Ron Paul

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that if the gentleman from Georgia does not want another huge bureaucracy, he must support my amendment, because that is what he is going to get. It has already been funded. Even though there is pretense that there is a restraint on funding, it has already been funded, so it is in motion. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler).

Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I just want to urge an ``aye'' vote to try to slow up at least a brand new bureaucracy that is going to play havoc with our small farmers.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Cheerleaders of the Victoria Memorial High School in Victoria, Texas for their many recent accomplishments during the school year that is about to be completed. Not only did these Cheerleaders win 1st place at the Universal Cheerleaders Association Regional Championship on December 11th, 2005, earning a bid to the National High School Cheerleading Championship in Orlando, Florida. They also won 1st place at the Universal Cheerleaders Association State Championship on January 29, 2006. Moreover, they won 1st place at the Universal Cheerleaders Association National High School Cheerleading Championship in Orlando, Florida on February 12, 2006. The squad competed against 52 of the top cheerleading squads from across the Nation in the Small Varsity Division. The Memorial High School Cheerleading squad worked their way to the top spot in the Nation by placing among the top ten squads in the Nation since 2001. In addition to their cheerleading duties, which include cheering at numerous athletic events held by their school and a rigorous practice schedule, each of these girls must maintain an overall grade average of 80 or above. They also participate in numerous community service activities, such as the American Cancer Society's Relay for Life, The American Heart Association's Heart Walk, and Red Ribbon Week. Additionally, they work with elementary and middle schools, building and promoting school spirit. I want to congratulate Amanda Dunn and Spencer Streetman, Co-Head Cheerleaders as well as the rest of the squad, including: Caitlin Klare, Shelley Frerich, Ashley Blackburn, Marlee Mize, Syndal Brown, Brittney Morris, Sheina Farooqui, Kelcey Newell, Jordan Payne, Stephanie Bess, Ashton Bland, and Kay Boles. I also wish to commend Head Coach Denise Neel, Choreographer Missy DeLuna and Assistant Coaches Ricky Contreras, Lindsay Neel, Bennie Cunningham, and Sarah Jambers. Again, Mr. Speaker, my heartfelt congratulations to all those associated with the Cheerleaders of the Victoria Memorial High School in Victoria, Texas on a job well done.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this enormous defense authorization bill. At $512.9 billion, this defense authorization is $2.7 billion more than the president's request. What concerns me most about this authorization, however, is that it seems to focus more on defending other nations than on defending the United States. U.S. troops are based in more than 100 countries overseas, in many cases guarding foreign borders and ports while our own borders and ports remain almost completely unguarded. The hundreds of billions of dollars spent overseas by this bill will do very little to defend the United States against attack. In fact, our interventionist foreign policy that is funded to a good degree by this bill actually makes the United States less popular overseas and may even unintentionally make the United States more of a terrorist target. At any rate, it definitely makes us less secure. This bill sends overseas hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign aid. For example, this bill will send almost $400 million as aid to Russia. Additionally, the bill will send $200 million to help build additional NATO bases overseas, even though the Cold War has been over for more than 15 years. This legislation will send almost two billion American taxpayer dollars to Central and South America in the hopes that the production of drugs overseas will be curtailed. We do know that much of the money spent on Plan Colombia and similar programs over the past few years has not made much of a dent on drug cultivation, but that much of it is likely being skimmed off by corrupt leaders overseas. There must be a better--and less expensive--way to deal with this problem than sending this much money overseas. The bill also opens the door for more military interventionism overseas, directing the Pentagon to report to Congress on any current or planned U.S. military activities in support of peacekeeping missions of U.N. or NATO forces in Sudan. Mr. Chairman, as a Vietnam-era U.S. Air Force veteran, I am in favor of a strong defense of the United States. I believe we need to focus on our own homeland security rather than spending half a trillion dollars on policies and programs that will not make Americans more safe, but may well have the opposite effect. We need to re-focus our defense priorities on the United States, on our own borders and our ports.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Calhoun High School (CHS) of Port Lavaca, Calhoun County, TX. On January 6-7, 2006 the CHS advanced government class, taught by Gennie Westbrook, traveled to Austin to participate in the Texas State final meet for We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution. Calhoun High School ranked second of the seven schools participating in the meet, which is the highest rank yet achieved by a CHS class. In 1995, 2002, and 2003, the CHS class placed third. Students participating in the state contest were Holly Batchelder, Matthew Boyett, Ryan Cardona, Kenneth Chang, Karl Chen, Andrew Delgado, Carlos Galindo, Julio Herrera, Paul Jenkins, Brian Kao, Dustin Lambden, Kayla Meyer, Jake Prejean, and Thomas Reagan. Twenty-two CHS juniors accompanied the group as observers. We the People alumnae who also accompanied the group to assist as guest judges for practice times were Jessica Davenport, John Westbrook, Bobby Van Borssum, Redford Hong, William Krause, and Jason Fite. Local community members who helped the class in their weekly practice sessions after school were Connie Hunt and Assistant District Attorney Shannon Salyer, who have worked with each year's class for several years. Others who assisted the class in preparation this year included District Attorney Dan Heard, Assistant District Attorney Pat Brown, and Texas A&M aerospace PhD student Darren Hartl. We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution is a nationally acclaimed civic education program focusing on the history and principles of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. In addition to the requirements of the standard government class, students in this program must master a rigorous curriculum in the background and philosophy of the U.S. Constitution. They participate in oral assessment that involves both prepared and extemporaneous responses to challenging questions. In this nationwide competition, students play the role of ``experts in the Constitution,'' testifying before a mock Congressional hearing. Among other criteria, students are evaluated on their depth of knowledge, ability to apply academic data to current problems, and understanding of landmark Supreme Court cases. Teams of three students each present a four-minute prepared testimony to answer questions they have researched all semester, and then they respond to extemporaneous follow-up questions from the judges for another six minutes. Judges at the state contest include practicing attorneys, university professors, historians, and legislative staff members. In 2001, the Center for Civic Education conducted a survey of We the People alumnae, focusing on voting and civic participation. Among the former students, 82 percent reported that they voted in the November 2000 election. In addition, 77 percent had voted in previous elections. By contrast, the National Election Studies reported 48 percent turnout in the November 2000 election by other respondents aged 18-30. Research also indicates that participation in We the People programs helps encourage greater interest in politics and public affairs, increased involvement in government decision making at all levels, greater willingness to respect the opinions and rights of others, and better preparation for the privileges and responsibilities of democratic citizenship. More information about the program may be found at the Center for Civic Education website, http://www.civiced.org/ wethepeople.php. We the People: the Citizen and the Constitution is the Advanced U.S. Government class available every fall to Calhoun High School seniors. The first place team from each state traveled to Washington, D.C. for the National Final Competition on April 29-May 1, 2006. McAllen's Lamar Academy team, taught by LeAnna Morse, won first place this year in Texas, and her class often receives Honorable Mention as one of the top 10 schools at the national final meet. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate teacher Gennie Westbrook, the students of Calhoun High School and all the others participating in this important effort.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to pay tribute to my constituent, Pastor David L. Everson, Sr. A pastor for over 26 years, David Everson has spent the last seven years serving at the First Union Baptist Church in Galveston, Texas. During his time in Galveston, Pastor Everson has worked tirelessly to help his congregation, and all residents of Galveston. Pastor Everson's efforts have improved the lives of many Texans. For example, Pastor Everson has been given an identification badge by the University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB), one of Texas's most respected hospitals, so he may visit with, extend compassion to, and pray with and for people receiving treatment at UTMB and their families. Pastor Everson has also been given a badge by the Galveston Police Department in recognition of his work against drug abuse. Education is an area of particular concern to Pastor Everson. In order to ensure his neighbors have access to adult education services, Pastor Everson initiated the First Union Baptist Church Community Center. Pastor Everson also regularly meets with local school board members and networks with other ministers to ensure all the children in Galveston receive a quality education. Pastor Everson is always willing to mentor any young person in his congregation, and he regularly visits local schools to provide support for the young people of Galveston. Pastor Everson is always available to counsel and assist any members of his congregation with any problems they are having, or with any projects on which they are working. Even with his busy schedule, Pastor Everson still makes time to brighten the lives of his congregation. For example, in order to ensure senior citizens who are members of his congregation continue to enjoy a fulfilling social life, Pastor Everson takes them out for lunch and dinner, paying for their meals out of his own pocket. In recognition of Pastor Everson's numerous good works, some members of his congregation have launched an effort to have Sunday, May 21, 2006 deemed Pastor David L. Everson, Sr. day. I am pleased to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Pastor Everson and thank him for all his good works.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, the public outrage over the Jack Abramoff scandal presented Congress with an opportunity to support real reform by addressing the root cause of the corruption: the amount of money and power located in Washington, D.C. A true reform agenda would focus on ending federal funding for unconstitutional programs, beginning with those programs that benefit wealthy corporations and powerful special interests. Congress should also change the way we do business in the House by passing the Sunlight Rule (H. Res. 709). The Sunlight Rule ensures that members of the House of Representatives and the American public have adequate time to read and study legislation before it is voted upon. Ending the practice of rushing major legislation to the House floor before members have had a chance to find out the details of bills will do more to improve the legislative process and restore public confidence in this institution than will imposing new registration requirements on lobbyists or making staffers waste their time at an ``ethics class.'' I am disappointed, but not surprised, to see that Congress is failing to go after the root cause of corruption. Instead, we are considering placing further burdens on the people's exercise of their free speech rights. H.R. 4975 will not deter corrupt lobbyists, staffers, or members. What H.R. 4975 will do is discourage ordinary Americans from participating in the policy process. Among the ways H.R. 4975 silences ordinary Americans is by requiring grassroots citizens' action organizations to divulge their membership lists so Congress can scrutinize the organizations' relationships with members of Congress. The result of this will be to make many Americans reluctant to support or join these organizations. Making it more difficult for average Americans to have their voices heard is an odd response to concerns that Congress is more responsive to special interests than to the American public. This legislation further violates the First Amendment by setting up a means of secretly applying unconstitutional campaign finance laws to ``Section 527'' organizations. This is done by a provision in the rule under which this bill is brought before us that automatically attaches the ``527'' legislation to H.R. 4975 if H.R. 4975 passes the House and is sent to the Senate for a conference. H.R. 4975 also contains minor reforms of the appropriation process to bring greater transparency to the process of ``earmarking,'' where members seek funding for specific projects in their respective district. I have no objection to increased transparency, and I share some of the concerns raised by opponents of the current earmarking process. However, I would like to remind my colleagues that, since earmark reform does not reduce the total amount of spending, instead giving more power to the executive branch to allocate federal funds, the problem of members trading their votes in exchange for earmarks will continue. The only difference will be that instead of trading their votes to win favor with Congressional appropriators and House leadership, members will trade their votes to get funding from the Executive branch. Transferring power over allocation of taxpayer dollars from the legislative branch to the executive branch is hardly a victory for republican government. Reducing Congress's role in allocating of tax dollars, without reducing the Federal budget, also means State and local officials, to say nothing of ordinary citizens, will have less input into how Federal funds are spent. Earmarks, like most of the problems H.R. 4975 purports to deal with, are a symptom of the problem, not the cause. The real problem is that the United States government is too big, spends too much, and has too much power. When the government has the power to make or break entire industries by changing one regulation or adding or deleting one paragraph in an appropriation bill it is inevitable that people will seek to manipulate that power to their advantage. Human nature being what it is, it is also inevitable that some people seeking government favors will violate basic norms of ethical behavior. Thus, the only way to effectively address corruption is to reduce the size of government and turn money and power back to the people and the several states. The principals in the recent scandals where not deterred by existing laws and congressional ethics rules. Why would a future Jack Abramoff be deterred by H.R. 4975? H.R. 4975 is not just ineffective to the extent that it burdens the ability of average citizens to support and join grassroots organizations to more effectively participate in the policy process, H.R. 4975 violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the First Amendment. I therefore urge my colleagues to reject this bill and instead work to reduce corruption in Washington by reducing the size and power of the Federal Government.