Ron Paul

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the gentleman's statement because it makes a very good point about fairness. Prior to the writing of the rule, I did make some requests about getting some time because as a Republican, I have strong constitutional reservations about what we are doing, and I think they are worthwhile hearing. That was turned down. It was not written into the rule; and of course the amendment that I offered that may have offered an opportunity for me to make these constitutional points, that also was declined. But I have been informed today that I would be allowed 3 minutes to make the case for the Constitution. I appreciate very much the gentleman bringing this up, and I hope our leadership will reconsider and allow Republicans on this side to have a fair share of the time, as the Democrats are doing.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. The wisdom of the war is one issue, but the process and the philosophy behind our foreign policy are important issues as well. But I have come to the conclusion that I see no threat to our national security. There is no convincing evidence that Iraq is capable of threatening the security of this country, and, therefore, very little reason, if any, to pursue a war. But I am very interested also in the process that we are pursuing. This is not a resolution to declare war. We know that. This is a resolution that does something much different. This resolution transfers the responsibility, the authority, and the power of the Congress to the President so he can declare war when and if he wants to. He has not even indicated that he wants to go to war or has to go to war; but he will make the full decision, not the Congress, not the people through the Congress of this country in that manner. It does something else, though. One-half of the resolution delivers this power to the President, but it also instructs him to enforce U.N. resolutions. I happen to think I would rather listen to the President when he talks about unilateralism and national security interests, than accept this responsibility to follow all of the rules and the dictates of the United Nations. That is what this resolution does. It instructs him to follow all of the resolutions. But an important aspect of the philosophy and the policy we are endorsing here is the preemption doctrine. This should not be passed off lightly. It has been done to some degree in the past, but never been put into law that we will preemptively strike another nation that has not attacked us. No matter what the arguments may be, this policy is new; and it will have ramifications for our future, and it will have ramifications for the future of the world because other countries will adopt this same philosophy. I also want to mention very briefly something that has essentially never been brought up. For more than a thousand years there has been a doctrine and Christian definition of what a just war is all about. I think this effort and this plan to go to war comes up short of that doctrine. First, it says that there has to be an act of aggression; and there has not been an act of aggression against the United States. We are 6,000 miles from their shores. Also, it says that all efforts at negotiations must be exhausted. I do not believe that is the case. It seems to me like the opposition, the enemy, right now is begging for more negotiations. Also, the Christian doctrine says that the proper authority must be responsible for initiating the war. I do not believe that proper authority can be transferred to the President nor to the United Nations. But a very practical reason why I have a great deal of reservations has to do with the issue of no-win wars that we have been involved in for so long. Once we give up our responsibilities from here in the House and the Senate to make these decisions, it seems that we depend on the United Nations for our instructions; and that is why, as a Member earlier indicated, essentially we are already at war. That is correct. We are still in the Persian Gulf War. We have been bombing for 12 years, and the reason President Bush, Sr., did not go all the way? He said the U.N. did not give him permission to. My argument is when we go to war through the back door, we are more likely to have the wars last longer and not have resolution of the wars, such as we had in Korea and Vietnam. We ought to consider this very seriously. Also it is said we are wrong about the act of aggression, there has been an act of aggression against us because Saddam Hussein has shot at our airplanes. The fact that he has missed every single airplane for 12 years, and tens of thousands of sorties have been flown, indicates the strength of our enemy, an impoverished, Third World nation that does not have an air force, anti-aircraft weapons, or a navy. But the indication is because he shot at us, therefore, it is an act of aggression. However, what is cited as the reason for us flying over the no-fly zone comes from U.N. Resolution 688, which instructs us and all the nations to contribute to humanitarian relief in the Kurdish and the Shiite areas. It says nothing about no-fly zones, and it says nothing about bombing missions over Iraq. So to declare that we have been attacked, I do not believe for a minute that this fulfills the requirement that we are retaliating against aggression by this country. There is a need for us to assume responsibility for the declaration of war, and also to prepare the American people for the taxes that will be raised and the possibility of a military draft which may well come. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution, which regardless of what many have tried to claim will lead us into war with Iraq. This resolution is not a declaration of war, however, and that is an important point: this resolution transfers the Constitutionally- mandated Congressional authority to declare wars to the executive branch. This resolution tells the President that he alone has the authority to determine when, where, why, and how war will be declared. It merely asks the President to pay us a courtesy call a couple of days after the bombing starts to let us know what is going on. This is exactly what our Founding Fathers cautioned against when crafting our form of government: most had just left behind a monarchy where the power to declare war rested in one individual. It is this they most wished to avoid. As James Madison wrote in 1798, ``The Constitution supposes what the history of all governments demonstrates, that the executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has, accordingly, with studied care, vested the question of war in the legislature.'' Some--even some in this body--have claimed that this Constitutional requirement is an anachronism, and that those who insist on following the founding legal document of this country are just being frivolous. I could not disagree more. Madam Speaker, for the more than one dozen years I have spent as a federal legislator I have taken a particular interest in foreign affairs and especially the politics of the Middle East. From my seat on the international relations committee I have had the opportunity to review dozens of documents and to sit through numerous hearings and mark-up sessions regarding the issues of both Iraq and international terrorism. Back in 1997 and 1998 I publicly spoke out against the actions of the Clinton Administration, which I believed was moving us once again toward war with Iraq. I believe the genesis of our current policy was unfortunately being set at that time. Indeed, many of the same voices who then demanded that the Clinton Administration attack Iraq are now demanding that the Bush Administration attack Iraq. It is unfortunate that these individuals are using the tragedy of September 11, 2001 as cover to force their long-standing desire to see an American invasion of Iraq. Despite all of the information to which I have access, I remain very skeptical that the nation of Iraq poses a serious and imminent terrorist threat to the United States. If I were convinced of such a threat I would support going to war, as I did when I supported President Bush by voting to give him both the authority and the necessary funding to fight the war on terror. Further Background/Points on H.J. Res. 114 and Iraq, 8 October 2002 Claim: Iraq has consistently demonstrated its willingness to use force against the U.S. through its firing on our planes patrolling the UN-established ``no-fly zones.'' Reality: The ``no-fly zones'' were never authorized by the United Nations, nor was their 12 year patrol by American and British fighter planes sanctioned by the United Nations. Under UN Security Council Resolution 688 (April, 1991), Iraq's repression of the Kurds and Shi'ites was condemned, but there was no authorization for ``no-fly zones,'' much less airstrikes. The resolution only calls for member states to ``contribute to humanitarian relief'' in the Kurd and Shi'ite areas. Yet the U.S. and British have been bombing Iraq in the ``no-fly zones'' for 12 years. While one can only condemn any country firing on our pilots, isn't the real argument whether we should continue to bomb Iraq relentlessly? Just since 1998, some 40,000 sorties have been flown over Iraq. Claim: Iraq is an international sponsor of terrorism. Reality: According to the latest edition of the State Department's Patterns of Global Terrorism, Iraq sponsors several minor Palestinian groups, the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), and the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK). None of these carries out attacks against the United States. As a matter of fact, the MEK (an Iranian organization located in Iraq) has enjoyed broad Congressional support over the years. According to last year's Patterns of Global Terrorism, Iraq has not been involved in terrorist activity against the West since 1993--the alleged attempt against former President Bush. Claim: Iraq tried to assassinate President Bush in 1993. Reality: It is far from certain that Iraq was behind the attack. News reports at the time were skeptical about Kuwaiti assertions that the attack was planned by Iraq against fmr President Bush. Following is an interesting quote from Seymore Hersh's article from Nov. 1993: Three years ago, during Iraq's six-month occupation of Kuwait, there had been an outcry when a teen-age Kuwaiti girl testified eloquently and effectively before Congress about Iraqi atrocities involving newborn infants. The girl turned out to be the daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador to Washington, Sheikh Saud Nasir al-Sabah, and her account of Iraqi soldiers flinging babies out of incubators was challenged as exaggerated both by journalists and by human- rights groups. (Sheikh Saud was subsequently named Minister of Information in Kuwait, and he was the government official in charge of briefing the international press on the alleged assassination attempt against George Bush.) In a second incident, in August of 1991, Kuwait provoked a special session of the United Nations Security Council by claiming that twelve Iraqi vessels, including a speedboat, had been involved in an attempt to assault Bubiyan Island, long-disputed territory that was then under Kuwaiti control. The Security Council eventually concluded that, while the Iraqis had been provocative, there had been no Iraqi military raid, and that the Kuwaiti government knew there hadn't. What did take place was nothing more than a smuggler-versus-smuggler dispute over war booty in a nearby demilitarized zone that had emerged, after the Gulf War, as an illegal marketplace for alcohol, ammunition, and livestock. This establishes that on several occasions Kuwait has lied about the threat from Iraq. Hersh goes on to point out in the article numerous other times the Kuwaitis lied to the US and the UN about Iraq. Her is another good quote from Hersh: The President was not alone in his caution. Janet Reno, the Attorney General, also had her doubts. ``The A.G. remains skeptical of certain aspects of the case,'' a senior Justice Department official told me in late July, a month after the bombs were dropped on Baghdad. . . . Two weeks later, what amounted to open warfare broke out among various factions in the government on the issue of who had done what in Kuwait. Someone gave a Boston Glove reporter access to a classified C.I.A. study that was highly skeptical of the Kuwaiti claims of an Iraqi assassination attempt. The study, prepared by the C.I.A.'s Counter Terrorism Center, suggested that Kuwait might have ``cooked the books'' on the alleged plot in an effort to play up the ``continuing Iraqi threat'' to Western interests in the Persian Gulf. Neither the Times nor the Post made any significant mention of the Glove dispatch, which had been written by a Washington correspondent named Paul Quinn- Judge, although the story cited specific paragraphs from the C.I.A. assessment. The two major American newspapers had been driven by their source to the other side of the debate. At the very least, the case against Iraq for the alleged bomb threat is not conclusive. Claim: Saddam Hussein will use weapons of mass destruction against us--he has already used them against his own people (the Kurds in 1988 in the village of Halabja). Reality: it is far from certain that Iraq used chemical weapons against the Kurds. It may be accepted as conventional wisdom in these times, but back when it was first claimed there was great skepticism. The evidence is far from conclusive. A 1990 study by the Strategic Studies Institutes of the U.S. Army War College cast great doubts on the claim that Iraq used chemical weapons on the Kurds. Following are the two gassing incidents as described in the report: In September 1988, however--a month after the war (between Iran and Iraq) had ended--the State Department abruptly, and in what many viewed as a sensational manner, condemned Iraq for allegedly using chemicals against its Kurdish population. The incident cannot be understood without some background of Iraq's relations with the Kurds . . . throughout the war Iraq effectively faced two enemies--Iran and elements of its own Kurdish minority. Significant numbers of the Kurds had launched a revolt against Baghdad and in the process teamed up with Tehran. As soon as the war with Iran ended, Iraq announced its determination to crush the Kurdish insurrection. It sent Republican Guards to the Kurdish area, and in the course of the operation--according to the U.S. State Department--gas was used, with the result that numerous Kurdish civilians were killed. The Iraqi government denied that any such gassing had occurred. Nonetheless, Secretary of State Schultz stood by U.S. accusations, and the U.S. Congress, acting on its own, sought to impose economic sanctions on Baghdad as a violator of the Kurds' human rights. Having looked at all the evidence that was available to us, we find it impossible to confirm the State Department's claim that gas was used in this instance. To begin with. There were never any victims produced. International relief organizations who examined the Kurds--in Turkey where they had gone for asylum--failed to discover any. Nor were there ever any found inside Iraq. The claim rests solely on testimony of the Kurds who had crossed the border into Turkey, where they were interviewed by staffers of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. . . . It appears that in seeking to punish Iraq, the Congress was influenced by another incident that occurred five months earlier in another Iraqi-Kurdish city, Halabjah. In March 1988, the Kurds at Halabjah were bombarded with chemical weapons, producing many deaths. Photographs of the Kurdish victims were widely disseminated in the international media. Iraq was blamed for the Halabjah attack, even though it was subsequently brought out that Iran too had used chemicals in this operation and it seemed likely that it was the Iranian bombardment that had actually killed the Kurds. Thus, in our view, the Congress acted more on the basis of emotionalism that factual information, and without sufficient thought for the adverse diplomatic effect of its action. Claim: Iraq must be attached because it has ignored UN Security Council resolutions--these resolutions must be backed up by the use of force. Reality: Iraq is but one of the many countries that have not complied with UN Security Council resolutions. In addition to the dozen or so resolutions currently being violated by Iraq, a conservative estimate reveals that there are an additional 91 Security Council resolutions by countries other than Iraq that are also currently being violated. Adding in older resolutions that were violated would mean easily more than 200 UN Security Council resolutions have been violated with total impunity. Countries currently in violation include: Israel, Turkey, Morocco, Croatia, Armenia, Russia, Sudan, Turkey-controlled Cyprus, India, Pakistan, Indonesia. None of these countries have been threatened with force over their violations. Claim: Iraq has anthrax and other chemical and biological agents. Reality: That may be true. However, according to UNSCOM's chief weapons inspector 90-95 percent of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons and capabilities were destroyed by 1998; those that remained have likely degraded in the intervening four year and are likely useless. A 1994 Senate Banking Committee hearing revealed some 74 shipments of deadly chemical and biological agents from the U.S. to Iraq in the 1980s. As one recent press report stated: One 1986 shipment from the Virginia-based American Type Culture Collection included three strains of anthrax, six strains of the bacteria that make botulinum toxin and three strains of bacteria that cause gas gangrene. Iraq later admitted to the United Nations that it had made weapons out of all three . . . The CDC, meanwhile, sent shipments of germs to the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission and other agencies involved in Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. It sent samples in 1986 of botulinum toxin and botulinum toxoid--used to make vaccines against botulinum toxin--directly to the Iraqi chemical and biological weapons complex at al-Muthanna, the records show. These were sent while the United States was supporting Iraq covertly in its war against Iran. U.S. assistance to Iraq in that war also included covertly-delivered intelligence on Iranian troop movements and other assistance. This is just another example of our policy of interventionism in affairs that do not concern us--and how this interventionism nearly always ends up causing harm to the United States. Claim: The president claimed last night that: ``Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles; far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey and other nations in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work.'' Reality: Then why is only Israel talking about the need for the U.S. to attack Iraq? None of the other countries seem concerned at all. Also, the fact that some 135,000 Americans in the area are under threat from these alleged missiles is just makes the point that it is time to bring our troops home to defend our own country. Claim: Iraq harbors al-Qaeda and other terrorists. Reality: The administration has claimed that some Al-Qaeda elements have been present in Northern Iraq. This is territory controlled by the Kurds--who are our allies--and is patrolled by U.S. and British fighter aircraft. Moreover, dozens of countries--including Iran and the United States-- are said to have al-Qaeda members on their territory. Other terrorists allegedly harbored by Iraq, all are affiliated with Palestinian causes and do not attack the United States. Claim: President Bush said in his speech on 7 October 2002: ``Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear weapon. Well, we don't know exactly, and that's the problem . . .'' Reality: An admission of a lack of information is justification for an attack? Also worth mention: President Bush claimed that our deposing Saddam Hussein . . .

