Ron Paul

Mr. PAUL

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

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, 4 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 after 3 years. As I said then: The drafters of H.R. 3210 claim that this creates a ``temporary'' government program. However, Mr. Speaker, what happens in 3 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 once, Congress will ever allow it to expire, regardless of the recommendations made by the commission created by this bill. As Congress considers extending this program, I renew my opposition to it for substantially the same reasons I stated 4 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. While this bill does contain some provisions making it more favorable to taxpayers than the original program, my fundamental objections to the program remain the same as 4 years ago. Therefore, I am attaching my statement regarding H.R. 3210, which created the terrorist insurance program in the 107th Congress: Mr. Speaker, 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 3 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. Speaker, H.R. 3210 may reduce the risk to insurance companies from future losses, but it increases the costs incurred by 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 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 40 of the Untied 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 50 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, as one who has long urged my colleagues to cut spending, and who has consistently voted against excessive and unconstitutional expenditures, I am sure many in this body expect me to be an enthusiastic supporter of H.R. 4241, the Deficit Reduction Act. After all, supporters of this bill are claiming it dramatically reforms federal programs and puts Congress back on the road to fiscal responsibility. For all the passionate debate this bill has generated, its effects on the federal government and taxpayers are relatively minor. H.R. 4241 does not even reduce federal expenditures. That's right--if H.R. 4241 passes, the federal budget, including entitlement programs, will continue to grow. H.R. 4241 simply slows down the rate of growth of federal spending. The federal government may spend less in the future if this bill passes then it otherwise would, but it will still spend more than it does today. To put H.R. 4241 in perspective, consider that this bill reduces spending by less than $50 billion over 10 years, while the most recent ``emergency'' supplemental passed by this Congress appropriated $82 billion to be spent this year. H.R. 4241 reduces total federal entitlement expenditures by one half of one percent over the next five years. For all the trumpeting about how this bill gets ``runaway entitlement spending'' under control, H.R. 4241 fails to deal with the biggest entitlement problem facing our nation--the multi-billion dollar Medicare prescription drug plan, which will actually harm many seniors by causing them to lose their private coverage, forcing them into an inferior government run program. In fact, the Medicare prescription drug plan will cost $55 billion in fiscal year 2006 alone, while H.R. 4241 will reduce spending by only $5 billion next year. Yet, some House members who have voted for every expansion of the federal government considered by this Congress will vote for these small reductions in spending and then brag about their fiscal conservatism to their constituents. As is common with bills claiming to reduce spending, the majority of spending reductions occur in the later years of the plan. Since it is impossible to bind future Congresses, this represents little more than a suggestion that spending in fiscal years 2009 and 2010 reflect the levels stated in this bill. My fiscally responsible colleagues should keep in mind that rarely, if ever, does a Congress actually follow through on spending reductions set by a previous Congress. Thus, relying on future Congresses to cut spending in the ``out years'' is a recipe for failure. One provision of the bill that would have undeniably benefited the American people, the language opening up the ANWR region of Alaska and expanding offshore drilling, has been removed from the bill. As my colleagues know, increased gas prices are a, if not the, top concern of the American people. Expanding the supply of domestically produced oil is an obvious way to address these concerns; yet, Congress refuses to take this reasonable step. Mr. Speaker, some of the entitlement reforms in H.R. 4241 are worthwhile. For example, I am hopeful the provision allowing states to require a copayment for Medicaid will help relieve physicians of the burden of providing uncompensated care, which is an issue of great concern to physicians in my district. Still, I am concerned that the changes in pharmaceutical reimbursement proposed by the bill may unfairly impact independent pharmacies, and I am disappointed we will not get to vote on an alternative that would have the same budgetary impact without harming independent pharmacies. I also question the priorities of singling out programs, such as Medicaid and food stamps, that benefit the neediest Americans, while continuing to increase spending on corporate welfare and foreign aid. Just two weeks ago, Congress passed a bill sending $21 billion overseas. That is $21 billion that will be spent this fiscal year, not spread out over five years. Then, last week, Congress passed, on suspension of the rules, a bill proposing to spend $130 million on water projects--not in Texas, but in foreign nations. Meanwhile, the Financial Services Committee, on which I sit, has begun the process of reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank, which uses taxpayers' money to support business projects that cannot attract capital in the market. Mr. Speaker, the Export-Import Bank's biggest beneficiaries are Boeing and communist China. I find it hard to believe that federal funding that benefits Fortune 500 companies and China is a higher priority for most Americans than Medicaid and food stamps. H.R. 4241 fails to address the root of the spending problem--the belief that Congress can solve any problem simply by creating a new federal program or agency. However, with the federal government's unfounded liabilities projected to reach as much as $50 trillion by the end of this year, Congress can no longer avoid serious efforts to rein in spending. Instead of the smoke-and-mirrors approach of H.R. 4241, Congress should begin the journey toward fiscal responsibility by declaring a 10 percent reduction in real spending, followed by a renewed commitment to reduce spending in a manner consistent with our obligation to uphold the Constitution and the priorities of the American people. This is the only way to make real progress on reducing spending without cutting programs for the poor while increasing funding for programs that benefit foreign governments and corporate interests.