Ron Paul

Mr. PAUL

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

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, my amendment strikes the paragraph on page 2, line 21 entitled ``subsidy appropriation.'' I do not believe this Congress should be in the business of subsidizing anyone. We should be protecting the American taxpayer, and we should be protecting the individual liberty of all American citizens, not dealing in subsidies. This paragraph is found in the bill which is called ``foreign operations.'' It is a subsidy to large corporations, and it is a subsidy to foreign entities and foreign governments. The largest foreign recipient of the foreign aid from this bill is Red China, $6.2 billion. So if one is for free trade, as I am, and as I voted last week to trade with China, one should be positively in favor of my amendment, because this is not free trade. This is subsidized, special interest trade, and I think that is wrong. There has been a lot of talk today on the previous amendment dealing with jobs, and jobs are important. We have an economy now that is turning downwards and jobs are being lost. In this bill, this particular paragraph and the Export-Import Bank does deal with jobs. Those in opposition to my amendment make the point that jobs are enhanced in the big corporations like Boeing. That is true, to a degree, but there is a net loss of jobs because the same entity, the Export-Import Bank, literally exports jobs by subsidizing and loaning money to foreign entities that compete with us. Not only does some of this money end up in the hands of our competitors and hurt us here at home, but it ends up in the hands of our potential enemies. This is the reason why we should be out of the business of the Export-Import Bank. It has been said that this is a benefit to so many small corporations. In the last 2 years, more than half of the Export-Import Bank money went to Boeing. So it is not surprising that the gentleman early on mentioned that yes, he would not mind it if all of it went to Boeing. It is said that 85 percent of the money in the individual loans goes to smaller corporations. That is true, but 86 percent of the money goes to the giant corporations. So the big bucks serve the big interests who lobby us and spend a lot of time influencing Washington. There is a lot of mal-investment in the economy, misappropriation of money and investments that generates overcapacity, which is a consequence of monetary policy. It is a serious problem; and we are today facing the consequence, because we are now moving into a rather severe recession. But at the same time, export financing compounds that problem. It adds on to it because it is an allocation of credit. This argument that we create jobs is fictitious. We do not create jobs; we shift jobs, from the weak to the powerful. We do not create a new job by stealing, taking out $75 billion worth of a line of credit from the banks and giving it to special interests. Yes, it looks like they are getting a benefit, but the little guy does not have access to that amount of money. Why should the banks not loan Export-Import Bank money to the large corporations. They are protected. They are insured. Who insures them? The taxpayer. It is a rip-off. The taxpayer suffers all of the risks. Now, if the deal is successful and there is no economic calamity in the country where we go and there is no political crisis, then who makes the profits? Corporations make the profits. It is the best deal going for large corporations. If we oppose corporate welfare and think we ought to address it on principle and decide whether or not the Congress and the U.S. Government and the taxpayers should be in this type of business, we have to vote for my amendment to get us out of this business. This does not serve the interests of the general welfare of the people. This is antagonistic toward the general welfare of the people. It costs the taxpayers money, it puts the risk on the taxpayer, it serves the interests of the powerful special interests. Why else would they come with their lobbying funds? Why else would they come with their huge donations to the political action committees, unless it is a darn good deal for them? They say it is a good deal for Boeing workers, but in 1995 there was a strike by the machinists against Boeing because Boeing agreed to buy the tail portion of the 737 from Red China. We are certainly losing jobs to Red China, Mexico, and other places. I do not mind it if that is a market consequence, but when it is done at the expense of the American taxpayer and it hurts us, we should not do it.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. This is a token amount of money being cut from the Export-Import Bank. The President asked for a $120 million cut. This is only $18 million. There was $120 million added over the present request. This is not a project that is a favorite of the President, and he has referred to this as a form of corporate welfare. This is just a small effort to rein in the power of the special interests, the powerful special interests. It has been mentioned that jobs could be lost. In the debate, there has been emphasis on jobs, and the truth is that it may happen. Jobs could be lost. But what Members fail to realize is that the jobs lost are special interest jobs. If my colleagues take that same funding, and we never talk about what would happen to that $75 billion line of credit of the Export-Import Bank if it were allowed to remain in the economy. Other jobs would be created, so my colleagues cannot argue half of the case. We have to look at the whole picture. Special interest jobs would be lost. True market jobs would be increased. Mr. Chairman, last week we had a vote on trade with China. I supported that vote. I believe in free trade and low tariffs. I believe in the right of people to spend their money where they please, and I believe it is best for countries to be trading with each other. But the very same people today arguing for these corporate subsidies claim they are for free trade. If my colleagues are for free trade, they should not be for corporate subsidies. They are not one and the same. They are different. Free trade means there are low tariffs, but we do not subsidize any special interests. To me it is rather amazing, the paragraph that we are dealing with is called Subsidy Authorization. There is no pretension anymore. We just advertise, this as a subsidies. When did we get into the business of subsidies? A long time ago, unfortunately. I do not think that the Congress should be in the business of subsidies. Mr. Chairman, this amendment has something to do with campaign finance reform. I am in favor of some reforms, that is, less control. People have the right to spend their own money the way they want; and when we have the problem of big corporations coming here and lobbying us, that is a secondary problem. If my colleagues look at the corporations that get the biggest subsidies from the Export-Import Bank, they really lobby us. Mr. Chairman, what I say is let us have some real campaign finance reform and let us get rid of the subsidies and the motivation for these huge corporations to come here and influence our vote. That is what the problem is. We do not need to get the money out of politics, we need to get the money out of Washington and out of the business of subsidizing special interests. That is where our problem is. Last week we voted to trade with China, and I said I supported that. But anybody who voted against that bill because they do not like what is happening in China should vote for this amendment and also my amendment that is likely to come up. China gets $6.2 billion, the largest subsidy to any country in the world from the Export-Import Banks. China gets it. So why do we first want to trade with China, then subsidize them as well, and then complain? I would suggest that those who claim they believe in free trade, they need to support this amendment because we are getting into the interference and manipulation of trade, the subsidy to big corporations. Those who do not like China should vote for this because there is a suggestion that the Export-Import Bank serves the interest of China. So to me it should be an easy vote. The only problem with this amendment is that it is so small. It does not really address the big subject on whether or not the Congress should be in this business. Obviously they should not be. Where do you find the authorization to give subsidy appropriations in the Constitution? It is not there. This is a charade. This is fiction when it comes to looking at constitutional law. I would strongly urge a yes vote on this amendment and do not support this effort to benefit the big companies and hurt the little guys. The little guys are the ones who lose this line of credit and push their interest rates up. Who gets the risk under this situation? The taxpayer. There is a lot of insurance in the Export-Import Bank. The risk goes to the taxpayer, but the profits go to the corporations. What is fair about that? The big corporation cannot lose. So why would the banks not loan to the big special interest corporations?

