Ron Paul

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, Congress is once again forsaking an opportunity to begin addressing Medicare's long-term fiscal problems. Instead, the legislation before us today, while not without its merits, exacerbates the problems facing Medicare by giving new authority to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), even though CMS's excessive power is a major reason why so many physicians and patients are dissatisfied with the current Medicare system. One clear indicator of the lack of seriousness with which this issue is being treated is the fact that this bill is coming before us on suspension, a procedure generally used for noncontroversial legislation, such as bills naming Post Offices. This significant Medicare legislation will receive only 40 minutes of debate, and members will have no opportunity to offer amendments. I certainly recognize the need to make adjustments in physicians' payments. Many physicians are already losing money treating Medicare patients, thanks to CMS's low reimbursements and the cost of having to comply with CMS's numerous rules and regulations. Unless Congress acts, many physicians will simply refuse to see Medicare patients. I think we all agree that driving physicians out of the Medicare program is not the proper way to reform the system. Therefore, if H.R. 6331 only contained the provisions dealing with the physicians' rate cut, I would vote for it. However, H.R. 6331 further endangers Medicare's fiscal situation by giving almost $20 billion in new funds to CMS, and giving CMS new regulatory authority. Instead of simply pretending we can delay the day of reckoning by giving CMS more money and power, we should be looking for ways to shore up Medicare by making cuts in other, lower priority programs, using those savings to ensure the short-term fiscal stability of Federal entitlement programs while transitioning to a more stable means of providing health care for senior citizens. I have been outspoken on the areas I believe should be subject to deep cuts in order to finance serious entitlement reform that protects those relying on these programs. I will not go into detail on these cuts, although I will observe that today the House Committee on Financial Services is planning to authorize billions of new foreign aid spending, perhaps some of those billions might be better spent reforming the Medicare system. Congress should also reform the Medicare system by providing Medicare patients more control over their health care than is available under either traditional Medicare or the Medicare Advantage program. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6331 may provide some short-term benefit to Medicare providers, however, it does so by further jeopardizing the long-term fiscal soundness of the Medicare program. Thus, passage of this bill will ultimately damage the very Medicare providers and patients the bill aims to help.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I regret that due to the unexpected last- minute appearance of this measure on the legislative calendar this week, a prior commitment has prevented me from voting on the FISA amendments. I have strongly opposed every previous FISA overhaul attempt, and I certainly would have voted against this one as well. The main reason I oppose this latest version is that it still clearly violates the Fourth Amendment by allowing the Federal Government to engage in the bulk collection of American citizens' communications without a search warrant. That U.S. citizens can have their private communication intercepted by the government without a search warrant is anti-American, deeply disturbing, and completely unacceptable. In addition to gutting the Fourth Amendment, this measure will deprive Americans who have had their rights violated by telecommunication companies involved in the Administration's illegal wiretapping program the right to seek redress in the courts for the wrongs committed against them. Worse, this measure provides for retroactive immunity, whereby individuals or organizations that broke the law as it existed are granted immunity for prior illegal actions once the law has been changed. Ex post facto laws have long been considered anathema in free societies under rule of law. Our Founding Fathers recognized this, including in Article I section 9 of the Constitution that ``No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.'' How is this FISA bill not a variation of ex post facto? That alone should give pause to supporters of this measure. Madam Speaker, we should understand that decimating the protections that our Constitution provides us against the government is far more dangerous to the future of this country than whatever external threats may exist. We can protect this country without violating the Constitution and I urge my colleagues to reconsider their support for this measure.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, the American shrimp industry is a textbook example of a great American business crippled by foolish government policies. Congress and the federal bureaucracy have burdened shirmpers with needless regulations and laws that dramatically raise shrimpers' cost of doing business while subsidizing American shrimpers' overseas competitors. Unless Congress soon reverses course and repeals these destructive government policies, many shrimpers will be forced out of business. Congress's refusal to take any constructive action to address skyrocketing fuel costs has, in particular, hurt shrimpers. Some shrimpers are so desperate to lower their fuel costs that they are going to Mexico in search of affordable fuel. Think about this, Madam Speaker it is cheaper for shrimpers to travel to Mexico to buy gas than to obtain gas in the USA. Yet, Congress still refuses to take reasonable actions, such as expanding offshore drilling or repealing federal laws that delay the production of refineries, to expand oil supply and thus reduce the price of fuel. The federal government has also imposed numerous regulations on shrimpers dealing with use of items such as bycatch reduction devices and turtle excluder devices (TEDS). Madam Speaker, it is common to speak of the negative effects of regulations as ``unintended consequences.'' However, it is difficult to speak of the effects of the TEDS on shrimpers as unintended consequences when the National Marine Fisheries Service heard industry representatives and representatives of communities whose economies rely on a thriving shrimping industry present first-hand testimony on how these TEDS regulations would harm shrimpers. The problems shrimpers face are compounded by foreign competitors who are taking advantage of the government-created vulnerabilities in the American shrimp industry. Adding insult to injury, the federal government is forcing American shrimpers to subsidize their competitors through international agencies such as the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, the Export-Import Bank, and the International Monetary Fund! In fact, United States taxpayers have provided over $16,500,000,000 to the home countries of the leading foreign competitors of American shrimpers since 1999. In order to stop the federal government from punishing shrimpers with unfair regulations and forcing them to subsidize their major competitors, I introduced the Shrimp Importation Financing Fairness Act. This legislation would place a moratorium on any restrictive regulations negatively impacting the shrimp industry and prevent any taxpayer money from going to any country that exported more than 20 million pounds of shrimp to the Untied States in the previous six months. However, Congress chose not to even take these simple steps to help the American shrimp industry. Of course, American shrimpers, like all American businesses that compete in the global marketplace, also suffers from the weak U.S. dollar. Congress's fiscal irresponsibility is a major cause of the weakening U.S. dollar. Madam Speaker, it is still not too late or Congress to help the shrimp industry. Congress should immediately end subsidies to American shrimpers' foreign competitors, place a moratorium on harmful regulations imposed on the shrimp industry, and take action to reduce fuel prices by expanding the supply of oil. I urge my colleagues to join me in working to fix the misguided government policies that are harming America shrimpers.