Ron Paul

Mr. PAUL

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

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution, not because I lack concern for the serious problems that the East Timorese are undergoing, and not for lack of humanitarian concerns for this group of people or anybody in the world. It is just that there is another side to the argument for us intervening. And, besides, we helped create the problem in Indonesia. In the 1970's, we were very supportive of the Indonesian Government in their takeover of East Timor after it became independent from Portugal. So once again, here we are intervening. I would like to advise my colleagues that we are not just endorsing a humanitarian effort to help people who are suffering. We are literally giving the President carte blanche to go and commit war in this area. We are committing ourselves to troops, and it is an open-ended policy. We complained a whole lot about what was happening in Kosovo. And that operation has not ended. It is continuing. This is just another example of being involved, although with good intentions, but with unintended consequences just hanging around the corner. I would like to point out that some of those unintended consequences can be rather serious. I would like to call my colleagues' attention to number 11 under the resolve clause, making these points. Number 11 says it ``expresses support for a rapid and effective deployment throughout East Timor of the United Nations Security Council-endorsed multilateral force.'' This means troops. Our Security Council has already decided to send troops to East Timor. What we are doing today is rubber stamping this effort to send troops into another part of the world in a place where we have no national security interests. We do not know what victory means. We do not know what lies ahead. In addition, under number 13, it ``expresses approval of United States logistical and other technical support for deployment of a multinational force for East Timor.'' Troops, that is what it means, endangerment and risk that this could escalate. Under number 13, there is another part that concerns me a great deal. In the 1970s, we passed the War Powers Resolution. Both conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats endorsed the notion that Presidents should be restrained in their effort to wage war without declaration. Once again, we are endorsing the concept that, if we just subtly and quietly endorse a President's ability and authority to go into a foreign country under the auspices of the United Nations, we do not have to deal with the real issue of war. But under 13(B), it explicitly restates the fact that a President in this situation can at least wage war for 60 days before we have much to say about it. I think this is dangerous. We should be going in the other direction. This is certainly what was expressed many, many times on the floor during the Kosovo debates. But we lost that debate, although we had a large number of colleagues that argued for non-involvement. We are now entrenched in Kosovo, and we are about to become entrenched in East Timor, not under the auspices of the United States, but under the United Nations. I do not see that the sanctity and the interests of the United States will be benefitted by what we are getting ready to do. Number 16 under the resolved clause, ``recognizes that an effective United States foreign policy for this region requires both an effective near-term response to the ongoing humanitarian violence in, and progress toward independence for, East Timor.'' If we decide that we have to fight for and engage troops for everybody who wants to be independent, we have a lot of work ahead of us. And, in addition, in the same clause, ``and a long-term strategy for supporting stability, security and democracy.'' This is a major commitment. This is not just a resolution that is saying that we support humanitarian aid. This is big stuff. The American people ought to know it, the Members of Congress ought to know it. This resolution became available to me just within the last 20 minutes. It has been difficult to know exactly what is in it, and yet it is very significant, very important; and we in the Congress should not vote casually and carelessly on this issue. This is a major commitment. I think it is going in the wrong direction, and we should consider the fact that there are so often unintended consequences from our efforts to do what is right. I understand the motivation behind this, but tragically this type of action tends to always backfire because we do not follow the rule of law. And the rule of law says if we commit troops, we ought to get the direct and explicit authority from the Congress with a war resolution. This, in essence, is a baby war resolution, but it is a war resolution.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. The gentleman makes a good case for the humanitarian needs of the people. My point is that sometimes our efforts do not do what we want. For instance, the gentleman talks about the thugs that are in Indonesia, those who are violating the rights of the East Timorese. We have to realize that they have been our allies and we helped set up the situation. So our interventions do not always do what we want. Also, the gentleman talks about the Soviets. We supported the Soviets.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I think the gentleman is absolutely correct. But I happen to see these things in a very nonpartisan manner. So to turn this into a Republican versus Democrat issue, I think, is in error. I would like to suggest that the careless use of the word isolationism does not apply to me because I am not a protectionist. I believe in openness. I want people and capital and goods and services to go back and forth. When we trade with people, we are less likely to fight with them. So the proposal and the program I am suggesting is a constitutional program. I believe it is best for the people. It has nothing to do with isolating ourselves from the rest of the world. It is to isolate ourselves from doing dumb things that get us involved in things like Korea and Vietnam, where we do not even know why we are there and we end up losing. That is what I am opposed to.