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim my 5 minutes at this time.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, gasoline prices are soaring and the people are screaming, and they want something done about it now. $100 rebate checks to American motorists will not cut it, nor will mandatory mileage requirements for new vehicles. Taxing oil profits will only force prices higher. But there are some very important things we can do immediately to help. First, we must reassess our foreign policy and announce some changes. One of the reasons we went into Iraq was to secure our oil. Before the Iraq war, oil was less than $30 a barrel. Today it is over $70. The sooner we get out of Iraq and allow the Iraqis to solve their own problems the better. Since 2002, oil production in Iraq has dropped 50 percent. Pipeline sabotage and fires are routine, and we have been unable to prevent them. Soaring gasoline prices are a giant, unintended consequence of our invasion, pure and simple. Second, we must end our obsession for a military confrontation with Iran. Iran does not have a nuclear weapon, and according to our own CIA is not on the verge of obtaining one for years. Iran is not in violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and has a guaranteed right to enrich uranium for energy, in spite of the incessant government and media propaganda to the contrary. Iran has never been sanctioned by the U.N. Security Council, yet the drumbeat grows louder for attacking certain sites in Iran, either by conventional or even by nuclear means. Repeated resolutions by Congress stirs up unnecessary animosity toward Iran, and creates even more concern about future oil supplies from the Middle East. We must quickly announce we do not seek war with Iran, remove the economic sanctions against her, and accept her offer to negotiate a diplomatic solution to the impacts. An attack on Iran, coupled with our continued presence in Iraq, could hike gas prices to $5 or $6 per gallon here at home. By contrast, a sensible approach to Iran could quickly lower oil prices by $20 a barrel. Third, we must remember that prices of all things go up because of inflation. Inflation, by definition, is an increase in the money supply. The money supply is controlled by the Federal Reserve and responds to the deficits Congress creates. When deficits are excessive, as they are today, the Fed creates new dollars out of thin air to buy Treasury bills and keeps interest rates artificially low. But when new money is created out of nothing, the money already in circulation loses value. Once this is recognized, prices rise, some more rapidly than others. That is what we see today with the cost of energy. Exploding deficits due to runaway entitlement spending and the cost of dangerous militarism create pressure for the Fed to inflate the money supply. This contributes greatly to the higher prices we all claim to oppose. If we want to do something about gas prices, we should demand and vote for greatly reduced welfare and military spending, a balanced budget, and fewer regulations that interfere with the market development of alternative fuels. We also should demand a return to a sound commodity monetary standard. All subsidies and special benefits to energy companies should be ended; and, in the meantime, let's eliminate Federal gas taxes at the pump. Oil prices are at a level where consumers reduce consumption voluntarily. The market will work if we let it. But as great as the market economy is, it cannot overcome a foreign policy that is destined to disrupt oil supplies and threaten the world with an expanded and dangerous conflict in the Middle East.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. Madam Speaker, I sought the time in opposition mainly because it is a very opportune time to talk about our foreign policy and the disadvantages that intervention poses for us. There are two types of foreign policy we can have: interventionism, where we tell other people what to do; and the more traditional American foreign policy of nonintervention and not using force to tell other people what to do. The policy of foreign intervention has been around a long time, and it is not only one party that endorses it. In 1998 we had a similar bill come up to the floor. It was called the Iraqi Freedom Act. And that was the preliminary stages of leading to a war, which is a very unpopular, very expensive, and deadly war going on right now in Iraq. So this is a similar bill moving in that direction. The 1998 resolution, which required regime change and laid the plans out for regime change, did not come up under this administration. That occurred with the previous administration. But I have no qualms about the goals of the authors of this legislation. They would like to see freedom in Iran. I would, too. It is just that I believe the use of force backfires on us, and when we use force such as sanctions and subsidizing and giving money to dissidents, what we really do is the opposite of what we want. Those individuals who are trying to promote more freedom in Iran actually are forced to ally themselves with the radicals, so instead of undermining the system, it has made it worse. It is always argued that they will welcome us when we march in as liberators, and Iraq proved that that was not the case. Iran won't be much better. But let me just say a few things about interventionism. Interventionism, which is essentially something that was gradually developed over the 20th century, led to a century of war and killing and was very expensive to the American people in costs. It means that we assume the moral right and the constitutional authority to be involved in the internal affairs of other nations, and yet there is no moral right for us to get involved in the internal affairs of other countries, and there is no constitutional authority for us to do so. We are not designated as ``the nation builder.'' No matter how well- intended it is, it doesn't work, and we don't have this authority to do this. We have not been designated the ``policeman of the world,'' although we have assumed that role more so every year, and that has been going on for several decades. There are always more costs than anybody imagines. Iraq was supposed to cost $50 billion. It is now hundreds of billions of dollars. There is economic harm done. There is inflation that it causes. Yet it continues, and instead of coming to an end, it tends to spread. That is why I fear this so much. I see the way we are dealing with Iran as just spreading a problem that we contributed to in the Middle East. Too many innocent lives are lost, innocent American lives, GIs that go over and are killed so needlessly, especially since we don't achieve the goal of bringing freedom and liberty and democracy to these countries. Interventionism endorses the principle that we have this authority to change regimes. We have been doing it for more than 50 years through activities of the CIA in a secret manner, and now we are doing it in a much more open manner where we literally invade countries. We initiate the force. We start the war because we believe that we have a monopoly on goodness that we can spread and teach other people to understand and live with. There are too many unintended consequences, too much blow-back. It comes back to harm us in the long run. At one time we were an ally of Saddam Hussein. At one time we were an ally of Osama bin Laden. These things don't work out the way we think they are going to. The one thing that interventionism endorses, which I strongly disagree with, it really deemphasizes diplomacy. It deemphasizes it to the point where if we don't feel like it, we are not willing to talk to people. When we feel like it, we might demagogue it and pretend we are talking. But it really doesn't encourage diplomacy. Another reason why interventionism is so bad for us, it encourages special interests to get behind our foreign policy and endorse what we are doing and influence what we are doing, possibly another country and possibly some industry that might influence us.

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds for a quick quote, and then I am going to yield to the gentleman from Oregon. The quote: ``The people of England have been led in Mesopotamia into a trap from which it will be hard to escape with dignity and honor. They have been tricked into it by a steady withholding of information. The Baghdad communiques are belated, insincere, incomplete. Things have been far worse than we have been told, our administration more bloody and inefficient than the public knows. We are today not far from a disaster.'' This comes from Lawrence of Arabia, 1920. We should learn from our mistakes and other countries' mistakes. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

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

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, there has been talk in the media and elsewhere about the necessity of bombing Iran, and we are talking today about regime change, which is an act of force, yet some of us believe we are acting too hastily. Others deny that; that something imminently is going to happen. But I want to read a little quote here from John Negroponte, Director of National Intelligence. He says, ``Our assessment at the moment is that even though we believe that Iran is determined to acquire a nuclear weapon, we believe that it is still a number of years before they are likely to have enough fissile material to assemble into or put into a nuclear weapon; perhaps into the next decade. So I think it is important that this issue be kept in perspective.'' This is John Negroponte. And I think those who are so eager to pass this legislation and move toward regime change are moving in the wrong direction too hastily, and there are a lot of analogies to this and to Iraq, so we caution you about that. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. Madam Speaker, there has been a lot of talk here about what this bill is doing and that it does not authorize the use of force. As a matter of fact, the language in the bill says this does not authorize the use of force. But my contention is it is a contradiction to the bill itself because the bill itself does authorize the use of force. No, not tanks and airplanes and bombs yet, but we know that all these options are still on the table. But what it does authorize is something that is equivalent to force, and that is sanctions. Sanctions are used as an act of war. Also, this bill has money in it, and it is open-ended, an authorization of appropriation. There is authorized to be appropriated to the Department of State such sums as may be necessary to carry out this section. And what is this section talking about? Subsidies and funding of dissident groups to go in there and undermine the Iranian government. Yes, we quote Ahmadinejad about his vitriolic statements, and they are horrible, but how do you think they interpret other statements when we say we are going to wipe their regime off the face of the Earth? We are going to have regime change. So from their viewpoint we are saying the same thing, and we should not be blinded to that and pretend, because our language is not quite as violent. We are saying the same thing, because look at the result of the violence in Iraq as a result of our efforts of regime change. Now, one of the major authors of the Iraqi war, a leader of the neoconservative movement, came before the committee when this resolution was debated and when we had hearings on it. I want to read a quote from him because it clarifies this issue. The quote comes from Michael Ledeen, and he wants regime change. This is what he had to say. ``There is much that is praiseworthy in the Iran Freedom Support Act. I think it can be improved by more openly embracing a policy of regime change in Iran and allocating an adequate budget to demonstrate our seriousness in this endeavor. I know some Members would prefer to dance around the explicit declaration of regime change as the policy of this country, but anyone looking closely at the language, and that is what I have done, and content of the Iran Freedom Support Act and its close relative in the Senate can clearly see that it is, in fact, the essence of the matter. You can't have freedom in Iran, that is, we can't have our way, without bringing down the mullahs.'' That is an outright threat. That is the testimony of a neoconservative who led us and promoted and pushed the war in Iraq, and nothing would please him and others who are behind this type of resolution to see regime change. There is no denial of that. The question is how do we do it? Are we going to do it pussyfooting around? Or are we going to use force and violence? We did, we used bombs for a long time against Iraq. But we had a bill in 1998 that said explicitly we are going to get rid of the Iraqi government, and it