Ron Paul

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, like many Americans, I am greatly concerned about abortion. Abortion on demand is no doubt the most serious social- political problem of our age. The lack of respect for life that permits abortion significantly contributes to our violent culture and our careless attitude toward liberty. Whether a civilized society treats human life with dignity or contempt determines the outcome of that civilization. Reaffirming the importance of the sanctity of life is crucial for the continuation of a civilized society. There is already strong evidence that we are indeed on the slippery slope toward euthanasia and human experimentation. Although the real problem lies within the hearts and minds of the people, the legal problems of protecting life stem from the ill-advised Roe v. Wade ruling, a ruling that constitutionally should never have occurred. The best solution, of course, is not now available to us. That would be a Supreme Court that recognizes that for all criminal laws, the several states retain jurisdiction. Something that Congress can do is remove the issue from the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts, so that states can deal with the problems surrounding abortion, thus helping to reverse some of the impact of Roe v. Wade. Unfortunately, H.R. 4965 takes a different approach, one that is not only constitutionally flawed, but flawed in principle, as well. Though I will vote to ban the horrible partial-birth abortion procedure, I fear that the language and reasoning used in this bill do not further the pro-life cause, but rather cement fallacious principles into both our culture and legal system. For example, 14G in the ``Findings'' section of this bill states, ``. . . such a prohibition [upon the partial-birth abortion procedure] will draw a bright line that clearly distinguishes abortion and infanticide . . .'' The question I wish to pose in response is this: Is not the fact that life begins at conception the main tenet of the pro-life community? By stating that we are drawing a ``bright line'' between abortion and infanticide, I fear that we are simply reinforcing the dangerous idea underlying Roe v. Wade, which is the belief that we as human beings can determine which members of the human family are ``expendable,'' and which are not. The belief that we as a society can decide which persons are ``expendable,'' leads us directly down a slippery slope of violence and apathy toward humanity. Though many decry such ethicists as Peter Singer of Princeton, who advocates the ``right'' of parents to choose infanticide, as well as euthanasia, his reasoning is simply a logical extension of the ethic underlying Roe v. Wade, which is that if certain people are not ``useful'' or ``convenient,'' they should be done away with. H.R. 4965 also depends heavily upon a ``distinction'' made by the Court in both Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which established that a child within the womb is not protected under law, but one outside of the womb is. By depending upon this false and illogical ``distinction,'' I fear that H.R. 4965, as I stated before, ingrains the principles of Roe v. Wade into our justice system, rather than refutes them as it should. Despite its severe flaws, the bill nonetheless has the possibility of saving innocent human life, and should therefore be supported. I fear, though, that when the pro-life community uses the arguments of the opposing side to advance its agenda, it does more harm than good. I wish to conclude with a quote from Mother Theresa, who gave a beautiful and powerful speech about abortion on February 3, 1994, at the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington DC: ``. . . From here, a sign of care for the weakest of the weak--the unborn child--must go out to the world. If you (in the United States) become a burning light of justice and peace in the world, then really you will be true to what the founders of this country stood for . . .'' May we see bills in the future that stay true to the solid principles the founders of this country stood for, rather than waver and compromise these principles.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the Department of Homeland Security, who needs it? Mr. Speaker, everyone agrees the 9-11 tragedy confirmed a problem that exists in our domestic security and dramatized our vulnerability to outside attacks. Most agree that the existing bureaucracy was inept. The CIA, the FBI, the INS, and Customs failed to protect us. It was not a lack of information that caused this failure; they had plenty. But they filed to analyze, communicate, and use the information to our advantage. The flawed foreign policy of interventionism that we have followed for decades significantly contributed to the attacks. Warnings had been sounded by the more astute that our meddling in the affairs of others would come to no good. This resulted in our inability to defend our own cities, while spending hundreds of billions of dollars providing more defense for others than for ourselves. In the aftermath, we were even forced to ask other countries to patrol our airways to provide security for us. A clear understanding of private property and an owner's responsibility to protect it has been seriously undermined. This was especially true for the airline industry. The benefit of gun ownership and second amendment protections were prohibited. The government was given the responsibility for airline safety through FAA rules and regulations, and it failed miserably. The solution now being proposed is a giant new Federal department, and it is the only solution we are being offered, and one which I am certain will lead to tens of billions of dollars of new spending. What is being done about the lack of emphasis on private property ownership? 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 gets 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. Is the first amendment revitalized, and are owners permitted to defend their property, their passengers, and personnel? No, no hint of it, unless you are El Al airlines, which enjoys this right, while no others do. Has anything been done to limit immigration from countries placed on the terrorist list? Hardly. Have we done anything to slow up immigration of individuals with Saudi passports? No, oil is too important to offend the Saudis. Yet, we have done plenty to undermine the liberties and privacy of all Americans through legislation such as the PATRIOT Act. A program is being planned to use millions of Americans to spy on their neighbors, an idea appropriate for a totalitarian society. Regardless of any assurances, we all know that the national ID card will soon be instituted. Who believes for a moment that the military will not be used to enforce civil law in the near future? Posse comitatus will be repealed by executive order or by law, and liberty, the Constitution, and the Republic will suffer another major setback. Unfortunately, foreign policy will not change, and those who suggest that it be strictly designed for American security will be shouted down for their lack of patriotism. Instead, war fever will build until the warmongers get their wish and we march on Baghdad, making us even a greater target of those who despise us for our bellicose control of the world. A new department is hardly what we need. That is more of the same, and will surely not solve our problems. It will, however, further undermine our liberties and hasten the day of our national bankruptcy. A common sense improvement to homeland security would allow the DOD to provide protection, not a huge, new, militarized domestic department. We need to bring our troops home, including our Coast Guard; close down the base in Saudi Arabia; stop expanding our presence in the Muslim portion of the former Soviet Union; and stop taking sides in the long, ongoing war in the Middle East. If we did these few things, we would provide a lot more security and protect our liberties a lot better than any new department ever will, and it will cost a lot less.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Free Housing Market Enhancement Act. This legislation restores a free market in housing by repealing special privileges for the housing-related government sponsored enterprises (GSE). These entities are the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), and the National Home Loan Bank Board. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the housing-related GSEs received 13.6 billion worth of indirect federal subsidies in Fiscal Year 2000 alone. One of the major government privileges granted the GSEs is a line of credit to the United States Treasury. According to some estimates, the line of credit may be worth over $2 billion dollars. This explicit promise by the Treasury to bail out the GSEs in times of economic difficulty helps the GSEs attract investors who are willing to settle for lower yields than they would demand in the absence of the subsidy. Thus, the line of credit distorts the allocation of capital. More importantly, the line of credit is a promise on behalf of the government to engage in a massive unconstitutional and immoral income transfer from working Americans to holders of GSE debt. The Free Housing Market Enhancement Act also repeals the explicit grant of legal authority given to the Federal Reserve to purchase the debt of the GSE. GSEs are the only institutions besides the United States Treasury granted explicit statutory authority to monetarize their debt through the Federal Reserve. This provision gives the GSEs a source of liquidity unavailable to their competitors. Ironically, by transferring the risk of a widespread mortgage default, the government increases the likelihood of a painful crash in the housing market. This is because the special privileges of Fannie and Freddie have distorted the housing market by allowing Fannie, Freddie and the home loan bank board to attract capital they could not attract under pure market conditions. As a result, capitol is diverted from its most productive use into housing. This reduces the efficacy of the entire market and thus reduces the standard of living of all Americans. However, despite the long-term damage to the economy inflicted by the government's interference in the housing market, the government's policies of diverting capital to other uses creates a short-term boom in housing. Like all artificially-created bubbles, the boom in housing prices cannot last forever. When housing prices fall, homeowners will experience difficulty as their equity is wiped out. Furthermore, the holders of the mortgage debt will also have a loss. These losses will be greater than they would have otherwise been had government policy not actively encouraged over-investment in housing. Perhaps the Federal Reserve can stave off the day of reckoning by purchasing the GSE's debt and pumping liquidity into the housing market, but this cannot hold off the inevitable drop in the housing market forever. In fact, postponing the necessary, but painful market corrections will only deepen the inevitable fall. The more people invested in the market, the greater the effects across the economy when the bubble bursts. No less an authority than Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has expressed concern that the government subsidies provided to the GSEs make investors underestimate the risk of investing in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Mr. Speaker, it is time for Congress to act to remove taxpayer support from the housing GSEs before the bubble bursts and taxpayers are once again forced to bail out investors who where misled by foolish government interference in the market. I therefore hope my colleagues will stand up for American taxpayers and investors by cosponsoring the Free Housing Market Enhancement Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment, but I would like to mention that this is essentially the same amendment that I had prepared to offer, an amendment that I put into the Record 2 days ago. But I will support this amendment because it is essentially doing what I was anxious to do. Shortly after 9-11, as a matter of fact, on September 17, I introduced legislation into this body, H.R. 2896. It would have taken care of this problem in a more conclusive way, and it would have removed all the prohibitions and legalized, once again, the right of property owners to defend their property. Of course, that would be the ultimate solution, as far as I am concerned, because we are moving in a direction, unfortunately, towards more dependence on government and government regulation, and government programs that allow weapons in a cockpit. An example I like to use, which I think is an accurate example, if we look at the inner cities, guns are denied to the citizens. There are a lot of police and there is a lot of crime. If we look to the suburbs and the rural areas, there are essentially no police, there are a lot of guns in the homes, and there are essentially no crimes. That principle should be applied to the airlines. It should be applied because guns can prevent crime, and we should allow them to be placed in the hands of the owners. I have a tie that is a favorite tie of mine, and it has a picture of the Bill of Rights, but it has a stamp over it which says, ``void where prohibited by law.'' I think we do too much of that around here. A lot of times I get support from the other side of the aisle when they see the prohibitions that our legislation places on the First Amendment. Likewise, I get a lot of support when I would like to reduce the prohibitions on the Fourth Amendment in the area of privacy. Unfortunately, since 9-11, we have moved in the wrong direction. We are making more prohibitions by law on our Bill of Rights. In this case we are moving in the right direction because we are trying to remove some prohibitions that are limiting our Second Amendment rights. Our job here in the Congress should be to protect the Second Amendment, never to get in the way of the Second Amendment. This is why, although this amendment improves the bill and the bill is moving in that direction, I can support it, but we ought to do a lot more. Another example of how private property could work was the recent example at LAX Airport. Private owners of an airline assumed responsibility for security at the gate. Many lives were probably saved with El Al guards, private guards with private weapons, that tragically are denied to American airlines. Because of an agreement between one foreign airline and the U.S. Department of Transportation, it has been given permission to protect their people better than we are allowed to protect ourselves. That to me just seems downright foolish, and I think we in the Congress should demand our rights of the Second Amendment and insist on the responsibility of property owners to protect their property and to protect our lives. We are moving in that direction, and El Al deserves definite compliments, but we deserve deep scrutiny. Why do we permit a foreign airline to provide more security for their people than we are allowed in our country? The best step in the world, of course, would be to pass my bill, H.R. 2896, which would just legalize once again the Second Amendment and allow our airlines to make the decision, and let the people decide. The airlines that say, we have guns in the cockpit, I would go fly that airline; if they say no, we do not believe in guns, let it be. We need to, once again, believe in America, believe in freedom, believe in the Bill of Rights, and let the people take care of so many of these problems instead of getting in the way. This bill, fortunately, is helping to get the government out of the way. That is why I support it.