Ron Paul

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, as a supporter of ensuring our service personnel have access to a wide range of financial products I am concerned with the provision of the Military Personnel Financial Services Protection Act, S. 418, enacting a complete prohibition on so- called contractual or periodic payment mutual funds, which, according to testimony received by the House Committee on Financial Services, are sold voluntarily with full disclosure to officers at individual meetings held off base. This is the first time in recent memory that this committee has ever proposed banning a product that is fully permissible under current law and that--again according to testimony received by the committee--is used by thousands of senior military officials to facilitate their financial security. Specifically, we were told that the clients of First Command Financial Planning, the Texas-based company principally involved in this market, has invested $734.4 million aggregate in these accounts in 2004. The sales charge on that amount was about $44 million, or about six percent. What is the basis for outlawing a product that over half a million individuals, including half the flag officers on active duty at the time, had freely chosen? Do we really believe that individuals charged with the deployment of billions of dollars of military equipment, are not sophisticated enough to make their own financial decisions? When the Congress last looked at this product in 1970, we recognized periodic payment mutual funds are a valuable means to help encourage savings by people who do not have large amounts of discretionary income. I have seen no evidence in the record indicating that the judgment then was incorrect. In fact, testimony received by the Financial Services Committee indicates that these periodic payment mutual funds are working for those military members choosing to utilize them. Before voting on S. 418, Congress should consider whether it is in the best interests of our armed services to substitute our judgment for theirs by banning a financial product that the armed services deem well-suited for their financial security. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased 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. This bill will help improve the financial status of small rural hospitals and extend the health care options available to people living in rural areas without increasing federal expenditures. Currently, fear that rural hospitals will lose critical access status if beds designated for critical access are used for another purpose is causing rural hospitals to allow beds not needed for a critical access purpose to remain unused. This deprives rural hospitals of a much-needed revenue stream and deprives residents of rural areas of access to needed health care services. My colleagues may be interested to know that the idea for this bill comes from Marcella Henke, an administrator of Jackson County Hospital, a critical access hospital in my congressional district. Ms. Henke conceived of this idea as a way to meet the increasing demand for assisted living services in rural areas and provide hospitals with a profitable way to use beds not being used for critical access purposes. I urge my colleagues to embrace this practical way of strengthening rural health care without increasing federal expenditures by cosponsoring the Enhanced Options for Rural Health Care Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) successfully completed another space shuttle mission with this morning's landing of the Space Shuttle Atlantis and the completion of the STS-115 mission. Launched on September 9, STS-115 is the 116th space shuttle mission, and the first since 2002 to include work on assembling and expanding the International Space Station. The successful completion of the STS-115 mission puts the space station back on the road to completion. The major accomplishments of the STS-115 mission include the delivery and installation of the massive P3/P4 truss--an integral part of the space station's backbone--and two sets of solar arrays that will eventually provide one quarter of the space station's power. The crew's other accomplishments include preparing an important radiator for later activation, installing a signal processor and transponder that transmit voice and data to the ground, and performing other tasks to upgrade and protect the space station's systems. The STS-115 mission is the first time a procedure called ``camp out'' was implemented. A ``camp out'' is where astronauts sleep in the Quest airlock prior to their space walks. The process shortens the ``prebreathe'' time during which nitrogen is purged from the astronauts' systems and air pressure is lowered so the space walkers avoid the condition known as the bends. The ``camp out'' procedure enabled the astronauts to perform more than the number of scheduled activities on each of the mission's three space walks. The Atlantis's crew preformed unprecedented robotics work on this mission. The crew used the shuttle's arm in a delicate maneuver to hand off the school bus-sized truss to the space station's arm, and also moved the space station's robotic arm to a position where it will assist in the next phase of station construction. Perhaps most significantly, the Atlantis crew preformed the first full fly around of the space station since before the Space Shuttle Columbia accident. Thanks to the fly around, ground crews now have a better perspective on the space station's environment and overall exterior health. Coming less than 2 months after the successful mission of the Space Shuttle Discovery, the Atlantis mission is another demonstration of the skills and dedication of all NASA personal. I therefore urge all my colleagues join me in extending congratulations to NASA for the successful completion of the Atlantis mission. And extend a special thank you to Atlantis's crew of Commander Brent Jett, Mission Specialist Joe Tanner, Mission Specialist Steve MacLean, Pilot Chris Ferguson, Mission Specialist Dan Burbank, and Mission Specialist Heide Stefanyshyn-Piper, and the ground team that worked with the shuttle crew to make this mission a success.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Taxpayer Protection from Genetic Discrimination Act. This bill ensures that no American taxpayer will be denied health care because of his or her genetic history by any agency of the federal government, a state or local government, or a government contractor. Some people have raised concerns that, while recent advances in genetic testing bring much hope of improved medical treatment, the increased use of genetic tests may also result in many people being denied access to health insurance, or even refused employment, because of their genetic history. I recently met with some of my constituents who are concerned that people with polycentric kidney disease, which can be identified with a genetic test, often lose their insurance coverage because their insurance companies or employers discover they have polycentric kidney disease. Whatever long-term reforms designed to address this problem one favors, I hope that all my colleagues could agree that Congress should make sure that American citizens are not forced to subsidize government agencies or contractors who deny health insurance based on someone's genetic profile. I therefore hope all my colleagues support the Taxpayer Protection from Genetic Discrimination Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I wish to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Major Edward Lee Behne, a decorated military veteran, entrepreneur, husband, and father who passed away on September 8. Major Behne served his country by flying UH-1 Hueys in Vietnam from 1967 to 1970. Major Behne is the Vietnam War's second-most decorated army pilot, having received two Distinguished Flying Crosses, a Legion of Merit, a VN Cross of Gallantry with Silver Star and Palm, two Silver Stars, six Bronze Stars, VN Service Medal (9 campaigns), two Meritorious Unit Citations, and 80 Air Medals. In 1979, Edward Behne retired from the army to return to his home in Texas, in 1988, he founded Tex-Air Helicopters, Inc. Guided by his vision of a company that would provide customers an unprecedented level of quality, service, and performance in helicopter operations, Major Behne worked for over 20 years to build Tex-Air into one of the major providers of helicopter services in the Gulf Coast region. By 2000, the Tex-Air fleet had grown to thirty aircraft and was the most modern and sophisticated helicopter fleet in the United States. Operations ranged from Florida to Mexico with twelve helicopter bases, fifteen offshore refueling platforms, and two major maintenance facilities. Tex-Air established an extensive offshore radio network for operational control and flight following across the entire Gulf of Mexico using repeaters and a central communications base. In 2003, Major Behne retired from Tex-Air to return to his beloved Texas hill country ranch, where he entertained his best friends and family members, worked and hunted. War hero, entrepreneur, rancher, family man--Major Edward Behne made numerous contributions to the betterment of his country and set an example for us all. I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to Major Edward Lee Behne and extend our condolences to his wife, Mary Lynne; two sons, Mark Behne and Mike Behne; four step children, Jimmy Gonzalez, Mark Gonzalez, Tanya Roland and Robert Hughey; brother, Richard Behne; sister, Gwen Pascal; grandchild, Josephine Behne; and 14 step grandchildren, as well as all of Major Behne's family and friends.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support and cosponsor H. Res. 874, a resolution honoring America's senior citizens for their contributions to American life. I am particularly pleased by the language encouraging young people to seek out and talk to our Nation's seniors about these seniors' life experiences. Talking to beloved grandparents, aunts, uncles, or friends about their past is a great way to learn history and gain an understanding of the past that simply cannot be obtained from a textbook. I hope that, in the limited time left in this congressional session, we would further demonstrate our commitment to America's seniors by voting on my Senior Citizens' Improved Quality of Life Act, H.R. 5211. H.R. 5211 contains a number of items of great importance to America's seniors. H.R. 5211 helps seniors by: Repealing all taxes on Social Security benefits. Since Social Security benefits are financed with tax dollars, taxing these benefits is an example of double taxation. The benefits tax also reduces Social Security benefits by subterfuge. Ensuring that Social Security trust fund money is used only for Social Security. H.R. 5211 requires that all money raised for the Social Security trust fund will be spent in payments to beneficiaries, with excess receipts invested in interest-bearing certificates of deposit. This will keep Social Security trust fund money from being diverted to other programs, as well as allow the fund to grow by providing for investment in interest-bearing instruments. Ending the raid of the Social Security trust fund is a vital first step in any serious Social Security reform plan. Protecting the trust fund also demonstrates our commitment to putting the priorities of the American people ahead of special interest pork barrel spending. Repealing provisions of Federal law that restrict the ability of senior citizens to form private contracts for health care services. This restriction violates the rights of seniors who may wish to use their own resources to obtain procedures or treatments not covered by Medicare, or to simply avoid the bureaucracy and uncertainty that come when seniors must wait for the judgment of a Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, bureaucrat before finding out if a desired treatment is covered. H.R. 5211 also stops the Social Security Administration from denying Social Security benefits to seniors who refuse to enroll in Medicare Part A. Forcing seniors to enroll in Medicare Part A as a condition for receiving Social Security violates the promise represented by Social Security. Americans pay taxes into the Social Security trust fund their whole working lives and are promised that Social Security will be there