Ron Paul

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, many Americans are hoping the new administration will solve the economic problems we face. That's not likely to happen, because the economic advisors to the new President have no more understanding of how to get us out of this mess than previous administrations and Congresses understood how the crisis was brought about in the first place. Except for a rare few, Members of Congress are unaware of Austrian Free Market economics. For the last 80 years, the legislative, judiciary and executive branches of our government have been totally influenced by Keynesian economics. If they had had any understanding of the Austrian economic explanation of the business cycle, they would have never permitted the dangerous bubbles that always lead to painful corrections. Today, a major economic crisis is unfolding. New government programs are started daily, and future plans are being made for even more. All are based on the belief that we're in this mess because free-market capitalism and sound money failed. The obsession is with more spending, bailouts of bad investments, more debt, and further dollar debasement. Many are saying we need an international answer to our problems with the establishment of a world central bank and a single fiat reserve currency. These suggestions are merely more of the same policies that created our mess and are doomed to fail. At least 90 percent of the cause for the financial crisis can be laid at the doorstep of the Federal Reserve. It is the manipulation of credit, the money supply, and interest rates that caused the various bubbles to form. Congress added fuel to the fire by various programs and institutions like the Community Reinvestment Act, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, FDIC, and HUD mandates, which were all backed up by aggressive court rulings. The Fed has now doled out close to $2 trillion in subsidized loans to troubled banks and other financial institutions. The Federal Reserve and Treasury constantly brag about the need for ``transparency'' and ``oversight,'' but it's all just talk--they want none of it. They want secrecy while the privileged are rescued at the expense of the middle class. It is unimaginable that Congress could be so derelict in its duty. It does nothing but condone the arrogance of the Fed in its refusal to tell us where the $2 trillion has gone. All Members of Congress and all Americans should be outraged that conditions could deteriorate to this degree. It's no wonder that a large and growing number of Americans are now demanding an end to the Fed. The Federal Reserve created our problem, yet it manages to gain even more power in the socialization of the entire financial system. The whole bailout process this past year was characterized by no oversight, no limits, no concerns, no understanding, and no common sense. Similar mistakes were made in the 1930s and ushered in the age of the New Deal, the Fair Deal, the Great Society and the supply-siders who convinced conservatives that deficits didn't really matter after all, since they were anxious to finance a very expensive deficit-financed American empire. All the programs since the Depression were meant to prevent recessions and depressions. Yet all that was done was to plant the seeds of the greatest financial bubble in all history. Because of this lack of understanding, the stage is now set for massive nationalization of the financial system and quite likely the means of production. Although it is obvious that the Keynesians were all wrong and interventionism and central economic planning don't work, whom are we listening to for advice on getting us out of this mess? Unfortunately, it's the Keynesians, the socialists, and big-government proponents. Who's being ignored? The Austrian free-market economists--the very ones who predicted not only the Great Depression, but the calamity we're dealing with today. If the crisis was predictable and is explainable, why did no one listen? It's because too many politicians believed that a free lunch was possible and a new economic paradigm had arrived. But we've heard that one before--like the philosopher's stone that could turn lead into gold. Prosperity without work is a dream of the ages. Over and above this are those who understand that political power is controlled by those who control the money supply. Liberals and conservatives, Republicans and Democrats came to believe, as they were taught in our universities, that deficits don't matter and that Federal Reserve accommodation by monetizing debt is legitimate and never harmful. The truth is otherwise. Central economic planning is always harmful. Inflating the money supply and purposely devaluing the dollar is always painful and dangerous. The policies of big-government proponents are running out of steam. Their policies have failed and will continue to fail. Merely doing more of what caused the crisis can hardly provide a solution. The good news is that Austrian economists are gaining more acceptance every day and have a greater chance of influencing our future than they've had for a long time. The basic problem is that proponents of big government require a central bank in order to surreptitiously pay bills without direct taxation. Printing needed money delays the payment. Raising taxes would reveal the true cost of big government, and the people would revolt. But the piper will be paid, and that's what this crisis is all about. There are limits. A country cannot forever depend on a central bank to keep the economy afloat and the currency functionable through constant acceleration of money supply growth. Eventually the laws of economics will overrule the politicians, the bureaucrats and the central bankers. The system will fail to respond unless the excess debt and mal-investment is liquidated. If it goes too far and the wild extravagance is not arrested, runaway inflation will result, and an entirely new currency will be required to restore growth and reasonable political stability. The choice we face is ominous: We either accept world-wide authoritarian government holding together a flawed system, OR we restore the principles of the Constitution, limit government power, restore commodity money without a Federal Reserve system, reject world government, and promote the cause of peace by protecting liberty equally for all persons. Freedom is the answer.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act (H.R. 2638): Requesting member: Ron Paul. Bill number: H.R. 2638. Account: Rdt&E Defense Health Program. Legal name of requesting entity: Gulf Chemical and Metallurgical Corporation. Address of requesting entity: PO Box 2290, 302 Midway Road, Freeport, TX 77542-2290. Description of request: The project earmarks $3,000,000 for a Department of Defense lead study of vanadium to assess the health safety and risks of military and civilian workers exposed to vanadium through work in military applications.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to my friend Marshall Fritz who passed away on Tuesday, November 4, after a long battle with pancreatic cancer. Marshall was a true champion of freedom whose impact on the cause of liberty will be felt for years to come. Marshall, with his booming voice and good humor, was the happy warrior of the freedom movement, as well as the movement's Will Rogers. Marshall never met a fellow fighter for liberty, a single-issue ally, or a potential convert he did not like--and to Marshall anyone who did not already share his love of liberty was a potential convert. Marshall was a model of an ideological/political entrepreneur. In 1984, Marshall saw that the growth of the freedom movement was handicapped by the lack of an organization to help activists better communicate the freedom philosophy to the general public. While Marshall was not the first person to have this realization, he was the first person to attempt to remedy the situation by founding Advocates for Self-Government, an organization designed to teach activists how to effectively communicate their principles. In the years since Marshall founded the Advocates for Self- Government, the organization has helped countless libertarians by providing them with the intellectual resources necessary to effectively battle for a free society. While serving as president of the Advocates, Marshall created the World's Smallest Political Quiz. The quiz graphs an individual's political philosophy based on responses to a series of 10 questions that measure one's commitment to economic and personal liberty. Under Marshall's leadership, the Advocates undertook an aggressive program of distributing the quiz. There is no doubt that this has been the Advocate's most successful and popular program. The quiz is responsible for many Americans' first contact with libertarian ideas. While traveling around the country, I have often heard people say, ``I never knew I was a libertarian until I took the quiz!'' In 1990, Marshall stepped down as president of the Advocates to found the Alliance for the Separation of School and State, an organization focusing on the vital issue of parental control of education. Thanks in large part to Marshall's work, the idea that parents, not the government, should control education is no longer excluded from public debate as a ``fringe'' notion. One of the features that most impresses me about the Alliance is the way that Marshall brought libertarians, conservatives, liberals together to work for education freedom. Anyone who knew Marshall and worked with him would not be surprised that he was able to forge a coalition of people of diverse views. Marshall's focus was always on building alliances and trying to persuade those with whom he disagreed, rather than on scoring debating points. While he never compromised his principles and never hesitated to criticize even his closet allies if they took what he considered an anti-liberty position, Marshall never personalized disagreements and always treated his opponents with courtesy and respect. I believe the freedom movement would be more successful if more libertarians followed Marshall's example of never turning policy disagreements into personal attacks. All of us who care about building an effective freedom movement owe a debt of gratitude to Marshall Fritz. I join Marshall's family in mourning his loss and I urge all of us who work for liberty to honor Marshall's memory by following the example he set.