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Shrimp Importation Financing Fairness Act. This bill aids America's struggling domestic shrimping industry by placing a moratorium on restrictive regulations affecting the shrimping industry. This bill also prevents tax dollars from going to the domestic shrimping industry's major foreign competitors. The United States domestic shrimping industry is a vital social and economic force in many coastal communities across the United States, including several in my congressional district. A thriving shrimping industry benefits not only those who own and operate shrimp boats, but also food processors, hotels and restaurants, grocery stores, and all those who work in and service these industries. Shrimping also serves as a key source of safe domestic foods at a time when the nation is engaged in hostilities abroad. Given the importance of a strong shrimping industry to so many Americans, it seems strange that the federal government continues to burden shrimpers with excessive regulations. For example, the federal government has imposed costly regulations on this industry dealing with usage of items such as by catch reduction devices and turtle excluder devices (TEDS). The mandatory use of these devices results in a significant reduction in the amount of shrimp caught by domestic shrimpers, thus damaging their competitive position and market share. Many members of Congress have let the National Marine Fisheries Service, which is the lead federal agency with responsibility to regulate the domestic shrimp industry, know of their displeasure with the unreasonable regulatory burden imposed upon the industry. In response, the agency recently held briefings with House and Senate staffers as well as industry representatives to discuss how the agency's actions are harming shrimpers. However, even after hearing first-hand testimony from industry representatives and representatives of communities whose economies rely on a thriving shrimping industry, the agency refuses to refrain from placing regulatory encumbrances upon the domestic shrimping industry. Therefore it is up to Congress to protect this industry from overzealous regulators. The Shrimp Importation Financing Fairness Act provides this protection by placing an indefinite moratorium on all future restrictive regulations on the shrimping industry. Seven foreign countries (Thailand, Vietnam, India, China, Ecuador, Indonesia, and Brazil) have taken advantage of the domestic shrimping industry's government-created vulnerabilities. These countries have each exported in excess of 20,000,000 pounds of shrimp to the United States in the first 6 months of this year. These seven countries account for nearly 70 percent of all shrimp consumed in the United States in the first six months of this year and nearly 80 percent of all shrimp imported to this country in the same period! Adding insult to injury the federal government is forcing American shrimpers to subsidize their competitors! In the last three years, the United States Government has provided more than $1,800,000,000 in financing and insurance for these foreign countries through the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC). Furthermore, the U.S. current exposure relative to these countries through the Export-Import Bank totals some $14,800,000,000. Thus, the United States taxpayer is providing a total subsidy of $16,500,000,000 to the home countries of the leading foreign competitors of American shrimpers! Of course, the American taxpayer could be forced to shovel more money to these countries through the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Many of the countries in question do not have free-market economics. Thus, the participation of these countries in United States-supported international financial regimes amounts to a direct subsidy by American shrimpers to their international competitors. In any case, providing aid to any of these countries indirectly grants benefits to foreign shrimpers because of the fungibility of money. In order to ensure that American shrimpers are not forced to subsidize their competitors, the Shrimp Importation Financing Fairness Act ends all Export-Import and OPIC subsidizes to the seven countries who imported more than 20 million pounds of shrimp in the first six months of 2002. The bill also reduces America's contribution to the IMF by America's pro rata share of any IMF aid provided to one of those seven countries. Mr. Speaker, it is time for Congress to reign in regulation-happy bureaucrats and stop subsidizing the domestic shrimping industries' leading competitors. Otherwise, the government-manufactured depression in the price of shrimp will decimate the domestic shrimping industry and the communities whose economies depend on this industry. I, therefore, hope all my colleagues will stand up for shrimpers by cosponsoring the Shrimp Importation Financing Fairness Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to give taxpayers the power to prevent their tax dollars from subsidizing illegal activity by introducing the Truth in Financing Act. Hard as my colleagues may find it to believe, groups which violate federal and state laws, or make misrepresentations when filing for federal grants, continue to receive federal tax dollars. For example, according to information obtained by my office, federal bureaucrats are giving taxpayer funds to groups which routinely flaunt laws requiring that cases of statutory rape and child molestation be reported to the relevant authorities. In order to insure that taxpayers are not subsidizing this type of unconscionable and illegal behavior, the Truth in Financing Act forbids federal funds from going to anyone who violates a federal law, regulation, or state or local law punishable by 6 months imprisonment or a fine of at least $5,000. The prohibition would also apply to those who aid or abet serious criminal activity, or who lie on an application for federal funds. Most importantly, the Truth in Financing Act allows any U.S. citizen to use the courts to force federal officials to cut off funds from those who violate the law. No longer will taxpayers have to sit silently by while federal bureaucrats shovel money to those who flaunt the laws of this country. Providing federal funds to those who engage in illegal behavior undermines the rule of law and forces taxpayers to fund illegal behavior. If federal bureaucrats will not act to prevent taxpayer funds from going to organizations that violate the laws, then Congress has no choice but to give taxpayers the power to stop this outrage. I hope my colleagues will stand up for the rule of law and the American taxpayer by cosponsoring the Truth in Financing Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the last time Congress declared war was on December 11, 1941, against Germany in response to its formal declaration of war against the United States. This was accomplished with wording that took less than one-third of a page, without any nitpicking arguments over precise language, yet it was a clear declaration of who the enemy was and what had to be done. And in 3\1/2\ years, this was accomplished. A similar resolve came from the declaration of war against Japan 3 days earlier. Likewise, a clear-cut victory was achieved against Japan. Many Americans have been forced into war since that time on numerous occasions, with no congressional declaration of war and with essentially no victories. Today's world political condition is as chaotic as ever. We're still in Korea and we're still fighting the Persian Gulf war that started in 1990. The process for our entering war the past 57 years and the inconclusive results of each war since that time are obviously related to Congress' abdication of its responsibility regarding war, given to it by article I section 8 of the Constitution. Congress has either ignored its responsibility entirely over these years, or transferred the war power to the executive branch by a near majority vote of its Members, without consideration of it by the States as an amendment required by the Constitution. Congress is about to circumvent the Constitution and avoid the tough decision of whether war should be declared by transferring this monumental decisionmaking power regarding war to the President. Once again, the process is being abused. Odds are, since a clear-cut decision and commitment by the people through their Representatives are not being made, the results will be as murky as before. We will be required to follow the confusing dictates of the U.N., since that is where the ultimate authority to invade Iraq is coming from--rather than from the American people and the U.S. Constitution. Controversial language is being highly debated in an effort to satisfy political constituencies and for Congress to avoid responsibility of whether to go to war. So far the proposed resolution never mentions war, only empowering the President to use force at his will to bring about peace. Rather strange language indeed! A declaration of war limits the presidential powers, narrows the focus and implies a precise end point to the conflict. A declaration of war makes Congress assume the responsibilities directed by the Constitution for this very important decision, rather than assume that if the major decision is left to the President and a poor results occurs, it will be his fault, not that of Congress. Hiding behind the transfer of the war power to the executive through the War Powers Resolution of 1973 will hardly suffice. However, the modern way we go to war is even more complex and deceptive. We must also write language that satisfies the U.N. and all our allies. Congress gladly transfers the legislative prerogatives to declare war to the President, and the legislative and the executive branch both acquiesce in transferring our sovereign rights to the U.N., an unelected international government. No wonder the language of the resolution grows in length and incorporates justification for starting this war by citing U.N. resolutions. In order to get more of what we want from the United Nations, we rejoined UNESCO, which Ronald Reagan had bravely gotten us out of, and promised millions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer support to run this international agency started by Sir Julian Huxley. In addition, we read of promises by our administration that one we control Iraqi oil, it will be available for allies like France and Russia, who have been reluctant to join our efforts. What a difference from the days when a declaration of war was clean and precise and accomplished by a responsible Congress and an informed people. A great irony of all this is that the United Nations Charter doesn't permit declaring war, especially against a nation that has been in a state of peace for 12 years. The U.N. can only declare peace. Remember, it wasn't a war in Korea; it was only a police action to bring about peace. But at least in Korea and Vietnam, there was fighting going on, so it was a bit easier to stretch the language than it is today regarding Iraq. Since Iraq doesn't even have an Air Force or a Navy, is incapable of waging a war, and remains defenseless against the overwhelming powers of the United States and the British, it's difficult to claim that we're going into Iraq to restore peace. History will eventually show that if we launch this attack--just as our sanctions already have--the real victims will be the innocent Iraqi civilians who despise Saddam Hussein and are terrified of the coming bombs that will destroy their cities. The greatest beneficiaries of the attack may well be Osama bin Ladin and the al Qaeda. Some in the media have already suggested that the al Qaeda may be encouraging the whole event. Some unintended consequences do occur, what will come from this attack is still entirely unknown. It's a well-known fact that the al Qaeda are not allies of Saddam Hussein and despise the secularization and partial westernization of Iraqi culture. They would welcome the chaos that's about to come. This will give them a chance to influence post-Saddam-Hussein Iraq. The attack, many believe, will confirm to the Arab world that indeed the Christian West has once again attacked the Muslim East, providing radical fundamentalists a tremendous boost for recruitment. An up or down vote on declaring war against Iraq would not pass the Congress, and the President has no intention of asking for it. This is unfortunate, because if the process were carried out in a constitutional fashion, the American people and the U.S. Congress would vote No on assuming responsibility for this war. Transferring authority to wage war, calling it permission to use force to fight for peace in order to satisfy the U.N. Charter, which replaces article I, section 8 war power provision, is about as close to 1984 ``newspeak'' that we will ever get in the real world. Not only is it sad that we have gone so far astray from our Constitution, but it's also dangerous for world peace and threatens our liberties here at home.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Television Consumer Freedom Act, legislation repealing regulations that interfere with a consumer’s ability to avail themselves of desired television programming. My office has received numerous calls from rural satellite and cable TV customers who are upset because their satellite or cable service providers have informed them that they will lose access to certain network television programs and/or cable networks. The reason my constituents cannot obtain their desired satellite and cable services is that the satellite and cable “marketplace” is fraught with government interventionism at every level. Cable companies have historically been granted franchises of monopoly privilege at the local level. Government has previously intervened to invalidate “exclusive dealings” contracts between private parties, namely cable service providers and program creators, and has most recently assumed the role of price setter. The Library of Congress has even been delegated the power to determine prices at which program suppliers must make their programs available to cable and satellite programming service providers. It is, of course, within the constitutionally enumerated powers of Congress to “promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.” However, operating a clearing-house for the subsequent transfer of such property rights in the name of setting a just price or “instilling competition” via “central planning” seems not to be an economically prudent nor justifiable action under this enumerated power. This process is one best reserved to the competitive marketplace. Government's attempt to set the just price for satellite programming outside the market mechanism is inherently impossible. This has resulted in competition among service providers for government privilege rather than the consumer benefits inherent to the genuine free market. Currently, while federal regulation does leave satellite programming service providers free to bypass the governmental royalty distribution scheme and negotiate directly with owners of programming for program rights, there is a federal prohibition on satellite service providers making local network affiliates’ programs available to nearby satellite subscribers. This bill repeals that federal prohibition and allows satellite service providers to more freely negotiate with program owners for programming desired by satellite service subscribers. Technology is now available by which viewers will be able to view network programs via satellite as presented by their nearest network affiliate. This market-generated technology will remove a major stumbling block to negotiations that should currently be taking place between network program owners and satellite service providers. This bill also repeals federal laws that force cable companies to carry certain programs. These federal “must carry” mandates deny cable companies the ability to provide the programming desired by their customers. Decisions about what programming to carry on a cable system should be made by consumers, not federal bureaucrats. Mr. Speaker, the federal government should not interfere with a consumer's ability to purchase services such as satellite or cable television in the free market. I therefore urge my colleagues to take a step toward restoring freedom by cosponsoring my Television Consumer Freedom Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 556 limits the ability of individual citizens to use bank instruments, including credit cards or checks, to finance Internet gambling. This legislation should be rejected by Congress since the federal government has no constitutional authority to ban or even discourage any form of gambling. In addition to being unconstitutional, H.R. 556 is likely to prove ineffective at ending Internet gambling. Instead, this bill will ensure that gambling is controlled by organized crime. History, from the failed experiment of prohibition to today's futile ``war on drugs,'' shows that the government cannot eliminate demand for something like Internet gambling simply by passing a law. Instead, H.R. 556 will force those who wish to gamble over the Internet to patronize suppliers willing to flaunt the ban. In many cases, providers of services banned by the government will be members of criminal organizations. Even if organized crime does not operate Internet gambling enterprises their competitors are likely to be controlled by organized crime. After all, since the owners and patrons of Internet gambling cannot rely on the police and courts to enforce contracts and resolve other disputes, they will be forced to rely on members of organized crime to perform those functions. Thus, the profits of Internet gambling will flow into organized crime. Furthermore, outlawing an activity will raise the price vendors are able to charge consumers, thus increasing the profits flowing to organized crime from Internet gambling. It is bitterly ironic that a bill masquerading as an attack on crime will actually increase organized crime's ability to control and profit from Internet gambling. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 556 violates the constitutional limits on federal power. Furthermore, laws such as H.R. 556 are ineffective in eliminating the demand for vices such as Internet gambling; instead, they ensure that these enterprises will be controlled by organized crime. Therefore I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 556, the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the ``Say `No' to UNESCO'' act. This bill expresses the sense of the Congress that the United States should not rejoin the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Mr. Speaker, in 1984 President Ronald Reagan withdrew the United States from membership in that UNESCO, citing egregious financial mis- management, blatant anti-Americanism, and UNESCO's general anti-freedom policies. President Reagan was correct in identifying UNESCO as an organization that does not act in America's interest, and he was correct in questioning why the United States should fund 25 percent of UNESCO's budget for that privilege. Those calling for the United States to rejoin UNESCO claim that the organization has undertaken fundamental reforms and therefore the United States should re-join. It is strange that in the 18 years since the United States left UNESCO, we only started reading about the beginnings of reform in the year 2000. Are we to believe that after nearly two decades of no change in UNESCO's way of mis-managing itself things have changed so much in just two years? Is it worth spending $60 million dollars per year on an organization with such a terrible history of waste, corruption, and anti-Americanism? Mr. Speaker, even if UNESCO has been ``reforming'' its finances over the past two years, its programmatic activities are still enough to cause great concern among those of us who value American sovereignty and honor our Constitution. Consider the following as a partial list of UNESCO's ongoing highly questionable activities: UNESCO meddles in the education affairs of its member-countries and has sought to construct a UN-based school curriculum for American schools. UNESCO has been fully supportive of the United Nations' Population Fund (UNFPA) in its assistance to China's brutal coercive population control program. UNESCO has designated 47 U.N. Biosphere Reserves in the United States covering more than 70 million acres, without Congressional consultation. UNESCO effectively bypasses Congressional authority to manage federal lands, by establishing management policies without Congressional consultation of approval. Mr. Speaker, I hope all members of this body will join me in opposing renewed United States membership in the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization by co-sponsoring the ``Say `No' to UNESCO'' act.

