Ron Paul

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor H. George Resch, who passed away last week. George was a lifelong champion of liberty, sound money, and peace who played a key role in the development of the modern liberty movement. I was privileged to know George as a business associate and a friend. George was one of the liberty movement's leading experts on the dangers of government control of education. One of his most significant contributions to libertarian scholarship was an essay titled ``Human Variations and Individuality,'' published in the 1974 anthology The Twelve Year Sentence. In this essay, George convincingly challenged the popular idea that government must control education in order to ensure ``equality of opportunity.'' As George made clear, because all people differ in their abilities and interests, the only way the state can ensure ``equal opportunities'' is to prevent any student from excelling. As important as George's scholarship on educational freedom was, his main contribution to the liberty movement was his work supporting libertarian scholars--especially younger scholars, who often lacked opportunities available to their peers who were willing to promote statist academic orthodoxy. George began supporting promising libertarian scholars in the 1950s, when he met Professor F.A. ``Baldy'' Harper at Robert LeFevre's Freedom School. Harper immediately recognized George's qualities of mind and strong character, and eventually recruited George to work with the William Volker Fund. At the time, the Volker Fund was one of the few organizations dedicated to the development and promotion of libertarian ideas. At the Volker Fund, George worked with many leading libertarians thinkers of the day to identify books and authors worthy of promotion and support. One of the people George worked with was Murray Rothbard, Ludwig von Mises' heir and the founder of the modern libertarian movement. George and Murray's friendship began when they discussed monopolies. George had heard that Rothbard was developing a theory of antitrust more ``radical'' than Mises', and wanted to learn more. The conversation resulted in a friendship that lasted until Murray passed away in 1995. In 1961, George helped Professor Harper create the Institute for Humane Studies (IHS). IHS's goal was to expand the Volker Fund's mission of promoting libertarian scholarship by identifying and supporting young people with the potential to become leading libertarian scholars. George played a major role in helping to sustain and grow IHS in its early years. In fact, it is not an exaggeration to say that Baldy Harper never would have gotten IHS off the ground without George's help. The thousands of young people who have been introduced to the ideas of liberty through IHS's programs, as well as those who received academic and career support from IHS, all owe a debt of gratitude to George Resch. In 1965, George helped his friends Murray Rothbard and Leonard Liggio publish Left and Right, a journal dedicated to preserving the ``Old Right's'' limited government and anti-imperialist ideals. As the title suggests, Left and Right also sought to create an alliance with the anti-imperialist and anti-corporatist elements found on the left. Left and Right was published until 1968. However, its influence is still felt today. The seeds that Rothbard, Liggio, and Resch planted are at last bearing fruit as a new left-right coalition has embraced the ideas Left and Right championed. This coalition of libertarians, liberals, and constitutional conservatives is working together to oppose militarism, protect civil liberties, end corporate welfare, and reduce the power of the Federal Reserve. George also had a successful private-sector career working with Burt Blumert at Camino Coins. Burt and George truly were kindred souls, both tireless promoters and supporters of the ideas of liberty. Burt and George made Camino one of the country's top coin businesses. George also worked with Burt at the Center for Libertarian Studies. The Center published the Journal of Libertarian Studies (among many other projects), the first academic journal devoted to the ideas of liberty. George also helped Burt and Lew Rockwell establish and develop Lewrockwell.com, the world's most-visited libertarian web site. When I left Congress in 1984, Burt and George assisted me in establishing Ron Paul Coins. I worked with Burt and George until I returned to Congress in 1996 and had to end my involvement in the company. Getting to know George was one of the most enjoyable aspects of working in the coin business. You could not ask for a better business partner or friend than George. He never treated anyone with anything less than complete respect. He had a wonderful understated sense of humor, and like our mutual friends Murray Rothbard and Burt Blumert, a Menckenesque appreciation of the absurdities of modern American politics. George also never lost his ability to spot potential young leaders or counsel, assist, and spend time talking to young people interested in advancing liberty. My Legislative Director, for example, benefited from George's advice and friendship. Mr. Speaker, George Resch's many friends in the liberty movement are deeply saddened by his passing. We are also grateful for all he did to build the liberty movement, and for the example he set for all of us who continue his work of advancing freedom.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose what will be the final National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) I will face as a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives. As many of my colleagues are aware, I have always voted against the NDAA regardless of what party controls the House. Far from simply providing an authorization for the money needed to defend this country, which I of course support, this authorization and its many predecessors have long been used to fuel militarization, enrich the military industrial complex, expand our empire overseas, and purchase military and other enormously expensive equipment that we do not need and in large part does not work anyway. They wrap all of this mess up in false patriotism, implying that Members who do not vote for these boondoggles do not love their country. The military industrial complex is a jigsaw puzzle of seemingly competing private companies; but they are in reality state-sponsored enterprises where well-connected lobbyists, usually after long and prosperous careers in the military or government, pressure Congress to fund pet projects regardless of whether we can afford them or whether they are needed to defend our country. This convenient arrangement is the welfare of the warfare state. Because of the false perception that we must pass this military spending authorization each year or our men and women in uniform will go hungry, Congress has over the years taken the opportunity to pack it with other items that would have been difficult to pass on their own. This is nothing new on Capitol Hill. In the last few years, however, this practice has taken a sinister turn. The now-infamous NDAA for fiscal year 2012, passed last year, granted the president the authority to indefinitely detain American citizens without charge, without access to an attorney, and without trial. It is difficult to imagine anything more un-American than this attack on our Constitutional protections. While we may not have yet seen the widespread use of this unspeakably evil measure, a wider application of this ``authority'' may only be a matter of time. Historically these kinds of measures have been used to bolster state power at the expense of unpopular scapegoats. The Jewish citizens of 1930s Germany knew all about this reprehensible practice. Lately the scapegoats have been mostly Muslims. Hundreds, perhaps many more, even Americans, have been held by the U.S. at Guantanamo and in other secret prisons around the world. But this can all change quickly, which makes it all the more dangerous. Maybe one day it will be Christians, gun-owners, homeschoolers, etc. That is why last year, along with Reps. Justin Amash, Walter Jones, and others, we attempted to simply remove the language from the NDAA (sec. 1021) that gave the president this unconstitutional authority. It was a simple, readable amendment. Others tried to thwart our straightforward efforts by crafting elaborately worded amendments that in practice did noting to protect us from this measure in the bill. Likewise this year there were a few celebrated but mostly meaningless attempts to address this issue. One such effort passed in the senate version of this bill. The conferees have simply cut it out. The will of Congress was thus ignored by a small group of Members and Senators named by House and Senate leadership. There are many other measures in this NDAA Conference Report to be concerned about. It continues to fund our disastrous wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and elsewhere for example. The Conference Report contains yet another round of doomed-to-fail new sanctions against Iran. These are acts of war against Iran without actually firing a shot. But this time the House and Senate conferees are going further than that. The report contains language that pushes the U.S. as close to an actual authorization for the use of force against Iran as we can get. The Report ``. . . asserts that the U.S. should be prepared to take all necessary measures, including military action if required, to prevent Iran from threatening the U.S., its allies, or Iran's neighbors with a nuclear weapon and reinforces the military option should it prove necessary.'' This kind of language just emboldens Iran's enemies in the region to engage in increasingly reckless behavior with the guarantee that the U.S. military will step in if they push it too far. That is an unwise move for everyone concerned. This Conference Report contains increased levels of foreign military aid, including an additional half-billion dollars in missile assistance to an already prosperous Israel and some $300 million to help an increasingly prosperous Russia control its chemical, nuclear, and biological weapons. And Russia does not even want the money! Overall, this authorization will give the president even more money for military activities next year than he requested. At a time when the news has been dominated by reports of our budget crisis, the ``fiscal cliff,'' and the ``need'' to increase taxes on Americans, Congress is foolishly spending even more on the military budget than the administration wants! I suppose that is what counts as a reduction in the language of Washington. I urge my colleagues to oppose this, and all future, reckless and dangerous military spending bills that are destroying our national security by destroying our economy.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask unanimous consent to enter ``Ronald Hamowy, R.I.P.'' by Stephen Cox of Liberty Unbound into the Congressional Record. The piece pays tribute to Ronald Hamowy, one of the libertarian movement's most gifted scholars, who passed away on September 8 of this year. As a student in New York, Ronald Hamowy attended the seminar of the great Austrian economist Ludwig Von Mises. While attending the Mises seminar, Hamowy become friends with a group of other young libertarian scholars. These young scholars banded together in the ``Circle Bastiat,'' named after the great 19th century French free-market economist. The Circle Bastiat served as a combination intellectual support group and social club for the handful of libertarian scholars studying, working, and living in New York City in the late forties and fifties. Members of the Circle Bastiat, whose leader was Mises' heir and founder of the modern libertarian movement Murray Rothbard, would go on to play key roles in developing and popularizing the ideas of liberty. In the 1960s, Hamowy studied under future Nobel Laureate F.A. Hayek at the University of Chicago's School of Social Thought. While at Chicago, Hamowy was one of the founders and editors of the New Individualist Review. This publication, which lasted from 1961-1968, featured contributions from almost every leading libertarian and conservative thinker of the time. In addition to helping edit the publication, Ronald Hamowy wrote several significant pieces for New Individualist Review. Of particular relevance to today is Hamowy's article on how conservative's support for a militaristic foreign policy was causing them to abandon their commitment to limited, constitutional government and individual liberty. I believe history has shown that Hamowy was correct to warn conservatives that allowing claims of ``national security'' to justify enormous intrusions into our economic and personal lives, would inevitably lead conservatives to abandon all pretense of supporting limited government. Hamowy was a lonely voice in the sixties. At that time most professed believers in free-markets supported an interventionist foreign policy, while most professed supporters of peace supported the welfare- regulatory state. In fact, the majority of support for the view that one should oppose both the warfare and the welfare state came from members of the Circle Bastiat and those influenced by their writings. Fortunately, a new generation of conservative activists has rediscovered the truths kept alive by thinkers like Hamowy and his Circle Bastiat colleagues regarding the link between free-markets, limited government, and a non-interventionist foreign policy. From 1969 to 1998, Ronald Hamowy was a professor of intellectual history at the University of Alberta. During this time, he was also associated with a number of free-market institutions, including the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, the CATO Institute, and the Independent Institute. During the early eighties, Ronald Hamowy edited CATO's magazine Inquiry and more recently he served as distinguished fellow of social thought at CATO. He also wrote many articles and monographs for the Frazer Institute, Canada's leading free-market think-tank. One of Ronald Hamowy's most significant contributions to the liberty movement was his work undermining the intellectual jurisdiction for the nonsensical and disastrous drug wars. Hamowy also produced important work concerned the dangers of allowing government to control health care. His interest, and expertise, in the dangers of government health care should come as no surprise. After all, here was a leading liberation scholar, a student of Mises and Hayek and a close friend of Rothbard's, living with Canadian socialized medicine. Hamowy thus combined his knowledge of Austrian economics and libertarian politician theory with his own observations on the failures of the Canadian system. Those looking for intellectual ammunition in the fight to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and replace it with true free-market health care policies certainly can benefit from reading Haymow's work on the subject, such as his 2007 book Government and Public Health in America and his 1984 book Canadian Medicine: a Study in Restricted Entry. Ronald Hamowy will be missed by his many friends in the liberty movement. Fortunately, he leaves behind a substantial body of work promoting the ideas of liberty that can benefit future scholars and activists interested in advancing liberty. [From Liberty, Sept. 9, 2012] Ronald Hamowy, R.I.P. (By Stephen Cox) Ronald Hamowy, who honored Liberty by becoming one of its Contributing Editors, died at 11:30 a.m. on September 8, in a hospital in Baltimore. The final cause of death was sepsis. Ronald had suffered for years from heart and kidney problems, and he had been hospitalized for several months. He was one of the libertarian movement's most important and vital scholars. An historian of the 18th century, he