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

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Patient Privacy Act, which repeals those sections of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 authorizing the establishment of a ``standard unique health care identifier'' for all Americans, as well as prohibiting the use of federal funds to develop or implement a database containing personal health information. Establishment of such a medical identifier, especially when combined with HHS's misnamed ``federal privacy'' regulations, would allow federal bureaucrats to track every citizen's medical history from cradle to grave. Furthermore, it is possible that every medical professional, hospital, and Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) in the country would be able to access an individual citizens' record simply by entering the patient's identifier into a health care database. When the scheme to assign every American a unique medical identifier became public knowledge in 1998, their was a tremendous outcry from the public. Congress responded to the public outrage by including language forbidding the expenditure of funds to implement or develop a medical identifier in the federal budget for the past three fiscal years. Last year my amendment prohibiting the use of funds to develop or implement a medical ID unanimously passed the House of Representatives. It should be clear to every member of Congress that the American public does not want a uniform medical identifier. Therefore, rather than continuing to extend the prohibition on funding for another year, Congress should simply repeal the authorization of the national medical ID this year. As an OB/GYN-with more than 30 years experience in private practice, I know better than most the importance of preserving the sanctity of the physician-patient relationship. Oftentimes, effective treatment depends on a patient's ability to place absolute trust in his or her doctor. What will happen to that trust when patients know that any and all information given their doctor will be placed in a data base accessible by anyone who knows the patient's ``unique personal identifier?'' I ask my colleagues, how comfortable would you be confiding any emotional problem, or even an embarrassing physical problem like impotence, to your doctor if you knew that this information could be easily accessed by friend, foe, possible employers, coworkers, HMOs, and government agents? Many of my colleagues will admit that the American people have good reason to fear a government-mandated health ID card, but they will claim such problems can be ``fixed'' by additional legislation restricting the use of the identifier and forbidding all but certain designated persons to access those records. This argument has two flaws. First of all, history has shown that attempts to protect the privacy of information collected by, or at the command, of the government are ineffective at protecting citizens from the prying eyes of government officials. I ask my colleagues to think of the numerous cases of IRS abuses that were brought to our attention in the past few months, the history of abuse of FBI files, and the case of a Medicaid clerk in Maryland who accessed a computerized database and sold patient names to an HMO. These are just some of many examples that show that the only effective way to protect privacy is to forbid the government from assigning a unique number to any citizen. The second, and most important reason, legislation ``protecting'' the unique health identifier is insufficient is that the federal government lacks any constitutional authority to force citizens to adopt a universal health identifier, or force citizens to divulge their personal health information to the government, regardless of any attached ``privacy protections.'' Any federal action that oversteps constitutional limitations violates liberty as it ratifies the principle that the federal government, not the Constitution, is the ultimate arbitrator of its own jurisdiction over the people. The only effective protection of the rights of citizens is for congress and the American people to follow Thomas Jefferson's advice and ``bind (the federal government) down with the chains of the constitution.'' Those who claim that the Patient Privacy act would interfere with the plans to ``simplify'' and ``streamline'' the health care system, should remember that under the constitution, the rights of people should never take a backseat to the convenience of the government or politically powerful industries like HMOs. Mr. Speaker, the federal government has no authority to endanger the privacy of personal medical information by forcing all citizens to adopt a uniform health identifier for use in a national data base. A uniform health ID endangers constitutional liberties, threatens the doctor-patient relationships, and could allow federal officials access to deeply personal medical information. There can be no justification for risking the rights of private citizens. I therefore urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Patient Privacy Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, August 4th Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) will hold its National Convention in Newport Beach, California. At this event the organization will honor two fine people. Mr. Tom Phillips, Chairman of Phillips International, will receive the organization's highest award, the Guardian of Freedom. Mr. Phillips has been a strong supporter of YAF and is involved in various other entities engaged in the fight for liberty. As publisher of ``Human Events,'' he has helped to further a publication steeped in the tradition of freedom. Mr. Phillips has also shown a particular interest in the kind of private preservation activities I so frequently advocate. Rather than leave it to the taxpayers to fund and the federal government to manage, Mr. Phillips has personally helped to fund the preservation of President Reagan's Ranch by the Young America's Foundation so that it might be used as a training ground for young people dedicated to the individual liberty which President Reagan spoke of so often. Also, at this event, Mr. William Rusher will receive a lifetime achievement award. Mr. Rusher was instrumental in the founding of YAF in 1960 around those set of principles enunciated in the Sharon Statement, a great document explicating the philosophy of freedom. In addition, Mr. Rusher was instrumental in many other important activities such as the Draft Goldwater Committee and the National Review Magazine. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to take this opportunity to honor YAF as it prepares for its 41st year of training young men and women in the philosophy of freedom and holds its National Convention, as well as to offer my congratulations to these honorees.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, no one familiar with the history of the past century can doubt that private charities, particularly those maintained by persons motivated by their faith to perform charitable acts, are more effective in addressing social needs than federal programs. Therefore, the sponsors of HR 7, the Community Solutions Act, are correct to believe that expanding the role of voluntary, religious- based organizations will benefit society. However, this noble goal will not be accomplished by providing federal taxpayer funds to these organizations. Instead, federal funding will transform these organizations into adjuncts of the federal government and reduce voluntary giving on the part of the people. In so doing, HR 7 will transform the majority of private charities into carbon copies of failed federal welfare programs. Providing federal funds to religious organizations gives the organizations an incentive to make obedience to federal bureaucrats their number-one priority. Religious entities may even change the religious character of their programs in order to please their new federal paymaster. Faith-based organizations may find federal funding diminishes their private support as people who currently voluntarily support religious organizations assume they ``gave at the (tax) office'' and will thus reduce their levels of private giving. Thus, religious organizations will become increasingly dependent on federal funds for support. Since ``he who pays the piper calls the tune'' federal bureaucrats and Congress will then control the content of ``faith-based'' programs. Those who dismiss these concerns should consider that HR 7 explicitly forbids proselytizing in ``faith-based' programs receiving funds directly from the federal government. Religious organizations will not have to remove religious income from their premises in order to receive federal funds. However, I fail to see the point in allowing a Catholic soup kitchen to hang a crucifix on its wall or a Jewish day care center to hang a Star of David on its door if federal law forbids believers from explaining the meaning of those symbols to persons receiving assistance. Furthermore, proselytizing is what is at the very heart of the effectiveness of many of these programs! H.R. 7 also imposes new paperwork and audit requirements on religious organizations, thus diverting resources away from fulfilling the charitable mission. Supporters of HR 7 point out that any organization that finds the conditions imposed by the federal government too onerous does not have to accept federal grants. It is true no charity has to accept federal grants. It is true no charity has to accept federal funds, but a significant number will accept federal funds in exchange for federal restrictions on their programs, especially since the restrictions will appear ``reasonable'' during the program's first few years. Of course, history shows that Congress and the federal bureaucracy cannot resist imposing new mandates on recipients of federal money. For example, since the passage of the Higher Education Act the federal government has gradually assumed control over almost every aspect of campus life. Just as bad money drives out good, government-funded charities will overshadow government charities that remain independent of federal funding. After all, a federally-funded charity has the government's stamp of approval and also does not have to devote resources to appealing to the consciences of parishioners for donations. Instead, government-funded charities can rely on forced contributions from the taxpayers. Those who dismiss this as unlikely to occur should remember that there are only three institutions of higher education today that do not accept federal funds and thus do not have to obey federal regulations. We have seen how federal funding