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the efforts of three men, John Keating, Joe Sapere and Jerry Suggs. These three gentlemen are now embarked upon a bicycle ride across America, having begun June 8 in Newport Beach, CA with anticipated completion in Jamestown, VA on the 21st of July, the anniversary of the ``Americans with Disabilities Act'' (ADA). What is most extraordinary about this journey Mr. Speaker is that each of these gentlemen is an amputee. John Keating, age 40, is the son of a former U.S. Defense attache and is the father of three sons. Joe Sapere, age 61, is a retired Air Force Colonel and a recent amputee. Jerry Suggs, 68, is retired form our U.S. Navy. The reason for this trip, Mr. Speaker, is to demonstrate that life does not end with amputation, but can include high-intensity activities such as bicycling and skydiving. These men are visiting rehab facilities along the way and giving encouragement to those who have felt constrained. One young lady they have met was a tennis player and had given up the sport when she lost a leg. They convinced her to take up the racquet again and start playing. As a Physician and Congressman, I honor these gentlemen for their efforts and invite others to learn more about these activities on line at www.amputees-across-america.com.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Maj. Gen. Gerald F. Perryman, Jr. on the occasion of his retirement from his position as Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff for Warfighting Integration, Headquarters U.S. Air Force, Washington, DC. General Perryman entered the Air Force in 1970 through Texas A&M University's ROTC program. During his distinguished career he commanded the Air Force's Peacekeeper missile squadron during its transition from the Minuteman weapon system, and led the 91st Missile Group to win the 1994 Omaha Trophy as the best of U.S. Strategic Command's Air Force and Navy ballistic missile units. The general has commanded a missile wing and space wing. He also commanded 14th Air Force and was Component Commander of U.S. Air Force space operations within U.S. Space Command. As Commander of the Aerospace Command and Control, intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Center, General Perryman was responsible for integrating command and control, and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance for the Air Force to improve the ability of commanders to create desired effects in the battlespace. The general has served as a missile combat crew commander in the Minuteman and Peacekeeper weapons systems, and as a space warning crew commander. Again, Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend General Perryman on the occasion of his retirement from a distinguished military career.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the question I want to address today is: Has capitalism failed again? It is now commonplace and politically correct to blame what is referred to as the excesses of capitalism for the economic problems that we face, and especially for the Wall Street fraud that dominates the business news. Politicians are having a field day demagoguing the issue while, of course, failing to address the fraud and deceit found in the budgetary shenanigans of the Federal Government for which they are directly responsible. Instead, it gives the Keynesian crowd that runs the show a chance to attack free markets and ignore the issue of sound money. So once again we hear the chant: Capitalism has failed; we need more government controls over the entire financial markets. No one asked why the billions that have been spent and thousand of pages of regulations that have been written since the last attack on capitalism in the 1930s did not prevent the fraud and deception of the Enrons, the WorldComs, and the Global Crossings. That failure surely could not have come from a dearth of regulations. What is distinctly absent is any mention that all financial bubbles are saturated with excesses in hype, speculation, depth, greed, fraud, gross errors in investment judgment, carelessness on the part of the analysts and investors, huge paper profits, conviction that a new-era economy has arrived, and above all else, pie-in-the-sky expectations. When the bubble is inflating, there are no complaints. When it bursts, the blame game begins. This is especially true in the age of victimization and is done on a grand scale. It quickly becomes a philosophic, partisan, class, generational and even a racial issue. While avoiding the real cause, all the fingerpointing makes it difficult to resolve the crisis and further undermines the principles upon which freedom and prosperity rests. Nixon was right once, when he declared we are all Keynesians now. All of Washington is in sync in declaring that too much capitalism has brought us to where we are today. The only decision now before the central planners in Washington is whose special interest will continue to benefit from the coming pretense at reform. The various special interests will be lobbying heavily, like the Wall Street investors, the corporations, the military-industrial complex, the banks, the workers, the unions, the farmers, the politicians and who knows who else, but what is not discussed is the actual cause and perpetration of the excesses now unraveling at a frantic pace. This same response occurred in the 1930s in the United States as our policymakers responded to very similar excesses that developed and collapsed in 1929. Because of the failure to understand the problem then, the Depression was prolonged. These mistakes allowed our current problems to develop to a much greater degree. Like the failure to come to grips with the cause of the 1980s bubble, Japan's economy continued to linger at no-growth and recession level, with their stock market at approximately one fourth of its peak 13 years ago. If we are not careful, and so far we have not been, we will make the same errors that will prevent the correction needed before economic growth can be resumed. In the 1930s it was quite popular to condemn the greed of capitalism, the gold standard, lack of regulation, and no government insurance on bank deposits for the disaster. Businessmen became the scapegoat. Changes were made as a result and the welfare warfare state was institutionalized. Easy credit became the holy grail of monetary policy, especially under Alan Greenspan, the ultimate maestro. Today, despite the presumed protection from these Government programs built into the system, we find ourselves in a bigger mess than ever before. The bubble is bigger, the boom lasted longer, and the gold price has been deliberately undermined as an economic signal. Monetary inflation continues at a rate never seen before in a frantic effort to prop up stock prices and continue the housing bubble, while avoiding the consequences that inevitably come from easy credit. This is all done because we are unwilling to acknowledge that current policy is only setting the stage for a huge drop in the value of the dollar. Everyone fears it, but no one wants to deal with it. Out of ignorance as well as disapproval for the natural restraints placed on market excesses that capitalism and sound markets impose, capitalism is not only rejected, it is blamed for all problems we face. If this fallacy is not corrected and capitalism is even further undermined, the prosperity that the free market generates will be destroyed. Corruption and fraud in the accounting practices of many companies are coming to light. There are those who would have us believe this is an integral part of free market capitalism. If we did have free market capitalism, there would be no guarantees that some fraud would not occur. When it did, it would be dealt with by local law enforcement authorities, not by the politicians in Washington who had their chance to prevent such problems but choose instead to politicize the issue while using the opportunity to promote more Keynesian, useless regulations. Capitalism should not be condemned since we have not had capitalism. A system of capitalism presumes sound money, not fiat money manipulated by a central bank. Capitalism cherishes voluntary contracts and interest rates that are determined by savings, not credit creation by a central bank. It is not capitalism when the system is plagued with incomprehensible rules regarding mergers, acquisitions, stock sales, wage controls, price controls, protectionism, corporate subsidies, international management of trade, complex and punishing corporate taxes, privileged Government contracts to the military-industrial complex, a foreign policy controlled by corporate interests and overseas investments; central mismanagement of farming, education, medicine, insurance, banking and welfare. This is not capitalism. To condemn free market capitalism because of anything going on today makes no sense whatsoever. There is no evidence that capitalism exists today. We are deeply involved in an interventionist, planned economy that allows major benefits to accrue to the politically connected of both political spectrums. One may condemn the fraud in the current system, but it must be called its proper name, Keynesian, inflationism, interventionism, and corporatism. What is not discussed is that the current crop of bankruptcies reveals that the blatant distortions and lies emanating from years of speculative orgy were predictable. First, Congress should be investigating the Federal Government's fraud and deception in accounting, reporting future obligations such as Social Security and how the monetary system destroys wealth. Those problems are bigger than anything in the corporate world and are the responsibility of the Congress. Besides, it is the standard set by the Government and the monetary system it operates that are the major contributing causes to all that is wrong on Wall Street today. When fraud does exist, it is a State matter, not a Federal one, and State authorities can enforce these laws without any help from Congress. Second, we do know why financial bubbles occur and we know from history that they are routinely associated with speculation, excessive debt, wild promises, greed, lying and cheating. These problems were described by quite a few observers as the problems were developing in the 1990s, but the warnings were ignored, for one reason; everybody was making a killing and no one cared, and those who were reminded of history were reassured by the Fed chairman that, this time, a new economic era had arrived and not to worry. Productivity increases, it was said, could explain it all. But now we know that is just not so. Speculative bubbles and all that we have been witnessing are a consequence of huge amounts of easy credit, created out of thin air by the Federal Reserve. We have had essentially no savings, which is one of the most significant driving forces in capitalism. The illusion created by low interest rates perpetuates the bubble and all the bad stuff that goes along with it. And that is not a fault of capitalism. We are dealing with a system of inflationism and interventionism that always produces a bubble economy that must end badly. So far, the assessment made by the administration, the Congress, and the Fed bodes badly for our economic future. All they offer is more of the same, which cannot possibly help. All it will do is drive us closer to national bankruptcy, a sharply lower dollar and a lower standard of living for most Americans, as well as less freedoms for everyone. This is a bad scenario that need not happen. But preserving our system is impossible if the critics are allowed to blame capitalism and sound monetary policy is rejected. More spending, more debt, more easy money, more distortion of interest rates, more regulations on everything, more foreign meddling, will soon force us to the very uncomfortable position of deciding the fate of our entire political system. If we were to choose freedom and capitalism, we would restore our dollar to a commodity or a gold standard. Federal spending would be reduced; income taxes would be lowered and taxes would be removed from savings, dividends and capital gains; regulations would be reduced; special interest subsidies would be stopped and no protectionist measures would be permitted; our foreign policy would change and we would bring our troops home. We cannot depend on government to restore trust to the markets. Only trustworthy people can do that. Actually, the lack of trust in Wall Street executives is healthy, because it is deserved and prompts caution. The same lack of trust in the politicians, the budgetary process, and the monetary system would serve as a healthy incentive for the reforms in government we need. Markets regulate better than governments can. Depending on government regulations to protect us significantly contributes to the bubble mentality. These moves would produce the climate for releasing the creative energy necessary to simply serve consumers, which is what capitalism is all about. The system that inevitably breeds corporate government cronyism that created our currently ongoing disaster would end. Capitalism did not give us this crisis of confidence now existing in the corporate world. The lack of free markets and sound money did. Congress does have a role to play, but it is not proactive. Congress' job is to get out of the way. Is America a Police State Another subject, Mr. Speaker, I want to address today, is is America a police state? Most Americans believe we live in dangerous times, and I must agree. Today I want to talk about how I see those dangers and what Congress ought to do about them. Of course, the Monday-morning quarterbacks are now explaining with political overtones what we should have done to prevent the 9/11 tragedy. Unfortunately, in doing so, foreign policy changes are never considered. I have for more than 2 decades been severely critical of our post- World War II foreign policy. I have perceived it to be not in our best interests and have believed that it presented a serious danger to our security. For the record, in January of 2000 I said on this floor, ``Our commercial interests in foreign policy are no longer separate. As bad as it is that average Americans are forced to subsidize such a system, we additionally are placed in greater danger because of our arrogant policy of bombing nations that do not submit to our wishes. This generates hatred directed toward America and exposes us to a greater threat of terrorism, since this is the only vehicle our victims can use to retaliate against a powerful military state. The cost in terms of lost liberties and unnecessary exposure to terrorism is difficult to assess, but in time it will become apparent to all of us that foreign interventionism is of no benefit to American citizens. Instead, it is a threat to our liberties.'' Again, let me remind you, these were statements I made on the House floor in January of the year 2000. Unfortunately, my greatest fears and warnings have been borne out. I believe my concerns are as relevant today as they were then. We should move with caution in this post-9/11 period so that we do not make our problems worse overseas while further undermining our liberties at home. So far, our post-9/11 policies have challenged our rule of law here at home and our efforts against the al Qaeda have essentially come up empty-handed. The best we can tell now, instead of being in one place, the members of the al Qaeda are scattered around the world, with more of them in allied Pakistan than in Afghanistan. Our efforts to find our enemies have put the CIA in 80 different countries. The question that someday we must answer is whether we can catch them faster than we generate them. So far, it appears we are losing. As evidence mounts that we have achieved little in reducing the terrorist threat, more diversionary tactics will be used. The big one will be to blame Saddam Hussein for everything and initiate a major war against Iraq, which will only generate even more hatred toward America from the Muslim world. But, Mr. Speaker, my subject today is to discuss whether America is a police state. I am sure the large