was known for his impeccable standards of research and writing. To discerning researchers of the Enlightenment--left, right, or center--his word was law. If there was a scholarly myth or illusion, he was the one who was trusted to puncture it. He was the person who meticulously set things straight. Many times, when I have mentioned his name in an academic conversation, the reply has been, ``Ronald Hamowy! You know him?!'' For libertarians, Ronald will always be recognized as a bright star of the post-World War II generation--but unlike many other grand old men of this or that era, he never became a Grand Old Man. He retained to the end his youthful joy and sense of first discovery. To him, any new fact--or any old movie, viewed on his constant friend, Turner Classics--was a pleasure to be greeted as if it were the first one in the universe. Even when ensconced as chairman of an august intellectual conference, Ronald let his eyes sparkle and his mouth crinkle with laughter, and with some little Count Basie-like verbal gesture he set the whole house laughing with his infectious wit. Ronald was born in 1937, in Shanghai, China, the scion of a cosmopolitan Jewish family. His father was born in Syria; his beautiful and beloved mother in Egypt. He grew up in New York, where he supported himself with a number of jobs (one of them was running the streets, selling pop records). During his graduate work at the University of Chicago, he co-edited (with Ralph Raico) the New Individualist Review, a lively, beautifully produced libertarian intellectual journal. If you read it today, you will be sure to enjoy every word of it. Liberty--this journal--was consciously modeled on the American Mercury and the New Individualist Review. The most important thing was Ronald's ability to distinguish pseudo-individualism from the real thing. Nothing could be too real for him. Ronald's advisor at Chicago was Fredrich Hayek, but Hayek contributed little to Ronald's studies. Hayek was above it all. Ronald was on his own, as students of Great Academics always are. His first dissertation topic required him to do research at the Bibliotheque National in Paris, where he found the research conditions impossible. Migrating to Oxford, which had resources adequate to another topic in which he was interested, he needed the sponsorship of some Oxford academic, to get permission to exploit the library. He approached Sir Isaiah Berlin, who rebuffed him. Berlin was ``taking no more students.'' Ronald, who was only half as tall as other people, looked up at the great Sir Isaiah. ``Listen,'' he said. ``I'm very smart. I'm very hard-working. And I'm funny.'' All that was true. Sir Isaiah looked down at the small student in front of him, laughed, and said, ``All right.'' Ronald was hard to resist. And he knew it. But he was one of the funniest people I've ever known. If Ronald couldn't make you laugh, you really weren't worth the effort. And his wit was always . . . intellectually understood. No vulgarity. No easy laughs. Nothing but fun. But not coy, either. One person who resisted Ronald was Ayn Rand. As one of the young libertarians (Ronald's friend Murray Rothbard was another) who were invited to her apartment for intellectual discussions, he was cast into oblivion after a difference of opinion about . . . Rachmaninoff. Guests were asked to say who their favorite composers were, and when Rand's turn came, she said ``Rachmaninoff,'' with specific reference to his second piano concerto. ``Why?'' Ronald asked. ``Because he was the most rational,'' Rand responded. At which Ronald laughed, thinking it must be a joke. He knew that the composer had dedicated that concerto to his psychiatrist--and anyway, rationality had nothing to do with its greatness. But Ronald's laughter resulted in exile, and the loss of friends who were dear to him. Ronald was a professor in the Department of History at the University of Alberta from 1969 until his retirement in 1998, at which time he immediately moved back to the United States. He detested conformist cultures, and he regarded both his department and, it is fair to say, Canada itself as epitomes of conformism. I once asked him what was wrong with Canada, and he said, ``I'll tell you. If you walk into a store in Canada, and you find a customer having a dispute with a sales clerk, 90% of the other customers will immediately side with the clerk. That person is regarded as an official, and therefore the one to obey.'' He attributed this defect of Canadian culture in large part to the migration to Canada of people opposed to the American Revolution. They set the tone. Ronald himself was always a revolutionary. He was outraged by any offense to individualism, so much so that he engaged in a ferocious online conflict with other gay libertarians, who regarded the move Braveheart as a tribute to the heroic individual. Ronald pointed out that the move was historically ridiculous and anti-homosexual to boot. He argued, convincingly, that works of art really do need to be judged by their fidelity to historical truth, whenever they recommend themselves as historically true. But the most important thing was Ronald's ability to distinguish pseudo- individualism from the real thing. Nothing could be too real for him. One day, when he and I were discussing various versions of libertarian thought, I asked him where he stood, and he replied (knowing I would not sympathize entirely), ``Basically, I agree with Murray''--meaning with Murray Rothbard's very radical libertarianism. I believe that the antiwar strain of libertarian thought was important for Ronald. I remember accompanying him, when he visited San Diego, to the Adams Avenue (used) Bookstore (where else would you entertain Ronald Hamowy?). While browsing the stacks, I heard a voice muttering curses, somewhere else in the establishment. I found Ronald in a side room, seated amid stacks of books he was examining, and holding a copy of Barbara Tuchman's The Guns of August in his hand. Tuchman justified British intervention in World War I. ``Damned British crap,'' Ronald exclaimed, putting the book down as if he were giving long-overdue punishment to a whole school of thought. Which he was. His life demonstrated that we libertarians are right: the individual, complex and whole, is the mysterious and unending source of all that is vital in our world. Ronald's works include The Scottish Enlightenment and the Theory of Spontaneous Order (University of Southern Illinois Press, 1987), Canadian Medicine: A Study in Restricted Entry (Fraser Institute, 1984), Dealing with Drugs: Consequences of Government Control (edited, Lexington Books, 1987), Government and Public Health in America (Edward Elgar, 2007), The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism (edited, Sage Publications, 2008), and many articles, including one that was especially valuable for Liberty, on the intellectual argument about the American Revolution (Liberty, July 2008, pp. 37-42). After his retirement, Ronald and his companion Clement Ho moved into a pretty, three-story house in the Washington suburb of Rockville, MD. There Ronald completed his magisterial edition of Hayek's The Constitution of Liberty (University of Chicago Press, 2011), which straightens out a great deal that Hayek left, shall we say, unstraightened. Ronald was already in poor health, requiring the use of a cane and, eventually, one of those personal elevators that take you from the first floor of your house to another floor. He had countless near-death experiences--frequently being rushed to the hospital, with only a half hour available to save his life. Yet he bravely undertook a long journey to Greece and Italy, which he enjoyed, and he lived with equivalent bravery from day to day. To see Ronald sitting at his desk, surrounded with computer wires, like a snake- charmer among his clients, watching his computer with one eye and Cary Grant (Turner Classics, again) with the other, was to imagine a cultural world that was, for once, under intelligent control. Ronald was a combination of supposed opposites. He was a fiery combatant, yet a generous and lenient friend. He was sensitive and nostalgic, often to the point of tears, yet an unflinching judge of the written word. He struggled, year after year, against the uncountable illnesses that racked his body; yet he was always as valiant as a soldier undertaking his first combat mission. But there was no contradiction. His life demonstrated that we libertarians are right: the individual, complex and whole, is the mysterious and unending source of all that is vital in our world. Ronald is survived by his friend Clement Ho, who was with him every step of the way. Anyone wishing to contact him is invited to do so, at cho@american.edu.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to strongly oppose this legislation. Unfortunately, Congress has ruined an opportunity to overturn an anachronistic impediment to free trade with Russia by attaching to it an interventionist and provocative ``human rights'' bill that will worsen U.S./Russia relations. With Russia's recent accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO) Congress is obligated to repeal the ``Jackson-Vanik Amendment,'' a 1974 era piece of legislation that sought to condition normal trade relations with the Soviet Union (which no longer exists) upon liberalization of emigration rules for Soviet Jews. WTO members are obliged to eliminate trade barriers with other members. So the repeal and extension of normal trade relations simply should have been a formality. Unfortunately Congress instead took this as an opportunity to meddle in the internal affairs of Russia, which will worsen US/ Russian relations and have a negative economic impact on the United States. By attaching the so-called ``Magnitsky'' bill to the Jackson-Vanik repeal, Congress will direct the State Department to draw up a list of Russians it believes are responsible for human rights abuses. These people will be denied entry into the United States and have their assets seized by the U.S. government. The implications of this reckless move are stunning. What is even more dangerous is that the bill directs the U.S. government to also consider ``evidence'' provided by international non- governmental organizations when it determines who should be sanctioned by the U.S. government. Non-governmental organizations are not legal tribunals, and in fact many are politically-motivated pressure groups. Many are funded by governments or political parties and in exchange do their bidding. This ironically reminds one of the ``people's tribunals'' set up under the Soviet system, where evidence was considered irrelevant. These sanctions in this bill against individuals are the economic equivalent of President Obama's ``kill list.'' Individuals will be placed on this list under dubious and ill-defined criteria, without due process or sound evidentiary requirements. If this bill becomes law, we should expect a response from Russia and perhaps other of our trading partners--particularly as many of our colleagues have suggested that the Magnitsky bill should serve as a model for our relations with the rest of the world. We might imagine the Russians or the Chinese passing similar legislation, banning Americans from entry and seizing the assets of Americans allegedly involved in ``human rights violations.'' What if they considered the U.S. bombing of Libya, which resulted in the death of thousands of civilians from NATO bombs, such a violation? If Congress really is concerned about the human rights of prisoners, perhaps they might take a look at the terrible treatment of U.S. Army Private Bradley Manning while incarcerated and awaiting trial. Last year Amnesty International wrote to then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates that Manning's ``inhumane'' treatment while in custody ``undermines the United States' commitment to the principle of the presumption of innocence.'' Congress remains silent. In reality, this bill is about politics more than human rights. Listening to the debate it is obvious that many supporters of this legislation simply do not like the democratic choices that the Russian people made in recent elections. Therefore they do what they can to undermine the Russian government and encourage ``regime change.'' Again, how would we react? I encourage my colleagues to join me in opposing this legislation in its current form and to push for a bill that simply extends normal trade relations with Russia without meddling or provoking. When it comes to human rights, the United States should most definitely lead the world by its own example. On that measure, we still have a lot of work to do.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, this may be the last time I speak on the House floor. At the end of the year, I'll leave Congress after 23 years in office over a 36-year period. My goals in 1976 were the same as they are today: promote peace and prosperity by a strict adherence to the principles of individual liberty. It was my opinion that the course that the U.S. embarked on in the latter part of the 20th century would bring us a major financial crisis and engulf us in a foreign policy that would overextend us and undermine our national security. To achieve these goals I sought, the government would have had to shrink in size and scope, reduce spending, change the monetary system, and reject the unsustainable cost of policing the world and expanding the American Empire. The problems seemed to be overwhelming and impossible to solve, yet from my viewpoint, just following the constraints placed on the Federal Government by the Constitution would have been a good place to start. Just how much did I accomplish? In many ways, according to conventional wisdom, my off-and-on career in Congress from 1976 to 2012 accomplished very little--no named legislation, no named Federal buildings or highways, thank goodness. In spite of my efforts, the government has grown exponentially, taxes remain excessive, and the prolific increase of incomprehensible regulations continues. Wars are constant and pursued without congressional declaration, deficits rise to the sky, poverty is rampant, and dependency on the Federal Government is now worse than any time in our history. All this, with minimal concerns for the deficits and unfunded liabilities that common sense tells us cannot go on much longer. A grand, but never mentioned, bipartisan agreement allows for the well-kept secret that keeps the spending going. One side doesn't give up one penny on military spending, the other side doesn't give up one penny on welfare spending, while both sides support the bailouts and the subsidies for the banking and the corporate elite. And the spending continues as the economy weakens and the downward spiral continues. As the government continues fiddling around, our liberties and our wealth burn in the flames of a foreign policy that makes us less safe. The major stumbling block to real change in Washington is the total resistance to admitting that the country is broke. This has made compromising just to agree to increased spending inevitable since neither side has any intention on cutting spending. The country and the Congress will remain divisive since there's no loot left to divvy up. Without this recognition, the spenders in Washington will continue to march toward a fiscal cliff much bigger than the one anticipated this coming January. I've thought a lot about why those of us who believe in liberty as a solution have done so poorly in convincing others of its benefits. If liberty is what we claim it is--the principle that protects all personal, social, and economic decisions necessary for maximum prosperity and the best chance for peace--it should be an easy sell. Yet history has shown that the masses have been quite receptive