Ron Paul

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the emphasis in this H.J. resolution is that resolutions have been passed, and one in particular, a U.N. resolution against Iraq, must be enforced. I made the point earlier that there are many resolutions that are not enforced, so this one is special and has to be enforced; and the assumption is that it is the responsibility of the United States to do the enforcing. Everybody knows that I am not too keen on the United Nations, but I am not too keen on the idea that we can use the United Nations as we please. Sometimes we follow the rules, and sometimes we do not. I think if we are participating, the argument should be that we should follow the rules. There is no U.N. authority for us to use force against Saddam Hussein without a new U.N. resolution. It would be very difficult to legally mount another invasion of Iraq right now without a U.N. resolution. It would not go along with UN rules. The other question I have about the rule of law and trying to follow the rules of the United Nations would be: Where have we gotten the authority to enforce the no-fly zones? The no-fly zones are really a contention in the Middle East, and have been a contention for a long time, because that, in combination with the embargoes and the sanctions against the Iraqi people is what the Arabs believe to be so detrimental to the children who have died in Iraq. Whether Members agree with that or not, or they want to put all the blame on Saddam Hussein, is beside the point. Millions if not billions of Muslims and Iraqis happen to wonder about that policy: Where did we get the authority to continue bombing for now going on 12 years? This legislation says that we know exactly what is going on in Iraq. I pointed out that the International Atomic Energy Agency has been in Iraq this year and found out that there is no evidence of nuclear weapons being built. But there is one gentleman who has been in Iraq many times under the U.N., as a U.N. inspector, Scott Ritter. He has been there 30 times. Probably even the best junketeer in Congress I will bet has not been over there 30 times, but he has been there 30 times inspecting. He was on a television interview the other day, and had an opinion as to what is going on in Iraq. I do not think Members can jump up and say Scott Ritter is not a true American, that he is not a true internationalist, that he does not know what he is talking about. But this is what he said on television when they asked about whether or not he thought Saddam Hussein and Iraq was a threat to our national security. He said, ``In terms of military threat, absolutely nothing. His military was devastated in 1991 in Operation Desert Storm, and Iraq has not had the ability to reconstitute itself in terms of weapons of mass destruction. We know that we achieved a 90 to 95 percent level of disarmament. Diplomatically, politically, Saddam is a little bit of a threat. In terms of a real national security threat to the United States, no, none.'' Because he is a little bit of a political and a diplomatic threat, we are making these plans to pursue war or in reality continue the war because the Persian Gulf war has not really ended. So once again, I ask my colleagues who are going to be voting on this shortly to think about it. If it is unnecessary and does not have any effect, why bring it to the floor? There would be no purpose. If Hussein is aligned with the terrorists, the President already has authority to do something about it. So what really is the reason for this, especially when it was first announced that this would be an act of aggression, which is really what they feel in their hearts, in their minds, what they want this to be? It has been toned down a little bit. But this resolution is a support for expanding the war and continuing what has been going on for 12 years. Quite frankly, I think there is a better diplomatic way to handle things. I think it is a shame that our Secretary of State has not been given more authority to have his way on this issue, rather than being overruled by those and encouraged by many Members here in the Congress who want to prepare for war against Iraq, because of this fantastic success in Afghanistan, a country, probably the poorest country in the world that did not even have an airplane; and now, because of this tremendous success, we are ready to take on the next country. But one thing that we have to realize is that there is a great chance, and there is some evidence, and I may get a chance to quote this later, that China may well have been involved. Now, the gentleman from California said, OK, so let us go after China. Everyone knows we are not going to go after China in the same manner we are planning to go after Iraq. We are going into Iraq for other reasons, other than reasons of national security. That is my firm belief. It has a lot to do with the announcement when our government propagandized to go to war in the Persian Gulf War and it was to go to defend our oil. I still believe that is a major motivation that directs our foreign policy in the Middle East. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PAUL. I object, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, first I would like to start off by thanking the chairman for having made some changes in this bill. The bill is not nearly as bad as it was at the beginning. However, I obviously cannot support it. But changing the tone was helpful in talking about Saddam Hussein versus Iraq, ``Iraq'' suggesting the people of Iraq, who are hardly enemies of the American people. Saddam Hussein is a different subject. Also changing the word ``aggression'' to ``a mounting threat.'' Aggression means that we have to immediately retaliate, I would suppose. Even ``a mounting threat'' is a bit threatening to me, but at least it is better and moving in the direction of less confrontation with a nation 6,000 miles from our shore that I hardly see as a threat to our national security. One of the reasons why I take an approach on foreign policy where we are less involved overseas is mainly because I feel that the number one obligation for us in Congress and for the people of this country is to preserve liberty and defend it from outside threats. The authors of this resolution, I am sure, have the same goals, but, over the years, I think those goals have been undermined. We as a Nation are now probably weaker rather than stronger and we are more threatened because of what we do overseas. For instance, just this week, we had Stinger Missiles fired at our airplanes. Fortunately, they did not hit our airplanes. But we paid for those Stinger Missiles. And this week there was an attack in India by allies, supposedly, in Pakistan, who are receiving billions of dollars from us at the current time. This vacillation, shifting, on and off, friends one time, enemies the next time, this perpetual war seems to me not to be in the best interests of the United States. Take, for instance, one of the whereas's in this resolution. ``Whereas the Iraq attacked the Islamic Republic of Iran.'' We keep hearing this all the time. It was horrible. But they were our allies at the time. We were financing them, giving them money, helping them with technology. So I see this as a perfect example of us always flip-flopping. Not only do we frequently have those weapons that we sell and give to support a so-called friend turn against us, we so often have the opponents in the wars around the world fighting each other with our weapons. My idea of national defense is minding our own business, being strong, and making sure our borders are secure. After 9/11, we had to go to Germany and ask them for help for AWACS airplanes to patrol our shores. I understand our ports are not necessarily secure, and yet we have Coast Guard cutters down in Colombia and in the Mediterranean Sea. I think if we learn anything it is that we ought to work harder to protect our country and not make us so vulnerable, yet we continue along this way. We criticize the possibility or suggest the possibility of what might be happening in Iraq, and, out of frustration, this amendment came up because there has been no evidence that Iraq is connected. Not that Saddam Hussein can be construed as any type of a good guy, but there has been no connection, so there had to be some new reason given to go into Iraq. I tend to agree with the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) that if there was evidence, we probably have, under the authority we have given the President, to go in to Iraq. But that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about the perpetuation, the continuation of the Persian Gulf War, which at the time was designed as a fight for our oil. I think that is what this is all about. Its been suggested that the anthrax came from Iraq. The mounting evidence today, sadly, suggests that it may well be coming from our CIA. Here we are almost ready to go to war against Iraq at the suggestion that our carelessness and our development of anthrax here in this country may have been a contributing factor to this anthrax being spread in this country. It is suggested that it will be easy to overtake Iraq because we have had this tremendous success in Afghanistan, and we will have this uprising and the Kurds will be a reliable ally in this uprising. The plain truth is, the Kurds will not be the salvation of our securing Iraq. As a matter of fact, most of our allies, the Turks, although they may be bought and allow us to use their bases, they are very nervous about this plan to invade Iraq. The whole idea that Iraq is the one that we have to be addressing, when you look at the problems throughout the world, when you look at what is happening in Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabia has not cooperated, and yet we have troops on their soil antagonizing the people over there, and at the same time, people are saying that all we have to do is invade Iraq, get rid of Saddam Hussein, and everything is going to be okay. Another ``whereas,'' mentioning UN Resolution 678 it was declared that under Resolution 687, we have authority to go back in today. That is not true. As a matter of fact, 687 gave us the authority to get Saddam Hussein to withdraw from Kuwait. That does not mean that we can perpetuate war forever under that resolution. As a matter of fact, if you want to go into Iraq and follow the rules and you are pretending you are following the rules, you ought to do a couple of things. If you believe in the United Nations, you have to go back to the United Nations, if you believe in the rule of law. Also you have to answer the question, why does this resolution need to be enforced versus other resolutions that have never been enforced? Why is it assumed that the United States has to enforce UN resolutions? When did it come to the point where the UN dictates foreign policy to us? So, there are a lot of questions to answer about this desire to immediately go into Iraq. I think it actually poses a threat to our security, more than it helps us. So I am suggesting that we go more cautiously. I am glad this resolution has been toned down a little bit, but it does represent those individuals who think that we should be at war with Iraq today, and I disagree with that. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time. Mr. Speaker, very quickly, borders are important because that is what our Constitution gives us the authority to defend. Our Constitution does not give us the authority to defend Europe or anybody else. Also we have a moral authority to defend ourselves and not to pretend that we are the policemen of the world. What would Americans say if China were in the Gulf of Mexico and said it was their oil and had troops stationed in Texas. That is the equivalent of us having our Navy in the Persian Gulf and saying it is our oil and placing troops in Saudi Arabia. Using gas on our own people? I understand a few people died at Waco, and it happened that illegal war gasses were used during that operation. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose House Joint Resolution 75 because it solves none of our problems and only creates new ones. Though the legislation before us today does wisely excise the most objectionable part of the original text of H.J. Res. 75--the resolution clause stating that by not obeying a U.N. resolution Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein has been committing an ``act of aggression'' against the United States--what remains in the legislation only serves to divert our attention from what should be our number one priority at this time: finding bringing to justice those who attacked the United Stats on September 11, 2001. Saddam Hussein is a ruthless dictator. The Iraqi people would no doubt be better off without him and his despotic rule. But the call in some quarters for the United States to intervene to change Iraq's government is a voice that offers little in the way of a real solution to our problems in the Middle East--many of which were caused by our interventionism in the first place. Secretary of State Colin Powell underscored recently this lack of planning on Iraq, saying, ``I never saw a plan that was going to take [Saddam] out. It was just some ideas coming from various quarters about, `let's go bomb.' '' Mr. Speaker, House Joint Resolution 64, passed on September 14 just after the terrorist attack, states that, ``The president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.'' From all that we know at present, Iraq appears to have had no such role. Indeed, we have seen ``evidence'' of Iraqi involvement in the attacks on the United States proven false over the past couple of weeks. Just this week, for example, the ``smoking gun'' of Iraqi involvement in the attack seems to have been debunked: The New York Times reported that ``the Prague meeting (allegedly between al-Qaeda terrorist Mohamad Atta and an Iraqi intelligence agent) has emerged as an object lesson in the limits of intelligence reports rather than the cornerstone of the case against Iraq.'' The Times goes on to suggest that the ``Mohamad Atta'' who was in the Czech Republic this summer seems to have been Pakistani national who happened to have the same name. It appears that this meeting never took place, or at least not in the way it has been reported. This conclusion has also been drawn by the Czech media and is reviewed in a report on Radio Free Europe's Newsline. Even those asserting Iraqi involvement in the anthrax scare in the United Stats--a theory forwarded most aggressively by Iraqi defector Khidir Hamza and former CIA director James Woolsey--have, with the revelation that the anthrax is domestic, had their arguments silenced by the facts. Absent Iraqi involvement in the attack on the United States, I can only wonder why so many in Congress seek to divert resources away from our efforts to bring those who did attack us to justice. That hardly seems a prudent move. Many will argue that it doesn't matter whether Iraq had a role in the attack on us, Iraq is a threat to the United States and therefore must be dealt with. Some on this committee have made this very argument. Mr. Speaker, most of us here have never been to Iraq, however those who have, like former UN chief Arms Inspector Scott Ritter--who lead some 30 inspection missions to Iraq--come to different conclusions on the country. Asked in November on Fox News Channel by John Kasich sitting in for Bill O'Reilly about how much of a threat Saddam Hussein poses to the United States, former Chief Inspector Ritter said, ``In terms of military threat, absolutely nothing . . . Diplomatically, politically, Saddam's a little bit of a threat. In terms of real national security threat to the United States, no, none.'' Mr. Speaker, shouldn't we even stop for a moment to consider what some of these experts are saying before we move further down the road toward military confrontation? The rationale for this legislation is suspect, not the least because it employs a revisionist view of recent Middle East history. This legislation brings up, as part of its indictment against Iraq, that Iraq attacked Iran some 20 years ago. What the legislation fails to mention is that at that time Iraq was an ally of the United States, and counted on technical and military support from the United States in its war on Iran. Similarly, the legislation mentions Iraq's invasion of Kuwait more than 10 years ago. But at that time U.S. foreign policy was sending Saddam Hussein mixed messages, as Iraq's dispute with Kuwait simmered. At the time, U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie was reported in the New York times as giving very ambiguous signals to Saddam Hussein regarding Kuwait, allegedly telling Hussein that the United States had no interest in Arab-Arab disputes. We must also consider the damage a military invasion of Iraq will do to our alliance in this fight against terrorism. An attack on Iraq could destroy that international coalition against terrorism. Most of our European allies--critical in maintaining this coalition--have explicitly stated their opposition to any attack on Iraq. German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer warned recently that Europe was ``completely united'' in opposition to any attack on Iraq. Russian President Valdimir Putin cautioned recently against American military action in Iraq. Mr. Putin urged the next step to be centered around cutting off the financial resources of terrorists worldwide. As for Iraq, the Russian president said. ``. . . so far I have no confirmation, no evidence that Iraq is financing the terrorists that we are fighting against.'' Relations with our European allies would suffer should we continue down this path toward military conflict with Iraq. Likewise, U.S. relations with the Gulf states like Saudi Arabia could collapse should the United States initiate an attack on Iraq. Not only would our Saudi allies deny us the use of their territory to launch the attack, but a certain backlash from all gulf and Arab states could well produce even an oil embargo against the United States. Egypt, a key ally in our fight against terrorism, has also warned against any attack on Iraq. Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher said recently of the coalition that, ``If we want to keep consensus . . . we should not resort, after Afghanistan, to military means.'' Mr. Speaker, I do not understand this push to seek out another country to bomb next. Media and various politicians and pundits seem to delight in predicting from week to week which country should be next on our bombing list. Is military action now the foreign policy of first resort for the United States? When it comes to other countries and warring disputes, the United States counsels dialogue without exception. We urge the Catholics and Protestants to talk to each other, we urge the Israelis and Palestinians to talk to each other. Even at the height of the Cold War, when the Soviet Union had missiles pointed at us from 90 miles away in Cuba, we solved the dispute through dialogue and diplomacy. Why is it, in this post Cold War era, that the United States seems to turn first to the military to solve its foreign policy problems? Is diplomacy dead? In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, this legislation, even in its watered- down form, moves us closer to conflict with Iraq. This is not in our interest at this time. It also, ironically enough, could serve to further Osama bin Laden's twisted plans for a clash of civilizations between Islam and the West. Invading Iraq, with the massive loss of life on both sides, would only forward bin Laden's hateful plan. I think we need to look at our priorities here. We are still seeking those most responsible for the attacks on the United States. Now hardly seems the time to go out in search of new battles.