majority of Americans would answer this in the negative. Most would associate military patrols, martial law and summary executions with a police state, something obviously not present in our everyday activities. However, those knowledgeable with Ruby Ridge, Mount Carmel and other such incidents may have a different opinion. The principal tool for sustaining a police state, even the most militant, is always economic punishment, by denying such things as jobs or a place to live, levying fines or imprisonment. The military is more often only used in the transition phase to a totalitarian state. Maintenance for long periods is usually accomplished through economic controls on commercial transactions, the use of all property and political dissent. Peaceful control through these efforts can be achieved without storm troopers on our street corners. Terror or fear is used to achieve complacency and obedience, especially when the people are deluded into believing they are still a free people. The changes, they are assured, will be minimal, short-lived and necessary, such as those that occur in times of declared war. Under those conditions, most citizens believe that once the war is won, the restrictions on their liberties will be reversed. For the most part, however, after a declared war is over, the return to normalcy is never complete. In an undeclared war, without a precise enemy and, therefore, no precise ending, returning to normalcy can prove illusory. We have just concluded a century of war, declared and undeclared, while at the same time responding to public outcries for more economic equality. The question as a result of these policies is, are we already living in a police state? If we are, what are we going to do about it? If we are not, we need to know if there is any danger that we are moving in that direction. Most police states, surprisingly, come about through the democratic process with majority support. During a crisis, the rights of individuals and the minority are more easily trampled, which is more likely to condition a nation to become a police state than a military coup. Promised benefits initially seem to exceed the cost in dollars or lost freedom. When the people face terrorism or great fear from whatever source, the tendency to demand economic and physical security over liberty and self-reliance proves irresistible. The masses are easily led to believe that security and liberty are mutually exclusive and demand for security far exceeds that for liberty. Once it is discovered that the desire for both economic and physical security that prompted the sacrifice of liberty which inevitably led to the loss of prosperity and no real safety, it is too late. Reversing the trend from authoritarian rule toward a freer society becomes very difficult, takes a long time, and entails much suffering. Although dissolution of the Soviet empire was relatively nonviolent at the end, millions suffered from police suppression and economic deprivation in the decades prior to 1989. But what about here in the United States? With respect to a police state, where are we and where are we going? Let me make a few observations. Our government already keeps close tabs on just about everything we do and requires official permission for nearly all of our activities. One might take a look at our capital for any evidence of a police state. We see barricades, metal detectors, police, the military at times, dogs, ID badges required for every move, vehicles checked at airports and throughout the capital. People are totally disarmed except for the police and the criminals but, worse yet, surveillance cameras in Washington are everywhere to ensure our safety. The terrorist attacks only provided the cover for the do-gooders who had been planning for a long time before last summer to monitor us for our own good. Cameras are used to spy on our drug habits, on our kids at school, on subway travelers, and on visitors to every government building or park. There is not much evidence of an open society in Washington, D.C., yet most folks do not complain. Anything goes if it is for government- provided safety and security. If this huge amount of information and technology is placed in the hands of the government to catch the bad guys, one naturally asks, what is the big deal? But it should be a big deal, because it eliminates the enjoyment of privacy that a free society holds dear. The personal information of law-abiding citizens can be used for reasons other than safety, such as political. Like gun control, people control hurts law- abiding citizens much more than the lawbreakers. Social Security numbers are used to monitor our daily activities. The numbers are given to us at birth and then are needed when we die and for everything in between. This allows government record-keeping of monstrous proportions and accommodates the thugs who would steal others' identities for evil purposes. This invasion of privacy has been compounded by the technology now available to those in government who enjoy monitoring and directing the activity of others. Loss of personal privacy was a major problem a long time before 9-11. Centralized control and regulations are required in a police state. Community and individual State regulations are not as threatening as the monolith of rules and regulations written by Congress and the Federal bureaucracy. Law and order has been federalized in many ways, and we are moving inexorably in that direction. Almost all our economic activities depend upon receiving the proper permits from the Federal Government. Transactions involving guns, food, medicine, smoking, drinking, hiring, firing, wages, politically correct speech, land use, fishing, hunting, buying a house, business mergers and acquisitions, selling stocks and bonds, and farming all require approval and strict regulation from our Federal Government. If this is not done properly and in a timely fashion, economic penalties and even imprisonment are likely consequences. Because government pays for so much of our health care, it is conveniently argued that any habits or risk-taking that could harm one's health are the prerogative of the Federal Government and are to be regulated by explicit rules to keep medical care costs down. This same argument is used to require helmets for riding motorcycles and bikes. Not only do we need a license to drive, but we also need special belts, bags, buzzers, seats, and environmentally-dictated speed limits or a policeman will be pulling us over to levy a fine and he will be carrying a gun, of course. The States do exactly as they are told by the Federal Government because they are threatened with the loss of tax dollars being returned to their State, dollars that should never have been taken from them in the first place and sent to Washington, let alone be allowed to be used to extort obedience to a powerful central government. Over 80,000 Federal bureaucrats now carry guns to make us toe the line and to enforce the thousands of laws and tens of thousands of regulations that no one can possibly understand. We do not see the guns, but we all know they are there, and we all know we cannot fight city hall, especially if it is Uncle Sam. All 18-year-old males must register to be ready for the next undeclared war. If they do not, men with guns will appear and enforce this congressional mandate of involuntary servitude, which was banned by the 13th amendment, but courts do not apply this prohibition to the servitude of draftees or those citizens required to follow the dictates of the IRS, especially the employers of the country who serve as the Federal Government's chief tax collectors and information-gatherers. Fear is the tool used to intimidate most Americans to comply to the Tax Code by making examples of celebrities. Leona Helmsley and Willie Nelson know how this process works. Economic threats against business establishments are notorious. Rules and regulations from the EPA, the ADA, the SEC, the LRB, OSHA and more terrorize business owners into submission, and those charged accept their own guilt until they can prove themselves innocent. Of course, it turns out it is much more practical to admit guilt and pay the fine. This serves the interests of the authoritarians because it firmly establishes just who is in charge. An information leak from a government agency like the FDA can make or break a company within minutes. If information is leaked, even inadvertently, a company can be destroyed and individuals involved in the revealing of government-monopolized information can be sent to prison. Each, though economic crimes, are serious offenses in the United States. Violent crimes sometimes evoke more sympathy and fewer penalties. Just look at the O.J. Simpson case as an example. Efforts to convict Bill Gates and others like him of an economic crime are astounding, considering his contribution to economic progress, while sources used to screen out terrorist elements from our midst are tragically useless. If business people are found guilty of even the suggestion of collusion in the marketplace, huge fines and even imprisonment are likely consequences. Price-fixing is impossible to achieve in a free market. Under today's laws, talking to or consulting with competitors can be easily construed as price-fixing and involve a serious crime even with proof that the so-called collusion never generated monopoly-controlled prices or was detrimental to consumers. Lawfully circumventing taxes, even sales taxes, can lead to serious problems if a high profile person can be made an example. One of the most onerous controls placed on American citizens is the control of speech through politically correct legislation. Derogatory remarks or off-color jokes are justification for firings, demotions, and destruction of political careers. The movement toward designating penalties based on a category to which victims belong rather than the nature of the crime itself has the thought police patrolling the airways and the byways. Establishing relative rights and special penalties for subjective motivation is a dangerous trend. All our financial activities are subject to legal searches without warrants and without probable cause. Tax collection, drug usage, and possible terrorist activities justify the endless accumulation of information on all Americans. Government control of medicine has prompted the establishment of a national medical data bank. For efficiency reasons, it is said, the government keeps our medical records for our benefit. This, of course, is done with vague and useless promises that this information will always remain confidential, just like all the FBI information in the past. Personal privacy, the sine qua none of liberty, no longer exists in the United States. Ruthless and abusive use of all of this information accumulated by the government is yet to come. The Patriot Act has given unbelievable power to listen, read, and monitor all of our transactions without a search warrant being issued after affirmation or probable cause. Sneak-and-peak and blanket searches are now becoming more frequent every day. What have we allowed to happen to the Fourth Amendment? It may be true that the average American does not feel intimidated by the encroachment of the police state. I am sure our citizens are more tolerant of what they see as mere nuisances because they have been deluded into believing all of this government supervision is necessary and helpful and besides, they are living quite comfortably material- wise. However, the reaction will be different once all of this new legislation we are passing comes into full force and the material comforts that soften our concerns for government regulations are decreased. This attitude then will change dramatically, but the trend toward the authoritarian state will be difficult to reverse. What government gives with one hand as it attempts to provide safety and security, it must at the same time take away with two others. When the majority recognizes that the monetary costs and the results of our war against terrorism and personal freedoms are a lot less than promised, it may be too late. I am sure all of my concerns are unconvincing to the vast majority of Americans who do not only seek, but also demand, they be made safe from any possible attack from anybody, ever. I grant you, this is a reasonable request. The point is, though, however, there may be a much better way of doing it. We must remember we do not sit around and worry that some Canadian citizen is about to walk into New York and set off a nuclear weapon. We must come to understand the real reason is that there is a difference between the Canadians and all of our many friends and the Islamic radicals. Believe me, we are not the target because we are free and prosperous. The argument made for more government controls here at home and expansionism overseas to combat terrorism is simple and goes like this: If we are not made safe from potential terrorists, property and freedom have no meaning. It is argued that first we must have life and physical and economic security with continued abundances, and then we will talk about freedom. It reminds me of the time I was soliciting political support from a voter and was boldly put down. ``Ron,'' she said, ``I wish you would lay off this freedom stuff. It is all nonsense. We are looking for a representative who will know how to bring home the bacon and help our area, and you are not that person.'' Believe me, I understand that argument, it is just that I do not agree that it is what should be motivating us here in the Congress. That is not the way it works. Freedom does not preclude security. Making security the highest priority can deny prosperity and still fail to provide the safety we all want. The Congress would never agree that we are a police state. Most Members, I am sure, would argue for the negative. But we are all obligated to decide in which direction we are going. If we are moving toward a system that enhances individual liberty and justice for all, my concerns about a police state should be reduced or totally ignored; yet if by chance we are moving toward more authoritarian control than is good for us in moving toward a major war in which we should have no part, we should not ignore the dangers. If current policies are permitting a serious challenge to our institutions that allow for our great abundance and we ignore them, we ignore them at great risk for future generations. That is why the post- 9-11 analysis and subsequent legislation are crucial to the survival of those institutions that made America great. We now are considering a major legislative proposal dealing with this dilemma, the new Department of Homeland Security; and we must decide if it truly serves the interests of America. Since the new Department is now a foregone conclusion, why should anyone bother to record a dissent? Because it is the responsibility of all of us to speak the truth to the best of our ability; and if there are reservations about what we are doing, we should sound an alarm and warn the people of what is likely to come. In times of crises, nearly unanimous support for government programs is usual, and the effects are instantaneous. Discovering the errors of our ways and waiting to see the unintended consequences evolve takes time and careful analysis. Reversing the bad effects is slow and tedious and fraught with danger. People would much prefer to hear platitudes than the pessimism of a flawed policy. Understanding the real reason why we were attacked is crucial to deriving a proper response. I know of no one who does not condemn the attacks of 9-11. Disagreement as to the cause and the proper course of action should be legitimate in a free society such as ours; if not, we are not a free society. Not only do I condemn the vicious acts of 9-11, but also out of deep philosophic and moral commitment I have pledged never to use any form of aggression to bring about social or economic changes. But