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, only in Washington could a bill demonstrably worse than its predecessor be brought back for another vote and actually expect to gain votes. That this bailout was initially defeated was a welcome surprise, but the power-brokers in Washington and on Wall Street could not allow that defeat to be permanent. It was most unfortunate that this monstrosity of a bill, loaded up with even more pork, was able to pass. The Federal Reserve has already injected hundreds of billions of dollars into U.S. and world credit markets. The adjusted monetary base is up sharply, bank reserves have exploded, and the national debt is up almost half a trillion dollars over the past two weeks. Yet, we are still told that after all this intervention, all this inflation, that we still need an additional $700 billion bailout, otherwise the credit markets will seize and the economy will collapse. This is the same excuse that preceded previous bailouts, and undoubtedly we will hear it again in the future after this bailout fails. One of the most dangerous effects of this bailout is the incredibly elevated risk of moral hazard in the future. The worst performing financial services firms, even those who have been taken over by the Government or have filed for bankruptcy, will find all of their poor decision-making rewarded. What incentive do Wall Street firms or any other large concerns have to make sound financial decisions, now that they see the Federal Government bailing out private companies to the tune of trillions of dollars? As Congress did with the legislation authorizing the Fannie and Freddie bailout, it proposes a solution that exacerbates and encourages the problematic behavior that led to this crisis in the first place. With deposit insurance increasing to $250,000 and banks able to set their reserves to zero, we will undoubtedly see future increases in unsound lending. No one in our society seems to understand that wealth is not created by government fiat, is not created by banks, and is not created through the manipulation of interest rates and provision of easy credit. A debt-based society cannot prosper and is doomed to fail, as debts must either be defaulted on or repaid, neither resolution of which presents this country with a pleasant view of the future. True wealth can only come about through savings, the deferral of present consumption in order to provide for a higher level of future consumption. Instead, our Government through its own behavior and through its policies encourages us to live beyond our means, reducing existing capital and mortgaging our future to pay for present consumption. The money for this bailout does not just materialize out of thin air. The entire burden will be borne by the taxpayers, not now, because that is politically unacceptable, but in the future. This bailout will be paid for through the issuance of debt which we can only hope will be purchased by foreign creditors. The interest payments on that debt, which already take up a sizeable portion of Federal expenditures, will rise, and our children and grandchildren will be burdened with increased taxes in order to pay that increased debt. As usual, Congress has shown itself to be reactive rather than proactive. For years, many people have been warning about the housing bubble and the inevitable bust. Congress ignored the impending storm, and responded to this crisis with a poorly thought-out piece of legislation that will only further harm the economy. We ought to be ashamed.

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill because it won't solve our problem. It is said that we are in a liquidity crisis and a credit crunch and all we need is more credit. The Federal Reserve has already injected over a trillion dollars worth of credit and it doesn't seem to have helped a whole lot. Injecting another 600 to $700 billion will not solve the problem. I think one of the reasons why we are floundering around here is that we don't understand the problem because instead of it being a credit crunch, I think it is a lot more serious than that. That is, I think what is happening in the market today is signaling something much more draconian because it is probably telling us that our government is insolvent, that we are on the verge of bankruptcy and big things are starting to happen. And we don't quite understand it, so we fall back on the old cliches that what we need is more appropriations, more spending, more debt, and more credit in the market. That means more inflation by the Federal Reserve system. And yet, that is what caused the trouble. We want to do this it is said to prevent the recession or depression because that is unbearable. But the truth is you should have thought about that 10 or 15 years ago because the financial bubble created by the excess of credit and the lowering of the interest rate is the cause of the recession. The recession is a demand. It is a must; you can't avoid it. Yes, it has been papered over several times over the last several decades, but that just made the bubble bigger. The message is now you can't paper it over any longer. So the recession and/or depression will come. My sincere conviction is that by doing more mischief and not allowing markets to adjust, debt to be liquidated, you're going to guarantee a depression. It is going to be prolonged. The agony is going to be there for a lot longer than if you allow markets to adjust. Liquidation of debt. Let the bankruptcy occur, let the good assets come up, and let it react. This idea that there is not enough regulation is completely wrong. There is too much regulation, and lack of regulation of the Federal Reserve system and the exchange of stabilization.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I would like to commend a very determined newspaper in my district, the unsinkable Galveston Daily News. The stories of Hurricane Ike continue to be told as the area begins to recover, but the Galveston Daily News never stopped their reporting in the midst of this deadly storm. I am told the entire roof of their building was blown away, flooding the interior, leaving them with no equipment except a single working cell phone, and still, they missed not one single issue. With cooperation from other area papers, the Herald Zeitung in New Braunfels for layout and the Victoria Advocate for printing, every single issue promised readers will be available to them, even if some homes have been impossible to deliver to. I am also told that many reporters and employees of the paper endured heavy personal losses. They obviously consider their roles as communicators within and for the community of Galveston not as a mere job, but as a personal calling. It is devoted Texans and Americans like those at the Galveston Daily News that make this country work, and I applaud them.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. This is only going to make the problem that much worse. The problem came about because we spent too much; we borrowed too much, and we printed too much money; we inflated too much, and we overregulated. This is all that this bill is about is more of the same. So you can't solve the problem. We are looking at a symptom. We are looking at the collapsing of a market that was unstable. It was unstable because of the way it came about. It came about because of a monopoly control of money and credit by the Federal Reserve System, and that is a natural consequence of what happens when a Federal Reserve System creates too much credit. Now, there have been a fair number of free market economists around who have predicted this would happen. Yet do we look to them for advice? No. We totally exclude them. We don't listen to them. We don't look at them. We look to the people who created the problem, and then we perpetuate the problem. The most serious mistake that could be made here today is to blame free market capitalism for this problem. This has nothing to do with free market capitalism. This has to do with a managed economy, with an inflationary system, with corporatism, and with a special interest system. It has nothing to do with the failure of free markets and capitalism. Yet we're resorting now, once again, to promoting more and more government. Long term, this is disastrous because of everything we're doing here and because of everything we've done for 6 months. We've already pumped in $700 billion. Here is another $700 billion. This is going to destroy the dollar. That's what you