for them when they retire. Yet, today, seniors are told that they cannot receive these benefits unless they agree to join another government program. Allowing seniors who neither want nor need to participate in the Medicare program to refrain from doing so and ensuring seniors have the freedom to use their own resources to obtain quality health care will strengthen the Medicare program for those seniors who do wish to receive Medicare benefits. Of course, H.R. 5211 does not take away Medicare benefits from any senior. It simply allows each senior to choose voluntarily whether or not to accept Medicare benefits. Ensuring that Social Security benefits only go to American citizens. Proposals, such as those contained in the Reid-Kennedy immigration bill, to allow noncitizens, including those who entered the country illegally, to receive Social Security benefits are a slap in the face to America's workers and seniors. H.R. 5211 ensures that only American citizens who have paid into the Social Security trust fund can receive Social Security benefits. Providing seniors with a tax credit to help cover their prescription drug expenses not covered by Medicare and repealing Federal barriers that prohibit seniors from obtaining quality prescription drugs from overseas. Even though Congress added a prescription drug benefit to Medicare, many seniors still have difficulty affording their prescription drugs. One reason is because the new program creates a ``doughnut hole,'' where seniors must pay for their prescriptions above a certain amount out of their own pockets until their expenses reach a level where Medicare coverage resumes. H.R. 5211 helps seniors cope with these costs by providing them with a tax credit equal to 80 percent of their out-of-pocket pharmaceutical costs. H.R. 5211 also lowers the price of pharmaceuticals by making two changes in the law to create a free market in pharmaceuticals. First, H.R. 5211 allows anyone wishing to import a drug to submit an application to the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, which then must approve the drug unless the FDA finds the drug is either not approved for use in the U.S. or is adulterated or misbranded. Second, H.R. 5211 ensures that lawful internet pharmacies can continue to offer affordable prescription drugs free of Federal harassment. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I reiterate my support for H. Res. 874 and my hope that Congress will continue to show its appreciation for America's seniors by voting on my Senior Citizens' Improved Quality of Life Act before adjourning for the year.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, with great sadness I must rise to oppose this measure granting a congressional gold medal to the 14th Dalai Lama. While I greatly admire and respect His Holiness the Dalai Lama, and fully recognize his tremendous status both as a Buddhist leader and international advocate for peace, I must object to the manner in which this body chooses to honor him. I wonder if my colleagues see the irony in honoring a devout Buddhist monk with a material gift of gold. The Buddhist tradition, of course, eschews worldly possessions in favor of purity of thought and action. Buddhism urges its practitioners to alleviate the suffering of others whenever possible. I'm sure His Holiness the Dalai Lama would rather see $30,000 spent to help those less fortunate, rather than for a feel- good congressional gesture. We cannot forget that Congress has no authority under the Constitution to spend taxpayer money on medals and awards, no matter how richly deserved. And I reiterate my offer of $100 from my own pocket to pay for this medal--if members wish to honor the Dalai Lama, all we need to do is pay for it ourselves. If all 435 of us contribute, the cost will be roughly $70 each. So while a gold medal sounds like a great idea, it becomes a bit strange when we see the actual cost involved. If Congress truly wishes to honor the Dalai Lama, it could instead start by showing more respect for his views in the areas of foreign policy, war, and terrorism. The bellicosity often demonstrated on the floor of this institution toward entire nations and their people conflicts sharply with the peaceful teachings of the Dalai Lama. Consider the following words of His Holiness: ``When September 11 happened, the next day I wrote a letter to President Bush as a friend--because I know him personally. I wrote this letter and expressed, besides my condolences and sadness, a countermeasure to this tragedy: a nonviolent response because that would have been more effective. So this is my stance. And then just before the Iraq crisis started, millions of people from countries like Australia and America expressed their opposition to violence. I really admired and appreciated this.'' ``When the war started, some people immediately asked me if it was justified or not, whether it was right or wrong. In principle, any resort to violence is wrong.'' Consider also these thoughts from the Dalai Lama regarding the terrible pointlessness of war: ``We have seen that we cannot solve human problems by fighting. Problems resulting from differences in opinion must be resolved through the gradual process of dialogue. Undoubtedly, wars produce victors and losers; but only temporarily. Victory or defeat resulting from wars cannot be long-lasting. Secondly, our world has become so interdependent that the defeat of one country must impact the rest of the world, or cause all of us to suffer losses either directly or indirectly.'' ``Today, the world is so small and so interdependent that the concept of war has become anachronistic, an outmoded approach. As a rule, we always talk about reform and changes. Among the old traditions, there are many aspects that are either ill-suited to our present reality or are counterproductive due to their shortsightedness. These, we have consigned to the dustbin of history. War too should be relegated to the dustbin of history.'' ``Of course, the militaristic tradition may not end easily. But, let us think of this. If there were bloodshed, people in positions of power, or those who are responsible, will find safe places; they will escape the consequent hardship. They will find safety for themselves, one way or the other. But what about the poor people, the defenseless people, the children, the old and infirm. They are the ones who will have to bear the brunt of devastation. When weapons are fired, the result will be death and destruction. Weapons will not discriminate between the innocent and guilty. A missile, once fired, will show no respect to the innocent, poor, defenseless, or those worthy of compassion. Therefore, the real losers will be the poor and defenseless, ones who are completely innocent, and those who lead a hand-to-mouth existence.'' Mr. Speaker, in closing let me join my colleagues in stating my tremendous respect for His Holiness the Dalai Lama. While I cannot agree with forcible taxation to pay for gold medals, I certainly hope Congress takes the teaching of His Holiness to heart and begins to rethink our aggressive, interventionist foreign policy.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to this resolution, as I strongly feel that we need to be careful about how we commemorate the tragic events of September 11,2001. Several times over the past four years I have voted in favor of these annual 9/11 resolutions because they simply commemorated the tragic event and urged our continued vigilance in an increasingly dangerous world. I believe using the event to promote particular legislation or foreign policies, however, denigrates the memory of those who perished in that attack. Much of the legislation referenced in this legislation is legislation that I supported. For example, I voted in favor of the Border Protection, Anti-terrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005 and for the SAFE Port Act of 2006. I continue to support measures that help secure our borders and thereby make us less vulnerable to future foreign attack. However, I find it particularly unacceptable to heap praise on the PATRIOT Act, as this bill does. This act expanded the federal government's power to an unprecedented degree at the expense not of foreign terrorists, but of law-abiding American citizens. It opened average Americans up to wide-ranging government snooping and surveillance in matters completely unrelated to terrorism. For example, the ``sneak and peek'' provisions of the PATRIOT Act allow law enforcement to enter someone's home without a warrant, search that property, and never inform that citizen they had been there. Also, libraries and book stores can be forced to provide the government with citizens' borrowing and purchasing history without showing probable cause. I see no reason to applaud such an un-American piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, I believe we should show due respect the victims of the attacks of September 11, 2001. Congress patting itself on the back over legislation it has passed since then strikes me as disrespectful to those who suffered and continue to suffer from the attacks on New York and the Pentagon.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, Galveston College, which is in my district, is in the fifth year of its strategic plan to better help its students meet the challenges of the 21st century by transforming itself into a learning college. The learning college is an exciting new model designed to ensure community colleges respond quickly to internal and external challenges and think creatively about the future. The learning college rests on collaboration between students who are willing and able to take primary responsibility for making their own choices and faculty and staff who are able to empower students with the tools students need to make sound choices. Galveston College helps students develop the attitudes and behaviors necessary for academic and professional success. Galveston College also challenges its employees to work in an environment based on teamwork and a culture open to change and learning. Fundamental to the learning college experience is the creation of different options for learning, including the traditional classroom, laboratory and clinical settings, and Internet coursework. A learning college also assists students in forming and participating in collaborative learning activities. Since adopting the learning college model, Galveston College has made an increased variety of coursework and programs available to students. Many of these programs involve creative uses of technology that enhance the learning process. For example, thanks to collaboration with the Virtual College of Texas, Galveston College has made available a large selection of Internet coursework to its students. Galveston College has also implemented several initiatives to improve its developmental I programs and student services technology. These initiatives include Achieving the Dream funded by the Lumina Foundation; a title V Grant, Developing Hispanic Serving Institutions Program; and the Quality Enhancement Plan. These initiatives will allow the college to implement best practices in student retention. In order to better ensure that it is preparing students for good jobs in the Galveston area, Galveston College has assigned an account executive to work with the Galveston Chamber of Commerce, the Galveston Economic Development Partnership, and the Galveston city government to ensure Galveston College's course offerings match the needs of the community. Galveston College's efforts are showing results. On May 18, 2006, CCBenefits, Inc. completed a socioeconomic impact study of Galveston College. The report details how Galveston College benefits the students and the community. According to the study, a student at Galveston College will see an increase of $6.62 in lifetime earnings for each dollar spent at Galveston College. The study also estimated that Galveston's economy is $107.3 million stronger due to the actions of Galveston College. This year, Galveston College had the largest graduating class in its history. With its commitment to fashioning a 21st century learning college that provides students with a first class education designed to help them meet today's challenges, I have no doubt Galveston College will remain an asset to the Galveston community and a model for other community colleges to follow.

