Ron Paul

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to imply that the gentleman has permitted or endorsed or encouraged or the bill says directly there are funds here for abortion. I will concede that.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, the amendment is very clear. If the amendment passes, no funds in this bill could be used for population control, family planning, or abortion procedures. That will take in about $385 million that we could save by passing this amendment. The most important part of this amendment would be that we would absolutely assure that none of the funding would ever be used for abortion. One of the ways that the funds get to abortion, to the use of abortion, is that the funds are granted for birth control, and then the funds elsewhere can be saved, and those other funds can be used for abortion. In other words, it can be the funds are fungible. It is claimed that people have a need for birth control, and this may be true, but we have not been well received around the world. I am not quite sure exactly when the U.S. Government and the American taxpayer got involved in the birth control business overseas, but we have been doing it now probably for several decades. But there is a lot of resentment toward America imposing our will on other people. For instance, we have sent over the use of Norplant, a very controversial medical procedure. I am a gynecologist, and I can attest to it. It is very controversial, yet it was used on hundreds of thousands of women overseas. When that procedure was finally brought to the United States, it was rejected by the American people. I, as a gynecologist, spent more time taking these Norplants out than putting them in because of the severe complications with them, but nevertheless we, as taxpayers, have continuously sent more funding overseas to support these procedures. But there is no moral justification for us in the U.S. Congress to go and tax poor people in America, to go over and impose our ideas and our beliefs on other people's culture, and we have been doing this now for several decades, and a lot of resentment has been building up. There is no constitutional authority for programs like this. There is nowhere in the Constitution where we can find any justification for us imposing our will on other people in this manner. But worst of all, if funds are used for birth control and other funds are saved and then they are used on abortion, it is in a way indirectly supporting abortion. Later on we will vote on another amendment to curtail the use of funds for abortion, and I will support the amendment of the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] in this regard because we hope that that would at least help, but one way where we can assure and not worry about it would be to pass this amendment and not send any money over in the first place because it is not authorized, it is not permissible, it is not moral, and there is a lot of resentment toward us for these very, very reasons. The issue that always comes up is that the people need help, but there are a lot of voluntary associations in this country that are willing to help. If we feel compelled to help poor nations in their birth control effort, it can be done through voluntary means, not through coercion, not taking by force money from people who have philosophic and religious and social beliefs against these programs that we are imposing on others. So this is a program that should be just abolished. It should be stopped. We should not send any funds over there. This argument that we can control the way funds are being spent once they are overseas, we are kidding ourselves when we use that argument. We really lose control of these funds once they get into the hands of other governments or agencies that are dealing with these problems overseas. Typically, programs that are run by governments and international governments do not work very well, and these programs have done very poorly. At the same time, there are poor countries around the world that have car loads, millions, of condoms sitting around that are not used. They cannot get surgical gloves to do surgical procedures. There are countries reported in Africa where they do not have penicillin, and yet they have all the birth control pills that they want. So I argue that this program is unnecessary, unconstitutional, it is an abuse of the rights and beliefs of so many Americans, and it is not well received overseas. The best thing we can do is just take the money away from these programs, take the $385 million and return it to the American taxpayers. This would be a far better way to use this money other than aggravating, antagonizing people in other countries. What would we think if some foreign government came over and decided that our inner cities were overpopulated and they wanted to impose some population controls and some birth control methods on the inner cities? I am sure there would be a strong objection to that.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Concurrent Resolution 136, 105th Congress, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, we all know that when we come here to the Congress, the only oath that we take is to the Constitution. Yet I think very often we here in the Congress are careless about the Constitution and that we do many things that do not comply. A recent article in the New Republic calls attention to this subject and more or less ridicules and downplays the importance of the original intent of the Constitution. Today I would like to discuss that article and reiterate the importance of the Constitution and the reason why we must have the rule of law rather than the rule of man. The principle of original intent which underpins the Constitution is under serious attack. This is nothing new, but there is now a much more open challenge to this principle than ever before. A case in point is the New Republic article of June 23, 1997, called ``Unsound Constitution,'' where George Fletcher, a Columbia law professor, viciously attacks all Constitutionalists, vicious because he uses modern-day McCarthyism to tie any individual defending the Constitution and its original intend to all Oklahoma City type bombings. In this very significant article, voicing a strong anticonstitutional viewpoint, Fletcher uses McVeigh to discredit not just the misdirected and ill-advised promoters of violence but the entire American Revolution and the goals set by the Founders. Failing to consider that McVeigh flaunted property rights and the personal liberties of innocent people, Fletcher nevertheless uses him as an example of a true defender of the U.S. Constitution by using some of McVeigh's quotes. This New Republic's article falsely equates the bombing of innocent people with those who strictly interpret the Constitution, a document which Fletcher describes ``is fundamentally wrong.'' Professor Fletcher goes to the heart of the matter. He openly attacks the principle that rights are ``vested in the people'' and claims it was this principle that McVeigh used to justify what he did. Painting with a very broad brush, Fletcher hopes to dispense with the entire Constitution and its protection of individual and minority rights. If the New Republic, Fletcher, and his allies get away with this preposterous assertion, it will further undermine the principles of individual rights. Fletcher claims the greatest myth surrounding the Constitution is that the people are sovereign and that sovereign people will inevitably engage in actions like that of Timothy McVeigh. Equally threatening to the ``big government'' theory is that this concept of sovereignty, with rights being left to the people, would justify jury nullification, a horrible and dangerous thought as far as they are concerned. Jury nullification allows acquittal when a juror refuses to vote for a conviction for moral, constitutional, or even racial reasons. Yet jury nullification is a tradition of long standing, not only in American law but in the British law as well, dating back to the Magna Carta in 1215 A.D. But Fletcher refers to jury nullification as ``obstruction of justice,'' equivalent to overt sedition against the Government. Fletcher is consistent and even condemns the black left for endorsing this notion that juries have some type of veto power over bad legislation. Several professors from the left now advise that injury nullification can and should be used in certain cases to repeal unjust laws when they are specifically targeted against African-Americans, such as with drug laws. Obviously, this veto power of the people should be used to nullify unjust laws in general, not just against black Americans. What the New Republic and Fletcher fail to recognize is that this is a technique that could have been successfully used in the fifties and the sixties in the civil rights struggle, with a lot less violence resulting. The thought that the people retain enough sovereignty and authority to veto our legislative bodies threatens Fletcher and other ``big government'' proponents. The Fully Informed Jury Association, a movement of well known significance today, must be having an impact on our society, or why would we all of a sudden see a systematic attack on this concept? This attack is not limited to the New Republic. The New York Times has chimed in as well, expressing deep concerns about this dangerous notion that people ultimately have a say about the constitutionality of legislation. If Fletcher had his way, he would argue that the people's only recourse to bad law is strictly limited to the ballot box, while excluding the jury box. The boldness with which Fletcher attacks the original intent of the Constitution is frightening, but also helpful in getting us to understand exactly what the goal is of the supporters of the new Constitution. The fundamental flaw in the old Constitution, according to Fletcher, is, ``The original Republic, the one for which our forefathers fought face to face, hand to hand, exists only in the minds of academics and fundamentalist patriots. The Republic of 1789 is long gone. It died with 600,000 Americans killed in the Civil War. That conflict decided once and forever that the people and