corrupts charity in our time. Since the Great Society, many organizations which once were devoted to helping the poor have instead become lobbyists for ever-expanding government, since a bigger welfare state means more power for their organizations. Furthermore, many charitable organizations have devoted resources to partisan politics as part of coalitions dedicated to expanding federal control over the American people. Federally-funded social welfare organizations are inevitably less effective than their counterparts because federal funding changes the incentives of participants in these organizations. Voluntary charities promote self-reliance, while government welfare programs foster dependency. In fact, it is in the self-interests of the bureaucrats and politicians who control the welfare state to encourage dependency. After all, when a private organization moves a person off welfare, the organization has fulfilled its mission and proved its worth to donors. In contrast, when people leave government welfare programs, they have deprived federal bureaucrats of power and of a justification for a larger amount of taxpayer funding. Accepting federal funds will corrupt religious institutions in a fundamental manner. Religious institutions provide charity services because they are commanded to by their faith. However, when religious organizations accept federal funding promoting the faith may take a back seat to fulfilling the secular goals of politicians and bureaucrats. Some supporters of this measure have attempted to invoke the legacy of the founding fathers in support of this legislation. Of course, the founders recognized the importance of religion in a free society, but not as an adjunct of the state. Instead, the founders hoped a religious people would resist any attempts by the state to encroach on the proper social authority of the church. The Founding Fathers would have been horrified by any proposal to put churches on the federal dole, as this threatens liberty by subordinating churches to the state. Obviously, making religious institutions dependent on federal funds (and subject to federal regulations) violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the first amendment. Critics of this legislation are also correct to point out that this bill violates the first amendment by forcing taxpayers to subsidize religious organizations whose principles they do not believe. However, many of these critics are inconsistent in that they support using the taxing power to force religious citizens to subsidize secular organizations. The primary issue both sides of this debate are avoiding is the constitutionality of the welfare state. Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to level excessive taxes on one group of citizens for the benefit of another group of citizens. Many of the founders would have been horrified to see modern politicians define compassion as giving away other people's money stolen through confiscatory taxation. After all, the words of the famous essay by former Congressman Davy Crockett, that money is ``Not Yours to Give.'' Instead of expanding the unconstitutional welfare state, Congress should focus on returning control over welfare to the American people. As Marvin Olaksy, the ``godfather of compassionate conservatism,'' and others have amply documented, before they were crowded out by federal programs, private charities did an exemplary job at providing necessary assistance to those in need. These charities not only met the material needs of those in poverty but helped break many of the bad habits, such as alcoholism, taught them ``marketable'' skills or otherwise engaged them in productive activity, and helped them move up the economic ladder. Therefore, it is clear that instead of expanding the unconstitutional welfare state, Congress should return control over charitable giving to the American people by reducing the tax burden. This is why I strongly support the tax cut provisions of H.R. 7, and would enthusiastically support them if they were brought before the House as a stand alone bill. I also proposed a substitute amendment which would have given every taxpayer in America a $5,000 tax credit for contributions to social services organizations which serve lower-income people. Allowing people to use more of their own money promotes effective charity by ensuring that charities remain true to their core mission. After all, individual donors will likely limit their support to those groups with a proven track record of helping the poor, whereas government agencies may support organizations more effective at complying with federal regulations or acquiring political influence than actually serving the needy. Many prominent defenders of the free society and advocates of increasing the role of faith-based institutions in providing services to the needy have also expressed skepticism regarding giving federal money to religious organizations, including the Reverend Pat Robinson, the Reverend Jerry Falwell, Star Parker, Founder and President of the Coalition for Urban Renewal (CURE), Father Robert Sirico, President of the Action Institute for Religious Liberty, Michael Tanner, Director of Health and Welfare studies at the CATO Institute, and Lew Rockwell, founder and president of the Ludwig Von Misses Institute. Even Marvin Olaksy, the above-referenced ``godfather of compassionate conservatism,'' has expressed skepticism regarding this proposal. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, because H.R. 7 extends the reach of the immoral, unconstitutional welfare state and thus threatens the autonomy and the effectiveness of the very faith-based charities it claims to help, I urge my colleagues to reject it. Instead, I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting a constitutional and compassionate agenda of returning control over charity to the American people through large tax cuts and tax credits.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me just go ahead and close and respond to the gentleman that just spoke about the values. I agree entirely that our values deserve to be spread. The disagreement here is whether you do that through volunteerism or through force; through taxation and government guns and war; or whether you do this through demonstration by setting examples, setting the right tone in trade, setting the right tone in sound currencies, and sending our missionaries abroad. But it has not worked in the past, it will not work in the future, and, besides, all the good intentions backfire and it turns hostility towards us, even with the goal of trying to spread our values across the world. It cannot be done by force. It has to be done by other means. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that the case of Milosevic is a case that will come back to haunt us for two reasons: one, we are setting a precedent. This has never happened before. He was democratically elected in a country and democratically disposed. The country there was willing to prosecute him. The second part is that this stirs up tremendous anti-American sentiment. This is the reason why we are the greatest target in the world for terrorism, because of our intrusion into these areas, pretending that we always know best and that we will trample the law because it serves our self-interests. But I believe our national security and our interests are not best served in this manner. This policy is very dangerous. Likewise, we have had many examples of U.N. intervention. Rwanda, can we be proud of that? Can we be proud of what the U.N. and what our troops had to go through with the humiliation in Mogadishu in Somalia? I mean, this was horrible, what happened there. So good intentions will not suffice. Just because there are good intentions, it does not mean that good will come of it. There is an alternative to a single world government, and that is individual governments willing to get along; open and free trade as much as possible, free travel, people having a unified free market currency where we do not have currency devaluations and poverty throughout the world. There is a lot that can be done with freedom, rather than always depending, whether it is here in the United States or at the international level, on more government.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, quite possibly we will not have to take a long time on this. In many ways this is a similar amendment, but different with respect to as how the money would be spent after we send it to the United Nations. The amendment says, ``None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be used for any United States contribution for the United Nations peacekeeping operations.'' This is getting more specifically into the militarization of the United Nations and the unfairness of our bill that we get sent every year. We pay 31.7 percent of the peacekeeping missions. A lot of times we pay up front and pay in advance, and we do not get reimbursed. Then we hear a lot of complaints when we do not pay our dues. But back to what I said earlier, I just think the approach of using a United Nations standing army, which is what we are getting closer to, to go around and police the world in areas that we do not have justification based only on our national security, I see this money as being dangerously used and it invites trouble for us. It is not beyond comprehension that one day in the not-too-distant future that we may be in a much hotter war in the Yugoslovia area. Things are not very peaceful in Macedonia, and they are actually demonstrating against Americans in Macedonia. The same people that we supported in Kosovo, the KLA, now they have changed their name and they are the radical Albanians playing havoc in Macedonia. And it is with our money. And what do we do? We ask the American people to cough up. We tax them. We go over, and for 78 days, with the claim that we are bringing peace to the area, for 78 days we bombed that area, and now we are asking the American people to rebuild it. So first we tax them to bomb and destroy then we insist we rebuild the area. We did not bring peace by 78 days of bombing. As matter of fact, most of the death and destruction and hostility toward America was developed during those 78 days. It did not occur prior to that. There were few deaths in comparison. And who were the people killed with our bombs dropping from 30,000 feet? Were they military people? No. Innocent people, as they are in Iraq as well. It is out of control. It is out of our hands. We have lost control of our destiny when it comes to military operations. We now go to war under U.N. resolutions, rather than this Congress declaring war and fighting wars to win. We have given up a tremendous amount, and I believe it is time we stood up for the American people and the American taxpayer and say we ought to defend America, but we can deal with the problems of the world in a much different manner; not by militarizing and controlling it the best we can, the military operations of the United Nations, but pursuing the spreading of our values and our beliefs and the free market in a much different manner than by further taxation of the American people. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me just read the amendment because it is just three lines. It says, ``None of the funds appropriated in this act may be used for any United States contribution to the United Nations or any affiliated agency of the United Nations.'' It would defund the United Nations. It would take away the dues that we pay the United Nations as well as the amount of money that we are paying to pay our back dues. I think this is an appropriate time to discuss the reasonableness for our support for the United Nations. The government of the United States has continued to grow as our state sovereignty has gotten much smaller, but now we are losing a lot of sovereignty to an international government which is the United Nations. Just recently, the United States was humiliated by being voted off by secret ballot from the U.N. Human Rights Commission and Sudan was appointed in our place. How could anything be more humiliating. So democracy ruled, our vote counted as one, the same value as the vote of Red China or Sudan. But the whole notion that we would be put off the Human Rights Commission and Sudan, where there is a practice of slavery, is put on the Human Rights Commission should be an insult to all of us. In committee, we dealt with this problem and we said, ``Well, if the U.N. straightens up, then we'll pay our dues this year; but maybe we'll withhold our dues next year.'' That is very, very weak; and it does not show any intent or show any rejection of what is going on in the United Nations. It was mentioned earlier in debate on the gun issue that the U.N. is currently meeting up in New York dealing with the gun issue. There have been explicit proposals made at the United Nations to have worldwide gun control. No, they are not taking guns away from the government. They are taking guns away from civilians. If anybody understands our history, they will know that taking guns from civilians is exactly opposite of what the Founders intended. In a nation like Afghanistan, they were able to defend the invasion of the Soviet Union because individuals had guns. Likewise, when the Nazis were murdering the Jews, the Jews had been denied the right to own guns. Now we are talking about the United Nations having international gun laws. There have been proposals made for an international tax on all financial transactions. Yes, it is true, it has not been passed, but these are the plans that have been laid and they are continued to be discussed and they are moving in that direction. Today we have international government that manages trade through the WTO. We have international government that manages all international financial transactions through the IMF. We have an international government that manages welfare through the World Bank. Do these institutions really help the poor people of the world? Hardly. They help the people who control the hands of power in these international institutions and generally they help the very wealthy, the bankers, and the international corporations. It was said the United Nations may have been set up to help preserve peace and help poor people, but it just does not happen. The poor pay the taxes and the international corporations gain the benefit. The U.S. has taken a very strong position against endorsing the International Criminal Court. The argument is legitimate. It says that, oh, someday the International Criminal Court may arrest Americans because it just may be that Americans may pursue illegal acts of war, like bombing other countries and killing innocent people. No, we do not want the international court to apply to us, but it is okay with our money, our prestige and our pressure to endorse the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia, so that we can go in there and arrest the leaders that we have decided were the bad guys and leave the good guys alone, as if there were not bad guys on both sides in Yugoslavia. But this presumption on our part that we can control the United Nations and arrest only those individuals that we do not like and allow the other ones to go free and that this will never apply to us, I think we are missing the point and it is a dangerous trend. Because you say, well, yes, we are powerful, we have the money and we have the weapons and we can dictate to the United Nations. They will not arrest us or play havoc with us. Yet at the same time we have already recognized that the U.N. Human Rights Commission which was voted on by a democratic vote kicked us in the face and kicked us off. I think this is a time to think very seriously about whether this is wise to continue the funding of the United Nations. I think that a statement ought to be made. We should say, and the American people, I think, agree overwhelmingly that it is about time that we quit policing the world and paying the bills at the United Nations way out of proportion to our representation and at the same time being humiliated by being kicked off these commissions by majority vote. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me just close by saying that I urge a ``yes'' vote to stop the funding for the peacekeeping missions of the United Nations, believing very sincerely that they do not do much good and they do harm and potentially a great deal of harm in the future. They do not serve our national self-interests. We have the United Nations now involved in the Middle East, Sierra Leone, East Timor, Cambodia, West Sahara, and Yugoslavia. It requires a lot of money. The most likely thing to come of all of this will be more hostility toward America and more likelihood that we will be attacked by terrorists. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the year 2001 marks the quasquicentennial of the Constitution of the great State of Texas. The Lone Star State's highest legal document has served Texans since 1876 and--to commemorate this important milestone in Texas history--the recent Regular Session of the 77th Texas Legislature adopted House Concurrent Resolution No. 319, which the Governor signed on June 15, 2001. I would like to share with my colleagues the full text of the Legislature's H.C.R. No. 319 as follows: House Concurrent Resolution No. 319 Whereas, The year 2001 marks the quasquicentennial of the Texas Constitution, and the 125th anniversary of this foundation document is indeed worthy of special recognition; and Whereas, On August 2, 1875, Texas voters approved the calling of a convention to write a new state constitution; the convention, held in Austin, began on September 6, 1875, and adjourned sine die on November 24, 1875; then its draft was ratified in a statewide referendum on February 15, 1876, by a vote of 136,606 to 56,652; and Whereas, The more than 90 delegates to the 1875 Constitutional Convention were a diverse group--most were farmers and lawyers; some were merchants, editors, and physicians; some were legislators and judges; some had fought in the Civil War armies of the South as well as of the North; at least five were African-American; 75 were Democrats; 15 were Republicans; and 37 belonged to the Grange, a non- partisan and agrarian order of patrons of husbandry; one delegate had even served nearly four decades earlier as a delegate to the 1836 Constitutional Convention; and Whereas, The Constitution of 1876, a richly detailed instrument, reflects several historical influences; the Spanish and Mexican heritage of the state was evident in such provisions as those pertaining to land titles and land law, as well as to water and mineral law, and remains evident in judicial procedures, legislative authority, and gubernatorial powers; and Whereas, Sections aimed at monied corporate domination together with protection of the rights of the individual and others mandating strong restrictions upon the mission of state government in general and upon the role of specific state officials grew out of the Jacksonian agrarianism and frontier philosophy that first infused the thinking of many Texans during the mid-1800's; and Whereas, Other sections, such as those providing for low taxation and decreased state spending, were aimed at creating a government quite different from the centralized and more expensive one that had existed under the Constitution of 1869, which was itself a product of the post-Civil War Reconstruction Era in Texas; and Whereas, Notwithstanding its age, Texas voters have been reluctant to replace this charter, which is the sixth Texas constitution to have been adopted since independence from Mexico was gained in 1836; and Whereas, The Constitution of 1876 has been the organic law of Texas for 125 years, and this document, which still bears the imprint of the region's long and dramatic history, has had--and continues to have--a profound influence on the development of the Lone Star State; now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the 77th Legislature of the State of Texas, Regular Session, 2001, hereby commemorate the quasquicentennial of the Texas constitution.