industrial nations to communist and undeveloped nations. President Ronald Reagan recognized the threat this treaty would pose to America's sovereignty and economic interests and rightly rejected the Treaty in 1982. Treaty proponents acted again in the 1990s, offering a separate ``Agreement'' that purported to amend the Treaty. This ``corrected treaty'' was also deemed unacceptable by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1994. Now we are once again facing a terribly flawed treaty that will hand over more of our sovereignty to a corrupt United Nations--just at a time when the extent of the United Nations' corruption is becoming more evident through the oil for food scandal in Iraq. What is specifically wrong with the Law of the Sea Treaty? The Law of the Sea Treaty will deem the oceans of the Earth as the ``Common Heritage of Mankind.'' The Treaty dictates that oceanic resources should be shared among all mankind. The effect of this will be U.N. control over the world's seabeds--a full 70 percent of the earth's surface. The Law of the Sea Treaty will also create, for the first time in history, an international body with the authority to collect taxes from American citizens. It is truly a U.N. global tax. This will come about as a fee on private enterprise and nation states from seabed mining, offshore oil platforms, and other raw material recovery activities. These fees will first be paid by the governments of the signatory states, which will then have the burden of collecting the monies back from the private enterprises engaged in seabed mining activities. This treaty will create a Law of the Sea Tribunal, which will claim-- and already has claimed--jurisdiction over the onshore as well as within the territorial sea or economic zones of coastal nations. This U.N. Tribunal could very well rule in a manner contrary to U.S. military, counterterrorism, and commercial interests. Mr. Speaker, the Law of the Sea Treaty is a perfect example of ``taxation without representation'' that our Founding Fathers rebelled against. We should under no circumstances surrender one bit of American sovereignty or treasure to the United Nations or any other global body. I hope my colleagues will join me by co-sponsoring this Sense of the Congress legislation and defeating this destructive treaty.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Prescription Drug Affordability Act. This legislation ensures that millions of Americans, including seniors, have access to affordable pharmaceutical products. My bill makes pharmaceuticals more affordable to seniors by reducing their taxes. It also removes needless government barriers to importing pharmaceuticals and it protects Internet pharmacies, which are making affordable prescription drugs available to millions of Americans, from being strangled by Federal regulation. The first provision of my legislation provides seniors a tax credit equal to 80 percent of their prescription drug costs. While Congress did add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare in the last Congress, many seniors still have difficulty affording the prescription drugs they need in order to maintain an active and healthy lifestyle. One reason is because the new program creates a ``doughnut hole,'' where seniors lose coverage once their prescription expenses reach a certain amount and must pay for their prescriptions above a certain amount out of their own pockets until their expenses reach a level where Medicare coverage resumes. This tax credit will help seniors cover the expenses provided by the doughnut hole. This bill will also help seniors obtain prescription medicines that may not be covered by the new Medicare prescription drug program. In addition to making prescription medications more affordable for seniors, my bill lowers the price for prescription medicines by reducing barriers to the importation of FDA-approved pharmaceuticals. Under my bill, anyone wishing to import a drug simply submits an application to the FDA, which then must approve the drug unless the FDA finds the drug is either not approved for use in the United States or is adulterated or misbranded. This process will make safe and affordable imported medicines affordable to millions of Americans. Mr. Speaker, letting the free market work is the best means of lowering the cost of prescription drugs. I need not remind my colleagues that many senior citizens and other Americans impacted by the high costs of prescription medicine have demanded Congress reduce the barriers which prevent American consumers from purchasing imported pharmaceuticals. Congress has responded to these demands by repeatedly passing legislation liberalizing the rules governing the importation of pharmaceuticals. However, implementation of this provision has been blocked by the Federal bureaucracy. It is time Congress stood up for the American consumer and removed all unnecessary regulations on importing pharmaceuticals. The Prescription Drug Affordability Act also protects consumers' access to affordable medicine by forbidding the Federal Government from regulating any Internet sales of FDA-approved pharmaceuticals by State- licensed pharmacists. As I am sure my colleagues are aware, the Internet makes pharmaceuticals and other products more affordable and accessible for millions of Americans. However, the Federal Government has threatened to destroy this option by imposing unnecessary and unconstitutional regulations on web sites that sell pharmaceuticals. Any Federal regulations would inevitably drive up prices of pharmaceuticals, thus depriving many consumers of access to affordable prescription medications. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to make pharmaceuticals more affordable and accessible by lowering taxes on senior citizens, removing barriers to the importation of pharmaceuticals and protecting legitimate Internet pharmacies from needless regulation by cosponsoring the Prescription Drug Affordability Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today, on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the birth of Ayn Rand, these comments. Ayn Rand has long inspired advocates of personal liberty and economic freedom. These ideals of individual responsibility and limited constitutional government are urgently needed in our Nation today. Ayn Rand Centenary Celebration (By Don Ernsberger) February 2nd marks the 100th Anniversary of the birth of philosopher and novelist Ayn Rand. The Russian born author of Atlas Shrugged, Fountainhead and a number of nonfiction works in economics and ethics became, in the twentieth century, a major influence on the intellectual culture of the United States. Her most famous work, Atlas Shrugged remains ranked by the Library of Congress Center for the Book as the second most influential books ever published. Ayn Rand was a champion of capitalism and of individual liberty. She had experienced the impact of communism in her native Russia and was an outspoken opponent of both communism and of socialism. She advocated personal responsibility and an objective code of moral behavior. Ayn Rand's fictional and non-fictional works promoted the ideal of the self-reliant individual who values reason, production and self-esteem in their personal lives and rejects the enslavement of others to advance one's own personal goals. A proud immigrant, who chose America, she perceptively grasped the nature of our Constitution: ``The [U.S.] Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals . . . it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of government . . . it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizen's protection against the government.'' Today, February 2, 2005, we celebrate the birth of this influential philosopher and writer who inspired and continues to inspire so many individuals to live rationally, and respect the rights of others. So much of what has made American a great society is found in her writings.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Seniors' Health Care Freedom Act. This act protects seniors' fundamental right to make their own health care decisions by repealing federal laws that interfere with seniors' ability to form private contracts for medical services. This bill also repeals laws which force seniors into the Medicare program against their will. When Medicare was first established, seniors were promised that the program would be voluntary. In fact, the original Medicare legislation explicitly protected a senior's right to seek out other forms of medical insurance. However, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 prohibits any physician who forms a private contract with a senior from filing any Medicare reimbursement claims for two years. As a practical matter, this means that seniors cannot form private contracts for health care services. Seniors may wish to use their own resources to pay for procedures or treatments not covered by Medicare, or to simply avoid the bureaucracy and uncertainty that comes when seniors must wait for the judgment of a Center from Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) bureaucrat before finding out if a desired treatment is covered. Seniors' right to control their own health care is also being denied due to the Social Security Administration's refusal to give seniors who object to enrolling for Medicare Part A Social Security benefits. This not only distorts the intent of the creators of the Medicare system; it also violates the promise represented by Social Security. Americans pay taxes into the Social Security Trust Fund their whole working lives and are promised that Social Security will be there for them when they retire. Yet, today, seniors are told that they cannot receive these benefits unless they agree to join an additional government program! At a time when the fiscal solvency of Medicare is questionable, to say the least, it seems foolish to waste scarce Medicare funds on those who would prefer to do without Medicare. Allowing seniors who neither want nor need to participate in the program to refrain from doing so will also strengthen the Medicare program for those seniors who do wish to participate in it. Of course, my bill does not take away Medicare benefits from any senior. It simply allows each senior to choose voluntarily whether or not to accept Medicare benefits or to use his own resources to obtain health care. Forcing seniors into government programs and restricting their ability to seek medical care free from government interference infringes on the freedom of seniors to control their own resources and make their own health care decisions. A woman who was forced into Medicare against her wishes summed it up best in a letter to my office, ``. . . I should be able to choose the medical arrangements I prefer without suffering the penalty that is being imposed.'' I urge my colleagues to protect the right of seniors to make the medical arrangements that best suit their own needs by cosponsoring the Seniors' Health Care Freedom Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise again this Congress to introduce a bill to lift the harmful and counterproductive United States Embargo on Cuba. On June 29, 2001, the Texas State legislature adopted a resolution calling for an end to U.S. economic sanctions against Cuba. Lawmakers emphasized the failure of sanctions to remove Castro from power, and the unwillingness of other nations to respect the embargo. One Texas Representative stated: ``We have a lot of rice and agricultural products, as well as high-tech products, that would be much cheaper for Cuba to purchase from Texas. All that could come through the ports of Houston and Corpus Christi.'' I wholeheartedly support this resolution, and I have introduced similar Federal legislation in past years to lift all trade, travel, and telecommunications restrictions with Cuba. I only wish Congress understood the simple wisdom expressed in Austin; so that we could end the harmful and ineffective trade sanctions that serve no national purpose. I oppose economic sanctions for two very simple reasons. First, they don't work as effective foreign policy. Time after time, we have failed to unseat despotic leaders by refusing to trade with the people of those nations. If anything, the anti-American sentiment aroused by sanctions often strengthens the popularity of such leaders, who use America as a convenient scapegoat to divert attention from their own tyranny. So while sanctions may serve our patriotic fervor, they mostly harm innocent citizens and do nothing to displace the governments we claim as enemies. Second, sanctions hurt American industries, particularly agriculture. Sanctions destroy American jobs. Every market we close to our Nation's farmers is a market exploited by foreign farmers. China, Russia, the Middle East, North Korea, and Cuba all represent huge markets for our farm products, yet many in Congress favor current or proposed trade restrictions that prevent our farmers from selling to the billions of people in these countries. Given our status as one of the world's largest agricultural producers, why would we ever choose to restrict our exports? The only beneficiaries of our sanctions policies are our foreign competitors. I certainly understand the emotional feelings many Americans have toward nations such as Cuba. Yet we must not let our emotions overwhelm our judgment in foreign policy matters, because ultimately human lives are at stake. Economic common sense, self-interested foreign policy goals, and humanitarian ideals all point to the same conclusion: Congress should work to end economic sanctions against all nations immediately. The legislation I introduce today is representative of true free trade in that while it opens trade, it prohibits the U.S. Taxpayer from being compelled to subsidize the United States government, the Cuban government or individuals or entities that choose to trade with Cuban citizens.