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

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3054. At the same time, I rise in great respect for the courage and compassion shown by those who gave their lives attempting to rescue their fellow citizens in the aftermath of the World Trade Center attacks. I also rise in admiration and gratitude to the passengers of Flight 93 who knowingly sacrificed their lives to prevent another terrorist attack. However, I do not believe that an unconstitutional authorization for Congressional Gold Medals is in the true spirit of these American heros. After all, this legislation purports to honor personal sacrifices and acts of heroism by forcing others to pay for these gold medals. Mr. Speaker, money appropriated for gold medals, or any other unconstitutional purpose, is, in the words of Davy Crockett, ``Not Yours to Give.'' It is my pleasure to attach a copy of Davy Crockett's ``Not Yours to Give'' speech for the record. I hope my colleagues will carefully consider its' message before voting to take money from American workers and families to spend on unconstitutional programs and projects. Instead of abusing the taxing and spending power, I urge my colleagues to undertake to raise the money for these medals among ourselves. I would gladly donate to a Congressional Gold Medal fund whose proceeds would be used to purchase and award gold medals to those selected by Congress for this honor. Congress should also reduce the federal tax burdened on the families of those who lost their lives helping their fellow citizens on September 11. Mr. Speaker, reducing the tax burden on these Americans would be a real sacrifice for many in Washington since any reduction in taxes represents a loss of real and potential power for the federal government. H.R. 3054 violates fundamental principles of fiscal responsibility by giving the Secretary of the Treasury almost unquestioned authority to determine who can and cannot receive a gold medal. Official estimates are that implementation of this bill will cost approximately 3.9 million dollars, however the terms of the bill suggest that the costs incurred by the United States taxpayer could be much higher. Furthermore, unlike previous legislation authorizing gold medals, H.R. 3054 does not instruct the Secretary of the Treasury to use profits generated by marketing bronze duplicates of the medal to reimburse the taxpayer for the costs of producing the medal. Unfortunately, because this bill was moved to the suspension calender without hearings or a mark-up there was no opportunity for members of the Financial Services Committee such as myself to examine these questions. Because of my continuing and uncompromising opposition to appropriations not authorized within the enumerated powers of the Constitution, I must remain consistent in my defense of a limited government whose powers are explicitly delimited under the enumerated powers of the Constitution--a Constitution which each Member of Congress swore to uphold. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I must oppose this legislation and respectfully suggest that perhaps we should begin a debate among us on more appropriate processes by which we spend other people's money. Honorary medals and commemorative coins, under the current process, come from other people's money. It is, of course, easier to be generous with other people's money, but using our own funds to finance these gold medal is true to the sprit of the heros of September 11.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation prohibiting federal funding for any organization that engages in human cloning or human cloning techniques. Moral and legal questions surrounding human cloning are among the most contentious and divisive facing America today. However, I hope we can all agree that no American should be forced to subsidize this activity. Some believe the current prohibition on the use of federal funds for cloning and cloning research is sufficient protection for those taxpayers who object to cloning. However, this argument is flawed for two reasons. First, the current ban is not permanent and thus could be changed at will by a future Congress or administration. Second, because money is fungible, current law does not necessarily prevent federal funds from subsidizing cloning. After all, whenever a company that engages in cloning research receives federal dollars for any project, the company obviously then has more dollars available to use for cloning. Therefore, any federal funding for companies that engage in human cloning forces taxpayers to subsidize those activities. Thus, the only way to ensure that no American is forced to pay for cloning research is to eliminate all federal funding of such companies or organizations. Thomas Jefferson said ``To compel a man to furnish contributions for the promulgation of ideas he disbelieves is both sinful and tyrannical.'' I hope my colleagues will embrace the spirit of Jefferson and join me in ending the sinful and tyrannical practice of forcing taxpayers to subsidize a practice so many find abhorrent. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and forbid federal funds from going to any company which engages in human cloning.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am inserting in the Record a copy of an article by former cabinet member Joseph Califano that appeared in today's Washington Post. I call this article entitled ``Too Many Federal Cops,'' to the attention of Members. It presents a balanced and even-handed assessment of how successive administrations over the decades have expanded Federal police powers at considerable cost to our endangered civil liberties. I wholeheartedly agree with the points raised by Mr. Califano, having spoken in this House concerning the same topic on many occasions. I wish to commend Mr. Califano for his timely and important piece, and recommend it to Members and others concerned with preserving civil liberties. Too Many Federal Cops (By Joseph A. Califano Jr.) As defense lawyers and civil libertarians huff and puff about Attorney General John Ashcroft's procedural moves to bug conversations between attorneys and their imprisoned clients, hold secret criminal military trials and detain individuals suspected of having information about terrorists, they are missing an even more troubling danger: the extraordinary increase in federal police personnel and power. In the past, interim procedural steps, such as the military tribunals Franklin Roosevelt established during World War II to try saboteurs, have been promptly terminated when the conflict ended. Because of its likely permanence, the expansion and institutionalization of national police power poses a greater threat to individual liberties. Congress should count to 10 before creating any additional police forces or a Cabinet-level Office of Homeland Security. Pre-Sept. 11, the FBI stood at about 27,000 in personnel; Drug Enforcement Administration at 10,000; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms at 4,000; Secret Service at 6,000; Border Patrol at 10,000; Customs Service at 12,000; and Immigration and Naturalization Service at 34,000. At the request of the White House, Congress is moving to beef up these forces and expand the number of armed air marshals from a handful to more than a thousand. Despite the president's objection, Congress recently created another security force of 28,000 baggage screeners under the guidance of the attorney general. In 1878 Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act to prohibit the military from performing civilian police functions. Over Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger's opposition, President Ronald Reagan declared drug trafficking a threat to national security as the rationale for committing the military to the war on drugs. (Weinberger argued that ``reliance on military forces to accomplish civilian tasks is detrimental to . . . the democratic process.'') Reagan's action gives George Bush a precedent for committing the military and National Guard to civilian police duty at airports and borders. Given the president's candor about the likelihood that the war on terrorism will last many years, the administration and a compliant Congress are in clear and present danger of establishing a national police force and--under either the attorney general, director of homeland security or an agency combining the CIA and State and Defense intelligence (or some combination of the above)--a de facto ministry of the interior. The fact that George Bush has no intention of misusing such institutions is irrelevant. You don't have to be a bad guy to abuse police power. Robert Kennedy, a darling of liberals, brushed aside civil liberties concerns when he went after organized crime and trampled on the rights of Jimmy Hoffa in his failed attempt to convict the Teamsters boss of something. He bugged and trailed Martin Luther King Jr., even collecting information on the civil rights leader's private love life, until Lyndon Johnson put a stop to it. Bureaucratic momentum alone can cross over the line. After President John F. Kennedy privately berated the Army for being unprepared to quell the riots when James Meredith enrolled at the University of Mississippi, we (I was Army general counsel at the time) responded by collecting intelligence information on individuals such as civil rights leaders, as well as local government officials in places where we thought there might be future trouble. We were motivated not by any mischievous desire to violate privacy or liberties of Americans but by the bureaucratic reflex not to be caught short again. In the paranoia of Watergate, the CIA followed a Washington Post report for weeks, even photographing him through the picture window of his home, because he had infuriated the president and the agency with a story containing classified information. Faced with our discovery (I was The Post's lawyer at the time), CIA Director William Colby readily admitted that ``someone had gone too far.'' All 100 members of the Senate voted to create the newest federal police force under the rubric of airport security. In its rush to judgment, the Senate acted as though a federal force was the only alternative to using the airlines or private contractors. Quite the contrary, policing by the individual public airport authorities, guided by federal standards, would be more in line with our tradition of keeping police power local. It's time for the executive and Congress to take a hard look at the police personnel amassing at the federal level and the extent to which we are concentrating them under any one individual short of the president. Congress should turn its most skeptical laser on the concept of an Office of Homeland Security and on any requests to institutionalize its director beyond the status of a special assistant to the president. We have survived for more than 200 years without a ministry of the interior or national police force, and we can effectively battle terrorism without creating one now.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, we are asked today to grant the President so- called trade promotion authority, authority that has nothing to do with free trade. Proponents of this legislation claim to support free trade, but really they support government-managed trade that serves certain interests at the expense of others. True free trade occurs only in the absence of interference by government, that's why it's called ``free''--it's free of government taxes, quotas, or embargoes. The term ``free-trade agreement'' is an oxymoron. We don't need government agreements to have free trade; but we do need to get the federal government out of the way and unleash the tremendous energy of the American economy. Our founders understood the folly of trade agreements between nations; that is why they expressly granted the authority to regulate trade to Congress alone, separating it from the treaty-making power given to the President and Senate. This legislation clearly represents an unconstitutional delegation of congressional authority to the President. Simply put, the Constitution does not permit international trade agreements. Neither Congress nor the President can set trade policies in concert with foreign governments or international bodies. The loss of national sovereignty inherent in government-managed trade cannot be overstated. If you don't like GATT, NAFTA, and the WTO, get ready for even more globalist intervention in our domestic affairs. As we enter into new international agreements, be prepared to have our labor, environmental, and tax laws increasingly dictated or at least influenced by international bodies. We've already seen this with our foreign sales corporation tax laws, which we changed solely to comply with a WTO ruling. Rest assured that TPA will accelerate the trend toward global government, with our Constitution fading into history. Congress can promote true free trade without violating the Constitution. We can lift the trade embargo against Cuba, end Jackson- Vanik restrictions on Kazakhstan, and repeal sanctions on Iran. These markets should be opened to American exporters, especially farmers. We can reduce our tariffs unilaterally--taxing American consumers hardly punishes foreign governments. We can unilaterally end the subsidies that international agreements purportedly seek to reduce. We can simply repeal protectionist barriers to trade, so-called NTB's, that stifle economic growth. Mr. Speaker, we are not promoting free trade today, but we are undermining our sovereignty and the constitutional separation of powers. We are avoiding the responsibilities with which our constituents have entrusted us. Remember, congressional authority we give up today will not be restored when less popular Presidents take office in the future. I strongly urge all of my colleagues to vote NO on TPA.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution and not, obviously, because it condemns violence. We all condemn the violence. But there is more to this resolution than just condemning the violence. I have a problem with most resolutions like this because it endorses a foreign policy that I do not endorse, and it does that by putting on unecessary demands. So the demands part of this resolution is the part that I object to, not the condemnation of violence. By doing this, we serve to antagonize. We hear today talk about having solidarity with Israel. Others get up and try in their best way to defend the Palestinians and the Arabs. So it is sort of a contest: Should be we pro-Israel or pro-Arab, or anti-Israel or anti-Arab, and how are we perceived in doing this? It is pretty important. But I think there is a third option to this that we so often forget about. Why can we not be pro-American? What is in the best interests of the United States? We have not even heard that yet. I believe that it is in the best interests of the United States not to get into a fight, a fight that we do not have the wisdom to figure out. Now, I would like to have neutrality. That has been the tradition for America, at least a century ago, to be friends with everybody, trade with everybody, and to be neutral, unless somebody declares war against us, but not to demand that we pick sides in every fight in the world. Yet, this is what we are doing. I think our perceptions are in error, because it is not intended that we make the problem worse. Obviously, the authors of the resolution, do not want to make the problem worse. But we have to realize, perceptions are pretty important. So the perceptions are, yes, we have solidarity with Israel. What is the opposite of solidarity? It is hostility. So if we have solidarity with Israel, then we have hostility to the Palestinians. I have a proposal and a suggestion which I think fits the American tradition. We should treat both sides equally, but in a different way. Today we treat both sides equally by giving both sides money and telling them what to do. Not $1 million here or there, not $100 million here or there, but tens of billions of dollars over decades to both sides; always trying to buy peace. My argument is that it generally does not work, that there are unintended consequences. These things backfire. They come back to haunt us. We should start off by defunding, defunding both sides. I am just not for giving all of this money, because every time there are civilians killed on the Israeli side or civilians killed on the Palestinian side, we can be assured that either our money was used directly or indirectly to do that killing. So we are, in a way, an accomplice on all of this killing because we fund both sides. So I would argue we should consider neutrality, to consider friendship with both sides, and not to pretend that we are all so wise that we know exactly with whom to have solidarity. I think that is basically our problem. We have a policy that is doomed to fail in the Middle East; and it fails slowly and persistently, always drawing us in, always demanding more money. With the Arabs, we cannot tell the Arabs to get lost. The Arabs are important. They have a lot of oil under their control. We cannot flaunt the Arabs and say, get lost. We must protect our oil. It is called ``our oil.'' At the same time, there is a strong constituency for never offending Israel. I think