Ron Paul

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, six years ago, when the Congress considered the bill creating the terrorism insurance program, I urged my colleagues to reject it. One of the reasons I opposed the bill was my concern that, contrary to the claims of the bill's supporters, terrorism insurance would not be allowed to sunset. As I said then: ``The drafters of H.R. 3210 claim that this creates a `temporary' government program. However, Mr. Speaker, what happens in three years if industry lobbyists come to Capitol Hill to explain that there is still a need for this program because of the continuing threat of terrorist attacks. Does anyone seriously believe that Congress will refuse to reauthorize this `temporary' insurance program or provide some other form of taxpayer help to the insurance industry? I would like to remind my colleagues that the federal budget is full of expenditures for long-lasting programs that were originally intended to be `temporary.' '' I am disappointed to be proven correct. I am also skeptical that, having renewed the program twice, this time for fifteen years, Congress will ever allow it to expire. As Congress considers extending this program, I renew my opposition to it for substantially the same reasons I stated six years ago. However, I do have a suggestion on how to improve the program. Since one claimed problem with allowing the private market to provide terrorism insurance is the difficulty of quantifying the risk of an attack, the taxpayers' liability under the terrorism reinsurance program should be reduced for an attack occurring when the country is under orange or red alert. After all, because the point of the alert system is to let Americans know when there is an increased likelihood of an attack it is reasonable to expect insurance companies to demand that their clients take extra precautionary measures during periods of high alert. Reducing taxpayer subsidies will provide an incentive to ensure private parties take every possible precaution to minimize the potential damage from possible terrorists attack. Since my fundamental objections to the program remain the same as six years ago, I am attaching my statement regarding H.R. 3210, which created the terrorist insurance program in the 107th Congress: Mr. Chairman, no one doubts that the government has a role to play in compensating American citizens who are victimized by terrorist attacks. However, Congress should not lose sight of fundamental economic and constitutional principles when considering how best to provide the victims of terrorist attacks just compensation. I am afraid that H.R. 3210, the Terrorism Risk Protection Act, violates several of those principles and therefore passage of this bill is not in the best interests of the American people. Under H.R. 3210, taxpayers are responsible for paying 90 percent of the costs of a terrorist incident when the total cost of that incident exceeds a certain threshold. While insurance companies technically are responsible under the bill for paying back monies received from the Treasury, the administrator of this program may defer repayment of the majority of the subsidy in order to ``avoid the likely insolvency of the commercial insurer,'' or avoid ``unreasonable economic disruption and market instability.'' This language may cause administrators to defer indefinitely the repayment of the loans, thus causing taxpayers to permanently bear the loss. This scenario is especially likely when one considers that ``avoid . . . likely insolvency, unreasonable economic disruption, and market instability'' are highly subjective standards, and that any administrator who attempts to enforce a strict repayment schedule likely will come under heavy political pressure to be more ``flexible'' in collecting debts owed to the taxpayers. The drafters of H.R. 3210 claim that this creates a ``temporary'' government program. However, Mr. Speaker, what happens in three years if industry lobbyists come to Capitol Hill to explain that there is still a need for this program because of the continuing threat of terrorist attacks. Does anyone seriously believe that Congress will refuse to reauthorize this ``temporary'' insurance program or provide some other form of taxpayer help to the insurance industry? I would like to remind my colleagues that the federal budget is full of expenditures for long-lasting programs that were originally intended to be ``temporary.'' H.R. 3210 compounds the danger to taxpayers because of what economists call the ``moral hazard'' problem. A moral hazard is created when individuals have the costs incurred from a risky action subsidized by a third party. In such a case individuals may engage in unnecessary risks or fail to take steps to minimize their risks. After all, if a third party will bear the costs of negative consequences of risky behavior, why should individuals invest their resources in avoiding or minimizing risk? While no one can plan for terrorist attacks, individuals and businesses can take steps to enhance security. For example, I think we would all agree that industrial plants in the United States enjoy reasonably good security. They are protected not by the local police, but by owners putting up barbed wire fences, hiring guards with guns, and requiring identification cards to enter. One reason private firms put these security measures in place is because insurance companies provide them with incentives, in the form of lower premiums, to adopt security measures. H.R. 3210 contains no incentives for this private activity. The bill does not even recognize the important role insurance plays in providing incentives to minimize risks. By removing an incentive for private parties to avoid or at least mitigate the damage from a future terrorist attack, the government inadvertently increases the damage that will be inflicted by future attacks! Instead of forcing taxpayers to subsidize the costs of terrorism insurance, Congress should consider creating a tax credit or deduction for premiums paid for terrorism insurance, as well as a deduction for claims and other costs borne by the insurance industry connected with offering terrorism insurance. A tax credit approach reduces government's control over the insurance market. Furthermore, since a tax credit approach encourages people to devote more of their own resources to terrorism insurance, the moral hazard problems associated with federally funded insurance is avoided. The version of H.R. 3210 passed by the Financial Services committee took a good first step in this direction by repealing the tax penalty which prevents insurance companies from properly reserving funds for human-created catastrophes. I am disappointed that this sensible provision was removed from the final bill. Instead, H.R. 3210 instructs the Treasury Department to study the benefits of allowing insurers to establish tax-free reserves to cover losses from terrorist events. The perceived need to study the wisdom of cutting taxes while expanding the federal government without hesitation demonstrates much that is wrong with Washington. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3210 may reduce the risk to insurance companies from future losses, but it increases the costs incurred by the American taxpayer. More significantly, by ignoring the moral hazard problem this bill may have the unintended consequence of increasing the losses suffered in any future terrorist attacks. Therefore, passage of this bill is not in the long-term interests of the American people.