took a few years to get the war going. Both parties are involved in this. It is not just this administration that has promoted this type of foreign policy, which, quite frankly, I see is not in the best interest of our country. This is why I am a strong advocate of minding our own business. Don't get involved in nation building. Don't police the world. Don't get involved in the internal affairs of the other nations. Otherwise, we have a big job ahead of us. What about the fact that Kim Jong Il is still in power? We are talking to him. We talked to Qadaffi. Mao was in power, and he had nuclear weapons. What did we do; did we attack him? No. What did we do with Stalin? Stalin and Khrushchev had 30,000 nuclear weapons. Were we ready to use force and intimidation and yelling and screaming? And Khrushchev was ready to wipe us off the face of the Earth also. But I am asking you to reconsider the fact that moving in this direction is the same thing as we did against Iraq, and it won't do us any good. It is going to cost us a lot of money, and it is going to cost a lot of lives, and it is un-American. It is not constitutional. It is not moral. We should not pursue this type of foreign policy. We should take care of ourselves, and we should be more friendly with nations. We should be willing to trade. And if you are concerned about the world, why not set a good example? When our house is clean, when we have a good democracy and a worthy Republic, and we do well, believe me, they will want to emulate us. But attacking and intimidating other nations, the way we go at it now, literally backfires on us. What is it doing to the dissidents, those who would love to overthrow the Islamic radicals in Iran right now? It unifies them. Did we become unified in this country when we were attacked on 9/11? Do you think Republicans and Democrats were divided on 9/11 and 9/12? No, it brings them together. So this policy does exactly the opposite of what you pretend that you want to do, and that is encourage those people who don't like their government. But by doing it this way, you literally are doing the very opposite. So I just plead with you to be more cautious. Negroponte says there is no rush. Take some time. They are not about to have a nuclear weapon. And whether or not that is their plan or not probably at this moment is irrelevant. I mean, if we stood down all these nations and all these nuclear weapons in the past, why can't we practice more diplomacy to resolve our differences. I was talking to somebody the other day and they said, well, maybe in 10 years they might have a nuclear weapon, so we must act now. Get the bombs ready. They are talking about a nuclear attack on Iran in order to stop them from producing a nuclear bomb. It is time to step back and look at the policy. The policy of nonintervention and peaceful relations with the world and peaceful trade is the American way to go, and it will lead to peace and prosperity. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, this bill authorizes strong sanctions as well as funding to dissident groups inside Iraq to overthrow that government. In my interpretation that is the use of force, and I yield 6\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute before I yield to the gentleman from Iowa. I want to quote from Article IV of the NonProliferation Treaty of which Iran is a signator: ``Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production, and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination.'' Our position is that they do not have the right to enrich. Those who deny the right to enrich are more in violation of the NPT Treaty than Iran itself. What do we do for those who are totally in defiance to international law in the NPT Treaty, like India and Pakistan? We reward them and subsidize them. At the same time, there is no proof that there has been any violation of this treaty by Iran, and yet the rewards go to those who are in total defiance. Madam Speaker, I would yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach). (Mr. LEACH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the following article detailing the complete failure of ``Plan Colombia'' into the Congressional Record. As the article points out, despite more than 4 billion dollars being sent to Colombia to fight the ``war on drugs,'' the coca crop grew by 21 percent last year. After six years of massive wealth transfers from U.S. taxpayers to the Colombian government, not only has no progress been made, but in fact things are getting worse. Unfortunately, with the way things are done in Washington, this failure of ``Plan Colombia'' will likely result in calls for even more money to be tossed in the black hole of the drug war. It would be far better to learn from our mistakes and abandon the failed ``Plan Colombia.'' [From the Houston Chronicle, April 16, 2006] Coca Crop Jumps Despite U.S. Aid (By John Otis) Bogota, Colombia.--In a blow to the United States' anti- drug campaign here, which cost more than $4 billion, new White House estimates indicate that Colombia's coca crop expanded by nearly 21 percent last year. Figures released late Friday by the Office of National Drug Control Policy indicate Colombian farmers last year grew 355,680 acres of coca, the raw material for cocaine. That represents a jump of nearly 74,000 acres from 2004 even though U.S. funded cropdusters destroyed record amounts of coca plants in 2005. Washington has provided the Bogota government with more than $4 billion, mostly in anti-drug aid since 2000 for a program known as Plan Colombia--which was supposed to cut coca cultivation by half within six years. Yet according to the new figures, more coca is now being grown here than when Plan Colombia started. ``This is going to turn heads'' on Capitol Hill, said Adam Isacson, a Colombia expert at the Center for International Policy in Washington and a longtime critic of U.S. counterdrug strategies in Latin America. ``You're talking about $4.7 billion spent on Plan Colombia, and this is all we have to show for it?'' The Bush administration downplayed the significance of the coca crop survey, an annual study of parts of Colombia carried out by the CIA using satellite imagery and on-the- ground inspections. Rather than an increase in the crop's size, the higher numbers may reflect a more thorough job of surveying the Colombian countryside, the White House said in a news release. The statement said the area of Colombia sampled for the 2005 coca estimate was 81 percent larger than in 2004. ``Because of this uncertainty and the significantly expanded survey area, a direct year-to-year comparison (of the size of the coca crop) is not possible,'' said the statement. However, when year-to-year drug crop comparisons have reflected positive trends, U.S. officials have loudly touted the numbers as clear proof of success. In 2002, for example, the CIA survey showed a drop in coca production and White House drug czar John Walters declared: ``These figures capture the dramatic improvement. . . . Our anti-drug efforts in Colombia are now paying off.'' But some U.S. officials and drug policy analysts claim that Colombia has likely been producing far more coca over the past five years than the CIA surveys have indicated. ``The cultivation numbers, wherever they seem to be headed, need to be taken with a grain of salt,'' said Joy Olson, director of the Washington Office on Latin America, a think tank. ``In reality, coca cultivation and cocaine production exceed the official estimates, perhaps by wide margins.'' What's more, she said, cheap, potent cocaine remains readily available on U.S. streets, indicating that the drug war in Colombia is having little real impact. Some U.S. officials have forecast a gradual reduction in assistance for Colombia, starting in 2008. This year, Washington will send about $750 million in aid to Colombia, the source of 90 percent of the cocaine sold on U.S. streets. The centerpiece of the U.S. anti-drug strategy here is a controversial aerial-eradication program in which crop- dusters, escorted by helicopter gunships, bombard coca plants with chemical defoliants. But the program costs about $200 million annually and many critics say the money would be better spent elsewhere. The idea of eradication is to persuade peasant farmers to give up growing coca and to plant legal crops. But funding by the U.S. and Colombian governments for crop-substitution programs pale in comparison to the eradication budget and most efforts to develop alternatives have failed. Part of the problem is that coca is often grown in remote jungles and mountains that are controlled by Marxist guerrillas, contain few roads or markets, and have almost no government presence. Thus, even as crop-dusters have killed off record amounts of coca, farmers stay a step ahead of the spray planes by pushing deeper into the wilderness to grow more. In 2000, Colombian farmers attempted to grow about 450,000 acres of coca, about one-third of which was wiped out by the spray planes, according to U.S. government figures. Last year, by contrast, they tried to grow a whopping 780,000 acres. ``People with no economic alternatives have not been deterred by fumigation,'' said Isacson of the Center for International Policy. ``Fumigating an area is no substitute for governing it.'' Despite the rise in coca cultivation, Anne Patterson, a former U.S. ambassador to Colombia who heads the State Department bureau that runs the eradication program, told a congressional hearing in Washington last month that the Bush administration was considering ``stepping up'' the crop- dusting campaign. Beyond the drug war, Patterson said, the overall U.S. aid program ``has benefited Colombia in ways we had not anticipated.'' She cited better security conditions in the cities and the countryside, where the number of kidnappings and murders has dropped, as well as recent blows to the nation's narcotics traffickers and guerrilla groups.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, the financial press and even the network news shows have begun reporting the price of gold regularly. For 20 years, between 1980 and 2000, the price of gold was rarely mentioned. There was little interest, and the price was either falling or remaining steady. Since 2001, however, interest in gold has soared along with its price. With the price now over $600 an ounce, a lot more people are becoming interested in gold as an investment and an economic indicator. Much can be learned by understanding what the rising dollar price of gold means. The rise in gold prices, from $250 per ounce in 2001 to over $600 today has drawn investors and speculators into precious metals markets. Though many already have made handsome profits, buying gold, per se, should not be touted as a good investment. After all, gold earns no interest, and its quality never changes. It is static and does not grow as sound investments should. It is more accurate to say that one might invest in a gold or silver mining company, where management, labor costs, and the nature of new discoveries all play a vital role in determining the quality of the investment and the profits made. Buying gold and holding it is somewhat analogous to converting one's saving into $100 bills and hiding them under the mattress, yet not exactly the same. Both gold and dollars are considered money, and holding money does not qualify as an investment. There is a big difference between the two, however, since by holding paper money, one loses purchasing power. The purchasing power of commodity money, that is gold, however, goes up if the government devalues the circulating paper currency. Holding gold is protection or insurance against government's proclivity to debase the currency. The purchasing power of gold goes up not because it is a so-called good investment. It goes up in value only because the paper currency goes down in value. In our current situation, that means the dollar. One of the characteristics of commodity money, one that originated naturally in the marketplace, is that it must serve as a store of value. Gold and silver meet the test; paper does not. Because of this profound difference, the incentive and wisdom of holding emergency funds in the form of gold becomes attractive when the official currency is being devalued. It is more attractive than trying to save wealth in the form of a fiat currency, even when earning some nominal interest. The lack of earned interest on gold is not a problem once people realize the purchasing power of their currency is declining faster than the interest rates they might earn. The purchasing power of gold can rise even faster than increases in the cost of living. The point is that most who buy gold do so to protect against the depreciating currency, rather than as an investment in the classical sense. Americans understand this less than citizens of other countries. Some nations have suffered from severe monetary inflation that literally led to the destruction of their national currency. Though our inflation, that is the depreciation of the U.S. dollar, has been insidious, average Americans are unaware of how this occurs. For instance, few Americans know nor seem concerned that the 1913 pre-Federal Reserve dollar is now worth only 4 cents. Officially, our central bankers and our politicians express no fear that the course on which we are set is fraught with great danger to our economy and to our political system. The belief that money created out of thin air can work economic miracles if only properly managed is pervasive in the District of Columbia. In many ways, we should not be surprised about this trust in such an unsound system. For at least four generations our government- run universities have systematically preached a monetary doctrine justifying the so-called wisdom of paper money over the foolishness of sound money. Not only that, paper money has worked surprisingly well in the past 35 years, the years the world has accepted pure paper money as currency. Alan Greenspan bragged that central bankers in these decades have gained the knowledge necessary to make paper money respond as if it were gold. This, they argue, removes the problem of obtaining gold to back the currency and hence frees the politician from the rigid discipline a gold standard imposes. Many central bankers in the last 15 years became so confident they had achieved this milestone that they sold off large hordes of their gold reserves. At other times they tried to prove that paper works better than gold by artificially propping up the dollar by suppressing the market price of gold. This recent deception failed