Ron Paul

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Chairman. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate and commend the designers, builders, sponsors, and pilot of SpaceShipOne on the occasion of its successful flight out of earth's atmosphere on June 21, 2004. What is most remarkable about SpaceShipOne, of course, is that it is the first privately-financed and privately built vehicle to leave the Earth's atmosphere. SpaceShipOne was designed and built by Burt Rutan and piloted by test pilot Michael W. Melvill. It was launched successfully from Mojave California, reaching a height of 100 KM (62 miles) above the Earth's surface. Remarkably, SpaceShipOne is entirely privately-financed, chiefly by Microsoft co-founder Paul G. Allen. According to the designers and financers of SpaceShipOne, the mission of this project is to demonstrate the viability of commercial space flight and to open the door for private space tourism. The successful completion of SpaceShipOne's maiden voyage demonstrates that relatively modest amounts of private funding can significantly increase the boundaries of commercial space technology. It constitutes a major leap toward their goal and demonstrates that private capital and private enterprise can be applied to enormous success all on its own. Those associated with this project represent the best of our American traditions, embodied in our enterprising and pioneering spirit. Their success should also be read as a cautionary tale for all of us in government. If only the United States had a taxation policy that limited government and thereby freed up more private capital, there is no telling how many more like Burt Rutan, Paul Allen, and Michael Melvill would be able to do great things to the benefit all of mankind. This not just in space exploration, but in medical research, alternative energy research, and any number of the problems that continue to perplex mankind. Private enterprise depends on results and success and therefore private capital is always targeted much more wisely than is monies confiscated by governments. With this successful maiden voyage, SpaceShipOne is now the leading contender for the $10 million Ansari X Prize, which is to be awarded to the first privately financed threeseat aircraft that reaches an altitude of 62 miles and repeats the feat within two weeks. I wish all those involved in this remarkable project the best of luck.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I support H.R. 4663, the Spending Control Act of 2004, because I believe those of us concerned about the effects of excessive government spending on American liberty and prosperity should support any effort to rein in spending. However, I hold no great expectations that this bill will result in a new dawn of fiscal responsibility. In fact, since this bill is unlikely to pass the Senate, the main effect of today's vote will be to allow members to brag to their constituents that they voted to keep a lid on spending. Many of these members will not tell their constituents that latter this year they will likely vote for a budget busting, pork laden, omnibus spending bill that most members will not even have a chance to read before voting. In fact, last week, many members who I am sure will vote for H.R. 4663 voted against cutting funding for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). Last November, many of these same members vote for the greatest expansion of the welfare state since the Great Society. If Congress cannot even bring itself to cut the budget of the NEA or refuse to expand the welfare state, what are the odds that Congress will make the tough choices necessary to restore fiscal order, much less Constitutional government? Even if this bill becomes law, it is likely that the provision in this bill allowing spending for emergency purposes to exceed the bill's spending caps will prove to be an easily abused loophole allowing future Congresses to avoid the spending limitations in this bill. I am also concerned that, by not applying the spending caps to international of military programs, this bill invites future Congresses to misplace priorities, and ignores a major source of fiscal imprudence. Congress will not get our fiscal house in order until we seriously examine our overseas commitments, such as giving welfare to multinational corporations and subsidizing the defense of allies who are perfectly capable of defending themselves. Congress already has made numerous attempts to restore fiscal discipline, and none of them has succeeded. Even the much-heralded ``surpluses'' of the nineties were due to the Federal Reserve creating an economic boom and Congress continuing to raid the Social Security trust fund. The surplus was not caused by a sudden outbreak of fiscal conservativism in Washington, DC. The only way Congress will cease excessive spending is by rejecting the idea that the Federal Government has the authority and the competence to solve all ills, both domestic and international. If the last century taught us anything, it was that big government cannot create utopia. Yet, too many members believe that we can solve all economic problems, eliminate all social ills, and bring about worldwide peace and prosperity by simply creating new federal programs and regulations. However, the well-intended efforts of Congress have exacerbated America's economic and social problems. Meanwhile our international meddling has failed to create perpetual peace but rather lead to perpetual war for perpetual peace. Every member of Congress has already promised to support limited government by swearing to uphold the United States Constitution. The Constitution limits the Federal Government to a few, well-defined functions. A good start toward restoring Constitutional government would be debating my Liberty amendment (H.J. Res. 15). The Liberty amendment repeals the 16th amendment, thus eliminating the income tax the source of much of the growth of government and loss of individual liberty. The Liberty amendment also explicitly limits the Federal Government to those functions it is Constitutionally authorized to perform. If Congress were serious about reining in government, it would also eliminate the Federal Reserve Board's ability to inflate the currency. Federal Reserve policy enables excessive government spending by allowing the government to monitorize the debt, and hide the cost of big government through the hidden tax of inflation. In 1974, during debate on the Congressional Budget Reform and Impoundment Control Act, Congressman H.R. Gross, a libertarian- conservative from Iowa, eloquently addressed the flaws in thinking that budget process reform absent the political will to cut spending would reduce the size of government. Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude my remarks by quoting Mr. Gross: Every Member knows that he or she cannot for long spend $75,000 a year on a salary of $42,500 and remain solvent. Every member knows this Government cannot forever spend billions beyond tax revenue and endure. Congress already has the tools to halt the headlong flight into bankruptcy. It holds the purse strings. No President can impound funds or spend unwisely unless an improvident, reckless Congress makes available the money. I repeat, neither this nor any other legislation will provide morality and responsibility on the part of Members of Congress.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation. As I have argued so many times in the past when legislation like this is brought to the Floor of Congress, the resolution before us is in actuality an endorsement of our failed policy of foreign interventionism. It attempts to create an illusion of our success when the truth is rather different. It seeks not peace in the Middle East, but rather to justify our continued meddling in the affairs of Israel and the Palestinians. As recent history should make clear, our sustained involvement in that part of the world has cost the American taxpayer billions of dollars yet has delivered no results. On the contrary, despite our continued intervention and promises that the invasion of Iraq would solve the Israeli/Palestinian problem the conflict appears as intractable as ever. Mr. Speaker, this resolution in several places asserts that the United States is ``strongly committed'' to the security of Israel. I find no provision in the Constitution that allows the United States Government to confiscate money from its own citizens and send it overseas for the defense of a foreign country. Further, this legislation promises that the United States ``remains committed to . . . Israel, including secure, recognized, and defensible borders.'' So we are pledging to defend Israel's borders while we are not even able to control our own borders. Shouldn't we be concentrating on fulfilling our constitutional obligations in our own country first, before we go crusading around the world to protect foreign borders? I do agree with one of the statements in this legislation, though it is hardly necessary for us to affirm that which is self-evident: ``. . . Israel has the right to defend itself against terrorism, including the right to take actions against terrorist organizations that threaten the citizens of Israel.'' Yes, they do. But do the Israelis really need the U.S. Congress to tell them they are free to defend themselves? I also must object to the one-sidedness of this legislation. Like so many that have come before it, this resolution takes sides in a conflict that has nothing to do with us. Among other things, it affirms Israel as a ``Jewish state.'' Is it really our business to endorse a state church in a foreign country? What message does this send from the United States to Israeli citizens who are not Jewish? Like my colleagues who have come to the floor to endorse this legislation, I would very much like to see peace in the Middle East-- and elsewhere in this troubled world. But this is not the way to achieve that peace. As our Founders recognized, the best way for the United States to have peaceful relations with others is for Americans to trade freely with them. The best way to sow resentment and discontent among the other nations of the world is for the United States to become entangled in alliances with one power against another power, to meddle in the affairs of other nations. One-sided legislation such as this in reality just fuels the worst fears of the Muslim world about the intentions of the United States. Is this wise?