should be concerned about. Yes, Wall Street is in trouble. There are a lot of problems, and if we don't vote for this, there are going to be problems. Believe me: If you destroy the dollar, you're going to destroy a worldwide economy, and that's what we're on the verge of doing, and it is inevitable, if we continue this, that that's what's going to happen. It's going to be a lot more serious than what we're dealing with today. We need to get our house in order. We need more oversight--that is a certainty--but we need oversight of the Federal Reserve System, of the Exchange Stabilization Fund and of the President's Working Group on Financial Markets. Find out what they're doing. How much have they been meddling in the market? What we're doing today is going to make things much worse. The process of this bailout reminds me of a panic-stricken swimmer thrashing in the water only making his situation worse. Even a ``bipartisan deal''--whatever that is supposed to mean--will not stop the Congress from thrashing about. The beneficiaries of the corrupt monetary system of the last 3 decades are now desperately looking for victims to stick with the bill after they have reaped decades of profit and privilege. The difficulties in our economy will continue because the legislative and the executive branches have not yet begun to address the real problems. The housing bubble's collapse, as was the dot corn bubble's collapse, was predictable and is merely a symptom of the monetary system that brought us to this point. Indeed, we do face a major crisis, but it is much bigger than the freezing up of Wall Street and dealing with worthless assets on the books of major banks. The true crisis is the pending collapse of the fiat dollar system that emerged after the breakdown of the Bretton Woods agreement in 1971. For 37 years the world built a financial system based on the dollar as the reserve currency of the world in an attempt to make the dollar serve as the new standard of value. However since 1971, the dollar has had no intrinsic value, as it is not tied to gold. The dollar is simply a fiat currency, which has fluctuated in value on a daily, if not hourly, bias. This worked to some degree until the market realized that too much debt and malinvestment existed and a correction was required. Because of our economic and military strength, compared to other countries, trust in America's currency lasted longer than deserved. This resulted in the biggest worldwide economic distortion in all of history. The problem is much bigger than the fears of a temporary decline on Wall Street if the bailout is not agreed to. Money's most important function is to serve as a means of exchange--a measurement of value. If this crucial yardstick is not stable, it becomes impossible for investors, entrepreneurs, savers, and consumers to make correct decisions; these mistakes create the bubble that must eventually be corrected. Just imagine the results if a construction company was forced to use a yardstick whose measures changed daily to construct a skyscraper. The result would be a very unstable and dangerous building. No doubt the construction company would try to cover up their fundamental problem with patchwork repairs, but no amount of patchwork can fix a building with an unstable inner structure. Eventually, the skyscraper will collapse, forcing the construction company to rebuild--hopefully this time with a stable yardstick. This $700 billion package is more patchwork repair and will prove to be money down a rat hole and will only make the dollar crisis that much worse. But what politicians are willing to say that the financial ``skyscraper''--the global financial and monetary system-is a house of cards. It is not going to happen at this juncture. They're not even talking about this. They talk only of bailouts, more monetary inflation, more special interest spending, more debt, and more regulations. There is almost no talk of the relationship of the Community Reinvestment Act, HUD, and government assisted loans to the housing bubble. And there is no talk of the oversight that is desperately needed for the Federal Reserve, the Exchange Stabilization Fund, and all the activities of the President's Working Group on financial markets. When these actions are taken we will at last know that Congress is serious about the reforms that are really needed. In conclusion, there are three good reasons why Congress should reject this legislation: It is immoral--Dumping bad debt on the innocent taxpayers is an act of theft and is wrong. It is unconstitutional--There is no constitutional authority to use government power to serve special interests. It is bad economic policy--By refusing to address the monetary system while continuing to place the burdens of the bailout on the dollar, we can be certain that in time, we will be faced with another, more severe crisis when the market figures out that there is no magic government bailout or regulation that can make a fraudulent monetary system work. Monetary reform will eventually come, but, unfortunately, Congress' actions this week make it more likely the reform will come under dire circumstances, such as the midst of a worldwide collapse of the dollar. The question then will be how much of our liberties will be sacrificed in the process. Just remember what we lost in the aftermath of 9-11. The best result we can hope for is that the economic necessity of getting our fiscal house in order will, at last, force us to give up our world empire. Without the empire we can then concentrate on rebuilding the Republic.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information for publication in the Congressional Record regarding an earmark I received as part of H.R. 2638: Name of Requesting Member: Ron Paul. Bill Number: H.R. 2638, the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act. Account: Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard Bridge Replacement. Legal Name and Address of the Requesting Agency: Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard Bridge Administration Office, Washington, DC; and the Gulf Intracoastal Canal Association, 2010 Butler Drive, Friendswood, Texas 77546. Description of Request: Provides $5,000,000 for the Galveston Causeway Railroad Bridge Replacement. Today, 21 thousand barges move 29 million tons of cargo worth $10 billion through the Galveston Bridge each year. In 2001, after a lengthy review process, the bridge was declared a hazard to navigation by the Coast Guard under the Truman Hobbs Act. The current estimated cost of replacement is almost $68 million. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard, under the Truman Hobbs Act. Under the Truman Hobbs Act, the Federal Government pays 90 percent of replacement cost and the bridge owner-- Galveston County--pays 10 percent.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, this is a bad week for those of us concerned over Congress' refusal to reign in federal spending. Not only are we preparing to deal with at least a multi-billion dollar bailout of the financial services sector, Congress today stands ready to add billions to the national debt by passing H.R. 2638. I would not object to many of the items in this bill if they were offset by reductions on other, lower priority, programs. For example, I would support the disaster relief package if the package were offset by reductions in other spending, particularly reductions in our overseas commitments. Unfortunately, H.R. 2638 not only fails to reduce spending to finance disaster aid; it attaches money for the country of Georgia onto the disaster aid package. Georgia is not receiving this money because it was affected by a natural disaster but because it was involved in a military conflict with Russia--which was started by Georgia! It is an insult to the American people to divert money that could have gone to help the victims of Hurricane Ike to promote interference in a conflict that in no way threatens the security of the American people. Another particularly objectionable part of H.R. 2638 is the section providing $7.5 billion in loan guarantees for the auto industry. In exchange for the loans, the industry must agree to produce the type of automobiles favored by federal bureaucrats. Thus, this bill not only increases corporate welfare, it empowers federal bureaucrats to displace the judgment of consumers as to where the auto industry should concentrate its resources. As the failure of every centrally planed economy throughout history shows, when government officials usurp the decisions of consumers, workers, and entrepreneurs the result is economic stagnation. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2638 represents another missed opportunity for Congress to exercise fiscal discipline by funding the American people's priorities, such as disaster relief, by reducing spending on non- priority items, such as overseas spending. Therefore, I must oppose this bill. I hope that in the future Congress will fund items such as disaster relief by reducing spending in other areas instead of burdening future generations with more debt.