Ron Paul

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for 5 minutes.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Evacuees Tax Relief Act of 2005, legislation providing tax relief to those forced to abandon their homes because of a natural disaster. This legislation provides a tax credit or a tax deduction, depending on the wishes of the taxpayer, of up to $5,000 for costs incurred because of a government-ordered mandatory or voluntary evacuation. Evacuees could use the credit to cover travel and lodging expenses associated with the evacuation, lost wages, property damages not otherwise compensated, and any other evacuation-related expenses. The tax credit is refundable up to the amount of income and payroll taxes a person would otherwise pay, thus ensuring working people who pay more in payroll than in income taxes are able to benefit from this tax relief. The credit is available retroactive to August of this year, so it is available to Katrina and Rita evacuees. Having had parts of my district, including my home county, subject to mandatory evacuation because of Hurricane Rita, I have seen firsthand the burdens on those forced to uproot themselves and their families. Evacuees incur great costs in getting to safety, as well as loss from the storm damage. It can take many months, and even years, to fully recover from the devastation of a natural disaster. Given the unpredictable nature of natural disasters such as hurricanes and tornados, it is difficult for most families to adequately budget for these costs. The Evacuees Tax Relief Act helps Americans manage the fiscal costs of a natural disaster. Mr. Speaker, it is hard to think of a more timely and more compassionate tax relief proposal than one aimed at helping families cope with the costs associated with being uprooted from their homes, jobs, and communities by a natural disaster. I hope all my colleagues will show compassion for those forced to flee their homes by cosponsoring the Evacuees Tax Relief Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, coming home makes sense; staying does not. Supporters of the war in Iraq, as well as some nonsupporters, warn of the dangers if we leave. But is it not quite possible that these dangers are simply a consequence of having gone into Iraq in the first place, rather than a consequence of leaving? Isn't it possible that staying only makes the situation worse? If chaos results after our departure, it is because we occupied Iraq, not because we left. The original reasons for our preemptive strike are long forgotten, having been based on false assumptions. The justification given now is that we must persist in this war or else dishonor those who already have died or been wounded. We are also told civil strife likely will engulf all of Iraq. But what is the logic of perpetuating a flawed policy where more Americans die just because others have suffered? More American deaths cannot possibly help those who have already been injured or killed. Civil strive, if not civil war, already exists in Iraq. And despite the infighting, all factions oppose our occupation. The insistence on using our military to occupy and run Iraq provides convincing evidence to our detractors inside and outside of Iraq that we have no intention of leaving. Building permanent military bases and a huge embassy confirms these fears. We deny the importance of oil and Israel's influence on our policy, yet we fail to convince the Arab/Muslim world that our intentions are purely humanitarian. In truth, our determined presence in Iraq actually increases the odds of regional chaos, inciting Iran and Syria, while aiding Osama Bin Laden in his recruiting efforts. Leaving Iraq would do the opposite, though not without some dangers that rightfully should be blamed on our unwise invasion rather than our exit. Many experts believe Bin Laden welcomed our invasion and occupation of two Muslim countries. It bolsters his claim that the United States intended to occupy and control the Middle East all along. This has galvanized radical Muslim fundamentalists against us. Osama Bin Laden's campaign would surely suffer if we left. We should remember that losing a war to China over the control of North Korea ultimately did not enhance communism in China, as she now has accepted many capitalist principles. In fact, China today outproduces us in many ways, as reflected by our negative trade balance with her. We lost a war in Vietnam and the domino theory that communism would spread throughout Southeast Asia was proven wrong. Today, Vietnam accepts American investment dollars and technology. We maintain a trade relationship with Vietnam that the war never achieved. We contained the USSR and her thousands of nuclear warheads without military confrontation, leading to the collapse and the disintegration of a powerful Soviet empire. Today, we trade with Russia and her neighbors as the market economy spreads throughout the world without the use of arms. We should heed the words of Ronald Reagan about his experience with a needless and mistaken military occupation of Lebanon. Sending troops into Lebanon seemed like a good idea in 1983, but in 1990, President Reagan said in his memoirs, ``We did not appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle. In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believed the last thing we should do was turn tail and leave. Yet, the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there.'' During the occupation of Lebanon by American, French and Israeli troops between 1982 and 1986 there were 41 suicide terrorist attacks in that country. One horrific attack killed 241 U.S. Marines. Yet, once these foreign troops were removed, the suicide attacks literally stopped. Today, we should once again rethink our policy in this region. Madam Speaker, this is the point I want to make. It is amazing what ending military intervention in the internal affairs of others can achieve. Setting an example of how a free market economy works does wonders. We should have confidence in how freedom works, rather than relying on blind faith and the use of military force to spread our message. Setting an example and using persuasion is always superior to military force in showing how others might live. Force and war are tools of authoritarians. They are never tools of champions of liberty and justice. Force and war inevitably leads to dangerous unintended consequences.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Affordable Gas Price Act. This legislation reduces gas prices by reforming government policies that artificially inflate the price of gas. As I need not remind my colleagues, the American people have been hard hit in recent months by skyrocketing gas prices. In some parts of the country, gas prices have risen to as much as $4 per gallon. This increase in the price of gas threatens our already fragile economy and diminishes the quality of life for all Americans. One industry that is particularly hard hit is the trucking industry. The effects of high gas prices on the trucking industry will be reflected in increased costs for numerous consumer goods, thus further harming American consumers. Unfortunately, many proposals to address the problem of higher energy prices involve increasing government interference in the market through policies such as price controls. These big government solutions will, at best, prove ineffective and, at worst, bring back the fuel shortages and gas lines of the seventies. Instead of expanding government, Congress should repeal Federal laws and policies that raise the price of gas, either directly through taxes or indirectly through regulations that discourage the development of new fuel sources. This is why my legislation repeals the Federal moratorium on offshore drilling and allows oil exploration in the ANWR reserve in Alaska. My bill also ensures that the National Environmental Policy Act's environmental impact statement requirement will no longer be used as a tool to force refiners to waste valuable time and capital on nuisance litigation. The Affordable Gas Price Act also provides tax incentives to encourage investment in new refineries. Federal fuel taxes are a major part of gasoline's cost. The Affordable Gas Price Act suspends the Federal gasoline tax any time the average gas prices exceeds $3 per gallon. During the suspension, the Federal Government will have a legal responsibility to ensure the Federal highway trust fund remains funded. My bill also raises the amount of mileage reimbursement not subject to taxes, and, during times of high oil prices, provides the same mileage reimbursement benefit to charity and medical organizations as provided to businesses. Misguided and outdated trade policies are also artificially raising the price of gas. For instance, even though Russia and Kazakhstan allow their citizens the right and opportunity to emigrate, they are still subject to Jackson-Vanik sanctions, even though Jackson-Vanik was a reaction to the Soviet Union's highly restrictive emigration policy. Eliminating Jackson-Vanik's threat of trade-restricting sanctions would increase the United States access to oil supplies from non-Arab countries. Thus, my bill terminates the application of title IV of the Trade Act of 1974 to Russia and Kazakhstan, allowing Americans to enjoy the benefits of free trade with these oil-producing nations. Finally, the Affordable Gas Price Act creates a Federal study on how the abandonment of the gold standard and the adoption of freely floating currencies are affecting the price of oil. It is no coincidence that oil prices first became an issue shortly after President Nixon unilaterally severed the dollar's last connection to gold. The system of fiat money makes consumers vulnerable to inflation and to constant fluctuations in the prices of essential goods such as oil. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the Affordable Gas Price Act and end government policies that increase the cost of gasoline.