Mr. PAUL

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

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce two pieces of legislation that raise the pay of teachers and other educators by cutting their taxes. I am sure that all my colleagues agree that it is long past time to begin treating those who have dedicated their lives to educating America's children with the respect they deserve. Compared to other professionals, educators are underappreciated and under-paid. This must change if America is to have the finest education system in the world. Quality education is impossible without quality teaching. If we continue to undervalue educators, it will become harder to attract, and keep, good people in the education profession. While educators' pay is primarily a local issue, Congress can, and should, help raise educators' take-home pay by reducing educators' taxes. This is why I am introducing the Teachers Tax Cut Act. This legislation provides every teacher in America with a $1,000 tax credit. I am also introducing the Professional Educators Tax Relief Act, which extends the $1,000 tax credit to counselors, librarians, and all school personnel involved in any aspect of the K-12 academic program. The Teacher Tax Cut Act and the Professional Educators Tax Relief Act increase the salaries of teachers and other education professionals without raising federal expenditures. By raising the take-home pay of professional educators, these bills encourage highly qualified people to enter, and remain in, education. These bills also let America's professional educators know that the American people and the Congress respect their work. I hope all my colleagues join me in supporting our nation's teachers and other professional educators by cosponsoring the Teacher Tax Cut Act and the Professional Educators Tax Relief Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Hope Plus Scholarship Act, which expands the Hope Education Scholarship credit to cover K-12 education expenses. Under this bill, parents could use the Hope Scholarship to pay for private or religious school tuition or to offset the cost of home schooling. In addition, under the bill, all Americans could use the Hope Scholarship to make cash or in-kind donations to public schools. Thus, the Hope Scholarship could help working parents send their child to a private school, while other patents could take advantage of the Hope credit to help purchase new computers for their children's local public school. Reducing taxes so that Americans can devote more of their own resources to education is the best way to improve America's schools, since individuals are more likely than federal bureaucrats to insist that schools be accountable for student performance. When the federal government controls the education dollar, schools will be held accountable for their compliance with bureaucratic paperwork requirements and mandates that have little to do with actual education. Federal rules and regulations also divert valuable resources--away from classroom instruction. The only way to reform America's education system is through restoring control of the education dollar to the American people so they can ensure schools provide their children a quality education. I therefore ask all of my colleagues to help improve education by returning education resources to the American people by cosponsoring the Hope Plus Scholarship Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Education Improvement Tax Cut Act. This act, a companion to my Family Education Freedom Act, takes a further step toward returning control over education resources to private citizens by providing a $3,000 tax credit for donations to scholarship funds to enable low-income children to attend private schools. It also encourages private citizens to devote more of their resources to helping public schools, by providing a $3,000 tax credit for cash or in-kind donations to public schools to support academic or extra curricular programs. I need not remind my colleagues that education is one of the top priorities of the American people. After all, many members of Congress have proposed education reforms and a great deal of time is spent debating these proposals. However, most of these proposals either expand federal control over education or engage in the pseudo- federalism of block grants. Many proposals that claim to increase local control over education actually extend federal power by holding schools ``accountable'' to federal bureaucrats and politicians. Of course, schools should be held accountable for their results, but they should be held accountable to parents and school boards not to federal officials. Therefore, I propose we move in a different direction and embrace true federalism by returning control over the education dollar to the American people. One of the major problems with centralized control over education funding is that spending priorities set by Washington-based Representatives, staffers, and bureaucrats do not necessarily match the needs of individual communities. In fact, it would be a miracle if spending priorities determined by the wishes of certain politically powerful representatives or the theories of Education Department functionaries match the priorities of every community in a country as large and diverse as America. Block grants do not solve this problem as they simply allow states and localities to choose the means to reach federally-determined ends. Returning control over the education dollar for tax credits for parents and for other concerned citizens returns control over both the means and ends of education policy to local communities. People in one community may use this credit to purchase computers, while children in another community may, at last, have access to a quality music program because of community leaders who took advantage of the tax credit contained in this bill. Children in some communities may benefit most from the opportunity to attend private, parochial, or other religious schools. One of the most encouraging trends in education has been the establishment of private scholarship programs. These scholarship funds use voluntary contributions to open the doors of quality private schools to low- income children. By providing a tax credit for donations to these programs, Congress can widen the educational opportunities and increase the quality of education for all children. Furthermore, privately-funded scholarships raise none of the concerns of state entanglement raised by publicly- funded vouchers. There is no doubt that Americans will always spend generously on education, the question is, ``who should control the education dollar-- politicians and bureaucrats or the American people?'' Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in placing control of education back in the hands of citizens and local communities by sponsoring the Education Improvement Tax Cut Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Family Education Freedom Act, a bill to empower millions of working and middle-class Americans to choose a non-public education for their children, as well as making it easier for parents to actively participate in improving public schools. The Family Education Freedom Act accomplishes its goals by allowing American parents a tax credit of up to $3,000 for the expenses incurred in sending their child to private, public, parochial, other religious school, or for home schooling their children. The Family Education Freedom Act returns the fundamental principle of a truly free economy to America's education system: what the great economist Ludwig von Mises called ``consumer sovereignty.'' Consumer sovereignty simply means consumers decide who succeeds or fails in the market. Businesses that best satisfy consumer demand will be the most successful. Consumer sovereignty is the means by which the free market maximizes human happiness. Currently, consumers are less than sovereign in the education ``market.'' Funding decisions are increasingly controlled by the federal government. Because ``he who pays the piper calls the tune,'' public, and even private schools, are paying greater attention to the dictates of federal ``educrats'' while ignoring the wishes of the parents to an ever greater degree. As such, the lack of consumer sovereignty in education is destroying parental control of education and replacing it with state control. Loss of control is a key reason why so many of America's parents express dissatisfaction with the educational system. According to a June 2001 poll by McLaughlin and Associates, two- thirds of Americans believe education tax credits would have a positive effect on American education. This poll also found strong support for education tax credits among liberals, moderates, conservatives, low- income individuals, and African-Americans. This is just one of numerous studies and public opinion polls showing that Americans want Congress to get the federal bureaucracy out of the schoolroom and give parents more control over their children's education. Today, Congress can fulfill the wishes of the American people for greater control over their children's education by simply allowing parents to keep more of their hard-earned money to spend on education rather than force them to send it to Washington to support education programs reflective only of the values and priorities of Congress and the federal bureaucracy. The $3,000 tax credit will make a better education affordable for millions of parents. Mr. Speaker, many parents who would choose to send their children to private, religious, or parochial schools are unable to afford the tuition, in large part because of the enormous tax burden imposed on the American family by Washington. The Family Education Freedom Act also benefits parents who choose to send their children to public schools. Parents of children in public schools may use this credit to help improve their local schools by helping finance the purchase of educational tools such as computers or to ensure their local schools can offer enriching extracurricular activities such as music programs. Parents of public school students may also wish to use the credit to pay for special services, such as tutoring, for their children. Increasing parental control of education is superior to funneling more federal tax dollars, followed by greater federal control, into the schools. According to a Manhattan Institute study of the effects of state policies promoting parental control over education, a minimal increase in parental control boosts students' average SAT verbal score by 21 points and students' SAT math score by 22 points! The Manhattan Institute study also found that increasing parental control of education is the best way to improve student performance on the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) tests. Clearly, enactment of the Family Education Freedom Act is the best thing this Congress could do to improve public education. Furthermore, a greater reliance on parental expenditures rather than government tax dollars will help make the public schools into true community schools that reflect the wishes of parents and the interests of the students. The Family Education Freedom Act will also aid those parents who choose to educate their children at home. Home schooling has become an increasingly popular, and successful, method of educating children. Home schooled children out-perform their public school peers by 30 to 37 percentile points across all subjects on nationally standardized achievement exams. Home schooling parents spend thousands of dollars annually, in addition to the wages forgone by the spouse who forgoes outside employment, in order to educate their children in the loving environment of the home. Ultimately, Mr. Speaker, this bill is about freedom. Parental control of child rearing, especially education, is one of the bulwarks of liberty. No nation can remain free when the state has greater influence over the knowledge and values transmitted to children than the family. By moving to restore the primacy of parents to education, the Family Education Freedom Act will not only improve America's education, it will restore a parent's right to choose how best to educate one's own child, a fundamental freedom that has been eroded by the increase in federal education expenditures and the corresponding decrease in the ability of parents to provide for their children's education out of their own pockets. I call on all my colleagues to join me in allowing parents to devote more of their resources to their children's education and less to feed the wasteful Washington bureaucracy by supporting the Family Education Freedom Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, what if it was all a big mistake? America's foreign policy of intervention, while still debated in the early 20th century, is today accepted as conventional wisdom by both political parties. But what if the overall policy is a colossal mistake, a major error in judgment? Not just a bad judgment regarding when and where to impose ourselves, but the entire premise that we have a moral right to meddle in the affairs of others? Think of the untold harm done by years of fighting, hundreds of thousands of American casualties, hundreds of thousands of foreign civilian casualties and unbelievable human and economic costs. What if it was all needlessly borne by the American people? If we do conclude that grave foreign policy errors have been made, a very serious question must be asked: What would it take to change our policy to one more compatible with a true republic's goal of peace, commerce and friendship with all nations? Is it not possible that George Washington's admonition to avoid entangling alliances is sound advice even today? As a physician, I would like to draw an analogy. In medicine, mistakes are made. Man is fallible. Misdiagnoses are made, incorrect treatments are given, and experimental trials of medicine are advocated. A good physician understands the imperfections in medical care, advises close follow-ups and double-checks the diagnoses, treatment and medication. Adjustments are made to assure the best results. But what if a doctor never checks the success or failure of a treatment or ignores bad results and assumes his omnipotence, refusing to concede that the initial course of treatment was a mistake? Let me assure my colleagues the results would not be good. Litigation and the loss of reputation in the medical community place restraints on this type of bull-headed behavior. Sadly, though, when governments, politicians and bureaucrats make mistakes and refuse to examine them, there is little that victims can do to correct things. Since the bully pulpit and the media propaganda machine are instrumental in government cover-ups and deception, the final truth emerges slowly and only after much suffering. The arrogance of some politicians, regulators, and diplomats actually causes them to become even more aggressive and more determined to prove themselves right, to prove their power is not to be messed with by never admitting a mistake. Truly, power corrupts. The