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to congratulate the Alvin Lady Jackets softball team on becoming the first fourth seed softball team in Texas history to win the University Interscholastic League Championship. One factor behind the Lady Jackets success was head coach Carla Newsom's determination to make sure her team found the silver lining in every seemingly dark cloud. For example, when the Lady Jackets lost the first game of a best of three series in the regional semi-final, Coach Newsom told the team to be thankful for the loss for two reasons. First, they could now wear their ``dress white'' uniforms in the next games: and second, and most importantly, they no longer had to eat spaghetti with meatballs for their pre-game meal. The team adopted the Journey song ``Don't Stop Believing'' as their anthem. The girls sang the song before, during, and after the games throughout the playoffs. On the night of the final game for the State Championship, the first game of the evening lasted 15 long innings, delaying the start of the Lady Jackets' game by almost two hours. As they were waiting in their dugout for their time, the Lady Jackets kept their sprits up by singing their anthem, much to the joy of their loyal fans who heard ``Don't Stop Believing'' resonating from the dugout. Lady Jacket Amber Anderson was awarded the MVP award of the State tournament; was named the Texas High School Softball Player of the Year and was one of two Lady Jacket players, along with Alexis Joseph, named Texas Girls Coaches Association all State player of the year. Coach Newsom was named Texas Girls Coaches Association Coach of the Year 2008. All graduating seniors on the Lady Jackets team are planning to continue their involvement in organized softball at the collegiate level. Madam Speaker, I again extend my congratulations to the players and coaches of the Lady Jackets and insert the Lady Jackets championship roster into the Congressional Record. 2008 alvin lady jackets Jessica Savage, Amber Anderson, Vanessa Eng, Alexis Joseph, Tiffany Denham, Britni Wells, Kelsey Nichols, Megan Potts, Natalie Farias, Kelsi Kettler. Megan Knippa, Meghan Gomez, Megan Garza, Amber Brooks, Adela Gomez, Maci Meyer, Nicole Powers, Lauren Denny, Alicia Smith. Head Coach: Carla Newsom; varsity assistant: Kelly Bembry; assistant coaches: Jennifer Dominguez, Paula Tafelski; trainer: Eric Nuncio; manager: Brady Hudson. Athletic Director: Mike Bass; Alvin High School Principal: Kevon Wells; Superintendent: Dr. Robby McGowen.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to support H. Res. 1237, legislation commemorating a monumental day in the history of liberty, Juneteenth Independence Day. Juneteenth marks the events of June 19, 1865, when slaves in Galveston, Texas learned that they were at last free men and women. The slaves of Galveston were the last group of slaves to learn of the end of slavery. Thus, Juneteenth represents the end of slavery in America. I hope all Americans will take the time to commemorate Juneteenth. Friends of human liberty should celebrate the end of slavery in any country. The end of American slavery is particularly worthy of recognition since there are few more blatant violations of America's founding principles, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence, than slavery. I am particularly pleased to join the recognition of Juneteenth because I have the privilege of representing Galveston. I thank the gentleman from Illinois for introducing this resolution. I thank the House leadership for bringing this resolution to the floor, and I urge all of my colleagues to honor the end of slavery by voting for H. Res 1237.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, this Saturday the city of Lake Jackson, Texas, will celebrate the accomplishments of United States Army Specialist Monica Brown, who, at the age of 19, has already earned herself a place in the pantheon of Texas military heroes. Specialist Brown was recently awarded the Silver Star, the nation's third highest medal of valor, because of her heroic actions in Afghanistan. Specialist Brown is only the second woman to receive the Silver Star since World War II. On April 25, 2007, Specialist Brown was part of a four-vehicle convoy patrolling near Jani Kheil in the eastern province of Paktia when a bomb struck one of the vehicles. Upon seeing that her comrades needed help, Specialist Brown put aside concerns for her own safety and ran through insurgent gunfire and mortars to protect the wounded soldiers. Specialist Brown used her body to shield five injured soldiers as she administered aid and then dragged each of them 100 meters away to safety. I am pleased to take this opportunity to salute U.S. Army Specialist Monica Brown and let her know how proud I, and all of Lake Jackson, are of her heroism. I urge all my colleagues, and all Americans, to join me in saluting Monica Brown and all the brave men and women serving in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support H. Con. Res. 1145, which recognizes the 100-year anniversary of the establishment of St. Mary's Cooperative Credit Association. Created to service the financial needs of textile workers, St. Mary's Cooperative Credit Association, or the People's Bank, as it was appropriately renamed, was the Nation's first credit union. Since the creation of St. Mary's Cooperative Credit Association, credit unions have grown to become a major part of the American financial services system. Today there are over 8,500 credit unions in the United States, serving over 90 million members. During my years of service on the House Committee on Financial Services, I have had the opportunity to get to know many credit union employees. I have always been impressed with their commitment to serving their credit union members and their communities. In many ways, credit unions exemplify the best of the free market system. Since credit unions are formed specifically to serve their members, credit unions put the interests of their depositors first. I hope that Congress will follow-up today's legislation by soon considering H.R. 5519, the Credit Union Regulatory Relief Act of 2008, which repeals Federal regulations that hinder credit unions from improving their services. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support H. Con. Res. 1145, and I encourage all my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution and saluting all credit unions for their vital role in strengthening America's financial services industry.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to congratulate the East Texas Area Health Education Center (AHEC) on its receipt of the National AHEC Organization (NAO)'s 2008 Eugene S. Mayer Program of Excellence Award. The Eugene Mayer Award is one of the NAO's most precious awards since, in order to even be considered for the award, an AHEC program must demonstrate excellence in all areas of operation. East Texas AHEC is certainly deserving of this prestigious award. Founded in 1991, East Texas AHEC is headquartered at the University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB), which provides it access to some of the top medical talent in the Nation. East Texas AHEC operates nine other community health centers across the Gulf Coast. These centers offer a wide variety of health care services to over 14.9 million low-income Texans in 111 counties. Many low-income Texas would have a much more difficult time obtaining quality health care if it were not for the efforts of East Texas AHEC. It is not just Texans who have benefited from the East Texas AHEC. By assuming a leadership role in advocacy for AHEC's nationwide, as well as providing an example to AHEC across the country of how they could expand their services to help met the health care needs of more low- income Americans, East Texas AHEC has benefited the entire American health care system. Madam Speaker, I have always been impressed with how dedication with shown by the staff of East Texas AHEC to their mission of developing a quality health care workforce and addressing the unmet health needs of the people of Texas. I am therefore pleased once again extend my congratulations to my friends at East Texas AHEC for their well- deserved receipt of the 2008 Eugene S. Mayer award.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to congratulate The University of Houston--Victoria (UHV) Jaguars softball team on an amazing inaugural season. The Jaguars completed the season with a 32-18 record and finished fourth in Region VI of the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics, missing the national tournament by one slot. The Jaguars faced a strong slate of contenders in the regular season, including 14 nationally recognized opponents, nine of which fell to the Jaguars. The team also defeated NCAA teams Houston Baptist University and the University of Mary Hardin-Baylor. ``You've got to beat the best to be the best,'' head coach Keri Lambeth always tells her players, and the Jaguars showed they are more than capable of competing with the best. On March 17, the softball team ranked No.4 in 18-team Region VI in the first season poll based on play, marking the first rating of a UHV sporting team. On March 19, the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA) ranked the softball team No. 15 in the Nation. The team ended the season in the same impressive position. The players didn't just work hard on the field. Coach Lambeth demanded academic and civic excellence. The players were required to attend a number of study hall hours every week based on their grade- point averages. A perfect 4.0 required 10 hours, while anything less required increasingly more. The players also met with Coach Lambeth each week to discuss how their classes were going and what kind of grades they were earning. As a result, a third of the team is expected to hold a 4.0 GPA this semester, and most of the team members are expected to appear on the UHV Dean's List for the spring semester. As Coach Lambeth always tells her players, ``We're not just here to play sports. We are here for an education first and foremost.'' As part of their civic activities, the players participated in a mentoring program in which they tutored at-risk elementary school students in reading, and middle and high school students in remedial math. The players also served as role models and life coaches to these students. Many players put in hours above and beyond what was required by the mentoring program. Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to fom1ally congratulate the women of the Jaguars on their accomplishments, both on and off the softball field, in their historic first season. I would also like to insert the Jaguars roster into the of the team into the Congressional Record: Jessica Salas, Erin Litvik, Samantha Campagna, Kristen Lindley, Curby Ryan, Lindsey Ferguson, Lauren Garza, Chelsi Fitzgerald, Kasey Voyles, Cayla Dluhos, Ashley Falco, Stephanie Lavey, Amber Scott, Whitney Damborsky, Brittany Faas.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to extend my congratulations and best wishes to the Central High School Class of 1958 as they prepare to celebrate their 50th class reunion on May 30, 2008. Central High is located in Galveston, Texas, which is in my Congressional district. Constructed in 1895 to ensure that the segregation laws then in effect did not deny Galveston's African-American children the opportunity to obtain an education, Central High is the oldest high school in Texas built to serve African-Americans. Laws dictating what schools a child can and cannot attend, based solely on that child's race, are a shameful aspect of America's history. We should take every opportunity possible to salute those, like the students of Central High, who refused to allow the ``Jim Crow'' laws stop them from obtaining an education. The class of 1958 holds particular significance, as they were the first class to complete all 4 years in the new Central High that opened in 1954. Madam Speaker, I once again extend my congratulations to the members of the Central High Class of 1958 as they prepare to celebrate their 50th class reunion.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 1194, mainly because this legislation reads like an authorization to use force in Lebanon. As the key resolved clause of H. Res. 1194 states: Resolved, That the House of Representatives-- * * * * * (6) urges-- (A) the United States Government and the international community to immediately take all appropriate actions to support and strengthen the legitimate Government of Lebanon under Prime Minister Fouad Siniora; This language is eerily similar to a key clause in the 2002 Iraq war authorization, H.J. Res. 114, which read: (a) Authorization--The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to-- (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; I find it outrageous that this legislation, which moves us closer to an expanded war in the Middle East, is judged sufficiently ``non- controversial'' to be placed on the suspension calendar for consideration on the House Floor outside of normal parliamentary order. Have we reached the point where it is no longer controversial to urge the President to use ``all appropriate actions''--with the unmistakable implication that force may be used--to intervene in the domestic affairs of a foreign country? Mr. Speaker, the Arab League has been mediating the conflict between rival political factions in Lebanon and has had some success in halting the recent violence. Currently, negotiations are taking place in Qatar between the Lebanese factions