Ron Paul

Mr. PAUL

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

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, while there is little debate about the need to update and modernize the Medicare system to allow seniors to use Medicare funds for prescription drugs, there is much debate about the proper means to achieve this end. However, much of that debate is phony, since neither H.R. 1 nor the alternative allows seniors the ability to control their own health care. Both plans give a large bureaucracy the power to determine which prescription drugs senior citizens can receive. Under both plans, federal spending and control over health care will rise dramatically. The only difference is that the alternative puts seniors under the total control of the federal bureaucracy, while H.R. 1 shares this power with ``private'' health maintenance organizations and insurance companies. No wonder supporters of nationalized health care are celebrating the greatest expansion of federal control over health care since the Great Society. I am pleased that the drafters of H.R. 1 incorporate regulatory relief legislation, which I have supported in the past, into the bill. This will help relieve some of the tremendous regulatory burden imposed on health care providers by the Federal Government. I am also pleased that H.R. 1 contains several good provisions addressing the congressionally-created crisis in rural health and attempts to ensure that physicians are fairly reimbursed by the Medicare system. However, Mr. Speaker, at the heart of this legislation is a fatally flawed plan that will fail to provide seniors access to the pharmaceuticals of their choice. H.R. 1 provides seniors a choice between staying in traditionally Medicare or joining an HMO or a Preferred Provider Organization (PPO). No matter which option the senior selects, choices about which pharmaceuticals are available to seniors will be made by a public or private sector bureaucrat. Furthermore, the bureaucrats will have poor to determine the aggregate prices charged to the plans. Being forced to choose between types of bureaucrats is not choice. Thus, in order to get any help with their prescription drug costs, seniors have to relinquish their ability to choose the type of prescriptions that meet their own individual needs! The inevitable result of this process will be rationing, as Medicare and/or HMO bureaucrats attempt to control costs by reducing the reimbursements paid to pharmacists to below-market levels (thus causing pharmacists to refuse to participate in Medicare), and restricting the type of pharmacies seniors may use in the name of ``cost effectiveness.'' Bureaucrats may even go so far as to forbid seniors from using their own money to purchase Medicare-covered pharmaceuticals. I remind may colleagues that today the federal government prohibits seniors from using their own money to obtain health care services that differ from those ``approved'' of by the Medicare bureaucracy! This bill is even more pernicious when one realizes that this plan provides a perverse incentive for private plans to dump seniors into the government plans. In what is likely to be a futile effort to prevent this from happening, H.R. 1 extends federal subsidies to private insurers to bribe them to keep providing private drug coverage to senior citizens. However, the Joint Economic Committee has estimated that nearly 40 percent of private plans that currently provide prescription drug coverage to seniors will stop providing such coverage if this plan is enacted. This number is certain to skyrocket once the pharmaceutical companies begin passing on any losses caused by Medicare price controls to private plans. Furthermore, these private plans will be subject to government regulations. Thus, even seniors who are able to maintain their private coverage will fall under federal control. Thus, H.R. 1 will reduce the access of many seniors to the prescription drugs of their choice! Setting up a system where by many of those currently receiving private coverage are hired into the government program exacerbates one of the major problems with this bill: it hastens the bankruptcy of the Medicare program and the federal government. According to Medicare Trustee, and professor of economics at Texas A&M University, Tom Saving, the costs of this bill could eventually amount to two-thirds of the current public-held debt of $3.8 trillion! Of course, estimates such as this often widely underestimate the costs of government programs. For example, in 1965, the government estimate that the Medicare Part B hospitalization program would cost $9 billion in 1990, but Medicare Part B costs $66 billion in 1990! This new spending comes on top of recent increases in spending for ``homeland security,'' foreign aid, federal education programs, and new welfare initiatives, such as those transforming churches into agents of the welfare state. In addition we have launched a seemingly endless program of global reconstruction to spread ``democratic capitalism.'' The need to limit spending is never seriously discussed: it is simply assumed that Congress can spend whatever it wants and rely on the Federal Reserve to bail us out of trouble. This is a prescription for disaster. At the least, we should be debating whether to spend on warfare or welfare and choosing between corporate welfare and welfare for the poor instead of simply increasing spending on every program. While I would much rather spend federal monies on prescription drugs then another unconstitutional war, increasing spending on any program without corresponding spending reductions endangers our nation's economic future. Congress further exacerbates the fiscal problems created by this bill by failing to take any steps to reform the government policies responsible for the skyrocketing costs of prescription drugs. Congress should help all Americans by reforming federal patent laws and FDA policies, which provide certain large pharmaceutical companies a government-granted monopoly over pharmaceutical products. Perhaps the most important thing Congress can do to reduce pharmaceutical policies is liberalize the regulations surrounding the reimportation of FDA- Approved pharmaceuticals. As a representative of an area near the Texas-Mexico border, I often hear from angry constituents who cannot purchase inexpensive quality imported pharmaceuticals in their local drug store. Some of these constituents regularly travel to Mexico on their own to purchase pharmaceuticals. It is an outrage that my constituents are being denied the opportunity to benefit from a true free market in pharmaceuticals by their own government. Supporters of H.R. 1 claim that this bill does liberalize the rules governing the importation of prescription drugs. However, H.R. 1's importation provision allows the Secretary of Health and Human Services to arbitrarily restrict the ability of American consumers to import prescription drugs--and HHS Secretary Thompson has already gone on record as determined to do all he can to block a free trade in pharmaceuticals! Thus, the importation language in H.R. 1 is a smokescreen designed to fool the gullible into thinking Congress is acting to create a free market in pharmaceuticals. The alternative suffers from the same flaws, and will have the same (if not worse) negative consequences for seniors as will H.R. 1. There are only two differences between the two: First, under the alternative, seniors will not be able to choice to have a federally subsidized HMO bureaucrat deny them their choice of prescription drugs; instead, seniors will have to accept the control of bureaucrats at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Second, the alternative is even more fiscally irresponsible than H.R. 1. Mr. Speaker, our seniors deserve better than a ``choice'' between whether a private or a public sector bureaucrat will control their health care. Meaningful prescription drug legislation should be based on the principles of maximum choice and flexibility for senior citizens. For example, my H.R. 1617 provides seniors the ability to use Medicare dollars to cover the costs of prescription drugs in a manner that increases seniors' control over their own health care. H.R. 1617 removes the numerical limitations and sunset provisions in the Medicare Medical Savings Accounts (MSA) program. Medicare MSAs consist of a special saving account containing Medicare funds for seniors to use for their routine medical expenses, including prescription drug costs. Unlike the plans contained in H.R. 4504, and the Democratic alternative, Medicare MSAs allow seniors to use Medicare funds to obtain the prescription drugs that fit their unique needs. Medicare MSAs also allow seniors to use Medicare funds for other services not available under traditional Medicare, such as mammograms. Medicare MSAs will also ensure that seniors have access to a wide variety of health care services by minimizing the role of the federal bureaucracy. As many of my colleagues know, an increasing number of health care providers have withdrawn from the Medicare program because of the paperwork burden and constant interference with their practice by bureaucrats from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The MSA program frees seniors and providers from this burden, thus making it more likely that quality providers will remain in the Medicare program! There are claims that this bill provides seniors access to MSAs. It is true that this bill lifts the numerical caps on Medicare MSAs; however, it also imposes price controls and bureaucratic requirements on MSA programs. Thus, the MSAs contained in this bill do nothing to free seniors and health care providers from third party control of health care decisions! Mr. Speaker, seniors should not be treated like children by the federal government and told what health care services they can and cannot have. We in Congress have a duty to preserve and protect the Medicare trust fund. We must keep the promise to America's seniors and working Americans, whose taxes finance Medicare, that they will have quality health care in their golden years. However, we also have a duty to make sure that seniors can get the health care that suits their needs, instead of being forced into a cookie cutter program designed by Washington, DC-based bureaucrats! Medicare MSAs are a good first step toward allowing seniors the freedom to control their own health care. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the procedure under which this will was brought before the House. Last week, the committees with jurisdiction passed two separate, but similar Medicare prescription drug bills. In the middle of last night, the two bills were merged to produce H.R. 1. The bills reported out of Committee were each less than 400 pages, yet the bill we are voting on today is 692 pages. So in the middle of the night, the bill mysteriously doubled in size! Once again, members are asked to vote on a significant piece of legislation with far reaching effects on the American people without having had the chance to read, study, or even see major portions of the bill. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, both H.R. 1 and the alternative force seniors to cede control over which prescription medicines they may receive. The only difference between them is that H.R. 1 gives federally funded HMO bureaucrats control over seniors' prescription drugs, whereas the alternative gives government functionaries the power to tell seniors which prescription drug they can (and can't) have. Congress can, and must, do better for our Nation's seniors, by rejecting this command-and-control approach. Instead, Congress should give seniors the ability to use Medicare funds to pay for the prescription drugs of their choice by passing my legislation that gives all seniors access to Medicare Medical Savings Accounts.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker: I will reluctantly vote in favor of this legislation, partly because it is simply a sense of Congress resolution. But I am concerned about this bill and the others like it we face with regularity on the floor of Congress. We all condemn violence against innocents, whether it is motivated by hatred, prejudice, greed, jealousy, or whatever else. But that is not what this legislation is really about. It is about the Congress of the United States presuming to know--and to legislate on--the affairs of European countries. First, this is the United States Congress. We have no Constitutional authority to pass legislation affecting foreign countries. Second, when we get involved in matters such as this we usually get it wrong. H. Con. Res. 45 is an example of us getting it wrong on both fronts. This legislation refers to the rise of anti-Semitism in Europe as if it is a purely homegrown phenomenon, as if native residents of European countries are suddenly committing violent crimes against Jews. But I think we are only getting part of the story here. What is absent from the legislation is mention of the well-reported fact that much of the anti-Jewish violence in Europe is perpetrated by recent immigrants from Muslim countries of the Middle East and Africa. Reporting on a firebombing of a Synagogue in Marseille, France, for example, the New York Times quotes the longtime president of that region's Jewish Council, Charles Haddad, as saying, ``This is not anti-Semitic violence; it's the Middle East conflict that's playing out here.'' Therefore, part of the problem in many European countries is the massive immigration from predominantly Muslim countries, where new residents bring their hatreds and prejudices with them. Those European politicians who recognize this growing problem--there are now 600,000 Jews in France and five million Muslims--are denounced as racist and worse. While I do not oppose immigration, it must be admitted that massive immigration from vastly different cultures brings a myriad of potential problems and conflicts. These are complicated issues for we in Congress to deal with here in the United States. Yes, prejudice and hatred are evil and must be opposed, but it is absurd for us to try to solve these problems in countries overseas.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this legislation for a number of reasons. First, to force the American people to pay tens of thousands of dollars to give a gold medal to a foreign leader is immoral and unconstitutional. I will continue in my uncompromising opposition to appropriations not authorized within the enumerated powers of the Constitution--a Constitution that each member of Congress swore to uphold. Second, though these gold medals are an unconstitutional appropriation of American tax dollars, at least in the past we have awarded them to great humanitarians and leaders like Mother Theresa, President Reagan, Pope John Paul II, and others. These medals have generally been proposed to recognize a life of service and leadership, and not for political reasons--as evidenced by the overwhelming bipartisan support for awarding President Reagan, a Republican, a gold medal. That these awards have generally gone to these types of otherwise deserving individuals is why I have many times offered to contribute $100 of my own money, to be matched by other Members, to finance these medals. I sense that this current proposal is different, however. No one is claiming that British Prime Minister Tony Blair has given a lifetime of humanitarian service like Mother Theresa, or demonstrated the historical leadership of a Ronald Reagan. No one suggests that British Prime Minister, leading the avowedly socialist Labour Party, has embraced American values such as freedom and limited governments and imported those to Great Britain--as Margaret Thatcher had attempted before him. No, Tony Blair is being proposed for his medal for one reason: he provided political support when international allies were sought in advance of America's attack on Iraq. Does this overtly political justification for awarding this medal not cheapen both the medal itself and the achievements of those who have been awarded it previously? I find it particularly odd that this Republican-controlled Congress would nominate one such as Tony Blair to receive this award. His political party is socialist: Britain under Blair has a system of socialized medicine and government intervention in all aspects of the commercial and personal lives of its citizens. Socialism is an enemy of freedom and liberty--as the 20th century taught us so well. It is the philosophical basis of a century of mass-murder and impoverishment. In May, a British television poll found that Prime Minister Blair is the most unpopular man in Great Britain. A brief look at his rules leaves little question why this is so. He has eroded Britain's constitutional base--recently abolishing the ancient position of Lord Chancellor without any debate. He has overseen a massive expansion of government with the creation of costly ``assemblies'' in Wales and Scotland. He has also overseen changes in Britain's voting system that many have claimed has opened the door to widespread voting fraud. In short, he is no Margaret Thatcher and certainly no Winston Churchill. Yet today Congress is voting to give him its highest honor. Mr. Speaker, it is very easy to be generous with the people's money. I believe the politicization of this medal, as we are seeing here today, really makes my own point on such matters: Congress should not be spending the people's money for appropriations not authorized within the enumerated powers of the Constitution. When it does so, it charts a dangerous course away from the rule of law and away from liberty. I urge a ``no'' vote on this unfortunate bill.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this measure. Of course we all deplore terrorism and violence that any innocents are forced to suffer. There is, sadly, plenty of this in the world today. But there is more to this resolution than just condemning the violence in the Middle East. I have a problem with most resolutions like this because they have the appearance of taking one side or the other in a conflict that has nothing to do with the United States. Our responsibility is to the American people and to the Constitution, not to adjudicate age-old conflicts half-way around the world. When we take sides in these far off conflicts, we serve to antagonize the people affected and end up no closer to peace than when we started. This bill makes reference to the need to have solidarity with Israel. Elsewhere people say we should have solidarity with the Palestinians and the Arabs. So, as I have said before when bills such as this are on the floor, it is sort of a contest: Should we be pro-Israel or pro- Arab, or anti-Israel or anti-Arab, and how are we perceived in doing this? It is pretty important. But I still believe, through all these bills attempting to intervene in the Middle East, that there is a third option to this that we so often forget about. Why can we not be pro-American? What is in the best interests of the United States? We do not hear much talk of that, unfortunately. As I keep saying when votes such as this come to the floor, the best foreign policy for the United States is noninterventionism. It is a policy American interests first, costs must less money, and is in keeping with a long American tradition so eloquently described by our Founders. I hope the peoples of the Middle East are able to resolve their differences, but because whether they decide or not is not our business I urge a no vote on this resolution.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, (1) After more than two months of searching, no Weapons of Mass Destruction have been discovered in Iraq. While it is not impossible that something may be discovered, the fact that no WMD were used during the war and none have yet been discovered afterward indicates that Iraq did not pose a threat to the United States. (2) Assuming that no WMD are discovered in Iraq, it appears that Iraq may have actually been following the various UN resolutions that demanded the destruction of this weapons material. (3) Before the attack on Iraq, it was claimed that Iraq would destroy its oil wells. Though some explosives may have been found at some sites, it is clear that there was no co-ordinated Iraqi effort to demolish its oil facilities. (4) Before the attack, it was claimed that the Iraqi government would blow up dams to slow down invading troops. It did not do so. (5) Despite claims before the attack, there is no evidence of sustained, high-level contacts between the Iraqi government and the Al- Qaeda terrorist network. (6) US troops and defense planners were shocked that the Iraqi army simply melted away as the US attack pressed toward Baghdad. An army that cannot even defend its own territory is hardly a threat to its neighbors--or to the United States 6,000 miles away. (7) Considering the apparent lack of WMD and the total failure of the Iraqi army, claims that Iraq was a threat to United States national security appear to have been inaccurate. I publicly doubted such claims before the attack. (8) Ending Saddam Hussein's rule over Iraq hasn't solved much. Even with Saddam removed from power, we are told that that ``regime change'' as such is not enough: there must be a ``process'' of regime change where the end-goal is to remake Iraq and Iraqi society in our own image. This is otherwise known as ``nation-building.'' (9) Chaos and lawlessness prevails across Iraq. There is no functioning police force other than American troops. Anger toward the United States occupying force continues to increase. (10) There is little chance of anything resembling democracy emerging in Iraq any time soon. Any real ``democracy'' that emerges will likely have a fundamentalist Islamic flavor and will be hostile to other religious and ethnic groups in Iraq. (11) American soldiers are still getting killed on a regular basis. More organized forces seeking to kill American troops appear to be springing up across Iraq. Frustration with the American occupation of Iraq seems to be adding to the ranks of these organized anti-occupation forces, multiplying the threat to American troops. (12) There are more US troops being sent to Iraq now that major hostilities have ended. Troops that were supposed to be coming home have been told they must remain in Iraq because of the continued chaos and danger to American forces. (13) Though it was claimed before the US attack that proceeds from the sale of Iraqi oil would be sufficient to rebuild the country, it is now obvious that this will not be the case. The brunt of the burden of Iraqi reconstruction will therefore fall on the American taxpayer. Much of the damage is the result of our own bombing of that country. (14) At a time when the US economy continues to falter, costs of occupation and reconstruction of Iraq have skyrocketed. Money spent rebuilding Iraq is money not available to help the US economy recover. (15) The credibility of the United States overseas is at an all time low. (16) The US intelligence community is being increasingly questioned over the quality of intelligence provided, while others suspect that the intelligence provided had been manipulated somewhere in the process to support a pre-determined policy. (17) Hatred toward the United States is on the increase in the Arab world, making terrorism more likely against us than before the attack-- as the CIA predicted. (18) Nation-building--from creating a health-care system to organizing trash pick-up to running the Iraqi media--has become our number one goal in Iraq. (19) Yet, supporters of this war are already planning for the next war--possibly against Iran, Syria, North Korea, Cuba . . . or who knows where . . . (20) In Washington, a foreign policy of noninterventionism, as advanced by the Founders and supported by the Constitution, is not considered a reasonable option, though millions of Americans would welcome it.