Mr. PAUL

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

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce a bill to make amendments to the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000 related to International Space Station payments. It is critical that we pass this legislation to preserve NASA's ability to perform such core functions as transporting astronauts to the International Space Station. Indeed, the International Space Station program may be threatened if the United States is prevented from purchasing from Russia the space hardware and services required to meet U.S. obligations. Currently, the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000 forbids any such purchase because Russia is said to be assisting Iran in pursuit of its atomic energy program. Mr. Speaker, this situation demonstrates very clearly the negative unintended consequences of our counterproductive policy of restricting trade and placing trade sanctions on other countries. It would be ironic if in our zeal to punish Russia for engaging in trade with Iran we in fact end up punishing scores of Americans who work in the space industry in the United States. I very much hope that my colleagues will join me in this effort to prevent these indirect sanctions from unfairly harming the American space program.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, as an OB-GYN who has had the privilege of bringing over 3,000 children into the world, I share the desire to punish severely those who sexually abuse children. In fact, it is hard to imagine someone more deserving of life in prison than one who preys on children. This is why I have supported legislation that increases penalties for sexual assaults on children occurring on Federal land. However, Mr. Chairman, I cannot support this bill because it infringes on the States' constitutional authority over the prevention and punishment of sex crimes. The late Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and former United States Attorney General Ed Meese, two men who no one has ever accused of being ``soft on crime,'' have both warned that, although creating more Federal crimes may make politicians feel good, it is neither constitutionally sound nor prudent. Rehnquist has stated that, ``[t]he trend to federalize crimes that traditionally have been handled in state courts . . . threatens to change entirely the nature of our federal system.'' Meese stated that Congress's tendency in recent decades to make Federal crimes out of offenses that have historically been State matters has dangerous implications both for the fair administration of justice and for the principle that States are something more than mere administrative districts of a nation governed mainly from Washington. H.R. 3132 not only creates new Federal programs and crimes, it instructs the States to change their laws to conform with Federal dictates. This violates the Constitution, and can weaken law enforcement. For example, one of the provisions of the new law requires States include those convicted of misdemeanors in their sex offender registries. By definition, misdemeanors are nonserious crimes, yet under this legislation State officials must waste valuable resources tracking non-serious sex offenders--resources that should be going to tracking those who are more likely to represent a real threat to children. Thus, once again we see how increasing the role of the Federal Government in fighting these crimes--even when it is well intended-- only hamstrings local and State law enforcement officers and courts and prevents them from effectively dealing with such criminals as the locals would have them dealt with--harshly and finally. Mr. Chairman, Congress could both honor the Constitution and help States and local governments protect children by using our power to limit Federal jurisdiction to stop Federal judges from preventing States and local governments from keeping these criminals off the streets. My colleagues should remember that it was a Federal judge in a Federal court who ruled that the death penalty is inappropriate for sex offenders. Instead of endorsing a bill to let people know when a convicted child molester or rapist is in their neighborhood after being released, perhaps we should respect the authority of State courts and legislators to give child molesters and rapists the life or even death sentences, depending on the will of the people of those States. Just as the Founders never intended the Congress to create a national police force, they never intended the Federal courts to dictate criminal procedures to the States. The Founding Fathers knew quite well that it would be impossible for a central government to successfully manage crime prevention programs for as large and diverse a country as America. That is one reason why they reserved to the States the exclusive authority and jurisdiction to deal with crime. Our children would likely be safe today if the police powers and budgets were under the direct and total control of the States as called for in the Constitution. Finally Mr. Chairman, this legislation poses a threat to constitutional liberty by taking another step toward creating even more Federal ``hate crimes'' laws. So called ``hate crimes'' add an extra level of punishment for the thoughts motivating a crime--as if murder or robbery motivated by ``hate'' is somehow more offensive than murder or robbery motivated by greed or jealously. Laws criminalizing thought, instead of simply criminalizing acts of aggression against persons and property, have no place in a free society. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, since H.R. 3132 further burdens State and local law enforcement with unconstitutional Federal mandates that may make it tougher to monitor true threats to children, I encourage my colleagues to reject this bill. Instead, I hope my colleagues will work to end Federal interference in State laws that prevent States from effectively protecting children from sexual predators.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the tragic events of abject poverty in New Orleans revealed on national TV by Katrina's destruction were real eye- openers for many. These scenes prompted two emotional reactions. One side claimed Katrina proved there was not enough government welfare and its distribution was based on race. The other side claims we need to pump billions of new dollars into the very agency that failed, FEMA, while giving it extraordinary new police powers. Both sides support more authoritarianism, more centralization, and even the imposition of martial law in times of natural disasters. There is no hint that we will resort to reason now that the failed welfare policies of the past 60 years have been laid bare. Certainly no one has connected the tragedy of poverty in New Orleans to the flawed monetary system that has significantly contributed to the impoverishment of a huge segment of American society. Congress reacted to Katrina in the expected irresponsible manner. It immediately appropriated over $60 billion with little planning or debate. Taxes will not be raised to pay the bill, fortunately. There will be no offsets or spending reductions to pay the bill. Welfare and entitlement spending is sacrosanct, spending for the war in Iraq and the military industrial complex is sacrosanct, but there is no guarantee that gracious foreign lenders will step forward, especially without raising interest rates. This means the Federal Reserve and the Treasury will print the money needed to pay the bills. The sad truth is that monetary debasement hurts the poor people the most, the very people we saw on TV after Katrina. Inflating our currency hurts the poor and destroys the middle class, while transferring wealth to the ruling class. This occurs in spite of the good intentions and the misplaced compassion. We face a coming financial crisis. Our current account deficit is more than $600 billion annually. Our foreign debt is now more than $3 trillion. Foreigners now own over $1.4 trillion of our Treasury and mortgage debt. We must borrow $3 billion from foreigners every business day to maintain our extravagant spending. Our national debt is now increasing over $600 billion per year; and, guess what, we print over $600 billion per year to keep the charade going. The national debt is approaching $8 trillion, but there is a limit, and I am fearful we are fast approaching it. Runaway inflation is a well-known phenomenon. It leads to political and economic chaos of the kind we witnessed in New Orleans. Hopefully, we will come to our senses and not allow that to happen, but we are vulnerable, and we have only ourselves to blame. The flawed paper money system in existence only since 1971 has allowed for the irresponsible spending of the past 30 years. Without a linkage to gold, the Washington politicians and the Federal reserve have no restraints placed on their power to devalue our money by merely printing more to pay the bills run up by the welfare-warfare State. This system of money is a big contributing factor in the exporting of American jobs, especially in the manufacturing industries. Since the last link to gold was severed in 1971, the dollar has lost 92 percent of its value relative to gold, with gold going from $35 an ounce to $450 per ounce. A major adjustment of the dollar and the current account deficit can come anytime, and the longer the delay the greater the distortions will be in terms of a correction. In the meantime, we give leverage to our economic competitors and our political adversaries, especially China. The current system is held together by a false confidence in the U.S. dollar that is vulnerable to sudden changes in the economy and political events. This is my suggestion to my colleagues. Any new expenditures must have offsets greater in amount than the new programs. Foreign military and foreign aid expenditures must be the first target. The Federal Reserve must stop inflating the currency merely for the purpose of artificially lowering interest rates to perpetuate a financial bubble. This policy allows government and consumer debt to grow beyond sustainable levels, while undermining incentives to save. This, in turn, undermines capital investment, while exaggerating consumption. If this policy does not change, the dollar must fall, and the current account deficit will play havoc until the house of cards collapse. Our spending habits, in combination with our flawed monetary system, if not changed will bring us a financial whirlwind that will make Katrina look like a minor storm. Loss of competence in the dollar and the international financial system is a frightening possibility, but it need not happen if Congress can curb its appetite for buying the people's support through unrestrained spending. If Congress does not show some sense of financial restraint soon, we can expect the poor to become poorer; the middle class to become smaller; and the government to get bigger and more authoritarian--while the liberty of the people is diminished. The illusion that deficits, printing money, and expanding the welfare and warfare states serve the people must come to an end.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this ill-considered $51.8 billion disaster relief appropriation. Many have come to the floor today to discuss how we must help the victims of this terrible disaster and its aftermath. But why do they think that the best way to do so is simply to write a huge check to the very government agency that failed so spectacularly? This does not make sense. We have all seen the numerous articles detailing the seemingly inexcusable mistakes FEMA made--before and after the hurricane. Yet, in typical fashion, Congress seems to think that the best way to fix the mess is to throw money at the very government agency that failed. Mr. Speaker, considering the demonstrated ineptitude of government on both the Federal and State level in this disaster, the people affected by the hurricane and subsequent flood would no doubt be better off if relief money was simply sent directly to them or to community organizations dedicated to clean-up and reconstruction. Indeed, we have seen numerous examples of private organizations and individuals attempting to help their fellow Americans in so many ways over the last 10 days, only to be turned back by FEMA or held up for days by government red tape. We have seen in previous disasters how individuals and non-governmental organizations were often among the first to pitch in and help their neighbors and fellow citizens. Now, FEMA is sending these good Samaritans a troubling message: stay away, let us handle it. In several disasters that have befallen my Gulf Coast district, my constituents have over and over again told me that they prefer to rebuild and recover without the ``help'' of Federal agencies like FEMA, which so often impose their own bureaucratic solutions on the owners of private property. Mr. Speaker, we see here once again the Federal Government attempting to impose a topdown solution to the disaster. No one is questioning from where this $52 billion will come. The answer, of course, is that the Federal Government is going to simply print the money up. There are no reductions in Federal spending elsewhere to free up this disaster aid. Rather, the money will come from a printing press. The economic devastation created by such a reckless approach may well be even more wide-reaching than the disaster this bill is meant to repair. I ask my colleagues to consider more constructive ways to help New Orleans and the other affected areas recover from this tragedy. There are numerous approaches, such as the creation of no-tax enterprise zones, that would attract private enterprise and capital to the area and would result in a much quicker and more responsive recovery. The citizens of the affected area and the rest of the country deserve a more sustainable and financially rational approach than simply printing and spending money.