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the Nursing Home Emergency Assistance Act. This act makes private, for-profit nursing homes eligible for the same federal aid as is currently available to public nursing homes. Under current federal law, only public nursing homes may receive federal disaster assistance. However, hurricanes, tornadoes, and earthquakes do not distinguish between private and public, or for- profit and not-for-profit, nursing homes. As I have recently seen in my district, all nursing homes face unique challenges coping with natural disasters and their aftermaths. It is not fair to the taxpayers who work in, reside in, or have entrusted the care of their loved ones to, a private nursing home that private nursing homes are denied the same federal aid available to their public counterparts. Madame Speaker, the Nursing Home Emergency Assistance Act ensures all residents of nursing homes can benefit from federal disaster aid. I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the Evacuees Tax Relief Act of 2008, legislation providing tax relief to those forced to abandon their homes because of a natural disaster. This legislation provides a tax credit or a tax deduction, depending on the wishes of the taxpayer, of up to $5,000 for costs incurred because of a government-ordered mandatory or voluntary evacuation. Evacuees could use the credit to cover travel and lodging expenses associated with the evacuation, lost wages, property damages not otherwise compensated, and any other evacuation-related expenses. The tax credit is refundable up to the amount of income and payroll taxes a person would otherwise pay, thus ensuring working people who pay more in payroll than in income taxes are able to benefit from this tax relief. The credit is available retroactive to December of 2007, so it is available to Hurricane Ike evacuees, as well as those who evacuated because of Hurricanes Gustav and Dolly. Having recently had the majority of my district, including my home county, subject to mandatory evacuation because of Hurricane Ike, I have experienced firsthand the burdens on those forced to uproot themselves and their families. Evacuees incur great costs in getting to safety, as well as loss from the storm damage. It can take many months, and even years, to fully recover from the devastation of a natural disaster. Given the unpredictable nature of natural disasters such as hurricanes and tornados, it is difficult for most families to adequately budget for these costs. The Evacuees Tax Relief Act helps Americans manage the fiscal costs of a natural disaster. Madam Speaker, it is hard to think of a more timely and more compassionate tax relief proposal than one aimed at helping families cope with the costs associated with being uprooted from their homes, jobs, and communities by a natural disaster. I hope all my colleagues will show compassion for those forced to flee their homes by cosponsoring the Evacuees Tax Relief Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to this appropriations legislation. It is unfortunate that my colleagues have decided to combine the necessary appropriations contained in the Veterans Affairs portion of this bill with the bloated and unconstitutional military construction appropriations. In the past I have voted in favor of Veterans Affairs appropriation bills when they were not combined with unwise and wasteful spending of other appropriations like military construction. This appropriation will allocate $9.5 billion to close bases in the United States while spending nearly $12 billion building other facilities overseas. As a matter of fact, any construction of new bases in the United States is prohibited by this bill. While I am not necessarily in favor of building new bases in the United States, we certainly should not be spending money to close existing domestic bases in favor of constructing new bases overseas. The bill will transfer more than $200 million to NATO, an organization with no purpose that should be disbanded immediately, for the construction of NATO facilities in countries where we have no business having our military in the first place. We have been told that we will have no permanent bases in Iraq, but then again we have no ``permanent'' bases in Korea either even though we have had a military presence there for more than 50 years. It is unclear how much of this $12 billion will go to building new facilities to maintain an indefinite presence in Iraq, but any such expenditure will be counterproductive to U.S. national interests. This appropriation increases construction funds to the service branches by as much as 50 percent over current levels, which is financially dangerous and unsustainable particularly in view of next year's record budget deficit. Mr. Chairman, it is a tragedy that necessary spending to keep promises to American veterans should be held hostage to this out of control spending on maintaining an unnecessary and dangerous U.S. empire overseas. We are doing no favors to today's veterans or to future veterans--or to the U.S. taxpayers--with this appropriations bill.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, which will bar the collection of co-payments from veterans for hospital and nursing home care if the veteran is considered catastrophically disabled. I strongly advocate a noninterventionist foreign policy that would result in far fewer wars and, thankfully, far fewer catastrophically disabled veterans. But I also strongly believe that we must take care of those veterans who have been so severely wounded or otherwise disabled. Too often those who are most vocal in support of foreign military action are most silent when it comes time to take care of those who have paid a very high price for these actions. This legislation will provide at least a little relief to the most seriously injured veterans. I am concerned, however, that this bill incorporates language from H.R. 6114, which rescinds a current law requirement that the VA obtain a signed consent form from a veteran before conducting an HIV test. We have seen veterans punished severely for attempting to avoid the required but controversial myriad of inoculations they are required to receive. Now we see that they will have less control over what medical tests to which they might be subjected. I am concerned over this loss of control over one's healthcare decisions among those who voluntarily join the military, and I urge the adoption of a more flexible policy. I would also urge my colleagues and the American people to contemplate this deprivation of medical and privacy rights on a massive scale should we ever reinstate the draft. I believe taking care of veterans should include both providing promised benefits and protecting their privacy rights.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, on August 5 the Foundation for International Space Education (FISE) will host United Space School Day at the University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB) in Galveston, Texas. The United Space School Day is a summer science camp/health careers promotion activity coordinated by the East Texas Area Health Education Center (AHEC). The United Space School Day's activities will focus on the education pathways appropriate for students interested in careers in life sciences, aerospace medicine, and bioastronautics. United Space School Day is just one part of FISE's United Space School program. The United Space School program, established in 1994, is the major way FISE carries out its mission of providing space-based academic instruction to pre-collegiate students from across America and around the world who are interested in science, engineering, technology, or mathematics careers. The United Space School gives these students the opportunity to learn from some of the space industry's leading experts. Participants in the programs follow a curriculum specially designed to provide appropriate training and development by instructors qualified and knowledgeable in the proper disciplines. As the students visit the various educational venues and participate in the space-related learning initiatives, they are exposed to myriad examples of space-related careers as well as careers in industries that support the space programs. United Space School students also benefit from daily one-on-one interaction with leading aerospace professionals from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) or the Johnson Space Center (JSC), and the supporting aerospace community. United Space School participants are also given a unique ``hands on'' learning experience through the development of a Manned Mission to Mars Project. United Space School's organization, schedule, and curriculum are designed to provide the structure, knowledge, resources, mentoring, and appropriate settings to complete the Manned Mission to Mars project. Madam Speaker, FISE's United Space School program is doing invaluable work in preparing the next generation of scientists and aerospace engineers. I would not be surprised if future breakthroughs in space technology came from alumni of the United Space School program. It is therefore my pleasure to extend my congratulations to the United Space School program on the occasion of the United Space School Day. I also extend my thanks to NASA, the Johnson Space Center, the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, East Texas AHEC, and all the volunteers who help make the United Space School program possible.