Mr. PAUL

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

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, politicians throughout history have tried to solve every problem conceivable to man, always failing to recognize that many of the problems we face result from previous so-called political solutions. Government cannot be the answer to every human ill. Continuing to view more government as the solution to problems will only make matters worse. Not long ago, I spoke on this floor about why I believe Americans are so angry in spite of rosy government economic reports. The majority of Americans are angry, disgusted, and frustrated that so little is being done in Congress to solve their problems. The fact is, a majority of American citizens expect the Federal Government to provide for every need without considering whether government causes many economic problems in the first place. This certainly is an incentive for politicians to embrace the role of omnipotent problem-solvers, since nobody asked first whether they, the politicians themselves, are at fault. At home, I am frequently asked about my frustration with Congress since so many reform proposals go unheeded. I jokingly reply, No, I am never frustrated because I have such low expectations. But the American people have higher expectations, and without forthcoming solutions are beyond frustrated with their government. If solutions to American problems won't be found in the frequent clamor for more government, it still is up to Congress to explain how our problems developed and how solutions can be found in an atmosphere of liberty, private property, and a free market order. It is up to us to demand radical change from our failed policy of foreign military interventionism. Robotic responses to cliches of Big Government intervention in our lives are unbecoming to Members who are elected to offer ideas and solutions. We must challenge the status quo of our economic and political system. Many things have contributed to the mess we are in. Bureaucratic management can never compete with the free market in solving problems. Central economic planning doesn't work. Just look at the failed systems of the 20th century. Welfarism is an example of central economic planning. Paper money, money created out of thin air to accommodate welfarism and government deficits, is not only silly; it is unconstitutional. No matter how hard the big spenders try to convince us otherwise, deficits do matter. But lowering the deficit through higher taxes won't solve anything. Nothing will change in Washington until it is recognized that the ultimate driving force behind most politicians is obtaining and holding power, and money from special interests drives the political process. Money and power are important only because the government wields power not granted by the Constitution. A limited constitutional government would not tempt special interests to buy the politicians who wield power. The whole process feeds on itself. Everyone is rewarded by ignoring constitutional restraints while expanding and complicating the entire bureaucratic state. Even when it is recognized that we are traveling down the wrong path, the lack of political courage and the desire for reelection results in ongoing support for the pork-barrel system that serves special interests. A safe middle ground, a don't-rock-the-boat attitude, too often is rewarded in Washington, while meaningful solutions tend to offend those who are in charge of the gigantic PAC lobbyist empire that calls the shots in Washington. Most Members are rewarded by reelection for accommodating and knowing how to work the system. Though there is little difference between the two parties, the partisan fights are real. Instead of debates about philosophy, though, the partisan battles are about who will wield the gavels. True political debates are rare. Power struggles are real and ruthless, and yet we all know that power corrupts. Both parties agree on monetary, fiscal, foreign and entitlement policies. Unfortunately, neither party has much concern for civil liberties. Both parties are split over trade, with mixed debates between outright protections and those who endorse government-managed trade agreements that masquerade as free trade. It is virtually impossible to find anyone who supports hands-off free trade defended by the moral right of all citizens to spend their money as they see fit without being subject to any special interest. The Big Government nanny state is based on the assumption that free markets cannot provide the maximum good for the largest number of people. It assumes people are not smart or responsible enough to take care of themselves, and thus their needs must be filled through the government's forcible redistribution of wealth. Our system of intervention assumes that politicians and bureaucrats have superior knowledge and are endowed with certain talents that produce efficiency. These assumptions don't seem to hold much water, of course, when we look at agencies like FEMA. Still, we expect the government to manage monetary and economic policy, the medical system and the educational system, and then wonder why we have problems with the cost and efficiency of all these programs. On top of this, the daily operation of Congress reflects the power of special interests, not the will of the people, regardless of which party is in power. Critically important legislation comes up for votes late in the evening without much warning, leaving Members little chance to read or study the bills. Key changes are buried in conference reports, often containing new legislation not even mentioned in either the House or the Senate versions. Conferences were meant to compromise two different positions in the House and Senate, not to slip in new material that had not been mentioned in either bill. Congress spends hundreds of billions of dollars in emergency supplemental bills to avoid the budgetary rules meant to hold down the deficit. Wartime spending money is appropriated and attached to emergency relief funds, making it difficult for politicians to resist. The principle of the pork barrel is alive and well, and it shows how huge appropriations are passed easily with supporters of the system getting their share for their district. Huge omnibus spending bills introduced at the end of legislative years are passed without scrutiny. No one individual knows exactly what is in the bill. In the process, legitimate needs and constitutional responsibilities are frequently ignored. Respect for private property rights is ignored. Confidence in the free market is lost or misunderstood. Our tradition of self-reliance is mocked as archaic. Lack of real choice in economic and personal decisions is commonplace. It seems that too often the only choice we are given is between prohibitions and subsidies. Never is it said, let the people decide on things like stem cell research or alternative medical treatments. Nearly everyone endorses exorbitant taxation. The only debate is about who should pay. Either tax the producers and the rich, or tax the workers and the poor through inflation and outsourcing jobs. Both politicians and the media place blame on everything except bad policy authored by the Congress. Scapegoats are needed since there is so much blame to go around and so little understanding as to why we are in such a mess. In the 1920s and the 1930s, Europe's financial system collapsed and inflation raged. It was commonplace to blame the Jews. Today, in America the blame is spread out: illegal immigrants, Muslims, big business, whether they got special deals from the government or not, price gouging oil companies, regardless of the circumstances, and labor unions. Ignorance of economics and denial of the political power system that prevails in the District of Columbia makes it possible for Congress to shift the blame. Since we are not on the verge of mending our ways, the problems will worsen and the blame game will get much more vicious. Shortchanging a large segment of our society surely will breed conflict that could get out of control. This is a good reason for us to cast aside politics as usual and start finding some reliable answers to our problems. Politics as usual is aided by the complicity of the media. Economic ignorance, bleeding heart emotionalism, and populist passion pervade our major networks and cable channels. This is especially noticeable when the establishment seeks to unify the people behind an illegal, unwise war. The propaganda is well coordinated by the media, government and military-industrial complex. This collusion is worse than when state-owned media do the same thing. In countries where everyone knows the media produces government propaganda, people remain wary of what they hear. In the United States, the media are considered free and independent. Thus, the propaganda is accepted with less questioning. One of the major reasons we have drifted from the Founders' vision of liberty in the Constitution was the division of the concept of freedom into two parts. Instead of freedom being applied equally to social and economic transactions, it has come to be thought of as two different concepts. Some in Congress now protect economic liberty and market choices but ignore personal liberty and private choices. Others defend personal liberty but concede the realm of property and economic transaction to government control. There should be no distinction between commercial speech and political speech with no consistent moral defense of true liberty. The continued erosion of personal property rights is inevitable. This careless disregard for liberty, our traditions and the Constitution, have brought us disaster with a foreign policy of military interventionism supported by the leadership of both parties. Hopefully, some day, this will be radically changed. Everyone is aware of the law of unintended consequences. Most Members of Congress understand that government actions can have unintended consequences. Yet few quit voting for government solutions, always hoping there won't be any particular unintended consequences the next time. They keep hoping there will be less harmful complications from the solution that they are currently supporting. Free market economics teaches us that for every government action to solve an economic problem, two new ones are created. The same unwanted results occur with foreign policy meddling. The law of opposites is just a variation of the law of unintended consequences. When we attempt to achieve a certain goal, like, say, make the world safe for democracy, a grandiose scheme of World War I, one can be sure the world will become less safe and less democratic regardless of the motivation. The First World War was sold to the American people as the war to end all wars. Instead, history shows it was the war that caused the 20th Century to be the most war-torn century in all of history. Our entry into World War I helped lead us into World War II, the Cold War, the Korean War and the Vietnam War. Even our current crisis in the Middle East can be traced to the great wars of the 20th Century. Though tens of millions of deaths are associated with these wars, it seems we haven't learned a thing. We went into Korea by direction of the United Nations, not a Congressional declaration of war, to unify Korea. Yet that war ensured that Korea remained divided to this day. Our troops are still there. South Korea today is much more willing to reconcile differences with North Korea, and yet we obstruct such efforts. It doesn't make much sense. We went into Vietnam and involved ourselves unnecessarily in the civil war to bring peace and harmony to that country. We lost 60,000 troops and spent hundreds of billions of dollars, yet failed to achieve victory. Ironically, since losing in Vietnam, we now have a better relationship with them than ever. We now trade, invest, travel and communicate with a unified Western-leaning country that is catching on quickly to capitalist ways. This policy, not military confrontation, is exactly what the Constitution permits and the Founders encouraged in our relationship with others. This policy should apply to both friends and perceived enemies. Diplomacy and trade can accomplish goals that military intervention cannot, and they certainly are a lot less costly. In both instances, Korea and Vietnam, neither country attacked us, and neither country posed a threat to our national security. In neither case did we declare war. All of the fighting and killing was based on lies, miscalculations and the failure to abide by constitutional restraint with regard to war. When goals are couched in terms of humanitarianism, sincere or not, the results are inevitably bad. Foreign interventionism requires the use of force. First, the funds needed to pursue a particular policy required that taxes be forcibly imposed on the American people either directly or indirectly through inflation. Picking sides in foreign countries only increases the chances of antagonism toward us. Too often, foreign economic and military support means impoverishing the poor in America and enhancing the rich ruling classes in poor countries. When sanctions are used against one undesirable regime, it squelches the resistance to the very regimes we are trying to undermine. Forty years of sanctions against Castro have left him in power and fomented continued hatred and blame from the Cuban people directed at us. Trade with Cuba likely would have accomplished the opposite, as it has in Vietnam, China and even the Eastern Bloc nations of the old Soviet empire. We spend billions of dollars in Afghanistan and Colombia to curtail drug production. No evidence exists that it helps. In fact, drug production and corruption have increased in both countries. We close our eyes to it because the reasons we are in Colombia and Afghanistan are denied. Obviously, we are not putting forth the full effort required to capture Osama bin Laden. Instead, our occupation of Afghanistan further inflames the Muslim radicals that came of age with their fierce resistance to the Soviet occupation of a Muslim country. Our occupation merely serves as a recruiting device for al Qaeda, which has promised retaliation for our presence in their country. We learn nothing, after first allying ourselves with Osama bin Laden when he applied the same logic towards the Soviets. The net result of our invasion and occupation in Afghanistan has been to miss capturing Osama bin Laden, assist al Qaeda's recruitment, stimulate more drug production and lose hundreds of American lives and allow spending of billions of American taxpayers dollars with no