Ron Paul

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2640, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System Improvements Amendments Act, and I urge caution. In my opinion, H.R. 2640 is a flagrantly unconstitutional expansion of restriction on the exercise of the right to bear arms protected under the second amendment. H.R. 2640 also seriously undermines the privacy rights of all Americans, gun owners and non-gun owners alike, by creating and expanding massive Federal Government databases, including medical and other private records of every American. H.R. 2640 illustrates how placing restrictions on the exercise of one right, in this case, the right to bear arms, inevitably leads to expanded restriction on other rights as well. In an effort to make the Brady background check on gun purchases more efficient, H.R. 2640 pressures States and mandates Federal agencies to dump massive amounts of information about the private lives of all Americans into a central Federal Government database. Among the information that must be submitted to the database are medical, psychological, and drug treatment records that have traditionally been considered protected from disclosure under the physician/patient relationship, as well as records related to misdemeanor domestic violence. While supporters of H.R. 2640 say that there are restrictions on the use of this personal information, such restrictions did not stop the well-publicized IRS and FBI files privacy abuses by both Democratic and Republican administrations. Neither have such restrictions prevented children from being barred from flights because their names appeared on the massive terrorist watch list. We should not trick ourselves into believing that we can pick and choose which part of the Bill of Rights we support. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, today I am introducing a bill to establish a sunset for the 2002 Authorization for the Use of Force Against Iraq (P.L. 107-243). There are several active pieces of legislation that would rescind the authorization to use force against Iraq, but the approach of this legislation is quite different. This legislation would sunset the original authorization 6 months after it is enacted, which would give Congress plenty of time to consider anew the authority for Iraq. The rationale for this sunset is that according to the 2002 authorization for Iraq, the President was authorized to use military force against Iraq to achieve the following two specific objectives only: ``( 1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.'' It should be obvious to both supporters and critics of our military action in Iraq that our military has achieved both legal objectives. Our military quickly removed the regime of Saddam Hussein, against whom the United Nations resolutions were targeted. And a government has been elected in post-Saddam Iraq that has met with U.S. approval, fulfilling the first objective of the authorization. With both objectives of the original authorization completely satisfied, Congress has a constitutional obligation to revisit this issue and provide needed oversight and policy guidance. We ignore this obligation at risk to the United States and, very importantly, to our soldiers in harm's way in Iraq. Unlike other proposals, this bill does not criticize the President's handling of the war. It does not cut off funds for the troops. Nor does this bill set a timetable for our withdrawal. I strongly believe that this legislation will enjoy broad support among both those in favor of our action in Iraq and those who favor ending the war, and I am encouraged by the bipartisan support I have received when seeking original cosponsors. Congress is obligated to consider anew the authority for Iraq sooner rather than later and I hope more of my colleagues will join me as cosponsors of this legislation.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to discuss the irrationality of our current foreign policy and the expected concrete benefits of changing that policy. First, we need to look at the inconsistent and counterproductive way we currently treat other nations. We reward and respect nations with nuclear weapons. Look at how we treat Russia, China, Pakistan, India and North Korea. Our policies serve as an incentive for rogue nations to achieve a nuclear capability. Saddam Hussein was so convinced of this that he pretended he was on the verge of getting a nuclear weapon. Iran is now doing the same thing, yet our CIA assures us they have quite a ways to go before they have a nuclear capability. Without our ``remaking'' the Middle East, Iran would have less incentive to develop a weapon. And under the NPT, Iran has a right to pursue peaceful use of nuclear power. The foolishness of our foreign policy has us spending money in Pakistan, a military dictatorship with nuclear weapons, which is harboring Osama Bin Laden. The irony that taxpayers are paying to help protect Osama Bin Laden is astounding. For all the so-called reasons we threaten Iran, the same logic could apply to Pakistan many fold and, for that matter, even to Saudi Arabia, from where 15 of the 19 hijackers came. A changed policy in the region would greatly diffuse the boiling conflict now brewing with Iran. Just an announcement, if they believed us, of a move toward diplomacy and plans to move our troops and Navy out of this region may well lead to a sharp drop in oil prices. But credibility is the key. If no one believes we're sincere in altering our foreign policy of militarism to that of peaceful relationships with all who desire it, it won't work. Credibility would depend on us discontinuing building permanent bases in Iraq. We don't need a single base in the entire Middle East to protect U.S. security. Having bases there only jeopardizes our security. The embassy we're building in Iraq, the largest in the world, a virtual fortress, nearly the size of the Vatican, should be donated to some Iraqi organization that might make good use of it. A small office with a few personnel would send a signal of our intent not to rule the Middle East for decades to come. The economic benefits of a foreign policy of nonintervention are extraordinary. The wars that result from meddling in the internal affairs of other nations cause much greater economic harm than most people imagine. The cliche that war is a stimulus to economic growth is blatantly false. The billions of dollars saved just in the last decade if we weren't in the Middle East could have been spent here at home improving the conditions of all Americans, or would have prevented our huge national and foreign debt from exploding to historic records. Inflation, though denied by our government as being a serious problem, would be greatly reduced. We shouldn't forget, the big inflation of prices from our spendthrift ways for this war is yet to come. Without a war going on in the Middle East, we can rebuild our Armed Forces, now run down from this prolonged war. This would certainly help the National Guard and our Reserves to rebuild and re-equip. It's estimated that 90 percent of our Army and National Guard is poorly equipped. A new policy would return our National Guard to the States to be available when an emergency comes, no longer leaving the States high and dry because these troops are in Iraq. Some of these dollars saved and personnel brought home could be redirected toward border protection here in this country. The border guards sent off to Iraq to train Iraqis in border control could return to their proper function here in the United States. The constant and growing dissent here in the United States over the war would disappear. Though not as bad as in the 1960s, it's a growing problem that can't be ignored. The threat of terrorism would be greatly reduced, as the evidence is overwhelming that our foreign policy of intervention, occupation, bombing and sanctions is the main incentive for radical insurgents to commit suicide terrorism. Those who misled us into the war in Iraq continually claim that, yes, that's true. Mistakes were made. But now the reason we must stay is to clean up the mess we created, while never admitting that the mess gets worse and the costs go up the longer we stay. The time has come for a change. A message that our diplomatic doors are open and the preemptive war option is off the table would be a powerful message of peace and hope, not only to the Middle East but to the entire world. The nay-saying warmongers who preach inevitable and long-lasting conflicts must be marginalized. The time for change is now.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Sanctity of Life Act. The Sanctity of Life Act provides that the Federal courts of the United States, up to and including the Supreme Court, do not have jurisdiction to hear abortion-related cases. The legislation also clarifies that State and local courts do not have to treat Federal cases overturning State abortion laws as binding precedent. Abortion on demand is no doubt the most serious sociopolitical problem of our age. The lack of respect for life that permits abortion significantly contributes to our violent culture and our careless attitude toward liberty. Whether a civilized society treats human life with dignity or contempt determines the outcome of that civilization. Reaffirming the importance of the sanctity of life is crucial for the continuation of a civilized society. There is already strong evidence that we are on the slippery slope toward euthanasia and non-consensual human experimentation. Although the real problem lies within people's hearts and minds, the legal problems of protecting life stem from the ill-advised Roe v. Wade ruling, where the court usurped the State's authority over abortion. Congress can, and should, take a major step toward restoring respect for all life by using the authority granted to it in Article 3, Section 1 of the Constitution to rein in rogue Federal judges from interfering with a State's ability to protect unborn life. Madam Speaker, it is my hope that my colleagues will join me in support of this bill. By following the Constitution and using the power granted to the Congress by the Constitution, we can restore respect for the sanctity of human life.