Ron Paul

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs) for yielding me this time, and I appreciate very much his work in this effort. Mr. Chairman, this is a very important part of this legislation. This is not BESTEA, but it is ``best part.'' By far Section 3002 of this bill is the best part of this entire bill. The only thing I would like to add is that the money being spent in Bosnia and Iraq, $1.8 billion, should not be spent there either, because I am frightened that we will put our men in harm's way and then a situation will occur, and it will be virtually impossible for the Congress to turn down acceleration and amplification of the conflict over there. Mr. Chairman, it has been stated that only five times we have declared war in our history. True. But who is going to stand here and say that men that died in Vietnam and in Korea were not in a war? They were illegal. They were unconstitutional. This is a very sound effort to bring back once again the constitutional responsibility of all of us to declare war, and only Congress can do that.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3579, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, a bill to further fund, at the expense of airports and Section 8 Housing Assistance, the unconstitutional effort to ``police the world.'' Having submitted amendments to the Rules Committee to defund the ``police the world'' aspects of this bill only to be denied in the Rules process, I must oppose final passage of this supplemental Appropriations bill. One of the truly positive aspects of H.R. 3579 is Sec. 3002 stating that ``none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be made available for the conduct of offensive operations by United States Armed Forces against Iraq for the purpose of obtaining compliance by Iraq with United Nations Security Council Resolutions relating to inspection and destruction of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq unless such operations are specifically authorized by a law enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act.'' This language is virtually identical to H.R. 3208, a bill I introduced in February of this year to require Congressional consent prior to any offensive attack by the United States on the Republic of Iraq. Unfortunately, Congress has refused to acknowledge anytime recently that the proper and constitutional role of the U.S. military is to provide for the national defense and not the security of all foreign entities against attacks by all other foreign entities. It was for this reason that I submitted amendments to defund the military appropriations in H.R. 3579. The proper amount of appropriations for unjustifiable United States peacekeeping missions around the world is zero. Instead, this bill rescinds funding from domestic programs such as airport funding to be spent on our ``police-the-world'' program. It has become the accepted political notion in this century that war is a Presidential matter in which Congress may not meddle, and certainly never offer dissenting views. Yet, no place in the Constitution do we find a presidential fiat power to conduct war. To the contrary, we find strict prohibitions placed on the President when it comes to dealing with foreign nations. The Constitution is clear: No war may be fought without a specific declaration by the Congress. I, in fact, introduced H.R. 3208, in an effort to protect US troops from unnecessary exposure to harm and to stop President Clinton from initiating the use of force in the Persian Gulf. As a former Air Force flight surgeon, I am committed to supporting troops and believe the only way to completely support soldiers is to not put them in harms way except to defend our nation. Of course, those drumming for war say they want everyone to support the troops by sending them into battle: a contradiction, at best. There is absolutely no moral or constitutional reason to go to war with Iraq or further intervene in Bosnia at this time. To go to war to enforce the dictates of the United Nations, or to play the part of `policemen of the world,' offends the sensibilities of all who seek to follow the Constitution. I refuse to participate in (or fund) an action which would possibly expose even one soldier to risk when there is absolutely no immediate threat to the territory of the United States. For these reasons I must oppose this bill which provides additional funding for exactly these purposes.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, yesterday the foreign affairs conference report was unfortunately passed without a recorded vote. For weeks, arms had been twisted because the votes were not available to pass it. This surprised some and pleased many who preferred not to be recorded on this crucial issue. But, unfortunately, the process only adds to the cynicism that many Americans hold for the U.S. Congress. Nearly a billion dollars were appropriated for the controversial back dues to the United Nations, which for many of us was not owed. It was argued by many right-to-life advocates that the bill was worth passing because the antiabortion language was stronger than ever and would now be codified. Unfortunately, the antiabortion language was weaker than ever with a convenient, huge loophole for the President to continue funding countries and groups that perform and promote abortion, language now to be codified. Events surrounding the passage of the foreign affairs conference report occurring yesterday should not make any of us proud.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, last year's attempts by some in Congress to tie the Mexico City Policy to the issues of funding for the United Nations (UN) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) this week come back to haunt those of us who believe in the sanctity of human life, the inviolability of US Sovereignty, and the rights of the U.S. taxpayers to keep the fruits of their own labor. This week, we see, the ``grand deal'' struck which will see liberals back down from their opposition to Mexico City Language in exchange for conservative members voting to support funding of the United Nations, affirmative action, peacekeeping activities, and the National Endowment for Democracy. mexico city policy detailed The Mexico City Policy was drafted in the Reagan years as an attempt to put some limitations on US foreign aide being used for certain abortions overseas. While I believe that those who put this policy forward were well-motivated, I believe that time has shown this policy to have little real effect. I have continued to vote for this policy when it came up as a stand alone issue in this Congress because, by itself, its effect tends to be positive rather than negative, as I say, I consider it largely ineffective. I believe that the only real answer to the concerns of sovereignty, property rights, constitutionality and pro-life philosophy is for the United States to totally de-fund any foreign aid for international ``family planning'' purposes. I introduced a resolution to that effect in 1997 and we received 154 votes in support of cutting off this unconstitutional funding program. In fact, the deficiencies of the Mexico City Policy are such that the pro-family conservative group Concerned Women for America has withdrawn its support for the Mexico City Policy all together. This, in part, due to the fact that while the policy requires more creative accounting, it does not, by any stretch of the imagination, prohibit funding of many abortions. united nations The United Nations is an organization which frequently acts in a manner contrary to the sovereign interests of the United States. As such, I have sponsored legislation to get the United States out of this organization. Currently, the most pressing battle is to stop the US from paying phony ``back dues'' which we supposedly ``owe'' this organization. Congressman Roscoe Bartlett put forward a bill to stop any payment of this phony UN debt and I proudly cosponsored Mr. Bartlett's legislation. linking these two issues We were able to put the breaks to the funding of the false UN debt and the IMF at the end of the last session of Congress by linking these items with the Mexico City Policy language. For political reasons President Clinton has steadfastly refused to sign any legislation which contains any anti-abortion language at all. This linkage presented us with a short term tactical victory but its long term costs are now becoming quite apparent. In linking these two issues together an opportunity for a ``deal'' has become apparent, a deal which will compromise principles on several fronts. the so-called ``bargain'' The so-called bargain here is maintaining the flawed Mexico City language in exchange for paying the alleged back-dues to the United Nations. But this, from a true conservative standpoint, is a double negative. In a world of so-called give-and-take, this is a double-take. This is no bargain at all. Obviously, the Mexico City policy is riddled with fungibility holes in the first place. Moreover, it is morally repugnant to undermine our nation's integrity by trading votes in this fashion. Worse still, it is now apparent how willing ``some'' members have become to water the Mexico City Policy down still further in order to get President Clinton to sign legislation which shouldn't exist in the first place. Even the abortion restrictive language has been diluted to state that ``the President could waive the restriction on funding groups that perform or promote abortion, but such a waiver would automatically reduce total U.S. funding for family planning activities to $356 million, 11% less then current appropriations. In other words, Abortion is A-O-K if done with 11% fewer taxpayer dollars. Now that's not worth compromising principle. ``peacekeeping'' This compromise authorizes $430 million for U.S. contributions to our ``police the world'' program carried out through various arms of the United Nations. International peacekeeping operations are currently ongoing in the Middle