unwillingness to ever reconsider our policy of foreign intervention, despite obvious failures and shortcomings over the last 50 years, has brought great harm to our country and our liberty. Historically, financial realities are the ultimate check on nations bent on empire-building. Economic laws ultimately prevail over bad judgment, but tragically, the greater the wealth of the country, the longer the flawed policy lasts. We will probably not be any different. We are still a wealthy Nation and our currency is still trusted by the world. Yet we are vulnerable to some harsh realities about our true wealth and the burden of our future commitments. Overwhelming debt and the precarious nature of the dollar should serve to restrain our determined leaders. Yet they show little concern for our deficits. Rest assured, though, the limitations of our endless foreign adventurism and spending will become apparent to everyone at some point in time. Since 9/11, a lot of energy and money have gone into efforts ostensibly designed to make us safer. Many laws have been passed. Many dollars have been spent. Whether or not we are better off is another question. Today, we occupy two countries in the Middle East. We have suffered over 20,000 casualties and caused possibly 100,000 civilian casualties in Iraq. We have spent over $200 billion in these occupations, as well as hundreds of billions of dollars here at home hoping to be safer. We have created the Department of Homeland Security, passed the PATRIOT Act, and created a new super CIA agency. Our government is now permitted to monitor the Internet, read our mail, search us without proper search warrants, to develop a national ID card, and to investigate what people are reading in libraries. Ironically, illegal aliens flow into our country and qualify for driver's licenses and welfare benefits with little restraint. These issues are discussed, but nothing has been as highly visible to us as the authoritarianism we accept at the airports. The creation of the Transportation Security Administration has intruded on the privacy of all airline travelers, and there is little evidence that we are safer for it. Driven by fear, we have succumbed to the age-old temptation to sacrifice liberty on the pretense of obtaining security. Love of security, unfortunately, all too often vanquishes love of liberty. Unchecked fear of another 9/11-type attack constantly preoccupies our leaders and most of our citizens and drives the legislative attack on our civil liberties. It is frightening to see us doing to ourselves what even bin Laden never dreamed he could accomplish with his suicide bombers. We do not understand the difference between a vague threat of terrorism and the danger of a guerilla war. One prompts us to expand and nationalize domestic law enforcement while limiting the freedoms of all Americans. The other deals with understanding terrorists like bin Laden who declared war against us in 1998. Not understanding the difference makes it virtually impossible to deal with the real threats. We are obsessed with passing new laws to make our country safe from a terrorist attack. This confusion about the cause of the 9/11 attacks, the fear they engendered, and the willingness to sacrifice liberty prompts many to declare their satisfaction with the inconveniences and even humiliation at our Nation's airports. There are always those in government who are anxious to increase its power and authority over the people. Strict adherence to personal privacy annoys those who promote a centralized state. It is no surprise to learn that many of the new laws passed in the aftermath of 9/11 had been proposed long before that date. The attacks merely provided an excuse to do many things previously proposed by dedicated statists. All too often government acts perversely, promising to advance liberty while actually doing the opposite. Dozens of new bills passed since 9/11 promise to protect our freedoms and our securities. In time we will realize there is little chance our security will be enhanced or our liberties protected. The powerful and intrusive TSA certainly will not solve our problems. Without a full discussion, greater understanding, and ultimately a change in our foreign policy that incites those who declare war against us, no amount of pat-downs at airports will suffice. Imagine the harm done, the staggering costs and the loss of liberty if in the next 20 years airplanes are never again employed by terrorists. Even if there is a possibility that airplanes will be used to terrorize us, TSA's bullying will do little to prevent it. Patting down old women and little kids in airports cannot possibly make us safer. TSA cannot protect us from another attack, and it is not the solution. It serves only to make us more obedient and complacent toward government intrusion in our lives. The airplane mess has been compounded by other problems which we fail to recognize. Most assume that government has the greatest responsibility for making private aircraft travel safe. But this assumption only ignores mistakes made before 9/11, when the government taught us to not resist, taught us that airline personnel could not carry guns, and that the government would be in charge of security. Airline owners became complacent and dependent on the government. After 9/11, we moved in the wrong direction by allowing total government control and political takeover of the TSA, which was completely contrary to the proposition that private owners have the ultimate responsibility to protect their customers. Discrimination laws passed during the last 40 years ostensibly fueled the Transportation Secretary's near obsession with avoiding the appearance of discriminating against young Muslim males. Instead, TSA seemingly targeted white children and old women. We have failed to recognize that a safety policy by a private airline is quite a different thing from government agents blindly obeying antidiscrimination laws. Governments do not have a right to use blanket discrimination such as that which led to the incarceration of Japanese Americans in World War II. However, local law enforcement agencies should be able to target their searches if the description of a suspect is narrowed by sex, race or religion. But we are dealing with an entirely different matter when it comes to safety on airplanes. The Federal Government should not be involved in local law enforcement and has no right to discriminate. Airlines, on the other hand, should be permitted to do whatever is necessary to provide safety. Private firms, long denied this right, should have a right to discriminate. Fine restaurants, for example, can require that shoes and shirts be worn for service in their establishments. The logic of this remaining property right should permit more sensible security checks at airports. The airlines should be responsible for the safety of their property and liable for it as well. This is not only the responsibility of the airlines, but it is a civil right that has long been denied them and other private companies. The present situation requires the government to punish some by targeting those individuals who clearly offer no threat. Any airline that tries to make travel safer and happens to question a larger number of young Muslim males than the government deems appropriate can be assessed huge fines. To add insult to injury, the fines collected from the airlines are used to force sensitivity training on pilots, who do their very best under the circumstances to make flying safer by restricting the travel of some individuals. We have embarked on a process that serves no logical purpose. While airline safety suffers, personal liberty is diminished, and costs skyrocket. Mr. Speaker, if we are willing to consider a different foreign policy, we should ask ourselves a few questions: What if the policies of foreign intervention, entangling alliances, policing the world, nation-building, and spreading our values through force are deeply flawed? What if it is true that Saddam Hussein never had weapons of mass destruction? What if it is true that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were never allies? What if it is true that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein did nothing to enhance our national security? What if our current policy in the Middle East leads to the overthrow of our client oil states in that region? What if the American people really knew that more than 20,000 American troops have suffered serious casualties or died in the Iraq war, and 9 percent of our forces already have been made incapable of returning to battle? What if it turns out there are many more guerilla fighters in Iraq than our government admits? What if there really have been 100,000 civilian Iraqi casualties, as some claim; and what is an acceptable price for doing good? What if Secretary Rumsfeld is replaced for the wrong reasons, and things become worse under a defense secretary who demands more troops and an expansion of the war? What if we discover that when they do vote, the overwhelming majority of Iraqis support Islamic law over Western secular law and want our troops removed? What if those who correctly warned of the disaster awaiting us in Iraq are never asked for their opinion of what should be done now? What if the only solution for Iraq is to divide the country into three separate regions, recognizing the principle of self-determination while rejecting the artificial boundaries created in 1918 by non- Iraqis? What if it turns out radical Muslims do not hate us for our freedoms, but rather for our policies in the Middle East that directly affected Arabs and Muslims? What if the invasion and occupation of Iraq actually distracted from pursuing and capturing Osama bin Laden? What if we discover that democracy cannot be spread with force of arms? What if democracy is deeply flawed and, instead, we should be talking about liberty, property rights, free markets, the rule of law, localized government, weak centralized government, and self- determination promoted through persuasion, not force? What if Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda actually welcomed our invasion and occupation of an Arab-Muslim Iraq as proof of their accusations against us, and it served as a magnificent recruiting tool for them? What if our policy greatly increased and prolonged our vulnerability to terrorists and guerilla attacks both at home and abroad? What if the Pentagon, as reported by its Defense Science Board, actually recognized the dangers of our policy before the invasion, and their warnings were ignored or denied? What if the argument that by fighting over there we will not have to fight here is wrong, and the opposite is true? What if we can never be safer by giving up some of our freedoms? What if the principle of preemptive war is adopted by Russia, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, and others, and justified by current U.S. policy? What if preemptive war and preemptive guilt stem from the same flawed policy of authoritarianism, though we fail to recognize it? What if Pakistan is not a trustworthy ally and turns on us when conditions deteriorate? What if plans are being laid to provoke Syria and/or Iran into actions that would be used to justify a military response and preemptive war against them? What if our policy of democratization of the Middle East fails and ends up fueling a Russian-Chinese alliance that we regret; an alliance not achieved even at the height of the Cold War? What if the policy forbidding profiling at our borders and airports is deeply flawed? What if presuming the guilt of a suspected terrorist without a trial leads to the total undermining of constitutional protections for American citizens when arrested? What if we discover the Army is too small to continue policies of preemption and nation-building? What if a military draft is the only way to mobilize enough troops? What if the stop-loss program is actually an egregious violation of trust and a breach of contract between the government and soldiers; what if this is actually a back-door draft, leading to unbridled cynicism and rebellion against a voluntary army and generating support for a draft of both men and women? Will lying to troops lead to rebellion and anger toward the political leaderships running this war? What if the Pentagon's legal task force opinion that the President is not bound by international or Federal law regarding torture stands unchallenged and sets a precedent which ultimately harms Americans while totally disregarding the moral, practical, and legal arguments against such a policy? What if the intelligence reform legislation which gives us a bigger, more expensive bureaucracy does not bolster our security, distracts us from the real problem of revamping our interventionist foreign policy? What if we suddenly discover we are the aggressors and we are losing an unwinnable guerilla war? What if we discover too late that we cannot afford this war, and that our policies have led to a dollar collapse, rampant inflation, high interest rates, and a severe economic downturn? Mr. Speaker, why do I believe these are such important questions? Because the number one function of the Federal Government is to provide for national security. And national security has been severely undermined. On 9/11 we had a grand total of 14 aircraft to protect the entire U.S. mainland, all of which proved useless that day. We have an annual DOD budget of over $400 billion, most of which is spent overseas in over 100 different countries. Tragically, on 9/11 our Air Force was better positioned to protect Seoul, Tokyo, Berlin and London than it was to protect Washington, D.C. and New York City. Moreover, our ill advised presence in the Middle East and our decade-long bombing of Iraq served only to incite the suicidal attacks of 9/11. Before 9/11 our CIA ineptly pursued bin Laden, whom the Taliban was protecting. At the same time, the Taliban was receiving significant support from Pakistan, our trusted ally that received millions of dollars from the United States. We allied ourselves both with bin Laden and Hussein in the 1980s, only to regret it in the 1990s. And it is safe to say we have used billions of U.S. dollars in the last 50 years pursuing this contradictory, irrational, foolish, costly and very dangerous foreign policy. Policing the world, spreading democracy by force, nation-building and frequent bombing of countries that pose no threat to us, while leaving the homeland and our borders unprotected, result from a foreign policy that is contradictory and not in our self-interest. I can hardly expect anyone in Washington to pay much attention to my concerns. But if I am completely wrong in my criticism, nothing is lost except my time and energy expended in efforts to get others to reconsider our foreign policy. But the bigger question is, what if I am right, or even partially right, and we urgently need to change course in our foreign policy for the sake of our national and economic security, yet no one pays attention? For that, a price will be paid. Is it not worth talking about?