just as it did in the 1960s when our government tried to hold gold artificially low at $35 an ounce. But since they could not truly repeal the economic laws regarding money, just as many central bankers sold, others bought. It is fascinating that the European central banks sold gold while the Asian central banks bought it over the last several years. Since gold has proven to be the real money of the ages, we see once again a shift in wealth from the West to the East, just as we saw a loss of our industrial base in the same direction. Though Treasury officials deny any U.S. sales or loans of our official gold holdings, no audits are permitted, so no one can be certain. The special nature of the dollar as the reserve currency of the world has allowed this gain to last longer than it would have otherwise. But the fact that gold has gone from $250 an ounce to over $600 an ounce means there is concern about the future of the dollar. The higher the price of gold the greater the concern for the dollar. But instead of dwelling on the dollar price of gold, we should be talking about the depreciation of the dollar. In 1934, a dollar was worth one-twentieth of an ounce of gold. $20 to buy one ounce. Today a dollar is worth one-six-hundredth of an ounce, meaning it takes $600 to buy one once of gold. The number of dollars created by the Federal Reserve and through the fractional reserve banking system is crucial in determining how the market assesses the relationship of the dollar and gold. Though there is a strong correlation, it is not instantaneous or perfectly predictable. There are many variables to consider. But in the long term, the dollar price of gold represents past inflation of the money supply. Equally important, it represents the anticipation of how much new money will be created in the future. This introduces the factor of trust and confidence in our monetary authorities and our politicians, and these days the American people are casting a vote of no confidence in this regard and for good reasons. The incentive for central bankers to create new money out of thin air is two-fold. One is to practice central planning through the manipulation of interest rates. The second is to monetize the escalated Federal debt politicians create and thrive on. Today, no one in Washington believes for a minute that runaway deficits are going to be curtailed. In March alone, the Federal Government created a historic $85 billion deficit. The current supplemental bill going through Congress has grown from $92 billion to over $106 billion, and everyone knows it will not draw President Bush's first veto. Most knowledgeable people therefore assume that inflation of the money supply is not only going to continue, but accelerate. This anticipation, plus the fact that many new dollars have been created over the past 15 years that have not yet been fully discounted, guarantees the future depreciation of the dollar in terms of gold. There is no single measurement that reveals what the Fed has done in the recent past or tells us exactly what it is about to do in the future. Forget about the lip service given to transparency by the new Fed Chairman Bernanke. Not only is this administration one of the most secretive across the board in our history, the current Fed firmly supports denying the most important measurement of current monetary policy to Congress, the financial community and the American public. Because of a lack of interest and poor understanding of monetary policy, Congress has expressed essentially no concern about the significant change in reporting statistics on the money supply. Beginning in March, though planned before Bernanke arrived at the Fed, the central bank discontinued compiling and reporting monetary aggregates known as M3. M3 is the best description of how quickly the Fed is creating new money and credit. Common sense tells us that a government central bank creating new money out of thin air depreciates the value of each dollar in circulation. Yet this report is no longer available to us, and Congress makes no demands to receive it. Though M3 is the most helpful statistic to track Fed activity, it by no means tells us everything we need to know about trends in monetary policy. Total bank credit, still available to us, gives us indirect information reflecting the Fed's inflationary policies. But ultimately the markets will figure out exactly what the Fed is up to, and then individuals, financial institutions, governments and other central bankers will act accordingly. The fact that our money supply is rising significantly cannot be hidden from the markets. The response in time will drive the dollar down while driving interest rates and commodity prices up. Already we see this trend developing, which surely will accelerate in the not-too-distant future. Part of this reaction will be from those who seek a haven to protect their wealth, not invest, by treating gold and silver as universal and historic money. This means holding fewer dollars that are decreasing in value while holding gold as it increases in value. A soaring gold price is a vote of no confidence in the central bank and the dollar. This certainly was the case in 1979 and 1980. Today gold prices reflect a growing restlessness with the increasing money supply, our budgetary and trade deficits, our unfunded liabilities, and the inability of this Congress and the administration to rein in runaway spending. Denying us statistical information, manipulating interest rates, and artificially trying to keep gold prices in check won't help in the long run. If the markets are fooled only on the short term, it only means the adjustments will be much more dramatic later on, and in the meantime other market imbalances develop. The Fed tries to keep the consumer spending spree going, not through hard work and savings, but by creating artificial wealth in stock market bubbles and housing bubbles. When these distortions run these courses and are discovered, the corrections will be quite painful as was witnessed with the collapse of the NASDAQ bubble. Likewise a fiat monetary system encourages speculation and unsound borrowing. As problems develop, scapegoats are sought and frequently found in foreign nations. This prompts many to demand altering exchange rates and protectionist measures. The sentiment for this type of solution is growing each day. Though everyone decries inflation, trade imbalances, economic downturns and Federal deficits, few attempt a closer study of our monetary system and how these events are interconnected. Even if it were recognized that a gold standard without monetary inflation would be advantageous, few in Washington would accept the political disadvantages of living with the discipline of gold since it serves as a check on government size and power. This is a sad commentary on the politics of today. The best analogy to our affinity for government spending, borrowing and inflating is that of a drug addict who knows if he doesn't quit, he will die, yet he can't quit because of the heavy price required to overcome the dependency. The right choice is very difficult, but remaining addicted to drugs guarantees the death of the patient, while our addiction to deficit spending, debt and inflation guarantees the collapse of our economy. Special interest groups, who vigorously compete for Federal dollars, want to perpetuate the system rather than admit to a dangerous addiction. Those who champion welfare for the poor, entitlements for the middle class or war contracts for the military industrial complex all agree on the so-called benefits bestowed by the Fed's power to counterfeit fiat money. Bankers who benefit from our fractional reserve system likewise never criticize the Fed, especially since it is the lender of last resort that bails out financial institutions when crises arise. It is true, special interest and bankers do benefit from the Fed and may well get bailed out, just as we saw with the long-term capital management fund crisis a few years ago. In the past, companies like Lockheed and Chrysler benefited as well. But what the Fed cannot do is guarantee the market will maintain trust in the worthiness of the dollar. Current policy guarantees that the integrity of the dollar will be undermined. Exactly when this will occur, and the extent of the resulting damage to the financial system, cannot be known for sure, but it is coming. There are plenty of indications already on the horizon. Foreign policy plays a significant role in the economy and the value of the dollar. A foreign policy of militarism and empire building cannot be supported through direct taxation. The American people would never tolerate the taxes required to pay immediately for overseas wars under the discipline of a gold standard. Borrowing and creating new money is much more politically palatable. It hides and delays the real costs of the war. The people are lulled into complacency, especially since the wars we fight are couched in terms of patriotism, spreading the ideas of freedom and stamping out terrorism. Unnecessary wars and fiat currencies go hand in hand, while a gold standard encourages a sensible foreign policy. The cost of war is enormously detrimental. It significantly contributes to the economic instability of the Nation by boosting spending, deficits and inflation. Funds used for war are funds that could have remained in the productive economy to raise the standard of living of Americans now unemployed, underemployed or barely living on the margin. Yet even these costs may be preferable to paying for war with huge tax increases. This is because although fiat dollars are theoretically worthless, value is imbued by the trust placed in them by the world's financial community. Subjective trust in a currency can override objective knowledge about government policies, but only for a limited time. Economic strength and military power contributes to the trust in a currency. In today's world trust in the U.S. dollar is not earned, and, therefore, fragile. The history of the dollar, being as good as gold up until 1971, is helpful in maintaining an artificially higher value for the dollar than deserved. Foreign policy contributes to the crisis when the spending to maintain our worldwide military commitments become prohibitive, and inflationary pressures accelerate. But the real crisis hits when the world realizes the king has no clothes in that the dollar has no backing, and we face a military setback even greater than we already are experiencing in Iraq. Our token friends may quickly transform into vocal enemies once the attack on the dollar begins. False trust placed in the dollar once was helpful to us, but panic and rejection of the dollar will develop into a real financial crisis. Then we will have no other option but to tighten our belts, go back to work, stop borrowing, start saving, and rebuild our industrial base while adjusting to a lower standard of living for most Americans. Counterfeiting the Nation's money is a serious offense. The Founders were especially adamant about avoiding the chaos, inflation and destruction associated with the continental dollar. That is why the Constitution is clear that only gold and silver should be legal tender in the United States. In 1792, the Coinage Act also authorized the death penalty for any private citizen who counterfeited the currency. Too bad they weren't explicit that counterfeiting by government officials is just as detrimental to the economy and the value of the dollar. In wartime many nations actually operated counterfeiting programs to undermine the dollar, but never to a disastrous level. The enemy knew how harmful excessive creation of new money could be to the dollar and our economy. But it seems we never learned the dangers of creating new money out of thin air. We don't need an Arab nation or the Chinese to undermine our system with a counterfeiting operation. We do it to ourselves with the all the disadvantages that would occur if others did it to us. Today we hear threats from some Arab, Muslim and some Far Eastern countries about undermining the dollar system not by dishonest counterfeiting, but by initiating an alternative monetary system based on gold. Wouldn't that be ironic? Such an event theoretically could do great harm to us. This day may well come not so much as a direct political attack on the dollar system, but out of necessity to restore confidence in money once again. Historically paper money never has lasted for long periods of time, while gold has survived thousands of years of attacks by political interests and big government. In time the world once again will restore trust in the monetary system by making some currency as good as gold. Gold or any acceptable market commodity money is required to preserve liberty. Monopoly control by government of a system that creates fiat money out of thin air guarantees the loss of liberty. No matter how well intended our militarism is portrayed or how happily the promises of wonderful programs for the poor are promoted, inflating the money supply to pay these bills makes government bigger. Empires always fail, and expenses always exceed projections. Harmful unintended consequences are the rule, not the exception. Welfare for the poor is inefficient and wasteful. The beneficiaries are rarely the poor themselves, but, instead, the politicians, the bureaucrats or the wealthy. The same is true of all foreign aid. It is nothing more than a program that steals from the poor in a rich country and gives to the rich leaders of a poorer country. Whether it is war or welfare payments, it always means higher taxes, inflation and debt. Whether it is the extraction of wealth from the productive economy, the distortion of the market by interest rate manipulation or spending for war and welfare, it can't happen without infringing upon personal liberty. At home the war on poverty, terrorism, drugs or foreign rulers provide an opportunity for authoritarians to rise to power, individuals who think nothing of violating the people's rights to privacy and freedom of speech. They believe their role is to protect the secrecy of government rather than protect the privacy of citizens. Unfortunately, that is the atmosphere under which we live today with essentially no respect for the Bill of Rights. Though great economic harm comes from a government monopoly, fiat monetary system, the loss of liberty associated with it is equally troubling. Just as empires are self-limiting in terms of money and manpower, so, too, is a monetary system based on illusion and fraud. When the end comes, we will be given an opportunity to