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 woman unable to find a qualified obstetrician in their city. Therefore, I am pleased to see Congress address this problem. However this bill raises several question 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. 4600 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, but will certainly benefit the patients and physicians which both sides in this debate claim to represent. H.R. 4600 does contain some positive elements. For example, the language limiting joint and several liability to the percentage of damage someone actually caused, is a reform I have long championed. However, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4600 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. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, by imposing uniform laws on the states, Congress is preventing the states from creating innovative solutions to the malpractice problems. The current governor of my own state of Texas has introduced a far reaching medical litigation reform plan that the Texas state legislature will consider in January. However, if H.R. 4600 becomes law, Texans will be deprived of the opportunity to address the malpractice crisis in the way that meets their needs. Ironically, H.R. 4600 actually increases the risk of frivolous litigation in Texas by lengthening the statute 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. 4600 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. 4600 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 not reason who questions of the assessment of liability and compensation cannot be determined by a private contractual agreement between physicians and patients. I am working on legislation to provide 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 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 recent losses in the stock market. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I support the efforts of the sponsors of H.R. 4600 to address the crisis in health care caused by excessive malpractice litigation and insurance premiums, I cannot support this bill. H.R. 4600 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, a casual analysis of the world economy shows it rapidly deteriorating into recession, with a possible depression on the horizon. Unemployment is sharply rising with price inflation rampant, despite official government inflationary reports. The world's stock markets continue to collapse, even after trillions of dollars in losses have been recorded in the past 2 years. These losses already have set historic records. With government revenues shrinking at all levels, we find deficits exploding. Our national debt is currently rising at a $450 billion per year. Confidence in corporate America has shrunk to levels usually reserved for governments alone. Government spending in all areas is skyrocketing, much of it out of the control of the politicians, who show little concern. Yet we are expected to believe our government leaders who say that we are experiencing a recovery and that a return to grand prosperity is just around the corner. The absence of capital formation, savings and corporate profits are totally ignored. Evidence abounds that our $350 billion DOD budget and the $40 billion spent on intelligence gathering and our immigration policies have failed miserably in protecting our homeland. In spite of the rhetoric and new legislation attacking our civil liberties, we are as vulnerable to outside attack as before. Our military is drastically smaller than a decade ago, and we are spread around the world and involved in world conflicts more than we have ever been before. We have run a huge current account deficit for 15 years and massively expanded our money supply. No one should be surprised that the dollar is weakening and the commodity, natural resources and precious metal prices are rising. Oil prices are over $31 a barrel, and predictions are that they can easily go up another $15 to $20 if international tensions grow. But the only talk here in the Nation's Capital is about when, not if, we must initiate a war that even the administration admits could cost $200 billion. Some are not even embarrassed to gloat about the political benefits for those who preach war over those who prefer negotiations, diplomacy and containment. The fact that the Arab nations are overwhelmingly opposed to an attack on Iraq and are joined by the European Community is of no concern to those who demand war regardless of any circumstance. Eighty percent of the American people now report that they believe that a war with Iraq will increase the chances of our suffering from a new terrorist attack. If this is true, we become less secure with an attack on Iraq, since little has been done to correct the deficiencies in the intelligence gathering agencies and our immigration policies. No credible evidence has been produced that Iraq has or is close to having nuclear weapons. No evidence exists to show that Iraq harbors al Qaeda terrorists. Quite to the contrary, experts on this region recognize Hussein as an enemy of the al Qaeda and a foe to Islamic fundamentalism. Many other nations pose much greater threats to world peace. Yet no one is clamoring for war against them. Saddam Hussein is now weaker than ever. Reports are now appearing that we are negotiating with allies to share in the oil bounty once Iraq is occupied in order to get support for our invasion from various countries around the world. Our national debt is over $6 trillion and is increasing by nearly half a trillion dollars a year. Since Social Security funds are all placed in the general revenues and spent and all funds are fungible, honest accounting, of which there has been a shortage lately, dictates that a $200 billion war must jeopardize Social Security funding. This is something the American people deserve to know. Since there are limits to borrowing and taxing, but no limits to the Fed printing money to cover our deficit, we can be assured this will occur. This guarantees that Social Security checks will never stop coming, but it also guarantees that the dollars that all retired people receive will buy less. We have already seen this happening in providing medical services. A cheap dollar; that is, an inflated dollar, is a sinister and deceitful way of cutting benefits. Rest assured, a $200 billion hit on the economy will have economic consequences, and the elderly retirees on fixed incomes, and especially Social Security beneficiaries, will suffer the greatest burden of policy, reflecting a belief that our country is so rich that it can afford both guns and butter. Remember, we have tried that before. The tragedy is that once the flaw in policy is discovered, it is too late to prevent the pain and suffering, and only finger pointing occurs. Now is the only time we can give serious attention to the true cost of assuming the burden of an endless task of being the world's policeman and starting wars that have nothing to do with defense or national security. A nation suffering from recession can ill afford a foreign policy that encourages unnecessary military action that will run up huge deficits. Congress ought to pause a moment, and carefully contemplate the consequences of the decisions we are about to make in the coming days.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1701, the Consumer Rental Purchase Agreement bill, rewriters every rent-to-own contract in the nation to conform to the dictates of federal politicians and bureaucrats. This bill thus represents another usurpation by Congress of powers reserved by the 9th and 10th amendments of the Constitution to the states and the people. Rent-to-own transactions provide many low-income individuals an affordable means of obtaining durable goods, such as furniture, appliances and computers. Rent-to-own also provides a way of obtaining luxury items for a short time. For example, someone who cannot afford a big screen TV can use a rent-to-own contract to obtain such a TV to watch the Super Bowl. Proponents of H.R. 1701 admit the benefits of rent-to-own but fret that rent-to-own transactions are regulated by the states, not the federal government. Proponents of this legislation claim that state regulations are inadequate, thus making federal regulations necessary. My well-intentioned colleagues ignore the fact that Congress has no legitimate authority to judge whether or not state regulations are adequate. This is because the Constitution gives the federal government no authority to regulate this type of transaction. Thus, whether or not state regulations are adequate is simply not for Congress to judge. Some may claim that H.R. 1701 respects states' rights, because it does not preempt those state regulations acceptable to federal regulators. However, Mr. Chairman, this turns the constitutional meaning of federalism on its head. After all, the 10th amendment does not limit its protections to state laws approved of by the federal bureaucracy. In addition to exceeding Congress's constitutional authority, H.R. 1701, like all federal regulatory schemes, could backfire and harm the very people it was intended to help. This is because any regulation inevitably raises the cost of doing business. These higher costs are passed along to the consumer in the form of either higher prices or fewer choices. The result of this is that marginal customers are priced out of the market. These consumers may prefer to sign contracts that do not meet federal standards as opposed to not having access to any rent- to-own contracts, but the Congress will deny them that option. According to the proponents of H.R. 1701, if people cannot obtain desired goods and services under terms satisfactory to the government, they are better off being denied those goods and services. Mr. Chairman, this type of ``government knows best'' legislation represents the worst type of paternalism and is totally inappropriate for a free society. In conclusion, H.R. 1701 exceeds Congress's constitutional authority by regulating areas constitutionally left to the states. It also raises the cost of forming rent-to-own contracts and thus will deny those contracts to consumers who desire them. I therefore urge my colleagues to reject this paternalistic and unconstitutional bill.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I have for years advocated a moral and constitutional approach to our foreign policy. This has been done in the sincerest belief that a policy of peace, trade, and friendship with all nations is far superior in all respects to a policy of war, protectionism, and confrontation. But in the Congress I find, with regards to foreign affairs, no interest in following the precepts of the Constitution and the advice of our early Presidents. Interventionism, internationalism, inflationism, protectionism, jingoism and bellicosity are much more popular in our Nation's capital than a policy of restraint. I have heard all the arguments on why we must immediately invade and occupy Iraq and have observed that there are only a few hardy souls left in the Congress who are trying to stop this needless, senseless, and dangerous war. They have adequately refuted every one of the excuses for this war of aggression; but, obviously, either no one listens, or the unspoken motives for this invasion silence those tempted to dissent. But the tragic and most irresponsible excuse for the war rhetoric is now emerging in the political discourse. We now hear rumblings that the vote is all about politics, the November elections, and the control of the U.S. Congress, that is, the main concern is political power. Can one imagine delaying the declaration of war against Japan after Pearl Harbor for political reasons? Or can one imagine forcing a vote on the issue of war before an election for political gain? Can anyone believe there are those who would foment war rhetoric for political gain at the expense of those who are called to fight and might even die if the war does not go as planned? I do not want to believe it is possible, but rumors are rampant that looking weak on the war issue is considered to be unpatriotic and a risky political position to take before the November elections. Taking pleasure in the fact that this might place many politicians in a difficult position is a sobering thought indeed. There is a bit of irony over all of this political posturing on a vote to condone a war of aggression and force some Members into a tough vote. Guess what, contrary to conventional wisdom, war is never politically beneficial to the politicians who promote it. Presidents Wilson and Roosevelt were reelected by promising to stay out of war. Remember, the party in power during the Korean War was routed in 1952 by a general who promised to stop the bloodshed. Vietnam, which started with overwhelming support and hype and jingoistic fervor, ended President Johnson's political career in disgrace and humiliation. The most significant plight on the short term of President Kennedy was his effort at regime change in Cuba and the fate he met at the Bay of Pigs. Even Persian Gulf War 1, thought at the time to be a tremendous victory, with its aftermath still lingering, did not serve President Bush, Sr.'s reelection efforts in 1992. War is not politically beneficial for two reasons: innocent people die, and the economy is always damaged. These two things, after the dust settles from the hype and the propaganda, always make the people unhappy. The euphoria associated with the dreams of grandiose and painless victories is replaced by the stark reality of death, destruction, and economic pain. Instead of euphoria, we end up with heartache as we did after the Bay of Pigs, Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, and Lebanon. Since no one wants to hear anymore of morality and constitutionality and justice, possibly some will listen to the politics of war, since that is what drives so many. A token victory at the polls this fall by using a vote on the war as a lever will be to little avail. It may not even work in the short run. Surely, history shows that war is never a winner, especially when the people who have to pay, fight, and die for it come to realize that the war was not even necessary and had nothing to do with national security or fighting for freedom, but was promoted by special interests who stood to gain from taking over a sovereign country. Mr. Speaker, peace is always superior to war; it is a political winner.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation to restore financial stability to America's economy by abolishing the Federal Reserve. I also ask unanimous consent to insert the attached article by Lew Rockwell, president of the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, which explains the benefits of abolishing the Fed and restoring the gold standard, into the Record. Since the creation of the Federal Reserve, middle and working-class Americans have been victimized by a boom-and-bust monetary policy. In addition, most Americans have suffered a steadily eroding purchasing power because of the Federal Reserve's inflationary policies. This represents a real, if hidden, tax imposed on the American people. From the Great Depression, to the stagflation of the seventies, to the burst of the dotcom bubble last year, every economic downturn suffered by the country over the last 80 years can be traced to Federal Reserve policy. The Fed has followed a consistent policy of flooding the economy with easy money, leading to a misallocation of resources and an artificial ``boom'' followed by a recession or depression when the Fed-created bubble bursts. With a stable currency, American exporters will no longer be held hostage to an erratic monetary policy. Stabilizing the currency will also give Americans new incentives to save as they will no longer have to fear inflation eroding their savings. Those members concerned about increasing America's exports or the low rate of savings should be enthusiastic supporters of this legislation. Though the Federal Reserve policy harms the average American, it benefits those in a position to take advantage of the cycles in monetary policy. The main beneficiaries are those who receive access to artificially inflated money and/or credit before the inflationary effects of the policy impact the entire economy. Federal Reserve policies also benefit big spending politicians who use the inflated currency created by the Fed to hide the true costs of the welfare- warfare state. It is time for Congress to put the interests of the American people ahead of the special interests and their own appetite for big government. Abolishing the Federal Reserve will allow Congress to reassert its constitutional authority over monetary policy. The United States Constitution grants to Congress the authority to coin money and regulate the value of the currency. The Constitution does not give Congress the authority to delegate control over monetary policy to a central bank. Furthermore, the Constitution certainly does not empower the Federal Government to erode Americans' living standard via an inflationary monetary policy. In fact, Congress' constitutional mandate regarding monetary policy should only permit currency backed by stable commodities such as silver and gold to be used as legal tender. Therefore, abolishing the Federal Reserve and returning to a constitutional system will enable America to return to the type of monetary system envisioned by our Nation's founders: one where the value of money is consistent because it is tied to a commodity such as gold. Such a monetary system is the basis of a true free-market economy. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stand up for working Americans by putting an end to the manipulation of the money supply which erodes Americans' standard of living, enlarges big government, and enriches well-connected elites, by cosponsoring my legislation to abolish the Federal Reserve. Why Gold? (By Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.) As with all matters of investment, everything is clear in hindsight. Had you bought gold mutual funds earlier this year, they might have appreciated more than 100 percent. Gold has risen $60 since March 2001 to the latest spot price of $326. Why wasn't it obvious? The Fed has been inflating the dollar as never before, driving interest rates down to absurdly low levels, even as the federal government has been pushing a mercantile trade policy, and New York City, the hub of the world economy, continues to be threatened by terrorism. The government is failing to prevent more successful attacks by not backing down from foreign policy disasters and by not allowing planes to arm themselves. These are all conditions that make gold particularly attractive. Or perhaps it is not so obvious why this is true. It's been three decades since the dollar's tie to gold was completely severed, to the hosannas of mainstream economists. There is no stash of gold held by the Fed or the Treasury that backs our currency system. The government owns gold but not as a monetary asset. It owns it the same way it owns national parks and fighter planes. It's just another asset the government keeps to itself. The dollar, and all our money, is nothing more and nothing less than what it looks like: a cut piece of linen paper with fancy printing on it. You can exchange it for other currency at a fixed rate and for any good or service at a flexible rate. But there is no established exchange rate between the dollar and gold, either at home or internationally. The supply of money is not limited by the amount of gold. Gold is just another good for which the dollar can be exchanged, and in that sense is legally no different from a gallon of milk, a tank of gas, or an hour of babysitting services. Why, then, do people turn to gold in times like these? What is gold used for? Yes, there are industrial uses and there are consumer uses in jewelry and the like. But recessions and inflations don't cause people to want to wear more jewelry or stock up on industrial metal. The investor demand ultimately reflects consumer demand for gold. But that still leaves us with the question of why the consumer demand exists in the first place. Why gold and not sugar or wheat or something else? There is no getting away from it: investor markets have memories of the days when gold was money. In fact, in the whole history of civilization, gold has served as the basic money of all people wherever it's been available. Other precious metals have been valued and coined, but gold always emerged on top in the great competition for what constitutes the most valuable commodity of all. There is nothing intrinsic about gold that makes it money. It has certain properties that lend itself to monetary use, like portability, divisibility, scarcity, durability, and uniformity. But these are just descriptors of certain qualities of the metal, not explanations as to why it became money. Gold became money for only one reason: because that's what the markets chose. Why isn't gold money now? Because governments destroyed the gold standard. Why? Because they regarded it as too inflexible. To be sure, monetary inflexibility is the friend of free markets. Without the ability to create money out of nothing, governments tend to run tight financial ships. Banks are more careful about the lending when they can't rely on a lender of last resort with access to a money-creation machine like the Fed. A fixed money stock means that overall prices are generally more stable. The problems of inflation and business cycles disappear entirely. Under the gold standard, in fact, increased market productivity causes prices to generally decline over time as the purchasing power of money increases. In 1967, Alan Greenspan once wrote an article called Gold and Economic Freedom. He wrote that: ``An almost hysterical antagonism toward the gold standard is one issue which unites statists of all persuasions. They seem to sense--perhaps more clearly and subtly than many consistent defenders of laissez-faire--that gold and economic freedom are inseparable, that the gold standard is an instrument of laissez-faire and that each implies and requires the other. . . . This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists' tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights.'' He was right. Gold and freedom go together. Gold money is both the result of freedom and its leading protector. When money is as good as gold, the government cannot manipulate the supply for its own purposes. Just as the rule of law puts limits on the despotic use of police power, a gold standard puts extreme limits on the government's ability to spend, borrow, and otherwise create crazy unworkable programs. It is forced to raise its revenue through taxation, not inflation, and generally keep its house in order. Without the gold standard, government is free to work with the Fed to inflate the currency without limit. Even in our own times, we've seen governments do that and thereby spread mass misery. Now, all governments are stupid but not all are so stupid as to pull stunts like this. Most of the time, governments are pleased to inflate their currencies so long as they don't have to pay the price in the form of mass bankruptcies, falling exchange rates, and inflation. In the real world, of course, there is a lag time between cause and effect. The Fed has been inflating the currency at very high levels for longer than a year. The consequences of this disastrous policy are showing up only recently in the form of a falling dollar and higher gold prices. And so what does the Fed do? It is pulling back now. For the first time in nearly ten years, some measures of money (M2 and MZM) are showing a falling money stock, which is likely to prompt a second dip in the continuing recession. Greenspan now finds himself on the horns of a very serious dilemma. If he continues to pull back on money, the economy could tip into a serious recession. This is especially a danger given rising protectionism, which mirrors the events of the early 1930s. On the other hand, a continuation of the loose policy he has pursued for a year endangers the value of the dollar overseas. How much easier matters were when we didn't have to rely on the wisdom of exalted monetary central planners like Greenspan. Under the gold standard, the supply of money regulated itself. The government kept within limits. Banks were more cautious. Savings were high because credit was tight and saving was rewarded. This approach to economics is the foundation of a sustainable prosperity. We don't have that system now for the country or the world, but individuals are showing their preferences once again. By driving up the price of gold, prompting gold producers to become profitable again, the people are expressing their lack of confidence in their leaders. They have decided to protect themselves and not trust the state. That is the hidden message behind the new luster of gold. Is a gold standard feasible again? Of course. The dollar could be redefined in terms of gold. Interest rates would reflect the real supply and demand for credit. We could shut down the Fed and we would never need to worry again what the chairman of the Fed wanted. There was a time when Greenspan was nostalgic for such a system. Investors of the world have come to embrace this view even as Greenspan has completely abandoned it. What keeps the gold standard from becoming a reality again is the love of big government and war. If we ever fall in love with freedom again, the gold standard will once more become a hot issue in public debate.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, soon we hope to have hearings on the pending war with Iraq. I am concerned that there are some questions that will not be asked and maybe not even allowed to be asked. Here are some questions I would like answered by those who are anxious to start this war: Is it not true that the reason we did not bomb the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War was because we knew they could retaliate? Is it not also true that we are willing to bomb Iraq now because we know it cannot retaliate, which just confirms that there is no real threat? Is it not true that those who argue that even with inspections we cannot be sure that Hussein might be hiding weapons, at the same time implying that we can be more sure that weapons exist in the absence of inspections? Is it not true that the U.N.'s International Atomic Agency was able to complete its yearly verification mission to Iraq just this year with Iraqi cooperation? Is it not true that the intelligence community has been unable to develop a case tying Iraq to global terrorism at all, much less the attacks on the United States last year? Does anybody remember that 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and that none came from Iraq? Was former CIA counterterrorism chief Vincent Cannistraro wrong when he recently said there was no confirmed evidence of Iraq's links to terrorism? Is it not true that the CIA has concluded there is no evidence that a Prague meeting between 9-11 hijacker Atta and Iraqi intelligence took place? Is it not true that northern Iraq, where the administration claimed that al Qaeda was hiding out, was in control of our allies, the Kurds? Is it not true that the vast majority of the al Qaeda leaders who escaped appear to have safely made their way to Pakistan, another of our so-called allies? Has anyone noticed that Afghanistan is rapidly sinking into total chaos, with bombings and assassinations becoming daily occurrences; and that is according to a recent U.N. report, the al Qaeda ``is, by all accounts, `alive and well' and poised to strike again, how, when and where it chooses''? Why are we taking precious military resources away from tracking down those who did attack the United States, who may again attack the United States, and using them to invade countries that have not attacked the United States? Would an attack on Iraq not just confirm the Arabs' worst suspicions about the United States, and is this not just what Osama bin Laden wanted to have happen? How can Hussein be compared to Hitler when he has no navy or air force, and now has an army one-fifth the size it was 12 years ago, which even then proved itself totally inept in defending itself? Is it not true that the constitutional power to declare war is exclusively given to Congress? Should presidents, contrary to the Constitution, allow Congress to concur only when pressured by public opinion? Are presidents permitted to rely on U.N. permission to go to war? Are you aware of a Pentagon report studying charges that thousands of Kurds in one village were gassed by Iraqis, which found no conclusive evidence that Iraq was responsible, that Iran occupied the very city involved, and that evidence indicated, according to this Pentagon report, the type of gas used was more likely controlled by Iran, not Iraq? Is it not true that between 100,000 to 300,000 soldiers have suffered from Persian Gulf War syndrome from the first Gulf War, and that thousands may have died? Are we prepared for possibly thousands of American casualties in a war against a country that does not have the capacity to attack the United States? Are we willing to bear the economic burden of a $100 billion war against Iraq, with oil prices expected to skyrocket and further rattle an already shaky American economy? How about an estimated 30 years occupation of Iraq that some have deemed necessary to build democracy there? Iraq's alleged violations of U.N. resolutions are given as reason to initiate an attack, yet is it not true that hundreds of U.N. resolutions have been ignored by various countries without penalty? Did former President Bush not cite the U.N. resolution of 1990 as the reason he could not march into Baghdad, while supporters of a new attack assert that is the very reason that we can march into Baghdad? Is it not true that, contrary to current claims, the no-fly zones were set up by Britain and the United States without specific approval by the United Nations? If we claim membership in the international community and conform to its rules only when it pleases us, does this not serve to undermine our position, directing animosity toward us by both friend and foe? How can our declared goal of bringing democracy to Iraq be believable when we prop up dictators throughout the Middle East and support military dictators like Musharaf in Pakistan who overthrew a democratically elected President? Are you familiar with the 1994 Senate Hearings that revealed the United States knowingly supplied chemical and biological materials to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war and as late as 1992--including after the alleged Iraqi gas attack on a Kurdish village? Did we not assist Saddam Hussein's rise to power by supporting and encouraging his invasion of Iran? Is it honest to criticize Saddam now for his invasion of Iran, which as the time we actively supported? Is it not true that preventive war is synonymous with an act of aggression, and has never been considered a moral or legitimate U.S. policy? Why do the oil company executives strongly support this war if oil is not the real reason we plan to take over Iraq? Why is it that those who never wore a uniform and are confident that they won't have to personally fight this war are more anxious for this war than our generals? What is the moral argument for attacking a nation that has not aggressed against us nor is able to, even if it so wished? Where does the Constitution grant us permission to wage war for any reason other than self-defense? It it not true that a war against Iraq rejects the sentiments of the time-honored Treaty of Westphalia, nearly 400 years ago, that countries should never go into another for the purpose of regime change? Is it not true that the more civilized a society is, the less likely disagreements will be settled by war? Is it not true that since World War II Congress has not declared war and--not coincidentally--we have not since then had a clear-cut victory? Is it not true that Pakistan, especially through its intelligence services, was an active supporter and key organizer of the Taliban? Why do those who want war not bring a Declaration of War Resolution to the floor?