I am deeply concerned about what has been done and what we are yet to do in the name of security against the threat of terrorism. Political propagandizing is used to get all of us to toe the line and be good patriots, supporting every measure suggested by the administration. We are told that preemptive strikes, torture, military tribunals, suspension of habeas corpus, executive orders to wage war, and sacrificing privacy with a weakened fourth amendment are the minimum required to save our country from a threat of terrorism. Who is winning this war, anyway? To get popular support for these serious violations of our traditional rule of law requires that people be kept in a state of fear. The episode of spreading undue concern about the possibility of a dirty bomb being exploded in Washington without any substantiation of an actual threat is a good example of excessive fear being generated by government officials. To add insult to injury, when he made this outlandish announcement, our Attorney General was in Moscow. Maybe if our FBI spent more time at home, we would get more for our money we pump into this now-discredited organization. Our FBI should be gathering information here at home, and the thousands of agents overseas should return. We do not need these agents competing overseas and confusing the intelligence apparatus of the CIA or the military. I am concerned that the excess fear created by the several hundreds of al Qaeda functionaries willing to sacrifice their lives for their demented goals is driving us to do to ourselves what the al Qaeda themselves could never do to us by force. So far, the direction is clear: we are legislating bigger and more intrusive government here at home and allowing our President to pursue much more military adventurism abroad. These pursuits are overwhelmingly supported by Members of Congress, the media, and the so-called intellectual community, and questioned only by a small number of civil libertarians, anti-imperial antiwar advocates. The main reason why so many usually level-headed critics of bad policy accept this massive increase in government power is clear. They, for various reasons, believe the official explanation of ``why us?'' The several hundreds of al Qaeda members we were told hate us because we are rich, free, and we enjoy materialism, and the purveyors of terror are jealous and envious, creating the hatred that drive their cause. They despise our Judeo-Christian values; and this, we are told, is the sole reason they are willing to die for their cause. For this to be believed, one must also be convinced that the perpetrators lied to the world about why they attacked us. The al Qaeda leaders say they hate us because we support Western puppet regimes in Arab countries for commercial reasons and against the wishes of the populace of those countries. This partnership allows military occupation, the most confrontational being in Saudi Arabia, that offends the sense of pride and violates their religious convictions to have a foreign military power on their holy land. We refuse to consider how we might feel if China's navy occupied the Gulf of Mexico for the purpose of protecting their oil, and had air bases on U.S. territory. We show extreme bias in support of one side in the 50-plus-year war going on in the Middle East. That is their explanation. What if the al Qaeda is telling the truth and we ignore it? If we believe only the official line from the administration and proceed to change our whole system and undermine our constitutional rights, we may one day wake up to find that the attacks have increased the numbers of those willing to commit suicide for their cause has grown, our freedoms have diminished, and all this has contributed to making our economic problems worse. The dollar cost of this war could turn out to be exorbitant, and the efficiency of our markets can become undermined by the compromises placed on our liberties. Sometimes it almost seems that our policies inadvertently are actually based on a desire to make ourselves less free and less prosperous, those conditions that are supposed to have prompted the attacks. I am convinced we must pay more attention to the real cause of the attacks of last year and challenge the explanation given us. The question that one day must be answered is this: What if we had never placed our troops in Saudi Arabia, and involved ourselves in the Middle East war in an even-handed fashion? Would it have been worth it if this would have prevented 9-11? If we avoid the truth, we will be far less well off than if we recognize that just maybe the truth lies in the statements made by the leaders of those who perpetuated the atrocities. If they speak the truth about the real cause, changing our foreign policy from foreign military interventionism around the globe supporting an American empire would make a lot of sense. It could reduce tension, save money, preserve liberty, and preserve our economic system. This for me is not a reactive position coming out of 9-11, but rather, an argument I have made for decades, claiming that meddling in the affairs of others is dangerous to our security and actually reduces our ability to defend ourselves. This in no way precludes pursuing those directly responsible for the attacks and dealing with them accordingly, something that we seem to have not yet done. We hear more talk of starting a war in Iraq than in achieving victory over the international outlaws that instigated the attacks on 9-11. Rather than pursuing war against countries that were not directly responsible for the attacks, we should consider the judicious use of mark and reprisal. I am sure that a more enlightened approach to our foreign policy will prove elusive. Financial interests of our international corporations, oil companies and banks, along with the military-industrial complex, are sure to remain a deciding influence on our policies. Besides, even if my assessments prove to be true, any shift away from foreign militarism, like bringing our troops home, would now be construed as yielding to the terrorists. It just will not happen. This is a powerful point, and the concern that we might appear to be capitulating is legitimate. Yet, how long should we deny the truth, especially if this denial only makes us more vulnerable? Should we not demand the courage and wisdom of our leaders to do the right thing in spite of the political shortcomings? President Kennedy faced an even greater threat in October of 1962, and from a much more powerful force. The Soviet-Cuban terrorist threat with nuclear missiles only 90 miles off our shores was wisely defused by Kennedy's capitulating and removing missiles from Turkey on the Soviet border. Kennedy deserved the praise he received for the way he handled this nuclear standoff with the Soviets. This concession most likely prevented a nuclear exchange and proved that taking a step back from a failed policy is beneficial. Yet how one does so is crucial. The answer is to do it diplomatically. That is what diplomats are supposed to do. Maybe there is no real desire to remove the excuse for our worldwide imperialism, especially our current new expansion into central Asia, or the domestic violations of our civil liberties. Today's conditions may well be exactly what our world commercial interests want. It is now easy for us to go into the Philippines, Colombia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, or wherever, in pursuit of terrorists. No questions are asked by the media or the politicians, only cheers. Put in these terms, who can object? We all despise the tactics of the terrorists, so the nature of the response is not to be questioned. A growing number of Americans are concluding that the threat we now face comes more from a consequence of our foreign policy than because the bad guys envy our freedoms and prosperity. How many terrorist attacks have been directed toward Switzerland, Australia, Canada, or Sweden? They are also rich and free, and would be easy targets; but the Islamic fundamentalists see no purpose in doing so. There is no purpose in targeting us unless there is a political agenda, which there surely is. To deny that this political agenda exists jeopardizes the security of this country. Pretending something to be true that is not is dangerous. It is a definite benefit for so many to recognize that our $40 billion annual investment in intelligence-gathering prior to 9-11 was a failure. Now, a sincere desire exists to rectify these mistakes. That is good, unless instead of changing the role of the CIA and the FBI all the past mistakes are made worse by spending more money and enlarging the bureaucracy to do the very same thing without improvement in their efficiency or a change in their goals. Unfortunately, that is what is likely to happen. One of the major shortcomings that is led to the 9-11 tragedy was the responsibility for protecting commercial airlines was left to the government: the FAA, the FBI, the CIA, and the INS. They failed. A greater sense of responsibility for the owners to provide security is what is needed. Guns in the cockpit would have most likely prevented most of the deaths that occurred on that fateful day. But what does our government do? It firmly denies airline pilots the right to defend their planes, and we federalize the security screeners and rely on F-16s to shoot down airliners if they are hijacked. Security screeners, many barely able to speak English, spend endless hours harassing pilots, confiscating dangerous mustache scissors, mauling grandmothers and children, and pestering Al Gore, while doing nothing about the influx of aliens from Middle Eastern countries who are on designated watch lists. We pump up the military from India and Pakistan, ignore all the warnings about Saudi Arabia, and plan a secret war against Iraq, to make sure no one starts asking, where is Osama bin Laden? We think we know where Saddam Hussein lives, so let us go get him instead. Since our government bureaucracy failed, why not get rid of it, instead of adding to it? If we had proper respect and understood how private property owners effectively defend themselves, we could apply those rules to the airlines and achieve something worthwhile. If our immigration policies have failed, when will we defy the politically correct fanatics and curtail the immigration of those individuals on the highly suspect list? Instead of these changes, all we hear is that the major solution will come by establishing a huge new Federal department, the Department of Homeland Security. According to all the pundits, we are expected to champion the big government approach; and if we do not jolly well like it, we will be tagged unpatriotic. The fear that permeates our country calls out for something to be done in response to almost daily warnings of the next attack. If it is not a real attack, then it is a theoretical one, one where the bomb could well be only in the minds of a potential terrorist. Where is all this leading us? Are we moving toward a safer and more secure society? I think not. All the discussions of these proposed plans since 9-11 have been designed to condition the American people to accept major changes in our political system. Some of the changes being made are unnecessary, and others are outright dangerous to our way of life. There is no need for us to be forced to choose between security and freedom. Giving up freedom does not provide greater security; preserving and better understanding freedom can. Sadly, today, many are anxious to give up freedom in response to real and generated fears. The plans for a first strike supposedly against a potential foreign government should alarm all Americans. If we do not resist this power the President is assuming, our President, through executive order, can start a war anyplace, anytime, against anyone he chooses for any reason without congressional approval. This is a tragic usurpation of the war power by the executive branch from the legislative branch, with Congress being all too accommodating. Removing the power of the executive branch to wage war, as was done through our revolution and the writing of the Constitution, is now being casually sacrificed on the alter of security. In a free society, and certainly in the constitutional Republic we have been given, it should never be assumed that the President alone can take it upon himself to wage war whenever he pleases. The publicly announced plan to murder Saddam Hussein in the name of our national security draws nary a whimper from Congress. Support is overwhelming, without a thought as to the legality, the morality, the constitutionality, or its practicality. Murdering Saddam Hussein will surely generate many more fanatics ready to commit their lives to suicide attacks against us. Our CIA attempts to assassinate Castro backfired with the subsequent assassination of our President. Killing Saddam Hussein just for the sake of killing him obviously will increase the threat against us, not diminish it. It makes no sense. But our warriors argue that some day he may build a bomb, some day he might use it, maybe against us or some unknown target. This policy further radicalizes the Islamic fundamentalists against us because, from their viewpoint, our policy is driven by Israel, not U.S. security interests. Planned assassination, a preemptive strike policy without proof of any threat and a vague definition of terrorism may work for us as long as we are king of the hill; but one most assume every other nation will naturally use our definition of policy as justification for dealing with their neighbors. India can justify a first strike against Pakistan, China against India or Taiwan as other examples. This new policy, if carried through, will make the world a lot less safe. This new doctrine is based on proving a negative which is something impossible to do, especially when we are dealing with a subjective interpretation of plans buried in someone's head. To those who suggest a more restrained approach on Iraq and killing Saddam Hussein, the war hawks retort saying, Prove to me that Saddam Hussein might not do something some day directly harmful to the United States. Since no one can prove this, the war mongers shout, let us march to Bagdad. We can all agree that aggression should be met with force and that providing national security is an ominous responsibility that falls on the shoulders of Congress. But avoiding useless and unjustifiable wars that threaten our whole system of government and security seems to be the more prudent thing to do. Since September 11, Congress has responded with a massive barrage of legislation not seen since Roosevelt took over in 1933. Where Roosevelt dealt with trying to provide economic security, today's legislation deals with personal security from any and all imaginable threat at any cost, dollar or freedom loss. These include the PATRIOT Act, which undermines the fourth amendment with the establishment of an overly- broad and dangerous definition of terrorism; the Financial Anti- terrorism Act, which expands the government's surveillance of the financial transactions of all American citizens through the increased power of FinCen and puts back on track the plans to impose ``Know our customer'' regulations on all Americans. The airline bail-out bill gave $15 billion rushed through shortly after September 11. The federalization of all airlines security employees, military tribunals set up by executive orders, undermining the rights of those accused, rights established as far back as 1215. Unlimited retention of suspects without charges being made even when a crime has not been committed, a serious precedent that one day may well be abused. Relaxation of FBI surveillance guidelines of all political activity. Functioning of the Federal Government authority and essentially monopolizing vaccines and treatment for infectious diseases, permitting massive quarantines and mandates for vaccinations. Almost all significant