Ron Paul

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) derogatorily said there is no room to talk about neutrality, as if it were a crime. I would suggest there is room for an open mind to another type of policy that may save American lives. I was in the Congress in the early 1980s, and then I left Congress, and I just come back recently. But I was here when the Marines were sent in to Lebanon, and I strenuously came to the floor before they went, when they went, and before they were killed, arguing my case. And then they were killed. Ronald Reagan, when he sent the troops in, said he would never turn tail and run. Then, after the marines were killed, he had a reassessment of the policy. When he wrote his autobiography a few years later after leaving the Presidency, he wrote this. He says, ``Perhaps we didn't appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and the complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle. Perhaps the idea of a suicide car bomber committing mass murder to gain instant entry to Paradise was so foreign to our own values and consciousness that it did not create in us the concern for the marines' safety that it should have.'' In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believe the last thing that we should do was turn tail and leave. Yet the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there. If there would be some rethinking of policy before our men die, we would be a lot better off. If that policy had changed towards more of a neutral position and neutrality, those 241 marines would be alive today. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am going to yield 3 minutes to Mr. Rahall, but first I would ask how much time I have left after I yield the 3 minutes.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 25\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) and ask unanimous consent that she be allowed to control that time.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just want to make a couple of comments before yielding. It has been well advertised about the three prisoners that have been taken, the three Israeli prisoners. Everybody in the country knows about it. What I find a bit interesting is that some people estimate between 8,000 and 10,000 Palestinians and Lebanese are in prisons and under the authority of the Israeli police and government. It is also known that one-third of the Cabinet of Palestine have been arrested and held hostage by the Israeli Government, and once again, I think this is a distortion of what is going on. It is hard to get the information out to find out exactly what is happening in this area. Also, I would like to make one additional point that it is very easy to criticize the Government of Lebanon for not doing more about Hezbollah. I object to everything Hezbollah does because I am a strong opponent to all violence on both sides. So I object, too, but I also object to the unreasonable accusations that the Government of Lebanon has not done enough, when we realize that Israel was there for 18 years, and Hezbollah did not get any weaker, and they are stronger than ever. So I think, again, a little bit of balance is worth considering. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa). (Mr. ISSA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, it is shameful that Americans were once routinely denied the ability to vote on account of their skin color. All Americans should celebrate the Voting Rights Act's role in vindicating the constitutional rights of all citizens to vote free of racial discrimination. Therefore, I was hoping I could support reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act. However, I cannot support H.R. 9 because it extends the unfunded bilingual ballots mandate. I had joined with my colleague from Iowa, Mr. King, in supporting an amendment to strike the bilingual ballot mandate, which was unfortunately rejected by this House. Mr. Speaker, despite the fact that a person must demonstrate a basic command of the English language before becoming a citizen, Congress is continuing to force States to provide ballots in languages other than English. If a knowledge of English is important enough to be a precondition of citizenship, then why should we force States to facilitate voting in languages other than English? Of course, Mr. Chairman, I have no desire to deny any American citizens the ability to vote. Contrary to the claims of its opponents, Mr. King's amendment does not deny any American the ability to vote. Under Mr. King's amendment, Americans will still have a legal right to bring translators to the polls to assist them in voting, and States could still choose to print bilingual ballots if the King amendment passes. All the King amendment did is repeal a costly Federal mandate. In conclusion, while I recognize the continuing need for protection of voting rights, I cannot support this bill before us since it extends the costly and divisive bilingual ballot mandate.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I wish to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Mr. Bruce J. Farmer, Sr., a remarkable man who passed away on June 28. I also respectfully request unanimous consent to insert the printed version of a eulogy for Mr. Farmer. Mr. Farmer, a resident of Galveston, Texas, was a husband, father of four sons, entrepreneur, and community leader. Mr. Farmer's career exemplifies the best features of American capitalism. Mr. Farmer was CEO of Farmer's Copper Ltd., which he founded in 1978 as Farmer's Copper and Industrial Supply. Under his leadership, Farmer's Copper Ltd. grew into one of the nation's largest privately owned copper and brass distributors, employing approximately 185 people in Galveston. Mr. Farmer began working in the metal fabrication business at the age of 14, when he went to work for Farmer's Marine Copper Works, an engineering and fabrication firm founded by his father and uncle. Mr. Farmer was also CEO of the Four Winds Investments and a director of Moody National Bank Mr. Farmer first demonstrated his commitment to serving his community and country at the age of 16 when he enlisted in the U.S. Merchant Marines in order to serve his country at the height of World War II. Throughout his life, Mr. Farmer did not allow the demands of growing his business to distract him from becoming involved in various local and national organizations. For example, he served on the Methodist Foundation Board and on other boards of the Methodist Church. An avid outdoorsman who loved fishing, hunting, golfing, and skiing, Mr. Farmer also served as past President of the Galveston Propeller Club and received the Maritime Man of the Year award. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to be able to pay tribute to this fine man, and I hope all my colleagues join me in sending my deepest condolences to his family. I hope Mr. Farmer's family is comforted by the knowledge that the whole community of Galveston joins them in mourning his passing. ``My Beloved Sons'' Author Unknown There's a feeling apart In a father's heart For his son. A certain pride Down deep inside For this special one. When there are two Its twice come true And life grows richer still. A third little boy Is a brand new joy, And all seems perfect until; You add one more To make it four, And life takes on a new zest, To share life's joys With four little boys Is living at its best. Bruce kept that poem in his desk at work. I think that says a lot about the man and his philosophy. His family was part of his work and his work was part of his family. I have had the honor and privilege of working with Bruce for the past twenty five years. Notice I said with and not for. No one worked for him. Everyone at Farmer's Copper is part of a team, part of the family. We all knew that there was not a job Bruce could not do, would not do or had not done. He was a man that led by example. Every morning he would make his rounds through the offices ostensibly to check on the staff and see how business was doing. The real reason was that he wanted to mooch hugs from all of the ladies. Bruce would also make his rounds through the warehouse. He would stop in the different departments to see how the equipment was running, how the men were doing and what the day's workload looked like. He would offer his opinion or make a suggestion and then tell them to ``carry on''. Funny, I never remember him mooching hugs down there. Bruce really valued his employees and truly treated them as family. There were dozens of times when he quietly and privately helped an employee through their personal tragedies and hardships. Me included. He always kept his door open and would gladly listen to any employees concerns, complaints or suggestions. Bruce always had time to help. Under his leadership, Farmer's Copper grew from a tiny almost afterthought division of Farmer's Marine into a leader of the metals industry. Farmer's Copper is known both nationally and internationally as the premier source for copper based metals. His unique vision and courage to stay on the forefront of technological advances in both equipment and material is what makes us a leader today and for the last twenty five years. His willingness to invest in equipment, inventory and especially people has assured our success. His boundless energy and ever present optimism inspired us all. During industry downturns when others saw troubles, Bruce found opportunity. When everyone else was in the dark, Bruce found the light. That is how in a volatile and cyclical industry we have always prospered. On a personal note, I have lost one of my best friends, a fishing buddy and hunting partner. But most of all, I've lost my second father. I have known Bruce all of my life. The older we got, the closer we got. He meant more to me than words can say. And I know without a doubt that he felt the same towards me. That's how it was with Bruce. When you were his friend, you felt it deep down in your