Ron Paul

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Foods are not Drugs Act, a constitutional and common sense piece of legislation. This bill stops the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from interfering with consumers' access to truthful information about foods and dietary supplements in order to make informed choices about their health. The Foods are not Drugs Act accomplishes its goal by simply adding the six words ``other than foods, including dietary supplements'' to the statutory definition of ``drug.'' This allows food and dietary supplement producers to provide consumers with more information regarding the health benefits of their products, without having to go through the time-consuming and costly process of getting FDA approval. This bill does not affect the FDA's jurisdiction over those who make false claims about their products. Scientific research in nutrition over the past few years has demonstrated how various foods and other dietary supplements are safe and effective in preventing or mitigating many diseases. Currently, however, disclosure of these well-documented statements triggers more extensive drug-like FDA regulation. The result is consumers cannot learn about simple and inexpensive ways to improve their health. For example, in 1998, the FDA dragged manufacturers of Cholestin, a dietary supplement containing lovastatin, which is helpful in lowering cholesterol, into court. The FDA did not dispute the benefits of Cholestin, rather the FDA attempted to deny consumers access to this helpul product simply because the manufacturers did not submit Cholestin to the FDA's drug approval process! The FDA's treatment of the manufacturers of Cholestin is not an isolated example of how current FDA policy harms consumers. Even though coronary heart disease is the nation's number-one killer, the FDA waited nine years until it allowed consumers to learn about how consumption of foods and dietary supplements containing soluble fiber from the husk of psyllium seeds can reduce the risk of coronary heart disease! The Foods are not Drugs Act ends this breakfast table censorship. The FDA is so fanatical about censoring truthful information regarding dietary supplements it even defies federal courts! For example, in the case of Pearson v. Shalala, 154 F.3d 650 (DC Cir. 1999), rehg denied en banc, 172 F.3d 72 (DC Cir. 1999), the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit Court ruled that the FDA violated consumers' first amendment rights by denying certain health claims. However, the FDA has dragged its feet for over two years in complying with the Pearson decision while wasting taxpayer money on frivolous appeals. It is clear that even after Pearson the FDA will continue to deny legitimate health claims and force dietary supplement manufacturers to waste money on litigation unless Congress acts to rein in this rogue agency. Allowing American consumers access to information about the benefits of foods and dietary supplements will help America's consumers improve their health. However, this bill is about more than physical health, it is about freedom. The first amendment forbids Congress from abridging freedom of all speech, including commercial speech. In a free society, the federal government must not be allowed to prevent people from receiving information enabling them to make informed decisions about whether or not to use dietary supplements or eat certain foods. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to take a step toward restoring freedom by cosponsoring the Foods are not Drugs Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I highly recommend to my colleagues the attached article ``Turning Eighteen in America: Thoughts on Conscription'' by Michael Allen. This article was published in the Internet news magazine Laissez Faire Times. Mr. Allen forcefully makes the point that coercing all young men to register with the federal government so they may be conscripted into military service at the will of politicians is fundamentally inconsistent with the American philosophy of limited government and personal freedom. After all, the unstated premise of a draft is that individuals are owned by the state. Obviously this belief is more consistent with totalitarian systems, such as those found in the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Red China or Castro's Cuba, than with a system based on the idea that all individuals have inalienable rights. No wonder prominent Americans from across the political spectrum such as Ronald Reagan, Milton Friedman, Gary Hart, and Jesse Ventura oppose the draft. Selective Service is not even a good way of providing an effective military fighting force. As Mr. Allen points out (paraphrasing former Senator Mark Hatfield), the needs of the modem military require career professionals with long-term commitments to the service, not short-term draftees eager to ``serve their time'' and return to civilian life. The military itself recognizes that Selective Service serves no useful military function. In 1993), the Department of Defense issued a report stating that registration could be stopped ``with no effect on military mobilization, no measurable effect on the time it would take to mobilize, and no measurable effect on military recruitment.'' Yet the American taxpayer has been forced to spend over $500 million dollars on a system ``with no measurable effect on military mobilization!'' I have introduced legislation, H.R. 1597, which repeals the Selective Service Act, thus ending a system which violates the rights of millions of young Americans and wastes taxpayer dollars for no legitimate military reason. I urge my colleagues to read Mr. Allen's article then cosponsor HR 1597 and join me in ending a system which is an affront to the principles of liberty our nation was founded upon. Turning Eighteen in America: Thoughts on Conscription (By Michael R. Allen) In March of 1967, Senator Mark Hatfield (R-Oregon) proposed legislation that would abolish the practice of military conscription, or the drafting of men who are between 18 and 35 years old. Despite its initial failure, it has been reintroduced in nearly every Congress that has met since then, and has been voted upon as an amendment at least once. This bill was an excellent proposal that should have never been needed. The dovish Hatfield's arguments in promotion of the bill constituted what is actually the conservative position on the item. In its defense, Hatfield asserted that we need career military men who can adapt to system changes within the context of weaponry. Short-term draftees, maintained Hatfield, would not be particularly adept at utilizing modern technology. More recent efforts to overturn the Selective Service Act have similarly stressed efficiency. This basic logic is the driving force behind the political anti-draft movement. Others oppose the draft because it represents another governmental intrusion into the lives of America's young adults. Those lacking skill or ambition to serve will be greatly humiliated once drafted, and those without developed skill in search of an alternative career will be denied an opportunity to choose that direction. The draft also is a blatant attack on the Thirteenth Amendment, which prohibits involuntary servitude. If the federal government fought individual states over the legalization of private-sector slavery, then should it not also be equally compelled to decry public-sector servitude? Of course it should, but an elastically interpreted ``living Constitution'' makes all sorts of public schemes safe from legal reproach. Recruiting students and vagrants is of no use to a competitive military, since both groups are uninterested in active duty. By contrast, a volunteer army--assuming the country needs any army at all--will yield those with an interest in serving their country and those who seek the military as a place to get that necessary step up into a better life. A primary partner to draft reform would be to offer an alternative for those who request not to serve militarily. Non-combatant positions, such as field doctors and radio operators, might be made civilian positions. Then, those who wish not to engage in battle will be able to serve the nation for as long as they need. Additionally, the government can save some money, albeit not much, by not having to buy uniforms for these civilians. Yet the most compelling reason for having volunteer military forces is the right of a person to own his or her body. The right to self-ownership must be supreme in a free nation, since without it there is no justification for government or laws at all. If one does not own his body, then why should murder be a crime? Why should there be money for the individual to spend? The self must own itself for there to be any liberty. And clearly one does have self-ownership. A man controls his own actions, and efforts to force him to do what he desires not to do are nugatory. The best the State can do is arrest him after he has disobeyed the law. It cannot prevent a willful person from committing illegal acts. The draft ignores the concept of self-ownership and proceeds to diminish the available benefits of a free society for young men. Issues of cost and unfairness can sway those not seeing a moral reason to oppose conscription. The government spends a lot of money that might be used in armory for war in order to draft a number of men that would be similar to the number who might otherwise volunteer. In this way, the draft is a redundant method that consumes entirely too much money. It is unfair because those who do not get called remain free while those called into duty must serve or face charges that will haunt them for the rest of their lives. This practice, while through chance, is unjust because it targets those Americans with low draft numbers. Through the archaic, unjust draft process America once more is embracing authoritarianism. If the government chose, National Guard forces could be utilized to alleviate the costs of draft, recruitment, and salary. The savings could then be used to properly compensate a volunteer army, which would attract more skillful persons if the pay scale were better. Draft proponents employ some arguments that would be acceptable if they had purchased every male aged 18 to 35. However, the United States of America has not bought--bought off, tricked and fooled, yes--any of her citizens at this time. Some of the stentorian arguments side-step the question of rights and look at other issues, such as mobility, emergency readiness, and social outcome. Former Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia, a Democrat, said in a 1980 US News and World Report article that ``Middle and upper-class America are not sufficiently participating in the defense of the country today except in the officer corp. That's one of the tragedies of the volunteer force . . .'' Nunn's provocative statement is not only designed to evoke resentment towards the ``privileged'' upper classes, it is also not sound from a practical point of view. Certainly, the classes with a statistically higher amount of college education should be involved in positions in which education can be put to best use. It is apparent that the Nunn argument involves some sort of ``duty'' the upper classes have to live the life of the foot soldier, and amounts to no less than a feeble attempt at egalitarian blurring of class distinction. Proponents of the draft continue to ignore their weakest point: namely, that wars which had the support of the American public would not require conscription but instead would have a full supply of eager volunteers. People not only own their own bodies, but a free society also grants people final say over government policy. War is an area where the voice of the people is very important, as their security is at stake. And where else can the people exercise their voice than in the decision on registering to serve? Denying this decision is in effect creating a government that does not respect the people's wishes, and instead dictates to them. AmeriCorps There was an effort in June 1997 by President Clinton to use the Selective Service System to recruit potential volunteers in his AmeriCorps program. Such a move is a twofold intrusion on civil liberties: it violates the right of those who were forced to register for the draft to avoid having their addresses and other private information released to another agency; and, of course, it is costly to the taxpayer to pay for a joint system that serves two unconstitutional agencies. Ultimately, though, the administration deferred its plans. This issue has not gone away, as national service plans have considerable support from those people who think that everyone has a duty to the government. Free people can resist the draft easily. They need not register at all, or they can flee the country when they are called to serve. After all, they still own their bodies regardless of what the law says. But the change of life necessary to avoid the government allows the government some control of ones life, even when one does not openly submit. One does not need to recognize the right of the government to conscript its citizens for any purpose in order to be disrupted by the institution. If one pays income taxes and expects to get that money back in the form of college aid, he must register for Selective Service. If one wishes to collect the money stolen through the payroll tax for so-called ``Social Security,'' he must register. Most people are not able to forgo paying taxes if they wish to work, so if they hope to see their tax dollars again they must register for the draft. As a young man of draft age, I could sleep easier if I knew that my life would never have to be disrupted by a government which has given itself the legal ground on which it may attempt to violate my right to own myself. Even as I refuse to recognize the government's powers, the Selective Service System/AmeriCorps/Department of Education bloc does not care. To them I am their property, regardless of my feelings. The military and charity draft is indeed one of the most evil institutions in the United States government.