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, while may seem reasonable to establish a Joint Committee on the Continuity of Congress, I wish to bring to my colleagues' attention my concerns relative to certain proposals regarding continuity of government, which would fundamentally alter the structure of our government in a way detrimental to republican liberty. In particular, I hope this Committee does not endorse the proposal contained in ``Preserving our Institutions, The Continuity of Government Commission'' which recommends that state governors appoint new representatives. Appointing representatives flies in the face of the Founders' intention that the House of Representatives be the part of the federal government most directly accountable to the people. Even with the direct election of Senators, the fact that members of the House are elected every two years while Senators run for statewide office every six years, means members of the House of Representatives are still more accountable to the people than any other part of the federal government. Therefore, any action that abridges the people's constitutional authority to elect members of the House of Representatives abridges the people's ability to control their government. 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 be temporary. However, Mr. Speaker, the laws passed by these ``temporary'' representatives will be permanent. I would remind my colleagues that 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 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 though elections. During the Civil War, the neighboring state of Virginia, where today many Capitol Hill staffers and members reside, was actively involved in hostilities against the United States Government, yet Abraham Lincoln never suggested that non-elected persons serve in the House. Forty-two years ago, Americans wrestled with a hostile superpower that had placed nuclear weapons just 90 miles off the Florida coast, yet no one suggested we consider taking away the people's right to elect their representatives in order to ensure ``continuity of government!'' I have no doubt that the people of the states are quite competent to hold elections in a timely fashion. After all, isn't it in each state's interest to ensure it has adequate elected representation in Washington as soon as possible? 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, I would ask my colleagues who is more likely to guard the people's liberties, representatives chosen by, and accountable to, the people, or representatives hand-picked by the executive of their state? Finally, Mr. Speaker, I wish to question the rush under which this bill is being brought to the floor. Until this morning, most members had no idea this bill would be considered today! The rules committee began its mark-up of the bill at 9:15 last night and by 9:31 the report was filed and the bill placed on the House Calendar. Then, after Congress had finished legislative business for the day and with only a handful of members on the floor, unanimous consent was obtained to consider this bill today. It is always disturbing when bills dealing with important subjects are rushed through the House before members have adequate time to consider all the implications of the measure. I hope this does not set a precedent for shutting members of Congress out of the debate on this important issue. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while there is no harm in considering ideas for continuity of Congress, I hope my colleagues will reject any proposal that takes away the people's right to elect their representatives in this chamber.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2143 limits the ability of individual citizens to use bank instruments, including credit cards or checks, to finance Internet gambling. This legislation should be rejected by Congress since the Federal Government has no constitutional authority to ban or even discourage any form of gambling. In addition to being unconstitutional, H.R. 2143 is likely to prove ineffective at ending Internet gambling. Instead, this bill will ensure that gambling is controlled by organized crime. History, from the failed experiment of prohibition to today's futile ``war on drugs,'' shows that the government cannot eliminate demand for something like Internet gambling simply by passing a law. Instead, H.R. 2143 will force those who wish to gamble over the Internet to patronize suppliers willing to flaunt the ban. In many cases, providers of services banned by the government will be members of criminal organizations. Even if organized crime does not operate Internet gambling enterprises their competitors are likely to be controlled by organized crime. After all, since the owners and patrons of Internet gambling cannot rely on the police and courts to enforce contracts and resolve other disputes, they will be forced to rely on members of organized crime to perform those functions. Thus, the profits of Internet gambling will flow into organized crime. Furthermore, outlawing an activity will raise the price vendors are able to charge consumers, thus increasing the profits flowing to organized crime from Internet gambling. It is bitterly ironic that a bill masquerading as an attack on crime will actually increase organized crime's ability to control and profit from Internet gambling. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2143 violates the constitutional limits on Federal power. Furthermore, laws such as H.R. 2143 are ineffective in eliminating the demand for vices such as Internet gambling; instead, they ensure that these enterprises will be controlled by organized crime. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 2143, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this measure not because I wish to either support or oppose genetically-modified products. Clearly the production and consumption of these products is a matter for producers and consumers to decide for themselves. I oppose this bill because at its core it is government intervention--both in our own markets and in the affairs of foreign independent nations. Whether European governments decide to purchase American products should not be a matter for the U.S. Congress to decide. It is a matter for European governments and the citizens of European Union member countries. While it may be true that the European Union acts irrationally in blocking the import of genetically-modified products, the matter is one for European citizens to decide. Also, this legislation praises U.S. efforts to use the World Trade Organization to force open European markets to genetically-modified products. The WTO is an unelected world bureaucracy seeking to undermine the sovereignty of nations and peoples. It has nothing to do with free trade and everything to do with government- and bureaucrat- managed trade. Just as it is unacceptable when the WTO demands--at the behest of foreign governments--that the United States government raise taxes and otherwise alter the practices of American private enterprise, it is likewise unacceptable when the WTO makes such demands to others on behalf of the United States. This is not free trade. Genetically-modified agriculture products may well be the wave of the future. They may provide food for the world's populations and contribute to the eradication of disease. That is something we certainly hope for and for which we will all applaud should it prove to be the case. But, again, this legislation is not about that. That is why I must oppose this bill.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express a few concerns that I have regarding both the commission and the trend toward a constitutional amendment that might solve some of the problems that people anticipate. I certainly agree with the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) that this is a very serious issue; and this is to me not just a casual appointment of a commission, but we are dealing with something that is, in a constitutional sense, rather profound because we are talking about amendments that are suggesting that our governors will appoint Members of Congress for the first time in our history. That should be done with a great deal of caution and clear understanding of what we are doing. My concern, of course, with the commission is that we are moving rather rapidly in that direction. Hopefully, that is not the case. We had the commission report of the Continuity of Government Commission yesterday, and that was released, and then we had a unanimous consent agreement to bring this up, like we need to do this in a hurry. Ordinarily, if we deal with constitutional amendments, quite frequently we will have a constitutional amendment proposed, and then we will hold hearings on that particular amendment. I think we could handle it that way. But I have another concern about the urgent need and the assumption that the world ends if we are not here for a few days. There are times when we are not here like in August and a few months we take off at Christmas. Of course, we can be recalled, but the world does not end because we're not here. In a way this need for a constitutional amendment to appoint congressmen is assuming that life cannot go on without us writing laws. I would suggest that maybe the urgency is not quite as much as one thinks. I want to quote Michael Barone who was trying to justify a constitutional amendment that allows governors to appoint moc in a time of crisis. He said, ``think of all the emergency legislation that Congress passed in the weeks and months after September 11 authorizing expanded police powers. None of this could have happened''. But now as we look back at those emergency conditions, a lot of questions are being asked about the PATRIOT Act and the attack on our fourth amendment and civil liberties. I suggest there could be a slower approach no harm will come of it.