States do not have the power to govern their local lives apart from the Nation as a whole.'' He argues that the original Republic died, and deserved to do so, because of its flaw in dealing with slavery. But how can this single admitted flaw be reason to reject all the worthy parts? This is only an excuse to reject the entire concept of the Doctrine of Enumerated Powers and the idea of the rule of law in contrast to the rule of man. And all this is to be accepted as fact because this flaw in the concept of individual rights with regards to slavery supposedly led to the irrational acts of McVeigh. Fletcher laments the absence of the word ``equality'' appearing in the Constitution, a word, of course, dear to the hearts of all socialists. Clearly, it is economic equality he is talking about. He complains that in 1789 equality was less important than the fear that a Federal Government might infringe our liberties. What Fletcher does not realize is that the large majority of American people are still fearful of that very same thing. What actually scares the anticonstitutionalists like Fletcher is, today there is once again a growing number of Americans who fear and distrust the Federal Government and yet do not relate in any way to the McVeighs of the world. His only hope is to discredit the constitutionalists and the entire principle of the Doctrine of Enumerated Powers by slanderous innuendoes, associating them with violence towards innocent victims. Fletcher makes McCarthy look like a saint. Fletcher boldly now refers to the new Constitution, the one that shapes and guides the National Government, and, unfortunately, in a real sense, I am fearful that he is correct that a new Constitution, or at least the way the original one is treated by Congress, the courts, and the administration, prevails and guides most government action today. Up until now, it has been subtle and seductive, but the boldness with which Fletcher and the New Republic try to bury the old Constitution should alert us all to what is happening. Fletcher argues that the notion of organic nationhood replaced the sovereignty of the people. That, I am sure, a lot of Americans were not aware of. And the United States evolved from an elitist republic into a democracy, so he says. Jefferson and Franklin would be shocked. This idea, he claims, was not acceptable by the Founders, since they lived only for the moment. He talks as if truth and liberty were not meant for the ages. This proposition, he argues, allows ``the sustained campaign to convert the elitist Constitution of 1789 into an egalitarian Constitution that bases democratic rule on the majority of all the people,'' thus endorsing the dictatorship of the majority while destroying the concept of minority rights. Fletcher clearly here endorses the very flaw, limited as it was, that permitted the acceptance of slavery in the original Constitution and that which he pretends to disavow. In other words, he rejects the best part of the Constitution and retains the worst part, which permitted slavery, by endorsing the concept of the dictatorship of the majority while failing to protect inalienable and individual rights. Fletcher's obvious goal is to promote the new Constitution, nationhood, equality and pure democracy, while burying the notion of the Republic, protection of individual liberty, and the rights of the minority. His main goal is to reject the notion that the people ultimately are the guarantors of the Constitution, the bestowers of legitimacy. His final conclusion is that the States and the people no longer retain rights and powers, thus clearly and forcefully repealing the 9th and 10th amendments. With these gone, the people have no claims to real control over the Government. What then is left for the people? They are still permitted, as Fletcher says, to be the voters, office holders, and the beneficiaries of legislation. The theme of this devastating article is that it enforces the idea that Government does not get its power from the consent of the people and makes the citizen a creature of the state, with the Government no longer being a creation of the people through a voluntary social contract. Fletcher is quite accurate when he admits the original Constitution strictly limited Government power, but subsequent legislation and court rulings, he argues, now permit intervention into the private affairs of citizens. This, of course, has led to the modern day Federal police state where there are tens of thousands of Federal regulations and laws. The administrative courts are now in charge, for the most part, outside of constitutional protections. It is neither a coincidence nor an accident, as Fletcher brags, that we have arrived and can legalistically defend big government and justify it. He says this necessitates an activist Federal Government committed to preserving equality. According to Fletcher, the welfare state and the force required to redistribute wealth is, therefore, justified, thus planting the seeds of a totalitarian state, which will come in due time if the course of events are not changed. Fletcher is quite pleased to show that the new Constitution permits the income tax and all post-Depression welfare programs, and the prevailing theme of the whole article is that anybody who objects is a McVeigh. The concern for illegitimate use of force is absent from his discussion. Unfortunately, this article speaks for many in government, especially in our courts. But, interestingly enough, it represents one of the very few honest articles arguing very clearly that the old Constitution and the old Republic are archaic and should be buried. But ignoring the Constitution is not enough. We intellectually and philosophically must now reject it, according to this New Republic's theme, and anyone who disagrees will be guilty by association with those who would use violence against innocent people. Supporters of the modern day gargantuan state never cared much for the original intent of the Constitution which severely restricts the power of the Federal Government. They are quite aware that the Doctrine of Enumerated Powers prohibits the Federal Government from almost everything it is currently doing. To undermine the original intent of the Constitution, to limit the Federal Government, promoters of big government knew it would take constitutional amendment, court rulings, and constant legislative action, and even war to accomplish it. It is possible that their task is complete. Is it possible that their task is complete and essentially a new Constitution has now replaced the old? Is this the reason for their boldness? Many friends of freedom constantly worry that a Constitutional Convention to pass a balanced budget amendment poses a great danger because of the chance that, at such a gathering, the Constitution would be rewritten. Of course, there is no need for a Constitutional Convention, but the fear of losing our rights at one should be replaced with the concern for the changes ongoing with the present one. If Fletcher is right, the new Constitution is already in place, not a literal one, but the one that we now follow has so radically changed that the Framers' original intent is no longer recognizable nor desirable by many. Never have I read any article so forthright about the intent of the modern day social reformers. The boldness with which Fletcher buries the old Constitution should cause alarm for anyone interested in the experiment in freedom started in America more than 200 years ago. By using this, the only significant flaw in the 1789 document, slavery, Fletcher throws out every good thing intended by the Constitution while preserving its one major shortcoming, majoritarianism, that permitted slavery in the first place. Fletcher's love of the dictatorship of the majority to guarantee economic equality for all, while ignoring the principles of individual liberty, permits him to elevate the flaw which permitted the slavery compromise to the highest plane possible. In doing so, all of the grand elements of the old Constitution are effectively denied. Getting relief from the oppression of the old Constitution, according to this article, with the Civil War and the subsequent changes thereafter, elevated the National Government, and especially the Federal courts, to a point far superior to the States and the people. But the New Republic is not alone in expressing grave concern about the growing interests and understanding of injury nullification. It is now more commonly discussed on television and special programs and in newspapers like the New York Times. A recent court case prompted an appeals court to warn us of the great danger of the fully informed jury and granted more power to judges to curtail this growing phenomenon. It is not only the political right they are concerned about. Minority groups on the left are using jury nullification more frequently than in recent memory. It is not so much that the opponents of nullification are opposed to the goals of the left; it is that they fear the growing interest in jury nullification in the groups dedicated to the original interpretation of the Constitution may use it successfully. If the old Constitution is dead and the new one is now in place, the last thing they need is to have a bunch of uninhibited citizens expressing themselves through the common law practice of jury nullification. It is, therefore, in their interests even if it requires attacking the left as well as the right, to stop this movement as quickly as possible. Just because it was part of our history for more than 100 years means nothing. Promoting a powerful state, which includes an authoritarian judiciary and ever present bureaucracy, is of greater importance to them. This most recent victory for the promoters of the new Constitution, which includes further attack on jury nullification, occurred in the Manhattan Appeals Court in May. In the ruling, the court denounced the practice of jury nullification. Judge Jose Cabrares said to practice jury nullification is a violation of a juror's duty to follow instruction of the court. The case involved nonviolent drug possession. Although the appeals court permitted the innocent verdict to stand, the court was