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I recommend to my colleagues the attached article, ``The Real Threat of the Faith-Based Initiative'' by Star Parker, founder and president of the Coalition on Urban Renewal and Education (CURE). Miss Parker eloquently explains how providing federal monies to faith-based institutions undermines the very qualities that make them effective in addressing social problems. As Miss Parker points out, religious programs are successful because they are staffed and funded by people motivated to help others by their religious beliefs. Government funding of religious organizations will transform them into adjuncts of the federal welfare state, more concerned about obeying federal rules and regulations than fulfilling the obligations of their faith. If religious organizations receive taxpayer monies, they will have an incentive to make obedience to the dictates of federal bureaucrats their number-one priority. Religious entities may even change the religious character of their programs in order to avoid displeasing their new federal paymaster. This will occur in large part because people who currently voluntarily support religious organizations will assume they ``gave at the (tax) office'' and thus will reduce their level of private giving. Thus, religious charities 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 funding religious organization will increase federal control of religious programs; in fact the current proposal explicitly forbids proselytizing in federally-funded ``faith-based'' programs. While religious organizations will not have to remove religious icons from their premises in order to receive federal funds, I fail to see the point in allowing a Catholic soup kitchen to hang a cross on its wall or a Jewish day center to hang a Star of David on its' door if federal law forbids believers from explaining the meaning of those symbols. Miss Parker points out that the founding fathers recognized the danger that church-state entanglement poses to religious liberty, which is why the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the free exercise of religion and forbids the federal government from establishing a national church. As Miss Parker points out, the most effective and constitutional means for Congress to help those in poverty is to cut taxes on the American people so that they may devote more of their resources to effective, locally-controlled, charitable programs. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I hope all my colleagues will read Miss Parker's article and join her in supporting a return to a constitutional policy that does not put faith in federal programs but instead in the voluntary actions of a free and compassionate people. [From GOPUSA.COM, May 25, 2001] The Real Threat of the Faith-Based Initiative (By Star Parker) The faith-based initiative is our latest proof that politicians are great entrepreneurs in finding ways to expand the scope of government, their own power and control over our lives. This particular initiative should be of concern to all because, in the best scenario, it will only waste money. In the worst case, however, it will be destructive to our nation. Although for President Bush this initiative is a crusade to reach minorities, welfare programs have already done enough damage in black America. Government dependency has created an environment in which black illegitimacy rates have soared seventy percent. This time the victim of government intervention will be the black church. However, there is an even deeper concern facing us than this. Those who claim that the faith-based initiative merely saves charitable programs of religious organizations from discrimination miss the most basic point. The main reason faith-based programs are successful is the fact that free people choose to fund them and that free people choose to participate in them. The truth is that we all are already participating in a great faith-based initiative. It is called the United States of America and its principles and rules are in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. When we examine these great documents, we see that the founders referenced our most fundamental rights to our Creator and then defined the role of government to secure these rights. Our great and blessed country, has been a story of unprecedented success because of the crucial premise that man is and must be free to exercise his God-given rights. It is worth noting that although the founders declared this; they then prohibited, in the very first amendment to the Constitution, the establishment of religion by government. Clearly, they did not make haste to keep government out of religion because they were not religious men or because they were opposed to religion or religious activity. They did this because they understood that faith, freedom, and choice cannot be separated and that it is critical to preserve and protect these core elements of our society. Our goal should be to eliminate government from those aspects of our society that have been politicized: not to politicize the very faith and freedom that have made our country great. The very idea of welfare is the antithesis of both faith and freedom. A true faith-based initiative is one defined by freedom and not one defined by politics. Humankind already has a tragic history of incidents where governments and politicians have gotten into the business of defining faith and religion. I respect our President, but he is dead wrong on this one. We still have billions of unused dollars in our welfare budgets. Let us return these funds to our citizens and exercise true faith that they will make the right decisions regarding charitable giving. Let us remember the simple wisdom of Ronald Reagan that government is the problem, not the solution.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill, although I do not contest for 1 minute the sincerity and the good intentions of the many, many cosponsors. I do not question the problems that exist in Sudan. There is no doubt that it is probably one of the most horrible tales in human history. But I do question a few things. First, I question whether this is a proper function for our government. I raised this question in the committee, suggesting that it could not be for national security reasons, and it more or less was conceded this has nothing to do with national security but it had to do with America's soul. I was fascinated that we are in the business of saving souls these days. But I do have serious concerns about its effectiveness, because we have a history of having done these kinds of programs many times in the past, and even in Africa. It was not too many years ago that we were in Somalia and we lost men. Our soldiers were dragged in the streets. It was called nation-building. This is, in a way, very much nation- building, because we support one faction over the thugs that are in charge. I certainly have all the sympathy and empathy for those individuals who are being abused, but the real question is whether or not this will work. It did not work in Somalia. We sent troops into Haiti. Haiti is not better off. How many men did we lose in Vietnam in an effort to make sure the people we want in power were in power? So often these well-intended programs just do not work and frequently do the opposite by our aid ending up in the hands of the supposed enemy. I seriously question whether this one will, either. Maybe in a year or 2 from now we will realize that this is an effort that did not produce the results that we wanted. It is a $10 million appropriation, small for what we do around here, but we also know that this is only the beginning, and there will be many more tens of millions of dollars that will be sent in hopes that we will satisfy this problem. Members can look for more problems to solve, because right now there are 800,000 children serving in the military in 41 countries of the world. That is another big job we would have to take upon ourselves to solve considering our justification to be involved in Sudan. Mr. Chairman, with HR 2052, the Sudan Peace Act, we embark upon another episode of interventionism, in continuing our illegitimate and ill-advised mission to ``police'' the world. It seemingly matters little to this body that it proceeds neither with any constitutional authority nor with the blessings of such historical figures such as Jefferson who, in his first inaugural address, argued for ``Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations--entangling alliances with none.'' Unfortunately, this is not the only bit of history which seemingly is lost on this Congress. Apparently, it is also lost on this Congress that the Constitution was a grant of limited power to the federal government from the citizens or, in other words, the Constitution was not designed to allow the government to restrain the people, but to allow the people to restrain the government. Of course, the customary lip service is given to the Constitution insofar as the committee report for this bill follows the rule of citing Constitutional authority and cites Art. I, Section 8, which is where one might look to find a specific enumerated power. However, the report cites only clause 18 which begs some further citation. While Clause 18 contains the ``necessary and proper'' clause, it limits Congress to enacting laws ``necessary and proper'' to some more specifically (i.e. foregoing) enumerated power. Naturally, no such ``foregoing'' authority is cited by the advocates of this bill. Without Constitutional authority, this bill goes on to encourage the spending of $10 million of U.S. taxpayers hard-earned money in Sudan but for what purpose? From the text of the bill, we learn that ``The United States should use all means of pressure available to facilitate a comprehensive solution to the war in Sudan, including (A) the multilateralization of economic and diplomatic tools to compel the Government of Sudan to enter into a good faith peace process; [note that it says ``compel . . . good faith peace''] and (B) the support or creation of viable democratic civil authority and institutions in areas of Sudan outside of government control.'' I believe we used to call that nation-building before that term became impolitic. How self- righteous a government is ours which legally prohibits foreign campaign contributions yet assumes it knows best and, hence, supports dissident and insurgent groups in places like Cuba, Sudan and around the world. The practical problem here is that we have funded dissidents in such places as Somalia who ultimately turned out to be worse than the incumbent governments. Small wonder the U.S. is the prime target of citizen-terrorists from countries with no real ability to retaliate militarily for our illegitimate and immoral interventions. The legislative ``tools'' to be used to ``facilitate'' this aforementioned ``comprehensive solution'' are as frightening as the nation-building tactics. For example, ``It is the sense of the Congress that . . . the United Nations should be used as a tool to facilitate peace and recovery in Sudan.'' One can only assume this is the same United Nations which booted the United States off its Human Rights Commission in favor of, as Canadian Sen. Jerahmiel S. Grafstein, called them recently, ``those exemplars of human rights nations . . . Algeria, China, Saudi Arabia, Uganda, Armenia, Pakistan, Syria and Vietnam.'' The bill does not stop there, however, in intervening in the civil war in Sudan. It appears that this Congress has found a new mission for the Securities and Exchange Commission who are now tasked with investigating ``the nature and extent of . . . commercial activity in Sudan'' as it relates to ``any violations of religious freedom and human rights in Sudan.'' It seems we have finally found a way to spend those excessive fees the SEC has been collecting from mutual fund investors despite the fact we cannot seem to bring to the floor a bill to actually reduce those fees which have been collected in multiples above what is necessary to fund this agencies' previous (and again unconstitutional) mission. There is more, however. Buried deep within the bill in Section 9 we find what may be the real motivation for the intervention--Oil. It seems the bill also tasks the Secretary of State with generating a report detailing ``a description of the sources and current status of Sudan's financing and construction of infrastructure and pipelines for oil exploitation, the effects of such financing and construction on the inhabitants of the regions in which the oil fields are located.'' Talk about corporate welfare and the ability to socialize the costs of foreign competitive market research on the U.S. taxpayer! Yes, Mr. Chairman, this bill truly has it all--an unconstitutional purpose, the morally bankrupt intervention in dealings between the affairs of foreign governments and their respective citizens in our attempt to police the world, more involvement by a United Nations proven inept at resolving civil conflicts abroad, the expansion of the SEC into State Department functions and a little corporate welfare for big oil, to boot. How can one not support these legislative efforts? Mr. Chairman, I oppose this bill for each of the above-mentioned reasons and leave to the ingenuity, generosity, and conscience of each individual in this country to make their own private decision as to how best render help to citizens of Sudan and all countries where human rights violations run rampant.