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the privacy issue has been around for a long time. The brutal abuse of privacy and property of early Americans played a big role in our revolt against the king. The first, fourth, and fifth amendments represented attempts to protect private property and privacy from an overzealous Federal Government. Today those attempts appear to have failed. There have been serious legal debates in recent decades about whether privacy is protected by the Constitution. Some argue that since the word does not appear in the text of that document, it is not protected. Others argue that privacy protection grants the Federal Government power to dictate to all States limits or leniency in enforcing certain laws. But the essence of liberty is privacy. In recent years, especially since 9/11, Congress has been totally negligent in its duty to protect U.S. citizens from Federal Government encroachment on the rights of privacy. Even prior to 9/11, the Echelon worldwide surveillance system was well entrenched, monitoring all telephones, faxes, and e-mails. From the 1970s forward, national security letters were used sparingly in circumventing the legal process and search warrant requirements. Since 9/11 and the subsequent passage of the PATRIOT Act, however, the use of these instruments has skyrocketed from 300 annually to over 30,000. There is essentially no oversight nor understanding by the U.S. Congress of the significance of this pervasive government surveillance. It is all shrugged off as necessary to make us safe from terrorism. Sacrificing personal liberty and privacy, the majority feels, is no big deal. We soon will vote on the conference report reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act. Though one would argue there has been a large grass-roots effort to discredit the PATRIOT Act, Congress has ignored this message. Amazingly, over 391 communities and seven States have passed resolutions highly critical of the PATRIOT Act. The debate in Congress, if that is what one wants to call it, boils down to whether the most egregious parts of the act will be sunsetted after 4 years or 7 years. The conference report will adjust the numbers, and Members will vote willingly for the ``compromise'' and feel good about their effort to protect individual privacy. But if we are honest with ourselves, we would admit that the fourth amendment is essentially a dead letter. There has been no effort to curb the abuse of national security letters nor to comprehend the significance of Echelon. Hard-fought liberties are rapidly slipping away from us. Congress is not much better when it comes to protecting against the erosion of the centuries-old habeas corpus doctrine. By declaring anyone an enemy combatant, a totally arbitrary designation by the President, the government can deny an individual his right to petition a judge or even speak with an attorney. Though there has been a good debate on the insanity of our policy of torturing prisoners, holding foreigners and Americans without charges seems acceptable to many. Did it never occur to those who condemn torture that unlimited detention of individuals without a writ of habeas corpus is itself torture, especially for those who are totally innocent? Add this to the controversial worldwide network of secret CIA prisons now known of for 2 years and we should be asking ourselves what have we become as a people. Recent evidence that we are using white phosphorus chemical weapons in Iraq does nothing to improve our image. Our prestige in the world is slipping. The war is going badly. Our financial system is grossly overburdened, and we spend hundreds of hours behind the scenes crafting a mere $5 billion spending cut while pretending no one knows we can spend tens of billions in off-budget supplemental bills, sometimes even under unanimous consent. It is time we consider the real purpose of government in a society that professes to be free: protection of liberty, peaceful commerce, and keeping itself out of our lives, our economy, our pocketbooks, and certainly out of the affairs of foreign nations.

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

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1065.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mrs. Orene Schweinle Jordan on the occasion of her 100th birthday. Mrs. Jordan is a great example of the determination and dedication the citizens of America possessed in striving to improve their lives and the lives of their family members during the stressful years of the early 1900's. She has seen first-hand this great country develop from the horse-and- buggy era to the age of Internet. Born in a remote area of rural Texas on December 4, 1905 into a family of seven children, Mrs. Jordan had limited formal education and learned early that hard work and self-improvement were her only avenues to a better life. She developed the philosophy that, ``You can do anything if you set your mind to it and never quit.'' That philosophy has sustained her to age 100 and she has set an example for her children and those around her. Mrs. Jordan has been an outstanding mother to her children and is the recognized force that molded their lives. Her son, Don D. Jordan, became Chairman & Chief Executive Officer of Houston Lighting & Power Company, Houston Industries, and Reliant Energy in which capacity he served for 23 years. He also served as the International President of the World Energy Council in London, England. Mrs. Jordan's daughter, Shirley A. Jordan Flanagan, perhaps made the biggest contribution as she energized young lives while serving as an elementary school teacher in the public schools of Texas for 35 years. Married to W.G. Jordan for 60 years, Mrs. Orene Jordan was always a working partner. When the family moved from a small town in south Texas, they opened a small grocery store in La Marque, Texas even though they had no real business experience. Mrs. Jordan put her ``hard work'' philosophy into action by working 12 hours a day, 7 days a week to make her family's business thrive. In 1956, Mr. and Mrs. Jordan sold their store and started a cattle ranch in Van Vleck, Texas in Matagorda County. Mrs. Jordan still lives on the ranch, which she has helped operate for the past 49 years. During that time, she has developed as an artist, written several short stories, built her own furniture, become a recognized horticulturist, been active in her church, and touched the lives of numerous people. Above all else, Orene Jordan is a patriot. She loves America and has never wavered from honesty, personal integrity, respect for the rule of law, and consideration of others. She has made the United States of America, Texas and Matagorda County a better place, and she is not finished yet!