emphatic that judges do have a right, and an obligation, to investigate a juror's motivation on a vote of acquittal. Our history shows that this process helped prevent fugitive slaves from being sent back south before the Civil War period. John Peter Zenger, a colonial publicist, was freed by his peers on charges of sedition through this same process. The practice of jury nullification during the twenties helped force the repeal of alcohol prohibition once the majority of people realized the laws were irrational and abusive. Liberal black professors from George Washington University and Harvard are now urging jury nullification to promote civil rights in the courts. If this move to urge judges to judge all jurors' motivation is carried out, the process of jury secrecy will be a thing of the past and trial by jury just may be the last chance we have for revoking some of our Federal legislative monstrosities. Congress has been irresponsible in this regard. The New York Times, May 27, 1997, editorializes, I am sure with mixed feelings, since jury nullification helps the left, strongly in favor of judges removing jurors who might be construed to be judging the wisdom of the law as well as the interpretation of the facts. But the New York Times knows the power of the people could weaken the powers of the Federal Government developed over the past 50 years through this process and literally repeal the interventionist state without waiting for a slow, plodding, and inefficient Congress to do it for them. This puts fear into the hearts of all ``big government'' advocates. Can one imagine what might happen if all nonviolent crimes were ignored by jurors? We would suddenly have room in our prisons once again for the rapists, muggers, and murderers. District attorneys practice a form of jury nullification all the time in deciding frequently not to prosecute certain cases. Grand juries likewise fail to indict for personal or legal reasons, in spite of the facts presented. Many State constitutions still protect the right of the citizens to practice jury nullification. Jury nullification is not perfect, but permitting it would be an improvement to the current system. Yes, there would be a chance that somebody might be freed for the wrong reason. But ultimately in a free society, sovereignty must remain with the people and not with the dictatorship of the majority or an elitist, powerful government. There are enough mistakes made today with our jury system, and there is enough danger with a Government that is growing out of control, that jury nullification, something available since 1215 A.D., should be available to the citizens of this country. It could go a long way toward establishing a free society once again in America. According to Lysander Spooner, a mid-19th-century writer, there are five separate tribunals protecting us from abusive government: The House of Representatives, the Senate, the executive, the courts, and the common law jury. He maintains that all are important but that the ultimate protection of our liberty must be placed in the hands of our peers. His ``Essay on the Trial by Jury,'' 1852, deserves close study by all 20th century students concerned about the future of freedom in America. John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, agreed with this principle. In his first jury trial in 1794, Georgia versus Brailsford, he stated: You have nevertheless a right to take upon yourself to judge of both and to determine the law as well as the facts controversy. Jefferson was in agreement. ``To consider judges as the ultimate arbiter of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.'' The 20th century, however, has witnessed a serious erosion of this principle. Since 1895, Sparf versus United States, the right of the jury to rule on the justice and constitutionality of the law as well as the facts in the case has been seriously undermined. Also, the lack of concern and understanding for individual rights has affected jurors, just as it has affected the Representatives, Senators, judges, and Presidents. Jurors in recent times have been just as guilty of ignoring the principles of equal rights as have our representatives in our legislatures, judiciary, and executive bodies of government. These two factors have greatly diminished the value of the jury in the 20th century. Those frustrated with changes in the Congress, the executive, and the judiciary, and there is certainly good reason for frustration, must consider educating potential jurors as to the importance of the common law jury and the principles of individual liberty. An awakened citizenry participating in juries around the country could bring about a nonviolent revolution of magnificent proportion, reversing the sad trends of the 20th century. The jury today is a weak institution, as are all the other institutions designed to guarantee individual liberty. Proper effort could revitalize the jury and restore it to its rightful place in curtailing the endless growth of an all-powerful government. Several legal events in the 20th century had to occur for big Government to thrive. The deemphasis of the jury was crucial in the expansive powers of the omnipotent state. Judging the moral intent and the constitutionality of the law is no longer even a consideration of the jury. Today, judges instruct the jury to consider only the facts of the case, and then the judges become the sole arbiter of evidence admissible in court. Because of this, the jury system has become progressively weak over the past 100 years. In addition, judges write into their rulings grand designs for society. Our judiciary bodies have become legislative bodies. Another problem is that a major part of the judicial system has been removed from the people by placing it in the administrative branch of Government. The agencies of Government have usurped power unimagined by the authors of the Constitution. Administrative justice is a great bureaucracy, independent of the legal judiciary. Regulations are written yearly by the thousands of pages, read by few and understood by no one. This is done intentionally to intimidate and harass the people. It is used as a political tool for selective prosecution. Regulations can favor certain industries while destroying others and providing great accumulation of wealth for the beneficiaries. Exemption from prosecution of some companies while others are pursued has destroyed many good industries and companies. Prosecution in the administrative courts requires great sums of money for self-defense. Juries are not available, and one is considered guilty until proven otherwise. Tragically, economic conditions usually prompt a businessman to pay the fine regardless of its unfairness to save legal costs. Fighting the system through political reform is not even a serious consideration. Those who could consider such a struggle are ridiculed as idealistic and unrealistic. A powerful political action committee and a shrewd lobbyist are today considered the best investments. Since we have lived with massive bureaucracy for over 50 years, most citizens uneducated in the ways of equal justice, equal rights, and freedom, are unaware of any other system. By writing regulations with the force of law and administrative justice, interpretations, and enforcement of these laws, the administrative judiciary rulers have made a mockery of article I, section 1, of the Constitution. Whether it is in the regular courts or the administrative courts, judges who grew up under the welfare ethic rarely concern themselves with the right to own and control the fruits of one's own labor. The rights of society, as they see it, preclude what they claim is a narrow self-interest: The individual. Spooner argued eloquently for the right of the jury to pass final judgment on all laws, the moral intent of the law, the constitutionality of the law, the facts of the case, and the moral intent of the accused. Spooner's argument for allowing such responsibility to rest with the accused peers is that delegating responsibility only to the Representatives in Washington was fraught with danger. He was convinced that all government officials were untrustworthy and susceptible to bribery and that removal of our elected Representatives in the next election was not sufficient to protect the people from unwise and meddling legislation. If we had heeded the admonitions of Lysander Spooner, we would not be faced with this crisis. Spooner began his essay on ``Trial by Jury'' by clearly stating the importance of the jury's responsibility to judge the law as well as the facts in the case. Quoting, ``For more than 600 years, that is since the Magna Carta, in 1215, there has been no clearer principle of English or American constitutional law than that in criminal cases. It is not only the right and duty of jurors to judge what are the facts, what is the law, and what was the moral intent of the accused, but it is also their right and their primary and paramount duty to judge the justice of the law and to hold all laws invalid that are, in their opinion, unjust or oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating or resisting the execution of such laws,'' closed quote. If a law is assumed to be correct constitutionally and morally merely because it is a law written by our chosen Representatives, Spooner argued that Government can give itself dictatorial powers, and that is exactly what has happened with the massive powers delegated to the President under the Emergency Powers Act: Power sitting there to be grabbed and used at the hint of a crisis. Spooner saw the jury as the last guard against such usurpation of the people's rights. Sadly, that protection is just about gone. The citizens of this country ought to restore the principle of trial by jury to its rightful place of importance. It could go a long way in reducing the burden of Government now consuming more than half the energy of each working American. The time has come to stop the systematic attack on individual liberty pervasive throughout the 20th century. The Constitution must prevail. If we in the Congress fail to abide by the original intent of the Constitution, the last hope will remain with the people and the jurors.