heart. And if you were not his friend, that just meant that you had not met him yet. I guess the highest honor he gave me was when I became a member of the ``Old Fart Hunting Club.'' Every year on the second weekend of deer season Bruce would round up the ``Old Farts'' and we head out to the Rock Island ranch. This group consisted of Bruce's oldest and dearest friends. Members included Buddy Benson, Jimmy Regan, Bill Glenn, Gene Morris and of course the late Nat Pepper. There were dozens of other honorary members who attended through the years. You always knew that things would get exciting when Joe Cantini made the trip. And you always had make sure there was just a little bourbon for when Kenneth Nance would drop by. Last year I was the only participant under retirement age that had not had a heart attack. The trips were exciting for me every year. Sitting around the fire or on the front porch with these guys have been some of the best times of my life. Listening to stories of their past: the obstacles faced, the friends lost and the achievements accomplished made me proud to be included. It also made me a better man. Of course some of the tails were pretty tall and then there was the always present practical jokes. I think my favorite included Nat. Nat always enjoyed his Saturday night bath. As the story goes, one such night Bruce called out to Nat that he had drawn a bath for him. Nat thanked him and proceeded to the giant old cast iron, clawed foot tub. After he disrobed and prepared to enter the tub he saw it. A small bass swimming in circles trying to find its way out. Bruce had caught the fish earlier and placed it in the tub. I don't know who was more shocked. Nat or the bass. Like the bass we must find our way now. Everyone here is a better person for having known Bruce. We as friends, family and coworkers must now ``carry on''.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce a resolution commending the people of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for the latest mission of the Space Shuttle Discovery. Successfully launched on July 4 this mission, known as STS- 121, marks the second mission on the Return to Flight sequence. STS-121 originally was scheduled to perform just two space walks. However, due to the overall success of the launch, the mission was extended from 12 to 13 days, allowing for an additional space walk. Among the other tasks that will be preformed on this mission are tests of shuttle safety improvements to build on findings from Discovery's flight last year, including a redesign of the shuttle's external fuel tank's foam insulation, in-flight inspection of the shuttle's heat shield, improved imagery during launch and the ability to launch a shuttle rescue mission. The External Tank, which underwent work prior to the mission to reduce foam loss, performed well this time especially early in the flight when a light weight piece of foam could severely damage the tile or wing leading edge, but nothing like that happened this time. The five instances of foam loss that were experienced all occurred after the critical release time. The largest foam loss on the mission, which occurred in front of one of the ice/ frost ramps on the external tank, was calculated to be .055 pounds. The mass limit in that area is .25 pounds, meaning that the loss was not even a quarter of the way to the limit. NASA is very pleased with the performance of the tank, as it is a great improvement from last year's STS-114 mission. The STS-121 mission will also bolster the International Space Station by making a key repair and delivering more than 28,000 pounds of equipment and supplies, as well as adding a third crew member to the Space Station. STS-121 is NASA's most photographed mission in shuttle history as more than 100 high definition, digital, video, and film cameras are helping to assess whether any debris comes off the external tank during the shuttle's launch, while four new video added to the solid rocket boosters. Mr. Speaker, the success of STS-121 is a tribute to the skills and dedication of all NASA employees, especially the Space Shuttle Discovery's crew of Colonel Steve Lindsey; Commander Mark Kelly; Piers Sellers, PhD; Lt. Colonel Mike Fossum; Commander Lisa Nowak; Stephanie Wilson; and Thomas Reiter. What philosopher Ayn Rand wrote of the moon landing in 1969 applies to the STS-121 and 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 completing STS-121 mission, and all of NASA's work.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation. It is not easy to oppose this legislation because it is assumed that proponents of the bill are on the side of the moral high ground. But there is a higher moral high ground in the sense that protecting liberty is more important than passing a bill that regulates something on the Internet. The Interstate Commerce Clause originally was intended to make sure there were no barriers between interstate trade. In this case, we are putting barriers up. I want to make the point that prohibition, as a general principle, is a bad principle because it doesn't work. It doesn't solve the problem because it can't decrease the demand. As a matter of fact, the only thing it does is increase the price. And there are some people who see prohibitions as an enticement, and that it actually increases the demand. But once you make something illegal, whether it is alcohol or whether it is cigarettes or whether it is gambling on the Internet, it doesn't disappear because of this increased demand. All that happens is, it is turned over to the criminal element. So you won't get rid of it. Sometimes people say that this prohibition that is proposed is designed to protect other interests because we certainly aren't going to get rid of gambling, so we might get rid of one type of gambling, but actually enhance the other. But one of the basic principles, a basic reason why I strongly oppose this is, I see this as a regulation of the Internet, which is a very, very dangerous precedent to set. To start with, I can see some things that are much more dangerous than gambling. I happen to personally strongly oppose gambling. I think it is pretty stupid, to tell you the truth. But what about political ideas? What about religious fanaticism? Are we going to get rid of those? I can think of 1,000 things worse coming from those bad ideas. But who will come down here and say, Just think of the evil of these bad ideas and distorted religions, and therefore we have to regulate the Internet? H.R. 4411, the Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act, should be rejected by Congress since the Federal Government has no constitutional authority to ban or even discourage any form of gambling. In addition to being unconstitutional, H.R. 4411 is likely to prove ineffective at ending Internet gambling. Instead, this bill will ensure that gambling is controlled by organized crime. History, from the failed experiment of prohibition to today's futile ``war on drugs,'' shows that the government cannot eliminate demand for something like Internet gambling simply by passing a law. Instead, H.R. 4411 will force those who wish to gamble over the Internet to patronize suppliers willing to flaunt the ban. In many cases, providers of services banned by the government will be members of criminal organizations. Even if organized crime does not operate Internet gambling enterprises their competitors are likely to be controlled by organized crime. After all, since the owners and patrons of Internet gambling cannot rely on the police and courts to enforce contracts and resolve other disputes, they will be forced to rely on members of organized crime to perform those functions. Thus, the profits of Internet gambling will flow into organized crime. Furthermore, outlawing an activity will raise the price vendors are able to charge consumers, thus increasing the profits flowing to organized crime from Internet gambling. It is bitterly ironic that a bill masquerading as an attack on crime will actually increase organized crime's ability to control and profit from Internet gambling. In conclusion, H.R. 4411 violates the constitutional limits on Federal power. Furthermore, laws such as H.R. 4411 are ineffective in eliminating the demand for vices such as Internet gambling; instead, they ensure that these enterprises will be controlled by organized crime. Therefore I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 4411, the Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that the federal government's program examine records of international financial transactions collected by the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications (SWIFT) is worth all the sound and fury that has surrounded the program since its existence was revealed last week. For one thing, this program appears to threaten civil liberties less than the already widely known ``Know Your Customer'' program or the requirement that American financial institutions file suspicious activity reports whenever a transaction's value exceeds $10,000. However, the program's defenders should consider the likelihood that having federal bureaucrats wade through mountains of SWIFT-generated data will prove as ineffective in protecting the American people as other government programs that rely on sifting through mountains of financial data in hopes of identifying ``suspicious transactions.'' According to investigative journalist James Bovard, writing in the Baltimore Sun on June 28, ``[a] U.N. report on terrorist financing released in May 2002 noted that a `suspicious transaction report' had been filed with the U.S. government over a $69,985 wire transfer that Mohamed Atta, leader of the hijackers, received from the United Arab Emirates. The report noted that `this particular transaction was not noticed quickly enough because the report was just one of a very large number and was not distinguishable from those related to other financial crimes.' '' Congress should be skeptical, to