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Health Freedom Protection Act. This bill restores the First Amendment rights of consumers to receive truthful information regarding the benefits of foods and dietary supplements by codifying the First Amendment standards used by federal courts to strike down the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) efforts to censor truthful health claims. The Health Freedom Protection Act also stops the Federal Trade Commissions (FTC) from censoring truthful health care claims. The American people have made it clear they do not want the federal government to interfere with their access to dietary supplements, yet the FDA and the FTC continue to engage in heavy-handed attempts to restrict such access. The FDA continues to frustrate consumers' efforts to learn how they can improve their health even after Congress, responding to a record number of constituents' comments, passed the Dietary Supplement and Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA). FDA bureaucrats are so determined to frustrate consumers' access to truthful information that they are even evading their duty to comply with 4 federal court decisions vindicating consumers' First Amendment rights to discover the health benefits of foods and dietary supplements. FDA bureaucrats have even refused to abide by the DSHEA section allowing the public to have access to scientific articles and publications regarding the role of nutrients in protecting against diseases by claiming that every article concerning this topic is evidence of intent to sell a drug. Because of the FDA's censorship of truthful health claims, millions of Americans may suffer with diseases and other health care problems they may have avoided by using dietary supplements. For example, the FDA prohibited consumers from learning how folic acid reduces the risk of neural tube defects for 4 years after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended every woman of childbearing age take folic acid supplements to reduce neural tube defects. This FDA action contributed to an estimated 10,000 cases of preventable neutral tube defects! The FDA also continues to prohibit consumers from learning about the scientific evidence that glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate are effective in the treatment of osteoarthritis; that omega-3 fatty acids may reduce the risk of sudden death heart attack; and that calcium may reduce the risk of bone fractures. The Health Freedom Protection Act will force the FDA to at last comply with the commands of Congress, the First Amendment, and the American people by codifying the First Amendment standards adopted by the federal courts. Specifically, the Health Freedom Protection Act stops the FDA from censoring truthful claims about the curative, mitigative, or preventative effects of dietary supplements, and adopts the federal court's suggested use of disclaimers as an alternative to censorship. The Health Freedom Protection Act also stops the FDA from prohibiting the distribution of scientific articles and publications regarding the role of nutrients in protecting against disease. This legislation also addresses the FTC's violations of the First Amendment. Under traditional First Amendment jurisprudence, the federal government bears the burden of proving an advertising statement false before censoring that statement. However, the FTC has reversed the standard in the case of dietary supplements by requiring supplement manufactures to satisfy an unobtainable standard of proof that their statement is true. The FTC's standards are blocking innovation in the marketplace. The Health Freedom Protection Act requires the government bear the burden of proving that speech could be censored. This is how it should be in a free, dynamic society. The bill also requires that the FTC warn parties that their advertising is false and give them a chance to correct their mistakes. Mr. Speaker, if we are serious about putting people in charge of their health care, then shouldn't we stop federal bureaucrats from preventing Americans from learning about simple ways to improve their health. I therefore call on my colleagues to stand up for good health care and the First Amendment by cosponsoring the Health Freedom Protection Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I support S. 1285, a bill naming a federal building in Detroit, Michigan after Rosa Parks and I join my colleagues in paying tribute to Mrs. Parks's courage and high ideals. Rosa Parks's simple act of refusing to get up from her seat to comply with an unjust law inspired a movement that brought an end to state-mandated racial segregation. Mrs. Parks was inspired to challenge government power by her conviction that laws that treated African-Americans as second-class citizens violated the natural rights all humans receive from their creator--rights which no government can justly infringe. Rosa Parks's use of peaceful means of civil disobedience to challenge unjust laws stands as a shinning example of how peaceful means, such as civil disobedience and boycotts, can overcome seemingly insurmountable obstacles and advance the cause of liberty. The example of Rosa Parks shows how an individual with the courage and conviction to stand alone against injustice can make a difference by inspiring others to take a stand. I hope all friends of freedom will draw inspiration from the example of Rosa Parks.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, Scooter Libby has been indicted for lying. Many suspect Libby, and perhaps others, deliberately outed Joe Wilson's wife as a covert agent. This was done to punish and discredit Wilson for bringing attention to the false information regarding Iraq's supposed efforts to build a nuclear weapon, information made public in President Bush's State of the Union message in January, 2003. Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald was chosen to determine if this revelation regarding Valerie Plame, Wilson's wife, violated the Intelligence Identification Protection Act. The actual indictment of Libby did not claim such a violation occurred. Instead, he has been charged with lying and participating in a cover-up during the 2-year investigation. I believe this is a serious matter that should not be ignored. But it is not an Earth-shattering event. This case, like almost everything in Washington, has been driven by politics, not truth, justice or the Constitution. It is about seeking political power, pure and simple, not unlike the impeachment process during the last administration. There are much more serious charges of lying and cover-ups that deserve congressional attention. The country now knows the decision to go to war was based on information that was not factual. Congress and the people of this country were misled. Because of this, more than 2,000 U.S. troops and many innocent people have died. Tens of thousands have been severely wounded, their lives forever changed, if not totally ruined. The lies Scooter Libby may or may not have told deserve a thorough investigation, but in the scheme of things, the indictment about questions regarding the release of Valerie Plame's name, a political dirty trick, is minor compared to the disinformation about weapons of mass destruction and other events that propelled us into an unnecessary war. It costs, in life, suffering and money, have proven to be prohibitive. The Libby indictment, unless it opens the door to more profound questions concerning why we went to war, may serve only as a distraction from much more serious events and lies. The decision to go to war is profound. It behooves Congress to ask more questions and investigate exactly how the President, Congress and the people were misled into believing that invading Iraq was necessary for our national security. Why do we still not know who forged the documents claiming Saddam Hussein was about to buy uranium from Niger? Was this information concocted by those who were overly eager to go to war? Why was CIA reluctance regarding this assessment ignored, allowing it to be presented by the President as a clincher for our need to go to war? Other reasons used to justify the war deserve equal attention since the results have been so painful for our country. If lies were told to justify the invasion of Iraq, the American people deserve to know the truth. Congress has a responsibility to seek this truth and change our policies accordingly. The sooner this is done, the better.