Mr. PAUL

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

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

Mr. PAUL. Let me address the subject of regulation. The Constitution does give us the authority to regulate commerce, but it never mentions that we should subsidize special interests at the expense of the average American taxpayers. Yes, we can put on tariffs and we can regulate what comes and goes across our borders, but in the wildest dreams of the Founders of this country they never intended that we would have programs like this. We have to think this is a concoction of the latter part of the 20th century, the past 20 or 30 years. This is when this stuff; when welfare-ism has blossomed, it has been these type of programs. It was never intended by our Constitution to do these programs.

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

Mr. PAUL. Yes, Mr. Chairman, it was.

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

Mr. PAUL. Japan subsidizes 32 percent of their exports and we only subsidize a small amount, only 2 percent. So I guess I would be complaining a lot more if I lived in Japan because they do so much more; but if we look at the economic growth of Japan, now it is less than 1 percent and we are doing better. We have economic growth of 4 percent.

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

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, earlier in the debate on the previous amendment, the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] suggested that there was one problem with the Royce amendment. He said it just does not go far enough. I have an amendment that will go far enough to deal with this entire problem of corporate welfare. My amendment strikes all the funding from title I. This means that the $632 million that goes to the Export- Import Bank, the $32 million that goes to OPIC and the $40 million that goes to the Trade and Development Agency would be struck. This would not close these agencies down. We have heard on numerous occasions already today that OPIC and other agencies like OPIC are obviously self-supporting. If they are self-supporting, they need no more appropriations. They can use the current funding, they can be privatized. This whole idea that they come with the argument that they are self-supporting and self-sustaining and that they make a profit, there is no purpose in being here. Why do they come to the American people and ask in this particular bill for export subsidies of $704 million? My amendment would strike the $704 million. These three agencies have liabilities of well over $100 billion and this would be eliminated. One of the reasons the argument is made that these agencies are self- sustaining is that they hold Treasury bills, which means that they receive huge sums of money through the back door through interest payments. This money is not appropriated for the specific purpose, but as long as they hold Treasury bills they get the interest payments. For instance, I mentioned earlier that OPIC in 1996 received $166 million in this manner. Self-sustaining, it is not. We should really ask if this is good economic policy. Quite frankly, it is not good economic policy. It encourages businesspeople to do the wrong things at the taxpayers' risk. It is mentioned that these programs are available in the private sector but they will not go into the risky areas. Obviously not. OPIC, for instance, goes into countries, and what the American people have to assume is the risk against political risk and economic risk. So if these companies go bust, the American taxpayers have to stand behind them. We have a misdirection of the economy and the misdirection of investment because we get companies to do things more risky than they would have otherwise. If they want to go into a more risky area, the private insurance would obviously be higher, so therefore this is a subsidy to corporations. There is no reason why we should support this type of welfare. There are several kinds of welfare. We have welfare for the poor, we have welfare for the foreigners and we have welfare for the corporations. I do not think the correct place to try to solve our problem on welfare is to go after the poor man's welfare, but we can go after foreign welfare and we can go after corporate welfare, and this is an example of corporate and foreign welfare. It is said that with these programs there is never any loss to the taxpayers. That is a bit of a fallacy, because the loss to the taxpayers is when we take the money from the taxpayer, so they are losing all the time. Most little people never get benefits from this. It is the large corporations that lobby us so heavily to endorse these programs. There are not that many loans that default. But there is another reason why we do not have that many loan defaults, because they quickly renew these loans at different terms. There is a lot of generous renewing of loans and therefore the default level is very, very low, if we see it at all. But the risk is there. The real risk to the American taxpayer is when we tax the Americans to go and encourage programs like this. The assumption is made that if we do not do it, it will not happen. Maybe not, maybe it will. If it does not happen, maybe it is too risky. But most of it still would happen; it would be insured in the private sector and many of these programs would occur. To get up and say A, B, and C company would not have existed and could not have done this is not correct because we do not know. The other thing we do not know is who suffered from this credit allocation. When the Government gets involved in credit allocation, in saying this credit is guaranteed and should go in this direction, every time there is $10 billion going in that direction, it comes out of the private sector and some little guy lost his credit. So obviously the banks are going to loan to the people that have a guarantee. Another area that we should address here is the subject of who gets these loans. For instance, one of the biggest beneficiaries is China. Red China gets over $4 billion. That in itself is enough reason to vote for this amendment and reject corporate welfare on principle.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. This is a form of welfare that should be stopped. We have poor man's welfare, foreign welfare, and corporate welfare. This is an example of foreign and corporate welfare. The program really ought to be abolished. If it is true that this program pays its own way, then there is no need for us to be here. Why are they asking for $32 million? It is a good program. Some insurance company will take it over. Obviously, they need the $32 million that is in here. But there is something else involved here that is very, very important. On the very chart that was standing here a minute ago, it was showing that they do fabulously, this tremendous income of $299 million in 1996, which is true. But in looking at this Price Waterhouse balance sheet, financial report for 1996, it shows that OPIC owns $2.47 billion worth of bonds. Right above it, as a matter of fact, the line went through it, so you could not read it, it said that the income from these treasuries was $166 million. That is what it is costing the taxpayers. We are giving a subsidy to OPIC in the back door by paying interest. It appears on the budget as an interest payment. I mean this is really close to outright deception on the part of many here in the Congress as well as the American people. So it is not paying its own way. The other argument, we heard it expressed several times now, is that this is a very necessary program because it goes where the private market will not go. That is precisely the reason we should not be there, because there is a risk. The businessman will not go there because it is too risky. So what do we do? We ask the American taxpayers to back it up. What to do? To take our businesses from this country, export the business and export the jobs. Most of this money goes to big companies. If we look at their record over the past 6 years, these big companies have had a significant shrinkage of employment. These jobs are going overseas. Programs like this serve to export jobs, and this amendment should be passed.

Mr. PAUL. Could the gentlewoman cite the constitutional authority for programs like this? Where did we get this authority? When did we get involved in doing this? I am confused on that constitutional issue.

Mr. PAUL. If the gentlewoman will continue to yield, I think that is a noble gesture to mix business and government, but some people are hesitant to do that, to supervise what businesses are doing.

Mr. PAUL. If the gentlewoman will yield further, I think earlier she said that it would be an appropriate question to ask for constitutional authority and suggested that this is a good idea, and I would like to emphasize that we do it more often.

