Ron Paul

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise again in this Congress to introduce a bill to lift the harmful and counterproductive United States Embargo on Cuba. On June 29, 2001, the Texas state legislature adopted a resolution calling for an end to U.S. economic sanctions against Cuba. Lawmakers emphasized the failure of sanctions to remove Castro from power, and the unwillingness of other nations to respect the embargo. One Texas Representative stated: ``We have a lot of rice and agricultural products, as well as high- tech products, that would be much cheaper for Cuba to purchase from Texas. All that could come through the ports of Houston and Corpus Christi.'' I wholeheartedly support this resolution, and I have introduced similar federal legislation in past years to lift all trade, travel, and telecommunications restrictions with Cuba. I only wish Congress understood the simple wisdom expressed in Austin, so that we could end the harmful and ineffective trade sanctions that serve no national purpose. I oppose economic sanctions for two very simple reasons. First, they don't work as effective foreign policy. Time after time, from Cuba to China to Iraq, we have failed to unseat despotic leaders by refusing to trade with the people of those nations. If anything, the anti-American sentiment aroused by sanctions often strengthens the popularity of such leaders, who use America as a convenient scapegoat to divert attention from their own tyranny. History clearly shows that free and open trade does far more to liberalize oppressive governments than trade wars. Economic freedom and political freedom are inextricably linked--when people get a taste of goods and information from abroad, they are less likely to tolerate a closed society at home. So while sanctions may serve our patriotic fervor, they mostly harm innocent citizens and do nothing to displace the governments we claim as enemies. Second, sanctions simply hurt American industries, particularly agriculture. Every market we close to our nation's farmers is a market exploited by foreign farmers. China, Russia, the middle east, North Korea, and Cuba all represent huge markets for our farm products, yet many in Congress favor current or proposed trade restrictions that prevent our farmers from selling to the billions of people in these countries. The Department of Agriculture estimates that Iraq alone represents a $1 billion market for American farm goods. Given our status as one of the world's largest agricultural producers, why would we ever choose to restrict our exports? The only beneficiaries of our sanctions policies are our foreign competitors. I certainly understand the emotional feelings many Americans have toward nations such as Iran, Iraq, Libya, and Cuba. Yet we must not let our emotions overwhelm our judgment in foreign policy matters, because ultimately human lives are at stake. Economic common sense, self- interested foreign policy goals, and humanitarian ideals all point to the same conclusion: Congress should work to end economic sanctions against all nations immediately. The legislation I introduce today is representative of true free trade in that while it opens trade, it prohibits the U.S. Taxpayer from being compelled to subsidize the United States government, the Cuban government or individuals or entities that choose to trade with Cuban citizens.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today as a firm believer in the second amendment to the United States Constitution and an opponent of all federal gun laws. In fact, I have introduced legislation, the Second Amendment Restoration Act (H.R. 153), which repeals the misguided federal gun control laws such as the Brady Bill and the assault weapons ban. I believe that the second amendment is one of the foundations of our constitutional liberties. However, Mr. Speaker, another foundation of those liberties is the oath all of us took to respect the Constitutional limits on federal power. While I understand and sympathize with the goals of the proponents of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (H.R. 1036), this bill exceeds those constitutional limitations, and so I must oppose this bill. It is long past time for Congress to recognize that not every problem requires a federal solution. This country's founders recognized the genius of separating power amongst federal, state and local governments as a means to maximize individual liberty and make government most responsive to those persons who might most responsibly influence it. This separation of powers strictly limited the role of the federal governments in dealing with civil liability matters; instead, it reserved jurisdiction over matters of civil tort, such as gun related alleged-negligence suits, to the state legislatures from which their respective jurisdictions flow. While I am against the federalization of tort reform, I must voice my complete disapproval for the nature of these very suits brought against gun manufacturers. Lawsuits for monetary damages form gun violence should be aimed at the perpetrators of those crimes, not the manufacturers! Holding manufacturers liable for harm they could neither foresee nor prevent is irresponsible and outlandish. The company that makes a properly functioning product in accordance with the law is acting lawfully and thus should not be taken to court because of misuse by the purchaser (or in many cases, by the one who stole the weapon). I fear these lawsuits are motivated not by a concern for justice but by a search for deep pockets, since gun manufactures have higher incomes than the average criminals, and a fanatical anti-gun political agenda. These attacks on gun manufacturers are disturbing, since the gun industry provides our law enforcement and military with the necessary tools needed to fight crime and defend our country. We should be helping our law enforcement officers and military, not hurting them by putting reputable gun manufacturers out of business. However, Mr. Chairman, the most disturbing aspect of these lawsuits is the idea that the gun, an inanimate object, is somehow responsible for crimes. H.R. 1036 enables individuals to abrogate responsibility for their actions, in that it allows gun dealers to be sued because they ``should have known'' the gun would be used in a crime. Under H.R. 1036, gun dealers will still be unjustly forced to scrutinize their customers for criminal intent. This further erodes the ethics of individual responsibility for one's own actions that must form the basis of a free and moral society. The root problem of violence is not the gun in the hand, but the gun in the heart: each person is accountable for the deeds that flow out of his or her own heart. One can resort to any means available to complete a crime (such as knives, fertilizer, pipes, and baseball bats). Should we start suing the manufacturers of these products as well because they are used in crimes? Of course not--its implications are preposterous. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would remind my fellow supporters of gun rights that using unconstitutional federal powers to restrict state gun lawsuits makes it more likely those same powers will be used to restrict our gun rights. Despite these lawsuits, the number one threat to gun ownership remains a federal government freed of its constitutional restraints. Expanding that government in any way, no matter how just the cause may seem, is not in the interests of gun owners or any lovers of liberty. In conclusion, while I share the concern over the lawsuits against gun manufacturers, which inspired H.R. 1036, this bill continues the disturbing trend toward federalization of tort law. Enhancing the power of the federal government is not in the long-term interests of defenders of the second amendment and other constitutional liberties. Therefore, I must oppose this bill.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Patient Privacy Act. This bill repeals the misnamed Medical Privacy regulation, which goes into effect on April 14 and actually destroys individual medical privacy. The Patient Privacy Act also repeals those sections of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 authorizing the establishment of a ``standard unique health care identifier'' for all Americans, as well as prohibiting the use of federal funds to develop or implement a database containing personal health information. Both of these threats to medical freedom grew out of the Clinton-era craze to nationalize as much of health care as politically possible. Establishment of a uniform medical identifier would allow Federal bureaucrats to track every citizen's medical history from cradle to grave. Furthermore, as explained in more detail below, it is possible that every medical professional, hospital, and Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) in the country would be able to access an individual citizens' record simply by entering the patient's identifier into a health care database. The dangers to liberty inherent in the ``uniform health identifier'' are magnified by the so-called ``medical privacy'' regulation. Many things in Washington are misnamed, however, this regulation may be the most blatant case of false advertising I have come across in all my years in Congress. Rather than protect an individual right to medical privacy, these regulations empower government officials to determine how much medical privacy an individual ``needs.'' This ``one-size-fits- all'' approach ignores the fact that different people may prefer different levels of privacy. Certain individuals may be willing to exchange a great deal of their personal medical information in order to obtain certain benefits, such as lower-priced care or having information targeted to their medical needs sent to them in a timely manner. Others may forgo those benefits in order to limit the number of people who have access to their medical history. Federal bureaucrats cannot possibly know, much less meet, the optimal level of privacy for each individual. In contrast, the free market allows individuals to obtain the level of privacy protection they desire. The so-called ``medical privacy'' regulations and uniform health identifier scheme not only reduce individuals' ability to determine who has access to their personal medical information, but actually threaten medical privacy and constitutionally protected liberties. For example, these regulations allow law enforcement and other government officials access to a citizen's private medical record without having to obtain a search warrant. Allowing government officials to access a private person's medical records without a warrant is a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which protects American citizens from warrantless searches by government officials. The requirement that law enforcement officials obtain a warrant from a judge before searching private documents is one of the fundamental protections against abuse of the government's power to seize an individual's private documents. While the Fourth Amendment has been interpreted to allow warrantless searches in emergency situations, it is hard to conceive of a situation where law enforcement officials would be unable to obtain a warrant before electronic medical records would be destroyed. Mr. Speaker, these regulations also require health care providers to give medical records to the Federal government for inclusion in a Federal health care data system. Such a system would contain all citizens' personal health care information, accessible to anyone who knows the individual's ``unique health identifier.'' History shows that when the government collects this type of personal information, the inevitable result is the abuse of citizens' privacy and liberty by unscrupulous government officials. The only fail-safe privacy protection is for the government not to collect and store this type of personal information. In addition to law enforcement, these so-called ``privacy protection'' regulations create a privileged class of people with a federally guaranteed right to see an individual's medical records without the individual's consent. My medical office recently received a Model ``Privacy Act Compliance'' form. This three-page form lists over 20 situations where medical information may be disclosed without individual consent. Medical information may be disclosed to attorneys, business associates of the provider, and Federal agencies conducting ``health oversight activities.'' Medical information may also be divulged without consent to insurance companies and medical researchers! Medical researchers claim to be able to protect the autonomy of their unwilling subjects, but the fact is that allowing third parties to use medical records for research purposes runs the risk of inadvertent identification of personal medical information. I am aware of at least one incident where a man had his identity revealed when his medical records were used without his consent. As a result, many people in his community discovered details of his medical history that he wished to keep private! Forcing individuals to divulge medical information without their consent also runs afoul of the Fifth Amendment's prohibition on taking private property for public use without just compensation. After all, people do have a legitimate property interest in their private