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I join with my colleagues here in condemning the statement reportedly made by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that ``Israel must be wiped off the map.'' I reject this statement and any such statement by any government anywhere because I reject the notion that the use or threat of violence is an appropriate way to solve international disputes. While rejecting comments by Iran that seem to advocate the use of force, I must also strongly object to using Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's statement as an excuse to escalate our own rhetoric and strengthen our anti-Iranian and anti-Muslim policies. This condemnable statement is nevertheless being conveniently used to expand our policy of remaking the Middle East in our own image. I do find it interesting to hear my colleagues condemning Iran's implied threat of force while in the same breath calling for the use of force against Iran. Ironically, it is small step from repeatedly calling Iran ``our enemy'' with increasingly militaristic rhetoric to calling for Iran to be ``wiped off the map.'' We should keep this in mind as we condemn the rhetoric of others while repeating similar rhetoric ourselves.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1461 fails to address the core problems with the Government Sponsored Enterprises, GSEs. Furthermore, since this legislation creates new government programs that will further artificially increase the demand for housing, H.R. 1461 increases the economic damage that will occur when the housing bubble bursts. The main problem with the GSEs is the special privileges the Federal Government gives the GSEs. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the housing-related GSEs received almost 20 billion dollars worth of indirect federal subsidies in fiscal year 2004 alone. One of the major privileges the Federal Government grants to the GSEs is a line of credit from the United States Treasury. According to some estimates, the line of credit may be worth over two billion dollars. GSEs also benefit from an explicit grant of legal authority given to the Federal Reserve to purchase the debt of the GSEs. GSEs are the only institutions besides the United States Treasury granted explicit statutory authority to monetize their debt through the Federal Reserve. This provision gives the GSEs a source of liquidity unavailable to their competitors. This implicit promise by the government to bail out the GSEs in times of economic difficulty helps the GSEs attract investors who are willing to settle for lower yields than they would demand in the absence of the subsidy. Thus, the line of credit distorts the allocation of capital. More importantly, the line of credit is a promise on behalf of the government to engage in a massive unconstitutional and immoral income transfer from working Americans to holders of GSE debt. This is why I am offering an amendment to cut off this line of credit. I hope my colleagues join me in protecting taxpayers from having to bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac when the housing bubble bursts. The connection between the GSEs and the government helps isolate the GSEs' managements from market discipline. This isolation from market discipline is the root cause of the mismanagement occurring at Fannie and Freddie. After all, if investors did not believe that the Federal Government would bail out Fannie and Freddie if the GSEs faced financial crises, then investors would have forced the GSEs to provide assurances that the GSEs are following accepted management and accounting practices before investors would consider Fannie and Freddie to be good investments. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has expressed concern that the government subsidies provided to the GSEs makes investors underestimate the risk of investing in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Although he has endorsed many of the regulatory ``solutions'' being considered here today, Chairman Greenspan has implicitly admitted the subsidies are the true source of the problems with Fannie and Freddie. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1461 compounds these problems by further insulating the GSEs from market discipline. By creating a ``world- class'' regulator, Congress would send a signal to investors that investors need not concern themselves with investigating the financial health and stability of Fannie and Freddie since a ``world-class'' regulator is performing that function. However, one of the forgotten lessons of the financial scandals of a few years ago is that the market is superior at discovering and punishing fraud and other misbehavior than are government regulators. After all, the market discovered, and began to punish, the accounting irregularities of Enron before the government regulators did. Concerns have been raised about the new regulator's independence from the Treasury Department. This is more than a bureaucratic ``turf battle'' as there are legitimate worries that isolating the regulator from Treasury oversight may lead to regulatory capture. Regulatory capture occurs when regulators serve the interests of the businesses they are supposed to be regulating instead of the public interest. While H.R. 1461 does have some provisions that claim to minimize the risk of regulatory capture, regulatory capture is always a threat where regulators have significant control over the operations of an industry. After all, the industry obviously has a greater incentive than any other stakeholder to influence the behavior of the regulator. The flip side of regulatory capture is that mangers and owners of highly subsidized and regulated industries are more concerned with pleasing the regulators than with pleasing consumers or investors, since the industries know that investors will believe all is well if the regulator is happy. Thus, the regulator and the regulated industry may form a symbiosis where each looks out for the other's interests while ignoring the concerns of investors. Furthermore, my colleagues should consider the constitutionality of an ``independent regulator.'' The Founders provided for three branches of government--an executive, a judiciary, and a legislature. Each branch was created as sovereign in its sphere, and there were to be clear lines of accountability for each branch. However, independent regulators do not fit comfortably within the three branches; nor are they totally accountable to any branch. Regulators at these independent agencies often make judicial-like decisions, but they are not part of the judiciary. They often make rules, similar to the ones regarding capital requirements, that have the force of law, but independent regulators are not legislative. And, of course, independent regulators enforce the laws in the same way, as do other parts of the executive branch; yet independent regulators lack the day-to-day accountability to the executive that provides a check on