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, due to a personal matter I was unable to be present for roll-call votes last week. I particularly regret not being in attendance for the votes on the amendments to the Agriculture Appropriations bills offered by the gentleman from Vermont (Roll Call no. 216) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Roll Call no. 217) dealing with the reimportation of FDA-approved pharmaceuticals. I would have enthusiastically supported both amendments had I been able to be here last week and I was quite disappointed to see the gentleman from Vermont's amendment rejected and pleased to see the gentleman from Minnesota's amendment accepted by this body. I appreciate the opportunity to explain why I supported these amendments. As my colleagues are aware, many Americans are concerned about the high cost of prescription drugs. These high prices particularly affect low-income senior citizens because many seniors have a greater than average need for prescription drugs and lower than average income. One of the reasons prescription drug prices are high is government policies which give a few powerful companies a monopoly position in the prescription drug market, such as those restricting the importation of quality pharmaceuticals. Therefore, all members of Congress who are serious about lowering prescription drug prices should have supported these amendments. As a representative of an area near the Texas-Mexican border I often hear from angry constituents who cannot purchase inexpensive quality imported pharmaceuticals in their local drug store. Some of these constituents regularly travel to Mexico on their own to purchase pharmaceuticals. Opponents of the amendments offered by the gentlemen from Vermont and Minnesota waged a hysterical campaign to convince members that this amendment will result in consumers purchasing unsafe products. Acceptance of this argument requires one to assume that consumers will buy cheap pharmaceuticals without taking any efforts to ensure that they are buying a quality product. However, the experience of my constituents who are currently traveling to Mexico to purchase prescription drugs shows that consumers are quite capable of ensuring they purchase safe products without interference from Big ``Mother.'' Furthermore, if the supporters of the status quo were truly concerned about promoting health, instead of protecting the special privileges of powerful companies, they would be more concerned with reforming the current policies which endanger health by artificially raising the cost of prescription drugs. Oftentimes lower income Americans will take less of a prescription medicine than necessary to save money. Some senior citizens even forgo other necessities, including food, in order to afford their medications. By reducing the prices of pharmaceuticals this amendment will help ensure no child has to take less than the recommended dosage of a prescription medicine and no senior has to choose between medication and food. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I once again wish to express my regret for missing the votes on the amendments by the gentlemen from Vermont and Minnesota and urge my colleagues to show they are serious about lowering the prices of prescription drugs and that they trust the people to do what is in their best interest, by supporting future efforts to establish a true free market in pharmaceuticals.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the trial of Slobadon Milosevic threatens U.S. sovereignty. The fact that this trial can be carried out, in the name of international justice, should cause all the Americans to cast a wary eye on the whole principal of the U.N. War Crimes Tribunal. The prosecution of Milosevic, a democratically elected and properly disposed leader of a sovereign country, could not be carried out without full U.S. military and financial support. Since we are the only world superpower, the U.N. court becomes our court under our control. But it is naive to believe our world superpower status will last forever. The precedence now being set will 1 day surely come back to haunt us. The U.S. today may enjoy dictating policy to Yugoslavia and elsewhere around the world, but danger lurks ahead. The administration adamantly and correctly opposes our membership in the permanent International Criminal Court because it would have authority to exercise jurisdiction over U.S. citizens without the consent of the U.S. government. But how can we, with a straight face, support doing the very same thing to a small country, in opposition to its sovereignty, courts, and constitution. This blatant inconsistency and illicit use of force does not go unnoticed and will sow the seeds of future terrorist attacks against Americans or even war. Money, as usual, is behind the Milosevic's extradition. Bribing Serbian Prime Minister Zoran Djindjic, a U.S.-sponsored leader, prompted strong opposition from Yugoslavian Prime Minister Zoran Zizic and Yugoslavian President Vojislaw Kostunica. A Belgrade historian, Aleksa Djilas, was quoted in The New York Times as saying: ``We sold him for money, and we won't really get very much money for it. The U.S. is the natural leader of the world, but how does it lead? This justifies the worst American instincts, reinforcing this bullying mentality.'' Milosevic obviously is no saint but neither are the leader of the Croates, the Albanians or the KLA. The NATO leaders who vastly expanded the death and destruction in Yugoslavia with 78 days of bombing in 1999 are certainly not blameless. The $1.28 billion promised the puppet Yugoslavian government is to be used to rebuild the cities devastated by U.S. bombs. First, the American people are forced to pay to bomb, to kill innocent people and destroy cities, and then they are forced to pay to repair the destruction, while orchestrating a U.N. kangaroo court to bring the guilty to justice at the Hague. For all this to be accepted, the press and internationalists have had to demonize Milosevic to distance themselves from the horrors of others including NATO. NATO's air strikes assisted the KLA in cleansing Kosovo of Serbs in the name of assisting Albanian freedom fighters. No one should be surprised when that is interpreted to mean tacit approval for Albanian expansionism in Macedonia. While terrorist attacks by former members of the KLA against Serbs are ignored, the trial of the new millennium, the trial of Milosevic, enjoys daily support from the NATO-U.S. propaganda machine. In our effort to stop an independent-minded and uncooperative with the international community president of a sovereign country, U.S. policy was designed to support an equally if not worse organization, the KLA. One of the conditions for ending the civil war in Kosovo was the disbanding of the KLA. But the very same ruthless leaders of the KLA, now the Liberation Army of Presovo, are now leading the insurrection in Macedonia without NATO lifting a finger to stop it. NATO's failed policy that precipitated the conflict now raging in Macedonia is ignored. The U.N. War Tribunal in the Hague should insult the intelligence of all Americans. This court currently can only achieve arrest and prosecution of leaders of poor, small, or defeated nations. There will be no war criminals brought to the Hague from China, Russia, Britain, or the United States no matter what the charges. But some day this approach to world governing will backfire. The U.S. already has suffered the humiliation of being kicked off the U.N. Human Rights Commission and the Narcotics Control Commission. Our arrogant policy and attitude of superiority will continue to elicit a smoldering hatred toward us and out of sheer frustration will motivate even more terrorist attacks against us. Realizing the weakness of the charges against Milosevic the court has quietly dropped the charges for committing genocide. In a real trial, evidence that the British and the United States actually did business with Milosevic would be permitted. But almost always, whoever is our current most hated enemy, has received help and assistance from us in the past. This was certainly the case with Noriega and Saddam Hussein and others, and now it's Milosevic. Milosevic will be tried not before a jury of his peers but before a panel of politically appointed judges, all of whom were approved by the NATO countries, the same countries which illegally bombed Yugoslavia for 2\1/2\ months. Under both U.N. and international law the bombing of Serbia and Kosovo was illegal. This was why NATO pursued it and it was not done under a U.N. resolution. Ironically, the mess in which we've been engaged in Yugoslavia has the international establishment supporting the side of Kosovo independence rather than Serbian sovereignty. The principle of independence and secession of smaller government entities has been enhanced by the breakdown of the Soviet system. If there's any hope that any good could come of the quagmire into which we've rapidly sunk in the Balkans, it is that small independent nations are a viable and reasonable option to conflicts around the world. But the tragedy today is that no government is allowed to exist without the blessing of the One World Government leaders. The disobedience to the one worlders and true independence is not to be tolerated. That's what this trial is all about. ``Tow the line or else,'' is the message that is being sent to the world. NATO and U.S. leaders insist on playing with fire, not fully understanding the significance of the events now transpiring in the Balkans. If policy is not quickly reversed, events could get out of control and a major war in the region will erupt. We should fear and condemn any effort to escalate the conflict with troops or money from any outside sources. Our troops are already involved and our money calls the shots. Extricating ourselves will get more difficult every day we stay. But the sooner we get out the better. We should be listening more to candidate George Bush's suggestion during the last campaign for bringing our troops home from this region. The Serbs, despite NATO's propaganda, will not lightly accept the imprisonment of their democratically elected (and properly disposed) president no matter how bad he was. It is their problem to deal with and resentment against us will surely grow as conditions deteriorate. Mobs have already attacked the American ambassador to Macedonia for our inept interference in the region. Death of American citizens are sure to come if we persist in this failed policy. Money and power has permitted the United States the luxury of dictating terms for Milosevic's prosecution, but our policy of arbitrary interventions in the Balkans is sowing the seeds of tomorrow's war. We cannot have it both ways. We cannot expect to use the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia when it pleases us and oppose the permanent International Criminal Court where the rules would apply to our own acts of aggression. This cynical and arrogant approach, whether it's dealing with Milosevic, Hussein, or Kadafi, undermines peace and presents a threat to our national security. Meanwhile, American citizens must suffer the tax burden from financing the dangerous meddling in European affairs, while exposing our troops to danger. A policy of nonintervention, friendship and neutrality with all nations, engagement in true free trade (unsubsidized trade with low tariffs) is the best policy if we truly seek peace around the world. That used to be the American way.