information. Therefore, restrictions on an individual's ability to control the dissemination of their private information represents a massive regulatory taking. The takings clause is designed to prevent this type of sacrifice of individual property rights for the ``greater good.'' In a free society such as the one envisioned by those who drafted the Constitution, the Federal government should never force a citizen to divulge personal information to advance ``important social goals.'' Rather, it should be up to the individuals, not the government, to determine what social goals are important enough to warrant allowing others access to their personal property, including their personal information. To the extent these regulations sacrifice individual rights in the name of a bureaucratically determined ``common good,'' they are incompatible with a free society and a constitutional government. As an OB-GYN with more than 30 years experience in private practice, I am very concerned by the threat to medical practice posed by these privacy regulations and the unique health identifier scheme. The confidential physician-patient relationship is the basis of good health care. Oftentimes, effective treatment depends on the patient's ability to place absolute trust in his or her doctor. The legal system has acknowledged the importance of maintaining physician-patient confidentiality by granting physicians a privilege not to divulge confidential patient information. I ask my colleagues to consider how comfortable you would be confiding an embarrassing physical or emotional problem to your physicians if you knew that any and all information given your doctor may be placed in a government database or seen by medical researchers, handed over to government agents without so much as a simple warrant or accessed by anyone who happens to know your ``unique health identifier?'' By now it should be clear to every member of Congress that the American people do not want their health information recorded on a database, and they do not wish to be assigned a unique health identifier. According to a survey by the respected Gallup Company, 91 percent of Americans oppose assigning Americans a ``unique health care identifier'' while 92 percent of the people oppose allowing government agencies the unrestrained power to view private medical records and 88 percent of Americans oppose placing private health care information in a national database. Congress has acknowledged this public concern by including language forbidding the expenditure of funds to implement or develop a medical identifier in the Federal budget for the past 5 fiscal years. Rather than continuing to extend the prohibition on funding for another year, Congress should finally obey the wishes of the American people by repealing the authorization of the individual medical ID this year as well as repeal these dangerous medical privacy rules. Mr. Speaker, the misnamed medical privacy regulations and the scheme to assign all Americans a ``unique health care identifier'' violates the fourth and fifth amendments by allowing law enforcement officials and government favored special interests to seize medical records without an individual's consent or a warrant. Federal supervision of who can access medical records combined with a federally assigned medical ID also facilitate the creation of a Federal database containing the health care data of every American citizen. These developments could undermine the doctor-patient relationship and thus worsen the health care of millions of Americans. I, therefore, call on my colleagues to join me in repealing these threats to privacy and quality health care by cosponsoring the Patient Privacy Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, at a time of war Congress has no more important duty than to make sure that our military force have all the resources they need. However, Congress also has a duty to not use the war as cover for unnecessary and unconstitutional spending. This is especially true when war coincides with a period of economic downturn and growing federal deficits. Unfortunately, Congress today is derelict in its duty to the United States taxpayer. Instead of simply ensuring that our military has the necessary resources to accomplish its mission in Iraq, a mission which may very well be over before this money reaches the Pentagon, Congress has loaded this bill up with unconstitutional wasteful foreign aid and corporate welfare spending. For example, this bill provides a hidden subsidy to vaccine manufacturers by transferring liability for injuries caused by the smallpox vaccine from the companies to the United States Taxpayer. It also provides $3.2 billion dollars for yet another government bailout of the airline industry, as well as a hidden subsidy to the airlines in the form of $235 million of taxpayer money to pay for costs associated with enhanced baggage screening. Mr. Speaker, there is no more constitutional reason for the taxpayer to protect what is, after all, the airlines' private property, than there is for the taxpayer to subsidize security costs at shopping malls or factories. Furthermore, the airlines could do a more efficient and effective job at providing security if they were freed from government rules and regulations. I remind my colleagues that it was government bureaucrats who disarmed airline pilots, thus leaving the pilots of the planes used in the September 11 attacks defenseless against the terrorists. I would also remind my colleagues that anti-gun fanatics in the federal bureaucracy continue to prevent pilots from carrying firearms. Although generous to certain corporate interests, this bill actually contains less money than the administration requested for homeland security. One area of homeland security that Congress did not underfund is its own security; this bill provides the full amount requested to ensure the security of the Congress. Still, one could reasonably conclude from reading this bill that the security of Turkey, Pakistan, and Jordan are more important to Congress that the security of Houston, New York and other major American cities. On foreign spending, this bill actually provides one billion dollars in foreign aid to Turkey--even though that country refused the U.S. request for cooperation in the war on Iraq. One billion dollars to a country that thumbed its nose at an American request for assistance? How is this possibly an appropriate expenditure of taxpayer money? Additionally, this ``war supplemental'' has provided cover for more of the same unconstitutional foreign aid spending. It provides 2.5 billion dollar for Iraqi reconstruction when Americans have been told repeatedly that reconstruction costs will be funded out of Iraqi oil revenues. It also ensures that the American taxpayer will subsidize large corporations that wish to do business in Iraq by making transactions with Iraq eligible for support from the Export-Import Bank. It sends grants and loans in excess of 11.5 billion dollars to Jordan, Israel, Egypt, and Afghanistan--above and beyond the money we already send them each year. Incredibly, this bill sends 175 million dollars in aid to Pakistan even though it was reported in April that Pakistan purchased ballistic missiles from North Korea! Furthermore, it is difficult to understand how $100 million to Colombia, $50 million to the Gaza Strip, and $200 million for ``Muslim outreach'' has anything to do with the current war in Iraq. Also, this bill spends $31 million to get the federal government into the television broadcasting business in the Middle East. With private American news networks like CNN available virtually everywhere on the globe, is there any justification to spend taxpayer money to create and fund competing state-run networks? Aren't state-run news networks one of the features of closed societies we have been most critical of in the past? In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1559 endangers America's economy by engaging in pork-barrel spending and corporate welfare unrelated to national security. This bill endangers America's economic health by adding almost $80 billion to the already bloated federal deficit. Additions to the deficit endanger our financial independence because America will have to increase its reliance on foreign borrowers to finance our debt. H.R. 1599 also shortchanges Americans by giving lower priority to funding homeland security than to funding unreliable allies and projects, like the Middle Eastern TV Network, that will do nothing to enhance America's security. Therefore, I must oppose this bill.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am today introducing the Rice Farmers Fairness Act. This legislation conditions the continuation of farm subsidies in the state of Texas upon the maintenance of rice production. Federal law allows for the continuation of subsidies to landowners who discontinue tenant rice farming on their land. In essence, this means that the subsidy continues to flow in spite of an end to production. This is a ``something for nothing'' subsidy of the worst kind! As a result of this provision, there is a very real threat to the agricultural infrastructure. With landowners receiving subsidies in spite of lack of production, the entire warehousing, processing and ``value-added'' industries are put at risk. As grain elevators, processors and others see a reduction in demand for their services because of the diminution of production permitted by federal law, they have a disincentive to continue to provide said services, services which must remain in place in order for those who remain in production to be able to bring to market the rice which they continue to produce. Thus, by way of the decimation of the infrastructure, this subsidy to non-producers comes at the expense of those who continue to produce rice. Therefore, the provisions of federal law which provide this subsidy actually amount to another form of federal welfare, taking from producers and giving to non-producers. These destructive government policies have particularly pernicious effect in Texas, where rice farming, and the related industries, are a major sector of the economy in many towns along the Texas coast. My legislation is very simple and direct in dealing with this problem. It says that those who have tenant rice farmers producing rice in Texas must agree to continue to maintain rice in their crop rotation if they wish to receive subsidies. In this way, we can remove the perverse incentive, which the Federal Government has provided to landowners to exit the rice business and thereby put the entire rice infrastructure at risk. America's rice farmers are the most efficient, effective producers of rice in the world, despite the many hurdles erected by Washington. The Rice Farmer Fairness Act helps remove one of these hurdles and this makes America's rice farmers even more efficient. In order to enhance our competitive position, we should also end our embargoes of other nations. Congress should eliminate the burdensome taxes and regulations imposed on America's farmers. I hope my colleagues will join me in removing these federally imposed burdens on rice farmers by supporting free trade, low taxes and regulations, and cosponsoring my Rice Farmer Fairness Act. Mr. Speaker, I rise to help parents of children with special educational needs by introducing the Help and Opportunities for Parents of Exceptional Children (HOPE for Children) Act of 2003. This bill allows parents of children with a learning disability an up to $3,000 tax credit 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. Helping parents provide their child with an education designed around the child's individual needs is far superior to the ``one size fits all'' cookie cutter, bureaucratized approach that has dominated special education for the past 30 years. This approach is inappropriate for any child, but it is especially harmful for special needs children. The HOPE for Children Act puts control over education resources back in the hands of those who know best, and care most about, the unique needs of children: parents. 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. I urge all my colleagues to cosponsor this bill.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to HR 743, the Social Security Protection Act. While this bill contains many provisions worthy of support, it also removes the only means by which many widowed Texas public school teachers can receive the same spousal social security benefits as every other American. As I am sure my colleagues are aware, widowed public school employees in Texas, like public employees throughout the The Government Pension Offset even applies if the public employee in question worked all the quarters necessary to qualify for full social security benefits either before or after working in the public school system! The effect of the Government Pension Offset is to punish people for teaching in public schools! However, current law provides widowed Texas public school teachers a means of collecting the full social security spousal benefits. Unfortunately, this bill removes that option from Texas teachers. Since I believe the Congress should repeal the Government Pension Offset by passing HR 524, which repeals both the Government Pension Offset and the Windfall Elimination Provision, another provision that denies public employees full social security benefits, I must oppose this bill. Instead of punishing public school teachers, Congress should be encouraging good people to enter the education profession by passing my Teacher Tax Cut Act (HR 613) which provides every teacher with a $1,000 tax credit, as well as my Professional Educators Tax Credit act (HR 614), which provides a $1,000 tax credit to counselors, librarians, and all school personnel. Congress should also act to protect the integrity of the Social Security Trust Fund by passing my Social Security Preservation Act (HR 219), which ensures that Social Security monies are not spent on other programs. Congress should also pass my Social Security for American Citizens Only Act (HR 489), which ensures that non-citizens who have not worked the required number of quarters and illegal immigrants do not receive social security benefits.