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 202. ``Preserving Housing for Senior Citizens and Families into the 21st Century.'' While my views on respecting our Constitution limitations regarding Federal issues are well known and need not be repeated here now, I have other concerns regarding this bill specifically. That the House of Representatives would consider any bill authorizing about a billion dollars of taxpayer funds annually on the suspension calendar (an expedited procedure reserved for ``non controversial'' bills) show how far we have moved from our posturing that we claim to respect the concerns of taxpayers. The consideration of this bill succumbs to the misperception that the best course of action to any perceived problem is further (Federal) governmental response. Clearly, that is not the case. Recently, John Stossel hosted an ABC television special, ``Is America Number One!'' In that show, he examined the premise of governmental solutions to problems always being best and concluded: Intuition would suggest that countries with the most government planning, places where you're taken care of, would be the best places to live. But in fact the opposite is true, countries with the most planning are the most poor. Several organizations rank countries by economic freedom. At one end are places with lots of government planning. Invariably, these are the worst places to live. At the other end on the list--Hong Kong, New Zealand, Switzerland, and the United States. The best places to live are places with the fewest rules. Freedom isn't everything. Climate matters. Religion, geography, even luck can make a difference. But nothing matters as much as . . . Liberty. In the show, Peter Jennings said that ``Nearly 37 million Americans now live below the official poverty line.'' Federal Reverse economist Machael Cox explained, ``The government says now 13.3 percent of households are in poverty. Let's go see what households in poverty have. Ninety-seven percent of households in poverty have color televisions. Two thirds have microwave ovens and live in air- conditioned buildings. Seventy-five percent have one or more cars.'' Unfortunately, H.R. 202 makes the situation worse by diluting our current policy of helping the truly needy in favor of creating a middle class entitlement by expanding eligibility for occupancy to as high as 80% of the area median income for existing housing developments for seniors. I commend Mr. Stossel for illustrating clearly that choosing liberty is the best path for making a difference. I wish more of my colleagues heeded his advise.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, campaign finance reform is once again being painted as the solution to political corruption in Washington. Indeed, political corruption is a problem, but today's reformers hardly offer a solution. The real problem is that government has too much influence over our economy and lives, creating a tremendous incentive to protect one's own interests by `investing' in politicians. The problem is not a lack of federal laws, or rules regulating campaign spending, therefore more laws won't help. We hardly suffer from too much freedom. Any effort to solve the campaign finance problem with more laws will only make things worse by further undermining the principles of liberty and private property ownership. The reformers are sincere in their effort to curtail special interest influence on government, but this cannot be done while ignoring the control government has assumed over our lives and economy. Current reforms address only the symptoms while the root cause of the problem is ignored. Since reform efforts involve regulating political speech through control of political money, personal liberty is compromised. Tough enforcement of spending rules will merely drive the influence underground since the stakes are too high and much is to be gained by exerting influence over government--legal or not. The more open and legal campaign expenditures are, with disclosure, the easier it is for voters to know who's buying influence from whom. There's tremendous incentive for every special interest group to influence government. Every individual, bank or corporation that does business with government invests plenty in influencing government. Lobbyists spend over a hundred million dollars per month trying to influence Congress. Taxpayers dollars are endlessly spent by bureaucrats in their effort to convince Congress to protect their own empires. Government has tremendous influence over the economy, and financial markets through interest rate controls, contracts, regulations, loans, and grants. Corporations and others are `forced' to participate in the process out of greed as well as self-defense--since that's the way the system works. Equalizing competition and balancing power such as between labor and business is a common practice. As long as this system remains in place, the incentive to buy influence will continue. Many reformers recognize this and either like the system or believe that it's futile to bring about changes and argue that curtailing influence is the only option left even if it involves compromising the liberty of political speech through regulating political money. It's naive to believe stricter rules will make a difference. If enough honorable men and women served in Congress and resisted the temptation to be influenced by any special interest group, of course this whole discussion would be unnecessary. Because Members do yield to the pressure, the reformers believe that more rules regulating political speech will solve the problem. The reformers argue that it's only the fault of those trying to influence government and not the fault of the Members who yield to the pressure or the system that generates the abuse. This allows Members of Congress to avoid assuming responsibility for their own acts and instead places the blame on those who exert pressure on Congress through the political process which is a basic right bestowed on all Americans. The reformer's argument is ``stop us before we succumb to the special interest groups.'' Politicians unable to accept this responsibility clamor for a system that diminishes the need for politicians to persuade individuals and groups to donate money to their campaign. Instead of persuasion they endorse coercing