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, Thomas Jefferson spoke for the founders and all our early Presidents when he stated, ``Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none, which is one of the essential principles of our government.'' The question is, whatever happened to this principle and should it be restored? We find the 20th century was wracked with war; peace was turned asunder and our liberties steadily eroded. Foreign alliances and meddling in the internal affairs of other nations became commonplace. On many occasions, involvement in military action occurred through U.N. resolutions or a Presidential executive order, despite the fact that the war power was explicitly placed in the hands of the Congress. Since World War II, nearly 100,000 deaths and over a quarter million wounded, not counting the many thousands claimed to have been affected by Agent Orange and the Persian Gulf War Syndrome, have all occurred without a declaration of war and without a clearcut victory. The entire 20th century was indeed costly with over 600,000 killed in battle and an additional million wounded. If liberty had been truly enhanced during that time, less could be said about the imperfections of the policy. The evidence, however, is clear that we as a people are less free and the prosperity we still enjoy may be more illusionary than many realize. The innocent victims who have suffered at the hands of our militarism abroad are rarely considered by our government; yet, they may well be a major factor in this hatred now being directed toward America. It is not currently popular to question corporate or banking influence over the foreign policy that replaced that of Washington and Jefferson. Questioning foreign government influence on our policies, although known about for years, is not acceptable in the politically correct environment in which we live. There is little doubt that our role in the world dramatically changed in the 20th century, inexorably evolving from that of strict noninterventionism to that of sole superpower with the assumption that we were destined to be the world's policeman. By the end of the 20th century, in fact, this occurred. We have totally forgotten that for well over 100 years we followed the advice of the founders by meticulously avoiding overseas conflict. Instead, we now find ourselves in charge of an American hegemony spread to the four corners of the Earth. As the 21st century begins, there is not a country in the world that does not depend upon the U.S. for protections or fears her wrath if they refuse to do her bidding. As the 20th century progressed, American taxpayers were required to finance with great sacrifice financially and freedom-wise the buying of loyalty through foreign aid and intimidation of those others who did not cooperate. The question, though, remains, has this change been beneficial to freedom and prosperity here at home and has it promoted peace and trade throughout the world? Those who justify our interventionist policies abroad argue that the violation of the rule of law is not a problem considering the benefits we receive from maintaining the American empire, but has this really taken into consideration the cost in lives lost, the damage to long-term prosperity as well as the dollar cost and freedoms we have lost? What about the future? Has this policy of foreign intervention set the stage for radically changing America and the world in ways not yet seen? Were the founders completely off track because they lived in different times, or was the foreign policy they advised based on an essential principle of lasting value? Choosing the wrong answer to this question could very well be deadly to the grand experiment in liberty begun in 1776. The transition from nonintervention to our current role as world arbiter in all conflicts was insidious and fortuitous. In the early part of the 20th century, the collapse of the British Empire left a vacuum which was steadily filled by a U.S. presence around the world. In the latter part of the century, the results of World War II and the collapse of the Soviet system propelled us into our current role. Throughout most of the 20th century it was our competition with the Soviets that prompted our ever-expanded presence around the world. We are where we are today almost by default, but does that justify its being in our best interests? Disregarding for the moment the moral and constitutional arguments against foreign intervention, a strong case can be made against it for other reasons. It is clear that one intervention begets another. The first problem is rarely solved and the new ones are created. Indeed, in foreign affairs a slippery slope does exist. In recent years, we too often slipped into war through the back door with the purpose rarely defined or understood and the need for victory ignored. A restrained effort of intervention frequently explodes into something that we do not foresee. Policies end up doing the opposite of their intended purpose with unintended consequences resulting. The result then is that the action taken turns out to be actually detrimental to our national security interest; yet no effort is made to challenge the fundamental principle behind our foreign policy. It is this failure to adhere to a set of principles that has allowed us to slip into this role and, if unchallenged, could well undo the liberties we all cherish. Throughout history, there has always been a great temptation for rulers to spread their influence and pursue empire over liberty. Resisting this temptation to power rarely has been achieved. There always seems to be a natural inclination to yield to this historic human passion. Could it be that progress and civilization and promoting freedom require ignoring this impulse to control others, as the founders of this great Nation advised? Historically, the driving force behind world domination is usually an effort to control wealth. The Europeans were searching for gold when they came to the Americas. Now it is our turn to seek control over the black gold which drives much of what we do today in foreign affairs. Competing with a power like the Soviet Union prompted our involvement in areas of the world where the struggle for the balance of power was the sole motivating force. The foreign policy of the 20th century replaced the policy endorsed by our early Presidents and permitted our steadily growing involvement overseas in an effort to control the world's commercial interests with a special emphasis on oil. Our influence in the Middle East evolved out of concern for the newly created State of Israel in 1947 and to securing control over the flow of oil in that region. Israel's needs and Arab oil have influenced our foreign policy for more than half a century. In the 1950s, the CIA installed the Shah in Iran. It was not until the hostage crisis of the late 1970s that the unintended consequence occurred. This generated the Iranian hatred of America and led to the takeover by the reactionary Khomeini and the Islamic fundamentalists and caused greater regional instability than we anticipated. Our meddling in the internal affairs of Iran was of no benefit to us and set the stage for our failed policy in dealing with Iraq. We allied ourselves in the 1980s with Iraq in its war with Iran and assisted Saddam Hussein in his rise to power. As recent reports reconfirm, we did nothing to stop Hussein's development of chemical and biological weapons and at least indirectly assisted in their development. Now, as a consequence of that needless intervention, we are planning a risky war to remove him from power; and as usual, the probable result of such an effort would be something that our government does not anticipate like a takeover by someone much worse. As bad as Hussein is, he is an enemy of the al-Qaeda and someone new well may be a close ally of the Islamic radicals. Although our puppet dictatorship in Saudi Arabia has lasted for many decades, it is becoming shakier every day. The Saudi people are not exactly friendly towards us, and our military presence on their holy soil is greatly resented. This contributes to the radical fundamentalist hatred directed toward us. Another unfavorable consequence to America, such as a regime change not to our liking, could soon occur in Saudi Arabia. It is not merely a coincidence that 15 of the 9-11 terrorists are Saudis. The Persian Gulf War fought, without a declaration of war, is in reality still going on. It looks like that 9-11 may well have been a battle in that war perpetrated by fanatical guerrillas. It indicates how seriously flawed our foreign policy is. In the 1980s we got involved in the Soviet-Afghanistan war and actually sided with the forces of Osama bin Laden, helping him gain power. This obviously was an alliance of no benefit to the United States, and it has come back to haunt us. Our policy for years was to encourage Saudi Arabia to oppose communism by financing and promoting Islamic fundamentalism. Surely the shortcomings of that policy are evident to everyone. Clinton's bombing of Sudan and Afghanistan on the eve of his indictment over Monica Lewinsky shattered a Taliban plan to expel Osama bin Laden from Afghanistan. Clinton's bombing of Baghdad on the eve of his impeachment hardly won any converts to our cause or reassured the Muslim people of the Middle Eastern countries of a U.S. balanced policy. The continued bombing of Iraq over these past 12 years, along with the deadly sanctions, resulted in hundreds of thousands of needless Iraqi civilian deaths, has not been beneficial to our security and has been used as one of the excuses for recruiting the fanatics ready to sacrifice their lives and demonstrating their hatred toward us. Essentially all Muslims see our policy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as being openly favorable toward Israel and in opposition to the Palestinians. It is for this reason they hold us responsible for Palestinian deaths since all the Israeli weapons are from the United States. Since the Palestinians do not even have an army, and most have to live in refugee camps, one should understand at least why the animosity builds, even if our pro-Israeli position can be explained. There is no end in site. Since 9-11, our involvement in the Middle East and in Saudi Arabia has grown significantly. Though we can badger those countries whose leaders depend on us to keep them in power to stay loyal to the United States, the common people of the region become more alienated. Our cozy relationship with the Russians may not be as long-lasting as our current administration hopes. Considering the $40 billion trade deal recently made between Russia and Saddam Hussein, it is more than a bit ironic that we find the Russians now promoting free trade as a solution to a difficult situation while we are promoting war. This continuous escalation of our involvement overseas has been widespread. We have been in Korea for more than 50 years. We have promised to never back away from the China-Taiwan conflict over territorial disputes. Fifty-seven years after World War II we still find our military spread throughout Europe and Asia. And now the debate ranges over whether our national security requires that we, for the first time, escalate this policy of intervention to include anticipatory self-defense and preemptive war. If our interventions of the 20th century led to needless deaths and unwon wars and continuous unintended consequences, imagine what this new doctrine is about to unleash on the world. Our policy has prompted us to announce that our CIA will assassinate Saddam Hussein whenever it gets the chance, and that the government of Iraq is to be replaced. Evidence now has surfaced that the United Nations inspection teams in the 1990s definitely included American CIA agents who were collecting information on how to undermine the Iraqi government and continue with their routine bombing missions. Why should there be a question of why Saddam Hussein might not readily accept U.N. inspectors without some type of assurances? Does anybody doubt that control of Iraqi oil supplies, second only to Saudi Arabia, is the real reason U.S. policy is belligerent toward Saddam Hussein? If it is merely to remove dictators around the world, this is the beginning of an endless task. In the transition from the original American foreign policy of peace, trade and neutrality to that of world policemen, we have sacrificed our sovereignty to world government organizations such as the U.N., the IMF, the World Bank, and the WTO. To further confuse and undermine our position, we currently have embarked on a policy of unilateralism within these world organizations. This means we accept the principle of globalized government when it pleases us, but when it does not, we should ignore it for our own interest's sake. Acting in our own interest is to be applauded, but what we are getting is not a good alternative to one-world government. We do not get our sovereignty back, yet we continue to subject ourselves to great potential financial burden and loss of liberty as we shift from a national government with constitutional protection of rights to an international government where our citizens' rights are threatened by treaties we have not even ratified, like the Kyoto and the international criminal court treaties. We cannot depend on controlling the world government at some later date, even if that seems to be what we are able to do now. The unilateralist approach of domination over the world's leaders, and arbitrary ignoring of certain mandates, something we can do with impunity because of our intimidating power, serves only to further undermine our prestige and acceptability throughout the world. And this includes the Muslim countries as well as our European friends. This merely sets the stage for both our enemies and current friends to act in concert against our interest when the time comes. This is especially true if we become financially strapped and our dollar is sharply weakened and we are in a much more vulnerable bargaining position. Unilateralism within a globalist approach to government is the worst of all choices. It ignores national sovereignty, dignifies one-world government, and places us in the position of demanding dictatorial powers over the world community. Demanding the right to set all policy and exclude ourselves from jurisdictional restraints sows the seeds of future discontent and hostility. The downside is we get all the bills, risk the lives of our people without cause, and make ourselves the target for every event that goes badly. We get blamed for the unintended consequences not foreseen and become the target of the terrorists that evolve from the radicalized fringes. Long-term foreign interventionism does not serve our interest. Tinkering on the edges with current policy will not help. An announced policy of support for globalist government, assuming the financial and military role of world policemen, maintaining an American world empire while flaunting unilateralism, is a recipe for disaster. U.S. unilateralism is a far cry from the nonintervention that the Founders advised. The term foreign policy does not exist in the Constitution. All members of the Federal Government have sworn to uphold the Constitution and should do only those things that are clearly authorized. Careful reading of the Constitution reveals Congress has a lot more responsibility than does the President in dealing with foreign affairs. The President is the Commander-in-Chief, but cannot declare war or finance military action without explicit congressional approval. A good starting point would be for all of us in the Congress to assume the responsibility given us to make sure the executive branch does not usurp any authority explicitly given to the Congress. A proper foreign policy of nonintervention is built on friendship with other nations, free trade and maximum travel, maximizing the exchanges of goods and services and ideas. Nations that trade with each other are definitely less likely to fight against each other. Unnecessary bellicosity and jingoism is detrimental to peace and prosperity and incites unnecessary confrontation. And yet today that is about all we hear coming from the politicians and the media pundits who are so anxious for this war against Iraq. Avoiding entangling alliances and meddling in the internal affairs of other nations is crucial, no matter how many special interests demand otherwise. The entangling alliances we should avoid include the complex alliances in the U.N., the IMF, the World Bank, and the WTO. One-world government goals are anathema to the nonintervention and free trade. The temptation to settle disputes and install better governments abroad is fraught with great danger and many uncertainties. Protecting our national sovereignty and guaranteeing constitutional protection of our citizens' rights are crucial. Respecting the sovereignty of other nations, even when we are in disagreement with some of their policies, is also necessary. Changing others then becomes a job of persuasion and example, not force and intimidation, just as it is in trying to improve the personal behavior of our fellow citizens here at home. Defending our country from outside attack is legitimate and is of the highest priority. Protecting individual liberties should be our goal. This does not mean, however, that our troops follow our citizens or their investments throughout the world. While foreign visitors should be welcome, no tax-supported services should be provided. Citizenship should be given with caution and not automatically by merely stepping over a national boundary for the purpose of giving birth. A successful and prosperous society comes from such a policy and is impossible without a sound free-market economy, one not controlled by a central bank. Avoiding trade wars, devaluations, inflations, deflations, and disruption of free trade with protectionist legislation are impossible under a system of international trade dependent on fluctuating fiat currencies controlled by world central banks and influenced by powerful financial interests. Instability in trade is one of the prime causes