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation restoring First amendment protections of religion and religious speech. For fifty years, the personal religious freedom of this nation's citizens has been infringed upon by courts that misread and distort the First amendment. The framers of the Constitution never in their worst nightmares imagined that the words, ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech. . . .'' would be used to ban children from praying in school, prohibit courthouses from displaying the Ten Commandments, or prevent citizens from praying before football games. The original meaning of the First amendment was clear on these two points: The federal government cannot enact laws establishing one religious denomination over another, and the federal government cannot forbid mention of religion, including the Ten Commandments and references to God. In case after case, the Supreme Court has used the infamous ``separation of church and state'' metaphor to uphold court decisions that allow the federal government to intrude upon and deprive citizens of their religious liberty. This ``separation'' doctrine is based upon a phrase taken out of context from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802. In the letter, Jefferson simply reassures the Baptists that the First amendment would preclude an intrusion by the federal government into religious matters between denominations. It is ironic and sad that a letter defending the principle that the federal government must stay out of religious affairs. Should be used two hundred years later to justify the Supreme Court telling a child that he cannot pray in school! The Court completely disregards the original meaning and intent of the First amendment. It has interpreted the establishment clause to preclude prayer and other religious speech in a public place, thereby violating the free exercise clause of the very same First amendment. Therefore, it is incumbent upon Congress to correct this error, and to perform its duty to support and defend the Constitution. My legislation would restore First amendment protections of religion and speech by removing all religious freedom-related cases from federal district court jurisdiction, as well as from federal claims court jurisdiction. The federal government has no constitutional authority to reach its hands in the religious affairs of its citizens or of the several states. As James Madison said, ``There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.'' I sincerely hope that my colleagues will fight against the ``gradual and silent encroachment'' of the courts upon our nation's religious liberties by supporting this bill.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce three bills relating to abortion. First, the Freedom of Conscience Act of 2003 prohibits any federal official from expending any federal funds for any population control or population planning program or any family planning activity. It is immoral to force the American taxpayers to subsidize programs and practices they find morally abhorrent. Second, I rise to introduce the Partial-birth Abortion Funding Ban Act of 2003. This bill prohibits federal officials from paying any federal funds to any individual or entity that performs partial-birth abortions. The taxpayer must not be forced to fund this barbaric procedure. Finally, my Life-Protecting Judicial Limitation Act of 2003 provides that the inferior courts of the United States do not have jurisdiction to hear abortion-related cases. Congress must use the authority granted to it in Article 3, Section 1 of the Constitution. The district courts of the United States, as well as the United States Court of Federal Claims, should not have the authority to hear these types of cases. Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that my colleagues will join me in support of these three bills. By following the Constitution and using the power granted to the Congress by this document, we can restore freedom of conscience and the sanctity of human life.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, this week we will be working on the $75 billion supplemental appropriations to pay for the war. Financing the war is not as simple as it appears. It involves more than just passing a piece of legislation labeled as support for the troops. It has now been fashionable to bash France and Germany and other friends if they are less enthusiastic for the war than we think they should be. Yet foreign corporations provide millions of jobs for American citizens. French companies alone employ over 400,000. There is a practical reason why offending the French and others may backfire on us. In 2002 we earned $11.9 billion less from our investments overseas than foreigners did here. This is not a sign of financial strength. A negative balance on the income account contributes to the $500 billion annual current account deficit. Since 1985 when we became a deficit NATION, we have acquired a foreign debt of approximately $2.8 trillion, the world's largest. No nation can long sustain a debt that continues to expand at a rate greater than 5 percent of the GDP. This means we borrowed more than $1.4 billion every day to keep the borrowing binge going. This only can be maintained until foreigners get tired of taking and holding our dollars and buying our debt. Bashing the French and others will only hasten the day that sets off the train of economic events that will please no one. In thinking about providing funds for the war and overall military expenditures, not only must every dollar be borrowed from overseas, but an additional $150 billion each year as well. The current account deficit is now 44 percent greater than the military budget and represents the amount we must borrow to balance the accounts. The bottom line is that our international financial condition is dire and being made worse by current international events. It is true that military might gives a boost to a nation's currency; but this is not permanent if fiscal and monetary policies are abused. Currently, our budget deficits are exploding, as there is no restraint on spending. No one can guarantee permanent military superiority. The dollar has already significantly weakened this past year, and this trend will surely continue. A weaker dollar requires that we pay more for everything we buy overseas. Foreign borrowing will eventually become more difficult, and this will in time cause interest rates to rise. Be assured that domestic price inflation will accelerate. Economic law dictates that these events will cause the recession to linger and deepen. My humble advice, consider being nicer to our friends and allies. We need them more than we can imagine to finance our war efforts. There is more to it than passing the supplemental appropriation. Besides, we need time to get our financial house in order. Antagonizing our trading partners can only make that task that much more complicated. The day will come when true monetary reform will be required. Printing money to finance war and welfare can never be a panacea.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the American Citizenship Amendment. Under current U.S. laws, any person born on American soil can claim American citizenship, regardless of the citizenship of that child's parents. This means that any alien who happens to give birth in the United States has just given birth to an American citizen, eligible for all the benefits and privileges afforded to citizens. Mr. Speaker, this is unacceptable and is far from what our Founders intended when they drafted the Constitution. It undermines the very concept of citizenship as enshrined in the United States Constitution: to be constitutionally entitled to U.S. citizenship one must be ``born . . . in the United States'' and ``subject to the jurisdiction thereof.'' This second, and most important, part means that in order to gain U.S. citizenship one must owe and actively express allegiance to the United States in addition to the act of being born on United States soil. What the current state of events has led to is a booming business in smuggling pregnant mothers over the border to give birth to new ``American'' citizens, who in turn become eligible for all the benefits thereof. Practically, what this does is cheapen citizenship: rather than impart all the obligations and responsibilities of being an American it becomes merely a ticket to welfare and other benefits. The history of the United States is that of immigrants: individuals from diverse backgrounds accepted the obligations of citizenship in exchange for the great benefits of living in the freest nation on earth. This proposed Constitutional amendment restores the concept of American citizenship to that of our Founders. This legislation simply states that no child born in the United States whose mother and father do not possess citizenship or owe permanent allegiance to the United States shall be a citizen of the United States. It is essential to the future of our constitutional republic that citizenship be something of value, something to be cherished. It cannot be viewed as merely an express train into the welfare state.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, as an OB-GYN who has had the privilege of bringing over 3,000 children into the world, I share the desire to punish severely those who sexually abuse children. In fact, it is hard to imagine someone more deserving of life in prison than one who preys on children. Therefore, I certainly support those parts of H.R. 1104 which enhance the punishment for those convicted of federal crimes involving sexual assaults on children. I also support the provisions increasing the post-incarceration supervision of sex offenders. However, given the likelihood that a sex offender will attempt to commit another sex crime, it is reasonable to ask why rapists and child molesters are not simply imprisoned for life? However, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that making the AMBER Alert system a Federal program is neither constitutionally sound nor effective law enforcement. All Americans should be impressed at the demonstrated effectiveness of the AMBER system in locating missing and kidnapped children. However, I would ask my colleagues to consider that one of the factors that makes the current AMBER system so effective is that the AMBER Alert system is not a Federal program. Instead, states and local governments developed AMBER Alerts on their own, thus ensuring that each AMBER system meets the unique needs of individual jurisdictions. Once the AMBER Alert system becomes a one-size-fits all Federal program (with standards determined by DC-based bureaucrats instead of community-based law enforcement officials) local officials will not be able to tailor the AMBER Alert to fit their unique circumstances. Thus, nationalizing the AMBER system will cause this important program to lose some of its effectiveness. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1104 also exceeds Congress' constitutional authority by criminalizing travel with the intent of committing a crime. As appalling as it is that some would travel abroad to engage in activities that are rightly illegal in the United States, legislation of this sort poses many problems and offers few solutions. First among these problems is the matter of national sovereignty. Those who travel abroad and break the law in their host country should be subject to prosecution in that country: it is the responsibility of the host country--not the U.S. Congress--to uphold its own laws. It is a highly unique proposal to suggest that committing a crime in a foreign country against a non-US citizen is within the jurisdiction of the United States Government. Mr. Speaker, this legislation makes it a Federal crime to ``travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct.'' I do not think this is a practical approach to the problem. It seems that this bill actually seeks to probe the conscience of anyone who seeks to travel abroad to make sure they do not have illegal or immoral intentions. Is it possible or even advisable to make thoughts and intentions illegal? And how is this to be carried out? Should Federal agents be assigned to each travel agency to probe potential travelers as to the intent of their travel? At a time when Federal resources are stretched to the limit, American troops are preparing for imminent military conflict, and when we are not even able to keep known terrorists out of our own country, this bill would require Federal agents to not only track Americans as they vacation abroad, but would also require that they be able to divine the intentions of these individuals who seek to travel abroad. Talk about a tall order! As well-intentioned as I am sure this legislation is, I do not believe that it is a practical or well-thought-out approach to what I agree is a serious and disturbing problem. Perhaps a better approach would be to share with those interested countries our own laws and approaches to prosecuting those who commit these kinds of crimes, so as to see more effective capture and punishment of these criminals in the countries where the crime is committed. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while H.R. 1104 has some good provisions aimed at enhancing the penalties of those who commit the most heinous of crimes, it also weakens the effective AMBER Alert program by nationalizing it. H.R. 542 also raises serious civil liberties and national sovereignty concerns by criminalizing intent and treating violations of criminal law occurring in other countries' jurisdictions as violations of American criminal law.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, as we vote today to commend our troops, I would like to take the opportunity to express my personal support for our brave men and women in uniform who are in harm's way, and to hope for their safe return home after a victory on the battlefield. The time for debate over the wisdom of going to war has passed. Although I was unsuccessful in arguing that such a war be undertaken only after the passage of a constitutionally-enacted Declaration of War, it is time now for us to line up behind our troops. As a Vietnam era veteran of the U.S. Air Force I understand how important it is to troop morale that each and every fighting person know all Americans stand behind them. Once this war has ended we should seriously reconsider the direction of our foreign policy. The American people have seen the ineffectiveness of our reliance upon our so-called ``NATO allies'' and the United Nations. Hopefully this will lead us to reconsider our role in these organizations. I hope this will be the last time Americans fight under the color of U.N. resolutions. Once this war is completed I hope we will reassess our foreign entanglements, return to the traditional U.S. foreign policy of non-intervention, and return to the standard of our own national security. For now all such foreign policy debates are on hold, and I hope all Americans will join in supporting our troops in the successful completion of their mission.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, as an OB-GYN with over 30 years in private practice, I understand better than perhaps any other member of Congress the burden imposed on both medical practitioners and patients by excessive malpractice judgments and the corresponding explosion in malpractice insurance premiums. Malpractice insurance has skyrocketed to the point where doctors are unable to practice in some areas or see certain types of patients because they cannot afford the insurance premiums. This crisis has particularly hit my area of practice, leaving some pregnant women unable to find a qualified obstetrician in their city. Therefore, I am pleased to see Congress address this problem. However this bill raises several questions of constitutionality, as well as whether it treats those victimized by large corporations and medical devices fairly. In addition, it places de facto price controls on the amounts injured parties can receive in a lawsuit and rewrites every contingency fee contract in the country. Yet, among all the new assumptions of federal power, this bill does nothing to address the power of insurance companies over the medical profession. Thus, even if the reforms of H.R. 5 become law, there will be nothing to stop the insurance companies from continuing to charge exorbitant rates. Of course, I am not suggesting Congress place price controls on the insurance industry. Instead, Congress should reexamine those federal laws such as ERISA and the HMO Act of 1973, which have allowed insurers to achieve such a prominent role in the medical profession. As I will detail below, Congress should also take steps to encourage contractual means of resolving malpractice disputes. Such an approach may not be beneficial to the insurance companies or the trial lawyers, buy will certainly benefit the patients and physicians, which both sides in this debate claim to represent. H.R. 5 does contain some positive elements. For example, the language limiting joint and several liabilities to the percentage of damage someone actually caused, is a reform I have long championed. However, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5 exceeds Congress' constitutional authority by preempting state law. Congressional dissatisfaction with the malpractice laws in some states provides no justification for Congress to impose uniform standards on all 50 states. The 10th amendment does not authorize federal action in areas otherwise reserved to the states simply because some members of Congress are unhappy with the way the states have handled the problem. Ironically, H.R. 5 actually increases the risk of frivolous litigation in some states by lengthening the statue of limitations and changing the definition of comparative negligence! I am also disturbed by the language that limits liability for those harmed by FDA-approved products. This language, in effect, establishes FDA approval as the gold standard for measuring the safety and soundness of medical devices. However, if FDA approval guaranteed safety, then the FDA would not regularly issue recalls of approved products later found to endanger human health and/or safety. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5 also punishes victims of government mandates by limiting the ability of those who have suffered adverse reactions from vaccines to collect damages. Many of those affected by these provisions are children forced by federal mandates to receive vaccines. Oftentimes, parents reluctantly submit to these mandates in order to ensure their children can attend public school. H.R. 5 rubs salt in the wounds of those parents whose children may have been harmed by government policies forcing children to receive unsafe vaccines. Rather than further expanding unconstitutional mandates and harming those with a legitimate claim to collect compensation, Congress should be looking for ways to encourage physicians and patients to resolve questions of liability via private, binding contracts. The root cause of the malpractice crisis (and all of the problems with the health care system) is the shift away from treating the doctor-patient relationship as a contractual one to viewing it as one governed by regulations imposed by insurance company functionaries, politicians, government bureaucrats, and trial lawyers. There is no reason why questions of the assessment of liability and compensation cannot be determined by a private contractual agreement between physicians and patients. I have introduced the Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act (H.R. 1249). H.R. 1249 provides tax incentives to individuals who agree to purchase malpractice insurance, which will automatically provide coverage for any injuries sustained in treatment. This will insure that those harmed by spiraling medical errors receive timely and full compensation. My plan spares both patients and doctors the costs of a lengthy, drawn-out trial and respects Congress' constitutional limitations. Congress could also help physicians lower insurance rates by passing legislation, such as my Quality Health Care Coalition Act (H.R. 1247), that removes the antitrust restrictions preventing physicians from forming professional organizations for the purpose of negotiating contracts with insurance companies and HMOs. These laws give insurance companies and HMOs, who are often protected from excessive malpractice claims by ERISA, the ability to force doctors to sign contracts exposing them to excessive insurance premiums and limiting their exercise of professional judgment. The lack of a level playing field also enables insurance companies to raise premiums at will. In fact, it seems odd that malpractice premiums have skyrocketed at a time when insurance companies need to find other sources of revenue to compensate for their losses in the stock market. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I support the efforts of the sponsors of H.R. 5 to address the crisis in health care caused by excessive malpractice litigation and insurance premiums, I cannot support this bill. H.R. 5 exceeds Congress' constitutional limitations and denies full compensation to those harmed by the unintentional effects of federal vaccine mandates. Instead of furthering unconstitutional authority, my colleagues should focus on addressing the root causes of the malpractice crisis by supporting efforts to restore the primacy of contract to the doctor-patient relationships.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, America faces a crisis in health care. Health care costs continue to rise while physicians and patients struggle under the control of managed-care ``gatekeepers.'' Obviously, fundamental health care reform should be one of Congress' top priorities. Unfortunately, most health care ``reform'' proposals either make marginal changes or exacerbate the problem. This is because they fail to address the root of the problem with health care, which is that government policies encourage excessive reliance on third-party payers. The excessive reliance on third-party payers removes all ilncentive from individual patients to concern themselves with health care costs. Laws and policies promoting Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) resulted from a desperate attempt to control spiraling costs. However, instead of promoting an efficient health care system, HMOs further took control over health care away from the individual patient and physician. Returning control over health care to the individual is the key to true health care reform. This is why today I am introducing the Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act. This legislation puts control of health care back into the hands of the individual through tax credits, tax deductions, Medical Savings Accounts, and Flexible Savings Accounts. Specifically, the Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act: A. Provides all Americans with a tax credit for 100% of health care expenses. The tax credit is fully refundable against both income and payroll taxes. B. Allows individuals to roll over unused amounts in cafeteria plans and Flexible Savings Accounts (FSA). C. Makes every American eligible for an Archer Medical Savings Account (MSA) and changes the tax laws to increase the benefits of MSAs. D. Repeals the 7.5 percent threshold for the deduction of medical expenses, thus making all medical expenses tax deductible. By providing a wide range of options, this bill allows individual Americans to choose the method of financing health care that best suits their individual needs. Increasing frustration with the current health care system is leading more and more Americans to embrace this approach to health care reform. For example, a recent poll by the respected Zogby firm showed that over 80 percent of Americans support providing all Americans with access to a Medical Savings Account. I hope all my colleagues will join this effort to put individuals back in control of health care by cosponsoring the Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act. As its title suggests, this bill provides an effective means of ensuring that those harmed during medical treatment receive fair compensation while reducing the burden of costly malpractice litigation on the health care system. This bill achieves its goal by providing a tax credit for negative outcomes insurance purchased before medical treatment. The insurance will provide compensation for any negative outcomes of the medical treatment. Patients can receive this insurance without having to go through lengthy litigation and without having to give away a large portion of their award to a trial lawyer. Relying on negative outcomes insurance instead of litigation will also reduce the costs imposed on physicians, other health care providers, and hospitals by malpractice litigation. The Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act also promotes effective solutions to the malpractice crisis by making malpractice awards obtained through binding, voluntary arbitration tax-free. The malpractice crisis has contributed to the closing of a maternity ward in Philadelphia and a trauma center in Nevada. Meanwhile, earlier this year, surgeons in West Virginia walked off the job to protest increasing liability rates. These are a few of the examples of how access to quality health care is jeopardized by the epidemic of large (and medically questionable) malpractice awards, and the resulting increase in insurance rates. As is typical of Washington, most of the proposed solutions to the malpractice problem involve unconstitutional usurpations of areas best left to the states. These solutions also ignore the root cause of the litigation crisis: the shift away from treating the doctor-patient relationship as a contractual one to