taxpayers to finance campaigns. This only changes the special interest groups that control government policy. Instead of voluntary groups making their own decisions with their own money, politicians and bureaucrats dictate how political campaigns will be financed. Not only will politicians and bureaucrats gain influence over elections, other nondeservers will benefit. Clearly, incumbents will greatly benefit by more controls over campaign spending--a benefit to which the reformers will never admit. The media becomes a big winner. Their influence grows as private money is regulated. It becomes more difficult to refute media propaganda,both print and electronic, when directed against a candidate if funds are limited. Campaigns are more likely to reflect the conventional wisdom and candidates will strive to avoid media attacks by accommodating their views. The wealthy gain a significant edge since it's clear candidates can spend unlimited personal funds in elections. This is a big boost for the independently wealthy candidates over the average challenger who needs to raise and spend large funds to compete. Celebrities will gain even a greater benefit than they already enjoy. Celebrity status is money in the bank and by limiting the resources to counter-balance this advantage, works against the non-celebrity who might be an issue-oriented challenger. This current reform effort ignores the legitimate and moral ``political action committees'' that exist only for good reasons and do not ask for any special benefit from government. The immoral ``political action committees'' that work only to rip-off the taxpayers by getting benefits from government may deserve our condemnation but not the heavy hand of government anxious to control this group along with all the others. The reformers see no difference between the two and are willing to violate all personal liberty. Since more regulating doesn't address the basic problem of influential government, now out of control, neither groups deserves more coercive government rules. All the rules in the world can't prevent members from yielding to political pressure of the groups that donate to their campaigns. Regulation cannot instill character. Additionally, the legislative debate over campaign finance reform has seemingly focused upon the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech, as interpreted and applied by the courts. The constitutional issues, however, are not limited to the First Amendment. To the contrary, pursuant to their oaths of office, members of Congress have an independent duty to determine the constitutionality of legislation before it and to decide, before ever reaching the First Amendment, whether they have been vested by the Constitution with any authority, at all, to regulate federal election campaigns. Congress has no authority except that which is ``granted'' in the Constitution. Thus, the threshold question concerning H.R. 417 is whether the Constitution has conferred upon Congress any authority to regular federal election campaigns. The authority to regulate such campaigns is not found among any enumerated power conferred upon Congress. More regulation of political speech through control of private money, without addressing the subject of influential government only drives the money underground, further giving a select group an advantage over the honest candidate who only wants smaller government. True reform is not possible without changing the role of government, which now exists to regulate, tax, subsidize, and show preferential treatment. Only changing the nature of government will eliminate the motive for so many to invest so much in the political process. But we should not make a bad situation worse by passing more bad laws.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize and join with the Brazosport RehabCare Center in Lake Jackson, Texas, in observing and celebrating National Rehabilitation Awareness week beginning September 12 through September 18, 1999. The Brazosport RehabCare Center opened its doors on December 31, 1992. Construction was completed at the end of April, 1993, for a total of 14 acute rehabilitation beds. The Brazosport RehabCare Center is located in Brazosport Memorial Hospital in Lake Jackson, Texas. The primary service areas include the cities of Lake Jackson, Clute, Freeport, Angleton, Danbury and Brazoria. This service area has a combined population of approximately 95,000. The secondary service area includes the cities of Sweeny, West Columbus and Old Ocean with a population of approximately 16,000. The RehabCare Center has also attracted patients from Bay City and Alvin. Comprehensive inpatient rehabilitation services are provided to individuals with orthopedic, neurological and other medical conditions of recent onset or regression. These patients have experienced a loss of function in activities of daily living, mobility, cognition or communication. Types of patients admitted into the Brazosport RehabCare Center may include those with a diagnosis of stroke, spinal cord injury or dysfunction, brain injury, amputation, multiple trauma, hip fracture or joint replacement, arthritis, congenial deformity, burns or other progressive neuralgic syndromes such as Parkinson's Disease, Multiple Sclerosis and Gullian Barre. The services Brazosport RehabCare Center provides include rehabilitation medicine, rehabilitation nursing, physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech/language pathology, social work, psychology and recreational activities. In addition, prosthetics/ orthodics, vocational rehabilitation, audiology and driver education are provided when necessary through affiliate agreements with external organizations. The goal of each service is to maximize the individual's potential in the restoration of function or adjustment by intergrating with other services. By addressing the multiple effects that disability has on the patient and family and by integrating the combined resources of patient, family and interdisciplinary rehabilitation team, comprehensive rehabilitation programming can maximize the abilities and esteem of the patient and family and foster a healthy re-integration into the community. At the Brazosport RehabCare Center, patient outcomes are exceptionally positive. Eighty-six percent of their patients are able to return home and lead an independent lifestyle. I am proud and honored to have the Brazosport RehabCare rehabilitation facilities at Brazosport Memorial Hospital, Lake Jackson, Texas. Please join me in recognizing the Brazosport RehabCare Center for its outstanding services and remarkable accomplishments as we celebrate National Rehabilitation Awareness week.