Mr. PAUL. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say I am pleased to hear what the gentleman has said, because there are some who see this just from the outside, seeing what we are doing here today as nothing more than a continuity of what was done yesterday. The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) suggests he does not see it that way, and that gives me some reassurance, and I thank the gentleman.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the privately funded and privately constituted ``Continuity of Government Commission'' has recently proposed that, for the first time in our Nation's history, we should allow the appointment of members of the U.S. House of Representatives. Not only does this proposal fail to comport with the intention of the founders of this nation, but, even worse, it advocates a solution that has been repeatedly rejected by this body. The report of this so-called ``Commission'' makes clear that while the Senate has, from time to time, voted to pass constitutional amendments allowing for the appointment of House members, this body has always jealously guarded its status as ``the people's House'' by failing to pass such amendments. A brief history review may be in order at this point. First, our Nation has been under attack from foreign powers in the past, such as in its nascent years when the British were constantly ``coming.'' In our own century, we faced an attack on Pearl Harbor as well as the very real threat of nuclear annihilation. Now, because we have learned that our Capitol was a potential target in a terror plot, there is an outcry from some corners regarding our vulnerability. Our government leaders are no more vulnerable today to mass extinction than they were 20 years ago. Our top-flight military makes us, in many ways, less vulnerable to attack and the assassination of our leaders than we were 200 years ago. Even if we were to sustain such a devastating attack, the nightmare scenario painted in the first report of the ``commission'' is not only far-fetched, but also admits of a plethora of potential solutions already existent in our current constitutional structure. Though the report endeavors to cast doubt on the legitimacy of those structures, it is unsuccessful. Moreover, what could be more offensive to our republican form of government and of more questionable legitimacy, than to have a slew of un-elected ``representatives'' outvote elected people on the floor of our U.S. House? Let's face it: we can scare people and doom-say anytime we wish, but it would only be in the case of a nearly complete annihilation that our government would fail to function. In such an instance there is no ``system'' that will preserve our government. On the other hand, if we surrender the right to elect people to the U.S. House of Representatives, under any circumstances, we will get on a slippery slope away from the few remaining vestiges and most precious principles of the government left to us by our founders. In the event that this ``proposal'' gets more serious and is given long-term attention, I will place in the record more detailed statements defending the notion of an all-elected House of Representatives, and explaining the fallacies and illogic found in this report. For now Mr. Speaker, I simply wish to go on record as among those who would fight to the last to preserve the principle of a House of Representatives consisting entirely of members elected by the people.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, like many Americans, I am greatly concerned about abortion. Abortion on demand is no doubt the most serious sociopolitical problem of our age. The lack of respect for life that permits abortion significantly contributes to our violent culture and our careless attitude toward liberty. As an obstetrician, I know that partial birth abortion is never a necessary medical procedure. It is a gruesome, uncivilized solution to a social problem. Whether a civilized society treats human life with dignity or contempt determines the outcome of that civilization. Reaffirming the importance of the sanctity of life is crucial for the continuation of a civilized society. There is already strong evidence that we are indeed on the slippery slope toward euthanasia and human experimentation. Although the real problem lies within the hearts and minds of the people, the legal problems of protecting life stem from the ill-advised Roe v. Wade ruling, a ruling that constitutionally should never have occurred. The best solution, of course, is not now available to us. That would be a Supreme Court that recognizes that for all criminal laws, the several states retain jurisdiction. Something that Congress can do is remove the issue from the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts, so that states can deal with the problems surrounding abortion, thus helping to reverse some of the impact of Roe v. Wade. Unfortunately, H.R. 760 takes a different approach, one that is not only constitutionally flawed, but flawed in principle, as well. Though I will vote to ban the horrible partial-birth abortion procedure, I fear that the language used in this bill does not further the pro-life cause, but rather cements fallacious principles into both our culture and legal system. For example, 14G in the ``Findings'' section of this bill states, ``. . . such a prohibition [upon the partial-birth abortion procedure] will draw a bright line that clearly distinguishes abortion and infanticide . . .'' The question I pose in response is this: Is not the fact that life begins at conception the main tenet advanced by the pro-life community? By stating that we draw a ``bright line'' between abortion and infanticide, I fear that we simply reinforce the dangerous idea underlying Roe v. Wade, which is the belief that we as human beings can determine which members of the human family are ``expendable,'' and which are not. Another problem with this bill is its citation of the interstate commerce clause as a justification for a federal law banning partial- birth abortion. This greatly stretches the definition of interstate commerce. The abuse of both the interstate commerce clause and the general welfare clause is precisely the reason our Federal Government no longer conforms to constitutional dictates but, instead, balloons out of control in its growth and scope. H.R. 760 inadvertently justifies federal government intervention into every medical procedure through the gross distortion of the interstate commerce clause. H.R. 760 also depends heavily upon a ``distinction'' made by the Court in both Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which establishes that a child within the womb is not protected under law, but one outside of the womb is. By depending upon this illogical ``distinction,'' I fear that H.R. 760, as I stated before, ingrains the principles of Roe v. Wade into our justice system, rather than refutes them as it should. Despite its severe flaws, this bill nonetheless has the possibility of saving innocent human life, and I will vote in favor of it. I fear, though, that when the pro-life community uses the arguments of the opposing side to advance its agenda, it does more harm than good.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend the members of our armed forces, who serve our country in the most difficult of circumstances. They endure terrible hardships in the course of their service: they are shipped thousands of miles across the globe for everything from border control duty to combat duty, enduring terribly long separations from their families and loved ones. I believe it is appropriate for Congress to recognize and commend this service to our country and I join with my colleagues to do so. I am concerned, however, that legislation like H. Con. Res. 177 seeks to use our support for the troops to advance a very political and controversial message. In addition to expressing sympathy and condolences to the families of those who have lost their lives in service to our country, for example, this legislation endorses the kind of open-ended occupation and nation-building that causes me great concern. It ``recommits'' the United States to ``helping the people of Iraq and Afghanistan build free and vibrant democratic societies.'' What this means is hundreds of thousands of American troops remaining in Iraq and Afghanistan for years to come, engaged in nation-building activities that the military is neither trained nor suited for. It also means tens and perhaps hundreds of billions of American tax dollars being shipped abroad at a time when our national debt is reaching unprecedented levels. The legislation inaccurately links our military action against Afghanistan, whose government was in partnership with Al-Qaeda, with our recent attack on Iraq, claiming that these were two similar campaigns in the war on terror. In fact, some of us are more concerned that the policy of pre-emptive military action, such as was the case in Iraq, will actually increase the likelihood of terrorist attacks against the United States--a phenomenon already predicted by the CIA. Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that some would politicize an issue like this. If we are to commend our troops let us commend our troops. We should not be forced to endorse the enormously expensive and counter-productive practice of nation-building and pre-emptive military strikes to do so.