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, good intentions frequently lead to unintended bad consequences. Tough choices, doing what is right, often leads to unanticipated good results. The growing demand by the American people for us to leave Iraq prompts the naysayers to predict disaster in the Middle East if we do. Of course, these merchants of fear are the same ones who predicted invading and occupying Iraq would be a slam-dunk operation, that we would be welcomed as liberators and oil revenues would pay the bills with minimum loss of American lives. All this hyperbole, while ignoring the precise warnings by our intelligence community of the great difficulties that would lie ahead. The chaos that this pre-emptive undeclared war has created in Iraq has allowed the al Qaeda to establish a foothold in Iraq and the strategic interests of Iran to be served. The unintended consequences have been numerous. A well-intentioned but flawed policy that ignored credible warnings of how things could go awry has produced conditions that have led to a war dominated by procrastination without victory or resolution in sight. Those who want a total military victory, which no one has yet defined, don't have the troops, the money, the equipment, or the support of a large majority of the American people to do so. Those in Congress who have heard the cry of the electorate to end the war refuse to do so out of fear the demagogues will challenge their patriotism and their support for the troops. So nothing happens except more of the same. The result is continued stalemate with the current policy and the daily sacrifice of American lives. This wait-and-see attitude and a promised reassessment of events in Iraq late this summer strongly motivates the insurgents to accelerate the killing of Americans to influence the coming decision in 3 months. In contrast, a clear decision to leave would prompt a wait-and-see attitude, a de facto cease fire, in anticipation of our leaving; a perfect time for Iraqi factions to hold their fire on each and on our troops and just possibly start talking with each other. Most Americans do not anticipate a military victory in Iraq, yet the Washington politicians remain frozen in their unwillingness to change our policy there, fearful of the dire predictions that conditions can only get worse if they leave. They refuse to admit the conditions of foreign occupation is the key ingredient that unleashed the civil war now raging in Iraq and serves as a recruiting device for al Qaeda. It is time for a change in American foreign policy. But what if those who were so wrong in their predictions as to the outcome of their invasion are equally wrong about what might happen if we leave? Unanticipated good results may well occur. There is room for optimism. The naysayers have been wrong before and are probably going to be wrong again. The truth is, no one knows exactly what would happen if we leave. Civil strife may last for a while longer, but one thing is certain, no longer will American lives be lost. That in itself would be a blessing and reason enough for doing so. After we left Vietnam under dire circumstances, chaos continued, but no more American lives were lost. But, subsequently, we and the Vietnamese have achieved in peace what could not be achieved in war. We now are friends. We trade with each other, and we invest in Vietnam. The result proves the sound advice of the Founders: Trade in friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none. Example and persuasion is far superior to force of arms for promoting America's goodness. It is claimed that we cannot leave until a new military faction is trained to fill the vacuum. But the question is, will there really be a vacuum, or are we talking about our proxy army being trained well enough to continue to do battle with the very strong militias already in place? Lack of training for the local militias has never been a problem for them. The real problem with our plans to train a faction of Iraqis to carry out our plans for the Middle East is that the majority of Iraqis object and the army trainees are not as motivated as are the members of the various militias. The Kurds have a militia capable of maintaining order in their region. Sadr has a huge militia that is anxious to restore order and have us gone. The Badr brigade is trained to defend its interests. And the Sunnis are armed and determined. Our presence only serves to stir the pot by our troops being a target of nearly all the groups who are positioning themselves for our anticipated departure. After we leave, just maybe the Shiites and the Sunnis will develop an alliance based on nationalism. They already talk of this possibility, and it could include the Badr brigade and the Sadr militias. A coalition like this could serve as an efficient deterrent to al Qaeda and Iran since they all share this goal. Al Qaeda and Iran were not influential in Iraq before the invasion and would not be welcomed after we leave. There is cooperation now, motivated by the shared desire of the Sunnis and the Shiites to oppose our occupation. There's definitely a potential that the Iraqis may do much better in dealing with their own problems than anyone can imagine once we leave. Already there are developing coalitions of Sunni and Shiites in the Iraqi parliament that seek this resolve. It is claimed by some that leaving the Middle East would not serve the interests of Israel. Israel with its nuclear arsenal is quite capable of defending itself under all circumstances. Its dependency on us frequently prevents it from taking action that otherwise may be in its best interests because we do not approve of such actions. Israel's overtures to Syria and other neighbors would not be road blocked by U.S. policy if we left the Middle East. With us gone Israel would have greater motivation to talk with other Arab countries as they did with Egypt. It just may be that Israel would accept the overtures made by the Arab League for a comprehensive peace. The Arab League might be an acceptable alternative to the U.S. influencing policy in the region. We're told we can't let this happen or we'll lose control of the oil and gasoline prices will soar--exactly what has happened with our invasion. And if the neo-conservatives have their way there will be an attack on Iran. If that occurs, then watch what happens to the price of oil. No matter who ends up controlling the oil they will always have a need for western markets. Instead of oil prices soaring with our leaving, production may go up and prices fall A change in our foreign policy is overdue.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, for some, patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. For others, it means dissent against a government's abuse of the people's rights. I have never met a politician in Washington or any American, for that matter, who chose to be called unpatriotic. Nor have I met anyone who did not believe he wholeheartedly supported our troops, wherever they may be. What I have heard all too frequently from the various individuals are sharp accusations that, because their political opponents disagree with them on the need for foreign military entanglements, they were unpatriotic, un-American evildoers deserving contempt. The original American patriots were those individuals brave enough to resist with force the oppressive power of King George. I accept the definition of patriotism as that effort to resist oppressive state power. The true patriot is motivated by a sense of responsibility and out of self-interest for himself, his family, and the future of his country to resist government abuse of power. He rejects the notion that patriotism means obedience to the state. Resistance need not be violent, but the civil disobedience that might be required involves confrontation with the state and invites possible imprisonment. Peaceful, nonviolent revolutions against tyranny have been every bit as successful as those involving military confrontation. Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., achieved great political successes by practicing nonviolence, and yet they suffered physically at the hands of the state. But whether the resistance against government tyrants is nonviolent or physically violent, the effort to overthrow state oppression qualifies as true patriotism. True patriotism today has gotten a bad name, at least from the government and the press. Those who now challenge the unconstitutional methods of imposing an income tax on us, or force us to use a monetary system designed to serve the rich at the expense of the poor are routinely condemned. These American patriots are sadly looked down upon by many. They are never praised as champions of liberty as Gandhi and Martin Luther King have been. Liberals, who withhold their taxes as a protest against war, are vilified as well, especially by conservatives. Unquestioned loyalty to the state is especially demanded in times of war. Lack of support for a war policy is said to be unpatriotic. Arguments against a particular policy that endorses a war, once it is started, are always said to be endangering the troops in the field. This, they blatantly claim, is unpatriotic, and all dissent must stop. Yet, it is dissent from government policies that defines the true patriot and champion of liberty. It is conveniently ignored that the only authentic way to best support the troops is to keep them out of danger's undeclared no-win wars that are politically inspired. Sending troops off to war for reasons that are not truly related to national security and, for that matter, may even damage our security, is hardly a way to patriotically support the troops. Who are the true patriots, those who conform or those who protest against wars without purpose? How can it be said that blind support for a war, no matter how misdirected the policy, is the duty of a patriot? Randolph Bourne said that, ``War is the health of the state.'' With war, he argued, the state thrives. Those who believe in the powerful state see war as an opportunity. Those who mistrust the people and the market for solving problems have no trouble promoting a ``war psychology'' to justify the expansive role of the state. This includes the role the Federal Government plays in our lives, as well as in our economic transactions. Certainly, the neoconservative belief that we have a moral obligation to spread American values worldwide through force justifies the conditions of war in order to rally support at home for the heavy hand of government. It is through this policy, it should surprise no one, that our liberties are undermined. The economy becomes overextended, and our involvement worldwide becomes prohibited. Out of fear of being labeled unpatriotic, most of the citizens become compliant and accept the argument that some loss of liberty is required to fight the war in order to remain safe. This is a bad trade-off, in my estimation, especially when done in the name of patriotism. Loyalty to the state and to autocratic leaders is substituted for true patriotism, that is, a willingness to challenge the state and defend the country, the people and the culture. The more difficult the times, the stronger the admonition comes that the leaders be not criticized. Because the crisis atmosphere of war supports the growth of the state, any problem invites an answer by declaring war, even on social and economic issues. This elicits patriotism in support of various government solutions, while enhancing the power of the state. Faith in government coercion and a lack of understanding of how free societies operate encourages big government liberals and big government conservatives to manufacture a war psychology to demand political loyalty for domestic policy just as is required in foreign affairs. The long-term cost in dollars spent and liberties lost is neglected as immediate needs are emphasized. It is for this reason that we have multiple perpetual wars going on simultaneously. Thus, the war on drugs, the war against gun ownership, the war against poverty, the war against illiteracy, the war against terrorism, as well as our foreign military entanglements are endless. All this effort promotes the growth of statism at the expense of liberty. A government designed for a free society should do the opposite, prevent the growth of statism and preserve liberty. Once a war of any sort is declared, the message is sent out not to object or you will be declared unpatriotic. Yet, we must not forget that the true patriot is the one who protests in spite of the consequences. Condemnation or ostracism or even imprisonment may result. Nonviolent protesters of the Tax Code are frequently imprisoned, whether they are protesting the code's unconstitutionality or the war that the tax revenues are funding. Resisters to the military draft or even to Selective Service registration are threatened and imprisoned for challenging this threat to liberty. Statism depends on the idea that the government owns us and citizens must obey. Confiscating the fruits of our labor through the income tax is crucial to the health of the state. The draft, or even the mere existence of the Selective Service, emphasizes that we will march off to war at the state's pleasure. A free society rejects all notions of involuntary servitude, whether by draft or the confiscation of the fruits of our labor through the personal income tax. A more sophisticated and less well-known technique for enhancing the state is the manipulation and transfer of wealth through the fiat monetary system operated by the secretive Federal Reserve. Protesters against this unconstitutional system of paper money are considered unpatriotic criminals and at times are imprisoned for their beliefs. The fact that, according to the Constitution, only gold and silver are legal