East, Angola, Cambodia, Western Sahara, and the former Yugoslavia. Additionally, the measure authorizes $146 million to international operation in the Sinai and Cypress. addtionally This ``agreement'' authorizes $1.8 Billion for multilateral assistance in excess of the previously mentioned contribution to the United Nations; $60 million dollars for the National Endowment for Democracy; $20 million for the Asia Foundation; $22 million for the East-West Center for the study of Asian and Pacific Affairs; $1.3 billion for international migration and refugee assistance and an additional $160 million to transport refugees from the republics of the former Soviet Union to Israel. Also, $100 million is authorized to fund radio broadcasts to Cuba, Asia and a study on the feasibility of doing so in Iran. Lastly, foreign policy provisions in this report suggest an ever- increasing role for the United States in our current police-the-world mentality. Strong language to encourage all emerging democracies in Central and Eastern Europe to join NATO area amongst these provisions in the conference report. It also authorizes $20 million for the International Fund for Ireland to support reconciliation, job creation, investment therein. For Iraq, the bill authorizes $10 million to train political opposition forces and $20 million for relief efforts in areas of Iraq not under the control of Hussein. Apparently contrary to the first amendment, the conference report contains language that the U.S. should recognize the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Istanbul, Turkey, as the spiritual center of the world's 300 million Orthodox Christians and calls upon the Turkish government to reopen the Halki Patriarchal School of Theology formerly closed in 1971. ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion * * * (Except abroad?) conclusion Fortunately, many genuinely conservative pro-life and pro-sovereignty groups are making it known that they do not support this so-called ``compromise.'' I, for one, refuse to participate in any such illusion and oppose any effort to pay even one penny of U.S. taxpayer dollars to the United Nations, subsidize family planning around the world, and intervene at U.S. taxpayer expense in every corner of the globe.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in strong support of this resolution, and I compliment the gentleman from California for bringing it to this floor. This is an immensely important constitutional issue and one that we should pay close attention to and obviously support. I would like this same principle, of course, to apply across the board, especially when it comes to bombing foreign countries, like Iraq, because we should not be involved in war efforts without the consent of the Congress. The Constitution is very, very clear on this. Unfortunately, policy has drifted away from a noninterventionist constitutional approach. Just in the last 2 days we had five resolutions implying that we have the economic strength, we have the military power and the wisdom to tell other people what to do. Usually it starts just with a little bit of advice that leads next to then sending troops in to follow up with the advice that we are giving. So I think this is very, very important, to get this out on the table, debate this, and for Congress to reassume the responsibility that they have given to an imperial presidency. Prior to World War II there were always debates in the House of Representatives any time we wanted to use military force. Whether it was 150 years ago, when we decided to spread our borders southward towards Mexico, or whether 100 years ago when we decided to do something in Cuba, it came here. They had the debates, they had the arguments, but they came to the floor and debated this. Today, ever since World War II, we have reneged on that responsibility. We have turned it over to the President and allowed him to be involved. We have given him words of encouragement that implies that we support his position. We do so often and, as far as I am concerned, too carelessly. But when we do this, the President then assumes this responsibility; and, unfortunately, since World War II, it has not even been for national security reasons. The Persian Gulf War was fought with the assumption that the administration got the authority from the United Nations. If we are to express ourselves and to defend our national sovereignty, we should have the Congress vote positive on this resolution because it is so critical. Today, we have been overextended. Our military is not as strong as some people believe. Our economy is probably not nearly as strong as some believe. We have troops that could be attacked in Korea. We have the potentiality of bombing Baghdad at the same time we have troops in harm's way in Bosnia. So we have spread ourselves too thinly, and we are vulnerable. We have a responsibility here. The Congress has a responsibility to the American people. We are here to defend the national sovereignty and the protection of the United States. Troops in Bosnia threatens our national security and threatens the lives of the American citizen who is protecting or fighting in this region. So it is up to us to assume this responsibility.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw to the attention of my colleagues two House concurrent resolutions that we will be voting on, one today and one tomorrow. The one tomorrow is offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell), which I think we should pay close attention to and, hopefully, support. This is H. Con. Res. 227. It is a concurrent resolution directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove United States Armed Forces from the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The troops should never have been sent there in the first place. There was a lot of controversy. It was far from unanimous consent from the Congress to send the troops there. They were sent there in 1995, and they were to be there for 18 months, and each time we came upon a date for removing the troops, they were extended. Currently, it is the President's position that the troops will stay indefinitely. He has not set a date, although the Congress has set a date for this June for all funding to be removed as of June and the troops should come home. This resolution more or less states that same position. I strongly favor this, and I believe that the Congress should send a strong message that we should not casually and carelessly send troops around the world to police the world. This is a good way for us to get into trouble. Our national security is not threatened. There was no justification for our troops to be sent there. There are always good reasons, though, given because there are problems. Well, there are problems every place in the world. If we try to solve all the problems of the world, we would not have troops in a hundred countries like we have now, we would have them in three or four hundred countries. But it is true that we send troops with the most amount of pressure put upon us to do it. There are certain countries, like in Rwanda, Africa, we certainly did not apply the same rules to that country as we do to Bosnia and the Persian Gulf and Iraq. We did not do this when we saw the mass killings in the Far East under Pol Pot. So, under certain circumstances where there is political pressure made by certain allies or by interests of oil, then we are likely to get involved. But the principle of a noninterventionism foreign policy should make certain that we, the Congress, never condone, never endorse, never promote the placement of troops around the world in harm's way because it is a good way for men to get killed and, for most purposes, the lives of our American soldiers are too valuable to be put into a situation where there is so much harm and danger. Fortunately, there has been no American deaths in this region, but there is a good reason for those troops to come out. The peace has not been settled, though, there. It is not going to be. And our 16,000 or 20,000 troops that we have had there will not be able to maintain the peace as long as these warring factions exist. They have existed not for months, not for a few years, but literally for hundreds of years if not thousands of years people in this region have been fighting among themselves. So it is not our responsibility. Yes, we can condemn the violence; and who would not? But does that justify the taxing of American citizens and imposing a threat to American lives by imposing and sending our troops to all these hot spots around the region? So I strongly urge my fellow colleagues to look carefully at this resolution tomorrow and assume congressional responsibility. It is not the responsibility of the President to wage war, to put troops around the world. That is a congressional responsibility. So although there has been no declaration of war, we are sitting ducks for a war to be started. So let us stop the war before it gets started. I think we should strongly endorse this resolution and make sure these troops come home. It is interesting that there is a fair amount of support for this, and we obviously won the vote on this last year to say the troops should come home in June of this year. I suspect and hope that this will be restated, and there will be no excuse to extend their stay in this region. But at the same time we win those kind of votes, and there is a strong sentiment here in the Congress when we are required to vote and there is certainly a strong sentiment among the American people that we ought to be dealing with our problems here at home, we ought not to assume the role of world policemen, and we ought to mind our own business, and we ought to be concerned about the sovereignty of the United States, rather than sending our troops around the world under the auspices of the United Nations and NATO and literally giving up our sovereignty to international bodies. We were very confused as to who was really in charge of foreign policy in Iraq, whether it was Kofi Annan or whether it was our President.