Ron Paul

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. I thank you for yielding. I want to just make a couple of points in closing. The statement at the beginning of this war was made that it's different this time. Even though the history is well known about Afghanistan--it's ancient history, but it's different this time because we're different, and it's not going to have the same result. But so far, you know, they haven't caught Osama bin Laden, and we don't have a national government, really. We don't have really honest elections. We haven't won the hearts and minds of the people. There is a lot of dissension, and it is a miserable place. It is really a total failure, let alone the cost, the cost of life and limb and money. I mean, it is just a total failure. The thought that we would pursue this and expand it and send more troops just blows my mind. I just want to mention a couple of things that I think are bad arguments. One thing is we are involved there, we have invested too much, and, therefore, we have to save face because it would look terrible if we had to leave. But it is like in medicine. What if we, in medicine, were doing the wrong thing, made the wrong diagnosis? Would we keep doing it to prove that we are right or are we going listen to the patient and to the results?

Mr. PAUL. Yes, that's right. But it seems like politicians don't lose their license. Maybe they should. Maybe there will be more this year or something. But the other argument they make is, if you take a less militant viewpoint as we all do that we're not supportive of the troops. The troops don't believe that. The troops I talk to and the ones Mr. Jones talks to, they know we care about them, and they shouldn't be put in harm's way unless it is absolutely necessary. This other argument is, well, we have got to go over there to kill them because they want to kill us. Well, like I mentioned before, it wasn't the Afghans that came over here, but if we're in their country killing them, we're going to create more terrorists. And the more people we send, the more terrorists, and the more we have to kill. And now it's spreading. That's what I'm worried about in this war. There was one individual--I don't know his name--but they believed he was in Pakistan, so he was part of the terrorist group, the people who were opposing the occupation. So they sent 15 cruise missiles, drones, over looking for him. It took the 15th one to kill him. But 14 landed, and there was an estimate made that about 1,000 civilians were killed in this manner. How many more terrorists have we developed under those circumstances? I do want to have 1 minute here to read a quote, and then I will yield back. This quote comes from a Russian general talking to Gorbachev, and Gorbachev went into office in 1985, and this was a year later. The general was talking to Gorbachev. Just think, Gorbachev was in office 1 year. He had the problem. He was trying to get out. He didn't get out until 1989. But the general says, ``Military actions in Afghanistan will soon be 7 years old,'' and told Mr. Gorbachev at a November 1986 Politburo session, ``There is no single piece of land in this country which has not been occupied by a Soviet soldier. Nonetheless, the majority of the territory remains in the hands of rebels.'' It reminds me of the conversation between Colonel Tu and Sumner after Vietnam. And Sumner, our colonel, says, You know, we defeated you in every battle in Vietnam. And Tu looked at him, and he said, Yes, I agree, but it was also irrelevant. I yield back.

Mr. PAUL. I would like to just make one more comment as we close the Special Order. I opened my remarks talking about Barbara Tuchman's ``The March of Folly.'' We are on the same course. I would say it's time to march home. I'm not for sending any more troops. It is very clear in my mind that if the job isn't getting done and we don't know what we're there for, I would say, you know, it's time to come home, because I fear--and it's been brought up. Congressman McGovern has brought it up, and everybody's talked about the finances of this because it is known that all great nations, when they spread themselves too thinly around the world, they go bankrupt. And that is essentially what's happened to the Soviet system. They fell apart for economic reasons. So there are trillions of dollars spent in this operation. We're flat-out broke, a $2 trillion increase in the national debt last year, and it just won't continue. So we may not get our debate on the floor. We may not be persuasive enough to change this course, but I'll tell you what, the course will be changed. Let's hope they accept some of our suggestions, because when a Nation crumbles for financial reasons, that's much more dangerous than us taking the tough stance and saying, It's time to come home.