to the promises of authoritarians which are rarely, if ever, fulfilled. Should we have authoritarianism or liberty? If authoritarianism leads to poverty and war and less freedom for all individuals and is controlled by rich special interests, the people should be begging for liberty. There certainly was a strong enough sentiment for more freedom at the time of our founding that motivated those who were willing to fight in the revolution against the powerful British Government. During my time in Congress, the appetite for liberty has been quite weak, the understanding of its significance negligible. Yet the good news is that, compared to 1976 when I first came to Congress, the desire for more freedom and less government in 2012 is much greater and growing, especially in grassroots America. Tens of thousands of teenagers and college-age students are, with great enthusiasm, welcoming the message of liberty. I have a few thoughts as to why the people of a country like ours, once the freest and most prosperous, allowed the conditions to deteriorate to the degree that they have. Freedom, private property, and enforceable voluntary contracts generate wealth. In our early history we were very much aware of this. But in the early part of the 20th century, our politicians promoted the notion that the tax and monetary system had to change if we were to involve ourselves in excessive domestic and military spending. That is why Congress gave us the Federal Reserve and the income tax. The majority of Americans and many government officials agree that sacrificing some liberty was necessary to carry out what some claim to be ``progressive'' ideas. Pure democracy became acceptable. They failed to recognize that what they were doing was exactly opposite of what the colonists were seeking when they broke away from the British. Some complain that my arguments make no sense, since great wealth and the standard of living improved for many Americans over the last hundred years, even with these new policies. But the damage to the market economy and the currency has been insidious and steady. It took a long time to consume our wealth, destroy the currency, undermine productivity, and get our financial obligations to a point of no return. Confidence sometimes lasts longer than deserved. Most of our wealth today depends on debt. The wealth that we enjoyed and seemed to be endless allowed concern for the principle of a free society to be neglected. As long as most people believed the material abundance would last forever, worrying about protecting a competitive, productive economy and individual liberty seemed unnecessary. The Age of Redistribution. This neglect ushered in an age of redistribution of wealth by government kowtowing to any and all special interests, except for those who just wanted to be left alone. That is why today money in politics far surpasses money currently going into research and development and productive entrepreneurial efforts. The material benefits became more important than the understanding and promoting the principles of liberty and a free market. It is good that material abundance is a result of liberty, but if materialism is all that we care about, problems are guaranteed. The crisis arrived because the illusion that wealth and prosperity would last forever has ended. Since it was based on debt and a pretense that debt can be papered over by an out-of-control fiat monetary system, it was doomed to fail. We have ended up with a system that doesn't produce enough even to finance the debt and no fundamental understanding of why a free society is crucial to reversing these trends. If this is not recognized, the recovery will linger for a long time. Bigger government, more spending, more debt, more poverty for the middle class, and a more intense scramble by the elite special interests will continue. We need an intellectual awakening. Without an intellectual awakening, the turning point will be driven by economic law. A dollar crisis will bring the current out-of-control system to its knees. If it's not accepted that Big Government, fiat money, ignoring liberty, central economic planning, welfarism, and warfareism caused our crisis, we can expect a continuous and dangerous march toward corporatism and even fascism with even more loss of our liberties. Prosperity for a large middle class, though, will become an abstract dream. This continuous move is no different than what we have seen in how our financial crisis of 2008 was handled. Congress first directed, with bipartisan support, bailouts for the wealthy. Then it was the Federal Reserve with its endless quantitative easing. If at first it doesn't succeed, try again; QE-1, QE-2, QE-3, and with no results we try QE indefinitely--that is, until it, too, fails. There is a cost to all of this, and let me assure you that delaying the payment is no longer an option. The rules of the market will extract its pound of flesh, and it won't be pretty. The current crisis elicits a lot of pessimism, and the pessimism adds to less confidence in the future. The two feed on themselves, making our situation worse. If the underlying cause of the crisis is not understood, we cannot solve our problems. The issue of warfare and welfare, deficits, inflationism and corporatism, bailouts and authoritarianism cannot be ignored. By only expanding these policies, we cannot expect good results. Everyone claims support for freedom, but too often it's for one's own freedoms and not for others. Too many believe that there must be limits on freedom. They argue that freedom must be directed and managed to achieve fairness and equality, thus making it acceptable to curtail, through force, certain liberties. Some decide what and whose freedoms are to be limited. These are the politicians whose goal in life is power. Their success depends on gaining support from special interests. We don't need more ``isms.'' The great news is the answer is not to be found in more isms. The answers are to be found in more liberty, which costs so much less. Under these circumstances, spending goes down, wealth production goes up, and the quality of life improves. Just this recognition, especially if we move in this direction, increases optimism, which, in itself, is beneficial. The follow-through with sound policies is required, which must be understood and supported by the people. But there is good evidence that the generation coming of age at the present time is supportive of moving in the direction of more liberty and self-reliance. The more this change and direction and the solutions become known, the quicker will be our return to optimism. Our job, for those of us who believe that a different system than the one we have had for the last hundred years has driven us to this unsustainable crisis, is to be more convincing that there is a wonderful, uncomplicated and moral system that provides the answers. We had a taste of it in our early history. We need not give up on the notion of advancing this cause. It worked, but we allowed our leaders to concentrate on the material abundance that freedom generates, while ignoring freedom itself. Now we have neither; but the door is open, out of necessity, for an answer. The answer available is based on the Constitution, individual liberty, and prohibiting the use of government force to provide privileges and benefits to all special interests. After over 100 years, we face a society quite different from the one that was intended by the Founders. In many ways, their efforts to protect future generations with the Constitution from this danger have failed. Skeptics at the time the Constitution was written in 1787 warned us of today's possible outcome. The insidious nature of the erosion of our liberties and the reassurance our great abundance gave us allowed the process to evolve into the dangerous period in which we now live. Today we face a dependency on government largesse for almost every need. Our liberties are restricted and government operates outside the rule of law, protecting and rewarding those who buy or coerce government into satisfying their demands. Here are a few examples: undeclared wars are commonplace. Welfare for the rich and poor is considered an entitlement. The economy is over- regulated, overtaxed, and grossly distorted by a deeply flawed monetary system. Debt is growing exponentially. The PATRIOT Act and FISA legislation, passed without much debate, have resulted in a steady erosion of our Fourth Amendment rights. Tragically our government engages in preemptive war, otherwise known as aggression, with no complaints from the American people. The drone warfare we are pursuing worldwide is destined to end badly for us, as the hatred builds for innocent lives lost and the international laws flaunted. Once we are financially weakened and militarily challenged, there will be a lot of resentment thrown our way. It's now the law of the land that the military can arrest American citizens, hold them indefinitely without charges or a trial. Rampant hostility toward free trade is supported by a large number in Washington. Supporters of sanctions, currency manipulation, and WTO trade retaliation call the true free-traders isolationists. Sanctions are used to punish countries that don't follow our orders. Bailouts and guarantees of all kinds of misbehavior are routine. Central economic planning through monetary policy regulations and legislative mandates has been acceptable policy. I have a few questions. Excessive government has created such a mess, it prompts many questions. Why are sick people who use medical marijuana put in prison? Why does the Federal Government restrict the drinking of raw milk? Why can't American manufacturers manufacture rope and other products from hemp? Why are Americans not allowed to use gold and silver as legal tender, as mandated by the Constitution? Why is Germany concerned enough to consider repatriating their gold held by the Fed for her in New York? Is it that the trust in the U.S. and dollar supremacy are beginning to wane? Why do our political leaders believe it's unnecessary to thoroughly audit our own gold? Why can't Americans decide which type of light bulbs they can buy? Why is the TSA permitted to abuse the rights of any American traveling by air? Why should there be mandatory sentences, even up to life for crimes without victims, as our drug laws require? Why have we allowed the Federal Government to regulate commodes in our homes? Why is it political suicide for anyone to criticize APAC? Why haven't we given up on the drug war, since it's an obvious failure and violates the people's rights? Has nobody noticed that the authorities can't even keep drugs out of the prisons? How can making our entire society a prison solve the problem? Why do we sacrifice so much getting unnecessarily involved in border disputes and civil strife around the world, and ignore the root cause of the most dangerous deadly border in the world, the one between Mexico and the United States? Why does Congress willingly give up its prerogatives to the executive branch? Why has changing the party in power never changed policy? Could it be that the views of both parties are essentially the same? Why did the big banks, the large corporations, and foreign central banks get bailed out in 2008, and the middle class lost their jobs and their homes? Why do so many in the government and the Federal officials believe that creating money out of thin air creates wealth? Why do so many accept the deeply flawed principle that government bureaucrats and politicians can protect us from ourselves without totally destroying the principle of liberty? Why can't people understand that war always destroys wealth and liberty? Why is there so little concern for the executive order that gives the President authority to establish a kill list, including American citizens, of those targeted for assassination? Why is patriotism thought to be blind loyalty to the government and the politicians who run it, rather than loyalty to the principles of liberty and support for the people? Real patriotism is a willingness to challenge the government when it's wrong. Why is it claimed that if people won't or can't take care of their own needs, that people and government are able to do it for them? Why did we ever give the government a safe haven for initiating violence against the people? Why do so many Members defend free markets, but not civil liberties? Why do so many Members defend civil liberties, but not free markets? Aren't they the same? Why don't more defend both economic liberty and personal liberty? Why are there not more individuals who seek to intellectually influence others to bring about positive changes, than those who seek power to force others to obey their commands? Why does the use of religion to support a social gospel and preemptive wars, both of which require authoritarians to use violence or the threat of violence, go unchallenged? Aggression and forced redistribution of wealth has nothing to do with the teachings of the world's great religions. Why do we allow the government and the Federal Reserve to disseminate false information dealing with both economic and foreign policy? Why is democracy held in such high esteem, when it's the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? Why should anyone be surprised that Congress has no credibility since there is such a disconnect between what politicians say and what they do? Is there any explanation for all the deception, the unhappiness, the fear of the future, the loss of confidence in our leaders, the distrust and the anger and frustration? Yes, there is. And there's a way to reverse these attitudes. The negative perceptions are logical and a consequence of bad policies bringing about our problems. Identification of the problems and recognizing the cause allow the proper changes to come easily. We should have more trust in ourselves, less in the government. Too many people have, for far too long, placed too much confidence and trust in government and not enough in themselves. Fortunately, many are now becoming aware of the seriousness of the gross mistakes of the past several decades. The blame is shared by both political parties. Many Americans now are demanding to hear the plain truth of things and want the demagoguing to stop. Without this first step, solutions are impossible. Seeking the truth and finding the answers in liberty and self-reliance promote the optimism necessary for restoring prosperity. The task is not that difficult if politics doesn't get in the way. We have allowed ourselves to get into such a mess for various reasons. Politicians deceive themselves as to how wealth is produced. Excessive confidence is placed in the judgment of politicians and bureaucrats. This replaces the confidence in a free society. Too many in high places of authority became convinced that only they, armed with arbitrary government power, could bring about fairness, while facilitating wealth production. This always proves to be a utopian dream and destroys wealth and liberty. It impoverishes the people, and it rewards the special interests, who end up controlling both parties. It's no surprise that much of what goes on in Washington is driven by aggressive partisanship and power-seeking, with philosophical differences being minor. Economic ignorance is commonplace. Keynesianism continues to thrive; although, today, it is facing healthy and enthusiastic rebuttals. Believers in military Keynesianism and domestic Keynesianism continue to desperately promote their failed policies as the economy languishes in a deep slumber. Supporters of all government edicts use humanitarian arguments to justify them. Humanitarian arguments are always used to justify government mandates related to the economy, monetary policy, foreign policy, and personal liberty. This is on purpose to make