say the least, that giving federal bureaucrats even more data to sift through will make the American people safer. Congress should examine all government programs that monitor the financial transactions of American citizens to ensure they are effective and they do not violate the rights of Americans. Unfortunately, many of my colleagues are attacking newspapers that inform the American people about government surveillance on the grounds that revealing that the federal government is monitoring financial transactions somehow damages national security. It is odd to claim that, until last Friday, neither the American people nor America's enemies had any idea that the government is engaging in massive surveillance of financial transactions, since the government has been openly operating major financial surveillance programs since the 1970s and both the administration and Congress have repeatedly discussed increasing the government's power to monitor financial transactions. In fact, such an expansion of the government's ability to spy on Americans' banking activites was a major part of the PATRIOT Act. Congress should be leery of criticizing media reporting on government activity. Attacking the media for revealing information about government surveillance of American citizens may make reporters reluctant to aggressively pursue stories that may embarrass the government. A reluctance by the media to ``embarrass the state'' will make it easier for the federal government to get away with violating the people's rights. Media reports on government surveillance and other security programs can help Congress and the Americans people ensure the government's actions effectively protect Americans' security without infringing on basic constitutional liberties. I therefore urge my colleagues to reject this resolution.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentleman, and I certainly appreciate your contribution. And I certainly appreciate your character, because you have been willing to admit something and change your position, which is sometimes very, very difficult for most people. I have, of course, great concern, as I expressed earlier, about the war that is going on. But war in general is so dangerous to the cause of liberty, because it is in time of war that people are more willing to sacrifice their liberties. Today, we are told constantly that we have to do such-and-such here in this country because we are at war. Yet, we haven't declared a war. The war has not been declared. We went to war without a declaration. And instead of being precise on just who the enemy is, we have a war against terrorism, yet terrorism is nothing more than a technique. There are all kinds of terror, terrorist acts, and all kinds of different people. So you really can't have a war against terrorism. So we should be much more precise. But why I have, for as long as I can remember, been preaching the doctrine of the Founding Fathers on foreign policy is because I think it would be so much better for us. We would fight fewer wars, we would be a lot wealthier, there would be a lot less killing, and it would be so much better for us, and that is simply a policy of nonintervention. And as I stated in my prepared remarks, this is a good moral position, it is a good constitutional position, and it is a good practical position. Wars that are fought indiscriminately and without declaration and without everybody being together and fighting for a quick victory, they linger and they just never have good resolve. And that is essentially what has happened since World War II. So I will continue to talk about nonintervention. I believe my allies, the Founding Fathers of this country, and the Constitution, should be enough reason for everybody to at least give consideration to nonintervention. And I am convinced that our liberties would be better protected, our financial circumstances would be so much better off, and certainly we wouldn't have the burden and the heavy heart that Mr. Jones certainly bears about seeing so many young people needlessly losing their legs and dying in a battle that is so difficult to understand and has not come to resolve.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am going to make an attempt to answer a question: Why are the American people so angry? I have been involved in politics for over 30 years and have never seen the American people so angry. It is not unusual to sense a modest amount of outrage, but it seems the anger today is unusually intense and quite possibly worse than ever. It is not easily explained, but I have some thoughts on this matter. Generally, anger and frustration among people are related to economic conditions, bread and butter issues. Yet, today, according to government statistics, things are going well. We have low unemployment, low inflation, more homeowners than ever before, and abundant leisure and abundant luxuries. Even the poor have cell phones, televisions, and computers. Public school is free and anyone can get free medical care at any emergency room in the country. Almost all taxes are paid for by the top 50 percent of income earners. The lower 50 percent pay essentially no income tax. Yet general dissatisfaction and anger are commonplace. The old slogan ``It's the economy, stupid'' just does not seem to explain things. Some say it is the war. Yet we have lived with war throughout the 20th century. The bigger they were, the more we pulled together. And the current war, by comparison, has fewer American casualties than the rest, so it can't be just the war itself. People complain about corruption, but what is new about government corruption? In the 19th century, we had railroad scandals. In the 20th century, we endured the Teapot Dome scandal, Watergate, Koreagate, and many others without too much anger and resentment. Yet today, it seems, anger is pervasive and worse than we have experienced in the past. Could it be that war, vague yet persistent economic uncertainty, corruption, and the immigration problem all contribute to the anger we feel in America? Perhaps. But it is almost as though people are not exactly sure why they are so uneasy. They only know that they have had it and are not going to put up with it anymore. High gasoline prices make a lot of people angry, though there is little understanding of how deficits, inflation, and the war in the Middle East all contribute to these higher prices. Generally speaking, there are two controlling forces that determine the nature of government: the people's concern for their economic self- interest and the philosophy of those who hold positions of power and influence in any particular government. Under Soviet communism, the workers believed their economic best interests would be served while a few dedicated theoreticians placed themselves in positions of power. Likewise, the intellectual leaders of the American Revolution were few but rallied the colonists who risked all to overthrow a tyrannical king. Since there is never a perfect understanding between these two forces, the people and the philosophical leaders, and because the motivations of the intellectual leaders vary greatly, any transition from one system of government to another is unpredictable. The Communist takeover by Lenin was violent and costly. The demise of communism and the acceptance of a relatively open system in the former Soviet Union occurred in a miraculous manner. Both systems had intellectual underpinnings. In the United States over the last century, we have witnessed the coming and going of various intellectual influences by proponents of the free market, Keynesian welfarism, varieties of socialism, and supply-side economics. In foreign policy, we have seen a transition from the Founders' vision of nonintervention in the affairs of others to internationalism, unilateral nation building, and policing the world. We now have in place a policy driven by determined neoconservatives to promote American goodness and democracy throughout the world by military force, with particular emphasis on remaking the entire Middle East. We all know that ideas do have consequences. Bad ideas, even when supported naively by the people, will have bad results. Could it be that the people sense in a profound way that the policies of recent decades are unworkable and thus they have instinctively lost confidence in their government leaders? This certainly happened in the final years of the Soviet system. Though not fully understood, this sense of frustration may well be the source of anger we hear expressed on a daily basis by so many. No matter how noble the motivations of political leaders are, when they achieve positions of power, the power itself inevitably becomes their driving force. Government officials too often yield to the temptations and corrupting influences of power. But there are many others who are not bashful about using government power to do good. They truly believe they can make the economy fair through a redistributive tax and spending system, make the people moral by regulating personal behavior and choices, and remake the world in our image using armies. They argue that the use of force to achieve good is legitimate and a proper function of government, always speaking of the noble goals while ignoring the inevitable failures and evils caused by coercion. Not only do they justify government force, they believe they have a moral obligation to do so. Once we concede government has this legitimate function and can be manipulated by a majority vote, the various special interests move in quickly. They gain control to direct government largesse for their own benefit. Too often, it is corporate interests who learn how to manipulate every contract, regulation, and tax policy. Likewise, promoters of the progressive agenda, always hostile to property rights, compete for government power through safety, health, and environmental initiatives. Both groups resort to using government power and abuse this power in an effort to