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

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, mainly because I do not think it is a good move to have the SEC internationalized to begin with, and to further internationalize it does not seem to make a whole lot of sense. For one thing, cracking down more on foreign oil companies that are doing business in Sudan will not necessarily prohibit the benefits that may flow to the American oil companies if there is a change in government. We should not ignore that. We go to war over oil. We went to war over oil in the Persian Gulf, and certainly we had oil as an influence to send in many dollars and much equipment down into Colombia. But just let me read from the bill. It says the Secretary of State will report back on a description of the sources and the current status of Sudan's financing and construction of infrastructure and pipelines for oil exploitation; the effects of such financing and construction of the inhabitants of the region. It goes on, which in a way does a lot of research and benefit for our oil companies that may benefit. So I think oil is involved, but in quite a different way than I think we should be involved in dealing with the foreign oil companies today. So I am not going to support this amendment. I would like to take another moment to mention something which is considered an esoteric point, but I consider very important, and that has to do with the authority to do these kinds of things that we are doing today, no matter how well intended. The committee report explains the authority, and the supporters of the bill says the authority comes from article one, section 8, clause 18. And they look to the right place. Article one, section 8 gives us our 18 enumerated powers that we are permitted to do. The clause 18 is the necessary and proper clause: to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers. The foregoing powers were those 18 issued. To use this in a generalized sense means there is no constitution left. That means any power we want, we can do whatever we want. That was specifically designed to pass laws to enforce those 18 enumerated powers. So this bill, in spite of all the good intentions that we hope it will do, really undermines the whole concept of the Doctrine of Enumerated Powers. And we should not take that lightly, although this generally is not of much interest to so many people because we do so much and we have such great hopes that it will always do so much good. From just observing history, recent history, the last 20, 30, 40 years since World War II, so often when we get involved and we send money to help the good guys, it is not infrequent the good things that we send in, goods and services and weapons, end up in the hands of the opposition and the enemy. So that is always a possibility once again. These commodities and services and the things that we send and the money may well end up literally being used against the people we are trying to help. The other thing that we tend to ignore here is we concentrate on the good things that we are going to accomplish. Miraculously, we are going to solve this problem by putting $10 million in today and $100 million in the next 5 years, and everything is going to be solved. We do not think about it failing, because that would be a negative, and we do not want to think about that. We do not think about the Constitution, and we do not think about who pays. Somebody always has to pay. This is token. Who cares about $10 million? When we take $10 million out of the economy, there is somebody who suffered; somebody did not get a house or somebody lost a job. But they are not identifiable. They do not have a lobbyist. They are lost. But they are penalized. There is always a cost. And even if we assume we have a surplus and the money is already in the budget, we still should be concerned because we are making a choice. We are saying that we are going to take this money and take the risk of sending it over there. Maybe it will help. Maybe I am right, maybe it will not do quite as much good as we think, but we make a trade-off. We say today that we will send this money with the hope that it will do good at the expense of a domestic program. Do my colleagues think every poor person in this country has been taken care of, their medical care needs or housing? So we do make choices continuously, but we forget about that. We never really think about the choices that we make, and there is always a trade-off. And we generally always forget about finding the point in the Constitution that gives us authority. In this case, this is the wrong authority, and it is not a proper interpretation of the Constitution as described in the committee report.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. It gives us an opportunity to at least condemn the Taliban in forcing the wearing of these symbols. Sometimes I think, though, that this type of legislation is more feel-good legislation, makes us feel better, but does not do a whole lot to solve our problems. I think it would be more important to take this opportunity to think about our policy of foreign interventionism. We have been involved in Afghanistan now for more than two decades, and have spent over $1 billion. Last year we spent $114 million in humanitarian aid. This year it is already $124 million. It is said that it is not sent to the Taliban, but the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), who is a bit of an expert on Afghanistan, just revealed to us earlier that indeed some of this money and some of this aid was designated to go to the Taliban-controlled areas. I think more important is that regardless of the intention of where we send the aid, the aid is beneficial to the government in charge. The Taliban is in charge. They can get control of aid, of food and other commodities, and use it as weapons, and they do. The point that I would like to make is after these many, many millions of dollars and over $1 billion have been spent, we have come to this. They are in worse shape than ever. Yes, we can condemn what they are doing, but we should question whether or not our policy in Afghanistan has really served us well, or served the people well. It may well be that when we send aid, that it literally helps the Taliban, because they do not have to then buy food. They can take their money and use it to enforce these rules and to be a more authoritarian society, to buy weapons. We do know that when we sent weapons in the eighties, those weapons actually ended up in the hands of the violent Taliban, and they are still in their hands to some degree. Yes, our policy is well-intended. We would like to do good and save all the suffering that is happening in this country. But quite frankly, it has not worked very well. We should question this. I believe we should assume some responsibility in the sense that our aid does not always do what it was supposed to do and actually ends up helping the very people that we detest. I think that is exactly what has happened here. It has been specifically pointed out that some of this aid has gone into the area where the Taliban has been helped and strengthened. All I am suggesting is, why not question this a little bit? Why should we go on decade after decade after decade expanding aid and getting these kinds of results that we all detest?

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

Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, we do not have time to get into the Marshall Plan, but there is a pretty strong case to indicate that the major part of the rebuilding of Europe came from private capital and not specifically from the immigration plan. But the point that I would like to answer to is the term ``isolationism.'' I am not a protectionist. I am not an isolationist. I am for openness, travel, trade. I vote consistently that way, so the term ``isolationist'' does not apply to the policies that I am talking about, because I am probably for more openness in trade and travel than most anybody in this body. So the term is not isolationism.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, thirty-six years ago Congress blatantly disregarded all constitutional limitations on its power over K-12 education by passing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). This act of massive federal involvement in education was sold to the American people with promises that federal bureaucrats had it within their power to usher in a golden age of education. Yet, instead of the promised nirvana, federal control over education contributed to a decline in education quality. Congress has periodically responded to the American people's concerns over education by embracing education ``reforms,'' which it promises are the silver bullet to fixing American schools. ``Trust us,'' proponents of new federal edcation programs say, we have learned from the mistakes of the past and all we need are a few billion more dollars and some new federal programs and we will produce the educational utopia in which ``all children are above average.'' Of course, those reforms only result in increasing the education bureaucracy, reducing parental control, increasing federal expenditures, continuing decline in education and an inevitable round of new ``reforms.'' Congress is now considering whether to continue this cycle by passing the national five-year plan contained in H.R. 1, the so-called ``No Child Left Behind Act.'' A better title for this bill is ``No Bureaucrat Left Behind'' because, even though it's proponents claim H.R. 1 restores power over education to states and local communities, this bill represents a massive increase in federal control over education. H.R. 1 contains the word ``ensure'' 150 times, ``require'' 477 times, ``shall'' 1,537 and ``shall not'' 123 times. These words are usually used to signify federal orders to states and localities. Only in a town where a decrease in the rate of spending increases is considered a cut could a bill laden with federal mandates be considered an increase in local control! H.R. 1 increases federal control over education through increases in education spending. Because ``he who pays the piper calls the tune,'' it is inevitable that increased federal expenditures on education will increase federal control. However, Mr. Chairman, as much as I object to the new federal expenditures in H.R. 1, my biggest concern is with the new mandate that states test children and compare the test with a national normed test such as the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP). While proponents of this approach claim that the bill respects state autonomy as states' can draw up their own tests, these claims fail under close observation. First of all, the very act of imposing a testing mandate on states is a violation of states' and local communities' authority, protected by the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution, to control education free from federal interference. Some will claim that this does not violate states' control because states are free to not accept federal funds. However, every member here knows that it is the rare state administrator who will decline federal funds to avoid compliance with federal mandates. It is time Congress stopped trying to circumvent the constitutional limitations on its authority by using the people's own money to bribe them into complying with unconstitutional federal dictates. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1 will lead to de facto, if not de jure, national testing. States will inevitably fashion their test to match the ``nationally-normed'' test so as to relieve their students and teachers of having to prepare for two different tests. Furthermore, states will feel pressure from employers, colleges, and perhaps even future Congresses to conform their standards with other national tests ``for the children's sake.'' After all, what state superintendent wants his state's top students denied admission to the top colleges, or the best jobs, or even student loans, because their state's test is considered inferior to the ``assessments'' used by the other 49 states? National testing will inevitably lead to a national curriculum as teachers will teach what their students need to know in order to pass their mandated ``assessment.'' After all, federal funding depends on how students perform on these tests! Proponents of this approach dismiss these concerns by saying ``there is only one way to read and do math.'' Well then what are the battles about phonics versus whole language or new math versus old math about? There are continuing disputes about teaching all subjects as well as how to measure mastery of a subject matter. Once federal mandatory testing is in place however, those arguments will be settled by the beliefs of whatever regime currently holds sway in DC. Mr. Chairman, I would like my colleagues to consider how comfortable they would feel supporting this bill if they knew that in five years proponents of fuzzy math and whole language could be writing the NAEP? Proponents of H.R. 1 justify the mandatory testing by claiming it holds schools ``accountable.'' Of course, everyone is in favor of holding schools accountable but accountable to whom? Under this bill, schools remain accountable to federal bureaucrats and those who develop the state tests upon which participating schools performance is judged. Even under the much touted Straight ``A''s proposal, schools which fail to live up to their bureaucratically-determined ``performance goals'' will lose the flexibility granted to them under this act. Federal and state bureaucrats will determine if the schools are to be allowed to participate in the Straight ``A''s programs and bureaucrats will judge whether the states are living up to the standards set in the state's education plan--yet this is the only part of the bill which even attempts to debureaucratize and decentralize education! Under the United States Constitution, the federal government has no authority to hold states ``accountable'' for their education performance. In the free society envisioned by the founders, schools are held accountable to parents, not federal bureaucrats. However, the current system of imposing oppressive taxes on America's families and using those taxes to fund federal education programs denies parental control of education by denying them control over their education dollars. As a constitutional means to provide parents with the means to hold schools accountable, I have introduced the Family Education Freedom Act (H.R. 368). The Family Education Freedom Act restores parental control over the classroom by providing American parents a tax credit of up to $3,000 for the expenses incurred in sending their child to private, public, parochial, other religious school, or for home schooling their children. The Family Education Freedom Act returns the fundamental principle of a truly free economy to America's education system: what the great economist Ludwig von Mises called ``consumer sovereignty.'' Consumer sovereignty simply means consumers decide who succeeds or fails in the market. Businesses that best satisfy consumer demand will be the most successful. Consumer sovereignty is the means by which the free society maximizes human happiness. When parents control the education dollar, schools must be responsive to parental demands that their children receive first-class educations, otherwise, parents will find alternative means to educate their children. Furthermore, parents whose children are in public schools may use their credit to improve their schools by purchasing of educational tools such as computers or extracurricular activities such as music programs. Parents of public school students may also wish to use the credit to pay for special services for their children. According to a recent Manhattan Institute study of the effects of state policies promoting parental control over education, a minimal increase in parental control boosts the average SAT verbal score by 21 points and the student's SAT math score by 22 points! The Manhattan Institute study also found that increasing parental control of education is the best way to improve student performance on the NAEP tests. I have also introduced the Education Quality Tax Cut Act (H.R. 369), which provides a $3,000 tax deduction for contributions to K-12 education scholarships as well as for cash or in-kind donations to private or public schools. The Education Quality Tax Cut Act will allow concerned citizens to become actively involved in improving their local public schools as well as help underprivileged children receive the type of education necessary to help them reach their full potential. I ask my colleagues: ``Who is better suited to lead the education reform effort: parents and other community leaders or DC-based bureaucrats and politicians?'' If, after the experience of the past thirty years, you believe that federal bureaucrats are better able to meet children's unique educational needs than parents and communities then vote for H.R. 1. However, if you believe that the failures of the past shows expanding federal control over the classroom is a recipe for leaving every child behind then do not settle for some limited state flexibility in the context of a massive expansion of federal power: Reject H.R. 1 and instead help put education resources back into the hands of parents by supporting my Family Education Freedom Act and Education Improvement Tax Cut Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hyde amendment. I do not think it is the strongest amendment that we could have, because ultimately, this debate will not end until we stop the Federal funding or taxpayer funding of population control overseas. But nevertheless, a vote for this amendment is a strong statement in opposition to tax-supported abortion. I would like to address the subject of the gag rule. As many of my colleagues know, if there is any violation whatsoever of any civil liberties or the Constitution, no matter how well intended a piece of legislation is, I will vote against it. On occasion even though I'm strong pro-life, I have occassionally voted against pro-life legislation for that reason. But let me tell my colleagues, this gag rule argument is a red herring if I have ever seen one. This has nothing to do with the first amendment. This would be like arguing that if we had a prohibition in this bill against passing out guns to civilians in some foreign nation, we would say, we cannot have a prohibition on that because of the second amendment, defending the right to own guns. It would be nonsense. So this has nothing to do with the first amendment; but it does have something to do with the rights of U.S. citizens, Mr. Chairman, in forcibly taking funds through taxes from people who believe strongly against abortion their rights are violated. Someone mentioned earlier that this was a violation of the religious beliefs of people overseas. What about the religious beliefs of the people in this country who are at the point of a gun forced to pay for these abortions? That is where the real violation is. It is not an infraction on the first amendment. As a matter of fact, I think this is a bad choice and bad tactics for those who support abortion, because this is like rubbing our nose into it when the people who feel so strongly against abortion are forced to pay for abortion, to pay for the propaganda and to pay for the lobbying to promote abortion. Ultimately, the solution will only come when we defund overseas population control.