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I do not think what we are doing here today is a contest between who is the most patriotic. I do not think that is it at all. Nobody here in the debate is unpatriotic. But I think the debate is possibly defining patriotism. But I am concerned that we are going to do something here today that Castro did in Cuba for 40 years. There is a prohibition against flag burning in Cuba. And one of the very first things that Red China did when it took over Hong Kong was to pass an amendment similar to this, to make sure there is no desecration of the Red Chinese flag. That is some of the company that we are keeping if we pass this amendment. A gentleman earlier on said that he fears more of what is happening from within our country than from without. I agree with that. But I also come down on the side that is saying that the threat of this amendment is a threat to me and, therefore, we should not be so anxious to do this. I do not think you can force patriotism. I also agree with the former speaker who talked about responsibility. I agree it is about responsibility. But it also has something to do with rights. You cannot reject rights and say it is all responsibility and therefore we have to write another law. Responsibility implies a voluntary approach. You cannot achieve patriotism by authoritarianism, and that is what we are talking about here. I think we all agree with respect to the flag and respect for our country. It is all in how we intend to do this. And also this idea about veterans, because you are a veteran that you have more wisdom. I do not think so. I am a veteran, but I disagree with other veterans. Keith Kruel, who was a past national commander of the American Legion had this to say: ``Our Nation was not founded on devotion to symbolic idols, but on principles, beliefs, and ideals expressed in the Constitution and its Bill of Rights. American veterans who have protected our banner in battle have not done so to protect a `golden calf.' A patriot cannot be created by legislation.'' He was the national commander of the American Legion. So I am not less patriotic because I take this different position. Another Member earlier mentioned that this could possibly be a property rights issue. I think it has something to do with the first amendment and freedom of expression. That certainly is important, but I think property rights are very important here. If you have your own flag and what you do with it, there should be some recognition of that. But the retort to that is, oh, no, the flag belongs to the country. The flag belongs to everybody. Not really. If you say that, you are a collectivist. That means you believe everybody owns everything. Who would manufacture the flags? Who would buy the flags? Who would take care of them? So there is an ownership. If the Federal Government owns a flag and you are on Federal property, even, without this amendment, you do not have the right to go and burn that flag. If you are causing civil disturbances, that is handled another way. But this whole idea that there could be a collective ownership of the flag, I think, is erroneous. The first amendment, we must remember, is not there to protect noncontroversial speech. It is to do exactly the opposite. So, therefore, if you are looking for controversy protection it is found in the first amendment. But let me just look at the words of the amendment. Congress, more power to the Congress. Congress will get power, not the States. That is the opposite of everything we believe in or at least profess to believe in on this side of the aisle. To prohibit. How do you prohibit something? You would need an army on every street corner in the country. You cannot possibly prevent flag burning. You can punish it but you cannot prohibit it. That word needs to be changed eventually if you ever think you are going to get this amendment passed. Physical desecration. Physical, what does it mean? If one sits on it? Do you arrest them and put them in jail? Desecration is a word that was used for religious symbols. In other words, you are either going to lower the religious symbols to the state or you are going to uphold the state symbol to that of religion. So, therefore, the whole word of desecration is a word that was taken from religious symbols, not state symbols. Maybe it harks back to the time when the state and the church was one and the same. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment. Mr. Speaker, loyalty and conviction are admirable traits, but when misplaced both can lead to serious problems. More than a decade ago, an obnoxious man in Dallas decided to perform an ugly act: the desecration of an American flag in public. His action violated a little-known state law prohibiting desecration of the flag. He was tried in state court and found guilty. As always seems to be the case, though, the federal government intervened. After winding through the federal system, the Supreme Court--in direct contradiction to the Constitution's 10th Amendment-- finally ruled against the state law. Since then Congress has twice tried to overturn more than 213 years of history and legal tradition by making flag desecration a federal crime. Just as surely as the Court was wrong in its disregard for the Tenth Amendment by improperly assigning the restrictions of the First Amendment to the states, so are attempts to federally restrict the odious (and very rare) practice of Americans desecrating the flag. After all, the First Amendment clearly states that it is Congress that may ``make no laws'' and is prohibited from ``abridging'' the freedom of speech and expression. While some may not like it, under our Constitution state governments are free to restrict speech, expression, the press and even religious activities. The states are restrained, in our federal system, by their own constitutions and electorate. This system has served us well for more than two centuries. After all, our founding fathers correctly recognized that the federal government should be severely limited, and especially in matters of expression. They revolted against a government that prevented them from voicing their politically unpopular views regarding taxation, liberty and property rights. As a result, the founders wanted to ensure that a future monolithic federal government would not exist, and that no federal government of the United States would ever be able to restrict what government officials might find obnoxious, unpopular or unpatriotic. After all, the great patriots of our nation-- George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and Benjamin Franklin--were all considered disloyal pests by the British government. Too often in this debate, the issue of patriotism is misplaced. This is well addressed by Keith Kruel, an Army veteran and a past national commander of the American Legion. He has said that, ``Our nation was not founded on devotion to symbolic idols, but on principles, beliefs and ideals expressed in the constitution and its Bill of Rights. American veterans who have protected our banner in battle have not done so to protect a `golden calf.' . . . A patriot cannot be created by legislation.'' Our nation would be far better served that if instead of loyalty to an object--what Mr. Kruel calls the ``golden calf''--we had more Members of Congress who were loyal to the Constitution and principles of liberty. If more people demonstrated a strong conviction to the Tenth Amendment, rather than creating even more federal powers, this issue would be far better handled. For more than two centuries, it was the states that correctly handled the issue of flag desecration in a manner consistent with the principle of federalism. When the federal courts improperly intervened, many people understandably sought a solution to a very emotional issue. But the proposed solution to enlarge the federal government and tread down the path of restricting unpopular political expression, is incorrect, and even frightening. The correct solution is to reassert the 10th Amendment. The states should be unshackled from unconstitutional federal restrictions. As a proud Air Force veteran, my stomach turns when I think of those who defile our flag. But I grow even more nauseous, though, at the thought of those who would defile our precious constitutional traditions and liberties. Loyalty to individual liberty, combined with a conviction to uphold the Constitution, is the best of what our flag can represent.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont. As I am sure I need not remind my colleagues, many Americans are concerned about the high prices of prescription drugs. The high prices of prescription drugs particularly effect low-income senior citizens since many seniors have a greater than-average need for prescription drugs. One of the reasons prescription drug prices are high is because of government policies which give a few powerful companies a monopoly position in the prescription drug market. One of the most egregious of those policies are those restricting the importation of quality pharmaceuticals. If members of Congress are serious about lowering prescription drug prices they should support this amendment. As a representative of an area near the Texas-Mexican border I often hear from constituents angry that they cannot purchase inexpensive quality pharmaceuticals in their local drug store. Many of these constituents regularly travel to Mexico on their own in order to purchase pharmaceuticals. Mr. Chairman, where does the federal government get the Constitutional or moral right to tell my constituents they cannot have access to the pharmaceuticals of their choice? Opponents of this amendment have been waging a hysterical campaign to convince members that this amendment will result in consumers purchasing unsafe products. I dispute this claim for several reasons. Unlike the opponents of this amendment I do not believe that consumers will purchase an inferior pharmaceutical simply to save money. Instead, consumers will carefully shop to make sure they are receiving the highest possible quality at the lowest possible price. In fact, the experience of my constituents who are currently traveling to Mexico to purchase prescription drugs shows that consumers are quite capable of ensuring they only purchase safe products without interference from Big Brother. Furthermore, if the supporters of the status quo were truly concerned about promoting health, instead of protecting the special privileges of powerful companies, they would consider how our current policies endanger safety by artificially raising the cost of prescription drugs. Oftentimes lower income Americans will take less than the proper amount of a prescription medicine in order to save money or forgo other necessities, including food, in order to afford their medications. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to show they are serious about lowering the prices of prescription drugs and that they trust the people to know what is in their best interest by voting for the Sanders amendment to the Agricultural Appropriations bill.