and some slow but encouraging progress is being made. Regional actors--who do have an interest in the conflict-- have stepped up in attempt to diffuse the crisis and reach a peaceful solution. Yet at the critical stage of negotiations the U.S. House is preparing to pass a very confrontational resolution endorsing one side and condemning competing factions. In threatening to use ``all appropriate actions'' to support one faction, the United States is providing a strong disincentive for that one faction to continue peaceful negotiations. Passing this resolution will most likely contribute to a return of violence in Lebanon. This legislation strongly condemns Iranian and Syrian support to one faction in Lebanon while pledging to involve the United States on the other side. Wouldn't it be better to be involved on neither side and instead encourage the negotiations that have already begun to resolve the conflict? Afghanistan continues to sink toward chaos with no end in sight. The war in Iraq, launched on lies and deceptions, has cost nearly a trillion dollars and more than 4,000 lives with no end in sight. Saber rattling toward Iran and Syria increases daily, including in this very legislation. Yet we are committing ourselves to intervene in a domestic political dispute that has nothing to do with the United States. This resolution leads us closer to a wider war in the Middle East. It involves the United States unnecessarily in an internal conflict between competing Lebanese political factions and will increase rather than decrease the chance for an increase in violence. The Lebanese should work out political disputes on their own or with the assistance of regional organizations like the Arab League. I urge my colleagues to reject this march to war and to reject H. Res. 1194.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a man who recently died at a tragically young age. I am appending his official obituary to this extension of remarks. In addition to those things listed in his obituary, I would like to point out that Scott was very involved in community and political events. This, for him, was essential to share his concern for his country. Scott held a deep and abiding belief in the rights, freedom and dignity of human beings. May he Rest In Peace. Stuart, Scott S. Stuart of Baltimore, Maryland, and Canton, Connecticut, passed away peacefully in his sleep on Wednesday, May 7th. He was 43 years old. Scott was the Director of Alumni Relations at Loyola College since June of 2007. Prior to this position, he was the director of alumni relations for his alma mater Niagara University. Scott also had over 15 years of corporate experience as an executive in the banking industry and as a fund-raising director in the non-profit sector. He held the position of vice president, director of marketing, for OBA Bank in Washington, DC. In this post, he formulated corporate growth strategies and directed and identified marketing programs and opportunities, helping to ``re-brand'' America's oldest thrift institution. Earlier, he spent several years working for the Boy Scouts of America in Boston, Mass., and Washington, DC., as district executive, district director, development director, and director of major gifts. After graduating from Niagara University in 1986 with a bachelor's degree in commerce/marketing, Scott worked his way up the corporate ladder at M&T Bank to assistant vice president. Scott enjoyed traveling, backpacking, skiing and winter camping. But first and foremost, he loved his family. He was a devoted son and brother and was happiest when he was around them. He had an infectious spirit and love of life and faith. Scott is survived by his mother, Anne Stuart of Canton, Conn., and three younger siblings, Brian and his wife Yvonne of Boston, Mass., Sean Stuart of Broad Brook, Conn., and Tracy Stuart of New Canaan, Conn. To continue to keep his memory alive, the family asks that you pass on a good deed to someone in need.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the Tax Relief for Transportation Workers Act. This legislation helps those who work in the port industry cope with the costs of complying with Congress's mandate that all those working on a port obtain a Transportation Worker Identity Card (TWIC). The Tax Relief for Transportation Workers Act provides a tax credit to workers who pay the costs of obtaining TWICs. The credit is refundable against both income and payroll tax liabilities. This legislation also provides a tax deduction for businesses that pay for their employees to obtain a TWIC. When Congress created the TWIC requirement, it placed the burden of paying the cost of obtaining the card on individual workers. Imposing the costs of obtaining TWICs on port workers has several negative economic impacts that Congress should help mitigate by making the cost associated with obtaining a TWIC tax deductible. According to the Department of Homeland Security, a port worker will have to pay between $100 and $132 dollars to obtain a card. The worker will also have to pay a $60 fee for every card that is lost or damaged. Even those employers whose employers pay the substantial costs of obtaining TWICs for their workforce are adversely affected by the TWIC requirement, as the money employers pay for TWICs is money that cannot go into increasing their workers' salaries. The costs of the TWIC requirement may also cause some employers to refrain from hiring new employees. Ironically, many of the employees whose employers are unable to pay the TWIC are part-time or temporary workers at the lower end of the income scale. Obviously, the TWIC requirement hits these workers the hardest. According to Recana, an employer of port workers in my district, the fee will have a ``significant impact'' on port workers. Unless Congress acts to relieve some of the economic burden the TWIC requirement places on those who work in the port industry, the damage done could reach beyond the port employers and employees to harm businesses that depend on a strong American port industry. This could be very harmful to both interstate and international trade. Regardless of what one thinks of the merits of the TWIC card, it is simply not right for Congress to make the port industry bear all the costs of TWIC. I therefore urge my colleagues to stand up for those who perform vital tasks at America's ports by cosponsoring the Tax Relief for Transportation Workers Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment because it strikes me as unconstitutional to make it a Federal crime to operate a submersible or semi-submersible vehicle that is not registered with a country if it navigates through international waters. I believe that this amendment, aside from being unconstitutional, is dangerously broad and may well lead to the persecution of individuals who are in no way engaging in illegal activity. I am concerned that this may lead to the prosecution of, for example, a scientific organization that builds and operates a submersible research vessel and operates it in international waters. Are these organizations going to be forced to register their activities with the U.S. Government or face a 20 year jail term? The real intent of this amendment is to add yet another draconian weapon in the arsenal of the government's failed war on drugs. This amendment may well have chilling unintended consequences for individuals and organizations that have nothing to do with drug or human smuggling and as such I cannot support the Poe amendment.