Mr. PAUL

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

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise to join Mr. DeLay in expressing serious concern over the subject matter of his amendment, that is, the International Criminal Court (ICC). Considering the detestable substance of the balance of H.R. 1646, fortunately, the underlying bill is silent on the ICC other than to prohibit funds authorized for International Organizations from being used to advance the International Criminal Court. As such, I have some reservations with the amendment offered by Mr. DeLay because it singles out one class of American citizens for protection from ICC jurisdiction (thus violating the doctrine of equal protection), it supposes that if the Senate ratifies the ICC treaty, U.S. citizens would then be subject to the court it creates, and it illegitimately delegates authority over which U.S. citizens would be subject to the ICC to the U.S. president. Moreover, his amendment would authorize U.S. military actions to ``rescue'' citizens of allied countries from the grips of the ICC, even if those countries had ratified the treaty. It may be better to remain silent (as the bill does in this case) rather than lend this degree of legitimacy to the ICC. It is certainly my view (and that of the 21 cosponsors of my bill, HCR 23), that the President should immediately declare to all nations that the United States does not intend to assent to or ratify the International Criminal Court Treaty, also referred to as the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and the signature of former President Clinton to that treaty should not be construed otherwise. The problems with the ICC treaty and the ICC are numerous. The International Criminal Court Treaty would establish the International Criminal Court as an international authority with power to threaten the ability of the United States to engage in military action to provide for its national defense. The term ``crimes of aggression'', as used in the treaty, is not specifically defined and therefore would, by design and effect, violate the vagueness doctrine and require the United States to receive prior United Nations Security Council approval and International Criminal Court confirmation before engaging in military action--thereby putting United States military officers in jeopardy of an International Criminal Court prosecution. The International Criminal Court Treaty creates the possibility that United States civilians, as well as United States military personnel, could be brought before a court that bypasses the due process requirements of the United States Constitution. The people of the United States are self-governing, and they have a constitutional right to be tried in accordance with the laws that their elected representatives enact and to be judged by their peers and no others. The treaty would subject United States individuals who appear before the International Criminal Court to trial and punishment without the rights and protections that the United States Constitution guarantees, including trial by a jury of one's peers, protection from double jeopardy, the right to know the evidence brought against one, the right to confront one's accusers, and the right to a speedy trial. Today's amendment, rather than be silent as is currently the case with the bill, supposes that ratification would subject U.S. citizens to the ICC but the Supreme Court stated in Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416, 433 (1920), Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), and DeGeofrey v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267 (1890) that the United States Government may not enter into a treaty that contravenes prohibitory words in the United States Constitution because the treaty power does not authorize what the Constitution forbids. Approval of the International Criminal Court Treaty is in fundamental conflict with the constitutional oaths of the President and Senators, because the United States Constitution clearly provides that ``[a]ll legislative powers shall be vested in a Congress of the United States,'' and vested powers cannot be transferred. Additionally, each of the 4 types of offenses over which the International Criminal Court may obtain jurisdiction is within the legislative and judicial authority of the United States and the International Criminal Court Treaty creates a supranational court that would exercise the judicial power constitutionally reserved only to the United States and thus is in direct violation of the United States Constitution. In fact, criminal law is reserved to the states by way of the tenth amendment and, as such, is not even within the federal government's authority to ``treaty away.'' Mr. Chairman, the International Criminal Court undermines United States sovereignty and security, conflicts with the United States Constitution, contradicts customs of international law, and violates the inalienable rights of self-government, individual liberty, and popular sovereignty. Therefore, the President should declare to all nations that the United States does not intend to assent to or ratify the treaty and the signature of former President Clinton to the treaty should not be construed otherwise.

Mr. PAUL

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

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today, as we are getting ready to adjourn, we have left the foreign relations authorization bill unfinished. I serve on the Committee on International Relations, and I was anxious to present several amendments in dealing with especially the United Nations. Unfortunately, those amendments were not permitted. The amendments that we are dealing with I see as being very small token efforts to improve the bill, but not really dealing with the essence of whether or not we should be in the United Nations or further funding the peacekeeping missions and doing many of the things that I believe sincerely should not be engaged in if we followed the Constitution, and many Americans agree with this. I think we are at a point now where a growing number of Americans feel like we are not getting a fair shake from the United Nations. I have been preaching this message for quite a few years, but I believe the United Nations itself is starting to make my point. Just recently, in the last week, the United States was kicked off the Human Rights Commission, as well as the International Narcotics Control Board. This is an affront to our dignity and ought to point out to us that, although we pay the largest amount of money for peacekeeping missions and the largest amount of dues, here it is that, because there is disagreement, we are humiliated by being kicked off these commissions. I do not see the benefits of belonging to the United Nations. I see too many disadvantages. If it were just a discussion group and trying to bring people together, that would be one thing; but we have gone to an extreme. This is an extreme position, as far as I am concerned, to belong to the United Nations and deliver so much of our sovereignty to the United Nations today. Essentially since World War II, we have gone to war under U.N. resolutions. No longer does the President come to the Congress and ask for a declaration of war. U.N. resolutions are passed, and we send our troops throughout the world fighting and being engaged in war. That is not the way it is supposed to be. The Constitution is very clear on when we should be involved in war. The conditions are not improving at all. They are asking for more and more funding. At the same time we sacrifice more and more of our sovereignty. On occasion we will stand up and say no, we do not want to participate in the Kyoto treaty or the International Criminal Court, and that is good. But the whole idea of this world government under the United Nations I think is something we should really challenge. Just January of this past year, it was noted that the United Nations proposed for the first time, although not ready to be passed, that we have an international tax placed on currency transactions to raise billions of dollars to be spent for international activities. Now, you say well, that is probably just a proposal and it will never happen. But even today, in Bosnia, the United Nations peacekeepers over there are tax collectors. There are not enough revenues being collected for certain governments, and the UN peacekeepers are there collecting taxes. So it is already happening that we are involved in tax collecting. I think that is the wrong way to go, and certainly we should be considering slashing these funds. I would have liked to have seen the removal of all the funds for peacekeeping missions. There is no national sovereignty reasons why we should put American troops under U.N. command in areas like Bosnia. I think that is the wrong way to go, I do not think the American people support this, and that we should reconsider our position and our relationship in the United Nations. There are hundreds of millions of dollars here for population control around the world. Some would say, well, as long as we write some little sentence in here and say ``please do not use any of the money for abortion,'' that will alleviate their conscience about sending tax dollars over to do abortions in places like China and other places in the world. Well, that does not work, because all funds are fungible. Funds can be shifted around. If we send the money, it can be used. If we specifically say ``do not use them,'' they can just shift the funds around, so I see that as not being a very good idea. I would like to strike all the funds for population control. If we feel compelled to help other countries and teach them about birth control, it should be done voluntarily and through missionary work or some other way, but not to tax the American people and force them to subsidize events like abortion.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz- Balart) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise as a member of the Committee on International Relations but I would like to express my disappointment that of my amendments that were offered to the Committee on Rules, none of them were approved. That was a great disappointment to me. I will vote for the rule, recognizing the fact that it is hard to accommodate everyone, but nevertheless it is very clear that I have been an outspoken opponent of the United Nations, and the amendments that we will be discussing will really not deal with the essence of whether or not we should be involved as we are in foreign interventionism. I think we are tinkering on the edges and will not do much to improve the bill even if some of the amendments are passed, some of which I will support. I do think there are some serious things that we must consider. One is the issue of national sovereignty. To support H.R. 1646, one has to vote to give up some of our national sovereignty to the United Nations. There is $844 million for peacekeeping missions. We know now that we live in an age when we go to war not by declaration of the U.S. Congress but we go to war under U.N. resolutions. When we vote for this bill, and if this bill is supported, that concept of giving up our sovereignty and going to war under U.N. resolutions is supported. I would like to have struck from the bill all the money for population control. I will support the Mexican City language, but it really does not do that much. All funds are fungible, and if we provide hundreds of millions of dollars for population control and say please do not use it for abortion, it is just shifting some funds around. So there is no real prohibition on the use of American taxpayers' money for abortion if we do not strike all of these funds. The United Nations have already laid plans for an international tax. This January it was proposed that the U.N. would like to put a tax on all currency transactions to raise $1.5 billion. This is abhorrent. This should be abhorrent to all of us. It should be abhorrent to all Americans that we would have an international tax imposed by the United Nations. Already the United Nations is involved in tax collecting. In Bosnia right now, in Serbia, the U.N. has as one of their functions collecting taxes on goods coming into the country. There was a demonstration not too long ago by the Serbs objecting to this. The idea that U.N. soldiers, paid by the American taxpayers, are now tax collectors in Bosnia should arouse our concern. The only way, since we do not have the amendments to reject outright some of this wasteful and harmful funding, the only way we who believe that our sovereignty is being challenged is to reject 1646. I see no other way to address this subject, because it is not in our best interest to go along with this. The way the bill is written right now, we will support the Kyoto Treaty, and the International Criminal Court is also something that we should be contending with.