that we cannot buy peace under these circumstances. I think we can contribute by being more neutral. I think we can contribute a whole lot by being friends with both sides. But I believe the money is wasted, it is spent unwisely, and it actually does not serve the interests of the American people. First, it costs us money. That means that we have to take this money from the American taxpayer. Second, it does not achieve the peace that we all hope to have. Therefore, the policy of foreign noninterventionism, where the United States is not the bully and does not come in and tell everybody exactly what to do, by putting demands on them, I think if we did not do that, yes, we could still have some moral authority to condemn violence. But should we not condemn violence equally? Could it be true that only innocent civilians have died on one side and not the other? I do not believe that to be the care. I believe that it happens on both sides, and on both sides they use our money to do it. I urge a no vote on this resolution. Mr. Speaker, like most Americans, I was appalled by the suicide bombings in Israel over the weekend. I am appalled by all acts of violence targeting noncombatants. The ongoing cycle of violence in the Middle East is robbing generations of their hopes and dreams and freedom. The cycle of violence ensures economic ruin and encourages political extremism; it punishes, most of all, the innocent. The people of the Middle East must find a way to break this cycle of violence. As Secretary of State Colin Powell told the House International Relations Committee in October, ``You have got to find a way not to find justifications for what we are doing, but to get out of what we are doing to break the cycle.'' Mr. Speaker, I agree with our Secretary of State. The Secretary also said that we need to move beyond seeing the two sides there as ``just enemies.'' I agree with that too. But I don't think this piece of legislation moves us any closer to that important goal. While it rightly condemns the senseless acts of violence against the innocent, it unfortunately goes much further than that--and that is where I regrettably must part company with this bill. Rather than stopping at condemning terrorism, this bill makes specific demands in Israel and the Palestinian areas regarding internal policy and specifically the apprehension and treatment of suspected terrorists. I don't think that is our job here in Congress. Further, it recommends that the President suspend all relations with Yasir Arafat and the Palestinian Authority if they do not abide by the demands of this piece of legislation. I don't think this is a very helpful approach to the problem. Ceasing relations with one side in the conflict is, in effect, picking sides in the conflict. I don't think that has been our policy, nor is it in our best interest, be it in the Middle East, Central Asia, or anywhere else. The people of the United States contribute a substantial amount of money to both Israel and to the Palestinian people. We have made it clear in our policy and with our financial assistance that we are not taking sides in the conflict, but rather seeking a lasting peace in the region. Even with the recent, terrible attack. I don't think this is the time for Congress to attempt to subvert our government's policy on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Finally, the bill makes an attempt to join together our own fight against those who have attacked the Untied States on September 11 and Israel's ongoing dispute with the Palestinians. I don't think that is necessary. We are currently engaged in a very difficult and costly effort to seek out and bring to justice those who have attacked us and those who supported them, ``wherever they may be,'' as the president has said. Today's reports of the possible loss of at least two our servicemen in Afghanistan drives that point home very poignantly. As far as I know, none of those who attacked us had ties to Palestine or were harbored there. Mr. Speaker, I think we can all condemn terrorism wherever it may be without committing the United States to joining endless ongoing conflicts across the globe.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I recommend my colleagues read the attached article ``Let Privateers Troll for Bin Laden'' by Larry Sechrest, a research fellow at the Independent Institute in Oakland, California, and a professor of economics at Sul Ross State University. Professor Sechrest documents the role privateers played in the war against pirates who plagued America in the early days of the Republic. These privateers often operated with letters of marque and reprisal granted by the United States Congress. Professor Sechrest points out that privateers could be an effective tool in the war against terrorism. Today's terrorists have much in common with the pirates of days gone by. Like the pirates of old, today's terrorists are private groups seeking to attack the United States government and threaten the lives, liberty, and property of United States citizens. The only difference is that while pirates sought financial gains, terrorists seek to advance ideological and political agendas through violence. Like the pirates who once terrorized the high seas, terrorists today are also difficult to apprehend using traditional military means. We have seen that bombs and missiles can effectively and efficiently knock out the military capability, economy and technological infrastructure of an enemy nation that harbors terrorists. However, recent events also seem to suggest that traditional military force is not as effective in bringing lawless terrorists to justice. When a terrorist stronghold has been destroyed by military power, terrorists simply may move to another base before military forces locate them. It is for these reasons that I believe the drafters of the Constitution would counsel in favor of issuing letters of marque and reprisal against the terrorists responsible for the September 11 attacks. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld recently acknowledged the role that private parties, when provided sufficient incentives by government, can play in bringing terrorists to justice. Now is the time for Congress to ensure President Bush can take advantage of every effective and constitutional means of fighting the war on terrorism. This is why I have introduced the Air Piracy Reprisal and Capture Act of 2001 (HR 3074) and the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001 (HR 3076). The Air Piracy Reprisal and Capture Act of 2001 updates the federal definition of ``piracy'' to include acts committed in the skies. The September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001 provides Congressional authorization for the President to issue letters of marque and reprisal to appropriate parties to seize the person and property of Osama bin Laden and any other individuals responsible for the terrorist attacks of September 11. I encourage my colleagues to read Professor Sechrest's article on the effectiveness of privateers, and to help ensure President Bush can take advantage of every available tool to capture and punish terrorists by cosponsoring my Air Piracy Reprisal and Capture Act and the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act. Let Privateers Troll for Bin Laden (by Larry J. Sechrest) In the wake of the Sept. 11th attacks, a group of American businessmen has decided to enlist the profit motive to bring the perpetrators to justice. Headed by Edward Lozzi of Beverly Hills, California, the group intends to offer a bounty of $1 billion--that's billion with a ``b''--to any private citizens who will capture Osama bin Laden and his associates, dead or alive. Paying private citizens to achieve military objectives seems novel but is hardly untried. Recall Ross Perot's successful use of private forces to retrieve his employees from the clutches of fundamentalist Muslims in Iran in 1979. We are all familiar with bail bondsmen, who employ bounty hunters to catch bail-jumping fugitives. Less familiar are two U.S. companies, Military Professional Resources Inc. and Vinnell Corporation, which provide military services to governments and other organizations worldwide. Historically, private citizens arming private ships, appropriately called ``privateers,'' played an important role in the American Revolution. Eight hundred privateers aided the seceding colonists' cause, while the British employed 700, despite having a huge government navy. During the War of 1812, 526 American vessels were commissioned as privateers. This was not piracy, because the privateers were licensed by their own governments and the ships were bonded to ensure that their captains followed the accepted laws of the sea, including the humane treatment of those who were taken prisoner. Congress granted privateers ``letters of marque and reprisal,'' under the authority of Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. Originally, privateering was a method of restitution for merchants or shipowners who had been wronged by a citizen of a foreign country. Privateers captured the ships flying the flag of the wrongdoers' nation and sailed them to a friendly port, where a neutral admiralty court decided whether the seizure was just. Wrongful seizures resulted in the forfeiture of the privateers' bond to the owners of the seized ship. If the seizure was, just, the ship and cargo were sold at auction, with the bulk of the proceeds going to the privateer's owners and crew. The crews were volunteers who shared in the profits, and the investors viewed the venture as remunerative--albeit risky, Privateering soon evolved into a potent means of warfare. Self-interest encouraged privateers to capture as many enemy ships as possible, and to do it quickly. Were privateers successful in inflicting serious losses on the enemy? Emphatically, yes. Between 1793 and 1797, the British lost 2,266 vessels, the majority taken by French privateers. During the War of the League of Augsburg (1689-1697) French privateers captured 3,384 English or Dutch merchant ships and 162 warships, and during the War of 1812, 1,750 British ships were subdued or destroyed by American privateers. Those American privateers struck so much fear in Britain that Lloyd's of London ceased offering maritime insurance except at ruinously high premiums. No wonder Thomas Jefferson said, ``Every possible encouragement should be given to privateering in time of war.'' If privateering was so successful, why has it disappeared? Precisely because it worked so well. Government naval officers resented the competitive advantage privateers possessed, and powerful nations with large government navies did not want to be challenged on the seas by smaller nations that opted for the less-costly alternative--private ships of war. In sum, the armed forces of the U.S. government are not the only option for President Bush to defeat bin Laden, his al Qaeda network, and ``every terrorist group with a global reach.'' The U.S. military is not necessarily even the best option. Let's bring back the spirit of the privateers. By letting profits and justice once more go hand-in-hand, victims and their champions can have an abundance of both, rather than a paucity of either.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I want today to address my resolution, H. Con. Res. 277 to recognize the important contributions of the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Speaker, the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce was founded in New Mexico in 1979. Headquartered in Washington, DC the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce currently has a network of more than 200 chapters in the United States and its territories. One of those active chapters is in my district, in fact the San Marcos Hispanic Chamber of Commerce just held its successful Turkey Trot Golf Tournament during our Thanksgiving break. The importance of this national organization cannot be overstated, Hispanics have an annual purchasing power of approximately $500 billion and the Chamber effectively represents the more than 1 million Hispanic-owned businesses. The organization's recent growth has shown its influence in communities not traditionally considered centers for Latino development, locations such as Richmond, Virginia; Charlotte, North Carolina and Minnesota's Twin Cities area. The Hispanic Chamber of Commerce provides important recognition to its members and supporters through an annual awards program. Moreover, the organization furnishes its membership with a host of critical services, ably guided by the leadership of its President and CEO George Herrera, Chair Ms. Elizabeth Lisboa-Farrow, who also chairs the DC Chamber of Commerce; and Vice Chairman J.R. Gonzales, President of a communications firm in Austin, Texas. Importantly, the Chamber has maintained international trade as one of its top long term priorities, even maintaining an office in Mexico City. The Hispanic Chamber of Commerce provides and promotes the kind of private sector trade initiatives and assistance that I believe all of us can support. Mr. Speaker, I am gratified to be able to bring to the Floor today this resolution to recognize the important contributions of the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce and ask for the support of members in passing this item.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, we have been told on numerous occasions to expect a long and protracted war. This is not necessary if one can identify the target, the enemy, and then stay focused on that target. It is impossible to keep one's eye on a target and hit it if we do not precisely understand it and identify it. In pursuing any military undertaking, it is the responsibility of Congress to know exactly why it appropriates the funding. Today, unlike any time in our history, the enemy and its location remains vague and pervasive. In the undeclared wars of Vietnam and Korea, the enemy was known and clearly defined, even though our policies were confused and contradictory. Today, our policies relating to the growth of terrorism are also confused and contradictory. However, the precise enemy and its location are not known by anyone. Until the enemy is defined and understood, it cannot be accurately targeted or vanquished. The terrorists are no more an entity than the Mob or some international criminal gang, such as the Mafia. It is certainly not a country, nor is it the Afghan people. The Taliban is obviously a strong sympathizer of bin Laden and his henchmen, but how much more so than the government of Saudi Arabia or even Pakistan? Probably not much. Ulterior motives have always played a part in the foreign policies of almost every Nation throughout history. Economic gain and a geographic expansion, or even just the desires for more political power, too often drives the militarism of all nations. Unfortunately, in recent years, we have not been exempt. If expansionism, economic interests, desires for hegemony and influential allies affect our policies, and they in turn incite mob attacks against us, they obviously cannot be ignored. The target will be elusive and ever-enlarging rather than vanquished. We do know a lot about the terrorists who spilled the blood of nearly 4,000 innocent civilians. There were 19 of them, 15 from Saudi Arabia; and they have paid a high price. They are all dead. So those most responsible for the attack have been permanently taken care of. If one encounters a single suicide bomber who takes his own life along with others, without the help from anyone else, no further punishment is possible. The only question that can be raised under that circumstance is why did it happen and how can we change the conditions that drove that individual to perform such a heinous act. The terrorist attacks on New York and Washington are not quite so simple, but they are similar. These attacks required funding, planning, and inspiration from others. But the total number of people directly involved had to be relatively small in order to have kept the plans thoroughly concealed. Twenty accomplices, or even 100 could have done it; but there is no way thousands of people knew and participated in the planning and carried out the attacks. Moral support expressed by those who find our policies offensive is a different matter and difficult to determine. Those who enjoyed seeing the United States hit are too numerous to count and impossible to identify. To target and wage war against all of them is like declaring war against an idea or sin. The predominant nationality of the terrorists was Saudi Arabian. Yet, for political and economic reasons, even with the lack of cooperation from the Saudi Government, we have ignored that country in placing blame. The Afghan people did nothing to deserve another war. The Taliban, of course, is closely tied to bin Laden and the al Qaeda, but so are the Pakistanis and the Saudis. Even the United States was a supporter of the Taliban's rise to power. And as recently as August of this year, we talked pipeline politics with them. The recent French publication of bin Laden, ``The Forbidden Truth,'' revealed our most recent effort to secure control over Caspian Sea oil in collaboration with the Taliban. According to the two authors, the economic conditions demanded by the U.S. were turned down and led to U.S. military threats against the Taliban. It has been known for years that UniCal, a U.S. company, has been anxious to build a pipeline through northern Afghanistan. But it has not been possible due to the weak Afghan central government. We should not be surprised now that many contend that the plan for the U.N. to nation-build in Afghanistan is a logical and important consequence of this desire. The crisis has merely given those interested in this project an excuse to replace the government of Afghanistan. Since we do not even know if bin Laden is in Afghanistan; and since other countries are equally supportive of him, our concentration on this Taliban target remains suspect by many. Former FBI Deputy Director John O'Neill resigned in July over duplicitous dealings with the Taliban in our oil interests. O'Neill then took a job as head of the World Trade Center's security and, ironically, was killed in the 9-11 attack. The charges made by these authors in this recent publication deserves close scrutiny and congressional oversight investigation and not just for the historical record. To understand world sentiment on this subject, one might note a comment in the ``Hindu,'' India's national newspaper, not necessarily to agree with the paper's sentiment, but to help us better understand what is being thought about us around the world in contrast to the spin put on the war by our five major TV networks. This quote comes from an article written by Sitaram Yechury on October 13, 2001: ``The world today is being asked to side with the United States in a fight against global terrorism. This is only a cover. The world is being asked today in reality to side with the U.S. as it seeks to strengthen its economic hegemony. This is neither acceptable nor will it be allowed. We must forge together to state that we are neither with the terrorists nor with the United States.'' The need to define our target is ever so necessary if we are going to avoid letting this war get out of control. It is important to note that in the same article the author quoted Michael Klare, an expert on Caspian Sea oil reserves, from an interview on Radio Free Europe. He said, ``We, the United States, view oil as a security consideration, and we have to protect it by any means necessary, regardless of other considerations, other values.'' This, of course, was a clearly stated position of our administration in 1990 as our country was being prepared to fight the Persian Gulf War. Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction only became the issue later on. For various reasons, the enemy with whom we are now at war remains vague and illusive. Those who commit violent terrorist acts should be targeted with a rifle or hemlock, not with vague declarations with some claiming we must root out terrorism in as many as 60 countries. If we are not precise in identifying our enemy, it is going to be hard to keep our eye on the target. Without this identification, the war will spread and be needlessly prolonged. Why is this definition so crucial? Because without it the special interests and the ill advised will clamor for all kinds of expanded militarism. Planning to expand and fight a never-ending war in 60 countries against worldwide terrorist conflicts with the notion that at most only a few hundred ever knew of the plans to attack the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The pervasive and indefinable enemy, terrorism, cannot be conquered without weapons and U.N. nation-building. Only a sensible pro-American foreign policy will accomplish this. This must occur if we are to avoid a cataclysmic expansion of the current hostilities. It was said that our efforts were to be directed towards the terrorists responsible for the attacks, and overthrowing and instituting new governments were not to be part of the agenda. Already we have clearly taken our eyes off that target and diverted it toward building a pro-Western, U.N.-sanctioned government in Afghanistan. But if bin Laden can hit us in New York and Washington, D.C., what should one expect to happen once the U.S. and the U.N. establishes a new government in Afghanistan with occupying troops? It seems that would be an easy target for the likes of al Qaeda. Since we do not know in which cave or country bin Laden is hiding, we hear the clamor of many for us to overthrow our next villain, Saddam Hussein, guilty or not. On the short list of countries to be attacked are North Korea, Libya, Syria, Iran and the Sudan, just for starters. But this jingoistic talk is foolhardy and dangerous. The war against terrorism cannot be won in this manner. The drum beat for attacking Baghdad grows louder every day with Paul Wolfowitz, Bill Kristol, Richard Perle and Bill Bennett leading the charge. In a recent interview, the U.S. Deputy of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, made it clear, ``We are going to continue pursuing this entire al Qaeda network which is in 60 countries, not just Afghanistan.'' Fortunately, President Bush and Colin Powell so far have resisted the pressure to expand the war into other countries. Let us hope and pray that they do not yield to the clamor of the special interests that want us to take on Iraq. The argument that we need to do so because Hussein is producing weapons of mass destruction is the reddest of all herrings. I sincerely doubt he has developed significant weapons of mass destruction. However, if that is the argument, we should plan to attack all the countries that have similar weapons or plans to build them, countries like China, North Korea, Israel, Pakistan and India. Iraq has been uncooperative with the U.N. world order, and remains independent of Western control of its oil reserve, unlike Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. This is why she has been bombed steadily for 11 years by the U.S. and Britain. Mr. Speaker, my guess is that in the not-too-distant future so-called proof will be provided that Saddam Hussein was somehow partially responsible for the attack on the United States, and it will be irresistible then for the United States to retaliate against him. This will greatly and dangerously expand the war and provoke even greater hatred towards the United States, and it is all so unnecessary. It is so hard for many Americans to understand how we inadvertently provoke the Arab Muslim people, and I am not talking about the likes of bin Laden and his gang. I am talking about the Arab Muslim masses. In 1996 after 5 years of sanctions against Iraq and persistent bombing, CBS reporter Lesley Stahl asked our ambassador to the U.N., Madeleine Albright, a simple question: ``We have heard that half a million children have died as a consequence of our policy against Iraq. Is the price worth it?'' Albright's response was, ``We think the price is worth it.'' Although this interview won an Emmy Award, it was rarely related in the U.S., but widely circulated in the Middle East. Some still wonder why America is despised in this region of the world. Former President George Bush has been criticized for not marching on to Baghdad at the end of the Persian Gulf War. He gave then and stands by its explanation today a superb answer as to why it was ill advised to attempt to remove Saddam Hussein from power. There were strategic and tactical as well as humanitarian arguments against it. But the important and clinching argument against annihilating Baghdad was political. The coalition in no uncertain terms let it be known they wanted no part of it. Besides, the U.N. only authorized the removal of Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. The U.N. has never sanctioned the continued U.S. and British bombing of Iraq, a source of much hatred directed towards the United States. The placing of U.S. troops on what is seen as Muslim Holy Land in Saudi Arabia seems to have done exactly what the former President was trying to avoid, the breakup of the coalition. The coalition has hung together by a thread, but internal dissention among the secular and religious Arab Muslim nations within individual countries has intensified. Even today, the current crisis threatens the overthrow of every puppet pro-Western Arab leader from Egypt to Saudi Arabia to Kuwait. Many of the same advisers from the first Bush administration are now urging the current President to finish off Hussein. However, every reason given 11 years ago for not leveling Baghdad still holds true today, if not more so. It has been argued that we needed to maintain a presence in Saudi Arabia after the Persian Gulf War to protect the Saudi Government from Iraqi attack. Others argue it was only a cynical excuse to justify keeping troops to protect what our officials declared were our oil supplies. Some have even suggested that our expanded presence in Saudi Arabia was prompted by a need to keep King Fahd in power and to thwart any effort by Saudi fundamentalists from overthrowing his regime. Expanding the war by taking on Iraq at this time may please some allies, but it will lead to chaos in the region and throughout the world. It will incite even more anti-American sentiment and expose us to even greater danger. It could prove to be an unmitigated disaster. Iran and Russia will not be pleased with this move, nor will our European allies. It is not our job to remove Saddam Hussein. That is the job of the Iraqi people. It is not our job to remove the Taliban. That is the business of the Afghan people. It is not our job to insist that the next government in Afghanistan include women, no matter how good of an idea it is. If this really is an issue, why not insist that our friends in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait do the same thing as well as impose our will on them. Talk about hypocrisy. The mere thought that we fight wars for affirmative action in a country 6,000 miles from home with no cultural similarities should insult us all. Of course it does distract from the issue of an oil pipeline through northern Afghanistan. We need to keep our eye on the target and not be so easily distracted. Assume for a minute that bin Laden is not in Afghanistan. Would any of our military effort in that region be justified? Since none of it would be related to American security, it would be difficult to justify. Assume for a minute that bin Laden is as ill as I believe he is with serious renal disease. Would he not do everything conceivable for his cause by provoking us into expanding the war and alienating as many Muslims as possible? Remember, to bin Laden martyrdom is a noble calling and he may be more powerful in death than life. An American invasion of Iraq would please bin Laden because it would rally his troops against any moderate Arab leader who appears to be supporting the United States. It would prove his point that America is up to no good, and oil and Arab infidels are the source of all of the Muslims' problems. We have recently been reminded of Admiral Yamamoto's quote after the bombing of Pearl Harbor in expressing his fear that the event awakened a sleeping giant. Most everyone agrees with the prophetic wisdom of that comment, but I question the accuracy of drawing an analogy between the Pearl Harbor event and the World Trade Center attack. Hardly are we the same Nation we were in 1941. Today we are anything but a sleeping giant. There is no contest for our status as the only world's only economic, political and military superpower. A sleeping giant would not have troops in 141 countries throughout the world and be engaged in every conceivable conflict with 250,000 troops stationed abroad. The fear I have is that our policies, along with those of Britain, the U.N. and NATO since World War II inspired and have now awakened a long-forgotten sleeping giant, Islamic fundamentalism. Let us hope for all of our sakes that Iraq is not made the target in this very complex war. The President, in the 2000 Presidential campaign, argued against nation-building, and he was right to do so. He also said, ``If we are an arrogant Nation, they will resent us.'' He wisely argued for humility and a policy that promotes peace. Attacking Baghdad or declaring war against Saddam Hussein or even continuing the illegal bombing of Iraq is hardly a policy of humility designed to promote peace. As we continue our bombing of Afghanistan, plans are made to install a new government sympathetic to the West and under U.N. control. The persuasive arguments as always is money. We were able to gain Pakistan's support, although it continually waivers in this manner. Appropriations are already being prepared in the Congress to rebuild all that we destroyed in Afghanistan and then some, even before the bombing has stopped. ``Rumsfeld's plan,'' as reported and quoted in Turkey's Hurriyet newspaper, lays out the plan for the next Iraqi government. Turkey's support is crucial, so the plan is to give Turkey oil from the norther Iraq Karkuk field. The United States has also promised a pipeline running from Iraq through Turkey. How can the Turks resist such a generous offer? Since we subsidize Turkey and they bomb the Kurds, while we punish the Iraqis for the same thing, this plan it to divvy up wealth in the land of Kurds is hardly a surprise. It seems that Washington never learns. Our foolish foreign interventions continuously get us into more trouble than we have bargained for, and the spending is endless. I am not optimistic that this Congress will anytime soon come to its senses. I am afraid that we will never treat the taxpayers with respect. National bankruptcy is a more likely scenario than Congress adopting a frugal and wise spending policy. Mr. Speaker, we must make every effort to precisely define our target in this war and keep our eye on it. It is safe to assume that the number of people directly involved in the 9-11 attacks is closer to several hundred than the millions we are now talking about targeting with our planned shotgun approach to terrorism. One commentator pointed out that when the Mafia commits violence, no one suggests we bomb Sicily. Today, it seems we are in a symbolic way not only bombing Sicily, but thinking about bombing Athens; that is, Iraq. If a corrupt city or State government does business with a drug cartel or organized crime and violence results, we do not bomb city hall or the State capital. We limit the target to those directly guilty and punish them. Could we not learn a lesson from these examples? It is difficult for everyone to put the 9-11 attacks in a proper perspective, because any attempt to do so is construed as diminishing the utter horror of the events of that day. We must remember though that the 3,900 deaths incurred in the World Trade Center attacks were just slightly more than the deaths that occur on our Nation's highways every month. Could it be that the sense of personal vulnerability we survivors feel motivates us in meting out justice, rather than the concern for the victims of the attacks? Otherwise, the numbers do not add up to the proper response. If we lose sight of the target and unwisely broaden the war, the tragedy of 9-11 will pale in the death and destruction that could lie ahead. As Members of Congress, we have a profound responsibility to mete out justice, provide security for our Nation and protect the liberties of all the people, without senselessly expanding the war at the urging of narrow political and economic special interests. The price is too high and the danger too great. We must not lose our focus on the real target and inadvertently create new enemies for ourselves. Mr. Speaker, we have not done any better keeping our eye on the terrorist target on the home front than we have overseas. Not only has Congress come up short in picking the right target, it has directed all its energies in the wrong direction. The target of our efforts has, sadly, been the liberties of all Americans. With all the new power we have given to the administration, none has truly improved the chances of catching the terrorists who were responsible for the 9-11 attacks. All Americans will soon feel the consequences of this new legislation. Just as the crisis provided an opportunity for some to promote a special interest agenda in our foreign policy, many have seen the crisis as a chance to achieve changes in our domestic laws which, up until now, were seen as dangerous and unfair to American citizens. Granting bailouts is not new for Congress, but current conditions have prompted many takers to line up for the handouts. There has always been a large constituency for expanding Federal power, for whatever reason, and these groups have been energized. The military industrial complex is out in force and is optimistic. Union power is pleased with recent events and has not missed the opportunity to increase membership rolls. Federal policing powers, already in a bull market, received a super shot in the arm. The IRS, which detests financial privacy, gloats, while all the big spenders in Washington applaud the tools made available to crack down on tax dodgers. The drug warriors and anti-gun zealots love the new powers that now can be used to watch the every move of our citizens. Extremists who talk of the Constitution, promote right-to-life, form citizen militias or participate in non-mainstream religious practices, now can be monitored much more effectively by those who find their views offensive. Laws recently passed by the Congress apply to all Americans, not just terrorists. But we should remember that if the terrorists are known and identified, existing laws would have been quite adequate to deal with them. Even before the passage of the recent Draconian legislation, hundreds had already been arrested under suspicion and million of dollars of al- Qaida funds had been frozen. None of these new laws will deal with uncooperative foreign entities, like the Saudi government, which chose not to relinquish evidence pertaining to exactly who financed the terrorist operations. Unfortunately, the laws will affect all innocent Americans, yet will do nothing to thwart terrorism. The laws recently passed in Congress in response to the terrorist attacks can be compared to the efforts of anti-gun fanatics who jump at every chance to undermine the second amendment. When crimes are committed with the use of guns, it is argued that we must remove guns from society, or at least register them and make it difficult to buy them. The counterargument made by the second amendment supporters correctly explained that this would only undermine the freedom of law- abiding citizens, and do nothing to keep guns out of the hands of the criminals or to reduce crime. Now we hear a similar argument, that a certain amount of privacy and personal liberty of law-abiding citizens must be sacrificed in order to root out possible terrorists. This will result only in liberties being lost, and will not serve to preempt any terrorist attack. The criminals, just as they know how to get guns even when they are illegal, will still be able to circumvent antiterrorist laws. To believe otherwise is to endorse a Faustian bargain. That is what I believe the Congress has done. We know from the ongoing drug war that Federal drug police not infrequently make mistakes, break down the wrong doors and destroy property. Abuses of seizure and forfeiture laws are numerous. Yet the new laws will encourage even more mistakes by Federal law enforcement agencies. It has long been forgotten that law enforcement in the United States was supposed to be a state and local government responsibility, not that of the Federal Government. The Federal Government's policing powers have just gotten a giant boost in scope and authority through both new legislation and executive orders. Before the 9-11 attack, Attorney General Ashcroft let his position be known regarding privacy and government secrecy. Executive Order 13223 made it much more difficult for researchers to gain access