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution, which is yet another meaningless but provocative condemnation of China. It is this kind of jingoism that has led to such a low opinion of the United States abroad. Certainly I do not condone human rights abuses, wherever they may occur, but as Members of the U.S. House of Representatives we have no authority over the Chinese government. It is our constitutional responsibility to deal with abuses in our own country or those created abroad by our own foreign policies. Yet we are not debating a bill to close Guantanamo, where abuses have been documented. We are not debating a bill to withdraw from Iraq, where scores of innocents have been killed, injured, and abused due to our unprovoked attack on that country. We are not debating a bill to reverse the odious FISA bill passed recently which will result in extreme abuses of Americans by gutting the Fourth Amendment. Instead of addressing these and scores of other pressing issues over which we do have authority, we prefer to spend our time criticizing a foreign government over which we have no authority and foreign domestic problems about which we have very little accurate information. I do find it ironic that this resolution ``calls on the Government of the People's Republic of China to begin earnest negotiations, without preconditions, directly with His Holiness the Dalai Lama or his representatives.'' For years U.S. policy has been that no meeting or negotiation could take place with Iran until certain preconditions are met by Iran. Among these is a demand that Iran cease uranium enrichment, which Iran has the right to do under the terms of the Non- Proliferation Treaty. It is little wonder why some claim that resolutions like this are hypocritical. Instead of lecturing China, where I have no doubt there are problems as there are everywhere, I would suggest that we turn our attention to the very real threats in a United States where our civil liberties and human rights are being eroded on a steady basis. The Bible cautions against pointing out the speck in a neighbor's eye while ignoring the log in one's own. I suggest we contemplate this sound advice before bringing up such ill-conceived resolutions in the future.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, for several years, followers of the Austrian school of economics have warned that unless Congress moved to end the implicit Government guarantee of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and took other steps to disengage the U.S. Government from the housing market, America would face a crisis in housing. This crisis would force Congress to chose between authorizing a taxpayer bailout of Fannie and Freddie, and other measures increasing Government's involvement in housing, or restoring a free market in housing by ending Government support for Fannie and Freddie and repealing all laws that interfere in housing. The bursting of the housing bubble, and the recent near- collapse in investor support for Fannie and Freddie has proven my fellow Austrians correct. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, instead of ending the prior interventions in the housing market that are responsible for the current crisis, Congress is increasing the level of Government intervention in the housing market. This is the equivalent of giving a drug addict another fix, which will only make the necessary withdrawal more painful. The provision giving the Treasury Secretary a blank check to purchase Fannie and Freddie stock not only makes the implicit Government guarantee of Fannie and Freddie explicit, it represents another unconstitutional delegation of Congress' constitutional authority to control the allocation of taxpayer dollars. While the Treasury Secretary has to file a report with Congress, the lack of any effective standards for the expenditure of funds makes it impossible for Congress to perform effective oversight on Treasury's expenditures. H.R. 3221 also takes another troubling step toward the creation of surveillance state by creating a Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System and Registry. This Federal database will contain personal information about anyone wishing to work as a ``loan originator.'' ``Loan originator'' is defined broadly as anyone who ``takes a residential loan application; and offers or negotiates terms of a residential mortgage loan for compensation or gain.'' According to some analysts, this definition is so broad as to cover part-time clerks and real estate agents who receive even minimal compensation from ``originators.'' Additionally, this database forced on industry will be funded by fees paid to the Federal banking agencies, yet another costly burden to the American taxpayers. Among the information that will be collected from loan originators for inclusion in the Federal database are fingerprints. Madam Speaker, giving the Federal Government the power to force Americans who wish to work in real estate to submit their fingerprints to a Federal database opens the door to numerous abuses of privacy and civil liberties and establishes a dangerous precedent. Fingerprint databases and background checks have been no deterrent to espionage and fraud among governmental agencies, and will likewise fail to prevent fraud in the real estate market. I am amazed to see some members who are usually outspoken advocates of civil liberties and defenders of the fourth amendment support this new threat to privacy. Finally, H.R. 3221 increases the Federal debt limit by $800 billion. We are told that CBO has scored this bill at a cost of $25 billion, but this debt limit increase belies that. The Federal Reserve has already propped up the housing and financial markets to the tune of over $300 billion, and this raise of the debt limit indicates that the cost of this newest bailout will likely be even more costly. I am dismayed that my colleagues have not learned the lessons of the PATRIOT Act and Sarbanes-Oxley. Massive bills passed in knee-jerk reaction to crisis events will always be poorly written, burdensome and expensive to taxpayers, and destructive of liberty.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to recognize Randy M. Smith, the CEO/President of Randolph-Brooks Federal Credit Union, on his recent election to the Board of Directors of the National Association of Federal Credit Unions (NAFCU). For the past 21 years, Mr. Smith has dedicated his life to improving financial institutions in America, serving on the Credit Union Oversight Task Force of the Campaign for Consumer Choice, NAFCU's Legislative, Regulatory and Accounting Standards Committees and various committees of state and national credit union organizations. Currently, he is a member of the Air Education and Training Command's Community Council and the Board of Trustees of the local United Way. I am also very proud to say that he is a fellow retired officer of the United States Air Force. As the President/CEO, Mr. Smith has focused on strengthening the way Randolph-Brooks delivers services aimed at improving the economic well being and quality of life of its members. Consistently ranked among the top 25 of the nearly 8,300 financial cooperatives, Randolph-Brooks is one of the strongest credit unions in the country with more than 265,000 members and total assets exceeding $3 billion. Randolph-Brooks FCU was originally chartered in 1952 to serve personnel at Randolph Air Force Base but has since expanded to include employees and associates at more than 1,300 select groups and eight underserved communities in the San Antonio and Austin areas. Randolph-Brooks FCU prides itself on doing more than just conducting business in the communities they serve, instead becoming members of the community and sharing in the credit union philosophy of ``people helping people.'' With this in mind, Randolph-Brooks provides assistance to hundreds of local charitable organizations including the Children's Miracle Network, Society of St. Vincent de Paul, USO, American Red Cross, and the Fisher House Foundation. It is because of the good work of Mr. Smith and others like him that credit unions across the Nation have had such a tremendous impact of the lives of millions of Americans. Such service is the hallmark of the credit union movement and I know that he will bring this dedication to his service on the NAFCU Board of Directors. I wish Mr. Smith the best of luck in this new role and I look forward to working with him in this new capacity.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I in rise opposition to this irresponsible legislation, which will ship $48 billion overseas as foreign aid at a time when Americans are feeling the pressure of rapidly increasing inflation and a weakened dollar. It is particularly objectionable to ship money to fund healthcare overseas when so many Americans either struggle with high healthcare costs or avoid seeking medical assistance altogether due to lack of insurance or funds. As we know, the Federal Government does not have $48 billion to send overseas so it will have to print the money. It is a cruel irony that this will add to inflation at home which will increase even further the costs of healthcare in the United States. Mr. Speaker, I am saddened by the prevalence of disease in impoverished countries overseas. I certainly encourage every American concerned about HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria overseas to voluntarily provide assistance to help alleviate the problem. But I do not believe it is appropriate--nor is it constitutional--to forcibly take money from American citizens to send abroad. I urge my colleagues to reject this and all foreign aid legislation.