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, almost on a daily basis, government officials reassure us there is no inflation to worry about. But, today's definition of inflation of rising prices as measured by an artificial CPI and PPI is seriously flawed. Rising prices are but one of the many consequences of true inflation--which is an increase in the supply of money and credit. To understand the perversities of inflation one must look to the money supply. The money supply, as measured by M3, rose an astounding $42 billion last week and is up a whopping $210 billion in the past ten weeks. MZM, another important measure of inflation, is rising at the rate of 27%. Now that's monetary debasement! But rising prices, a reflection of monetary inflation, should not be dismissed as so many government economists have done. The current first quarter GDP report shows a 3.3% rise in the personal consumption price index, well above the 1.9% recorded in last year's fourth quarter. And what about the record prices for gasoline? To pretend that gasoline prices pose little threat to American consumers is naive--not to mention the skyrocketing electricity bills they also face. The most serious economic myth that Federal Reserve economists perpetuate is that a booming economy causes prices to rise and a slowing economy will hold ``inflation'' in check. Ever since 1971, when the fiat dollar was established, records show that during each of our economic slumps, prices rose even faster than they did during periods of economic growth, supporting the argument that rising prices are a consequence of monetary policy. Although the economy is now slowing, and fuel prices are skyrocketing for the airlines, Delta pilots are receiving salary increases of between 24 and 34%. Other evidence of labor cost increases is now available even with the large and growing number of announced layoffs. Wage prices pressure is more often than not a consequence of monetary policy, not a tight labor market. Rising prices and the economic slowdown must be laid at the feet of the Federal Reserve. Likewise, the existing financial bubble is a consequence of the same policy of monetary expansion and artifically low interest rates. Although the NASDAQ bubble has already partially deflated, the entire world financial system suffers from the same distortion; and a lot more adjustment is required. Merely re-inflating with monetary expansion and manipulating interest rates will not solve the problems of debt, mal-investment and overcapacity that plague the system. Mismanaging world fiat currencies and working to iron out the trade imbalances that result, through a worldwide managed trade organization, will not suffice. We must one day address the subject of sound money and free market interest rates, where interest rates are not set by the central banks of the world. A sad consequence of today's conditions is that monetary policy encourages transfer of wealth and power to the undeserving. The victims of bad monetary policy then blame capitalism for the inequities. The leftist demonstrators at recent WTO, IMF, and World Bank meetings make a legitimate point that the current system has resulted in accumulation of wealth and power in the hands of some at the expense of others. But this is an expected consequence of monetary debasement, which generally leads to social unrest. But, blaming capitalism and freedom for the harm done by inflationism, special interest corporatism, and interventionism presents a danger to us all, since the case for commodity money and individual liberty is lost in the shouting. Unless this message is heard and distinguished from the current system, freedom and prosperity will be lost. Leaders of the current worldwide system that has evolved since the collapse of the Soviet empire pay lip service to free trade and free markets, but tragically they are moving us toward a fascist system of partnerships with government, big businesss, and international banking at the expense of the middle class and the poor.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am today introducing legislation to repeal the Selective Service Act and related parts of the US Code. Also, I am placing the attached article from the Taipei Times in today's Congressional Record. I fear that this source is not widely read among many in this body or our nation, so I am hopeful this action will serve to bring this letter to a much wider audience. The person who writes this letter is a law student in Taiwan. His arguments against conscription are similar to those offered by people in the United States who oppose the draft. The student argues that conscription is a violation of civil liberties, a costly and ineffective system that harms society and the economy as well as the rights of the individual conscripted, and a system that harms national defense rather than helping it. While we do not currently have conscription in the US we do have draft registration and each argument against the draft is equally applicable to our current selective service system and the registration requirement. I urge my colleagues to seriously consider the arguments against conscription raised in this article and cosponsor my legislation to repeal the Selective Service Act. [Taipei Times on line edition, Thurs. Apr. 26, 2001] Conscription is Harming Taiwan By Chang Yung-chien Some time ago, the media reported on would-be conscripts scrambling to grab a place in the ``alternative service'' to military conscription. There is now an uproar over President Chen Shul-blan's future son-in-law, who escaped doing his term of military service because he had gout. The issue of military service has again struck a sensitive chord in Taiwan's society. Why do so many people feel disgruntled? This writer has always advocated a volunteer military recruitment system. But this seems to be a politically incorrect view in a country that faces external threats. The difficulty of getting enough recruits and the increased burden that would be imposed on government coffers are the usual reasons given against a volunteer system. I find these reasons totally incomprehensible. Military recruitment is a public policy matter. It needs to undergo an analysis for cost-effectiveness. Why do we have ``reserve officers'' and ``alternative service'' systems? We have them precisely so that skilled people can be more valuable for the country if they are pulled out from the ranks to serve as platoon leaders or as cheap labor for high- tech companies. Once this point is clear, then the alternative service system will seem quite strange. Someone with a PhD in electrical engineering would be working in a high-tech company anyway if he were not doing alternative service. The only difference is that he would be getting a reasonable salary for his work. The conscription system forces conscripts to provide the same service for less pay. By comparison, an outstanding female with a PhD in electrical engineering can get paid according to her market value because she does not have to do military service. NVhy should we use a conscription system to provide cheap labor to corporations? Moreover, society as a whole has paid an enormous invisible price for the conscription system. Friends of mine waited almost a year to be conscripted--doing nothing (of course, two years of military service are also spent doing nothing). Still more people see their lifetime plans interrupted. They waste the most creative time of their lives writing military reports that do not help the nation's economy or the people's livelihood. How many people have left the country before conscription age just to evade those two years, and come back only after they are too old for conscription? How many people have cut their fingers, damaged their eyesight, or otherwise harmed their bodies? How can it be beneficial to the country? How many mutinies have we had in the armed forces? Our president, who can carry his wife to and from her wheelchair every day, did not have to do military service because of a problem with his ``hands.'' And the president's future son-in-law is busy running in I would also like to ask: Why can't I finish my studies before serving my country? Even if I have to serve two years as a conscript, I will be of far more use to the country providing legal services to ordinary citizens than just do drills and jogging. How much more of its human resources can Taiwan afford to waste? As for the question of not finding enough recruits, this should not be a problem as long as the Ministry of National Defense offers competitive salaries. If serving in the military simply means loafing around, then such service may be worth less than NT$10,000 a month. But there should be no such ``profession.'' If being a soldier is a high-risk profession, there should be a high salary to compensate for that risk. That may increase expenditures for the government, but it must be remembered that only people who can freely enter various professions on the job market can maximize their value. Unless we believe that the average productivity of conscription-age males is worth less than NT$10,000 or so per month (the monthly salary of an ordinary soldier), we cannot but agree that society as a whole would gain more wealth without conscription than the government coffers have to lose. Such losses might even be offset by increased government revenue from taxes on the gains made by those conscription-aged men who would be working in society instead. No talk about ``honor'' solves any problems. Everyone sets out from a rational, self-interested standpoint. What the state should do is maximize the benefits for society as a whole, not limit its thinking to military service. Maintaining a conscription system certainly does more harm than good. Those who wear the badge ``being a soldier is a good experience'' should ask themselves whether they would be willing to do it again.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Agriculture Education Freedom Act. This bill addresses a great injustice being perpetrated by the Federal Government on those youngsters who participate in programs such as 4-H or the Future Farmers of America. Under current tax law, children are forced to pay federal income tax when they sell livestock they have raised as part of an agricultural education program. Think about this for a moment. These kids are trying to better themselves, earn some money, save some money and what does Congress do? We pick on these kids by taxing them. It is truly amazing that with all the hand-wringing in Congress over the alleged need to further restrict liberty and grow the size of government ``for the children'' we would continue to tax young people who are trying to lead responsible lives and prepare for the future. Even if the serious social problems today's youth face could be solved by new federal bureaucracies and programs, it is still unfair to pick on those kids who are trying to do the right thing. These children are not even old enough to vote, yet we are forcing them to pay taxes! What ever happened to no taxation without representation? No wonder young people are so cynical about government! It is time we stopped taxing youngsters who are trying to earn money to go to college by selling livestock they have raised through their participation in programs such as 4-H or Future Farmers of America. Therefore, I call on my colleagues to join me in supporting the Agriculture Education Freedom Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, while it is the independent duty of each branch of the Federal Government to act Constitutionally, Congress will likely continue to ignore not only its Constitutional limits but earlier criticisms from Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2001, H.R. 503, would amend title 18, United States Code, for the laudable goal of protecting unborn children from assault and murder. However, by expanding the class of victims to which unconstitutional (but already-existing) Federal murder and assault statutes apply, the Federal Government moves yet another step closer to a national police state. Of course, it is much easier to ride the current wave of federalizing every human misdeed in the name of saving the world from some evil than to uphold a Constitutional oath which prescribes a procedural structure by which the nation is protected from what is perhaps the worst evil, totalitarianism. Who, after all, wants to be amongst those members of Congress who are portrayed as soft on violent crimes initiated against the unborn? Nevertheless, our Federal Government is, constitutionally, a government of limited powers. Article one, section eight, enumerates the legislative areas for which the U.S. Congress is allowed to act or enact legislation. For every other issue, the Federal Government lacks any authority or consent of the governed and only the State governments, their designees, or the people in their private market actions enjoy such rights to governance. The tenth amendment is brutally clear in stating ``The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.'' Our Nation's history makes clear that the U.S. Constitution is a document intended to limit the power of central government. No serious reading of historical events surrounding the creation of the Constitution could reasonably portray it differently. However, Congress does more damage than just expanding the class to whom Federal murder and assault statutes apply--it further entrenches and seemingly concurs with the Roe v. Wade decision (the Court's intrusion into rights of States and their previous attempts to protect by criminal statute the unborn's right not to be aggressed against). By specifically exempting from prosecution both abortionists and the mothers of the