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize and join with the Brazosport RehabCare Center in Lake Jackson, Texas, in observing and celebrating National Rehabilitation Awareness week beginning September 12 through September 18, 1999. The Brazosport RehabCare Center opened its doors on December 31, 1992. Construction was completed at the end of April, 1993, for a total of 14 acute rehabilitation beds. The Brazosport RehabCare Center is located in Brazosport Memorial Hospital in Lake Jackson, Texas. The primary service areas include the cities of Lake Jackson, Clute, Freeport, Angleton, Danbury and Brazoria. This service area has a combined population of approximately 95,000. The secondary service area includes the cities of Sweeny, West Columbia and Old Ocean with a population of approximately 16,000. The RehabCare Center has also attracted patients from Bay City and Alvin. Comprehensive impatient rehabilitation services are provided to individuals with orthopedic, neurological and other medical conditions of recent onset or regression. These patients have experienced a loss of function in activities of daily living, mobility, cognition or communication. Types of patients admitted into the Brazosport RehabCare Center may include those with a diagnosis of stroke, spinal cord injury or dysfunction, brain injury, amputation, multiple trauma, hip fracture or joint replacement, arthritis, congenial deformity, burns or other progressive neuralgic syndromes such as Parkinson's Disease, Multiple Sclerosis and Gullian Barre. The services Brazosport RehabCare Center provides include rehabilitation medicine, rehabilitation nursing, physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech/language pathology, social work, psychology and recreational activities. In addition, prosthetics/ orthodics, vocational rehabilitation, audiology and driver education are provided when necessary through affiliate agreements with external organizations. The goal of each service is to maximize the individual's potential in the restoration of function or adjustment by integrating with other services. By addressing the multiple effects that disability has on the patient and family and by integrating the combined resources of patient, family and interdisciplinary rehabilitation team, comprehensive rehabilitation programming can maximize the abilities and esteem of the patient and family and foster a healthy re-integration into the community. At the Brazosport RehabCare Center, patient outcomes are exceptionally positive. Eighty-six percent of their patients are able to return home and lead an independent lifestyle. I am proud and honored to have the Brazosport RehabCare rehabilitation facilities at Brazosport Memorial Hospital, Lake Jackson, Texas. Please join me in recognizing the Brazosport RehabCare Center for its outstanding services and remarkable accomplishments as we celebrate National Rehabilitation Awareness week.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize and join with the Brazosport RehabCare Center in Lake Jackson, Texas in observing and celebrating National Rehabilitation Awareness Week beginning September 12 through September 18, 1999. The Brazosport RehabCare Center opened its doors on December 31, 1992. Construction was completed at the end of April 1993, for a total of 14 acute rehabilitation beds. The Brazosport RehabCare center is located in Brazosport Memorial Hospital in Lake Jackson, Texas. The primary service areas include the cities of Lake Jackson, Clute, Freeport, Angleton, Danbury and Brazoria. This service area has a combined population of approximately 95,000. The secondary service area includes the cities of Sweeny, West Columbia and Old Ocean with a population of approximately 16,000. The RehabCare Center has also attracted patients from Bay City and Alvin. Comprehensive inpatient rehabilitation services are provided to individuals with orthopedic, neurological and other medical conditions of recent onset or regression. These patients have experienced a loss of function in activities of daily living, mobility, cognition or communication. Types of patients admitted into the Brazosport RehabCare Center may include those with a diagnosis of stroke, spinal cord injury or dysfunction, brain injury, amputation, multiple trauma, hip fracture or joint replacement, arthritis, congenial deformity, burns or other progressive neuralgic syndromes such as Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis and Gullian Barre. The services Brazosport RehabCare Center provides include rehabilitation medicine, rehabilitation nursing, physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech/language pathology, social work, psychology and recreational activities. in addition, prosthetics/ orthodics, vocational rehabilitation, audiology and driver education are provided when necessary through affiliate agreements with external organizations. The goal of each service is to maximize the individual's potential in the restoration of function or adjustment by integrating with other services. By addressing the multiple effects that disability has on the patient and family and by integrating the combined resources of patient, family and interdisciplinary rehabilitation team, comprehensive rehabilitation programming can maximize the abilities and esteem of the patient and family and foster a healthy re-integration into the community. At the Brazosport RehabCare Center, patient outcomes are exceptionally positive. Eighty-six percent of their patients are able to return home and lead an independent lifestyle. I am proud and honored to have the Brazosport RehabCare rehabilitation facilities at Brazosport Memorial Hospital, Lake Jackson, Texas. Please join me in recognizing the Brazosport RehabCare Center for its outstanding services and remarkable accomplishments as we celebrate National Rehabilitation Awareness Week.