viewing it as one governed by regulations imposed by insurance company functionaries, politicians, government bureaucrats, and trial lawyers. There is no reason why questions of the assessment of liability and compensation cannot be determined by a private contractual agreement between physicians and patients. The Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act is designed to take a step toward resolving these problems through private contracts. Using insurance, private contracts, and binding arbitration to resolve medical disputes benefits patients, who receive full compensation in a timelier manner than under the current system. It also benefits physicians and hospitals, which are relieved of the costs associated with litigation. Since it will not cost as much to provide full compensation to an injured patient, these bills should result in a reduction of malpractice premiums. The Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act benefits everybody except those trial lawyers who profit from the current system. I hope all my colleagues will help end the malpractice crises while ensuring those harmed by medical injuries receive just compensation by cosponsoring my Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Quality Health Care Coalition Act, which takes a first step towards restoring a true free market in health care by restoring the rights of freedom of contract and association to health care professionals. Over the past few years, we have had much debate in Congress about the difficulties medical professionals and patients are having with Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs). HMOs are devices used by insurance industries to ration health care. While it is politically popular for members of Congress to bash the HMOs and the insurance industry, the growth of the HMOs are rooted in past government interventions in the health care market though the tax code, the Employment Retirement Security Act (ERSIA), and the federal anti-trust laws. These interventions took control of the health care dollar away from individual patients and providers, thus making it inevitable that something like the HMOs would emerge as a means to control costs. Many of my well-meaning colleagues would deal with the problems created by the HMOs by expanding the federal government's control over the health care market. These interventions will inevitably drive up the cost of health and further erode the ability of patents and providers to determine the best health treatments free of government and third-party interference. In contrast, the Quality Health Care Coalition Act addresses the problems associated with HMOs by restoring medical professionals' freedom to form voluntary organizations for the purpose of negotiating contracts with an HMO or an insurance company. As an OB-GYN with over 30 years in practice, I am well aware of how young physicians coming out of medical school feel compelled to sign contracts with HMOs that may contain clauses that compromise their professional integrity. For example, many physicians are contractually forbidden from discussing all available treatment options with their patients because the HMO gatekeeper has deemed certain treatment options too expensive. In my own practice, I have tried hard not to sign contracts with any health insurance company that infringed on my ability to practice medicine in the best interests of my patients and I have always counseled my professional colleagues to do the same. Unfortunately, because of the dominance of the HMO in today's health care market, many health care professionals cannot sustain a medical practice unless they agree to conform their practice to the dictates of some HMO. One way health care professionals could counter the power of the HMOs would be to form a voluntary association for the purpose of negotiating with an HMO or an insurance company. However, health care professionals who attempt to form such a group run the risk of persecution under federal anti-trust laws. This not only reduces the ability of health care professionals to negotiate with HMOs on a level playing field, but also constitutes an unconstitutional violation of medical professionals' freedom of contract and association. Under the United States Constitution, the federal government has no authority to interfere with the private contracts of American citizens. Furthermore, the prohibitions on contracting contained in the Sherman antitrust laws are based on a flawed economic theory which holds that federal regulators can improve upon market outcomes by restricting the rights of certain market participants deemed too powerful by the government. In fact, anti-trust laws harm consumers by preventing the operation of the free-market, causing prices to rise, quality to suffer, and, as is certainly the case with the relationship between the HMOs and medical professionals, favoring certain industries over others. By restoring the freedom of medical professionals to voluntarily come together to negotiate as a group with HMOs and insurance companies, this bill removes a government-imposed barrier to a true free market in health care. Of course, this bill does not infringe on the rights of health care professionals by forcing them to join a bargaining organization against their will. While Congress should protect the rights of all Americans to join organizations for the purpose of bargaining collectively, Congress also has a moral responsibility to ensure that no worker is forced by law to join or financially support such an organization. Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that Congress will not only remove the restraints on medical professionals' freedom of contract, but will also empower patients to control their health care by passing my Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act. The Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act puts individuals back in charge of their own health care by expanding access to Medical Savings Accounts and providing Americans with large tax credits and tax deductions for their health care expenses. Putting individuals back in charge of their own health care decisions will enable patients to work with providers to ensure they receive the best possible health care at the lowest possible price. If providers and patients have the ability to form the contractual arrangements that they find most beneficial to them, the HMO monster will wither on the vine without the imposition of new federal regulations on the insurance industry. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Quality Health Care Coalition Act and restore the freedom of contract and association to America's health care professionals. I also urge my colleagues to join me in working to promote a true free market in health care by putting patients back in charge of the health care dollar by supporting my Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the ``American Servicemember and Civilian Protection Act of 2003.'' This bill prohibits funds made available by the United States Government from being used for the establishment or operation of the Court. Perhaps the most significant part of the bill makes clear that any action taken by or on behalf of the Court against members of the United States Armed Forces shall be considered an act of aggression against the United States; and that any action taken by or on behalf of the Court against a United States citizen or national shall be considered an offense against the law of nations. Mr. Speaker, on May 6, 2002, President George W. Bush took the commendable step of repudiating the signature of the United States on the Statute of the International Criminal Court, stating that the United States ``can no longer be a party'' to the International Criminal Court. He also requested that those states choosing membership in the Court respect the decision of the United States in this matter. Mr. Speaker, the Court is an illegitimate body even by the United Nations' own standards. The Statute of the International Criminal Court was enacted by a Conference of Diplomats convened by the United Nations General Assembly, whereas according to the UN Charter, the authority to create such a body lies only in the UN Security Council. The International Criminal Court was established contrary to the American Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. It puts United States citizens in jeopardy of unlawful and unconstitutional criminal prosecution. The International Criminal Court does not provide many of the Constitutional protections guaranteed every American citizen, including the right to trial by jury, the right to face your accuser, and the presumption of innocence, and the protection against double jeopardy. Members of the United States Armed Forces are particularly at risk for politically motivated arrests, prosecutions, fines, and imprisonment for acts engaged in for the protection of the United States. These are the same brave men and women who place their lives on the line to protect and defend our Constitution. Do they not deserve the full protections of that same Constitution? Last year Congress passed the American Servicemembers' Protection Act within the Defense Authorization bill. Commendable as that effort was, the fact of the matter is that because of the numerous loopholes and exemptions in that legislation, our servicemembers are still not protected from the probing arms of the International Criminal Court. American citizens have absolutely no protection under last year's legislation. This is simply unacceptable. That is why I am introducing this legislation that makes the position of the United States clear: we will protect our servicemembers and citizens from this illegal court. Mr. Speaker, I hope all members of this body will join me in opposing this illegitimate and illegal court by cosponsoring the ``American Servicemember and Civilian Protection Act of 2003.''

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to reintroduce the American Sovereignty Restoration Act. I submitted this bill, which would end United States membership in the United Nations, in the 107th Congress and the 106th Congress and since then conditions have made its relevance and importance more evident now than ever. The United Nations assault on the sovereignty of the United States proceeds apace; it shows no signs of slowing. Mr. Speaker, since I last introduced this measure, the United Nations has convened its International Criminal Court, which claims jurisdiction even over citizens of countries that have not elected to join the court. This means that Americans--both civilians and members of our armed services--are subject to a court that even its supporters admit does not offer all the protections guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. The United States continues to pay the lion's share of the U.N. budget, yet it is routinely kicked off committees like the Human Rights Committee by some of the most egregious of human rights abusing countries. This is absurd and we shouldn't have to pay for it. As the United States faces another undeclared war for the United Nations--as is specified in the authorization for the use of force against Iraq (Public Law 107-243)--it is past time that we return to the principles of our founding fathers. This legislation would represent a comprehensive and complete U.S. withdrawal from the United Nations. It repeals the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 and other related laws. It directs the President to terminate U.S. participation in the United Nations, including any organ, specialized agency, commission, or other affiliated body. It requires closure of the U.S. Mission to the U.N. The legislation also prohibits the authorization of funds for the U.S. assessed or voluntary contribution to the U.N.; the authorization of funds for any U.S. contribution to any U.N. military operation; and the expenditure of funds to support the participation of U.S. armed forces as part of any U.N. military or peacekeeping operation. Finally, this legislation bars U.S. armed forces from serving under U.N. command. The U.S. Congress, by passing H.R. 1146, and the U.S. president, by signing H.R. 1146, will heed the wise counsel of our first president, George Washington, when he advised his countrymen to ``steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world,'' lest the nation's security and liberties be compromised by endless and overriding international commitments. I urge my colleagues to support this measure and I hope for its quick consideration. In considering the recent United Nations meetings and the United States' relation to that organization and its affront to U.S. sovereignty, we would all do well to again read carefully Professor Herbert W. Titus' paper on the United Nations from which I have provided this excerpt: It is commonly assumed that the Charter of the United Nations is a treaty. It is not. Instead, the Charter of the United Nations is a constitution. As such, it is illegitimate, having created a supranational government, deriving its powers not from the consent of the governed (the people of the United States of America and peoples of other member nations) but from the consent of the peoples' government officials who have no authority to bind either the American people nor any other nation's people to any terms of the Charter of