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H. Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H. Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society. This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce. The Civil Rights act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judge's cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business's workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judges defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife. Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join in sponsors of H. Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting race-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H. Res. 676.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this legislation. Though I certainly recognize the legitimate national security role of our intelligence community, I have concerns about this authorization and the questionable role played by components of the intelligence community. Specifically, I am concerned about our history of secret regime changes carried out by our intelligence apparatus. More often than not, we see many of the problems we face today were created as a result of this unwise practice of forcibly changing regimes in secret. The stories of such activities are numerous. In 1953 the CIA overthrew Mohammad Mossadegh in Iran, installing the Shah as dictator. This led to increasing anti-Americanism, the overthrow of the Shah in 1979, the kidnapping of Americans, the establishment of a hardline Islamic regime hostile to the United States. In the 1980s the United States provided covert support to Saddam Hussein's Iraq in its war with Iran. Ten years later the United States went to war against Saddam Hussein and then 11 years after that the United States went to war again against Saddam's Iraq. In the 1980s the United States provided weapons and training to the Taliban and what later became al-Qaeda in Afghanistan as they sought to overthrow the communist government in power. Some 20 years later, that same Taliban and Osama bin Laden struck out against the United States. The United States then went to war against that Taliban government. I am also concerned about the efficacy of our intelligence community. The intelligence budget seems to grow every year, but seldom do my colleagues ask what exactly we are getting for our constituents' money. It may be unfair that we only hear about the intelligence community's failures and shortcomings, but we cannot help but be concerned over so many such failures in recent years. Despite the tens of billions we spend on these myriad intelligence agencies, it is impossible to ignore the failure of the intelligence community to detect and prevent the September 11, 2001 attacks. Additionally, as we now see so clearly, our intelligence community failed completely to accurately assess the nature of the Iraqi threat. We were told of weapons of mass destruction capable of reaching the United States. This proved to be false. We were told of Iraq's relationship with al-Qaeda. This proved to be false. The intelligence community relied heavily--perhaps almost exclusively--on Iraqi exile and convicted criminal Ahmad Chalabi to provide intelligence on Iraq and most of it turned out to be incorrect, perhaps intentionally misleading. Now we are told that Chalabi and his organization may have passed sensitive intelligence to Iran. We have read reports of secret pseudo-agencies set up in the Pentagon and elsewhere whose role appears to have been to politicize intelligence in order to force pre- determined conclusions. This does not serve the American people well. These are all by any measure grave failures, costing us incalculably in human lives and dollars. Yet from what little we can know about this bill, the solution is to fund more of the same. I would hope that we might begin coming up with new approaches to our intelligence needs. I encourage my colleagues to reject this bill and instead begin looking for new ways to strengthen the legitimate functions of our intelligence community so as to better protect the borders and citizens of the United States.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I will vote for H.R. 4520 today because the tax cuts contained in the bill outweigh the unfortunate but inevitable subsidies also included. I promise my constituents that I will vote for all tax cuts and against all new spending. So when faced with a bill that contains both, my decision is based on whether the bill cuts taxes overall, i.e. whether its ultimate impact will be to reduce or increase federal revenues. This legislation does reduce revenues, and therefore takes a small step towards reducing the size of the federal government. So while I certainly object to some parts of the bill, especially the tobacco bailout, I do support tax cuts. My biggest concern with the bill, however, is not based on its contents. I object to the process underlying the bill and the political reason for which it was written. This bill is on the floor for one reason and one reason only: the World Trade Organization demanded that we change our domestic tax law. Since America first joined the WTO in 1994, Europe has objected to how we tax American companies on their overseas earnings. The EU took its dispute to the WTO grievance board, which voted in favor of the Europeans. After all, it's not fair for high-tax Europe to compete with relatively low tax America; the only solution is to force the U.S. to tax its companies more. The WTO ruling was clear: Congress must change American tax rules to comply with ``international law.'' Sadly, Congress chose to comply. We scrambled to change our corporate tax laws in 2001, but failed to appease the Europeans. They again complained to the WTO, which again sided with the EU. So we're back to the drawing board, working overtime to change our domestic laws to satisfy the WTO and the Europeans. This outrageous affront to our national sovereignty was of course predictable when we joined the WTO. During congressional debates we were assured that entry into the organization posed no threat whatsoever to our sovereignty. But this was nonsense. A Congressional Research Service report was quite clear about the consequences of our membership: ``As a member of the WTO, the United States does commit to act in accordance with the rules of the multi-lateral body. It is legally obligated to insure that national laws do not conflict with WTO rules.'' With the Europeans and the WTO now telling us our laws are illegal and must be changed, it's hard to imagine a more blatant loss of American sovereignty. The bill does cut taxes overall, and for that reason I will vote in favor of it. Any legislation that results in less money being sent to the black hole that is the federal Treasury is worth supporting. I especially support the provision that allows Texans (and citizens of other states that do not have an income tax) to deduct state sales taxes, and will vote yes accordingly.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, all Americans mourn the death of President Ronald Reagan, but those of us who had the opportunity to know President Reagan are especially saddened. I got to know President Reagan in 1976 when, as a freshman congressman, I was one of only four members of this body to endorse then-Governor Reagan's primary challenge to President Gerald Ford. I had the privilege of serving as the leader of President Reagan's Texas delegation at the Republican convention of 1976, where Ronald Reagan almost defeated an incumbent president for his party's nomination. I was one of the millions attracted to Ronald Reagan by his strong support for limited government and the free-market. I felt affinity for a politician who based his conservative philosophy on ``. . . a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom . . .'' I wish more of today's conservative leaders based their philosophy on a desire for less government and more freedom. Ronald Reagan was one of the most eloquent exponents of the freedom philosophy in modern American politics. One of his greatest achievements is the millions of Americans he helped convert to the freedom philosophy and the many he inspired to become active in the freedom movement. One of the best examples of President Reagan's rhetorical powers is his first major national political address, ``A Time for Choosing.'' Delivered in 1964 in support of the presidential campaign of Barry Goldwater, this speech launched Ronald Reagan's career as both a politician and a leader of the conservative movement. The following excerpt from that speech illustrates the power of Ronald Reagan's words and message. Unfortunately, these words are as relevant to our current situation as they were when he delivered them in 1964: It's time we asked ourselves if we still know the freedoms intended for us by the Founding Fathers. James Madison said, ``We base all our experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government.'' This idea--that government was beholden to the people, that it had no other source of power--is still the newest, most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man. This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American Revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves. You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man's age-old dream--the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would sacrifice freedom for security have embarked on this downward path. Plutarch warned, ``The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits.'' The Founding Fathers knew a government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they knew when a government set out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. So we have come to a time for choosing. One of the most direct expressions of Ronald Reagan's disdain for big government came during a private conversation when we where flying from the White House to Andrews Air Force Base. As the helicopter passed over the monuments, we looked down and he said, `Isn't that beautiful? It's amazing how much terrible stuff comes out of this city when it's that beautiful.' '' While many associate Ronald Reagan with unbridled militarism, he was a lifelong opponent of the draft. It is hardly surprising that many of the most persuasive and powerful arguments against conscription came from President Reagan. One of my favorite Reagan quotes comes from a 1979 article he wrote for the conservative publication Human Events regarding the draft and related ``national service'' proposals: . . . it [conscription] rests on the assumption that your kids belong to the state. If we buy that assumption then it is for the state--not for parents, the community, the religious institutions or teachers--to decide who shall have what values and who shall do what work, when, where and how in our society. That assumption isn't a new one. The Nazis thought it was a great idea. I extend my deepest sympathies to Ronald Reagan's family and friends, especially his beloved wife Nancy and his children. I also urge my colleagues and all Americans to honor Ronald Reagan by dedicating themselves to the principles of limited government and individual liberty.