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I voted against H. Res. 700, designating the week of November 9 as National School Psychology Week to draw attention to the threat to liberty posed by proposals that school physiologists perform mandatory mental evaluations of all school children without parental consent. The New Freedom Commission on Mental Health has recommended that the federal and state governments work toward the implementation of a comprehensive system of mental-health screening for all Americans. The commission recommends that universal or mandatory mental-health screening first be implemented in public schools as a prelude to expanding it to the general public. However, neither the commission's report nor any related mental-health screening proposal requires parental consent before a child is subjected to mental-health screening. Federally funded universal or mandatory mental-health screening in schools without parental consent could lead to labeling more children as ``ADD'' or ``hyperactive'' and thus force more children to take psychotropic drugs, such as Ritalin, against their parents' wishes. Too many children are suffering from being prescribed psychotropic drugs for nothing more than children's typical rambunctious behavior. According to Medco Health Solutions, more than 2.2 million children are receiving more than one psychotropic drug at one time. In fact, according to Medico Trends, in 2003, total spending on psychiatric drugs for children exceeded spending on antibiotics or asthma medication. Many children have suffered harmful side effects from using psychotropic drugs. Some of the possible side effects include mania, violence, dependence, and weight gain. Yet, parents are already being threatened with child abuse charges if they resist efforts to drug their children. Imagine how much easier it will be to drug children against their parents' wishes if a federally funded mental-health screener makes the recommendation. Universal or mandatory mental-health screening could also provide a justification for stigmatizing children from families that support traditional values. Even the authors of mental-health diagnosis manuals admit that mental-health diagnoses are subjective and based on social constructions. Therefore, it is all too easy for a psychiatrist to label a person's disagreement with the psychiatrist's political beliefs a mental disorder. For example, a federally funded school violence prevention program lists ``intolerance'' as a mental problem that may lead to school violence. Because ``intolerance'' is often a code word for believing in traditional values, children who share their parents' values could be labeled as having mental problems and a risk of causing violence. If the mandatory mental-health screening program applies to adults, everyone who believes in traditional values could have his or her beliefs stigmatized as a sign of a mental disorder. Taxpayer dollars should not support programs that may label those who adhere to traditional values as having a ``mental disorder.'' In order to protect our nation's children from mandatory mental health screening, I have introduced introduce the Parental Consent Act (H.R. 2218). This bill forbids Federal funds from being used for any universal or mandatory mental-health screening of students without the express, written, voluntary, informed consent of their parents or legal guardians. This bill protects the fundamental right of parents to direct and control the upbringing and education of their children. I hope all my colleagues will cosponser H.R. 2218.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, on November 2, the family and friends of Mrs. Bertha Richardson gathered together to celebrate Mrs. Richardson's 100th birthday. I am pleased to extend belated birthday greetings to Mrs. Richardson. Mrs. Richardson is a life-long resident of Rosharon, Texas, which is in my congressional district. As the matriarch of her extended family, Mrs. Richardson continues to her relatives, and all members of her community, with the gifts of her faith and wisdom. I urge all my colleagues to join me in sending our best wishes to Bertha Richardson on the occasion of her 100th birthday.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, on October 23, the Galveston Chamber of Commerce will recognize the following members of the Texas State House and Senate for their tireless work in the Texas state legislature on behalf of the people of Galveston: Senator Joan Huffman, Senator Mike Jackson, Senator Steve Ogden, Representative Dan Branch, Representative Craig Eiland, Representative Jim Pitts, and Representative Larry Taylor. I am pleased to join the Galveston Chamber of Commerce in saluting these seven legislators. In the past year, each of these legislators have diligently worked to help the people of Galveston recover from Hurricane Ike. Among the issues they worked on were windstorm insurance, state support for rebuilding Galveston Island, and ensuring continued support for the University of Texas Medical Branch. I am honored to have a working relationship with these legislators. My district staff regularly communicates with the offices of these state legislators, in working together to meet the needs of our shared constituents. In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I again join my friends at the Galveston Chamber of Commerce in thanking Senator Joan Huffman, Senator Mike Jackson, Senator Steve Ogden, Representative Dan Branch, Representative Craig Eiland, Representative Jim Pitts, and Representative Larry Taylor for all they do for the people of Galveston. I look forward to continuing to work with these legislators.