legislation since 9-11 has been rushed through in a tone of urgency with reference to the tragedy including the $190 billion farm bill. Guarantees to all insurance companies are now moving quickly through the Congress. Increasing the billions already flowing into foreign aid is now being planned as our intervention overseas continue to expand. There is no reason to believe that the massive increase in spending, both domestic and foreign, along with the massive expansion of the size of the Federal Government will slow any time soon. The deficit is exploding as the economy weakens. When the government sector drains the resources needed for capital expansion, it contributes to the loss of confidence needed for growth, allowing the economy to function. Even without evidence that any good has come from this massive expansion of government power, Congress is in the process of establishing this huge new Department of Homeland Security, hoping miraculously through centralization to make all of these efforts productive and worthwhile. There is no evidence, however, that government bureaucracy and huge funding can solve our Nation's problem. The likelihood is that the unintended consequences of this new proposal will be to diminish our security and do nothing to enhance our security. Opposing currently proposed legislation and recently passed legislation does not mean that one is complacent about terrorism or homeland security. The truth is that there are alternative solutions to these problems we face without resorting to expanding the size and scope of government at the expense of liberty. As tempting as it may seem, a government is incapable of preventing crimes. On occasion with luck they might succeed. But the failure to tip us off about 9-11 after spending $40 billion a year on intelligence-gathering should surprise no one. Governments by nature are very inefficient institutions. We must accept that as fact. I am sure that our intelligence agency had the information available to head off 9-11, but bureaucratic blundering and turf wars prevented the information from being useful. But the basic principle is wrong. City policeman cannot and should not be expected to try to prevent crimes. This would invite massive intrusions into the everyday activities of every law-abiding citizen. But that is exactly what our recent legislation is doing. It is a wrongheaded approach, no matter how wonderful it may sound. The policemen in the inner cities patrol their beats, but crime is still rampant. In the rural areas of America, literally millions of citizens are safe and secure in their homes though miles from any police protection. They are safe because even the advantage of isolation does not entice the burglar to rob a house when he knows a shotgun sits inside the door waiting to be used. But this is a right denied many of our citizens living in the inner city. The whole idea of government preventing crime is dangerous. To prevent crimes in our homes or businesses, governments would need cameras to spy on every move to check for illegal drug use, wife- beating, child abuse or tax evasion. They would need cameras not only on our streets and in our homes; but our phones, Internet, and travels would need to be constantly monitored just to make sure we are not a terrorist, drug dealer, or tax evader. This is the assumption used at the airports, rather than using privately owned airlines to profile their passengers to assure the safety for which airline owners ought to assume responsibility. But, of course, this would mean guns in the cockpit. I am certain this approach to safety and security would be far superior to the rules that existed prior to 9-11 and now have been made much worse in the past 9 months. This method of providing security emphasizes private property ownership and responsibility of the owners to protect that property, but the right to bear arms must be included. The fact that the administration is opposed to guns in the cockpits and the fact that airline owners are more interested in bailouts and insurance protection means that we are just digging a bigger hole for ourselves, ignoring liberty and expanding the government to provide something it is not capable of doing. Because of this, in combination with a foreign policy that generates more hatred towards us and multiplies the number of terrorists that seek vengeance, I am deeply concerned that Washington's effort so far, sadly, have only made us more vulnerable. I am convinced that the newly proposed Department of Homeland Security will do nothing to make us more secure, but it will make us a lot poorer and less free. If the trend continues, the Department of Homeland Security may well be the vehicle used for a much more ruthless control of the people by some future administration than any of us dreamed. Let us pray that this concern will never materialize. America is not now a ruthless authoritarian police state, but our concerns ought to be whether we have laid the foundation of a more docile police state. The love of liberty has been so diminished that we tolerate intrusions into our privacy today that would have been abhorred just a few years ago. Tolerance of inconvenience to our liberties is not uncommon when both personal and economic fears persist. The sacrifices being made to our liberties will surely usher in a system of government that will place only those who enjoy being in charge of running other peoples lives. What then is the answer? Is America a police state? My answer is maybe, not yet. But it is fast approaching. The seeds have been sown and many of our basic protections against tyranny have been and are constantly being undermined. The post-9-11 atmosphere here in Congress has provided ample excuse to concentrate on safety at the expense of liberty, failing to recognize that we cannot have one without the other. When the government keeps detailed records on every move we make and we either need advanced permission for everything we do or are penalized for not knowing what the rules are, America will be a declared police state. Personal privacy for law-abiding citizens will be a thing of the past. Enforcement of laws against economic and political crimes will exceed that of violent crimes. War will be the prerogative of the administration. Civil liberties will be suspended for suspects and their prosecution will not be carried out by an independent judiciary. In a police state this becomes common practice rather than a rare incident. Some argue that we already live in a police state and Congress does not have the foggiest notion of what we are dealing with. So forget it and use your energies for your own survival, some advise. And they advise also that the momentum toward the monolithic state cannot be reversed. Possibly that is true. But I am optimistic that if we do the right thing and do not capitulate to popular fallacies and fancies and the incessant war propaganda, the onslaught of statism can be reversed. To do so, we as a people once again have to dedicate ourselves to establishing the proper role a government plays in a free society. That does not involve the redistribution of wealth through force. It does not mean that government dictates to us the moral and religious standards of the people. It does not allow us to police the world by involving ourselves in every conflict as if it is our responsibility to manage an American world empire. But it does mean government has a proper role in guaranteeing free markets, protecting voluntary and religious choices and guaranteeing private property ownership while punishing those who violate these rules, whether foreign or domestic. In a free society, the government's job is simply to protect liberty. The people do the rest. Let us not give up a grand experiment that provided so much for so many. Let us reject the police state.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I highly recommend the attached article ``Unintended Consequences'' by Thomas G. Donlan, from Barron's magazine, to my colleagues. This article provides an excellent explanation of the way current federal drug policy actually encourages international terrorist organizations, such as Al Queda, to use the drug trade to finance their activities. Far from being an argument to enhance the war on drugs, the reliance of terrorist organizations upon the drug trade is actually one more reason to reconsider current drug policy. Terrorist organizations are drawn to the drug trade because federal policy still enables drug dealers to reap huge profits from dealing illicit substances. As Mr. Donlan points out, pursuing a more rational drug policy would remove the exorbitant profits from the drug trade and thus remove the incentive for terrorists to produce and sell drugs. In conclusion, I once again recommend Mr. Donlan's article to my colleagues. I hope the author's explanation of how the war on drugs is inadvertently strengthening terrorist organizations will lead them to embrace a more humane, constitutional and rational approach to dealing with the legitimate problems associated with drug abuse. [From Barron's, June 24, 2002] Unintended Consequences (By Thomas G. Donlan) It's harvest time in Afghanistan. While the delegates to its grand council, the loya jurga, met under the great tent in Kabul and grudgingly acknowledged Hamid Karza as the president of a ``transitional government,'' the impoverished farmers of Afghanistan reaped the rewards of their best cash crop, the despised opium poppy. A few months ago, newspaper correspondents reported that the American proconsuls in Afghanistan had abandoned their hopes of reducing the opium harvest. They had considered buying the crop or paying farmers to destroy their poppies, but concluded that in the lawless Afghan hinterland they would simply be paying a bonus for non-delivery. Karzai's previous ``interim administration'' had banned opium production, but its writ did not run many miles beyond the city of Kabul. Warlords and provincial governors did as they pleased, and they were pleased to tax the opium trade and indeed participate in it as traders and transporters and protectors. That's what the Taliban did for most of the years that the mullahs ruled and protected the al Qaeda terrorist network. In 2000, Afghanistan accounted for 71% of the world's opium supply. (Opium in turn is the building block for heroin, which most drug-fighters believe takes the greatest human toll and provides the greatest profit in the whole illicit industry.) In 2001, the Taliban decreed an end to opium cultivation, not so much to carry favor with the West but to maintain the price: A bumper crop provided enough for two years of commerce. Indeed, the Taliban and al Qaeda may have earned more from their stockpiles in 2001 than they did from high production in 2000. ``As ye sow, so shall ye reap.'' The Biblical passage is an apt reminder that America's undercover agents nurtured Islamic fundamentalism to strengthen Afghan resistance to the Soviet Union. We reaped chaos in Afghanistan and a corps of well-trained fanatics bent on our destruction. America has also sown a war on drugs, and those same fanatics have harvested the profits. This was not what we intended. Nor did we intend to let huge profits earned by terrorists and common criminals be used to corrupt police in every country where the trade reaches, including our own. Nor did we intend to put hundreds of thousands of Americans in prison for their participation in the drug trade. Nor did we intend to create periodic drug scarcities that turn addicts to crime to pay for their habits. But all those things are unintended consequences of the war on drugs. Drug use is eventually a self-punishing mistake; the drug war turns out to be the same. Now the war on drugs and the war on terrorism are beginning to look like two currents in a single river. Nearly half of the international terrorist groups on the State Department's list are involved in drug trafficking, either to raise money for their political aims or because successful drug commerce requires a ruthlessness indistinguishable from terrorism. The currents don't always run together: The FBI and other federal law enforcement agencies acknowledge that the extra resources they are devoting to the detection and apprehension of terrorists are not new resources; the money agents and equipment come to the war on terror at the expense of the war on drugs. In the domestic war on drugs, officials are trying to make the two currents serve their purposes. The government runs TV ads portraying young Americans confessing, ``I killed grandmas. I killed daughters. I killed firemen. I killed policemen,'' and then warning the viewers, ``Where do terrorists get their money? If you buy drugs, some of it may come from you.'' Bummer. Like they wanted to do that? The buyers of drugs would be perfectly happy to buy them in a clean, well-lit store at reasonable prices, with the profits heavily taxed to support schools, medical benefits, or any other legitimate function of government--even police. That's how they buy cigarettes and liquor, neither of which finances international terrorists. (In a current prosecution, smuggling cigarettes from low-tax North Carolina to high-tax Michigan allegedly raised $1,500 for an alleged affiliate of Hamas. But big violence needs bigger sums from more lucrative sources.) It was bad when drug laws gave the Mafia an opportunity to do big business. It was worse when the laws encouraged Colombian and Mexican drug cartels to obtain aircraft and heavy weapons. Now that the drug laws provide profits to people who want to kill Americans wholesale instead of retail, it's time to change the laws. Using drugs is stupid enough; making the users finance international terrorists is even more foolish.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to help America's law enforcement officers by introducing the Police Security Protection Act. This legislation provides police officers a tax credit for the purchase of armored vests. As recent events have reminded us, professional law enforcement officers put their lives on the line each and every day. Reducing the tax liability of law enforcement officers so they can afford armored vests is one of the best ways Congress can help and encourage these brave men and women. After all, an armored vest could literally make the difference between life or death for a police officer, I hope my colleagues will join me in helping our nation's law enforcement officers by cosponsoring the Police Security Protection Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Public Safety Tax Cut Act. This legislation will achieve two important public policy goals. First, it will effectively overturn a ruling of the Internal Revenue Service which has declared as taxable income the waiving of fees by local governments who provide service for public safety volunteers. Many local governments use volunteer firefighters and auxiliary police either in place of, or as a supplement to, their public safety professionals. Often as an incentive to would-be volunteers, the local entities might waive all or a portion of the fees typically charged for city services such as the provision of drinking water, sewerage charges, or debris pick up. Local entities make these decisions for the purpose of encouraging folks to volunteer, and seldom do these benefits come anywhere near the level of a true compensation for the many hours of training and service required of the volunteers. This, of course, not even to mention the fact that these volunteers could very possibly be called into a situation where they may have to put their lives on the line. Rather than encouraging this type of volunteerism, which is so crucial, particularly to America's rural communities, the IRS has decided that the provision of the benefits described above amount to taxable income. Not only does this adversely affect the financial position of the volunteer by foisting new taxes about him or her, it has in fact led local entities to stop providing these benefits, thus taking away a key tool they have used to recruit volunteers. That is why the IRS ruling in this instance has a substantial deleterious impact on the spirit of American volunteerism. How far could this go? For example, would consistent application mean that a local Salvation Army volunteer be taxed for the value of a complimentary ticket to that organization's annual county dinner? This is obviously bad policy. This legislation would rectify this situation by specifically exempting these types of benefits from federal taxation. Next, this legislation would also provide paid professional police and fire officers with a $1,000 per year tax credit. These professional public safety officers put their lives on the line each and every day, and I think we all agree that there is no way to properly compensate them for the fabulous services they provide. In America we have a tradition of local law enforcement and public safety provision. So, while it is not the role of our federal government to increase the salaries of these, it certainly is within our authority to increase their take-home pay by reducing the amount of money that we take from their pockets via federal taxation, and that is something this bill specifically does as well. President George Bush has called on Americans to volunteer their time and energy to enhancing public safety. Shouldn't Congress do its part by reducing taxes that discourage public safety volunteerism? Shouldn't Congress also show its appreciation to police officers and fire fighters by reducing their taxes? I believe the answer to both of these questions is a resounding ``Yes'' and therefore I am proud to introduce the Public Safety Tax Cut Act. I request that my fellow Members join in support of this key legislation.