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to H.R. 5613, legislation halting the implementation of a package of new Medicaid rules. The proponents of H.R. 5613 are correct that halting some of these rules will protect needed Medicaid reimbursements for health care providers. However, some of the rules that H.R. 5613 blocks address abuses of Federal Medicaid dollars that should be halted. Greater efforts to ensure Medicaid resources are properly spent will help those health care providers most in need of continued support from the Medicaid program, since a Medicaid dollar lost to fraud and abuse is a dollar that cannot be spent helping hospitals and physicians provide health care to the poor. Had members been given the opportunity to offer amendments, we could have fashioned a bill that would have protected needed reimbursements for legitimate health care expenditures while addressing legitimate concerns about misuse of Medicaid funds. Unfortunately, the House leadership chose to deny members the ability to improve this bill, and have a meaningful debate on how to ensure Medicaid's financial stability without denying care to those dependent on the program, by putting this bill on the suspension calendar. According to some estimates, failure to implement the proposed regulations could cost the already financially fragile Medicaid system as much as 10 billion over the next several years. Yet, the sponsors of this bill refuse to make a serious effort to address these costs. Mr. Speaker, instead of rushing H.R. 5613 into law, we should be looking for ways to shore up Medicaid by making cuts in other, lower priority programs, using those savings to ensure the short-term fiscal stability of federal entitlement programs while transitioning to a more stable means of providing health care for low-income Americans. I have been outspoken on the areas I believe should be subject to deep cuts in order to finance serious entitlement reform that protects those relying on these programs. I will not go into detail on these cuts, although I will observe that in recent weeks this Congress has authorized billions of new foreign aid spending, yet today we are told we cannot find the money to address Medicaid's long-term financial imbalances. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5613 may provide some short-term benefit to Medicaid providers, however, it does so by further jeopardizing the long-term fiscal soundness of the Medicaid program. Thus, this passage of this bill will ultimately damage the very low-income Americans the bill aims to help.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Mr. Bernie Baltic of Cleveland, Ohio. Mr. Baltic, who recently passed away, was a tireless champion of liberty. His advocacy of applying the freedom philosophy to the issues of the day was made all the more effective by his voracious reading of both the classics of liberty and the latest policy studies. Any politician or bureaucrat at any level of government who threatened individual liberty was sure to hear from Mr. Baltic. Mr. Baltic also worked to educate and mobilize his fellow citizens in the cause of liberty through writing letters to the editor, and by directly challenging anti-liberty officials at forums such as city council meetings. In addition to his own activities, Mr. Baltic generously shared his support and counsel with numerous organizations that work to advance the cause of liberty. Perhaps Mr. Baltic's most lasting contribution to the freedom movement came when then-president of the Advocates for Self Government Marshall Fritz showed Mr. Baltic a computer game Mr. Fritz developed that identified an individual's political philosophy based on responses to 10 questions on economic issues and 10 questions on civil liberties. Mr. Baltic, who was quite impressed with the chart, suggested that the Advocates produce business-card sized versions of the graph and quiz. The result was the ``World's Smallest Political Quiz,'' one of the freedom movement's most recognized and effective outreach tools. Bernie Baltic set an example for all those wishing to effectively advance the cause of liberty. Madam Speaker, I salute Bernie Baltic for his many contributions to the freedom movement and extend my condolences to Mr. Baltic's family and friends.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, abuses of the earmark process by Members of both parties demonstrate the need for reform. However, earmarks are hardly the most serious problem facing this country. In fact, many, if not most, of the problems with earmarks can be fixed by taking simple steps to bring greater transparency to the appropriations process. While I support reforms designed to shine greater sunlight on the process by which Members seek earmarks, I fear that some of my colleagues have forgotten that the abuses of the earmarking process are a symptom of the problems with Washington, not the cause. The root of the problem is an out-of-control Federal budget. I am also concerned that some reforms proposed by critics of earmarking undermine the separation of powers by eroding Congress's constitutional role in determining how Federal funds are spent. Contrary to popular belief, adding earmarks to a bill does not increase Federal spending. Earmarks are added to appropriations legislation after the total funding levels have been agreed on. Therefore, earmarks simply allocate Federal money that Congress has already agreed should be spent. Thus, adding or subtracting earmarks from legislation does not increase or reduce Federal spending by even one penny. Since reforming, limiting, or even eliminating earmarks does nothing to reduce Federal spending, I have regarded the battle over earmarks as a distraction from the real issue--the need to reduce the size of government. Recently, opponents of earmarks have embraced an approach to earmark reform that undermines the constitutional separation of powers by encouraging the President to issue an Executive order authorizing Federal agencies to disregard congressional earmarks placed in committee reports. Since the President's Executive order would not reduce Federal spending, the practical result of such an Executive order would be to transfer power over the determination of how Federal funds are spent from Congress to unelected Federal bureaucrats. Since most earmarks are generated by requests from our constituents, including local elected officials such as mayors, this executive order has the practical effect of limiting taxpayers' ability to influence the ways the Federal Government spends tax dollars. Madam Speaker, the drafters of the Constitution gave Congress the powers of the purse because the drafters feared that allowing the branch of government charged with executing the laws to also write the Federal budget would concentrate too much power in one branch of government. The founders correctly viewed the separation of the lawmaking and law-enforcement powers as a vital safeguard of liberty. Whenever the President blatantly disregards orders from Congress as to how Federal funds should be spent, he is undermining the constitutional separation of powers. Congress has already all but ceded its authority to declare war to the executive branch. Now we are giving away our power of the purse. Madam Speaker, the logical conclusion of the arguments that it is somehow illegitimate for Members of Congress to control the disbursement of Federal funds in their district is that Congress should only meet one week a year to appropriate a lump sum to be given to the President for him to allocate to the Federal Government as he sees fit. Madam Speaker, all Members should support efforts to bring greater transparency to the earmarking process. However, we must not allow earmarking reform to distract us from what should be our main priority--restricting Federal spending by returning the Government to its constitutional limitations. I also urge my colleagues not to allow the current hysteria over earmarks to justify further erosion of our constitutional authority to control the Federal budget.