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, last week it was Saddam Hussein and the Iraqis. This week's Hitler is Slobodon Milosevic and the Serbs. Next week, who knows? Kim Chong-il and the North Koreans? Next year, who will it be, the Ayatollah and the Iranians? Every week we must find a foreign infidel to slay; and, of course, keep the military-industrial complex humming. Once our ally, Saddam Hussein, with encouragement from us, invaded Iran. Was it not logical that he might believe that we condone border crossings and invasions even into what Iraqis believe rightfully theirs, Kuwait, especially after getting tacit approval from U.S. Ambassador Glaspie? Last week U.S. Special Envoy to the Balkans Robert Gelbard, while visiting Belgrade, praised Milosevic for his cooperation in Bosnia and called the separatists in Kosova ``without question a terrorist group.'' So how should we expect a national government to treat its terrorists? Likewise, our Secretary of State in 1991 gave a signal to Milosevic by saying, ``All Yugoslavia should remain a monolithic state.'' What followed was to be expected: Serb oppression of the Croats and the Muslims. All our wise counsel so freely given to so many in this region fails to recognize that the country of Yugoslavia was an artificial country created by the Soviet masters, just as the borders of most Middle Eastern countries were concocted by the British and U.N. resolutions. The centuries old ethnic rivalries inherent in this region, and aggravated by persistent Western influence as far back as the Crusades, will never be resolved by arbitrary threats and use of force from the United States or the United Nations. All that is being accomplished is to further alienate the factions, festering hate and pushing the region into a war of which we need no part. Planning any military involvement in Kosova is senseless. Our security is not threatened, and no one has the foggiest notion of whether Kofi Annan or Bill Clinton is in charge of our foreign policy. The two certainly do not speak in unison on Iraq. But we cannot maintain two loyalties, one to a world government under the United Nations and the other to U.S. sovereignty protected by an American Congress. If we try, only chaos can result and we are moving rapidly in that direction. Instead of bringing our troops home from Bosnia, as many Members of Congress have expressed an interest in doing, over the President's objection, we are rapidly preparing for sending more troops into Kosova. This obsession with worldwide military occupation by U.S. troops is occurring at the very time our troops lack adequate training and preparation. This is not a result of too little money by a misdirected role for our military, a role that contradicts the policy of neutrality, friendship, trade and nonintervention in the affairs of other nations. The question we should ask is: are we entitled to, wealthy enough, or even wise enough to assume the role of world policemen and protector of the world's natural resources? Under the Constitution, there is no such authority. Under rules of morality, we have no authority to force others to behave as we believe they should, and force American citizens to pay for it not only with dollars, but with life and limb as well. And by the rules of common sense, the role of world policemen is a dangerous game and not worth playing. Acting as an honest broker, the U.S. may help bring warring factions to the peace table, but never with threats of war or bribes paid for by the American taxpayers. We should stop sending money and weapons to all factions. Too often our support finds its way into the hands of both warring factions and we never know how long it will be for our friends and allies of today to become our enemy and targets of tomorrow. Concern for American security is a proper and necessary function of the U.S. Congress. The current policy, and one pursued for decades, threatens our security, drains our wallets, and worst of all, threatens the lives of young Americans to stand tall for Americans' defense, but not for Kofi Annan and the United Nations.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 419, yet another circumvention of the enumerated powers clause and tenth amendment by this 105th Congress in its continued obliteration of what remains of our national government of limited powers. For most of the past thirty years, I have worked as physician specializing in obstetrics. In so doing, I delivered more than 4,000 infants. Despite what I believe to be a somewhat unique insight on the topic of birth defect prevention, today, I address the house as a Congressman rather than as a physician. As a Congressman, I have repeatedly come to the house floor to denounce the further expansion of the federal government into areas ranging from ``toilet-tank-size mandates'' to ``public housing pet size;'' areas, that is, where no enumerated power exists and the tenth amendment reserves to state governments and private citizens the exclusive jurisdiction over such matters. My visits to the floor have not gone uncontested--proponents of an enlarged federal government and more government spending have justified their pet spending and expansionist projects by distorting the meaning of the ``necessary and proper'' and ``common defense and general welfare'' clauses to encompass the constitutionally illegitimate activities they advocate. Even the Export-Import Bank and Overseas Private Investment Corporation during Foreign Operations Appropriations debate were constitutionally ``justified'' by the express power to ``coin money and regulate the value thereof''? In other words, where money exists, credit exists-- where credit exists, loans exist--where loans exist, defaulters exist-- and from this, the federal government has a duty to bail-out (at taxpayer expense) politically connected corporations who make bad loans in political-risk-laden venues? In the Federalist Papers, Madison and Hamilton strongly denied such views with respect to the necessary and proper clause. Madison was similarly emphatic that the ``defense and welfare'' clause did not expand the enumerated powers granted to Congress. To the extent these clauses encompass the enumerated powers (rather than merely serve as their preamble), one must ask why then the federal powers were, in fact, enumerated in Article One, Section 8. Chiefly to resolve ambiguities about the national powers, the tenth amendment, proposed as part of the Bill of Rights by the Federalist- controlled first Congress, was added, declaring that the ``powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.'' According to constitutional scholar Bernard Siegan, University of San Diego College of Law, the Constitution might never have been ratified had the Federalists' representations in this regard not been accepted by a portion of the public. Siegan also reminds us that the Framers rejected the notion of empowering the national government to grant charters of incorporation; establish seminaries for the promotion of agriculture, commerce, trades, and manufactures; regulate stages on post roads; establish universities; encourage by premiums and provisions, the advancement of useful knowledge; and opening and establishing canals. Each notion was introduced during the convention and voted down or died in committee. Jefferson, in one of his most famous remarks, when addressing the issue of whether to grant a federal charter to a mining business, recognized below the slippery slope of a lax interpretation of the ``necessary and proper'' clause: Congress are [sic] authorized to defend the nation. Ships are necessary for defense, copper is necessary for ships; mines, necessary for copper; a company necessary to work the mines; and who can doubt this reasoning who has ever played at ``This is the House that Jack Built''? under such a process of filiation of the necessities the sweeping clause makes clean work. [1 c. Warren, The Supreme Court United States History 501 (Rev. ed. 1926] Cleary, while engaging in such congressional activism makes ``clean work,'' it also makes for an oppressive national government involved in every aspect of its citizens' lives. Remember that in engaging in such activism, the next liberty upon which the Congress infringes, may be your own. I, for one, am uninterested in further catapulting this country down this ``road to serfdom'' albeit a road paved with the good intentions of, in this case, ``preventing birth defects''. If this matter is so vital that it can only be done via the power of the federal government, then I suggest that members of the House convince their constituents of this and amend the constitution accordingly. I, despite my extensive work as an obstetrician, remain unconvinced. A volunteer group, private charity, hospital trade association, or university could certainly, in this age of advanced computer technology, maintain a database necessary to adequately address the information needs of those hoping to advance the cause of birth defect reduction. This, I believe would be a solution compatible with the framer's notion of a national government of limited powers. For these reasons I oppose S. 419, the Birth Defects Prevention Act of 1997.