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, many reasons have been given for why we fight and our youth must die in Iraq. The reasons now given for why we must continue this war bear no resemblance to the reasons given to gain the support of the American people and the United States Congress prior to our invasion in March of 2003. Before the war, we were told we faced an imminent threat to our national security from Saddam Hussein. This rationale, now proven grossly mistaken, has been changed. Now we are told we must honor the fallen by completing the mission. To do otherwise would demean the sacrifice of those who have died or been wounded. Any lack of support for completing the mission is said by the promoters of the war to be unpatriotic, un-American, and detrimental to the troops. They insist the only way one can support the troops is to never waver on the policy of nation-building, no matter how ill-founded that policy may be. The obvious flaw in this argument is that the mission of which they so reverently speak has changed constantly from the very beginning. Though most people think this war started in March of 2003, the seeds were sown many years before. The actual military conflict involving U.S. troops against Iraq began in January of 1991. The prelude to this actually goes back over 100 years when the value of Middle East oil was recognized by the industrialized West. Our use of troops to eject Saddam Hussein from Kuwait was the beginning of the current conflict with the Muslim fundamentalists who have been, for the last decade, determined to force the removal of American troops from all Muslim countries, especially the entire Arabian peninsula, which they consider holy. Though the strategic and historic reasons for our involvement in the Middle East are complex, the immediate reasons given in 2002 and 2003 for our invasion of Iraq were precise. The only problem is, they were not based on facts. The desire by American policymakers to engineer regime change in Iraq had been smoldering since the first Persian Gulf conflict in 1991. This reflected a dramatic shift in our policy since, in the 1980s, we maintained a friendly alliance with Saddam Hussein as we assisted him in his war against our arch nemesis, the Iranian Ayatollah. Most Americans ignore that we provided assistance to this ruthless dictator with biological and chemical weapon technologies. We heard no complaints in the 1980s about his treatment of the Kurds and the Shiites or the ruthless war he waged against Iran. Our policy toward Iraq played a major role in convincing Saddam Hussein he had free reign in the Middle East, and the results demonstrate the serious shortcomings of our foreign policy of interventionism that we have followed now for over 100 years. In 1998, Congress capitulated to the desires of the previous administration and overwhelmingly passed the Iraq Liberation Act, which stated quite clearly that our policy was to get rid of Saddam Hussein. This act made it official, quote: ``The policy of the United States is to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein.'' This resolution has been cited on numerous occasions by neoconservatives as justification for the preemptive and deliberate invasion of Iraq. When the resolution was debated, I saw it as a significant step toward a war that would bear no good fruit. No legitimate national security concerns were cited for this dramatic and serious shift in policy. Shortly after the new administration took office in January 2001, this goal of eliminating Saddam Hussein quickly morphed into a policy of remaking the entire Middle East, starting with regime change in Iraq. This aggressive interventionist policy surprised some people, since the victorious 2000 campaign indicated we should pursue a foreign policy of humility, no nation-building, reduce deployment of troops overseas, and a rejection of the notion that we serve as the world's policeman. The 9/11 disaster proved a catalyst to push for invading Iraq and restructuring the entire Middle East. Though the plan had existed for years, it quickly was recognized that the fear engendered by the 9/11 attacks could be used to mobilize the American people and Congress to support this war. Nevertheless, supposedly legitimate reasons had to be given for the already planned preemptive war; and as we now know, the intelligence had to be fixed to the policy. Immediately after 9/11, the American people were led to believe that Saddam Hussein somehow was responsible for the attacks. The fact that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were enemies, not friends, was kept from the public by a compliant media and the lazy Congress. Even today many Americans still are convinced of an alliance between the two. The truth is Saddam Hussein never permitted al Qaeda into Iraq out of fear that his secular government would be challenged. And yet, today, we find that al Qaeda is now very much present in Iraq and causing chaos there. The administration repeatedly pumped out alarming propaganda that Saddam Hussein was a threat to us with his weapons of mass destruction, meaning nuclear, biological and chemical. Since we helped Saddam Hussein obtain biological and chemical weapons in the 1980s, we assumed that he had maintained a large supply, which, of course, turned out not to be true. The people being frightened by 9/11 easily accepted these fear-mongering charges. Behind the scenes many were quite aware that Israel's influence on our foreign policy played a role. She had argued for years along with the neoconservatives for an Iraq regime change. This support was nicely coordinated with the Christian-Zionist enthusiasm for the war. As these reasons for the war lost credibility and support, other reasons were found for why we had to fight. As the lone superpower, we were told we had a greater responsibility to settle the problems of the world lest someone else get involved. Maintaining and expanding our empire is a key element of the neoconservative philosophy. This notion that we must fight to spread American goodness was well received by these neo-Jacobeans. They saw the war as a legitimate moral crusade, arguing that no one should be allowed to stand in our way. In their minds, using force to spread democracy is legitimate and necessary. We also were told the war was necessary for national security purposes because of the threat Saddam Hussein presented, although the evidence was fabricated. Saddam Hussein's ability to attack us was nonexistent, but the American people were ripe for alarming predictions by those who wanted this war. Of course, the routine canard for our need to fight, finance, and meddle around the world ever since the Korean War was repeated incessantly. U.N. resolutions had to be in forced lest the United Nations be discredited. The odd thing was that on this occasion the United Nations itself did everything possible to stop our preemptive attack. As it turned out, Saddam Hussein was a lot closer to compliance than anyone dreamed. It was not long before concern for the threat of Saddam Hussein became near hysterical, drowning out any reasoned opposition to the planned war. The one argument that was not publicly used by those who propagandized for the war may well be the most important: oil. Though the administration in 1990 hinted briefly that we had to eject Saddam Hussein in Kuwait because of oil, the stated reasons for that conflict soon transformed into stopping a potential Hitler and enforcing U.N. resolutions. Publicly, oil is not talked about very much. But behind the scenes, many acknowledge this is the real reason we fight. It is not only the politicians who say this. American consumers have always enjoyed cheap gasoline and want it kept that way. The real irony is that the war has reduced Iraqi oil production by \1/2\ million barrels per day, and prices are soaring, demonstrating another unintended economic consequence of war. Oil in the Middle East has been a big issue since the Industrial Revolution when it was realized that the black substance bubbling out of the ground in places like Iraq had great value. It is interesting to note that in the early 20th century, Germany, fully aware of oil's importance, allied itself with the Turkish Ottoman Empire and secured the earliest rights to drill Iraqi oil. They built the Anatalya railroad between Baghdad and Basra and obtained oil and mineral rights on 20 kilometers on each side of this right-of-way. World War I changed all this, allowing the French and the British to divide the oil wealth of the entire Middle East. The Versailles Treaty created the artificial nation of Iraq, and it was not long before American oil companies were drilling and struggling to participate in the control of Middle East oil. But it was never smooth sailing for any occupying force in Iraq. After World War I, the British generals, upon arriving to secure their oil, said, ``Our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators.'' Not long afterwards a jihad was declared against Britain and eventually they were forced to leave. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Too bad we are not better at studying history. After World War II, the U.S. emerged as the number one world power and moved to assume what some believe was our responsibility to control Middle East oil in competition with the Soviets. This role prompted us to use our CIA, along with the help of the British, to oust democratically elected Mohammad Mosadek from power in Iran and install the Shah as a U.S. puppet. We not only supported Saddam Hussein against Iran; we also supported Osama bin Laden in the 1980s, aggravating the situation in the Middle East and causing unintended consequences. With CIA assistance, we helped develop the educational program to radicalize Islamic youth in many Arab nations, especially in Saudi Arabia, to fight the Soviets. We even provided a nuclear reactor to Iran in 1967, which today leads us to threaten another war. All of this has come back to haunt us. Meddling in the affairs of others has consequences. Finally, after years of plotting and maneuvering, the neoconservative plan to invade Iraq came before the U.S. House in October of 2002 to be rubber-stamped. Though the plan was hatched years before, and the official policy of the United States Government was to remove Saddam Hussein ever since 1998, various events delayed the vote until this time. By October, the vote was deemed urgent so as to embarrass anyone who opposed it by making them politically vulnerable in the November election. The ploy worked. The resolution passed easily, and it served the interests of the proponents of war in the November election. The resolution, H.J. 114, explicitly cited the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998 as one of the reasons we had to go to war. The authorization granted the President to use force against Iraq cited two precise reasons: number one, to defend the national security of the U.S. against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and, number two, enforce all relevant United Nations council resolutions regarding Iraq. Many other reasons were given to stir the emotions of the American public and the U.S. Congress, reasons that were