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues in encouraging Americans to commemorate the 40th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education and the end of legal segregation in America. However, I cannot support the legislation before us because it attempts to authorize an unconstitutional expenditure of federal funds for the purpose of establishing a commission to provide federal guidance of celebrations of the anniversary of the Brown decision. This expenditure is neither constitutional nor in the sprit of the brave men and woman of the civil rights moment who are deservedly celebrated for standing up to an overbearing government infringing on individual rights. Mr. Speaker, any authorization of an unconstitutional expenditure of taxpayer funds is an abuse of our authority and undermines the principles of a limited government which respects individual rights. Because I must oppose appropriations not authorized by the enumerated powers of the Constitution, I therefore reject this bill. I continue to believe that the best way to honor the legacy of those who fought to ensure that all Americans can enjoy the blessings of liberty and a government that treats citizens of all races equally is by consistently defending the idea of a limited government whose powers do not exceed those explicitly granted it by the Constitution.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce two bills designed to help improve education by reducing taxes on parents, teachers, and all Americans who wish to help improve education. The first bill, the Hope Plus Scholarship Act, extends the HOPE Scholarship tax credit to K-12 education expenses. Under this bill, parents could use the HOPE Scholarship to pay for private or religious school tuition or to offset the cost of home schooling. In addition, under the bill, all Americans could use the Hope Scholarship to make cash or in-kind donations to public schools. Thus, the Hope Scholarship could help working parents finally afford to send their child to a private school, while other parents could take advantage of the Hope credit to help purchase new computers for their childrens' school. Mr. Speaker, reducing taxes so that Americans can devote more of their own resources to education is the best way to improve America's schools. This is not just because expanding the HOPE Scholarship bill will increase the funds devoted to education but because, to use a popular buzz word, individuals are more likely than federal bureaucrats to insist that schools be accountable for student performance. When the federal government controls the education dollar, schools will be held accountable for their compliance with bureaucratic paperwork requirements and mandates that have little to do with actual education, or for students performance on a test that may measure little more than test-taking skills or the ability of education bureaucrats to design or score the test so that ``no child is left behind,'' regardless of the child's actual knowledge. Federal rules and regulations also divert valuable resources away from classroom instruction into fulfilling bureaucratic paperwork requirements. The only way to change this system is to restore control of the education dollar to the American people so they can ensure schools meet their demands that children be provided a quality education. My other bill, the ``Professional Educators Tax Relief Act'' provides a thousand dollar per year tax credit to all professional educators, including librarians, counselors, and others involved in implementing or formulating the curriculum. This bill helps equalize the pay gap between educators and other professionals, thus ensuring that quality people will continue to seek out careers in education. Good teaching is the key to a good education, so it is important that Congress raise the salaries of educators by cutting their taxes. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join with me in returning education resources to the American people by cosponsoring my Hope Plus Scholarship Act and my Professional Educators Tax Cut Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take this opportunity to draw my colleagues' attention to the attached article ``Postal Service Has Its Eye On You'' by John Berlau of Insight magazine, which outlines the latest example of government spying on innocent citizens. Mr. Berlau deals with the Post Office's ``Under the Eagle's Eye'' program which the Post Office implemented to fulfill the requirements of the Nixon- era Bank Secrecy Act. Under this program, postal employees must report purchases of money orders of over $3,000 to federal law enforcement officials. The program also requires postal clerks to report any ``suspicious behavior'' by someone purchasing a money order. Mr. Speaker, the guidelines for reporting ``suspicious behavior'' are so broad that anyone whose actions appear to a postal employee to be the slightest bit out of the ordinary could become the subject of a ``suspicious activity report,'' and a federal investigation! As postal officials admitted to Mr. Berlau, the Post Office is training its employees to assume those purchasing large money orders are criminals. In fact, the training manual for this program explicitly states that ``it is better to report many legitimate transactions that seem suspicious than let one illegal one slip through.'' This policy turns the presumption of innocence, which has been recognized as one of the bulwarks of liberty since medieval times, on its head. Allowing any federal employee to assume the possibility of a crime based on nothing more than a subjective judgment of ``suspicious behavior'' represents a serious erosion of our constitutional rights to liberty, privacy, and due process. I am sure I do not need to remind my colleagues of the public's fierce opposition to the ``Know Your Customer'' proposal, or the continuing public outrage over the Post Office's proposal to increase monitoring of Americans who choose to receive their mail at a Commercial Mail Receiving Agency (CMRA). I have little doubt that Americans will react with the same anger when they discover that the Post Office is filing reports on them simply because they appeared ``suspicious'' to a postal clerk. This is why I will soon be introducing legislation to curb the Post Office's regulatory authority over individual Americans and small business (including those who compete with the Post Office) as well as legislation to repeal the statutory authority to implement these ``Know Your Customer'' type policies. I urge my colleagues to read Mr. Berlau's article and join me in protecting the privacy and liberty of Americans by ensuring law-abiding Americans may live their lives free from the prying ``Eagle Eye'' of the Federal Government. Postal Service Has Its Eye on You (By John Berlau) Since 1997, the U.S. Postal Service has been conducting a customer-surveillance program, `Under the Eagle's Eye,' and reporting innocent activity to federal law enforcement. Remember ``Know Your Customer''? Two years ago the federal government tried to require banks to profile every customer's ``normal and expected transactions'' and report the slightest deviation to the feds as a ``suspicious activity.'' The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. withdrew the requirement in March 1999 after receiving 300,000 opposing comments and massive bipartisan opposition. But while your bank teller may not have been snooping and snitching on your every financial move, your local post office has been (and is) watching you closely, Insight has learned. That is, if you have bought money orders, made wire transfers or sought cash cards from a postal clerk. Since 1997, in fact, the window clerk may very well have reported you to the government as a ``suspicious'' customer. It doesn't matter that you are not a drug dealer, terrorist or other type of criminal or that the transaction itself was perfectly legal. The guiding principle of the new postal program to combat money laundering, according to a U.S. Postal Service training video obtained by Insight, is: ``It's better to report 10 legal transactions than to let one illegal ID transaction get by.'' Many privacy advocates see similarities in the post office's customer-surveillance program, called ``Under the Eagle's Eye,'' to the ``Know Your Customer'' rules. In fact, in a postal-service training manual also obtained by Insight, postal clerks are admonished to ``know your customers.'' Both the manual and the training video give a broad definition of ``suspicious'' in instructing clerks when to fill out a ``suspicious activity report'' after a customer has made a purchase. ``The rule of thumb is if it seems suspicious to you, then it is suspicious,'' says the manual. ``As we said before, and will say again, it is better to report many legitimate transactions that seem suspicious than let one illegal one slip through.'' It is statements such as these that raise the ire of leading privacy advocates on both the left and right, most of whom didn't know about the program until asked by Insight to comment. For example, Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, who led the charge on Capitol Hill against the ``Know Your Customer'' rules, expressed both surprise and concern about ``Under the Eagle's Eye.'' He says the video's instructions to report transactions as suspicious are ``the reverse of what the theory used to be: We were supposed to let guilty people go by if we were doing harm to innocent people'' when the methods of trying to apprehend criminals violated the rights of ordinary citizens. Paul says he may introduce legislation to stop ``Under the Eagle's Eye.'' The same sort of response came from another prominent critic of ``Know Your Customer,'' this time on the left, who was appalled by details of the training video. ``The postal service is training its employees to invade their customers' privacy,'' Greg Nojeim, associate director of the American Civil Liberties Union Washington National Office, tells Insight. ``This training will result in the reporting to the government of tens of thousands of innocent transactions that are none of the government's business. I had thought the postal-service's eagle stood for freedom. Now I know it stands for, `We're watching you!' '' But postal officials who run ``Under the Eagle's Eye'' say that flagging customers who do not follow ``normal'' patterns is essential if law enforcement is to catch criminals laundering money from illegal transactions. ``The postal service has a responsibility to know what their legitimate customers are doing with their instruments,'' Al Gillum, a former postal inspector who now