tender and paper money outlawed matters little. The principle of patriotism is turned on its head. Whether it's with regard to the defense of welfare spending at home, confiscatory income tax, or an immoral monetary system or support for a war fought under false pretense without a legal declaration, the defenders of liberty and the Constitution are portrayed as unpatriotic, while those who support these programs are seen as the patriots. If there is a war going on, supporting the state's effort to win the war is expected at all costs, no dissent. The real problem is that those who love the state too often advocate policies that lead to military action. At home, they are quite willing to produce a crisis atmosphere and claim a war is needed to solve the problem. Under these conditions, the people are more willing to bear the burden of paying for the war and to carelessly sacrifice liberties which they are told is necessary. The last 6 years have been quite beneficial to the health of the state, which comes at the expense of personal liberty. Every enhanced unconstitutional power of the state can only be achieved at the expense of individual liberty. Even though in every war in which we have been engaged civil liberties have suffered, some have been restored after the war ended, but never completely. That has resulted in a steady erosion of our liberties over the past 200 years. Our government was originally designed to protect our liberties, but it has now, instead, become the usurper of those liberties. We currently live in the most difficult of times for guarding against an expanding central government with a steady erosion of our freedoms. We are continually being reminded that 9/11 has changed everything. Unfortunately, the policy that needed most to be changed, that is our policy of foreign interventionism, has only been expanded. There is no pretense any longer that a policy of humility in foreign affairs, without being the world's policemen and engaging in nation building, is worthy of consideration. We now live in a post-9/11 America where our government is going to make us safe no matter what it takes. We are expected to grin and bear it and adjust to every loss of our liberties in the name of patriotism and security. Though the majority of Americans initially welcomed the declared effort to make us safe, and we are willing to sacrifice for the cause, more and more Americans are now becoming concerned about civil liberties being needlessly and dangerously sacrificed. The problem is that the Iraq war continues to drag on, and a real danger of it spreading exists. There is no evidence that a truce will soon be signed in Iraq or in the war on terror or the war on drugs. Victory is not even definable. If Congress is incapable of declaring an official war, it is impossible to know when it will end. We have been fully forewarned that the world conflict in which we are now engaged will last a long, long time. The war mentality and the pervasive fear of an unidentified enemy allows for a steady erosion of our liberties, and, with this, our respect for self-reliance and confidence is lost. Just think of the self-sacrifice and the humiliation we go through at the airport screening process on a routine basis. Though there is no scientific evidence of any likelihood of liquids and gels being mixed on an airplane to make a bomb, billions of dollars are wasted throwing away toothpaste and hair spray, and searching old women in wheelchairs. Our enemies say, boo, and we jump, we panic, and then we punish ourselves. We are worse than a child being afraid of the dark. But in a way, the fear of indefinable terrorism is based on our inability to admit the truth about why there is a desire by a small number of angry radical Islamists to kill Americans. It is certainly not because they are jealous of our wealth and freedoms. We fail to realize that the extremists, willing to sacrifice their own lives to kill their enemies, do so out of a sense of weakness and desperation over real and perceived attacks on their way of life, their religion, their country, and their natural resources. Without the conventional diplomatic or military means to retaliate against these attacks, and an unwillingness of their own government to address the issue, they resort to the desperation tactic of suicide terrorism. Their anger toward their own governments, which they believe are coconspirators with the American Government, is equal to or greater than that directed toward us. These errors in judgment in understanding the motive of the enemy and the constant fear that is generated have brought us to this crisis where our civil liberties and privacy are being steadily eroded in the name of preserving national security. We may be the economic and the military giant of the world, but the effort to stop this war on our liberties here at home in the name of patriotism is being lost. The erosion of our personal liberties started long before 9/11, but 9/11 accelerated the process. There are many things that motivate those who pursue this course, both well-intentioned and malevolent, but it would not happen if the people remained vigilant, understood the importance of individual rights, and were unpersuaded that a need for security justifies the sacrifice for liberty, even if it is just now and then. The true patriot challenges the state when the state embarks on enhancing its power at the expense of the individual. Without a better understanding and a greater determination to rein in the state, the rights of Americans that resulted from the revolutionary break from the British and the writing of the Constitution will disappear. The record since September 11th is dismal. Respect for liberty has rapidly deteriorated. Many of the new laws passed after 9/11 had, in fact, been proposed long before that attack. The political atmosphere after that attack simply made it more possible to pass such legislation. The fear generated by 9/11 became an opportunity for those seeking to promote the power of the state domestically, just as it served to falsely justify the long plan for invasion of Iraq. The war mentality was generated by the Iraq war in combination with the constant drumbeat of fear at home. Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, who is now likely residing in Pakistan, our supposed ally, are ignored, as our troops fight and die in Iraq and are made easier targets for the terrorists in their backyard. While our leaders constantly use the mess we created to further justify the erosion of our constitutional rights here at home, we forget about our own borders and support the inexorable move toward global government, hardly a good plan for America. The accelerated attacks on liberty started quickly after 9/11. Within weeks, the PATRIOT Act was overwhelmingly passed by Congress. Though the final version was unavailable up to a few hours before the vote, no Member had sufficient time. Political fear of not doing something, even something harmful, drove the Members of Congress to not question the contents, and just voted for it. A little less freedom for a little more perceived safety was considered a fair trade-off, and the majority of Americans applauded. The PATRIOT Act, though, severely eroded the system of checks and balances by giving the government the power to spy on law-abiding citizens without judicial supervision. The several provisions that undermine the liberties of all Americans include sneak-and-peek searches, a broadened and more vague definition of domestic terrorism, allowing the FBI access to libraries and bookstore records without search warrants or probable cause, easier FBI initiation of wiretaps and searches, as well as roving wiretaps, easier access to information on American citizens' use of the Internet, and easier access to e-mail and financial records of all American citizens. The attack on privacy has not relented over the past 6 years. The Military Commissions Act is a particularly egregious piece of legislation and, if not repealed, will change America for the worse as the powers unconstitutionally granted to the executive branch are used and abused. This act grants excessive authority to use secretive military commissions outside of places where active hostilities are going on. The Military Commissions Act permits torture, arbitrary detention of American citizens as unlawful enemy combatants at the full discretion of the President and without the right of habeas corpus, and warrantless searches by the NSA. It also gives to the President the power to imprison individuals based on secret testimony. Since 9/11, Presidential signing statements designating portions of legislation that the President does not intend to follow, though not legal under the Constitution, have enormously multiplied. Unconstitutional Executive Orders are numerous and mischievous and need to be curtailed. Extraordinary rendition to secret prisons around the world have been widely engaged in, though obviously extralegal. A growing concern in the post-9/11 environment is the Federal Government's list of potential terrorists based on secret evidence. Mistakes are made, and sometimes it is virtually impossible to get one's name removed even though the accused is totally innocent of any wrongdoing. A national ID card is now in the process of being implemented. It is called the REAL ID card, and it is tied to our Social Security numbers and our State driver's license. If REAL ID is not stopped, it will become a national driver's license ID for all Americans. We will be required to carry our papers. Some of the least noticed and least discussed changes in the law were the changes made to the Insurrection Act of 1807 and to posse comitatus by the Defense Authorization Act of 2007. These changes pose a threat to the survival of our Republic by giving the President the power to declare martial law for as little reason as to restore public order. The 1807 act severely restricted the President in his use of the military within the United States borders, and the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 strengthened these restrictions with strict oversight by Congress. The new law allows the President to circumvent the restrictions of both laws. The Insurrection Act has now become the ``Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order Act.'' This is hardly a title that suggests that the authors cared about or understood the nature of a constitutional Republic. Now, martial law can be declared not just for insurrection, but also for natural disasters, public health reasons, terrorist attacks or incidents, or for the vague reason called ``other conditions.'' The President can call up the National Guard without congressional approval or the Governors' approval, and even send these State Guard troops into other States. The American Republic is in remnant status. The stage is set for our country eventually devolving into a military dictatorship, and few seem to care. These precedent-setting changes in the law are extremely dangerous and will change American jurisprudence forever if not revised. The beneficial results of our revolt against the King's abuses are about to be eliminated, and few Members of Congress and few Americans are aware of the seriousness of the situation. Complacency and fear drive our legislation without any serious objection by our elected leaders. Sadly, though, those few who do object to this self- evident trend away from personal liberty and empire building overseas are portrayed as unpatriotic and uncaring. Though welfare and socialism always fails, opponents of them are said to lack compassion. Though opposition to totally unnecessary war should be the only moral position, the rhetoric is twisted to claim that patriots who oppose the war are not supporting the troops. The cliche ``Support the Troops'' is incessantly used as a substitute for the unacceptable notion of supporting the policy, no matter how flawed it may be. Unsound policy can never help the troops. Keeping the troops out of harm's way and out of wars unrelated to our national security is the only real way of protecting the troops. With this understanding, just who can claim the title of ``patriot''? Before the war in the Middle East spreads and becomes a world conflict for which we will be held responsible, or the liberties of all Americans become so suppressed we can no longer resist, much has to be done. Time is short, but our course of action should be clear. Resistance to illegal and unconstitutional usurpation of our rights is required. Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing. Let not those who love the power of the welfare/warfare state label the dissenters of authoritarianism as unpatriotic or uncaring. Patriotism is more closely linked to dissent than it is to conformity and a blind desire for safety and security. Understanding the magnificent rewards of a free society makes us unbashful in its promotion, fully realizing that maximum wealth is created and the greatest chance for peace comes from a society respectful of individual liberty.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1427 fails to address the core problems with the Government Sponsored Enterprises, GSEs. Furthermore, since this legislation creates new government programs that will further artificially increase the demand for housing, H.R. 1427 increases the economic damage that will occur from the bursting of the housing bubble. The main problem with the GSEs is the special privileges the Federal Government gives the GSEs. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the housing-related GSEs received almost 20 billion dollars worth of indirect Federal subsidies in fiscal year 2004 alone, while Wayne Passmore of the Federal Reserve estimates the value of the GSE's Federal subsides to be between $122 and $182 billion dollars. One of the major privileges the Federal Government grants to the GSEs is a line of credit from the United States Treasury. According to some estimates, the line of credit may be worth over 2 billion dollars. GSEs also benefit from an explicit grant of legal authority given to the Federal Reserve to purchase the debt of the GSEs. GSEs are the only institutions besides the United States Treasury granted explicit statutory authority to monetize their debt through the Federal Reserve. This provision gives the GSEs a source of liquidity unavailable to their competitors. This implicit promise by the Government to bail out the GSEs in times of economic difficulty helps the GSEs attract investors who are willing to settle for lower yields than they would demand in the absence of the subsidy. Thus, the line of credit distorts the allocation of capital. More importantly, the line of credit is a promise on behalf of the Government to engage in a massive unconstitutional and immoral income transfer from working Americans to holders of GSE debt. The connection between the GSEs and the Government helps isolate the GSEs' managements from market discipline. This isolation from market discipline is the root cause of the mismanagement occurring at Fannie and Freddie. After all, if investors did not believe that the Federal Government would bail out Fannie and Freddie if the GSEs faced financial crises, then investors would have forced the GSEs to provide assurances that the GSEs are following accepted management and accounting practices before investors would consider Fannie and Freddie to be good investments. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has expressed concern that the government subsidies provided to the GSEs makes investors underestimate the risk of investing in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Although he has endorsed many of the regulatory ``solutions'' being considered here today, Chairman Greenspan has implicitly admitted the subsidies are the true source of the problems with Fannie and Freddie. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1427 compounds these problems by further insulating the GSEs from market discipline. By creating a ``world- class'' regulator, Congress would send a signal to investors that investors need not concern themselves with investigating the financial health and stability of Fannie and Freddie since a ``world-class'' regulator is performing that function. However, one of the forgotten lessons of the financial scandals of a few years ago is that the market is superior at discovering and punishing fraud and other misbehavior than are government regulators. After all, the market discovered, and began to punish, the accounting irregularities of Enron before the government regulators did. Concerns have been raised about the new regulator's independence from the Treasury Department. This is more than a bureaucratic ``turf battle'' as there are legitimate worries that isolating the regulator from Treasury oversight may lead to regulatory capture. Regulatory capture occurs when regulators serve the interests of the businesses they are supposed to be regulating instead of the public interest. While H.R. 1427 does have some provisions that claim to minimize the risk of regulatory capture, regulatory capture is always a threat where regulators have significant control over the operations of an industry. After all, the industry obviously has a greater incentive than any other stakeholder to influence the behavior of the regulator. The flip side of regulatory capture is that mangers and owners of highly subsidized and regulated industries are more concerned with pleasing the regulators than with pleasing consumers or investors, since the industries know that investors will believe all is well if the regulator is happy. Thus, the regulator and the regulated industry may form a symbiosis where each looks out for the other's interests while ignoring the concerns of investors. Furthermore, my colleagues should consider the constitutionality of an ``independent regulator.'' The Founders provided for three branches of government--an executive, a judiciary, and a legislature. Each branch was created as sovereign in its sphere, and there were to be clear lines of accountability for each branch. However, independent regulators do not fit comfortably within the three branches; nor are they totally accountable to any branch. Regulators at these independent agencies often make judicial-like decisions, but they are not part of the judiciary. They often make rules, similar to the ones regarding capital requirements, that have the force of law, but independent regulators are not legislative. And, of course, independent regulators enforce the laws in the same way, as do other parts of the executive branch; yet independent regulators lack the day-to-day accountability to the executive that provides a check on other regulators. Thus, these independent regulators have a concentration of powers of all three branches and lack direct accountability to any of the democratically chosen branches of government. This flies in the face of the Founders' opposition to concentrations of power and government bureaucracies that lack accountability. These concerns are especially relevant considering the remarkable degree of power and autonomy this bill gives to the regulator. For example, in the scheme established by H.R. 1427 the regulator's budget is not subject to appropriations. This removes a powerful mechanism for holding the regulator accountable to Congress. While the regulator is accountable to a board of directors, this board may conduct all deliberations in private because it is not subject to the Sunshine Act. Ironically, by transferring the risk of widespread mortgage defaults to the taxpayers through Government subsidies and convincing investors that all is well because a ``world-class'' regulator is ensuring the GSEs' soundness, the Government increases the likelihood of a painful crash in the housing market. This is because the special privileges of Fannie and Freddie have distorted the housing market by allowing Fannie and Freddie to attract capital they could not attract under pure market conditions. As a result, capital is diverted from its most productive uses into housing. This reduces the efficacy of the entire market and thus reduces the standard of living of all Americans. Despite the long-term damage to the economy inflicted by the Government's interference in the housing market, the Government's policy of diverting capital into housing creates a short-term boom in housing. Like all artificially created bubbles, the boom in housing prices cannot last forever. When housing prices fall, homeowners will experience difficulty as their equity is wiped out. Furthermore, the holders of the mortgage debt will also have a loss. These losses will be greater than they would have been had government policy not actively encouraged overinvestment in housing. H.R. 1427 further distorts the housing market by artificially inflating the demand for housing through the creation of a national housing trust fund. This fund further diverts capital to housing that, absent Government intervention, would be put to a use more closely matching the demands of consumers. Thus, this new housing program will reduce efficacy and create yet another unconstitutional redistribution program. Perhaps the Federal Reserve can stave off the day of reckoning by purchasing the GSEs' debt and pumping liquidity into the housing market, but this cannot hold off the inevitable drop in the housing market forever. In fact, postponing the necessary and painful market corrections will only deepen the inevitable fall. The more people are invested in the market, the greater the effects across the economy when the bubble bursts. Instead of addressing Government polices encouraging the misallocation of resources to the housing market, H.R. 1427 further introduces distortion into the housing market by expanding the authority of Federal regulators to approve the introduction of new products by the GSEs. Such regulation inevitability delays the introduction of new innovations to the market, or even prevents some potentially valuable products from making it to the market. Of course, these new regulations are justified in part by the GSEs' government subsidies. We once again see how one bad intervention in the market (the GSEs' government subsides) leads to another (the new regulations). In conclusion, H.R. 1427 compounds the problems with the GSEs and may increase the damage that will be inflicted by a bursting of the housing bubble. This is because this bill creates a new unaccountable regulator and introduces further distortions into the housing market via increased regulatory power. H.R. 1427 also violates the Constitution by creating yet another unaccountable regulator with quasi-executive, judicial, and legislative powers. Instead of expanding unconstitutional and market distorting government bureaucracies, Congress should act to remove taxpayer support from the housing GSEs before the bubble bursts and taxpayers are once again forced to bailout investors who were misled by foolish Government interference in the market.