serve their narrow interests. In the meantime, constitutional limits on power and its mandate to protect liberty are totally forgotten. Since the use of power to achieve political ends is accepted, pervasive, and ever expanding, popular support for various programs is achieved by creating fear. Sometimes the fear is concocted out of thin air, but usually it is created by wildly exaggerating a problem or incident that does not warrant the proposed government so-called ``solution.'' Often government caused the problem in the first place. The irony, of course, is that government action rarely solves any problem but rather worsens existing problems or creates altogether new ones. Fear is generated to garner popular support for the proposed government action even when some liberty has to be sacrificed. This leads to a society that is systematically driven toward fear, fear that gives the monstrous government more and more authority and control over our lives and property. Fear is constantly generated by politicians to rally the support of the people. Environmentalists go back and forth from warning about a coming ice age to arguing the grave dangers of global warming. It is said that without an economic safety net for everyone from cradle to grave people would starve and many would become homeless. It is said that without government health care, the poor would not receive treatment, and medical care would be available only to the rich. Without government insuring pensions, all private pension funds would be threatened. Without Federal assistance, there would be no funds for public education, and the quality of our public schools would be diminished, ignoring, of course, recent history to the contrary. It is argued that without government surveillance of every American even without search warrants, security cannot be achieved. The sacrifice of some liberty is required for security of our citizens, they claim. We are constantly told that the next terrorist attack could come at any moment. Rather than questioning why we might be attacked, this atmosphere of fear, instead, prompts giving up liberty and privacy. 9/11 has been conveniently used to generate the fear necessary to expand both our foreign intervention and domestic surveillance. Fear of nuclear power is used to assure shortages and highly expensive energy. In all instances where fear is generated and used to expand government control, it is safe to say the problems behind the fears were not caused by the free market economy or too much privacy or excessive liberty. It is easy to generate fear, fear that too often becomes excessive, unrealistic, and difficult to curb. This is important. It leads to even more demands for government action than the perpetrators of the fear actually anticipated. Once people look to government to alleviate their fears and make them safe, expectations exceed reality. FEMA originally had a small role, but its current mission is to centrally manage every natural disaster that befalls us. This mission was exposed as a fraud during last year's hurricanes. Incompetence and corruption are now FEMA's legacy. This generates anger among those who have to pay the bills and among those who did not receive the handouts promised to them quickly enough. Generating exaggerated fear to justify and promote attacks on private property is commonplace. It serves to inflame resentment between the producers in society and the so-called victims, whose demands grow exponentially. The economic impossibility of this system guarantees that the harder government tries to satisfy the unlimited demands, the worse the problems become. We will not be able to pay the bills forever, and eventually our ability to borrow and print new money must end. This dependency on government will guarantee anger when the money runs out. Today, we are still able to borrow and inflate, but budgets are getting tighter and people sense serious problems lurking in the future. This fear is legitimate. No easy solution to our fiscal problems is readily apparent, and this ignites anger and apprehension. Disenchantment is directed at the politicians and their false promises made in order to secure reelection and exert power that so many of them enjoy. It is, however, in foreign affairs that governments have most abused fear to generate support for an agenda that, under normal circumstances, would have been rejected. For decades, our administrations have targeted one supposed Hitler after another to gain support for military action against a particular country. Today, we have three choices termed the axis of evil: Iran, Iraq, or North Korea. We recently witnessed how unfounded fear was generated concerning Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction to justify our first-ever preemptive war. It is now universally known the fear was based on falsehoods, and yet the war goes on and the death and destruction continues. This is not a new phenomenon. General Douglas MacArthur understood the political use of fear when he made this famous statement: ``Always there has been some terrible evil at home or some monstrous foreign power that was going to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it.'' We should be ever vigilant when we hear the fear mongers preparing us for the next military conflict our young men and women will be expected to fight. We are being told of the great danger posed by Ahmadinejad in Iran and Kim Jong-il in North Korea. Even Russia and China bashing is in vogue again, and we are still not able to trade with or travel to Cuba. A constant enemy is required to expand the state. We are hearing more and more news stories blaming Iran for the bad results in Iraq. Does this mean Iran is next on the hit list? The world is much too dangerous, we are told, and therefore we must be prepared to fight at a moment's notice, regardless of the cost. If the public could not be manipulated by the politicians' efforts to instill needless fear, fewer wars would be fought and far fewer lives would be lost. Though the American people are fed up for a lot of legitimate reasons, almost all polls show the mess in Iraq leads the list of why the anger is so intense. Short wars with well- defined victories are tolerated by the American people even when they are misled as to the reasons for the war. Wars entered into without a proper declaration tend to be politically motivated and not for national security reasons. These wars by their very nature are prolonged, costly, and usually require a new administration to finally end them. This certainly was true with the Korean and the Vietnam Wars. The lack of a quick military victory, the loss of life and limb, and the huge economic costs of lengthy wars precipitate anger. This is overwhelmingly true when the war propaganda that stirred up the illegitimate fears is exposed as a fraud. Most soon come to realize the promise of guns and butter is an illusion. They come to understand that inflation, a weak economy, and a prolonged war without real success are the reality. The anger over the Iraq War is multifaceted. Some are angry believing they were lied to in order to gain their support at the beginning. Others are angry that the $40 billion we spend every year on intelligence gathering fail to provide good information. Proponents of the war too often are unable to admit the truth. They become frustrated with the progress of the war and then turn on those wanting to change course, angrily denouncing them as unpatriotic and unAmerican. Those accused are quick to respond to the insulting charges made by those who want to fight on forever without regard to casualties. Proponents of the war do not hesitate to challenge the manhood of war critics, accusing them of wanting to cut and run. Some war supporters duck military service themselves while others fought and died, only adding to the anger of those who have seen battle up close and now question our campaign in Iraq. When people see a $600 million embassy being built in Baghdad while funding for services here in the United States is hard to obtain, they become angry. They can't understand why the money is being spent, especially when they are told by our government that we have no intention of remaining permanently in Iraq. The bickering and anger will not soon subside since victory in Iraq is not on the horizon and a change in policy is not likely to occur. The neoconservative instigators of war are angry at everyone, at the people who want to get out of Iraq and especially at those prosecuting the war for not bombing more aggressively, sending in more troops and expanding the war into Iran. As our country becomes poorer due to the cost of the war, anger surely will escalate. Much of it will be justified. It seems bizarre that it is so unthinkable to change course if the current policy is failing. Our leaders are like a physician who makes a wrong diagnosis and prescribes the wrong medicine, but because of his ego can't tell the patient he has made a mistake. Instead, he hopes the patient will get better on his own. But instead of improving, the patient gets worse from the medication wrongly prescribed. This would be abhorrent behavior in medicine, but tragically it is commonplace in politics. If the truth is admitted, it would appear that the lives lost and the money spent have been in vain. Instead, more casualties must be sustained to prove a false premise. What a tragedy. If the truth is admitted, imagine the anger of all the families that already have suffered such a burden. That burden is softened when the families and the wounded are told their great sacrifice was worthy and required to preserve our freedoms and our Constitution. But no one is allowed to ask the obvious: How have the 2,500 plus deaths and the 18,500 wounded made us more free? What in the world does Iraq have to do with protecting our civil liberties here at home? What national security threat prompted America's first preemptive war? How does our unilateral enforcement