unborn (as is the case with this legislation), Congress appears to say that protection of the unborn child is not only a Federal matter but conditioned upon motive. In fact, the Judiciary Committee in marking up the bill, took an odd legal turn by making the assault on the unborn a strict liability offense insofar as the bill does not even require knowledge on the part of the aggressor that the unborn child exists. Murder statutes and common law murder require intent to kill (which implies knowledge) on the part of the aggressor. Here, however, we have the odd legal philosophy that an abortionist with full knowledge of his terminal act is not subject to prosecution while an aggressor acting without knowledge of the child's existence is subject to nearly the full penalty of the law. (With respect to only the fetus, the bill exempts the murderer from the death sentence--yet another diminution of the unborn's personhood status and clearly a violation of the equal protection clause.) It is becoming more and more difficult for congress and the courts to pass the smell test as government simultaneously treats the unborn as a person in some instances and as a non-person in others. In his first formal complaint to Congress on behalf of the federal Judiciary, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said ``the trend to federalize crimes that have traditionally been handled in state courts . . . threatens to change entirely the nature of our Federal system.'' Rehnquist further criticized Congress for yielding to the political pressure to ``appear responsive to every highly publicized societal ill or sensational crime.'' Perhaps, equally dangerous is the loss of another Constitutional protection which comes with the passage of more and more federal criminal legislation. Constitutionally, there are only three Federal crimes. These are treason against the United States, piracy on the high seas, and counterfeiting (and, because the constitution was amended to allow it, for a short period of history, the manufacture, sale, or transport of alcohol was concurrently a Federal and State crime). ``Concurrent'' jurisdiction crimes, such as alcohol prohibition in the past and federalization of murder today, erode the right of citizens to be free of double jeopardy. The fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifies that no ``person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . .'' In other words, no person shall be tried twice for the same offense. However, in United States v. Lanza, the high court in 1922 sustained a ruling that being tried by both the Federal Government and a State government for the same offense did not offend the doctrine of double jeopardy. One danger of unconstitutionally expanding the Federal criminal justice code is that it seriously increases the danger that one will be subject to being tried twice for the same offense. Despite the various pleas for federal correction of societal wrongs, a national police force is neither prudent nor constitutional. Occasionally the argument is put forth that States may be less effective than a centralized Federal Government in dealing with those who leave one State jurisdiction for another. Fortunately, the Constitution provides for the procedural means for preserving the integrity of State sovereignty over those issues delegated to it via the tenth amendment. The privilege and immunities clause as well as full faith and credit clause allow States to exact judgments from those who violate their State laws. The Constitution even allows the Federal Government to legislatively preserve the procedural mechanisms which allow States to enforce their substantive laws without the Federal Government imposing its substantive edicts on the States. Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2 makes provision for the rendition of fugitives from one State to another. While not self-enacting, in 1783 Congress passed an act which did exactly this. There is, of course, a cost imposed upon States in working with one another rather than relying on a national, unified police force. At the same time, there is a greater cost to centralization of police power. It is important to be reminded of the benefits of federalism as well as the cost. There are sound reasons to maintain a system of smaller, independent jurisdictions--it is called competition and, yes, governments must, for the sake of the citizenry, be allowed to compete. We have obsessed so much over the notion of ``competition'' in this country we harangue someone like Bill Gates when, by offering superior products to every other similarly-situated entity, he becomes the dominant provider of certain computer products. Rather than allow someone who serves to provide value as made obvious by their voluntary exchanges in the free market, we lambaste efficiency and economies of scale in the private marketplace. Curiously, at the same time, we further centralize government, the ultimate monopoly and one empowered by force rather than voluntary exchange. When small governments becomes too oppressive with their criminal laws, citizens can vote with their feet to a ``competing'' jurisdiction. If, for example, one does not want to be forced to pay taxes to prevent a cancer patient from using medicinal marijuana to provide relief from pain and nausea, that person can move to Arizona. If one wants to bet on a football game without the threat of government intervention, that person can live in Nevada. As government becomes more and more centralized, it becomes much more difficult to vote with one's feet to escape the relatively more oppressive governments. Governmental units must remain small with ample opportunity for citizen mobility both to efficient governments and away from those which tend to be oppressive. Centralization of criminal law makes such mobility less and less practical. Protection of life (born or unborn) against initiations of violence is of vital importance. So vitally important, in fact, it must be left to the States' criminal justice systems. We have seen what a legal, constitutional, and philosophical mess results from attempts to federalize such an issue. Numerous States have adequately protected the unborn against assault and murder and done so prior to the Federal Government's unconstitutional sanctioning of violence in the Roe v. Wade decision. Unfortunately, H.R. 503 ignores the danger of further federalizing that which is properly reserved to State governments and, in so doing, throws legal philosophy, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the insights of Chief Justice Rehnquist out with the baby and the bathwater.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, President Bush deserves much credit for the handling of the spy plane crisis. However, he has received significant criticism from some of his own political supporters for saying he was very sorry for the incident. This seems a very small price to pay for the safe return of 24 American military personnel. Trade with China, though, should be credited with helping to resolve this crisis. President Bush in the diplomatic handling of this event avoided overly strong language and military threats which would have done nothing to save the lives of these 24 Americans. This confrontation, however, provides an excellent opportunity for us to reevaluate our policy toward China and other nations. Although trade with China for economic reasons encourages both America and China to work for a resolution of the spy plane crisis, our trading status with China should be reconsidered. Mr. Speaker, what today is called ``free trade'' is not exactly that. Although we engage in trade with China, it is subsidized to the tune of many billions of dollars through the Export-Import Bank, the most of any country in the world. We also have been careless over the last several years in allowing our military secrets to find their way into the hands of the Chinese government. At the same time we subsidize trade with China, including sensitive military technology, we also build up the Taiwanese military, while continuing to patrol the Chinese border with our spy planes. It is a risky, inconsistent policy. The question we must ask ourselves is how would we react if we had Chinese airplanes flying up and down our coast and occupying the air space of the Gulf of Mexico? We must realize that China is a long way from the U.S. and is not capable nor is showing any signs of launching an attack on any sovereign territory of the United States. Throughout all of China's history, she has never pursued military adventurism far from her own borders. That is something that we cannot say about our own policy. China traditionally has only fought for secure borders, predominantly with India, Russia, Japan, and in Korea against the United States, and that was only when our troops approached the Yalu River. It should not go unnoticed that there was no vocal support from any of our allies for our spy missions along the Chinese coast. None of our allies bothered to condemn the action of the Chinese military aircraft, although it technically was cause of the accident. Do not forget that when a Russian aircraft landed in Japan in 1976, it was only after many months we returned the plane to Russia, in crates. Although there is no doubt that we technically have legal grounds for making these flights, the question really is whether or not it is wise to do so or necessary for our national security. Actually, a strong case can be made that our national security is more threatened by our patrolling the Chinese coast than if we avoided such flights altogether. After a half century, it is time to reassess the need for such flights. Satellite technology today gives us the ability to watch and to listen to almost everyone on Earth. If there is a precise need for this type of surveillance for the benefit of Taiwan, then the Taiwanese ought to be involved in this activity, not American military personnel. We should not feel so insecure that we need to threaten and intimidate other countries in order to achieve some vague psychological reassurance that we are still the top military power in the world. This is unnecessary and may well represent a weakness rather than a strength. The Taiwanese Relations Act essentially promises that we will defend Taiwan at all costs and should be reevaluated. Morally and constitutionally a treaty cannot be used to commit us to war at some future date. One generation cannot declare war for another. Making an open-ended commitment to go to war, promising troops, money and weapons is not permitted by the Constitution. It is clear that war can be declared only by a Congress currently in office. Declaring war cannot be circumvented by a treaty or agreement committing us towards some future date. If a previous treaty can commit future generations to war, the House of Representatives, the body closest to the people, would never have a say in the most important issue of declaring war. We must continue to believe and be confident that trading with China is beneficial to America. Trade between Taiwan and China already exists and should be encouraged. It is a fact that trade did help to resolve this current conflict without a military confrontation. Concern about our negative trade balance with the Chinese is irrelevant. Balance of payments are always in balance. For every dollar we spend in China, those dollars must come back to America. Maybe not buying American goods as some would like, but they do come back as they serve to finance our current account deficit. Free trade, it should be argued, is beneficial even when done unilaterally, providing a benefit to our consumers. But we should take this opportunity to point out clearly and forcefully the foolishness of providing subsidies to the Chinese through such vehicles as the Export- Import Bank. We should be adamantly opposed to sending military technology to such a nation or to any nation, for that matter. It is interesting to note that recent reports reveal that missiles coming from Israel and financed by American foreign aid were seen on the fighter plane that caused the collision. It should be equally clear that arming the enemies of our trading partners does not make a whole lot of sense either. For American taxpayers to continue to finance the weaponry of Taiwan and to maintain an open commitment to send troops if the border dispute between Taiwan and China erupts into violence is foolhardy and risky. Don't forget that President Eisenhower once warned that there always seems to be a need for a ``monster to slay'' in order to keep the military industries busy and profitable. To continue the weapons buildup, something we are always engaged in around the world, requires excuses for such expenditures--some of these are planned, some contrived, and some accidental. When we follow only a military approach without trading in our dealings with foreign nations, and in particular with China, we end up at war, such as we did in the Korean War. Today, we are following a policy where we have less military confrontation with the Chinese and more trade, so relations are much better. A crisis like we have just gone through is more likely to be peacefully resolved to the benefit of both sides. But what we need is even less military involvement, with no military technology going to China and