choose once again between honest money and liberty on one hand, chaos, poverty and authoritarianism on the other. The economic harm done by a fiat monetary system is pervasive, dangerous and unfair. Though runaway inflation is injurious to almost everyone, it is more insidious for certain groups. Once inflation is recognized as a tax, it becomes clear that tax is regressive in nature, penalizing the poor and the middle class more than the rich and the politically privileged. Price inflation, a consequence of inflating the money supply by the central bank, hits poor and marginal workers first and foremost. It especially penalizes savers, retirees, those on fixed incomes, and anyone who trusts government promises. Small businesses and individual enterprises suffer more than the financial elite, who borrow large sums before the money loses value. Those who are on the receiving end of government contracts, especially in the military industrial complex during wartime, receive undeserved benefits. It is a mistake to blame high gasoline and oil prices on price gouging. If we impose new taxes or fix prices while ignoring monetary inflation, corporate subsidies and excessive regulations, shortages will result. The market is the only way to determine the best price for any commodity. The law of supply and demand cannot be repealed. The real problems arise when government planners give subsidies to energy companies and favor one form of energy over another. Energy prices are rising for many reasons: inflation, increased demand from China and India, decreased supply resulting from our invasion into Iraq, anticipated disruption of supplies as we push regime change in Iran, regulatory restrictions on gasoline production, government interference in the free market development of alternative fuels, and subsidies to Big Oil, such as free leases and grants for research and development. Interestingly, the cost of oil and gas is actually much higher than we pay at the retail level. Much of the DOD budget is spent protecting ``our'' oil supplies; and if such spending is factored in, gasoline probably costs us more than $5 a gallon. The sad irony is that the military efforts to secure cheap oil supplies inevitably backfire and actually curtail supplies and boost prices at the pump. The waste and fraud in issuing contracts to large corporations for work in Iraq only adds to price increases. When problems arise under conditions that exist today, it is a serious error to blame the little bit of the free market that still functions. Last summer, the market worked efficiently after Katrina. Gasoline hit $3 a gallon, but soon supplies increased, usage went down, and the price returned to $2. In the 1980s, market forces took oil from $40 a barrel down to $10 a barrel, and no one cried for the oil companies that went bankrupt. Today's increases are for the reasons mentioned above. It is natural for labor to seek its highest wage and businesses to strive for the greatest profits. That is the way the market works. When the free market is allowed to work, it is the consumer who ultimately determines price and quality, with labor and businesses accommodating consumer choices. Once this process is distorted by government, prices rise excessively, labor costs and profits are negatively affected, and problems emerge. Instead of fixing the problem, politicians and demagogues respond by demanding windfall profits taxes and price controls, while never questioning how previous government interference caused the whole mess in the first place. Never let it be said that high oil prices and profits cause inflation. Inflation of the money supply causes higher prices. Since keeping interest rates below market levels is synonymous with new money creation by the Fed, the resulting business cycle, higher cost of living and job losses all can be laid at the doorstep of the Fed. This burden hits the poor the most, making Fed taxation by inflation the worst of all regressive taxes. Statistics about revenues generated by the income tax are grossly misleading. In reality, much harm is done by our welfare-warfare system supposedly designed to help the poor and tax the rich. Only sound money can rectify the blatant injustice of this destructive system. The Founders understood this great danger and voted overwhelmingly to reject ``emitting bills of credit,'' the term they used for paper money or fiat currency. It is too bad the knowledge and advice of our Founders and their mandate in the Constitution are ignored, and it is ignored at great peril. The current surge in gold prices, which reflects our dollar's devaluation, is warning us to pay closer attention to our fiscal, monetary, entitlement, and foreign policy. A recent headline in the financial press announced that gold prices surged over concern that confrontation with Iran will further push oil prices higher. This may well reflect the current situation, but higher gold prices mainly reflect monetary expansion by the Federal Reserve. Dwelling on current events and their effect on gold prices reflects concern for symptoms rather than an understanding of the actual cause of these price increases. Without an enormous increase in the money supply over the past 35 years and a worldwide paper monetary system, this increase in the price of gold would not have occurred. Certainly geopolitical events in the Middle East under a gold standard would not alter its price, though they could affect the supply of oil and cause oil prices to rise. Only under conditions created by excessive paper money would one expect all or most prices to rise. This is a mere reflection of the devaluation of the dollar. Here are a few particular things that we should remember: if one endorses small government and maximum liberty, one must support commodity money. One of the strongest restraints against unnecessary war is a gold standard. Deficit financing by government is severely restricted by sound money. The harmful effects of the business cycle are virtually eliminated with an honest gold standard. Saving and thrift are encouraged by gold standard and discouraged by paper money. Price inflation, with generally rising price levels, is characteristic of paper money. Reports that the Consumer Price Index and the Producer Price Index are rising are distractions. The real cause of inflation is the Fed's creation of new money. Interest rate manipulation by central banks helps the rich, the banks, the government, and the politicians. Paper money permits the regressive inflation tax to be passed off on the poor and the middle class. Speculative financial bubbles are characteristic of paper money, not gold. Paper money encourages economic and political chaos, which subsequently causes a search for scapegoats rather than blaming the central bank. Dangerous protectionist measures frequently are implemented to compensate for the dislocations caused by paper money. Paper money, inflation, and the conditions they create contribute to the problems of illegal immigration. The value of gold is remarkably stable. The dollar price of gold reflects dollar depreciation. Holding gold helps preserve and store wealth; but technically, gold is not a true investment. Since 2001, the dollar has been devalued by over 60 percent. In 1934, FDR devalued the dollar by 41 percent. In 1971, Nixon devalued the dollar by 7.9 percent. In 1973, Nixon devalued the dollar by 10 percent. These were momentous monetary events, and every knowledgeable person worldwide paid close attention. Major changes were endured in 1979 and 1980 to save the dollar from disintegration. This involved a severe recession, interest rates over 21 percent, and general price inflation of 15 percent. Today, we face a 60 percent devaluation and counting, yet no one seems to care. It is of greater significance than the three events mentioned above, and yet the one measurement that best reflects the degree of inflation, the Fed and our government denies us. Since March, M3 reporting has been discontinued. For starters, I would like to see Congress demand that this report be resumed. I fully believe the American people and Congress are entitled to this information. Will we one day complain about false intelligence, as we have with the Iraq war? Will we complain about not having enough information to address monetary policy after it is too late? If ever there was a time to get a handle on what sound money is and what it means, that time is today. Inflation, as exposed by high gold prices, transfers wealth from the middle class to the rich, as real wages decline while the salaries of CEOs, movie stars, and athletes skyrocket, along with the profits of the military industrial complex, the oil industry, and other special interests. A sharply rising gold price is a vote of no confidence in the Congress' ability to control the budget, the Fed's ability to control the money supply, and the administration's ability to bring stability to the Middle East. Ultimately, the gold price is a measurement of trust in the currency and the politicians who run the country. It has been that way for a long time, and it is not about to change. If we care about the financial system, the tax system, and the monumental debt we are accumulating, we must start talking about the benefits and discipline that come only with a commodity standard of money: money the government and central banks absolutely cannot create out of thin air. Economic law dictates reform at some point, but should we wait until the dollar is \1/1000\ of an ounce of gold or \1/2000\ of an ounce of gold? The longer we wait, the more people will suffer and the more difficult reforms become. Runaway inflation inevitably leads to political chaos, something numerous countries have suffered throughout the 20th century. The worst example, of course, was the German inflation of the 1920s that led to the rise of Hitler. Even the Communist takeover of China was associated with runaway inflation brought on by the Chinese nationalists. The time for action is now, and it is up to the American people and the U.S. Congress to demand it.

Mr. PAUL

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

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, it has been 3 years since the U.S. launched its war against Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction. Of course, now almost everybody knows there were no weapons of mass destruction and Saddam Hussein posed no threat to the United States. Though some of our soldiers serving in Iraq still believe they are there because Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11, even the administration now acknowledges that there was no connection. Indeed, no one can be absolutely certain why we invaded Iraq. The current excuse, also given for staying in Iraq, is to make it a democratic state friendly to the United States. There are now fewer denials that securing oil supplies played a significant role in our decision to go into Iraq and stay there. That certainly would explain why the U.S. taxpayers are paying such a price to build and maintain numerous, huge, permanent military bases in Iraq. There are also funding a new $1 billion embassy, the largest in the world. The significant question we must ask ourselves is, what have we learned from these 3 years in Iraq? With plans now being laid for regime change in Iran, it appears we have learned absolutely nothing. There still are plenty of administration officials who daily paint a rosy picture of the Iraq we have created. But I wonder, if the past 3 years were nothing more than a bad dream and our Nation suddenly awakened, how many would for national security reasons urge the same invasion? Or would we instead give a gigantic sigh of relief that it was only a bad dream, that we need not relive the 3-year nightmare of death, destruction, chaos and stupendous consumption of tax dollars? Conceivably, we would still see oil prices under $30 a barrel, and, most importantly, 20,000 severe U.S. casualties would not have occurred. My guess is 99 percent of all Americans would be thankful it was only a bad dream and would never support the invasion knowing what we know today. Even with the horrible results of the past 3 years, Congress is abuzz with plans to change the Iranian government. There is little resistance to the rise and clamor for democratization in Iran, even though their current President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is an elected leader. Though Iran is hardly a perfect democracy, its system is far superior to most of our Arab allies, about which we never complain. Already the coordinated propaganda has galvanized the American people against Iran for the supposed threat it poses to us with weapons of mass destruction that are no more present than those Saddam Hussein was alleged to have had. It is amazing how soon after being thoroughly discredited over the charges levied against Saddam Hussein the neoconservatives are willing to use the same arguments against Iran. It is frightening to see how easily Congress, the media and the people accept many of the same arguments against Iran that were used to justify an invasion of Iraq. Since 2001, we have spent over $300 billion and occupied two Muslim nations, Afghanistan and Iraq. We are poorer, but certainly not safer, for it. We invaded Afghanistan to get Osama bin Laden, the ringleader behind 9/11. This effort has been virtually abandoned. Even though the Taliban was removed from power in Afghanistan, most of the country is now occupied and controlled by warlords who manage a drug trade bigger than ever before. Removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan actually served the interests of Iran, the Taliban's arch-enemy, more than our own. The long time neocon goal to remake Iraq prompted us to abandoned the search for Osama bin Laden. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was hyped as a noble mission, justified by misrepresentation of intelligence concerning Saddam Hussein and his ability to attack us and his neighbors. This failed policy has created the current chaos in Iraq, chaos that many describe as a civil war. Saddam Hussein is out of power, and most people are pleased. Yet some Iraqis who dream of stability long for his authoritarian rule. But, once again, Saddam Hussein's removal benefited the Iranians, who considered Saddam Hussein an arch-enemy. Our obsession with democracy, which is clearly conditional when one looks at our response to the recent Pakistani elections, will allow the majority Shia to claim leadership title if Iraq's election actually leads to an organized government. This delights the Iranians, who are close allies of the Iraqi Shia. Talk about unintended consequences. This war has produced chaos, civil war, death and destruction and huge financial costs. It has eliminated two of Iran's worst enemies and placed power in Iran's best friends. Even this apparent failure of policy does nothing to restrain the current march towards a similar confrontation with Iran. What will it take for us to learn from our failures? Common sense tells us the war in Iraq soon will spread to Iran. Fear of imaginary nuclear weapons or an incident involving Iran, whether planned or accidental, will rally the support needed for us to move on Muslim country number three. All the past failures and unintended consequences will be forgotten. Even with deteriorating support for the Iraq war, new information, well-planned propaganda, or a major incident will override the skepticism and heartache of our frustrating fight. Vocal opponents of an attack on Iran again will be labeled unpatriotic, unsupportive of the troops, and sympathetic to Iran's radicals. Instead of capitulating to these charges, we should point out that those who maneuver us into war do so with little concern for our young people serving in the military and theoretically think little of their own children if they have any. It is hard to conceive that political supporters of the war would consciously claim that a preemptive war for regime change where young people are sacrificed is only worth it if the deaths and the injuries are limited to other people's children. This I am sure would be denied, which means their own children are technically available for the sacrifice that is so often praised and glorified for the benefit of families who have lost so much. If so, they should think more of their own children. If this is not so and their children are not available for such sacrifice, the hypocrisy is apparent. Remember, most neocon planners fall into the category of chicken hawks. For the past 3 years, it has been inferred that, if one is not in support of the current policy, one is against the troops and supports the enemy. Lack of support for the war in Iraq was said to be supportive of Saddam Hussein and his evil policies. This is an insulting and preposterous argument. Those who argued for the containment of the Soviets were never deemed sympathetic to Stalin or Kruschev. Lack of support for the Iraq war should never be used as an argument that one was sympathetic to Saddam Hussein. Containment and diplomacy are far superior to confront an enemy, and are less costly and far less dangerous, especially when there is no evidence that our national security is being threatened. Although a large percentage of the public now rejects the various arguments for the Iraq war 3 years ago, they were easily persuaded by the politicians and media to fully support the invasion. Now, after 3 years of terrible pain for so many, even the troops are awakening from their slumber and sensing the fruitlessness of our failing effort. Seventy-two percent of our troops now serving in Iraq say it is time to come home. Yet, the majority still cling to the propaganda that they are there because of the 9/11 attacks, something even the administration has ceased to claim. Propaganda is pushed on our troops to exploit their need to believe in a cause that is worth the risk to life and limb. I smell an expanded war in the Middle East and pray that I am wrong. I sense that circumstances will arise that demand support regardless of the danger and the cost. Any lack of support once again will be painted as being soft on terrorism and al Qaeda. We will be told we must support Israel, support patriotism, support the troops, defend freedom. The public too often only smells the stench of war after the killing starts. Public objection comes later on, but eventually it helps to stop the war. I worry that before we can finish the war we are in and extricate ourselves, the patriotic fervor for expanding into Iran will drown out the cries of, ``Enough already.'' The agitation and congressional resolutions painting Iran as an enemy about to attack us have already begun. It is too bad we cannot learn from our mistakes. This time, there will be a greater pretense of an international effort sanctioned by the U.N. before the bombs are dropped. But even without support from the international community, we should expect the plan for regime change to continue. We have been forewarned that all options remain on the table, and there is little reason to expect much resistance from Congress. So far there is little resistance expressed in Congress for taking on Iran than there was prior to going into Iraq. It is astonishing that after 3 years of bad results and tremendous expense there is little indication, we will reconsider our traditional non-interventionist foreign policy. Unfortunately, regime change, nation-building, policing the world, protecting our oil still constitutes an acceptable policy by the leaders of both major parties. It is already assumed by many in Washington I talk to that Iran is dead serious about obtaining a nuclear weapon and is a much more formidable opponent than Iraq. Besides, Mahmud Ahmadinejad threatened to destroy Israel, and that cannot stand. Washington sees Iran as a greater threat than Iraq ever was, a threat that cannot be ignored. Iran's history is being ignored just as we ignored Iraq's history. This ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation of our recent relationship to Iraq and Iran is required to generate the fervor needed to attack once again a country that poses no threat to us. Our policies toward Iran have been more provocative than those toward Iraq. Yes, President Bush labeled Iran part of the axis of evil and unnecessarily provoked their anger at us. But our mistakes with Iran started a long time before this President took office. In 1953, our CIA, with the help of the British, participated in overthrowing the democratic-elected leader, Mohammed Mossadegh. We placed in power the Shah. He ruled ruthlessly but protected our oil interests, and for that, we protected him. That is, until 1979. We even provided him with Iran's first nuclear reactor. Evidently, we did not buy the argument that his oil supplies precluded a need for civilian nuclear energy. From 1953 to 1979, his authoritarian rule served to incite a radical opposition led by the Ayatollah Khomeini who overthrew the Shah and took our hostages in 1979. This blow-back event was slow in coming, but Muslims have long memories. The hostage crisis and overthrow of the Shah by the Ayatollah was a major victory for the radical Islamists. Most Americans either never knew about or easily forgot about our unwise meddling in the internal affairs in Iran in 1953. During the 1980s, we further antagonized Iran by supporting the Iraqis in their invasion of Iran. This made our relationship with Iran worse, while sending a message to Saddam Hussein that invading a neighboring country is not all that bad. When Hussein got the message from our State Department that his plan to invade Kuwait was not of much concern to the United States, he immediately preceded to do so. We, in a way, encouraged him to do it almost like we encouraged him to go into Iran. Of course, this time our reaction was quite different, and all of a sudden, our friendly ally, Saddam Hussein, became our arch enemy. The American people may forget this flip-flop, but those who suffered from it never forgot. And the Iranians remember well our meddling in their affairs. Labeling the Iranians part of the axis of evil further alienated them and contributed to the animosity directed toward us. For whatever reasons the neoconservatives might give, they are bound and determined to confront the Iranian government and demand changes in its leadership. This policy will further spread our military presence and undermine our security. The sad truth is that the supposed dangers posed by Iran are no more real than those claimed about Iraq. The charges made against Iran are unsubstantiated and amazingly sound very similar to the false charges made against Iraq. One would think promoters of the war against Iraq would be a little bit more reluctant to use the same arguments to stir up hatred toward Iran. The American people and Congress should be more cautious in accepting these charges at face value, yet it seems the propaganda is working since few in Washington object as Congress passes resolutions condemning Iran and asking for U.N. sanctions against her. There is no evidence of a threat to us by Iran and no reason to plan and initiate a confrontation with her. There are many reasons not to do so: Iran does not have a nuclear weapon and there is no evidence that she is working on one, only conjecture. Even if Iran had a nuclear weapon, why would this be different from Pakistan, India, and North Korea having one? Why does Iran have less right to a defensive weapon than these other countries? If Iran had a nuclear weapon, the odds of her initiating an attack against anybody, which would guarantee her own annihilation are zero, and the same goes for the possibility she would place weapons in the hands of a nonstate terrorist group. Pakistan has spread nuclear technology throughout the world, and in particular, to the North Koreans. They flaunt international restrictions on nuclear weapons, but we reward them just as we reward India. We needlessly and foolishly threaten Iran, even though they have no nuclear weapons, but listen to what a leading Israeli historian, Martin van Creveld had to say about this: ``Obviously we do not want Iran to have a nuclear weapon, and I do not know if they are developing them. But if they are not developing them, they are crazy.'' There has been a lot of misinformation regarding Iran's nuclear program. This distortion of the truth has been used to pump up emotions in Congress to pass resolutions condemning her and promoting U.N. sanctions. IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei has never reported any evidence of undeclared sources or special nuclear material in Iran or any diversion of nuclear material. We demand that Iran prove it is not in violation of nuclear agreements, which is asking them impossibly to prove a negative. ElBaradei states Iran is in compliance with the nuclear nonproliferation treaty required IAEA safeguards agreement. We forget that the weapons we feared Saddam Hussein had were supplied to him by the United States, and we refused to believe U.N. inspectors and the CIA that he no longer had them. Likewise, Iran received her first nuclear reactor from us; now we are hysterically wondering if some day she might decide to build a bomb in self-interest. Anti-Iran voices beating the drums of confrontation distort the agreement made in Paris and the desire of Iran to restart the enrichment process. Their suspension of the enrichment process was voluntary and not a legal obligation. Iran has an absolute right under the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty to develop and use nuclear power for peaceful purposes, and this is now said to be an egregious violation of the NPT. It is the U.S. and her allies that are distorting and violating the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty. Likewise, our proliferation of nuclear material to India is a clear violation of the nuclear proliferation treaty as well. The demand for U.N. sanctions is now being strongly encouraged by Congress. The Iran Freedom Support Act, H.R. 282 passed in the International Relations Committee and recently the House passed H. Con. Res. 341, which inaccurately condemned Iran for violating its international nuclear nonproliferation obligations. At present, the likelihood of reason prevailing in Congress is minimal. Let there be no doubt, the neoconservative warriors are still in charge and are conditioning Congress, the media, and the American people for a preemptive attack on Iran, never mind that Afghanistan has unraveled and Iraq is in a Civil War. Serious plans are being laid for the next distraction which will further spread this war in the Middle East. The unintended consequences of this effort surely will be worse than any of the complications experienced in the 3-year occupation of Iraq. Our offer of political and financial assistance to foreign and domestic individuals who support the overthrow of the current Iranian government is fraught with danger and saturated with arrogance. Imagine how Americans citizens would respond if China supported similar efforts here in the United States to bring about regime change. How many of us would remain complacent if someone like Timothy McVeigh had been financed by a foreign power? Is it any wonder the Iranian people resent us and the attitude of our leaders? Even though ElBaradei and his IAEA investigations have found no violations of the NPT required IAEA safeguard agreement, the Iran Freedom Support Act still demands that Iran prove they have no nuclear weapons, refusing to acknowledge that proving a negative is impossible. Let there be no doubt, though, the words ``regime change'' are not found in the bill. That is precisely what they are talking about. Neoconservative Michael Ladine, one of the architects of the Iraq fiasco, testifying before the International Relations Committee in favor of the Iraq Freedom Support Act stated it plainly. ``I know some members would prefer to dance around the explicit declaration of regime change as the policy of this country, but anyone looking closely at the language and the context of the Iraq Freedom Support Act and its close relative in the Senate can clearly see that this is, in fact, the essence of the matter. You can't have freedom in Iran without bringing down the mulahs.'' Sanctions, along with financial and political support to persons and groups dedicated to the overthrow of the Iranian government, are acts of war. Once again, we are unilaterally declaring a preemptive war against a country and a people that have not harmed us and do not have the capacity to do so. And do not expect Congress to seriously debate a declaration of war. For the past 56 years, Congress has transferred to the executive branch the power to go to war as it pleases, regardless of the tragic results and costs. Secretary of State Rice recently signaled a sharp shift toward confrontation in Iran's policy as she insisted on $75 million to finance propaganda, through TV and radio broadcasts into Iran. She expressed this need because of the so-called ``aggressive'' policies of the Iranian government. We are 7,000 miles from home, telling the Iraqis and the Iranians