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. Sometimes I wonder how we can, with a straight face, bring a bill up like this with the conditions of this country, especially financially. I oppose this bill for two reasons. One, we don't have the money. That would be a pretty good reason not to support it. And the other reason is I do not believe it's in our national security interests. I know this is being promoted as benefiting our national security, but I do not believe it helps us one bit. This bill was essentially voted on in June, and the vote was 234-185, which means that it is assumed at least 56 or more individuals in the Congress have switched their votes. Now they say they have tinkered with the bill and changed it a little bit, but it's an authorization that could be $15 billion. So it hasn't had that much of a change. But today it is expected that these individuals will change and vote for this bill not really asking the questions. Now, the bill is defined as fortifying democratic institutions. That is a good goal. But it never, never works. We are in 130 countries, we have 700 bases around the world, and we pursue this, and we are bankrupting our country by trying to maintain this empire. I have often made the point that the way we treat our fellow countries around the world is we tell them what to do, and if they do it we give them money. If they don't do it, we bomb them. Under this condition, we are doing both. We are currently dropping bombs in Pakistan. The CIA is dropping bombs, and innocent people get killed. If you want to promote our good values and our democratic process, you can't antagonize the people by literally killing people over there, because if bombs were falling on this country, we wouldn't be all that happy with that. So this does not improve our conditions whatsoever. I would suggest another proposal for our foreign policy, not using bombs and bribes, but what about neither one? What about just talking to people? What about reducing tariffs? What about trading with them? Instead, it is this form of foreign policy that will not serve our interests.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, Ola Helm, a 23 year veteran of the United States Postal Service, will be officially sworn in as the 24th postmaster for the Brazoria, Texas post office on Thursday, October first. I am pleased to extend my congratulations to Postmaster Helm. Postmaster Helm began her postal career on May 10, 1986 as a letter carrier in my hometown of Lake Jackson, Texas. Over the years, Postmaster Helm held a variety of positions in the postal service, including window clerk, supervisor, coach postmaster and officer in charge at a variety of local post offices, including Danbury, Freeport, West Columbia, Sweeny and Needville. Prior to being appointed postmaster for Brazoria, Ola Helm served as Postmaster for the Van Vleck office. She has spent the past 17 months familiarizing herself with the employees and patrons of the Brazoria post office. The people of Brazoria County are lucky to have such a dedicated and experienced postal veteran serving as postmaster, and I am pleased to once again extend my congratulations to Postmaster Ola Helm.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, our government has been mismanaging medical care for more than 45 years. For every problem it has created, it has responded by exponentially expanding the role of government. Here are some points I'd like to have my colleagues consider. Number one, no one has a right to medical care. If one assumes such a right, it endorses the notion that some individuals have a right to someone else's life and property. This totally contradicts the principles of liberty. Number two, if medical care is provided by government, this can only be achieved by an authoritarian government unconcerned about the rights of the individual. Number three, economic fallacies accepted for more than 100 years in the United States have deceived policymakers into believing that quality care can only be achieved by government force, taxation, regulations, and bowing to a system of special interests that creates a system of corporatism. Number four, more dollars into any monopoly run by government never increases quality, but it always results in higher costs and prices. Number five, government does have an important role to play in facilitating the delivery of all goods and services in an ethical and efficient manner. Number six, first, government should do no harm. It should get out of the way and repeal all of the laws that have contributed to the mess we have. Number seven, the costs are obviously too high, but in solving this problem one cannot ignore the debasement of the currency as a major factor. Number eight, bureaucrats and other third parties must never be allowed to interfere in the doctor-patient relationship. Number 9, the Tax Code, including the ERISA laws, must be changed to give everyone equal treatment by allowing a 100 percent tax credit for all medical expenses. Laws dealing with bad outcomes and prohibiting doctors from entering into voluntary agreements with their patients must be repealed. Tort laws play a significant role in pushing costs higher, prompting unnecessary treatment and excessive testing. Patients deserve the