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, while there is little debate about the need to update and modernize the Medicare system to allow seniors to use Medicare funds for prescription drugs, there is much debate about the proper means to achieve this end. However, much of that debate is phony, since neither H.R. 4954 or the alternative allow seniors the ability to control their own health care. Instead both plans give a large bureaucracy the power to determine what prescription drugs senior citizens can receive. The only difference is that alternative puts seniors under the control of the federal bureaucy, while H.R. 4954 gives this power to ``private'' health maintenance organizations and insurance companies. I am pleased that the drafters of H.R. 4954 incorporate regulatory relief legislation, which I have supported in the past, into the bill. This will help relieve some of the tremendous regulatory burden imposed on health care providers by the Federal Government. I am also pleased that H.R. 4954 contains several good provisions addressing the Congressionally-created crisis in rural health and attempting to ensure that physicians are fairly reimbursed by the Medicare system. However, Mr. Speaker, at the heart of this legislation is a fatally flawed plan that will fail to provide seniors access to the pharmaceuticals of their choice. H.R. 4954 requires seniors to enroll in a prescription benefit management company (PBM), which is the equivalent of an HMO. Under this plan, the PBM will have the authority to determine which pharmaceuticals are available to seniors. Thus, in order to get any help with their prescription drug costs, seniors have to relinquish their ability to choose the type of prescriptions that meet their own individual needs! The inevitable result of this process will be rationing, as PBM bureaucrats attempt to control costs by reducing the reimbursements paid to pharmacists to below-market levels (thus causing pharmacists to refuse to participate in PBM plans), and restricting the type of pharmacies seniors may use in the name of ``cost effectiveness.'' PBM bureaucrats may even go so far as to forbid seniors from using their own money to purchase Medicare-covered pharmaceuticals. I remind my colleagues that today the federal government prohibits seniors from using their own money to obtain health care services which differ from those ``approved'' of by the Medicare bureaucracy! Since H.R. 4954 extends federal subsidies (and federal regulations) to private insurers, the effects of this program will be felt even by those seniors with private insurance. Thus, H.R. 4954 will in actuality reduce the access of many seniors to the prescription drugs of their choice! I must express my disappointment that this legislation does nothing to reform the government policies responsible for the skyrocketing costs of prescription drugs. Congress should help all Americans by reforming federal patent laws and FDA policies which provide certain large pharmaceutical companies a government-granted monopoly over pharmaceutical products. Perhaps the most important thing Congress could do to reduce pharmaceutical policies is liberalize the regulations surrounding the reimportation of FDA-approved pharmaceuticals. As a representative of an area near the Texas-Mexican border, I often hear from angry constituents who cannot purchase inexpensive quality imported pharmaceuticals in their local drug store. Some of these constituents regularly travel to Mexico on their own to purchase pharmaceuticals. It is an outrage that my constituents are being denied the opportunity to benefit from a true free market in pharmaceuticals by their own government. The alternative suffers from the same flaws, and will have the same (if not worse) negative consequences for seniors as will H.R. 4954. The only difference between the two is that under the alternative, seniors will be denied the choice for pharmaceuticals by bureaucrats at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) rather than by a federally subsidized PMB bureaucrat. Mr. Speaker, our seniors deserve better than a ``choice'' between whether a private-or-public sector bureaucrat will control their health care. Meaningful prescription drug legislation should be based on the principles of maximum choice and flexibility for senior citizens. For example, my H.R. 2268 provides seniors the ability to use Medicare dollars to cover the costs of prescription drugs in a manner that increases seniors' control over their own health care. H.R. 2268 removes the numerical limitations and sunset provisions in the Medicare Medical Savings Accounts (MSA) program. Medicare MSAs consist of a special saving account containing Medicare funds for seniors to use for their routine medical expenses, including prescription drug costs. Unlike the plans contained in H.R. 4504, and the Democratic alternative, Medicare MSAs allow seniors to use Medicare funds to obtain the prescription drugs that fit their unique needs. Medicare MSAs also allow seniors to use Medicare funds for other services not available under traditional Medicare, such as mammograms. Medicare MSAs will also ensure senior access to a wide variety of health care services by minimizing the role of the federal bureaucracy. As many of my colleagues know, an increasing number of health care providers have withdrawn from the Medicare program because of the paperwork burden and constant interference with their practice by bureaucrats from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The MSA program frees seniors and providers from this burden, thus making it more likely that quality providers will remain in the Medicare program! Mr. Speaker, seniors should not be treated like children by the federal government and told what health care services they can and cannot have. We in Congress have a duty to preserve and protect the Medicare trust fund. We must keep the promise to American's seniors and working Americans, whose taxes finance Medicare, that they will have quality health care in their golden years. However, we also have a duty to make sure that seniors can get the health care that suits their needs, instead of being forced into a cookie cutter program designed by Washington, DC--based bureaucrats! Medicare MSAs are a good first step toward allowing seniors the freedom to control their own health care. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, both H.R. 4954 and the alternative force seniors to cede control over what prescription medicines they may receive. The only difference between them is that H.R. 4954 gives federally funded HMO bureaucrats control over seniors prescription drugs, while the alternative gives government functionaries the power to tell seniors what prescription drug they can (and can't) have. Congress can, and must, do better for our Nation's seniors, by rejecting this command-and-control approach. Instead, Congress should give seniors the ability to use Medicare funds to pay for the prescription drugs of their choice by passing my legislation giving all seniors access to Medicare Medicaid Savings Accounts.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the policy behind H.R. 4679, the Lifetime Consequences for Sex Offenders Act, is unobjectionable. Given the high rates of recidivism among sex criminals, it is certainly legitimate to take steps to reduce the likelihood that a paroled sex criminal will commit further crimes. In fact, given the likelihood that a sex offender will attempt to commit another sex crime, it is reasonable to ask why rapists and child molesters are not simply imprisoned for life? However, Mr. Speaker, questions of the proper punishment for sexual crimes are not issues properly under federal jurisdiction. The Constitution grants the federal government jurisdiction over only three crimes: treason, counterfeiting, and piracy. It is hard to stretch the definition of treason, counterfeiting, or piracy to include sex crimes. Therefore, even though I agree with the policy behind H.R. 4679, I must remind my colleagues that the responsibility for investigating, prosecuting and punishing sex crimes is solely that of state and local governments. We have been reminded by both Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and former U.S. Attorney General Ed Meese that more federal crimes, while they make politicians feel good, are neither constitutionally sound nor prudent. Rehnquist has stated that ``The trend to federalize crimes that traditionally have been handled in state courts . . . threatens to change entirely the nature of our federal system.'' Meese stated that Congress' tendency in recent decades to make federal crimes out of offenses that have historically been state matters has dangerous implications both for the fair administration of justice and for the principle that states are something more than mere administrative districts of a nation governed mainly from Washington. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I am in fundamental agreement with the policies expressed in H.R. 4679, the Lifetime Consequences for Sex Offenders Act, I must remind my colleagues that this is an area over which Congress has no constitutional responsibility. I hope my colleagues will join me in restoring state and local government's constitutional authority over criminal activities not related to treason, piracy, and counterfeiting.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, as appalling as it is that some would travel abroad to engage in activities that are rightly illegal in the United States, legislation of this sort poses many problems and offers little solution. First among these is the matter of national sovereignty. Those who travel abroad and break the law in their host country should be subject to prosecution in that country: it is the responsibility of the host country--not the U.S. Congress--to uphold its own laws. It is a highly unique proposal to suggest that committing a crime in a foreign country against a non-U.S. citizen is within the jurisdiction of the United States Government. Mr. Speaker, this legislation makes it a federal crime to ``travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct.'' I do think this is a practical approach to the problem. It seems that this bill actually seeks to probe the conscience of anyone who seeks to travel abroad to make sure they do not have illegal or immoral intentions. It is possible or even advisable to make thoughts and intentions illegal? And how is this to be carried out? Should federal agents be assigned to each travel agency to probe potential travelers as to the intent of their travel? At a time when federal resources are stretched to the limit, and when we are not even able to keep known terrorists out of our own country, this bill would require federal agents to not only track Americans as they vacation abroad but would require that they be able to divine the intentions of these individuals who seek to travel abroad. Talk about a tall order! As well-intentioned as I am sure this legislation is, I do not believe that it is a practical or well-thought-out approach to what I agree is a serious and disturbing problem. perhaps a better approach would be to share with those interested countries our own laws and approaches to prosecuting those who commit these kinds of crimes, so as to see more effective capture and punishment of these criminals in the countries where the crime is committed.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, as a parent, grandparent and OB-GYN who has had the privilege of delivering over 4,000 babies, I share the revulsion of all decent people at child pornography. Those who would destroy the innocence of children by using them in sexually-explicit material deserve the harshest punishment. However, the Child Obscenity and Pornography Prevention Act (H.R. 4623) exceeds Congress' constitutional power and does nothing to protect any child from being abused and exploited by pornographers. Instead, H.R. 4623 redirects law enforcement resources to investigations and prosecutions of ``virtual'' pornography which, by definition, do not involve the abuse or exploitation of children. Therefore, H.R. 4623 may reduce law enforcement's ability to investigate and prosecute legitimate cases of child pornography. H.R. 4623 furthers one of the most disturbing trends in modern politics, the federalization of crimes. We have been reminded by both Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and former U.S. Attorney General Ed Meese that more federal crimes, while they make politicians feel good, are neither constitutionally sound nor prudent. Rehnquist has stated that ``The trend to federalize crimes that traditionally have been handled in state courts . . . threatens to change entirely the nature of our federal system.'' Meese stated that Congress' tendency in recent decades to make federal crimes out of offenses that have historically been state matters has dangerous implications both for the fair administration of justice and for the principle that states are something more than mere administrative districts of a nation governed mainly from Washington. Legislation outlawing virtual pornography is, to say the least, of dubious constitutionality. The constitution grants the federal government jurisdiction over only three crimes: treason, counterfeiting, and piracy. It is hard to stretch the definition of treason, counterfeiting, or piracy to cover sending obscene or pornographic materials over the internet. Therefore, Congress should leave the issue of whether or not to regulate or outlaw virtual pornography to states and local governments. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I share my colleagues' revulsion at child pornography, I do not believe that this justifies expanding the federal police state to outlaw distribution of pornographic images not containing actual children. I am further concerned by the possibility that passage of H.R. 4623 will divert law enforcement resources away from the prosecution of actual child pornography. H.R. 4623 also represents another step toward the nationalization of all police functions, a dangerous trend that will undermine both effective law enforcement an constitutional government. It is for these reasons that I must oppose this well-intentioned but fundamentally flawed bill.