other regulators. Thus, these independent regulators have a concentration of powers of all three branches and lack direct accountability to any of the democratically chosen branches of government. This flies in the face of the Founders' opposition to concentrations of power and government bureaucracies that lack accountability. These concerns are especially relevant considering the remarkable degree of power and autonomy this bill gives to the regulator. For example, in the scheme established by H.R. 1461 the regulator's budget is not subject to appropriations. This removes a powerful mechanism for holding the regulator accountable to Congress. While the regulator is accountable to a board of directors, this board may conduct all deliberations in private because it is not subject to the sunshine act. Ironically, by transferring the risk of widespread mortgage defaults to the taxpayers through government subsidies and convincing investors that all is well because a ``world-class'' regulator is ensuring the GSEs' soundness, the government increases the likelihood of a painful crash in the housing market. This is because the special privileges of Fannie and Freddie have distorted the housing market by allowing Fannie and Freddie to attract capital they could not attract under pure market conditions. As a result, capital is diverted from its most productive uses into housing. This reduces the efficacy of the entire market and thus reduces the standard of living of all Americans. Despite the long-term damage to the economy inflicted by the government's interference in the housing market, the government's policy of diverting capital into housing creates a short-term boom in housing. Like all artificially created bubbles, the boom in housing prices cannot last forever. When housing prices fall, homeowners will experience difficulty as their equity is wiped out. Furthermore, the holders of the mortgage debt will also have a loss. These losses will be greater than they would have been had government policy not actively encouraged over-investment in housing. H.R. 1461 further distorts the housing market by artificially inflating the demand for housing through the creation of a national housing trust fund. This fund further diverts capital to housing that, absent government intervention, would be put to a use more closely matching the demands of consumers. Thus, this new housing program will reduce efficacy and create yet another unconstitutional redistribution program. Perhaps the Federal Reserve can stave off the day of reckoning by purchasing the GSEs' debt and pumping liquidity into the housing market, but this cannot hold off the inevitable drop in the housing market forever. In fact, postponing the necessary and painful market corrections will only deepen the inevitable fall. The more people are invested in the market, the greater the effects across the economy when the bubble bursts. Instead of addressing government polices encouraging the misallocation of resources to the housing market, H.R. 1461 further introduces distortion into the housing market by expanding the authority of Federal regulators to approve the introduction of new products by the GSEs. Such regulation inevitability delays the introduction of new innovations to the market, or even prevents some potentially valuable products from making it to the market. Of course, these new regulations are justified in part by the GSEs' government subsidies. We once again see how one bad intervention in the market (the GSEs' government subsidies) leads to another (the new regulations). In conclusion, H.R. 1461 compounds the problems with the GSEs and may increases the damage that will be inflicted by a bursting of the housing bubble. This is because this bill creates a new unaccountable regulator and introduces further distortions into the housing market via increased regulatory power. H.R. 1461 also violates the Constitution by creating yet another unaccountable regulator with quasi-executive, judicial, and legislative powers. Instead of expanding unconstitutional and market distorting government bureaucracies, Congress should act to remove taxpayer support from the housing GSEs before the bubble bursts and taxpayers are once again forced to bailout investors who were misled by foolish government interference in the market.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is straightforward. It cuts off a line of credit to the Treasury. The GSEs have a line of credit of $2 billion. It is said that it is not important because they never use it. The answer really to that is if they never use it, why leave it on the books. But we do know they indirectly use it. It has been described as a subsidy, because the GSEs can go into the market and get a discount on their loan costs; therefore, they can out-compete the private sector. My amendment merely eliminates that line of credit, puts a greater burden on the marketplace to regulate the GSEs rather than depending on regulation. I think Members can see there is a problem with our GSEs. The debt is horrendous. Today, the administration sent a letter around and said that the debt of the GSEs totals $2.5 trillion, and they also guarantee in addition $2.4 trillion. That adds up to more money than the Federal Government has borrowed. So it is a tremendous amount of money and credit that is in the system; and people have become frightened about this, including chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, Alan Greenspan. But what we are doing here today is not addressing the real problem: Why is it out of control? Why is there a financial housing bubble that everybody is afraid is going to undergo a severe correction? One of the major reasons is the fact that it has this special line of credit. So if we want to address the real cause of the problem, we have to eliminate the line of credit. So it rather amazes me that we do this much legislating without addressing the real cause of our problem. Of course, there are other things that contribute to the housing bubble, something that we cannot deal with today, but the fact that there is easy credit and low interest rates, interest rates below the market level, that is then directed into the housing market. This also contributes to the size and the scope of the borrowing capacity of the GSEs. Also in this bill, of course, we are adding into this a brand new housing program which is said to probably involve another billion dollars in the next 2 years. I guess it is not surprising when The Wall Street Journal editorializes against this. Unfortunately, they are not very kind. They say this bill is another ``Republican policy embarrassment''. This housing bubble, a housing program that we are starting up, how do we finance it? Well, we tax the GSEs. Instead of arguing the case for the marketplace and letting people earn money legitimately without subsidies, what we do, we keep allowing the system to continue. They do make profits, and then we tax them. We are talking about an additional tax, and this might very well be the reason the administration has come out against this bill, because of this new tax.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

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