is acting program manager, tells Insight. ``If people are buying instruments outside of a norm that the entity itself has to establish, then that's where you-start with suspicious analysis, suspicious reporting. It literally is based on knowing what our legitimate customers do, what activities they're involved in.'' Gillum's boss, Henry Gibson, the postal-service's Bank Secrecy Act compliance officer, says the anti-money- laundering program started in 1997 already has helped catch some criminals. ``We've received acknowledgment from our chief postal inspector that information from our system was very helpful in the actual catching of some potential bad guys,'' Gibson says. Gillum and Gibson are proud that the postal service received a letter of commendation from then-attorney general Janet Reno in 2000 for this program. The database system the postal service developed with Information Builders, an information-technology consulting firm, received an award from Government Computer News in 2000 and was a finalist in the government/nonprofit category for the 2001 Computerworld Honors Program. An Information Builders press release touts the system as ``a standard for Bank Secrecy Act compliance and anti-money-laundering controls.'' Gibson and Gillum say the program resulted from new regulations created by the Clinton-era Treasury Department in 1997 to apply provisions of the Bank Secrecy Act to ``money service businesses'' that sell financial instruments such as stored-value cash cards, money orders and wire transfers, as well as banks. Surprisingly, the postal service sells about one-third of all U.S. money orders, more than $27 billion last year. It also sells stored-value cards and some types of wire transfers. Although the regulations were not to take effect until 2002, Gillum says the postal service wanted to be ``proactive'' and ``visionary.'' Postal spokesmen emphasize strongly that programs take time to put in place and they are doing only what the law demands. It also was the Bank Secrecy Act that opened the door for the ``Know Your Customer'' rules on banks, to which congressional leaders objected as a threat to privacy. Lawrence Lindsey, now head of the Bush administration's National Economic Council, frequently has pointed out that more than 100,000 reports are collected on innocent bank customers for every one conviction of money laundering. ``That ratio of 99,999-to-1 is something we normally would not tolerate as a reasonable balance between privacy and the collection of guilty verdicts,'' Lindsey wrote in a chapter of the Competitive Enterprise Institute's book The Future of Financial Privacy, published last year. Critics of this snooping both inside and outside the postal service are howling mad that the agency's reputation for protecting the privacy of its customers is being compromised. ``It sounds to me that they're going past the Treasury guidelines,'' says Rick Merritt, executive director of Postal Watch, a private watchdog group. The regulations, for example, do not give specific examples of suspicious activity, leaving that largely for the regulated companies to determine. But the postal-service training video points to lots of ``red flags,'' such as a customer counting money in the line. It warns that even customers whom clerks know often should be considered suspect if they frequently purchase money orders. The video, which Gibson says cost $90,000 to make, uses entertaining special effects to illustrate its points. Employing the angel-and-devil technique often used in cartoons, the video presents two tiny characters in the imagination of a harried clerk. Regina Goodclerk, the angel, constantly urges the clerk to file suspicious-activity reports on customers. ``Better safe than sorry,'' she says. Sam Slick, the devil, wants to give customers the benefit of the doubt. Some of the examples given are red flags such as a sleazy- looking customer offering the postal clerk a bribe. But the video also encourages reports to be filed on what appear to be perfectly legal money-order purchases. A black male teacher and Little League coach whom the female clerk, also black, has known for years walks into the post office wearing a crisp, pinstriped suit and purchases $2,800 in money orders, just under the $3,000 daily minimum for which the postal service requires customers to fill out a form. He frequently has been buying money orders during the last few days. ``Gee, I know he seems like an okay guy,'' Regina Goodclerk tells the employee. ``But buying so many money orders all of a Gillum says this is part of the message that postal clerks can't be too careful because anyone could be a potential money launderer. ``A Little League coach could be a deacon in the church, could be the most upstanding citizen in the community, but where is that person getting $2,800 every day?'' Gillum asks. ``Why would a baseball coach, a schoolteacher in town, buy [that many money orders]? Our customers don't have that kind of money. If he's a schoolteacher, if he's got a job on the side, he's going to have a bank account and going to write checks on it, so why does he want to buy money orders? That's the point.'' Despite the fact that the Little League coach in the video was black, Gillum insists that the postal service tells its employees not to target by race or appearance. One thing that should set off alarms, the postal service says, is a customer objecting to filling out an 8105-A form that requests their date of birth, occupation and driver's license or other government-issued ID for a purchase of money orders of $3,000 or more. If they cancel the purchase or request a smaller amount, the clerk automatically should fill out Form 8105-B, the ``suspicious-activity'' report. ``Whatever the reason, any customer who switches from a transaction that requires an 8105-A form to one that doesn't should earn himself or herself the honor of being described on a B form,'' the training manual says. But the ``suspicious'' customers might just be concerned about privacy, says Solveig Singleton, a senior analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. And a professional criminal likely would know that $3,000 was the reporting requirement before he walked into the post office. ``I think there's a lot of reasons that people might not want to fill out such forms; they may simply think it's none of the post office's business,'' Singleton tells Insight. ``The presumption seems to be that from the standpoint of the post office and the Bank Secrecy regulators every citizen is a suspect.'' Both Singleton and Nojeim say ``Under the Eagle's Eye'' unfairly targets the poor, minorities and immigrants--people outside of the traditional banking system. ``A large proportion of the reports will be immigrants sending money back home,'' Nojeim says. Singleton adds, ``It lends itself to discrimination against people who are sort of marginally part of the ordinary banking system or who may not trust things like checks and credit cards.'' There's also the question of what happens with the information once it's collected. Gillum says that innocent customers should feel secure because the information reported about ``suspicious'' customers is not automatically sent to the Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) to be shared with law enforcement agencies worldwide. Although he says FinCEN wants the postal service to send all reports along to it, the postal authorities only will send the clerks' reports if they fit ``known parameters'' for suspicious activity. ``We are very sensitive to the private citizenry and their rights,'' Gillum insists. ``For what it's worth, we have every comfort level that, if we make a report, there are all kinds of reasons to believe that there is something going on there beyond just a legitimate purchase of money orders.'' But Gillum would not discuss any of the ``parameters'' the postal service uses to test for suspicious activity, saying that's a secret held among U.S. law-enforcement agencies. And if a clerk's report isn't sent to the Treasury Department, it still lingers for some time in the postal-service database. Gillum says that by law the postal service will not be able to destroy suspicious-activity reports for five years. Gillum says the postal service is very strict that the reports only can be seen by law-enforcement officials and not used for other purposes such as marketing. A spokeswoman for the consulting company Information Builders stated in an e- mail to Insight, ``Information Builders personnel do not have access to this system.'' Observers say problems with ``Under the Eagle's Eye'' underscore the contradiction that despite the fact that the postal service advertises like a private business and largely is self-supporting, it still is a government agency with law- enforcement functions. Gibson says his agency must set an example for private businesses on tracking, money orders. ``Being a government agency, we feel it's our responsibility that we should set the tone,'' he said. The Treasury Department ``basically challenged us in the mid-nineties to step up to the plate as a government entity,'' Gillum adds. In fact, Gillum thinks Treasury may mandate that the private sector follow some aspects of the postal-service's program. He adds, however, that the postal service is not arguing for this to be imposed on its competitors. In the meantime, the private sector is getting ready to comply with the Treasury regulations before they go into effect next January. But if 7-Eleven Inc., which through its franchises and company-owned stores is one of the largest sellers of money orders, is any guide, private vendors of money orders probably will not issue nearly as many suspicious-activity reports as the postal service. ``'Our philosophy is to follow what the regulations require, and if they don't require us to fill out an SAR [suspicious-activity report] . . . then we wouldn't necessarily do it,'' 7-Eleven spokeswoman Margaret Chabris tells Insight. Asked specifically about customers who cancel or change a transaction when asked to fill out a form, Chabris said, ``We are not required to fill out an SAR if that happens.'' So why does the U.S. Postal Service? That's one of the major issues raised by critics such as Postal Watch's Merritt. He says that lawmakers and the new postmaster general, Jack Potter, need to examine any undermining of customer trust by programs such as ``Under the Eagle's Eye'' before the postal service is allowed to go into new businesses such as providing e-mail addresses. ``Let's hope that this is not a trend for the postal service, because I don't think the American people are quite ready to be fully under the eagle's eye,'' he says.