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I call my colleagues' attention to a recent article by Scott Ritter, former chief UN weapons inspector in Iraq, published in the Los Angeles Times. In this article, Mr. Ritter makes a salient point that deserves careful and serious consideration in this body: how will it be possible to achieve the stated Administration goal of getting weapons inspectors back into Iraq when the Administration has made it known that it intends to assassinate the Iraqi leader? If nothing else, Saddam Hussein has proven himself a survivor. Does anyone believe that he will allow inspectors back into his country knowing that any one of them might kill him? Is it the intention of the Administration to get inspectors back into Iraq and thus answers to lingering and critical questions regarding Iraq's military capabilities, or is the intent to invade that country regardless of the near total absence of information? Or actually make it impossible for Suddam Hussein to accept the inspectors. Mr. Ritter, who as former chief UN inspector in Iraq probably knows that country better than any of us here, made some excellent points in a recent meeting with Republican members of Congress. According to Mr. Ritter, no American-installed regime could survive in Iraq. Interestingly, Mr. Ritter noted that though his rule is no doubt despotic, Saddam Hussein has been harsher toward Islamic fundamentalism than any other Arab regime. He added that any U.S. invasion to remove Saddam from power would likely open the door to an anti-American fundamentalist Islamic regime in Iraq. That can hardly be viewed in a positive light here in the United States. Is a policy that replaces a bad regime with a worse regime the wisest course to follow? Much is made of Iraqi National Congress leader Ahmed Chalabi, as a potential post-invasion leader of Iraq. Mr. Ritter told me that in his many dealings with Chalabi, he found him to be completely unreliable and untrustworthy. He added that neither he nor the approximately 100 Iraqi generals that the US is courting have any credibility inside Iraq, and any attempt to place them in power would be rejected in the strongest manner by the Iraqi people. Hundreds, if not thousands, of American military personnel would be required to occupy Iraq indefinitely if any American-installed regime is to remain in power. Again, it appears we are creating a larger problem than we are attempting to solve. Similarly, proponents of a US invasion of Iraq often cite the Kurds in the northern part of that country as a Northern Alliance-like ally, who will do much of our fighting on the ground and unseat Saddam. But just last week the Washington Times reported that neither of the two rival Kurdish groups in northern Iraq want anything to do with an invasion of Iraq. In the meeting last month, Scott Ritter reminded members of Congress that a nation cannot go to war based on assumptions and guesses, that a lack of knowledge is no basis on which to initiate military action. Mr. Ritter warned those present that remaining acquiescent in the face of the Administration's seeming determination to exceed the authority granted to go after those who attacked us, will actually hurt the president and will hurt Congress. He concluded by stating that going in to Iraq without Congressionally-granted authority would be a ``failure of American democracy.'' Those pounding the war drums loudest for an invasion of Iraq should pause for a moment and ponder what Scott Ritter is saying. Thousands of lives are at stake. [From the Los Angeles Times, June 19, 2002] Behind ``Plot'' on Hussein, a Secret Agenda (By Scott Ritter) President Bush has reportedly authorized the CIA to use all of the means at its disposal--including U.S. military special operations forces and CIA paramilitary teams--to eliminate Iraq's Saddam Hussein. According to reports, the CIA is to view any such plan as ``preparatory'' for a larger military strike. Congressional leaders from both parties have greeted these reports with enthusiasm. In their rush to be seen as embracing the president's hard-line stance on Iraq, however, almost no one in Congress has questioned why a supposedly covert operation would be made public, thus undermining the very mission it was intended to accomplish. It is high time that Congress start questioning the hype and rhetoric emanating from the White House regarding Baghdad, because the leaked CIA plan is well timed to undermine the efforts underway in the United Nations to get weapons inspectors back to work in Iraq. In early July, the U.N. secretary-general will meet with Iraq's foreign minister for a third round of talks on the return of the weapons monitors. A major sticking point is Iraqi concern over the use--or abuse--of such inspections by the U.S. for intelligence collection. I recall during my time as a chief inspector in Iraq the dozens of extremely fit ``missile experts'' and ``logistics specialists'' who frequented my inspection teams and others. Drawn from U.S. units such as Delta Force or from CIA paramilitary teams such as the Special Activities Staff (both of which have an ongoing role in the conflict in Afghanistan), these specialists had a legitimate part to play in the difficult cat-and-mouse effort to disarm Iraq. So did the teams of British radio intercept operators I ran in Iraq from 1996 to 1998--which listened in on the conversations of Hussein's inner circle--and the various other intelligence specialists who were part of the inspection effort. The presence of such personnel on inspection teams was, and is, viewed by the Iraqi government as an unacceptable risk to its nation's security. As early as 1992, the Iraqis viewed the teams I led inside Iraq as a threat to the safety of their president. They were concerned that my inspections were nothing more than a front for a larger effort to eliminate their leader. Those concerns were largely baseless while I was in Iraq. Now that Bush has specifically authorized American covert- operations forces to remove Hussein, however, the Iraqis will never trust an inspection regime that has already shown itself susceptible to infiltration and manipulation by intelligence services hostile to Iraq, regardless of any assurances the U.N. secretary-general might give. The leaked CIA covert operations plan effectively kills any chance of inspectors returning to Iraq, and it closes the door on the last opportunity for shedding light on the true state of affairs regarding any threat in the form of Iraq weapons of mass destruction. Absent any return of weapons inspectors, no one seems willing to challenge the Bush administration's assertions of an Iraqi threat. If Bush has a factual case against Iraq concerning weapons of mass destruction, he hasn't made it yet. Can the Bush administration substantiate any of its claims that Iraq continues to pursue efforts to reacquire its capability to produce chemical and biological weapons, which was dismantled and destroyed by U.N. weapons inspectors from 1991 to 1998? The same question applies to nuclear weapons. What facts show that Iraq continues to pursue nuclear weapons aspirations? Bush spoke ominously of an Iraqi ballistic missile threat to Europe. What missile threat is the president talking about? These questions are valid, and if the case for war is to be made, they must be answered with more than speculative rhetoric. Congress has seemed unwilling to challenge the Bush administration's pursuit of war against Iraq. The one roadblock to an all-out U.S. assault would be weapons inspectors reporting on the facts inside Iraq. Yet without any meaningful discussion and debate by Congress concerning the nature of the threat posed by Baghdad, war seems all but inevitable. The true target of the supposed CIA plan may not be Hussein but rather the weapons inspection program itself. The real casualty is the last chance to avoid bloody conflict.

Mr. PAUL

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

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I wish to call my colleagues' attention to the following article entitled ``Bad Tax Policy: You Can Run . . .'' by Daniel Mitchell, McKenna Senior Fellow at the Heritage Foundation. Mr. Mitchell discusses the practice of companies reincorporating in foreign jurisdictions to reduce their tax liability. As Mr. Mitchell points out, reincorporation benefits shareholders and American workers. This is because reincorporation In a low-tax foreign jurisdiction makes companies more competitive, thus enabling the companies to create new and better jobs for working Americans. Furthermore, reincorporation helps protect American companies from corporate takeovers by foreign investors. America's anti-competitive tax system is a major reason why several US companies have been taken over by foreign business interests. In the vast majority of cases, when a company moves its corporate headquarters to a foreign jurisdiction, it maintains its physical operations in America. In fact, Mr. Speaker, Stanley Company, whose recently-announced decision to incorporate in Bermuda has caused much handwringing over reincorporation, will not be laying off a single American worker as a consequence of their action! Though reincorporation benefits American investors and workers, some of my colleagues have objected to reincorporation because this action deprives the government of revenue. Some have even gone so far as to question the patriotism of companies that reincorporate. However, there is nothing unpatriotic about trying to minimize one's tax burden to enhance economic competitiveness. In fact, it could be argued that since reincorporation helps companies create new jobs and expand the American economy, those who reincorporate are behaving patriotically. One also could argue that it is those who oppose reincorporation who do not grasp the essence of the American system. After all, two of the main principles underlying the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are limited government and respect for private property. In contrast, opponents of reincorporation implicitly assume that the government owns all of a nation's assets; therefore taxpayers never should take any actions to deny government what the politicians have determined to be their ``fair share.'' Mr. Speaker, this philosophy has more in common with medieval feudalism than with the constitutional republic created by the drafters of the Constitution. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I once again urge my colleagues to read Mr. Mitchell's article, which forcefully makes the case that taxing offshore income is economically destructive. Such taxation also is Inconsistent with the respect for individual liberty and private property rights which forms the foundation of America's constitutional republic, as well as a threat to the sovereign right of nations to determine the tax treatment of income earned inside national borders. I hope my colleagues will reject efforts to subject companies that reincorporate overseas to burdensome new taxes and regulations. Expanding Federal power in order to prevent companies from reincorporating will only kill American jobs and further weaken America's economy. [From the Washington Times, May 8, 2002] Bad Tax Policy: You Can Run . . . (By Daniel Mitchell) The worst Supreme Court decision of all time? One of the leading candidates has to be the infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision, in which the Supreme Court ruled that slaves did not gain freedom by escaping to nonslave states. Instead, they were considered property and had to be returned to their ``owners.'' Some U.S. companies soon may be treated in a similar manner, thanks to legislation being touted by Sens. Max Baucus, Montana Democrat, and Charles Grassley, Iowa Republican. It all starts with the Internal Revenue Code, which forces U.S.-based companies to pay an extra layer of tax on income earned in other countries. In an effort to protect the interests of workers, shareholders and consumers, some of these companies are escaping bad U.S. tax law by rechartering in Bermuda. This is a win-win situation for America. We get to keep factories and headquarters in America, and our companies remain on a level playing field with businesses based in Europe and elsewhere. Not so fast, Sens. Baucus and Grassley are saying. They want to stop ``corporate expatriations,'' even though they keep American jobs in America and help U.S. companies compete with their counterparts in Europe and Asia. Their legislation would forbid U.S. companies from re- chartering in countries with better tax laws. The politicians who support this are acting as if these companies belonged to the government. Yet when House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, Missouri Democrat, for instance, accuses them of being ``unpatriotic,'' he never explains what's so patriotic about higher taxes and noncompetitive tax policy. Republicans are doing their share of business-bashing, too. Mr. Grassley claims that corporate expatriations are ``immoral,'' as if companies would be moral if they instead kept their U.S. charters and fired some of their workers. If politicians are upset that some companies want to recharter, they should blame themselves for trying to tax ``worldwide'' income. An American firm competing against a Dutch firm for a contract in Ireland, for instance, must pay a 35 percent tax on its income--and the lion's share goes to the IRS. The Dutch firm, by contrast, pays only the 10 percent Irish tax on its Irish-source income because the Netherlands doesn't tax income earned outside its borders. Before giving the IRS more power, politicians should consider the following: Expatriation helps control government waste. High-tax California can't stop companies from moving to low-tax Nevada. Knowing this helps deter the big-spenders in the state capitol from wasting even more money. The politicians in Massachusetts must exercise some restraint because they know local businesses can flee to low-tax New Hampshire. Nations also should be subject to market discipline. This is why Washington politicians shouldn't stop companies from escaping bad U.S. tax law. Expatriation protects American jobs. Rechartering in another jurisdiction doesn't mean factories will go overseas. Nor does it require a company to move its headquarters. It simply means a company is chartered under the laws of a different jurisdiction, much as many American companies are chartered in Delaware, but operate factories and have their home offices in other states. In the case of expatriations, the newly formed foreign company still maintains its U.S. operations, but now won't have to fire workers since it can compete more effectively with overseas businesses. Expatriation is not tax evasion. All corporations, regardless of where they're based, pay tax to the IRS on all profits they earn in the United States. This is true of U.S.- based companies, and it's true of all foreign-based companies--including those that expatriate. All that chances is that expatriating companies no longer have to pay taxes on income earned outside America's borders. Since worldwide taxation is misguided tax policy, this is a positive result. Indeed, every tax reform plan, including the flat tax, is based on this common-sense principle of ``territorial'' taxation. Now is hardly the time, with the economy in the midst of recovery, for Washington politicians to make U.S. companies less competitive. Nor is it the time to give the IRS the power to prohibit businesses from rechartering in jurisdictions with more sensible tax laws. Instead of treating companies as if they're federal property, Sens. Grassley and Baucus should be fixing the problems in the tax code.