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am today introducing the Rice Farmers Fairness Act H.R. 3339. This legislation would condition the continuation of farm subsidies on the maintenance of rice production. The 1996 Freedom to Farm Act allows for the continuation of subsidies to landowners who discontinue tenant rice farming on their land. In essence, this means that the subsidy will continue to flow in spite of an end to production. Theoretically, the idea of the plan is to ``wean'' landowners off of subsidies over a transition period. In fact, what this program allows are ``something for nothing'' subsidies, which is the worst kind of subsidy. Moreover, as a result of this provision there is a very real threat to the agricultural infrastructure. With landowners receiving subsidies in spite of lack of production, the entire warehousing, processing and ``value-added'' industries are put at risk. As grain elevators, processors and others see a reduction in demand for their services because of the diminution of production permitted by this legislation they have a disincentive to continue to provide said services, services which must remain in place in order for those who remain in production to be able to bring to market the rice which they continue to produce. Thus, by way of the decimation of the infrastructure, this subsidy to non-producers comes at the expense of those who continue to produce rice. Therefore, the provisions of the Freedom to Farm Act which provide this subsidy actually amount to another form of federal welfare, taking from producers and giving to non-producers. My legislation is very simple and direct in dealing with this problem. It says that those who had tenant rice farmers producing rice when they began to receive this subsidy must continue to maintain rice in their crop rotation if they wish to retain the subsidy. In this way, we can remove the perverse incentive which the Federal Government has provided to landowners to exit the rice business and thereby put the entire rice infrastructure at risk. America's rice farmers are among the most efficient, effective producers of rice in the world despite the many hurdles erected by Washington. Our rice producers can compete with anyone absent such hurdles and this bill will help remove one. In order to enhance our competitive position, we should also end our embargoes of other nations which would like access to rice produced in America. Further we should eliminate the burdensome taxes regulations on America's farmers to insure increased market access and a healthy farming community in the these United States.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition of H.R. 2460, The Wireless Telephone Protection Act. Setting aside the vital and relevant question of whether the enumerated powers and tenth amendment allow the federal government to make possession of electronic scanning devices criminal, another aspect of this bill should have met with harsh criticism from those who hold individual liberties in even some regard. Under current ``anti-cloning'' law, prosecutors must prove a defendant intended to use scanning equipment illegally, or have an ``intent'' to defraud. This bill shifts the burden of proof of ``innocent use'' from the prosecutor to the defendant. The United States Constitution prohibits this federal government from depriving a person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Pursuant to this constitutional provision, a criminal defendant is presumed to be innocent of the crime charged and, pursuant to what is often called ``the Winship doctrine,'' the persecution is allocated the burden of persuading the fact-finder of every fact necessary to constitute the crime . . . charged.'' The prosecution must carry this burden because of the immense interests at stake in a criminal prosecution, namely that a conviction often results in the loss of liberty or life (in this case, a sentence of up to ten years). This radical departure from the long held notion of ``innocent until proven guilty'' warrants opposition to this bill.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Privacy Protection Act of 1998, which forbids the use of the Social Security number for any purpose not directly related to the administration of the Social Security system. The Social Security number was created solely for use in administering the Social Security system. However, today the Social Security number is used as an identifier for numerous federal programs. Unless the use of the Social Security number is restricted, it will soon become a national identification number by which the federal government can easily keep track of all vital information regarding American citizens. Anyone who doubts that we are well on the way to using the Social Security number as an universal identifier need only consult 1996's welfare reform bill, which forces business to report the Social Security number of every new employee to the federal government so it may be recorded in a national data base. Another example of the abuse of the Social Security number is a provision in tax law requiring a spouse paying alimony furnish the IRS with the Social Security number of the spouse receiving alimony. There are not isolated incidents; in fact, since the creation of the Social Security number in 1934 there have been almost 40 congressionally-authorized uses of the Social Security number as an identification number for non-Social Security programs! Abuse of the Social Security system also occurs at the state level. Mr. Speaker, in many states. One cannot get a driver's license, apply for a job, or even receive a birth certificate for one's child, without presenting their Social Security number to a government official, and just X weeks ago 210 of my colleagues voted to allow States to require citizens to show their Social Security number in order to vote. Since the Social Security number is part of a federal program created by Congress, it is Congress' responsibility to ensure it is not used to violate the privacy of America's citizens. Perhaps the most disturbing abuses of the Social Security number is the Congressionally-authorized rule forcing parents to get a Social Security number for their newborn children in order to claim them as a dependent. Mr. Speaker, forcing parents to register their newborn children with the state is more like something out of the nightmare of George Orwell than the dreams of a free Republic that inspired the nation's founders. Unless the abuses of the Social Security number is stopped, Americans will soon have a de facto national identification number, which would provide the federal government the ability to track all citizens from cradle to grave. The drafters of the Constitution would be horrified if they knew that the federal government would have the ability to set up a universal identifier and every newborn baby had to be assigned a number by the federal government. I therefore urge my colleagues to protect America's freedom by cosponsoring the Privacy Protection Act of 1998.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. I would like to ask the gentleman one question. He was just home in his district, he traveled and talked to quite a few of his constituents. Did he get a sentiment from his district on what they want?

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, if I had a chance to pick a topic for my special order today, I would call it the folly of foreign intervention. We have heard very much in the last few weeks about the possibility of a war being started in the Persian Gulf. It looks like this has at least been delayed a bit. There is a temporary victory brought about by Secretary General Kofi Annan of the United Nations in agreement with the government of Iraq. This, I think, is beneficial. At least it gives both sides more time to stop and think and talk before more bombs are dropped. Before we left about 10 days ago from the Congress, I think many Members and much of the Nation thought that within a short period of time, within a week or so, there would be additional bombing by the Americans over Baghdad. There were polls out at that time that said 70 percent of the American people endorsed this move, something that I questioned and of course I question the legitimacy of dealing with policy by measuring polls, anyway. I think we should do what is right, not try to decide what is right by the polls. But in this circumstance, I think the polls must have been very, very misleading. We heard a gentleman earlier this evening from North Dakota mention when he was at home essentially nobody was telling him that they were in favor of the war. I think most Members of Congress on this past week on visiting home had the same message. Certainly there was a very loud message in Columbus at a town hall meeting. It was written off by those who wanted to go to war and wanted to drop the bombs by saying, well, no, this was just a very noisy bunch of hippies who are opposed to the war. There are a lot of people in this country who are opposed to the war and they are not hippies. I think to discredit people who oppose going and participating in an act of war and try to discredit them by saying that they belong to a hippie generation, I think they are going to lose out in the credibility argument in this regards. This debate has been going on for quite a few months. It looks like it is not resolved. Although there has been an agreement, it is far from a victory for either side. It is somewhat ironic about how this has come about, because it seems that those of us who have been urging great caution have been satisfied with at least a temporary solution, yet we are not entirely satisfied at all with the dependency on the effort by the United States enforcing U.N. resolutions. In this case I think what we must do is reassess the entire policy because it is policy that gets us into trouble. It is in this one instance. We did not just invent foreign interventionism in foreign policy. This has been going on for a long time. The worst and the first egregious example, of course, was in Korea where we went to war under the U.N. banner and was the first war we did not win. Yet we continue with this same policy throughout the world. Hardly can we be proud of what happened in Vietnam. It seems like we are having a lot more success getting along with the Vietnamese people as we trade with them rather than fight with them. There is a lot of argument against this whole principle of foreign interventionism, involvement in the internal affairs of other nations, picking leaders of other countries. We were warned rather clearly by our first President, George Washington, that it would be best that we not get involved in entangling alliances and that we instead should talk with people