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, if I had had a chance to name this bill, I might have suggested that we could call it the mother of all bailouts. But on second thought I decided that wouldn't be appropriate because it isn't nearly as big as the bailout that the Federal Reserve has been engaged in in this very industry. The Federal Reserve has already invested hundreds of billions of dollars, probably close to $300 billion to bail out this industry. And of course the Fed has no money. But when we open the doors in an unlimited amount, and no restraint on what the Treasury might do in buying up these securities, we have to talk about the budget. And, of course, that is why this bill increases the national debt by $800 billion, so I guess they are expecting to buy a whole lot of mortgage securities. But that won't solve the problem. We have to find out why this problem has existed. In 2001, I introduced legislation that would have removed the line of credit, which was only $2.5 billion, but the principle of a line of credit and this supposed guarantee to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, I saw as a great danger. Of course, $2.5 billion is nothing, and the prediction it would be much more when the time came is absolutely correct because now we are talking about hundreds of billions of dollars. But today we have a bill before us that does a lot more than just bail out the mortgage company. I think there are some impositions in this bill that we ought to be concerned about. There is a Federal registry in here to register anybody in the broker industry. And if you work in the industry, you will be fingerprinted. Now, let me guarantee you one thing: we didn't get into this crisis because the people who work in the mortgage industries weren't fingerprinted. We got into this crisis because of a monetary system and a system of laws that encourage the very bubble that we are dealing with today. If we don't deal with the creation of bubbles, you can't solve the problem by more of the same thing. We created this problem with inflation; you can't solve it with more inflation.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, as one who is most consistently opposed to war and violence, I join my colleagues in condemning the brutal and unjustified attack on a Jewish community center in Argentina 14 years ago. I do not support this resolution, however, as it misuses a tragedy 14 years ago in a foreign country to push for U.S. war against Iran today. Although this resolution clearly blames Iran and Hezbollah for the bombing, in fact the investigation is ongoing and far from conclusive. In an article titled ``U.S. uses probe to pressure Iran,'' the Wall Street Journal earlier this year suggested that renewed U.S. interest in this 14-year-old case is more related to politics than a genuine desire for justice. Reported the Journal, As tensions between the U.S. and Iran persist, Washington and its allies are using an investigation into a 1994 terrorist attack in Argentina to maintain pressure on the Iranian regime. Behind the scenes, Bush administration officials are encouraging the probe, which centers on the bombing of a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires. One U.S. goal is to cause legal problems for some of Iran's political leaders. Administration officials also hope to use the matter to highlight Iran's alleged role in financing and supporting terrorism around the world. Those pushing for a U.S. attack on Iran are using this tragic event to foment fear in the United States that Iran and Hezbollah are perpetrating terrorist acts in the Western Hemisphere. This is another in an ongoing series of resolutions we see on the House floor pushing us toward war against Iran. I have no doubt that we will see another similar resolution on the floor next week, and the week after, and so on until we find ourselves making another tragic mistake as we did in 2002 with H.J. Res. 114 giving the President the authority to attack Iraq. I urge my colleagues to resist this push to war with Iran before it is too late.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. A couple of weeks ago, there was a resolution introduced in the Congress, H. Con. Res. 362, that quickly got 220 cosponsors. I want to talk a little bit more about that resolution because there are some Members of Congress now having second thoughts about invoking a blockade on Iran. Take, for instance, here's a quote from Congressman Robert Wexler of Florida. He says, ``Given my growing concerns regarding this resolution, including its failure to advocate for direct American engagement with Tehran and open language that could lead to a U.S. blockade of Iran, I will lead an effort to make changes to this resolution before it comes to the Foreign Affairs Committee for a vote.'' The chairman of the Financial Services Committee, Barney Frank, had this to say: ``I am all for stricter sanctions against Iran, but the blockade part goes too far. I am going to call the sponsors and tell them I am changing my vote.'' I would like all Members of Congress to reconsider, because this I consider a very dangerous sense of congress resolution and that it is going to lead to trouble. There is a new pro-Israeli lobby established called J Street, and they had some comments about this legislation as well. Their comments are this: ``We as a group oppose preemptive military action by either the United States or Israel and we support stronger U.S. diplomacy. To us, it is common sense that saber rattling and constant threats are counterproductive. What better way to unite Iran behind its most hawkish leaders than threatening to attack? What better way to empower the Iranian hardliners' case for nuclear weapons development than to talk of a military attack?'' Today, I had three young Iranians in my office, and they verified that next year there will be an election and Ahmadinejad, who is in political trouble over there, is being enhanced by our militant conversation we have here, threatening of blockades, and with this plan or possible plan to actually bomb Iran. But the other side argues, well, no it is all the Iranians' fault. They are testing missiles. The testing of missiles came after there were war games by Israel testing whether or not they had the manpower and the airplanes to travel that particular distance. So the saber rattling is not one- sided, and we cannot say that it is all the Iranians' fault. This H. Con. Res. 362, the authors claim it is not a blockade. But what it does, it demands inspection of all imports of petroleum products, vehicles, ships, planes, trains and cargo. They use word ``prohibit'' and impose stringent inspection on all of these items. Now, the question I would like to pose here for our Members is this: How would we as Americans and how would we as a government react if a strong government came and did that to us? What if another government came and said we are going to restrict the importation of petroleum products and we are going to inspect all vehicles, ships, planes, trains and cargo? We wouldn't know what that would mean. How could they do that without an embargo? This is militant language, it is just looking for trouble, and it will not help solve the situation. There is nothing wrong with talking to people. We talked to the Soviets in the midst of the Cold War. They had 40,000 nuclear weapons. Now they are talking about, well, maybe the Iranians might get a weapon later on. Quite frankly, this talk about this violation, the Iranians were asked by IAEA not to resume enrichment. They had voluntarily stopped enrichment for peaceful purposes. They have every right under the Nonproliferation Treaty to enrich for peaceful purposes. In the last year, there have been nine unannounced inspections of the Iranian nuclear sites. They have never once been found in violation. This does not make them angels. This does not make them not want to desire to defend their country. But think about it: How many countries have nukes around them? Pakistan has nukes, India has them, Israel has them, the United States has them, China has them, the Soviets have them. And they are being threatened. War games are being practiced, with the potentiality of us being a participant in bombing them. Madam Speaker, it is time for us to take a deep breath and reassess our position.