grossly misleading and found not to be true. The pretense of a legal justification was a sham. The fact that Congress is not permitted under the Constitution to transfer the war power to a President was ignored. Only Congress can declare war, that is, if we were inclined to follow the rule of law. To add insult to injury, the House joint resolution cited the United Nations resolution as justification for the war. Ignoring the Constitution while using the U.N. to justify the war showed callous disregard for the restraints carefully written in the Constitution. The authors deliberately wanted to make war difficult to enter without legislative debate, and they purposely kept the responsibility out of the hands of the executive branch. Surely they never dreamed that international government would have influence over our foreign policy or tell us when we should enter into armed conflict. The legal maneuvering to permit this war was tragic to watch; but the notion that Saddam Hussein, a Third World punk, without an air force, navy and hardly an army, or any antiaircraft weaponry, was an outright threat to the United States 6,000 miles away tells you how hysterical fear can be used to pursue a policy of needless war for quite different reasons. Today, though, all the old reasons for going to war have been discredited and are no longer used to justify continuing the war. Now we are told we must complete the mission, and yet no one seems to know exactly what the mission is or when it can be achieved. By contrast, when war is properly declared against a country, we can expect an all-out effort until the country surrenders. Without a declaration of war, as the Constitution requires, it is left to the President to decide when to start the war and when the war is over. We had sad experiences with this process in Korea and especially in Vietnam. Pursuing this war merely to save face or to claim it is a way to honor those who have already died or been wounded is hardly a reason that more people should die. We are told that we cannot leave until we have a democratic Iraq. But what if Iraq votes to have a Shiite theocracy, which it looks like the majority wants as their form of government, and women, Christians and Sunnis are made second-class citizens? It is a preposterous notion and points out the severe shortcomings of a democracy where a majority rules and minorities suffer. Thankfully, our Founding Fathers understood the great dangers of a democracy. They insisted on a constitutional Republic with a weak central government and an executive branch beholden to the legislative branch in foreign affairs. The sooner we realize we cannot afford this war, the better. We have gotten ourselves into a civil war within the Islamic community. But could it be, as it had been for over a hundred years prior to our invasion, that oil really is the driving issue behind a foreign presence in the Middle East? It is rather ironic that the consequence of our intervention has been sky-rocketing oil prices, with Iraqi oil production still significantly below pre-war levels. If democracy is not all it is cracked up to be, and a war for oil is blatantly immoral and unproductive, the question still remains, why do we fight? More precisely, why should we fight? When is enough killing enough? Why does man so casually accept war, which brings so much suffering to so many, when so little is achieved? Why do those who suffer and die so willingly accept the excuses for the wars that need not be fought? Why do so many defer to those who are enthused about war and who claim it is a solution to a problem without asking them why they themselves do not fight? It is always other men and other men's children who must sacrifice life and limb for reasons that make no sense, reasons that are said to be our patriotic duty to fight and die for. How many useless wars have been fought for lies that deserved no hearing? When will it all end? Since no logical answers can be given for why we fight, it might be better to fight about why we should not fight. A case can be made that if this war does not end soon it will spread and engulf the entire region. We have already been warned that war against Iran is an option that remains on the table for reasons no more reliable than those given for the preemptive strike against Iraq. Let me give you a few reasons why this war in Iraq should not be fought. It is not in our national interest. On the contrary, pursuing this war endangers our security, increases the chances of a domestic terrorist attack, weakens our defenses, and motivates our enemies to join together in opposition to our domineering presence around the world. Does anyone believe that Russia, China, and Iran will give us free rein over the entire Middle East and its oil? Tragically, we are setting the stage for a much bigger conflict. It is possible that this war could evolve into something much worse than Vietnam. This war has never been declared. It is not a constitutional war; and without a proper beginning, there can be no proper ending. The vagueness instills doubts in all Americans, both supporters and nonsupporters, as to what will be accomplished. Supporters of the war want total victory, which is not achievable with a vague mission. Now, the majority of Americans are demanding an end to this dragged- out war that many fear will spread before it is over. It is virtually impossible to beat a determined guerilla resistance to a foreign- occupying force. After 30 years, the Vietnam guerillas, following the unbelievable suffering, succeeded in forcing all foreign troops from their homeland. History shows that Iraqi Muslims have always been determined to resist any foreign power on their soil. We ignored that history and learned nothing from Vietnam. How many lives, theirs and ours, are worth losing to prove the tenacity of guerilla fighters supported by a large number of local citizens? Those who argue it is legitimate to protect our oil some day must realize that it is not our oil, no matter how strong and sophisticated our military is. We know the war so far has played havoc with oil prices and the market continues to discount problems in the region for years to come. No end is in sight regarding the uncertainty of Middle East oil production caused by this conflict. So far our policies inadvertently have encouraged the development of an Islamic state with Iranian allied Shiites in charge. This has led to Iranian support for the insurgents and placed Iran in the position of being the true victor in this war as its alliance with Iraq grows. This could place Iran and its allies in the enviable position of becoming the oil powerhouse in the region, if not the world, once it has control over the oil fields near Basra. This unintended alliance with Iran plus the benefit to Osama bin Laden's recruiting efforts will in the end increase the danger to Israel by rallying the Arab and Muslim people against us. One of the original stated justifications for the war has been accomplished. Since 1998, the stated policy of the United States Government was to bring regime change and get rid of Saddam Hussein. This has been done. But instead of peace and stability, we have sown the seeds of chaos. Nevertheless, the goal of removing Saddam Hussein has been achieved and is a reason to stop the fighting. There were no weapons of mass destruction, no biological, chemical or nuclear weapons, so we can be assured the Iraqis pose no threat to anyone, certainly not to the United States. No evidence existed to show an alliance between Iraq and al Qaeda before the war. And ironically, our presence there is now encouraging al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden to move in to fill the vacuum we created. The only relationship between Iraq and 9/11 is that our policy in the Middle East continues to increase the likelihood of another terrorist attack on our homeland. We should not fight because it is simply not worth it. What are we going to get for nearly 2,000 soldier deaths and 20,000 severe casualties? Was the $350 billion worth it? This is a cost that will be passed on to future generations through an expanded national debt. I will bet most Americans can think of a lot better ways to have spent this money. Today's program of guns and butter will be more damaging to our economy than a similar program was in the 1960s which gave us the stagflation of the 1970s. The economic imbalances today are much greater than they were in those decades. Eventually we will come to realize that the Wilsonian idealism of using America's resources to promote democracy around the world through force is a seriously flawed policy. Wilson pretended to be spreading democracy worldwide, and yet women in the U.S. at that time were not even allowed to vote. Democracy where the majority dictates the rules cannot protect minority and individual rights. In addition, using our force to impose our will on others almost always backfires. There is no reason that our efforts in the 21st century to impose a Western-styled government in Iraq would be any more successful than the British were after World War I. This especially cannot work if democracy is only an excuse for our occupation and the real reasons are left unrecognized. It boils down to the fact that we do not really have any sound reasons for continuing this fight. The original reasons for the war never existed and the new reasons are not credibility. We hear only that we must carry on so those who have already suffered death and injury did not do so in vain. If the original reasons for starting the war were false, simply continuing in the name of those fallen makes no sense. More loss of life can never justify earlier loss of life if they died for false reasons. This being the case, it is time to reassess the policies that have gotten us into this mess. The mess we face in the Middle East and Afghanistan and the threat of terrorism within our own borders are not a result of the policies of this administration alone. Problems have been building for many years and have only gotten much worse with our most recent policy of forcibly imposing regime change in Iraq. We must recognize that the stalemate in Korea, the loss in Vietnam, and the quagmire in Iraq and Afghanistan all result from the same flawed foreign policy of interventionism that our government has pursued for over 100 years. It would be overly simplistic to say that the current administration alone is responsible for the mess in Iraq. By rejecting the advice of the Founders and our early Presidents, our leaders have drifted away from the admonitions against entangling alliance and nation-building. Policing the world is not our calling or our mandate. Besides, the Constitution does not permit it. Undeclared wars have not enhanced our national security. The consensus on foreign interventionism has been pervasive. Both major parties have come to accept our role as the world's policeman, despite periodic campaign rhetoric stating otherwise. The media in particular, especially in the early stages, propagandize in favor of war. It is only when the costs become prohibitive and the war loses popular support that the media criticize the effort. It is not only our Presidents that deserve the blame when they overstep their authority and lead the country into inappropriate wars. Congress deserves equally severe criticism for acquiescing to the demands of the executive to go needlessly to war. It has been known throughout history that kings, dictators, and the executive branches of governments are always overly eager to go to war. This is precisely why our Founders tried desperately to keep decisions about going to war in the hands of the legislature. But this process has failed, failed, failed us for the last 65 years. Congress routinely has rubber-stamped the plans of our Presidents and even the United Nations to enter into war through the back door. Congress at any time can prevent and stop all undue foreign entanglements pursued by the executive branch merely by refusing to finance them. The current Iraq war now going on for 15 years spans the administration of three Presidents and many Congresses controlled by both parties. This makes Congress every bit as responsible for the current quagmire as the President. But the real problem is the acceptance by our country as a whole of the principle of meddling in the internal affairs of other nations when unrelated to our national security. Intervention, no matter how well intended, inevitably boomerangs and comes back to haunt us. Minding our own business is not only economical, it is the only policy that serves