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. If we had a bill that was a little cleaner, we probably would be dealing with the problems we face with the GSEs and we would be dealing with a housing program, a new housing program, probably with a different bill. I see one attempt is to deal with this problem that we face. Another attempt is we are deciding that we need more money directed into the housing industry, and of course your building friends like this, too. And those are Republican allies as well. The builders love this because we will pump more money into the market so they can make more profits. So it is another government housing project. From a market viewpoint, this is not good because we want the money in the market to be allocated purely by the market and not by government direction. It is the government direction first from the inflation, the artificial interest rates, and then from the allocation of funds that cause distortion. That is what we are dealing with here, the distortion that people are literally frightened about because nobody can even measure the amount of derivatives that are involved with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. People are holding their breath for an accident to happen. I see this as an opportunity to talk about the marketplace, why we should move Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into the market. A lot of people complained about the problems we had with Enron, and we needed that as an excuse to pass a lot more regulation. The truth is the market dealt with Enron. Enron was dealt with rather cruelly by the marketplace before the regulators got there. What we need to do is not, and especially as Republicans and conservatives, talk about a world- class regulator and that it is going to solve all of these problems. My argument is if we do not solve the problem of basic underlying inflation distortion of interest rates, allocation of funds through housing programs, as well as this line of credit, believe me, we are not going to solve this problem. Please vote to strike this line of credit to the Treasury. As it was stated earlier on this floor, we may have some regulations built into this that may even precipitate the puncturing of the housing bubble. That nobody can predict. But without addressing the basic flaw in the system that has created this $5 trillion worth of debt, believe me, we will not have an answer. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I request the time in opposition if neither gentleman is opposed to the bill.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to reiterate that the portion of the bill that deals with our ability to pursue our space program I strongly endorse. It is the portion that deals with Syria that was added on at the last minute that I am concerned about. I want to say that portion of the bill, I believe, further destabilizes the Middle East and we should move with great caution. We have been warned. We should be prepared for a broader war in the Middle East as plans are being laid for the next U.S.-led regime change in Syria. A U.N. report of the death of Lebanese Prime Minister Hariri elicited this comment from a senior U.S. policy maker: ``Out of a tragedy comes an extraordinary strategic opportunity.'' This statement reflects the continued neoconservative, Machiavellian influence on our foreign policy. The ``opportunity'' refers to the long-held neoconservative plan for regime change in Syria, similar to what was carried out in Iraq. This plan for remaking the Middle East has been around for a long time. Just as 9/11 served the interests of those who longed for changes in Iraq, the sensationalism surrounding Hariri's death is being used to advance plans to remove Assad. Congress already has assisted these plans by authorizing the sanctions placed on Syria last year. Harmful sanctions, as applied to Iraq in the 1990s, inevitably represent a major step toward war since they bring havoc to so many innocent people. Syria already has been charged with developing weapons of mass destruction based on no more evidence than was available when Iraq was similarly charged. Syria has been condemned for not securing its borders by the same U.S. leaders who cannot secure our own borders. Syria was castigated for placing its troops in Lebanon, a neighboring country, although such action was invited by an elected government and encouraged by the United States. The Syrian occupation of Lebanon elicited no suicide terrorist attacks, as was suffered by Western occupiers. Condemning Syria for having troops in Lebanon seems strange considering most of the world sees our 150,000 troops in Iraq as unwarranted foreign intervention. Syrian troops were far more welcome in Lebanon. Secretary Rice likewise sees the problem in Syria that we helped to create as an opportunity to advance our Middle Eastern agenda. In recent testimony she stated that it was always the administration's intent to redesign the greater Middle East, and Iraq was only part of that plan. And once again we have been told that all options are still on the table for dealing with Syria, including war. The statement that should scare all Americans and the world is the assurance by Secretary Rice that the President needs no additional authority from Congress to attack Syria. She argues that authority already has been granted by the resolutions on 9/11 and Iraq. This is not true, but if Congress remains passive to the powers assumed by the executive branch, it will not matter. As the war spreads, the only role for the Congress will be to provide funding lest they be criticized for not supporting the troops. In the meantime, the Constitution and our liberties here at home will be further eroded as more Americans die. This escalation of conflict with Syria comes as a result of the U.N. report concerning Hariri's death. When we need an excuse for our actions, it is always nice to rely on the organization our administration routinely condemns, one that brought us the multi- million-dollar oil-for-food scandal and the sexual crimes by U.N. representatives. It is easy to ignore the fact that the report did not implicate Assad, who is targeted for the next regime change. The U.N. once limited itself to disputes between nations; yet now it assumes the U.N., like the United States, has a legal and moral right to inject itself into the internal policies of sovereign nations. Yet what is the source of this presumed wisdom? Where is the moral imperative that allows us to become the judge and jury of a domestic murder in a country 6,000 miles from our shores? Moral, constitutional, and legal arguments for a less aggressive foreign policy receives little attention in Washington, but the law of unintended consequences serves as a thorough teacher for the slow learners and the morally impaired. Is Iraq not yet a headache for the proponents of the shock and awe policy? Are 2,000 lives lost not enough to get their attention? How many hundreds of billions of dollars must be drained from our economy before it is noticed? Is it still plausible that deficits do not matter? Is the apparent victory for Iran in the Shiite theocracy we have created in Iraq not yet seen as a disturbing consequence of the ill-fated Iraq regime change effort? When we have our way with the next election in Lebanon and Hezbollah becomes a governing party, what do we do then? If our effort to destabilize Syria is no more successful than our efforts in Iraq, then what? If destabilizing Syria leads to the same in Iran, what are our options? If we cannot leave now, we will surely not leave then. We will be told we must stay to honor the fallen to prove the cause was just. We should remember Ronald Reagan's admonition regarding this area of the world. Ronald Reagan reflected on Lebanon in his memoirs, describing the Middle East as a ``jungle'' and Middle Eastern politics as ``irrational.'' It forced him to rethink his policy in the region. It is time we do some rethinking as well. This bill today does not help. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to be equally divided between the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), and I ask unanimous consent that they be allowed to control that time.