of U.N. resolutions enhance our freedoms? These questions aren't permitted. They are not politically correct. I agree that the truth hurts and these questions are terribly hurtful to the families that have suffered so much. What a horrible thought it would be to find out the cause for which we fight is not quite so noble. I don't believe those who hide from the truth and refuse to face the reality of the war do so deliberately. The pain is too great. Deep down psychologically many are incapable of admitting such a costly and emotionally damaging error. They instead become even greater and more determined supporters of the failed policy. I would concede that there are some, though, especially the diehard neoconservatives who believe it is our moral duty to spread American goodness through force and remake the Middle East who neither suffer regrets nor are bothered by the casualties. They continue to argue for more war without remorse as long as they themselves do not have to fight. Criticism is reserved for the wimps who want to ``cut and run.'' Due to the psychological need to persist with the failed policy, the war proponents must remain in denial of many facts staring them in the face. They refuse to accept that the real reason for our invasion and occupation of Iraq was not related to terrorism. They deny that our military is weaker as a consequence of this war. They won't admit that our invasion has served the interests of Osama bin Laden. They continue to blame our image problems around the world on a few bad apples. They won't admit that our invasion has served the interests of Iran's radical regime. The cost in lives lost and dollars spent is glossed over and the deficit spirals up without concern. They ridicule those who point out that our relationship with our allies have been significantly damaged. We have provided a tremendous incentive for Russia and China and others like Iran to organize through the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. They entertain future challenges to our plans to dominate Southeast Asia and the Middle East and all its oil. Radicalizing the Middle East will in the long term jeopardize Israel's security and increase the odds of this war spreading. War supporters cannot see that for every Iraqi killed, another family turns on us, regardless of who did the killing. We are and will continue to be blamed for every wrong done in Iraq, all deaths, illness, water problems, food shortages and electricity outages. As long as our political leaders persist in these denials, the war won't end. The problem is that this is the source of the anger, because the American people are not in denial and want a change in policy. Policy changes in wartime are difficult, for it is almost impossible for the administration to change course since so much emotional energy has been invested in the effort. That is why Eisenhower ended the Korean War, not Truman. That is why Nixon ended the Vietnam War, not LBJ. Even in the case of Vietnam, the end was too slow and costly as more than 30,000 military deaths came after Nixon's election in 1968. It makes a lot more sense to avoid unnecessary wars than to overcome the politics involved in stopping them once they have started. I personally am convinced that many of our wars could be prevented by paying stricter attention to the method whereby our troops are committed to battle. I also am convinced that when Congress does not declare war, victory is unlikely. The most important thing Congress can do to prevent needless and foolish wars is for every Member to take seriously his or her oath to obey the Constitution. Wars should be entered into only after great deliberation and caution. Wars that are declared by Congress should reflect the support of the people and the goal should be a quick and successful resolution. Our undeclared wars of the past 65 years have dragged on without precise victories. We fight to spread American values, to enforce U.N. resolutions, and to slay supposed Hitlers. We forget that once we spread American values by persuasion and setting an example, not by bombs and preemptive invasions. Nowhere in the Constitution are we permitted to go to war on behalf of the United Nations at the sacrifice of our national sovereignty. We repeatedly use military force against former allies, thugs we helped empower, like Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, even when they pose no danger to us. The 2002 resolution allowing the President to decide when and if to invade Iraq is an embarrassment. The Constitution authorizes only Congress to declare war. Our refusal to declare war transferred power to the President illegally, without a constitutional amendment. Congress did this with a simple resolution, passed by majority vote. This means Congress reneged on its responsibility as a separate branch of government and should be held accountable for the bad policy in Iraq that the majority of Americans are now upset about. Congress is every bit as much at fault as the President. Constitutional questions aside, the American people should have demanded more answers from their government before they supported the invasion and occupation of a foreign country. Some of the strongest supporters of the war declare that we are a Christian Nation, yet use their religious beliefs to justify the war. They claim it is our Christian duty to remake the Middle East and attack the Muslim infidels. Evidently I have been reading from a different Bible. I remember something about ``blessed are the peacemakers.'' My beliefs aside, Christian teaching of nearly a thousand years reinforces the concept of the ``Just War Theory.'' This Christian theory emphasizes six criteria needed to justify Christian participation in war. Briefly, the six points are as follows: War should be fought only in self-defense. War should be undertaken only as a last resort. A decision to enter war should be made only by a legitimate authority. All military responses must be proportional to the threat. There must be a reasonable chance of success. And a public declaration notifying all parties concerned is required. The war in Iraq fails to meet almost all of these requirements. This discrepancy has generated anger and division within the Christian community. Some are angry because the war is being fought out of Christian duty, yet does not have uniform support from all Christians. Others are angry because they see Christianity as a religion of peace and forgiveness, not war and annihilation of enemies. Constitutional and moral restraints on wars should be strictly followed. It is understandable when kings, dictators and tyrants take their people into war since it serves their selfish interest and those sent to fight have no say in the matter. It is more difficult to understand why democracies and democratic legislative bodies, which have a say over the issue of war, so readily submit to the executive branch of government. The determined effort of the authors of our Constitution to firmly place the power to declare war in the legislative branch has been ignored in the decades following World War II. Many Members have confided in me that they are quite comfortable with this arrangement. They flatly do not expect in this modern age to formally declare war ever again. Yet no one predicts there will be fewer wars fought. It is instead assumed that they will be ordered by the executive branch or the United Nations, a rather sad commentary. What about the practical arguments against war, since no one seems interested in exerting constitutional or moral restraints? Why do we continue to fight prolonged, political wars when the practical results are so bad? Our undeclared wars since 1945 have been very costly, to put it mildly. We have suffered over 100,000 military deaths and even more serious casualties. Tens of thousands have suffered from serious war-related illnesses. Sadly, we as a nation express essentially no concern for the millions of civilian casualties in the countries where we fought. The cost of war since 1945 and our military presence in over 100 countries since exceeds $2 trillion in today's dollars. The cost in higher taxes, debt and persistent inflation is immeasurable. Likewise, the economic opportunities lost by diverting trillions of dollars into war is impossible to measure, but it is huge. Yet our Presidents persist in picking fights with countries that pose no threat to us, refusing to participate in true diplomacy to resolve differences. Congress over the decades has never resisted the political pressures to send our troops abroad on missions that defy imagination. When the people object to a new adventure, the propaganda machine goes into action to make sure critics are seen as unpatriotic Americans or even traitors. The military-industrial complex we were warned about has been transformed into a military-media-industrial-government complex that is capable of silencing the dissenters and cheerleading for the war. It is only after years of failure that people are able to overcome the propaganda for war and pressure their representatives in Congress to stop the needless killing. Many times the economic costs of war stir people to demand an end. This time around, the war might be brought to a halt by our actual inability to pay the bills due to a dollar crisis. A dollar crisis will make borrowing $2.5 billion per day from foreign powers like China and Japan virtually impossible, at least at affordable interest rates. That is when we will be forced to reassess the spending spree, both at home and abroad. The solution to this mess is not complicated, but the changes needed are nearly impossible for political reasons. Sound free market economics, sound money and a sensible foreign policy would all result from a strict adherence to the Constitution. If the people desired it, and the Congress was filled with responsible Members, a smooth although challenging transition could be achieved. Since this is unlikely, we