end in sight. Bankruptcy seems to be the only way we will reconsider the foolishness of this type of occupation. It is time for us to wake up. Our policy toward Iran for the past 50 years is every bit as disconcerting. It makes no sense, however, unless one concedes that our government is manipulated by those who seek physical control over the vast riches of the Middle East and egged on by Israel's desires. We have attacked the sovereignty of Iran on two occasions and are in the process of threatening her for the third time. In 1953, the U.S. and British overthrew the democratically elected Mohammed Mossadegh and installed the Shah. His brutal regime lasted for over 25 years and ended with the Ayatollah taking power in 1979. Our support for the Shah incited the radicalization of the Shiite clerics in Iran, resulting in the hostage takeover. In the 1980s, we provided weapons, including poisonous gas, to Saddam Hussein, as we supported his invasion of Iran. These events are not forgotten by the Iranians, who, once again, see us looking for another confrontation with them. We insist that the U.N. ignore the guarantees under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty that grants countries like Iran the right to enrich uranium. The pressure on the U.N. and the threats we cast toward Iran are quite harmful to the cause of peace. They are entirely unnecessary and serve no useful purpose. Our policy toward Iran is much more likely to result in her getting a nuclear weapon than preventing it. Our own effort at democratizing Iran has resulted, instead, in radicalizing a population whose instincts are to like Americans and our economic system. Our meddling these past 50 years has only served to alienate and unify the entire country against us. Though our officials only see Iran as an enemy, as does Israel, our policies in the Middle East these past 5 years have done wonders to strengthen Iran's political and military position in the region. We have totally ignored serious overtures by the Iranians to negotiate with us before hostilities broke out in Iraq in 2003. Both immediately after 9/11 and especially at the time of our invasion in Iraq in 2003, Iran particularly, partially out of fear and realism, honestly sought reconciliation and offered to help the U.S. in its battle against al Qaeda. They were rebuked outright. Now, Iran is negotiating from a much stronger position, principally as a result of our overall Middle East policy. We accommodated Iran by severely weakening the Taliban in Afghanistan on Iran's eastern borders. On Iran's western borders, we helped Iranians by eliminating their arch enemy, Saddam Hussein. Our invasion in Iraq and the resulting chaos have inadvertently delivered up a large portion of Iraq to the Iranians, as the majority Shiites in Iraq ally themselves with the Iranians. The U.S.-Israel plan to hit Hezbollah in Lebanon before taking on Iran's military has totally backfired. Now Hezbollah, an ally of Iran, has been made stronger than ever with the military failure to route Hezbollah from southern Lebanon. Before the U.S.-Israeli invasion of Lebanon, Hezbollah was supported by 20 percent of the population. Now its revered by 80 percent. A democratic election in Lebanon cannot now serve the interests of the U.S. or Israel; it would only support the cause of radical clerics in Iran. Demanding an election in Palestinian Gaza resulted in enhancing the power of Hamas. The U.S. and Israel promptly rejected the results. So much for our support for democratically elected government. Our support for dictatorial Arab leaders remains a thorn in the side of the large Muslim population in the Middle East and one of the main reasons Osama bin Laden declared war against us. We talk of democracy and self-determination, but the masses of people in the Middle East see through our hypocrisy when we support the Sunni secular dictators in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan and, at one time, Saddam Hussein. In the late 1970s and the late 1980s, the CIA spent over $4 billion on a program called Operation Cyclone. This was our contribution to setting up training schools in Pakistan and elsewhere, including the U.S. itself, to teach sabotage skills. The purpose was to use these individuals in fighting our enemies in the Middle East, including the Soviets. But as one could predict, this effort has come back to haunt us as our radical ally, Osama bin Laden, turned his fury against us after routing the Soviets. It is estimated that over 12,000 fighters were trained in the camps we set up in Afghanistan. They were taught how to make bombs, carry out sabotage and use guerrilla war tactics, and now we are on the receiving end of this U.S.-financed program, hardly a good investment. It is difficult to understand why our policymakers aren't more cautious in their effort to police the world once they realize how unsuccessful we have been. It seems they always hope that the next time our efforts won't come flying back in our face. Our failed efforts in Iraq continue to drain our resources, costing us dearly both in lives lost and dollars spent, and there is no end in sight. No consideration is given for rejecting our obsession with a worldwide military presence which rarely, if ever, directly enhances our security. A much stronger case can be made that our policy of protecting our worldwide interest actually does the opposite by making us weaker, alienating our allies, inciting more hatred and provoking our enemies. The more we have interfered in the Middle East the past 50 years, the greater the danger has become for an attack on us. The notion that Arab Muslim radicals are motivated to attack us because of our freedoms and prosperity and not our unwelcome presence in their country is dangerous and silly. We were told we needed to go into Iraq because our old ally, Saddam Hussein, had weapons of mass destruction. Yet no weapons of mass destruction were found. We were told we needed to occupy Iraq to remove al Qaeda, yet al Qaeda was nowhere to be found. And now it is admitted it had nothing to do with 9/11. Yet, today, Iraq is infested with al Qaeda, achieving exactly the opposite of what we sought to do. We were told that we needed to secure our oil to protect our economy and to pay for our invasion and occupation. Instead, the opposite has resulted. Oil production is down. Oil prices are up, and no oil profits have been used to pay the bills. We were told that a regime change in Iraq would help us in our long- time fight with Iran, yet everything we have done in Iraq has served the interests of Iran. We are being told in a threatening and intimidating fashion that if America were to pull out before Iraq could defend itself, the consequences would be absolutely predictable and absolutely disastrous. I am convinced, though, that the law of opposites could well apply here. Going into Iraq we know produced exactly the opposite results of what was predicted. Leaving also likely will have results opposite of those we are being frightened with. Certainly leaving Vietnam at the height of the Cold War did not result in the disaster predicted by the advocates of the domino theory: an inevitable Communist takeover of the entire Far East. We are constantly being told that we cannot abandon Iraq, and we are obligated to stay forever if necessary. This admonition is similar to a rallying cry from a determined religious missionary bent on proselytizing to the world with a particular religious message. Conceding that leaving may not be a panacea for Iraqi tranquility, this assumption ignores two things: One, our preemptive war ignited the Iraqi civil war; and, two, abandoning the Iraqi people is not the question. The real question is whether or not we should abandon the American people by forcing them to pay for an undeclared war with huge economic and human costs while placing our national security in greater jeopardy by ignoring our borders and serious problems here at home. In our attempt to make Iraq a better place, we did great harm to the Iraqi Christians. Before our invasion in 2003, there were approximately 1.2 million Christians living in Iraq. Since then, over half have been forced to leave due to persecution and violence. Many escaped to Syria. With the neocons wanting to attack Syria, how long will they be safe there? The answer to the question, aren't we better off without Saddam Hussein, is not an automatic ``yes'' for Iraqi Christians. We have been told for decades that our policy of militarism and preemption in the Middle East is designed to provide security for Israel. Yet a strong case can be made that Israel is more vulnerable now than ever with moderate Muslims being challenged by a growing majority of Islamic radicals. As the invincibility of the American and Israeli military becomes common knowledge, Israel's security is diminished, and world opinion turns against her, especially after the failed efforts to remove Hezbollah from southern Lebanon. We were told that attacking and eliminating Hezbollah was required to diminish the Iranian threat against Israel. The results again were the opposite. This failed effort has only emboldened Iran. The lack of success of conventional warfare, the U.S. in Vietnam, the Soviets in Afghanistan, the U.S. in Iraq and Afghanistan, Israel in Lebanon, should awaken our policymakers to our failure in war and diplomacy. Yet all we propose are bigger bombs and more military force for occupation rather than working to understand an entirely new generation of modern warfare. Many reasons are given for our preemptive wars and military approach for spreading the American message of freedom and prosperity, which is an obvious impossibility. Our vital interests are always cited for justification, and it is inferred that those who do not support our militancy are unpatriotic. Yet the opposite is actually the case: Wise resistance to one's own government doing bad things requires a love of country, devotion to idealism and respect for the rule of law. In attempting to build an artificial and unwelcome Iraqi military, the harder we try, the more money we spend and the more lives we lose, the stronger the real armies of Iraq become: The Sunni insurgency, the Badr Brigade, the Sadr Mahdi Army and the Kurdish Militia. The Kurds have already taken a bold step in this direction by hoisting a Kurdish flag and removing the Iraqi flag, a virtual declaration of independence. Natural local forces are winning out over outside political forces. We are looking in all of the wrong places for an Iraqi army to bring stability to that country. The people have spoken, and these troops that represent large segments of the population need no training. It is not a lack of training, weapons or money that hinders our efforts to create a new superior Iraqi military. It is the lack of inspiration and support for such an endeavor that is missing. Developing borders and separating the various factions, which our policy explicitly prohibits, is the basic flaw in our plan for a forced, unified Western-style democracy for Iraq. Allowing self-determination for different regions is the only way to erase the artificial nature of Iraq, an Iraq designed by Western outsiders nearly 80 years ago. It is our obsession with control of the oil in the region and imposing our will on the Middle East and accommodating the demands of Israel that is the problem. And the American people are finally getting sick and tired of all of their sacrifices. It is time to stop the bleeding. Instead we continue to hear the constant agitation for us to confront the Iranians with military action. Reasons to attack Iran make no more sense than our foolish preemptive war against Iraq. Fictitious charges and imaginary dangers are used to frighten the American people into accepting an attack on Iran. First it may only be sanctions, but later it will be bombs and possible ground troops if the neocons have their way. Many of the chicken-hawk neoconservative advisors to the administration are highly critical of our current policy because it is not aggressive enough. They want more troops in Iraq. They want to attack Syria and Iran and escalate the conflict in Lebanon. We have a troop shortage. Morale is low, and our military equipment is in bad shape, yet the neocons would not hesitate to spend, borrow, inflate and reinstate the draft to continue their grandiose schemes in remaking the entire Middle East. Obviously, a victory of this sort is not available no matter what effort is made or how much money is spent. Logic would tell us there is no way we will contemplate taking on Iran at this time, but logic did not prevail with our Iraq policy and look at the mess we have there. Besides, both sides, the neoconservative extremists and the radical Islamists, are driven by religious fervor. Both are convinced that God is on their side, a strange assumption since theologically it is the same God. Both sides of the war in the Middle East are driven by religious beliefs of omnipotence. Both sides endorse an eschatological theory regarding the forthcoming end of time. Both anticipate the return of God personified and as promised to each. Both sides are driven by a conviction of perfect knowledge regarding the Creator, and though we supposedly worship the same God, each sees the other side as completely wrong and blasphemous. The religiously driven Middle East war condemns tolerance of the other's view. Advocates of restraint and the use of diplomacy are ridiculed as appeasers and equivalent to supporting Nazism and considered un-American and un-Christian. I find it amazing that we in this country seem determined to completely separate religious expression and the state, even to the detriment of the first amendment, yet we can say little about how Christian and Jewish religious beliefs greatly influence our policies in the Middle East? It should be the other way around. Religious expression, according to the First Amendment, cannot be regulated anywhere by Congress or the Federal courts. But deeply held theological beliefs should never dictate our foreign policy. Being falsely accused of anti-Semitism and being a supporter of radical fascism is not an enviable position for any politician. Most realize it is best to be quiet and support our Middle East involvement. Believing one can have perfect knowledge of God's will and believing government can manage our lives and world affairs have caused a great deal of problems for man over the ages. When these two elements are combined, they become especially dangerous. Liberty, by contrast, removes power from government and allows total freedom of choice in pursuing one's