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in opposition to the bill, but I want to make it very clear that the portion of the bill that the gentleman from California was speaking about I strongly endorsed. Matter of fact, I had a similar bill that would have made the same corrections, but I would like to make two points about this portion of the bill. The one is that the corrections were necessary because we had placed sanctions on Iran, and there was an unintended consequence. It actually harmed NASA and harmed our relationships with Russia. This is making a correction and I think that is good, and I strongly support that part of the bill. But it goes to show that sanctions per se are not necessarily good. We might just use as an example not having sanctions on a country like China. We do better talking with and getting along with China as we become trading partners rather than adversaries. So even countries that seem to be adversarial, there are some downsides to putting on sanctions. Actually, the portion of the bill that I rise in objection to is the portion that was amended dealing with Syria. I consider this a significant change in our law. There has been very little discussion on this. This makes the bill quite different from the Senate bill. But once again, I think it is doing things that could come back to haunt us, and that is expanding our authority and the President's authority to place sanctions on Syria, of course always with good intentions; but too often bad things can happen. In 1998, a bill came up on the suspension calendar. It was considered noncontroversial and was called the Iraq Liberation Act. It passed overwhelmingly, but at that particular time, I took the time in opposition to point out that there could be some unintended, or maybe some intended, consequences that at that time the Congress was not admitting to, and that it could lead to war. And, of course, that was the first stepping stone to the current war that we are in. Although this particular bill is not nearly as strong as what the Iraq Liberation Act was, this nevertheless is a step as far as I am concerned in the wrong direction. The basic thing that happens here is we are expanding tremendously the power to place sanctions on Syria, and this comes in light of the publication of the U.N. investigation on Hariri's murder, and there is a tremendous move right now to move on to the next regime change in the Middle East. To me, I believe we are overstepping our bounds and looking for more trouble. We have essentially zero right to decide who should head foreign states. Once we decide that we know what is best for foreign countries and we can actually pick a head of state, I think it leads to trouble. I could give Members every bit of reason why we ought to change the King of Saudi Arabia, as we should change the King of Syria; and yet Saudi Arabia gets a lot of support from us. There was a recent report in a newspaper today, whether it is factual or not it is still frightening, it said that the administration was actually putting feelers out and asking Israel and Italy to nominate a replacement for Assad. This means we are moving in that direction. One of the reasons we are supposed to be doing this and looking closely to Syria is they present a destabilizing element in the Middle East. That in itself is stretching it. They are struggling to stabilize and survive with the pounding they are getting internationally. We forget that Syria actually sent troops into the first Persian Gulf war dealing with Kuwait. But those kinds of things are easily forgotten. The truth is the Mehlis Report is rather vague. There is no way it ties it to Assad. There is no proof of that whatsoever. As a matter of fact, Der Spiegel, a German magazine, reported today that the most important information that the Mehlis Report cites comes from an informer who was a convicted swindler and felon. That is one of the sources of the information they are using to try to tie this into Syria. If you want to talk about destabilization of a region, all we have to do is look at 150,000 troops in a country 6,000 miles from our borders. If we talk about the responsibility of somebody being assassinated, we might ask the question how many dozens of Iraqi administrators have been assassinated in Iraq since we have been in charge. So there are two different ways we can look at that. My deep concern is that we are moving in the direction of expanding our presence and expanding the war in that region. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, while I sympathize with the original objective of S. 397, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, I am forced to oppose this legislation primarily because of unconstitutional gun control amendments added to the bill in the Senate. As a firm believer in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and an opponent of all Federal gun laws, I cannot support a bill that imposes new, unconstitutional gun controls on Americans. I believe that the Second Amendment is one of the foundations of our constitutional liberties. In fact, I have introduced legislation, the Second Amendment Protection Act (H.R. 1703), which repeals misguided Federal gun control laws such as the Brady Bill. Senate amendments added two sections to S. 397 that impose unconstitutional controls on American gun owners and sellers. First, a section was added to the bill to outlaw any licensed gun importer, manufacturer, or dealer from selling, delivering, or transferring a handgun without a ``secure gun storage or safety device.'' Each and any violation of this requirement can result in a person being fined up to $2,500 or having his license revoked. This gun lock requirement amounts to the imposition of a new Federal tax on each handgun sale because gun buyers will be forced to pay the cost of the ``secure gun storage or safety device'' that is required with a handgun, irrespective of if that device is desired. Further, the severe penalties for noncompliance--whether intentional or accidental--add yet more weight to the crippling regulations that hang over gun transactions in the United States. Second, a section was added to the bill to create draconian penalties for people who possess ``armor piercing'' bullets. Just like the Democratic Congress before it that passed the ``assault weapons'' ban, the Republican Congress is poised to give in to anti-gun rights scare tactics by selectively banning bullets. Instead of each gun owner being able to decide what ammunition he uses in his gun, Federal bureaucrats will make that decision. To recognize the threat such regulation places on gun owners, just consider that a gun without ammunition is nothing more than an expensive club. Regulating ammunition is the back door path to gun regulation. The ``armor piercing'' bullets restriction imposes a 15 years mandatory minimum sentence for just carrying or possessing such bullets--even without a gun--during or in ``relation to'' a crime of violence or drug trafficking. Given the wide scope of criminal laws and the fact that people are on occasion accused of crimes they did not commit, this provision promises to discourage many non-violent, law- abiding individuals from possessing ammunition protected under the Second Amendment. Further, it does not take much imagination to see how such a provision could be used by an anti-gun prosecutor in the prosecution of an individual who used a gun in self defense, especially considering that use of such bullets to murder can result in a death sentence. In such instances, a defendant who exercised self defense may well accept a guilty plea bargain to avoid the severe enhanced penalties imposed under S. 397. I am particularly disturbed that the House of