to Presidential documents from previous administrations and a ``need to know'' had to be demonstrated. This was a direct hit at efforts to demand openness in government, even if only for analysis and writing of history. Ashcroft's position is that Presidential records ought to remain secret, even after an administration has left office. He argues that government deserves privacy, while ignoring the fourth amendment protections of the people's privacy. He argues his case by absurdly claiming that he must protect the privacy of the individuals who might be involved, a non-problem that could easily be resolved without closing public records to the public. It is estimated that approximately 1,200 men have been arrested as a consequence of the 9-11 attacks, yet their names and charges are not available, and, according to Ashcroft, will not be made available. Once again, he uses the argument he is protecting their privacy. Unbelievable. Due process for the detainees has been denied. Secret government is winning out over open government. This is the largest number of people to be locked up under these conditions since FDR's internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. Information regarding these arrests is a must in a constitutional republic. If they are terrorists or accomplices, just let the public know and pursue their prosecution. But secret arrests and silence are not acceptable in a society that professes to be free. Curtailing freedom is not the answer to protecting freedom under adverse circumstances. The administration has severely curtailed briefings regarding the military operation in Afghanistan for congressional leaders, ignoring a longtime tradition in this country. One person or one branch of government should never control military operations. Our system of government has always required a shared power arrangement. The antiterrorism bill did little to restrain the growth of big government. In the name of patriotism, the Congress did some very unpatriotic things. Instead of concentrating on the persons or groups that committed the attacks on 9-11, our efforts, unfortunately, have undermined the liberties of all Americans. ``Know your customer'' type banking regulations, resisted by most Americans for years, have now been put in place in an expanded fashion. Not only will the regulations affect banks, thrifts and credit unions, but all businesses will be required to file suspicious transaction reports if cash is used with a total of the transaction reaching $10,000. Retail stores will be required to spy on all their customers and send reports to the U.S. Government. Financial service consultants are convinced that this new regulation will affect literally millions of law-abiding American citizens. The odds that this additional paperwork will catch a terrorist are remote. The sad part is that these regulations have been sought after by Federal law enforcement agencies for years. The 9-11 attacks have served as an opportunity to get them by the Congress and the American people. Only now are the American people hearing about the onerous portions of the antiterrorism legislation, and they are not pleased. It is easy for elected officials in Washington to tell the American people that the government will do whatever it takes to defeat terrorism. Such assurances inevitably are followed by proposals either to restrict the constitutional liberties of the American people or to spend vast sums of money from the Federal Treasury. The history of the 20th century shows that the Congress violates our Constitution most often during times of crisis. Accordingly, most of our worst unconstitutional agencies and programs began during the World Wars and the Depression. Ironically, the Constitution itself was conceived at a time of great crisis. The founders intended its provisions to place severe restriction on the Federal Government, even in times of great distress. America must guard against current calls for the government to sacrifice the Constitution in the name of law enforcement. The antiterrorism legislation recently passed by Congress demonstrates how well-meaning politicians make shortsighted mistakes in the rush to respond to a crisis. Most of its provisions were never carefully studied by Congress, nor was a sufficient time taken to debate the bill, despite its importance. No testimony was heard from privacy experts or from other fields outside of law enforcement. Normal congressional committee hearings processes were suspended. In fact, the final version of the bill was not even made available to Members before the vote. The American public should not tolerate these political games, especially when our precious freedoms are at stake. Almost all of the new laws focus on American citizens rather than potential foreign terrorists. For example, the definition of terrorism for Federal criminal purposes has been greatly expanded. A person could now be considered a terrorist by belonging to a pro-Constitution group, a citizen's militia or a pro-life organization. Legitimate protests against the government could place tens of thousands of other Americans under Federal surveillance. Similarly, Internet use can be monitored without a user's knowledge, and Internet providers can be forced to hand over user information to law enforcement officials without a warrant or subpoena. The bill also greatly expands the use of traditional surveillance tools, including wiretaps, search warrants and subpoenas. Probable cause standards for these tools are relaxed, or even eliminated in some circumstances. Warrants become easier to obtain and can be executed without notification. Wiretaps can be placed without a court order. In fact, the FBI and the CIA now can tap telephones or computers nationwide without demonstrating that a criminal suspect is using a particular phone or computer. The biggest problem with these new law enforcement powers is they bear little relationship to fighting terrorism. Surveillance powers are greatly expanded, while checks and balances on governments are greatly reduced. Most of the provisions have been sought by domestic law enforcement agencies for years, not to fight terrorism, but rather to increase their police powers over the American people. There is no evidence that our previously held civil liberties posed a barrier to the effective tracking or prosecution of terrorists. The Federal Government has made no showing that it failed to detect or prevent the recent terrorist strike because of the civil liberties that will be compromised by this new legislation. In his speech to the Joint Session of Congress following the September 11 attack, President Bush reminded all of us that the United States outlasted and defeated Soviet totalitarianism in the last century. The numerous internal problems in the former Soviet Union, its centralized economic planning and lack of free markets, its repression of human liberty and its excessive militarization, all led to its inevitable collapse. We must be vigilant to resist the rush toward ever-increasing state control of our society so that our own government does not become a greater threat to our freedoms than any foreign terrorists. The Executive Order that has gotten the most attention by those who are concerned that our response to 9-11 is overreaching and dangerous to our liberties is the one authorizing military justice, in secret. Nazi war criminals were tried in public, but plans now are being laid to carry out the trials and punishment, including possibly the death penalty, outside the eyes and ears of the legislative and judicial branches of government and the American public. Since such a process threatens national security and the Constitution, it cannot be used as a justification for their protection. Some have claimed this military tribunal has been in the planning stages for 5 years. If so, what would have been its justification? The argument that FDR did it and, therefore, it must be okay is a rather weak argument. Roosevelt was hardly one that went by the rule book: the Constitution. But the situation then was quite different from today. There was a declared war by Congress against a precise enemy, the Germans, who sent 8 saboteurs into our country. Convictions were unanimous, not by two-thirds of the panel, and appeals were permitted. That is not what is being offered today. Besides, the previous military tribunal expired when the war as over. Since this war will go on indefinitely, so too will these courts. The real outrage is that such a usurpation of power can be accomplished with the ``stroke of a pen.'' It may be that we have come to that stage in our history when an Executive Order is the ``law of the land,'' but it is not ``kinda cool,'' as one member of the previous administration bragged. It is a process that is unacceptable, even in this professed time of crisis. There are well-documented histories of secret military tribunals. Up until now, the United States has consistently condemned them. The fact that a two-thirds majority can sentence a person to death in secrecy in the United States is scary. With no appeals available and no defense attorneys of choice being permitted should compel us to reject such a system outright. Those who favor these trials claim that they are necessary to halt terrorism in its tracks. We are told that only terrorists will be brought before these tribunals. This means that the so-called suspects must be tried and convicted before they are assigned to this type of ``trial'' without due process. They will be deemed guilty by hearsay, in contrast to the traditional American system of justice where all are innocent until proven guilty. This turns the justice system on its head. One cannot be reassured by believing these courts will only apply to foreigners who are terrorists. Sloppiness in convicting criminals is a slippery slope. We should not forget that the Davidians at Waco were convicted and demonized and slaughtered outside our judicial system and they were, for the most part, American citizens. Randy Weaver's family fared no better. It has been said that the best way for us to spread our message of freedom, justice, and prosperity throughout the world is through example and persuasion, not through force of arms. We have drifted a long way from that concept. Military courts will be another bad example for the world. We were outraged in 1996 when Lori Berenson, an American citizen, was tried, convicted, and sentenced to life by a Peruvian military court. Instead of setting an example, now we are following the lead of a Peruvian dictator. The ongoing debate regarding the use of torture in rounding up the criminals involved in the 9-11 attacks is too casual. This can only represent progress in the cause of liberty and justice. Once government becomes more secretive, it is more likely this too will be abused. Hopefully, the Congress will not endorse or turn a blind eye to this barbaric proposal. For every proposal made to circumvent the judicial system, it is intended that we visualize that these infractions of the law and the Constitution will apply only to the terrorists and never involve innocent U.S. citizens. This is impossible, because someone has to determine exactly who to bring before the tribunal, and that involves all of us. That is too much arbitrary power for anyone to be given in a representative government and is more characteristic of a totalitarian government. Many throughout the world, especially those in the Muslim countries, will be convinced by the secretive process that the real reason for military courts is that the U.S. lacks sufficient evidence to convict in an open court. Should we be fighting so strenuously the war against terrorism and carelessly sacrifice our traditions of American justice? If we do, the war will be for naught and we will lose, even if we win. Congress has a profound responsibility in all of this and should never concede this power to a President or an Attorney General. Congressional oversight powers must be used to their fullest to curtail this unconstitutional assumption of power. The planned use of military personnel to patrol our streets and airports is another challenge of great importance that should not go uncontested. For years, many in Washington have advocated the national approach to all policing activities. This current crisis has given them a tremendous boost. Believe me, this is no panacea and is a dangerous move. The Constitution never intended that the Federal Government assume this power. This concept was codified in the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. This act prohibits the military from carrying out law enforcement duties such as searching or arresting people in the United States, the argument being that the military is only used for this type of purpose in a police State. Interestingly, it was the violation of these principles that prompted the Texas revolution against Mexico. The military, under the Mexican Constitution at that time, was prohibited from enforcing civil laws, and when Santa Anna ignored this prohibition, the revolution broke out. We should not so readily concede the principles that have been fought for on more than one occasion in this country. The threats to liberty seem endless. It seems we have forgotten to target the enemy. Instead, we have inadvertently targeted the rights of American citizens. The crisis has offered a good opportunity for those who have argued all along for bigger government. For instance, the military draft is the ultimate insult to those who love personal liberty. The Pentagon, even with the ongoing crisis, has argued against the reinstatement of the draft. Yet the clamor for its reinstatement grows louder daily by those who wanted a return to the draft all along. I see the draft as the ultimate abuse of liberty. Morally, it cannot be distinguished from slavery. All the arguments for drafting 18-year-old men and women and sending them off to foreign wars are couched in terms of noble service to the country and benefits to the draftees. The need-for-discipline argument is the most common reason given after the call for service in an effort to make the world safe for democracy. There can be no worse substitute for the lack of parental guidance of teenagers than the Federal Government's domineering control and forcing them to fight an enemy they do not even know in a country they cannot even identify. Now it is argued that since the Federal government has taken over the entire job of Homeland Security, all kinds of jobs can be found for the draftees to serve the State, even for those who are conscientious objectors. The proponents of the draft call it ``mandatory service.'' Slavery too was mandatory, but few believed it was a service. They claim that every 18-year-old owes at least 2 years of his life to his country. Let us hope the American people do not fall for this need-to-serve argument. The Congress should refuse even to consider such a proposal. Better yet, what we need to do is abolish the selective service altogether. However, if we get to the point of returning to the draft, I have a proposal. Every news commentator, every Hollywood star, every newspaper editorialist, and every Member of Congress under the age of 65 who has never served in the military and who now demands that the draft be reinstated should be drafted first; the 18-year-olds last. Since the Pentagon says they do not need draftees, these new recruits can be the first to march to the orders of the general in charge of Homeland Security. For those less robust individuals, they can do the hospital and cooking chores for the rest of the newly-formed domestic Army. After all, someone middle-aged owes a lot more to his country than an 18-year-old. I am certain that this provision would mute the loud demands for the return of the military draft. I see good reason for American citizens to be concerned, not only about another terrorist attack, but for their own personal freedoms as the Congress deals with this crisis. Personal freedom is the element of the human condition that has made America great and unique and something we all cherish. Even those who are more willing to sacrifice a little freedom for security do it with the firm conviction that they are acting in the best interests of freedom and justice. However, good intentions can never suffice for sound judgment in the defense of liberty. I do not challenge the dedication and sincerity of those who disagree with the freedom philosophy and confidently promote government solutions for all of our ills. I am just absolutely convinced that the best formula for giving us peace and prosperity and preserving the American way of life is freedom, limited government, and minding our own business overseas. Henry Grady Weaver, author of a classic book on freedom, The Mainspring of Human Progress, years ago warned us that good intentions in politics are not good enough and actually are dangerous to the cause. Weaver stated: ``Most of the major ills of the world have been caused by well-meaning people who ignored the principle of individual freedom, except as applied to themselves, and who were obsessed with fanatical zeal to improve the lot of mankind-in-the-mass through some pet formula of their own. The harm done by ordinary criminals, murderers, gangsters and thieves is negligible in comparison with the agony inflicted upon human beings by the professional do-gooders who attempt to set themselves up as Gods on earth and who would ruthlessly force their views on all others, with the abiding assurance that the end justifies the means.'' Mr. Speaker, this message is one we should all ponder.