compensation; the attorneys do not. Number 10, insurance sales should be legalized nationally across State lines to increase competition among the insurance companies. Number 11, long-term insurance policies should be available to young people similar to term life insurances that offer fixed prices for long periods of time. Number 12, the principle of insurance should be remembered. Its purpose in a free market is to measure risk, not to be used synonymously with social welfare programs. Any program that provides for first-dollar payment is no longer insurance. This would be similar to giving coverage for gasoline and repair bills to those who buy car insurance or providing food insurance for people who go to the grocery store. Obviously, that would not work. Number 13, the cozy relationship between organized medicine and government must be reversed. Early on medical insurance was promoted by the medical community in order to boost reimbursements to doctors and hospitals. That partnership has morphed into the government/insurance industry still being promoted by the current administration. Number 14, threatening individuals with huge fines by forcing them to buy insurance is a boon to the insurance companies. Number 15, there must be more competition for individuals entering into the medical field. Licensing strictly limits the number of individuals who can provide patient care. A lot of problems were created in the 20th century as a consequence of the Flexner Report in 1910, which was financed by the Carnegie Foundation and strongly supported by the AMA. Many medical schools were closed, and the number of doctors was drastically reduced. The motivation was to close down medical schools that catered to women, minorities, and especially homeopathy. We continue to suffer from these changes, which were designed to protect physicians' income and promote allopathic medicine over the natural cures and prevention of homeopathic medicine. Number 16, we must remove any obstacle for people seeking holistic and nutritional alternatives to current medical care. We must remove the threat of further regulations pushed by the drug companies now working worldwide to limit these alternatives. True competition in the delivery of medical care is what is needed, not more government meddling.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, many Americans are justly outraged that Wall Street firms that came hat in hand to receive bailouts from the federal government rewarded their executives with lavish bonuses. But while holding those financial firms accountable to the taxpayers is a laudable aim, the legislation before us, H.R. 3269, goes far beyond this. This is not the first time that Congress has meddled in matters of executive compensation, and unfortunately it will not be the last. Just like Congress' meddling with the economy, each intervention creates unseen problems which, when they crop up, are again addressed by legislation that creates further unseen problems, thus continuing the cycle ad infinitum. Problems with executive compensation cannot be addressed by further burdensome legislation. The Wall Street bailouts have already given the federal government too much power in corporate boardrooms, and H.R. 3269 is yet another step in the wrong direction. While shareholder votes on compensation may be non-binding now, once the precedent of government intervention on behalf of shareholders is set, there is no reason to believe that these votes will not become binding in the future. Perhaps even more frustrating is that enforcement of the provisions of this bill will be undertaken by overpaid bureaucrats who lack the skills to earn comparable salaries in the marketplace by providing useful products or services desired by consumers. People who shuttle between federal regulator and federally regulated firms, trading on their political connections and epitomizing the corruption endemic to the government-managed financial system, will be making decisions that affect every single public company in this country. In order to understand the reasons behind excessive executive compensation, we need to take a look at the root causes. The salaries and bonuses raising the most ire are those from the financial sector, the sector which directly benefits from the Federal Reserve's loose monetary policy. Loose monetary policy leads to speculative bubbles which drive up stock prices and enrich executives who cash in their stock options. It makes debt cheaper, which encourages reckless business expansion. And it shuttles money from industries that produce valuable products and services to industries that are favored by the federal government. H.R. 3269 is a well-intended but misguided piece of legislation. Until we strike at the root of the problem, we will never get our financial system back on a firm footing.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the big guns have lined up against H.R. 1207, the bill to audit the Federal Reserve. What is it that they are so concerned about? What information are they hiding from the American people? The screed is: ``Transparency is okay--except for those things they don't want to be transparent.'' Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke argues that H.R. 1207, the legislation to audit the Federal Reserve, would politicize monetary policy. He claims that monetary policy must remain ``independent,'' that is, secret. He ignores history, because chairmen of the Federal Reserve in the past, especially when up for reappointment, do their best to accommodate the President with politically driven low interest rates and a bubble economy. Former Federal Reserve Board Chairman Arthur Burns, when asked about all the inflation he brought about in 1971, before Nixon's re-election, said that the Fed has to do what the President wants it to do, or it would ``lose its independence.'' That about tells you everything. Not by accident, Chairman Burns strongly supported Nixon's program of wage and price controls, the same year; but I guess that's not political. Is not making secret deals with the likes of Goldman Sachs, international financial institutions, foreign governments and foreign central banks, politicizing monetary policy? Bernanke argues that the knowledge that their discussions and decisions will one day be scrutinized will compromise the freedom of the Open Market Committee to pursue sound policy. If it is sound and honest, and serves no special interest, what's the problem? He claims that H.R. 1207 would give power to Congress to affect monetary policy. He dreamt this up to instill fear, an old statist trick to justify government power. H.R. 1207 does nothing of the sort. He suggested that the day after an FOMC meeting, Congress could send in the GAO to demand an audit of everything said and done. This is hardly the case. The FOMC function, under 1207, would not change. The detailed transcripts of the FOMC meetings are released every 5 years, so why would this be so different, and what is it that they don't want the American people to know? Is there something about the transcripts that need to be kept secret, or are the transcripts actually not verbatim? Fed sychophants argue that an audit would destroy the financial market's faith in the Fed. They say this in the midst of the greatest financial crisis in history, brought on by none other than the Federal Reserve. In fact, Chairman Bernanke stated on November 14, 2007, that ``a considerable amount of evidence indicates that central bank transparency increases the effectiveness of monetary policy and enhances economic and financial performance.'' They also argue that an audit would hurt the value of the U.S. dollar. In fact, the Fed, in less than 100 years of its existence, has reduced the value of the 1914 dollar by 96 percent. They claim H.R. 1207 would raise interest rates. How could it? The Fed sets interest rates and the bill doesn't interfere with monetary policy. Congress would have no say in the matter; and besides, Congress likes low interest rates. It is argued that the Fed wouldn't be free to raise interest rates if they thought it necessary. But Bernanke has already assured the Congress that rates are going to stay low for the foreseeable future, and, again, this bill does nothing to allow Congress to interfere with interest rate setting. Fed supporters claim that they want to protect the public's interest with their secrecy. But the banks and Wall Street are the opponents of 1207, and the people are for it. Just who best represents the ``public's'' interest? The real question is, why are Wall Street and the Feds so hysterically opposed to 1207? Just what information are they so anxious to keep secret? Only an audit of the Federal Reserve will answer these questions.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the Congressional Responsibility and Accountability Act. This bill requires Congress to specifically authorize via legislation any proposed federal regulation that will impose costs on any individual of at least $5,000, impose costs on a business or other private organization of at least $10,000, or impose aggregate costs on the American people of at least $25,000, or cause any American to lose his or her job. According to some legal experts, at least three-quarters of all federal laws consist of regulations promulgated by federal agencies without the consent, or even the review of, Congress. Allowing unelected, and thus unaccountable, executive agencies to make law undermines democracy and violates the intent of the drafters of the Constitution to separate legislative and executive powers. The drafters of the Constitution correctly viewed separation of powers as a cornerstone of republican government and a key to protecting individual liberty from excessive and arbitrary government power. Congress's delegation of law-making authority to unelected bureaucrats has created a system that seems to owe more to the writings of Franz Kafka than to the writings of James Madison. The volume of regulations promulgated by federal agencies and the constant introduction of new rules makes it impossible for most Americans to know with any certainty the federal laws, regulations, and rules they are required to obey. Thus, almost all Americans live with the danger that they may be hauled before a federal agency for an infraction they have no reasonable way of knowing is against the law. While it is easy for members of Congress to complain about out of control federal bureaucrats, it was Congress that gave these