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 552, ``Calling on the Government of the People's Republic of China to remove barriers to United States financial services firms doing business in China.'' Attempting to force the hand of the Chinese government by requiring them to open their markets to United States financial services firms is akin to playing with fire. Politicians today fail to realize just how deeply our profligate fiscal and monetary policies of the past three decades have left us in debt to China. The Chinese government holds over one trillion dollars in reserves, leaving the future of the dollar highly vulnerable to the continued Chinese demand. While I am in favor of unencumbered free trade, free trade cannot be enforced through threats or by resorting to international protectionist organizations such as the WTO. Even if the Chinese are recalcitrant in opening up their markets, it is not the role of the United States government to lecture the Chinese government on what it should or should not do in its own economy. H. Res. 552 is a blatant encroachment on the sovereignty of the Chinese government. Were the Chinese government to pressure us into allowing greater access to the United States market for Chinese financial services firms, or to pressure us into allowing the sale of firms in strategic sectors of the market, we would justifiably resist this pressure. Diplomatic efforts cannot work through blustering language and vague retaliatory threats. It requires an awareness both of the many benefits of trade with China and the fact that our current trade imbalances are largely the responsibility of our trade policies. We must understand that China is not a 98-pound weakling who can be bossed around. If we treat other countries with respect and as equal partners, we might be pleased to find that our requests receive a more attentive ear.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act. As its title suggests, this bill provides an effective means of ensuring that those harmed during medical treatment receive fair compensation while reducing the burden of costly malpractice litigation on the health care system. This bill achieves its goal by providing a tax credit for negative outcomes insurance purchased before medical treatment. The insurance will provide compensation for any negative outcomes of the medical treatment. Patients can receive this insurance without having to go through lengthy litigation and without having to give away a large portion of their award to a trial lawyer. Relying on negative outcomes insurance instead of litigation will also reduce the costs imposed on physicians, other health care providers, and hospitals by malpractice litigation. The Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act also promotes effective solutions to the malpractice crisis by making malpractice awards obtained through binding, voluntary arbitration tax-free. The malpractice crisis has contributed to the closing of a maternity ward in Philadelphia and a trauma center in Nevada. Meanwhile, earlier this year, surgeons in West Virginia walked off the job to protest increasing liability rates. These are a few of the examples of how access to quality health care is jeopardized by the epidemic of large (and medically questionable) malpractice awards, and the resulting increase in insurance rates. As is typical of Washington, most of the proposed solutions to the malpractice problem involve unconstitutional usurpations of areas best left to the States. These solutions also ignore the root cause of the litigation crisis: the shift away from treating the doctor-patient relationship as a contractual one to viewing it as one governed by regulations imposed by insurance company functionaries, politicians, government bureaucrats, and trial lawyers. There is no reason why questions of the assessment of liability and compensation cannot be determined by a private contractual agreement between physicians and patients. The Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act is designed to take a step toward resolving these problems through private contracts. Using insurance, private contracts, and binding arbitration to resolve medical disputes benefits patients, who receive full compensation in a timelier manner than under the current system. It also benefits physicians and hospitals, which are relieved of the costs associated with litigation. Since it will not cost as much to provide full compensation to an injured patient, these bills should result in a reduction of malpractice premiums. The Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act benefits everybody except those trial lawyers who profit from the current system. I hope all my colleagues will help end the malpractice crises while ensuring those harmed by medical injuries receive just compensation by cosponsoring my Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act.

Mr. PAUL

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

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Treat Physicians Fairly Act, legislation providing tax credits to physicians to compensate for the costs of providing uncompensated care. This legislation helps compensate medical professionals for the costs imposed on them by Federal laws forcing doctors to provide uncompensated medical care. The legislation also provides a tax deduction for hospitals that incur costs related to providing uncompensated care. Under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) physicians who work in emergency rooms are required to provide care, regardless of a person's ability to pay, to anyone who comes into an emergency room. Hospitals are also required by law to bear the full costs of providing free care to anyone who seeks emergency care. Thus, EMTALA forces medical professionals and hospitals to bear the entire cost of caring for the indigent. According to the June 2/9, 2003 edition of AM News, emergency physicians lose an average of $138,000 in revenue per year because of EMTALA. EMTALA also forces physicians and hospitals to follow costly rules and regulations. Physicians can be fined $50,000 for technical EMTALA violations. The professional skills with which one earns a living are property. Therefore, the clear language of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment prevents Congress from mandating that physicians and hospitals bear the entire costs of providing health care to any group. Ironically, the perceived need to force doctors to provide medical care is itself the result of prior government interventions into the health care market. When I began practicing medicine, it was common for doctors to provide uncompensated care as a matter of charity. However, laws and regulations inflating the cost of medical services and imposing unreasonable liability standards on medical professionals even when they were acting in a volunteer capacity made offering free care cost prohibitive. At the same time, the increasing health care costs associated with the government-facilitated overreliance on third party payments priced more and more people out of the health care market. Thus, the government responded to problems created by its interventions by imposing the EMTALA mandate on physicians, in effect making health care professionals scapegoats for the harmful consequences of government health care policies. EMTALA could actually decrease the care available for low-income Americans at emergency rooms. This is because EMTALA discourages physicians from offering any emergency care. Many physicians in my district have told me that they are considering curtailing their practices, in part because of the costs associated with the EMTALA mandates. Many other physicians are even counseling younger people against entering the medical profession because of the way the Federal Government treats medical professionals. The tax credits created in the Treat Physicians Fairly Act will help mitigate some of the burden government policies place on physicians. The Treat Physicians Fairly Act does not remove any of EMTALA's mandates; it simply provides that physicians can receive a tax credit for the costs of providing uncompensated care. This is a small step toward restoring fairness to physicians. Furthermore, by providing some compensation in the form of tax credits, the Treat Physicians Fairly Act helps remove the disincentives to remaining active in the medical profession built into the current EMTALA law. I hope my colleagues will take the first step toward removing the unconstitutional burden of providing uncompensated care by cosponsoring the Treat Physicians Fairly Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, America faces a crisis in health care. Health care costs continue to rise, leaving many Americans unable to afford health insurance, while those with health care coverage, and their physicians, struggle under the control of managed-care ``gatekeepers.'' Obviously, fundamental health care reform should be one of Congress' top priorities. Unfortunately, most health care ``reform'' proposals either make marginal changes or exacerbate the problem. This is because they fail to address the root of the problem with health care, which is that government polices encourage excessive