Mr. PAUL. If the gentlewoman will yield further, this is frequently cited as a constitutional authority to do almost anything. But let me be specific to point out to the gentleman that we are not dealing with the general welfare. We are dealing with the very specific welfare of General Electric and other big companies at the expense of the general welfare of the taxpayers who are paying the money.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to House Concurrent Resolution 133 expressing the sense of Congress with regard to the terrorist bombing in the Jerusalem marketplace. Certainly, I can agree with the language in the resolution that this attack is a violent, vicious, and reprehensible assault upon the individual citizens in Israel. For the victims and the victims' families I have the utmost sympathy. However, while expressing my sincerest personal condolences to these families and victims, I, at the same time, take very seriously my oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution. Insofar as H. Con Res. 133 ``[u]ges the President and appropriate Executive agencies to provide all appropriate assistance to the government of Israel . . . [and] . . . bring to justice the terrorist leaders . . . [and] . . . prevent such terrorist acts in the future,'' I am unable to vote in favor of this Resolution. Constitutionally, it is not within the enumerated powers of the National Government to police the world. At the same time we are asked to support this resolution to urge intervention by the United States Government to ``prevent such terrorist acts in the future'' in Israel, would we be so receptive to allowing foreign entities to, for example, intervene to bring to justice the individual who initiated the bombing in Atlanta, GA, during the recent Olympic games. It is not the responsibility of foreign governments to police the United States and constitutionally, it is not the responsibility of the United States to police the world. Mr. Speaker, for these reasons and with the deepest regrets for the victims and families of this act of brutality in Jerusalem, I oppose passage of H. Con. Res. 133.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, over the past 35 years, Congress has constructed a centralized system of vocational education, wasting millions of taxpayer dollars on a system that all-too-often serves more as a ``dumping ground'' for special-needs students than as an effective means of providing noncollege bound students with the knowledge and skills they need to become productive citizens. Congress is considering prolonging the life of large parts of this system by reauthorizing the Carl Perkins Vocational Education and Applied Technology Act (H.R. 1853). While 1853 does eliminate several Federal programs and State mandates contained in current law, if further legitimizes the unconstitutional notion that the Federal Government has a legitimate role to play in education. Furthermore, certain language in H.R. 1853 suggests that the purpose of education is to train students to serve the larger needs of society, as determined by Government and business, not to serve the individual. During the discussion of this bill, the case has been made that constitutionalists should support H.R. 1853 because it reduces the number of Federal mandates on the States; however the 10th amendment does not quantify the extent to which the Federal Government can interfere in areas such as education. Instead, the 10th amendment forbids any and all Federal interference in education, no matter how much flexibility the programs provide the States. H.R. 1853 represents mandate federalism, where the Federal Government allows States limited flexibility as to the means of complying with Congress mandates. Under this bill, States must submit a vocational education plan to the Department of Education for approval. States must then demonstrate yearly compliance with benchmarks that measure a series of federally set goals. The Secretary of Education has the authority to sanction the States for failure to reach those benchmarks, as if the States were the disobedient children of the Federal Government, not entities whose sovereignty must be constitutionally respected. Congress has, so far, resisted pressure from the administration to give the Department of Education explicit statutory authority to create model benchmarks, which would then be adopted by every State. However, certain provisions of H.R. 1853 may provide the Department of Education with the opportunity to impose a uniform system of vocational education on every State in the Nation. Particularly troublesome in this regard is the provision requiring every State to submit their vocational education plan to the Secretary for approval. The Secretary may withhold approval if the application is in violation of the provisions of this act. Ambitious bureaucrats may stretch this language to mean that the Department can reject a State plan if the Department does not feel the plan will be effective in meeting the goals of the bill. For example, a Department of Education official may feel that a State's plan does not adequately prepare vocational-technical education students for opportunities in postsecondary education or entry into high skill, high wage jobs, because the plan fails to adopt the specifications favored by the Education Department. The State plan may thus be rejected unless the State adopts the academic provisions favored by the administration. H.R. 1853 further opens the door for the establishment of national standards for vocational education through provisions allowing the Secretary to develop a single plan for evaluation and assessment, with regard to the vocational-technical education and provide for an independent evaluation, of vocational-technical education programs, including examining how States and localities have developed, implemented, or improved State and local vocational-technical education programs. Education bureaucrats could very easily use the results of the studies to establish de facto model benchmarks that States would have to follow. Mr. Chairman, the Department of Education may impose national standards on State vocational education programs by requiring that States improve the academic component of vocational education. Integrating academics with vocational education is a noble goal, but Federal education bureaucrats may use this requirement to force vocational education programs to adopt national academic standards, upon pain of having their State plans denied as inconsistent with the provisions of the act mandating instead that States integrate academics into their vocational education programs. States are also required to distribute their Federal funds according to a predetermined formula that dictates the percentage of funds States must spend on certain federally approved activities without regard for differences between the States. For example, H.R. 1853 singles out certain populations, such as displaced homemakers and single parents, and requires the States to certify to the Federal Government that their programs are serving these groups. These provisions stem from the offensive idea that without orders from the Federal Government, States will systematically deny certain segments of the population access to job training services. Another Federal mandate contained in this so-called decentralization plan, is one requiring States to spend a certain percentage on updating the technology used in vocational education programs. Technological training can be a useful and necessary part of vocational education, however, under the Constitution it is not the business of the Federal Government to ensure vocational education students receive up-to-date technological training. The States and the people are quite capable of ensuring that vocational education students receive up-to-date technological training--if the Federal Government stops usurping their legitimate authority to run vocational education programs and if the Government stops draining taxpayers of the resources necessary to run those programs. H.R. 1853 provides businesses with taxpayer-provided labor in the form of vocational education students engaging in cooperative education. Since businesses benefit by having a trained work force, they should not burden the taxpayers with the costs of training their future employees. Furthermore, the provision allowing students to spend alternating weeks at work rather than in the classroom seems inconsistent with the bill's goals of strengthening the academic component of vocational education. Work experience can be valuable for students, especially when that experience involves an occupation the student may choose as a future career. However, there is no reason for taxpayers to subsidize the job training of another. Furthermore, if it wasn't for Federal minimum wage and other laws that make hiring inexperienced workers cost prohibitive, many businesses would gladly provide work apprenticeships to young people out of their own pockets instead of forcing the costs onto the U.S. taxpayer. Today, employers can be assessed huge fines if they allow their part- time adolescent employees to work, with pay, for 15 minutes beyond the Department of Labor regulations. Yet, those same businesses can receive free, full-time labor from those same adolescents as part of a cooperative education program. Clearly, common sense has been tossed out the window and replaced by the arbitrary and conflicting whims of a Congress attempting to do good. Further evidence of catering to well-established businesses can be found within the provision of H.R. 1853 wherein teachers are instructed not to meet the needs and expectations of students, but rather the needs, expectations, and methods of industry. All education, including vocational education, should explicitly be tailored to the wishes of the parent or those already funding the costs of education. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1853 continues the Federal education policy of dragooning parents into education as partners in the education process. Parents should control the education process, but they should never be placed in a subordinate role and made to help carry out the agenda of Government bureaucrats. Concerns have been raised that vocational education programs may be used as a means to force all students into a career track not of their own choosing, and thus change the American education system into one of preparation for a career determined for the students by the Government. Such a system more closely resembles something depicted in a George Orwell novel than the type of education system compatible with a free society. H.R. 1853 attempts to assuage those fears through a section forbidding the use of Federal funds to force an individual into a career path that the individual would not otherwise choose or require any individual to obtain so-called skilled certificates. However, States and localities that violate this portion of the act are not subject to any loss of Federal funds. Of course, even if the act did contain sanctions for violating an individual's freedom to determine their own career path, those sanctions would have to rely on the willingness of the very Federal bureaucracy which helped originate many of the education reforms which diminish student freedom to enforce this statutory provision. Mr. Chairman, the Carl D. Perkins Act reauthorization may appear to provide for greater State and individual control over vocational education. However, H.R. 1853 is really another example of mandate federalism, where States, localities, and individuals are given limited autonomy in how they fulfill Federal mandates. As H.R. 1853 places mandates on the States and individuals to perform certain functions in the area of education, an area where Congress has no constitutional authority. It is also in violation of the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Furthermore, H.R. 1853 forces Federal taxpayers to underwrite the wages of students working part-time in the name of cooperative education, another form of corporate welfare. Businesses who benefit from the labor of students should not have the costs of that labor subsidized by the taxpayers. Certain language in H.R. 1853 suggests that parent's authority to raise their children as they see fit may be undermined by the Government in order to make parents partners in training their children according to Government specifications. Congress should, therefore, reject H.R. 1853 and instead eliminate all Federal vocational education programs in order to restore authority for those programs to the States, localities, and individual citizens.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, it is currently an accepted cliche to say foreign policy is a Presidential matter and Congress should not meddle. Frequently we hear the pleading to remain bipartisan with no dissent, especially when troops are placed in harm's way. Yet no place in the Constitution do we find any such explicit instruction. Instead, we find no mention of foreign policy. To the contrary, we find strict prohibitions placed on the President when it comes to dealing with foreign nations. The Constitution is clear. No treaties can be entered into without the consent of the Senate. No war may be fought without the declaration of war by the Congress. No money shall be spent overseas without Congress first raising the money and then authorizing it and appropriating these funds for specific purposes. Since the Constitution does not even assume a standing army, let alone stationing troops in peacetime in over 100 countries, with CIA clandestine activities in even more, the current foreign policy that has evolved over the past 100 years would surely be unrecognizable by the authors of that document. The founders of this country were opposed to standing armies for fear they would be carelessly used. They were right. The U.S. record of foreign intervention and its failures have not yet prompted a serious discussion of the need for an overall reassessment of this dangerous and out-of-control policy. Not only has Congress failed in its responsibilities to restrain our adventurous Presidents in pursuing war, spying, and imposing America's will on other nations by installing leaders and at times eliminating others throughout the world these past 50 years, we now, by default, have allowed our foreign policy to be commandeered by international bodies like NATO and the United Nations nations. This can only lead to trouble for the United States and further threaten our liberties, and we have already seen plenty of that in this century. It looks like our current President, who was less than excited about serving in the military himself, was quite eager to promote U.S. complicity in the escalating dangerous activity in Bosnia. What has been done so frequently in the name of peace more often than not has led to war and suffering, considering Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, and even the Persian Gulf war. Clinton has not been willing to phase out the Selective Service Department and has actually asked for additional funding to include the Selective Service process in his domestic so-called voluntary AmeriCorps program. But this failed policy of foreign intervention is being pursued once again in Bosnia with full acknowledgment and funding by the Congress. Congress has failed to exert its veto over this dangerous game our President is determined to play in this region. Sensing that maybe soon the Congress will finally cut the purse strings on this ill-advised military operation, pushed hard by Secretary of State Albright, policymakers are quietly and aggressively escalating the tension, placing our nearly 8,000 troops in even greater danger while further destabilizing a region never prone to be stable over this century, with the certain outcome that Congress will further capitulate and provide funding for extension and escalation of the military operation. In spite of some resistance in the Congress, the current escalation is likely to prevent any chance of withdrawal of our troops by next summer. The recent $2 billion additional funds in the supplemental appropriation bill was the cue to the President that the Congress will not act to stop the operation when under pressure to support the troops. Of course, common sense will tell us that the best way to support our troops is to bring them home as quickly as possible. This idea, that support for the troops once they are engaged means we must continue the operation no matter how ill-advised and perpetuate a conflict that makes no sense, but that is what President Clinton is depending on. Last week the whole operation in Bosnia changed. The arrest and killing of war criminals by occupation forces coming from thousands of miles away is a most serious escalation of the Bosnia conflict. For outside forces to pronounce judgment on the guilt or innocence of warring factions in a small region of the world is a guarantee that the conflict will escalate. I think those pursuing this policy know this. Prosecuting war criminals is so fraught with danger it seems the need to escalate surpassed all reason. Yet immediately after the NATO operation, supported by the United States, that resulted in the death of a Serb leader, Clinton strongly suggested that the troops may well not be able to leave in June of 1998 as promised. They were first supposed to leave in December of 1996, and now 18 months after their arrival, the departure date is indefinite, and we in the Congress tragically continue to fund the operation. This illegal and dangerous military operation will not go unnoticed and will embolden the Serbs and further stir the hatred of the region. Is this policy based on stupidity or is there a sinister motive behind what our world leaders do? Must we have perpetual war to keep the military appropriations flowing? Does our military work hand in glove in securing new markets? It is not a hidden fact that our own CIA follows our international corporate interests around the globe engaging in corporate espionage and installing dictators when they serve these special interests. Why would an Air Force plane, with a dozen leading industrialists, be flying into a war-torn region like Bosnia, along with the Secretary of Commerce? I doubt they were on a humanitarian mission to feed the poor and house the homeless. The lobbyists who pushed the hardest to send troops to Bosnia came from corporations who are now reaping great profits from construction work in Bosnia. It may be the calculation is for a slight escalation of the conflict--that inevitably will accompany any attempt to try war criminals--and no one plans for another great war breaking out in this region. What might be planned is just enough conflict to keep the appropriations coming. But the possibility of miscalculation is very real. The history of this region should surely warn us of the dangers that lurk around the corner. We, in the Congress, have a great responsibility in reversing this policy. We must once again assume this responsibility in formulating foreign policy and not acquiesce to the President's pressure to perpetuate a serious misdirected policy of foreign meddling 4,000 miles away from home. We must not fall for the old line that we cannot leave, because to do so, we would not be patriotically ``supporting our troops.'' That is blatant nonsense. We have already invested $7.7 billion in this ill-advised military adventure. That money should have either remained in the pockets of working Americans or spent here in the United States. The New York Times has praised this recent action by Clinton and the NATO forces and has called for more of the same. The New York Times and the Washington Post also support the notion that our troops will have to stay in this region for a lot longer than the middle of next year. The military industrial complex and its powerful political supporters continue to be well represented in the media and in Washington. Unfortunately, the idea that America is responsible to police the world and provide the funding and the backup military power to impose ``peace'' in all the disturbed regions of the world remains a policy endorsed by leaders in both parties. The sooner this policy is challenged and changed, the better off we will be. Our budget will not permit it; it threatens our national security, and worst of all, it threatens our personal liberties.