and be friendly with people and trade with people. Of course the first reaction would be, yes, but the person that we are dealing with as leader of Iraq is a monster and therefore we cannot trust him and we should not talk to him. There have been a lot of monsters in the world and we have not treated them all the same way. Just think of the tremendous number of deaths to the tune of millions under Pol Pot. At that time we were even an ally of his. Even the inconsistency of our policy where in the 1980s we actually encouraged Saddam Hussein. We sold him weapons. We actually had participated in the delivery of biological weapons to Hussein. At that time we encouraged him to cross the border into Iran. We closed our eyes when poison gases were used. So all of a sudden it is hard to understand why our policy changes. But once we embark on a policy of intervention and it is arbitrary, we intervene when we please or when it seems to help, it seems then that we can be on either side of any issue anytime, and so often we are on both sides of many wars. This does not serve us well. A policy design that is said to be pro-American and in defense of this country where we follow the rules and follow the laws and we do not get involved in war without a declaration by the Congress, I think it would be very healthy not only for us as Americans but it would be very healthy for the world as a whole. I am very pleased that there has been at least a pause here, although our troops will be maintained there and they are waiting to see if there is some other excuse that we can go in there and resume the bombing. But the whole notion that we are going to bring Hussein to his knees without the cost of many American lives I think is naive, because nobody has proposed that we go in and invade the country. There have been proposals that we just assassinate Hussein, which is illegal. At least that is acknowledged that this is an illegal act, to go in and kill another leader, although we have been involved in that too. But many people have argued that this should be our policy now, and that is to topple Hussein. But we used the CIA in Cuba a few decades ago. Now it has just been revealed that our CIA botched the job. Also, those individuals who were trying to restore freedom to Cuba, we let them down by them assuming we would do more and then we did less. We were very much involved in overthrowing a leader in South Vietnam right before the rampant escalation of the war there. That did not serve us well. And then there is another example of our CIA putting a government in charge over in Iran. That is when we put the Shah in. But this did not bring peace and stability to the region. It brought us hostage takings and hostility and hatred and threats of terrorism in this country. So although many will make the moral cause for doing good around the world, there is no moral justification if we are going to follow the laws of this land and try to stick to the rules of providing a national defense for us and a strong foreign policy. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentleman very much for participating. Early on, I talked about a policy of nonintervention; and I would like to talk a little bit more about that. Because some might construe that if you have a policy of nonintervention, it means you do not care; and that is not the case. Because we can care a whole lot. There are two very important reasons why one who espouses the constitutional viewpoint of nonintervention, they do it. One, we believe in the rule of law and we should do it very cautiously, and that is what we are bound by here in the Congress. So that is very important. The other one is a practical reason, and that is that there is not very good evidence that our intervention does much good. We do not see that intervention in Somalia has really solved the problems there, and we left there in a hurry. We have spent a lot of money in Bosnia and the other places. So the evidence is not very good that intervention is involved, certainly the most abhorrent type of intervention, which is the eager and aggressive and not-well-thought-out military intervention. That is obviously the very worst. I would argue that even the policy of neutrality and friendship and trade with people, regardless of the enemy, would be the best. Of course, if you are involved in a war or there is an avowed enemy, declared enemy, that is a different story. For the most part, since World War II, we have not used those terms, we have not had declared words, we have only had ``police actions,'' and, therefore, we are working in a never-never limbo that nobody can well define. I think it is much better that we define the process and that everybody understands it. I would like to go ahead and close with a brief summary of what we have been trying to do here today. It was mentioned earlier, and I want to reemphasize it, something that has not been talked about a whole lot over this issue, has been the issue of oil. It is oil interests, money involved. As I stated earlier, we were allies with Hussein when we encouraged him to cross the border into Iran, and yet, at the same time, the taking over of the Kuwait oil fields was something that we could not stand, even though there has not been a full debate over that argument. We have heard only the one side of that, who drew the lines and for what reason the lines were drawn there and whose oil was being drilled. There is a major debate there that should be fully aired before we say that it is the fault of only one. But it is not so much that it was the crossing of borders. I do believe that oil interests and the huge very, very important oil fields of Iraq and what it might mean to the price of oil if they came on has a whole lot to do with this. We did not worry about the Hutus and the Tutus in Africa. A lot of killing was going on there; 1 million people were being killed. Where was our compassion? Where was our compassion in the killing fields of Cambodia? We did not express the same compassion that we seem to express as soon as oil is involved. We cannot let them get away with the repetition of ``we got to get the weapons of mass destruction.'' Of course. But are they mostly in Iraq? I would say we have done rather well getting rid of the weapons there. They are a much weaker nation militarily than they were 10 years ago, and those kind of weapons are around the world, so that, as far as I am concerned, is a weak argument. Another subject that is not mentioned very often, but the prime minister of Israel just recently implied that, hopefully, we will pursue this policy of going in there and trying to topple this regime. I can understand their concerns, but I also understand the concerns of the American taxpayers and the expense of the American lives that might be involved. So I can argue my case. But even taking it from an Israeli point of view, I do not know how they can be sure it is in their best interests to go over there and stir things up. They are more likely to be bombed with a terrorist bomb if we go in there and start bombing Iraq. If we do, Israel will not stand by as they did once before. They told us so. So if we bomb first and then the goal of Saddam Hussein is to expand the war, what does he do? He lobs one over into Israel, and Israel comes in, and then the whole procedure has been to solidify the Islamic fundamentalists. Then there is no reason not to expect maybe Iran and Syria coming in. Right now Iraq is on closer ties with Syria and Iran than they have been in 18 years. This is the achievement of our policy. We are driving the unity of those who really hate America, and will do almost anything. So we further expose ourselves to the threat of terrorism. So if they are attacked and they have no way to defend themselves against this great Nation of ours, they will strike out. Therefore, I think in the practical argument, we have very little to gain by pursuing this policy. It is not difficult for me to come down on the side of arguing for peace. Peace is what we should be for. That does not mean you give up your military, but you use your military more wisely than we have over the past 30 or 40 years. You use it for national defense. Today we have a powerful military force, but a lot of people do not think we are as strong in defense as we used to be. So, yes, we are stronger than others, but if we have a failed and a flawed policy and a military that has been weakened, then we are looking for trouble. So even the practical arguments call for restraint and a sensible approach, for debate and negotiations. It is for this reason I think for the moment we can be pleased that Mr. Annan went to Iraq and came back with something that is at least negotiable, and that the American people will think about and talk about. Hopefully this will lead not only to peace immediately in this area, but hopefully it will lead to a full discussion about the wisdom of a foreign policy of continued perpetual interventionism and involvement in the internal affairs of other nations. If we argue our case correctly, if we argue the more argument, the constitutional argument, and the argument for peace as well, I cannot see how the American people cannot endorse a policy like that, and I challenge those who think that we should go carelessly and rapidly into battle, killing those who are not responsible, further enhancing the power and the authority of those who would be the dictators. They do not get killed. Sanctions do not hurt them. The innocent people suffer. Just as the economic sanctions that will be put on Southeast Asia as we give them more money, who suffers from the devaluations? The American taxpayer, as well as the poor people, whether they are in Mexico or Southeast Asia, in order to prop up the very special interests. Whether it is the banking interests involved in the loans to the Southeast Asians, or our military- industrial complex who tends to benefit from building more and more weapons so they can go off and test them in wars that are unnecessary.

Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentleman for his remarks. He made some very good points. I would like to follow up on the one point with regards to the military. That is one of the most essential functions of the Federal Government, is to provide for a strong national defense. But if we intervene carelessly around the world, that serves to weaken us. I have always lamented the fact that we so often are anxious to close down our bases here within the United States because we are always looking for the next monster to slay outside of the country, so we build air bases in places like Saudi Arabia. Then when the time comes that our leaders think that it is necessary to pursue a war policy in the region, they do not even allow us to use the bases. I think that is so often money down the drain. It is estimated now that we have probably pumped in $7 billion into Bosnia and that is continuing. Our President is saying now that that is open-ended, there is no date to bring those troops back. We have already spent probably a half a billion additional dollars these last several weeks just beefing up the troops in the Persian Gulf. The funds will not be endless. I have too many calls from so many in my district who serve in the military, and their complaint is that they do not have enough funds to adequately train. We are wasting money in the wrong places, getting ourselves into more trouble than we need to. At the same time we detract from spending the money where we should in training our personnel the way they should be. I think this is not so much a tactical decision made by management as much as it is a policy decision on what our foreign policy ought to be. If we continue to believe that we can police the whole world and provide security and right every wrong, I think it will lead us to our bankruptcy, and just as was mentioned earlier, we receive the same kind of grief when we pretend that we can impose economic conditions on other countries. We, as a wealthy Nation, are expected to bail out other countries who have overextended themselves and they get into trouble. At the same time, we put economic rules and regulations on them and resentments are turned back toward us. The Arabs in the Middle East do not understand our foreign policy because there have been numerous U.N. resolutions, but it is only this one particular resolution that we have felt so compelled to enforce. And the real irony of all this is that first we use the United Nations as the excuse to go in. Then, the United Nations gets a little weak on their mandates, and they themselves do not want to go in. So it is a U.N. resolution that we try to enforce, and then when it is shown that it is not a good resolution, the U.N. then backs away from it. So there is no unanimous opinion in the U.N., I think further proving that this is a poor way to do foreign policy. And those who would like to do more bombing and pursue this even more aggressively tend to agree with that. They do not like the idea that we have turned over our foreign policy making to an international body like the United Nations. So this, to me, is a really good time to make us stop and think should we do this? I certainly think that our foreign policy in the interests of the United States should be determined by us here in the Congress, and then some will argue, well, it is not up to Congress to deal in foreign policy. That is up to a President. But that is not what is in the Constitution. As a matter of fact, foreign policy, those words do not even exist in the Constitution, and the Congress has all the responsibility of raising funds, spending funds, raising an army, declaring war, so the responsibilities are on us. And this is the reason why I have introduced a resolution that would say that we do have the authority to withdraw the funds from pursuing this bombing, and there is another resolution that the gentleman from Maryland will mention here shortly dealing with that same subject, because we do have the responsibility, and we, especially in the House, are closest to the people. We have to be up for reelection every 2 years, and if we listen to the polls that say that 70 percent of the American people want this war, at the same time if we fail to go home and talk to our people and find out that most Americans do not want this war and there is no good argument for it. The whole idea that we can immediately go over there and make sure there are no weapons of mass destruction when we helped build the weapons up in the first place, and if we are really concerned about weapons of mass destruction, why are we not more concerned about the 25,000 nuclear warheads that have fallen into unknown hands since the breakup of the Soviet Union? Our allies in the Middle East have nuclear weapons, and we have China to worry about. What did we do with China? We give them more foreign aid. So there is no consistent argument that we can put up that all of a sudden Saddam Hussein is the only threat to world peace and it is in our interest to go in there and take him out. It just does not add up. If he really was a threat, you would think his neighbors would be the most frightened about this, and yet the neighbors are urging us not to do it. They are urging us to take our time, back off and wait and see what happens. We, in the United States, so often are involved in conflicts around the world, and one of the things that we urge so many to do is sit down and talk to each other. We ask the Catholics and the Protestants in Ireland to talk, we ask the Croats and the Serbs to talk, we ask the Jews and the Arabs to talk; why is it that we cannot do more talking with Saddam Hussein? Instead, we impose sanctions on him which does nothing to him, solidifies his support, rallies the Islamic fundamentalists while we kill babies. There is now a U.N. report that shows that since the sanctions, well over a half a million children died from starvation and lack of medicines that we denied them. So I think that there is every reason in the world for us to reassess this policy. There is a much more sensible policy. What we need is more time right now. There is no urgency about this. We did the bombing in the early 1990s, and by the way, I can see this as a continuation of that single war. But since that time with inspections, even the President claims that they have gotten rid of more weapons since the war ended than occurred with the war. So if there is no military victory in sight by bombing and only great danger, what is the purpose? Why can we not continue with more negotiations and more inspections? And they say, well, we cannot trust Hussein. Well, that may be true. But looking at it objectively when we finished in 1991 our policy was to encourage the Kurds and the Shiites to rebel, and we implied that we would be there, and what happened? We were not there. Thousands and thousands of Shiites and Kurds were just wiped out because we misled them, similar to our promises that we made to the Cubans in the early 1960s. So we do not gain the respect of the world by, one, saying, well, we cannot trust anything he says. Of course not, we cannot trust it. But we have to be realistic, and can they trust us, as well, because our record is not perfectly clean. I now yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recommend to my colleagues the following article by a young writher, R.C. Sproul, Jr., the son of the remarkable theologian and author. While this article is indeed instructive and important in regards to the recent situation with Iraq, I believe that the author does a fine job addressing the much broader topic of following the Constitution in all matters, including those of inciting war and promoting peace. His article was written for CovSyn, which is a publication of the Kuyper Institute, in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Our founding fathers formed our government to ensure that no single person could have complete power or authority over any aspect of government; to give anyone that kind of power is to invite tyranny. I urge my colleagues to read and consider Mr. Sproul's article. We all took an oath to uphold the Constitution: an oath which we must take seriously if we are to promote liberty, peace and civil society. Bombing the Constitution By R.C. Sproul, Jr. When was the last time the United States went to war? That's not exactly an easy question to answer. If, however, the Constitution is in fact the law of the land, the answer is December 8, 1941. You see, the Constitution says that only the Congress has the power to declare war on another nation. That would seem to mean that without such a declaration, there is no war. Some kept this pretense the first time the United States went to war after World War II. Some called the Korean War a ``police action.'' Vietnam, though there was again no declaration of war, was known as a war. Since Vietnam U.S. soldiers have shot at soldiers from other countries, and been shot at, in Libya, Grenada, Panama, Somalia, the former Yugoslavia, and Iraq. And it appears we're going to non-war again in Iraq sometime soon. Where, to quote Mr. Dole, is the outrage? How is it that the Constitution can be so brazenly ignored? Some argue that in an age of intercontinental ballistic missiles, that the requirement for a Congressional declaration is outdated. In none of the above ``non-wars'' however, have such missiles constituted a treat to American safety. And even if such were the case, why not change the Constitution to reflect the current situation? Others suggest that we have no need for this old rule since we now have the ``War Powers Act'' which gives congressional approval for the President to use the military freely within a certain time frame. But that's not at all the same thing. The Constitution no where gives the Congress the right to shirk their role as declarers of war. Still others try to argue that the United Nations security council now serves that role. Again though, the Constitution says nothing about giving them this role. Neither does it say that a sufficient number of handshakes with Madelaine Albright shall be a substitute for Congressional action. And still some go on insisting that these conflicts aren't wars. With the U.S.S. Nimitz in the Suez Canal, with 3,000 ground troops being sent to join the 1,500 already in Kuwait, with Stealth bombers lined up and ready to go, this is nonsense. When soldiers shoot at each other, whether they're in a foxhole, or in a room full of computers, or 35,000 feet in the air, that's war. The only explanation I can think of is that no one really knows what the Constitution says. And while I'm not surprised that government school products would be ignorant (how can they know the Constitution when they can't read it?), what frightens me is that each and every soldier, from the buck private loading the cargo planes, to the lieutenants fresh out of ROTC, to the Commander-in-Chief, all of them have take a solemn oath to uphold and protect the Constitution. These United States are no longer operating under the Constitution. We, like those great nations which have come and gone before us, have sunk to the level of empire. And you, friend, are no free man or woman, but just another subject. Remember that as you wave that flag in honor of the bombing heroes.