Ron Paul

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act of 2000 for several reasons. The bill threatens Internet privacy, invites Federal Government regulation of the Internet and tramples States' rights. H.R. 3125 establishes a precedent for Federal content regulation of the Internet. By opening this Pandora's box, supporters of the bill ignore the unintended consequences. The principle will be clearly established that the Federal Government should intervene in Internet expression. This principle could be argued in favor of restrictions on freedom of expression and association. Disapprove of gambling? Let the government step in and ban it on the Internet! Minority rights are obviously threatened by majority whims. The bill calls for Federal law enforcement agencies, such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation, to expand surveillance in order to enforce the proposed law. In order to enforce this bill (should it become law), law enforcement would have to obtain access to an individual's computer to know if one is gambling online. Perhaps Internet Service Providers can be enlisted as law enforcement agents in the same way that bank tellers are forced to spy on their customers under the Bank Secrecy Act? It was this sort of intrusion that caused such a popular backlash against the ``Know Your Customer'' proposal. Several States have already addressed the issue, and Congress should recognize States' rights. The definition of ``gambling'' in the bill appears narrow but could be ``reinterpreted'' to include online auctions or even day trading (a different sort of gambling). Those individuals who seek out such thrills will likely soon find a good substitute which will justify the next round of federal Internet regulation.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Yes. This is an amendment that I have brought up on several occasions. As the gentlewoman just mentioned, we have voted on it. She cited the votes that we have had on previous occasions. We have done this before. The one question that they have is whether or not these funds can be used for lobbying. Of course the Mexico City language, the funds are permitted to be used for lobbying and prevention of lobbying for the change in the promotion and the propagandizing for abortion and birth control. I would say this conforms with the Constitution, it conforms with this bill, it conforms with what we have done for the past several years, and it is strictly, narrowly defined as a prohibition of funds to be used to perform population control.

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

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, my amendment strikes all the funding for international population control, birth control, abortion, and family planning. This is not an authorized constitutional expenditure. It should not be spent in this manner. More importantly, in a practical way, it addresses the problem of fungibility. Because so often we appropriate funds, whether it is funding for family planning with restrictions against abortion or whether we give economic aid or whether we give military aid. All funds are fungible. So, in a very serious way, we subsidize and support abortion to any country that participates once we send them funds. This amendment addresses that by striking all these funds which are allocated for population control. Population control and birth control in many of these nations is a serious personal affront to many of their social mores in these countries. Also, it is an affront to the American taxpayer because it requires that American taxpayers be forced through their taxing system to subsidize something they consider an egregious procedure. That is abortion. These funds go to paying for IUDs, Depo-Provera, Norplant, spermicides, condoms. Just recently a study came out that showed that the spermicidal, the nonoxynol-9, is something that is paid for with these funds. Unfortunately, this spermicidal enhances the spread of AIDS. Talk about unintended consequences. Here we are, the other side, who likes this kind of spending, they do it with good intentions; and at the same time, it literally backfires and spreads AIDS inadvertently. For this reason, I offer this amendment to strike all these funds because there is no other way to stop the use of these funds once the funds get there, no matter what the restrictions are. The Mexico City language is something I support and I vote for, and the attempt is very sincere to try to stop the abuse of the way these funds are used. But quite frankly the Mexico City language does not do a whole lot. If the President wants to suspend that language, he can and he takes a penalty of $12 million, a 3 percent reduction in the amount of money that becomes available for these programs. It goes from $385 million down to $373 million and the President can do what he wants. So there is really no prohibition. We as American taxpayers do support these programs. You say, Oh, no, they don't. We put prohibitions. They're not allowed to use it for abortion. That is not true. I mean, the language is true; but it does not accomplish that. What it accomplishes is that these funds go in for buying birth control pills and condoms, and the money that would have been spent on birth control pills and condoms go and is used to do the abortion. I believe in the fungibility argument in its entirety, not just in the family planning. As soon as you give funds in any way whatsoever to a country such as China that endorses abortion, I mean, we are participants, we are morally bound to say that we are a participant in those acts. Even though we say, I hope you don't do it and you shouldn't do it and we're not authorizing you to do it, we have to remember that funds are fungible and that they can be used in this manner. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me see if I can explain as an obstetrician the fundamentals of the birds and the bees, about the fundamentals of law. Under the Constitution we are not permitted to do these things. I agree with much of what has been said. I believe in birth control, and I believe it should be voluntary. But this is not voluntary on the part of the American taxpayer. They are the ones who suffer the consequence of the involuntary compulsion of the tax collector coming and compelling the American taxpayer to fund things that they find immoral and wrong. That is the lack of voluntary approach that you have. Yes, there are a lot of good intentions. I think that is very good. But there are a lot of complications that come from these procedures. As I mentioned before, this nonoxynol, it is a spermicidal, and it increases the spread of AIDS. Good intentions, unintended consequences. The American taxpayers are subsidizing this. What we are saying is that there is a better approach. There is a voluntary approach through donations, through our churches. But not through the compulsion of the IRS telling the American taxpayers that they are compelled to pay for an egregious act that they find personally abhorrent.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to address two shortcomings of S. Con. Res. 129. I am certainly in agreement with the sentiments behind this resolution. The promotion of knowledge about, and understanding of, American history are among the most important activities those who wish to preserve American liberty can undertake. In fact, I would venture to say that with my work with various educational organizations, I have done as much, if not more, than any other member of Congress to promote the study of American history. Unfortunately, while I strongly support efforts to increase the American public's knowledge of history, I cannot support a resolution claiming to encourage Americans to embrace their constitutional heritage, while its very language showcases a fundamental misunderstanding of the beliefs of America's founders and the drafters of the United States Constitution. Popular acceptance of this misunderstanding of the founders' thought is much more dangerous to American liberty than an inability to name the exact date of the Battle at Bunker Hill. In particular, the resolution refers to American ``democracy'' and the ``democratic'' principles upon which this country was founded. However, this country was founded not as a democracy but as a constitutional republic. Madam Speaker, the distinction between a democracy and a republic is more than just a matter of semantics. The fundamental principle in a democracy is majority rule. Democracies, unlike republics, do not recognize fundamental rights of citizens (outside the right to vote) nor do they limit the power of the government. Indeed, such limitations are often scored as ``intrusions on the will of the majority.'' Thus in a democracy, the majority, or their elected representatives, can limit an individual's right to free speech, defend oneself, form contracts, or even raise ones' children. Democracies recognize only one fundamental right: the right to participate in the choosing of their rulers at a pre-determined time. In contrast, in a republic, the role of government is strictly limited to a few well-defined functions and the fundamental rights of individuals are respected. A constitution limiting the authority of central government and a Bill of Rights expressly forbidding the federal government from abridging the fundamental rights of a people are features of a republican form of government. Even a cursory reading of the Federalist Papers and other works of the founders shows they understood that obtaining the consent of 51 percent of the people does not in any way legitimize government actions abridging individual liberty. Madam Speaker, the confusion over whether America is a democracy, where citizens' rights may be violated if the consent of 51 percent of the people may be obtained, or a republic, where the federal government is forbidden to take any actions violating a people's fundamental rights, is behind many of the flawed debates in this Congress. A constitutionally literate Congress that understands the proper function of a legislature in a constitutional republic would never even debate whether or not to abridge the right of self-defense, instruct parents how to raise and educate their children, send troops to intervene in distant foreign quarrels that do not involve the security of the country, or even deny entire classes of citizens the fundamental right to life. Secondly, it is not the proper role of the United States Congress to dictate educational tenets to states and local governments. After all, the United States Constitution does not give the federal government any power to dictate, or even suggest, curriculum. Instead the power to determine what is taught in schools is reserved to states, local communities, and, above all, parents. In conclusion, by mistaking this country's founding as being based on mass democracy rather than on republican principles, and by ignoring the constitutionally limited role of the federal government, this resolution promotes misunderstanding about the type of government necessary to protect liberty. Such constitutional illiteracy may be more dangerous than historical ignorance, since the belief that America was founded to be a democracy legitimizes the idea that Congress may violate people's fundamental rights at will. I, therefore, encourage my colleagues to embrace America's true heritage: a constitutional republic with strict limitations on the power of the central government.