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, 2008 marks the 50th anniversary of the opening of the BASF Corporation's Freeport, Texas facility. Freeport is located in Brazoria County in my congressional district. I am pleased to take this opportunity to congratulate the management and employees of BASF Freeport on 50 great years, and thank the people of BASF Freeport for their contributions to Freeport's economy. The story of the BASF Freeport began when the owners of BASF Overzee N.V., a subsidiary of Badische Anilin-& Soda Fabrik A. G. (BASF), Ludwigshafen, Germany, and the Dow Chemical Company, Midland, Michigan, agreed to form Dow Badische Chemical Company. Dow Badische was endowed with the chemical process technology of the European parent as well as the managerial and marketing knowledge of their U.S. parent. The new company chose a site adjacent to Dow Chemical's Texas Division of Freeport, Texas for its initial production. In December of 1959 the plant began producing Acrylic Acid and Acrylic Esters. In 1960 and 1961 the plants added production units for butanol and caprolactam. Through the years, the BASF facility experienced tremendous increases in its capacity as well as in the number of production plants and employees that comprise the BASF Freeport workforce. For example, in 1967 BASF built a continuous butyl acrylate plant, while a new caprolactam complex was completed in 1968; and a new oxo alcohol facility was completed in 1970, adding 2-Ethylhexanol to the product line. BASF acquired 100 percent ownership of Dow Badische in 1978. Soon after the change in ownership took place, two new chemical plants were constructed in Freeport, one an acrylic acid facility and the other a neopentyl glycol facility. Further significant expansions have included two acrylic monomers plants, an expansion to the polycaprolactam unit and most recently a new superabsorbent polymer plant. In addition to its contributions to Brazoria County's economy, BASF has improved the life of the residents of Brazoria County through its steadfast support of numerous civic organizations. BASF has also earned the trust of its neighbors by making every effort to observe basic principles of safety and environmental performance in all its operations. BASF Freeport's success is due to the commitment, hard work and innovative ability of its employees. I am certain that these same attributes will ensure a continued healthy growth for the company, which will, in turn, continue to benefit all of Brazoria County. It is therefore my pleasure to congratulate BASF Freeport on their 50th anniversary.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I have, for the past 35 years, expressed my grave concern for the future of America. The course we have taken over the past century has threatened our liberties, security and prosperity. In spite of these long-held concerns, I have days--growing more frequent all the time--when I'm convinced the time is now upon us that some Big Events are about to occur. These fast-approaching events will not go unnoticed. They will affect all of us. They will not be limited to just some areas of our country. The world economy and political system will share in the chaos about to be unleashed. Though the world has long suffered from the senselessness of wars that should have been avoided, my greatest fear is that the course on which we find ourselves will bring even greater conflict and economic suffering to the innocent people of the world--unless we quickly change our ways. America, with her traditions of free markets and property rights, led the way toward great wealth and progress throughout the world as well as at home. Since we have lost our confidence in the principles of liberty, self reliance, hard work and frugality, and instead took on empire building, financed through inflation and debt, all this has changed. This is indeed frightening and an historic event. The problem we face is not new in history. Authoritarianism has been around a long time. For centuries, inflation and debt have been used by tyrants to hold power, promote aggression, and provide ``bread and circuses'' for the people. The notion that a country can afford ``guns and butter'' with no significant penalty existed even before the 1960s when it became a popular slogan. It was then, though, we were told the Vietnam War and a massive expansion of the welfare state were not problems. The seventies proved that assumption wrong. Today things are different from even ancient times or the 1970s. There is something to the argument that we are now a global economy. The world has more people and is more integrated due to modern technology, communications, and travel. If modern technology had been used to promote the ideas of liberty, free markets, sound money and trade, it would have ushered in a new golden age--a globalism we could accept. Instead, the wealth and freedom we now enjoy are shrinking and rest upon a fragile philosophic infrastructure. It is not unlike the levies and bridges in our own country that our system of war and welfare has caused us to ignore. I'm fearful that my concerns have been legitimate and may even be worse than I first thought. They are now at our doorstep. Time is short for making a course correction before this grand experiment in liberty goes into deep hibernation. There are reasons to believe this coming crisis is different and bigger than the world has ever experienced. Instead of using globalism in a positive fashion, it's been used to globalize all of the mistakes of the politicians, bureaucrats and central bankers. Being an unchallenged sole superpower was never accepted by us with a sense of humility and respect. Our arrogance and aggressiveness have been used to promote a world empire backed by the most powerful army of history. This type of globalist intervention creates problems for all citizens of the world and fails to contribute to the well-being of the world's populations. Just think how our personal liberties have been trashed here at home in the last decade. The financial crisis, still in its early stages, is apparent to everyone: gasoline prices over $4 a gallon; skyrocketing education and medical-care costs; the collapse of the housing bubble; the bursting of the NASDAQ bubble; stock markets plunging; unemployment rising; massive underemployment; excessive government debt; and unmanageable personal debt. Little doubt exists as to whether we'll get stagflation. The question that will soon be asked is: When will the stagflation become an inflationary depression? There are various reasons that the world economy has been globalized and the problems we face are worldwide. We cannot understand what we're facing without understanding fiat money and the long-developing dollar bubble. There were several stages. From the inception of the Federal Reserve System in 1913 to 1933, the Central Bank established itself as the official dollar manager. By 1933, Americans could no longer own gold, thus removing restraint on the Federal Reserve to inflate for war and welfare. By 1945, further restraints were removed by creating the Bretton- Woods Monetary System making the dollar the reserve currency of the world. This system lasted up until 1971. During the period between 1945 and 1971, some restraints on the Fed remained in place. Foreigners, but not Americans, could convert dollars to gold at $35 an ounce. Due to the excessive dollars being created, that system came to an end in 1971. It's the post Bretton-Woods system that was responsible for globalizing inflation and markets and for generating a gigantic worldwide dollar bubble. That bubble is now bursting, and we're seeing what it's like to suffer the consequences of the many previous economic errors. Ironically in these past 35 years, we have benefited from this very flawed system. Because the world accepted dollars as if they were gold, we only had to counterfeit more dollars, spend them overseas (indirectly encouraging our jobs to go overseas as well) and enjoy unearned prosperity. Those who took our dollars and gave us goods and services were only too anxious to loan those dollars back to us. This allowed us to export our inflation and delay the consequences we now are starting to see. But it was never destined to last, and now we have to pay the piper. Our huge foreign debt must be paid or liquidated. Our entitlements are coming due just as the world has become more reluctant to hold dollars. The consequence of that decision is price inflation in this country-- and that's what we are witnessing today. Already price inflation overseas is even higher than here at home as a consequence of foreign central banks' willingness to monetize our debt. Printing dollars over long periods of time may not immediately push prices up--yet in time it always does. Now we're seeing catch-up for past inflating of the monetary supply. As bad as it is today with $4 a gallon gasoline, this is just the beginning. It's a gross distraction to hound away at ``drill, drill, drill'' as a solution to the dollar crisis and high gasoline prices. Its okay to let the market increase supplies and drill, but that issue is a gross distraction from the sins of deficits and Federal Reserve monetary shenanigans. This bubble is different and bigger for another reason. The central banks of the world secretly collude to centrally plan the world economy. I'm convinced that agreements among central banks to ``monetize'' U.S. debt these past 15 years have existed, although secretly and out of the reach of any oversight of anyone--especially the U.S. Congress that doesn't care, or just flat doesn't understand. As this ``gift'' to us comes to an end, our problems worsen. The central banks and the various governments are very powerful, but eventually the markets overwhelm when the people who get stuck holding the bag (of bad dollars) catch on and spend the dollars into the economy with emotional zeal, thus igniting inflationary fever. This time--since there are so many dollars and so many countries involved--the Fed has been able to ``paper'' over every approaching crisis for the past 15 years, especially with Alan Greenspan as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, which has allowed the bubble to become history's greatest. The mistakes made with excessive credit at artificially low rates are huge, and the market is demanding a correction. This involves excessive debt, misdirected investments, over-investments, and all the other problems caused by the government when spending the money they should never have had. Foreign militarism, welfare handouts and $80 trillion entitlement promises are all coming to an end. We don't have the money or the wealth-creating