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I do not believe much good will come of it. A lot of good intentions are put into the effort, but I see no real benefit. It was mentioned earlier that those who supported campaign finance laws were inconsistent. And others would say that we do not have to worry about the first amendment when we are dealing with the flag amendments. But I would suggest there is another position. Why can we not be for the first amendment when it comes to campaign finance reform and not ask the government to regulate the way we spend our money and advertise, at the same time we protect the first amendment here? It seems that that consistency is absent in this debate. It is said by the chairman of the committee that he does not want to hear much more about the first amendment. We have done it before, so therefore it must be okay. But we should not give up that easily. He suggested that we have amended the Constitution before when the courts have ruled a certain way. And he says absolutely right, we can do that and we have done that. But to use the 16th amendment as a beautiful example of how the Congress solves problems, I would expect the same kind of dilemma coming out of this amendment as we have out of the 16th amendment which, by the way, has been questioned by some historians as being correctly ratified. I think one of our problems has been that we have drifted away from the rule of law, we have drifted away from saying that laws ought to be clear and precise and we ought to all have a little interpretation of the laws. The gentleman earlier had said that there are laws against slander so therefore we do violate the first amendment. Believe me, I have never read or heard about a legislative body or a judge who argued that you can lie and commit fraud under the first amendment. But the first amendment does say ``Congress shall write no laws.'' That is precise. So even the laws dealing with fraud and slander should be written by the States. This is not a justification for us to write an amendment that says Congress shall write laws restricting expression through the desecration of the flag. So we do not know what the laws are, but when the laws are written, that is when the conflict comes. This amendment, as written so far, does not cause the conflict. It will be the laws that will be written and then we will have to decide what desecration is and many other things. Earlier in the debate it was said that an individual may well be unpatriotic if he voted against a Defense appropriation bill. I have voted against the Defense appropriation bill because too much money in the Defense budget goes to militarism that does not really protect our country. I do not believe that is being unpatriotic. Mr. Speaker, let me summarize why I oppose this Constitutional amendment. I have myself served 5 years in the military, and I have great respect for the symbol of our freedom. I salute the flag, and I pledge to the flag. I also support overriding the Supreme Court case that overturned State laws prohibiting flag burning. Under the Constitutional principle of federalism, questions such as whether or not Texas should prohibit flag burning are strictly up to the people of Texas, not the United States Supreme Court. Thus, if this amendment simply restored the State's authority to ban flag burning, I would enthusiastically support it. However, I cannot support an amendment to give Congress new power to prohibit flag burning. I served my country to protect our freedoms and to protect our Constitution. I believe very sincerely that today we are undermining to some degree that freedom that we have had all these many years. Mr. Speaker, we have some misfits who on occasion burn the flag. We all despise this behavior, but the offensive conduct of a few does not justify making an exception to the First Amendment protections of political speech the majority finds offensive. According to the pro- flag amendment Citizens Flag Alliance, there has been only 16 documented cases of flag burning in the last two years, and the majority of those cases involved vandalism or some other activity that is already punishable by local law enforcement! Let me emphasize how the First Amendment is written, ``Congress shall make no law.'' That was the spirit of our Nation at that time: ``Congress shall make no laws.'' Unfortunately, Congress has long since disregarded the original intent of the Founders and has written a lot of laws regulating private property and private conduct. But I would ask my colleagues to remember that every time we write a law to control private behavior, we imply that somebody has to arrive with a gun, because if you desecrate the flag, you have to punish that person. So how do you do that? You send an agent of the government, perhaps an employee of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Flags, to arrest him. This is in many ways patriotism with a gun--if your actions do not fit the official definition of a ``patriot,'' we will send somebody to arrest you. Fortunately, Congress has modals of flag desecration laws. For example, Sadam Hussein made desecration of the Iraq flag a criminal offense punishable by up to 10 years in prison. It is assumed that many in the military support this amendment, but in fact there are veterans who have been great heroes in war on both sides of this issue. I would like to quote a past national commander of the American Legion, Keith Kreul. He said: Our Nation was not founded on devotion to symbolic idols, but on principles, beliefs and ideals expressed in the Constitution and its Bill of Rights. American veterans who have protected our banner in battle have not done so to protect a golden calf. Instead, they carried the banner forward with reverence for what it represents, our beliefs and freedom for all. Therein lies the beauty of our flag. A patriot cannot be created by legislation. Secretary of State, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and two-time winner of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, Colin Powell has also expressed opposition to amending the constitution in this manner: I would not amend that great shield of democracy to hammer out a few miscreants. The flag will be flying proudly long after they have slunk away. Mr. Speaker, this amendment will not even reach the majority of cases of flag burning. When we see flag burning on television, it is usually not American citizens, but foreigners who have strong objections to what we do overseas, burning the flag. This is what I see on television and it is the conduct that most angers me. One of the very first laws that Red China passed upon assuming control of Hong Kong was to make flag burning illegal. Since that time, they have prosecuted some individuals for flag burning. Our State Department keeps records of how often the Red Chinese persecute people for burning the Chinese flag, as it considers those prosecutions an example of how the Red Chinese violate human rights. Those violations are used against Red China in the argument that they should not have most-favored-nation status. There is just a bit of hypocrisy among those members who claim this amendment does not interfere with fundamental liberties, yet are critical of Red China for punishing those who burn the Chinese flag. Mr. Speaker, this is ultimately an attack on private property. Freedom of speech and freedom of expression depend on property. We do not have freedom of expression of our religion in other people's churches; it is honored and respected because we respect the ownership of the property. The property conveys the right of free expression, as a newspaper would or a radio station. Once Congress limits property rights, for any cause, no matter how noble, it limits freedom. Some claim that this is not an issue of private property rights because the flag belongs to the country. The flag belongs to everybody. But if you say that, you are a collectivist. That means you believe everybody owns everything. So why do American citizens have to spend money to obtain, and maintain, a flag if the flag is community owned? If your neighbor, or the Federal Government, owns a flag, even without this amendment you do not have the right to go and burn that flag. If you are causing civil disturbances, you are liable for your conduct under state and local laws. But this whole idea that there could be a collective ownership of the flag is erroneous. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out that by using the word ``desecration,'' which is traditionally reserved for religious symbols, the authors of this amendment are placing the symbol of the state on the same plane as the symbol of the church. The practical effect of this is to either lower religious symbols to the level of the secular state, or raise the state symbol to the status of a holy icon. Perhaps this amendment harkens back to the time when the state was seen as interchangeable with the church. In any case, those who believe we have ``no king but Christ'' should be troubled by this amendment. We must be interested in the spirit of our Constitution. We must be interested in the principles of liberty. I therefore urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Instead, my colleagues should work to restore the rights of the individual states to ban flag burning, free from unconstitutional interference by the Supreme Court.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule, although unenthusiastically. I am not too excited about this process, and certainly I am not very excited about this proposal to amend the Constitution. As for my viewpoint, I see the amendment as very unnecessary and very dangerous. I want to make a few points along those lines. It has been inferred too often by those who promote this amendment that those who oppose it are less patriotic, and I think that is unfair. And an earlier statement was made by the gentleman from Florida that everybody here is patriotic and nobody's patriotism should be challenged. It has also been said that if one does not support this amendment to the flag that they are disloyal to the military, and that cannot possibly be true. I have served 5 years in the military, and I do not feel less respectful of the military because I have a different interpretation on how we should handle the flag. But nevertheless, I think what we are doing here is very serious business because it deals with more than just the flag. First off, I think what we are trying to achieve through an amendment to the Constitution is to impose values on people, that is to teach people patriotism with their definition of what patriotism is. But we cannot force values on people; we cannot say there will be a law that a person will do such and such because it is disrespectful if they do not, and therefore, we are going to make sure that people have these values that we want to teach. Values in a free society are done voluntarily, not through coercion, and certainly not by the law, because the law implies that there are guns, and that means the Federal Government and others will have to enforce these laws. Here we are, amending the Constitution for a noncrisis. How many cases of flag burning have we seen? I have seen it on television a few times in the last year, but it was done on foreign soil, by foreigners, who had become angry at us over our policies, but I do not see that many Americans in the streets burning up flags. There were probably a lot more earlier in previous decades, but in recent years, it averages out to about eight, about eight cases a year, and they are not all that horrendous. It involves more vandalism, teenagers taking flags and desecrating the flag and maybe burning it, and there are laws against that. This is all so unnecessary. There are already laws against vandalism. There are State laws that say they cannot do it and they can be prosecuted. So this is overkill. As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court has helped to create this. I know a lot of people depend on the Supreme Court to protect us, but in many ways, I think the Supreme Court has hurt us. So I agree with those who are promoting this amendment that the Supreme Court overreacted, because I think the States should have many more prerogatives than they do. Many states have these laws, and I believe that we should have a supreme court that would allow more solutions to occur at the State level. They would be imperfect, no doubt, it would not be perfect protection of liberty by State laws. But let me tell my colleagues, when we come here as politicians and superpatriots and we pass amendments to the Constitution, that will be less than perfect, then it will be just like the Supreme Court--a poor national solution. It is a ruling for everyone, and if we make a mistake, it affects everybody in every State, and that is what I am afraid we are doing here. The First Amendment has been brought up on several occasions, and I am sure it will be mentioned much more in general debate. This amendment does not directly violate the First Amendment, but what it does, it gives the Congress the authority to write laws that will violate the First Amendment, and this is where the trouble is. Nothing but confusion and litigation can result.