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, no one doubts that the government has a role to play in compensating American citizens who are victimized by terrorist attacks. However, Congress should not lose sight of fundamental economic and constitutional principles when considering how best to provide the victims of terrorist attacks just compensation. I am afraid that H.R. 3210, the Terrorism Risk Protection Act, violates several of those principles and therefore passage of this bill is not in the best interests of the American people. Under H.R. 3210, taxpayers are responsible for paying 90 percent of the costs of a terrorist incident when the total cost of that incident exceeds a certain threshold. While insurance companies technically are responsible under the bill for paying back monies received from the Treasury, the administrator of this program may defer repayment of the majority of the subsidy in order to ``avoid the likely insolvency of the commercial insurer,'' or avoid ``unreasonable economic disruption and market instability.'' This language may cause administrators to defer indefinitely the repayment of the loans, thus causing taxpayers to permanently bear the loss. This scenario is especially likely when one considers that ``avoid . . . likely insolvency, unreasonable economic disruption, and market instability'' are highly subjective standards, and that any administrator who attempts to enforce a strict repayment schedule likely will come under heavy political pressure to be more ``flexible'' in collecting debts owed to the taxpayers. The drafters of H.R. 3210 claim that this creates a ``temporary'' government program. However, Mr. Speaker, what happens in three years if industry lobbyists come to Capitol Hill to explain that there is still a need for this program because of the continuing threat of terrorist attacks. Does anyone seriously believe that Congress will refuse to reauthorize this ``temporary'' insurance program or provide some other form of taxpayer help to the insurance industry? I would like to remind my colleagues that the federal budget is full of expenditures for long-lasting programs that were originally intended to be ``temporary.'' H.R. 3210 compounds the danger to taxpayers because of what economists call the ``moral hazard'' problem. A moral hazard is created when individuals have the costs incurred from a risky action subsidized by a third party. In such a case individuals may engage in unnecessary risks or fail to take steps to minimize their risks. After all, if a third party will bear the costs of negative consequences of risky behavior, why should individuals invest their resources in avoiding or minimizing risk? While no one can plan for terrorist attacks, individuals and businesses can take steps to enhance security. For example, I think we would all agree that industrial plants in the United States enjoy reasonably good security. They are protected not by the local police, but by owners putting up barbed wire fences, hiring guards with guns, and requiring identification cards to enter. One reason private firms put these security measures in place is because insurance companies provide them with incentives, in the form of lower premiums, to adopt security measures. H.R. 3210 contains no incentives for this private activity. The bill does not even recognize the important role insurance plays in providing incentives to minimize risks. By removing an incentive for private parties to avoid or at least mitigate the damage from a future terrorist attack, the government inadvertently increases the damage that will be inflicted by future attacks. Instead of forcing taxpayers to subsidize the costs of terrorism insurance, Congress should consider creating a tax credit or deduction for premiums paid for terrorism insurance, as well as a deduction for claims and other costs borne by the insurance industry connected with offering terrorism insurance. A tax credit approach reduces government's control over the insurance market. Furthermore, since a tax credit approach encourages people to devote more of their own resources to terrorism insurance, the moral hazard problems associated with federally funded insurance is avoided. The version of H.R. 3210 passed by the Financial Services committee took a good first step in this direction by repealing the tax penalty which prevents insurance companies from properly reserving funds for human-created catastrophes. I am disappointed that this sensible provision was removed from the final bill. Instead, H.R. 3210 instructs the Treasury Department to study the benefits of allowing insurers to establish tax-free reserves to cover losses from terrorist events. The perceived need to study the wisdom of cutting taxes while expanding the Federal Government without hesitation demonstrates much that is wrong with Washington. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3210 may reduce the risk to insurance companies from future losses, but it increases the costs incurred by American taxpayers. More significantly, by ignoring the moral hazard problem this bill may have the unintended consequence of increasing the losses suffered in any future terrorist attacks. Therefore, passage of this bill is not in the long-term interests of the American people.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I sincerely appreciate the fact that I have brought together bipartisanship here and got time from both sides. I deeply appreciate that, especially since I am taking the opposition to this bill. I do rise in opposition to expanding NATO. I do not think it is in the best interests of the United States. The one thing that I would concede, though, is that everyone in this Chamber, I believe, every Member agrees that our country should be strong; that we should have a strong national defense; and that we should do everything conceivable to make our country safe and secure. I certainly endorse those views. It just happens that I believe that membership in organizations like NATO tends to do the opposite, tends to weaken us and also makes us more vulnerable. But that is a matter of opinion, and we have to debate the merits of the issue and find out what is best for our country. I think the bill is motivated for two reasons. One is to increase the sphere of influence into Eastern Europe, who will be the greatest influence on the commercial aspects of Eastern Europe, and so there is a commercial interest there, as well as in this bill there is $55 million of foreign aid which I think a lot of Americans would challenge under these circumstances whether or not we should be sending another $55 million overseas. We have this debate now mainly because we have had the demise of the Soviet system, and there is a question on what the role of NATO should be and what the role of NATO really is. It seems that NATO is out in search of a dragon to slay. It appeared that way during the Kosovo and Serbian crisis, where it was decided that NATO would go in and start the bombing in order to help the Kosovars and to undermine the Government of Serbia. But our own rules under NATO say that we should never attack a country that has not attacked a member nation. So this was sort of stretching it by a long shot in order to get us involved. I think that does have unintended consequences, because it turns out that we supported Muslims, the KLA, in Kosovo who were actually allies of Osama bin Laden. These things in some ways come back to haunt us, and I see this as an unintended consequence that we should be very much aware of. But overall I oppose this because I support a position of a foreign policy of noninterventionism, foreign noninterventionism out of interest of the United States. I know the other side of the argument, that United States interests are best protected by foreign intervention and many, many entangling alliances. I disagree with that because I think what eventually happens is that a country like ours gets spread too thin and finally we get too poor. I think we are starting to see signs of this. We have 250,000 troops around the world in 241 different countries. When the crisis hit with the New York disaster, it turned out that our planes were so spread out around the world that it was necessary for our allies to come in and help us. This is used by those who disagree with me as a positive, to say, ``See, it works. NATO is wonderful. They'll even come and help us out.'' I see it as sad and tragic that we spent last year, I think it was over $325 billion for national defense, and we did not even have an AWACS plane to protect us. During that time when we had our tragedy in New York, we probably had cities that we paid to protect better than our own cities. If planes went awry or astray in Korea or Haiti or wherever, I think that they probably would have been shot down. I see this as a tragedy. I hope we will all give some consideration for nonintervention. Mr. Speaker, more than a decade ago one of history's great ideological and military conflicts abruptly ended. To the great surprise of many, including more than a few in own government, the communist world and its chief military arm, the Warsaw Pact, imploded. The Cold War, which claimed thousands of lives and uncountable treasure, was over and the Western Alliance had prevailed. With this victory, however, NATO's raison d'etre was destroyed. The alliance was created to defend against a Soviet system that as of 1991 had entirely ceased to exist. Rather than disbanding, though, NATO bureaucrats and the governments behind them reinvented the alliance and protected its existence by creating new dragons to slay. No longer was NATO to be an entirely defensive alliance. Rather, this ``new'' NATO began to occupy itself with a myriad of non-defense related issues like economic development and human rights. This was all codified at the Washington Summit of 1999, where the organization declared that it would concern itself with ``economic, social and political difficulties . . . ethnic and religious rivalries, territorial disputes, inadequate or failed efforts at reform, the abuse of human rights, and the dissolution of states.'' The new name of the NATO game was ``interventionism''; defense was now passe. Nowhere was this ``new NATO'' more starkly in evidence than in Yugoslavia. There, in 1999, NATO became an aggressive military force, acting explicitly in violation of its own charter. By bombing Yugoslavia, a country that neither attacked nor threatened a NATO member state, NATO both turned its back on its stated purpose and relinquished the moral high ground it had for so long enjoyed. NATO intervention in the Balkan civil wars has not even produced the promised result: UN troops will be forced to remain in the Balkans indefinitely in an ultimately futile attempt to build nations against the will of those who will live in them. Mr. Speaker, we are now called on to endorse the further expansion of a purposeless alliance and to grant $55.5 million dollars to former Soviet Bloc countries that have expressed an interest in joining it. While expanding NATO membership may be profitable for those companies that will be charged with upgrading the militaries of prospective members, this taxpayer subsidy of foreign governments and big business is not in the interest of the American people. It is past time for the Europeans to take responsibility for their own affairs, including their military affairs. According to the Department of Defense's latest available figures, there are more than 250,000 U.S. military personnel deployed overseas on six continents in 141 nations. It is little wonder, then, that when a crisis hit our own shores--the treacherous attacks of September 11-- we were forced to call on foreign countries to defend American airspace! Our military is spread so thin meddling in every corner of the globe, that defense of our own homeland is being carried out by foreigners. Rather than offer our blessings and open our pocketbooks for the further expansion of NATO, the United States should get out of this outdated and interventionist organization. American foreign policy has been most successful when it focuses on the simple principles of friendship and trade with all countries and entangling alliances with none.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. The rule is noncontroversial, but the bill itself, the bill to expand NATO and the foreign aid involved in it, is controversial from my viewpoint. It may not be controversial here in Washington, but if we go outside of Washington and talk to the people who pay the bills and the people who have to send the troops, they find this controversial. They think we are taken for saps as we go over and extend our sphere of influence throughout the world, and now extending into Eastern Europe. I, too, was a friend of Jerry Solomon. We came into the Congress together in 1978. One thing for sure that Jerry understood very clearly was the care that we must give to expanding our influence as well as sacrificing our sovereignty, because he was strongly opposed to the United Nations. As chairman of the Committee on Rules, he would permit my amendment to come up and at least debate the effectiveness of belonging to the United Nations, so I have fond memories of Jerry, especially in his support of my efforts to try to diminish the United Nations' influence and the taking away of our sovereignty. Mr. Speaker, this is one reason why I do oppose NATO. I believe that it has a bad influence on what we do. We want to extend our control over Eastern Europe, and as has been pointed out, this can be seen as a threat to the Russians. NATO does not have a good record since the fall of the Soviets. Take a look at what we were doing in Serbia. Serbia has been our friend. They are a Christian nation. We allied ourselves with the KLA, the Kosovo Muslims, who have been friends with Osama bin Laden. We went in there and illegally, NATO illegally, against their own rules of NATO, incessantly bombed Serbia. They had not attacked another country. They had a civil war going on, yet we supported that with our money and our bombs and our troops, and now we are nation-building over there. We may be over there for another 20 years because of the bad policy of NATO that we went along with. Mr. Speaker, I think we should stop and think about this, and instead of expanding NATO, instead of getting ready to send another $55 million that we are authorizing today to the Eastern European countries, we ought to ask: Has it really served the interests of the United States? Now that is old-fashioned, to talk about the interests of the United States. We are supposed to only talk about the interests of internationalism, globalism, one-world government. To talk about the interests of the United States in this city is seen as being very negative, but I would say if we talk about U.S. security, security of the United States of America and our defense around the country, it is very popular.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Securing America For Effective Transportation, or Safety, Act. This legislation is in stark contrast to the bureaucracy laden approaches of other bills. My bill would not create new federal spending nor new federal bureaucracies. The actions taken by this legislation fit into a few broad categories. First, it would give airline pilots the right to defend themselves, their aircraft, and their passengers by permitting them to bear arms. Second, it would clearly define the act of skyjacking as an act of piracy and provide appropriate punishment for any such act, up to and including capital punishment. Next, this legislation would provide appropriate strengthening of regulation of airline security in a fashion consistent with our constitutional framework. This would be done by requiring, for example, that law enforcement personnel be posted at screening locations rather than simply in the confines of an airport, and by requiring the production of passenger manifests for international flights. Finally, this bill would give airlines a strong incentive to improve passenger security, not by giving them taxpayer funded grants nor by creating new bureaucracies tasked with making administrative law, but rather by providing a tax incentive to airlines and other companies performing screening and security duties. One example of my approach is how it treats employees. Rather than the Senate approach federalizing the work force or the House approach of subsidizing private security firms via federal contracts, my bill raises the take-home pay of airline security personnel by exempting their pay from federal income taxes. Mr. Speaker, the House bill, while a slight improvement over the Senate version, is still a step in the wrong direction. By authorizing a new airline ticket tax, by creating new federal mandates and bureaucracies, and by subsidizing the airline industry to the tune of another $3 billion dollars, this bill creates a costly expense that the American people cannot afford. We appropriated $40 billion dollars in the wake of September 11, and I supported that measure as legitimate compensation for individuals and companies harmed by the failure of the federal government to provide national defense. Soon thereafter we made another $15 billion available to the airlines, and now we have a House bill that further victimizes the taxpayers by making them pay for another $3 billion dollars worth of subsidies to the airline industry. We need to stop this spending spree. President Bush correctly has indicated that the best way to deal with economic stimulus is not to spend more federal dollars but rather to engage in tax cuts. Yet, by creating this new airline ticket tax, we are going in the opposite direction. I oppose this new tax and it is not included in my bill. Instead, the approach taken in my bill uses tax reductions to ensure airline safety and promote further economic growth. By granting tax incentives for safety initiatives, we gain the advantages of new security precautions without creating onerous new regulations or costly and burdensome new bureaucracies. I proudly offer this bill for consideration.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I must oppose H.R. 3150, the Airport Security Federalization Act. As the short title of the bill suggests, this legislation is a bureaucracy-laden approach. While the approach of this legislation is marginally preferable to the complete federalization of the workforce being offered by the House Minority, the bill is otherwise strikingly similar to the Senate's approach. Regrettably, I think portions of the manager's amendment actually make the legislation worse. For example, the deputization of private security forces is clearly a step in the wrong direction. I have offered an alternate bill which would accomplish security goals without expanding the federal government. My bill would not create new federal spending nor new federal bureaucracies. Mr. Chairman, the bill before us, while a slight improvement over the Senate version, is still a step in the wrong direction. By authorizing a new airline ticket tax, by creating new federal mandates and bureaucracies, and by subsidizing the airline industry to the tune of another $3 billion, this bill creates a costly expense that the American people cannot afford. We appropriated $40 billion in the wake of September 11, and I supported that measure as legitimate compensation for individuals and companies harmed by the failure of the federal government to provide national defense. Soon thereafter we made another $15 billion available to the airlines, and now we have a House bill that further victimizes the taxpayers by making them pay for another $3 billion worth of subsidies to the airline industry. We need to stop this spending spree. I oppose this new taxation and spending, as well as the steps taken in this bill, the substitute, and unfortunately in the manager's amendment as well. Each of these items moves further down the road of nationalizing air travel in this country and, as such, must be rejected.