capacity to catch up and care for all the needs that now exist because we rejected the market economy, sound money, self reliance and the principles of liberty. Since the correction of all this misallocation of resources is necessary and must come, one can look for some good that may come as this ``Big Even'' unfolds. There are two choices that people can make. The one choice that is unavailable to us is to limp along with the status quo and prop up the system with more debt, inflation and lies. That won't happen. One of the two choices, and the one chosen so often by government in the past is that of rejecting the principles of liberty and resorting to even bigger and more authoritarian government. Some argue that giving dictatorial powers to the President, just as we have allowed him to run the American empire, is what we should do. That's the great danger, and in this post-911 atmosphere, too many Americans are seeking safety over freedom. We have already lost too many of our personal liberties already. Real fear of economic collapse could prompt central planners to act to such a degree that the New Deal of the 30's might look like Jefferson's Declaration of Independence. The more the government is allowed to do in taking over and running the economy, the deeper the depression gets and the longer it lasts. That was the story of the 30s and the early 40s, and the same mistakes are likely to be made again if we do not wake up. But the good news is that it need not be so bad if we do the right thing. I saw ``Something Big'' happening in the past 18 months on the campaign trail. I was encouraged that we are capable of waking up and doing the right thing. I have literally met thousands of high school and college kids who are quite willing to accept the challenge and responsibility of a free society and reject the cradle-to-grave welfare that is promised them by so many do-good politicians. If more hear the message of liberty, more will join in this effort. The failure of our foreign policy, welfare system, and monetary policies and virtually all government solutions are so readily apparent, it doesn't take that much convincing. But the positive message of how freedom works and why it's possible is what is urgently needed. One of the best parts of accepting self reliance in a free society is that true personal satisfaction with one's own life can be achieved. This doesn't happen when the government assumes the role of guardian, parent or provider, because it eliminates a sense of pride. But the real problem is the government can't provide the safety and economic security that it claims. The so called good that government claims it can deliver is always achieved at the expense of someone else's freedom. It's a failed system and the young people know it. Restoring a free society doesn't eliminate the need to get our house in order and to pay for the extravagant spending. But the pain would not be long-lasting if we did the right things, and best of all the empire would have to end for financial reasons. Our wars would stop, the attack on civil liberties would cease, and prosperity would return. The choices are clear: it shouldn't be difficult, but the big event now unfolding gives us a great opportunity to reverse the tide and resume the truly great American Revolution started in 1776. Opportunity knocks in spite of the urgency and the dangers we face. Let's make ``Something Big Is Happening'' be the discovery that freedom works and is popular and the big economic and political event we're witnessing is a blessing in disguise.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Energy Efficient and Environmentally Friendly Automobile Tax Credit Act, legislation that will help Americans reduce pollution and the amount they pay for gas. My legislation accomplishes these important goals by providing Americans a tax credit of up to $2,000 when they sell or trade in a car and obtain a vehicle that has at least a 20 percent higher average fuel economy than the sold or traded-in car. The bill also creates a Federal tax deduction for any State or local taxes paid on the purchase of the more fuel-efficient automobile and makes interest on loans to purchase the more fuel-efficient automobile tax deductible. This legislation will help Americans cope with high gas prices by making it easier for them to obtain more fuel-efficient cars. I hope my colleagues would agree that Congress should provide free market incentives to make it easier for Americans to exchange their current cars for cars that create less pollution. Providing tax deductions and tax credits to make it easier for Americans to purchase fuel-efficient automobiles is a win for American consumers, a win for the environment, and a win for those of us who favor free market solutions to pollution and high gas prices. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, today we saw some financial fireworks on the markets. The Dow Jones average was down 350-some points, gold was up $32, oil was up another $5, and there's a lot of chaos out there; and everyone is worried about $4-a-gallon gasoline. I don't think there is a clear understanding exactly why that has occurred. We do know that there is a supply and demand, there's a lot of demand for oil. The supplies may be dwindling. But there are other reasons for high costs of energy. One is inflation. For instance, to pay for the war that has been going on and the domestic spending, we have been spending a lot more money than we have. So what do we do? We send the bills over to the Federal Reserve to create new money. In the last 3 years, our government, through the Federal Reserve and our banking system, created $4 trillion of new money. That is one of the main reasons why we have this high cost of energy in $4 gallon gasoline. But there is another factor that I want to talk about tonight. And that is not only the fear of inflation and future inflation, but the fear factor dealing with our foreign policy. And in the last several weeks, if not for months now, we have heard a lot of talk about the potentiality of Israel and/or the United States bombing Iran. And it is in the marketplace, and it's being bid up. The energy crisis is being bid up because of this fear. It's been predicted if bombs start dropping, that you're going to see energy prices double or triple. It's just the thought of it right now that helps to push these prices, the price of energy, up. And that is a very real thing going on right now. But to me, it's almost like deja vu all over again, as has been said. We listened to the rhetoric for years and years before we went into Iraq. We did not go in in the correct manner. We didn't declare war. We're there. It's an endless struggle. We're in Iraq. We're endlessly struggling there, and I cannot believe that we may well be on the verge of initiating bombing of Iran. Leaders on both sides of the aisle and the administration have all said so often that no options can be taken off the table, including a nuclear first strike on Iran. The fear is, they say, maybe some day they're going to get a nuclear weapon, even though our own CIA and our NIE, National Intelligence Estimate, has said they have not been working. The Iranians have not been working on a nuclear weapon since 2003. They say they're enriching uranium, but there's no evidence whatsoever that they're enriching uranium for weapons purposes. They may well be enriching uranium for peaceful purposes, and that is perfectly legal. They have been a member of the nonproliferation treaties, and they are under the investigation of the IAEA, and Alberidy last verified in the last year there have been nine unannounced investigations and examinations of the uranium nuclear structure, and they have never been found to be in violation. Yet this country and Israel are talking about a preventive war starting bombing for this reason without negotiation, without talks. Now, the one issue that I do want to mention tonight is a resolution that is about to come to this floor, if our suspicions are correct, after the July 4th holiday. And this bill will probably be brought up under suspension, it will probably be expected to pass easily, and probably will be, and it's just more war propaganda, more preparation to go to war against Iran. And this resolution, H.J. Res. 362, is a virtual war resolution. It is the declaration of tremendous sanctions and boycotts and embargoes on Iran. It's very, very severe. Let me just read what is involved in this, if this bill passes, what we're telling the President he must do. This demands that the President impose stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials. I mean, this is unbelievable. This is closing down Iran. Where do we have this authority? Where do we get the moral authority? Where do we get the international legality for this? Where do we get the constitutional authority for this? This is what we did for 10 years before we went into Iraq. We starved children. 50,000 individuals that were admitted probably died because of the sanctions on the Iraqis. They were incapable at the time of attacking us, and all of the propaganda that was given for our need to go into Iraq wasn't true. And it's not true today about the severity. And they say, Yeah, but Ahmadinejad, he's a bad guy. He's threatened violence. But you know, us threatening violence is very, very similar. We must look at this carefully. We just can't go to work again under these careless, frivolous conditions.