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, as an OB-GYN I take a back seat to no one when it comes to caring about the health of newborn children. However, as a Representative who has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution, I cannot support legislation, no matter how much I sympathize with the legislation's stated goals, that exceeds the Constitutional limitations on Federal power or in any way threatens the liberty of the American people. Since S. 1858 violates the Constitution, and may have unintended consequences that will weaken the American health care system and further erode medical privacy, I must oppose it. S. 1858 gives the Federal bureaucracy the authority to develop a model newborn screening program. Madam Speaker, the Federal Government lacks both the constitutional authority and the competence to develop a newborn screening program adequate for a nation as large and diverse as the United States. Some will say that the program is merely a guide for local hospitals. However, does anyone seriously doubt that, whatever the flaws contained in the model eventually adopted by the Federal Government, almost every hospital in the country will scrap their own newborn screening programs in favor of the Federal model? After all, no hospital will want to risk losing Federal funding because they did not adopt the ``federally approved'' plan for newborn screening. Thus, this bill takes another step toward the nationalization of health care. As the Federal Government assumes more control over health care, medical privacy has increasingly come under assault. Those of us in the medical profession should be particularly concerned about policies allowing Government officials and State-favored interests to access our medical records without our consent. After all, patient confidentiality is the basis of the trust that must underline a positive physician- patient relationship. Yet my review of S. 1858 indicates the drafters of the legislation made no effort to ensure these newborn screening programs do not violate the privacy rights of parents and children. In fact, by directing Federal bureaucrats to create a contingency plan for newborn screening in the event of a ``public health'' disaster, this bill may lead to further erosions of medical privacy. As recent history so eloquently illustrates, politicians are more than willing to take, and people are more than willing to cede, liberty during times of ``emergency.'' Thus, most people will gladly sacrifice their families' medical privacy if they are told it is necessary to protect them from a Government-declared health emergency, while the Federal Government will be very unlikely to relinquish its new powers when the emergency passes. I am also skeptical, to say the least, that a top-down Federal plan to screen any part of the population will effectively help meet the challenges facing the health care system in the event of a real public emergency. State and local Governments working together with health care providers, can better come up with effective ways to deal with public health emergencies than can any Federal bureaucracy. It is for these reasons, Madam Speaker, that I oppose S. 1858.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution calling for the further expansion of NATO to the borders of Russia. NATO is an organization whose purpose ended with the end of its Warsaw Pact adversary. When NATO struggled to define its future after the cold war, it settled on attacking a sovereign state, Yugoslavia, which had neither invaded nor threatened any NATO member state. This current round of NATO expansion is a political reward to governments in Georgia and Ukraine that came to power as a result of U.S.-supported revolutions, the so-called Orange Revolution and Rose Revolution. The governments that arose from these street protests were eager to please their U.S. sponsor and the U.S., in turn, turned a blind eye to the numerous political and human rights abuses that took place under the new regimes. Thus the U.S. policy of ``exporting democracy'' has only succeeded in exporting more misery to the countries it has targeted. NATO expansion only benefits the U.S. military industrial complex, which stands to profit from expanded arms sales to new NATO members. The ``modernization'' of former Soviet militaries in Ukraine and Georgia will mean tens of millions in sales to U.S. and European military contractors. The U.S. taxpayer will be left holding the bill, as the U.S. Government will subsidize most of the transactions. Providing U.S. military guarantees to Ukraine and Georgia can only further strain our military. This NATO expansion may well involve the U.S. military in conflicts as unrelated to our national interest as the breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia in Georgia. The idea that American troops might be forced to fight and die to prevent a small section of Georgia from seceding is absurd and disturbing. Madam Speaker, NATO should be disbanded, not expanded.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this ill- conceived resolution. The U.S. House of Representatives has no business speculating on guilt or innocence in a crime that may have been committed thousands of miles outside United States territory. It is arrogant, to say the least, that we presume to pass judgment on crimes committed overseas about which we have seen no evidence. The resolution purports to express concern over the apparent murder in London of a shadowy former Russian intelligence agent, Alexander Litvinenko, but let us not kid ourselves. The real purpose is to attack the Russian government by suggesting that Russia is involved in the murder. There is little evidence of this beyond the feverish accusations of interested parties. In fact, we may ultimately discover that Litvinenko's death by radiation poisoning was the result of his involvement in an international nuclear smuggling operation, as some investigative reporters have claimed. The point is that we do not know. The House of Representatives has no business inserting itself in disputes about which we lack information and jurisdiction. At a time when we should be seeking good relations and expanded trade with Russia, what is the benefit in passing such provocative resolutions? There is none. Madam Speaker, I would like to draw your attention to a very thought- provoking article by Edward Jay Epstein published recently in the New York Sun, which convincingly calls into question many of the assumptions and accusations made in this legislation. I would encourage my colleagues to read this article and carefully consider the wisdom of what we are doing.