reliance on third-party payers. The excessive reliance on third-party payers removes all incentive from individual patients to concern themselves with health care costs. Laws and policies promoting Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) resulted from a desperate attempt to control spiraling costs. However, instead of promoting an efficient health care system, HMOs further took control over health care away from the individual patient and physician. Furthermore, the predominance of third-party payers means there is effectively no market for individual health insurance polices, thus those whose employers cannot offer them health benefits must either pay exorbitant fees for health insurance or do without health insurance. Since most health care providers cater to those with health insurance, it is very difficult for the uninsured to find health care that meets their needs at an affordable price. The result is many of the uninsured turn to government-funded health care systems, or use their local emergency room as their primary care physician. The result of this is declining health for the uninsured and increased burden on taxpayer- financed health care system. Returning control over health care to the individual is the key to true health care reform. The Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act puts control of health care back into the hands of the individual through tax credits, tax deductions, Health Care Savings Accounts (HSA), and Flexible Savings Accounts. By giving individuals tax incentives to purchase their own health care, the Comprehensive Health Care Act will help more Americans obtain quality health insurance and health care. Specifically, the Comprehensive Health Care Act: A. Provides all Americans with a tax credit for 100 percent of health care expenses. The tax credit is fully refundable against both income and payroll taxes. B. Allows individuals to roll over unused amounts in cafeteria plans and Flexible Savings Accounts (FSA). C. Makes every American eligible for a Health Savings Account (HSA), removes the requirement that individuals must obtain a high-deductible insurance policy to open an HSA; allows individuals to use their HSA to make premiums payments for high-deductible policy; and allows senior citizens to use their HSA to purchase Medigap policies. D. Repeals the 7.5 percent threshold for the deduction of medical expenses, thus making all medical expenses tax deductible. By providing a wide range of options, this bill allows individual Americans to choose the method of financing health care that best suits their individual needs. Increasing frustration with the current health care system is leading more and more Americans to embrace this approach to health care reform. For example, a poll by the respected Zogby firm showed that over 80 percent of Americans support providing all Americans with access to a Health Savings Account. I hope all my colleagues will join this effort to put individuals back in control of health care by cosponsoring the Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the Congressional Responsibility and Accountability Act. This bill requires Congress to specifically authorize via legislation any proposed federal regulation that will impose costs on any individual of at least $5,000, impose costs on a business or other private organization of at least $25,000, or impose aggregate costs on the American people of at least $250,000, or cause any American to lose his or her job. According to some legal experts, at least three-quarters of all federal laws consist of regulations promulgated by federal agencies without the consent, or even the review of, Congress. Allowing unelected, and thus unaccountable, executive agencies to make law undermines democracy. Law-making by executive agencies also violates the intent of the drafters of the Constitution to separate legislative and executive powers. The drafters of the Constitution correctly viewed separation of powers as a cornerstone of republican government and a key to protecting individual liberty from excessive and arbitrary government power. Congress's delegation of lawmaking authority to unelected bureaucrats has created a system that seems to owe more to the writings of Franz Kafka than to the writings of James Madison. The volume of regulations promulgated by federal agencies and the constant introduction of new rules makes it impossible for most Americans to know with any certainty the federal laws, regulations, and rules they are required to obey. Thus, almost all Americans live with the danger that they may be hauled before a federal agency for an infraction they have no reasonable way of knowing is against the law. While it is easy for Members of Congress to complain about out of control federal bureaucrats, it was Congress that gave these agencies the ability to create laws. Since Congress created the problem of lawmaking by regulatory agencies, it is up to Congress to fix the problem and make certain that all federal laws are passed by the people's elected representatives. Therefore, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Congressional Responsibility and Accountability Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation to provide some Congressional oversight over the deployment and maintenance of our troops stationed overseas. As the Constitution states in Article I Section 8., Congress has the power ``to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces,'' and therefore Congress has an obligation to speak on such matters. I have been and remain extremely concerned about the deployment extensions and stop-loss programs that have kept our troops deployed and engaged for increasingly extended periods of time. My constituents who are affected by this policy have contacted me with their concerns as well. The legislation at least seeks to provide some guidance and relief to our troops who have been stretched to the limit by the increasing duration of deployment overseas and the decreasing duration of time back home between deployments. Several military experts, including General Barry McCaffrey, have commented on this problem and the challenges it poses to the health and safety of our troops. Although I am voting for this bill, I am increasingly concerned about Congress's approach to the issue of our continued involvement in Iraq. Rather than a substantive move to end the US military presence in Iraq, this bill and others that have passed recently seem to be merely symbolic moves to further politicize the war in Iraq. Clearly the American public is overwhelmingly in favor of a withdrawal from Iraq, but Congress is not listening. At best, the House seems willing to consider only such half-measures as so-called re-deployment. We need a real solution that puts the safety of our troops above politics. We need to simply bring them home. As I said recently on the Floor of the House, we just marched in so we can just march out. The proper method for ending the war is for Congress to meet its responsibility to deauthorize and defend the war. Micromanaging a troop deployment is not the answer since it overstays the bounds of Congressional authority.