Mr. PAUL

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

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I have for several years come to the House floor to express my concern for the value of the dollar. It has been, and is, my concern that we in the Congress have not met our responsibility in this regard. The constitutional mandate for Congress should only permit silver and gold to be used as legal tender and has been ignored for decades and has caused much economic pain for many innocent Americans. Instead of maintaining a sound dollar, Congress has by both default and deliberate action promoted a policy that systematically depreciates the dollar. The financial markets are keenly aware of the minute-by-minute fluctuations of all the fiat currencies and look to these swings in value for an investment advantage. This type of anticipation and speculation does not exist in a sound monetary system. But Congress should be interested in the dollar fluctuation not as an investment but because of our responsibility for maintaining a sound and stable currency, a requirement for sustained economic growth. The consensus now is that the dollar is weakening and the hope is that the drop in its value will be neither too much nor occur too quickly; but no matter what the spin is, a depreciating currency, one that is losing its value against goods, services, other currencies and gold, cannot be beneficial and may well be dangerous. A sharply dropping dollar, especially since it is the reserve currency of the world, can play havoc with the entire world economy. Gold is history's oldest and most stable currency. Central bankers and politicians hate gold because it restrains spending and denies them the power to create money and credit out of thin air. Those who promote big government, whether to wage war and promote foreign expansionism or to finance the welfare state here at home, cherish this power. History and economic law are on the side of the gold. Paper money always fails. Unfortunately, though, this occurs only after many innocent people have suffered the consequences of the fraud that paper money represents. Monetary inflation is a hidden tax levied more on the poor and those on fixed incomes than the wealthy, the bankers, or the corporations. In the past 2 years, gold has been the strongest currency throughout the world in spite of persistent central banks selling designed to suppress the gold price in hopes of hiding the evil caused by the inflationary policies that all central bankers follow. This type of depreciation only works for short periods; economic law always rules over the astounding power and influence of central bankers. That is what is starting to happen, and trust in the dollar is being lost. The value of the dollar this year is down 18 percent compared to gold. This drop in value should not be ignored by Congress. We should never have permitted this policy that was deliberately designed to undermine the value of the currency. There are a lot of reasons the market is pushing down the value of the dollar at this time. But only one is foremost. Current world economic and political conditions lead to less trust in the dollar's value. Economic strength here at home is questionable and causes concerns. Our huge foreign debt is more than $2 trillion, and our current account deficit is now 4 percent of GDP and growing. Financing this debt requires borrowing $1.3 billion per day from overseas. But these problems are ancillary to the real reason that the dollar must go down in value. For nearly 7 years the U.S. has had the privilege of creating unlimited amounts of dollars with foreigners only too eager to accept them to satisfy our ravenous appetite for consumer items. The markets have yet to discount most of this monetary inflation. But they are doing so now; and for us to ignore what is happening, we do so at the Nation's peril. Price inflation and much higher interest rates are around the corner. Misplaced confidence in a currency can lead money managers and investors astray, but eventually the piper must be paid. Last year's record interest rate drop by the Federal Reserve was like pouring gasoline on a fire. Now the policy of the past decade is being recognized as being weak for the dollar; and trust and confidence in it is justifiably being questioned. Trust in paper is difficult to measure and anticipate, but long-term value in gold is dependable and more reliably assessed. Printing money and creating artificial credit may temporarily lower interest rates, but it also causes the distortions of malinvestment, overcapacity, excessive debt and speculation. These conditions cause instability, and market forces eventually overrule the intentions of the central bankers. That is when the apparent benefits of the easy money disappear, such as we dramatically have seen with the crash of the dot- coms and the Enrons and many other stocks. It is back to reality. This is serious business, and the correction that must come to adjust for the Federal Reserve's mischief of the past 30 years has only begun. Congress must soon consider significant changes in our monetary system. Congress must soon consider significant changes in our monetary system if we hope to preserve a system of sound growth and wealth preservation. Paper money managed by the Federal Reserve System cannot accomplish this. In fact, it does the opposite.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. This bill is nothing more than subsidies for big corporations. If one were to look at the Constitution and look for authority for legislation of this sort in article I, section 8, it would not be found. That in itself should be reason to stop and think about this, but we do not look at that particular article too often any more. Also for moral reasons, I object to this. Even if we accepted the idea that we should interfere and be involved in this type of activity, it is unfair because the little guy gets squeezed and the big guy gets all of the money. It is not morally fair because it cannot be. One thing that annoys me the most is when Members come to the floor and in the name of free trade say we have to support the Export-Import Bank. This is the opposite of free trade. Free trade is good. Low tariffs are good, which lead to lower prices; but subsidies to our competitors is not free trade. We should call it for what it is. We have Members who claim they are free traders, and yet support managed trade through NAFTA and WTO and all these special interest management schemes, as well as competitive devaluation of currencies with the notion that we might increase exports. This has nothing to do with free trade. I am a strong advocate for free trade, and for that reason I think this bill should not be passed. There are good economic reasons not to support this. Because some who favor this bill argue that some of these companies are doing risky things and they do not qualify in the ordinary banking system for these loans and, therefore, they need a little bit of help. That is precisely when we should not be helping. If there is a risk, it is telling us there is something wrong and we should not do it. It is transferring the liability from the company to the taxpayer. So the risk argument does not hold water at all. The other reason why economically it is unsound, is that this is a form of credit allocation. If a bank has money and they can get a guarantee from the Export-Import Bank, they will always choose the guarantee over the nonguarantee, so who gets squeezed. The funds are taken out of the investment pool. The little people get squeezed. They do not get the loan, but they are totally unknown. Nobody sees those who did not get a loan. All we see is the loan that benefits somebody on the short run. But really on the long run, it benefits the big corporations. Many times it doesn't even do that. Take a look at Enron. We have mentioned Enron quite a few times already. If we add up all of the subsidies to Enron, it adds up to $1.9 billion. That is if we add up the subsidies from OPIC as well. And look at what Enron did. They ran a ``few'' risks, and then they lost it. Who was left holding the bag? The taxpayers. Madam Speaker, I strongly urge a no vote on this bill. If Members are for free trade, they will vote against this bill, and will vote for true free trade.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment, and I compliment the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for bringing this to us. There has been a lot of discussion in the last 2 days, a lot about the deficit; and it strikes me as a bit of an irony, especially because it comes from many, and I have to say on both sides of the aisle, that do a lot to raise the national debt and the spending, and yet the debate went on and on. For some reason, I think there has been a lot of politics in the debate. The interesting thing about what is going on right now, there is no politics in this. This is about war, and this is important, and this is about policy. It is said that we would like to get things like this through without a full discussion; but this, to me, is a key issue. This amendment is about whether or not we will change our policy in central America and, specifically, in Colombia. Mr. Chairman, a year or so ago we appropriated $1.6 billion, and we went into Colombia with the intent of reducing drug usage. Instead it is up 25 percent. Drug usage is going up! They sprayed 210,000 acres, and now there are 53,000 more acres than ever before. It reminds me of Afghanistan. We have been in Afghanistan for less than a year and drug production is going up! I just wonder about the effectiveness of our drug program in Colombia. But the theory is that we will be more effective if we change the policy. Pastrana tried to negotiate a peace and we were going too deal with the drugs, and we were going to have peace after 40 years of a civil war. Now Uribi is likely to become President and the approach is to different. He said, no more negotiations. We will be fighting and we want American help, and we want a change in policy, and we do not want spraying fields; we want helicopters to fight a war. That is what we are dealing with here. We should not let this go by without a full discussion and a full understanding, because in reality, there is no authority to support a military operation in Colombia. What we are doing is we are appropriating for something for the administration to do without a proper authority. He has no authority to get involved in the civil war down there. We cannot imply that the issue of war is granted through the appropriation process. It is not the way the system works. The constitutional system works with granting explicit authority to wage war. The President has no authority, and now he wants the money; and we are ready to capitulate. Let me tell my colleagues, if we care about national defense, we must reconsider this. This dilutes our national defense, it dilutes our forces, exposes our troops, takes away our weapons, increases the expenditures. If we ignore this issue I guess we can go back to demagoging the national debt limit. So I would say, please, take a close look at this. We do not need to be expanding our role in Colombia. The drug war down there has not worked, and I do not expect this military war that we are about to wage to work either. We need to talk about national defense, and this does not help our national defense. I fear this. I feel less secure when we go into areas like this, because believe me, this is the way that we get troops in later on. We already have advisory forces in Colombia. Does anybody remember about advisors and then eventually having military follow in other times in our history. Yes, this is a very risky change in policy. This is not just a minor little increase in appropriation. So I would ask, once again, where is the authority? Where does the authority exists for our President to go down and expand a war in Colombia when it has nothing to do with our national defense or our security? It has more to do with oil than our national security, and we know it. There is a pipeline down there that everybody complains that it is not well protected. It is even designated in legislation, and we deal with this at times. So I would say think about the real reasons behind us going down there. It just happens that we have spread ourselves around the world; we are now in nine countries of the 15 countries that used to be part of the Soviet Union. And every country has something to do with oil. The Caspian Sea, Georgia, and why are we in the Persian Gulf? We are in the Persian Gulf to protect ``our'' oil. Why are we involved with making and interfering with the democratically elected leader of Venezuela? I thought we were for democracy, and yet the reports are that we may well have participated in the attempt to have a democratically elected official in Venezuela removed. I think there is a little bit of oil in Venezuela as well. Could that have been the reason. So I would say, once again, please take a look at this amendment. This amendment is a ``yes'' vote, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to commemorate the 50th Anniversary of the incorporation of the City of Clute, Texas, which will be celebrated on June 2, 2002. Clute is a city of just over 10,000 citizens in Brazoria County on the coast of Texas. Clute has a very rich heritage and played an important role in the development of the proud state of Texas. The City of Clute began as land deeded to Alexander Calvit by Stephen F. Austin when holdings were parceled out to the ``Old 300,'' the first settlers in Texas. These settlers had to be tough as living on the Texas coastland in the early days was not for the weak or faint of heart. Though the living was hard these early settlers contributed many things to the advancement of our state. The first milled lumber plantation house was built in Clute. Bricks used to build homes and buildings all over the coast of Texas were made from the high grade clay that was found only in Clute. That clay was used to make structures at Ft. Velasco, where in 1832, the Brazoria Militia staged the first battle for Texas Independence. Now, many years later, Clute is still growing and achieving. Citizens raise their families in quiet and serene neighborhoods while contributing to some of the greatest chemical and industrial achievements in modern America. The face of Clute has changed but the people are still the same brave, hardworking Texans that helped mold the Republic. I am pleased to extend my best wishes to the people of Clute as the town celebrates its 50th birthday of incorporation and over 170 years after habitation by the original settlers of Texas. I am sure all my colleagues join me in extending congratulations and wishes for many more years of progress to the community of Clute, Texas.

Mr. PAUL

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