it more difficult to challenge, but initiating violence for humanitarian reasons is still violence. Good intentions are no excuse and are just as harmful as when the people use force with bad intentions. The results are always negative. The immoral use of force is the source of man's political problems. Sadly, many religious groups, secular organizations, and psychopathic authoritarians endorse government- initiated force to change the world. Even when the desired goals are well intentioned--or especially when they are well intentioned--the results are dismal. The good results sought never materialize. The new problems created require even more government force as a solution. The net result is institutionalizing government-initiated violence and morally justifying it on humanitarian grounds. This is the same fundamental reason our government uses force for invading other countries at will, central economic planning at home and the regulation of personal liberty and habits of our citizens. It is rather strange that, unless one has a criminal mind and no respect for other people and their property, no one claims it's permissible to go into one's neighbor's house and tell him how to behave, what he can eat, smoke, and drink, or how to spend his money. Yet rarely is it asked, Why is it morally acceptable that a stranger with a badge and a gun can do the same thing in the name of law and order? Any resistance is met with brute force, fines, taxes, arrests, and even imprisonment. This is done more frequently every day without a search warrant. No government monopoly over initiating violence is what we need. Restraining aggressive behavior is one thing, but legalizing a government monopoly for initiating aggression can only lead to exhausting liberty associated with chaos, anger, and the breakdown of civil society. Permitting such authority and expecting saintly behavior from the bureaucrats and the politicians is a pipe dream. We now have a standing army of armed bureaucrats in the TSA, CIA, FBI, Fish and Wildlife, FEMA, IRS, Corps of Engineers, et cetera--numbering over 100,000. Citizens are guilty until proven innocent in the unconstitutional administrative courts. Government in a free society should have no authority to meddle in the social activities or in the economic transactions of individuals; nor should government meddle in the affairs of other nations. All things peaceful, even when controversial, should be permitted. We must reject the notion of prior restraint in economic activity just as we do in the area of free speech and religious liberty. But even in these areas, government is starting to use a backdoor approach of political correctness to regulate speech--a very dangerous trend. Since 9/11, monitoring speech on the Internet is now a problem since warrants are no longer required. The proliferation of Federal crimes: the Constitution established four Federal crimes. Today, the experts can't even agree on how many Federal crimes are now on the books. They number into the thousands. No one person can comprehend the enormity of the legal system, especially of the Tax Code. Due to the ill-advised drug war and the endless Federal expansion of the Criminal Code, we have over 6 million people under correctional suspension--more than the Soviets ever had and more than any other nation today, including China. I don't understand the complacency of the Congress and the willingness to continue their obsession with passing more Federal laws. Mandatory sentencing laws associated with drug laws have compounded our prison problems. The Federal Register is now 75,000 pages long. The Tax Code has 72,000 pages, and it expands every year. When will the people start shouting enough is enough and demand Congress to cease and desist? What we should be doing is achieving liberty. Liberty can only be achieved when government is denied the aggressive use of force. If one seeks liberty, a precise type of government is needed. To achieve it, more than lip service is required. There are two choices available: One, a government designed to protect liberty--a natural right--as its sole objective. The people are expected to care for themselves and reject the use of any force for interfering with another person's liberty. Government is given a strictly limited authority to enforce contracts, property ownership, settle disputes, and to defend against foreign aggression; Two, a government that pretends to protect liberty but is granted power to arbitrarily use force over the people and foreign nations. Though the grant of power many times is meant to be small and limited, it inevitably metastasizes into an omnipotent political cancer. This is the problem the world has suffered throughout the ages. Though meant to be limited, it nevertheless is a 100 percent sacrifice of the principle that would-be tyrants find irresistible. It is used vigorously--though incrementally and insidiously. Granting power to government officials always proves the adage that power corrupts. Once government gets a limited concession for the use of force to mold people's habits and plan the economy, it causes a steady erosion and a steady move toward tyrannical government. Only a revolutionary spirit can reverse the process and deny the government this arbitrary use of aggression. There is no in-between. Sacrificing a little liberty for imaginary safety always ends badly. Today's mess is the result of American's accepting option number two, even though the Founders attempted to give us option number one. The results are not good. As our liberties have been eroded, our wealth has been consumed. The wealth we see today is based on debt and a foolish willingness on the part of foreigners to take our dollars for goods and services. Then they loan them back to us to perpetuate our debt system. It's amazing that it has worked for this long, but the impasse in Washington in solving our problems indicates that many are starting to understand the seriousness of this worldwide debt crisis and the dangers we face. The longer this process continues, the harsher the outcome will be. The financial crisis is actually a moral crisis. Many are acknowledging that a financial crisis looms; but few understand it is, in reality, a moral crisis. It's the moral crisis that has allowed our liberties to be undermined and that has permitted the exponential growth of illegal government power. Without a clear understanding of the nature of the crisis, it will be difficult to prevent a steady march toward tyranny and the poverty that will accompany it. Ultimately, the people have to decide which form of government they want--option number one or option number two. There is no other choice. Claiming there is a choice of a little tyranny is like describing pregnancy as a touch of pregnancy. It is a myth to believe that a mixture of free markets and government central economic planning is a worthy compromise. What we see today is a result of that type of thinking, and the results speak for themselves. A culture of violence. Americans now suffer from a culture of violence. It is easy to reject the initiation of violence against one's neighbor, but it's ironic that the people arbitrarily and freely anoint government officials with monopoly power to initiate violence against the American people, practically at will. Because it's the government that initiates force, most people accept it as being legitimate. Those who exert the force have no sense of guilt. It is believed by too many that governments are morally justified in initiating violence, supposedly to do good. They incorrectly believe that this authority has come from the consent of the people. The minority, victims of government violence, never consented to suffer the abuse of government mandates, even when dictated by the majority. Victims of TSA excesses never consented to this abuse. This attitude has given us a policy of initiating war to do good, as well. It is claimed that war to prevent war for noble purposes is justified. This is similar to what we were once told that ``destroying a village to save a village'' was justified. It was said by a U.S. Secretary of State that the loss of 500,000 Iraqis, mostly children, in the 1990s as a result of American bombs and sanctions was worth it to achieve the good we brought to the people of Iraq. Look at the mess Iraq is in today. Government use of force to mold social and economic behavior at home and abroad has justified individuals using force on their own terms. The fact that violence by government is seen as morally justified is the reason why violence will increase when the big financial crisis hits and becomes a political crisis, as well. First, we recognize that individuals shouldn't initiate violence, then we give the authority to the government. Eventually, the immoral use of government violence, when things go badly, will be used to justify an individual's right to do the same thing. Neither the government nor individuals have the moral right to initiate violence against another, yet we are moving toward the day when both will claim this authority. If this cycle is not reversed, society will break down. When needs are oppressing and conditions deteriorate and rights become relative to the demands and the whims of the majority, it is then not a great leap for individuals to take it upon themselves to use violence to get what they claim is theirs. As the economy deteriorates and the discrepancy of wealth increases, as they already are occurring, violence increases as those in need take it in their own hands to get what they believe is theirs. They will not wait for a government rescue program. When government officials wield power over others to bail out the special interests, even with disastrous results to the average citizens, they feel no guilt for the harm they do. Those who take us into undeclared wars with many casualties resulting never lose sleep over the deaths and the destruction their bad decisions cause. They are convinced that what we do is morally justified, and the fact that many suffered just can't be helped. When the street criminals do the same thing, they, too, have no remorse, believing that they are only taking what is rightfully theirs. All moral standards become relative, whether it is bailouts, privileges, government subsidies, or benefits for some from inflating a currency. It's all part of a process justified by a philosophy of forced redistribution of wealth. Violence, or a threat of such, is the instrument required and, unfortunately, is of little concern of most Members of Congress. Some argue it is only a matter of fairness that those in need are cared for. There are two problems with this: First, the principle is used to provide a greater amount of benefits to the rich than to the poor; Second, no one seems to be concerned about whether or not it's fair to those who end up paying for all the benefits. The costs are usually placed on the backs of the middle class and are hidden from the public eye. Too many people believe government handouts are free, like printing money out of thin air, and there's no cost. That deception is coming to an end. The bills are coming due, and that's what the economic slowdown is all about. Sadly, we have become accustomed to living with the illegitimate use of force by government. It is the tool for telling the people how to live, what to eat and drink, what to read, and how to spend their money. To develop a truly free society, the issue of initiating force must be understood and rejected. Granting to government even a small amount of force is a dangerous concession. Limiting government excesses vs. a virtuous moral people. Our Constitution, which was intended to limit government power and abuse, has failed. The Founders warned that a free society depends on a virtuous and moral people. The current crisis reflects that their concerns were justified. Many politicians and pundits are aware of the problems we face but spend all their time in trying to reform government. The sad part is that the suggested reforms almost always lead to less freedom, and the importance of a virtuous and moral people is either ignored or not understood. The new reforms serve only to further undermine liberty. The compounding effect has given us this steady erosion of liberty and the massive expansion of debt. The real question is: If it is liberty we seek, should most of the emphasis be placed on government reform or trying to understand what a virtuous and moral people means and how to promote it? The Constitution has not prevented the people from demanding handouts for both rich and poor in their efforts to reform the government, while ignoring the principles of a free society. All branches of our government today are controlled by individuals who use their power to undermine liberty and enhance the welfare/warfare state, and frequently their own wealth and power. If the people are unhappy with the government performance, it must be recognized that government is merely a reflection of an immoral society that rejected a moral government of constitutional limits on power and love of freedom. If this is the problem, all the tinkering with thousands of pages of new laws and regulations will do nothing to solve the problem. It is self-evident that our freedoms have been severely limited and the apparent prosperity we still have is nothing more than leftover wealth from a previous time. This fictitious wealth based on debt and benefits from a false trust in our currency and credit will play havoc with our society when the bills come due. This means that the full consequence of our lost liberties is yet to be felt. But that illusion is now ending. Reversing a downward spiral depends on accepting a new approach. Expect the rapidly expanding home-schooling movement to play a significant role in the revolutionary reforms needed to rebuild a free society with constitutional protections. We cannot expect a Federal Government-controlled school system to provide the intellectual ammunition to combat the dangerous growth of government that threatens our liberties. The Internet will provide the alternative to the government media complex that controls the news and most political propaganda. This is why it's essential that the Internet remains free of government regulation. Many of our religious institutions and secular organizations support greater dependency on the state by supporting war, welfare, and corporatism and ignore the need for a virtuous people. I never believed that the world or our country could be made more free by politicians if the people had no desire for freedom. Under the current circumstances, the most we can hope to achieve in the political process is to use it as a podium to reach the people to alert them of the nature of the crisis and the importance of their need to assume responsibility for themselves, if it is liberty that they truly seek. Without this, a constitutionally protected free society is impossible. If this is true, our individual goal in life ought to be for us to seek virtue and excellence and recognize that self-esteem and happiness only comes from using one's natural ability in the most productive manner possible according to one's own talents. Productivity and creativity are the true source of personal satisfaction. Freedom, and not dependency, provides the environment needed to achieve these goals. Government cannot do this for us. It only gets in the way. When the government gets involved, the goal becomes a bailout or a subsidy, and these cannot provide a sense of personal achievement. Achieving legislative power and political influence should not be our goal. Most of the change that is to come will not come from the politicians but, rather, from individuals, family, friends, intellectual leaders, and our religious institutions. The solution can only come from rejecting