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Liberty Amendment, which repeals the 16th Amendment, thus paving the way for real change in the way government collects and spends the people's hard-earned money. The Liberty Amendment also explicitly forbids the federal government from performing any action not explicitly authorized by the United States Constitution. The 16th Amendment gives the federal government a direct claim on the lives of American citizens by enabling Congress to levy a direct income tax on individuals. Until the passage of the 16th amendment, the Supreme Court had consistently held that Congress had no power to impose an income tax. Income taxes are responsible for the transformation of the federal government from one of limited powers into a vast leviathan whose tentacles reach into almost every aspect of American life. Thanks to the income tax, today the federal government routinely invades our privacy, and penalizes our every endeavor. The Founding Fathers realized that ``the power to tax is the power to destroy,'' which is why they did not give the federal government the power to impose an income tax. Needless to say, the Founders would be horrified to know that Americans today give more than a third of their income to the federal government. Income taxes not only diminish liberty, they retard economic growth by discouraging work and production. Our current tax system also forces Americans to waste valuable time and money on compliance with an ever- more complex tax code. The increased interest in flat-tax and national sales tax proposals, as well as the increasing number of small businesses that question the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) ``withholding'' system provides further proof that America is tired of the labyrinthine tax code. Americans are also increasingly fed up with an IRS that continues to ride roughshod over their civil liberties, despite recent ``pro-taxpayer'' reforms. Mr. Speaker, America survived and prospered for 140 years without an income tax, and with a federal government that generally adhered to strictly constitutional functions, operating with modest excise revenues. The income tax opened the door to the era (and errors) of Big Government. I hope my colleagues will help close that door by cosponsoring the Liberty Amendment.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Make College Affordable Act of 2005. This legislation helps millions of Americans afford college by making college tuition tax deductible. Today the average cost of education at a state university is $9,802 per year, and the cost of education at a private university is $31,052 per year! These high costs have left many middle class American families struggling to afford college for their children, who are often ineligible for financial aid. Therefore, middle class students have no choice but to obtain student loans, and thus leave college saddled with massive debt. Even families who plan and save well in advance for their children's education may have a difficult time because their savings are eroded by taxation and inflation. The Make College Affordable Act will help these middle class students by allowing them, or their parents or guardians who claim them as dependents, to deduct the cost of college tuition as well as the cost of student loan repayments. The Make College Affordable Act will also help older or nontraditional students looking to improve their job skills or prepare for a career change, by pursuing higher education. In today's economy, the average American worker can expect to change jobs, and even careers, several times during his or her working life, making it more important than ever that working Americans be able to devote their resources to continuing their educations. Helping the American people use their own money to ensure every qualified American can receive a college education is one of the best investments this Congress can make in the future. I therefore urge my colleagues to help strengthen America by ensuring more Americans can obtain college educations by cosponsoring the Make College Affordable Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Parental Consent Act. This bill forbids Federal funds from being used for any universal or mandatory mental-health screening of students without the express, written, voluntary, informed consent of their parents or legal guardians. This bill protects the fundamental right of parents to direct and control the upbringing and education of their children. The New Freedom Commission on Mental Health has recommended that the Federal and State Governments work toward the implementation of a comprehensive system of mental-health screening for all Americans. The commission recommends that universal or mandatory mental-health screening first be implemented in public schools as a prelude to expanding it to the general public. However, neither the commission's report nor any related mental-health screening proposal requires parental consent before a child is subjected to mental-health screening. Federally-funded universal or mandatory mental health screening in schools without parental consent could lead to labeling more children as ``ADD'' or ``hyperactive'' and thus force more children to take psychotropic drugs, such as Ritalin, against their parents' wishes. Already, too many children are suffering from being prescribed psychotropic drugs for nothing more than children's typical rambunctious behavior. According to the Journal of the American Medical Association, there was a 300-percent increase in psychotropic drug use in two- to four-year-old children from 1991 to 1995. Many children have suffered harmful side effects from using psychotropic drugs. Some of the possible side effects include mania, violence, dependence, and weight gain. Yet, parents are already being threatened with child abuse charges if they resist efforts to drug their children. Imagine how much easier it will be to drug children against their parents' wishes if a federally-funded mental-health screener makes the recommendation. Universal or mandatory mental-health screening could also provide a justification for stigmatizing children from families that support traditional values. Even the authors of mental-health diagnosis manuals admit that mental-health diagnoses are subjective and based on social constructions. Therefore, it is all too easy for a psychiatrist to label a person's disagreement with the psychiatrist's political beliefs a mental disorder. For example, a federally-funded school violence prevention program lists ``intolerance'' as a mental problem that may lead to school violence. Because ``intolerance'' is often a code word for believing in traditional values, children who share their parents' values could be labeled as having mental problems and a risk of causing violence. If the mandatory mental-health screening program applies to adults, everyone who believes in traditional values could have his or her beliefs stigmatized as a sign of a mental disorder. Taxpayer dollars should not support programs that may label those who adhere to traditional values as having a ``mental disorder.'' Mr. Speaker, universal or mandatory mental-health screening threatens to undermine parents' right to raise their children as the parents see fit. Forced mental-health screening could also endanger the health of children by leading to more children being improperly placed on psychotropic drugs, such as Ritalin, or stigmatized as ``mentally ill'' or a risk of causing violence because they adhere to traditional values. Congress has a responsibility to the nation's parents and children to stop this from happening. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Parental Consent Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the Identity Theft Prevention Act. This act protects the American people from government- mandated uniform identifiers that facilitate private crime as well as the abuse of liberty. The major provision of the Identity Theft Prevention Act halts the practice of using the Social Security number as an identifier by requiring the Social Security Administration to issue all Americans new Social Security numbers within 5 years after the enactment of the bill. These new numbers will be the sole legal property of the recipient, and the Social Security administration shall be forbidden to divulge the numbers for any purposes not related to Social Security administration. Social Security numbers issued before implementation of this bill shall no longer be considered valid Federal identifiers. Of course, the Social Security Administration shall be able to use an individual's original Social Security number to ensure efficient administration of the Social Security system. Mr. Speaker, Congress has a moral responsibility to address this problem because it was Congress that transformed the Social Security number into a national identifier. Thanks to Congress, today no American can get a job, open a bank account, get a professional license, or even get a driver's license without presenting his Social Security number. So widespread has the use of the Social Security number become that a member of my staff had to produce a Social Security number in order to get a fishing license. One of the most disturbing abuses of the Social Security number is the congressionally authorized rule forcing parents to get a Social Security number for their newborn children in order to claim the children as dependents. Forcing parents to register their children with the State is more like something out of the nightmares of George Orwell than the dreams of a free republic that inspired this Nation's Founders. Congressionally mandated use of the Social Security number as an identifier facilitates the horrendous crime of identity theft. Thanks to Congress, an unscrupulous person may simply obtain someone's Social Security number in order to access that person's bank accounts, credit cards, and other financial assets. Many Americans have lost their life savings and had their credit destroyed as a result of identity theft. Yet the Federal Government continues to encourage such crimes by mandating use of the Social Security number as a uniform ID. This act also forbids the Federal Government from creating national ID cards or establishing any identifiers for the purpose of investigating, monitoring, overseeing, or regulating private transactions among American citizens. At the very end of the 108th Congress, this body established a de facto national ID card with a provision buried in the ``intelligence'' reform bill mandating Federal standards for drivers' licenses, and mandating that Federal agents only accept a license that conforms to these standards as a valid ID. Nationalizing standards for drivers' licenses and birth certificates creates a national ID system pure and simple. Proponents of the national ID understand that the public remains wary of the scheme, so proponents attempt to claim they are merely creating new standards for existing State IDs. However, the ``intelligence'' reform legislation imposed Federal standards in a Federal bill, thus creating a federalized ID regardless of whether the ID itself is still stamped with the name of your State. It is just a matter of time until those who refuse to carry the new licenses will be denied the ability to drive or board an airplane. Domestic travel restrictions are the hallmark of authoritarian States, not free republics. The national ID will be used to track the movements of American citizens, not just terrorists. Subjecting every citizen to surveillance diverts resources away from tracking and apprehending terrorists in favor of needless snooping on innocent Americans. This is what happened with ``suspicious activity reports'' required by the Bank Secrecy Act. Thanks to BSA mandates, Federal officials are forced to waste countless hours snooping through the private financial transactions of innocent Americans merely because those transactions exceeded $10,000. The Identity Theft Prevention Act repeals those sections of Federal law creating the national ID, as well as those sections of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 that require the Department of Health and Human Services to establish a uniform standard health identifier--an identifier which could be used to create a national database containing the medical history of all Americans. As an OB/GYN with more than 30 years in private practice, I know the importance of preserving the sanctity of the physician-patient relationship. Oftentimes, effective treatment depends on a patient's ability to place absolute trust in his or her doctor. What will happen to that trust when patients know that any and all information given to their doctors will be placed in a government accessible database? By putting an end to government-mandated uniform IDs, the Identity Theft Prevention Act will prevent millions of Americans from having their liberty, property, and privacy violated by private and public sector criminals. In addition to forbidding the Federal Government from creating national identifiers, this legislation forbids the Federal Government from blackmailing States into adopting uniform standard identifiers by withholding Federal funds. One of the most onerous practices of Congress is the use of Federal funds illegitimately taken from the American people to bribe States into obeying Federal dictates. Some Members of Congress will claim that the Federal Government needs the power to monitor Americans in order to allow the government to operate more efficiently. I would remind my colleagues that, in a constitutional republic, the people are never asked to sacrifice their liberties to make the jobs of government officials easier. We are here to protect the freedom of the American people, not to make privacy invasion more efficient. Mr. Speaker, while I do not question the sincerity of those Members who suggest that Congress can ensure that citizens' rights are protected through legislation restricting access to personal information, the only effective privacy protection is to forbid the Federal Government from mandating national identifiers. Legislative ``privacy protections'' are inadequate to protect the liberty of Americans for a couple of reasons. First, it is simply common sense that repealing those Federal laws that promote identity theft is more effective in protecting the public than expanding the power of the Federal police force. Federal punishment of identity thieves provides cold comfort to those who have suffered financial losses and the destruction of their good reputations as a result of identity theft. Federal laws are not only ineffective in stopping private criminals, but these laws have not even stopped unscrupulous government officials from accessing personal information. After all, laws purporting to restrict the use of personal information did not stop the well- publicized violations of privacy by IRS officials or the FBI abuses of the Clinton and Nixon administrations. In one of the most infamous cases of identity theft, thousands of active-duty soldiers and veterans had their personal information stolen, putting them at risk of identity theft. Imagine the dangers if thieves are able to obtain the universal identifier, and other personal information, of millions of Americans simply by breaking, or hacking, into one government facility or one government database? Second, the Federal Government has been creating proprietary interests in private information for certain State-favored special interests. Perhaps the most outrageous example of phony privacy protection is the ``medical privacy''' regulation, that allows medical researchers, certain business interests, and law enforcement officials access to health care information, in complete disregard of the Fifth Amendment and the wishes of individual patients! Obviously, ``privacy protection'' laws have proven greatly inadequate to protect personal information when the government is the one seeking the information. Any action short of repealing laws authorizing privacy violations is insufficient primarily because the Federal Government lacks constitutional authority to force citizens to adopt a universal identifier for health care, employment, or any other reason. Any Federal action that oversteps constitutional limitations violates liberty because it ratifies the principle that the Federal Government, not the Constitution, is the ultimate judge of its own jurisdiction over the people. The only effective protection of the rights of citizens is for Congress to follow Thomas Jefferson's advice and ``bind (the Federal Government) down with the chains of the Constitution.'' Mr. Speaker, those members who are not persuaded by the moral and constitutional reasons for embracing the Identity Theft Prevention Act should consider the American people's opposition to national identifiers. The numerous complaints over the ever-growing uses of the Social Security number show that Americans want Congress to stop invading their privacy. Furthermore, according to a survey by the Gallup company, 91 percent of the American people oppose forcing Americans to obtain a universal health ID. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I once again call on my colleagues to join me in putting an end to the Federal Government's unconstitutional use of national identifiers to monitor the actions of private citizens. National identifiers threaten all Americans by exposing them to the threat of identity theft by private criminals and abuse of their liberties by public criminals, while diverting valuable law enforcement resources away from addressing real threats to public safety. In addition, national identifiers are incompatible with a limited, constitutional government. I, therefore, hope my colleagues will join my efforts to protect the freedom of their constituents by supporting the Identity Theft Prevention Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to protect the integrity of the Social Security trust fund by introducing the Social Security Preservation Act. The Social Security Preservation Act is a rather simple bill which states that all monies raised by the Social Security trust fund will be spent in payments to beneficiaries, with excess receipts invested in interest-bearing certificates of deposit. This will help keep Social Security trust fund monies from being diverted to other programs, as well as allow the fund to grow by providing for investment in interest- bearing instruments. The Social Security Preservation Act ensures that the government will keep its promises to America's seniors that taxes collected for Social Security will be used for Social Security. When the government taxes Americans to fund Social Security, it promises the American people that the money will be there for them when they retire. Congress has a moral obligation to keep that promise. With federal deficits reaching historic levels the pressure from special interests for massive new raids on the trust fund is greater than ever. Thus it is vital that Congress act now to protect the trust fund from big spending, pork-barrel politics. Social Security reform will be one of the major issues discussed in this Congress and many of my colleagues have different ideas regarding how to best preserve the long-term solvency of the program. However, as a medical doctor, I know the first step in treatment is to stop the bleeding, and the Social Security Preservation Act stops the bleeding of the Social Security trust fund. I therefore call upon all my colleagues, regardless of which proposal for long-term Social Security reform they support, to stand up for America's seniors by cosponsoring the Social Security Preservation Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce two pieces of legislation to reduce taxes on senior citizens. The first bill, the Social Security Beneficiary Tax Reduction Act, repeals the 1993 tax increase on Social Security benefits. Repealing this increase on Social Security benefits is a good first step toward reducing the burden imposed by the federal government on senior citizens. However, imposing any tax on Social Security benefits is unfair and illogical. This is why I am also introducing the Senior Citizens' Tax Elimination Act, which repeals all taxes on Social Security benefits. Since Social Security benefits are financed with tax dollars, taxing these benefits is yet another example of double taxation. Furthermore, ``taxing'' benefits paid by the government is merely an accounting trick, a shell game which allows members of Congress to reduce benefits by subterfuge. This allows Congress to continue using the Social Security trust fund as a means of financing other government programs, and masks the true size of the federal deficit. Instead of imposing ridiculous taxes on senior citizens, Congress should ensure the integrity of the Social Security trust fund by ending the practice of using trust fund monies for other programs. In order to accomplish this goal I introduced the Social Security Preservation Act (H.R. 219), which ensures that all money in the Social Security trust fund is spent solely on Social Security. At a time when Congress' inability to control spending is once again threatening the Social Security trust fund, the need for this legislation has never been greater. When the government taxes Americans to fund Social Security, it promises the American people that the money will be there for them when they retire. Congress has a moral obligation to keep that promise. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to help free senior citizens from oppressive taxation by supporting my Senior Citizens' Tax Elimination Act and my Social Security Beneficiary Tax Reduction Act. I also urge my colleagues to ensure that moneys from the Social Security trust fund are used solely for Social Security benefits and not wasted on frivolous government programs.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the election of 2004 is now history. It is time to ponder our next 4 years. Will our country becoming freer, richer, safer, and more peaceful? Or will we continue to suffer from lost civil liberties, a stagnant economy, terrorist threats, and an expanding war in the Middle East and Central Asia? Surely the significance of the election was reflected in its intensity and divisiveness. More people voted for President Bush than any other Presidential candidate in our history. And because of the turnout, more people voted against an incumbent president than ever before. However, President Bush was reelected by the narrowest margin vote of any incumbent president since Woodrow Wilson in 1916. The numbers are important and measurable. The long-term results are less predictable. The President and many others have said these results give the President a mandate. Exactly what that means and what it may lead to is of great importance to us all. Remember, the Nation elected a president in 1972 with a much bigger mandate who never got a chance to use his political capital. The bitter campaign and the intensity with which both sides engaged each other implies that a great divide existed between two competing candidates with sharply different philosophies. There were plenty of perceived differences, obviously, or a heated emotional contest would not have materialized. The biggest difference involved their views on moral and family values. It was evident that the views regarding gay marriage and abortion held by Senator Kerry did not sit well with the majority of American voters, who were then motivated to let their views be known through their support of President Bush. This contributed to the mandate the President received more than any other issue. But it begs the question: If the mandates given was motivated by views held on moral issues, does the President get carte blanche on all the other programs that are less conservative? It appears that the President and his neo-con advisers assume the answer is yes. Ironically, the reason the family and moral values issues played such a big role in the election is that on other big issues little differences existed between the two candidates. Interestingly enough, both candidates graduated from Yale and both were members of the controversial and highly secretive Skull and Bones Society. This fact elicited no interest with the media in the campaign. Both candidates supported the war in Iraq and the continuation of it. Both supported the PATRIOT Act and its controversial attack on personal privacy. Both supported the U.N. and the internationalization under UNESCO, IMF, World Bank, and the WTO. Both candidates agreed that a President can initiate a war without a declaration by Congress. Both supported foreign interventionism in general, foreign aid, and pursuing American interests by maintaining a worldwide American empire. Both supported our current monetary system, which permits the Federal Reserve to accommodate deficit spending by Congress through the dangerous process of debt monetization. Both supported expanding entitlements, including programs like the National Endowment for the Arts, medical benefits, and Federal housing programs. Both candidates supported deficit financing. Both candidates supported increased spending in almost all categories. Though President Bush was more favorably inclined to tax cuts, this, in reality, has limited value if spending continues to grow. All spending must be paid for by a tax, even if it is the inflation tax, whereby printing press money pays the bills and the tax is paid through higher prices, especially by the poor and the middle class. The immediate market reaction to the reelection of President Bush was interesting. The stock market rose significantly, led by certain segments thought to benefit from a friendly Republican administration, such as pharmaceuticals, HMOs, and the weapons industry. The Wall Street Journal summed up the election with a headline the following day: Winner is Big Business. The stock market rally following the election likely will be short- lived, however, as the fundamentals underlying the bear market that started in 2000 are still in place. More important was the reaction of the international exchange markets immediately following the election. The dollar took a dive and gold rose. This indicated that holders of the trillion dollars slushing around the world interpreted the results to mean that, even with conservatives in charge, unbridled spending will not decrease and will actually grow. They also expect the current account deficit and our national debt to increase. This means the economic consequence of continuing our risky fiscal and monetary policy is something Congress should be a lot more concerned about. One Merrill Lynch money manager responded to the election by saying, ``Bush getting re-elected means a bigger deficit, a weaker dollar, and higher gold prices.'' Another broker added, ``Four more years of Bush is a gift to the gold markets, more war and more deficits and more division.'' During the Bush administration, gold surged 70 percent, and the dollar lost 30 percent of its value. A weakened currency is never beneficial, although it is argued it helps our exporters. People who work to earn and save dollars should never have the value of those dollars undermined and diminished by capricious manipulation of the money supply by our government officials. The value of the dollar is a much more important issue than most realize in Washington. Our current account deficit of 6 percent of GDP and our total foreign indebtedness of over $3 trillion pose a threat to our standard of living. Unfortunately, when the crisis hits, our leaders will have little ability to stem the tide of price inflation and higher interest rates that will usher in a dangerous period of economic weakness. Our dependency on foreign borrowing to finance our spendthrift habits is not sustainable. We borrow more than $1.8 billion a day. The solution involves changing our policy with regards to foreign commitments, foreign wars, empires overseas, and ever-growing entitlement system here at home. This change is highly unlikely without significant turmoil, and it is certainly not on the administration's agenda for the next 4 years. That is why the world is now betting against the dollar. When the shift in sentiment comes regarding the U.S. dollar, dollars will come back home. They will be used to buy American assets, especially real property. In the late 1970s it annoyed many Americans when Japan, which was then in the driver's seat of the world economy, started ``buying up America.'' This time a lot more dollars will be repatriated. It's important to note that total future obligations of the United States government are estimated at well over $70 trillion. These obligations obviously cannot be met. This indebtedness equates to an average household share of the national debt of $474,000! One cannot expect the needed changes to occur soon, considering that these options were not even considered or discussed in the campaign. But just because they weren't part of the campaign, and there was no disagreement between the two candidates on the major issues, doesn't distract from their significance nor disqualify these issues from being crucial in the years to come. My guess is that in the next 4 years little legislation will be offered dealing with family and moral issues. Foreign policy and domestic spending, along with the ballooning deficit, will be thrust into the forefront and will demand attention. The inability of our Congress and leaders to change direction, and their determination to pursue policies that require huge expenditures, will force a financial crisis upon us as the dollar is further challenged as the reserve currency of the world on international exchange markets. There will be little resistance to spending and deficits because it will be claimed they are necessary to ``fight terrorism.'' The irony is that PATRIOT Act-type regulations were all proposed before 9-11, and now becoming a costly burden to American businesses. I'm getting more calls every day from constituents who are being harassed by government bureaucrats for ``infractions'' of all kinds totally unrelated to national security. This immeasurable cost from the stepped-up activity of government bureaucrats will further burden our economy as it slips toward recession--and do little to enhance homeland security. The only thing that allows our borrowing from foreigners to continue is the confidence they place in our economic system, our military might, and the dollar itself. This is all about to change. Confidence in us, with the continuous expansion of our military presence overseas and with a fiscal crisis starring us in the face, is already starting to erode. Besides, paper money--and that's all the U.S. dollar is-- always fails when trust is lost. That's a fact of history, not someone's opinion. Be assured trust in paper money never lasts forever. The problem the country faces is that social issues garnered intense interest and motivated many to vote both for and against the candidates, yet these issues are only a tiny fraction of the issues dealt with at the national level. And since the election has passed, the odds of new legislation dealing with social issues are slim. Getting a new Supreme Court that will overthrow Roe vs. Wade is a long shot despite the promises. Remember, we already have a Supreme Court where seven of the nine members were appointed by Republican presidents with little to show for it. Though the recent election reflected the good instincts of many Americans concerned about moral values, abortion, and marriage, let's hope and pray this endorsement will not be used to justify more pre- emptive/unnecessary wars, expand welfare, ignore deficits, endorse the current monetary system, expand the domestic police state, and promote the American empire worldwide. We're more likely to see entitlements and domestic spending continue to increase. There are zero plans for reigning in the Department of Education, Government medical care, farm subsidies, or Federal housing programs. Don't expect the National Endowment for the Arts to be challenged. One can be assured its budget will expand as it has for the last 4 years, with much of the tax money spent on ``arts'' ironically being used to attack family values. Deficits never were much of a concern for Democrats, and the current Republican leadership has firmly accepted the supply-sider argument that ``deficits don't matter,'' as Vice President Cheney declared according to Former Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill. Expenditures for foreign adventurism, as advocated by the neo-cons who direct our foreign policy, have received a shot in the arm with the recent election. Plans have been in the workings for expanding our presence throughout the Middle East and central Asia. Iran is the agreed-on next target for those who orchestrated the Iraq invasion and occupation. A casual attitude has emerged regarding civil liberties. The post 9- 11 atmosphere has made it politically correct to sacrifice some of our personal liberties in the name of security, as evidenced by the PATRIOT Act. No serious thoughts are expressed in Washington about the constitutional principal of local government. The notion of a loose- knit republican form of government is no longer a consideration. The consensus is that the federal government has responsibility for solving all of our problems, and even amending the Constitution to gain proper authority is no longer thought necessary. President Eisenhower, not exactly a champion of a strict interpretation of the Constitution, made some interesting comments years ago when approached about more welfare benefits for the needy: ``If all that Americans want is security, they can go to prison. They'll have enough to eat, a bed and a roof over their heads. But if an American wants to preserve his dignity and his equality as a human being, he must not bow his neck to any dictatorial government.'' Our country sure could use a little bit more of this sentiment, as Congress rushes to pass new laws relating to the fear of another terrorist attack. There are even more reasons to believe the current government status quo is unsustainable. As a nation dependent on the willingness of foreigners to loan us the money to finance our extravagance, we now are consuming 80% of the world's savings. Though the Fed does its part in supplying funds by purchasing Treasury debt, foreign central banks and investors have loaned us nearly twice what the Fed has, to the tune of $1.3 trillion. The daily borrowing needed to support our spending habits cannot last. It can be argued that even the financing of the Iraq war cannot be accomplished without the willingness of countries like China and Japan to loan us the necessary funds. Any shift, even minor, in this sentiment will send chills through the world financial markets. It will not go unnoticed, and every American consumer will be affected. The debt, both domestic and foreign, is difficult to comprehend. Our national debt is $7.4 trillion, and this limit will be raised in the lame duck session. This plus our U.S. foreign debt breaks all records, and is a threat to sustained economic growth. The amazing thing is that deficits and increases in the debt limit no longer have a stigma attached to them. Some demagoguery takes place, but the limit is easily raised. With stronger partisan control over Congress, the President will have even less