can only hope that the rule of law and the goal of liberty can be reestablished without chaos. We must move quickly toward a more traditional American foreign policy of peace, friendship and trade with all nations, entangling alliances with none. We must reject the notion that we can or should make the world safe for democracy. We must forget about being the world's policeman. We should disengage from the unworkable and unforgiving task of nation building. We must reject the notion that our military should be used to protect natural resources, private investments, or serve the interests of any foreign government or the United Nations. Our military should be designed for one purpose, defending our national security. It is time to come home now, before financial conditions or military weakness dictates it. The major obstacle to a sensible foreign policy is the fiction about what patriotism means. Today, patriotism has come to mean blind support for the government and its policies. In earlier times, patriotism meant having the willingness and courage to challenge government policies regardless of popular perceptions. Today, we constantly hear innuendoes and direct insults aimed at those who dare to challenge current foreign policy, no matter how flawed that policy may be. I would suggest it takes more courage to admit the truth, to admit mistakes, than to attack others as unpatriotic for disagreeing with the war in Iraq. Remember the original American patriots challenged the abuses of King George and wrote and carried out the Declaration of Independence. Yes, Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of anger in this country. Much of it is justified, some of it is totally unnecessary and misdirected. The only thing that can lessen this anger is an informed public. A better understanding of economic principles, a rejection of foreign intervention, and a strict adherence to the Constitutional rule of law. This will be difficult to achieve. But it is not impossible and well worth the effort. Mr. Speaker, I now would like to defer to one of our colleagues who has arrived on the floor and is going to participate in this special order, that is the gentleman from North Carolina. I alluded to the fact that looking for the truth was very important. And there is nobody in the Congress that surpasses this gentleman's effort to pursue the truth, and his willingness to take personal responsibility for what he has said, voted for in the past. And this to me is so important, because his pursuit of truth I think is key. And the efforts that he has made here in the last couple of years I think is just critical, because he has been concerned specifically about information that we in the Congress were given in order to make our decision to deliver this authority to the President. It is this pursuit of truth that I think is so critical, and I have such high regards for gentleman for doing this. At this time I would like to yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the We the People Act. The We the People Act forbids federal courts, including the Supreme Court, from adjudicating cases concerning state laws and polices relating to religious liberties or ``privacy,'' including cases involving sexual practices, sexual orientation or reproduction. The We the People Act also protects the traditional definition of marriage from judicial activism by ensuring the Supreme Court cannot abuse the equal protection clause to redefine marriage. In order to hold federal judges accountable for abusing their powers, the act also provides that a judge who violates the act's limitations on judicial power shall either be impeached by Congress or removed by the president, according to rules established by the Congress. The United States Constitution gives Congress the authority to establish and limit the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts and limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Founders intended Congress to use this authority to correct abuses of power by the federal judiciary. Some may claim that an activist judiciary that strikes down state laws at will expands individual liberty. Proponents of this claim overlook the fact that the best guarantor of true liberty is decentralized political institutions, while the greatest threat to liberty is concentrated power. This is why the Constitution carefully limits the power of the federal government over the states. In recent years, we have seen numerous abuses of power by federal courts. Federal judges regularly strike down state and local laws on subjects such as religious liberty, sexual orientation, family relations, education, and abortion. This government by federal judiciary causes a virtual nullification of the Tenth Amendment's limitations on federal power. Furthermore, when federal judges impose their preferred polices on state and local governments, instead of respecting the polices adopted by those elected by, and thus accountable to, the people, republican government is threatened. Article IV, section 4 of the United States Constitution guarantees each state a republican form of government. Thus, Congress must act when the executive or judicial branch threatens the republican governments of the individual states. Therefore, Congress has a responsibility to stop federal judges from running roughshod over state and local laws. The Founders would certainly have supported congressional action to reign in federal judges who tell citizens where they can and can't place manger scenes at Christmas. Mr. Speaker, even some supporters of liberalized abortion laws have admitted that the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision, which overturned the abortion laws of all fifty states, is flawed. The Supreme Court's Establishment Clause jurisdiction has also drawn criticism from across the political spectrum. Perhaps more importantly, attempts to resolve, by judicial fiat, important issues like abortion and the expression of religious belief in the public square increase social strife and conflict. The only way to resolve controversial social issues like abortion and school prayer is to restore respect for the right of state and local governments to adopt polices that reflect the beliefs of the citizens of those jurisdictions. I would remind my colleagues and the federal judiciary that, under our Constitutional system, there is no reason why the people of New York and the people of Texas should have the same polices regarding issues such as marriage and school prayer. Unless Congress acts, a state's authority to define and regulate marriage may be the next victim of activist judges. After all, such a decision would simply take the Supreme Court's decision in the Lawrence case, which overturned all state sodomy laws, to its logical conclusion. Congress must launch a preemptive strike against any further federal usurpation of the states' authority to regulate marriage by removing issues concerning the definition of marriage from the jurisdiction of federal courts. Although marriage is licensed and otherwise regulated by the states, government did not create the institution of marriage. Government regulation of marriage is based on state recognition of the practices and customs formulated by private individuals interacting in civil institutions, such as churches and synagogues. Having federal officials, whether judges, bureaucrats, or congressmen, impose a new definition of marriage on the people is an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty. It is long past time that Congress exercises its authority to protect the republican government of the states from out-of-control federal judges. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the We the People Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am encouraged by recent news that the administration has offered to put an end to our 26-year-old policy of refusing to speak with the Iranians. While this is a positive move, I am still concerned about the preconditions set by the administration before it will agree to begin talks. Unfortunately, the main U.S. precondition is that the Iranians abandon their uranium enrichment program. But this is exactly what the negotiations are meant to discuss. How can a meaningful dialogue take place when one side demands that the other side abandon its position before the talks begin? Is this offer designed to fail so as to clear the way for military action while being able to claim that diplomacy was attempted? If the administration wishes to avoid this perception, it would be wiser to abandon preconditions and simply agree to talk to Iran. By demanding that Iran give up its uranium enrichment program, the United States is unilaterally changing the terms of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. We must remember that Iran has never been found in violation of the Nonproliferation Treaty. U.N. inspectors have been in Iran for years, and International Atomic Energy Agency Director ElBaradei has repeatedly reported that he can find no indication of diversion of source or special nuclear material to a military purpose. As a signatory of the Nonproliferation Treaty, Iran has, according to the treaty, the ``inalienable right to the development, research and production of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination.'' Yet, the United States is demanding that Iran give up that right even though, after years of monitoring, Iran has never been found to have diverted nuclear material from peaceful to military use. As my colleagues are well aware, I am strongly opposed to the United Nations and our participation in that organization. Every Congress I introduce a bill to get us out of the U.N., but I also recognize problems with our demanding to have it both ways. On one hand, we pretend to abide by the U.N. and international laws, such as when Congress cited the U.N. on numerous occasions in its resolution authorizing the President to initiate war against Iraq. On