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to help America's law enforcement officers by introducing the Police Security Protection Act. This legislation provides police officers a tax credit for the purchase of armored vests. Professional law enforcement officers put their lives on the line each and every day. Reducing the tax liability of law enforcement officers so they can afford armored vests is one of the best ways Congress can help and encourage these brave men and women. After all, an armored vest could literally make the difference between life or death for a police officer. I hope my colleagues will join me in helping our Nation's law enforcement officers by cosponsoring the Police Security Protection Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Public Safety Tax Cut Act. This legislation will achieve two important public policy goals. First, it will effectively overturn a ruling of the Internal Revenue Service which has declared as taxable income the waiving of fees by local governments who provide service for public safety volunteers. Many local governments use volunteer firefighters and auxiliary police either in place of, or as a supplement to, their public safety professionals. Often as an incentive to would-be volunteers, the local entities might waive all or a portion of the fees typically charged for city services such as the provision of drinking water, sewerage charges, or debris pick up. Local entities make these decisions for the purpose of encouraging folks to volunteer, and seldom do these benefits come anywhere near the level of a true compensation for the many hours of training and service required of the volunteers. This, of course, not even to mention the fact that these volunteers could very possibly be called into a situation where they may have to put their lives on the line. Rather than encouraging this type of volunteerism, which is so crucial, particularly to America's rural communities, the IRS has decided that the provision of the benefits described above amount to taxable income. Not only does this adversely affect the financial position of the volunteer by foisting new taxes about him or her, it has in fact led local entities to stop providing these benefits, thus taking away a key tool they have used to recruit volunteers. That is why the IRS ruling in this instance has a substantial deleterious impact on the spirit of American volunteerism. How far could this go? For example, would consistent application mean that a local Salvation Army volunteer be taxed for the value of a complimentary ticket to that organization's annual county dinner? This is obviously bad policy. This legislation would rectify this situation by specifically exempting these types of benefits from Federal taxation. Next, this legislation would also provide paid professional police and fire officers with a $1,000 per year tax credit. These professional public safety officers put their lives on the line each and every day, and I think we all agree that there is no way to properly compensate them for the fabulous services they provide. In America we have a tradition of local law enforcement and public safety provision. So, while it is not the role of our Federal Government to increase the salaries of these, it certainly is within our authority to increase their take-home pay by reducing the amount of money that we take from their pockets via Federal taxation, and that is something this bill specifically does as well. President George Bush has called on Americans to volunteer their time and energy to enhancing public safety. Shouldn't Congress do its part by reducing taxes that discourage public safety volunteerism? Shouldn't Congress also show its appreciation to police officers and fire fighters by reducing their taxes? I believe the answer to both of these questions is a resounding ``Yes'' and therefore I am proud to introduce the Public Safety Tax Cut Act. I request that my fellow Members join in support of this key legislation.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose any move to initiate further sanctions on Iran. Sanctions are acts of war, and expanding sanctions on Iran serves no purpose other than preparing the American people for an eventual attack on Iran. This is the same pattern we saw in the run up to the war on Iraq: Congress passes legislation calling for regime change, sanctions are imposed, and eventually we are told that only an attack will solve the problem. We should expect the same tragic result if we continue down this path. I urge my colleagues to reconsider. I oppose economic sanctions for two very simple reasons. First, they don't work as effective foreign policy. Time after time, from Cuba to China to Iraq, we have failed to unseat despotic leaders or change their policies by refusing to trade with the people of those nations. If anything, the anti-American sentiment aroused by sanctions often strengthens the popularity of such leaders, who use America as a convenient scapegoat to divert attention from their own tyranny. History clearly shows that free and open trade does far more to liberalize oppressive governments than trade wars. Economic freedom and political freedom are inextricably linked--when people get a taste of goods and information from abroad, they are less likely to tolerate a closed society at home. So sanctions mostly harm innocent citizens and do nothing to displace the governments we claim as enemies. Second, sanctions simply hurt American industries, particularly agriculture. Every market we close to our nation's farmers is a market exploited by foreign farmers. China, Russia, the Middle East, North Korea, and Cuba all represent huge markets for our farm products, yet many in Congress favor current or proposed trade restrictions that prevent our farmers from selling to the billions of people in these areas. We must keep in mind that Iran has still not been found in violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Furthermore, much of the information regarding Iran's nuclear program is coming to us via thoroughly discredited sources like the MeK, a fanatical cult that is on our State Department's terror list. Additionally, the same discredited neo- conservatives who pushed us into the Iraq war are making similarly exaggerated claims against Iran. How often do these ``experts'' have to be proven wrong before we start to question their credibility? It is said that we non-interventionists are somehow ``isolationists'' because we don't want to interfere in the affairs of foreign nations. But the real isolationists are those who demand that we isolate certain peoples overseas because we disagree with the policies of their leaders. The best way to avoid war, to promote American values, and to spread real freedom and liberty is to engage in trade and contacts with the rest of the world as broadly as possible. I urge my colleagues to reconsider this counterproductive and dangerous move toward further sanctions on Iran.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to cosponsor H.R. 2750, which directs the United States Treasury to create a commemorative coin honoring the 50th Anniversary of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). From the early space flights of the 1960s to Neil Armstrong's ``small step for mankind'' to last year's successful missions of the Space Shuttle Atlantis and the Space Shuttle Discovery, NASA's has a long and impressive record of accomplishments that should be a source of pride to all Americans. As a representative of the Gulf Coast of Texas, which is home to many of NASA's most significant triumphs, I have had the opportunity to meet many NASA employees. I have always been impressed by their professionalism and dedication to their mission. What philosopher Ayn Rand wrote of the moon landing in 1969 applies to all of NASA's missions: ``Think of what was required to achieve that mission: think of the unpitying effort; the merciless discipline; the courage; the responsibility of relying on one's judgment; the days, nights and years of unswerving dedication to a goal; the tension of the unbroken maintenance of a full, clear mental focus; and the honesty. It took the highest, sustained acts of virtue to create in reality what had only been dreamt of for millennia.'' I encourage all of my colleagues and all Americans to join me in commending NASA for 50 years of accomplishments by supporting H.R. 2750.