difficulty in raising the limit as necessary. It is now acceptable policy to spend excessively without worrying about debt limits. It may be a sign of the times, but the laws of economics cannot be repealed and eventually a price will be paid for this extravagance. Few in Washington comprehend the nature of the crisis. But liberal Lawrence Summers, Clinton's Secretary of the Treasury and now president of Harvard, perceptively warns of the danger that is fast approaching. He talks of, ``A kind of global balance of financial terror'' that we should be concerned about. He goes on to say: ``there is surely something off about the world's greatest power being the world's greatest debtor. In order to finance prevailing levels of consumption and investment, must the United States be as dependent as it is on the discretionary acts of what are inevitably political entities in other countries?'' An economist from the American Enterprise Institute also expressed concern by saying that foreign central banks ``now have considerable ability to disrupt U.S. financial markets by simply deciding to refrain from buying further U.S. government paper.'' We must remember the Soviet system was not destroyed from without by military confrontation; it succumbed to the laws of economics that dictated communism a failure, and it was unable to finance its empire. Deficit-financed welfarism, corporatism, Keynesianism, inflationism, and Empire, American style, are no more economically sound than the more authoritarian approach of the Soviets. If one is concerned with the Red/Blue division in this country and the strong feelings that exist already, an economic crisis will make the conflict much more intense. the crucial moral issue--Respect for Life It has been said that a society is defined by how it treats its elderly, its infirm, its weak, its small, its defenseless, and its unborn. The moral issue surrounding abortion and the right to life is likely the most important issue of our age. It is imperative that we resolve the delimma of why it's proper to financially reward an abortionist who acts one minute before birth, yet we arrest and prosecute a new mother who throws her child into a garbage bin one minute after birth. This moral dilemma, seldom considered, is the source of great friction in today's society as we witnessed in the recent election. This is a reflection of personal moral values and society's acceptance of abortion more than a reflection of a particular law or court ruling. In the 1960s, as part of the new age of permissiveness, people's attitudes changed regarding abortion. This led to a change in the law as reflected in court rulings--especially Roe vs. Wade. The people's moral standards changed first, followed by the laws. It was not the law or the Supreme Court that brought on the age of abortion. I've wondered if our casual acceptance of the deaths inflicted on both sides in the Vietnam War, and its association with the drug culture that many used to blot out the tragic human losses, contributed to the cheapening of pre-born human life and the acceptance of abortion as a routine and acceptable practice. Though abortion is now an ingrained part of our society, the moral conflict over the issue continues to rage with no end in sight. The 1973 Roe vs. Wade ruling caused great harm in two distinct ways. First, it legalized abortion at any stage, establishing clearly that the Supreme Court and the government condoned the cheapening of human life. Second, it firmly placed this crucial issue in the hands of the federal courts and national government. The federalization of abortion was endorsed even by those who opposed abortion. Instead of looking for State-by-State solutions and limiting Federal court jurisdiction, those anxious to protect life came to rely on Federal laws, eroding the constitutional process. The authors of the Constitution intended for criminal matters and acts of violence, except for a few rare exceptions, to be dealt with at the state level. Now, however, conservatives as well as liberals find it acceptable to nationalize issues such as abortion, marriage, prayer, and personal sexual matters--with more federal legislation offered as the only solution. This trend of transferring power from the States to the Federal Government compounds our problems--for when we lose, it affects all 50 States, and overriding Congress or the Supreme Court becomes far more difficult than dealing with a single State. The issue of moral values and the mandate that has been claimed after the election raises serious questions. The architects of the Iraq invasion claim a stamp of approval from the same people who voted for moral values by voting against abortion and gay marriage. The question must be asked whether or not the promotion of pre-emptive war and a foreign policy of intervention deserve the same acceptance as the pro- life position by those who supported moral values. The two seem incompatible: being pro-life yet pro-war, with a callous disregard for the innocent deaths of thousands. The minister who preaches this mixed message of protecting life for some while promoting death for others deserves close scrutiny. Too often the message from some of our national Christian leaders sounds hateful and decidedly un-Christian in tone. They preach the need for vengence and war against a country that never attacked nor posed a threat to us. It's just as important to resolve this dilemma as the one involving the abortionist who is paid to kill the unborn while the mother is put in prison for killing her newborn. To argue the invasion and occupation of Iraq is pro-life and pro- moral values is too much of a stretch for thinking Americans, expecially conservative Christians. One cannot know the true intention of the war promoters, but the policy and its disastrous results require out attention and criticism. Pre-emptive war, especially when based on erroneous assumptions, cannot be ignored--nor can we ignore the cost in life and limb, the financial costs, ant the lost liberties. Being more attuned to our Constitution and having a different understanting of morality would go a long way toward preventing unnecessary and dangerous wars. I'd like to make a few points about this different understanding: First: The United States should never go to war without an express Declaration by Congress. If we had followed this crucial but long- forgotten rule the lives lost in Korea, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf, and Iraq might have been prevented. And Instead of making us less secure, this process would make us more secure. Absent our foreign occupations and support for certain governments in the Middle East and central Asia over the past fifty years, the 9-11 attack would have been far less likely to happen. Second: A defensive war is normally permissable and justified, even required. Just as a criminal who invades our house and threatens our family deserves to be shot on the spot, so too does a nation have the moral duty to defend against invasion or an imminent threat. For centuries the Christian definition of a just war has guided many nations in making this decision. Third: The best test (a test the chicken hawks who promoted the war refused to take) for those who are so eager to send our troops to die in no-win wars is this: ``Am I willing to go; am I willing to be shot; am I willing to die for this cause; am I willing to sacrifice my children and grandchildren for this effort?'' The bottom line: Is this Iraq war worth the loss of more than 1,200 dead Americans, and thousands of severe casualties, with no end in sight, likely lasting for years and motivating even more suicidal attacks on innocent Americans here at home? Fourth: Can we as a moral people continue to ignore the loss of innocent life on the other side? Can we as a nation accept the callousness of the war proponents regarding the estimated 100,000 Iraqi civilian deaths? Can we believe these deaths are a mere consequence of our worthy effort to impse our will on an alien culture? Is it really our duty to sacrifice so much to pursue a questionable policy of dictating to others what we think is best for them? Can these deaths be dismissed as nothing more than ``collateral damage,'' and even applauded as proof of the professed progress we are making in our effort to democratize the Middle East? By ignoring the human costs ot the conflict we invite problems, and the consequence of our actions will come back to haunt us. Fifth: Arguing that the war in Iraq is necessary for our national security is pure fiction; that has something to do with the 9-11 attack or WMDs is nonsense. Our meddling in the Middle East and the rest of the World actually increases the odds of us being attacked again by suicidal guerrillas here at home. Tragically, this is something the neo-cons will never admit. Sixth: What kind of satisfaction can we achieve from the civil was we have instigated? A significant portion of the killing in Iraq now occurs amongst Iraqis themselves, at our urging. The country is in chaos, despite the assurances of our leaders. Even under the thug Saddam Hussein, Christians at least were protected by the government-- whereas today their churches are bombed and many are struggling to escape the violence by fleeing to Syria. There is no evidence that our efforts in the Middle East have promoted life and peace. Tragically, no one expects the death and destruction in Iraq to end anytime soon. To not be repulsed and outraged over our failed policy undermines our commitment to pro-life and moral values. Of course it's hard for many Americans to be outraged since so few know or even care about cities like Fallujah. The propaganda machine has achieved its goal of ignorance and denial for most of our citizens. Main Street America will rise up in indignation only after conditionsin the Persian Gulf deteriorate further, many more Americans lives are lost, and the cost becomes obvious and prohibitive. It's sad, but only then will we consider changing our policy. The losses likely to occur between now and then will be tragic indeed. Though the election did not reflect a desire for us to withdraw from Iraq, it will be a serious mistake for those who want to expand the war into Syria or Iran to claim the election results were an endorsement of the policy of preemptive war. Yet that's exactly what may happen if no one speaks out against our aggressive policy of foreign intervention and occupation. What can't be ignored is that our activities in the Middle East have stirred up Russian and Chinese animosity. Their concern for their own security may force us to confront much greater resistance that we have met so far in Afghanistan and Iraq. A Chinese news agency recently reported that the Chinese government made a $70 billion investment commitment in Iran for the development of natural gas resources. This kind of investment by a neighbor of Iran will be of great significance if the neo-cons have their way and we drag Iran into the Afghanistan and Iraqi quagmire. The close alliance between Iranian Shias and their allies in Iraq makes a confrontation with Iran likely, as the neocons stoke the fire of war in the region. By failing to understand the history of the region and the nature of tribal culture, we have made victory virtually impossible. Tribal customs and religious beliefs that have existed for thousands of years instruct that family honor requires reciprocal killing for every member of the family killed by infidels/Americans. For each of the possible 100,000 Iraqis killed, there's a family that feels a moral obligation to get revenge by killing an American, any American if possible. Ronald Reagan learned this lesson the hard way in coming to understand attitudes in Lebanon. Reagon spoke boldly that he would not turn tail and run no matter how difficult the task when he sent Marines to support the Israeli/Christian side of the Lebanese civil war in 1983. But he changed his tune after 241 Marines were killed. He wrote about the incident in his autobiography: ``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 to 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 . . . 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 re-think our policy there.'' Shortly thereafter Reagan withdrew the Marines from Lebanon, and no more Americans were killed in that fruitless venture. Too bad our current foreign policy experts don't understand the ``irrationality of Middle Eastern politics.'' By leaving Lebanon, Reagan saved lives and proved our intervention in the Lebanese war was of no benefit to Lebanon or the United States. Reagan's willingness to admit error and withdraw from Lebanon was heroic, and proved to be life-saving. True to form, many neo-cons with their love of war exude contempt for Reagan's decision. To them, force and violence are heroic, not reassessing a bad situation and changing policy accordingly. One of the great obstacles to our efforts in Iraq is pretending we're fighting a country. We wrongly expect occupation and ``democratization'' to solve our problems. The notion that the Iraq war is part of our retaliation for the 9-11 attacks is a serious error that must be corrected if we are to achieve peace and stability in the Middle East and security here at home. We must come to realize that we're fighting an ideology that is totally alien to us. Within that ideology the radical Islamists and the traditional tribal customs are in conflict with more moderate and secular Muslims. We're seen as intruding in this family feud, and thus serve the interests of the radicals as we provide evidence that they are under attack by Western crusaders. With each act of violence the hatred between the two is ratcheted upward, as fighting spreads throughout the entire Muslim world. Ironically, this fight over religious values and interpretations in the Middle East encourages a similar conflict here at home among Christians. The conservative Christian community too often sounds militantly pro-war. Too many have totally forgotten the admonition ``blessed are the peacemakers.'' This contrasts with the views of some Christians, who find pre-emptive war decidedly un-Christian. Though civil, the two Christian views are being more hotly contested every day. A policy that uses the religious civil war within the Muslim faith as an excuse for remaking the entire Middle East by force makes little sense and will not end well. The more we fight and the more we kill the greater the animosity of those who want us out of their family feud-- and out of their countries. It's clear the Christian conservative turnout was critical to the President's re-election. Though many may well have voted for the family/moral values touted by the President and mishandled by Senator Kerry, most agree with the Christian Right that our policy of pre- emptive war in the Middle East is not in conflict with pro-family and pro-life values. This seems strange indeed, since a strong case can be made that the conservation Christian Right, those most interested in the pro-life issue, ought to be the strongest defenders of peace and reject unnecessary pre-emptive war. Here are a few reasons why conservatives ought to reject the current policy of pre-emptive war: 1. The Constitution is on the side of peace. Under the Constitution-- the law of the land--only Congress can declare war. The President is prohibited from taking us to war on his own. 2. The Founders and all the early presidents argued the case for non- intervention overseas, with the precise goals of avoiding entangling alliances and not involving our people in foreign wars unrelated to our security. 3. The American tradition and sense of morality for almost all our history rejected the notion that we would ever deliberately start a war, even with noble intentions. 4. The Christian concept of just war rejects all the excuses given for marching off to Iraq with the intention of changing the whole region into a western-style democracy by force, with little regard for the cost in life and limb and the economic consequences here at home. 5. America faces a $7.5 trillion national debt that is increasing by $600 billion per year. Fiscal conservatives cannot dismiss this, even as they clamor for wars we cannot afford. 6. History shows the size of the state always grows when we're at war. Under conditions of war, civil liberties are always sacrificed-- thus begging the point. We go hither and yon to spread our message of freedom, while sacrificing our freedoms here at home and eating away at the wealth of the country. 7. Those who understand the most important function of our national government is to provide strong national defense should realize that having troops in over 100 countries hardly helps us protect America, secure our borders, or avoid alienating our allies and potential enemies. 8. The best way to prevent terrorism is to change our policies, stop playing crusader, and stop picking sides in religious civil wars or any other civil wars. ``Blowback'' from our policies is not imaginary. 9. Promoting true free trade and promoting prosperity through low taxes and less regulation sends a strong message to the world and those interested in peace and commerce. 10. A policy of free exchange with other nations avoids the trappings of the new isolationists, who influence our foreign policy with the generous use of sanctions, trade barriers, and competitive currency devaluations. They are only too willing to defer to the World Trade Organization and allow it to dictate our trade and tax policies. Conservatives who profess to uphold the principle of right-to-life should have little trouble supporting the position of the Founders and the Constitution: a foreign policy of ``peace and commerce with those who choose and no entangling alliances.''