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, juvenile crime is a problem that should concern all Americans. As a doctor of obstetrics I have enjoyed the privilege of bringing more than 3,000 new lives into the world, I know there are few things more tragic than when a young person disregards the rights of their fellow citizens and jeopardizes their own future by engaging in criminal activity. Furthermore, as the number and severity of crimes committed by juvenile offenders increase, juvenile crime becomes a greater threat to the social order. Therefore, no one can argue the need for action taken to discourage juveniles from embarking on criminal careers. However, the voluntary actions of private individuals, supported by local communities and State governments, are much more capable of preventing juvenile crime than the Federal Government. Individuals acting at the local level know the needs of the youths in their community much better than Washington bureaucrats, so they can best develop programs that effectively prevent children from engaging in criminal activity. Unfortunately, the Juvenile Crime Control and Delinquency Prevention Act--H.R. 1818--furthers Congress' unconstitutional interference in crime control and prevention by dictating the nature and shape of juvenile crime programs for each of the 50 States. Therefore, Congress should reject H.R. 1818 and instead repeal all mandates that interfere with the States' sovereign right to conduct juvenile prevention programs, and defund all Federal crime control and prevention programs, in order to return money and, at the same time authority, for juvenile crime prevention where it constitutionally belongs: To the States or to the people. H.R. 1818 provides States with--two Federal block grants for juvenile crime, a formula--part B--grant and a prevention--part C grant. Some proponents of the act claim that this bill is worthy of support as it loosens the chains on State juvenile prevention programs imposed by previous Congresses. However, any federally imposed mandate, no matter how flexible, violates the 10th amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The 10 amendment limits the Federal Government to those functions explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. Other than in these few areas, the States are sovereign. Therefore the Federal Government has no authority to finance or manage State programs regarding social problems such as juvenile crime. Block grants may appear to allow for greater State autonomy than programs directly controlled by Washington, but they still involve Federal control and, more importantly, financing. Taxing the people of Texas to pay for programs in New York or Montana is an insult to the Constitution and the donor States. Under the part B mandate, States must comply with four core Federal mandates to receive Federal tax dollars. The Federal Government would have the power to reduce a State's funding if a State failed to comply with one of these mandates. When the Federal Government assumes the power to reduce funding according to the State's level of compliance with the Federal mandates, it transforms the relationship between the States and the Federal Government from one of two sovereign entities into one resembling that of a teacher scolding a disobedient pupil. Furthermore, Federal mandates employ a one-size-fits-all model, which ignores differences between individual States and between various areas within a State. For example, there may be areas that will incur tremendous costs in removing a juvenile from an adult facility within 48 hours. Complying with this Federal mandate may thus divert an area's resources from other projects that may better serve the needs of that particular jurisdiction's youth. H.R. 1818 also lists permissible uses for which the States may expend their federally provided funds. One of these permissible uses of Federal funds is for programs aimed at preventing hate crimes by juveniles. Preventing crimes based on prejudice is certainly a worthy goal, however, by punishing certain crimes more harshly than others because of this motivation, the government is, in effect, punishing people for holding certain views. Punishment for one's thoughts, as distinct from one's actions, is in conflict with the constitutional guarantees against government restrictions on freedom of speech and thought. Federal tax money certainly should not be spent to encourage localities to disregard the first amendment in the name of crime control. H.R. 1818 also encourages States to create a system of records for juvenile criminals similar to that kept by each State on adult criminals, including the transmission of those records to the FBI. Given the recent controversy over the misuse of FBI files, all citizens should be wary of expanding the records kept on private citizens by the FBI, particularly given the conspicuous lack of language in the bill guarantying that someone who committed a crime as a juvenile but reformed oneself to become a respected member of the community will not be haunted by his past because some vengeful person acquired his FBI file. H.R. 1818 also provides States with a second block grant, not contingent upon compliance with the four Federal mandates. Under this block grant, States distribute their funds to local governments and private organizations to run prevention programs. While States do not have to comply with any specific Federal mandates to receive these funds, they do have to submit a plan to the Federal Government for approval. States may distribute funds only to those local governments that have taken the time and effort to prepare a comprehensive plan for combating juvenile crime. Organizations with prevention programs that wish to receive Federal funding must submit a plan to their local unit of government. Organizations must meet the goals of the local plan and include the goals of the program, the means of measuring their goals, and any research relied upon in developing their application. Before they can begin serving children, after the local government approves the plan, it must be submitted to the State government for approval. If the State government approves the plan, the operations may begin. Surely, States, communities, and local citizens could design a less bureaucratic system to help get funds to worthy programs serving juveniles than the system outlined in this bill. Among the organizations that may apply for funding under H.R. 1818 are faith-based organizations. I have little doubt that instilling a child with a deep and abounding faith is, second to a loving family, the best way to ensure that child refrains from criminal activities. However, allowing faith-based organizations access to Federal taxpayer dollars may change those organizations into lobbyists who will compromise their core beliefs rather than risk alienating Members of Congress and thus losing their Federal funds. Thus, allowing faith- based organizations to receive Federal funds may undermine both future attempts to reduce the Federal role in juvenile crime and undermine America's tradition of nonestablishment of religion. The drafters of the Bill of Rights knew quite well that it would be impossible for a central government to successfully manage juvenile prevention programs for as large and diverse a country as America. The founders also understood that Federal involvement in crime prevention and control would lead to a loss of precious liberty. The current system of sending money to Washington, only to return it, in part, to the States, local communities, and individual citizens, serves only to drain resources away from those best able to create and manage effective juvenile crime programs; people at the local level who know best the needs of the children in that area. Forcing States to comply with Federal mandates and forcing local providers to comply with Federal paperwork requirements is a further waste of valuable resources that could be used to directly benefit the area's youth. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1818 insults the constitutional sovereignty of the individual State, and continues Federal involvement in crime prevention and control. Therefore, all Representatives who support the Federal system as specified in the original Constitution should oppose the Juvenile Crime Control and Delinquency Prevention Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I understand this amendment originally suggested that we cut 10 percent of this budget. This amendment says we cut 5 percent. This is a very reasonable amount in this time when we are supposed to be working in tight budgets. Of course we can make the argument that rather than spending money on international spying activities that could be better spent here at home, and I think there is a lot to that argument. But I am pleased with the amendment, and I am very happy that the amendment is brought to the floor because, if nothing else, the 5 percent of savings that we might get if we pass the amendment, we do not know the exact figures so we cannot even make that calculation, it is not going to make or break the budget even though it could be helpful. But the amendment allows us to come to the floor and at least express a concern, and we have heard many of these concerns already. It is just a chance to get on the floor and say to the Congress and to our colleagues, Whoa, let's slow up a minute, let's think for a minute what we're doing and what have we been doing. It is now accepted that the activities of the CIA is they are proper and something that we have had for a long time, but the CIA is a rather new invention. It is part of the 20th century. It came up after World War II. But it was pointed out earlier that this is not exactly true because we have been dealing with intelligence for a long time, and that is true. But it has always been dealt with in national defense, it was strictly limited, and it was handled by the military. But since World War II, since the time that we have built and tried to run the American empire, we have to have our spy agents out there. Now we have a civilian international spy agency. I might ask my colleagues really if they would even be inclined to read the Constitution in a strict manner where would they get this authority that we have to go out, have an organization like this that is very poorly followed by the Congress? We know very little in general about what happens when it comes to our Government being involved in overthrow of certain leaders around the world. I would suggest that when the history of the 20th century is written that many of us will not be very proud of the history of the CIA and the involvement that they have been involved in over these many years. I think the activity of the CIA has gone a long way to give America a bad reputation. This does not mean that we should not have intelligence and we should not be concerned about national defense, but if it were done in a proper manner it would be done without an organization such as the CIA. These very secret clandestine activities of the CIA really is very unbecoming of a free society. It is not generally found in a society which is considered free and open and that the people know what is going on. It surprised me a little bit to hear it even admitted earlier that some of the activity of the CIA is involved with, business activity that we have to be thinking about