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 180 is premised on the assumption that. divestment, sanctions, and other punitive measures are effective in influencing repressive regimes, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth. Proponents of such methods fail to remember that where goods cannot cross borders, troops will. Sanctions against Cuba, Iraq, and numerous other countries failed to topple their governments. Rather than weakening dictators, these sanctions strengthened their hold on power and led to more suffering on the part of the Cuban and Iraqi people. To the extent that divestment effected change in South Africa, it was brought about by private individuals working through the market to influence others. No one denies that the humanitarian situation in Darfur is dire, but the United States Government has no business entangling itself in this situation, nor in forcing divestment on unwilling parties. Any further divestment action should be undertaken through voluntary means and not by government fiat. H.R. 180 is an interventionist piece of legislation which will extend the power of the Federal Government over American businesses, force this country into yet another foreign policy debacle, and do nothing to alleviate the suffering of the residents of Darfur. By allowing State and local governments to label pension and retirement funds as State assets, the Federal Government is giving the go-ahead for State and local governments to play politics with the savings upon which millions of Americans depend for security in their old age. The safe harbor provision opens another dangerous loophole, allowing fund managers to escape responsibility for any potential financial mismanagement, and it sets a dangerous precedent. Would the Congress offer the same safe harbor provision to fund managers who wish to divest from firms offering fatty foods, growing tobacco, or doing business in Europe? This bill would fail in its aim of influencing the Government of the Sudan, and would likely result in the exact opposite of its intended effects. The regime in Khartoum would see no loss of oil revenues, and the civil conflict will eventually flare up again. The unintended consequences of this bill on American workers, investors, and companies need to be considered as well. Forcing American workers to divest from companies which may only be tangentially related to supporting the Sudanese government could have serious economic repercussions which need to be taken into account.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2956 which, while a well-intended attempt to reduce our nation's seemingly unlimited military commitment in Iraq, is in so many respects deeply flawed. I have been one of the strongest opponents of military action against Iraq. I voted against the initial authorization in 2002 and I have voted against every supplemental appropriations bill to fund the war. I even voted against the initial ``Iraq regime change'' legislation back in 1998. I believe our troops should be brought back to the United States without delay. Unfortunately, one of the reasons I oppose this legislation is that it masquerades as a troop withdrawal measure but in reality may well end up increasing U.S. commitments in the Middle East Mr. Speaker, this is precisely the debate we should have had four years ago, before Congress voted to abrogate its Constitutional obligation to declare war and transfer that authority to the president. Some in this body were rather glib in declaring the constitution antiquated while voting to cede the ability to initiate hostilities to the President. Now we see the result of ignoring the Constitution, and we are bringing even more mayhem to the process with this legislation. To those who believe this act would somehow end the war, I simply point to the title for Section 3 of the bill, which states, ``Requirement to reduce the number of armed forces in Iraq and transition to a limited presence of the Armed Forces in Iraq.'' However the number of troops are limited, this legislation nevertheless will permit an ongoing American military presence in Iraq with our soldiers continuing to be engaged in hostilities. I also wish to draw attention to Section 4(b)(1), which mandates the President to submit a ``Strategy for Iraq'' by the beginning of next year. This ``strategy'' is to include: A discussion of United States national security interests in Iraq and the broader Middle East region and the diplomatic, political, economic, and military components of a comprehensive strategy to maintain and advance such interests as the Armed Forces are redeployed from Iraq pursuant to section 3 of this Act. In other words, far from extricating ourselves from the debacle in Iraq, this bill would set in motion a policy that could lead to a wider regional commitment, both financially and militarily. Such a policy would be disastrous for both our overextended national security forces and beleaguered taxpayers. This could, in fact, amount to an authorization for a region-wide ``surge.'' Congress' job is to change the policy on Iraq, not to tell the military leaders how many troops they should have. I have attempted to do this with H.R. 2605, a bill to sunset after a six month period the authorization for military activity in Iraq. During this period a new plan for Iraq could be discussed and agreed. Plan first, authorization next, execution afterward. That is what we should be doing in Iraq. In summary, Mr. Speaker, this legislation brings us no closer to ending the war in Iraq. It brings us no closer to bringing our troops home. It says nothing about withdrawal, only about redeployment. It says nothing about reducing U.S. presence in the Middle East, and may actually lead to an expanded U.S. presence in the region. We have no guarantee the new strategy demanded by this legislation would not actually expand our military activities to Iran and Syria and beyond. I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation and put forth an effective strategy to end the war in Iraq and to bring our troops home.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise with serious concerns over this legislation. Let me first state that I am personally not in favor of the University and College Union of the United Kingdom boycott against Israeli academia. I oppose all such refusals to engage and interact even where strong disagreement exists. I believe such blockades, be they against countries or academic groups, to be counterproductive. I strongly encourage academic and cultural exchanges, as they are the best way to foster international understanding and prevent wars. My concerns are about this particular piece of legislation, however. I simply do not understand why it is the business of the United States Congress--particularly considering the many problems we have at home and with U.S. policy abroad--to bring the weight of the U.S. government down on an academic disagreement half a world away. Do we really believe that the U.S. Government should be sticking its nose into a dispute between British and Israeli academics? Is there no dispute in no remote corner of the globe in which we don't feel the need to become involved?

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, the Galveston Chamber of Commerce has chosen Mr. Fred Raschke as its Business Leader of the Year because, as Galveston Chamber of Commerce President Gina Spagnola said, ``Fred is an extraordinary man who is committed to his family, his faith, his friends as well as service to our community.'' Mr. Raschke is an honors graduate of the University of Texas and a graduate of Texas Tech University School of Law. He is a partner of the Mills Shirley law firm and a member of numerous legal organizations including the Fifth Federal Circuit and American Bar Association, the State Bar of Texas, and the Texas Association of Defense Counsels. His legal practice areas include defense litigation, negligence defense, personal injury defense, toxic tort defense, premises liability, gas, and electric utilities. In addition to his professional accomplishments, Mr. Raschke's commitment to community service has made him a partner with all the people of Galveston. Mr. Raschke is very involved with several different community organizations including the Salvation Army, Boy Scouts of America, the Galveston Chamber of Commerce and the Galveston Historical Society. He has also served on boards of various Galveston area organizations, including the UTMB School of Nursing Alumni, Development and Community Relations Advisory Council, the Galveston County Economic Alliance, and the Galveston Rotary Club. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take this opportunity to join my friends at the Galveston County Chamber of Commerce in saluting Fred Raschke for both his professional accomplishments and his dedication to the Galveston community.