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this ill- conceived, counter-productive legislation. This represents exactly the kind of unconstitutional interventionism the Founding Fathers warned us about. It is arrogant and dangerous for us to believe that we can go around the world inserting ourselves into civil wars that have nothing to do with us without having to face the unintended consequences that always arise. Our steadily-increasing involvement in the civil war in Sudan may well delay the resolution of the conflict that appears to be proceeding without our involvement. Just today, in talks with the UN the two sides pledged to end the fighting. The fact is we do not know and cannot understand the complexities of the civil war in Sudan, which has lasted for 39 of that country's 48 years of existence. Supporters of our intervention in Sudan argue that this is a clear-cut case of Sudan's Christian minority being oppressed and massacred by the Arab majority in the Darfur region. It is interesting that the CIA's World Factbook states that Sudan's Christians, who make up five percent of the population, are concentrated in the south of the country. Darfur is a region in the mid-western part of Sudan. So I wonder about this very simplistic characterization of the conflict. It seems as if this has been all reduced to a few slogans, tossed around without much thought or care about real meaning or implication. We unfortunately see this often with calls for intervention. One thing we do know, however, is that Sudan is floating on a sea of oil. Why does it always seem that when we hear urgent clamor for the United States to intervene, oil or some other valuable commodity just happens to be present? I find it interesting that so much attention is being paid to oil-rich Sudan while right next door in Congo the death toll from its civil war is estimated to two to three million--several times the estimated toll in Sudan. At a time when we have just raised the debt-ceiling to allow more massive debt accumulation, this legislation will unconstitutionally commit the United States to ship some 300 million taxpayer dollars to Sudan. It will also freeze the U.S. assets of certain Sudanese until the government of Sudan pursues peace in a time-frame and manner that the U.S. determines. Inserting ourselves into this civil war in Sudan will do little to solve the crisis. In fact, the promise of U.S. support for one side in the struggle may discourage the progress that has been made recently. What incentive is there to seek a peaceful resolution of the conflict when the U.S. government promises massive assistance to one side? I strongly urge my colleagues to rethink our current dangerous course toward further intervention in Sudan. We may end up hurting most those we are intending to help.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, Congress is once again engaging in fiscal irresponsibility and endangering the American economy by raising the debt ceiling, this time by $800 billion. One particularly troubling aspect of today's debate is how many Members who won their seats in part by pledging never to raise taxes will vote for this tax increase on future generations without so much as a second thought. The term ``national debt'' really is a misnomer. It is not the Nation's debt. Instead, it is the Federal Government's debt. The American people did not spend the money, but they will have to pay it back. Most Americans do not spend much time worrying about the national debt, which now totals more than $8 trillion. The number is so staggering that it hardly seems real, even when economists issue bleak warnings about how much every American owes--currently about $25,000. Of course, Congress never hands each taxpayer a bill for that amount. Instead, the Federal Government uses the people's hard-earned money to pay interest on this debt, which is like making minimum payments on a credit card. Notice that the principal never goes down. In fact, it is rising steadily. The problem is very simple: Congress almost always spends more each year than the IRS collects in revenues. Federal spending always goes up, but revenues are not so dependable, especially since raising income taxes to sufficiently fund the government would be highly unpopular. So long as Congress spends more than the government takes via taxes, the Federal Government must raise taxes, print more dollars, or borrow money. Over the past 3 years, we have witnessed an unprecedented explosion in federal spending. The national debt has actually increased an average of $160 billion a day since September 30, 2003. Federal law limits the total amount of debt the Treasury can carry. Despite a historic increase in the debt limit in 2002 and another increase in 2003, the current limit of $7.38 trillion was reached last month. So Congress must once again vote to raise the limit. Hard as it may be for the American people to believe, many experts expect government spending will exceed this new limit next year. Increasing the national debt sends a signal to investors that the government is not serious about reining in spending. This increases the risks that investors will be reluctant to buy government debt instruments. The effects on the American economy could be devastating. The only reason why we have been able to endure such large deficits without skyrocketing interest rates is the willingness of foreign nations to buy the Federal Government's debt instruments. However, the recent fall in the value of the dollar and rise in the price of gold indicate that investors may be unwilling to continue to prop up our debt-ridden economy. Furthermore, increasing the national debt will provide more incentive for foreign investors to stop buying federal debt instruments at the current interest rates. Mr. Speaker, what will happen to our already fragile economy if the Federal Reserve must raise interest rates to levels unseen since the seventies to persuade foreigners to buy government debt interests? The whole point of the debt ceiling law was to limit borrowing by forcing Congress into an open and presumably somewhat shameful vote when it wants to borrow more than a preset amount of money. Yet, since there have been no political consequences for Members who vote to raise the debt limit and support the outrageous spending bills in the first place, the debt limit has become merely another technicality on the road to bankruptcy. The only way to control federal spending is to take away the government's credit card, which will force Congress to control federal spending. Therefore, I call upon my colleagues to reject S. 2986 and, instead, to reduce government spending. It is time Congress forces the Federal Government to live within its constitutional means. Congress should end the immoral practice of excessive spending and passing the bill to the next generation.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take this opportunity to pay tribute to my friend and colleague Phil Crane. During his 35 years in Congress, Phil has been one of the House's most consistent defenders of low taxes, free-markets, limited government, and individual liberty. I count myself among the numerous elected officials and activists in the free-market movement who have been inspired by his example. As a conservative professor, author, and activist, Phil was already a nationally known conservative leader before he ran for Congress. Two of his books, ``The Democrat's Dilemma'' and ``The Sum of Good Government'' stand out as conservative classics that educated and motivated many conservative activists. Among the attributes that have made Phil a hero to the free-market movement is his understanding of sound economics. Phil is one of the few members of Congress who is well versed in the teachings of great free-market teachers such as Ludwig von Misses. This country would be much better off if more representatives understood economics as well as Phil Crane. When Phil Crane came to Congress in the late sixties, there were only a handful of members supporting free-markets. This was a time when a ``conservative'' President imposed wage and price controls and ``conservative'' Representatives and Senators called for balancing the budget with tax increases rather than spending cuts. Thanks in large part to Phil's effort; the political and intellectual climate of the Nation became more receptive to free-market ideas. Phil's work with groups such as the American Conservative Union, the Free Congress Foundation, and the Republican Study Committee, which he founded, played a major role in growing the movement for individual liberty. Phil's service as an advisor to Young Americans for Freedom and as a director of the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, Hillsdale College, and the Ashbrook Center helped inspire new generations of young people to become active in the movement for liberty. When I came to Congress in the seventies to fight to limit the size and scope of the Federal Government, I was pleased to find a kindred spirit in the gentleman from Illinois. I had the privilege of working with Phil on several efforts to cut taxes, reduce regulations, and return the Government to its constitutional size. I also had the privilege of working with Phil when we where two of only four members to endorse Ronald Reagan's 1976 primary challenge to President Gerald Ford. As the number of representatives committed to free-markets and low taxes increased, Phil's status as a congressional leader and accomplished legislator grew. Thanks in large part to Phil's leadership; Congress has provided tax relief to American families and businesses during each of the last 4 years. As his distinguished congressional career draws to a close, I hope all who value free-markets, individual liberty, and limited government will join me in thanking Phil Crane for his work on behalf of freedom.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, the 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act (H.R. 10) is yet another attempt to address the threat of terrorism by giving more money and power to the federal bureaucracy. Most of the reforms contained in this bill will not make America safer, though they definitely will make us less free. H.R. 10 also wastes American taxpayer money on unconstitutional and ineffective foreign aid programs. Congress should make America safer by expanding liberty and refocusing our foreign policy on defending this nation's vital interests, rather than expanding the welfare state and wasting American blood and treasure on quixotic crusades to ``democratize'' the world. Disturbingly, H.R. 10 creates a de facto national ID card by mandating new federal requirements that standardize state-issued drivers licenses and birth certificates and even require including biometric identifiers in such documents. State drivers license information will be stored in a national database, which will include information about an individual's driving record! Nationalizing standards for drivers licenses and birth certificates, and linking them together via a national database, creates a national ID system pure and simple. Proponents of the national ID understand that the public remains wary of the scheme, so they attempt to claim they're merely creating new standards for existing state IDs. Nonsense! This legislation imposes federal standards in a federal bill, and it creates a federalized ID regardless of whether the ID itself is still stamped with the name of your state. It is just a matter of time until those who refuse to carry the new licenses will be denied the ability to drive or board an airplane. Domestic travel restrictions are the hallmark of authoritarian states, not free republics. The national ID will be used to track the movements of American citizens, not just terrorists. Subjecting every citizen to surveillance actually diverts resources away from tracking and apprehending terrorist in favor of needless snooping on innocent Americans. This is what happened with ``suspicious activity reports'' required by the Bank Secrecy Act. Thanks to BSA mandates, federal officials are forced to waste countless hours snooping through the private financial transactions of innocent Americans merely because those transactions exceeded $10,000. Furthermore, the Federal Government has no constitutional authority to require law-abiding Americans to present any form of identification before engaging in private transactions (e.g. getting a job, opening a bank account, or seeking medical assistance). Nothing in our Constitution can reasonably be construed to allow government officials to demand identification from individuals who are not suspected of any crime. H.R. 10 also broadens the definition of terrorism contained in the PATRIOT Act. H.R. 10 characterizes terrorism as acts intended ``to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.'' Under this broad definition, a scuffle at an otherwise peaceful pro- life demonstration might allow the federal government to label the sponsoring organization and its members as terrorists. Before dismissing these concerns, my colleagues should remember the abuse of Internal Revenue Service power by both Democratic and Republican