no military weapons going to Taiwan. We have a precise interest in increasing true free trade; that is, trade that is not subsidized nor managed by some world government organization like the WTO. Maintaining peace would then be much easier. We cannot deny that China still has many internal moral, economic and political problems that should be resolved. But so do we. Their internal problems are their own. We cannot impose our views on them in dealing with these issues, but we should be confident enough that engaging in free trade with them and setting a good example are the best ways for us to influence them in coming to grips with their problems. We have enough of our own imperfections in this country in dealing with civil liberties, and we ought not to pretend that we are saintly enough to impose our will on others in dealing with their problems. Needless to say we don't have the legal authority to do so either. During the Cuban missile crisis a resolution was achieved under very dangerous circumstances. Quietly, President Kennedy had agreed to remove the missiles from Turkey that we pointed at the Soviets, making the point that American missiles on the Soviet borders was not unlike the Soviets missiles on the American borders. A few months later, quietly, the United States removed these missiles, and non one suffered. The Cold War was eventually won by the United States, but our national security was not threatened by the removal of those missiles. It could be argued that the fact that our missiles were in Turkey and pointed at the Soviets was more of a threat to our national security because that motivated the Soviets to put their missiles in Cuba. It would do no harm to our national security for us to quietly, in time, stop the potentially dangerous and unnecessary spy missions that we have pursued for over 50 years along the Chinese border. James Bamford recently wrote in The New York Times of an episode that occurred in 1956 when Eisenhower was president. On a similar spy mission off the Chinese coast the Chinese Air Force shot down one of our planes, killing 16 American crewmen. In commenting on the incident President Eisenhower said, ``We seem to be conducting something that we cannot control very well. If planes were flying 20 to 50 miles from our shores we would be very likely to shoot them down if they came in closer, whether through error or not.'' We have been pursuing these missions near China for over 50 years. It's time to reconsider the wisdom and the necessity of such missions, especially since we are now engaged in trade with this nation. Bellicose and jingoistic demands for retaliation and retribution are dangerous, and indeed are a greater threat to our national security than relying on satellite technology for gathering the information that we might need. A policy of peaceful, non-subsidized trade with China would go a long way to promoting friendly and secure relations with the Chinese people. By not building up the military arsenal of the Taiwanese, Taiwan will be forced to pursue their trade policies and investments with China, leading to the day where the conflict between these two powers can be resolved peacefully. Today, it looks like there's a much better chance of North and South Korea getting together and solving their dispute than was the case in the 1950s, when we sent hundreds of thousands of troops and millions of bombs to resolve the conflict--which was unsuccessful. We should have more confidence that peaceful trade is a much stronger weapon than all the military force that we can provide. That same argument can be made for our dealings with Vietnam today. We did not win with weapons of war in the 1960s, yet we are now much more engaged in a peaceful trade with the people of Vietnam. Our willingness over the past hundred years to resort to weapons to impose our will on others has generally caused a resentment of America rather than respect. It is now time to reassess our entire foreign policy of military worldwide intervention. Staying neutral in world conflicts while showing a willingness to trade with all nations anxious to trade with us will do more to serve the cause of world peace than all the unnecessary and provocative spy missions we pursue around the globe. I recommend the following article by Orlando Sentinel columnist Charley Reese for its sober analysis of the recent events of China. [From the Orlando Sentinel, April 22, 2001] So You Want To Go To War With China? (By Charley Reese) I've been intrigued by the responses to a column I wrote suggesting that our China policy ought to be spelled out and submitted to the American people for approval. First, some people irately took issue with my calling the airplane a ``spy plane.'' It is not, they stoutly contend, because it is overtly intercepting electronic signals. Let's suppose a clearly marked police van parked on the public street in front of your house. Let's suppose the officers began to intercept your telephone calls, whatever information appeared on your computer screen and even your verbal conversations. Now, would you feel spied upon or would you say, ``Hey, that's only electronic intercepts, and they are operating openly on a public street.'' Then there is the more logical argument that we need to spy on the Chinese in case we have to fight them. My point exactly. Why do we have to fight them? We certainly should not fight them over Taiwan. Our own beloved Jimmy Carter unilaterally abrogated the mutual- defense treaty. Our own tough anti-Communist Richard Nixon publicly agreed that Taiwan is part of China and, therefore, falls under the category of China's internal affairs. What's to fight about? If Taiwan declares its independence, I would expect Chinese leaders would emulate Abraham Lincoln and use force to prevent it. For all my little old Southern life, I've heard Yankees say Lincoln was right. What's good for Honest Abe is good for Honest Jiang, right? Then there is the argument that we must not lose our position as a ``Pacific power.'' Geographically, since we granted independence to the Philippines, we are not a Pacific power. I see no reason why we should wish to be a Pacific power in a military sense. What's to be gained? The two natural Pacific powers are Japan and China. The funniest response has been alarm about China's ``military buildup.'' I would say that if China did not engage in a military buildup after watching the United States go bomb and missile crazy during the past 20 years that it would be derelict in its duty. But let's keep this in perspective. The Chinese have about 20 ICBMs; we have hundreds. Their defense expenditures are somewhere around $50 billion; ours, in excess of $268 billion. Furthermore, Chinese strategy, as discussed in their own military journals, is to develop the ability to defeat us in their immediate vicinity. That means clearly that if we keep our nose out of their affairs, no military clashes are likely to occur. Civilians, too, need to be reminded that military forces are about making war. We should never have changed from the honest name, War Department, to the Newspeak name, Defense Department. Armed forces are either fighting wars, training to fight wars or planning to fight wars. That's what they do. It's also what the military forces of every other country do. Just because a country's military makes contingency plans to fight some other country doesn't mean that they intend to initiate a war. Unfortunately America is full of jingoists, usually pot- bellied gray-hairs or 4-F journalists and policy wonks. They are always eager for the teens and twentysomethings to go somewhere and get killed or maimed. In most cases, within five years of their youthful deaths, nobody can remember why they had to get killed. Korea ended up divided exactly the same way after the war as before the war. Vietnam became communist, which it could have become without 57,000 Americans dying in it. We went to war presumably to preserve the oil contracts with Kuwait Inc., and now Americans are driving around with gasoline refined from Iraqi oil. As for you ``love-it-or-leave-it'' blockheads, you leave it and go fight instead of sending someone else if you are such grand warriors. What I love are the people and the land, not the government. The lives of a nation's youth are its most precious treasure, and I'm damned if I will stay silent while armchair generals propose to risk that treasure in some stupid, ignorant, corrupt or unnecessary war.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today I am placing into the record the attached article from yesterday's Wall Street Journal, as I believe it accurately depicts the problem that many nations face in attempting to resolve their difference once our government decides to insert itself into internal or regional matters in other parts of the world. Instead of hindering peace in the ways pointed out by this article, we can play a constructive role in the world. However, to do so will require a change of policy. By maintaining open trade and friendly diplomatic relations with all countries we could fulfill that role as a moral compass that our founders envisioned. Unfortunately, as this article shows, our current policy of intervention is having the exact opposite effect. South Korea Fears Bush Team Is Hindering Detente With North (By Jay Solomon) Seoul, South Korea--Amid heightened tension between the U.S. and China over the downing of an American spy plane, frustration is mounting inside President Kim Dae Jung's government that President Bush's Asia policies are undercutting ties between North and South Korea. President Kim has made his peace initiative toward reclusive North Korea--with whom the South remains technically at war--a cornerstone of his administration. Mr. Bush's advisers say they are still reviewing the merits of engaging the communist North, but a number of Mr. Kim's aides fear time is running out since his term ends next year. Fueling this unease among some in Mr. Kim's government is their belief that the Bush administration views peace on the Korean Peninsula as working against its principal security interests. Central to this is Mr. Bush's plans to build a national missile-defense shield, for which North Korea's missile program is a primary justification. U.S. military and intelligence officials have played up in recent weeks both the military and nuclear threats posed by North Korea's military, re-emphasizing the Pentagon's need to maintain 37,000 troops in South Korea. Now, the U.S.-China standoff over an American surveillance plane that landed on China's Hainan island is fanning fears that a renewed Cold War will grip North Asia. ``The U.S.'s dependence upon a Cold War strategy . . . is causing the detente mood (on the Korean Peninsula) to collapse,'' says Jang Sung Min, a legislator with the Millennium Democratic Party and an aide to Mr. Kim. He fears the U.S.'s pursuit of missile defense will exacerbate this tension by leading to a renewed arms race between regional powers China, Japan and Russia. The South Korean Foreign Ministry, while officially maintaining that it is too early to judge Mr. Bush's policy vis-a-vis North Korea, also is expressing skittishness toward Washington's intentions. Spokesman Kim Euy Taek says the ministry hopes ``the Bush administration will rethink its skepticism'' toward North Korea after completing its review of the Clinton team's policies toward Pyongyang. For its part, the Bush administration doesn't accept the premise that its actions are undermining Seoul's peace initiative. ``We continue to strongly support President Kim's policy of engagement with North Korea,'' a State Department spokesman in Washington says. ``We share a common concern about the nature and level of the military threat from North Korea, and we continue to discuss ways to deal with that.'' Just three months ago, expectations were high that a peace pact could be signed between allies South Korea and the U.S. and North Korea. Then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright had held an unprecedented meeting with North Korea's supreme leader, Kim Jong II, after the North sent a senior envoy to Washington. President Clinton was seriously considering a deal in January where North Korea would scrap some weapons programs in exchange for financial aid. Kim Dae Jung's government followed up by scheduling a March summit with Mr. Bush in Washington in hopes of picking up where Mr. Clinton left off. Instead Mr. Bush voiced ``skepticism'' toward Kim Jong II's intentions and placed all talks with North Korea on hold pending the Clinton-policy review. This rebuke has fueled a marked deterioration in North- South relations. Last month, Pyongyang halted peace talks with the South, a sporting exchange has been cancelled, and Kim Jong II's proposed trip to South Korea during the first half of the year has been delayed to the second half--at the earliest. Now, President Kim and his supporters are left hoping Mr. Bush's team will quickly wrap up their review of North Korea policy and sign on to new peace talks. If not, however, there is a helpless sense of what can actually be achieved without Washington's imprimatur. Hahn Hwa Kap, a senior member of President Kim's Millennium Democratic Party, says: ``The longer this process takes, the longer it will take for North- South relations to improve.''