Mr. PAUL

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

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to take this opportunity to lend my support to H.R. 1304, the Quality Health Care Coalition Act, which takes a first step towards restoring a true free-market in health care by restoring the rights of freedom of contract and association to health care professionals. Over the past few years, we have had much debate in Congress about the difficulties medical professionals and patients are having with Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs). HMOs are devices used by insurance industries to ration health care. While it is politically popular for members of Congress to bash the HMOs and the insurance industry, the growth of the HMOs are rooted in past government interventions in the health care market though the tax code, the Employment Retirement Security Act (ERSIA), and the federal anti- trust laws. These interventions took control of the health care dollar away from individual patients and providers, thus making it inevitable that something like the HMOs would emerge as a means to control costs. Many of my well-meaning colleagues would deal with the problems created by the HMOs by expanding the federal government's control over the health care market. These interventions will inevitably drive up the cost of health care and further erode the ability of patents and providers to determine the best health treatments free of government and third-party interference. In contrast, the Quality Health Care Coalition Act addresses the problems associated with HMOs by restoring medical professionals' freedom to form voluntary organizations for the purpose of negotiating contracts with an HMO or an insurance company. As an OB-GYN with over 30 years in practice, I am well aware of how young physicians coming out of medical school feel compelled to sign contracts with HMOs that may contain clauses that compromise their professional integrity. For example, many physicians are contractually forbidden from discussing all available treatment options with their patients because the HMO gatekeeper has deemed certain treatment options too expensive. In my own practice, I have tried hard not to sign contracts with any health insurance company that infringed on my ability to practice medicine in the best interests of my patients and I have always counseled my professional colleagues to do the same. Unfortunately, because of the dominance of the HMO in today's health care market, many health care professionals cannot sustain a medical practice unless they agree to conform their practice to the dictates of some HMO. One way health care professionals could counter the power of the HMOs would be to form a voluntary association for the purpose of negotiating with an HMO or an insurance company. However, health care professionals who attempt to form such a group run the risk of persecution under federal anti-trust laws. This not only reduces the ability of health care professionals to negotiate with HMOs on a level playing field, it, like existing antitrust laws, are an unconstitutional violation of medical professionals' freedom of contract and association. Under the United States Constitution, the federal government has no authority to interfere with the private contracts of American citizens. Furthermore, the prohibitions on contracting contained in the Sherman antitrust laws are based on a flawed economic theory: that federal regulators can improve upon market outcomes by restricting the rights of certain market participants deemed too powerful by the government. In fact, anti-trust laws harm consumers by preventing the operation of the free-market, causing prices to rise, quality to suffer, and, as is certainly the case with the relationship between the HMOs and medical professionals, favoring certain industries over others. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that my colleagues would see the folly of antitrust laws and support my Market Process Restoration Act (H.R. 1789), which repeals all federal antitrust laws. By restoring the freedom of medical professionals to voluntarily come together to negotiate as a group with HMOs and insurance companies, this bill removes a government-imposed barrier to a true free market in health care. I am quite pleased that this bill does not infringe on the rights of health care professionals by forcing them to join a bargaining organization against their will. Contrary to the claims of some of its opponents, H.R. 1304 in no way extends the scourge of federally-mandated compulsory unionism to the health care professions. While Congress should protect the right of all Americans to join organizations for the purpose of bargaining collectively, Congress also has a moral responsibility to ensure that no worker is forced by law to join or financially support such an organization. Mr. Chairman, it is my hope that Congress will follow up on its action today by empowering patients to control their health care by providing all Americans with access to Medical Saving Accounts (MSAs) and large tax credits for their health care expenses. Putting individuals back in charge of their own health care decisions will enable patients to work with providers to ensure they receive the best possible health care at the lowest possible price. If providers and patients have the ability to form the contractual arrangements that they found most beneficial to them, the HMO monster would wither on the vine without the imposition of new federal regulations on the insurance industry. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Quality Health Care Coalition Act and restore the freedom of contract and association to American's health care professionals. Antitrust laws are no more legitimate or constitutional in the health care market than they are on the software market. Therefore, I hope my colleagues will not just pass this bill but will also support my Market Process Restoration Act and exempt all Americans from antitrust laws. I also urge my colleagues to join me in working to promote a true free-market in health care by putting patients back in charge of the health care dollar through means such as Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs) and individual health care tax credits.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule. It is an imperfect rule, but this bill needs to be brought to the floor. H.R. 1304 is the only bill that I have seen in the last 3 years, probably in the last 30 years, that would move us in a proper direction for health care in this country. For 30 years now we have moved in the direction, not toward socialized medicine, we do not have socialized medicine, we have a mess. We have a monster we created called ``medical management.'' But we have moved toward corporate medicine. Who are the greatest opponents of H.R. 1304? The HMOs and the insurance companies. All we are asking for here is a little bit of return of freedom to the physician, that is, for the right of the physician to freedom of contract, to associate. We are giving no special powers, no special privileges. Trying to balance just to a small degree the artificial power given to the corporations who now run medicine, who mismanage medicine, who destroyed the doctor-patient relationship. Mr. Speaker, this has given me a small bit of hope. I am thankful the leadership was willing to bring this bill to the floor tonight. We should go through, get the rule passed, and vote on this. This is the only thing that has offered any hope to preserve and to restore the doctor-patient relationship. We need this desperately. We do not need to support the special corporate interests who get the money. The patient does not get the care. The doctors are unhappy. The hospitals are unhappy. And who lobbies against this? Corporate interests. This is total destruction of the doctor-patient relationship. All we want to ask for is the freedom to associate and the freedom to contract. If they do not want to become a union, doctors do not have to. They had the power to become unions in the 19th century, but under ethical conditions they did not. Nobody tells doctors that they have to, if we remove this obstacle.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) for bringing this very important amendment to the floor. There is a lot of emphasis around here on the first amendment, and rightfully so. We should defend it. There is a lot of neglect on the second amendment, but there are a lot of Americans that believe that the second amendment is equally as important as the first amendment. So I congratulate the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hostettler amendment. The Founding Fathers fought to break away from a tyrannical government. Part of the problem was that the King of England was making laws without any accountability. When they set up this Government, they saw the dire need to have several checks and balances, thus creating the three-fold system of Government: the executive branch, the judicial branch, and the legislative branch. It is this legislative branch that is responsible for making laws and the judicial branch for interpreting them, period. A serious act of misconduct on the administration occurred when the Smith & Wesson agreement was settled. The executive branch acted as the legislative branch when they bypassed Congress through 22 pages of litigation. The egregious agreement will require all authorized Smith & Wesson dealers to limit handgun sales to one handgun every 14 days regardless of make, require all authorized Smith & Wesson dealers to require customers to pass a certified test before completing a sale of any firearm, mandate that the BATF participate on an oversight commission created by the settlement agreement, and does not allow unaccompanied minors into areas where firearms are present. It seems now that the administration sees fit, acting on no authority given it by the Constitution, to dictate to a company who they can sell their products to and in what manner their product can be sold. This forces law-abiding citizens to jump through Government-ordained hoops before they exercise their rights to purchase as many firearms as they choose and to purchase them whenever they choose. The BATF, which has never been known for its fair treatment of gun owners, will play an integral part on the oversight commission of gun owners by the agreement. The BATF will require all employees of dealers to attend annual training courses. In these training courses, the BATF gives the final say as to what can be taught and what will be excluded. Each employee must also complete an examination of which its contents will be closely reviewed by the oversight commission and make its own changes as it sees fit. In essence, they are acting as the ``thought-control'' police. This sounds very Orwellian to me and far from what Patrick Henry had in mind when he said, ``The great objective is that every man be armed . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun.'' Let us not forget past calamities against U.S. citizens from over zealous federal agents in trying to enforce unconstitutional gun laws. Again, too much power is being given to these unconstitutional agencies and even worse, it is being done without the consent of Congress. Members of the House, you must remember the oath that you swore to uphold and not relinquish your authority any longer. By what authority does the administration set up this new commission, what check will be placed on this agency in making their new regulations that will affect all Americans without giving them a chance to vote or have a say in these changes. Why should we hand over our authority to another branch of the government and then let it take more freedoms away from our citizens? These requirements have been voted on in the past in the House and Senate and thus far have not passed either house. It is all to clear that the agenda of the Clinton Administration has always been anti- second amendment, and thus, they have found a way to implement their policies by forcing a gun manufacturer to comply regardless of their legal legitimacy. The Federal government and executive branch have no business--and have no authority--to mandate how a company runs its business. Let us not allow our authority to be usurped from us any longer. Please stop the funding for this anti-constitutional settlement and vote for the Hostettler Amendment and support H.R. 2655, the Separation of Powers Restoration Act. I strongly support this amendment. I compliment the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) for bringing this to the floor, and I hope that we can pass this overwhelmingly.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today I pay tribute to the Rev. Msgr. Clyde Holtman on the occasion of his retirement. The Reverend Holtman was born in Westphalia, Texas. He was also baptized, made his First Communion, was confirmed, was ordained to the priesthood May 15, 1949, and offered his first Mass in the Church of the Visitation in that same community. Msgr. Holtman has served in eleven parishes in the Austin Diocese for over 50 years. He has also served as Dean of the LaGrange Deanery, Judge of the Marriage Tribunal, Diocesan Resettlement Director, Diocesan Consultant and President of the Infirm Priest's Fund. On May 30, 1985, Msgr. Holtman was invested as a Prelate of Honor in the Church by Pope John Paul II. Msgr. Holtman has touched thousands of lives in the central Texas area. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Reverend Holtman on his retirement.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment, and I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) for bringing this amendment to the floor, along with his colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior). This is a crucial amendment. It is vital that we pass it. This is truly a civil libertarian issue. It does go back to 1215 with the Magna Carta. It is not an American invention, that people should be protected and not convicted on secret information. This is not something new. However, it has been abused for hundreds of years at least. It has been abused by totalitarian governments. Now, many may say today that this is not a big deal; this is not going to affect the American citizens; it is just a couple of poor old immigrants that may be affected. But what is the motivation for the national ID card? It's good motivation to make sure there are no illegal immigrants coming in. So it's said we need a national ID card. But who suffers from a national ID card? Maybe some immigrants, and maybe there will be an illegal one caught? But who really suffers? The American people. Because they will become suspect, especially maybe if they look Hispanic or whatever. Well, who suffers here? Well, first the immigrant who is being abused of his liberties. But then what? Could this abuse ever be transferred to American citizens? That is the real threat. Now, my colleagues may say, oh, no, that would never happen. Never happen. But that is not the way government works. Government works with incrementalism. It gets us conditioned, gets us to be soft on the protection of liberty. Our goal should not be to protect the privacy of government. Certainly we need security, and that is important; but privacy of government and the efficiency of government comes second to the protection of individual liberty. That is what we should be here for. I wish we would do a lot less of a lot of other things we do around here and spend a lot more of our efforts to protect liberty. And we can start by protecting the liberty of the weak and the difficult ones to defend, the small, the little people who have nobody to represent them, the ones who can be pushed around. That is what is happening, all with good intentions. The national ID card is done with good intention. Those who oppose us on this amendment, I think they are very, very sincere, and they have justifiable concerns and we should address these. But quite frankly, killing and murder for a long time, up until just recently, was always a State matter. This is rather a new phenomenon that we as a Federal Government have taken over so much law enforcement. That is why the Federal Government, when it sets this precedent, is very bad. So I plead with my colleagues. I think this is a fine amendment. I think this not only goes along with the Constitution, but it really confirms what was established in 1215 with the Magna Carta. We should strongly support the principle that secret evidence not be permitted to convict anyone in an American court.

Mr. PAUL. I yield to the gentleman from California.