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize the life and achievements of Hans F. Sennholz. Dr. Sennholz was one of the foremost free-market economists of his generation and an inspiration to tens of thousands of people around the world. Dr. Sennholz was born on February 3, 1922 in Germany in the midst of the German hyperinflation crisis and experienced firsthand the Great Depression and the horrors of Hitler's dictatorship. After receiving his master's degree from the University of Marburg and a doctorate in political science from the University of Cologne, Dr. Sennholz received a Ph.D. in economics at New York University, where he studied under the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises. In his 37 years as a professor of economics at Grove City College, Dr. Sennholz was a formative influence for over 10,000 students. During an era in which Keynesianism was the dominant economic ideology, Dr. Sennholz's efforts played a major role in keeping alive the flame of classical liberalism and market-based economics. Dr. Sennholz and his free market ideas were a perfect fit for Grove City, which is one of only two colleges in the United States which eschews federal education funding. Dr. Sennholz later became President of the Foundation for Economic Education, reviving the institution and renewing its mission to advancing the ideals of private property, individual liberty, the rule of law, and the free market. He also served as an adjunct scholar at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, from which he received the Gary G. Schlarbaum Prize in 2004 for his lifelong dedication to the cause of liberty. I first met Dr. Sennholz in the early 1970s during the campaign to legalize the private ownership of gold. He was a tremendous influence on me and introduced me to other eminent economists of the Austrian School. Dr. Sennholz consistently taught the beneficial effects of the gold standard and was a tireless opponent of inflation. He never ceased to persist in pointing out the problems of fiat currency, the evils of inflation, and the perils of the Federal Reserve's loose monetary policy. Dr. Sennholz passed away on Saturday, June 23, 2007 at the age of 85, having lived a full and rewarding life. Generations of free-market economists are indebted to him, his spirited teaching, and his lucid writing for keeping free-market economic teaching alive during trying times. Congress would do well to heed his advice on the importance of free markets and the folly of fiat currency.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution. This resolution is an exercise in propaganda that serves one purpose: to move us closer to initiating a war against Iran. Citing various controversial statements by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, this legislation demands that the United Nations Security Council charge Ahmadinejad with violating the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Having already initiated a disastrous war against Iraq citing U.N. resolutions as justification, this resolution is like deja-vu. Have we forgotten 2003 already? Do we really want to go to war again for U.N. resolutions? That is where this resolution, and the many others we have passed over the last several years on Iran, is leading us. I hope my colleagues understand that a vote for this bill is a vote to move us closer to war with Iran. Clearly, language threatening to wipe a nation or a group of people off the map is to be condemned by all civilized people. And I do condemn any such language. But why does threatening Iran with a pre- emptive nuclear strike, as many here have done, not also deserve the same kind of condemnation? Does anyone believe that dropping nuclear weapons on Iran will not wipe a people off the map? When it is said that nothing, including a nuclear strike, is off the table on Iran, are those who say it not also threatening genocide? And we wonder why the rest of the world accuses us of behaving hypocritically, of telling the rest of the world ``do as we say, not as we do.'' I strongly urge my colleagues to consider a different approach to Iran, and to foreign policy in general. GEN William Odom, President Reagan's director of the National Security Agency, outlined a much more sensible approach in a recent article titled ``Exit From Iraq Should Be Through Iran.'' General Odom wrote: ``Increasingly bogged down in the sands of Iraq, the US thrashes about looking for an honorable exit. Restoring cooperation between Washington and Tehran is the single most important step that could be taken to rescue the U.S. from its predicament in Iraq.'' General Odom makes good sense. We need to engage the rest of the world, including Iran and Syria, through diplomacy, trade, and travel rather than pass threatening legislation like this that paves the way to war. We have seen the limitations of force as a tool of U.S. foreign policy. It is time to try a more traditional and conservative approach. I urge a ``no'' vote on this resolution.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support H. Con. Res. 155, legislation commemorating a monumental day in the history of liberty, Juneteenth Independence Day. Juneteenth marks the events of June 19, 1865, when slaves in Galveston, TX, learned that they were at last free men and women. The slaves of Galveston were the last group of slaves to learn of the end of slavery. Thus, Juneteenth represents the end of slavery in America. I hope all Americans will take the time to commemorate Juneteenth. Friends of human liberty should celebrate the end of slavery in any country. The end of American slavery is particularly worthy of recognition since there are few more blatant violations of America's founding principles, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence, than slavery. I am particularly pleased to join the recognition of Juneteenth because I have the privilege of representing Galveston. I thank the gentleman from Illinois for introducing this resolution, which I am proud to cosponsor. I thank the House leadership for bringing this resolution to the floor, and I urge all of my colleagues to honor the end of slavery by voting for H. Con. Res. 155.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the Honest Money Act. The Honest Money Act repeals legal tender laws that force American citizens to accept fiat money in their economic transactions. Absent legal tender laws, individuals acting through the market will determine what is money. Historically, when individuals have been free to choose their money they have selected items that are portable, widely accepted, and have a stable value. Having the market, rather than the government, define money is integral to the functioning of a free economy. As Edwin Vieira, perhaps the Nation's top expert on constitutional monetary policy says, ``. . . a free market functions most efficiently and most fairly when the market determines the quality and the quantity of money that's being used.'' While fiat money produced by the State is portable and, thanks to legal tender laws, widely accepted, it is certainly not of stable value. In fact, our entire monetary policy is predicated on the government's ability to manipulate the value of the currency. Thus, absent legal tender laws, many citizens would refuse to accept government money for their transactions. Legal tender laws disadvantage ordinary citizens by forcing them to use inferior money, which they would otherwise refuse. As Stephen T. Byington put in the September 1895 issue of the American Federationist: ``No legal tender law is ever needed to make men take good money; its only use is to make them take bad money. Kick it out!'' It may seem surprising that the Mr. Byington's well-phrased attack on legal tender laws appeared in the publication of the American Federation of Labor. However, enlightened union leaders of that time recognized that ways in which workers where harmed by the erosion of the value of money which inevitably follows when governments pass legal tender laws. Legal tender laws may disadvantage average citizens but they do help power-hungry politicians use inflationary monetary policy to expand the government beyond its proper limits. However, the primary beneficiaries of legal tender laws are the special interests who are granted the privilege of producing and controlling the paper money forced on the public via legal tender laws. Legal tender laws thus represent the primary means of reverse redistribution where the wealth of the working class is given, via laws forcing people to use debased money, to well- heeled, politically powerful bankers. The drafters of the Constitution were well aware of how a government armed with legal tender powers could ravage the people's liberty and prosperity. This is why the Constitution does not grant legal tender powers to the federal government. Instead, Congress was given powers to establish standards regarding the value of money. In other words, in monetary matters the Congress was to follow the lead of the market. When Alexander Hamilton wrote the coinage act of 1792, he simply adopted the market-definition of a dollar as equaling the value of the Spanish milled silver coin. Legal tender laws have reversed that order to where the market follows the lead of Congress. Beginning in the 19th century, Federal politicians sought to enhance their power and enrich their cronies, by using legal tender powers to change the definition of a dollar from a silver-or-gold-backed unit whose value is determined by the market, to a piece of paper produced by the State. The ``value'' of this paper may be normally backed in part by gold or silver, but its ultimate backing is the power of the State, and its value is determined by the political needs of the State and the powerful special interests who influence monetary policy. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court failed to protect the American people from Congress' unconstitutional legal tender laws. Supreme Court Justice, and Lincoln Treasury Secretary, Salmon Chase, writing in dissent in the legal tender cases, summed up the main reason why the Founders did not grant Congress the authority to pass legal tender laws: ``The legal tender quality [of money] is only valuable for the purposes of dishonesty.'' Justice Chase might have added dishonesty is perpetrated by State-favored interests on the average American. Another prescient Justice was Stephen Field, the only justice to dissent in every one of the legal tender cases to come before the Court. Justice Field accurately described the dangers to the constitutional republic posed by legal tender laws: ``The arguments in favor of the constitutionality of legal tender paper currency tend directly to break down the barriers which separate a government of limited powers from a government resting in the unrestrained will of Congress. Those limitations must be preserved, or our government will inevitably drift from the system established by our Fathers into a vast, centralized and consolidated government.'' Considering the growth of government since the Supreme Court joined Congress in disregarding the constitutional barriers to legal tender laws, can anyone doubt the accuracy of Justice Field's words? Repeal of legal tender laws would restore constitutional government and protect the people's right to use a currency chosen by the market because it serves the needs of the people, instead of having to use a currency chosen by the State because it serves the needs of power hungry politicians and special interests. Therefore, I urge my colleges to cosponsor the Honest Money Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation to restore financial stability to America's economy by abolishing the Federal Reserve. Since the creation of the Federal Reserve, middle-and working- class Americans have been victimized by a boom-and-bust monetary policy. In addition, most Americans have suffered a steadily eroding purchasing power because of the Federal Reserve's inflationary policies. This represents a real, if hidden, tax imposed on the American people. From the Great Depression, to the stagflation of the 70s, to the burst of the dotcom bubble, every economic downturn suffered by the country over the last 80 years can be traced to Federal Reserve policy. The Fed has followed a consistent policy of flooding the economy with easy money, leading to a misallocation of resources and an artificial ``boom'' followed by a recession or depression when the Fed-created bubble bursts. With a stable currency, American exporters will no longer be held hostage to an erratic monetary policy. Stabilizing the currency will also give Americans new incentives to save as they will no longer have to fear inflation eroding their savings. Those members concerned about increasing America's exports or the low rate of savings should be enthusiastic supporters of this legislation. Though the Federal Reserve policy harms the average American, it benefits those in a position to take advantage of the cycles in monetary policy. The main beneficiaries are those who receive access to artificially inflated money and/or credit before the inflationary effects of the policy impact the entire economy. Federal Reserve policies also benefit big spending politicians who use the inflated currency created by the Fed to hide the true costs of the welfare- warfare state. It is time for Congress to put the interests of the American people ahead of special interests and their own appetite for big government. Abolishing the Federal Reserve will allow Congress to reassert its constitutional authority over monetary policy. The United States Constitution grants to Congress the authority to coin money and regulate the value of the currency. The Constitution does not give Congress the authority to delegate control over monetary policy to a central bank. Furthermore, the Constitution certainly does not empower the Federal Government to erode the American standard of living via an inflationary monetary policy. In fact, Congress' constitutional mandate regarding monetary policy should only permit currency backed by stable commodities such as silver and gold to be used as legal tender. Therefore, abolishing the Federal Reserve and returning to a constitutional system will enable America to return to the type of monetary system envisioned by our Nation's founders: one where the value of money is consistent because it is tied to a commodity such as gold. Such a monetary system is the basis of a true free-market economy. In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stand up for working Americans by putting an end to the manipulation of the money supply which erodes Americans' standard of living, enlarges big government, and enriches well-connected elites, by cosponsoring my legislation to abolish the Federal Reserve.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the Sunshine in Monetary Policy Act, which requires the Federal Reserve to resume reporting the monetary measure known as M3. M3 consists of M1, M1 is currency in circulation plus travelers' checks, demand deposits, Negotiable Order of Withdrawal, NOW, accounts, and similar interest-earning checking account balances; M2, M2 is M1 plus household holdings of savings deposits, small time deposits, and retail money market mutual funds balances except for balances held in IRA and Keogh accounts, plus institutional money market mutual fund balances and managed liabilities of deposits consisting of large time deposits, repurchase agreements, and Eurodollars. The Federal Reserve Board ceased reporting M3 on March 22, 2006, thus depriving Congress and the American people of the most comprehensive measure of the money supply. The cessation of the Federal Reserve's weekly M3 report will make it more difficult for policymakers, economists, investors, and the general public to learn the true rate of inflation. As Nobel laureate Milton Friedman famously said, ``inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon.'' Therefore, having access to a comprehensive measure of the money supply like M3 is a vital tool for those seeking to track inflation. Thorsten Polleit, honorary professor at HfB-Business School of Finance and Management, in his article ``Why Money Supply Matters'' posted on the Ludwig von Mises Institute's Web site mises.org, examined the relationship between changes in the money supply and inflation and concluded that ``money supply signals might actually be far more important for inflation--even in the short-term--than current central bank practice suggests,'' thus demonstrating the importance of the M3 aggregate. The Federal Reserve Board has claimed neither policymakers nor the Federal Reserve staff closely tracked M3. Even if M3 was not used by Federal Reserve Board economists or legislators, many financial services professionals whose livelihoods depend on their ability to obtain accurate information about the money supply relied on M3. For example, my office has been contacted by a professional money manger complaining that the Federal Reserve Board's discontinuing M3 reports would make it difficult for him to do his job. Whatever lack of interest policymakers are currently displaying, in M3 is no doubt related to the mistaken perception that the Federal Reserve Board has finally figured out how to effectively manage a fiat currency. This illusion exists largely because the effects of the Fed's inflationary polices are concentrated in malinvestments in