the United Nations. By definition, a treaty is a contract between or among independent and sovereign nations, obligatory on the signatories only when by competent governing authorities in accordance with the powers constitutionally conferred upon them. I Kent, Commentaries on American Law 163 (1826); Burdick, The Law of the American Constitution section 34 (1922) Even the United Nations Treaty Collection states that a treaty is (1) a binding instrument creating legal rights and duties (2) concluded by states or international organizations with treaty-making powers (3) governed by international law. By contrast, a charter is a constitution creating a civil government for a unified nation or nations and establishing the authority of that government. Although the United Nations Treaty Collection defines a `charter' as a `constituent treaty,' leading international political authorities state that `[t]he use of the word `Charter' [in reference to the founding document of the United Nations] . . . emphasizes the constitutional nature of this instrument.' Thus, the preamble to the Charter of the United Nations declares `that the Peoples of the United Nations have resolved to combine their efforts to accomplish certain aims by certain means.' The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary 46 (B. Simma, ed.) (Oxford Univ. Press, NY: 1995) (Hereinafter U.N. Charter Commentary). Consistent with this view, leading international legal authorities declare that the law of the Charter of the United Nations which governs the authority of the United Nations General Assembly and the United Nations Security Council is `similar . . . to national constitutional law,' proclaiming that `because of its status as a constitution for the world community,' the Charter of the United Nations must be construed broadly, making way for `implied powers' to carry out the United Nations' `comprehensive scope of duties, especially the maintenance of international peace and security and its orientation towards international public welfare.' Id. at 27. The United Nations Treaty Collection confirms the appropriateness of this `constitutional interpretive' approach to the Charter of the United Nations with its statement that the charter may be traced `back to the Magna Carta (the Great Charter) of 1215,' a national constitutional document. As a constitutional document, the Magna Carta not only bound the original signatories,, the English barons and the king, but all subsequent English rulers, including Parliament, conferring upon all Englishmen certain rights that five hundred years later were claimed and exercised by the English people who had colonized America. A charter, then, is a covenant of the people and the civil rulers of a nation in perpetuity. Sources of Our Liberties 1- 10 (R. Perry, ed.) (American Bar Foundation: 1978) As Article I of Magna Carta, puts it: We have granted moreover to all free men of our kingdom for us and our heirs forever all liberties written below, to be had and holden by themselves and their heirs from us and our heirs. In like manner, the Charter of the United Nations is considered to be a permanent `constitution for the universal society,' and consequently, to be construed in accordance with its broad and unchanging ends but in such a way as to meet changing times and changing relations among the nations and peoples of the world. U.N. Charter Commentary at 28-44. According to the American political and legal tradition and the universal principles of constitution making, a perpetual civil covenant or constitution, obligatory on the people and their rulers throughout the generations, must, first, be proposed in the name of the people and, thereafter, ratified by the people's representatives elected and assembled for the sole purpose of passing on the terms of a proposed covenant. See 4 The Founders' Constitution 647-58 (P. Kurland and R. Lerner, eds.) (Univ. Chicago. Press: 1985). Thus, the preamble of the Constitution of the United States of America begins with 'We the People of the United States' and Article VII provides for ratification by state conventions composed of representatives of the people elected solely for that purpose. Sources of Our Liberties 408, 416, 418-21 (R. Perry, ed.) (ABA Foundation, Chicago: 1978). Taking advantage of the universal appeal of the American constitutional tradition, the preamble of the Charter of the United Nations opens with `We the peoples of the United Nations.' But, unlike the Constitution of the United States of America, the Charter of the United Nations does not call for ratification by conventions of the elected representatives of the people of the signatory nations. Rather, Article 110 of the Charter of the United Nations provides for ratification `by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.' Such a ratification process would have been politically and legally appropriate if the charter were a mere treaty. But the Charter of the United Nations is not a treaty; it is a constitution. First of all, Charter of the United Nations, executed as an agreement in the name of the people, legally and politically displaced previously binding agreements upon the signatory nations. Article 103 provides that `[i]n the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail.' Because the 1787 Constitution of the United States of America would displace the previously adopted Articles of Confederation under which the United States was being governed, the drafters recognized that only if the elected representatives of the people at a constitutional convention ratified the proposed constitution, could it be lawfully adopted as a constitution. Otherwise, the Constitution of the United States of America would be, legally and politically, a treaty which could be altered by any state's legislature as it saw fit. The Founders' Constitution, supra, at 648-52. Second, an agreement made in the name of the people creates a perpetual union, subject to dissolution only upon proof of breach of covenant by the governing authorities whereupon the people are entitled to reconstitute a new government on such terms and for such duration as the people see fit. By contrast, an agreement made in the name of nations creates only a contractual obligation, subject to change when any signatory nation decides that the obligation is no longer advantageous or suitable. Thus, a treaty may be altered by valid statute enacted by a signatory nation, but a constitution may be altered only by a special amendatory process provided for in that document. Id. at 652. Article V of the Constitution of the United States of America spells out that amendment process, providing two methods for adopting constitutional changes, neither of which requires unanimous consent of the states of the Union. Had the Constitution of the United States of America been a treaty, such unanimous consent would have been required. Similarly, the Charter of the United Nations may be amended without the unanimous consent of its member states. According to Article 108 of the Charter of the United Nations, amendments may be proposed by a vote of two-thirds of the United Nations General Assembly and may become effective upon ratification by a vote of two-thirds of the members of the United Nations, including all the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. According to Article 109 of the Charter of the United Nations, a special conference of members of the United Nations may be called `for the purpose of reviewing the present Charter' and any changes proposed by the conference may `take effect when ratified by two-thirds of the Members of the United Nations including all the permanent members of the Security Council.' Once an amendment to the Charter of the United Nations is adopted then that amendment `shall come into force for all Members of the United Nations,' even those nations who did not ratify the amendment, just as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America is effective in all of the states, even though the legislature of a state or a convention of a state refused to ratify. Such an amendment process is totally foreign to a treaty. See Id., at 575-84. Third, the authority to enter into an agreement made in the name of the people cannot be politically or legally limited by any preexisting constitution, treaty, alliance, or instructions. An agreement made in the name of a nation, however, may not contradict the authority granted to the governing powers and, thus, is so limited. For example, the people ratified the Constitution of the United States of America notwithstanding the fact that the constitutional proposal had been made in disregard to specific instructions to amend the Articles of Confederation, not to displace them. See Sources of Our Liberties 399-403 (R. Perry ed.) (American Bar Foundation: 1972). As George Mason observed at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, `Legislatures have no power to ratify' a plan changing the form of government, only `the people' have such power. 4 The Founders' Constitution, supra, at 651. As a direct consequence of this original power of the people to constitute a new government, the Congress under the new constitution was authorized to admit new states to join the original 13 states without submitting the admission of each state to the 13 original states. In like manner, the Charter of the United Nations, forged in the name of the `peoples' of those nations, established a new international government with independent powers to admit to membership whichever nations the United Nations governing authorities chose without submitting such admissions to each individual member nation for ratification. See Charter of the United Nations, Article 4, Section 2. No treaty could legitimately confer upon the United Nations General Assembly such powers and remain within the legal and political definition of a treaty. By invoking the name of the `peoples of the United Nations,' then, the Charter of the United Nations envisioned a new constitution creating a new civil order capable of not only imposing obligations upon the subscribing nations, but also imposing obligations directly upon the peoples of those nations. In his special contribution to the United Nations Human Development Report 2000, United Nations Secretary- General Annan made this claim crystal clear: Even though we are an organization of Member States, the rights and ideals the United Nations exists to protect are those of the peoples. No government has the right to hide behind national sovereignty in order to violate the human rights or fundamental freedoms of its peoples. Human Development Report 2000 31 (July 2000) [Emphasis added.] While no previous United Nations' secretary general has been so bold, Annan's proclamation of universal jurisdiction over `human rights and fundamental freedoms' simply reflects the preamble of the Charter of the United Nations which contemplated a future in which the United Nations operates in perpetuity `to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war . . . to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights . . . to establish conditions under which justice . . . can be maintained, and to promote social progress and between standards of life in larger freedom.' Such lofty goals and objectives are comparable to those found in the preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America: `to . . . establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the Blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity . . .' There is, however, one difference that must not be overlooked. The Constitution of the United States of America is a legitimate constitution, having been submitted directly to the people for ratification by their representatives elected and assembled solely for the purpose of passing on the terms of that document. The Charter of the United Nations, on the other hand, is an illegitimate constitution, having only been submitted to the Untied States Senate for ratification as a treaty. Thus, the Charter of the United Nations, not being a treaty, cannot be made the supreme law of our land by compliance with Article II, Section 2 of Constitution of the United States of America. Therefore, the Charter of the United Nations is neither politically nor legally binding upon the United States of America or upon its people.