Mr. PAUL

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

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. The gentleman has called attention to my voting record. I would say that if I could show the gentleman that I voted 100 percent for the Constitution, would the gentleman still complain about my voting record being 90 percent, 99 percent in opposition? Being for liberty is not a negative position.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I would like to compliment the committee, as well as the chairman of the subcommittee, for deleting the $24.5 million for the selective service system. That was a good move. To me it was a heroic step in the direction of more liberty for the individual. There is no place in a free society to have a program of conscription and drafting of young people to fight unconstitutional wars. It saves $24 million, and I urge my colleagues not to support the funding for the selective service. Ronald Reagan was a strong opponent of the draft. He spoke out against it. We do not need it. It is wasted money. It is absolutely unnecessary. The Department of Defense has spoken out clearly that it is not necessary for national security reasons to have a selective service system, and yet we continually spend $24.5 million annually for this program. So I urge all Members, all my colleagues, to oppose putting this money back in for the Selective Service System.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much this opportunity to address this amendment. I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. I compliment the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), for deleting these funds, in this bill. This to me is a heroic step in the right direction. We have an agency of Government spending more than $24 million a year accomplishing nothing. We live in an age when we do not need a draft. We live in an age of technology that makes the draft obsolete. Not only is it unnecessarily militarily to have a draft, it is budgetarily not wise to spend this type of money. More importantly, I rise in strong objection on moral principles that the draft is wrong. In most of our history we did not have a draft. The gentleman from California early on pointed out that essentially since World War I we have had a draft, and that is true. Since in this century we have seen a diminished respect for personal liberty with the growth of the state we have seen much more willingness to accept the idea that young men belong to the state. That is what the registration is all about. I have a young grandson that had to register not too long ago, and he came to me and said, You know, ``they sent me a notice that I better go register. Why do I have to register, if they already know where I am and how old I am?'' That is the case. The purpose of registration is nothing more than putting an emphasis on the fact that the state owns all 18-year-olds. The unfortunate part about a draft is that too often draftees are used in wars that are not legitimate. This is so often the case. If this country faced an attack, we should have volunteers. We should all volunteer. But, unfortunately, the generation of politicians who declare the wars too often never serve. Some of them have not even served in the past. But they are willing to start wars that are not legitimate, and yet they depend on the draft. They depend on the draft for the men to go out and fight and die. The one really strong reason we should all reject the idea of the draft is it is so unfair. Let us say an argument is made that it is necessary. I happen to believe it is never necessary to violate somebody's liberty, but let us say there is a sincere belief that it is necessary to impose a draft. There is no such thing as a fair draft. This is why the sixties were in such turmoil in this country, because the elite frequently evaded the draft. If they are smart enough to get a deferment, they got off. Who suffers from the draft? The poor and the less educated, the inner city teenagers. They end up getting the draft, and they do not get the deferments. They cannot avoid it. It is very important that we consider not only this vote on fiscal reasons and where we are taking the money. Quite frankly, I would much rather see this money stay in the programs where, as a fiscal conservative, I would not have otherwise voted for those funds nay. But any funding of that sort is so much better on principle than voting to perpetuate a system that has no purpose other than to conscript. Conscription is not part of the American dream. It is not part of the American philosophy. It is not part of liberty. It is a totalitarian notion. Congress has the authority to raise an army, but it does not have the constitutional authority to enslave a certain group to bear the brunt of the fighting. A society that cherishes liberty will easily find its volunteer defenders if it is attacked. A free society that cannot find those willing to defend itself without coercion cannot survive, and probably does not deserve to. A free society that depends on the vicious totalitarian principle of conscription is, by its very nature, no longer free. We gradually lost our love for individual liberty throughout the 20th century as the people and the Congresses capitulated to the notion of the military draft. The vote on the Selective Service System funding will determine whether or not we are willing to take a very welcome, positive step in the direction of more liberty by rejecting the appropriations for the Selective Service System. There is no other vote that a Member of Congress can cast that defines one's belief and understanding regarding the principle of personal liberty than a vote supporting or rejecting the draft. This vote gives us a rare opportunity to reverse the trend toward bigger and more oppressive government. Yes, preserving liberty is worth fighting and even dying for, but conscription is incompatible with that goal. We cannot make men free by first enslaving them and forcing them to sacrifice their lives and liberty for the policies conceived by misdirected politicians and international warmongers.