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, as an obstetrician who has delivered over 4000 children, I have long been concerned with the rights of unborn people. I believe this is the greatest moral issue of our time. The very best of the western intellectual tradition has understood the critical link between moral and political action. Each of these disciplines should strongly inform and support the other. I have become increasingly concerned over the years that the pro-life movement I so strongly support is getting further off track, both politically and morally. I sponsored the original pro-life amendment, which used a constitutional approach to solve the crisis of federalization of abortion law by the courts. The pro-life movement was with me and had my full support and admiration. Those who cherish unborn life have become frustrated by our inability to overturn or significantly curtail Roe v. Wade. Because of this, attempts were made to fight against abortion using political convenience rather than principle. There is nothing wrong per se with fighting winnable battles, but a danger exists when political pragmatism requires the pro-life movement to surrender important moral and political principles. When we surrender constitutional principles, we do untold damage to the moral underpinnings on which our Constitution and entire system of government rest. Those underpinnings are the inalienable right to life, liberty, and property. Commenting upon the link between our most important rights, Thomas Jefferson said ``The God which gave us life gave us at the same time liberty. The hands of force may destroy but can never divide these.'' M. Stanton Evans further explained the link between our form of government and the rights it protects when he wrote, ``The genius of the Constitution is its division of powers--summed up in that clause reserving to the several states, or the people, all powers not expressly granted to the federal government.'' Pro-lifers should be fiercely loyal to this system of federalism, because the very same Constitution that created the federal system also asserts the inalienable right to life. In this way, our constitutional system closely links federalism to the fundamental moral rights to life, liberty, and property. For our Founders it was no exaggeration to say federalism is the means by which life, as well as liberty and property, are protected in this nation. This is why the recent direction of the pro-life cause is so disturbing. Pro-life forces have worked for the passage of bills that disregard the federal system, such as the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, the federal cloning ban, and the Child Custody Protection Act. Each of these bills rested on specious constitutional grounds and undermined the federalism our Founders recognized and intended as the greatest protection of our most precious rights. Each of these bills transfers to the federal government powers constitutionally retained by the states, thus upsetting the separation and balance of powers that federalism was designed to guarantee. To undermine federalism is to indirectly surrender the very principle upon which the protection of our inalienable right to life depends. The worst offender of federalism is the so-called Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which not only indirectly surrenders the pro-life principle but actually directly undercuts the right to life by granting a specific exemption to abortionists! This exemption essentially allows some to take life with the sanction of federal law. By supporting this legislation, pro-lifers are expressly condoning a legal exemption for abortionists--showing just how far astray some in the pro-life community have gone. Even the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, which is an integral part of the current pro-life agenda, present a dilemma. While I have always supported this Act and plan to do so in the future, I realize that it raises questions of federalism because authority over criminal law is constitutionally retained by the states. The only reason a federal law has any legitimacy in this area is that the Supreme Court took it upon itself to federalize abortion via Roe v. Wade. Accordingly, wrestling the abortion issue from the federal courts and putting it back in the hands of the elected legislature comports with the Founder's view of the separation of powers that protects our rights to life, liberty, and property. Given these dilemmas, what should those of us in the pro-life community do? First, we must return to constitutional principles and proclaim them proudly. We must take a principled approach that recognizes both moral and political principles, and accepts the close relationship between them. Legislatively, we should focus our efforts on building support to overturn Roe v. Wade. Ideally this would be done in a fashion that allows states to again ban or regulate abortion. State legislatures have always had proper jurisdiction over issues like abortion and cloning; the pro-life movement should recognize that jurisdiction and not encroach upon it. The alternative is an outright federal ban on abortion, done properly via a constitutional amendment that does no violence to our way of government. If the next version of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act reads like past versions in the House, I will likely support it despite the dilemmas outlined here. I cannot support, however, a bill like the proposed Senate version of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban that reaffirms Roe v. Wade. For the pro-life cause to truly succeed without undermining the very freedoms that protect life, it must return to principle and uphold our Founder's vision of federalism as an essential component of the American system. Undermining federalism ultimately can only undermine the very mechanism that protects the right to life.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the current tax debate is more about politics than serious economics. Both sides use demagoguery but propose only modest tax cuts. The benefits that could come from the current tax cut proposal, unfortunately, are quite small and not immediate. Some say tax cuts raise revenues by addressing economic activity, thus providing Congress with even more money to spend. Others say lowering taxes simply lowers revenues and increases deficits. Some say we must target tax cuts to the poor and the middle class so they will spend more money. Others say tax cuts should be targeted to the rich so they can invest and create jobs. We must accept that it is hard to give tax cuts to people who do not pay taxes. But we could, if we wanted, cut payroll taxes for lower-income workers. The truth is, government officials cannot know what consumers and investors will do if they get a tax cut. Plugging tax cut data into a computer and expecting an accurate projection of the economic outcome is about as reliable as asking Congress to project government surpluses. Two important points are purposely ignored: first, the money people earn is their own, and they have a moral right to keep as much of it as possible. It is not Congress' money to spend. Government spending is the problem. Taking a big chunk of the people's earnings out of the economy, whether through taxes or borrowing, is always harmful. Taxation is more honest and direct and the harm is less hidden. Borrowing, especially since the Federal Reserve creates credit out of thin air to loan to big spenders in Congress, is more deceitful. It hides the effects and delays the consequences. But over the long term, this method of financing is much more dangerous. The process by which the Fed monetizes debt and accommodates Congress contributes to, if not causes, most of our problems. This process of government financing generates the business cycle and thus increases unemployment. It destroys the value of the dollar and thus causes price inflation. It encourages deficits by reducing restraints on congressional spending. It encourages an increase in the current account deficit, the dollar being the reserve currency of the world, and causes huge foreign indebtedness. It reflects a philosophy of instant gratification that says, live for the pleasures of today and have future generations pay the bills. Two final points to remember: whether or not people can keep what they earn is first a moral issue, and second an economic issue. Tax cuts should never be referred to as a ``cost to government.'' Tax cuts should be much bigger and come much sooner for everyone. Remember, the real issue is total spending by government. Yet this issue is ignored or politicized by both sides of the aisle here in Congress. The political discussion about whether to cut taxes has avoided the real issue and instead has degenerated into charges of class and party warfare, with both sides lusting for power. Of course, the great issue for the ages, namely, what is the proper role for government in a constitutional republic, is totally ignored. Yet another question remains: Are the American people determined they still wish to have a constitutional Republic?