of creating conditions leading to war. The basic moral principle underpinning a noninterventionist foreign policy is that of rejecting the initiation of force against others. It is based on nonviolence and friendship unless attacked, with determination for self-defense while avoiding confrontation, even when we disagree with the way other countries run their affairs. It simply means that we should mind our own business and not be influenced by the special interests that have an axe to grind or benefits to gain by controlling other foreign policy. Manipulating our country into conflicts that are none of our business and of no security interest provides no benefits to us, while exposing us to great risk financially and militarily. Our troops would be brought home under such conditions, systematically and soon. Being in Europe and Japan for over 50 years is long enough. The failure of Vietnam resulted in no occupation and a more westernized country now doing business with the United States. There is no evidence that the military approach in Vietnam was superior to that of trade and friendship. The lack of trade and sanctions have not served us well in Cuba or in the Middle East. The mission for our Coast Guard would change if our foreign policy became noninterventionist. They, too, would come home, protect our coast, and stop being the enforcers of bureaucratic laws that either should not exist or should be a State function. All foreign aid would be discontinued. Most evidence shows this money rarely helps the poor but instead solidifies power in the hands of dictators. There is no moral argument that can justify taxing poor people in this country to help rich people in poor countries. Much of the foreign aid, when spent, is channeled back to weapons manufacturers and other special interests in the United States who are the strong promoters of these foreign aid expenditures, yet it is all done in the name of humanitarian causes. A foreign policy for peace and freedom would prompt us to give ample notice, and then we would promptly leave the international organizations that have entangled us for over a half a century. U.S. membership in world government was hardly what the Founders envisioned when writing the Constitution. The principle of mark and reprisal would be revived, and specific problems, such as terrorist threats, would be dealt with on a contract basis, incorporating private resources to more accurately target our enemies and reduce the chances of needless and endless war. This would help prevent a continual expansion of a conflict into areas not relating to any immediate threat. By narrowing the target, there is less opportunity for special interests to manipulate our foreign policy to serve the financial needs of the oil and military weapons industries. The Logan Act would be repealed, thus allowing maximum freedom of our citizens to volunteer to support their war of choice. This would help diminish the enthusiasm for wars the proponents have used to justify our world policies and diminish the perceived need for a military draft. If we followed a constitutional policy of nonintervention, we would never have to entertain the aggressive notion of preemptive war based on speculation of what a country might do at some future date. Political pressure by other countries to alter our foreign policy for their benefit would never be a consideration. Commercial interests of our citizens investing overseas could not expect our armies to follow them and to protect their profits. A noninterventionist foreign policy would not condone subsidies to our corporations through programs like the Export-Import Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. These programs guarantee against losses while the risk takers want our military to protect their investments from political threats. This current flawed policy removes the tough decisions of when to invest in foreign countries and diminishes the pressure on those particular countries to clean up their political acts in order to entice foreign capital to move into their country. Today's foreign policy encourages bad investments. Ironically this is all done in the name of free trade and capitalism, but it does more to export jobs and businesses than promote free trade. Yet when it fails, capitalism and freedom are blamed. A noninterventionist foreign policy would go a long way toward preventing 9/11 type attacks upon us. The Department of Homeland Security would be unnecessary and the military, along with less bureaucracy in our intelligence-gathering agencies, could instead provide the security the new department is supposed to provide. A renewed respect for gun ownership and responsibility for defending one's property would provide additional protection against potential terrorists. There are many reasons why a policy for peace is superior to a policy of war. The principle that we do not have the moral authority to forcibly change government in foreign lands just because we do not approve of their shortcomings should be our strongest argument. But rarely today is a moral argument in politics worth much. The practical argument against it because of its record of failure should certainly prompt all thoughtful people to reconsider what we have been doing for the past many decades. We should all be aware that war is a failure of relationships between foreign powers. Since this is such a serious matter, our American tradition as established by the founders made certain that the executive is subservient to the more democratically responsive legislative branch on the issue of war. Therefore, no war is ever to be the prerogative of a President through his unconstitutional use of executive orders, nor should it ever be something where the legal authority comes from an international body such as NATO or the United Nations. Up until 50 years ago, this had been the American tradition. Nonintervention prevents the unexpected and unintended consequences that inevitably result from well-intended meddling in the affairs of others. Countries like Switzerland and Sweden, who promote neutrality and nonintervention, have benefited for the most part by remaining secure and free of war over the centuries. Nonintervention consumes a lot less of the Nation's wealth. With less wars, the higher the standard of living for all citizens. But this, of course, is not attractive to the military-industrial complex which enjoys a higher standard of living at the expense of the taxpayer when a policy of intervention and constant war preparation is carried out. Wisdom, morality and the Constitution are very unlikely to invade the minds of the policymakers that control our foreign affairs. We have institutionalized foreign intervention over the past 100 years by the teachings of all our major universities and the propaganda that the media spews out. The powerful influence over our policy, both domestic and foreign, is not soon going to go away. I am convinced, though, that eventually restraint in our interventions overseas will be guided by a more reasonable constitutional policy. Economic reality will dictate it. Although political pressure in times of severe economic downturn and domestic strife encourages planned distractions overseas, these adventures always cause economic harm due to the economic costs. When the particular country or empire involved overreaches, as we are currently doing, national bankruptcy and a severely weakened currency call the whole process to a halt. The Soviet system, armed with an aggressive plan to spread its empire worldwide, collapsed, not because we attacked it militarily but for financial and economic reasons. They no longer could afford it and the resources and wealth that it drained finally turned the people against its authoritarian rule. Maintaining an overseas empire is incompatible with the American tradition of liberty and prosperity. The financial drain and the antagonism that it causes with our enemies, and even our friends, will finally force the American people to reject the policy outright. There will be no choice. Gorbachev just walked away and Yeltsin walked in, with barely a ripple. A nonviolent revolution of unbelievable historic magnitude occurred and the Cold War ended. We are not immune from such a similar change. This Soviet collapse ushered in the age of unparalleled American dominance over the entire world and along with it allowed the new expanded hot war between the West and the Muslim East. All the hostility directed toward the West built up over the centuries between the two factions is now directed toward the United States. We are now the only power capable of paying for and literally controlling the Middle East and its cherished wealth, and we have not hesitated. Iraq, with its oil and water and agricultural land, is a prime target of our desire to further expand our dominion. The battle is growing ever so tense with our acceptance and desire to control the Caspian Sea oil riches. But Russia, now licking its wounds and once again accumulating wealth, will not sit idly by and watch the American empire engulf this region. When time runs out for us, we can be sure Russia will once again be ready to fight for control of all those resources in countries adjacent to her borders. And expect the same from China and India. And who knows, maybe one day even Japan will return to the ancient art of using force to occupy the cherished territories in their region of the world. The most we can hope for will be, once the errors of our ways are acknowledged and we can no longer afford our militarism, we will reestablish the moral principle that underpins the policy of ``peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.'' Our modern-day war hawks represent neither this American principle nor do they understand how the love of liberty drove the founders in their great battle against tyranny. We must prepare for the day when our financial bankruptcy and the failure of our effort at world domination are apparent. The solution to such a crisis can be easily found in our Constitution and in our traditions. But ultimately, the love of liberty can only come from a change in the hearts and minds of the people and with an answered prayer for the blessings of divine intervention.

Mr. PAUL

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

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I want to start my 5 minutes with a quote from Jefferson. Jefferson said, ``No country perhaps was ever so thoroughly against war as ours.'' These dispositions pervade every description of its citizens, whether in or out of office. We love and we value peace and we know its blessings from experience. We need this sentiment renewed in this Congress in order to avoid a needless war that offers us nothing but trouble. Congress must deal with this serious matter of whether or not we go to war. I believe it would be a mistake with the information that is available to us today. I do not see any reason whatsoever to take young men and young women and send them 6,000 miles off to a land to attack a country that has not committed any aggression against this country. I believe it would be a serious mistake for various reasons. First, it is a practical reason. There is no practical defense for this. Our military now has been weakened over the last decade, and actually when we go into Iraq, as we may well do, we will weaken our ability to defend our country. We do not enhance our defense by initiating this war. Besides, it is impractical because of unintended consequences which none of us know about and what might come. We do not know exactly how long this will last. It could be a six-day war, a six-month war or six years or even longer. It could be very impractical by going to war. There is a military reason for not going to war. We ought to just listen to the generals and the other military experts that are now advising us there is not a good reason to go to war, possibly even start World War III some have suggested. They claim our troops have been spread too thinly around the world, and it is not a good military matter to go into war today. There is a constitutional argument and a constitutional mistake that could be made. If we once again go to war, as we have done on so many occasions since World War II, without a clear declaration of war and a clear goal of victory, a haphazard way of slipping into war by Executive Order or, heaven forbid, getting permission from the United Nations makes it so that it is almost inevitable that true victory will not come. So we should look at this in a very constitutional fashion. We in the Congress should assume our responsibility because war is declared by Congress, not by a President and not by a U.N. This is a very important matter, and I am delighted to hear that there will be hearings and discussion on this matter. I am certainly arguing the case that we should have a balanced approach. We have already had some hearings in the other body, and we heard only one side of why we must do this, but if we have true hearings, we best have a debate and evidence on both sides of this matter rather than just getting one side up and saying why we must do this. Actually there are even good political reasons for not going into this battle. War is not popular. It may be popular for the short run when there seems to be an immediate victory and everyone is gloating over the victory, but war is not popular. People get killed and body bags end up coming back. War is very unpopular, and it is not the politically smart thing to do. There are economic reasons that we must be careful for. We can make serious economic mistakes. It is estimated that this venture into Iraq may well cost over a hundred billion dollars. Our national debt right now is increasing at a rate of over $450 billion and we are talking about spending another hundred billion dollars on an adventure that we do not know what the outcome will be and how long this will last? What will happen to oil prices? What will happen to the recession that we are in? What is going to happen to the deficit? All kinds of economic ramification. So we better not make the mistake of going into something that really we have no business getting into. There is a diplomatic reason for not going. There could be serious diplomatic mistakes made. All the Arab nations nearby and adjacent to Iraq object to it and do not endorse what we plan and insist that we might be doing, and none of the European allies are anxious for this to happen. So diplomatically we are way off on doing this. I hope we take a second thought and be very cautious in what we do.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge the Congress to think twice before thrusting this Nation into a war without merit, one fraught with danger of escalating into something no American will be pleased with. Thomas Jefferson advised, ``Never was so much false arithmetic employed on any subject as that which has been employed to persuade nations that it is in their interests to go to war.'' We have for months now heard plenty of false arithmetic and lame excuses on which we must pursue a preemptive war of aggression against an impoverished, third-world nation 6,000 miles from our shores that does not even possess a navy or air force, with the pretense that it must be done for national security interests. For some reason, such an attack makes me feel much less secure while our country is made more vulnerable. Congress must consider the fact that those with military experience advise a go-slow policy, and those without military experience are the ones demanding this war. We cannot ignore the fact that all Iraq's Arab neighbors are opposed to this attack and our European allies object as well. If the military and diplomatic reasons for policy restraint make no sense, I advise they consider the $100 billion it will cost and that will surely compound our serious budgetary and economic problems we face here at home. We need no more false arithmetic on our budget or false reasons for pursuing this new adventure into preemptive war and worldwide nation-building.