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, later today we will be dealing with the VA HUD bill; and I want to compliment the Committee on Appropriations for deleting the $24.5 million for the selective service system. There will be an attempt to put that money back into the bill. I think that is a serious mistake. The military has not asked for the selective service to continue. We do not need it. It is a serious abuse of civil liberties of all 18- and 19-year-old to continue this registration. The registration is totally unnecessary. This $24.5 million could be better spent on veterans' affairs or some other worthy cause, but to put the money back in is a serious mistake. I would like to remind my conservative colleagues that Ronald Reagan had a very strong position on the draft and selective service. He agreed that it was a totalitarian notion to conscript young people and strongly spoke out against the draft whenever he had the opportunity. I also would like to remind my conservative colleagues that if somebody came to the House floor and asked that we register all the guns of America, there would be a hue and cry about why this would be unconstitutional and unfair, and yet they are quite willing to register their 18- and 19-year-olds. I do not understand why there is less respect given for 18- and 19-year-olds than they give for their own guns. I strongly urge that we not fund the selective service system today.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my support for this rule. It is a fair rule. There is plenty of room for debate and room for amendment. I would like to congratulate the Committee on Appropriations for doing something very important in this bill by deleting all the funding for the Selective Service System. I think that is very important. As was described by the gentlewoman earlier, there will be an attempt early on. The first amendment that will come to the floor will be to put that money back in. I would like my colleagues to consider very seriously not to do that, because there is no need for the Selective Service System. There is only one purpose for the Selective Service System. That is to draft young 18-year-olds. That is unfair. There is no such thing as a fair draft system. It is always unfair to those who are less sophisticated, who either avoid the draft or are able to get into the National Guard, or as it was in the Civil War, pay to get their way out. The draft is a 20th century phenomenon, and I am delighted to see and very pleased that the Committee on Appropriations saw fit to delete this money because this, to me, is reestablishing one of the American traditions, that we do not believe in conscription. Conscription and drafting is a totalitarian idea. I would like to remind many of my conservative colleagues that, if we brought a bill to this floor where we would say that we would register all of our guns in the United States, there would be a hue and cry about how horrible it would be. Yet, we casually accept this program of registering 18- year-old kids to force them to go and fight the political wars that they are not interested in. This is a very, very serious idea and principle of liberty. So when the time comes in September to vote for this, I beg that my fellow colleagues will think seriously about this, the needlessness to spend $25 million to continue to register young people to go off to fight needless wars. They are not even permitted to drink beer; and, yet, we expect them to be registered and to use them to fight the wars that the older generation starts for political and narrow-minded reasons. So when the time comes in September, please consider that there are ways that one can provide for an army without conscription. We have had the reinstitution of registration of the draft for 20 years. It has been wasted money. We can save the $25 million. We should do it. We should not put this money back in. We do not need the Selective Service System.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, the amendment is straightforward. It prohibits the use of any money for population control, family planning, or abortion of any funds authorized in this bill, appropriated in this bill. Mr. Chairman, the question really is this: Should the American taxpayer be required to pay for birth control pills, IUDs, Depo- Provera, Norplant, condom distribution, as well as abortion in foreign countries. Those who believe this is a proper and legitimate function will vote against the amendment. Those who believe that it is not a proper function for us to be doing these things around the world would vote for my amendment. Mr. Chairman, I mention abortion because although this bill does not authorize funds directly for abortion, any birth control center that is involved that receives funds from us and are involved with abortion, all they do is shift the funds. All funds are fungible, so any country that we give money to that is involved with abortion, for whatever reason, or especially in a family planning clinic, can very easily shift those funds and perform abortions. So this is very, very clear- cut. I would like to spend a minute though on the authority that is cited for doing such a thing. Under the House rules, the committee is required to at least cite the constitutional authority for doing what we do on each of our bills. Of course, I was curious about this, because I was wondering whether this could be general welfare. This does not sound like the general welfare of the U.S. taxpayer, to be passing out condoms and birth control pills and forcing our will on other people, imposing our standards on them and forcing our taxpayers to pay. That does not seem to have anything to do whatsoever with the general welfare of this country. Of course, the other clause that is generally used in our legislation is the interstate commerce clause. Well, it would be pretty tough, pretty tough, justifying passing out condoms in the various countries of the world under the interstate commerce clause. So it was very interesting to read exactly what the justification is. The Committee on Appropriations, quoting from the committee report, the Committee on Appropriations bases its authority to report this legislation from clause 7, section 9 of Article I of the Constitution of the United States of America, which states ``no money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of appropriation made by law.'' ``Appropriations contained in this act,'' the report says, ``are made pursuant to this specific power granted by the Constitution.'' That is not a power. That was a prohibition. It was to keep us from spending money without appropriation. If this is true, we can spend money on anything in the world, and the Constitution has zero meaning. This cannot possibly be. So all I would suggest is this: Be a little more creative when we talk about the Constitution. There must be a more creative explanation on why we are spending these kinds of monies overseas.