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I want to call attention to something in the committee report that I consider an error, and I would like to make a suggestion so that it might not occur again. This particular legislation, not the rule as much as the legislation, I am not in support of for various reasons. One, I think the odds are very slim that it is going to do a whole lot of good. It is very well-intended. I am a physician, and I cannot think of anything better than to wipe out AIDS in Africa, or in the United States, for that matter. But $15 billion going to Africa on a questionable program bothers me because at the same time, we are cutting benefits to our veterans and also the elderly have a hard time getting medical care here. So there is a practical argument against the legislation. In the bill and in the amendments, there is a lot of social engineering going on. I think if we are going to do any social engineering or social suggestions, it ought to be here and we ought not be naive enough to think we can change habits that exist in Africa. But the point I wanted to bring up is the authority for doing programs like this. We have a rule in the House that we have to cite the constitutional authority, for the legislation we're dealing with. The committee report cites the authority from a very important section of the Constitution, article I, section 8, because literally we, the Congress, get our marching orders from article I, section 8, which is the section of the Constitution relating to making all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers vested by the Constitution. Well, that is where the shortcoming comes because if we read the Constitution, at the end of article I, section 8, it says, ``To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers.'' Therefore, the ``necessary and proper'' clause is explicitly designed to give the authority to write the laws for the foregoing powers. Believe me, we will not find any authority in article I, section 8 for dealing with medical care problems in Africa. I find it interesting here because quite often one side of the aisle when they do not like legislation will use my argument in this case, and other times it is the other side of the aisle. So everybody makes my argument one time or the other. My suggestion is if the Constitution means anything, and if article I, section 8 means anything, it ought to be applied across the board or we ought to change the Constitution and say this is a mandate from the American people that we should pursue missionary work in Africa. But most likely nobody is going to propose a change in the Constitution, the Constitution will not be changed, so the Congress chooses to ignore the Constitution when it feel like it; therefore, we have reduced the Constitution to something that has very little value anymore.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, as a physician I am particularly concerned about terrible diseases like AIDS. I have great sympathy for those--in increasing numbers--who suffer and die around the world. The question is not whether each and every one of us is concerned or would like to do something about this terrible problem. The question is whether yet another massive government foreign aid program will actually do anything at all to solve the problem. The United States has been sending billions and billions of dollars overseas for decades to do fine-sounding things like ``build democracy'' and ``fight drugs'' and ``end poverty.'' Yet decades later we are told that in every category these things have actually gotten worse rather than better. Our money has disappeared into bank accounts of dictators and salaries for extremely well-paid consultants and U.S. Government employees. Yet we refuse to learn from these mistakes; we are about to make another multi-billion dollar mistake with this bill. Though I have not been in favor of Federal Government funding of healthcare, if this money is going to be spent why shouldn't it be spent in this country, on American citizens? One legitimate function of government is to protect its citizens and taxpayers. Yet thousands of Americans who have contracted this terrible disease find themselves without any healthcare at all. Thousands of these Americans, as they become ill, are no longer able to work and therefore lose their insurance coverage. Drugs to treat the disease become impossible to afford; those with disease end up along and in misery. I seriously wonder whether negative perceptions of those at risk in this country do not drive this push to send billions abroad rather than address the disease here at home. I believe that if this money is to be spend it should be spent on Americans, regardless of what some may think about those high-risk groups. Bills like the one we are considering today also force Americans to fund programs and organizations that many find morally objectionable, such as those that distribute condoms and perform abortion. While some amendments we are voting on today admirably seek to address some of these concerns, the fact remains that this bill even if amended unconstitutionally sends U.S. taxpayer money overseas and inappropriately engages in social engineering abroad. None of the amendments address the immorality of forcing Americans to fund organizations engaged in family planning, performing abortions, and distributing condoms. As Thomas Jefferson famously said, ``To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas be disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.'' That is why I have introduced H.R. 1548, a bill to prohibit any Federal official from expending any Federal funds for any population control or population planning program or any family planning activity. What we are seeing today on the floor just underscores the need to pass H.R. 1548--to end this tyrannical and sinful practice of forcing Americans to pay for programs they believe to be immoral and evil. Mr. Chairman, at a time when the government is running record deficits, is engaged in an enormously expensive war in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere, and is even cutting veterans benefits, I find it extremely irresponsible that we are discussing sending additional billions overseas in yet another dubious program. Additionally, I am greatly concerned that the billions we are contributing to the ``Global Fund'' will be going to organizations that support and perform abortions, prostitution, infanticide and other horrors. There is nothing in this bill to prevent this, only faith that the Coordinator will exercise good judgment in these matters. That is simply not sufficient. I strongly oppose this bill and urge my colleagues to do likewise.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Voter Protection Act. Unlike most so-called ``campaign reform'' proposals, the Voter Protection Act enhances fundamental liberties and expands the exchange of political ideas. The Voter Fairness Act accomplishes this goal by lowering and standardizing the requirements for, and the time required to get, signatures to qualify a Federal candidate for the ballot. Many states have unfair rules and regulations that make it virtually impossible for minor party and independent candidates to get on the ballot. I want to make 4 points about this bill. First, it is constitutional. Article I, section 4, explicitly authorizes the U.S. Congress to, ``At any time by law make or alter such regulations regarding the manner of holding elections.'' This is the authority that was used for the Voter Rights Act of 1965. The second point I would like to make is an issue of fairness. Because so many states require independent candidates to collect an excessive amount of signatures in a short period of time, many individuals are excluded from the ballot. For instance, there has not been one minor party candidate on the Georgia ballot since 1943, because of Georgia's overly strict ballot access requirements. This is unfair. The Voter Protection Act corrects this. My third point addresses those who worry about overcrowding on the ballot. In fact, there have been statistical studies made of states that have minimal signature requirements and generous grants of time to collect the signatures. Instead of overcrowding, these states have an average of 3.3 candidates per ballot. The fourth point that I would like to make is that complying with ballot access rules drains resources from even those minor party candidates able to comply with these onerous rules. This obviously limits the ability of minor party candidates to communicate their message and ideas to the general public. Perhaps the ballot access laws are one reason why voter turnout has been declining over the past few decades. After all, almost 42 percent of eligible voters have either not registered to vote or registered as something other than Democrat or Republican. The Voter Protection Act is a constitutional way to reform campaign laws to increase voter participation by making the election process fairer and open to new candidates and ideas. I hope all my colleagues will join me in supporting this true campaign reform bill.