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the more things change, the more they stay the same. Our allegiances to our allies and friends change constantly. For decades, exiled Iraqi Ahmed Chalabi was our chosen leader to be in the new Iraq. Championed by Pentagon neocons and objected to by the State Department, Mr. Chalabi received more than $100 million U.S. taxpayer dollars as our man designated to be the leader of a new Iraqi government. But something happened on the way to the coronation. The State Department finally won out in its struggle with the Pentagon to dump Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress, delivering Iraq to a competing exiled group. What a mess. No one should be surprised. Regime changes, whether by the CIA or by preemptive war, almost always go badly. American involvement in installing the Shah of Iran in the 1950s, killing Diem in South Vietnam in the 1960s, helping Osama bin Laden against the Soviets in the 1980s, assisting Saddam Hussein against Iran in the 1980s, propping up dictators in many Arab countries, and supporting the destruction of the Palestinian people all have had serious repercussions on American interests including the loss of American life. We have wasted hundreds of billions of dollars while the wounds in the Middle East continue to fester. How many times have our friends become our enemies and our enemies our friends, making it difficult to determine which is which? Our new relationship with Qaddafi in Libya is an example of the silliness of this policy. Long-term interference in the internal affairs of other nations does not help us or those we support. The invisible economic costs are enormous, but generally ignored. A policy of militarism and constant war has huge dollar costs, which contributes to the huge deficits, higher interest rates, inflation and economic dislocations. War cannot raise the standard of living for the average American. Participants in the military industrial complex do benefit, however. The clear failure of the policy of foreign interventionism followed by our leaders for more than a hundred years should prompt a reassessment of our philosophy. Tactical changes, or relying on the U.N., will not solve these problems. Either way, the burden will fall on the American taxpayer and the American soldier. The day is fast approaching when we no longer will be able to afford this burden. Currently, foreign governments are willing to loan us the money needed to finance our current account deficit and, indirectly, the cost of our worldwide military operations. It may seem possible now because we have been afforded the historically unique privilege of printing the world's reserve currency. Foreigners so far have been only too willing to take our depreciating dollars for their goods. Economic law eventually will limit our ability to live off others by credit creation; and trust in the dollar will be diminished, if not destroyed. Those who hold these trillion-plus dollars can hold us hostage if it ever becomes in their interest. It may be that economic law and the hostility toward the United States will combine to precipitate an emotionally charged rejection of the dollar. That is when the true wealth of the country will become self-evident, and we will no longer be able to afford the extravagant expense of pursuing an American empire. No nation has ever been able to finance excessive foreign entanglements and domestic entitlements through printing-press money and borrowing from abroad. It is time we reconsider the advice of the Founding Fathers and the guidelines of the Constitution, which counsels a foreign policy of nonintervention and strategic independence. Setting a good example is a far better way to spread American ideals than through force of arms. Trading with nations, without interference by international government regulators, is superior to sanctions and tariffs that too often plant the seeds of war. The principle of self-determination should be permitted for all nations and all demographically defined groups. The world tolerated the breakup of the ruthless Soviet and Yugoslavian systems rather well, even as certain national and ethnic groups demanded self-determination and independence. This principle is the source of the solution for Iraq. Instead of the incessant chant about us forcing democracy on others, why not read our history and see how 13 nations joined together to form a loose-knit republic with emphasis on local self-government. Part of the problem with our effort to reorder Iraq is that the best solution is something we have essentially rejected here in the United States. It would make a lot more sense to concentrate on rebuilding our Republic, emphasizing the principles of private property, free markets, trade and personal liberty here at home rather than pursuing war abroad. If this were done, we would not be a militaristic state spending ourselves into bankruptcy, and government benefits to the untold thousands of corporations and special interests would be denied. True defense is diminished when money and energy are consumed by activities outside the scope of specifically protecting our national interests. Diverting resources away from defense and the protection of our borders, while antagonizing so many around the world, would actually serve to expose us to greater danger from more determined enemies. A policy of nonintervention and strategic independence is the course we should take if we are serious about peace and prosperity. Liberty works.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my 5 minutes at this time.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 83, which amends the United States Constitution to allow appointed persons to fill vacancies in the House of Representatives in the event of an emergency. Since the Continuity of Government (COG) Commission first proposed altering our system of government by allowing appointed Members to serve in this body. I, along with other Members of Congress, journalists, academics, and policy experts, have expressed concerns that having appointed Members serve in the House of Representatives is inconsistent with the House's historic function as the branch of Congress most directly accountable to the people. Even with the direct election of Senators, the fact that Members of the House are elected every 2 years while Senators run for statewide office every 6 years means that Members of the House of Representatives are still more accountable to the people than are members of any other part of the Federal government. Appointed Members of Congress simply cannot be truly representative. James Madison and Alexander Hamilton eloquently made this point in Federalists 52: ``As it is essential to liberty that the government in general should have a common interest with the people, so it is particularly essential that the branch of it under consideration should have an immediate dependence on, and an intimate sympathy with, the people. Frequent elections are unquestionably the only policy by which this dependence and sympathy can be effectually secured.'' Mr. Speaker, there are those who say that the power of appointment is necessary in order to preserve checks and balances and thus prevent an abuse of executive power. Of course, I agree that it is very important to carefully guard our Constitutional liberties in times of crisis, and that an over-centralization of power in the executive branch is one of the most serious dangers to that liberty. However, Mr. Speaker, during a time of crisis it is all the more important to have representatives accountable to the people making the laws. Otherwise, the citizenry has not check on the inevitable tendency of government to infringe on the people's liberties at such a time. I would remind my colleagues that the only reason we are reexamining provisions of the PATRIOT Act is because of public concerns that this act gives up excessive liberty for a phantom security. Appointed officials would not be as responsive to public concerns. Supporters of this plan claim that the appointment power will be necessary in the event of an emergency and that the appointed representatives will only serve for a limited time. However, the laws passed by these ``temporary'' representatives will be permanent. Mr. Speaker, this country has faced the possibility of threats to the continuity of this body several times throughout our history, yet no one suggested removing the people's right to vote for Members of the House of Representatives. For example, when the British attacked the city of Washington in the War of 1812 nobody suggested the States could not address the lack of a quorum in the House of Representatives though elections. During the Civil War, Virginia which borders Washington, DC, and where today many Capitol Hill staffers reside and Members stay when Congress is in session, was actively involved in hostilities against the United States Government, yet President Abraham Lincoln never suggested that non-elected persons serve in the House. Adopting any of the proposals to deny the people the ability to choose their own representatives would let the terrorists know that they can succeed in altering our republican institutions. I hope all my colleagues who are considering supporting H.J. Res. 83 will question the wisdom of handing terrorists a victory over republican government. The Constitution already provides the framework for Congress to function after a catastrophic event. Article I Section 2 grants the governors of the various States authority to hold special elections to fill vacancies in the House of Representatives. Article I Section 4 gives Congress the authority to designate the time, manner, and place of such special elections if states should fail to act expeditiously following a national emergency. As Hamilton explains in Federalist 59, the ``time, place, and manner'' clause was specifically designed to address the kind of extraordinary circumstances imagined by the supporters of H.J. Res. 83. Hamilton characterized authority over Federal elections as shared between the States and Congress, with neither being able to control the process entirely. Last month, this body fulfilled its Constitutional duty by passing H.R. 2844, the Continuity of Representation Act. H.R. 2844 exercises Congress's power to regulate the time, place, and manner of elections by requiring the holding of special elections within 45 days after the Speaker or acting Speaker declares 100 or more Members of the House have been killed. This proposal protects the people's right to choose their representatives at the time when such a right may be most important, while ensuring continuity of the legislative branch. In conclusion, I call upon my colleges to reject H.J. Res. 83, since it alters the Constitution to deny the people's right to elect their representatives at a time when having elected representation may be most crucial.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this ill- conceived and ill-timed legislation. Let's not fool ourselves: this concurrent resolution leads us down the road to war against Iran. It creates a precedent for future escalation, as did similar legislation endorsing ``regime change'' in Iraq back in 1998. I find it incomprehensible that as the failure of our Iraq policy becomes more evident--even to its most determined advocates--we here are approving the same kind of policy toward Iran. With Iraq becoming more of a problem daily, the solution as envisioned by this legislation is to look for yet another fight. And we should not fool ourselves: this legislation sets the stage for direct conflict with Iran. The resolution ``calls upon all State Parties to the Treaty on the Non- Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), including the United States, to use all appropriate means to deter, dissuade, and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons . . .'' Note the phrase ``use all appropriate means.'' Additionally, this legislation calls for yet more and stricter sanctions on Iran, including a demand that other countries also impose sanctions on Iran. As we know, sanctions are unmistakably a move toward war, particularly when, as in this legislation, a demand is made that the other nations of the world similarly isolate and blockade the country. Those who wish for a regime change in Iran should especially reject sanctions--just look at how our Cuba policy has allowed Fidel Castro to maintain his hold on power for decades. Sanctions do not hurt political leaders, as we know most recently from our sanctions against Iraq, but rather sow misery among the poorest and most vulnerable segments of society. Dictators do not go hungry when sanctions are imposed. It is somewhat ironic that vie are again meddling in Iranian affairs. Students of history will recall that the U.S. government's ill-advised coup against Iranian leader Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953 and its subsequent installation of the Shah as the supreme ruler led to intense hatred of the United States and eventually to the radical Islamic revolution of 1979. One can only wonder what our relations would be with Iran if not for the decades of meddling in that country's internal affairs. We likely would not be considering resolutions such as this. Yet the solution to all the difficulties created by our meddling foreign policy always seems to be yet more meddling. Will Congress ever learn? I urge my colleagues to reject this move toward war with Iran, to reject the failed policies of regime-change and nation-building, and to return to the wise and consistent policy of non-interventionism in the affairs of other sovereign nations.