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the world's politicians, special interests, government bureaucrats, and financiers all love fiat money because they all benefit from it. But freedom-loving, hardworking, ethical and thrifty individuals suffer. Fiat money is paper money that gets its value from a government edict and compulsory legal tender laws. Honest money, something of real value, like a precious metal, gets its value from the market and through voluntary exchange. The world today is awash in fiat money like never before, and we face a financial crisis like never before, conceived many decades before the 9-11 crisis hit. Fiat money works as long as trust in the currency lasts. But eventually trust is always withdrawn from paper money. Fiat money evolves out of sound money, which always originates in the market, but paper money inevitably fails no matter how hard the beneficiaries try to perpetuate the fraud. We are now witnessing the early stages of the demise of a worldwide financial system built on the fiction that wealth can come out of a printing press or a computer at our central banks. Japan, failing to understand this, has tried for more than a decade to stimulate her economy and boost her stock market by printing money and increasing government spending, and it has not worked. Argentina, even with the hopes placed in its currency board, is nevertheless facing default on its foreign debt and a crisis in confidence. More bailouts from the IMF and U.S. dollar may temper the crisis for a while, but ultimately it will only hurt the dollar and the U.S. taxpayers. We cannot continually bail out others with expansion of the dollar money supply, as we have with the crisis in Turkey, Argentina, and the countries of Southeast Asia. This policy has its limits, and confidence in the dollar is the determining factor. Even though, up until now, confidence has reigned, encouraged by our political and economic strength, this era is coming to an end. Our homeland has been attacked, our enemies are not easily subdued, our commitments abroad are unsustainable, and our economy is fast slipping into chaos. Printing money is not an answer, yet that is all that is offered. The clamor for low-interest rates by all those who benefit from fiat money has prompted the Fed to create new money out of thin air like never before. Driving the Fed funds rate down from 6.5 percent to 2.5 percent, a level below the price inflation rate, represents nothing short of panic and has done nothing to recharge the economy. But as one would expect, confidence in the dollar is waning. I am sure, due to the crisis, a faith in fiat and a failure to understand the business cycle, the Fed will continue with the only thing it knows to do: credit creation and manipulation of interest rates. This policy reflects the central bank's complete ignorance as to the cause of the problem: Credit creation and manipulation of interest rates. Since the Federal Reserve first panicked in early January, it has created $830 billion of fiat money out of thin air. The country is no richer. The economy is weaker. The stock market has continued downward, and unemployment has skyrocketed. Returning to deficit spending, as we already have, will not help us any more than it helped Japan, which continues to sink into economic morass. Nothing can correct the problems we face if we do not give up on the foolishness of fiat. Mr. Speaker, a dollar crisis is quickly approaching. We should prepare ourselves.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, it breaks my heart to see what is happening to our country today. All Americans have grieved over the losses served on 9-11. The grief for those who lost loved ones is beyond description. These losses have precipitated unprecedented giving to help the families left behind. Unless one has suffered directly, it is difficult to fully comprehend the tragic and sudden loss of close friends and family. There are some who, in addition to feeling this huge sense of personal loss that all Americans share, grieve for other serious and profound reasons. For instance, many thoughtful Americans are convinced that the tragedy of 9-11 was preventable. Since that may well be true, this provokes a tragic sadness, especially for those who understand how the events of 9-11 needlessly came about. The reason why this is so sad and should be thoroughly understood is that so often the ones who suggest how our policies may have played a role in evoking the attacks are demonized as unpatriotic and are harshly dismissed as belonging to the ``blame America crowd.'' Those who are so anxious to condemn do not realize that the policies of the American Government, designed by politicians and bureaucrats, are not always synonymous with American ideals. The country is not the same as the Government. The spirit of America is hardly something for which the Government holds a monopoly on defining. America's heart and soul is more embedded in our love of liberty, self-reliance, and tolerance than by our foreign policy, driven by powerful special interests with little regard for the Constitution. Throughout our early history, a policy of minding our own business and avoiding entangling alliances, as George Washington admonished, was more representative of American ideals than those we have pursued for the past 50 years. Some sincere Americans have suggested that our modern interventionist policy set the stage for the attacks of 9-11, and for this, they are condemned as being unpatriotic. This compounds the sadness and heartbreak that some Americans are feeling. Threats, loss of jobs, censorship and public mockery have been heaped upon those who have made this suggestion. Freedom of expression and thought, the bedrock of the American Republic, is now too often condemned as something viciously evil. This should cause freedom-loving Americans to weep from broken hearts. Another reason the hearts of many Americans are heavy with grief is because they dread what might come from the many new and broad powers the Government is demanding in the name of providing security. Daniel Webster once warned, ``Human beings will generally exercise power when they can get it, and they will exercise it most undoubtedly in popular governments under pretense of public safety.'' A strong case can be made that the Government regulations, along with a lack of private property responsibility, contributed to this tragedy, but what is proposed? More regulations and even a takeover of all airport security by the Government. We are not even considering restoring the rights of pilots to carry weapons for self-defense as one of the solutions. Even though pilots once carried guns to protect the mail and armored truck drivers can still carry guns to protect money, protecting passengers with guns is prohibited on commercial flights. The U.S. Air Force can shoot down a wayward aircraft, but a pilot cannot shoot down an armed terrorist. It will be difficult to solve our problems with this attitude toward airport security. Civil liberties are sure to suffer under today's tensions, with the people demanding that the politicians do something, anything. Should those who object to the rapid move toward massively increasing the size and scope of the Federal Government in local law enforcement be considered un-American because they defend the principles they truly understand to be American? Any talk of spending restraint is now a thing of the past. We had one anthrax death, and we are asked the next day for a billion dollar appropriations to deal with the problem. And a lot more will be appropriated before it is all over. What about the 40,000 deaths per year on government-run highways and the needless deaths associated with the foolish and misdirected war on drugs? Why should anyone be criticized for trying to put this in proper perspective? Countless groups are now descending on Washington with their hands out. As usual, as with any disaster, this disaster is being parlayed into an opportunity, as one former Member of the Congress phrased it. The economic crisis that started a long time before 9-11 has contributed to the number of those now demanding Federal handouts. But there is one business that we need not fear will go into a slump: The Washington lobbying industry. Last year, it spent $1.6 billion lobbying Congress. This year, it will spend much more. The bigger the disaster, the greater the number of vultures who descend on Washington. When I see this happening, it breaks my heart, because liberty and America suffers, and it is all done in the name of justice, equality and security. Emotions are running high in our Nation's capital, and in politics emotions are more powerful tools than reason and the rule of law. The use of force to serve special interests and help anyone who claims to be in need unfortunately is an acceptable practice. Obeying the restraints placed in the Constitution is seen as archaic and insensitive to the people's needs. But far too often the claims of responding to human tragedies are nothing more than politics as usual. While one group supports bailing out the corporations, another wants to prop up wages and jobs. One group supports federalizing tens of thousands of airport jobs to increase union membership, while another says we should subsidize corporate interests and keep the jobs private. Envy and power drives both sides, the special interests of big business and the demands of the welfare redistributionists. There are many other reasons to make one sad with all that is going on today. In spite of the fact that our government has done such a poor job protecting us and has no intention of changing the policy of meddling overseas, which has contributed to our problems, the people are more dependent on and more satisfied with government than they have been in decades, while demanding even more government control and intrusion in their daily lives. It is aggravating to listen to the daily rhetoric regarding liberty and the Constitution while the same people participate in their destruction. It is aggravating to see all the money spent and civil liberties abused while the pilot's right to carry guns in self-defense is denied. It is even more aggravating to see our government rely on foreign AWACS aircraft to provide security to U.S. territory. A $325 billion military budget, and we cannot even patrol our own shores. This, of course, is just another sign of how little we are concerned about U.S. sovereignty and how willing we are to submit to international government. It is certainly disappointing that our congressional leaders and administration have not considered using letters of marque and reprisal as an additional tool to root out those who participated in the 9-11 attacks. The difficulty in finding bin Laden and his supporters make marque and reprisal quite an appropriate option in this effort. We already hear of plans to install and guarantee the next government of Afghanistan. Getting bin Laden and his gang is one thing, nation- building is quite another. Some of our trouble in the Middle East started years ago when our CIA put the Shah in charge of Iran. It was 25 years before he was overthrown, and the hatred toward America continues to this day. Those who suffer from our intervention have long memories. Our support for the less than ethical government of Saudi Arabia, with our troops occupying what most Muslims consider sacred land, is hardly the way to bring peace to the Middle East. A policy driven by our fear of losing control over the oil fields in the Middle East has not contributed to American Security. Too many powerful special interests drive our policy in this region, and this does little to help us preserve security for Americans here at home. As we bomb Afghanistan, we continue to send foreign aid to feed the people suffering from the war. I strongly doubt if our food will get them to love us or even be our friends. There is no evidence that the starving receive the food. And too often it is revealed that it ends up in the hands of the military forces we are fighting. While we bomb Afghanistan and feed the victims, we lay plans to install the next government and pay for rebuilding the country. Quite possibly, the new faction we support will be no more trustworthy than the Taliban, to which we sent plenty of aid and weapons in the 1980s. That intervention in Afghanistan did not do much to win reliable friends in the region. It just may be that Afghanistan would be best managed by several tribal factions, without any strong centralized government and without any outside influence, certainly not by the U.N. But then again, some claim that the proposed Western financed pipeline through northern Afghanistan can only happen after a strong centralized pro-Western government is put in place. It is both annoying and sad that there is so little interest by anyone in Washington in free market solutions to the world's economic problems. True private ownership of property without regulation and abusive taxation is a thing of the past. Few understand how the Federal Reserve monetary policy causes the booms and the busts that, when severe, as now, only serve to enhance the prestige of the money managers while most politicians and Wall Streeters demand that the Fed inflate the currency at an even more rapid rate. Today's conditions give license to the politicians to spend our way out of recession, they hope. One thing for sure, as a consequence of the recession and the 9-11 tragedy, is that big spending and deficits are alive and well. Even though we are currently adding to the national debt at the rate of $150 billion per year, most politicians still claim that Social Security is sound and has not been touched. At least the majority of American citizens are now wise enough to know better. There is plenty of reason to feel heartbroken over current events. It is certainly not a surprise or illogical for people working in Washington to overreact to the anthrax scare. The feelings of despondency are understandable, whether due to the loss of lives, loss of property, fear of the next attack, or concerned at our own frantic efforts to enhance security will achieve little. But broken or sad hearts need not break our spirits nor impede our reasoning. I happen to believe that winning this battle against the current crop of terrorists is quite achievable in a relatively short period of time. But winning the war over the long term is a much different situation. This cannot be achieved without a better understanding of the enemy and the geopolitics that drive this war. Even if relative peace is achieved with a battle victory over Osama bin Laden and his followers, other terrorists will appear from all corners of the world for an indefinite period of time if we do not understand the issues. Changing our current foreign policy with wise diplomacy is crucial if we are to really win the war and restore the sense of tranquility to our land that now seems to be so far in our distant past. Our widespread efforts of peacekeeping and nation-building will only contribute to the resentment that drives the fanatics. Devotion to internationalism and a one-world government only exacerbates regional rivalries. Denying that our economic interests drive so much of what the West does against the East impedes any efforts to diffuse the world crisis that already has a number of Americans demanding nuclear bombs to be used to achieve victory. A victory based on this type of aggressive policy would be a hollow victory indeed. I would like to draw analogy between the drug war and the war against terrorism. In the last 30 years, we have spent hundreds of billions of dollars on a failed war on drugs. This war has been used as an excuse to attack our liberties and privacy. It has been an excuse to undermine our financial privacy while promoting illegal searches and seizures with many innocent people losing their lives and property. Seizure and forfeiture have harmed a great number of innocent American citizens. Another result of this unwise war has been the corruption of many law enforcement officials. It is well known that with the profit incentives so high, we are not even able to keep drugs out of our armed prisons. Making our whole society a prison would not bring success to this floundering war on drugs. Sinister motives of the profiteers and gangsters, along with prevailing public ignorance, keeps this futile war going. Illegal and artificially high priced drugs drive the underworld to produce, sell and profit from this social depravity. Failure to recognize that drug addiction, like alcoholism, is a disease rather than a crime, encourage the drug warriors in efforts that have not and will not ever work. We learned the hard way about alcohol prohibition and crime, but we have not yet seriously considered it in the ongoing drug war. Corruption associated with the drug dealers is endless. It has involved our police, the military, border guards and the judicial system. It has affected government policy and our own CIA. The artificially high profits from illegal drugs provide easy access to funds for rogue groups involved in fighting civil wars throughout the world. Ironically, opium sales by the Taliban and artificially high prices helped to finance their war against us. In spite of the incongruity, we rewarded the Taliban this spring with a huge cash payment for promises to eradicate some poppy fields. Sure. For the first 140 years of our history, we had essentially no Federal war on drugs, and far fewer problems with drug addiction and related crimes was a consequence. In the past 30 years, even with the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on the drug war, little good has come of it. We have vacillated from efforts to stop the drugs at the source to severely punishing the users, yet nothing has improved. This war has been behind most big government policy powers of the last 30 years, with continual undermining of our civil liberties and personal privacy. Those who support the IRS's efforts to collect maximum revenues and root out the underground economy, have welcomed this intrusion, even