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, recently, a national newsletter focusing on science, technology and energy policy highlighted the small town of Seadrift, Texas located in my District. While focusing on Seadrift this newsletter article (Access to Energy) went on to make important points regarding the contributions which science and technology have made to freedom and industry and to the quality of life of people everywhere. Moreover, the article outlines how certain radicals would shut off technological benefits in the name of protecting earth at the expense of the humans who live on this planet. I commend this article to every Member and insert it in the record as an extension hereof. [From Access to Energy, February 1998] Seadrift Near the Gulf of Mexico, on the road between Houston and Corpus Christi, is the town of Victoria, Texas--one of the oldest settlements in the western United States. Thirty-five miles southeast of Victoria, rising out of the mists that roll in from the Gulf near the town of Seadrift, is one of America's great petrochemical plants, built by Union Carbide in 1954 and later expanded several times. I feel that I know this plant well, since I have a large framed aerial photograph of it on the wall beside me along with a matching framed artist's drawing of the plant before it was built. Under the artist's drawing is the aluminum hard hat of the man who was in charge of the design and construction of this plant and partially responsible for its operation during the first four years--my father, Edward H. ``Ted'' Robinson. His most trusted and valued co-worker at that time, Arnold Graham, still lives in Victoria, remembering their efforts. Ted Robinson went on to lead teams of engineers who designed and built similar Union Carbide plants in Puerto Rico, Scotland, Belgium, Brazil, Japan, and India. He is buried in an alpine glacier near the top of Mont Blanc on the border between France and Italy, which contains the remains of the Air India Boeing 707 that crashed there on January 24, 1966. The cause of this crash is not known for certain. It is believed to have been the work of assassins that killed the Indian physicist Bhaba, who was then head of the nuclear energy program of India and was also on the airplane. The original plant at Seadrift produced primarily polyethylene. It now produces additional products. This plant is a part of the vast infrastructure of chemical plants, built by the generation of Americans now in their 80s and the generations before them, that supplies the chemicals upon which our technological civilization depends. Along with the dams, bridges, foundries, mines, wells, mills, factories, railroads, research laboratories, computers, and other technological installations that have been built by the past several generations of Americans, these plants form the technological superstructure upon which our science, technology, and economic freedom depend. The capital required to build these things was supplied by the savings of tens of millions of people, who set aside part of the money they had earned and invested it in the free market in hopes of making a profit. It was also built by the profits retained by the corporations themselves. Capital alone did not, however, build the industries--people did. These people were led by unusual individuals whose love of science and technology dominated their personal lives and drove them and those around them to ever greater accomplishments. Archibald MacLeish told me many years ago that the thing that impressed him most about human beings was their amazing ability to love--and he was not thinking of the shallow phenomenon that dominates the lyrics in the cacophony of ``pusic'' (word invented by a musician friend) which pollutes most of America's radio stations. Each person has an enormous capacity to love--in many different ways. In some individuals, a part of this love is intensely directed toward science and technology. My father, for example, was simply head-over-heels in love with chemical plants (and with my mother, but that is another story). He lived and breathed their design and construction. When not in use for food, our kitchen table was covered with blueprints. He had no hobbies or avocations--the building of chemical plants was his vocation and all of his avocations combined. And, as a result of this all-consuming love, he built superb plants. I have seen this sort of love in a few other individuals. Mrs. Merrifield, the wife of R. Bruce Merrifield, who was the first man to synthesize an enzyme, described her husband's love affair with each of the 20 naturally occurring amino acids--a love that enabled him to link them together in ways never before accomplished. Linus Pauling, regardless of the low state of his personal and professional ethics, was completely in love with the structures of molecules. The incredible joy Linus felt as he pursued three-dimensional, semi-quantitative explanations for the structures of molecules and, later, for the structures of atomic nuclei was the greatest of all the scientists I have known. He was supremely happy when calculating or describing the properties of chemical bonds. Scientists work largely alone or with a few other people. Those who build industries work with large numbers of people. These prime builders, driven by their love for their work, are usually not the most well-liked, but they are often the most respected. It is their job to make our industrial world work--regardless of the personal foibles of those whom they must direct in doing this work. Their personal love for their work is the driving force that motivates them. All of us are beneficiaries of science and technology. We live lives that are much longer and are filled with seemingly endless pleasures, experiences, and freedoms that would not be available without technology. Even the ``warmers'' who gathered in Kyoto to bemoan and attack the world's hydrocarbon technology dropped in by way of airplanes belching demon carbon dioxide. Now, virtually all of our technology is under serious attack. From our lumber mills, farms, and ranches to our dams, power plants, and factories, all are under assault. Our enemies belong to a peculiar form of pagan religion. Petr Beckmann called it the ``green religion.'' This is not a new religion. The animal, plant, and earth worship ascendant today (partially at the expense of animals, plants, and the earth, which are, on balance, actually harmed by this mania) is fundamentally the same as that which arose periodically among the ancients, as chronicled, for example, in the Old Testament. This religion is now preached in our schools, our press, and our political institutions. It is, primarily, a religion of death. Technology, in the view of these zealots, has committed a terrible sin. It has made possible the lives of billions of human beings--human beings whom they believe to be alive at the expense of worshiped plants and animals. (The fact that technology enhances the lives of plants and animals is suppressed by the professional enviro religious agitators.) It is the moral obligation of every American--each living and benefiting from freedom and technology; each obligated to pass these blessings on to future generations; and each entrusted with a vote in the fate of the great American experiment--to stop this mania. Seadrift and the tens of thousands of like accomplishments must not be destroyed--at least not without a terrible fight.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to opposition to H.R. 424 for the following reason. Crime control and crime-related sentencing, the stated reason for enacting gun control legislation in the first place, was never intended to be a function of the federal government. Rather, it is a responsibility belonging to the states. This country's founders recognized the genius of dividing power amongst federal, state and local governments as a means to maximize individual liberty and make government most responsive to those persons who might most responsibly influence it. This division of power strictly limited the role of the federal government and, at the same time, anticipated that law enforcement would almost exclusively be the province and responsibility of state and local governments. Constitutionally, there are only three federal crimes. These are treason against the United States, piracy on the high seas, and counterfeiting. Despite the various pleas for the federal government's correction of all societal wrongs, a national police force and mandatory sentencing laws which violate the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. are neither prudent nor constitutional. For this reason I oppose H.R. 424 and the federal government's attempt to usurp the police power which properly rests with state governments.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, this Legislation, H.R. 3116, will not solve the Year 2000 problem. Giving some financial regulators ``statutory parity'' with other regulators will not solve the problem. Everyone will have to take responsibility to secure that their own systems will be Year 2000-compliant. We must hope that the government will be as diligent in its compliance with the so-called Millennium Bug problem as it want the private sector to be. The General Accounting Office (GAO) has reported unfavorably on the FDIC's readiness. Before the Subcommittee on Financial Services and Technology, Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, US Senate, Jack L. Brock, Jr., Director, Governmentwide and Defense Information Systems, testified on February 10, 1998 (Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's Efforts to Ensure Bank's Systems Are Year 2000 Compliant) that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) has not met its own ``y2k-compliant'' standards. According to GAO, the FDIC has not yet completed the assessment phase of the remediation process, despite its own standard that banks under the agency's supervision should have completed this phase by the end of the third quarter of 1997. The bill requires the regulators to provide information (seminars, etc.), make available to financial institutions model approaches to address the Year 2000 problem, and to give the regulators examination authority to examine third party service provides under contract to federally-insured institutions. James Mills, of NAFCU, testified before the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services, ``Historically, the role of providing education and training is one best performed by the private sector, namely trade associations and industry-related organizations . . . Rather than require federal agencies to offer seminars, perhaps any legislative efforts should require federal agencies to participate in such programs or make it advisable and permissible to participate.'' NAFCU believes that the focus of H.R. 3116 should be strictly limited to ensuring compliance. In its present form, H.R. 3116 contains a broad and permanent expansion of NCUA's examination and regulatory authority . . . Legitimate questions may be raised as to whether, absent the year 2000 issue, NCUA, as a federal financial regulatory agency, should have the authority not just to examine but to actually regulate private business enterprises incorporated under the laws of various states. The authority given to NCUA in H.R. 3116, is not limited to the examination and regulation of credit unions, but would allow NCUA to examine and regulate third-party businesses, vendors and outside providers. Do the members of the Committee intend to give NCUA authority to regulate private entities?'' Ellen Seidman, Director OTS, added, ``Clearly, the primary responsibility and liability for Year 2000 compliance rests with the regulated institutions themselves, including those that rely on service providers . . . Some service providers, however, have been resistant to these contractual provisions and, as a result, thrifts have been hindered in their ability to contract for services.'' This bill raises legal liability questions that may actually thwart a financial institution's ability to address the y2k problem more effectively. Introducing legislation on the y2k issue would only give more people more incentive to sue companies which are not compliant. How does the bill define ``year 2000 compliance''? It isn't clear. Such ambiguity only causes further problems. The real problem with y2k isn't the computers, its the people. More legislation will only compound the problem. Year 2000 issues with computers cause numerous headaches but by no means unsolvable problems. Solutions exist, and since we do exist in a relatively free market, we should allow it to work.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the question is not so much, let us say, that we could concede some of the gentleman's argument, but why do you have such hostility to the Constitution and to the process as what we are talking about? Why do we not have a declaration of war and win it? Why should we go with a U.N. resolution and legislation that is 8 years old? That is one of our greatest concerns.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would like to make two points. The other gentleman from California makes a good point about the character of Saddam Hussein, but my colleagues have to remember and have to realize that he was a close ally that we encouraged for 8 years during the 1980s, so we helped build him up, which contradicts this whole policy. I would like to see a more consistent policy. Then the gentleman brings up the subject: Yes, he may be in the business of developing weapons, but he has gotten help from China and Russia, and possibly from Britain and the United States, and 20 other nations are doing the same thing. So if we are interested in stopping these weapons, we better attack 20 countries. So we have a job on our hands.