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose H.R. 1350, the Improving Education Results for Children with Disabilities Act. I oppose this bill as a strong supporter of doing everything possible to advance the education of persons with disabilities. However, I believe this bill is yet another case of false advertising by supporters of centralized education, as it expands the federal education bureaucracy and thus strips control over education from local communities and the parents of disabled children. Parents and local communities know their children so much better than any federal bureaucrat, and they can do a better job of meeting a child's needs than we in Washington. There is no way that the unique needs of my grandchildren, and some young boy or girl in Los Angeles, CA or New York City can be educated by some sort of ``Cookie Cutter'' approach. In fact, the ``Cookie Cutter'' approach is especially inappropriate for special needs children. At a time when Congress should be returning power and funds to the states, IDEA increases Federal control over education. Under this bill, expenditures on IDEA will total over $100 billion by the year 2011. After 2011, congressional appropriators are free to spend as much as they wish on this program. This flies in the face of many members' public commitment to place limits on the scope of the Federal bureaucracy. There are attempts in this bill to reduce the role of bureaucracy and paperwork, and some provisions will benefit children. In particular, I applaud the efforts of the drafters of those who drafted it to address the over-prescription of psychotropic drugs, such as Ritalin by ensuring that no child shall be placed on these drugs without parental consent. However, H.R. 1350 still imposes significant costs on state governments and localities. For example, this bill places new mandates on state and local schools to offer special services in areas with significant ``overidentification'' of disabled students. Mr. Chairman, the problem of overidentification is one created by the Federal mandates and federal spending of IDEA! So once again, Congress is using problems created by their prior mandates to justify imposing new mandates on the states! When I think of imposing new mandates on local schools, I think of a survey of teachers my office conducted last year. According to this survey, over 65 percent of teachers felt that the federal mandates are excessive. In fact, the area where most teachers indicated there is too much federal involvement is disabilities education. I would ask all my colleagues to consider whether we are truly aiding education by imposing new mandates, or just making it more difficult for hard-working, education professionals to properly educate our children? The major federal mandate in IDEA is that disabled children be educated in the least restrictive setting. In other words, this bill makes mainstreaming the federal policy. Many children may thrive in a mainstream classroom environment; however, I worry that some children may be mainstreamed solely because school officials believe federal law requires it, even though the mainstream environment is not the most appropriate for that child. On May 10, 1994, Dr. Mary Wagner testified before the Education Committee that disabled children who are not placed in mainstream classrooms graduate from high school at a much higher rate than disabled children who are mainstreamed. Dr. Wagner quite properly accused Congress of sacrificing children to ideology. H.R. 1350 also burdens parents by requiring them to go through a time-consuming process of bureaucracy and litigation to obtain a proper education for their child. I have been told that there are trial lawyers actively soliciting dissatisfied parents of special needs children as clients for lawsuits against local schools! Parents and school districts should not be wasting resources that could go to educating children enriching trial lawyers. Instead of placing more federal control on education, Congress should allow parents of disabled children the ability to obtain the type of education appropriate for that child's unique needs by passing my Help and Opportunities for Parents of Exceptional Children (HOPE for Children) Act of 2003, H.R. 1575. This bill allows parents of children with a learning disability a tax cut of up to $3,000 for educational expenses. Parents could use this credit to pay for special services for their child, or to pay tuition at private school or even to home school their child. By allowing parents of special needs children to control the education dollar, the HOPE for Children Act allows parents to control their child's education. Thus, this bill helps parents of special needs children provide their child an education tailored to the child's unique needs. The HOPE for Children Act allows parents of special needs children to provide those children with an education that matches their child's unique needs without having to beg permission of education bureaucrats or engage in lengthy and costly litigation. Mr. Chairman, it is time to stop sacrificing children on the altar of ideology. Every child is unique and special. Given the colossal failure of Washington's existing interference, it is clear that all children will be better off when we get Washington out of their classroom and out of their parents' pocketbooks. I therefore urge my colleagues to cast a vote for constitutionally limited government and genuine compassion by opposing H.R. 1350 and supporting the HOPE for Children Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge the leadership of this body to bring a very important vote to the House floor. I recently introduced H.R. 1146, the American Sovereignty Restoration Act, which would end our participation in the United Nations. Millions of Americans have begun to question why we continue to spend $300 million each year funding and housing an organization that is actively hostile to American interests. Surely Congress, which routinely spends 15 minutes renaming post offices, can spare 15 minutes to vote on this fundamental issue of American sovereignty. Obviously, many Americans now want to get out of the U.N. because they resent its refusal to sanction our war in Iraq. The administration deserves some credit for ultimately upholding the principle that American national sovereignty is not a matter of international consensus and that we do not need U.N. authorization to act. But the administration sent mixed signals by doing everything possible to obtain such authorization, and by citing U.N. resolutions as justification for our actions. The message seems to be that the United Nations is credible when we control it and it does what we want, but lacks all credibility when it refuses to do our bidding. Perhaps it is time to stop trying to manipulate the United Nations and start asserting our national sovereignty. If we do not, rest assured that the United Nations will continue to interfere, not only in our foreign policy, but in our domestic policies, as well. U.N. globalists are not satisfied by meddling only in international disputes; they increasingly want to influence our domestic, environmental, trade, labor, tax, and gun laws. U.N. global planners fully intend to expand the organization into a true world government, complete with taxes, courts, and possibly a standing army. This is not an alarmist statement; these goals are readily promoted under on the U.N.'s own Web site. U.N. planners do not care about national sovereignty. In fact, they are openly hostile toward it. They correctly view it as an obstacle to their plans. They simply are not interested in our Constitution and Republican form of government. The choice is very clear: we either follow the Constitution, or submit to U.N. global governance. American national sovereignty cannot survive if we allow our domestic laws to be crafted or even influenced by an international body. This needs to be stated publicly more often. If we continue down the U.N. path, America, as we know it, will cease to exist. Noted constitutional scholar Herb Titus has thoroughly researched the United Nations and its purported authority. Titus explains that the U.N. charter is not a treaty at all but rather a blueprint for a supernational government that directly violates the Constitution. As such, the charter is neither politically nor legally binding upon the American people or Government. The U.N. has no authority to make laws that bind American citizens because it does not derive its powers from the consent of the American people. We need to stop speaking of U.N. resolutions and edicts as if they represented legitimate laws or treaties. They do not. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I am merely asking House leadership to schedule a vote on H.R. 1146, the American National Sovereignty Act. Americans deserve to know how their representatives stand on the critical issue of American sovereignty.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker I rise to introduce the Agriculture Education Freedom Act. This bill addresses a great injustice being perpetrated by the Federal Government on those youngsters who participate in programs such as 4-H or the Future Farmers of America. Under current tax law, children are forced to pay Federal income tax when they sell livestock they have raised as part of an agricultural education program. Think about this for a moment. These kids are trying to better themselves, earn some money, save some money and what does Congress do? We pick on these kids by taxing them. It is truly amazing that with all the hand-wringing in Congress over the alleged need to further restrict liberty and grow the size of government ``for the children'' we would continue to tax young people who are trying to lead responsible lives and prepare for the future. Even if the serious social problems today's youth face could be solved by new federal bureaucracies and programs, it is still unfair to pick on those kids who are trying to do the right thing. These children are not even old enough to vote, yet we are forcing them to pay taxes. What ever happened to no taxation without representation? No wonder young people are so cynical about government. It is time we stopped taxing youngsters who are trying to earn money to go to college by selling livestock they have raised through their participation in programs such as 4-H or Future Farmers of America. Therefore, I call on my colleagues to join me in supporting the Agriculture Education Freedom Act.