what kind of government they will have, backed up by the use of our military force, and we call them the aggressors? We fail to realize the Iranian people, for whatever faults they may have, have not in modern times invaded any neighboring country. This provocation is so unnecessary, costly and dangerous. Just as the invasion of Iraq inadvertently served the interests of the Iranians, military confrontation with Iran will have unintended consequences. The successful alliance engendered between the Iranians and the Iraqi majority Shiia will prove a formidable opponent for us in Iraq as that civil war spreads. Shipping in the Persian Gulf through the Straits of Hormuz may well be disrupted by the Iranians in retaliation for any military confrontation. Since Iran would be incapable of defending herself by conventional means, it seems logical that they might well resort to terrorist attacks on us here at home. They will not passively lie down, nor can they be easily destroyed. One of the reasons given for going into Iraq was to secure our oil supplies. This backfired badly. Production in Iraq is down 50 percent, and world oil prices have more than doubled to $60 per barrel. Meddling with Iran could easily have a similar result. We could see oil at $120 a barrel and gasoline at $6 a gallon. The obsession the neo-cons have with remaking the Middle East is hard to understand. One thing that is easy to understand is none of those who plan these wars expect to fight in them, nor do they expect their children to die in some IED explosion. Exactly when an attack will occur is not known, but we have been forewarned more than once that all options are on the table. The sequence of events now occurring with regards to Iran are eerily reminiscent of the hype to our preemptive strike against Iraq. We should remember the saying: ``Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.'' It looks to me like the Congress and the country is open to being fooled once again. Interestingly, many early supporters of the Iraq War are now highly critical of the President, having been misled as to reasons for the invasion and occupation. But these same people are only too eager to accept the same flawed arguments for our need to undermine the Iranian government. The President's 2006 National Security Strategy, just released, is every bit as frightening as the one released in 2002 endorsing preemptive war. In it he claims, ``We face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran.'' He claims the Iranians have for 20 years hidden key nuclear activities, though the IAEA makes no such assumption, nor has the Security Council in at least 20 years ever sanctioned Iran. The clincher in the National Security Strategy document is if diplomatic efforts fail, confrontation will follow. The problem is the diplomatic effort, if one wants to use that term, is designed to fail by demanding the Iranians prove an unprovable negative. The West, led by the U.S., is in greater violation by demanding Iran not pursue any nuclear technology, even peaceful, that the NPT guarantees is their right. The President states: Iran's ``desire to have a nuclear weapon is unacceptable.'' A desire is purely subjective and cannot be substantiated nor disproved. Therefore, all that is necessary to justify an attack is if Iran fails to prove it does not have a desire to be like the United States, China, Russia, Britain, France, Pakistan, North Korea, India and Israel whose nuclear missiles surround Iran. Logic like this to justify a new war, without the least consideration for a congressional declaration of war, is indeed frightening. Commonsense telling us Congress, especially given the civil war in Iraq and the mess in Afghanistan, should move with great caution in condoning a military confrontation with Iran. Madam Speaker, there are reasons for my concern and let me list those. Most Americans are uninterested in foreign affairs until we get mired down in a war that costs too much, lasts too long, and kills too many U.S. troops. Getting out of a lengthy war is difficult, as I remember all too well with Vietnam while serving in the U.S. Air Force in 1963 to 1968. Getting into war is much easier. Unfortunately, the legislative branch of our government too often defers to the executive branch and offers little resistance to war plans, even with no significant threat to our security. The need to go to war is always couched in patriotic terms and falsehoods regarding an imaginary, imminent danger. Not supporting the effort is painted as unpatriotic and wimpish against some evil that is about to engulf us. The real reason for our militarism is rarely revealed and hidden from the public. Even Congress is deceived into supporting adventurism they would not accept if fully informed. If we accepted the traditional American and constitutional foreign policy of nonintervention across the board, there would be no temptation to go along with these unnecessary military operations. A foreign policy of intervention invites all kinds of excuses for spreading ourselves around the world. The debate shifts from nonintervention versus intervention, to where and for what particular reason should we involve ourselves. Most of the time, it is for less than honorable reasons. Even when cloaked in honorable slogans, like making the world safe for democracy, the unintended consequences and the ultimate costs cancel out the good intentions. One of the greatest losses suffered these past 60 years from interventionism becoming an acceptable policy of both major parties is respect for the Constitution. Congress flatly has reneged on its huge responsibility to declare war. Going to war was never meant to be an executive decision, used indiscriminately with no resistance from Congress. The strongest attempt by Congress in the past 60 years to properly exert itself over foreign policy was the passage of the Foley amendment, demanding no assistance be given to the Nicaraguan contras. Even this explicit prohibition was flaunted by an earlier administration. Arguing over the relative merits of each intervention is not a true debate, because it assumes that intervention per se is both moral and constitutional. Arguing for a Granada-type intervention because of its success and against the Iraq War because of its failure and cost is not enough. We must once again, understand the wisdom of rejecting entangling alliances and rejecting Nation building. We must stop trying to police the world and, instead, embrace noninterventionism as the proper moral and constitutional foreign policy of our country. The best reason to oppose interventionism is that people die, needlessly, on both sides. We have suffered over 20,000 American casualties in Iraq already, and Iraqi civilian deaths probably number over 100,000 by all reasonable counts. The next best reason is that the rule of law is undermined, especially when military interventions are carried out without a declaration of war. Whenever a war is ongoing, civil liberties are under attack at home. The current war in Iraq and the misnamed war on terror have created an environment here at home that affords little constitutional protection of our citizens' rights. Extreme nationalism is common during war. Signs of this are now apparent. Prolonged wars, as this one has become, have profound consequences. No matter how much positive spin is put on it, war never makes a society wealthier. World War II was not a solution to the Depression, as many claim. If $1 billion is spent on weapons of war, the GDP records positive growth in that amount, but the expenditure is consumed by destruction of the weapons or bombs it bought, and the real economy is denied $1 billion to produce products that would have raised someone's standard of living. Excessive spending to finance the war causes deficits to explode. There are never enough tax dollars available to pay the bills, and since there are not enough willing lenders and dollars available, the Federal Reserve must create new money out of thin air and new credit for buying Treasury bills to prevent interest rates from rising too rapidly. Rising rates would tip off everyone that there are not enough savings or taxes to finance the war. This willingness to print whatever amount of money the government needs to pursue the war is literally inflation. Without a fiat monetary system, wars would be very difficult to finance since the people would never tolerate the taxes required to pay for it. Inflation of the money supply delays and hides the real cost of war. The result of the excessive creation of new money leads to the higher cost of living everyone decries and the Fed denies. Since taxes are not levied, the increase in prices that results from printing too much money is technically the tax required to pay for the war. The tragedy is that the inflation tax is borne more by the poor and the middle class than the rich. Meanwhile, the well-connected rich, the politicians, the bureaucrats, the bankers, the military industrialists and the international corporations reap the benefits of war profits. A sound economic process is disrupted with a war economy and monetary inflation. Strong voices emerge blaming the wrong policies for our problems, prompting an outcry for protectionist legislation. It is always easier to blame foreign producers and savers for our inflation, our lack of savings, excessive debt and loss of industrial jobs. Protectionist measures only make economic conditions worse. Inevitably these conditions, if not corrected, lead to a lower standard of living for most of our citizens. Careless military intervention is also bad for the civil disturbance that results. The chaos in the streets of America in the 1960s while the Vietnam War raged, aggravated by the draft, was an example of domestic strife caused by an ill-advised unconstitutional war that could not be won. The early signs of civil discord are now present. Hopefully, we can extricate ourselves from Iraq and avoid a conflict in Iran before our streets explode, as they did in the 1960s. In a way, it is amazing there is not a lot more outrage expressed by the American people. There is plenty of complaining but no outrage over policies that are not part of our American tradition. War based on false pretenses, 20,000 American casualties, torture policies, thousands jailed without due process, illegal surveillance of citizens, warrantless searches, and yet no outrage. When the issues come before Congress, executive authority is maintained or even strengthened while real oversight is ignored. Though many Americans are starting to feel the economic pain of paying for this war through inflation, the real pain has not yet arrived. We generally remain fat and happy with a system of money and borrowing that postpones the day of reckoning. Foreigners, in particular the Chinese and Japanese, gladly participate in the charade. We print the money and they take it, as do the OPEC Nations, and provide us with consumer goods and oil. Then they loan the money back to us at low interest rates, which we use to finance the war and our housing bubble and excessive consumption. This recycling and perpetual borrowing of inflated dollars allow us to avoid the pain of high taxes to pay for our war and welfare spending. It is fine until the music stops and the real costs are realized, with much higher interest rates and significant price inflation. That is when outrage will be heard and the people will realize we cannot afford the humanitarianism of the neo-conservatives. The notion that our economic problems are principally due to the Chinese is nonsense. If the protectionists were to have it their way, the problem of financing the war would become readily apparent and have immediate ramifications, none good. Today's economic problems, caused largely by our funny money system, won't be solved by altering exchange rates to favor us in the short run or by imposing high tariffs. Only sound money with real value will solve the problems of competing currency devaluations and protectionist measures. Economic interests almost always are major reasons for wars being fought. Noble and patriotic causes are easier to sell to a public who must pay and provide cannon fodder to defend the financial interests of a privileged class. The fact that Saddam Hussein demanded Euros for oil in an attempt to undermine the U.S. dollar is believed by many to be one of the ulterior motives for our invasion and occupation of Iraq. Similarly, the Iranian oil burse now about to open may be seen as a threat to those who depend on maintaining the current monetary system with the dollar as the world's reserve currency. The theory and significance of ``peak oil'' is believed to be an additional motivating factor for the United States and Great Britain wanting to maintain firm control over the oil supplies in the Middle East. The two nations have been protecting our oil interests in the Middle East for nearly 100 years. With diminishing supplies and expanding demands, the incentive to maintain a military presence in the Middle East is quite strong. Fear of China and Russia moving in to this region to consume more control alarms those who don't understand how a free market can develop substitutes to replace diminishing resources. Supporters of the military efforts to maintain control over large regions of the world to protect oil fail to count the real cost of energy once the DOD budget is factored in. Remember, invading Iraq was costly and oil prices doubled. Confrontation in Iran may evolve differently, but we can be sure it will be costly and oil prices will rise significantly. There are long-term consequences or blowback from our militant policies of intervention around the world. They are unpredictable as to time and place. 