Representatives' leadership has taken the unusual step of bringing S. 397 to the floor for a vote without House members at least having an opportunity to vote on removing the gun control amendments. Instead of voting on a bill that contains the new gun control provisions, we should be considering H.R. 800, the House version of S. 397 prior to its perversion by gun control amendments. Notably, Gun Owners of America has written to House members to request that they oppose S. 397 and, instead, support H.R. 800. Last month, I wrote to House Speaker Dennis Hastert, Majority Leader Tom DeLay, and Committee on the Judiciary Chairman James Sensenbrenner of my opposition to these anti-gun rights provisions in S. 397. While I am concerned about some of the federalism implications of H.R. 800, it is a far superior bill because it neither requires gun locks nor restricts gun owners' ammunition choices. With 258 sponsors and cosponsors, H.R. 800 would easily pass the House. The House voting for H.R. 800 would allow the differences between H.R. 800 and S. 397 to be reconciled in conference committee. In conference, every expectation would be that the new gun control provisions would be stripped from the legislation given that the original, unamended S. 397 had 62 Senate sponsors and cosponsors--a filibuster proof majority--in the Senate. I regret that, under the guise of helping gun owners, the House of Representatives is today considering imposing new unconstitutional gun controls. I, thus, must oppose S. 397.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Improve Interoperable Communications for First Responders Act of 2005. This act provides Federal assistance to local first responders for developing an interoperable means of communications. Ensuring first responders at the local, state, and Federal level have the ability to effectively communicate with each other should be one of the Federal Government's top priorities. The ability of first responders to effectively communicate with each other, and with their counterparts at different levels of governments, is key to their ability to save lives in the crucial time immediately after a natural disaster or a terrorist attack. My bill helps first responders by establishing a Director of Interoperability and Compatibility to help develop a national strategy and architecture for an interoperable system, as well as to bring together Federal, State, local, and tribal officials to work on a coordinated effort to develop and coordinate efforts to implement an interoperable communications system. The bill also provides a grant program so state and local governments can receive Federal assistance for planning and designing an interoperable system, as well as in training first responders how to use the system. Rather than simply further burdening taxpayers, or increasing the already skyrocketing national debt, my legislation is financed through cuts in corporate welfare and foreign aid programs, which subsidize large corporations and even American businesses' overseas competitors such as the Export-Import Bank use of taxpayer money to underwrite trade with countries such as Communist China. It is time for the Federal Government to begin prioritizing spending by cutting unnecessary programs that benefit powerful special interests in order to met our constitutional responsibilities to ensure America's first responders can effectively respond to terrorists' attacks. Mr. Speaker, reducing spending on corporate welfare and foreign aid to strengthen first responders' interoperable capability is a win-win for the American people. I hope my colleagues will help strengthen America's first responders' ability to help the American people in times of terrorists attacks and natural disasters by cosponsoring the Improve Interoperable Communications for First Responders Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, Congress is once again using abusive litigation at the State level as a justification nationalizing tort law. In this case, the Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act (H.R. 554) usurps State jurisdiction over lawsuits related to obesity against food manufacturers. Of course, I share the outrage at the obesity lawsuits. The idea that a fast food restaurant should be held legally liable because some of its customers over indulged in the restaurant's products, and thus are suffering from obesity-related health problems, is the latest blow to the ethos of personal responsibility that is fundamental in a free society. After all, McDonalds does not force anyone to eat at its restaurants. Whether to make Big Macs or salads the staple of one's diet is totally up to the individual. Furthermore, it is common knowledge that a diet centering on super-sized cheeseburgers, French fries, and sugar-filled colas is not healthy. Therefore, there is no rational basis for these suits. Some proponents of lawsuits claim that the fast food industry is ``preying'' on children. But isn't making sure that children limit their consumption of fast foods the responsibility of parents, not trial lawyers? Will trial lawyers next try to blame the manufacturers of cars that go above 65 miles per hour for speeding tickets? Congress bears some responsibility for the decline of personal responsibility that led to the obesity lawsuits. After all, Congress created the welfare state that popularized the notion that people should not bear the costs of their mistakes. Thanks to the welfare state, too many Americans believe they are entitled to pass the costs of their mistakes on to a third party--such as the taxpayers or a corporation with ``deep pockets.'' While I oppose the idea of holding food manufacturers responsible for their customers' misuse of their products, I cannot support addressing this problem by nationalizing tort law. It is long past time for Congress to recognize that not every problem requires a Federal solution. This country's founders recognized the genius of separating power among Federal, State, and local governments as a means to maximize individual liberty and make government most responsive to those persons who might most responsibly influence it. This separation of powers strictly limits the role of the Federal Government in dealing with civil liability matters; and reserves jurisdiction over matters of civil tort, such as food related negligence suits, to the State legislatures. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would remind the food industry that using unconstitutional Federal powers to restrict State lawsuits makes it more likely those same powers will be used to impose additional Federal control over the food industry. Despite these lawsuits, the number one threat to business remains a Federal government freed of its Constitutional restraints. After all, the Federal government imposes numerous taxes and regulations on the food industry, often using the same phony ``pro-consumer'' justifications used by the trial lawyers. Furthermore, while small business, such as fast-food franchises, can move to another State to escape flawed State tax, regulatory, or legal policies, they cannot as easily escape destructive Federal regulations. Unconstitutional expansions of Federal power, no matter how just the cause may seem, are not in the interests of the food industry or of lovers of liberty. In conclusion, while share the concern over the lawsuits against the food industry that inspired H.R. 554, this bill continues the disturbing trend of federalizing tort law. Enhancing the power of the Federal government is in no way in the long-term interests of defenders of the free market and Constitutional liberties. Therefore, I must oppose this bill.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for 5 minutes.