our national security interests and the cause of peace. The neoconservatives who want to remake the entire Middle East are not interested in the pertinent history of this region. Creating an artificial Iraq after World War I as a unified country is like mixing water and oil. It has only led to frustration, anger and hostilities with the resulting instability creating conditions ripe for dictatorship. The occupying forces will not permit any of the three regions of Iraq to govern themselves. This is strictly motivated by a desire to exert control over the oil. Self-determination and independence for each region or even a true republican form of government with a minimalist central authority was never considered, yet it is the only answer to the difficult political problems that area faces. The relative and accidental independence of the Kurds and Shiites in the 1990s served those regions well and no suicide terrorism existed during that decade. The claim that our immediate withdrawal from Iraq would cause chaos is not proven. It did not happen in Vietnam or even in Somalia. Even today the militias of the Kurds and Shiites may well be able to maintain order in their regions much better than we can currently. Certainly, the Sunnis can take care of themselves, and it might be in their best interests for all three groups not to fight each other when we leave. One thing for sure, if we left, no more young Americans would have to die for an indefinable cause. Instead, we have been forcing on the people of Iraq a type of democracy that, if implemented, will mean an Islamic state under Sharia' law. Already we read stories of barbers no longer being safe shaving beards; Christians are threatened and forced to leave the country, and burkas are returning out of fear. Unemployment is over 50 percent and oil production is still significantly below prewar levels. These results are not worth fighting and dying for. In this war, like all others, the propagandists and promoters themselves do not fight nor do their children. It is always worth the effort to wage war when others must suffer and die. Many of those who today pumped the Nation up with war fever were nowhere to be found when their numbers were called in the 1960s, when previous Presidents and Congresses thought so little about sending young men off to war. Then it was in their best interest to find more important things to do despite the so-called equalizing draft. The inability of taxpayers to fund both guns and butter has not deterred those who smell the glory of war. Notoriously great nations fall once their appetite for foreign domination outstrips their citizens' ability or willingness to pay. We tried the guns and butter approach in the 1960s with bad results, and the same will happen again as a consequence of the current political decision not to cut back on any expenditure, domestic or foreign. Veto nothing is the current policy. Tax, borrow and print to pay the bills is today's conventional wisdom. The problem is that all the bills eventually must be paid. There is no free lunch and there is no free war. The economic consequences of such a policy are well known and documented. Excessive spending leads to excessive deficits, higher taxes, more borrowing and inflation which spells economic problems that always clobber the middle class and the poor. Already this suffering has begun. A lackluster recovery, low-paying jobs, outsourcing, and social unrest already are apparent. The economic price we pay along with the human suffering is an extravagant price for a war that was started with false information and now is prolonged for reasons unrelated to our national security. This policy has led to excessive spending overseas and neglect at home. It invites enemies to attack us and drain the resources needed to defend our homeland and care for our own people. We are obligated to learn something from the tragedy of Katrina about the misallocation of funds away from our infrastructure to the rebuilding of Iraq after first destroying Iraq. If ever there was a time for us to reassess our policy of foreign intervention it is today. It is time to look inward and attend to the constitutional needs of our people and forget about the grandiose schemes to remake the world in our image through the use of force. These efforts not only are doomed to fail, as they have been for the past 100 years, but they invite economic and strategic military problems that are harmful to our national security interests. We have been told that we must fight to protect our freedoms here at home. These reasons are given to make the sacrifices more tolerable and noble. Without an honorable cause, the suffering becomes intolerable. Hiding from the truth, though, in the end is no panacea for a war that promises no peace. The most important misjudgment regarding Iraq that must be dealt with is the charge that Muslim terrorists attack us out of envy for our freedoms and our prosperity and our way of life. There is no evidence this is the case. On the contrary, those who have extensively researched this issue conclude that the number one reason suicide terrorists attack anywhere in the world is because their land is occupied by a foreign military power. Pretending otherwise and constantly expanding our military presence in more Arab and Muslim countries as we have since 1990 has only increased the danger of more attacks on our soil, as well as in those countries that have allied themselves with us. If we deny this truth, we do so at our own peril. It is not unusual for the war crusaders to condemn those who speak the truth in an effort to end an unnecessary war. They claim those who want honest reasons for the enormous sacrifice are unpatriotic and un- American, but these charges only serve to exacerbate the social unrest. Any criticism of policy, no matter how flawed the policy is, is said to be motivated by a lack of support for the troops. Yet it is preposterous to suggest that a policy that would have spared the lives of 1,900 servicemen and -women lacks concern for the well-being of our troops. The absence of good reasoning to pursue this war prompts the supporters of the war to demonize the skeptics and the critics. They have no other defense. Those who want to continue this war accuse those who lost loved ones in Iraq, and oppose the war, of using the dead for personal political gain. But what do the war proponents do when they claim the reason we must fight on is to honor the sacrifice of the military personnel we lost by completing the mission? The big difference is that one group argues for saving lives, while the other justifies more killing, and by that logic, the additional deaths will require even more killing to make sure that they, too, have not died in vain. Therefore, the greater number who have died, the greater is the motivation to complete the mission. This defies logic. This argument to persevere has been used throughout history to continue wars that could and should have ended much sooner. This was especially true for World War I and Vietnam. A sad realism struck me recently reading how our Marines in Afghanistan must now rely on donkey transportation in their efforts at Nation building and military occupation. Evidently, the Taliban is alive and well, as Osama bin Laden remains in this region. But does this not tell us something about our naive assumption that our economic advantages and our technical knowledge can subdue and control anybody? We are traversing the Afghan mountains on donkeys and losing lives daily in Baghdad with homemade, primitive bombs. Our power and dominance clearly is limited by the determination of those who see us as occupiers, proving that just more money and sophisticated weapons will not bring us victory. Sophisticated weapons and the use of unlimited military power is no substitute for diplomacy designed to promote peace while reserving force only for defending our national interests. Changing our policy of meddling in the affairs of others will not come easily or quickly, but a few signals to indicate a change in our attitude would go a long way to bringing peace to a troubled land. First, we must soon, and Congress can do this through the budget process, stop the construction of all permanent bases in Iraq and any other Muslim country in the region. Think of how we would react if the Chinese had the military edge on us and laid claims to the Gulf of Mexico and building bases within the United States in order to promote their superior way of life. Is it not ironic that we close down bases here at home while building new ones overseas? Domestic bases might well promote security, while bases in Muslim Nations only elicit more hatred toward us. Second, the plans for the biggest U.S. embassy in the world, costing nearly $1 billion, must be cancelled. This structure in Baghdad sends a message, like the military bases being built, that we expect to be in Iraq and running Iraq for a long time to come. Third, all military forces in Iraq and on the Arabian peninsula must be moved offshore at the earliest time possible. All responsibility for security and control of the oil must be transferred to the Iraqis from the United States as soon as possible, within months, not years. The time will come when our policies dealing with foreign affairs will change for the better, but that will be because we can no longer afford the extravagance of war. This will occur when the American people realize that war causes too much suffering here at home and the benefits of peace again become attractive to us all. Part of this recognition will involve a big drop in the value of the dollar, higher interest rates, and rampant price inflation. Though these problems are serious and threaten our freedoms and way of life, there is every reason to work for the traditional constitutional foreign policy that promotes peace over war, while not being tempted to mold the world in our image through force. We should not forget that what we did not achieve by military force in Vietnam was essentially achieved with the peace that came from our military failure and withdrawal of our Armed Forces. Today, through trade and peace, U.S. investments and economic cooperation has Westernized Vietnam far more than our military efforts ever could have. We must remember, initiating force to impose our will on others negates all the goodness for which we profess to stand. We cannot be fighting to secure our freedom if we impose laws like the PATRIOT Act and the national ID card on the American people. Unfortunately, we have lost faith and confidence in the system of government with which we have been blessed. Today, too many Americans support, at least in the early stages, the use of force to spread our message of hope and freedom. They too often are confused by the rhetoric that our armies are needed to spread American goodness. Using force injudiciously, instead of spreading the worthy message of American freedom through peaceful means, antagonizes our enemies, alienates our allies and threatens personal liberties here at home while burdening our economy. If confidence cannot be restored in our American traditions of peace and trade, our influence throughout the world would be enhanced just as it was once we rejected the military approach in Vietnam. This change in policy can come easily once the people of this country decide that there is a better way to conduct ourselves throughout the world. Whenever the people turn against war as a tool to promote certain beliefs, the war ceases. That is what we need today. Then we can get down to the business of setting an example of how peace and freedom brings prosperity in an atmosphere that allows for excellence and virtue to thrive. A powerful bureaucratic military state negates all efforts to preserve these conditions that have served America so well up until recent times. That is not what the American dream is all about. Without a change in attitude, the American dream dies. A simple change that restates the principles of liberty enshrined in our Constitution will serve us well in solving all the problems we face. The American people are up to the task. I hope the Congress is as well.