9/11 was a consequence of our military presence on Muslim holy lands; the Ayatollah Khomeini's success in taking over the Iranian government in 1979 was a consequence of our CIA overthrowing Mossadech in 1953. These connections are rarely recognized by the American people and never acknowledged by our government. We never seem to learn how dangerous interventionism is to us and to our security. There are some who may not agree strongly with any of my arguments, and instead believe the propaganda Iran and her President, Mahmoud Almadinejad, are thoroughly irresponsible and have threatened to destroy Israel. So all measures must be taken to prevent Iran from getting nukes, thus the campaign to intimidate and confront Iran. First, Iran doesn't have a nuke and it is nowhere close to getting one, according to the CIA. If they did have one, using it would guarantee almost instantaneous annihilation by Israel and the United States. Hysterical fear of Iran is way out of proportion to reality. With a policy of containment, we stood down and won the Cold War against the Soviets and their 30,000 nuclear weapons and missiles. If you are looking for a real kook with a bomb to worry about, North Korea would be high on the list. Yet we negotiate with Kim Jong Il. Pakistan has nukes and was a close ally of the Taliban up until 9/11. Pakistan was never inspected by the IAEA as to their military capability. Yet we not only talk to her, we provide economic assistance, though someday Musharraf may well be overthrown and a pro-al Qaeda government put in place. We have been nearly obsessed with talking about regime change in Iran, while ignoring Pakistan and North Korea. It makes no sense and it is a very costly and dangerous policy. The conclusion we should derive from this is simple. It is in our best interest to pursue a foreign policy of nonintervention. A strict interpretation of the Constitution mandates it. The moral imperative of not imposing our will on others, no matter how well intentioned, is a powerful argument for minding our own business. The principle of self- determination should be respected. Strict nonintervention removes the incentives for foreign powers and corporate interests to influence and control our policies overseas. We can't afford the cost that intervention requires, whether through higher taxes or inflation. If the moral arguments against intervention don't suffice for some, the practical arguments should. Intervention just doesn't work. It backfires and ultimately hurts the American citizens both at home and abroad. Spreading ourselves too thin around the world actually diminishes our national security through a weakened military. As the only superpower of the world, a constant interventionist policy is perceived as arrogant, and greatly undermines our ability to use diplomacy in a positive manner. Conservatives, libertarians, constitutionalists, and many of today's liberals have all at one time or another endorsed a less interventionist foreign policy. There is no reason a coalition of these groups might not once again present the case for a pro-American nonmilitant noninterventionist foreign policy dealing with all nations. A policy of trade and peace, and a willingness to use diplomacy is far superior to the foreign policy that has evolved over the past 60 years. It is time for a change.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, anyone in need of proof that Federal control follows Federal funding need only examine H.R. 609, the College Access and Opportunity Act. H.R. 609 imposes several new mandates on colleges, and extends numerous mandates imposed on that previous Congress imposed on colleges. H.R. 609 proves the prophetic soundness of people who warned that Federal higher education programs would lead to Federal control of higher education. Opponents of increasing Federal control over higher education should be especially concerned about H.R. 609's ``Academic Bill of Rights.'' This provision takes a step toward complete Federal control of college curriculum, grading, and teaching practices. While this provision is worded as a ``sense of Congress,'' the clear intent of the ``bill of rights'' is to intimidate college administrators into ensuring professors' lectures and lesson plans meet with Federal approval. The Academic Bill of Rights is a response to concerns that federally funded institutions of higher learning are refusing to allow students to express, or even be exposed to, points of view that differ from those held by their professors. Ironically, the proliferation of ``political correctness'' on college campuses is largely a direct result of increased government funding of colleges and universities. Federal funding has isolated institutions of higher education from market discipline, thus freeing professors to promulgate their ``politically correct'' views regardless of whether this type of instruction benefits their students--who are, after all, the professors' customers. Now, in a perfect illustration of how politicians use the problems created by previous interventions in the market as a justification for further interventions, Congress proposes to use the problem of ``political correctness'' to justify more Federal control over college classrooms. Instead of fostering open dialog and wide-ranging intellectual inquiry, the main effect of the Academic Bill of Rights will be to further stifle debate about controversial topics. This is because many administrators will order their professors not to discuss contentious and divisive subjects in order to avoid a possible confrontation with the Federal Government. Those who doubt this should remember that many TV and radio stations minimized political programming in the 60s and 70s in order to avoid running afoul of the Federal ``fairness doctrine.'' I am convinced that some promoters of the Academic Bill of Rights would be unhappy if, instead of fostering greater debate, this bill silences discussion of certain topics. Scan the websites of some of the organizations promoting the Academic Bill of Rights and you will also find calls for silencing critics of the Iraq war and other aspects of American foreign policy. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 609 expands Federal control over higher education; in particular through an Academic Bill of Rights which could further stifle debate and inquiry on America's college campuses. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to reject this bill.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, the top neoconservative of the 20th century was Woodrow Wilson. His supposed idealism, symbolized in the slogan, ``Make the world safe for democracy,'' resulted in untold death and destruction across the world for many decades. His deceit and manipulation of the prewar intelligence from Europe dragged America into an unnecessary conflict that cost the world and us dearly. Without the disastrous Versailles Treaty, World War II could have been averted and the rise to power of Communists around the world might have been halted. We seem to never learn from our mistakes. Today's neocons are as idealistically misled and aggressive in remaking the Middle East as the Wilsonian do-gooders. Even given the horrendous costs of the Iraq War and the unintended consequences that plague us today, the neocons are eager to expand their regime-change policy to Iran by force. The obvious shortcomings of our regime change and occupation of Afghanistan are now readily apparent. The Taliban was ousted from power, but they have regrouped and threaten the delicate stability that now exists in that country. Opium drug production is once again a major operation with drug lords controlling a huge area of the country outside of Kabul. And now the real nature of the government we created has been revealed in the case of Abdul Rahman, the Muslim who faced a possible death sentence from the Karzai administration for converting to Christianity. Even now that Mr. Rahman is free due to Western pressure his life remains in danger. Our bombs and guns have not changed the fact that the new puppet Afghan Government still follows Sharia law. The same loyalty to Sharia exists in Iraq where we are trying hard to stabilize things, and all this is done in the name of spreading democracy. The sad fact is that even under the despicable rule of Saddam Hussein, Christians were safer in Iraq than they are today. Saddam Hussein's foreign minister was a practicing Christian. Today, thousands of Christians have fled Iraq following our occupation to countries like Jordan and Syria. Those Christians who have remained in Iraq fear for their lives every day. That should tell us something about the shortcomings of a policy that presumes to make the world safe for democracy. The Muslim world is not fooled by our talk of spreading democracy and values. The evidence is too overwhelming that we do not hesitate to support dictators and install puppet governments when it serves our interests. When democratic elections result in the elevation of a leader or a party not to our liking, we do not hesitate for a minute to undermine that government. This hypocrisy is rarely recognized by the American people. It is much more comfortable to believe in slogans, to believe that we are defending our goodness and spreading true liberty. We accept this and believe strongly in the cause, strongly enough to sacrifice many of our sons and daughters and stupendous amounts of money to spread our ideals through force. Pointing out the lack of success is taboo. It seems of little concern to many Members of Congress that we lack both the moral right and constitutional authority to impose our will on other nations. The toughest task is analyzing what we do from their perspective. We should try harder to place ourselves in the shoes of those who live in the Arab countries where our efforts currently are concentrated. We are outraged by a Muslim country that would even consider the death penalty for a Christian convert, but many Muslims see all that we do as a reflection of Western Christianity which, to them, includes Europe and America. They see everything in terms of religion. When our bombs and sanctions kill hundreds of thousands of their citizens, they see it as an attack on their religion by Christians. To them our actions represent a crusade to change their culture and their political systems. They do not see us as having noble intentions. Cynicism and realism tell them that we are involved in the Middle East to secure the oil that we need. Our occupation and influence in the holy lands of the Middle East will always be suspect. This includes all the countries of the Arabian Peninsula, Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan. Naively believing otherwise will guarantee continuing hostility in Iraq. Our meddling will remain an incitement for radicals to strike us here at home in future terrorist attacks. All the intelligence gathering in the world will serve little purpose if we do not come to understand exactly why they hate us despite the good intentions that many Americans hold dear.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is offered in an attempt to save some money. If my amendment were to pass, we would cut $500 million from this appropriation. Everybody knows that this is a huge appropriations bill and that it is a supplemental. It does not fall under the category of the budget rules. It is $92 billion. It involves the finances of our military approach to our foreign policy around the world, which is two-thirds of this funding. The other third, 19 or $20 billion is for domestic use. It is a huge sum of money. And we are doing this at a time when we are running a deficit, our national debt at least is going up over $600 billion a year, and we are concerned this week about raising the national debt limit to over $9 trillion. It is unfortunate that's the way the system works around here. It is very difficult to cut anything. My amendment is an attempt to seriously consider the problems that we have in reining in the spending and living within our means. The major point I make here is by cutting $1 billion from the military portion of the bill it makes the point that we spend way too much on military operations. We spend more on military operations around the world than all the other countries of the world put together. And we do not have a lot to show for it. When you think about what has happened in Afghanistan, the problems there, what is happening in Iraq and the potential problems that are coming in Iran; yet the money is continuing to be spent in this reckless manner. So I propose we cut a billion dollars out of that which would be easily done, because it should be cut a lot more. I would then take $500 million of this and I would put it into some areas of the country that have been neglected from some of the hurricane damage that has existed in the south, in particular, in Texas. So to me, this is an approach to emphasize the importance of foreign policy, that this notion that we are in the business of nation- building, and that we are the policemen of the world, and that we should reconsider that and save money. At the same time, we could reduce our deficit while actually increasing funding for some of the serious problems that we have in this country. So to me, it sounds rather logical to do this. To cut things from, say, building roads in Liberia. Yes, Liberia needs money, but what about the people that have been hit by the hurricanes? They need some money, too. And the way we do it always involves deficit financing. My approach emphasizes the need to cut in the places less important than any other places, spend the money here at home, and end up actually cutting back on the deficit financing. Otherwise we are going to continue with this process. I see no serious attempt whatsoever, when we bring up supplemental appropriations bills like this, to rein in the spending and even to pretend that we are cutting. This whole idea of putting domestic spending together with military spending is not a ploy to maybe reduce spending. It is the ploy to make sure that people are trapped into voting for both and nobody can vote against the domestic spending, and nobody can vote against the military spending. And yet, of course, spending is excessive in both areas. But my amendment, the way it works, emphasizes mostly cutting the militarism and the type of foreign policy that we finance around the world that has so many ramifications and unintended consequences and so much blow-back, that it literally hurts our national defense and ends up costing us so much more money. Long term, to come up with a solution, it will not occur with tinkering with the budget. It will not happen today, nor tomorrow. The only way that we can make any sense out of our spending in this country and on this floor will be to reassess our policies. We must ask: Do we want to continue to be the policemen of the world? Do we really believe we can nation-build around the world and that we can spread democracy by force? The result is then, if we do not like the results of the democratic elections then we say, well, it did not work. We cannot support that democratically elected leader. So it is a change in policy, at least a reconsideration of what we think we should be doing around the world. At the same time, we have to reconsider the domestic spending. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Point of Order