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the Affordable Gas Price Act. This legislation reduces gas prices by reforming government polices that artificially inflate the price of gas. As I need not remind my colleagues, the American people are being hard hit by skyrocketing gas prices. In some parts of the country, gas prices have risen to as much as $4 per gallon. This increase in the price of gas threatens our already fragile economy and diminishes the quality of life for all Americans. One industry that is particularly hard hit is the trucking industry. The effects of high gas prices on the trucking industry will be reflected in increased costs for numerous consumer goods, thus further harming American consumers. Unfortunately, many proposals to address the problem of higher energy prices involve increasing government interference in the market through policies such as price controls. These big government solutions will, at best, prove ineffective and, at worst, bring back the fuel shortages and gas lines of the seventies. Instead of expanding government, Congress should repeal federal laws and polices that raise the price of gas, either directly through taxes or indirectly though regulations that. discourage the development of new fuel sources. This is why my legislation repeals the federal moratorium on offshore drilling and allows oil exploration in the ANWR reserve in Alaska. My bill also ensures that the National Environmental Policy Act's environmental impact statement requirement will no longer be used as a tool to force refiners to waste valuable time and capital on nuisance litigation. The Affordable Gas Price Act also provides tax incentives to encourage investment in new refineries. Federal fuel taxes are a major part of gasoline's cost. The Affordable Gas Price Act suspends the federal gasoline tax any time the average gas prices exceeds $3.00 per gallon. During the suspension, the federal government will have a legal responsibility to ensure the federal highway trust fund remains funded. My bill also raises the amount of mileage reimbursement not subject to taxes, and, during times of high oil prices, provides the same mileage reimbursement benefit to charity and medical organizations as provided to businesses. Misguided and outdated trade polices are also artificially raising the price of gas. For instance, even though Russia and Kazakhstan allow their citizens the right and opportunity to emigrate, they are still subject to Jackson-Vanik sanctions, even though Jackson-Vanik was a reaction to the Soviet Union's highly restrictive emigration policy. Eliminating Jackson-Vanik's threat of trade-restricting sanctions would increase the United States' access to oil supplies from non-Arab countries. Thus, my bill terminates the application of title IV of the Trade Act of 1974 to Russia and Khazaskin, allowing Americans to enjoy the benefits of free trade with these oil-producing nations. Finally, the Affordable Gas Price Act creates a federal study on how the abandonment of the gold standard and the adoption of freely floating currencies are affecting the price of oil. It is no coincidence that oil prices first became an issue shortly after President Nixon unilaterally severed the dollar's last connection to gold. The system of fiat money makes consumers vulnerable to inflation and to constant fluctuations in the prices of essential goods such as oil. In conclusion Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the Affordable Gas Price Act and end government polices that increase the cost of gasoline.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the Parental Consent Act. This bill forbids Federal funds from being used for any universal or mandatory mental health screening of students without the express, written, voluntary, informed consent of their parents or legal guardian. This bill protects the fundamental right of parents to direct and control the upbringing and education of their children. The New Freedom Commission on Mental Health has recommended that the Federal and State governments work toward the implementation of a comprehensive system of mental health screening for all Americans. The commission recommends that universal or mandatory mental health screening first be implemented in public schools as a prelude to expanding it to the general public. However, neither the commission's report nor any related mental health screening proposal requires parental consent before a child is subjected to mental health screening. Federally-funded universal or mandatory mental health screening in schools without parental consent could lead to labeling more children as ``ADD'' or ``hyperactive'' and thus force more children to take psychotropic drugs, such as Ritalin, against their parents' wishes. Already, too many children are suffering from being prescribed psychotropic drugs for nothing more than children's typical rambunctious behavior. According to Medco Health Solutions, more than 2.2 million children are receiving more than one psychotropic drug at one time. In fact, according to Medico Trends, in 2003, total spending on psychiatric drugs for children exceeded spending on antibiotics or asthma medication. Many children have suffered harmful side effects from using psychotropic drugs. Some of the possible side effects include mania, violence, dependence, and weight gain. Yet, parents are already being threatened with child abuse charges if they resist efforts to drug their children. Imagine how much easier it will be to drug children against their parents' wishes if a Federally-funded mental health screener makes the recommendation. Universal or mandatory mental health screening could also provide a justification for stigmatizing children from families that support traditional values. Even the authors of mental health diagnosis manuals admit that mental health diagnoses are subjective and based on social constructions. Therefore, it is all too easy for a psychiatrist to label a person's disagreement with the psychiatrist's political beliefs a mental disorder. For example, a Federally-funded school violence prevention program lists ``intolerance'' as a mental problem that may lead to school violence. Because ``intolerance'' is often a code word for believing in traditional values, children who share their parents' values could be labeled as having mental problems and a risk of causing violence. If the mandatory mental health screening program applies to adults, everyone who believes in traditional values could have his or her beliefs stigmatized as a sign of a mental disorder. Taxpayer dollars should not support programs that may label those who adhere to traditional values as having a ``mental disorder.'' Madam Speaker, universal or mandatory mental health screening threatens to undermine parents' right to raise their children as the parents see fit. Forced mental health screening could also endanger the health of children by leading to more children being improperly placed on psychotropic drugs, such as Ritalin, or stigmatized as ``mentally ill'' or a risk of causing violence because they adhere to traditional values. Congress has a responsibility to the Nation's parents and children to stop this from happening. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Parental Consent Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to support H.R. 2046, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act. Last year, a ban on internet gambling was snuck into a port security bill. This ban on internet gambling is an outrageous affront to individual freedom. H.R. 2046 restores respect for the right to patronize internet gambling sites as long as the sites follow certain Federal laws. The bill does not create new Federal laws, and it respects the authority of States and Native American tribes to regulate gambling. I hope all my colleagues will join me in cosponsoring this bill and restoring respect for the American people's right to decide for themselves whether or not they gamble online.

Mr. PAUL

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

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce legislation repealing two unconstitutional and paternalistic Federal financial regulations. First, this legislation repeals a Federal regulation that limits the number of withdrawals someone can make from a savings account in a month's time without being assessed financial penalties. As hard as it is to believe, the Federal Government actually forces banks to punish people for accessing their own savings too many times in a month. This bill also repeals a regulation that requires bank customers to receive a written monthly financial statement from their banks, regardless of whether the customer wants such a communication. These regulations exceed Congress's constitutional powers and violate individual property and contract rights. Furthermore, these regulations insult Americans by treating them as children who are unable to manage their own affairs without Federal control. I urge my colleagues to show their respect for the Constitution and the American people by cosponsoring this legislation.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, 2007 marks Valerian Huvar's 52nd year of service as the county clerk for Victoria, Texas, making him the longest serving county clerk in Texas history. I am pleased to join the residents of Victoria in extending my thanks and congratulations to Mr. Huvar. Mr. Huvar, the son of Fred and Stella Huvar, was born in El Campo, Texas on October 19, 1919. Mr. Huvar has resided in Victoria since he was 4 months old. A 1937 graduate of St. Joseph High School, Mr. Huvar worked for the local Goodyear Tire Store until December 30, 1941, when he entered the military. Mr. Huvar spent 5 years in the Army Air Corps Ordnance Department, earning the rank of Master Sergeant. After his discharge from active duty, Mr. Huvar returned to the local Goodyear Tire Store, this time as the store's manager. Soon thereafter he went to work at the local Montgomery Ward where he set up their business office. In 1950, he went to work as a teller in the First Victoria National Bank. In 1954, Mr. Huvar successfully ran for Victoria County Clerk. He was officially sworn in on January 1, 1955, and has held the position ever since. Mr. Huvar married Luella Edwards of Blanco, Texas, on May 4, 1947. She passed away on January 7, 1984. Valerian and Luella have four children--Charlotte, Carolyn, Dennis, and Michael, 10 grandchildren, and five great-grandchildren. Madam Speaker, for over 5 decades the people of Victoria County have benefited from Mr. Valerian Huvar's dedication and professionalism. I am pleased to join my constituents and friends in Victoria in paying tribute to the accomplishments of this remarkable Texan.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, on April 26 the Brazoria Roundtable will honor Mr. Rudy Okruhlik for his over 30 years of work in Texas schools, the last 6 years of which were spent as superintendent of Brazosport Independent School District (ISD). Brazospsort ISD consists of 11 elementary schools, 2 middle schools, 3 intermediate schools, 2 high schools, and an alternative placement center. Under Superintendent Okruhlik's leadership, Brazosport ISD combined challenging academic programs with a passionate commitment to excellence in order to produce an environment conducive to high student achievement. The results of Superintendent Okruhlik's efforts are shown in Brazosport lSD's rating as Academically Acceptable for the last 2 years on the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) test, with 9 of the 18 regular education campuses rated exemplary or recognized in 2005. Additionally, Brazosport ISD has scored well above the minimum Federal Adequate Yearly Progress requirements for the last 2 years. Prior to coming to Brazosport lSD, Rudy Okruhlik served as superintendent of Palacios Independent School District from 1992 through 1997 and of Huntsville Independent School District from 1997 through 2000. In recognition of his lifetime commitment to, and achievement in, education, Okruhlik has been named an honorary life member of the Texas Association of School Boards. In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I once again express my pleasure in joining the Brazoria Roundtable in saluting Mr. Rudy Okruhlik for his work on behalf of Texas children.