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H. Con. Res. 414, the resolution commending the anniversary of the decision in Brown v. Board of Education and related cases. While I certainly agree with the expression of abhorrence at the very idea of forced segregation I cannot, without reservation, simply support the content in the resolution. The ``whereas clauses'' of this resolution venture far beyond the basis of Brown and praise various federal legislative acts such as the Fair Housing Act of 1968, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. This final Act was particularly pernicious because it was not applied across the board, but targeted only at certain areas of the country. As such, it violates the spirit of the very equal protection it claims to promote. Moreover, we certainly should ask what constitutional authority lies behind the passage of such legislation. The history of racism, segregation and inferior facilities that led to Brown cannot be ignored, and should not pass from our condemnation. Still, thinking people must consider the old adage that ``two wrongs do not make a right.'' Simply, the affects of Brown have been, at best, mixed. As this anniversary has approached there have been a large number of events and articles in the media to celebrate the decision and analyze its impact. Most people, regardless of their opinion of the decision, seem to be aware that it has not achieved its goals. In many places in our country the public school system continues to fail many American children, particularly those in the inner city. Research shows that our schools are more segregated than at any point from the 1960s. Some of this is undoubtedly due to the affects of the Brown decision. Do we really mean to celebrate the failures of forced busing? Forced integration largely led to white flight from the cities, thus making society even more segregated. Where children used to go to different schools but meet each other at the little league field, after Brown these people would now live in different cities or different counties. Thus, forced integration led only to even more segregation. A recent Washington Post article about McKinley High School makes this very point. Worse still, prior to this re-segregation racial violence was often prevalent. We need also to think about whether sacrificing quality education on the altar of equality is not a terrible mistake, especially as it applies to the opportunities available to those who are historically and economically disadvantaged. For example, research has shown that separating children on the basis of gender enhances academic performance. Attempts to have such schools have been struck down by the courts on the basis of Brown. Just last night Fox News reported the academic successes at schools separating children based on gender, as approved by this body is the so-called ``No Child Left Behind Act.'' Yet the National Organization of Women continues to oppose this policy on the basis of Brown's ``separate is inherently not equal'' edict, despite the statistically evident positive impact this policy has had on the achievement of female students in mathematics and science classes. Mr. Speaker, in short forced integration and enforced equality are inimical to liberty; while they may be less abhorrent than forced segregation they are nonetheless as likely to lead to resentment and are demonstrably as unworkable and hence ineffective. While I completely celebrate the end of forced segregation that Brown helped to bring about, I cannot unreservedly support this resolution as currently worded.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution as written. Like so many resolutions we have seen here on the Iraq war, this one is not at all what it purports to be. Were this really a resolution condemning abuse of prisoners and other detainees, I doubt anyone here would oppose it. Clearly the abuse and humiliation of those in custody is deplorable, and the pictures we have all seen over the past week are truly horrific. But why are we condemning a small group of low-level servicemembers when we do not yet know the full story? Why are we rushing to insert ourselves into an ongoing investigation, pretending that we already know the conclusions when we have yet to even ask all the questions? As revolting as the pictures we have seen are, they are all we have to go by, and we are reacting to these pictures alone. We do not and cannot know the full story at this point, yet we jump to condemn those who have not even yet had the benefit of a trial. We appear to be operating on the principle of guilty until proven innocent. It seems convenient and perhaps politically expedient to blame a small group of ``bad apples'' for what may well turn out to be something completely different--as the continuously widening investigation increasingly suggests. Some of the soldiers in the photographs claim that their superior officers and the civilian contractors in charge of the interrogations forced them to pose this way. We cannot say with certainty what took place in Iraq's prisons based on a few photographs. We have heard that some of those soldiers put in charge of prisons in Iraq were woefully unprepared for the task at hand. We have heard that they were thrown into a terribly confusing, stressful, and dangerous situation with little training and little understanding of the rules and responsibilities. What additional stresses and psychological pressures were applied by those in charge of interrogations? We don't know. Does this excuse what appears to be reprehensible behavior? Not in the slightest, but it does suggest that we need to get all the facts before we draw conclusions. It is more than a little disturbing that this resolution does not even mention the scores of civilian contractors operating in these prisons at whom numerous fingers are being pointed as instigators of these activities. While these individuals seem to operate with impunity, this legislation before us all but convicts without trial those lowest in the chain of command. But this resolution is only partly about the alleged abuses of detainees in Iraq. Though this is the pretext for the legislation, this resolution is really just an enthusiastic endorsement of our nation- building activities in Iraq. This resolution ``expresses the continuing solidarity and support of the House of Representatives . . . with the Iraqi people in building a viable Iraqi government and a secure nation.'' Also this resolution praises the ``mission to rebuild and rehabilitate a proud nation after liberating it. . . .'' At least the resolution is honest in admitting that our current presence in Iraq is nothing more than a nation-building exercise. Further, this resolution explicitly endorses what is clearly a failed policy in Iraq. I wonder whether anyone remembers that we did not go to war against Iraq to build a better nation there, or to bring about ``improvements in . . . water, sewage, power, infrastructure, transportation, telecommunications, and food security . . .'' as this resolution touts. Nor did those who urged this war claim at the time the goals were to ``significantly improv[e] . . . food availability, health service, and educational opportunities'' in Iraq, as this legislation also references. No, the war essential, they claimed, to stop a nation poised to use weapons of mass destruction to inflict unspeakable harm against the United States. Now historical revisionists are pointing out how wonderful our nation-building is going in Iraq, as if that justifies the loss of countless American and Iraqi civilian lives. This resolution decries the fact the administration had not informed Congress of these abuses and that the administration has not kept Congress in the information loop. Yet, Congress made it clear to the administration from the very beginning that Congress wanted no responsibility for the war in Iraq. If Congress wanted to be kept in the loop it should have vigorously exercised its responsibilities from the very beginning. This means, first and foremost, that Congress should have voted on a declaration of war as required in the Constitution. Congress, after abrogating this responsibility in October 2002, now is complaining that it is in the dark. Indeed, who is to say that the legal ambiguity created by the Congressional refusal to declare war may not have contributed to the notion that detainees need not be treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention, that governs the treatment of prisoners during a time of war? Until Congress takes up its Constitutional responsibilities, complaints that the administration is not sufficiently forthcoming with information ring hollow. This resolution calls on the administration to keep Congress better informed. But Congress has the power--and the obligation--to keep itself better informed! If Congress is truly interested in being informed, it should hold hearings--exercising its subpoena power if necessary. Depending on the administration to fulfill what is our own Constitutional responsibility is once again passing the buck. Isn't this what has gotten us into this trouble in the first place? I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to cosponsor the legislation offered by Mr. Gutierrez using the Congressional Review Act to disapprove the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency's (OCC) preemption regulation because I strongly oppose any attempt to expand the OCC's regulatory functions beyond the power Congress originally granted the OCC. The OCC was never meant to serve as a national consumer protection agency. Its limited, intended role has been underscored by Federal court rulings that State law remains applicable to national banks in the absence of explicit Federal preemption. Expanding the jurisdiction of OCC necessarily infringes on the ability of State lawmakers to determine their own consumer protection standards. One-size-fits-all policies crafted in Washington cannot serve the 50 diverse States well. Different States and markets have different needs that are better understood by State and local legislators. Congressional conservatives, in particular, should not endorse an expansion of the Federal regulatory power at the expense of States' rights. The Tenth Amendment is clear: regulatory powers not specifically granted to Congress remain with the States. Congress should stop usurping State authority and leave consumer protection laws to those with far more experience and expertise. This new OCC authority will have far-reaching and unintended consequences. State law governing mortgage brokers, sub-prime lenders, check cashing centers, leasing companies, and even car dealers could be preempted under the new proposal. This proposal may also give national banks and their subsidiaries a competitive advantage over small mortgage companies. OCC undoubtedly will need to hire new staff. Yet the OCC still may be unable to handle the flood of new responsibilities. Unless Congress resists any expansion of OCC, it risks creating another huge, unaccountable, bureaucratic agency. Therefore, I respectfully urge all my colleagues to support Mr. Gutierriez's legislation disapproving the OCC's preemption regulation.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to enter into the Congressional Record the following essay by Miss Cassandra Tamez, a high school student who resides in my Congressional district. Miss Tamez's essay, entitled ``My Commitment to America's Future,'' earned her a Voice of Democracy Scholarship award from the Veterans of Foreign Wars. I am very proud of Miss Tamez's efforts and I wish her well in her future endeavors. ``My Commitment to America's Future'' (By Cassandra Tamez) When I think of the word ``commitment,'' an image of my school's athletic teams pops into my mind. I think of what the coaches used to say during their pep talks before a game, ``There's no question about it, we're going to win tonight. I have seen the effort put in by this team . . . We have determination; we have dedication; and we have commitment.'' My teammates and I would get really ``pumped up.'' We were ready to go out there and win. Looking back now, though, I do not think that as individuals we were truly committed, because commitment is not merely an effort for one game but for every practice and every game. I think commitment is doing something, whether you have the ability to or not, and sticking with it. Commitment is following through every single day. Commitment is focusing solely on the one thing that you commit yourself to. Commitment is binding yourself to something. It is a pledge. So with all this in mind I ask myself, what is my commitment to America's future? Should I recycle or join a beautification committee to preserve America? Should I donate money to foundations that help kids? Or perhaps I could pledge my time to hospitals or nursing homes to help the sick people of America . . . Most people would probably think that my efforts in any of these would make little difference. After all, I am only one person, a speck of sand on a beach. Recycling . . . Yes, collecting cans and glass bottles would be a Tremendous help. My mother recycles. I went with her one day to help her put all our old newspapers in the recycling bin. I started thinking. How many people are there in the world, billions? Out of all these people, how many recycle? I laughed to myself, probably not that many. My mom was definitely wasting her time. Donating money . . . I am not rich. How could the amount of money that I give even help one person with cancer or in need of help? I have seen programs on T.V. that talk about saving the life of a child by just donating 88 cents a day. Then I began thinking about how much it costs for me to eat for just one day. I estimated that my food alone costs eight to fifteen dollars. How could a child survive on 88 cents a day? Is it possible? Pledging my time . . . I used to do volunteer work in a nursing home. I would go there every day during the summer and try and help out however I could. However, I remember this one day that something really horrible happened. I was walking down the hall when all of a sudden this lady started screaming. I looked around, waiting for someone to come running and help her. I waited for about ten seconds, but no one came. I ran towards the nurses' station to see if anyone was on their way. Three of them were just standing there. I