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this latest attempt to undermine our personal liberties and violate the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. This bill will allow the federal government to engage in the bulk collection of American citizens' communications. In effect, it means that any American may have his electronic communications monitored without a search warrant. As such, the bill clearly violates the Fourth Amendment, which states: ``The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'' The assurances in this bill that Americans will not have their communications monitored without warrant are unconvincing. The bill merely states that the government should do its best to avoid monitoring Americans if possible. We have seen how meaningless such qualified prohibitions have been as we recount the abuses over the past several years. Just today, we read in the news that the federal government has massively abused its ability to monitor us by improperly targeting Americans through the use of ``national security letters.'' Apparently some 60 percent of the more than 50,000 national security letters targeted Americans, rather than foreign terrorists, for surveillance. This is what happens when we begin down the slippery slope of giving up our constitutional rights for the promise of more security. When we come to accept that the government can spy on us without a court order we have come to accept tyranny. I urge my colleagues to reject this and all legislation that allows Americans to be spied on without a properly issued warrant.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, it has been said that ``he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword.'' And in the case of Eliot Spitzer this couldn't be more true. In his case it's the political sword, as his enemies rejoice in his downfall. Most people, it seems, believe he got exactly what he deserved. The illegal tools of the state brought Spitzer down, but think of all the harm done by Spitzer in using the same tools against so many other innocent people. He practiced what could be termed ``economic McCarthyism,'' using illegitimate government power to build his political career on the ruined lives of others. No matter how morally justified his comeuppance may be, his downfall demonstrates the worst of our society. The possibility of uncovering personal moral wrongdoing is never a justification for the government to spy on our every move and to participate in sting operations. For government to entice a citizen to break a law with a sting operation--that is, engaging in activities that a private citizen is prohibited by law from doing--is unconscionable and should clearly be illegal. Though Spitzer used the same tools to destroy individuals charged with economic crimes that ended up being used against him, gloating over his downfall should not divert our attention from the fact that the government spying on American citizens is unworthy of a country claiming respect for liberty and the fourth amendment. Two wrongs do not make a right. Two wrongs make it doubly wrong. Sacrifice of our personal privacy has been ongoing for decades, but has rapidly accelerated since 9/11. Before 9/11 the unstated goal of collecting revenue was the real reason for the erosion of our financial privacy. When 19 suicidal maniacs attacked us on 9/11, our country became convinced that further sacrifice of personal and financial privacy was required for our security. The driving force behind this ongoing sacrifice of our privacy has been fear and the emotional effect of war rhetoric--war on drugs, war against terrorism, and the war against third world nations in the Middle East who are claimed to be the equivalent to Hitler and Nazi Germany. But the real reason for all this surveillance is to build the power of the state. It arises from a virulent dislike of free people running their own lives and spending their own money. Statists always demand control of the people and their money. Recently we've been told that this increase in the already intolerable invasion of our privacy was justified because the purpose was to apprehend terrorists. We were told that the massive amounts of information being collected on Americans would only be used to root out terrorists. But as we can see today, this monitoring of private activities can also be used for political reasons. We should always be concerned when the government accumulates information on innocent citizens. Spitzer was brought down because he legally withdrew cash from a bank--not because he committed a crime. This should prompt us to reassess and hopefully reverse this trend of pervasive government intrusion in our private lives. We need no more Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act! No more Violent Radicalization & Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Acts! No more torture! No more Military Commissions Act! No more secret prisons and extraordinary rendition! No more abuse of habeas corpus! No more PATRIOT Acts! What we need is more government transparency and more privacy for the individual!

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to address the House tonight about the budget because there has been a lot of concern expressed here today on both sides of the aisle about the kind of financial trouble we're in. And there's no doubt about that. But sometimes I think we go back and forth spending more time blaming each other rather than dealing with the real problem. One of the contentions I've had about the budget is that we look at it as an accounting problem rather than a philosophy problem because the spending occurs because of what we accept as the proper role of government. And right now, it's assumed by the country as well as the Congress that the proper role of government is to run our lives, run the economy, run the welfare state, and police the world. And all of a sudden, it puts a lot of pressure on the budget. Today, the national debt is going up almost $600 billion. And the economy is getting weaker, there's no doubt about it. We're in a recession, it's going to get much worse, which means that the deficit is going to get a lot worse. And I'm predicting within a couple of years, it will not surprise me one bit to see the national debt, the national obligation for future generations to rise in 1 year three- quarters of $1 trillion. And that is a very possible number. And like it has been expressed so often today, we need to do something about it. The question is, what are we going to do about it? One side, it seems like, well, if we just raise taxes, we're going to solve the problem. The other side says, well, all we have to do is get rid of the earmarks. Well, that argument, I think, falls short, too, because you can vote to cut all the earmarks, but it doesn't cut any spending, it just delivers the authority to spend the money to the executive branch. I think the job of the Congress is to earmark the money. It's our obligation to tell people how the money is spent. And those who think that we can solve this problem by just getting rid of earmarks, they never talk about the