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, the supporters of H.R. 493, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, are right to be concerned over the possibility that third parties, such as the government or potential employers, will access an individual's genetic information without consent, and use that information to deny an individual health insurance or other benefits. I have long advocated repealing government laws and polices that allow third parties to access personal information. For example, I have worked to repeal the provision of Federal law giving the Federal Government the power to assign every American a ``unique medical health identifier.'' I also support repealing the phony ``medical privacy'' regulations that give law enforcement officials and state-favored private interests the right to access medical records at will. Because of the Federal Government's poor record in protecting privacy, I do not believe the best way to address concerns about the misuse of genetic information is through intrusive Federal legislation. Uniform Federal mandates are a clumsy and ineffective way to deal with problems such as employers making hiring decisions on the basis of a potential employee's genetic profile. Imposing Federal mandates on private businesses merely raises the costs of doing business and thus reduces the employment opportunities for all citizens. A much better way to eliminate irrational discrimination is to rely on state and local regulation. Unlike the Federal Government, states and localities are able to tailor their regulations to fit the needs of their particular populaces. I would remind my colleagues that 34 states currently ban genetic discrimination in employment, while 46 states forbid health insurers from engaging in genetic discrimination. Clearly, the states are capable of addressing this issue without interference from Washington. My colleagues should also remember that Congress has no constitutional authority to forbid private sector employers from making hiring or other employment decisions on the basis of genetic information. The best way to address the sponsors of H.R. 493's legitimate concerns is to put individuals back in control of the health care dollar. When individuals control the health care dollar they, not their employers, insurance companies or Health Maintenance Organizations, can make all health care decisions, including whether or not to share individual genetic histories with a potential employer, insurer, or other third party. Therefore, instead of creating more Federal regulations and bureaucracies, my colleagues should increase individual control of health care by passing legislation expanding Health Savings Accounts and individual health care tax credits and deductions.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill. I happen to agree with all of the concerns expressed by those sponsoring the bill due to the inequities in the amount of money that some of the CEOs are getting. But I am also convinced that this particular piece of legislation won't do very much to help, and I am convinced that unless we deal some day with our monetary system and understand better how it participates in these inequities, we will never get a solution for this because the monetary system does play a role in this. I am as outraged as anybody about a company that can hand out $16 billion in bonuses. But where my disagreement is, is that it is not as a result of free market capitalism; that it is the result of an economic system that we have today which is called economic interventionism, and it leads to these inequities. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1257 gives the Securities and Exchange Commission the power to force publicly traded corporations to consider shareholders' votes on nonbinding resolutions concerning the compensation packages of CEOs. Giving the SEC the power to require shareholder votes on any aspect of corporate governance, even on something as seemingly inconsequential as a nonbinding resolution, illegitimately expands Federal authority into questions of private governance. In a free market, shareholders who are concerned about CEO compensation are free to refuse to invest in corporations that do not provide sufficient information regarding how CEO salaries are set or do not allow shareholders to have a say in setting compensation packages. Since shareholders are a corporation's owner, the CEO and the board of directors have a great incentive to respond to shareholders' demands. In fact, several corporations have recently moved to amend the ways they determine executive compensation in order to provide increased transparency and accountability to shareholders. Some shareholders may not care about CEO compensation packages. Instead, they may want to devote time at shareholder meetings to reviewing corporate environmental policies and ensuring the corporation has family-friendly workforce policies. If H.R. 1257 becomes law, the concerns of those shareholders will take a back seat to corporations attempting to meet the demands of Congress. It is ironic to me that Congress would concern itself with high salaries in the private sector when, according to data collected by the CATO Institute, Federal employees on average make twice as much as their private sector counterparts. One of the examples of excessive compensation cited by the supporters of the bill is the multimillion dollar package paid to the former CEO of Freddie Mac. As a government- sponsored enterprise that, along with its counterpart Fannie Mae, received almost $20 billion worth of indirect Federal subsidies in fiscal year 2004 alone, Freddie Mac is hardly a poster child for the free market. For the most part, all economic interventions fail and end up creating new problems that we are forced to deal with. This legislation, although well-motivated in an effort to deal with a very real problem, is unnecessary and should be rejected. Past government actions have made it more difficult for shareholders to hold CEOs and boards of directors accountable for disregarding shareholder interests by, among other things, wasting corporate resources on compensation packages and golden parachutes unrelated to performance. During the 1980s, so-called corporate raiders helped keep corporate management accountable to shareholders through devices such as ``junk'' bonds that made corporate takeovers easier. The backlash against corporate raiders included the enactment of laws that made it more difficult to launch hostile takeovers. Bruce Bartlett, writing in the Washington Times in 2001, commented on the effects of these laws, ``Without the threat of a takeover, managers have been able to go back to ignoring shareholders, treating them like a nuisance, and giving themselves bloated salaries and perks, with little oversight from corporate boards. Now insulated from shareholders once again, managers could engage in unsound practices with little fear of punishment for failure.'' The Federal ``crackdown'' on corporate raiders, combined with provisions in Sarbanes-Oxley disqualifying the people who are the most capable of serving as shareholder watchdogs from serving on corporate boards, contributed to the disconnect between CEO salaries and creation of shareholder value that is being used to justify another expansion of the regulatory state. In addition to repealing laws that prevent shareholders from exercising control over corporations, Congress should also examine United States monetary policy's effects on income inequality. When the Federal Reserve Board injects credit into the economy, the result is at least a temporary rise in incomes. However, those incomes do not rise equally. People who first receive the new credit--who in most instances are those already at the top of the economic pyramid--receive the most benefit from the Fed's inflationist polices. By the time those at the lower end of the income scale experience a nominal rise in incomes, they must also contend with price inflation that has eroded their standard of living. Except for the lucky few who take advantage of the new credit first, the negative effects of inflation likely more than outweigh any temporary gains in nominal income from the Federal Reserve's expansionist polices. For evidence of who really benefits from a system of fiat money and inflation, consider that in 1971, before President Nixon severed the last link of the American currency to gold, the typical CEO's salary was 30 times higher than the average wage of the typical employee; today it is 500 times higher. Explosions in CEO salaries can be a sign of a Federal credit bubble, which occurs when Federal Reserve Board-created credit flows into certain sectors such as the stock market or the housing market. Far from being a sign of the health of capitalism, excessive CEO salaries in these areas often signal that a bubble is about to burst. When a bubble bursts, people at the bottom of the economic ladder bear the brunt of the bust. Instead of imposing new laws on private companies, Congress should repeal the laws that have weakened the ability of shareholders to discipline CEOs and boards of directors that do not run corporations according to the shareholders' wishes. Congress should also examine how fiat money contributes to income inequality. I therefore request that my colleagues join me in opposing H.R. 1257 and instead embrace a pro- freedom, pro-shareholder, and pro-worker agenda of free markets and sound money.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I raise to introduce the Enhanced Options for Rural Health Care Act. This legislation allows critical access hospitals to use beds designated for critical access use, but currently not being used for that purpose, for assisted living services financed by private payments.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to help working Americans provide for their children's health care needs by introducing the Child Health Care Affordability Act. The Child Health Care Affordability Act provides parents with a tax credit of up to $500 for health care expenses of dependent children. Parents caring for a child with a disability, tenninal disease, cancer, or any other health condition requiring specialized care would receive a tax credit of up to $3,000 to help cover their child's health care expenses. The tax credit would be available to all citizens, regardless of whether or not they itemize their deductions. The credit applies against both income and payroll tax liability. The tax credits provided in this bill will be especially helpful to those Americans whose employers cannot afford to provide health insurance for their employees. These workers must struggle to meet the medical bills of themselves and their families. This burden is especially heavy on parents whose children have a medical condition; such as cancer or a physical disability that requires long-term or specialized health care. As an OB-GYN who has had the privilege of delivering more than four thousand babies, I know how important it is that parents have the resources to provide adequate health care for their children. The inability of many working Americans to provide health care for their children is rooted in one of the great inequities of the tax code-- Congress' failure to allow individuals the same ability to deduct health care costs that it grants to businesses. As a direct result of Congress' refusal to provide individuals with health care related tax credits, parents whose employers do not provide health insurance have to struggle to provide health care for their children. Many of these parents work in low-income jobs; oftentimes, their only recourse for health care is the local emergency room. Sometimes parents are forced to delay seeking care for their children until minor health concerns that could have been easily treated become serious problems requiring expensive treatment! If these parents had access to the type of tax credits provided in the Child Health Care Affordability Act, they would be better able to provide care for their children, and our Nation's already overcrowded emergency rooms would be relieved of the burden of having to provide routine care for people who otherwise cannot afford it. According to research on the effects of this bill done by my staff and legislative counsel, the benefit of these tax credits would begin to be felt by joint filers with incomes slightly above $18,000 dollars per year, or single income filers with incomes slightly above $15,000 dollars per year. Clearly, this bill will be of the most benefit to low-income Americans balancing the demands of taxation with the needs of their