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I do not oppose this rule because I would like to consider this important issue, but I am very concerned with the process of bringing this legislation before this body. Mr. Speaker, since we began looking at proposals here in the House of Representatives, more questions have arisen than have been answered. We have put this legislation on a ``fast track'' to passage, primarily for reasons of public relations, and hence have short-circuited the deliberative process. It has been argued that the reason for haste is the seriousness of the issue, but frankly I have always held that the more serious the issue is, the more deliberative we here ought to be. Instead of a carefully crafted product of meaningful deliberations, I fear we are once again about to pass a hastily drafted bill in order to appear that we are ``doing something.'' Over the past several months, Congress has passed a number of hastily crafted measures that do little, if anything, to enhance the security of the American people. Instead, these measures grow the size of the Federal Government, erode constitutional liberties, and endanger our economy by increasing the federal deficit and raiding the social security trust fund. The American people would be better served if we gave the question of how to enhance security from international terrorism the serious consideration it deserves rather than blindly expanding the Federal Government. Congress should also consider whether our hyper- interventionist foreign policy really benefits the American people. Serious and substantive questions about this reorganization have been raised. Many of these questions have yet to be resolved. Just because a bill has been reported from the Select Committee does not mean that a consensus exists. Indeed, even a couple of days before consideration, this bill it was impossible to get access to the legislation in the form introduced in the committee, let alone as amended by the committee. In the course of just one week, the President's original 52-page proposal swelled to 232 pages, with most members, including myself, unable to review the greatly expanded bill. While I know that some of those additions are positive, such as Mr. Armey's amendments to protect the privacy of American citizens, it is impossible to fully explore the implications of this, the largest departmental reorganization in the history of our Federal Government, without sufficient time to review the bill. This is especially the case in light of the fact that a number of the recommendations of the standing committees were not incorporated in the legislation, thus limiting our ability to understand how our constituents will be affected by this legislation. I have attempted to be a constructive part of this very important process. From my seat on the House International Relations Committee I introduced amendments that would do something concrete to better secure our homeland. Unfortunately, my amendments were not adopted in the form I offered them. Why? Was it because they did not deal substantively with the issues at hand? Was it because they addressed concerns other than those this new department should address? No, amazingly I was told that my amendments were too ``substantive.'' My amendments would have made it impossible for more people similar to those who hijacked those aircraft to get into our country. They would have denied certain visas and identified Saudi Arabia as a key problem in our attempt to deal with terrorism. Those ideas were deemed too controversial, so they are not included in this bill. I also introduced four amendments to the bill itself, including those that would prohibit a national identification card, that would prohibit the secretary of this new department from moving money to other agencies and departments without congressional oversight, that would deny student visas to nationals of Saudi Arabia, and that would deny student and diversity visas to nationals from terrorist-sponsoring countries. All of these amendments, which would have addressed some of the real issues of our security, were rejected. They were not even allowed onto the floor for a debate. This is yet more evidence of the failure of this process.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, the move to create a federal Department of Homeland Security was initiated in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11 and subsequent revelations regarding bureaucratic bungling and ineptness related to those attacks. Leaving aside other policy initiatives that may be more successful in reducing the threat of future terror attacks, I believe the President was well-intentioned in suggesting that a streamlining of functions might be helpful. Mr. Speaker, as many commentators have pointed out, the creation of this new department represents the largest reorganization of federal agencies since the creation of the Department of Defense in 1947. Unfortunately, the process by which we are creating this new department bears little resemblance to the process by which the Defense Department was created. Congress began hearings on the proposed department of defense in 1945--two years before President Truman signed legislation creating the new Department into law! Despite the lengthy deliberative process through which Congress created the new department, turf battles and logistical problems continued to bedeviled the military establishment, requiring several corrective pieces of legislation. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the Goldwater-Nicholas Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 (PL 99-433) was passed to deal with problems stemming from the 1947 law! The experience with the Department of Defense certainly suggests the importance of a more deliberative process in the creation of this new agency. This current proposed legislation suggest that merging 22 government agencies and departments--compromising nearly 200,000 federal employees--into one department will address our current vulnerabilities. I do not see how this can be the case. If we are presently under terrorist threat, it seems to me that turning 22 agencies upside down, sparking scores of turf wars and creating massive logistical and technological headaches-- does anyone really believe that even simple things like computer and telephone networks will be up and running in the short term?--is hardly the way to maintain the readiness and focus necessary to defend the United States. What about vulnerabilities while Americans wait for this massive new bureaucracy to begin functioning as a whole even to the levels at which its component parts were functioning before this legislation was taken up? Is this a risk we can afford to take? Also, isn't it a bit ironic that in the name of ``homeland security'' we seem to be consolidating everything except the government agencies most critical to the defense of the United States: the multitude of intelligence agencies that make up the Intelligence Community? Mr. Speaker, I come from a Coastal District in Texas. The Coast Guard and its mission are important to us. The chairman of the committee of jurisdiction over the Coast Guard has expressed strong reservations about the plan to move the Coast Guard into the new department. Recently my district was hit by the flooding in Texas, and we relied upon the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to again provide certain services. Additionally, as a district close to our border, much of the casework performed in my district offices relates to requests made to the Immigration and Naturalization Service. There has beem a difference of opinion between committees of jurisdiction and the administration in regard to all these functions. In fact, the President's proposal was amended in no fewer than a half dozen of the dozen committees to which it was originally referred. My coastal district also relies heavily on shipping. Our ports are essential for international trade and commerce. Last year, over one million tons of goods was moved through just one of the Ports in my district! However, questions remain about how the mission of the Customs Service will be changed by this new department. These are significant issues to my constituents, and may well affect their very livelihoods. For me to vote for this bill would amount to giving my personal assurance that the creation of this new department will not adversely impact the fashion in which the Coast Guard and Customs Service provide the services which my constituents have come to rely upon. Based on the expedited process we have followed with this legislation, I do not believe I can give such as assurance. We have also received a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) cost estimate suggesting that it will cost no less than $3 billion just to implement this new department. That is $3 billion dollars that could be spent to capture those responsible for the attacks of September 11 or to provide tax-relief to the families of the victims of that attack. It is three billion dollars that could perhaps be better spent protecting against future attacks, or even simply to meet the fiscal needs of our government. Since those attacks this Congress has gone on a massive spending spree. Spending three billion additional dollars now, simply to rearrange offices and command structures, is not a wise move. In fact, Congress is actually jeopardizing the security of millions of Americans by raiding the social security trust fund to rearrange deck chairs and give big spenders yet another department on which to lavish pork-barrel spending. The way the costs of this department have skyrocketed before the Department is even open for business leads me to fear that this will become yet another justification for Congress to raid the social security trust fund in order to finance pork-barrel spending. This is especially true in light of the fact that so many questions remain regarding the ultimate effect of these structural changes. Moreover, this legislation will give the Executive Branch the authority to spend money appropriated by Congress in ways Congress has not authorized. This clearly erodes Constitutionally-mandated Congressional prerogatives relative to control of federal spending. Recently the House passed a bill allowing for the arming of pilots. This was necessary because the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) simply ignored legislation we had passed previously. TSA is, of course, a key component of this new department. Do we really want to grant authority over appropriations to a Department containing an agency that has so brazenly ignored the will of Congress as recently as has the TSA? In fact, there has been a constant refusal of the bureaucracy to recognize that one of the best ways to enhance security is to legalize the second amendment and allow private property owners to defend their property. Instead, the security services are federalized. The airlines are bailed out and given guaranteed insurance against all threats. We have made the airline industry a public utility that get to keep its profits and pass on its losses to the taxpayers, like Amtrak and the post office. Instead of more ownership responsibility, we get more government controls. I am reluctant, to say the least, to give any new powers to bureaucrats who refuse to recognize the vital role free citizens exercising their second amendment rights play in homeland security. Mr. Speaker, government reorganizations, though generally seen as benign, can have a deleterious affect not just on the functioning of government but on our safety and liberty as well. The concentration and centralization of authority that may result from today's efforts should give us all reason for pause. But the current process does not allow for pause. Indeed, it militates toward rushing decisions without regard to consequence. Furthermore, this particular reorganization, in an attempt to provide broad leeway for the new department, undermines our Congressional oversight function. Abrogating our Constitutionally- mandated responsibilities so hastily now also means that future administrations will find it much easier to abuse the powers of this new department to violate constitutional liberties. Perhaps a streamlined, reconfigured federal government with a more clearly defined and limited mission focused on protecting citizens and their freedoms could result from this reorganization, but right now it seems far more likely that the opposite will occur. That is why I must oppose creation of this new department. Until we deal with the substance of the problem--serious issues of American foreign policy about which I have spoken out for years, and important concerns with our immigration policy in light of the current environment--attempts such as we undertake today at improved homeland security will amount to, more or less, rearranging deck chairs--or perhaps more accurately office chairs in various bureaucracies. Until we are prepared to have serious and frank discussions of policy this body will not improve the security of American citizens and their property. I stand ready to have that debate, but unfortunately this bill does nothing to begin the debate and nothing substantive to protect us. At best it will provide an illusion of security, and at worst these unanswered questions will be resolved by the realization that entities such as the Customs Service, Coast Guard and INS will be less effective, less efficient, more intrusive and mired in more bureaucratic red tape. Therefore, we should not pass this bill today.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Flake and Rangel amendments to the Treasury-Postal Service Appropriations Act. The argument that allowing Americans to travel to Cuba props up Fidel Castro's regime is just not supported by fact. History has shown that allowing--even encouraging--American citizens to travel to and engage commercially in less-than-free societies ignites the spark of freedom and hastens democratic transformations. Unfortunately, special interests have driven some to argue even against demonstrated fact in pursuit of their political agenda. It is time to face reality on the policies of isolation and embargo: they have not worked in the past, they are not working in the present, and they will not work in the future. Can anyone claim that our policies of isolation and embargo have made life for the average Cuban citizen the slightest bit better? Conversely, is there any evidence that our policies of isolation and embargo have made life for Castro and his ruling clique one bit worse? The answer to both questions, of course, is no. So why continue to pursue a foreign policy that is producing the opposite effect of what is intended? While there is no evidence that sanctions and isolation work, there is plenty of evidence--real concrete evidence--that engagement and trade actually bring about democratic change. In the former Soviet- dominated world--particularly in Central Europe--it was American commercial and individual engagement that proved key to the demise of the dictatorships. It was Americans traveling to these lands with new ideas and a different attitude toward government that helped nurture the seeds of discontent among a population living under the yoke of tyranny. It was American commercial activity that brought in products that the closed and controlled economic systems would or could not produce, thus underscoring to the population the failure of planned economies. With the system of one-party rule so obviously and undeniably proven unworkable and unsatisfactory in Central Europe, even those who had served the one-party state began to shift their views and work in opposition to that rule. Thus began the fall of the Soviet empire. Yet those who support sanctions and isolation still seek to deny history in their drive to pursue a policy that has not worked for forty years. Mr. Chairman, finally and importantly, I strongly oppose sanctions for the simple reason that they hurt American industries, particularly agriculture. Every time we shut our own farmers out of foreign markets, they are exploited by foreign farmers. China, Russia, the Middle East, North Korea, and Cuba all represent huge potential for our farm products, yet many in Congress favor trade restrictions that prevent our farmers from selling to the billions of people in these areas. We are one of the world's largest agricultural producers--why would we ever choose to restrict our exports? Why would we want to do harm to our domestic producers by pursuing a policy that does not work? The only beneficiaries of our sanctions policies are our foreign competitors; the ones punished are our own producers. It is time to end restrictions on Cuba travel and trade.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to commemorate a unique and magnificent group of old aviators who have received very little publicity in the civilian sector. They will celebrate their 90th and 60th anniversaries in conjunction with the Commemorative Air Force (CAF) ``Wings Over Houston'' Air Show from October 23-26, 2002, in Houston, Texas. The first Enlisted Pilot, Vernon L. Burge, earned his wings in the old Signal Corps in 1912. Prior to World War 11, 282 enlisted pilots served in the Signal Corps, then in the Army Air Service and later in the Army Air Corps as rated pilots. Many flew the Air Mail during the early 1930s of the Roosevelt Administration. With the approach of WWII, aircraft manufacturers were producing aircraft faster than the Air Corps could fill with pilots. To qualify for Flight Training, a cadet was required to have two years of college. To fill this shortage of pilots, Congress enacted legislation in 1941 authorizing enlisted men to participate in aerial flight. To qualify for Pilot Training, the enlisted men had to meet several stringent requirements. They had to be enlisted in the regular Army, not drafted, possess a high-school diploma, pass a rigid physical exam, and sign a contract with the Army avowing that upon completion of Flight Training, they would continue serving in the Army Air Corps as Staff Sergeant Pilots for three years, as Technical Sergeant Pilots for three years, as Master Sergeants for three years, and end the contract as Warrant Officer Pilots. The Enlisted Pilots (aviation students) attended the same ground schools, same flying schools, had the same flight instructors, same training airplanes, and successfully completed the same curriculum as the Aviation Cadets. Almost 2,500 enlisted men graduated as Enlisted Pilots from Ellington, Kelly, Luke, Mather, Columbus, Dothan, Lubbock, Moody, Roswell, Spencer, Turner, Victorville, Williams, Craig and Stockton Air Bases in Classes 42-C through 42-J, the last class of Enlisted Pilots. Upon graduation, and ordered to participate in Aerial Flight by General ``Hap'' Arnold, Chief of the Army Air Corps, these pilots flew Douglas A-20s, Curtis P-36s and P-40s, Lockheed P-38s, North American P-64s, Douglas C-47s, C-48s, C-49s, C-53s. They flew many of these aircraft in combat as Staff Sergeant Pilots. Later, as officers, they flew all of the aircraft in the Air Force inventory during and after WWII. The Flight Training of Aviation Students Program was discontinued in November 1942, with enlisted men graduating as Flight Officers in following classes. Charles ``Chuck'' Yeager, the first pilot to exceed the speed of sound, completed his flight training as an enlisted man but graduated as a Flight Officer in December 1942. Bob Hoover, the world renowned military and civilian acrobatic pilot was an Enlisted Pilot. Walter H. Beech served as an Enlisted Pilot in 1919 and later founded the Beech Aircraft Company in Wichita, Kansas. The Air Force honors the third Enlisted Pilot, William C. Ocker, for pioneering instrument flying by naming the Instrument Flight Center at Randolph AFB in his memory. Captain Claire Chennault organized a flight demonstration team at Maxwell Air Field in 1932, called the ``Men on the Flying Trapeze'' (the forerunner of the Thunderbirds), which at one time included two Enlisted Pilots, Sergeant William C. McDonald and Sergeant John H. Williamson. Staff Sergeant Ray Clinton flew solo stunt and backup for the team. The Enlisted Pilots' accomplishments are many and their legend is a long one of dedication and patriotism. Seventeen became Fighter Pilot Aces and thirteen became General Officers. They pioneered many air routes throughout the world. After release from active duty, they became airline pilots, airline union heads, corporate executives, bank presidents, teachers, doctors, manufacturers of racing cars, corporate aviation department heads, and much, much more. Of the almost 3,000 American Enlisted Pilots from 1912 through 1942, approximately 600 remain. They are a terminal organization--most of them are in their early eighties. According to retired USAF General Edwin F. Wenglar, chairman of the Grand Muster Reunion, 75 to 100 of these grand Airmen will be able to attend their reunion, which could very well be the last gathering of the finest and most magnificent aviators in the annals of aviation history.