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

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that it is truly a subsidy to a foreign corporation, a foreign government. For Red China, corporations and governments are essentially identical. They are not really quite in the free market yet. But the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) points out that, no, that is not true. The money does not go to Red China and they buy things; we just give it directly. We do not even send it round trip. This is true. We take taxpayers' money. We take taxpayers' guarantee. We give them to those huge five corporations that do 67 percent of the business. We give them the money. But where do the goods go? Do the goods go to the American taxpayers? No. They get all of the liabilities. The subsidies help the Chinese. So, technically, yes, we do not send the money there. But who is going to pay it back? The Chinese pays the loan back. If they default, who pays the bill if the Chinese defaults? Who pays the bill if they default? It is obviously the taxpayers. What I am pointing out is that $5.9 billion that the Chinese now had borrowed from us, from the Export-Import Bank, is a significant obligation that, too, is on the backs of the American taxpayer. So I urge support for the amendment because, if we are serious about free trade, just please do not call it free trade anymore. Call it managed trade. Call it subsidized trade. Call it special interest trade. But please do not call it free trade anymore, because it is not free trade. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment provides that no funds for new obligations, guarantees, or agreements can be issued under the Export- Import Bank under OPIC or under the Trade Development Agency. This again is an attempt to try to slow up the amount of dollars that flow into corporations and for their benefit specifically as well as our foreign competitors. China, for instance, receives the largest amount of money from the Export-Import Bank. Outstanding liabilities for the Export-Import Bank is now $55 billion. There is $5.9 billion that have been granted to the Chinese. Last week we had a very important vote on trade. It was hotly debated over human rights issues. I voted to trade with China because I believe it is proper to trade with people. We are less likely to fight with them. And in this institution, too often we use our terms carelessly and we talk about free trade as being something which is managed trade. Free trade here generally means that we will have the NAFTA people managing trade, the World Trade Organization managing trade, and we will subsidize our businesses. Just this past week we had the World Trade Organization rule against us saying that we grant $2 billion worth of tax benefits to our own corporations and they ruled that that was illegal. This is all done in the name of free trade. I say that we should have free trade. We should trade with our friends and with anybody who would trade that we are not at war with. We should really, really be careful about issuing sanctions. But here we are, last week we had the great debate and a lot of people could not stand the idea of trading with Red China because of their human rights record and I understand that, although I did not accept that position. But this is the time to do something about it. Trading with Red China under true free trade is a benefit to both of us. It is a benefit to our consumers and it benefits both countries because we are talking with people and we are not fighting with them. But it gets to be a serious problem when we tax our people in order to benefit those who are receiving the goods overseas. Now, if there is a worldwide downturn, this $55 billion of liabilities out there could be very significant in how it is going to be paid back. The Chinese right now, their economy is not all that healthy. They are talking about a devaluation. So this is a liability that the American taxpayers are exposed to. If we do have a concern about Red China and the Chinese, yes, let us work with them, let us trade with them, but let us not subsidize them. This is what I am trying to do. I am trying to stop this type of subsidies. So my bill, my amendment would stop any new obligation. It does not close down Export-Import Bank. It allows all the old loans to operate and function, but no new obligations can be made, no new guaranties, and no agreement, with the idea that someday we may truly move to free trade, that we do not recognize free trade as being subsidized trade as well as internationally managed trade with organizations such as NAFTA and World Trade Organization. Those institutions are not free trade institutions. They are managed trade institutions for the benefit of special interests. That is what this type of funding is for is for the benefit of special interests, whether it is our domestic corporation, which, indeed, I would recognize does receive some benefit. Sixty-seven percent of all the funding of the Export-Import Bank goes to, not a large number of companies, to five companies. I will bet my colleagues, if they look at those five companies in this country that gets 67 percent of the benefit and look at their political action records, my colleagues might be enlightened. I mean, I bet my colleagues we would learn something about where that money goes, because they are big corporations and they benefit, and they will have their defenders here. It is time we look carefully at these subsidies.

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

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman makes the point that we should not use the abortion issue to talk about fungibility and I believe that she is correct. I think it should apply to everything. This is the reason I do strongly oppose Export-Import Bank money going to Red China. Their violations of civil liberties and abortions are good reasons why we should not do it, and yet they are the greatest recipient of our foreign aid from the Exim Bank. $5.9 billion they have received over the years. So I would say, yes, the gentlewoman is correct. All of these programs are fungible. And I agree that the wording in the bill says that our funds cannot be used. But when we put our funds in with other funds, all of the sudden they are in a pool and they can shift them around and there is a real thing called fungibility. So once we send money to a country for any reason, we endorse what they do. Therefore, we should be rather cautious. As a matter of fact, if we were cautious enough we would not be in the business of taking money at the point of a gun from our American taxpayer, doing things that they find abhorrent around the world and imposing our will and our standards on them. Mr. Chairman, birth control methods are not perfectly safe. As a gynecologist, I have seen severe complications from the use of IUDs and Depo-Provera and Norplant. Women can have strokes with birth control pill. These are not benign. And my colleagues say we want to stop the killing and abortions, but every time that the abortion is done with fungible funds, it is killing a human being, an innocent human being. So for very real reasons, if we were serious about stopping this and protecting the American taxpayer, there is nothing wrong with some of these goals. I agree. As a gynecologist, I would agree with the goals, but they should not be done through coercion. They should be done through voluntary means through churches and charities. That is the way it should be done. Mr. Chairman, we do not have the authority to coerce our people to work hard, pay their taxes, and then take the money into foreign countries and impose our will on them.