religious beliefs. The only solution to controlling political violence is to prohibit the use of force to pursue religious goals and reject government authority to mold the behavior of individuals. Both sides in the Middle East are enamored with the so-called benefit that chaos offers to those promoting revolutionary changes. Both sides in situations like this always underestimate the determination of the opposition and ignore the law of unintended consequences. They never consider that these policies might backfire. Declaring war against Islamic fascism or terrorism is vague and meaningless. The enemy that we are fighting at the expense of our own liberties is purposely indefinable. Therefore the government will exercise wartime powers indefinitely. We have been fully warned to expect a long, long war. The Islamic fascists are almost impossible to identify and cannot be targeted by our conventional weapons. Those who threaten us essentially are unarmed and stateless. Comparing them to Nazi Germany, a huge military power, is ridiculous. Labeling them as a unified force is a mistake. It is critical that we figure out why a growing number of Muslims are radicalized to the point of committing suicide terrorism against us. Our presence in their countries represents a failed policy that makes us less safe, not more. These guerilla warriors do not threaten us with tanks, gunboats, missiles or nuclear weapons, nor do they have a history of aggression against the United States. Our enemies' credibility depends instead on the popular goal of ending our occupation of their country. We must not forget that the 9/11 terrorists came principally from Saudi Arabia, not Iraq, Iran, Lebanon or Syria. Iran has never in modern times invaded her neighbors, yet we worry obsessively that she may develop a nuclear weapon some day. Never mind that a radicalized Pakistan has nuclear weapons and our so-called friend Musharraf won't lift a finger against bin Laden who most likely is hiding in Pakistan. Our only defense against this emerging nuclear threat has been to use and threaten to use weapons that do not meet the needs of this new and different enemy. Since resistance against the Iraq war is building here at home, hopefully it will not be too long before we abandon our grandiose scheme to rule the entire Middle East through intimidation and military confrontation. But economic law eventually will prevail. Runaway military and entitlement spending cannot be sustained. We can tax the private economy only so much, and borrowing from foreigners is limited by the total foreign debt and our current account deficit. It will be difficult to continue this spending spree without significantly higher interest rates and further devaluation of the dollar. This all spells more trouble for our economy and certainly higher inflation. Our industry base is shattered, and our borders remain open to those who exploit our reeling entitlement system. Economic realities will prevail regardless of the enthusiasm by most Members of Congress for a continued expansion of the welfare state and support for our dangerously aggressive foreign policy. The welfare/ warfare state will come to an end when the dollar fails and the wealth simply runs out. The overriding goal should then be to rescue our constitutional liberties which have been steadily eroded by those who claim that sacrificing liberties is required and legitimate in times of war, even the undeclared and vague war that we are currently fighting. A real solution to our problems will require a better understanding of and a greater dedication to free markets and private property rights. It can't be done without restoring a sound asset-backed currency. If we hope to restore any measure of constitutional government, we must abandon the policy of policing the world and keeping troops in the four corners of the earth. Our liberties and our prosperity depend on it.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, as an OB-GYN with over 40 years experience in medical practice, I understand the need to improve the health care system's efficiency by increasing the use of electronic medical records. However, H.R. 4157 is neither a constitutional nor a wise means of achieving this worthy goal. Creating a new federal department to develop a ``national strategic plan'' for the use of electronic health care records will inevitably lead to the imposition of a ``one-size-fits all'' standard and will discourage private parties from exploring other more innovative means of storing medical records electronically. By stifling private sector innovation, H.R. 4157 guarantees that the American people will have an inferior health information technology system. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues: when has a government system ever performed as well as a system developed by the private sector? In fact, Mr. Speaker, based on my 40 years of experience, I would say a major reason the health profession lags behind other professions in using information technology is the excessive government intervention in, and control of, America's health care system! Those who are concerned with the increasing erosion of medical privacy should also oppose H.R. 4157. H.R. 4157 facilitates the invasion of medical privacy by explicitly making electronic medical records subject to the misnamed federal ``medical privacy'' regulation. Mr. Speaker, many things in Washington are misnamed, however this regulation may be the most blatant case of false advertising I have come across in all my years in Congress. Rather than protect an individual right to medical privacy, these regulations empower government officials to determine how much medical privacy an individual needs. The so-called ``medical privacy'' regulation not only reduce individuals'' ability to determine who has access to their personal medical information, but actually threatens medical privacy and constitutionally protected liberties. For example, these regulations allow law enforcement and other government officials' access to a citizen's private medical record without having to obtain a search warrant. Allowing government officials to access a private person's medical records without a warrant is a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which protects American citizens from warrantless searches by government officials. The requirement that law enforcement officials obtain a warrant from a judge before searching private documents is one of the fundamental protections against abuse of the government's power to seize an individual's private documents. While the Fourth Amendment has been interpreted to allow warrantless searches in emergency situations, it is hard to conceive of a situation where law enforcement officials would be unable to obtain a warrant before electronic medical records would be destroyed. By creating a new federal bureaucracy to establish a ``national strategic plan'' for the adoption of electronic health care records, H.R. 4157 discourages private sector innovation and expands government control of the medical profession. H.R. 4157 also facilities the violation of medical privacy. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to reject this bill.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address my concerns with H.R. 5970, a bill to raise the federally mandated minimum wage. Before addressing the substance of this bill, I must address the flaws in the process under which this bill is brought before us. Neither I nor my staff had received any indication the bill before us tonight would be considered by the House until late this afternoon, and the only way a member of the general public could learn about this bill is to look on the Rules Committee website. Therefore, Members of Congress are being asked to vote for a major piece of legislation that was introduced just hours before being voted on the Friday night before Congress adjourns for the month of August. The practice of rushing bills to the floor before individual Members have had a chance to study the bills is one of the major factors contributing to public distrust of Congress. Mr. Speaker, I have introduced legislation, the Sunlight Rule (H. Res. 709), to prevent situations like the one currently confronting Members. The Sunlight Rule prohibits any piece of legislation, including conference reports, from being brought before the House of Representatives unless it has been available to Members and staff in both print and electronic versions for at least 10 days. H. Res. 709 also requires that conference reports and manager's amendments that make substantive changes to a bill must be available in both printed and electronic forms at least 72 hours before a vote. The announced purpose of this bill is to raise living standards for all Americans. This is certainly an admirable goal, however, to believe that Congress can raise the standard of living for working Americans by simply forcing employers to pay their employees a higher wage is equivalent to claiming that Congress can repeal gravity by passing a law saying humans shall have the ability to fly. Economic principles dictate that when government imposes a minimum wage rate above the market wage rate, it creates a surplus ``wedge'' between the supply of labor and the demand for labor, leading to an increase in unemployment. Employers cannot simply begin paying more to workers whose marginal productivity does not meet or exceed the law- imposed wage. The only course of action available to the employer is to mechanize operations or employ a higher-skilled worker whose output meets or exceeds the ``minimum wage.'' This, of course, has the advantage of giving the skilled worker an additional (and government- enforced) advantage over the unskilled worker. For example, where formerly an employer had the option of hiring three unskilled workers at $5 per hour or one skilled worker at $16 per hour, a minimum wage of $6 suddenly leaves the employer only the choice of the skilled worker at an additional cost of $1 per hour. I would ask my colleagues, if the minimum wage is the means to prosperity, why stop at $6.65--why not $50, $75, or $100 per hour? Those who are denied employment opportunities as a result of the minimum wage are often young people at the lower end of the income scale who are seeking entry-level employment. Their inability to find an entry-level job will limit their employment prospects for years to come. Thus, raising the minimum wage actually lowers the employment opportunities and standard of living of the very people proponents of the minimum wage claim will benefit from government intervention in the economy! Furthermore, interfering in the voluntary transactions of employers and employees in the name of making things better for low wage earners violates citizens' rights of association and freedom of contract as if to say to citizens ``you are incapable of making employment decisions for yourself in the marketplace.'' Mr. Speaker, I do not wish my opposition to this bill to be misconstrued as counseling inaction. Quite the contrary, Congress must enact ambitious program of tax cuts and regulatory reform to remove government-created obstacles to job growth. However, Mr. Speaker, Congress should not fool itself into believing that the package of tax cuts included in this bill will compensate for the damage inflicted on small businesses and their employees by the minimum wage increase. This assumes that Congress is omnipotent and thus can strike a perfect balance between tax cuts and regulations so that no firm, or worker, in the country is adversely affected by Federal policies. If the 20th Century taught us anything it was that any and all attempts to centrally plan an economy, especially one as large and diverse as America's, are doomed to fail. In conclusion, I would remind my colleagues that while it may make them feel good to raise the Federal minimum wage, the real life consequences of this bill will be vested upon those who can least afford to be deprived of work opportunities. Therefore, rather than pretend that Congress can repeal the economic principles, I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation and instead embrace a program of tax cuts and regulatory reform to strengthen the greatest producer of jobs and prosperity in human history: the free market.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the University of Texas Medical Branch of Galveston (UTMB), Texas, which is in my congressional district, on being named by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Transportation one of the best workplaces for commuters among colleges and universities. UTMB earned this recognition because of its efforts to improve both the environment and the quality of life for commuters. UTMB has also recently received Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need grant to support seven fellowships for nursing students who intend to teach nursing at the university level. UTMB only applied for funding for three nursing fellowships, but the Department of Education awarded UTMB funding for seven fellowships. I am sure I do not have to tell my colleagues how unusual it is for a college to be awarded more funding than they requested. Working closely with UTMB as I do, I am not surprised that it is in the forefront of both nursing education and efforts to improve the lives of commuters. The people of UTMB are consistently working to improve the lives and health of Texans and all Americans. UTMB is one of the major centers of medical research in Texas and in the Nation. UTMB features a multidisciplinary environment that enables scientists and clinicians to work on projects that often have immediate application to patient care. Among UTMB's areas of strength are neuroscience; pain management and stroke treatment; gastrointestinal health; environmental health and asthma; infectious diseases; vaccine development; cancer; molecular medicine; aging; and diabetes. Among its numerous activities, UTMB hosts summer science programs for middle school, high school, and undergraduate students to help encourage and develop the research work force of tomorrow. A recent, and particularly noteworthy, UTMB program is Center for Biodefense and Emerging Infectious Diseases, a key component in the efforts to protect the American people from the threat of bioterroism. Established in 2002, the center has two main objectives: (1) To reduce the vulnerability of the U.S. and other nations to the use of biological weapons for warfare and terrorism, and (2) to alleviate suffering from emerging and tropical infectious diseases through application of basic, applied, and field research, and education. While UTMB's research program is impressive, many Texans primarily think of UTMB as a leading provider of quality health care. This is because UTMB offers services ranging from primary to specialized diagnostic care. Particularly impressive is UTMB's pioneering telemedicine programs. For example, UTMB has recently begun a new telemedicine program to bring medical services to the residents of Jamaica Beach, Texas. UTMB has established telemedicine connections for special-needs children in east Texas, for workers on offshore oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico, for employees of a Galveston-based insurance company, and for passengers of a cruise ship that will travel worldwide. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston being named one of the best workplaces for commuters and for receiving funding for seven nursing fellowships from the Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need grant program. I also extend my gratitude, on behalf of all the people of my district, for all that the people of UTMB are doing in both the field of medical research and in delivering quality health care to the people of Texas.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, Congress should reject H.R. 5068, the Export-Import Reauthorization Act, for economic, constitutional, and moral reasons. The Export-Import Bank takes money from American taxpayers to subsidize exports by American companies. Of course it is not just any company that receives Ex-Im support. The vast majority of Ex-Im Bank funds benefit Enron-like outfits that must rely on political connections and government subsidies to survive and/or multinational corporations who can afford to support their own efforts without relying on the American taxpayers. In fact, according to journalist Robert Novak, Enron itself received over $640 million in taxpayer-funded assistance from Ex-Im. The taxpayer-provided largess no doubt helped postpone Enron's inevitable day of reckoning. It is not only bad economics to force working American small businesses and entrepreneurs to subsidize the exports of large corporations; it is also immoral. Redistribution from the poor and middle class to the wealthy is the most indefensible aspect of the welfare state, yet it is the most accepted form of welfare. Mr. Speaker, it never ceases to amaze me how Members who criticize welfare for the poor on moral and constitutional grounds see no problem with the even more objectionable programs that provide welfare for the rich. The moral case against Ex-Im is strengthened when one considers that one of the governments which benefits most from Ex-Im funds is Communist China. In fact, Ex-Im actually underwrites joint ventures with firms owned by the Chinese Government. Whatever one's position is on trading with China, I would hope all of us would agree that it is wrong to force taxpayers to subsidize in any way this regime. Unfortunately, China is not an isolated case. Colombia and Sudan benefit from taxpayer subsidized trade as well, courtesy of the Ex-Im Bank. At a time when the Federal Government is running huge deficits and Congress is once again preparing to raid Social Security and Medicare trust funds, does it really make sense to use taxpayers' funds to benefit future Enrons, Fortune 500 companies, and Communist China? One project funded by Ex-Im in China is an $18 million loan guarantee to expand steel manufacturing. This is not an isolated example of how Ex-Im helps foreign steel producers. According to the most recent figures available, the five countries with the greatest Ex-Im exposure are all among the top 10 exporters of steel and of steel-to-products to the United States. In fact, Ex-Im provides almost $20 billion of U.S. taxpayer support to these countries. Mr. Speaker, I find it hard to see how taxing American steel producers to benefit their foreign competitors strengthens the American economy. Proponents of continued American support for the Ex-Im Bank claim that the bank creates jobs and promotes economic growth. However, this is a fallacy worth looking in to. However, this claim rests on a version of what the great economist Henry Hazlitt called the ``broken window'' fallacy. When a hoodlum throws a rock through a store window, it can be said he has contributed to the economy, as the storeowner will have to spend money having the window fixed. The benefits to those who repaired the window are visible for all to see, therefore it is easy to see the broken window as economically beneficial. However, the ``benefits'' of the broken window are revealed as an illusion when one takes into account what is not seen: the businesses and workers who would have benefited had the store owner not spent money repairing a window, but rather had been free to spend his money as he chose. Similarly, the beneficiaries of Eximbank are visible to all. What is not seen is the products that would have been built, the businesses that would have been started, and the jobs that would have been created had the funds used for the Eximbank been left in the hands of consumers. Leaving the resources in the private sector ensures the resources will be put to the use most highly valued by individual consumers. In contrast, when the government diverts resources into the public sector via programs such as the Eximbank, their use is determined by bureaucrats and politically powerful special interests, resulting in a distorted market and a misallocation of resources. By distorting the market and preventing resources from achieving their highest valued use, Eximbank actually costs Americans jobs and reduces America's standard of living! Some supporters of this bill equate supporting Eximbank with supporting ``free trade,'' and claim that opponents are ``protectionists'' and ``isolationists.'' Mr. Speaker, this is nonsense, Eximbank has nothing to do with free trade. True free trade involves the peaceful, voluntary exchange of goods across borders, not forcing taxpayers to subsidize the exports of politically powerful companies. Eximbank is not free trade, but rather managed trade, where winners and losers are determined by how well they please government bureaucrats instead of how well they please consumers. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleagues that there is simply no constitutional justification for the expenditure of funds on programs such as Eximbank. In fact, the drafters of the Constitution would be horrified to think the Federal Government was taking hard- earned money from the American people in order to benefit the politically powerful. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, Eximbank distorts the market by allowing government bureaucrats to make economic decisions in place of individual consumers. Eximbank also violates basic principles of morality, by forcing working Americans to subsidize the trade of wealthy companies that could easily afford to subsidize their own trade, as well as subsidizing brutal governments like Red China and the Sudan. Eximbank also violates the limitations on congressional power to take the property of individual citizens and use it to benefit powerful special interests. It is for these reasons that I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 5068, the Export-Import Bank Reauthorization Act.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were refused. So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution, which I sincerely believe will do more harm than good. I do agree with the resolution's condemnation of violence. But I am convinced that when we get involved in foreign conflicts and send strong messages, such as this resolution will, it ends up expanding the war rather than diminishing the conflict, and that ultimately comes back to haunt us. Madam Speaker, I follow a policy in foreign affairs called non- interventionism. I do not believe we are making the United States more secure when we involve ourselves in conflicts overseas. The Constitution really does not authorize us to be the policemen of the world, much less to favor one side over another in foreign conflicts. It is very clear, reading this resolution objectively, that all the terrorists are on one side, and all the victims and the innocents are on the other side. I find this unfair, particularly considering the significantly higher number of civilian casualties among Lebanese civilians. I would rather advocate neutrality rather than picking sides, which is what this resolution does. Some would say that there is no room to talk about neutrality, as if neutrality were a crime. I would suggest there should be room for an open mind to consider another type of policy that may save American lives. I was in Congress in the early 1980s when the U.S. Marines were sent into Lebanon, and I came to the Floor before they went, when they went, and before they were killed, arguing my case against getting involved in that conflict. Ronald Reagan, when he sent the troops in, said he would never turn tail and run. Then, after the Marines were killed, he had a reassessment of the policy. When he wrote his autobiography a few years later after leaving the Presidency, he wrote this: Perhaps we didn't appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and the complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle. Perhaps the idea of a suicide car bomber committing mass murder to gain instant entry to Paradise was so foreign to our own values and consciousness that it did not create in us the concern for the marines' safety that it should have. In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believe the last thing that we should do was turn tail and leave. Yet the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there. If there would be some rethinking of policy before our men die, we would be a lot better off. If that policy had changed towards more of a neutral position and neutrality, those 241 marines would be alive today. It is very easy to criticize the Government of Lebanon for not doing more about Hezbollah. I object to terrorism committed by Hezbollah because I am a strong opponent to all violence on all sides. But I also object to the unreasonable accusations that the Government of Lebanon has not done enough, when we realize that Israel occupied southern Lebanon for 18 years and was not able to neutralize Hezbollah. Madam Speaker, there is nothing wrong with considering the fact that we don't have to be involved in every single fight. That was the conclusion that Ronald Reagan came to, and he was not an enemy of Israel. He was a friend of Israel. But he concluded that that is a mess over there. Let me just repeat those words that he used. He said, he came to the conclusion, ``The irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there.'' I believe these words are probably more valid now even than when they were written.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, while I oppose federal efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman, I do not believe a constitutional amendment is either a necessary or proper way to defend marriage. While marriage is licensed and otherwise regulated by the states, government did not create the institution of marriage. In fact, the institution of marriage most likely pre-dates the institution of government! Government regulation of marriage is based on state recognition of the practices and customs formulated by private individuals interacting in civil society. Many people associate their wedding day with completing the rituals and other requirements of their faith, thus being joined in the eyes of their church and their creator, not with receiving their marriage license, thus being joined in the eyes of the state. If I were in Congress in 1996, I would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congress's constitutional authority to define what official state documents other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a ``same sex'' marriage license issued in another state. This Congress, I am an original cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act, H.R. 1100, that removes challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from federal courts' jurisdiction. If I were a member of the Texas legislature, I would do all I could to oppose any attempt by rogue judges to impose a new definition of marriage on the people of my state. Having studied this issue and consulted with leading legal scholars, including an attorney who helped defend the Boy Scouts against attempts to force the organization to allow gay men to serve as scoutmasters, I am convinced that both the Defense of Marriage Act and the Marriage Protection Act can survive legal challenges and ensure that no state is forced by a federal court's or another state's actions to recognize same sex marriage. Therefore, while I am sympathetic to those who feel only a constitutional amendment will sufficiently address this issue, I respectfully disagree. I also am concerned that the proposed amendment, by telling the individual states how their state constitutions are to be interpreted, is a major usurpation of the states' power. The division of power between the federal government and the states is one of the virtues of the American political system. Altering that balance endangers self-government and individual liberty. However, if federal judges wrongly interfere and attempt to compel a state to recognize the marriage licenses of another state, that would be the proper time for me to consider new legislative or constitutional approaches. Conservatives in particular should be leery of anything that increases federal power, since centralized government power is traditionally the enemy of conservative values. I agree with the assessment of former Congressman Bob Barr, who authored the Defense of Marriage Act: ``The very fact that the FMA [Federal Marriage Amendment] was introduced said that conservatives believed it was okay to amend the Constitution to take power from the states and give it to Washington. That is hardly a basic principle of conservatism as we used to know it. It is entirely likely the left will boomerang that assertion into a future proposed amendment that would weaken gun rights or mandate income redistribution.'' Passing a constitutional amendment is a long, drawn-out process. The fact that the marriage amendment already failed to gather the necessary two-thirds support in the Senate means that, even if two-thirds of House members support the amendment, it will not be sent to states for ratification this year. Even if the amendment gathers the necessary two-thirds support in both