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am today introducing the Rice Farmers Fairness Act. This legislation conditions the continuation of farm subsidies in the state of Texas upon the maintenance of rice production. Federal law allows for the continuation of subsidies to landowners who discontinue tenant rice farming on their land. In essence, this means that the subsidy continues to flow in spite of an end to production. This is a ``something for nothing'' subsidy of the worst kind! As a result of this provision, there is a very real threat to the agricultural infrastructure. With landowners receiving subsidies in spite of lack of production, the entire warehousing, processing and ``value-added'' industries are put at risk. As grain elevators, processors and others see a reduction in demand for their services because of the diminution of production permitted by Federal law, they have a disincentive to continue to provide said services, services which must remain in place in order for those who remain in production to be able to bring to market the rice which they continue to produce. Thus, by way of the decimation of the infrastructure, this subsidy to non-producers comes at the expense of those who continue to produce rice. Therefore, the provisions of Federal law which provide this subsidy actually amount to another form of Federal welfare, taking from producers and giving to non-producers. These destructive government policies have particularly pernicious effect in Texas, where rice farming, and the related industries, are a major sector of the economy in many towns along the Texas coast. My legislation is very simple and direct in dealing with this problem. It says that those who have tenant rice farmers producing rice in Texas must agree to continue to maintain rice in their crop rotation if they wish to receive subsidies. In this way, we can remove the perverse incentive, which the Federal Government has provided to landowners to exit the rice business and thereby put the entire rice infrastructure at risk. America's rice farmers are the most efficient, effective producers of rice in the world, despite the many hurdles erected by Washington. The Rice Farmer Fairness Act helps removes one of these hurdles and this makes America's rice farmers even more efficient. In order to enhance our competitive position, we should also end our embargoes of other nations. Congress should eliminate the burdensome taxes and regulations imposed on America's farmers. I hope my colleagues will join me in removing these federally imposed burdens on rice farmers by supporting free trade, low taxes and regulations, and cosponsoring my Rice Farmer Fairness Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Texas Educator Retirement Equity Act, which restores to widowed Texas public school teachers the means to receive the same spousal Social Security benefits as every other American. As I am sure my colleagues are aware, widowed public school employees in Texas, like public employees throughout the Nation, have their spousal Social Security benefits reduced if they receive a government pension. This ``Government Pension Offset'' affects Texas teachers who work in school districts that do not participate in Social Security and even applies if the teacher in question worked all the quarters necessary to qualify for full Social Security benefits either before or after working in the public school system! Until last year, Texas schoolteachers could qualify for full widow benefits by working one day in a school that participates in Social Security. Unfortunately, last year Congress took that option away from Texas teachers. One consequence of this action is that many teachers have taken early retirement while others have been discouraged from entering teaching. Thus, the victims of this action are not only Texas teachers, but also Texas school children who are denied access to quality teachers. Passing the Texas Educator Retirement Equity Act is a good first step toward treating teachers fairly. Of course, I remain committed to working to pass H.R. 147, the Social Security Fairness Act that repeals both the Government Pension Offset and the Windfall Elimination Provision, another provision that denies public employees full Social Security benefits. Congress should also be encouraging good people to enter the education profession by passing my Teacher Tax Cut Act (H.R. 402) that provides every teacher with a $1,000 tax credit, as well as my Professional Educators Tax Relief Act (H.R. 405) that provides a $1,000 tax credit to counselors, librarians, and all school personnel. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in enabling Texas teachers to obtain the Social Security benefits for which they would be eligible if they were not teachers by cosponsoring the Texas Educator Retirement Equity Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in strong opposition to this legislation. As many Members know, I frequently vote no in this House because I have a very strict rule. The rule is I look to Article I, section 8 for authority. Article I, section 8 gives very precise items that we have authority over. One is foreign commerce. We, the Congress alone, have authority over regulating foreign commerce. This bill is a violation of that provision in the Constitution. We as a Congress have done something over the past several years that is unconstitutional in transferring this power first to the President and then to an international bureaucratic agency. This is wrong. It is not practical. It is not beneficial, it is unconstitutional, and it is a threat to our national sovereignty. Members say it is not a threat to our national sovereignty and that we can veto what they tell us to do; but it does not happen that way. If we were interested in free trade, as the pretense is, you could initiate free trade in one small paragraph. This bill is over 1,000 pages, and it is merely a pretext for free trade. At the same time we talk about free trade, we badger China, and that is not free trade. I believe in free trade, but this is not free trade. This is regulated, managed trade for the benefit of special interests. That is why I oppose it. There is one specific provision in this bill that bothers me a lot, and that has to do with the Codex Alimentarius. These are rules and regulations written by the WTO, accepted by the European community, and it is specifically mentioned in this bill in chapter 6, paragraph number 6, and it talks about a forum where you can come and complain about regulation on vitamins and nutritional products. If Members are interested in freedom to buy vitamins without going to a doctor for a prescription, you have to vote against this bill. If you want international harmonization of nutrition and vitamins, you can vote for this bill, but I am opposed to that, and most Americans are as well. Vote no on this legislation.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Cures Can Be Found Act. This legislation promotes medical research by providing a tax credit for investments and donations to promote adult and umbilical cord blood stem cell research, and provides a $2,000 tax credit to new parents for the donation of umbilical cord blood that can be used to extract stem cells. Mr. Speaker, stem cell research has the potential to revolutionize medicine. Stem cells could hold the keys to curing many diseases afflicting millions of Americans, such as diabetes and Alzheimer's. Umbilical cord blood stem cells have already been used to treat 67 diseases, including sickle cell disease, leukemia, and osteoporosis. Umbilical cord blood stem cells have also proven useful in treating spinal cord injuries and certain neurological disorders. Adult stem cells have shown promise in treating a wide variety of diseases ranging from brain, breast, testicular, and other types of cancers to multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's, heart damage, and rheumatoid arthritis. By providing tax incentives for adult and umbilical cord blood stem cell research, the Cures Can Be Found Act will ensure greater resources are devoted to this valuable research. The tax credit for donations of umbilical cord blood will ensure that medical science has a continuous supply of stem cells. Thus, this bill will help scientists discover new cures using stem cells and, hopefully, make routine the use of stem cells to treat formally incurable diseases. By encouraging private medical research, the Cures Can Be Found Act enhances a tradition of private medical research that is responsible for many medical breakthroughs. For example, Jonas Salk, discoverer of the polio vaccine, did not receive one dollar from the federal government for his efforts. I urge my colleagues to help the American people support the efforts of future Jonas Salks by cosponsoring the Cures Can Be Found Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this legislation. Isn't it ironic that the proponents of ``free trade agreements'' like CAFTA are lining up squarely behind a bill like this that threatens a trade war with China, and at the least calls for the United States to initiate protectionist measures such as punitive tariffs against ``subsidized'' sectors of the Chinese economy? In reality, this bill, which appeared out of the blue on the House floor as a suspension bill, is part of a deal made with several Members in return for a few votes on CAFTA. That is why it is ironic: to get to ``free trade'' with Central America we first need to pass protectionist legislation regarding China. Madam Speaker, in addition to the irony of the protectionist flavor of this bill, let me say that we should be careful what we demand of the Chinese Government. Take the demand that the Government ``revalue'' its currency, for example. First, there is sufficient precedent to suggest that doing this would have very little effect on China's trade surplus with the United States. As Barron's magazine pointed out recently, ``the Japanese yen's value has more than tripled since the breakdown of the Bretton Woods system, yet Japan's trade surplus remains huge. Why should the unpegging of the Chinese yuan have any greater impact?'' As was pointed out in the Wall Street Journal recently, with the yuan tied to several foreign currencies and the value of the dollar dropping, China could be less inclined to purchase dollars as a way of keeping the yuan down. Fewer Treasury bond purchases by China, in turn, would drive bond prices down and boost yields--which, subsequently, would cause borrowing costs for residential and some corporate customers to increase. Does anyone want to guess what a sudden burst of the real estate bubble might mean for the shaky U.S. economy? This is not an argument for the status quo, however, but rather an observation that there are often unforeseen consequences when we demand that foreign governments manipulate their currency to U.S. ``advantage.'' At the very least, American consumers will feel the strengthening of the yuan in the form of higher U.S. retail prices. This will disproportionately affect Americans of lower incomes and, as a consequence, slow the economy and increase the hardship of those struggling to get by. Is this why our constituents have sent us here? In conclusion, I strongly oppose this ill-considered and potentially destructive bill, and I hope my colleagues will join me in rejecting it.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PAUL. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Chairman, this is a straightforward amendment intended to modestly improve the PATRIOT Act, and let me just state exactly what it does. ``It is the sense of Congress that the Federal government should not investigate any American citizen for alleged criminal conduct solely on the basis of citizen's membership in a nonviolent political organization or the fact that the citizen was engaging in other lawful political activity.'' It seems like this should go without saying. I cannot imagine anybody disagreeing with this. But our history shows that there has been abuse in this area. As far back as the Civil War, World War I, and World War II, very often speaking out on political issues were met with law enforcement officials actually charging them with crimes and even having individuals imprisoned. In the 1960s we remember that there was wiretapping of Martin Luther King and other political organizations. In the 1970s we know about the illegal wiretapping and other activities associated with Watergate, and also in the 1990s we are aware of IRS audits of a political and religious organization based only on the fact that they were religious and political. So this is a restatement of a fundamental principle that should be in our minds and in our law, but I think it is worthwhile to restate. And I do recognize that in the PATRIOT Act they recognize that the first amendment should be protected, and in this case I think it is an additional statement that we should be respectful of people's rights to speak out and not be singled out for political or religious viewpoints.