earmarks overseas, the hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars we spend overseas. We earmark them to certain countries, into building military buildings overseas. What about the earmark for the embassy in Iraq? It has cost $1 billion. That's an earmark. But the side that said that we can solve this problem by cutting earmarks never talks about these earmarks. Just think of the earmarks in the military budget. I mean, billions. And what do we do? We finally elect a different Congress to deal with some of these supplementals and emergency spending that we don't have the guts to put on the budget, so we elect a new Congress. And what do we do? We have the continuation, in all the budgets presented today, we're still going to finance the war as an off-budget emergency item. We're not being honest with ourselves. And we pretend that the problem is there, and that if you talk about it, it's going to go away. The way I see it is there's only one way that we're going to attack this, and that is, decide what our government ought to be doing. And the Constitution is very clear, the government ought to preserve our liberties and give us a strong national defense. It shouldn't run our lives, it shouldn't run the economy, it shouldn't police the world. We're not supposed to be the policemen of the world. But everybody talks about it. And both sides of the aisle have no hesitation to spend every cent the executive branch asked for to run a war that was never declared. We now spend $1 trillion a year going up, this year it's going to go over $1 trillion to run the operations overseas. That means all the foreign aid and all the military, $1 trillion to do things we shouldn't be doing. They interviewed 3,400 military personnel just recently, military leaders, and 82 percent of them said our military is weaker today than it was 5 years ago. So, all of this money spent and all this policing in the world, and all this deficit. And financially we're coming down. I mean, just today the dollar went down 1.2 percent in one day, after this steady erosion. It comes from the fact of deficits. And why does that hurt the dollar? Because we don't have enough money. We don't tax enough. We can't tax anymore. People are overtaxed. We can't borrow anymore because interest rates will go up. So, we print the money. And the more money you print, the further the dollar goes down, and then everything goes up in price. So it's a cycle that's coming to an end. The value of the dollar is really telling the whole story. We've overextended ourselves because we do not challenge the whole notion of what we ought to be doing here and what our government ought to be all about because we have drifted so far from the original intent of the Constitution. There is no hesitation, there are debates that go on here endlessly. One side of the aisle says, well, we need more and more money for the military; we can't cut one single cent on overseas expenditure. And the other side says, oh, no, we can't cut the entitlements. And then there's an agreement, we raise both. My idea is to have a strong national defense and to get this budget under control. Reject the notion that we need to run an empire; we can't afford it, it's going to come down, it always comes down. It has come down all throughout history because eventually the currency is destroyed. We're in 130 countries. We have 700 bases. Our military now is in worse shape than it was 5 years ago, according to our military. So it's time we look at the strategic, the philosophic problems. And I will say, unless we do this, this will end badly. It's going to end with a major economic crisis. It's going to be worldwide, and we here at home will suffer, not only economically but inevitably. Under these conditions the people lose their liberty, and our liberties are being eroded every single day that we're here. So, yes, we take an oath to obey and uphold the Constitution against foreign and domestic. But we're domestic, and we should protect our rights and our budget and the greatness of this country.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in somewhat reluctant support of this vote to override the President's veto of H.R. 2062, the Intelligence Authorization Act of 2008. Although I voted against this authorization when it first came to the floor, the main issue has now become whether we as a Congress are to condone torture as official U.S. policy or whether we will speak out against it. This bill was vetoed by the President because of a measure added extending the prohibition of the use of any interrogation treatment or technique not authorized by the United States Army Field Manual on Human Intelligence Collector Operations to the U.S. intelligence community. Opposing this prohibition is tantamount to endorsing the use of torture against those in United States Government custody. Mr. Speaker, we have all read the disturbing reports of individuals apprehended and taken to secret prisons maintained by the United States Government across the globe, tortured for months or even years, and later released without charge. Khaled al-Masri, for example, a German citizen, has recounted the story of his incarceration and torture by U.S. intelligence in a secret facility in Afghanistan. His horror was said to be simply a case of mistaken identity. We do not know how many more similar cases there may be, but clearly it is not in the interest of the United States to act in a manner so contrary to the values upon which we pride ourselves. My vote to override the President's veto is a vote to send a clear message that I do not think the United States should be in the business of torture. It is anti-American, immoral and counterproductive.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 951, a resolution to condemn Palestinian rocket attacks on Israeli civilians. As one who is consistently against war and violence, I obviously do not support the firing of rockets indiscriminately into civilian populations. I believe it is appalling that Palestinians are firing rockets that harm innocent Israelis, just as I believe it is appalling that Israel fires missiles into Palestinian areas where children and other non-combatants are killed and injured. Unfortunately, legislation such as this is more likely to perpetuate violence in the Middle East than contribute to its abatement. It is our continued involvement and intervention--particularly when it appears to be one-sided--that reduces the incentive for opposing sides to reach a lasting peace agreement. Additionally, this bill will continue the march toward war with Iran and Syria, as it contains provocative language targeting these countries. The legislation oversimplifies the Israel/Palestine conflict and the larger unrest in the Middle East by simply pointing the finger at Iran and Syria. This is another piece in a steady series of legislation passed in the House that intensifies enmity between the United States and Iran and Syria. My colleagues will recall that we saw a similar steady stream of provocative legislation against Iraq in the years before the U.S. attack on that country. I strongly believe that we must cease making proclamations involving conflicts that have nothing to do with the United States. We incur the wrath of those who feel slighted while doing very little to slow or stop the violence.