houses of Congress, it still must go through the time-consuming process of state ratification. This process requires three-quarters of the state legislatures to approve the amendment before it can become effective. Those who believe that immediate action to protect the traditional definition of marriage is necessary should consider that the Equal Rights Amendment easily passed both houses of Congress and was quickly ratified by a number of states. Yet, that amendment remains unratified today. Proponents of this marriage amendment should also consider that efforts to amend the Constitution to address flag burning and require the federal government to balance the budget have been ongoing for years, without any success. Ironically, liberal social engineers who wish to use federal government power to redefine marriage will be able to point to the constitutional marriage amendment as proof that the definition of marriage is indeed a federal matter! I am unwilling either to cede to federal courts the authority to redefine marriage, or to deny a state's ability to preserve the traditional definition of marriage. Instead, I believe it is time for Congress and state legislatures to reassert their authority by refusing to enforce judicial usurpations of power. In contrast to a constitutional amendment, the Marriage Protection Act requires only a majority vote of both houses of Congress and the President's signature to become law. The bill already has passed the House of Representatives; at least 51 Senators would vote for it; and the President would sign this legislation given his commitment to protecting the traditional definition of marriage. Therefore, those who believe Congress needs to take immediate action to protect marriage this year should focus on passing the Marriage Protection Act. Because of the dangers to liberty and traditional values posed by the unexpected consequences of amending the Constitution to strip power from the states and the people and further empower Washington, I cannot in good conscience support the marriage amendment to the United States Constitution. Instead, I plan to continue working to enact the Marriage Protection Act and protect each state's right not to be forced to recognize a same-sex marriage.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to sponsor H.Con.Res 448, a resolution commending the people of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for the latest mission of the Space Shuttle Discovery, and I thank the Science Committee and the House leadership for their assistance in bringing this resolution to the floor. Successfully launched on July 4th, this mission, known as STS-121, marks the second mission of the return-to-flight sequence. STS-121 originally was scheduled to perform just two space walks. However, due to the overall success of the launch, the mission was extended from 12 days to 13 days, allowing for an additional space walk. Among the tasks that were performed on this mission are tests of shuttle safety improvements to build on findings from Discovery's flight last year, including a redesign of the shuttle's external fuel tank's foam insulation, inflight inspection of the shuttle's heat shield, improved imagery during launch, and the ability to launch a shuttle rescue mission. The external tank, which underwent work during the mission to reduce foam loss, performed well this time, especially early in the flight. The STS-121 mission also bolstered the international space station by making a key repair and delivering more than 28,000 pounds of equipment and supplies, as well as adding a third crew member to the space station. STS-121 was NASA's most photographed mission in shuttle history, as more than 100 high definition, digital, video and film cameras assessed whether any debris comes off the external tank during the shuttle's launch. Mr. Speaker, the success of STS-121 is a tribute to the skills and dedication of all NASA employees, especially the Space Shuttle Discovery crew of Colonel Steve Lindsey, Commander Mark Kelly, Piers Sellers, Ph.D., Lieutenant Colonel Mike Fossum, Commander Lisa Nowak, Stephanie Wilson and Thomas Reiter. I would like now to close with a particular quote that is very pertinent for what we are doing here with this resolution. This comes from a famous author of the last century, who might have been one of the most famous, who wrote a book that many Members of this Congress may well have read. The interesting thing about this quote, it comes from an individual who was not much in favor of big government. As a matter of fact, she was in favor of very, very limited government, and she introduced the ideas of libertarianism to millions of Americans. But nevertheless, it just happened that NASA was her favorite government agency, and therefore after the Moon landing in 1979 she wrote very favorably about NASA, which in some ways contradicted her philosophy, but it also spoke to the tremendous brilliance and success of the Moon exploration program. That author that I want to quote is the author of Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand, who wrote this shortly after the Moon landing in 1969. And although this is written in praise of the Moon landing, it applies to all those individuals who participated in STS-121. The quote goes this way: ``Think of what was required to achieve that mission. Think of the unpitying effort; the merciless discipline; the courage; the responsibility of relying on one's judgment; the days, nights and years of unswerving dedication to a goal; the tension of an unbroken maintenance of a full, clear mental focus and honesty. It took the highest, sustained acts of virtue to create in realty what had only been dreamt of for millennia.'' I encourage all my colleagues and all Americans to join me in commending NASA for completing this mission and all of NASA's work.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I have taken the time in opposition to this resolution because I very sincerely believe that resolutions of this sort actually do more harm than good. I know that it is very good to condemn the violence, and I certainly do agree with that. But I am convinced that when we get involved and send strong messages, such as this resolution will, that it ends up expanding the war rather than diminishing the conflict, and that ultimately it comes back to haunt us. Generally speaking, I follow a policy in foreign affairs called noninterventionism. It is not generally acceptable in this current time that we do this, but I think there is every reason to consider it. It certainly was something that the founders talked about. The Constitution really doesn't authorize us to be the policemen of the world. And for this reason, we should talk about it. And that is why I take this opportunity to do so, with the sincere belief that we would be better off with less intervention overseas. The founders talked about that, about rejecting entangling alliances. And we have been involved in a lot of entangling alliances since World War I, especially after World War II, and we have been doing a lot of things, losing a lot of men and women and costing a lot of money; and too often, these events have come back to haunt us. There is blow-back from our policy. The policy of interventionism, which I object to, really doesn't work. It is well intended, and we have these grandiose plans and schemes to solve the problems of the world, but if you are really honest with yourself and you look at the success and failure, it doesn't have a good record. I mean, are you going to defend the great victory in Korea, the great victory in Vietnam? And on and on. The great victory in Iraq? And I see resolutions like this step in the wrong direction. Actually, I believe it is going to expand the war in the Middle East. The other reason why I strongly object to interventionism is it costs a lot of money. And someday we will have to deal with that. Supplemental bills come up now to the tune of tens of billions, and next year, already, they are planning to come up with another $100 billion for our intervention overseas. But it is off the regular budgetary process, so it doesn't meet the budgetary restraints that we are supposed to follow. So it becomes emergency funding, although we have been in Iraq for 3 years, and with plans to stay endlessly. We are building permanent bases in Iraq. So there is a lot of cost, and eventually that will come home to haunt us, and it already has. And then there is the problem of unintended consequences. We went into Iraq for all kinds of reasons, some disproven, and all well intended, and who knows what the real motivations were. But one thing was that we would gain access to oil, and oil would be produced and would help pay the bills. Yet oil, when we went into Iraq was $28 a barrel. Now it is $75 a barrel. That is an unintended consequence. We have done more to fall into the trap of what Osama bin Laden wanted in Iraq than anything else. And actually we have helped Iran. Iran is stronger. They have probably already more influence with the grass roots, the democratic process in Iraq, than we do. Those are the kind of unintended consequences that, on principle, I strongly object to. I believe that the founders were correct in advocating avoiding entangling alliances, to have a strong national defense, to defend this country, I believe that is just plain common sense. Most Americans, if you just flat-out put it to them, think we should not be the policemen of the world. Do you think we should be involved in the internal affairs of other nations? People say no. We shouldn't do this. The Constitution doesn't give us the authority to do it. And we now are in the business of maintaining an empire. A noninterventionist foreign policy concedes up front that is not our goal. We are not supposed to be going overseas and building permanent bases and staying there endlessly. Even the election campaign of 2000 was won partially on the foreign policy issue that, you know, it was said that we shouldn't be the policemen of the world and we shouldn't be in nation building. I think those are good ideas and the American people agree. They didn't object to it. But each step along the way we dig a deeper hole for ourselves. And that is the general philosophic reasons why I believe nonintervention is beneficial. Intervention is very, very dangerous. Later there will be a lot of specifics that I would like to mention. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 25\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) and ask unanimous consent that she be allowed to control that time.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just want to make a couple of comments before yielding. It has been well advertised about the three prisoners that have been taken, the three Israeli prisoners. Everybody in the country knows about it. What I find a bit interesting is that some people estimate between 8,000 and 10,000 Palestinians and Lebanese are in prisons and under the authority of the Israeli police and government. It is also known that one-third of the Cabinet of Palestine have been arrested and held hostage by the Israeli Government, and once again, I think this is a distortion of what is going on. It is hard to get the information out to find out exactly what is happening in this area. Also, I would like to make one additional point that it is very easy to criticize the Government of Lebanon for not doing more about Hezbollah. I object to everything Hezbollah does because I am a strong opponent to all violence on both sides. So I object, too, but I also object to the unreasonable accusations that the Government of Lebanon has not done enough, when we realize that Israel was there for 18 years, and Hezbollah did not get any weaker, and they are stronger than ever. So I think, again, a little bit of balance is worth considering. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa). (Mr. ISSA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of accusations made about who precipitated the crisis, the charges made that it all occurred because three prisoners were taken, and that Hezbollah and Hamas deliberately provoked the situation. And it may well be true. I have no idea exactly what is true. But there are others who have indicated that they believe that it was precipitated mainly with the intent of our foreign policy, along with Israel's foreign policy, as an initial step to go into Iran. We have talked about Iran around the House and around Washington, and there are a lot of people very, very concerned. Our administration talks about it all the time; taking out Iran, taking out the nuclear sites. But to do that, the theory is that these missiles had to be removed and, in a practical military sense, that seems very reasonable. So there could be the deliberateness of Hamas and Hezbollah precipitating the crisis for whatever gain they think, or deliberately precipitated by both the United States and Israel with the intent to follow up with bombing in Iran. And I am frightened about that. I think that may well occur. I have talked to a lot of military people, a lot of CIA people, who actually believe this is a possibility within months. And this is the reason I have such great concern about what is happening in this area of the country, because if us going into Iraq didn't go so well, can anybody imagine what is going to happen when the bombs start to fall on Iran? I think it is going to be catastrophic. And there has been talk on television this past weekend, the beginning of World War III. And this war is about to spread, and this is the reason that I oppose this resolution, because, deep down in my heart, I believe that what we do here helps to provoke things and agitate things and bring us closer to a greater conflict. And I am just arguing that there is an alternative other than violence to settle some of these problems. Now, a lot of bombs have fallen on both sides, and of course, if they are coming from Lebanon, Syria and Iran are blamed, and they may well deserve the blame. But we haven't talked about who gets the blame for the other side. More people are getting killed on the other side. And as we mentioned before, innocent people are killed, and a lot of nonmilitary targets have been hit, farms and buildings and electrical plants and airports that have nothing to do with the military. And yet the reason I believe this is going to be worse is because we see it in this country the way we want to see it. And we have no willingness to think about how it might be seen elsewhere, like how is it going to be seen by 1 billion Muslims around the world? And you know, quite frankly, every single bomb that is dropped by Israel, by their calculation, and they have reason to believe so, those are U.S. bombs. Those are our airplanes. We paid for them. And they get the money to buy these weapons. So whether it is deliberate or whatever, it doesn't matter. It is the perception by the Muslims who are radicalized by this. You can't deny it. There are more radicals today than there were 2 or 3 years ago. And the reason why I am worried about this is we are now getting the information about the reaction to 9/11. 