knew they could hear the woman screaming . . . I wanted to tell them something, but was it my place? I returned to the woman screaming instead. As soon as I walked in the room she said, ``Help me, Honey. Please, it's my leg. I need to move it.'' I moved forward to help her, but then I hesitated. What if her legs were not supposed to be moved? Could I hurt her if I moved them? By this time I was getting frantic. I told her I would go get someone to help and ran out. I took five steps out the door, and a nurse was standing there, calmly writing on a piece of paper. ``Um, I think that lady needs some help'', I told her. She looked up in annoyance and shouted to another nurse that she needed something for ``The Screamer.'' I stood there for a moment in shock. They acted as if this woman were just a nuisance. At that moment I felt hatred; clearly that woman was in pain. I did not know what was wrong with her, and I could not help her. There was no point in my being there. Taking all of my experiences into consideration, I think this is exactly how many other people think; they feel helpless and insignificant. They feel too small to make any real difference in the world. And then I came across this poem by Edward Everette Hale. He said, I am only one, But still I am one. I cannot do everything But still I can do something. And because I cannot do everything I will not refuse to do The something that I can do. I have to admit that this poem has inspired me. Because even though I am but one speck of sand on a beach, I know that I am a solid and firm speck, and that there are other specs like me that compose the sand. I am one of many who may carry the optimistic attitude of commitment to America. Once again, I think back to my efforts of recycling, donating money, and pledging my time, and realize that they were not futile efforts at all. When I recycled, I know it was probably only thirty newspapers out of trillions in the world, but what if I recycled once a month? That would be 360 newspapers a year for a lifetime. I might save a beautiful tree or even more. As for donating money, well 88 cents a day from me might not feed a child, but if only nine more people in my state donate 88 cents, then that child has a total of $8.80, my estimate of money needed for a day. Now, as far as pledging my time goes, I do not think my time spent in the nursing home was a complete waste. I did help one patient who was in pain. So once again, what is my commitment to America's future? My commitment is to ``play to my strengths.'' My commitment is to do my best. Like the patriotic commercials on television say, ``We, the children, are America's future,'' and every bit we can do helps.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, we are constantly admonished to remember the lessons of 9/11. Of course, the real issue is not remembering, but rather knowing what the pertinent lesson of that sad day is. The 9/11 Commission will soon release its report after months of fanfare by those whose reputations are at stake. The many hours and dollars spent on the investigation may well reveal little we do not already know, while ignoring the most important lessons that should be learned from this egregious attack on our homeland. Common sense already tells us the tens of billions of dollars spent by the agencies of government whose job it is to promote security and intelligence for our country failed. A full-fledged investigation into the bureaucracy may help us in the future, but one should never pretend that a government bureaucracy can be made efficient. It is the very nature of a bureaucracy to be inefficient. Spending an inordinate amount of time finger-pointing will distract from the real lessons of 9/11. Which agency, which department, or which individual receives the most blame should not be the main purpose of the investigation. Despite the seriousness of our failure to prevent the attacks, it is disturbing to see how politicized the whole investigation has become. Which political party receives the greatest blame is a high-stakes election-year event and distracts from the real lessons ignored by both sides. Everyone I have heard speak on the issue has assumed that the 9/11 attacks resulted from the lack of government action. No one in Washington has raised the question of whether our shortcomings brought to light by 9/11 could have been a result of too much government. Possibly in the final report we will hear this discussed, but, to date, no one has questioned the assumption that we need more government and, of course, though elusive, a more efficient one. The failure to understand the nature of the enemy who attacked us on 9/11, along with a predetermined decision to initiate a preemptive war against Iraq, prompted our government to deceive the people into believing that Saddam Hussein had something to do with the attacks on New York and Washington. The majority of the American people still contend that the war against Iraq was justified because of the events of 9/11. These misinterpretations have led to many U.S. military deaths and casualties prompting a growing number of Americans to question the wisdom of our presence and purpose in a strange, foreign land 6,000 miles from our shores. The neocon defenders of our policy in Iraq speak of the benefits that we have brought to the Iraqi people: removal of a violent dictator, liberation, democracy and prosperity. That the world is a safer place is yet to be proven. So far it is just not so. If all of this were true, the resistance against our occupation would not be growing. We ought to admit we have not been welcomed as liberators as was promised by the proponents of the war. Though we hear much about the so-called benefits we have delivered to the Iraqi people and the Middle East, we hear little talk of the cost to the American people: lives lost, soldiers maimed for life, uncounted thousands sent home with diseased bodies and minds, billions of dollars consumed, and a major cloud placed over U.S. markets and the economy. Sharp political divisions reminiscent of the 1960s are rising at home. Failing to understand why 9/11 happened and looking for a bureaucratic screw-up to explain the whole thing, while using the event to start an unprovoked war unrelated to 9/11, have dramatically compounded the problems all Americans and the world face. Evidence has shown that there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and the guerrilla attacks on New York and Washington. And since no weapons of mass destruction were found, other reasons are given for invading Iraq. The real reasons are either denied or ignored: oil, neoconservative, empire building and our support for Israel over the Palestinians. The proponents of the Iraqi war do not hesitate to impugn the character of those who point out the shortcomings of current policy, calling them unpatriotic and appeasers of terrorism. It is said that they are responsible for the growing armed resistance and for the killing of American soldiers. It is conveniently ignored that if the opponents of the current policy had had their way, not one single American would have died, nor would tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians have suffered the same fate. Al Qaeda and many new militant groups would not be enjoying a rapid growth in their ranks. By denying that our sanctions and bombs brought havoc to Iraq, it is easy to play the patriot card and find a scapegoat to blame. We are never at fault and never responsible for bad outcomes of what many believe is, albeit well-intentioned, interference in the affairs of others 6,000 miles from our shores. Pursuing our policy has boiled down to testing our resolve. It is said by many who did not even want to go to war that now we have no choice but to stay the course. They argue that it is a noble gesture to be courageous and continue no matter how difficult the task. But that should not be the issue. It is not a question of resolve, but rather a question of wise policy. If the policy is flawed, and the world and our people are less safe for it, unshakable resolve is the opposite of what we need. Staying the course only makes sense when the difficult tasks are designed to protect our country and to thwart those who pose a direct threat to us. Wilsonian idealism of self-sacrifice to make the world safe for democracy should never be an excuse to wage preemptive war, especially since it almost never produces the desired results. There are always too many unintended consequences. In our effort to change the political structure of Iraq, we continue alliances with dictators and even develop new ones with countries that are anything but democracies. We have a close alliance with Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and many other Arab dictatorships, and a new one with Qadhafi of Libya. This should raise questions about the credibility of our commitment to promoting democracy in Iraq, which even our own governments would not tolerate. Show me one neocon that would accept a national election that would put the radical Shiites in charge. As Secretary Rumsfeld said, it is not going to happen. These same people are condemning the recent democratic decisions made in Spain. We should remember that since World War II, in 35 U.S. attempts to promote democracy around the world, none have succeeded. Proponents of war too often fail to contemplate the unintended consequences of an aggressive foreign policy. So far, the antiwar forces have not been surprised with the chaos that has now become Iraq's, or Iran's participation, but even they cannot know all the long-term shortcomings of such a policy. In an eagerness to march on Baghdad, the neocons gloated, and I heard them, of the shock and awe that was about to hit the Iraqi people. It turns out that the real shock and awe is that we are further from peace in Iraq than we were a year ago. And Secretary Rumsfeld admits his own surprise. The only policy now offered is to escalate the war and avenge the death of American soldiers. If they kill 10 of our troops, we will kill 100 of theirs. Up until now, announcing the number of Iraqi deaths has purposely been avoided, but the new policy proclaims our success by announcing the number of Iraqis killed. But the more we kill, the greater becomes the incitement of the radical Islamic militant. The harder we try to impose our will on them, the greater the resistance becomes. Amazingly, our occupation has done what was at one time thought to be impossible. It has united the Sunnis and the Shiites against our presence. Although this is probably temporary, it is real and has deepened our problems in securing Iraq. The results are escalations of the conflict and the requirements for more troops. This acceleration of the killing is called pacification, a bit of 1984 newspeak. The removing of Saddam Hussein has created a stark irony. The willingness and intensity of the Iraqi people to fight for their homeland has increased manyfold. Under Saddam Hussein essentially no resistance occurred. Instead of jubilation and parades for the liberators, we face much greater and unified effort to throw out all foreigners than when Saddam Hussein was in charge. It is not whether the Commission investigation of the causes of 9/11 is unwarranted, if the Commissioners are looking in the wrong places for answers, it is whether much will be achieved. I am sure we will hear that the bureaucracy failed, whether it was the FBI, the CIA, the National Security Council or all of them, for failure to communicate with each other. This will not answer the question of why we were attacked and why our defenses were so poor. Even though $40 billion are spent on intelligence gathering each year, the process failed us. Now, it is likely to be said that what we need is more money and more efficiency. Yet that approach fails to recognize that depending on government agencies to be efficient is a risky assumption. We should support any effort to make the intelligence agencies more effective, but one thing is certain: More money will not help. Of the $40 billion spent annually for intelligence, too much is spent on nation building and activities unrelated to justified surveillance. There are two other lessons that must be learned if we hope to benefit by studying and trying to explain the disaster that hit us on 9/11. If we fail to learn them, we cannot be made safer, and the opposite is more likely to occur. The first point is to understand who assumes the most responsibility for securing our homes and businesses in a free society. It is not the police. There are too few of them, and it is not their job to stand guard outside our houses and places of business. More crime occurs in the inner city where there are not only more police, but more restrictions on property owners' rights to bear and use weapons if invaded by hoodlums. In safer rural areas where every home has a gun and someone in it who is willing to use it, there is no false dependency on the police protecting them, but full reliance on the owner's responsibility to deal with any property violators. This understanding works