the other hand, we feel free to completely ignore the terms of treaties, and even unilaterally demand a change in the terms of the treaties without hesitation. This leads to an increasing perception around the world that we are no longer an honest broker, that we are not to be trusted. Is this the message we want to send at this critical time? So some may argue that it does not matter whether the U.S. operates under double standards. We are the lone superpower, and we can do as we wish, they argue. But this is a problem of the rule of law. Are we a Nation that respects the rule of law? What example does it set for the rest of the world, including rising powers like China and Russia, when we change the rules of the game whenever we see it? Won't this come back to haunt us? We need to remember that decisionmaking power under Iran's Government is not entirely concentrated in the President. We are all familiar with the inflammatory rhetoric of President Ahmadinejad, but there are others, government bodies in Iran, that are more moderate and eager for dialogue. We have already spent hundreds of billions of dollars on a war in the Middle East. We cannot afford to continue on the path of conflict over dialogue and peaceful resolution. Unnecessarily threatening Iran is not in the interest of the United States and is not in the interest of world peace. I am worried about pre-conditions that may well be designed to ensure that the talks fail before they start. Let us remember how high the stakes are and urge the administration to choose dialogue over military conflict.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim my 5 minutes at this time.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4890, the Legislative Line Item Veto Act, is not an effective means of reining in excessive government spending. In fact, H.R. 4890 would most likely increase the size of government because future presidents will use their line item veto powers to pressure members of Congress to vote for presidential priorities in order to avoid having their spending projects ``line item'' vetoed. In my years in Congress, I cannot recall a single instance where a president lobbied Congress to reduce spending. In fact, in 1996 Vice President Al Gore suggested that President Clinton could use his new line item veto power to force Congress to restore federal spending and programs eliminated in the 1996 welfare reform bill. Giving the president authority to pressure members of Congress to vote for new government programs in exchange for protecting members' pet spending projects is hardly a victory for fiscal responsibility or limited government. H.R. 4890 supporters claim that this bill does not violate the Constitution. I am skeptical of this claim since giving the president the power to pick and choose which parts of legislation to sign into law transforms the president into a legislator, thus upending the Constitution's careful balance of powers between the Congress and the president. I doubt the drafters of the Constitution, who rightly saw that giving legislative power to the executive branch would undermine republican government and threaten individual liberty, would support H.R. 4890. Mr. Speaker, it is simply not true that Congress needs to give the president the line item veto power to end excessive spending. Congress can end excessive spending simply by returning to the limitations on government power contained in the United States Constitution. The problem is a lack of will among members of Congress to rein in spending, not a lack of presidential power. Congress's failure to do its duty and cut spending is no excuse for granting new authority to the executive branch. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the Legislative Line Item Veto Act upsets the constitutional balance of powers between the executive and legislative branches of government. Increasing the power of the executive branch will likely increase the size and power of the federal government. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to reject this bill and instead simply vote against all unconstitutional spending.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this legislation. This bill is unfortunately very short on real defense spending and very generous with spending enormous amounts on expensive military equipment that is ultimately of very little use to defend our country. This bill will not do much to help our military troops. In fact, it gives the troops a pay raise lower than civilian federal employees. It shortchanges them. The bill is very generous with spending on grossly over-budget acquisition of military equipment of questionable value in our current times. Over the past 5 years, the Defense Department has doubled spending on new weapons systems from about $700 billion to nearly $1.4 trillion. However a recent Pentagon report found significant cost overruns--50 percent over original cost projections--in 36 major weapons systems. These programs benefit well-connected defense contractors, but they do not benefit the taxpayer and they do not benefit the soldiers who risk their lives. The bill manages to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on foreign aid--$372 million to Russia, for example--and the failed drug war, but it fails to address the real problems of a military force that has been seriously stretched and challenged by an unprecedented level of sustained deployment overseas. I urge my colleagues to support a defense spending bill that really puts defense of the United States first.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 861. The resolution declares that ``the United States is committed to the completion of the mission to create a sovereign, free, secure and united Iraq.'' That's a big job. Ask the British, who tried and failed to do this in the 20th century, what a big job it is. While President Bush has said repeatedly that when the Iraqis stand up we will stand down, this resolution asserts that our troops will remain in Iraq indefinitely. That is unfortunate. A group of Republicans and Democrats tried to offer a more concrete and meaningful alternative to this resolution, which would have substituted the essence of H.J. Res. 55 for H. Res. 861. This is in line with every benchmark set by President Bush. Unfortunately, we were not allowed to offer an amendment. Our approach is so reasonable that I believe 75 percent of the American public would strongly support it. Our amendment would simply require the President to develop and implement a plan for the withdrawal of U.S. Armed Forces from Iraq in a reasonable time frame. It does not give a specific date to complete a withdrawal. It does not say to be out in 30 days or else. It just says try to define an end point for the benefit of everybody. This is exactly in line with what the President himself has stated; it supports his statements. We are not taking a radical approach. It is a very modest approach, a very mild approach. The reason that there was not a vote on our amendment is that we would have won. So this entire exercise is designed for politics. And men are dying. Women are dying! And we're going broke--we spend $300 million every single day in Iraq, at the same time programs here at home are being denied. So we're going to have a financial crisis, and we'll have a political crisis. I I would like to see this effort taken out of the political realm and put it into the realm of policy discussions. We need to look for real solutions rather than just making political statements.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Steel Financing Fairness Act. This bill helps our Nation's beleaguered steel industry by stopping the government from forcing American steel workers to subsidize their foreign competitors. Specifically, the bill prohibits the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) and the Export- Import Bank (EXIMBANK) from providing any assistance to countries that subsidize their steel industries. The Steel Financing Fairness Act also instructs the Secretary of the Treasury to reduce America's contribution to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) by a prorated share of the IMF's assistance to countries that subsidize their steel industries. One of the problems facing America's domestic steel industry is that it must compete with foreign industries that receive subsidies from their governments. Some of these subsidies are explicitly intended to provide these companies with a non-market advantage over American steel producers. The U.S. Government further compounds the damage caused by these subsidies by forcing the domestic steel producers to support their major competitors through taxpayer-funded programs. For example, according to the most recent figures available, the five countries with the greatest EXIMBANK exposure are all among the top ten exporters of steel and/or steel products to the United States. In fact, EXIMBANK has provided almost $20 billion of U.S. taxpayer support to these countries. Meanwhile, OPIC has provided almost $6 billion of the taxpayers' money to leading steel exporters. Thus, the American taxpayer has provided at least $26 billion worth of support to the countries that are the leading competitors of the domestic steel industry. This does not count the funds provided these countries by the IMF. Since money is fungible, the practical effect of providing aid to countries which practice industrial policy is to free up resources these governments can use to further subsidize their steel industries. Thus, taxpayer dollars sent to foreign governments and industries can benefit foreign steel manufacturers even if American taxpayer money is not sent to directly benefit those industries. However, hard as it may be to believe, organizations funded by American taxpayers actually use American tax dollars to directly assist foreign steel producers! For example, among the projects funded by EXIMBANK in recent years is an $18 million