business espionage, many of us have made this accusation challenge that, yes, we have the CIA that represents big business in many parts of the world. And I think this is the case. And not only do we have our business interests reaching out to many areas of the world and we have a very internationalistic interventionist foreign policy, we have troops in so many countries, over a hundred countries. I would really like somebody to get up here today that is knowledgeable; tell me how many countries we have CIA agents in. If we have troops in 100 countries, we may have CIA agents in 200 countries. But I do not know that, and possibly it will be buried someplace, but I am not allowed to come down here and explain it to the American people. The American people are responsible. They pay the bills. They are the ones who have to fight the wars if we go and do something nonsensical. And was the CIA involved in Vietnam? It certainly was. There was a killing of a leader in Vietnam that escalated that affair which led to war and killing and the death of many young Americans. So we in the Congress should be more responsible so we can tell the people exactly what is going on, exactly what it is going to cost and exactly what the ramifications are when these agents are dealing in other countries. I would say that the CIA does not have a very good reputation among many Members of Congress nor among many citizens of this country. They are concerned about it and would like to know a lot more about it. Is there any chance the CIA could have funding outside of the so- called normal appropriations process? I think there is a very good chance that is possible and that they may well have been involved in drug dealing.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, yesterday's Supreme Court decision in City of Boerne versus Flores is being touted as a blow to religious liberty and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. It is, however, a blow to neither. The case of City of Boerne versus Flores came to the Supreme Court as a result of the zoning laws in Boerne, Texas which restricted the uses to which Reverend Cummings could put the property belonging to the Roman Catholic Church for which he worked. These particular zoning restrictions were not directed at Reverend Cummings or the Roman Catholic Church. The zoning laws were not even directed at religious organizations or churches generally. Rather, these zoning restrictions were directed at property owners in general in the name of historic preservation. These facts, however, beg the question as to why this case was argued instead as a violation of religious liberties protected by the first amendment. What made this an issue of religious freedom in the court and ``court of public opinion'' is perhaps a symptom of the U.S. Supreme Court's holding in Village of Euclid, Ohio versus Ambler Realty Co. (1926) in which the Court sanctioned the abandonment of individual rights to property in the name of zoning for the ``collective good.'' For those whose property rights are regulated away, devalued, or ``taken'' regulatorily, it is a natural symptom to expect these aggrieved parties to cling to whatever Constitutional liberties might still gain them a sympathetic ear in the courts. Those destroying flag-like property scramble for protection under the banner of free expression and Reverend Cummins sought property rights protection elsewhere within the first amendment, namely, religious freedom. Absent local, state, or federal governments' realization that such dilemmas are hopelessly irreconcilable outside a framework of individual property rights, similar cases will continue to find their way to various levels of the judicial system as those suffering infringements upon their rights in property, grope for justice against the collective expropriation which has become not only the rule, but the rule of law, in this country. It is no accident that a case such as this did not originate in Houston, Pasadena, or Alvin, Texas. Each of these cities have allowed the marketplace, through a series of voluntary contractual exchanges, (rather than a central-planning-style zoning board), to determine how private property is most effectively developed. The first amendment is meaningless absent a respect for property rights. Freedom of the press is a mere sham without the right to own paper and ink. Freedom of religion is vacuous absent the right to own a pulpit from which to preach or at least a place in which to practice or worship. Until this country's lawmakers and courts restore a system of Constitutional jurisprudence respective of the inextricable nature of so-called economic and fundamental liberties, all liberties will be subject to eradication at the whim of the legislatures, the courts, or both.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, in a police state the police are national, powerful and authoritarian. Inevitably, national governments yield to the temptation to use the military to do the heavy lifting. Once the military is used for local police activity, however minor initially, the march toward martial law with centralized police using military troops as an adjunct force becomes irresistible. Throughout our history, law enforcement in the United States has remained for the most part a local matter. In recent history, especially since the 1970s, the growth of Federal agencies to enforce tens of thousands of regulations, not even written even by Congress, has changed our attitude toward the proper use of police power as established under the Constitution. While this is annoying to many Americans, many of whom are voicing their resentment, the principle of a centralized police power has become acceptable and unchallenged by our political leaders today. The emotional frenzy surrounding the war on drugs has allowed Federal police powers to escalate rapidly into the areas of financial privacy, gun ownership, border controls and virtually all other aspects of law enforcement. Many see this trend as dangerous to our liberties while doing little or nothing to solve the problems of violence, gang wars, deterioration of the inner cities or the decline of the public educational system. The declared justification for military intervention at Mount Carmel, although never substantiated, was that the Branch Davidians were manufacturing amphetamines. This provided the legal cover for army tanks to use the poisonous gas which apparently resulted in the devastating fire in what was a military operation to enforce the law, something which in ordinary times would have been strictly a local law enforcement matter. Despite the legitimate concerns surrounding nationalization of the police force and using the military to enforce local laws, the House just recently and overwhelmingly approved the use of 10,000 military troops to patrol U.S. borders, none of whom, however, expect to be deployed on the northern border. Rather than addressing the incentive of welfare benefits to legal and illegal aliens, Congress instead reinstated the funding to aliens which was struck in last year's budget welfare reform. The House evidently in its infinite wisdom believes that 10,000 troops will solve many of our social problems. If this Nation's drug laws are not reconsidered, the tremendous incentive for quick profits will prevent any success that might otherwise result from more and more armed border agents. But it is also the psychology behind this effort that so often allows the enforcement process to get out of hand, whether at Ruby Ridge or Waco. So far the military on our southern border has not exactly done itself proud. In January of this year, the army shot and wounded an illegal immigrant near the Rio Grande Valley. Initially the Army said the alien fired twice at the soldiers and had been involved in a robbery. These facts, however, were never substantiated. Even worse, though, is the case of an 18-year-old exemplary high school student and U.S. citizen named Ezeqaiuel Hernandez who on May 20 was shot and killed after being tracked for 20 minutes. He was wounded but then was allowed to bleed to death. What is more, now that more evidence regarding the shooting has become available, the soldier pulling the trigger is the subject of an ongoing investigation. Perhaps to some, these are minor incidents but the issue of using military troops for routine law enforcement is indeed a serious matter. According to an article by Thaddeus Herrick in the June 22 issue of the Houston Chronicle, changes in the law permitting the military to be used for law enforcement occurred during the Reagan administration and expanded steadily during the Bush and the Clinton administrations. Currently, about 700 troops are being used for law enforcement, mainly for the purpose of enforcing drug laws. However, with the new legislation working its way through Congress, the numbers could grow substantially. This does not include the 6,000 border control agents already manning the borders, a number which is slated to increase to 20,000 over the next 10 years. Lawrence Korb, former Assistants Secretary of Defense under Reagan was and remains critical of the trends toward using military troops in this manner. His argument according to Herrick is that soldier's ``whole mindset to is to go to war. They try to perform law enforcement but at some points their instincts may take over.'' This is a good warning which could be equally applied to our troops being used as civil policemen in foreign countries under the United Nations banner, such as has done recently in Haiti, Somalia and now as well in Bosnia. Korb has consistently opposed using the military on our borders. The Clinton administration, in continuing the process begun by Reagan, defends his doing so. Don Maple a spokesperson for the National Drug Control Policy stated, ``We believe there will always be a role for the military in law enforcement.'' When the Mexican Government ignored the Mexican Constitution in the 1830s and used the military to enforce civil law in Texas, the Texas settlers would have no part of it. The Texians' strong objection and resistance to military law eventually led to the Battle of San Jacinto. Military law in the colonies led to a similar result. Congress must be more careful in ignoring this principle. Until Congress addresses the failed policy of a national war on drugs and welfare state incentives which draw aliens across the borders in ever-increasing numbers, this unconstitutional national, centralized police state can only result in more loss of liberties in a never- ending battle fought at the expense of the American taxpayer.