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the support for the amendment on both sides. I would like to emphasize the fact that there are real reasons for this concern. There have been reports in the paper of different times when the FBI has actually intimidated some people at national conventions. We are aware of the fact that there are at least reports that federal officials have encouraged local police to actually monitor certain political groups, and we also are aware of the fact that, because of political activity, they have been placed on no-fly lists. But I think this is all reason for concern because we do not want to give any encouragement to overzealous law enforcement officials. At the same time we do want to have enforcement of the law. But very briefly, I would like to say that the full thrust of this bill bothers me in the fact that I think we are treating a symptom and we are really not doing dealing with the core problem of why there are suicide terrorists willing to attack us, and I think as long as that is ignored we could pass 10 PATRIOT Acts stronger than ever and it will not solve the problem unless we eventually get to the bottom of what is the cause. And, quite frankly, I do not believe the cause is because we are free and democratic and wealthy. There is no evidence whatsoever to show that that is the motivation of terrorist attacks. And for us to continue to believe that is the sole reason for attacks, I think we are misled. And we are driven to want to protect our people, which I understand it is well motivated, but it will not solve the problem unless we eventually address that subject of why does it happen. It is not because we are free. And, ironically, in many ways we are making ourselves less free with some of the provisions in this bill. So I would suggest that ultimately we will have to have another solution because this will not solve all of our problems. Mr. Chairman, the USA PATRIOT Act and Terrorism Prevention Act (H.R. 3199) in no way brings the PATRIOT Act into compliance with the Constitution or allays concerns that the powers granted to the government in the act will be used to abuse the rights of the people. Much of the discussion surrounding this bill has revolved around the failure of the bill to extend the sunset clauses. However, simply sunsetting troublesome provisions does not settle the debates around the PATRIOT Act. If the PATRIOT Act is constitutional and needed, as its proponents swear, why were sunset provisions included at all? If it is unconstitutional and pernicious, why not abolish it immediately? The sunset clauses do perform one useful service in that they force Congress to regularly re-examine the PATRIOT Act. As the people's representatives, it is our responsibility to keep a close eye on the executive branch to ensure it does not abuse its power. Even if the claims of H.R. 3199's supporters that there have been no abuses of PATRIOT Act powers under this administration are true, that does not mean that future administrations will not abuse these powers. H.R. 3199 continues to violate the constitution by allowing searches and seizures of American citizens and their property without a warrant issued by an independent court upon a finding of probable cause. The drafters of the Bill of Rights considered this essential protection against an overreaching government. For example, Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, popularly known as the libraries provision, allows Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Courts, whose standards hardly meet the constitutional requirements of the Fourth Amendment, to issue warrants for individual records, including medical and library records. H.R. 3199 does reform this provision by clarifying that it can be used to acquire the records of an American citizen only during terrorist investigations. However, this marginal change fails to bring the section up to the constitutional standard of probable cause. Requiring a showing of probable cause before a warrant may be issued will in no way hamper terrorist investigations. For one thing, federal authorities would still have numerous tools available to investigate and monitor the activities of non-citizens suspected of terrorism. Second, restoring the Fourth Amendment protections would in no way interfere with the provisions of the PATRIOT Act that removed the firewalls that prevented the government's law enforcement and intelligence agencies from sharing information. The probable cause requirements will not delay a terrorist investigation. Preparations can be made for the issuance of a warrant in the event of an emergency and allowances can be made for cases where law enforcement does not have time to obtain a warrant. In fact, a requirement that law enforcement demonstrate probable cause may help law enforcement focus their efforts on true threats, thus avoiding the problem of information overload that is handicapping the government's efforts to identify sources of terrorists' financing. The requirement that law enforcement demonstrate probable cause before a judge preserves the Founders' system of checks and balances that protects against one branch gathering too much power. The Founders recognized that one of the chief dangers to liberty was the concentration of power in a few hands, which is why they carefully divided power among the three branches. I would remind those of my colleagues who will claim that we must set aside the constitutional requirements during war that the founders were especially concerned about the consolidation of power during times of war and national emergencies. My colleagues should also keep in mind that PATRIOT Act powers have already been used in non-terrorism related cases, most notably in a bribery investigation in Nevada. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3199 does take some positive steps toward restoring respect for constitutional liberties and checks and balances that the original PATRIOT Act stripped away. However, it still leaves in place large chunks of legislation that threaten individual liberty by giving law enforcement power to snoop into American citizens' lives without adequate oversight. This power is unnecessary to effectively fight terrorism. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to reject this bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this foreign relations authorization bill. Something has gone terribly wrong with our foreign policy when we feel we must take almost 21 billion dollars out of the pockets of the American taxpayer and ship it overseas. Imagine what the Founders of this country would say if they were among us to see this blatant disregard for the Constitution and for the founding principles of this country. This bill proceeds from the view that with enough money we can buy friends and influence foreign governments. But as history shows us we cannot. The trillions of dollars we have shipped over seas as aid, and to influence and manipulate political affairs in sovereign countries, has not made life better for American citizens. It has made them much poorer without much to show for it, however. Now we have a Republican-controlled Congress and White House, and foreign spending soars. It was not that long ago when conservatives looked at such cavalier handling of U.S. tax dollars with consternation. Now it seems that they are in a race with the Left to see who can spend more. What is wrong with this bill? Let me just mention a few of the most egregious items. In the name of promoting ``religious liberty'' and ``fighting anti-Semitism'' this bill will funnel millions of dollars to the corrupt Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and its Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR). This unaccountable international organization is at the forefront of the manipulation and meddling in the internal affairs of other sovereign states, and has repeatedly dishonored itself through politically-biased monitoring of foreign elections. The OSCE does not deserve a penny from the American taxpayer, but this bill will make sure that the lavishly paid bureaucrats that staff the organization will be able to maintain their standard of living--at our expense. With regard to religious liberty, privately funded voluntary organizations have been shown to be much more effective in promoting tolerance. This is mainly true because these are true grassroots organizations with a stake in their countries and communities, rather than unelectd international bureaucrats imposing politically-correct edicts from above. This bill spends a total of four and a half billion dollars on various United Nations activities, UN peacekeeping, and U.S. ``dues'' to various international organizations. Forcing the taxpayer to continue to underwrite these organizations, which do not operate in our best interests, is unconscionable. This bill continues to fund organizations such as the National Endowment for Democracy, which as I have written before has very little to do with democracy. It is an organization that uses U.S. tax money to actually subvert democracy, by showering funding on favored political parties or movements overseas. It underwrites color-coded ``people's revolutions'' overseas that look more like pages out of Lenin's writings on stealing power than genuine indigenous democratic movements. The NED used American taxpayer dollars to attempt to guarantee that certain candidates overseas are winners and others are losers in the electoral processes overseas. What kind of message do we think this sends to foreign states? The National Endowment or Democracy should receive no funding at all, but this bill continues to funnel tens of millions of dollars to that unaccountable organization. I am also very concerned about several of the amendments to this legislation. First, the extremely misleading UN ``reform'' act was slipped into this bill even though it was already passed on the Floor as a separate bill. As I have written about this terrible legislation, ``it will give the United Nations unprecedented new authority to intervene in sovereign states.'' Another amendment will create a chilling ``Active Response Corps,'' to be made up of U.S. government bureaucrats and members of ``non-governmental organizations.'' Its purpose will be to ``stabilize'' countries undergoing ``democratic transition.'' This means that as soon as the NED-funded ``people's revolutionaries'' are able to seize power in the streets, U.S. funded teams will be deployed to make sure they retain power. All in the name of democracy, of course. Mr. Chairman, this is a shameful day for the U.S. Congress. We are taking billions out of the pockets of Americans and sending the money overseas in violation of the Constitution. These are billions that will not be available for investment inside the United States: investment in infrastructure, roads, new businesses, education. These are billions that will not be available to American families, to take care of their children or senior relatives, or to give to their churches or favorite charities. We must not continue to spend money like there is no tomorrow. We are going broke, and bills like this are like a lead foot on the accelerator toward bankruptcy.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate A.J. Pete Reixach as the celebration of his having spent 20 years at Port Freeport rapidly approaches. As American Association of Port Authorities President Kurt J. Nagle said recently, ``Pete deserves congratulations not only for reaching the remarkable milestone of 20 years at the Port, but also for the dramatic growth Port Freeport has achieved during his tenure. In an industry where the average tenure for a port director is less than 7 years, Pete's 20 years at Port Freeport are a tribute to his effectiveness in directing the Port and to the Port's substantial economic impacts to the region. He is both well-respected and recognized as an industry leader by his colleagues.'' To learn more about Reixach's time at the Port one only needs to talk with representatives of the Port's many customers such as American Rice Inc., Dole Fresh Fruit Company, Chiquita Brands Inc. and Turbana Corp, the last two of which began their relationship with the Port during Reixach's tenure. Mr. Speaker, Port Freeport now ranks 12th among all U.S. ports in international cargo. The Port has added new berths and continues to grow. A cool storage facility has been built and is set for expansion. The harbor channel was deepened to 45 feet with efforts now moving forward in this Congress toward approval of a 60-foot depth, a project I have been pleased to support. Public dock activity at the Port has burgeoned; so, too, has that at berths of such firms as Teppco/Seaway, ConocoPhillips and The Dow Chemical Co. This has all happened during Reixach's time as Executive Director of the Port. While enrolled at the University of New Orleans Mr. Reixach began working as a clerk in the New Orleans office of Greek-owned Hellenic Lines Ltd. By the time Hellenic ceased operations in 1983, Reixach had worked his way up to a vice presidency in the line's Houston office. Immediately prior to coming to Port Freeport, he was general manager in the Houston office of Dutch shipping company F.A. Voight Inc. Reixach initially was hired to serve as assistant general manager at Freeport. Two years later, Reixach was promoted to the new position of executive director, the job he still holds. Mr. Speaker, Pete Reixach, 62, lives in Lake Jackson with his wife, Susie. I wish the two of them much happiness and continued success as Pete approaches 20 years with Port Freeport.