children. Under the Child Health Care Affordability Act, a struggling single mother with an asthmatic child would at last be able to provide for her child's needs, while a working-class family will not have to worry about how they will pay the bills if one of their children requires lengthy hospitalization or some other form of specialized care. Madam Speaker, this Congress has a moral responsibility to provide tax relief so that loncome parents struggling to care for a sick child can better meet their child's medical expenses. Some may say that we cannot enact the Child Health Care Affordability Act because it would cause the government to lose revenue. But, who is more deserving of this money, Congress or the working parents of a sick child? The Child Health Care Affordability Act takes a major step toward helping working Americans meet their health care needs by providing them with generous health care related tax cuts and tax credits. I urge my colleagues to support the pro-family, pro-health care tax cuts contained in the Child Health Care Affordability Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, all the reasons given to justify a preemptive strike against Iraq were wrong. Congress and the American people were misled. Support for the war came from various special interests that had agitated for an invasion of Iraq since 1998. The Iraq Liberation Act passed by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton stated that getting rid of Saddam Hussein was official U.S. policy. This policy was carried out in 2003. Congress failed miserably in meeting its crucial obligations as the branch of government charged with deciding whether to declare war. It wrongly and unconstitutionally transferred this power to the President, and the President did not hesitate to use it. Although it is clear there was no cause for war, we just marched in. Our leaders deceived themselves and the public with assurances that the war was righteous and would be over quickly. Their justifications were false, and they failed to grasp even basic facts about the chaotic, political, and religious history of the region. Congress bears the greater blame for this fiasco. It reneged on its responsibility to declare or not declare war. It transferred this decision-making power to the executive branch and gave open sanction to anything the President did. In fact, the Founders diligently tried to prevent the executive from possessing this power, granting it to Congress alone in article I, section 8, of the Constitution. Today, just about everyone acknowledges the war has gone badly, and 70 percent of the American people want it to end. Our national defense is weakened, the financial costs continue to drain us, our allies have deserted us, and our enemies are multiplying, not to mention the tragic toll of death and injuries suffered by American forces. Iraq is a mess, and we urgently need a new direction. But our leaders offer only hand-wringing and platitudes. They have no clear-cut ideas to end the suffering and war. Even the most ardent war hawks cannot begin to define victory in Iraq. As an Air Force officer, serving from 1963 to 1968, I heard the same agonizing pleas from the American people. These pleas were met with the same excuses about why we could not change a deeply flawed policy and rethink the war in Vietnam. That bloody conflict, also undeclared and unconstitutional, seems to have taught us little despite the horrific costs. Once again, though everyone now accepts that the original justifications for invading Iraq were not legitimate, we are given excuses for not leaving. We flaunt our power by building permanent military bases and an enormous billion-dollar embassy, yet claim we have no plans to stay in Iraq permanently. Assurances that our presence in Iraq has nothing to do with oil are not believed in the Middle East. The argument for staying to prevent civil war and bring stability to the region logically falls on deaf ears. If the justifications for war were wrong, if the war is going badly, if we can't afford the costs, both human and economic, if civil war and chaos have resulted from our occupation, if the reasons for staying are not more credible than the reasons for going, then why the dilemma? The American people have spoken and continue to speak out against the war, so why not end it? How do we end it? Why not exactly the way we went in? We marched in and we can march out. More good things may come of it than anyone can imagine. Consider our relationship with Vietnam, now our friendly trading partner. Certainly we are doing better with her than when we tried to impose our will by force. It is time to march out of Iraq and come home.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, in recognition of the sixtieth anniversary of the explosion of the Grand Camp ship in the Texas City harbor on April 16, residents of Texas City, in my congressional district, will come together to honor those who lost their lives in the 1947 explosions. I am honored to join my constituents in commemorating those who lost their lives in this tragedy. Early in the morning of April 16, 1947 the Grand Camp caught fire. As the fire combined with the ammonium nitrate on the Grand Camp, a bright orange flame lit up the sky and smoke soared an estimated 2,000 feet into the air. Within seconds of the explosion, the Monsanto Chemical Plant was in flames. The fire spread quickly to the refineries that made up the Texas City industrial complex, causing entire buildings to collapse. The destruction was not limited to Texas City. Windows rattled in Baytown, while a mist of black oil reigned in the city of Galveston. The tragedy and destruction did not end there. A miniature tidal wave resulted when the water from the bay, which had been driven out by the explosion, rushed in over the docks and rushed 150 feet inland, subsuming everything within its path. By nightfall, rescue workers were still searching for those trapped in the wreckage. But the devastation would continue. At 1:10 a.m., another ship, the High Flyer, which was loaded with ammonium nitrate and sulfur, exploded. This explosion destroyed another ship, the Wilson B. Keene, as well as a concrete warehouse and a grain elevator. A week passed before all of the fires were extinguished, and a month passed before the last body was pulled from the rubble--although some bodies were never recovered. Approximately 600 people lost their lives because of this tragedy. Almost every member of the Texas City fire department gave his life fighting the first explosion. Plant workers, dock workers, and bystanders were among the other victims. Perhaps most tragic of all, the flames claimed the lives of several children. A memorial cemetery now sits near Loop 197 in Texas City as a silent reminder of the 63 unidentified dead who are buried in numbered graves. In 1980, a memorial park was created to honor the others who died in the tragedy. In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I take this opportunity to join my constituents in paying my respects to those who lost their lives in the 1947 explosion of the Grand Camp in Texas City.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, the FY 2008 budget is a monument to irresponsibility and profligacy. It shows that Congress remains oblivious to the economic troubles facing the Nation, and that political expediency trumps all common sense in Washington. To the extent that proponents and supporters of these unsustainable budget increases continue to win reelection, it also shows that many Americans unfortunately continue to believe government can provide them with a free lunch. To summarize, Congress proposes spending roughly $3 trillion in 2008. When I first came to Congress in 1976, the Federal Government spent only about $300 billion. So spending has increased tenfold in 30 years, and tripled just since 1990. About one-third of this $3 trillion is so-called discretionary spending; the remaining two-thirds is deemed ``mandatory'' entitlement spending, which means mostly Social Security and Medicare. I am sure many American voters would be shocked to know their elected representatives essentially have no say over two-thirds of the Federal budget, but that is indeed the case. The most disturbing problem with the budget is the utter lack of concern for the coming entitlement meltdown. The official national debt figure, now approaching $9 trillion, reflects only what the Federal Government owes in current debts on money already borrowed. It does not reflect what the Federal Government has promised to pay millions of Americans in entitlement benefits down the road. Those future obligations put our real debt figure at roughly 50 trillion dollars--a staggering sum that is about as large as the total household net worth of the entire United States. Your share of this 50 trillion amounts to about $175,000. For those who thought a Democratic Congress would end the war in Iraq, think again: their new budget proposes supplemental funds totaling about $150 billion in 2008 and $50 billion in 2009 for Iraq. This is in addition to the ordinary Department of Defense budget of more than $500 billion, which the Democrats propose increasing each year just like the Republicans. The substitute Republican budget is not much better: while it does call for freezing some discretionary spending next year, it increases military spending to make up the difference. The bottom line is that both the Democratic and Republican budget proposals call for more total spending in 2008 than 2007. My message to my colleagues is simple: If you claim to support smaller government, don't introduce budgets that increase spending over the previous year. Can any fiscal conservative in Congress honestly believe that overall federal spending cannot be cut 25 percent? We could cut spending by two-thirds and still have a Federal Government as large as it was in 1990. Congressional budgets essentially are meaningless documents, with no force of law beyond the coming fiscal year. Thus budget projections are nothing more than political posturing, designed to justify deficit spending in the near term by promising fiscal restraint in the future. But the time for thrift never seems to arrive: there is always some new domestic or foreign emergency that requires more spending than projected. Nobody in Washington will look back 5 years from now and exclaim, ``Gee whiz, back in 2007 we promised to balance the budget by 2012, so I guess we better stick to that pledge and stop spending so much this year.'' The only certainty when it comes to Federal budgets is that Congress will spend every penny budgeted and more during the fiscal year in question. All projections about revenues, tax rates, and spending in the future are nothing more than empty promises. Congress will pay no attention whatsoever to the 2008 budget in coming years. We should not let the debate over numbers distract us from the fundamental yet unspoken issues inherent in any budget proposal: What is the proper role for government in our society? Are the programs, agencies, and departments funded in the budget proposal constitutional? Are they effective? Could they operate with a smaller budget? Would the public even notice if certain items were eliminated altogether? These are the kinds of questions the American people should ask, even if Congress lacks the courage to apply any principles whatsoever to the budget process.