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to H.R. 743, the Social Security Protection Act. While this bill contains many provisions worthy of support, it also removes the only means by which many widowed Texas public school teachers can receive the same spousal social security benefits as every other American. As I am sure my colleagues are aware, widowed public school employees in Texas, like public employees throughout the nation, have their spousal social security reduced if they receive a government pension. The Government Pension Offset even applies if the public employee in question worked all the quarters necessary to qualify for full social security benefits either before or after working in the public school system! The effect of the Government Pension Offset is to punish people for teaching in public schools! However, current law provides widowed Texas public school teachers a means of collecting the full social security spousal benefits. Unfortunately, this bill removes that option from Texas teachers. Since I believe the Congress should repeal the Government Pension Offset by passing H.R. 524, which repeals both the Government Pension Offset and the Windfall Elimination Provision, another provision that denies public employees full social security benefits, I must oppose this bill. Instead of punishing public school teachers, Congress should be encouraging good people to enter the education profession by passing my Teacher Tax Cut Act (H.R. 613) which provides every teacher with a $1,000 tax credit, as well as my Professional Educators Tax Credit Act (H.R. 614), which provides a $1,000 tax credit to counselors, librarians, and all school personnel. Congress should also act to protect the integrity of the Social Security Trust Fund by passing my Social Security Preservation Act (H.R. 219), which ensures that Social Security monies are not spent on other programs. Congress should also pass my Social Security for American Citizens Only Act (H.R. 489), which ensures that noncitizens who have not worked the required number of quarters and illegal immigrants do not receive social security benefits.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk tonight about an economic myth. There is a myth that has been around a long time and that is that war benefits an economy. The argument goes that when a country is at war it will create jobs and creat economic growth. This is a myth. During the time of World War II and following, they claim that the Depression ended, finally ended with the start of the second world war. And this is not true either because a lot of men were drafted and put into the military. Unemployment rates obviously went down, but there was no improvement in the economy. Economic growth and really the ending of the Depression did not end until after World War II. So it is wrong to think there is an economic benefit coming from any kind of a war. There are a lot of shortcomings from a war. During wartime it is much more common to have inflation, and the money presses are running so we can expect inflation from the military build up and the possible war that we are facing. Also, during wartime there is a bigger challenge to the currency of that nation that is at war, and already we see that the dollar in the past year has been down 20 percent. Although there are many other reasons for a weak dollar, the war is contributing to the weakness in the dollar. Also, during wartime the country can expect that taxes will go up. I know we are talking about cutting taxes, and I am all for cutting taxes; but in real terms taxes will go up during wartime. And it is inevitable that deficits increase. And right now our deficits are exploding. Our national debt is going up nearly $500 billion per year at an analyzed rate. The other shortcoming economically of wartime is that funds, once they are either borrowed, inflated or taxed, once the government spends these, so much of this expenditure is overseas, and it takes away from domestic spending. So this is a strong negative for the domestic economy. Another thing that arises during wartime so often is the sentiment for protectionism and a weak economy, difficulties with currencies in wartime will really build an incentive for protectionists measures, and we are starting to see that, which I think is a danger. During wartime, trade is much more difficult; and so if a war comes, we can expect that even our trade balances might get much worse. There are a lot of subjective problems during wartime too. The first thing that goes is confidence. Confidence in general. Right now there is less confidence in the stock market and literally hundreds of billions of dollars lost in the stock market in the last year or two, again, due to other reasons; but the possibility of war contributes to this negative sentiment toward the stock market. It is hard to judge the future. Nobody can know the future because of the unintended consequences of war. We do not know how long the war will last. How much it will spread? So there are a lot of uncertainties about this. There is fear. Fear comes from the potential of war or during wartime and a lot of confusion. And unfortunately, also when wars are not fought for national security reasons, the popularity of the war is questioned, that this may alienate our allies. And I believe we are seeing some of that already. There is no doubt that during wartime the government expands in size and scope. And this of course is a great danger. And after war, the government rarely shrinks to its original size. It grows. It may shrink a little, but inevitably the size of the government grows and there is a tremendous incentive to increase the size and scope of government during wartime. This is a danger because when government gets bigger, the individual has to get smaller; therefore, it diminishes personal individual liberty. So these are the costs that we cannot ignore. We have the costs of the war. We have the cost of potential loss of life, but there is a tremendous economic cost that even the best economists could not calculate what this war may cost us. War should always be fought as the very, very last resort. It should never be done casually, and it should be done only when absolutely necessary. And when it is, I believe it should be fought to be won. It should be a declared war. It should be a war not fought under U.N. resolutions or for U.N. resolutions, but for the sovereignty and the safety and the security of this country. Under those conditions, it is explicit in our Constitution that only those wars that are fought in that manner should be declared by the Congress. And that is something that concerns me a whole lot because we have not declared a war outright since 1945; and if you look carefully, we have not won very many since then and wars tend to linger. We are lingering in Korea. That is a mess over there. We have been there for 58 years, have spent hundreds of billions of dollars, and we are still messed up because we went in there under U.N. resolutions and we did not fight to victory. The same with Persian Gulf War I. We went in there without a declaration of war. We went in there under the U.N., and we are still there and who knows how long we will be there. So there are a lot of costs, hidden costs and some are overt. But the greatest threat, the greatest cost to war is the threat to individual liberty. So I just caution my colleagues that we should move much more cautiously and hope and pray for peace.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, these words are from Frederic Bastiat's The Law. They are prophetic, not only in the way they describe legislators' attempts to transform society through socialized economic planning, but also in the analogy to the current moral issue before us today: human cloning. Human life begins at conception. This fact is not a matter of faith. Every contemporary textbook of human embryology teaches that the life of the new individual human being begins at fertilization. When an embryo is cloned, a distinct human being is created: if implanted into a woman's uterus, he or she grows into a human being. Those who deny the humanity of the ``embryo'' simply deny the facts. Today we see another instance of the legislator playing God, viewing himself as Bastiat's farmer or chemist. But human embryos are not just some ``seeds'' for the ``farmers'' to scatter! I ask those of you wishing to use taxpayer dollars to fund human cloning: Were you not once at this very stage of life? Is not each of you a developed embryo? And to those who view cloning and the accompanying destruction of humans at the embryonic stage of life as morally acceptable, I ask this, Are you aware that it took 277 attempts to clone Dolly the sheep, and when she finally was born, she was defective and died soon after? We must shudder to think of what this kind of experimentation implies for humans. Many ignore that a human is not cloned by simply waving a magic wand--rather, embryos are experimented upon and then discarded before a human is created via cloning. Many pro-lifers mistakenly attack the act of cloning, when what they should address is the discarding of humans at the embryonic stage of development that precedes the act of cloning. Today we have before us a bill that attempts to protect innocent human life from legislators wishing to exploit it. Though well intentioned, Congress does not have authority under the Constitution to create a federal law banning cloning and the accompanying destruction of human life. The separation and enumeration of powers reserves to the states and local governments the power to write and enforce laws that protect life. If this bill instead were introduced as a constitutional amendment banning the destruction and discarding of human embryos, it would both accomplish its purpose and, equally important, hold to the letter of the law. In Congress we can either pass an unconstitutional ban on cloning, or we can abide by the law and not pass the ban, as bureaucrats continue to have control over human cloning and use of taxpayer funds to destroy human life. These bureaucrats seem to have no difficulty violating the consciences of those who recognize cloning experimentation for what it is. What is to be done? I fear the answer to this question, and its implications, will continue to haunt us in the months and years to come, whether or not this federal ban on human cloning passes. Mr. Speaker, when we last considered this issue I placed the following statement in the Record and wish to do so once again. Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today we're being asked to choose between two options dealing with the controversies surrounding cloning and stem cell research. As an obstetrician gynecologist with 30 years of experience with strong pro-life convictions I find this debate regarding stem cell research and human cloning offtrack, dangerous, and missing some very important points. This debate is one of the most profound ethical issues of all times. It has moral, religious, legal, and ethical overtones. However, this debate is as must about process as it is the problem we are trying to solve. This dilemma demonstrates so clearly why difficult problems like this are made much more complex when we accept the notion that a powerful centralized state should provide the solution, while assuming it can be done precisely and without offending either side, which is a virtual impossibility. Centralized governments' solutions inevitably compound the problem we're trying to solve. The solution is always found to be offensive to those on the losing side of the debate. It requires that the loser contribute through tax payments to implement the particular program and ignores the unintended consequences that arise. Mistakes are nationalized when we depend on Presidential orders or a new federal law. The assumption that either one is capable of quickly resolving complex issues is unfounded. We are now obsessed with finding a quick fix for this difficult problem. Since federal funding has already been used to promote much of the research that has inspired cloning technology, no one can be sure that voluntary funds would have been spent in the same manner. There are many shortcomings of cloning and I predict there are more to come. Private funds may well have flowed much more slowly into this research than when the government/taxpayer does the funding. The notion that one person, i.e., the President, by issuing a President order can instantly stop or start major research is frightening. Likewise, the U.S. Congress is no more likely to do the right thing than the President by rushing to pass a new federal law. Political wisdom in dealing with highly charged and emotional issues is not likely to be found. The idea that the taxpayer must fund controversial decisions, whether it be stem cell research, or performing abortion overseas, I find repugnant. The original concept of the republic was much more suited to sort out the pros and cons of such a difficult issue. It did so with the issue of capital punishment. It did so, until 1973, with the issue of abortion. As with many other issues it has done the same but now unfortunately, most difficult problems are nationalized. Decentralized decision making and privatized funding would have gone a long way in preventing the highly charged emotional debate going on today regarding cloning and stem cell research. There is danger in a blanket national prohibition of some questionable research in an effort to protect what is perceived as legitimate research. Too often there are unintended consequences. National legalization of cloning and financing discredits life and insults those who are forced to pay. Even a national law prohibiting cloning legitimizes national approach that can later be used to undermine this original intent. This national approach rules out states from passing any meaningful legislation and regulation on these issues. There are some medical questions not yet resolved and careless legislation may impede legitimate research and use of fetal tissue. For instance, should a spontaneously aborted fetus, non-viable, not be used for stem cell research or organ transplant? Should a live fetus from an ectopic pregnancy removed and generally discarded not be used in research? How is a spontaneous abortion of an embryo or fetus different from an embryo conceived in a dish? Being