the use of coercion, compulsion, government commands, and aggressive force to mold social and economic behavior. Without accepting these restraints, inevitably, the consensus will be to allow the government to mandate economic equality and obedience to the politicians who gained power and promote an environment that smothers the freedoms of everyone. It is then that the responsible individuals who seek excellence and self-esteem by being self-reliant and productive become the victims. In conclusion, what are the greatest dangers that the American people face today and impede the goal of a free society? There are five. The continuous attack on our civil liberties which threatens the rule of law and our ability to resist the rush of tyranny. Number two: violent anti-Americanism that has engulfed the world. Because the phenomenon of ``blow-back'' is not understood or denied, our foreign policy is destined to keep us involved in many wars that we have no business being in. National bankruptcy and a greater threat to our national security will result. Number three: the ease in which we go to war, without a declaration by Congress, but accepting international authority from the U.N. or NATO even for preemptive wars, otherwise known as aggression. Number four: a financial political crisis as a consequence of excessive debt, unfunded liabilities, spending, bailouts, and gross discrepancy in wealth distribution going from the middle class to the rich. The danger of central economic planning by the Federal Reserve must be understood. Number five: world government taking over local and U.S. sovereignty by getting involved in the issues of war, welfare, trade, banking, a world currency, taxes, property, and private ownership of guns must be addressed. Happily, there is an answer for these very dangerous trends. What a wonderful world it would be if everyone accepted the simple moral premise of rejecting all acts of aggression. The retort to such a suggestion is always: it's too simplistic, too idealistic, impractical, naive, utopian, dangerous, and unrealistic to strive for such an ideal. The answer to that is that for thousands of years the acceptance of government force, to rule over the people, at the sacrifice of liberty, was considered moral and the only available option for achieving peace and prosperity. What can be more utopian than that myth--considering the results, especially looking at the state-sponsored killing by nearly every government during the 20th century, estimated to be in the hundreds of millions of people. It's time to reconsider this grant of authority to the state. No good has ever come from granting monopoly power to the state to use aggression against the people to arbitrarily mold human behavior. Such power, when left unchecked, becomes the seed of an ugly tyranny. This method of governance has been adequately tested, and the results are in: reality dictates we try liberty. The idealism of nonaggression and rejecting the offensive use of force should be tried. The idealism of government-sanctioned violence has been abused throughout history and is the primary source of poverty and war. The theory of a society being based on individual freedom has been around for a long time. It is time to take a bold step and actually permit it by advancing this cause, rather than taking a step backwards as some would like us to do today. Today the principle of habeas corpus, established when King John signed the Magna Carta in 1215, is under attack in our own government. There's every reason to believe that with a renewed effort, with the use of the Internet, we can instead advance the cause of liberty by spreading an uncensored message that will serve to rein in government authority and challenge the obsession with war and welfare. What I'm talking about is a system of government guided by the moral principles of peace and tolerance. The Founders were convinced that a free society could not exist without a moral people. Just writing rules won't work if the people choose to ignore them. Today the rule of law written in the Constitution has little meaning for most Americans, especially those who work in Washington, D.C. Benjamin Franklin claimed ``only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.'' John Adams concurred: ``Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.'' A moral people must reject all violence in an effort to mold people's beliefs or habits. A society that boos or ridicules the Golden Rule is not a moral society. All great religions endorse the Golden Rule. The same moral standards that individuals are required to follow should apply to all government officials. They cannot be exempt. The ultimate solution is not in the hands of the government. The solution falls on each and every individual, with guidance from family, friends, and communities. The number one responsibility for each of us is to change ourselves, with hope that others will follow. This is of greater importance than working on changing the government; that is secondary to promoting a virtuous society. If we can achieve this, then the government will change. It doesn't mean that political action or holding office has no value. At times it does nudge policy in the right direction. But what is true is that when seeking office is done for personal aggrandizement, money or power, it becomes useless if not harmful. When political action is taken for the right reasons, it's easy to understand why compromise should be avoided. It also becomes clear why progress is best achieved by working with coalitions, which bring people together, without anyone sacrificing his principles. Political action, to be truly beneficial, must be directed toward changing the hearts and minds of the people, recognizing that it's the virtue and morality of the people that allow liberty to flourish. The Constitution or more laws per se have no value if the people's attitudes aren't changed. To achieve liberty and peace, two powerful human emotions have to be overcome. Number one is envy, which leads to hate and class warfare. Number two is intolerance, which leads to bigoted and judgmental policies. These emotions must be replaced with a much better understanding of love, compassion, tolerance, and free market economics. Freedom, when understood, brings people together. When tried, freedom is popular. The problem we have faced over the years is that economic interventionists are swayed by envy, whereas social interventionists are swayed by intolerance of habits and lifestyles. The misunderstanding that tolerance is an endorsement of certain activities motivates many to legislate moral standards, which should only be set by individuals making their own choices. Both sides use force to deal with these misplaced emotions. Both are authoritarians. Neither endorses voluntarism. Both views ought to be rejected. I have come to one firm conviction after these many years of trying to figure out the plain truth of things: the best chance for achieving peace and prosperity for the maximum number of people worldwide is to pursue the cause of liberty. If you find this to be a worthwhile message, spread it throughout the land. I yield back the balance of my time. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the Congressional Record ``The Man versus the Therapeutic State,'' by Jacob Sullivan of Reason magazine. This piece pays tribute to Dr. Thomas Szasz, who passed away on September 8th of this year. Dr. Szasz, a trained psychiatrist, was the leading opponent of what he labeled the ``therapeutic state.'' For over fifty years, in 35 books, and hundreds of articles, Dr. Szasz defended human liberty and dignity against modern psychiatry. Modern psychiatry, of course, insists that behaviors which deviate from some arbitrary norm serve as signs or symptoms of organic ``mental illnesses'' (although the physiological mechanisms never seem to be clearly identified, much less explained). Since ``sick people'' are incapable of controlling themselves, it is the responsibility of government to protect them by constraining their ability to make harmful choices. This is the mentality that Dr. Szasz fought against so valiantly. By applying the philosophy of liberty to psychiatry, Dr. Szasz undermined the ``individual as helpless victim'' mentality that helps justify restrictors on personal liberty when it comes to drugs, fatty foods, sodas, pornography, gambling, etc. Dr. Szasz clearly understood, and predicated, the rise of the therapeutic nanny state. No doubt Dr. Szasz could have enjoyed a successful career had he moderated his views or kept quiet instead of presenting a principled challenge to the psychiatric-government complex. But Dr. Szasz was one of those rare individuals who could not be silent when liberty was threatened. For his courage in speaking truth to power, Dr. Szasz was rewarded with ridicule and scorn from the gatekeepers of ``respectable'' opinion. However, Dr. Szasz did find a receptive audience among the ranks of the liberty movement, where he quickly earned a place as one of the movement's most distinguished thinkers. With the recent growth of the liberty movement, I would not be surprised if Dr. Szasz's influence becomes greater in the next several years. Certainly, all of us who work for individual liberty should be grateful for Dr. Thomas Szasz's contributions to the cause of freedom. [From Reason.com, Sept. 19, 2012] The Man Versus the Therapeutic State (By Jacob Sullum) The New York Times obituary for Thomas Szasz, who died this month at the age of 92, says his critique of psychiatry ``had some merit in the 1950s . . . but not later on, when the field began developing more scientific approaches.'' That's a paraphrase of historian Edward Shorter, whose judgment reflects the conventional wisdom: Szasz called much-needed attention to psychiatric abuses early in his career but went too far by insisting on a fundamental distinction between actual, biological diseases and metaphorical diseases of the mind. In fact, however, Szasz's radicalism, which he combined with a sharp wit, a keen eye for obfuscating rhetoric, and an uncompromising dedication to individual freedom and responsibility, was one of his greatest strengths. Beginning with The Myth of Mental Illness in 1961 and continuing through 35 more books and hundreds of articles, the maverick psychiatrist, driven by a ``passion against coercion,'' zeroed in on the foundational fallacies underlying all manner of medicalized tyranny. The idea that psychiatry became scientifically rigorous soon after Szasz first likened it to alchemy and astrology is hard to take seriously. After all, it was not until 1973 that the American Psychiatric Association (APA) stopped calling homosexuality a mental disorder. More often, psychiatry has expanded its domain. Today it encompasses myriad sins and foibles, including smoking, overeating, gambling, shoplifting, sexual promiscuity, pederasty, rambunctiousness, inattentiveness, social awkwardness, anxiety, sadness, and political extremism. If it can be described, it can be diagnosed, but only if the APA says so. Asperger's, for instance, will cease to exist when the fifth edition of the APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) comes out next year. As Marcia Angell, former editor of The New England Journal of Medicine, observed last year in The New York Review of Books, ``there are no objective signs or tests for mental illness--no lab data or MRI findings--and the boundaries between normal and abnormal are often unclear. That makes it possible to expand diagnostic boundaries or even create new diagnoses in ways that would be impossible, say, in a field like cardiology.'' In other words, mental illnesses are whatever psychiatrists say they are. How ``scientific'' is that? Not very. In a 2010 Wired interview, Allen Frances, lead editor of the current DSM, despaired that defining mental disorders is ``bullshit.'' In an online debate last month, he declared that ``mental disorders most certainly are not diseases.'' Then what exactly are they? For more than half a century, Szasz stubbornly highlighted the hazards of joining such a fuzzy, subjective concept with the force of law through involuntary treatment, the insanity defense, and other psychiatrically informed policies. Consider ``sexually violent predators,'' who are convicted and imprisoned based on the premise that they could have restrained themselves but failed to do so, then committed to mental hospitals after completing their sentences based on the premise that they suffer from irresistible urges and therefore pose an intolerable threat to public safety. From a Szaszian perspective, this incoherent theory is a cover for what is really going on: the retroactive enhancement of duly imposed sentences by politicians who decided certain criminals were getting off too lightly--a policy so plainly contrary to due process and the rule of law that it had to be dressed up in quasi-medical, pseudoscientific justifications. Szasz specialized in puncturing such pretensions. He relentlessly attacked the ``therapeutic state,'' the unhealthy alliance of medicine and government that blesses all sorts of unjustified limits on liberty, ranging from the mandatory prescription system to laws against suicide. My own work has been powerfully influenced by Szasz's arguments against drug prohibition, especially his discussion of its symbolism and its reliance on a mistaken understanding of addiction, and his criticism of paternalistic interventions, such as New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's recently approved soda serving ceiling, that conflate private and public health. I will always be grateful for Szasz's courage and insight, and so should anyone who shares his passion against coercion.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the reauthorization of the 2008 FISA Amendments Act, as it violates the Fourth Amendment of our Constitution. Supporters of this reauthorization claim that the United States will be more vulnerable if the government is not allowed to monitor citizens without a warrant. I would argue that we are more vulnerable if we do allow the government to monitor Americans without a warrant. Nothing makes us more vulnerable than allowing the Constitution to be violated. Passage of this reauthorization will allow the government to listen in to our phone calls, read our personal correspondence, and monitor our activities without obtaining a warrant. Permission for surveillance obtained by a secret FISA court can cover broad categories of targets rather than specific individuals, as the Fourth Amendment requires. Americans who communicate with someone who is suspected of being affiliated with a target group can be monitored without a warrant. The only restriction is that Americans on U.S. soil are not to be the primary targets of the surveillance. That is hardly reassuring. U.S. intelligence agencies are not to target Americans on U.S. soil, but as we all know telephone conversations usually take place between two people. If on the other end of the international conversation is an American, his conversation is monitored, recorded, transcribed, and kept for future use. According to press reports earlier this summer, the Director of National Intelligence admitted to the Senate that ``on at least one occasion'' U.S. intelligence collection agencies violated the Constitutional prohibitions on unlawful search and seizure. Without possibility for oversight of the process and with the absence of transparency, we will never know just how many Americans have been wiretapped without warrants. Creating a big brother surveillance state here is no solution to threats that may exist from abroad. I urge my colleagues to reject these FISA amendments and return to the Constitution.