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

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support for this amendment. If it were true that this agency is profitable, we would not be here. They would be making profit, and OPIC would not need to come here every year. They are asking for $55 million. Where does the profit come from? It was stated earlier very clearly; from the interest they earn. They have a portfolio of $3 billion of U.S. securities. But these did not reduce the national debt. That is part of the national debt. We pay interest on that $3 billion. And this agency gets $194 million from it, four times the amount of the requested appropriation. No wonder on paper it looks profitable. And they say, well, the private companies will not insure some of these projects. That means it is probably risky. Why should the taxpayer assume the risk? Why should these corporations be protected with this corporate welfare? This is the reason why jobs are exported at a cost to the American taxpayer. It is bad economics. And it is a lot of twisting of the facts if we call this agency profitable at the same time they are getting $194 million that we barely talk about. How many other agencies of government get interest like this? This is almost a government unto itself, the fact that it has that much financing without even a direct appropriation because it is paid out of the interest budget. This is indeed a very important amendment. I believe that we should definitely vote for this. If we care at all about the taxpayer of this country, we should expose what is happening with corporate welfare. The little people are not coming to us today begging us to vote against this amendment. It is the corporations, the giant corporations, not our small mom-and-pop businesses. They are not coming and saying, please, please protect OPIC. No, it is the giant corporations that have been able to manipulate and get benefits from programs like this.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in opposition to this resolution and in support of free trade. Mr. Speaker, the reason a country engages in free trade is not altruism--we do not encourage trade and low tariffs for the benefit of a trading partner. Even if the reciprocal country does not lower its tariffs we can still benefit. Open and free trade with all nations, short of war, should be pursued for two specific reasons. One, it's a freedom issue; the right of the citizens of a free country to spend their money any way they see fit, anywhere in the world. And two, free trade provides the best deal for consumers allowing each to cast dollar votes with each purchase respecting quality and price. The foreign competition is a blessing in that it challenges domestic industries to do better. The Japanese car industry certainly resulted in American car manufacturers offering more competitive products. In setting trade policy we must not assume that it is our job to solve any internal political problems of our trading partners any more than it is their responsibility to deal with our internal shortcomings. Our biggest problem here in the Congress is that we seemingly never have a chance to vote for genuine free trade. The choice is almost always between managed-plus-subsidized trade or sanctions-plus- protectionism. Our careless use of language (most likely deliberate) is deceitful. Genuine free trade would involve low tariffs and no subsidies. Export-Import Bank funding, OPIC, and trade development subsidies to our foreign competitors would never exist. Trading with China should be permissible, but aid should never occur either directly or through multilateral banking organizations such as the IMF or World Bank. A true free trade policy would exclude the management of trade by international agencies such as the WTO and NAFTA. Unfortunately, these agencies are used too frequently to officially place restrictions on countries or firms that sell products ``too cheaply''--a benefit to consumers but challenging to politically-favored domestic or established ``competitors.'' This is nothing more than worldwide managed trade (regulatory cartels) and will eventually lead to a trade war despite all the grandiose talk of free trade. Trade policy should never be mixed with the issue of domestic political problems. Dictatorial governments trading with freer nations are more likely to respect civil liberties if they are trading with them. Also, it is true that nations that trade are less likely to go to war with one another. If all trade subsidies are eliminated, there is less temptation on our part to impose conditions on others receiving our grants and loans. Before we assume that we can improve the political liberties of foreign citizens, we must meet the responsibility of protecting all civil liberties of our own citizens irrespective of whether it is guaranteeing first and second amendment protections or guaranteeing the balance of power between the states and the federal government as required by the ninth and tenth amendments. Every argument today for trading with China is an argument for removing all sanctions with all nations including Cuba, Libya, Iran and Iraq. None of these nations come close to being a threat to our national sovereignty. If trade with China is to help us commercially and help the cause of peace, so too would trade with all countries. I look forward to the day that our trade debate may advance from the rhetoric of managed trade versus protectionism to that of true free trade, without subsidies or WTO-like management; or better yet, free trade with an internationally accepted monetary unit recognizing the fallacy of mismanaged fiat currencies.