agencies the ability to create laws. Since Congress created the problem of lawmaking by regulatory agencies, it is up to Congress to fix the problem and make certain that all federal laws are passed by the people's elected representatives. Therefore, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Congressional Responsibility and Accountability Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce two pieces of legislation restoring the First Amendment rights of consumers to receive truthful information regarding the benefits of foods and dietary supplements. The first bill, the Health Freedom Act, codifies the First Amendment by ending the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s efforts to censor truthful health claims. The second bill, the Freedom of Health Speech Act, codifies the First and Fifth Amendment by requiring the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to prove that health claims are false before it takes action to stop manufacturers and marketers from making the claims. The American people have made it clear they do not want the federal government to interfere with their access to dietary supplements, yet the FDA and the FTC continue to engage in heavy-handed attempts to restrict such access. The FDA continues to frustrate consumers' efforts to learn how they can improve their health even after Congress, responding to a record number of constituents' comments, passed the Dietary Supplement and Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA). FDA bureaucrats are so determined to frustrate consumers' access to truthful information that they are even evading their duty to comply with four federal court decisions vindicating consumers' First Amendment rights to discover the health benefits of foods and dietary supplements. FDA bureaucrats have even refused to abide by the DSHEA section allowing the public to have access to scientific articles and publications regarding the role of nutrients in treating diseases by claiming that every article concerning this topic is evidence of intent to sell an unapproved and unlawful drug. Because of the FDA's censorship of truthful health claims, millions of Americans may suffer with diseases and other health care problems they may have avoided by using dietary supplements. For example, the FDA prohibited consumers from learning how folic acid reduces the risk of neural tube defects for four years after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended every woman of childbearing age take folic acid supplements to reduce neural tube defects. This FDA action contributed to an estimated 10,000 cases of preventable neutral tube defects. The FDA also continues to prohibit consumers from learning about the scientific evidence that glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate are effective in the treatment of osteoarthritis; that omega-3 fatty acids may reduce the risk of sudden death heart attack; that calcium may reduce the risk of bone fractures; and that vitamin D may reduce the risk of osteoporosis, hypertension, and cancer. The Health Freedom Act will force the FDA to at last comply with the commands of Congress, the First Amendment, numerous federal courts, and the American people by codifying the First Amendment prohibition on prior restraint. Specifically, the Health Freedom Act stops the FDA from censoring truthful claims about the curative, mitigative, or preventative effects of dietary supplements. The Health Freedom Act also stops the FDA from prohibiting the distribution of scientific articles and publications regarding the role of nutrients in protecting against disease. The FDA has proven that it cannot be trusted to protect consumers' rights to make informed choices. It is time for Congress to stop the FDA from censoring truthful health information. The Freedom of Health Speech Act addresses the FTC's violations of the First Amendment. Under traditional constitutional standards, the federal government bears the burden of proving an advertising statement false before censoring that statement. However, the FTC shifted the burden of proof to industry. The FTC presumes health advertising is false and compels private parties to prove the ads (and everything the regulators say the ads imply) to be true to a near conclusive degree. This violation of the First and Fifth Amendments is harming consumers' by blocking innovation in the health foods and dietary supplement marketplace. The Freedom of Health Speech Act requires that the government actually prove that speech is false before the FTC acts against the speaker. This is how it should be in a free society where information flows freely in order to foster the continuous improvement that benefits us all. The bill also requires that the FTC warn parties that their advertising is false and give them a chance to correct their mistakes before the FTC censors the claim and imposes other punishments. Madam Speaker, if we are serious about putting people in charge of their health care, then shouldn't we stop federal bureaucrats from preventing Americans from learning about simple ways to improve their health. I therefore call on my colleagues to stand up for good health and the Constitution by cosponsoring the Health Freedom Act and the Freedom of Health Speech Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the House Republican standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I obtained as part of H.R. 3183, the Education and Transportation bills (1) Requesting Member: Congressman Ron Paul Bill Number: H.R. 3326 Account: DOD/RDTE, A Legal Name of Requesting Entity: U.S. DoD Address of Requesting Entity: 504 Scott Street, Fort Detrick, MD 21702 Description of Request: $4,200,000 For Testing of safety of vanadium. Protecting the health of servicemen and civilian workers.