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

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Let me say to the gentleman that reforms are not permissible. The Congress cannot reform the WTO. Only they can reform themselves. But they work in secret, and they have to have a unanimous vote. Our vote is equal to the country of Sudan. So do not expect it to ever be reformed. The only way we can voice our objection is with this resolution. And there will never be another chance to talk about the WTO for 5 more years. Let me state that the Congress is required to state a constitutional justification for any legislation. The Committee on Ways and Means amazingly used article I, section 8 to justify their position on this bill. And let me state their constitutional justification. It says, ``The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises.'' But the Constitution says the Congress. But what we are doing is allowing the WTO to dictate to us. Even those on the Committee on Ways and Means said that they endorse this system of ``fair trade administered by the WTO''. Who is going to decide what is fair? The WTO does. And they tell us what to do. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me this time. Mr. Speaker, it is true that I believe in low tariffs, because it means low taxes. When we had that problem facing us at the time of the constitutional convention, we were able to correct that problem in one sentence, no tariff barriers between the States, and it has been very successful. That is not what we are talking about here today. We are talking about a very complex treaty, an illegal treaty, an unconstitutional treaty. This is the size of the treaty. This is the size of the agreement. This has nothing to do with trying to reduce taxes. As a matter of fact, when this was passed in 1994, the thought was and the statement was made on the House floor that it would lower taxes; and that I would support. The truth is, there was an offset for every tax that was lower. Even with NAFTA, one gentleman told me that he immediately benefitted from NAFTA, because the tariff barriers went down. But do you know what happened, there was a reclassification of his product, and his tax went back on because he was a little guy, but the big guys got the benefits. So there is something very unfair about the system. It is an unconstitutional approach to managing trade. We cannot transfer the power to manage trade from the Congress to anyone. The Constitution is explicit. ``Congress shall have the power to regulate foreign commerce.'' We cannot transfer that authority. Transferring that authority to the WTO is like the President transferring his authority as Commander in Chief to the Speaker of the House. We cannot do that, and we cannot give up our responsibilities here in the House and relinquish it through a very complex treaty arrangement. Now, even if we had passed this as a treaty, it would not be legal, because we cannot amend the Constitution with a treaty, and that is essentially what is happening here. What is happening here is the people have lost control and they know it, and that is why the people are speaking out. They are frustrated with us, and they are going to the streets. That is a bad sign. That is a bad sign that we are not representing the people. The WTO represents the special interests not the people. Why is it that the chairman of the board of Chiquita banana decided in the last 3 years to give $1.6 million to the politicians? Because he will have access to the U.S. Trade Commissioner. Now, it is not us who will vote, but it will be the nonelected officials at the WTO who will fight the battles in an unelected international bureaucracy, the WTO, which acts in secrecy. There is something wrong with that. We only have a chance every 5 years to debate this issue. The original bill allowed for 20 hours of debate. That is how important the issue was thought to be. Realizing how difficult that would be and the odds against that happening, I was quite willing to agree to 2 hours of debate. But that really is not enough, because this is a much more important issue than that. I know the opposition, those who believe in international managed trade through the World Trade Organization, would not like to have this debate at all, because I think deep down inside they know there is something wrong with it. I think that they do not want to hear the opposition. I am absolutely convinced that truth is on our side, that we will win the debate, disregarding the vote. But we have a greater responsibility here than just to count the votes. We have a responsibility to try our best to follow the law of the land, which is the Constitution; and quite clearly we do not have the authority to transfer this power to unelected bureaucrats at the WTO. The WTO has ruled against us, stating that the Foreign Corporation tax sales credit is illegal; and we have promised by October 1 to rescind this tax benefit, and unfortunately we will. I would like to know from the Committee on Ways and Means when this is going to happen, how we are going to do it, because it is going to be a $4 billion increase on our taxes. This will be passed on to the people. At the same time the European Community is preparing to file a case against the U.S. in the WTO to put a tax on international sales. In Europe there is a tax on international sales. If you buy software over the Internet, you are charged a sales tax. The Europeans said they will absolutely not reduce that tax. In America we do not have that tax, which is wonderful. So for the Europeans, what would the logical thing be? If you can transfer value over the Internet, they buy their software from us. That is good. Since they refuse to lower their taxes, they are going to the WTO to get a ruling. Well, maybe they will rule against us. They may well call it a tax subsidy. What will we do? We are obligated, we are obligated under the rules, to accommodate and change our laws. We have made that promise. Some will say, Oh, no, we still have our sovereignty. We do not have to do it. What happens? Then the complaining nations go to the WTO who then manages a trade war. They permit it. This results in a continual, perpetual trade war managed by the WTO, something we need to seriously challenge.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. ``Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none, I deem one of the essential principles of our government and consequently one of those which ought to shape its administration.'' Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson, I am sure, would be aghast at this WTO trade agreement. It is out of the hands of the Congress. It is put into the hands of unelected bureaucrats at the WTO. I would venture to guess even the Hamiltonians would be a bit upset with what we do with trade today. I am pro-trade. I have voted consistently to trade with other nations, with lowering tariffs. But I do not support managed trade by international bureaucrats. I do not support subsidized trade. Huge corporations in this country like the WTO because they have political clout with it. They like it because they have an edge on their competitors. They can tie their competitors up in court. And they can beat them at it because not everybody has access. One has to be a monied interest to have influence at the World Trade Organization. Earlier today I predicted that we would win this debate. There is no doubt in my mind that we and the American people have won this debate. We will not win the votes, but we will do well. But we have won the debate because we speak for the truth and we speak for the Constitution and we speak for the American people. That is why we have won this debate. It is true there are a lot of complaints about the WTO from those who endorse it. I think the suggestion from the gentleman from Oregon is a good suggestion. Those who are uncomfortable with the WTO and they do not want to rubber-stamp it, and they do not think it is quite appropriate to vote ``yes'' on this resolution, vote ``present.'' Send a message. They deserve to hear the message. We have no other way of speaking out. Every 5 years, we get a chance to get out of the WTO-- that's it. We cannot control the WTO. None of us here in the Congress has anything to say. You have to have a unanimous vote with WTO to change policy. Our vote is equal to all the 134 other countries; and, therefore, we have very little to say here in the U.S. Congress. Why is it that I have allies on the other side of the aisle where we may well disagree on the specifics of labor law and environmental law. We agree that the American people have elected us, we have taken an oath of office to obey the Constitution, that we have a responsibility to them and we should decide what the labor law ought to be, we should decide what the environmental law should be, we should decide what the tax law should be. That is why we have an alliance. But let me remind my colleagues, the American people are getting frustrated. They feel this sense of rejection and this loss of control. Why bother coming to us? We do not have control of the WTO and they feel like they are being hurt. This is the reason we are seeing demonstrations. They say if we did not have the WTO we would have anarchy? I predict chaos. I predict eventual chaos from WTO mismanagement. The trade agreement is unmanageable. They would like to do it in secrecy, and they like to wheel and deal; but it is unmanageable. Let me say there is another reason why we expect chaos in the economy and in trade. It has to do with the trade imbalances. Today we are at record highs. The current account deficit hit another record yesterday. It is 4.5 percent of the GDP, and it is significant. But unfortunately the WTO can do nothing about that because that is a currency problem. It too causes chaos. Yet there will be an attempt by the WTO to share the problem of imbalances. Just think of how NAFTA came to the rescue of the Mexican peso immediately after NAFTA was approved; a $50 billion rescue for the politicians and the bankers who loaned money to Mexico. Quite frankly, I have a suspicion that when the Chinese currency fails, that will be one of the things that we will do. China will be our trading partner. They are in the family of countries, so therefore we will bail out their currency. That is what I suspect will happen. Why else would the Chinese put up with the nonsense that we pass out about what we are going to do, investigate them and tell them how to write their laws? They have no intention of doing that. I think they are anxious to be with WTO because they may well see a need for their currency to be supported by our currency, which would be a tax on the American people. This is a sovereignty issue. We do not have the authority in the U.S. House of Representatives to give our authority to the President. We do not have the authority and we should never permit the President to issue these executive orders the way he does, but this is going one step further. We have delivered this sovereignty power to an unelected bunch of bureaucrats at the WTO.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time for closing.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. It is said that we do not have to listen to the WTO, but they threaten us with sanctions. They do not give us incentives. It is a threat, and we capitulate. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Idaho, (Mrs. Chenoweth-Hage).

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, let me remind those who would like to reform the WTO that we are helpless, Congress cannot do that. We need a unanimous consent vote from the WTO members. So that is not going to happen. Even the committee describes what we are talking about as a system of fair trade administered by the WTO. Fair trade, fine, we are all for fair trade, but who decides the WTO? That is not fair to the American citizens. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood). (Mr. NORWOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. The Financial Times does support the WTO, but this is what they said after NTR was passed. ``Already, many Washington trade lawyers are smacking their lips at the thought of the fees to be earned from bringing dispute cases in the WTO against Chinese trade practices. Says one, what will China be like in the WTO? It is going to be hell on wheels.'' Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney).

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the gentleman from Texas. This is not an issue of trade. This is an issue of who gets to manage and decide whether it is fair trade or not. It is the issue of power, whether it is by the environmental bureaucrats or by the U.S. Congress. The one thing under this arrangement, the little farmer has very little say. He cannot get into the WTO and make a complaint. The great meat packers of the country may well. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Metcalf).