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the ``Compassionate Freedom of Choice Act.'' This legislation allows terminally ill patients to use drugs, treatments and devices that have not yet been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) if their physicians certify: (i) such patients have no other treatment options; and (ii) the patient executes written, informed consent that they are aware of any potential risks from the drug, device, or treatment. It is important to remember that this legislation only applies to otherwise terminally ill patients. Denying these patents a possible opportunity to cure their illness--or at least reduce their suffering-- is nonsensical and cruel. The FDA's approval process for drugs, devices, and treatments is costly and time consuming. Yet, time is the luxury terminally patients do not enjoy. So why should the FDA deny terminally-ill patients access to drugs, devices, and treatments that the patient's physicians have determined represents the patent's only possible chance for survival? For example, the FDA refused to allow Abigail Burroughs (who was diagnosed with head and neck cancer at the age of 19) access to the cancer drugs Iressa and Erbitux by the FDA. Never mind that a renowned oncologist at Johns Hopkins had determined there was a significant chance of saving her life if she could use these new drugs. With her only chance of survival denied by the federal government, Abigail passed away on June 9, 2001, at the age of twenty-one. Another example of why this bill is necessary is the case of thirteen-year old Anna Tomalis, who enjoyed horseback riding and soccer until she was diagnosed with embryonal sarcoma. Chemotherapy and surgery failed to reverse the cancer, so Anna's parents decided to try experimental drugs. They petitioned the FDA for approval to use Deforolimus, developed by Merk and ARIAD. Unfortunately, the FDA decided Ana was too sick to be admitted in Deforolimus's clinical trials and did not grant her a ``compassionate use'' exemption until three weeks before she died. Mr. Speaker, I have attached a list of other patients who were denied access to treatments by the FDA even though their doctors believed these treatments where the only option left to potentially save their lives. I ask my colleagues to help make sure that no more Americans with terminal disease are denied treatments simply because the FDA has decide these Americans are better off facing certain death than using an ``unapproved'' drug, treatment, or device. Please cosponsor the Compassionate Freedom of Choice Act. Persons Denied Access to Compassionate Drug Use by the FDA (i) Abigail Burroughs Abigail Burroughs learned at the age of nineteen that she had head and neck cancer. http://abigail-alliance.org/WLF_ FDA_Lawsuit.pdf (last accessed May 21, 2012). For the next eighteen months, Abigail fought the cancer by undergoing painful chemotherapy and radiation treatments, to no avail. Id. Abigail was told in March of 2001 that she had run out of FDA-approved options. Id. Abigail's cancer cells had very high EGFR (Epidermal Growth Factor Receptors) expression. Her renowned oncologist at Johns Hopkins knew there was a significant chance of saving her life if she could get the new EGFR cancer drugs Ire ssa and Erbitux. Id. Abigail could not get Iressa, however, because the clinical trials were very limited as to the number and type of patients who could qualify--as is usual for clinical drug trials. Id. The Erbitux clinical trials were for colon cancer patients only. Id. Abigail never obtained Iressa or Erbitux, and thus a chance to live, and so she died on June 9, 2001, at the age of twenty-one. Id. The Abigail Alliance, created by her father Frank Burroughs shortly after her death, is a 501(c) non-profit organization and can be accessed through http:// abigail-alliance.org. The Abigail Alliance is now dedicated to expanding access to experimental drugs through the compassionate use exemption. (ii) David Baxter High school student David Baxter was diagnosed with colorectal cancer in the spring of 2001. http://abigail- alliance.org/WLF FDA Lawsuit.pdf (last accessed May 21, 2012). David was unable to participate in clinical trials of promising new cancer drugs because clinical trials are usually open only to patients eighteen and older. Id. In the following months he endured various types of chemotherapy. Id. Of one of his hospital stays, he wrote, ``You hear a lot of scary stories about cancer patients, and let me tell you right now that they are true--every single one of them.'' Id. From the stories of nurses coming in at two in the morning to take your vitals for some awful reason, to the noises from the room across the hall--either screams or moans of who knows what.'' David died in his sleep at home on October 6, 2001, shortly after his seventeenth birthday. Id. (iii) Alita Randazzo Alita Randazzo, age thirty-five, was diagnosed with colorectal cancer in the spring of 2000. Id. Alita responded well at first to Eloxatin (Oxaliplatin), but she had to endure the expense and physical demands of traveling to France to get the drug. Id. She did not qualify for the clinical trial of Eloxatin in the U.S. and was not fortunate enough to get into the drug's limited compassionate use program. Id. (Before finally being approved in the U.S. in May of 2003, Eloxatin had been approved in Europe six years earlier.) After eight months, Eloxatin stopped helping Alita and her doctors believed her last chance was Erbitux. Id. Alita was unable to obtain Erbitux, and died on July 20, 2002. Id. (iv) Joel Oppenheim Joel Oppenheim was first diagnosed with multiple myloma in 1995 but the disease did not become active until 1999. Id. At that time, he was treated with dexamethadrone (``dex''), which had unpleasant side effects and was only minimally effective. Id. Thalidomide, which is not approved for multiple myeloma, was added to the dex by Joel's doctors. This off-label use of thalidomide was possible because thalidomide had been approved for leprosy, and is thus available for doctors to prescribe for other conditions as they see fit. Thalidomide has become the first line of treatment for multiple myeloma. Id. As Joel's disease worsened in 2000, his oncologists recommended that he seek to participate in clinical trials of Revamid or PS-341 Velcade. Id. Revamid is a derivative of thalidomide that avoids thalidomide's side effects (which extend well beyond its notorious effect on pregnant women). Id. Joel was unable to obtain a place in the Revamid trials or Velcade trials because his prior treatment with dex put him outside the narrow protocols of the trial. Id. The massive number of patients who applied for the trials would have rendered it unlikely for Joel to win a place, in any event. Thus, Joel was prevented from using Revamid, which was safer and more effective than his thalidomide treatment. Id. In light of Joel's inability to obtain Revamid or Velcade, his oncologists recommended an autologous bone marrow transplant, which he underwent on April 15, 2001. Id. This is a dangerous and damaging medical procedure. Id. Joel survived the transplant, but was disabled from working and still suffers from an impaired immune system. A disease such as the West Nile virus that would typically have mild effects on other people would probably kill Joel. Id. Approximately a year and a half after the bone marrow transplant, Joel's cancer worsened again. Id. He again attempted to enter numerous trials for Velcade, but was rejected. He was disqualified from some trials on account of his prior dex treatment and from others on account of his transplant (which had been made necessary by his lack of access to Velcade or Revamid). Id. To increase his chances of acceptance into a trial, on his doctors' advice, Joel stopped taking dex or any other treatment; one of the criteria of the trials was no dex or other drugs within the prior six months. The trials were repeatedly delayed. Id. Without medication, Joel's cancer grew much worse. Id. Finally, in June of 2003, through the efforts of one doctor, Joel was admitted to a trial of Revamid. Over the last three years, FDA restrictions on investigational drugs have caused countless patients like Joel to die or suffer from bone marrow procedure. Id. (v) Gideon Soffer Gideon was active in the Los Angeles Jewish community and a student at U.C. Berkeley. http://abigail-alliance.org/ WSJ%20Sen% 20Kennedy%20Gideon.pdf (last checked May 21, 2012). He passed away January 11, 2012. http:// www.tributes.com/show/Gideon-Joseph-Sofer90709467 (last checked May 21, 2012). In 2003 he was 22 years old; he stood five foot six inches tall and weighed just over 100 pounds. Id. He suffered from Crohn's disease which caused him to remove half of his intestine. Crohn's disease is an inflammatory disease of the bowels, which can cause breakage and perforations in the intestines. 1.5 million Americans suffer from it, including a disproportionate number of Ashkenazi Jews. Id. In 2007 Gideon enrolled in a clinical trial for a treatment that could save his life: an adult stem cell therapy that helps damaged intestinal tissue regenerate from the inflammation caused by Crohn's. The sponsor, Osiris Therapeutics, reported that Crohn's patients in the therapy's Phase II trial all experienced clinical improvement after receiving the cells. Id. A Phase III trial for the treatment was nearing completion at the time of the petition, but the FDA approval was years away. He was placed in the trial but was withheld the life-saving drug and given a placebo instead. http://abigail-alliance.org/WSJ%20Sen%20Kennedy% 20Gideon.pdf (last checked May 21, 2012). (vi) Kianna Karnes 44 year old Kianna Karnes was a mother of four and grandmother of one when doctors told her she had kidney cancer that was spreading throughout her body. http:// abigail-alliance.org/3_WSJ_Editorials_Kiannas_ Law.pdf (last checked May 21, 2012). Two different developmental drugs, BAY 43-9006 and SU 11248, showed great promise against this once untreatable disease, but the FDA did not move to approve the drugs, and instead began imposing new testing requirements that make it all but impossible for their developers--Bayer and Pfizer--to provide them to terminal patients on a ``compassionate use'' basis by forcing a placebo. Id. Karnes died in 2005, the very same day that the FDA granted her compassionate use exemption. Id. (vii) Anna Tomalis 13 year old Ana Tomalis liked horseback riding and soccer. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1219447890_05365195.html?mod

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, supporters of low taxes and limited government should enthusiastically embrace most of the principles of tax reform laid out in H.R. 6169. However, one tax reform principle contained in this bill contradicts the goal we all share, namely lowering the American people's tax burden. I'm referring to the bill's finding that seems to imply tax reform should aim to maintain federal tax revenue at 18-19% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The historical average of tax rates as a percentage of GDP in the post World War Two era is 17.7%. Thus, the current tax bill says that the total amount the federal government takes from the American people should be higher than the amount the government took during the time when the federal government was fighting the Cold War and establishing the programs of the so-called Great Society! Of course, this is reasonable only if one assumes Congress will never, or should never, consider reducing the federal government's size and scope. H.R. 6169 is thus further proof that if one is serious about reducing taxes one must be willing to reduce federal spending in all areas. Instead of trying to ensure that the federal tax collection is set at a level to ensure a perpetual stream of revenue for the welfare-warfare state, Congress should stop spending trillions on an interventionist foreign policy, shut down unconstitutional federal bureaucracies, and begin to wind down federal welfare and entitlement programs. While the ultimate goal of supporters of liberty is to reduce the federal government to constitutional size, the fact is that Congress need not shut down the entire welfare-warfare state to achieve meaningful tax reduction. In fact, the federal government could eliminate income taxes on individuals and still fund all of its current functions simply by reducing federal spending to Clinton-era levels! Unfortunately, the sad fact is that neither party truly wants to cut spending consistently. Anyone who doubts my analysis should examine the hysteria over the relatively minuscule ``cuts''--which are merely reductions in projected rates of spending--contained in the sequester legislation scheduled to go into effect this January. One party screams that a failure to increase military spending enough will leave America vulnerable to her enemies, while the other party cries that even minimal reductions in the rate of growth of welfare spending will create poverty of Dickensian proportions. Until this mindset changes, any efforts to reduce or eliminate federal income and other taxes will remain an effort in futility.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I think this bill would be better named if we called it ``Obsession with Iran Act of 2012'' because this is what we continue to be doing-- obsess with Iran and the idea that Iran is a threat to our national security. Iran happens to be a Third World nation. They have no significant navy, air force, intercontinental ballistic missiles. The IAEA and our CIA say they are not on the verge of a nuclear weapon. It's so similar to what we went through in the early part of this last decade where we were beating the war drums to go to war against Iraq. And it was all a facade. There was no danger from Iraq. So this is what we're doing, beating the war drums once again. Since the bill has come back from the conference, if we are to deal with civil liberties in Syria--well, I happen to be a civil libertarian. I am very concerned about civil liberties. But let me tell you, this bill is not going to do anything to enhance the civil liberties of the individuals in Syria. If we were really interested in civil liberties, why wouldn't we look to ourselves? Why wouldn't we look to the things we do here? What about our warrantless searches under the PATRIOT Act? What about the policy of assassination, assassinating American citizens? What about arrests by the military, the National Defense Authorization Act? What about the drone warfare that we go on? Do you think we are protecting civil liberties by arbitrarily dropping drones or threatening to drop drones anyplace in the world, with innocent people dying? If we want to really care about civil liberties in Syria, why don't we care about the secret prisons we have and the history of torture that we have had in this country? What about the fact that kill lists are being made by the executive branch of government, and we sit idly by and approve of it by saying nothing, and the American people put up with it, and we march in this direction, marching into a determination to have another war? When you put sanctions on a country, it's an act of war, and that is what this is all about. The first thing you do when war breaks out between two countries is you put sanctions on them. You blockade the country. So this is an act of war. What would we do if somebody blockaded and put sanctions on us and prevented the importation of any product of this country? We would be furious. We would declare war. We would go to war. So we are the antagonists. We're over there poking our nose and poking our nose in other people's affairs, just looking for a chance to start another war. First it's Syria and then Iran. We have too many wars. We need to stop the wars. We don't have the money to fight these wars any longer.

Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I'm still rather impressed with the obsession over a weapon that does not exist and no concern whatsoever about many nuclear weapons that are held by countries that never even joined the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. It's called for in the debate that Iran should end all its nuclear programs, but they're permitted to have the nuclear program under the nonproliferation treaty. And the other countries that have weapons, including the countries that hold the weapons that came from the Soviet system, it seems like that would be a much greater danger. The investigation by either the U.N. or by our CAs has never indicated that they have ever enriched above 20 percent. And they said they won't even do it to 20 percent if the West would cooperate and sell them this material. They said, we don't need it, but we need 20 percent enrichment for nuclear isotopes, medical isotopes. So our refusal to deal with them prompts them to take up enrichment to 25 percent; 5 percent, of course, is what they're allowed to do for nuclear energies. But this idea that we can badger people and then defy the law, what we're asking them to do, to close down their program, is you're asking them to defy international law. They agreed to this. They have a right to do this under this treaty. And for us to come and say, well, they must quit it, I think it really is very close to an obsession on a country that is incapable of attacking us, or attacking--they don't have a history of invading their neighboring countries. The last time they were at war was with Iraq, and we bugged Iraq to go into Iran. So I find this very distressing that the obsession continues. I find it very, very upsetting that this vote will, of course, be overwhelmingly in support of correcting the civil liberties of Syria and making Iran toe the line and give up on something that they're permitted to do. A vote for this, in my opinion, in time will show that it's just one more step to another war that we don't need. We have not been provoked. They are not a threat to our national security, and we should not be doing this. We've been doing it too long. For the last 10, 15 years we have been just obsessed with this idea that we go to war and try to solve all the problems of the world; and at the same time, it is bankrupting us. I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on this resolution.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise, obviously, in strong support of this legislation. I don't know how anybody could be against transparency. They want secrecy, especially when the secrecy is to protect individuals who deal in trillions of dollars, much bigger than what the Congress does. And these trillions of dollars bail out all the wealthy, rich people; the banks and the big corporations; international, overseas banks; bailing out Europe; dealing with central banks around Europe and different places. And to say that we should have secrecy and to say that it's political to have transparency, well, it's very political when you have a Federal Reserve that can bail out one company and not another company. That's pretty political. I think when people talk about independence and having this privacy of the central bank means they want secrecy, and secrecy is not good. We should have privacy for the individual, but we should have openness of government all the time, and we've drifted a long way from that. The bill essentially removes the prohibitions against a full audit. To audit, we should know what kind of transactions there are. We should know about the deals that they made when they were fixing the price of LIBOR. These are the kinds of things that have gone on for years that we have no access to. Congress has this responsibility. We are reneging on our responsibility. We have had the responsibility and we have not done it, so it is up to us to reassert ourselves. The Constitution is very clear who has the responsibility, but the law conflicts with the Constitution. The law comes along and says the Congress can't do it. Well, you can't change the Constitution and prohibit the Congress from finding out what's going on by writing a law, and this is what has happened. So it is time that we repeal this prohibition against a full audit of the Federal Reserve. We deserve it. The American people deserve it. The American people know about it and understand it, and that's what they're asking for. They're sick and tired of what happened in the bailout, where the wealthy got bailed out and the poor lost their jobs and they lost their homes.

Mr. PAUL. Did you vote against Dodd-Frank? Because it was in Dodd- Frank. It wasn't a separate bill. Maybe on a separate vote you might have done it, but it was in Dodd-Frank.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise to talk a little bit about the appropriations that are going on, in particular, the appropriations for the very, very long war in Afghanistan. Nobody knows when it's going to end. There's always a pretense. There's always a thought that tomorrow's going to be a better day. I was in the military in the sixties, and there was always this promise that we're just around the turn, and we're going to have peace and prosperity and have perfect results. Well, so far we have not had any perfect results in Afghanistan--there is a lot of unknown--and here we are appropriating even more money to continue this war. When you talk about war power and the resolution on how we go to war, it becomes very complex today. It was originally intended to be very simple: you went to war when there was a declaration; and the people, through their Congressman, voted up or down on whether you should have a war. Today, we slip and slide and we fall into these traps. We go to war under the U.N. banner and NATO. We never know why we go to war and what the goals are and when the war is over. And they persist. But there is one analysis made which bothers me a bit and, that is, even if there isn't a declaration of war, if some of the Members come along, as we have been for quite a few years, and say, you know, the Congress never really declared war, the argument they make is, well, as long as you fund a war, you give it credibility, and therefore you indirectly support the war. Of course, the argument is not so much on how we go to war, but if we get into war, the whole thing is you can't vote against any money. Well, then you don't care about the troops. Oh, you're un-American. Don't do that. That carries the weight of the argument, and people shy away and say, no, I don't like the war, we shouldn't have done it, but I can't go against the troops. Well, I've had a little experience in the last several years traveling the country and talking about issues like this and looking for support for a position which is quite a bit different than what we have followed here recently. Let me tell you, guess what, the troops give me strong support. They gave me a lot of support. It was huge. For anybody to argue that you don't want to send troops carelessly into no- win, endless wars, to think you're against the troops, it's nonsense. When I was in the military--I was still in in '65, and that's when the escalation came in Vietnam--the last thing I was wanting to say is, oh, I want somebody in there that wants to expand the war. Why don't we go into Cambodia and Laos. No, I didn't want that. Troops don't want to go to war. I was in a Guard unit as well as Active Duty. People join the Guard and Reserves because they want to defend the country. They don't want to take six trips to the Middle East and endlessly see what's happening. I get stories all the time about their buddies being killed, the loss of limbs. Then they say, well, we're fighting for freedom. Think about it seriously. How in the world does going over there and fighting in either Iraq or Afghanistan have anything to do with our freedom? Oh, we're fighting to defend our Constitution. Well, we never had a constitutional declaration of war. So that's all a facade. That's all to make people feel guilty that if you don't keep the war going--in Vietnam, it was we have to win, we have to win. So we lose 60,000 troops and we didn't win. So what does that mean? After McNamara wrote his memoirs and was a bit apologetic about it, he was asked: Does this mean you're apologizing for the kind of war you're in in Vietnam? He said: No. What good is an apology if you don't change policy? That is the thing. If this is not doing well and not doing right, just to say either you're sorry, you're continuing it, we have to have victory and pretend there is a victory around the corner, I think we're fooling ourselves. We shouldn't deceive ourselves. We should wake up. If we lived within the Constitution and lived within our means, believe me, we would not be in Afghanistan. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, last week I introduced legislation, H.R. 5993, that would prohibit the President from providing military or paramilitary aid of any sort to any faction in the internal fighting in Syria. Unfortunately, it appears that the administration is already very much involved in supporting the overthrow of the Assad government. There's nary a whimper of criticism in Congress over our growing involvement in the civil war in Syria. The only noise we hear from Congress, and repeated in the media, is the complaint that we're not doing enough and that immediate, direct U.S. military action must be taken. Tragically, our political leaders show both bad judgment and short memories when it comes to the downside of our foreign policy of mischief and intervention. Our compulsion to engage ourselves in every conflict around the world is dangerous to our national security. In dealing with Syria, the administration pretends to pursue diplomacy and provide humanitarian assistance to the people. In reality, the U.S. Government facilitates weapons transfers to the rebels who are demanding immediate regime change. My goal is to stop our dangerous participation in the violence in Syria; yet evidence mounts that we're already deeply involved, with no expectation that the administration will back away from military engagement. Recent reports indicate that the U.S. is providing logistics and communication assistance to the rebel forces. Assistance in getting arms to the rebels through surrogates is hardly a secret. Cooperating with the rebels' propaganda efforts has been reported and is used to prepare the American people for our coming involvement. There is every reason to expect that the well-laid plans to, once again, coordinate a favorable regime change will end badly. Even the strongest supporters of our direct and immediate military involvement in Syria admit that the rebel forces are made up of many groups, including al Qaeda, and no one is sure to whom the assistance should be given. All they claim is the need for the immediate removal of Assad. This policy is nothing new, and too often in our recent history our assistance with dollars and weapons used to overthrow a government ends up with the weapons being used, instead, against us. The blow-back from our policy of intervention has caused a great deal of harm to us since World War II: Propping up the Shah in Iran for 26 years was a powerful factor in motivating radical Islamists to eventually overthrow the Shah in 1979. The hostages taken at the U.S. Embassy at that time was as a consequence of our putting the Shah into power in 1953; In working with the mujahadeen in the 1980s, our CIA supported radical Islam in an effort to combat communist occupation in Afghanistan. Later, this led to the radical Islamists' hatred being turned against us over our occupation and interference in Muslim countries; The $40 billion given to Egypt for over 30 years to prop up the Musharraf dictatorship and to buy an unstable peace with Israel has ended with what appears to be the takeover of Egypt by the Muslim Brotherhood. They may well turn Egypt into a theocratic Islamic state unless our CIA is able to, once again, gain control. Al Qaeda now has a presence in parts of Egypt and has been involved in the bombing of the pipelines carrying gas to Israel. This is hardly a policy that is enhancing Israel's security. What are the possible unintended consequences of this policy if we foolishly escalate the civil war in Syria? The worst scenario would be an all-out war in the region involving Russia, the United States, Israel, Iran, Turkey, and others. The escalating conflict could rapidly make containment virtually impossible. Chaos in this region could encourage the Kurds in Syria, Iraq, Turkey, and Iran to decide it's an opportunity to move on their long- sought-after goal of establishing a Kurdish state. Significant hostilities in the region would jeopardize the free flow of oil from the Middle East, causing sharp increases in the price of oil. The already weak economy of the West would suffer immensely. Some will argue erroneously that a major war would be beneficial to the economy and distract the people from their economic woes. War, however, is never an economic benefit, although many have been taught that for many decades. If liberty and prosperity are to be our goals, peace is a necessary ingredient of that process.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the Administration is marching toward another war in the Middle East, this time against Syria. As with the president's war against Libya, Congress has been frozen out of the process. The Constitution, which grants Congress and only Congress the authority to declare war, is once again being completely ignored. The push for a U.S. attack on Syria makes no sense, is not in our interest, and will likely make matters worse. Yet the Administration, after transferring equipment to the Syrian rebels and facilitating the shipment of weapons from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, has indicated that its plans for an actual invasion are complete. This week there are even press reports that the Central Intelligence Agency is distributing assault rifles, anti-tank rocket launchers, and other ammunition to the Syrian opposition. These are acts of war by the United States government. But where is the authority for the president to commit acts of war against Syria? There is no authority. The president is acting on his own. Today we are introducing legislation to prevent the administration from accelerating its plan to overthrow the Syrian government by assisting rebel forces that even the administration admits include violent Islamic extremists. The bill is simple. It states that absent a Congressional declaration of war on Syria: ``No funds available to the Department of Defense or an element of the intelligence community may be obligated or expended for the purpose or which would have the effect of supporting, directly or indirectly, military or paramilitary operations in Syria by any nation, group, organization, movement, or individual.'' This legislation is modeled after the famous Boland Amendments of the early 1980s that were designed to limit the president's assistance to the Contras in their attempt to overthrow the government of Nicaragua. Congress has an obligation to exercise oversight of the president's foreign policy actions and to protect its constitutional prerogatives. This legislation will achieve both important functions. Mr. Speaker, the last thing this country needs is yet another war particularly in the Middle East. Even worse is the president once again ignoring the Legislative Branch and going to war on his own. I hope my colleagues will join me in standing up for our Constitutional authority and resisting what will be another disastrous war in the Middle East.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Plans, rumors, and war propaganda for attacking Syria and deposing Assad have been around for many months. This past week, however, it was reported that the Pentagon indeed was finalizing plans to do just that. In my opinion, all the evidence to justify this attack is bogus. It is no more credible than the pretext given for the 2003 invasion of Iraq or for the 2011 attack on Libya. The total waste of those wars should cause us to pause before this all-out effort at occupation and regime change is initiated against Syria. There are no national security concerns that require such a foolish escalation of violence in the Middle East. There should be no doubt that our security interests are best served by completely staying out of the internal strife now raging in Syria. We are already too much involved in supporting the forces within Syria anxious to overthrow their current government. Without outside interference, the strife, now characterized as a civil war, would likely be nonexistent. Whether or not we attack yet another country, occupying it and setting up another regime that we hope we can control, poses a serious constitutional question: From where does a President get such authority? Since World War II, the proper authority to go to war has been ignored. It has been replaced by international entities like the United Nations and NATO, or the President, himself, while ignoring the Congress. And sadly, the people don't object. Our recent Presidents explicitly maintain that the authority to go to war is not the U.S. Congress'. This has been the case since the 1950s, when we were first taken into war in Korea under a UN resolution and without congressional approval. Once again, we are about to engage in military action against Syria, and at the same time irresponsibly reactivating the Cold War with Russia. We're now engaged in a game of ``chicken'' with Russia, which presents a much greater threat to our security than does Syria. Would we tolerate Russia in Mexico demanding a humanitarian solution to the violence on the U.S.