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the Agriculture Education Freedom Act. This bill addresses a great injustice being perpetrated by the Federal Government on those youngsters who participate in programs such as 4-H or the Future Farmers of America. Under current tax law, children are forced to pay federal income tax when they sell livestock they have raised as part of an agricultural education program. Think about this for a moment. These kids are trying to better themselves, earn some money, save some money and what does Congress do? We pick on these kids by taxing them. It is truly amazing that with all the hand-wringing in Congress over the alleged need to further restrict liberty and grow the size of govemment ``for the children'' we would continue to tax young people who are trying to lead responsible lives and prepare for the future. Even if the serious social problems today's youth face could be solved by new federal bureaucracies and programs, it is still unfair to pick on those kids who are trying to do the right thing. These children are not even old enough to vote, yet we are forcing them to pay taxes! What ever happened to no taxation without representation? No wonder young people are so cynical about govemment! It is time we stopped taxing youngsters who are trying to earn money to go to college by selling livestock they have raised through their participation in programs such as 4-H or Future Farmers of America. Therefore, I call on my colleagues to join me in supporting the Agriculture Education Freedom Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, a $124 billion supplemental appropriation is a good bill, to oppose. I am pleased that many of my colleagues will join me in voting against this measure. If one is unhappy with our progress in Iraq after 4 years of war, voting to defund the war makes sense. If one is unhappy with the manner in which we went to war without a constitutional declaration, voting ``no'' makes equally good sense. Voting ``no'' also makes the legitimate point that the Constitution does not authorize Congress to direct the management of any military operation. The President clearly enjoys this authority as Commander in Chief. But Congress, just as clearly, is responsible for making policy, by debating and declaring war, raising and equipping armies, funding military operations, and ending conflicts that do not serve our national interests. Congress failed to meet its responsibilities 4 years ago, unconstitutionally transferring its explicit war power to the executive branch. Even though the administration started the subsequent preemptive war in Iraq, Congress bears the greatest responsibility for its lack of courage in fulfilling its duties. Since then Congress has obediently provided the funds and troops required to pursue this illegitimate war. We won't solve the problems in Iraq until we confront our failed policy of foreign interventionism. This latest appropriation does nothing to solve our dilemma. Micromanaging the war while continuing to fund it won't help our troops. Here is a new approach: Congress should admit its mistake and repeal the authority wrongfully given to the executive branch in 2002. Repeal the congressional sanction and disavow Presidential discretion in starting wars. Then start bringing the troops home. If anyone charges that this approach does not support the troops, take a poll. Find out how Reservists and Guardsman and their families, many on their second or third tours in Iraq, feel about it. The constant refrain that bringing our troops home would demonstrate a lack of support for them must be one of the most amazing distortions ever foisted on the American public. We are so concerned about saving face, but whose face are we saving? A sensible policy would save American lives and follow the rules laid out for Congress in the Constitution, and avoid wars that have no purpose. The claim that it is unpatriotic to oppose spending more money in Iraq must be laid to rest as fraudulent. We should pass a resolution that expresses congressional opposition to any more undeclared, unconstitutional, unnecessary, preemptive wars. We should be building a consensus for the future that makes it easier to end our current troubles in Iraq. It is amazing to me that this Congress is more intimidated by political propagandists and special interests than the American electorate, who sent a loud, clear message about the war in November. The large majority of Americans now want us out of Iraq. Our leaders cannot grasp the tragic consequences of our policies toward Iraq for the past 25 years. It is time we woke them up. We are still by far the greatest military power on Earth; but since we stubbornly refuse to understand the nature of our foes, we are literally defeating ourselves. In 2004 bin Laden stated that al Qaeda's goal was to bankrupt the United States. His second in command, Zawahari, is quoted as saying that the 9/11 attacks would cause Americans to ``come and fight the war personally on our sand where they are within rifle range.'' Sadly, we are playing into their hands. This $124 billion appropriation is only part of the nearly $1 trillion in military spending for this year's budget alone. We should be concerned about the coming bankruptcy and the crisis facing the U.S. dollar. We have totally failed to adapt to modern warfare. We are dealing with a small, nearly invisible enemy, an enemy without a country, a government, an army, a navy, an air force, or missiles. Yet our enemy is armed with suicidal determination and motivated by our meddling in their regional affairs to destroy us. As we bleed financially, our men and women in Iraq die needlessly while the injured swell Walter Reed Hospital. Our government systematically undermines the Constitution and the liberties it is supposed to protect, for which it has claimed our soldiers are dying in faraway places. Only with the complicity of Congress have we become a Nation of preemptive war, secret military tribunals, torture, rejection of habeas corpus, warrantless searches, undue government secrecy, extraordinary renditions, and uncontrollable spying on the American people. The greatest danger we face is ourselves, what we are doing in the name of providing security for a people made fearful by distortions of facts. Fighting over there has nothing to do with preserving freedoms here at home. More likely, the opposite is true. Surely we can do better than this supplemental authorization. I plan to vote ``no.''

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, this Saturday, March 10th, the Happy Hairston Youth Foundation, Inc. of Bay City, Texas, in my congressional district, will honor Ms. Hazel Johnson, the Executive Director of the Economic Action Committee of the Gulf Coast. I am pleased to join the Happy Hairston Youth Foundation, Inc. in honoring this remarkable woman. For the past 17 years, Ms. Johnson has devoted herself to serving the residents of Matagorda County. The Economic Action Committee was created to ensure Matagorda County's homebound elderly and disabled citizens receive nutritional meals. Under Ms. Johnson's leadership, the Economic Action Committee has not only continued to fulfill its original mandate of meeting the nutritional needs of the elderly and disabled, but has expanded its function to deliver other vital services to Matagorda County's senior citizens. Under Ms. Johnson's leadership, the Economic Action Committee began providing Matagorda County's low income seniors and citizens with disabilities with air conditioning, heating, refrigeration units, and cooking stoves. Without the efforts of Ms. Johnson, many of these seniors and disabled would not have safe appliances in their homes. Perhaps Ms. Johnson's most significant accomplishment is making sure that Matagorda County's low income seniors and disabled residents do not have to go without air conditioning during the hot and humid Texas Gulf Coast summers. Anyone who has spent a summer in the Texas Gulf Coast knows that air conditioning is a necessity. In fact, for the homebound, access to air conditioning can literally be a matter of life and death. It is therefore my privilege to join my friends at the Happy Hairston Youth Foundation, Inc. of Bay City, Texas, in saluting Hazel Johnson and her efforts to improve the lives of the people of Matagorda County.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the scandal at Walter Reed is not an isolated incident. It is directly related to our foreign policy of interventionism. There is a pressing need to reassess our now widely accepted role as the world's lone superpower. If we don't, we are destined to reduce our Nation to something far less powerful. It has always been politically popular for politicians to promise they will keep us out of foreign wars. Likewise, it has been popular to advocate ending prolonged and painful conflicts, like the war in Korea and Vietnam, and now Iraq. As recent as the campaign of 2000, it was quite popular to condemn nation building and reject the policy of policing the world in the wake of our involvement in Kosovo and Somalia. We were even promised a more humble foreign policy. Nobody wins elections by promising to take us to war. But, once elected, many politicians greatly exaggerate the threat posed by a potential enemy, and the people too often carelessly accept the dubious reasons given to justify wars. Opposition arises only when the true costs are felt here at home. A foreign policy of interventionism costs so much money that we're forced to close military bases in the United States even as we're building them overseas. Interventionism is never good fiscal policy. Interventionism symbolizes an attitude of looking outward, toward empire, while diminishing the importance of maintaining a constitutional republic. We close bases here at home--some want to close Walter Reed--while building bases in Arab and Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia. We worry about foreign borders while ignoring our own. We build permanent outposts in Muslim holy lands, occupy territory and prop up puppet governments. This motivates suicide terrorism against us. Our policies naturally lead to resentment, which in turn leads to prolonged wars and increased casualties. We waste billions of dollars in Iraq while bases like Walter Reed fall into disrepair. This undermines our ability to care for the thousands of wounded we should have anticipated despite the rosy predictions that we would be greeted as liberators in Iraq. Now comes the outrage. Now Congress holds hearings. Now comes the wringing of hands. I guess better late than never. Clean it up. Paint the walls. Make Walter Reed look neat and tidy. But this won't solve our problems. We must someday look critically at the shortcomings of our foreign policy, a policy that needlessly and foolishly intervenes in places where we have no business being. Voters spoke very clearly in November: They want the war to end. Yet Congress has taken no steps to defund or end a war it never should have condoned in the first place. On the contrary, Congress plans to spend another $100 billion or more in an upcoming Iraq funding bill, more than even the administration has requested. The 2007 military budget, $700 billion, apparently is not enough. All of this is done under the slogan of supporting the troops, even though our policy guarantees more Americans will die and Walter Reed will continue to receive tens of thousands of casualties. Every problem Congress and the administration creates requires more money to fix. The mantra remains the same: Spend more money even though we don't have it; borrow from the Chinese, or just print it. This policy of interventionism is folly, and it cannot continue forever. It will end, either because we wake up or because we go broke. Interventionism always leads to unanticipated consequences and blowback, like a weakened, demoralized military; exploding deficits; billions of dollars wasted; increased inflation; less economic growth; an unstable currency; painful stock market corrections; political demagoguery; lingering anger at home; and confusion about who is to blame. These elements combine to create an environment that inevitably undermines personal liberty. Virtually all American wars have led to diminished civil liberties at home. Most of our mistakes can be laid at the doorstep of our failure to follow the Constitution. The Constitution, if we so desire, can provide needed guidance and a road map to restore our liberties and change our foreign policy. This is critical if we truly seek peace and prosperity.