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the House Republican standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I obtained as part of HR 3183, the Education and Transportation bills 1) Requesting Member: Congressman Ron Paul Bill Number: H.R. 3288 Account: DOT, FHA Legal Name of Requesting Entity: City of Baytown Address of Requesting Entity: 2401 Market Street, Baytown, Texas 77522 Description of Request: An earmark of $400,000 to fund infrastructure improvements at the Highway 146 and Spur 330 in Texas. 2) Requesting Member: Congressman Ron Paul Bill Number: H.R. 3288 Account: DOT, FTA Legal Name of Requesting Entity: City of Galveston Address of Requesting Entity: PO Box 779, Galveston, Texas 77553 Description of Request: An earmark of $500,000 to fund transit vehicle replacement in Galveston, Texas. 3) Requesting Member: Congressman Ron Paul Bill Number: H.R. 3288 Account: DOT, FTA Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Gulf Coast Center Address of Requesting Entity: 123 Rosenberg, Ste 6; Galveston, Texas 77515 Description of Request: An earmark of $750,000 to fund a Park and Ride in League City, Texas. 4) Requesting Member: Congressman Ron Paul Bill Number: H.R. 3293 Account: DOE, FIPSE Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Brazosport College Address of Requesting Entity: 500 College Drive, Lake Jackson, Texas 77566 Description of Request: An earmark of $200,000 to fund equipment purchases at Brazosport College in Texas. 5) Requesting Member: Congressman Ron Paul Bill Number: H.R. 3293 Account: DOE, FIPSE Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Brazosport College Address of Requesting Entity: 500 College Drive, Lake Jackson, Texas 77566 Description of Request: An earmark of $380,000 to fund curriculum development at Brazosport College in Texas.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, on August 4 the Foundation for International Space Education (FISE) will host United Space School Day at the University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB) in Galveston, Texas. The United Space School Day is a summer science camp/health careers promotion activity coordinated by the East Texas Area Health Education Center (AHEC). The United Space School Day's activities will focus on the education pathways appropriate for students interested in careers in life sciences, aerospace medicine, and bioastronautics. United Space School Day is just one part of FISE's United Space School program. The United Space School program, which is rooted in the International Space School that was established in 1994, is the major way FISE carries out its mission of providing space-based academic instruction to pre-collegiate students from across America and around the world who are interested in science, engineering, technology, or mathematics careers. The United Space School gives these students the opportunity to learn from some of the space industry's leading experts. Participants in the programs follow a curriculum specially designed to provide appropriate training and development by instructors qualified and knowledgeable in the proper disciplines. As the students visit the various educational venues and participate in the space-related learning initiatives, they are exposed to myriad examples of space-related careers as well as careers in industries that support the space programs, including life sciences. United Space School students also benefit from daily one-on-one interaction with leading aerospace professionals from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)'s Johnson Space Center (JSC), and the supporting aerospace community. United Space School participants are also given a unique ``hands on'' learning experience through the development of a Manned Mission to Mars Project. United Space School's organization, schedule, and curriculum are designed to provide the structure, knowledge, resources, mentoring, and appropriate settings to complete the Manned Mission to Mars project. Madam Speaker, FISE's United Space School program is doing invaluable work in preparing the next generation of scientists and aerospace engineers. I would not be surprised if future breakthroughs in space technology came from alumni of the United Space School program. It is therefore my pleasure to extend my congratulations to the United Space School program on the occasion of the United Space School Day. I also extend my thanks to NASA, the Johnson Space Center, the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, East Texas AHEC, and all the volunteers who help make the United Space School program possible.