9/11 occurred, and the immediate response by many of our leaders and the administration said, let's go to Iraq. People would say, well, why Iraq? Well, we have been planning on it all along. This is the opportunity. As soon as this crisis built, we heard very similar comments. Let's go to Iran, you know, to go forward. There are others who suggest that this crisis has come about not out of our strength, but out of our weakness. If Hezbollah and Hamas has deliberately done this, they might have calculated we have been stretched fairly thin around the world and with Iraq, and know that a lot of the American people and the taxpayers are getting tired of the war, so they may have seen this as a sign of weakness on our part. But then the ``neocons'' say, yeah, that may well be true, that is why we have to be tougher than ever. We have got to unleash the bombs. We have got to consider nuclear weapons, and back and forth and back and forth, until one day we are going to get ourselves in such a fix that World War III will be here and it will be irrevocable. And there are some people who sort of like this idea. There are some ``neocons'' who thrive on chaos, because their theory is they want regime change. They want regime change in Syria, and they want regime change in Iran. They wanted it in Iraq. And we are, by gosh, we are going to have regime change, and they are going to be our friends and they are going to be democrats. We are going to have democratic elections. So we go to war and our men and women die. We spend all this money, and we have elections. And then sometimes we don't like the results of the elections, so we ignore them. What if we had elections in Saudi Arabia? What if we had elections in Egypt? And then what if their radicals were elected? So we are fighting and dying to spread democracy. And it is probably one of the most dangerous things for us with our current foreign policy, is that when they do vote and elect Hezbollah and Hamas, then we have to reject the principle of democracy. Self-determination is a great principle, and we should permit it and encourage self-determination. But encouraging elections under these circumstances, and by force, in hopes that we get our man in charge just doesn't work. I think we are going to have regime changes, a lot more regime changes than most people want around here. I think the regime changes are coming in Saudi Arabia, and I think there will be a regime change maybe in Egypt. Who knows? In Libya. And you are going to be very unhappy with those regime changes. So, yes, it was well intended to have regime change in Iraq. But what has it gotten us? And now we want to spread that philosophy and have more regime changes, and who knows what the results are going to be? They are not going to be good. They are going to backfire on us. You know, when Osama bin Laden responded to why, he had a list of reasons on why he encouraged or directed the attack on 9/11. And the one thing that he listed we shouldn't ignore, because as bad as that individual is, and as violent as he is, nobody has ever proven he tells lies. Nobody has ever proven this. Nobody says he is a liar. So we ought to listen to what he says. And one of the reasons that he listed for this was back in 1982, back to the problems we had in Lebanon, there were 18,000 Lebanese and Palestinians killed. And who knows whose bombs and who was doing it? But you know, we were in there, although our troops weren't fighting and we left, but Israel was involved, 18,000. But regardless of whether or not we directed it or wanted it is irrelevant. The conclusion was that we were participants, and it rallied his troops and helped him organize to get people so hateful that they were willing to commit suicide terrorism and come here. Now, we can ignore it and say, well, he is a liar. That is not the reason they did it. But we do that at our own peril. Now, one of the reasons why I believe that it wouldn't be difficult to put the label USA on these weapons, obviously the airplanes have been built here. But what about the money? How much money have we given for weapons? Between 1997 and 2004, and that doesn't even count the last 2 years, we gave over $7 billion in weapons grants. It wasn't a loan. It was a weapons grant. Now, the neat thing about this, this was an economic deal because it was beneficial because under the foreign military financing program that we have, Israel is required to spend 74 percent of that back here. So you are talking about a military-industrial complex, a pretty good deal. You know, we subsidize them, send the money over here, it comes over here, and our arms manufacturers make even more money and then dig a bigger hole for us in foreign policy and contribute to the many problems that we have. And that amount of money, they get $2.3 billion of these military grants, and they automatically increase it $60 million per year. So it is locked in place. Now, you say, well, that is money for our ally. And fine, if it was used for defense, maybe. But if it is used to antagonize 1 billion Muslims and there is no willingness to even consider the fact that we should look at it in a balanced way, and instead it is ridiculed and said, oh, this is ridiculous to think of neutrality or balance and think about both sides, and the innocent people dying on both sides should be considered. So we are moving toward a major crisis, a major crisis financially and a major crisis in our foreign policy. I don't believe we can maintain this. So even if you totally disagree with our aggressive empire building and policing the world, let me tell you, I am going to win the argument, because we are running out of money. We are in big debt, and we are borrowing it. We borrowed $3 billion a day from countries like China and Japan and Saudi Arabia to finance this horrendous debt. And it won't be, it can't be continued. The dollar will eventually weaken. You are going to have horrendous inflation. Interest rates are going to go up, and it is going to be worse than the stagflation of the 1970s. And domestic spending is never curtailed. We have been in charge of the Congress and the Presidency for several years now, and the government gets bigger, probably faster than it was getting before. So we are facing a crisis that is liable to escalate and get out of control in the Middle East. At the same time, it has a bearing on our finances, because when it contributes to the deficit, there is a limit to how much foreigners will loan to us. We have to print the money. We have to go to the Fed, create new money. That is the inflation. And what does it do to the cost of oil? Inflation pushes the cost of oil up. That should be a concern to everybody. And at the same time, the production of the oil didn't work. I mean, the oil production went down in Iraq. What happens if this happens to be true? I actually pray that I am completely wrong about this. And you can say, well, you are, so don't sweat it. But what if I am right? It is frightening, because if this leads to bombing in Iran, look for oil at $150 a barrel. Then the American people will wake up. They will say, hey, what's going on here? Why is gasoline so expensive? It is expensive because we have less production out of Iraq, and it is expensive because the value of the dollar is going down. And it is expensive because they are anticipating that this crisis is not going away, and what we do are antagonizing the world. So, once again, I come to this from a slightly different viewpoint than those who like to pick sides. There is nothing wrong with considering the fact that we don't have to be involved in every single fight. That was the conclusion that Ronald Reagan came to, and he was not an enemy of Israel. He was a friend of Israel. But he concluded that that is a mess over there. Let me just repeat those words that he used. He said, he came to the conclusion, ``The irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there.'' I would like you to rethink our policy, not only there, but the kind of policy that led to 60,000 people dying in Vietnam and then walking away. And what happened after we walked away? We are better off than ever. We had a naval ship going into Vietnam just recently. We trade with them. We do deals with them. Yet it was a total fiasco and a total loss because of the way we went to war. And this is also the reason that I am determined to persist that if we take our country to war, that we ought to be responsible. We should never send these kids and young people to war without a declaration, win the war, and get it over with. When we don't declare it, it goes on and on and on. We don't win them. And literally, this Persian Gulf War, and this Iraqi war, it has been going on since 1990. We never stopped bombing Iraq, never stopped bugging them, and antagonizing them and inciting them. So it is not a sign of weakness to talk about neutrality. It is a sign of strength that you have a little bit of courage and you believe in your own system. If we want to spread our values, it is a good way to do it. Set a good example. Put our financial house in order. Treat people evenly, and trade with people, and talk to people and travel. But don't think that we can force our values at the point of a gun, and think they are all going to be democratic elected governments that we are going to be pleased with. It is not going to happen. So there is reason to reconsider the total policy that has been followed in this country essentially for 100 years. And it hasn't been productive for us. Essentially, Woodrow Wilson started it. We are going to make the world safe for democracy. And look how safe the world has been since Woodrow Wilson introduced that. We are less safe than ever. And our financial condition is worse than ever. And we are running our program, whether it is our domestic welfare program or our foreign policy, it is being run on borrowed money. It is borrowed money from overseas, and it is also from inflated currency. And we can get away with it for a while longer, but let me tell you, there is a crisis coming, and it is going to be dealing with the dollar and it is going to involve our foreign policy. And then we will, as a sign of weakness, we will have to come home. We will have to come home because we can't afford the empire. It is not wise to have it, and we should have more confidence and more belief that what we have in this country, and what America used to stand for, that we should spread that message more by setting an example and through a voluntary approach. And when that time comes, I think that maybe more people will reconsider it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the issue of government funding of embryonic stem cell research is one of the most divisive issues facing the country. While I sympathize with those who see embryonic stem cell research as providing a path to a cure for the dreadful diseases that have stricken so many Americans, I strongly object to forcing those Americans who believe embryonic stem cell research is immoral to subsidize such research with their tax dollars. The main question that should concern Congress today is does the United States Government have the constitutional authority to fund any form of stem cell research. The clear answer to that question is no. A proper constitutional position would reject federal funding for stem cell research, while allowing the individual states and private citizens to decide whether to permit, ban, or fund this research. Therefore, I will vote to uphold President Bush's expected veto of H.R. 810. Unfortunately, many opponents of embryonic stem cell research are disregarding the Constitution by supporting S. 2754, an ``acceptable'' alternative that funds non-embryonic stem cell research. While this approach is much less objectionable than funding embryonic stem cell research, it is still unconstitutional. Therefore, I must also oppose S. 2754. Federal funding of medical research guarantees the politicization of decisions about what types of research for what diseases will be funded. Thus, scarce resources will be allocated according to who has the most effective lobby rather than allocated on the basis of need or even likely success. Federal funding will also cause researchers to neglect potential treatments and cures that do not qualify for federal funds. In order to promote private medical research, I have introduced the Cures Can Be Found Act (H.R. 3444). H.R. 3444 promotes medical research by providing a tax credit for investments and donations to promote adult and umbilical cord blood stem cell research and providing a $2,000 tax credit to new parents for the donation of umbilical cord blood from which to extract stem cells. The Cures Can Be Found Act will ensure greater resources are devoted to this valuable research. The tax credit for donations of umbilical cord blood will ensure that medical science has a continuous supply of stem cells. Thus, this bill will help scientists discover new cures using stem cells and, hopefully, make routine the use of stem cells to treat formerly incurable diseases. H.R. 3444 will benefit companies like Prime Cell, which is making great progress in transforming non-embryonic stem cells into any cell type in the body. Prime Cell is already talking to health care practitioners about putting its findings to use to help cure diseases. Companies like Prime Cell are continuing the great American tradition of private medical research that is responsible for many medical breakthroughs. For example, Jonas Salk, discoverer of the polio vaccine, did not receive one dollar from the federal government for his efforts. Mr. Speaker, there is no question that forcing taxpayers to subsidize embryonic stem cell research violates basic constitutional principles. However, S. 2754 also exceeds Congress's constitutional authority and may even retard effective adult stem cell research. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote against S. 2754 and vote to uphold President Bush's veto of H.R. 810. Instead, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3444, the Cures Can Be Found Act.