-Mexican border? We would consider that a legitimate concern for us. But for us to be engaged in Syria, where the Russians have a legal naval base, is equivalent to the Russians being in our backyard in Mexico. We are hypocritical when we condemn Russia for protecting its neighborhood interests, as we claim we are doing the same ourselves thousands of miles from our shore. There's no benefit for us to be picking sides, secretly providing assistance and encouraging civil strife in an effort to effect regime change in Syria. Falsely charging the Russians with supplying military helicopters to Assad is an unnecessary provocation. Falsely blaming the Assad government for a so- called massacre perpetrated by a violent warring rebel faction is nothing more than war propaganda. Most knowledgeable people now recognize that to plan war against Syria is merely the next step to take on the Iranian Government, something the neoconservatives openly admit. Controlling Iranian oil, just as we have done in Saudi Arabia and are attempting to do in Iraq, is the real goal of the neoconservatives who have been in charge of our foreign policy for the past couple of decades. War is inevitable without a significant change in our foreign policy--and soon. Disagreements between our two political parties are minor. Both agree that sequestration of any war funds must be canceled. Neither side wants to abandon our aggressive and growing presence in the Middle East and South Asia. This crisis building can easily get out of control and become a much bigger war than just another routine occupation and regime change that the American people have grown to accept or ignore. It's time the United States tried a policy of diplomacy, seeking peace, trade, and friendship. We must abandon our military effort to promote and secure an American empire. Besides, we're broke. We can't afford it. And worst of all, we're fulfilling the strategy laid out by Osama bin Laden, whose goal had always been to bog us down in the Middle East and bring on our bankruptcy here at home. It's time to bring our troops home and establish a noninterventionist foreign policy, which is the only road to peace and prosperity. This week I'm introducing legislation to prohibit the administration, absent a declaration of war by Congress, from supporting--directly or indirectly--any military or paramilitary operations in Syria. I hope my colleagues will join me in this effort.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I object.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, as an OB-GYN who has delivered over 4,000 babies, I certainly abhor abortion. And I certainly share my colleagues' revulsion at the idea that someone would take an innocent unborn life because they prefer to have a child of a different gender. However, I cannot support H.R. 3541, the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act, because this bill is unconstitutional. Congress's jurisdiction is limited to those areas specified in the Constitution. Nowhere in that document is Congress given any authority to address abortion in any manner. Until 1973, when the Supreme Court usurped the authority of the States in the Roe v. Wade decision, no one believed or argued abortion was a Federal issue. I also cannot support H.R. 3541 because it creates yet another set of Federal criminal laws, even though the Constitution lists only three Federal crimes: piracy, treason, and counterfeiting. All other criminal matters are expressly left to States under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, and criminal laws relating to abortion certainly should be legislated by States rather than Congress. I have long believed that abortion opponents make a mistake by spending their energies on a futile quest to make abortion a Federal crime. Instead, pro-life Americans should work to undo Roe v. Wade and give the power to restrict abortion back to the States and the people. It is particularly disappointing to see members supporting this bill who rightfully oppose ludicrous interpretations of the Commerce Clause when it comes to the national health care law, which also abuses the Commerce Clause to create new Federal crimes. Pro-life Americans believe all unborn life is precious and should be protected. Therefore we should be troubled by legislation that singles out abortions motivated by a ``politically incorrect'' reason for special Federal punishment. To my conservative colleagues who support this bill: what is the difference in principle between a Federal law prohibiting ``sex selection'' abortions and Federal hate crimes laws? After all, hate crime laws also criminalize thoughts by imposing additional stronger penalties when a crime is motivated by the perpetrator's animus toward a particular race or gender. I also question whether this bill would reduce the number of abortions. I fear instead that every abortion provider in the Nation would simply place a sign in their waiting room saying ``It is a violation of Federal law to perform an abortion because of the fetus' gender. Here is a list of reasons for which abortion is permissible under Federal law.'' Mr. Speaker, instead of spending time on this unconstitutionally, ineffective, and philosophically flawed bill, Congress should use its valid authority to limit the jurisdiction of activist Federal courts and (thereby) protect state laws restoring abortion. This is the constitutional approach to effectively repealing Roe v. Wade. Instead of focusing on gimmicks and piecemeal approaches, true conservatives should address the horror of abortion via the most immediate, practical, and effective manner possible: returning jurisdiction over abortion to the States.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose H. Res. 568, a resolution ``expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the importance of preventing the Government of Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability.'' Once again we see on the ``suspension'' calendar, which is customarily reserved for non-controversial legislation, a resolution designed to move the U.S. toward a military conflict with Iran. Sadly, it has become non-controversial for Congress to call for U.S. attacks on foreign countries that have neither attacked nor threatened the United States. We should not fool ourselves about the timing of this legislation. Next week, high-level talks between Iran and the five permanent U.N. Security Council members plus Germany, P5+1, will resume. Those who seek U.S. military action against Iran must fear that successful diplomacy will undermine their calls for war. Disturbingly, some of my colleagues have suggested this resolution can be read as a form of ersatz Congressional approval for the use of military force against Iran. The International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, has the authority to monitor the Iranian nuclear program to determine whether nuclear material is being diverted from civilian to military uses. The IAEA has never reported an Iranian violation. This legislation attempts to scare us into believing otherwise, but that fact remains. And the U.S. Intelligence Community agrees with IAEA conclusions on this matter. The most dangerous aspect of H. Res. 568 is that it dramatically lowers the threshold for conflict with Iran by replacing the prohibition against acquiring nuclear weapons to a prohibition against a ``capability'' to develop nuclear weapons. However, as former senior Bush administration official, Flynt Leverett, has stated: Iranian efforts to develop a ``nuclear weapons capability''. . . may make American and Israeli elites uncomfortable. But it is not a violation of the NPT. . . . While the NPT prohibits non-nuclear-weapon states from building atomic bombs, developing a nuclear weapons capability is, [allowed] under the NPT . . . It is certainly not a justification--strategically, legally, or morally--for armed aggression against Iran. But this resolution states that the House ``rejects any United States policy that would rely on efforts to contain a nuclear weapons-capable Iran.'' That makes it very clear that the intent of the House is to authorize force against Iran not if it acquires a nuclear weapon, but if it has a ``capability'' to acquire them some time in the future. The term ``capability'' is left undefined, of course, leaving it open to very broad interpretations by this and future administrations. Mr. Speaker, this is incredibly dangerous legislation. I urge my colleagues in the strongest manner to reject this stealth authorization for war on Iran.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize A.J. ``Pete'' Reixach, Jr. as he retires from his longtime position as the executive port director for Port Freeport, Texas. Port Freeport is one of the largest ports in my district, and it has been a pleasure to work alongside Mr. Reixach on a number of maritime issues. Pete is very well known in South Texas and the port community not only for his strong commitment to Port Freeport, but also for his efforts to expand international trade throughout the Gulf. He also is very well known for his tremendous contributions to the Brazoria County business community. I'm happy to announce that Pete will not be retiring from the port business altogether, however. On the contrary, congratulations are in order for his recent promotion to chairman of the American Association of Port Authorities board. With his years of experience, talent, and expertise on a wide variety of issues I am certain Pete will enjoy a very successful tenure as chairman of the AAPA board. I'm also happy to see the Gulf coast represented at the highest level of the AAPA. Pete has been an integral part of Gulf Coast port operations since his career began in 1970. He started as the assistant manager of the Greece-based Hellenic Lines Ltd. in New Orleans. He later arrived in Houston to become the general manager for Netherlands-based F.A. Voight Inc., before becoming the Texas Gulf Coast port assistant manager in 1985 and then general manager in 1986. In 1988 he finally made his way down to Port Freeport where he has been the executive port director now for over 20 years. Port Freeport is ranked 16th among U.S. ports in international cargo transport. The landscape extends over 7,500 acres creating promise for future infrastructure and development. Port Freeport serves my district through technological advancement and is one of the leading job creators on the Texas Gulf Coast. Pete understands the importance of economy-enhanced sustainability efforts especially during these tumultuous times. Not only has Pete been a treasured asset in Port Freeport, but he has also taken an active role on the national level as chairman of the Gulf Ports Association of the Americas and was vice chairman of AAPA Legislative Policy Council. Locally, he has also been involved with the Texas Ports Association and served on the Brazosport Area Chamber of Commerce. The AAPA board has certainly gained a knowledgeable leader to spearhead their international trade efforts. In September, Pete will assume a one year chairmanship during the AAPA's 99th annual convention in Halifax, Nova Scotia. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to commemorate this great accomplishment and to wish Pete Reixach all the best as he moves into the next part of his career.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, Congress should reject H.R. 2072, the Securing American Jobs Through Exports Act of 2011, for economic, moral, and constitutional reasons. The Export-Import Bank is a prime example of corporate welfare, taking money from American taxpayers to prop up the export businesses of large corporations. Companies such as Boeing should be able to make sales based solely on the quality of their products and the willingness of the market to purchase those products. Instead, these companies rely on their political connections to subsidize their businesses. Ex-Im even provided Enron with hundreds of millions of dollars of assistance before that company's ignominious collapse. Do we really want to continue funding the Enrons of the world? Not only is it bad economics to force working Americans, small businesses, and entrepreneurs to subsidize the exports of large corporations, it is also immoral. Redistribution from the poor and middle class to the wealthy is the most indefensible aspect of the welfare state, yet it is the most accepted form of welfare. At a time when the Federal government is running unprecedentedly large budget deficits why are we reauthorizing subsidies for large corporations? I hope that my colleagues who criticize welfare for the poor on moral and constitutional grounds will vote against this program that provides welfare for the rich. Proponents of continued American support for Ex-Im claim that the bank ``creates jobs'' and promotes economic growth. However, this claim rests on a version of what the great economist Henry Hazlitt called the ``broken window'' fallacy. When a hoodlum throws a rock through a store window, it can be said he has contributed to the economy, as the store owner will have to spend money having the window fixed. The benefits to those who repaired the window are visible for all to see, therefore it is easy to see the broken window as economically beneficial. However, the ``benefits'' of the broken window are revealed as an illusion when one takes into account what is not seen: the businesses and workers who would have benefited had the store owner not spent money repairing a window, but rather been free to spend his money as he chose. Similarly, the beneficiaries of Ex-Im are visible to all. What is not seen is the products that would have been built, the businesses that would have been started, and the jobs that would have been created had the funds used for Ex-Im been left in the hands of consumers. Leaving those funds in the private sector ensures that those resources will be put to the use most highly valued by individual consumers. In contrast, when the government diverts resources into the public sector via programs such as Ex-Im, their use is determined by bureaucrats and politically powerful special interests, resulting in a distorted market and a misallocation of resources. By distorting the market and preventing resources from achieving their highest valued use, Ex-Im actually costs Americans jobs and reduces America's standard of living! Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleagues that there is simply no constitutional justification for the expenditure of funds on programs such as Ex-Im. In fact, the framers of the Constitution would be horrified to know that the Federal Government was taking hard- earned money from the American people in order to benefit the politically powerful. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, Ex-Im distorts the market by allowing government bureaucrats to make economic decisions instead of individual consumers. Ex-Im also violates basic principles of morality, by forcing American taxpayers to subsidize the operations of wealthy companies that could easily afford to engage in international trade without government assistance. Ex-Im also violates the limitations on congressional power to take the property of individual citizens and use it to benefit powerful special interests. It is for these reasons that I strongly urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 2072.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4133, the United States-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act, which unfortunately is another piece of one-sided and counterproductive foreign policy legislation. This bill's real intent seems to be more saber-rattling against Iran and Syria, and it undermines U.S. diplomatic efforts by making clear that the U.S. is not an honest broker seeking peace for the Middle East. The bill calls for the United States to significantly increase our provision of sophisticated weaponry to Israel, and states that it is to be U.S. policy to ``help Israel preserve its qualitative military edge'' in the region. While I absolutely believe that Israel--and any other nation--should be free to determine for itself what is necessary for its national security, I do not believe that those decisions should be underwritten by U.S. taxpayers and backed up by the U.S. military. This bill states that it is the policy of the United States to ``reaffirm the enduring commitment of the United States to the security of the State of Israel as a Jewish state.'' However, according to our Constitution the policy of the United States Government should be to protect the security of the United States, not to guarantee the religious, ethnic, or cultural composition of a foreign country. In fact, our own Constitution prohibits the establishment of any particular religion in the U.S. More than 20 years after the reason for NATO's existence--the Warsaw Pact--has disappeared, this legislation seeks to find a new mission for that anachronistic alliance: the defense of Israel. Calling for ``an expanded role for Israel within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), including an enhanced presence at NATO headquarters and exercises,'' it reads like a dream for interventionists and the military industrial complex. As I have said many times, NATO should be disbanded not expanded. This bill will not help the United States, it will not help Israel, and it will not help the Middle East. It will implicitly authorize much more U.S. interventionism in the region at a time when we cannot afford the foreign commitments we already have. It more likely will lead to war against Syria, Iran, or both. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.