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, as the attached article (``A Classic Hayekian Hangover'') by economists Roger Garrison and Gene Callahan makes clear, much of the cause for our current economic uneasiness is to be found in the monetary expansion over most of the past decade. In short, expansion of the money supply as made possible by the policy of fiat currency, leads directly and inexorably to the kind of problems we have seen in the financial markets of late. Moreover, if we do not make the necessary policy changes, we will eventually see similar problems throughout the entire economy. As the authors point out, our ability to understand the linkage between inflated money supplies and subsequent economic downturns is owing to the ground breaking work of the legendary economists of the Austrian school. This Austrian Business Cycle (or ``ABC'') theory has long explained the inevitable downside that attends to a busting of the artificial bubble created by inflationary fiat monetary practices. In the current instance, the fact that there has been nearly a decade of significant increases in the seasonally adjusted money supply, as measured by MZM (as shown by the chart included with the article), serves as a direct explanation for the over capitalization and excess confidence which we have seen recently leaving financial markets. In short, as this article shows, the Austrian theory alone understands the causes for what has been termed ``irrational exuberance'' in the financial markets. Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the authors of this fine article as well as to call it to the attention of my colleagues in hopes that we will not merely understand its implications but also that we find the courage to change monetary policy so that we will not see a repeat performance of this year's market volatility. A Classic Hayekian Hangover (By Roger Garrison and Gene Callahan) Are investment booms followed by busts like drinking binges are followed by hangovers? Dubbing the idea ``The Hangover Theory'' (Slate, 12/3/98), Paul Krugman has attempted to denigrate the business-cycle theory introduced early last century by Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises and developed most notably by Nobelist F. A. Hayek. Yet, proponents of the Austrian theory have themselves embraced this apt metaphor. And if investment is the intoxicant, then the interest rate is the minimum drinking age. Set the interest rate too low, and there is bound to be trouble ahead. The metaphorical drinking age is set by--and periodically changed by--the Federal Reserve. In our Fed-centric mixed economy, the understanding that ``the Fed sets interest rates'' has become widely accepted as a simple institutional fact. But unlike an actual drinking age, which has an inherent degree of arbitrariness about it, the interest rate cannot simply be ``set'' by some extra-market authority. With market forces in play, it has a life of its own. The interest rate is a price. It's the price that brings into balance our eagerness to consume now and our willingness to save and invest for the future. The more we save, the lower the market rate. Our increased saving makes more investment possible; the lower rate makes investments more future oriented. In this way, the market balances current consumption and economic growth. Price fixing foils the market. Government mandated ceilings on apartment rental rates, for instance, create housing shortages, as is well known by anyone who has gone apartment hunting in New York City. Similarly, a legislated interest- rate ceiling would cause a credit shortage: The volume of investment funds demanded would exceed people's actual willingness to save. But the Fed can do more than simply impose a ceiling on credit markets. Setting the interest rate below where the market would have it is accomplished not by decree but by increasing the money supply, temporarily masking the discrepancy between supply and demand. This papering over of the credit shortage hides a problem that would otherwise be obvious, allowing it to fester beneath a binge of investment spending. An artificially low rate of interest, then, sets the economy off on an unsustainable growth path. During the boom, investment spending is excessively long-term and overly optimistic. Further, high levels of consumer spending draw real resources away from the investment sector, increasing the gap between the resources actually available and the resources needed to see the long-term and speculative investments through to completion. Save more, and we get a market process that plays itself out as economic growth. Pump new money through credit markets, and we get a market process of a very different kind: It doesn't play itself out; it does itself in. The investment binge is followed by a hangover. This is the Austrian theory in a nutshell. (Ironically, it is the theory that Alan Greenspan presented forty years ago when he lectured for the Nathaniel Branden Institute.) We believe that there is strong evidence that the United States is now in the hangover phase of a classic Mises-Hayek business cycle. In recent years money-supply figures have become clouded by institutional and technological change. But in our view, a tale-telling pattern is traced out by the MZM data reported by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. ZM standing for ``zero maturity,'' this monetary aggregate is a better indicator of credit conditions than are the more narrowly defined M's. After increasing at a rate of less than 2.5% during the first three years of the Clinton administration, MZM increased over the next three years of the Clinton administration, MZM increased over the next three years (1996-1998) at an annualized rate of over 10%, rising during the last half of 1998 at a binge rate of almost 15%. Sean Corrigan, a principal in Capital Insight, a UK-based financial consultancy, has recently detailed the consequences of the expansion that came in ``. . . autumn 1998, when the world economy, still racked by the problems of the Asian credit bust over the preceding year, then had to cope with the Russian default and the implosion of the mighty Long-Term Capital Management.'' Corrigan goes on: ``Over the next eighteen months, the Fed added $55 billion to its portfolio of Treasuries and swelled repos held from $6.5 billion to $22 billion . . . [T]his translated into a combined money market mutual fund and commercial bank asset increase of $870 billion to the market peak, of $1.2 trillion to the industrial production peak, and of $1.8 trillion to date-- twice the level of real GDP added in the same interval'' (http://www.mises.org/fullarticle.asp?control=754). The party was in full swing, and the Fed kept the good times rolling by cutting the fed funds rate a whole basis point between June 1998 and January 1999. The rate on 30-year Treasuries dropped from a high of over 7% to a low of 5%. Stock markets soared. The NASDAQ composite went from just over 1000 to over 5000 during the period, rising over 80% in 1999 alone. With abundant credit being freely served to Internet start-ups, hordes of corporate managers, who had seemed married to their stodgy blue-chip companies, suddenly were romancing some sexy dot-com that had just joined the party. Meanwhile consumer spending stayed strong--with very low (sometimes negative) savings rates. Growth was not being fueled by real investment, which would require forgoing current consumption to save for the future, but by the monetary printing press. As so often happens at bacchanalia, when the party entered the wee hours, it became apparent that too many guys had planned on taking the same girl home. There were too few resources available for all of their plans to succeed. The most crucial--and most general-- unavailable factor was a continuing flow of investment funds. There also turned out to be shortages of programmers, network engineers, technical managers, and other factors of production. The rising prices of these factors exacerbated the ill effects of the shortage of funds. The business plans for many of the startups involved negative cash flows for the first 10 or 15 years, while they ``built market share.'' To keep the atmosphere festive, they needed the host to keep filling the punch bowl. But fears of inflation led to Federal Reserve tightening in late 1999, which helped bring MZM growth back into the single digits (8.5% for the 1999-2000 period). As the punch bowl emptied, the hangover--and the dot-com bloodbath--began. According to research from Webmergers.com, at least 582 Internet companies closed their doors between May 2000 and July of this year. The plunge in share price of many of those still alive has been gut wrenching. The NASDAQ retraced two years of gains in a little over a year. During the first half of 2001, the Fed demonstrated--with its half-dozen interest-rate cuts and a near-desperate MZM growth of over 23%--that you can't recreate euphoria in the midst of a hangover. It all adds up to the Austrian theory. As a final twist to our story, we note that Krugman, who before could only mock the Austrians, has recently given us an Austrian account of our macroeconomic ills. In his ``Delusions of Prosperity'' (New York Times, 8/14/01), Krugman explains how our current difficulties go beyond those of a simple financial panic: ``We are not in the midst of a financial panic, and recovery isn't simply a matter of restoring confidence. Indeed, excessive confidence [fostered by unduly low interest rates maintained by rapid monetary growth?--RG & GC] may be part of the problem. Instead of being the victims of self- fulfilling pessimism, we may be suffering from self-defeating optimism. The driving force behind the current slowdown is a plunge in business investment. It now seems clear that over the last few years businesses spent too much on equipment and software and that they will be cautious about further spending until their excess capacity has been worked off. And the Fed cannot do much to change their minds, since equipment spending [at least when such spending has already proved to be excessive--RG & GC] is not particularly sensitive to interest rates.'' With Krugman on the verge of rediscovering the policy- induced self-reversing process that we call the Austrian theory of the business cycle, we confidently claim that current macroeconomic conditions are best described as a classic Hayekian hangover. The Austrian theory, of course, gives us no policy prescription for converting this ongoing hangover into renewed euphoria. But it does provide us with the best guide for avoiding future ones.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of the motion by the gentleman from Ohio. It is not easy to do this, obviously, and it is difficult for all of us to be here because it seems like, on the surface, there was unethical, probably illegal, and certainly bizarre behavior, and we feel offended by this and we feel compelled to do something to prove that we are keeping our House in order. I am not an expert on the legal part of this case. I would not pretend to be, and the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct deserves the credit for the effort they went through to dig out the information. But the process disturbs me, and that is why I wanted to take a minute or two to talk about that. The point was made earlier that the House's conditions are a lot different than the legal conditions for guilt and, therefore, they are not as stringent. But we would not be here if Mr. Traficant had not been convicted, and so that is key. That is the important issue. And that trial bothers me. I do not accept it as a good, fair, legitimate trial. I do not think all the witnesses were heard that should have been heard, and I think some of the witnesses may well have been ``bribed'' into doing and saying certain things. But there is more that bothers me. I would like to see the appeals process completed. I was here in 1984, on my first tour of duty here in the House, and the George Hansen case came up and we voted then to convict. I think he had FEC violations and we voted to censure him. He lost his election, he lost his job, he lost his money, he went to jail and served time, and then he was exonerated on everything. He won all his appeals. I do not see the need to rush to judgment, certainly tonight. I am not happy that when the gentleman finally gets an opportunity to come and defend himself, he gets a total of 30 minutes. Really? And have my colleagues looked at the record of the case in Ohio? It contains a stack a foot high. Thirty minutes to defend himself? I do not think that is really fair. But there is another thing that bothers me, and that is the change of venue. I believe that the change of venue has been used historically in this country to make sure that the most horrible criminal gets a fair trial and gets his case moved from a area unduly influenced by media coverage. Have any of my colleagues ever heard of a trial being moved for the benefit of the State and to the disadvantage of the defendant? It may have happened, but I do not know about it, and I think that in itself is a reason to step back, take a look at this, and vote for the motion by the gentleman from Ohio. Mr. Speaker, many of Congressman Traficant's actions are impossible to defend. Mr. Traficant has most likely engaged in unethical behavior. I would hope all my colleagues would join me in condemning any member who would abuse his office by requiring his staff to pay kick-backs to him and/or do personal work as a condition of employment. I also condemn in the strongest terms possible using one's office to obtain personal favors for constituents, the people we are sent here to represent. Such behavior should never be tolerated. However, before expelling a member we must consider more than eccentric behavior and even ethical standards. Questions of whether the process of his court conviction and expulsion from Congress respected Mr. Traficant's constitutional right to a fair trail and the right to be represented of those who elected him to office, are every bit as important. Many Americans believe that Congress daily engages in ethically questionable and unconstitutional actions which are far more injurious to the liberty and prosperity of the American people than the actions of Mr. Traficant. Some question the ability of Congress to judge the moral behavior of one individual when, to take just one example, we manage to give ourselves a pay raise without taking a direct vote on the issue. Mr. Speaker, after carefully listening to last week's ethics hearing, I have serious concerns over whether Mr. Traficant received a fair trial. In particular, I am concerned over whether the change of venue denied Mr. Traficant a meaningful opportunity to present his care to a jury of his peers. Usually change of venue is instituted in cases where the defendant is incapable of receiving a fair trial. I am unaware of any case where the venue is changed for the benefit of the state. However, the most disturbing accusations concern the possibility that Mr. Traficant was denied basic due process by not being allowed to present all of his witnesses at the trial. This failure raises serious questions as to whether Mr. Traficant had the opportunity to present an adequate defense. These questions are especially serious since one of the jurors from Mr. Traficant's criminal trial has told the Cleveland Plain Dealer, that had he heard the testimony of Richard Detore at Mr. Traficant's trial, he would have voted ``not guilty.'' Mr. Speaker, I also question the timing of this resolution and the process by which this resolution is being brought to the floor. Mr. Traficant's conviction is currently on appeal. Many Americans would reasonably wonder whether the case, and the question of Mr. Traficant's guilt, can be considered settled, until the appeals process is completed. I fail to see the harm that could be done to this body if we waited until Mr. Traficant has exhausted his right to appeal. Prior to voting to expel Mr. Traficant before he has completed his appeals, my colleagues should consider the case of former Representative George Hansen. Like Mr. Traficant, Mr. Hansen was convicted in Federal court, censured by the Congress, and actually served time in Federal prison. However, Mr. Hansen was acquitted on appeal--after his life, career and reputation were destroyed. If my colleagues feel it is important to condemn Mr. Traficant before the August recess, perhaps we should consider censure. Over the past 20 years, this body has censured, instead of expelled, members who have committed various ethical and even criminal activities, ranging from being convicted of bribery to engaging in sexual activity with under- age subordinates. I am also troubled that Mr. Traficant is only being granted a half- hour to plead his case before the house. Spending only an hour to debate this resolution, as if expelling a member of Congress is of no more importance than honoring Paul Ecke's contributions to the Poinsettia industry, does no service to this Congress. In conclusion Mr. Speaker, because of my concerns over the fairness of Mr. Traficant's trial I believe it is inappropriate to consider this matter until Mr. Traficant has exhausted his right to appeal.