specific sectors of the economy, leading to ``bubbles'' such as the one that occurred in the stock market in the late nineties and the bubble that many believe is occurring in the current real estate market. When monetary inflation is reflected in sector-specific bubbles, it is easier to pretend that the bubbles are caused by problems specific to those sectors, instead of reflecting the problems inherent in a fiat currency system. Once the damage to our economy done by our reliance on fiat currency becomes clear, I am certain that policymakers will once again take more interest in M3. Economists and others who are following M3 have become increasingly concerned about inflation because in 2005 the rate of M3 rose almost twice as fast as other monetary aggregates. This suggests that the inflation picture is not as rosy as the Federal Reserve would like Congress and the American people to believe. Discontinuing reporting the monetary aggregate that provides the best evidence that the Federal Reserve Board has not conquered inflation suggested to many people that the government was trying to conceal information about the true state of the economy from the American people. Brad Conrad, a professor of investing who has also worked with IBM, CDC, and Amdahl, spoke for many when he said, ``It [the discontinuance of M3] is unsettling. It detracts from the transparency the Fed preaches and adds to the suspicion that the Fed wants to hide anything showing money growth high enough to fuel inflation . . .'' Discontinuing reporting M3 was only expected to save 0.00000699 percent of the Federal Reserve Board's yearly budget. This savings hardly seems to justify depriving the American people of an important measurement of money supply, especially since Congress has tasked the Federal Reserve Board with reporting on monetary aggregates. Discontinuing reporting M3 may not be a violation of the letter of the Federal Reserve Board's statutory duty, but it is a violation of the spirit of the congressional command that the Federal Reserve Board ensure the American public is fully informed about the effects of monetary policy. Madam Speaker, knowledge of the money supply is one of the keys to understanding the state of the economy. The least the American people should expect from the Federal Reserve Board is complete and accurate information regarding the money supply. I urge my colleagues to ensure that the American people can obtain that information by cosponsoring the Sunshine in Monetary Policy Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to enter into the Congressional Record a letter to the editor of the Carteret County News-Times by General John Batiste titled, ``A Man of Principle.'' General Batiste commanded the 1st Infantry Division in Iraq and in this letter he rightfully praises one of the most courageous Members of Congress, my friend Rep. Walter Jones of North Carolina. Rep. Jones, correctly observes General Batiste, is a man of principle and well understands the dilemma we face in Iraq. It is very encouraging for me to read the words of the highly experienced General Batiste affirming the correctness of Congressman Jones' position on Iraq, because I share Rep. Jones views about this very difficult situation we find ourselves. I also salute Rep. Jones for his courage and his determination to seek the truth. [From the Carteret County News-Times, May 25, 2007] A Man of Principle Rochester, N.Y., May 22, 2007 To the Editor: Congressman Walter Jones of North Carolina's 3rd District deserves our unqualified support. He is a man of principle and well understands the dilemma we face in Iraq to include the fatally flawed strategy that took us to war in March 2003; the failure to modify the same strategy over time; the administration's continued reliance on the military without the necessary diplomatic, political, and economic components fundamental to a successful strategy; the administration's failure to mobilize the nation to deal with global Islamic extremism; and the dire straights our great soldiers and Marines find themselves in today. Indeed, our Army and Marine Corps, the best fighting formations our country has ever fielded, are at a breaking point with little to show for it because of the reckless behavior of the current administration. Walter Jones gets it. He personifies patriotism. He understands the American way of war. I base this judgment on personal experience, a 31-year career in the Army, two combat tours in Iraq, many years of service in Balkans peace enforcement in both Bosnia and Kosovo and service in the Pentagon before, during and after Sept. 11th, 2001. I am a lifelong Republican. I respect Walter Jones for his moral courage and resolve to get things right. I met Congressman Jones in his office in the Rayburn Office Building some eight months ago. I was impressed then with his grasp of the situation in Iraq and his unqualified love of country and support for our military. Indeed, for the last five years, he is one of only several congressional Republicans who have embraced their constitutional responsibilities to overwatch and hold accountable our executive branch of government. He asks the tough questions and never backs down. The vast majority of our party has long since abrogated this incredibly important aspect of their duty. He well represents his constituents and the best interests of both our country and our military. As President Gerald Ford once said, ``Truth is the glue that holds our government together.'' Since our first meeting eight months ago, my respect of Walter Jones has multiplied tenfold. People often ask me to describe how they can help get the country back on track. The answer almost invariably boils down to exercising the right to vote and casting one's vote for the candidate who understands the issues and has the moral courage to do the right thing. I have now expanded that answer to elect more public servants like Congressman Walter Jones of North Carolina. Our nation desperately needs members of Congress with his character, commitment, and resolve. I salute Walter Jones as a man of principle with the courage of his convictions. John Batiste, Maj. Gen. USA (Ret.)

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2640, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System Improvements Amendments Act, and I urge caution. In my opinion, H.R. 2640 is a flagrantly unconstitutional expansion of restriction on the exercise of the right to bear arms protected under the second amendment. H.R. 2640 also seriously undermines the privacy rights of all Americans, gun owners and non-gun owners alike, by creating and expanding massive Federal Government databases, including medical and other private records of every American. H.R. 2640 illustrates how placing restrictions on the exercise of one right, in this case, the right to bear arms, inevitably leads to expanded restriction on other rights as well. In an effort to make the Brady background check on gun purchases more efficient, H.R. 2640 pressures States and mandates Federal agencies to dump massive amounts of information about the private lives of all Americans into a central Federal Government database. Among the information that must be submitted to the database are medical, psychological, and drug treatment records that have traditionally been considered protected from disclosure under the physician/patient relationship, as well as records related to misdemeanor domestic violence. While supporters of H.R. 2640 say that there are restrictions on the use of this personal information, such restrictions did not stop the well-publicized IRS and FBI files privacy abuses by both Democratic and Republican administrations. Neither have such restrictions prevented children from being barred from flights because their names appeared on the massive terrorist watch list. We should not trick ourselves into believing that we can pick and choose which part of the Bill of Rights we support. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, in addition the NICS Improvement Amendments Act illustrates how laws creating new infringements on liberty often also impose large financial burdens on taxpayers. In just its first three years of operation, the bill authorizes new yearly spending of $375 million plus additional spending ``as may be necessary.'' This new spending is not offset by any decrease in other government spending.