Mr. PAUL

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

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the morning papers today recorded that Russia was providing weapons technology to Iraq. We have known for years that China has done the same thing. Does this mean that we must attack them as well as Iraq? Instead, though, we give foreign aid to both China and to Russia, so indirectly we are subsidizing the very weapons that we are trying to eliminate. I would like to remind my colleagues that bombing a country, especially one halfway around the world that is not a direct threat to our security, is not a moral act. A moral war is one that is defensive and a legal war is one that is declared by Congress. We should only pursue an act of war when our national security is threatened. Bombing will solve nothing. It will open up a can of worms. We should not condone it. We should not endorse it. We should not encourage it. Please think carefully before we permit our President to pursue this war adventure.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Voter Eligibility Verification Act (H.R. 1428). My opposition to this bill is not because I oppose taking steps to protect the integrity of the voting process, but because the means employed in this bill represent yet another step toward the transmutation of the Social Security number into a national identification number by which the federal government can more easily monitor private information regarding American citizens. The Social Security number was created solely for use in administering the Social Security system. Today, thanks to Congress, parents must get a Social Security number for their newborn babies. In addition, because of Congress, abuse of the Social Security system also occurs at the state level such in many states, one cannot get a driver's license, apply for a job, or even receive a birth certificate for one's child, without presenting their Social Security number to a government official. Now Congress is preparing to authorize the use of the Social Security number to verify citizenship for purposes of voting. Opponents of this bill are right to point out that, whatever protections are written in this bill, allowing states to force citizens to present a Social Security number before they can vote will require the augmentation of a national data base--similar to those created in the Welfare Reform and the Immigration Bills of 1996. Mr. Speaker, clearly we are heading for the day when American citizens cannot work, go to school, have a child, or even exercise their right to vote without presenting what, in effect, is quickly becoming a national I.D. card. National I.D. cards are trademarks of totalitarian governments, not constitutional republics. I'm sure all of us have seen a movie depicting life in a fascist or communist country where an official of the central state demands to see a citizen's papers. Well the Founders of the Republic would be horrified if they knew that the Republic they created had turned into an overbearing leviathan where citizens had to present their ``papers'' containing a valid government identification number before getting a job or voting. In order to protect the privacy rights of America's citizens, I plan to soon introduce the Privacy Protection Act, which will forbid the use of the Social Security number for any purpose other than for the administration of the Social Security system. I would urge my colleagues to support this bill when introduced and vote against the Voter Eligibility Act. It is time for Congress to protect the Constitutional rights of all Americans and stop using the Social Security number as a de facto national identification card.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, obviously, I am not in the leadership; I do not speak for the leadership. But I do hope that I speak for a lot of people in America and other Members of Congress who may feel differently. I equally condemn the horrors going on in the country of Iraq. I have no desire at all to defend Hussein. I rise, though, to just urge some caution on what we do. I have a problem with the procedure, which we are pursuing, that we are condoning, encouraging and literally paying for a program which permits the President to go and bomb another nation. There was a time in our history when bombing another country, when that country had not attacked us, was an act of war. But today we do this rather casually. Morally, the only justifiable war is a war of defense, a war when our national security is threatened. A legal war in this country is one that is declared by the Congress acting for the people. We have not declared a war. If we had a declared war even once since World War II, possibly we would have fought for victory. Instead, we get involved too carelessly and we do not fight to victory, and maybe that is why we are standing here today debating the consequence of the Persian Gulf war because we really did not achieve victory and the war continues. It is argued that the legislation passed in 1990 gives legitimacy for the President to pursue this adventure, but this really contradicts everything intended by the founders of this country that we could literally pass legislation which was not a declaration of war and to allow it to exist in perpetuity. And here it is 7 or 8 years later, and we are going to use legislation passed by Congress. Very few of us were even in that Congress at that time that are in the current Congress, but they want to use that. Also a contradiction to our established form of government is the fact that that legislation was passed more or less to rubber-stamp a U.N. resolution. So I think those are terms that are not justifiable under our system of law, and I call my colleagues' attention to this because this is very serious. I do not care more about military than those who would bomb; they have just as much concern as I have. But I am concerned about the rule of law, and obviously, I am concerned about consequences that are unforeseen, and there could be many. I am worried that we do not have allied support, and everybody recognizes that now. There are very few neighbors of Saddam Hussein who are very anxious for us to do this. So that should cause some reservation. Also the military strategy here is questionable. It is actually what are we going to try to achieve? Are we going to try to literally destroy all the weapons, or are we going to try to destroy him? Are we just going to bomb people where maybe innocent people will be killed? The long-term military strategy has not been spelled out, and I have a concern for that. Also we are not doing real well on the P.R. front because just today on the Reuters wire line there was a report that came out of a television program in Britain, which is rather frightening. Although I have criticized our policy of the 1980s, because during the 1980s we were obviously allies of Saddam Hussein, but the reports on British television now say that both the American Government, both the U.S. Government and the British Government participated and they have the documents, U.S. documents, that document, that say that we did participate in sales of biological weapons to Saddam Hussein, which points out an inconsistency. And I guess all governments have the right to change their minds, but I still think that should caution us in what we do. Nothing is going to happen to the world. Saddam Hussein has not threatened his neighbors since the Persian Gulf war, and surely before we get back in 10 days this is unnecessary. The other side of the aisle suggests that we have a full debate and a resolution in 10 days after we come back. That certainly makes a lot of sense to me. I think at this point to condone and endorse and encourage the President to do something at this late hour when there is essentially no one here in the Chamber, I do not think this is a good way to casually step into something that could be rather dangerous. The resolutions that have been talked about ironically are quite similar to the resolution passed in the 1960s that got us further involved in Vietnam. So, in all sincerity, I come here asking all Members to be cautious and for the President not to move too hastily.