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I commend to the attention of members an editorial appearing in today's Wall Street Journal which is headlined ``Free Trade Doesn't Require Treaties''. The column is authored by Pierre Lemieux, a professor of economics at the University of Quebec. Professor Lemieux seems to grasp quite well what few in Congress have come to understand--that is, ``The primary rationale for free trade is not that exporters should gain larger markets, but that consumers should have more choice--even if the former is a consequence of the latter.'' Mr. Lemieux went on to point out that the leaders of the 34 participating states in the recent Quebec summit ``are much keener on managed trade than on free trade and more interested in income redistribution and regulation than in the rooting out of trade restrictions.'' The professor's comments are not unlike those of the late economist Murray N. Rothbard, devotee of the methodologically-superior Austrian school, who, with respect to NAFTA, had the following to say: [G]enuine free trade doesn't require a treaty (or its deformed cousin, a `trade agreement'; NAFTA is called an agreement so it can avoid the constitutional requirement of approval by two-thirds of the Senate). If the establishment truly wants free trade, all it has to do is to repeal our numerous tariffs, import quotas, anti-dumping laws, and other American-imposed restrictions of free trade. No foreign policy or foreign maneuvering in necessary. In truth, the bipartisan establishment's fanfare of ``free trade'' (and the impending request for fast track authority) fosters the opposite of genuine freedom of exchange. Whereas genuine free traders examine free markets from the perspective of the consumer (each individual), the mercantilist examines trade from the perspective of the power elite; in other words, from the perspective of the big business in concert with big government. Genuine free traders consider exports a means of paying for imports, in the same way that goods in general are produced in order to be sold to consumers. But the mercantilists want to privilege the government business elite at the expense of all consumers, be they domestic or foreign. Mr. Speaker, again I commend Mr. Lemieux's column and encourage the recognition ``that free trade is but the individual's liberty to exchange across political borders.'' [From the Wall Street Journal, Apr. 24, 2001] Free Trade Doesn't Require Treaties (By Pierre Lemieux) Montreal.--Three-quarters of a century before the Summit of the Americas convened in Quebec City last weekend, John Maynard Keynes marveled at globalization. ``[T]he inhabitant of London could order by telephone, sipping his morning tea in bed, the various products of the whole earth. . . .'' Keynes wrote. ``[H]e could at the same time and by the same means adventure his wealth in the natural resources and new enterprise of any quarter of the world. . . . [H]e could secure forthwith, if he wished, cheap and comfortable means of transit to any country or climate without passport or other formality.'' The decades preceding World War I were a period of globalization that was at least as extensive as today's. To the extent that the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) moves this continent to ward freer trade, it would help recover the lost promise of the pre-1914 world. But the Quebec summit sent conflicting messages, none of them revolutionary. The leaders of the 34 participating states showed that they are much keener on managed trade than on free trade, and more interested in income redistribution and regulation than in the rooting out of trade restrictions. ``The creation of a free trade area is not an end in itself,'' said Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien. With excruciating political correctness, he added: ``We have focused on a global action plan of co-operation to reduce poverty, protect the environment, promote the adoption of labor standards and encourage corporate responsibility.'' The participants' ``Plan of Action'' contained measures that range from tobacco regulation and gun control to the monitoring of financial transactions. What of the ``no passport'' world celebrated by Keynes? In Quebec, as at other international trade meetings, state representatives behaved as agents of their country's exporters. You give us this ``concession,'' they intone, and we will allow your exporters to enter our markets in return. Yet this misrepresents grossly the nature of trade and a free economy. The primary rationale for free trade is not that exporters should gain larger markets, but that consumers should have more choice--even if the former is a consequence of the latter. By presenting themselves as members of an exporters' club, trade negotiators lay themselves open to attack by those who claim that free trade only works to the benefit of corporations. Economists have known for centuries that free trade can be promoted without free-trade agreements. A country's inhabitants would obtain many of the advantages of free trade if only their own government would stop imposing restrictions on imports. Behind the veil of financial transactions, products are ultimately exchanged against products, so that the more imports that come into a country, the more will foreign demand grow for its exports. Or else, foreign exporters will have to invest in the country, thereby creating a trade deficit; nothing wrong with that either. In other words, if you want free trade, just trade. Much of the pre-World War I free trade was, indeed, due to Britain's unilateral free-trade policies. Trade agreements are only helpful to the extent that they help tame domestic producers' interests, support the primacy of consumers, and lock-in the gains from trade. Such treaties should not aim at reducing competition by pursuing other goals, of the sort embraced by the heads of state at Quebec. That would amount to no more than managed trade, the pursuit of which, paradoxically, might be said to unite both the leaders present and the mobs demonstrating against them. William Watson, a Canadian economist, has noted in the Financial Post that the demonstrators who don't trust governments to negotiate free trade come, contradictorily, from political constituencies generally known for their blind faith in government. As for the small group of anarchists, they apparently do not realize that closed borders, and the prohibition of capitalist acts between consenting adults, actually increase state power. On one stretch of Saturday's march, demonstrators wore large bar codes taped to their mouths, as if free trade meant turning them into speechless numbers. How droll! These demonstrators were certainly, and perhaps proudly, carrying in their wallets government-imposed Social Security numbers, drivers' licenses and Medicare cards, which, surely, have made them numbered state cattle. Another fabulous irony: American would-be demonstrators complained about being denied entry into Canada, while their entire message is predicated on tighter borders. Once we realize that free trade is but the individual's liberty to exchange across political borders, it is easy to see that forbidding it requires punishment or threats of punishment. You have to fine or jail the importer who doesn't abide by trade restrictions. In FTAA debates as in other trade issues, a source of much confusion is the failure to realize that free trade is a consequence of individual sovereignty.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the markets today are reeling. The financial markets are indeed in big trouble. This could mean a couple of things to all of us. First, it could mean economic hardship for many of our citizens. It also could mean that our budget figures will be completely changed here in the not-too-distant future, and we should be paying attention. Some people claim that they are not quite sure why markets go up and all of a sudden crash; and others say if only Alan Greenspan would just print more money, inflate the currency faster, lower the interest rates, all would be well. But I do not think it is that simple. It is very clear that we have these cycles and these booms coming from a monetary system that is pure fiat. Fiat money means that the money is created out of thin air, and the characteristic of a fiat monetary system is that you have overspeculation, you have stock market booms, you have stock market crashes, and you have a business cycle. This comes from the mismanagement of money, mainly because man, in his efforts to plan, to have economic central planning through monetary policy, is incapable of providing the information necessary that a free market is supposed to have. Only a free market can tell us what interest rates should be or what the money supply should be. But we have become dependent on a Federal Reserve system that pretends to know all these things, and we have allowed Alan Greenspan to believe that he can regulate the entire economy as well as the stock market by the Open Market Committee. Inflation is nothing more than the creation of new money out of thin air. Sometimes it raises prices in certain areas, and other times in other places. But the whole principle of fiat money is when you create new money, you devalue/lower the value of the dollar. This is what is happening. Right now we are increasing the money supply as measured by MZM at the rate of 20 percent per year. This means that, ultimately, that dollar that we use to purchase goods and services will go down in value. And yet the only thing that we hear about is the cry to the Federal Reserve, just print more money, faster, because that will save us all. It will raise the stock market; it will make sure that the economy does not go down and go into a downturn. This is not the case. Ultimately what we have to have is monetary reform, currency reform. We have to have a time when once again we have money that cannot be created out of thin air. We have to have money of value, something that governments and politicians cannot create out of thin air. Unless we address that, we are going to continue with these problems. This can be very serious. Just in the last year there has been $4 trillion of value lost in the stock market. Of course, it was artificially high, and now it is going to be artificially low, and these sudden changes reflect the disequilibrium built into the system once we have a monetary system of this sort. In 1996, the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board talked about the exuberance, the irrational exuberance in the stock market; and yet I think he knew, I certainly knew, and others knew, that there was irrational exuberance, because even at that time we were printing money like crazy. There was overspeculation. If he had been seriously concerned about the exuberance getting out of control in 1996, he might have considered not inflating the currency quite so rapidly, not devaluing the money quite so rapidly. But what has he done since that time? The Federal Reserve has literally created $2.3 trillion of new money since 1996, further creating a bigger bubble, which eventually had to collapse, and that is what we are in the midst of. It can be tough. It is going to be tough for a lot of people. We can have this economic downturn, and this means jobs and a standard of living that will be threatened. This type of a monetary system also encourages us to do things unwisely. When interest rates are lower than they are supposed to be, we borrow more money and we do not save as much money, so savings has a negative rate. Yet people are way in debt, business people are in debt, and then business people are actually encouraged to do things that are not wise. They overbuild; they build into the system overcapacity and mal-investment which eventually has to be cleansed out of the system. So this mantra of saying all we need is more inflation will not work. Inflation caused the problem. The inflation of the monetary system is the problem. To believe that all we need is more inflation to solve the problem is a serious error. We need currency reform.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, today I must vote against HCR 41. While I certainly offer my personal sympathy to the victims in El Salvador, and also join in encouraging relief agencies to increase their assistance to these individuals, I cannot support this resolution. In the past I have complained that similar bills have come to the House Floor without going through the committee process. In this instance the committees were included and I applaud the Chairman for ensuring we had an opportunity to discuss this issue at committee. I am also grateful to the committee staff who worked with me in helping facilitate that discussion. At the subcommittee I introduced an amendment for discussion purposes only. That amendment would have deleted the specific references to governmental assistance contained in this bill. Had that amendment been adopted I could have supported this resolution. Simply, I believe it is not proper for us to force taxpayers in this country to provide this kind of assistance by having the IRS collect these funds. Next, I believe that the Red Cross, for example, would not only be a more sympathetic entity for the purposes of collecting funds used for relief, but also that it would be a more efficient distributor of such funds than are the plethora of government agencies referenced in this resolution.