rather well, at least better than in the inner cities where the understanding is totally different. How does this apply to the 9/11 tragedies? The airline owners accept the rules of the inner city rather than that of rural America. They all assume that the government was in charge of airline security, and, unfortunately, by law it was. Not only were the airlines complacent about security, but the FAA dictated all the rules relating to potential hijacking. Chemical plants or armored truck companies that carry money make the opposite assumptions, and private guns do a reasonably good job in providing security. Evidently we think more of our money and chemical plants than we do our passengers on airplanes. The complacency of the airlines is one thing, but the intrusiveness of the FAA is another. Two specific regulations proved to be disastrous for dealing with the thugs who, without even a single gun, took over four airlines and created the havoc of 9/11. Both the prohibition against guns being allowed in the cockpit and precise instructions that crews not resist hijackers contributed immensely to the horrors of 9/ 11. Instead of immediately legalizing a natural right of personal self- defense guaranteed by an explicit second amendment freedom, we still do not have armed pilots in the sky. Instead of more responsibility given to the airline companies, the government has taken over the entire process. This has been encouraged by the airline owners, who seek subsidies and insurance protection. Of course, the nonsense of never resisting has been forever vetoed by passengers. Unfortunately, the biggest failure of our government will be ignored. I am sure the Commission will not relate our foreign policy of interventionism, practiced by both major parties for over 100 years, to being seriously flawed and the most important reason 9/11 occurred. Instead, the claims will stand that the motivation behind 9/11 was our freedoms, prosperity and our way of life. If this error persists, all the tinkering and money to improve the intelligence gathering will bear little fruit. Over the years the entire psychology of national defense has been completely twisted. Very little attention has been directed towards protecting our national borders and providing homeland security. Our attention all too often was and still is directed outward toward distant lands. Now a significant number of our troops are engaged in Afghanistan and Iraq. We have kept troops in Korea for over 50 years, and thousands of troops remain in Europe and in over 130 other countries. This twisted philosophy of ignoring our national borders while pursuing an empire created a situation where Seoul, Korea, was better protected than Washington, D.C., on 9/11. These priorities must change, but I am certain the 9/11 Commission will not address this issue. This misdirected policy has prompted the current protracted war in Iraq, which has gone on now for 13 years with no end in sight. The al Qaeda attacks should not be used to justify more intervention. Instead they should be seen as a guerilla attacks against us for what the Arabs and the Muslim world see as our invasion and interference in their homeland. This cycle of escalation is rapidly spreading the confrontation worldwide between the Christian West and the Muslim East. With each escalation the world becomes more dangerous. It is especially made worse when we retaliate against Muslims and Arabs who had nothing to do with 9/11, as we have in Iraq, further confirming the suspicions of the Muslim masses that our goals are more about oil and occupation than they are about punishing those responsible for 9/11. Those who claim that Iraq is another Vietnam are wrong. They cannot be the same. There are too many differences in time, place and circumstance. But that does not mean the Iraqi conflict cannot last longer, spread throughout the region and possibly throughout the world, making it potentially much worse than what we suffered in Vietnam. In the first 6 years we were in Vietnam, we lost less than 500 troops. Over 700 of our troops have been killed in Iraq in just over a year. Our neglect at pursuing the al Qaeda and bin Laden in Pakistan and Afghanistan and diverting resources to Iraq have seriously compromised our ability to maintain a favorable world opinion of support and cooperation in this effort. Instead, we have chaos in Iraq while the Islamists are being financed by a booming drug business from U.S-occupied Afghanistan. Continuing to deny that the setbacks against us are related to our overall foreign policy of foreign meddling throughout many years and many administrations makes a victory over our enemies nearly impossible. Not understanding the true nature and motivation of those who have and will commit deadly attacks against us prevents a sensible policy from being pursued. Guerrilla warriors who are willing to risk and sacrifice their all as part of a war that they see as defensive are a far cry philosophically from a band of renegades who, out of unprovoked hate, seek to destroy us and kill themselves in the process. How we fight back depends on understanding these differences. Of course, changing our foreign policy to one of no preemptive war, no nation-building, no entangling alliances, no interference in the internal affairs of other nations, and trade and friendship with all those who seek it, is no easy task. The real obstacle, though, is to understand the motives behind our current foreign policy of perpetual meddling in the affairs of others for more than 100 years. Understanding why both political parties agree on the principles of continuous foreign intervention is crucial. Those reasons are multiple and varied. They range from the persistent Wilsonian idealism of making the world safe for democracy to the belief that we must protect our oil. Also contributing to this bipartisan foreign policy view is the notion that promoting world government is worthwhile. This involves support for the United Nations, NATO, control of the world's resources through the IMF, the World Bank, the WTO, NAFTA, FTAA and the Law of the Sea Treaty, all of which gained the support of those sympathetic to the poor and socialism, while too often the benefits accrue to the well-connected international corporations and bankers sympathetic to economic fascism. Sadly, in the process, the people are forgotten, especially those who pay the taxes; those who lives are lost and sacrificed in no-win, undeclared wars; and the unemployed and the poor who lose out as the economic consequences of financing our foreign entanglements evolve. Regardless of one's enthusiasm or lack thereof for the war and the general policy of maintaining American troops in more than 130 countries, one cold fact must be soon recognized by all of us here in the Congress. The American people cannot afford it; and when the market finally recognizes the overcommitment we have made, the results will not be pleasing to anyone. A guns-and-butter policy was flawed in the 1960s and gave us interest rates of 21 percent in the 1970s with high inflation rates. The current guns-and-butter policy is even more massive, and our economic infrastructure is more fragile than it was back then. These facts will dictate our inability to continue this policy both internationally and domestically. It is true, an unshakable resolve to stay the course in Iraq or any other hot spot can be pursued for many years; but when a country is adding to its future indebtedness by over $700 billion per year, it can only be done with great economic sacrifice to all our citizens. Huge deficits financed by borrowing and Federal Reserve monetization are an unsustainable policy and always lead to higher price inflation, higher interest rates, a continued erosion of the dollar's value, and a faltering economy. Economic law dictates that the standard of living then must go down for all Americans, except for the privileged few who have an inside track on government largess if this policy of profligate spending continues. Unfortunately, the American people, especially the younger generation, will have to decide whether to languish with the current policy or reject the notion that perpetual warfare and continued growth in entitlements should be pursued indefinitely. I am sure the commission will not deal with the flaw in the foreign policy endorsed by both parties for these many, many years. I hope the commission tells us, though, why members of the bin Laden family were permitted immediately after 9/11 to leave the United States without interrogation when no other commercial or private flights were allowed. That event should have been thoroughly studied and explained to the American people. We actually had a lot more reason to invade Saudi Arabia than we did Iraq in connection with 9/11; but that country, obviously no friend of democracy, remains an unchallenged ally of the United States with few questions asked. I am afraid the commission will answer only a few questions while raising many new ones. Overall, though, the commission has been beneficial and provides some reassurance to those who believe we operate in a much too closed-off society. Fortunately, any administration under the current system still must respond to reasonable inquiries.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, as a cosponsor I am very pleased to support H.R. 2844, the Continuity in Representation Act. H.R. 2844 provides a practical and constitutional way to ensure that the House of Representatives can continue to operate in the event that more than 100 Members are killed. H.R. 2844 thus protects the people's right to choose their Representative at a time when such a right may be most important, while ensuring continuity of the legislative branch. The version of H.R. 2844 before Congress today was drafted with input from the State election commissioners to make sure it sets realistic goals and will not unduly burden State governments. Mr. Chairman, there are those who say the power of appointment is necessary in order to preserve checks and balances and prevent an abuse of executive power during a time of crisis. Of course, I agree that is a very important point to carefully guard against and protect our constitutional liberties, and that an overcentralization of power in the executive branch is one of the most serious dangers to our liberties. However, during a time of crisis, it is all the more important to have Representatives accountable to the people. Otherwise, the citizenry has no check on the inevitable tendency of government to infringe on the people's liberties at such a time. Supporters of amending the constitution claim that the appointment power will be necessary in the event of an emergency and that the appointed representatives will only be temporary. However, the laws passed by these ``temporary'' representatives will be permanent. The Framers gave Congress all the tools it needs to address problems of mass vacancies in the House without compromising this institution's primary function as a representative body. In fact, as Hamilton explains in Federalist 59, the ``time, place, and manner'' clause was specifically designed to address the kind of extraordinary circumstances imagined by those who support amending the Constitution. In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2844, the Continuity in Representation Act, which ensures an elected Congress can continue to operate in the event of an emergency. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to support H.R. 2844, the Continuity in Representation Act, introduced by my distinguished colleague, House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner. H.R. 2844 provides a practical and Constitutional way to ensure that the House of Representatives can continue to operate in the event that more than 100 members are killed, H.R. 2844 thus protects the people's right to choose their representatives at the time when such a right may be most important, while ensuring continuity of the legislative branch. Article I Section 2 of the United States Constitution grants state governors the authority to hold special elections to fill vacancies in the House of Representatives. Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to designate the time, place, and manner of such special elections if states should fail to act expeditiously following a national emergency. Alexander Hamilton, who played a major role in the drafting and ratification of the United States Constitution, characterized authority over federal elections as shared between the states and Congress, with neither being able to control the process entirely. H.R. 2844 exercises Congress's power to regulate the time, place, and manner of elections by requiring the holding of special elections within 45 days after the Speaker or acting Speaker declares 100 members of the House have been killed. I have no doubt that the people of the states are quite competent to hold elections in a timely fashion. After all, it is in each state's interest to ensure it has adequate elected representation in Washington. The version of H.R. 2844 before Congress today was drafted with input from state elections commissioners to make sure it sets realistic goals and will not unduly burden state governments. I am disappointed that some of my colleagues reject the sensible approach of H.R. 2844 and instead support amending the Constitution to allow appointed members to serve in this body. Allowing appointed members to serve in ``the people's house'' will fundamentally alter the nature of this institution and sever the people's most direct connection with their government. Even with the direct election of Senators, the fact that members of the House are elected every 2 years while Senators run for statewide office every 6 years means that members of the House of Representatives are still more accountable to the people than members of any other part of the federal government. Appointed members of Congress simply cannot be truly representative. James Madison and Alexander Hamilton eloquently made this point in Federalist 52: ``As it is essential to liberty that the government in general should have a common interest with the people, so it is particularly essential that the branch of it under consideration should have an immediate dependence on, and an intimate sympathy with, the people. Frequent elections are unquestionably the only policy by which this dependence and sympathy can be effectually secured.'' Mr. Chairman, there are those who say that the power of appointment is necessary in order to preserve checks and balances and thus prevent an abuse of executive power during a time of crisis. Of course, I agree that it is very important to carefully guard our constitutional liberties in times of crisis, and that an over-centralization of power in the executive branch is one of the most serious dangers to that liberty. However, Mr. Chairman, during a time of crisis it is all the more important to have representatives accountable to the people. Otherwise, the citizenry has no check on the inevitable tendency of Government to infringe on the people's liberties at such a time. I would remind my colleagues that the only reason we are considering reexamining provisions of the PATRIOT Act is because of public concerns that this act gives up excessive liberty for a phantom security. Appointed officials would not be as responsive to public concerns. Supporters of amending the constitution claim that the appointment power will be necessary in the event of an emergency and that the appointed representatives will only be temporary. However, the laws passed by these ``temporary'' representatives will be permanent. Mr. Chairman, this country has faced the possibility of threats to the continuity of this body several times in our history. Yet no one suggested removing the people's right to vote for members of Congress. For example, the British in the War of 1812 attacked the city of Washington, yet nobody suggested the States could not address the lack of a quorum in the House of Representatives through elections. During the Civil War, the neighboring State of Virginia, where today many Capitol Hill staffers reside and many members stay while Congress is in session, was actively involved in hostilities against the United States Government. Yet, Abraham Lincoln never suggested that non-elected persons serve in the House. Adopting any of the proposals to deny the people the ability to choose their own representatives would let the terrorists know that they can succeed in altering our republican institutions. I hope all my colleagues who are considering rejecting H.R. 2844 in favor of a Constitutional amendment will question the wisdom of handing terrorists a preemptive victory over republican government. As noted above, the Framers gave Congress all the tools it needs to address problems of mass vacancies in the House without compromising this institution's primary function as a representative body. In fact, as Hamilton explains in Federalist 59, the ``time, place, and manner'' clause was specifically designed to address the kind of extraordinary circumstances imagined by those who support amending the Constitution. In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2844, the Continuity in Representation Act, which ensures an elected Congress can continue to operate in the event of an emergency. This is what the Drafters of the Constitution intended. Furthermore, passage of H.R. 2844 sends a strong message to terrorists that they cannot alter our republican government.

Mr. PAUL

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

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. I do so because further expansion of NATO, an outdated alliance, is not in our national interest and may well constitute a threat to our national security in the future. More than 50 years ago the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was formed to defend Western Europe and the United States against attack from the communist nations of Eastern Europe. It was an alliance of sovereign nations bound together in common purpose--for mutual defense. The deterrence value of NATO helped kept the peace throughout the Cold War. In short, NATO achieved its stated mission. With the fall of the Soviet system and the accompanying disappearance of the threat of attack, in 1989-1991, NATO's reason to exist ceased. Unfortunately, as with most bureaucracies, the end of NATO's mission did not mean the end of NATO. Instead, heads of NATO member states gathered in 1999 desperately attempting to devise new missions for the outdated and adrift alliance. This is where NATO moved from being a defensive alliance respecting the sovereignty of its members to an offensive and interventionist organization, concerned now with ``economic, social and political difficulties . . . ethnic and religious rivalries, territorial disputes, inadequate or failed efforts at reform, the abuse of human rights, and the dissolution of states,'' in the words of the Washington 1999 Summit. And we saw the fruits of this new NATO mission in the former Yugoslavia, where the US, through NATO, attacked a sovereign state that threatened neither the United States nor its own neighbors. In Yugoslavia, NATO abandoned the claim it once had to the moral high ground. The result of the illegal and immoral NATO intervention in the Balkans speaks for itself: NATO troops will occupy the Balkans for the foreseeable future. No peace has been attained, merely the cessation of hostilities and a permanent dependency on US foreign aid. The further expansion of NATO is in reality a cover for increased US interventionism in Europe and beyond. It will be a conduit for more unconstitutional US foreign aid and US interference in the internal politics of member nations, especially the new members from the former East. It will also mean more corporate welfare at home. As we know, NATO membership demands a minimum level of military spending of its member states. For NATO's new members, the burden of significantly increased military spending when there are no longer external threats is hard to meet. Unfortunately, this is where the US government steps in, offering aid and subsidized loans to these members so they can purchase more unneeded and unnecessary military equipment. In short, it is nothing more than corporate welfare for the US military industrial complex. The expansion of NATO to these seven countries, we have heard, will open them up to the further expansion of US military bases, right up to the border of the former Soviet Union. Does no one worry that this continued provocation of Russia might have negative effects in the future? Is it necessary? Further, this legislation encourages the accession of Albania, Macedonia, and Croatia--nations that not long ago were mired in civil and regional wars. The promise of US military assistance if any of these states are attacked is obviously a foolhardy one. What will the mutual defense obligations we are entering into mean if two Balkan NATO members begin hostilities against each other (again)? In conclusion, we should not be wasting US tax money and taking on more military obligations expanding NATO. The alliance is a relic of the Cold War, a hold-over from another time, an anachronism. It should be disbanded, the sooner the better.

Mr PAUL

Mr PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I once again find myself compelled to vote against the annual budget resolution, H. Con. Res. 393, for a very simple reason: it makes government bigger. Like many of my Republican colleagues who curiously voted for today's enormous budget, I campaign on a simple promise that I will work to make government smaller. This means I cannot vote for any budget that increases spending over previous years. In fact, I would have a hard time voting for any budget that did not slash Federal spending by at least 25 percent, a feat that becomes less unthinkable when we remember that the Federal budget in 1990 was less than half what it is today. Did anyone really think the Federal Government was uncomfortably small just 14 years ago? Hardly. It once took more than 100 years for the Federal budget to double, now it takes less than a decade. We need to end the phony rhetoric about ``priorities'' and recognize Federal spending as the runaway freight train that it is. A Federal Government that spends $2.4 trillion in 1 year and consumes roughly one-third of the nation's GDP is far too large. Neither political party wants to address the fundamental yet unspoken issue lurking beneath any budget debate: What is the proper role for government in our society? Are these ever-growing social services and defense expenditures really proper in a free country? We need to understand that the more government spends, the more freedom is lost. Instead of simply debating spending levels, we ought to be debating whether the departments, agencies, and programs funded by the budget should exist at all. My Republican colleagues especially ought to know this. Unfortunately, however, the GOP has decided to abandon principle and pander to the entitlements crowd. But this approach will backfire, because Democrats will always offer to spend even more than Republicans. When Republicans offer to spend $500 billion on Medicare, Democrats will offer $600 billion. Why not? It's all funny money anyway, and it helps them get re-elected. I object strenuously to the term ``baseline budget.'' In Washington, this means that the previous year's spending levels represent only a baseline starting point. Both parties accept that each new budget will spend more than the last, the only issue being how much more. If Republicans offer a budget that grows Federal spending by 3 percent, while Democrats seek 6 percent growth, Republicans trumpet that they are the party of smaller government. But expanding the government slower than some would like is not the same as reducing it. Furthermore, today's budget debate further entrenches the phony concept of discretionary versus nondiscretionary spending. An increasing percentage of the annual Federal budget is categorized as ``nondiscretionary'' entitlement spending, meaning Congress ostensibly has no choice whether to fund certain programs. In fact, roughly two- thirds of the fiscal year 2005 budget is consumed by nondiscretionary spending. When Congress has no say over how two-thirds of the Federal budget is spent, the American people effectively have no say either. Why in the world should the American people be forced to spend 1.5 trillion dollars funding programs that cannot even be reviewed at budget time? The very concept of nondiscretionary spending is a big- government statist's dream, because it assumes that we as a society simply have accepted that most of the Federal leviathan must be funded as a matter of course. No program or agency should be considered sacred, and no funding should be considered inevitable. The assertion that this budget will reduce taxes is nonsense. Budget bills do not change the tax laws one bit. Congress can pass this budget today and raise taxes tomorrow--budget and tax bills are completely separate and originate from different committees. The budget may make revenue projections based on tax cuts, but the truth is that Congress has no idea what Federal revenues will be in any future year. Similarly, the deficit reduction supposedly contained in the budget is illusory. The Federal government always spends more in future years than originally projected, and always runs single-year deficits when on factors in raids on funds supposedly earmarked for Social Security. The notion that today's budget will impose fiscal restraint on Congress in the future is laughable--Congress will vote for new budgets every year without the slightest regard for what we do today. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues have discussed the details of this budget ad nauseam. The increases in domestic, foreign, and military spending would not be needed if Congress stopped trying to build an empire abroad and a nanny state at home. Our interventionist foreign policy and growing entitlement society will bankrupt this Nation if we do not change the way we think about the proper role of the Federal government.