administrations to punish political opponents, or the use of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act on anti- abortion activists. It is entirely possible that a future administration will use the new surveillance powers granted in this bill to harm people holding unpopular political views. Congress could promote both liberty and security by encouraging private property owners to take more responsibility to protect themselves and their property. Congress could enhance safety by removing the roadblocks thrown up by the misnamed Transportation Security Agency that prevent the full implementation of the armed pilots program. I cosponsored an amendment with my colleague from Virginia, Mr. Goode, to do just that, and I am disappointed it was ruled out of order. I am also disappointed the Financial Services Committee rejected my amendment to conform the regulations governing the filing of suspicious activities reports with the requirements of the U.S. Constitution. This amendment not only would have ensured greater privacy protection, but it also would have enabled law enforcement to better focus on people who truly pose a threat to our safety. Immediately after the attack on September 11, 2001, I introduced several pieces of legislation designed to help fight terrorism and secure the United States, including a bill to allow airline pilots to carry firearms and a bill that would have expedited the hiring of Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) translators to support counterterrorism investigations and operations. I also introduced a bill to authorize the president to issue letters of marque and reprisal to bring to justice those who committed the attacks of September 11, 2001, and other similar acts of war planned for the future. The foreign policy provisions of H.R. 10 are similarly objectionable and should be strongly opposed. I have spoken before about the serious shortcomings of the 9/11 Commission, upon whose report this legislation is based. I find it incredible that in the 500-plus page report there is not one mention of how our interventionist foreign policy creates enemies abroad who then seek to harm us. Until we consider the root causes of terrorism, beyond the jingoistic explanations offered thus far, we will not defeat terrorism and we will not be safer. Among the most ill-considered foreign policy components of H.R. 10 is a section providing for the United States to increase support for an expansion of the United Nations ``Democracy Caucus.'' Worse still, the bill encourages further integration of that United Nations body into our State department. The last thing we should do if we hope to make our country safer from terrorism is expand our involvement in the United Nations. This bill contains a provision to train American diplomats to be more sensitive and attuned to the United Nations, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)--which will be in the U.S. to monitor our elections next month--and other international non- governmental organizations (NGOs). even worse, this legislation actually will create an ``ambassador-at-large'' position solely to work with non-governmental organizations overseas. It hardly promotes democracy abroad to accord equal status to NGOs, which, after all, are un-elected foreign pressure groups that, therefore, have no popular legitimacy whatsoever. Once again, we are saying one thing and doing the opposite. This bill also increases our counterproductive practice of sending United States' taxpayer money abroad to prop up selected foreign media, which inexplicably are referred to as ``independent media.'' This is an unconstitutional misuse of tax money. Additionally does anyone believe that citizens of countries where the U.S. subsidizes certain media outlets take kindly to, or take seriously, such media? How would Americans feel if they knew that publications taking a certain editorial line were financed by foreign governments? We cannot refer to foreign media funded by the U.S. government as ``independent media.'' The U.S. government should never be in the business of funding the media, either at home or abroad. Finally, I am skeptical about the reorganization of the intelligence community in this legislation. In creating an entire new bureaucracy, the National Intelligence Director, we are adding yet another layer of bureaucracy to our already bloated federal government. Yet, we are supposed to believe that even more of the same kind of government that failed us on September 11, 2001 will make us safer. At best, this is wishful thinking. The constitutional function of our intelligence community is to protect the United States from foreign attack. Ever since its creation by the National Security Act of 1947, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has been meddling in affairs that have nothing to do with the security of the United States. Considering the CIA's overthrow of Iranian leader Mohammed Mossadeq in the 1950s, and the CIA's training of the Muhajadin jihadists in Afghanistan in the 1980s, it is entirely possible the actions of the CIA abroad have actually made us less safe and more vulnerable to foreign attack. It would be best to confine our intelligence community to the defense of our territory from foreign attack. This may well mean turning intelligence functions over to the Department of Defense, where they belong. For all of these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I vigorously oppose H.R. 10. It represents the worst approach to combating terrorism--more federal bureaucracy, more foreign intervention, and less liberty for the American people.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Let Parents Raise Their Kids Act. This bill forbids Federal funds from being used for any universal or mandatory mental-health screening of students without the express, written, voluntary, informed consent of their parents or legal guardians. This bill protects the fundamental right of parents to direct and control the upbringing and education of their children. The New Freedom Commission on Mental Health has recommended that the Federal government adopt a comprehensive system of mental-health screening for all Americans. The commission recommends the government implement universal or mandatory mental-health screening in public schools as a prelude to expanding it to the general public. However, neither the commission's report nor any related mental-health screening proposal requires parental consent before a child is subjected to mental-health screening. Federally funded universal or mandatory mental-health screening in schools without parental consent could lead to labeling more children as ``ADD'' or ``hyperactive'' and thus force more children to take psychotropic drugs, such as Ritalin, against their parents' wishes. Already, too many children are suffering from being prescribed psychotropic drugs for nothing more than children's typical rambunctious behavior. According to the Journal of the American Medical Association, there was a 300-percent increase in psychotropic drug use in two to four year old children from 1991 to 1995! Many children have suffered harmful side effects from using psychotropic drugs. Some of the possible side effects include mania, violence, dependence, and weight gain. Yet, parents are already being threatened with child abuse charges if they resist efforts to drug their children. Imagine how much easier it will be to drug children against their parents' wishes if a Federal mental-health screener makes the recommendation. Universal or mandatory mental-health screening could also provide a justification for stigmatizing children from families that support traditional values. Even the authors of mental-health diagnosis manuals admit that mental-health diagnoses are subjective and based on social constructions. Therefore, it is all too easy for a psychiatrist to label a person's disagreement with the psychiatrist's political beliefs a mental disorder. For example, a federally funded school violence prevention program lists ``intolerance'' as a mental problem that may lead to school violence. Because ``intolerance'' is often a code word for believing in traditional values, children who share their parents' values could be labeled as having mental problems and a risk of causing violence. If the mandatory mental-health screening program applies to adults, everyone who believes in traditional values could have his or her beliefs stigmatized as a sign of a mental disorder. Taxpayer dollars should not support programs that may label those who adhere to traditional values as having a ``mental disorder.'' Mr. Speaker, universal or mandatory mental-health screening threatens to undermine parents' right to raise their children as the parents see fit. Forced mental-health screening could also endanger the health of children by leading to more children being improperly placed on psychotropic drugs, such as Ritalin, or stigmatized as ``mentally ill'' or a risk of causing violence because they adhere to traditional values. Congress has a responsibility to the nation's parents and children to stop this from happening. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Let Raise Their Kids Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose H.R. 163 in the strongest possible terms. The draft, whether for military purposes or for some form of ``national service,'' violates the basic moral principles of individual liberty upon which this country was founded. Furthermore, the military neither wants nor needs a draft. The Department of Defense, in response to calls to reinstate the draft has confirmed that conscription serves no military need. Defense officials from both parties have repudiated the need to reinstate the draft. For example, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has said that, ``The disadvantages of using compulsion to bring into the armed forces the men and women needed are notable,'' while President William Clinton's Secretary of the Army Louis Caldera, in a speech before the National Press Club, admitted that, ``Today, with our smaller, post- Cold War armed forces, our stronger volunteer tradition and our need for longer terms of service to get a good return on the high, up-front training costs, it would be even harder to fashion a fair draft.'' However, the most important reason to oppose H.R. 163 is that a draft violates the very principals of individual liberty upon which our nation was founded. Former President Ronald Reagan eloquently expressed the moral case against the draft in the publication Human Events in 1979: ``. . . [conscription] rests on the assumption that your kids belong to the State. If we buy that assumption then it is for the State--not for parents, the community, the religious institutions or teachers--to decide who shall have what values and who shall do what work, when, where and how in our society. That assumption isn't a new one. The Nazis thought it was a great idea.'' Some say the 18 year old draftee ``owes it'' to his (or her, since N.R. 163 makes woman eligible for the draft) country. Hogwash! It just as easily could be argued that a 50 year-old chicken-hawk, who promotes war and places the danger on innocent young people, owes more to the country than the 18 year-old being denied his (or her) liberty. All drafts are unfair. All 18 and 19 year olds are never drafted. By its very nature a draft must be discriminatory. All drafts hit the most vulnerable young people, as the elites learn quickly how to avoid the risks of combat. Economic hardship is great in all wars and cannot be minimized. War is never economically beneficial except for those in position to profit from war expenditure. The great tragedy of war is that is enables the careless disregard for civil liberties of our own people. Abuses of German and Japanese Americans in World War I and World War II are well known. But the real sacrifice comes with conscription--forcing a small number of young vulnerable citizens to fight the wars that older men and women, who seek glory in military victory without themselves being exposed to danger, promote. The draft encourages wars with neither purpose nor moral justification and that are too often not even declared by the Congress. Without conscription, unpopular wars are difficult to fight. Once the draft was undermined in the 1960s and early 1970s, the Vietnam War came to an end. But most importantly, liberty cannot be preserved by tyranny. A free society must always resort to volunteers. Tyrants think nothing of forcing men to fight and serve in wrongheaded wars. A true fight for survival and defense of America would elicit, I am sure, the assistance of every able-bodied man and woman. This is not the case for wars of mischief far away from home in which we have experienced often in the past century. A government that is willing to enslave some of its people can never be trusted to protect the liberties of its own citizens. I hope all my colleagues join me in standing up for individual liberty and to shut down this un-American relic of a bygone era and help realize the financial savings and the gains to individual liberties that can be achieved by ending Selective Service registration.