if the drug underworld grows in size and influence. The drug war encourages violence. Government violence against nonviolent users is notorious and has led to the unnecessary prison overpopulation. Innocent taxpayers are forced to pay for all this so- called justice. Our eradication project through spraying around the world, from Colombia to Afghanistan, breeds resentment because normal crops and good land can be severely damaged. Local populations perceive that the efforts and the profiteering remain somehow beneficial to our own agenda in these various countries. Drug dealers and drug gangs are a consequence of our unwise approach to drug usage. Many innocent people are killed in the crossfire by the mob justice that this war generates. But just because the laws are unwise and have had unintended consequences, no excuses can ever be made for the monster who would kill and maim innocent people for illegal profits. But as the violent killers are removed from society, reconsideration of our drug laws ought to occur. A similar approach should be applied to our war on those who would terrorize and kill our people for political reasons. If the drug laws and the policies that incite hatred against the United States are not clearly understood and, therefore, never changed, the number of drug criminals and terrorists will only multiply. Although this unwise war on drugs generates criminal violence, the violence can never be tolerated. Even if repeal of drug laws would decrease the motivation for drug dealer violence, this can never be an excuse to condone the violence. On the short term, those who kill must be punished, imprisoned, or killed. Long term though, a better understanding of how drug laws have unintended consequences is required if we want to significantly improve the situation and actually reduce the great harms drugs are doing to our society. The same is true in dealing with those who so passionately hate us that suicide becomes a just and noble cause in their effort to kill and terrorize us. Without some understanding of what has brought us to the brink of a worldwide conflict in reconsidering our policies around the globe, we will be no more successful in making our land secure and free than the drug war has been in removing drug violence from our cities and towns. Without some understanding why terrorism is directed towards the United States, we may well build a prison for ourselves with something called homeland security while doing nothing to combat the root causes of terrorism. Let us hope we figure this out soon. We have promoted a foolish and very expensive domestic war on drugs for more than 30 years. It has done no good whatsoever. I doubt our Republic can survive a 30-year period of trying to figure out how to win this guerilla war against terrorism. Hopefully, we will all seek the answers in these trying times with an open mind and understanding.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the so-called Financial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001 (H.R. 3004) has more to do with the ongoing war against financial privacy than with the war against international terrorism. Of course, the Federal government should take all necessary and constitutional actions to enhance the ability of law enforcement to locate and seize funds flowing to known terrorists and their front groups. For example, America should consider signing more mutual legal assistance treaties with its allies so we can more easily locate the assets of terrorists and other criminals. Unfortunately, instead of focusing on reasonable measures aimed at enhancing the ability to reach assets used to support terrorism, H.R. 3004 is a laundry list of dangerous, unconstitutional power grabs. Many of these proposals have already been rejected by the American people when presented as necessary to ``fight the war on drugs'' or ``crackdown on white-collar crime.'' For example, this bill facilitates efforts to bully low tax jurisdictions into raising taxes to levels approved by the tax-loving, global bureaucrats of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development! Among the most obnoxious provisions of this bill: codifying the unconstitutional authority of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCeN) to snoop into the private financial dealings of American citizens; and expanding the ``suspicious activity reports'' mandate to broker-dealers, even though history has shown that these reports fail to significantly aid apprehending criminals. These measures will actually distract from the battle against terrorism by encouraging law enforcement authorities to waste time snooping through the financial records of innocent Americans who simply happen to demonstrate an ``unusual'' pattern in their financial dealings. in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this package of unconstitutional expansions of the financial police state, most of which will prove ultimately ineffective in the war against terrorism. Instead, I hope Congress will work to fashion a measure aimed at giving the government a greater ability to locate and seize the assets of terrorists while respecting the constitutional rights of American citizens.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, HR 2883, the Intelligence Authorization Act, is brought before us today under a process which denies members of Congress our constitutional right as elected officials to be informed on crucial aspects of the programs we are asked to authorize. Information about this bill is limited to dollars amounts and personnel ceilings for the individual intelligence programs and even that information is restricted to viewing in a classified annex available to members during regular business hours for ``security reasons.'' Given the many questions the American people have about the performance of the intelligence agencies prior to September 11, and the many concerns as to whether the intelligence agencies can effectively respond to the challenges of international terrorism, I believe that the American people would be well served by a full debate on the ways the intelligence community plans to respond to these challenges. I also believe the American people would be well-served if members of Congress could debate the prudence of activities authorized under this bill, such as using taxpayer monies for drug interdiction, is an efficient use of intelligence resources or if those resources could be better used to counter other, more significant threats. Perhaps the money targeted for drug interdiction and whether it should be directed to anti-terrorism efforts. However, Mr. Speaker, such a debate cannot occur when members are denied crucial facts regarding the programs authorized in this bill or, at a minimum, are not free to debate in an open forum. Therefore, Congress is denied a crucial opportunity to consider how we might improve America's intelligence programs. We are told that information about this bill must be limited to a select few for ``security reasons.'' However, there are other ways to handle legitimate security concerns than by limiting the information to those members who happen to sit on the Intelligence Committee. If any member were to reveal information that may compromise the security of the United States, I certainly would support efforts to punish that member for violating his office and the trust of his country. I believe that if Congress and the Executive Branch exercised sufficient political will to make it known that any member who dared reveal damaging information would suffer full punishment of the law, there would not be a serious risk of a member leaking classified information. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, it is inexcusable for members to be denied crucial facts regarding the intelligence program authorized by this bill, especially at a time when the nation's attention is focused on security issues. Therefore, I hope my colleagues will reject HR 2883 and all other intelligence authorization or funding bills until every member of Congress is allowed to fully perform their constitutional role of overseeing these agencies and participating in the debate on this vital aspect of America's national security policy.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the shocking attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon have reminded us all that the primary responsibility of the federal government is to protect the security and liberty of our nation's citizens. Therefore, we must do what we can to enhance the ability of law enforcement to prevent future terrorist attacks. For example, the federal government can allow enhanced data-sharing among federal agencies that deal with terrorism. The federal government should also forbid residents of countries which sponsor terrorism from receiving student visas as well as prohibit residents of terrorist countries from participating in programs which provide special privileges to immigrants. In fact, I have introduced my own anti- terrorism legislation, the Securing American Families Effectively (SAFE) Act, which strengthens the ability of law enforcement to track down and prosecute suspected terrorists as well as keep potential terrorists out of the country. There is also much the federal government can do under current existing law to fight terrorism. The combined annual budgets of the FBI, the CIA and various other security programs amount to over $30 billion. Perhaps Congress should consider redirecting some of the money spent by intelligence agencies on matters of lower priority to counterrorism efforts. Since the tragic attacks, our officials have located and arrested hundreds of suspects, frozen millions of dollars of assets, and received authority to launch a military attack against the ring leaders in Afghanistan. It seems the war against terrorism has so far been carried our satisfactorily under current law. Still, there are areas where our laws could be strengthened with no loss of liberties, and I am pleased that HR 3108 appears to contain many common sense provisions designed to strengthen the government's ability to prevent terrorist attacks while preserving constitutional liberty. However, other provisions of this bill represent a major infringement of the American people's constitutional rights. I am afraid that if these provisions are signed into law, the American people will lose large parts of their liberty--maybe not today but over time, as agencies grow more comfortable exercising their new powers. My concerns are exacerbated by the fact that HR 3108 lacks many of the protections of civil liberties which the House Judiciary Committee worked to put into the version of the bill they considered. In fact, the process under which we are asked to consider this bill makes it nearly impossible to fulfill our constitutional responsibility to carefully consider measures which dramatically increase government's power. Many of the most constitutionally offensive measures in this bill are not limited to terrorist offenses, but apply to any criminal activity. In fact, some of the new police powers granted the government could be applied even to those engaging in peaceful protest against government policies. The bill as written defines terrorism as acts intended ``to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.'' Under this broad definition, should a scuffle occur at an otherwise peaceful pro-life demonstration the sponsoring organization may become the target of a federal investigation for terrorism. We have seen abuses of law enforcement authority in the past to harass individuals or organizations with unpopular political views. I hope my colleagues consider that they may be handing a future administration tools to investigate pro-life or gun rights organizations on the grounds that fringe members of their movements advocate violence. It is an unfortunate reality that almost every political movement today, from gun rights to environmentalism, has a violent fringe. I am very disturbed by the provisions centralizing the power to issue writs of habeas corpus to federal courts located in the District of Columbia. Habeas corpus is one of the most powerful checks on government and anything which burdens the ability to exercise this right expands the potential for government abuses of liberty. I ask my colleagues to remember that in the centuries of experience with habeas corpus there is no evidence that it interferes with legitimate interests of law enforcement. HR 3108 also codifies one of the most common abuses of civil liberties in recent years by expanding the government's ability to seize property from citizens who have not yet been convicted of a crime under the circumvention of the Bill of Rights known as ``asset forfeiture.'' Among other disturbing proposals, H.R. 3108 grants the President the authority to seize all the property of any foreign national that the President determines is involved in hostilities against the United States. Giving the executive branch discretionary authority to seize private property without due process violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the fifth amendment to the Constitution. Furthermore, given that one of the (unspoken) reasons behind the shameful internment of Americans of Japanese ancestry in the 1940s was to reward favored interests with property forcibly taken from innocent landowners, how confident are we that future, less scrupulous executives will refrain from using this power to reward political allies with the property of alleged ``hostile nationals?'' H.R. 3108 waters down the fourth amendment by expanding the federal governments ability to use wiretaps free of judicial oversight. The fourth amendment's requirement of a search warrant and probable cause strikes a balance between effective law enforcement and civil liberties. Any attempt to water down the warrant requirement threatens innocent citizens with a loss of their liberty. This is particularly true of provisions which allow for nationwide issuance of search warrants, as these severely restrict judicial oversight of government wiretaps and searches. Many of the questionable provisions in this bill, such as the expanded pen register authority and the expanded use of roving wiretaps, are items for which law enforcement has been lobbying for years. The utility of these items in catching terrorists is questionable to say the least. After all, terrorists have demonstrated they are smart enough not to reveal information about their plans when they know federal agents could be listening. This legislation is also objectionable because it adopts a lower standard than probable cause for receiving e-mails and Internet communications. While it is claimed that this is the same standard used to discover numbers dialed by a phone, it is also true that even the headings on e-mails or the names of web sites one visits can reveal greater amounts of personal information than can a mere telephone number. I wonder how my colleagues would feel if all of their e-mail headings and the names of the web sites they visited were available to law enforcement upon a showing of mere ``relevance.'' I also doubt the relevance of this provision to terrorist investigation, as it seems unlikely that terrorists would rely on e-mail or the Internet to communicate among themselves. Some defenders of individuals rights may point to the provisions establishing new penalties for violations of individual rights and the provisions ``sunsetting'' some of the government's new powers as justifying support for this bill. Those who feel that simply increasing the penalties for ``unauthorized'' disclosure of information collected under this act should consider that existing laws did not stop the ineffectiveness of such laws in preventing the abuse of personal information collected by the IRS or FBI by administrations of both parties. As for ``sunsetting,'' I would ask if these provisions are critical tools in the fight against terrorism, why remove the government's ability to use them after five years? Conversely, if these provisions violate American's constitutional rights why is it acceptable to suspend the Constitution at all? As Jeffery Rosen pointed out in the New Republic, this proposal makes even the most innocuous form of computer hacking a federal offense but does not even grant special emergency powers to perform searches in cases where police have reason to believe that a terrorist attack would be imminent. Thus, if this bill were law on April 24, 1995 and the FBI had information that someone in a yellow Ryder Truck was going to be involved in a terrorist attack, the government could not conduct an emergency search of all yellow Ryder Trucks in Oklahoma City. This failure to address so obvious a need in the anti-terrorism effort suggests this bill is a more hastily cobbled together wish list by the federal bureauracy than a serious attempt to grant law enforcement the actual tools needed to combat terrorism. H.R. 3108 may actually reduce security as private cities may not take necessary measures to protect their safety because ``the government is taking care of our security.'' In a free market, private owners have great incentives to protect their private property and the lives of their customers. That is why industrial plants in the United States enjoy reasonably good security. They are protected not by the local police but by owners putting up barbed wire fences, hiring guards with guns, and requiring identification cards to enter. All this, without any violation of anyone's civil liberties. In a free society private owners have a right, if not an obligation, to ``profile'' if it enhances security. The reason this provision did not work in the case of the airlines is because the airlines followed federal regulations and assumed they were sufficient. This is often the case when the government assumes new powers or imposes new regulations. Therefore, in the future, once the horror of the events of September 11 fade from memory, people will relax their guard, figuring that the federal government is using its new powers to protect them and thus they do not need to invest their own time or money in security measures. In conclusion, I reiterate my commitment to effective ways of enhancing the government's powers to combat terrorism. However, H.R. 3108 sacrifices too many of our constitutional liberties and will not even effectively address the terrorist menace. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and instead support reasonable common- sense measures that are aimed at terrorism such as those contained in my SAFE Act.