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Television Consumer Freedom Act, legislation repealing regulations that interfere with a consumer's ability to obtain desired television programming. The Television Consumer Freedom Act also repeals federal regulations that would increase the cost of a television. My office has received numerous calls from rural satellite and cable TV customers who are upset because their satellite or cable service providers have informed them that they will lose access to certain network and cable programming. The reason my constituents cannot obtain their desired satellite and cable services is that the satellite and cable ``marketplace'' is fraught with government interventionism at every level. Local governments have historically granted cable companies franchises of monopoly privilege. Government has previously intervened to invalidate ``exclusive dealings'' contracts between private parties, namely cable service providers and program creators, and has most recently imposed price controls. The Library of Congress has even been delegated the power to determine prices at which program suppliers must make their programs available to cable and satellite programming service providers. It is, of course, within the constitutionally enumerated powers of Congress to ``promote the progress of Science and Useful Arts by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the Exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.'' However, operating a clearing-house for the subsequent transfer of such property rights in the name of setting a just price or ``instilling competition'' via ``central planning'' seems to be neither economically prudent nor justifiable under this enumerated power. This process is one best reserved to the competitive marketplace. It is impossible for the government to set the just price for satellite programming. Over regulation of the cable industry has resulted in competition among service providers for government privilege rather than free market competition among providers to offer a better product at a lower price. While federal regulation does leave satellite programming service providers free to bypass the governmental royalty distribution scheme and negotiate directly with owners of programming for program rights, there is a federal prohibition on satellite service providers making local network affiliates' programs available to nearby satellite subscribers. This bill repeals that federal prohibition so satellite service providers may freely negotiate with program owners for programming desired by satellite service subscribers. Technology is now available by which viewers could view network programs via satellite as presented by their nearest network affiliate. This market-generated technology will remove a major stumbling block to negotiations that should currently be taking place between network program owners and satellite service providers. This bill also repeals federal laws that force cable companies to carry certain programs. These federal ``must carry'' mandates deny cable companies the ability to provide the programming their customers' desire. Decisions about what programming to carry on a cable system should be made by consumers, not federal bureaucrats. The Television Consumer Freedom Act also repeals federal regulations that mandate that all TVs sold in the United States contain ``digital technology.'' In complete disregard of all free market and constitutional principles, the FCC actually plans to forbid consumers from buying TVs, after 2006 that are not equipped to carry digital broadcasts. According to Stephen Moore of the CATO Institute, this could raise the price of a TV by as much as $250 dollars. While some television manufactures and broadcasters may believe they will benefit from this government-imposed price increase, they will actually lose business as consumers refrain from purchasing new TVs because of the government mandated price increase. Mr. Speaker, the federal government should not interfere with a consumer's ability to purchase services such as satellite or cable television in the free market. I therefore urge my colleagues to take a step toward restoring freedom by cosponsoring my Television Consumer Freedom Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to help working Americans provide for their children's health care needs by introducing the Child Health Care Affordability Act. The Child Health Care Affordability Act provides parents with a tax credit of up to $500 for health care expenses of dependent children. Parents caring for a child with a disability, terminal disease, cancer, or any other health condition requiring specialized care would receive a tax credit of up to $3,000 to help cover their child's health care expenses. The tax credit would be available to all citizens, regardless of whether or not they itemize their deductions. The credit applies against both income and payroll tax liability. The tax credits provided in this bill will be especially helpful to those Americans whose employers cannot afford to provide health insurance for their employees. These workers must struggle to meet the medical bills of themselves and their families. This burden is especially heavy on parents whose children have a medical condition; such as cancer or a physical disability that requires long-term or specialized health care. As an OB-GYN who has had the privilege of delivering more than four thousand babies, I know how important it is that parents have the resources to provide adequate health care for their children. The inability of many working Americans to provide health care for their children is rooted in one of the great inequities of the tax code-- Congress' failure to allow individuals the same ability to deduct health care costs that it grants to businesses. As a direct result of Congress' refusal to provide individuals with health care related tax credits, parents whose employers do not provide health insurance have to struggle to provide health care for their children. Many of these parents work in low-income jobs; oftentimes, their only recourse for health care is the local emergency room. Sometimes parents are forced to delay seeking care for their children until minor health concerns that could have been easily treated become serious problems requiring expensive treatment! If these parents had access to the type of tax credits provided in the Child Health Care Affordability Act, they would be better able to provide care for their children, and our nation's already overcrowded emergency rooms would be relieved of the burden of having to provide routine care for people who otherwise cannot afford it. According to research on the effects of this bill done by my staff and legislative counsel, the benefit of these tax credits would begin to be felt by joint filers with incomes slightly above $18,000 per year, or single income filers with incomes slightly above $15,000 per year. Clearly, this bill will be of the most benefit to low-income Americans balancing the demands of taxation with the needs of their children. Under the Child Health Care Affordability Act, a struggling singling mother with an asthmatic child would at last be able to provide for her child's needs, while a working-class family will not have to worry about how they will pay the bills if one of their children requires lengthy hospitalization or some other form of specialized care. Mr. Speaker, this Congress has a moral responsibility to provide tax relief so that low-income parents struggling to care for a sick child can better meet their child's medical expenses. Some may say that we cannot enact the Child Health Care Affordability Act because it would cause the government to lose revenue. But, who is more deserving of this money, Congress or the working parents of a sick child? The Child Health Care Affordability Act takes a major step toward helping working Americans meet their health care needs by providing them with generous health care related tax cuts and tax credits. I urge my colleagues to support the pro-family, pro-health care tax cuts contained in the Child Health Care Affordability Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 254 expands the authority of the North American Development Bank (NAD), which was created in the allegedly free-trade NAFTA agreement, to make below-market loans. H.R. 254 also expands the geographic area in which the NAD bank operates. This bill is economically unsound and blatantly unconstitutional and I hope my colleagues will reject it. Supporters of the NAD claim that the bank facilitates economic development and thus improves the quality of life for those living in regions where NAD finances projects. In fact, the NAD bank hinders economic development. When Congress funds institutions like NAD, it transfers resources from the private sector to the government. When resources are left in the private sector, they are put to the use most highly valued by individual consumers. In contrast, the use of resources transferred to the public sector by agencies like NAD is determined by bureaucrats and politically powerful special interests, thus assuring that the resources cannot be put to their highest-valued use. Therefore, determining the allocation of resources through the political process decreases economic efficiency. Thus, NAD will actually cost jobs and reduce the standard of living of the very workers NAD's supporters claim to benefit! I would also like to remind my colleagues that there is no constitutional authorization for Congress to fund organizations like the NAD. If my colleagues are not convinced by the constitutional argument, I would hope they would consider the wisdom of expanding the scope of taxpayer support of programs like the NAD at a time when the government is facing massive deficits and Congress is scrambling to find the money to pay for national priorities. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stand up for sound economics and constitutional principles by rejecting H.R. 254, legislation expanding the North American Development Bank.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today, in the floor debate on H. Res. 557, the Iraq resolution, though a member of the Committee on International Relations, I was unfortunately denied time to express my dissent on the policy of preemptive war in Iraq. The fact that the Committee on International Relations held no hearings and did not mark up the resolution further challenges the fairness of the process. Mr. Speaker, I now rise to express my opposition to H. Res. 557, obviously, not because our Armed Forces do not deserve praise, but rather because our policy in the Persian Gulf is seriously flawed. An effort to commend our forces should not be used to rubber-stamp a policy of folly. To do so is disingenuous. Though the resolution may have political benefits, it will prove to be historically incorrect. Justifying preemption is not an answer to avoiding appeasement. Very few wars are necessary. Very few wars are good wars. And this one does not qualify. Most wars are costly beyond measure, in life and limb and economic hardship. In this regard, this war does qualify: 566 deaths, 10,000 casualties, and hundreds of billions of dollars for a victory requiring self-deception. Rather than bragging about victory, we should recognize that the war that rages on between the Muslim East and the Christian West has intensified and spread, leaving our allies and our own people less safe. Denying we have an interest in oil and that occupying an Islamic country is not an affront to the sensitivities of most Arabs and Muslims is foolhardy. Reasserting U.N. Security Council resolutions as a justification for the war further emphasizes our sacrifice of sovereignty and Congress's reneging its constitutional responsibility over war. This resolution dramatizes our forgetfulness that for too long we were staunch military and economic allies of Saddam Hussein, confirming the folly of our policy of foreign meddling over many decades. From the days of installing the Shah of Iran to the current worldwide spread of hostilities and hatred, our unnecessary involvement shows so clearly how unintended consequences come back to haunt generation after generation. Someday our leaders ought to ask why Switzerland, Sweden, Canada, Mexico, and many others are not potential targets of an Islamic attack. Falsely believing that the al Qaeda was aligned with Saddam Hussein has resulted in the al Qaeda now having a strong presence and influence in Iraq. Falsely believing that Iraq had a supply of weapons of mass destruction has resulted in a dramatic loss of U.S. credibility, as anti-Americanism spreads around the world. Al Qaeda recruitment, sadly, has been dramatically increased. We all praise our troops and support them. Challenging one's patriotism for not supporting this resolution and/or policy in the Persian Gulf is not legitimate. We should all be cautious in endorsing and financing a policy that unfortunately expands the war rather than ends it.