loan guarantee to expand steel manufacturing in Red China. Ironically, many of the supporters of these foreign giveaways claim to be promoters of free trade. This claim makes as much sense as a supporter of higher taxes and spending claiming to be a fiscally conservative supporter of limited government. Free trade is the peaceful exchange of goods and services across borders unhampered by government interference. Taxing American workers to support their overseas competitors is not free trade. Instead, it is corporatism designed to benefit certain politically powerful interests at the expense of American entrepreneurs and workers. I have no doubt that America's steel industry can out-compete the steel industry of any country if allowed to compete on a level planning field. Unfortunately, due in part to government policy, today's playing field is in no way level. Congress must end this economically destructive, immoral, and unconstitutional policy of forcing owners and workers in the domestic steel industry to subsidize their competitors. I therefore call upon my colleagues to cosponsor the Steel Financing Fairness Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Conference Report of the ``Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery, 2006.'' This is the largest supplemental spending bill in the history of the United States--and all of this spending is off the books. All supplemental bills by definition are deemed ``off-budget'' and thus the dollars spent are not counted by the General Accounting Office when compiling annual deficit figures, nor are they included in annual budget figures. They thus obscure the true levels of spending and debt, and much of the ``emergency'' spending is not at all in response to any emergency. When this bill was first before the House, I offered an amendment to redirect to Texas for Hurricane Rita recovery some $546 million from such non-emergency ``emergency'' items funded in this bill as the State Department ``Democracy Fund,'' aid to foreign military forces, international broadcasting funds, and others. This spending was not in any way a response to legitimate emergencies and therefore I believed it would be better spent helping the Texas victims of Hurricane Rita. I also redirected some of this nonemergency spending to go toward our crippling deficit. Unfortunately this amendment was not allowed. Thus, recovery from true emergencies that have caused terrible destruction to the lives and property of American citizens is woefully underfunded while pork-barrel projects and wasteful foreign aid are funded most generously. Mr. Speaker, our priorities in this are really backward. We need to look seriously at this incredible--unimaginable--level of spending. We are driving this country toward bankruptcy and it is bills like this that put us in the fast lane.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5449 changes the rules under which the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) negotiates with Federal employees unions, such as the National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA), to make the FAA abide by the exact same process that other government agencies do when they negotiate with Federal employees unions. Contrary to the claims of its opponents, H.R. 5449 does not allow NATCA to indefinitely prolong negotiations. H.R. 5449 allows the FAA to act to end negotiations and bring their case before a Federal mediation board who has power to resolve the dispute. H.R. 5449 would prevent the FAA from unilaterally imposing a contract on the air traffic controllers. In contrast, the current system may provide the FAA with the opportunity to drag out negotiations, so it can ultimately declare an impasse and impose a contract. Thus, the changes made in H.R. 5449 seem reasonable. Some people, including many House of Representatives members with whom I usually agree, are claiming that H.R. 5449 will cost American taxpayers billions of dollars. This claim is based on an assumption that the final result of the mediation process established by H.R. 5449 will be significantly more costly to the taxpayer then the contract the FAA will impose on the controllers if H.R. 5449 fails to pass. However, under H.R. 5449, the dispute will be resolved by a Federal mediation panel whose members are appointed by the president. I am skeptical that a presidentially appointed mediation board will give an exorbitant package to NATCA, especially since the difference between the FAA's current proposal and the NATCA's last offer is less than a billion dollars. It is true that a future mediation panel may be populated by people appointed by an administration more friendly to the air traffic controllers than the current administration, but it is also possible that a future Congress would use its leverage in the current process to force the FAA to accept contracts tilted in favor of the NATCA. We should not judge procedural issues based on uncertain predictions about results. Some opponents of H.R. 5449 complain that the air traffic controllers are overpaid. However, since the air traffic control system is government controlled and government financed, the wages of air traffic controllers are not set by the market. Instead, these wages are set by political and bureaucratic fiat. Absent a market, it is imposable to say the air traffic controllers' wages are too high or too low. In fact, given the importance of air traffic control, it is possible that, in a free market, some air traffic controllers may have higher incomes than they do now. One thing I can say for sure is that air traffic controllers would still have their jobs if the Federal government were limited to its constitutional functions since air traffic controllers perform a function that would be necessary in a free market. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5449 reasonably changes the process under which the FAA negotiates with Federal employees unions. H.R. 5449 does not favor one party over another, and, contrary to the claims of its opponents, H.R. 5449 does not preordain the conclusion of the negotiations between the FAA and NATCA.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to place in the Record, the following report submitted by Anthony Marcos, Command Senior Chief, Air Station Houston, Texas in recognition of the men and women of the United States Coast Guard in Texas who performed with great courage and made 723 rescues under very adverse circumstances during hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005. On the morning of 29 August, two HH65B helicopters from Air Station Houston arrived at Air Station New Orleans for post Hurricane Katrina operations. The arrival of these crews marked the beginning of an unprecedented period of search and rescue operations, and aviation engineering and logistical support by Air Station Houston. For nearly two weeks, Air Station Houston provided a continuous complement of three HH65B's affording uninterrupted support of Katrina's rescue/response operations. This support culminated in more than 164 flight hours, 106 sorties, and most importantly, 691 saved lives by Air Station Houston-based aircraft and crews. Recognizing a critical need by rescue personnel for water, energy drinks, MRE's and comfort items, Air Station Houston collected and shipped over 170,000 pounds of donated items on Coast Guard and DOD logistics flights for response personnel and the victims of Katrina. Air Station Houston utilized valuable Coast Guard Auxiliary and other volunteer personnel in a vital information gathering effort by serving as a conduit between the Red Cross and Search and Rescue controllers for the forwarding of time-critical information on missing or evacuated Katrina victims and refugees stranded or relocated somewhere in the New Orleans area or out of state. In addition to its legacy area of responsibility (AOR) Air Station Houston instituted a plan to relieve Air Station New Orleans of its non-Katrina SAR responsibilities west of the Mississippi River throughout the Katrina response effort, thereby increasing Houston's AOR by more than 18,000 square miles. With two aircraft and crews deployed to New Orleans, Air Station Houston crews responded to a report on 6 September of a civilian helicopter missing 20 miles south of Sabine, Texas. Although already engaged in nearly around-the- clock operations in New Orleans, Air Station Houston's outstanding readiness posture permitted two unit helicopters, manned by crews recently returned from Hurricane Katrina, to be launched in a search for the 12 persons reported aboard the overdue helicopter. All 12 persons were quickly located and then successfully recovered during this multi-unit case by the two Air Station Houston helicopters in a daring nighttime offshore rescue. The possibility of a category five hurricane hitting the Houston-Galveston metropolitan area set in motion a massive response effort from the Coast Guard Area Commanders. Within 48 hours of Rita's early morning landfall on 24 September, over 125 contingency aircrew personnel along with 15 additional Coast Guard aircraft arrived at Air Station Houston to commence operations. During the Houston-based response operation for Hurricane Rita, the Air Station coordinated over 61 missions and 123 sorties resulting in 205 mishap-free flight hours and the saving of 32 lives in a one week period. During this time, Air Station Houston also provided invaluable support to Gulf Coast based cutters including CGC Cypress, which allowed them to quickly fix the position of displaced waterway buoys, enabling the reopening of vital waterways and the free-flow of commerce in and out of the Gulf.

Mr. PAUL

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

Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I just want to urge an ``aye'' vote to try to slow up at least a brand new bureaucracy that is going to play havoc with our small farmers.

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