pro-life and pro-research makes the question profound and I might say best not answered by political demagogues, executive orders or emotional hype. How do problems like this get resolved in a free society where government power is strictly limited and kept local? Not easily, and not perfectly, but I am confident it would be much better than through centralized and arbitrary authority initiated by politicians responding to emotional arguments. For a free society to function, the moral standards of the people are crucial. Personal morality, local laws, and medical ethics should prevail in dealing with a subject such as this. This law, the government, the bureaucrats, the politicians can't make the people more moral in making these judgments. Laws inevitably reflect the morality or immorality of the people. The Supreme Court did not usher in the 60s revolution that undermined the respect for all human life and liberty. Instead, the people's attitude of the 60s led to the Supreme Court Roe vs. Wade ruling in 1973 and contributed to a steady erosion of personal liberty. If a centralized government is incapable of doing the right thing, what happens when the people embrace immorality and offer no voluntary ethical approach to difficult questions such as cloning? The government then takes over and predictably makes things much worse. The government cannot instill morality in the people. An apathetic and immoral society inspires centralized, rigid answers while the many consequences to come are ignored. Unfortunately, once centralized government takes charge, the real victim becomes personal liberty. What can be done? The first step Congress should take is to stop all funding of research for cloning and other controversial issues. Obviously all research in a free society should be done privately, thus preventing this type of problem. If this policy were to be followed, instead of less funding being available for research, there would actually be more. Second, the President should issue no Executive Order because under the Constitution he does not have the authority either to promote or stop any particular research nor does the Congress. And third, there should be no sacrifice of life. Local law officials are responsible for protecting life or should not participate in its destruction. We should continue the ethical debate and hope that the medical leaders would voluntarily do the self-policing that is required in a moral society. Local laws, under the Constitution, could be written and the reasonable ones could then set the standard for the rest of the nation. This problem regarding cloning and stem cell research has been made much worse by the federal government involved, both by the pro and con forces in dealing with the federal government's involvement in embryonic research. The problem may be that a moral society does not exist, rather than a lack of federal laws or federal police. We need no more federal mandates to deal with difficult issues that for the most part were made worse by previous government mandates. If the problem is that our society lacks moral standards and governments can't impose moral standards, hardly will this effort to write more laws solve this perplexing and intriguing question regarding the cloning of a human being and stem cell research. Neither option offered today regarding cloning provides a satisfactory solution. Unfortunately, the real issue is being ignored.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support H. Con. Res. 36. Friends of human liberty should celebrate the end of slavery in any country. The end of American slavery is particularly worthy of recognition since there are few more blatant violations of America's founding principles, as expressed in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, than slavery. In order to give my colleagues, and all Americans, the opportunity to see what President Lincoln did and did not do, I am inserting the Emancipation Proclamation into the Record. While all Americans should be grateful that this country finally extinguished slavery following the Civil War, many scholars believe that the main issue in the Civil War was the proper balance of power between the states and the federal government. President Lincoln himself made it clear that his primary motivation was to preserve a strong central government. For example, in a letter to New York Tribune editor Horace Greeley in 1862, Lincoln said: ``My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union.'' In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I encourage all freedom-loving Americans to join me in celebrating the end of slavery. The Emancipation Proclamation By the President of the United States of America:

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, President Bush, Sr., proudly spoke of ``The New World Order,'' a term used by those who promote one-world government under the United Nations. In going to war in 1991, he sought and received U.N. authority to push Iraqi forces out of Kuwait. He forcefully stated that this U.N. authority was adequate and that although a congressional resolution was acceptable, it was entirely unnecessary and he would proceed regardless. At that time, there was no discussion regarding a congressional declaration of war. The first Persian Gulf War, therefore, was clearly a U.N. political war fought within U.N. guidelines, not for U.S. security; and it was not fought through to victory. The bombings, sanctions, and harassment of the Iraqi people have never stopped. We are now about to resume the act of fighting. Although this is referred to as the Second Persian Gulf War, it is merely a continuation of a war started long ago and is likely to continue for a long time, even after Saddam Hussein is removed from power. Our attitude toward the United Nations is quite different today compared to 1991. I have argued for years against our membership in the United Nations because it compromises our sovereignty. The U.S. has always been expected to pay an unfair percentage of U.N. expenses. I contend that membership in the United Nations has led to impractical military conflicts that were highly costly, both in lives and dollars, and that were rarely resolved. Our 58 years in Korea have seen 33,000 lives lost, 100,000 casualties and over $1 trillion in today's dollars spent. Korea is the most outrageous example of our fighting a U.N. war without a declaration from the U.S. Congress. And where are we today? On the verge of a nuclear confrontation with a North Korean regime nearly out of control. And to compound the irony, the South Koreans are intervening in hopes of diminishing the tensions that exist between the United States and North Korea. As bad as the Vietnam nightmare was, at least we left and the U.N. was not involved. We left in defeat and Vietnam remained a unified, Communist country. The results have been much more salutary. Vietnam is now essentially non-Communist and trade with the West is routine. We did not disarm Vietnam; we never counted their weapons; and so far, no one cares. Peaceful relations have developed between our two countries not by force of arms, but through trade and friendship. No United Nations, no war, and no inspections served us well, even after many decades of war and a million deaths inflicted on the Vietnamese in an effort by both the French and the United States to force them into compliance with Western demands. In this new battle with Iraq, our relationship with the United Nations and our allies is drawing a lot of attention. The administration now says it would be nice to have U.N. support, but it is not necessary. The President argues that a unilateralist approach is permissible with his understanding of national sovereignty, but no mention is made of the fact that the authority to go to war is not a U.N. prerogative and that such authority can only come from the U.S. Congress. Although the argument that the United Nations cannot dictate to us what is in our best interests is correct, and we do have a right to pursue foreign policy unilaterally, it is ironic that we are making this declaration in order to pursue an unpopular war that very few people or governments throughout the world support. But the argument for unilateralism and national sovereignty cannot be made for the purpose of enforcing U.N. security resolutions. That does not make any sense. If one wants to enforce U.N. Security Council resolutions, that authority can only come from the United Nations itself. We end up with the worst of both worlds, hated for our unilateralism, but still lending credibility to the United Nations. The Constitution makes it clear that if we must counter a threat to our security, that authority must come from the U.S. Congress. Those who believe, and many sincerely do, that the United Nations serves a useful function, argue that ignoring the United Nations at this juncture will surely make it irrelevant. Even with my opposition to the United Nations, I can hardly be pleased that its irrelevancy might come about because of our rush to war against a nation that has not aggressed against us nor poses any threat to us. From my viewpoint, the worst scenario would be for the United Nations to sanction this war, which may well occur if we offer enough U.S. taxpayer money and Iraqi oil to the reluctant countries. If that happens, we could be looking at another 58-year occupation, expanded Middle East chaos, or a dangerous spread of hostility to all of Asia or even further. With regard to foreign affairs, the best advice comes from our Founders and the Constitution. It is better to promote peace and commerce with all nations and exclude ourselves from the entangling alliances and complex, unworkable alliances that comes from our membership in the United Nations.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, as someone who has, my share of insolicited telemarketing calls, I sympahize fully with the concerns of the sponsors of the Do-Not-Call Implementation Act (HR 395). However, I would remind those who support federal intervention to ``put a stop'' to telemarketing on the basis of its annoyance, that the Constitution prohibits the federal government from interfering in the areas of advertising and communications. In addition to exceeding Congress' constitutional authority, legislation to regulate telemarketing would allow the government to intrude further into our personal lives. Our country's founders recognized the genius of severely limiting the role of government and reserving to the people extensive liberties, including the freedom to handle problems like this on the local level and through private institutions. The fact that the privately-run Direct Marketing Association is operating its own ``do-not-call'' list is evidence that consumers need not rely upon the national government to address the problems associated with telemarketers. Furthermore, many state public utility commissions have imposed regulations on telemarketers. Further regulation at the federal level will only result in a greater loss of liberty. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to take the constitutional course and oppose the Do-No-Call Implementation Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I must reluctantly vote against this measure. We can all agree that Libya is a ridiculous choice to head a human rights commission in any civilized organization. The State Department has long listed Libya on its list of states sponsoring terrorism. Libya has shown over the years that it has no respect whatsoever for human rights, when it comes to its dealings with the rest of the world or even its own citizens. Additionally, this election just underscores what I have been saying for years about the United Nations: it is an organization that undermines American sovereignty and consistently works against U.S. interests. The problem with this legislation, however, is that it pretends to be something it is not. It pretends to be simply a condemnation of the elevation of Libya to head the UN Commission on Human Rights. Were that the case I would have voted in favor of the measure. But unfortunately the legislation ventures off course from there. The legislation calls on the president to demand that sanctions against Libya be initiated anew, after they had already been suspended. I do not believe that sanctions have ever hurt a dictator or repressive regime. On the contrary, sanctions against an authoritarian regime only give the leaders a scapegoat for the sufferings of their people--while the leadership itself manages to avoid any hardship. Sanctions do not lead to the defeat of these kinds of regimes, but actually strengthen them. Cuba is an excellent example: the United States has maintained sanctions against that nation for four decades, but its dictator is stronger than ever. The best way to break the hold of dictatorship on a country is to engage and trade with that country. Trade with a repressive regime brings in goods and ideas that undermine the hold of the ruling elites on power. It breaks the monopolization on economic activity that characterizes a closed society and economic system. It weakens dictatorships and it enriches the population. Mr. Speaker, I join my fellow members in condemning Libya's election to chair the UN Human Rights Committee. I do not support sanctions, be they against Libya or any other country.