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my Special Order at this time.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, more than half of the American people now believe that the Iraqi war has made the U.S. less safe. This is a dramatic shift in sentiment from 2 years ago. Early support for the war reflected a hope for a safer America, and it was thought to be an appropriate response to the 9/11 attacks. This argument was that the enemy attacked us for our defense of freedom, our prosperity, and our way of life. It was further argued that it was important to engage the potential terrorists over there rather than here. Many bought this argument and supported the war. That is now changing. It is virtually impossible to stop determined suicide bombers. Understanding why they sacrifice themselves is crucial to ending what appears to be senseless and irrational. But there is an explanation. I, like many, have assumed that the driving force behind the suicide attacks was Islamic fundamentalism. Promise of instant entry into paradise as a reward for killing infidels seemed to explain the suicides, a concept that is foreign to our way of thinking. The world's expert on suicide terrorism has convinced me to rethink this simplistic explanation that it is merely an expression of religious extremism and resentment of a foreign culture. Robert Pape, author of ``Dying to Win,'' explains the strategic logic of suicide terrorism. Pape has collected a database of every suicide terrorist attack between 1980 and 2004, all 462 of them. His conclusions are enlightening and crucial to our understanding the true motivation behind the attacks against Western nations by Islamic terrorists. After his exhaustive study, Pape comes to some very important conclusions. Religious beliefs are less important than supposed. For instance, the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, a Marxist secular group, are the world's leader in suicide terrorism. The largest Islamic fundamentalist countries have not been responsible for any suicide terrorist attack. None have come from Iran or the Sudan. Until the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Iraq never had a suicide terrorist attack in all of its history. Between 1995 and 2004, the al Qaeda years, two-thirds of all attacks came from countries where the U.S. had troops stationed. Iraq's suicide missions today are carried out by Iraqi Sunnis and Saudis. Recall, 15 of the 19 participants of the 9/11 attacks were Saudis. The clincher is this: the strongest motivation, according to Pape, is not religious but rather a desire ``to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory the terrorists view as their homeland.'' The best news is that if stopping suicide terrorism is a goal we seek, a solution is available to us. Cease the occupation of foreign lands and the suicide missions will cease. Between 1982 and 1986, there were 41 suicide terrorist attacks in Lebanon. Once the U.S., the French, and Israel withdrew their forces from Lebanon, there were no more attacks. The reason the attacks stop, according to Pape, is that the Osama bin Ladens of the world no longer can inspire potential suicide terrorists despite their continued fanatical religious beliefs. Pape is convinced after his extensive research that the longer and more extensive the occupation of Muslim territories, the greater the chance of more 9/11-type attacks on the U.S. He is convinced that the terrorists strategically are holding off hitting the U.S. at the present time in an effort to break up the coalition by hitting our European allies. He claims it is just a matter of time if our policies do not change. It is time for us to consider a strategic reassessment of our policy of foreign interventionism, occupation, and nation-building. It is in our national interest to do so and in the interest of world peace.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to read ``Your dietary supplements: Under attack again'' by Henry Lamb, which I am inserting into the Record. Mr. Lamb explains the threat to American consumers of dietary supplements and American sovereignty by the Codex Alimentarius commission, commonly referred to simply as Codex. The United Nations created Codex to establish international standards for foods and medicines. Just last week, representatives of the United States government agree to a final version of Codex's standards on dietary supplements which, if implemented in the United States, could drastically reduce Americans' ability to obtain the supplements of their choice. Members of the American bureaucracy may be hope to achieve via international fiat what they cannot achieve through the domestic law-making process--the power to restrict consumers' access to dietary supplements. American bureaucrats may gain this power if the World Trade Organization, which considers Codex ``guidelines'' the standard by which all other regulations are judged, decides that our failure to ``harmonize'' our regulations of dietary supplements to meet Codex's ``recommendations'' violates international trading standards! This could occur despite the fact that American consumers do not want to be subjected to the restrictive regulations common in other parts of the world, such as the European Union. This article is typical of Henry Lamb's work. For almost twenty years, beginning at an age when most Americans are contemplating retirement, Mr. Lamb has worked to expose and stop threats to American liberty, sovereignty, and prosperity. Mr. Lamb became involved in the battle for liberty when, as the CEO of a Tennessee construction company, he founded a state association of contractors to work against excessive regulations. In 1988, Henry Lamb founded the Environmental Conservation Organization to defend true environmentalism, which is rooted in the truth that there is no better steward of the environment than a private property owner, from those who used the environment as a cover for their radical statist agendas. Since 1992, Mr. Lamb and ECO have focused on the threat to economic liberty and self-government posed by the radical global environmental agenda. Henry Lamb works to further the cause of liberty by giving speeches around the country, editing an on-line magazine, making numerous television and radio appearances, and writing a weekly column to inform his fellow Americans of the latest scheme to undermine their freedoms. Mr. Lamb is the model of a citizen-activist, and all who wish to become involved in the battle for freedom can learn from his example. In conclusion, I once again urge my colleagues to read Mr. Lamb's article to learn about the need to protect American consumers from Codex, and I thank Mr. Lamb for his tireless devotion to the cause of freedom. [From the WorldNetDaily, June 11, 2005] Your Dietary Supplements: Under Attack Again (By Henry Lamb) The Codex Alimentarius Commission sounds like one of those shadowy, sinister organizations conjured up by one-world- government nuts to scare people. Truth: It is! The Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization created this commission in the early 1960s to set standards for food safety and to ``harmonize'' the laws of member nations. The commission was endorsed by U.N. Resolution 39/248, which says: ``When formulating national policies and plans with regard to food, governments should take into account the need of all consumers for food security and should support and, as far as possible, adopt standards from the . . . Codex Alimentarius. . . .'' The Codex Alimentarius Commission consists of delegates from 163 member nations representing 97 percent of the world's population. It meets every two years, either in Rome or Geneva. Between meetings, the commission is governed by an executive committee that directs the activities of its many committees. Of immediate concern is the ongoing effort to bring dietary supplements in America under the control of standards set by this commission. Dietary supplements generate a $17 billion industry in the United States, which affects more than 150 million consumers, according to Congressional findings (H.R. 2485). Proposed procedures and standards could virtually destroy this market and deprive millions of Americans of the supplements they want to use. The European Union Directive on Dietary Supplements deg., which becomes law in August, severely restricts the types and quantities of supplements that may be legally sold. Most forms of vitamins C and E, for example, are not available, or are available only in extremely small doses. If current plans proceed on course, American consumers are in for a shock. How can this little-known international commission control what consumers buy in the United States? An even less-known agency, deep within the bowels of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is responsible for U.S. participation in the Codex Commission and designates delegates to each of the commission's committees. Barbara O. Schneeman is the delegate to the Codex Committee on Nutrition and Food for Special Dietary Uses. The effort to regulate dietary supplements has been under way for more than a decade. In 1994, Congress adopted the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act, which kept supplements beyond the reach of the drug police. In the past, Codex recommendations have been non-binding. Now, however, the Codex Alimentarius Commission is teaming up with the World Trade Organization to bring international enforcement to the dietary-supplement battle. Ironically, it was primarily the U.S. that brought the WTO into existence in 1994, as the successor to GATT, the General Agreement on Tarriffs and Trade. The WTO agreement specifically requires that the member nations--including the U.S.--conform its laws to meet the requirements of WTO decisions. Failure to conform results in stiff financial penalties. The Codex Commission and the European Union want the WTO to enforce Codex standards, which fly directly in the face of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act. Pascal Lamy of France was just selected as director general of the WTO. Lamy served as a member of the French Socialist Party's steering committee and was chief of staff and representative of the European Commission for President Jacques Delors. Since 1995, he has served as a member of the Central Office of the Mouvement Europeen (France) and as a member of the European Commission, responsible for trade. The Codex Commission will be meeting in Rome July 4-9 to adopt the final rules on dietary supplement use. Dr. Carolyn Dean, president of Friends of Freedom International, will attend this meeting and return to the U.S. just in time to present her report to the Sixth Annual Freedom 21 Conference in Reno, July 14-16. The Codex Alimentarius Commission's reach is much broader than dietary supplements. Its committees are also working on standards for pesticide residue, labeling of all kinds of foods, food additives and nutrients, veterinary medicine and drugs, as well as standards and methods for analysis. The function of this organization is to establish standards for all food worldwide and to enforce those standards through the power of the World Trade Organization. Few people know that there is such a thing as the Codex Alimentarius Commission. It was created to promote food safety in international trade. It is on the brink of becoming an Orwellian bureaucracy--far worse than the worst fantasies of the one-world conspiracy theories. The Codex Alimentarius Commission is neither fantasy nor theory; it is real.