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to cosponsor H. Res. 607, which commemorates the fortieth anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing. Apollo 11's successful mission was certainly ``a giant step for mankind,'' that should be a source of pride for all Americans. One of my favorite quotes regarding the moon landing was penned by philosopher Ayn Rand in 1969: ``Think of what was required to achieve that mission: think of the unpitying effort; the merciless discipline; the courage; the responsibility of relying on one's judgment; the days, nights and years of unswerving dedication to a goal; the tension of the unbroken maintenance of a full, clear mental focus; and the honesty. It took the highest, sustained acts of virtue to create in reality what had only been dreamt of for millennia.'' Rand's words not only apply to the Apollo 11 mission but to all of the work of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). As a representative of the Gulf Coast of Texas, which is home to many of NASA's most significant triumphs, I have had the opportunity to meet many NASA employees. I have always been impressed by their professionalism and dedication to their mission. In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to join me in celebrating the fortieth anniversary of the Apollo 11 mission to the moon by supporting H. Res. 607.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the House Republican standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I obtained as part of H.R. 3183, the Energy and Water bill Requesting Member: Congressman Ron Paul Bill Number: H.R. 3183 Account: DOE, EERE Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Galveston Wharves Address of Requesting Entity: PO Box 328, Galveston, TX 77553 Description of Request: An earmark of $250,000 to fund Solar Energy Project at the Port of Galveston, Texas. Requesting Member: Congressman Ron Paul Bill Number: H.R. 3183 Account: USACE, Investigations Legal Name of Requesting Entity: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Address of Requesting Entity: 2000 Fort Point Road, Galveston, TX 77550 Description of Request: An earmark of $675,000 to fund investigations at Port Freeport, Texas. Requesting Member: Congressman Ron Paul Bill Number: H.R. 3183 Account: USACE, Investigations Legal Name of Requesting Entity: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Address of Requesting Entity: 2000 Fort Point Road, Galveston, TX 77550 Description of Request: An earmark of $200,000 to fund investigations at Sabine Pass to Galveston Bay, Texas. Requesting Member: Congressman Ron Paul Bill Number: H.R. 3183 Account: USACE, Construction Legal Name of Requesting Entity: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Address of Requesting Entity: 2000 Fort Point Road, Galveston, TX 77550 Description of Request: An earmark of $500,000 to fund infrastructure improvement in Houston-Galveston Navigation Channels, Texas. Requesting Member: Congressman Ron Paul Bill Number: H.R. 3183 Account: USACE, Construction Legal Name of Requesting Entity: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Address of Requesting Entity: 2000 Fort Point Road, Galveston, TX 77550 Description of Request: An earmark of $2,500,000 to fund infrastructure improvement in Clear Creek, Texas. Requesting Member: Congressman Ron Paul Bill Number: H.R. 3183 Account: USACE, Construction Legal Name of Requesting Entity: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Address of Requesting Entity: 2000 Fort Point Road, Galveston, TX 77550 Description of Request: An earmark of $8,000,000 to fund infrastructure improvement in the Texas City Channel, Texas. Requesting Member: Congressman Ron Paul Bill Number: H.R. 3183 Account: USACE, O&M Legal Name of Requesting Entity: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Address of Requesting Entity: 2000 Fort Point Road, Galveston, TX 77550 Description of Request: An earmark of $1,790,000 to fund infrastructure improvement in Cedar Bayou, Texas. Requesting Member: Congressman Ron Paul Bill Number: H.R. 3183 Account: USACE, O&M Legal Name of Requesting Entity: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Address of Requesting Entity: 2000 Fort Point Road, Galveston, TX 77550 Description of Request: An earmark of $3,316,000 to fund improvements in Freeport Harbor, Texas. Requesting Member: Congressman Ron Paul Bill Number: H.R. 3183 Account: USACE, O&M Legal Name of Requesting Entity: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Address of Requesting Entity: 2000 Fort Point Road, Galveston, TX 77550 Description of Request: An earmark of $13,095,000 to fund infrastructure improvement in Galveston Harbor, Texas. Requesting Member: Congressman Ron Paul Bill Number: H.R. 3183 Account: USACE, O&M Legal Name of Requesting Entity: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Address of Requesting Entity: 2000 Fort Point Road, Galveston, TX 77550 Description of Request: An earmark of $2,264,000 to fund infrastructure improvement in Victoria Harbor, Texas. Requesting Member: Congressman Ron Paul Bill Number: H.R. 3183 Account: USACE, O&M Legal Name of Requesting Entity: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Address of Requesting Entity: 2000 Fort Point Road, Galveston, TX 77550 Description of Request: An earmark of $26,046,000 to fund infrastructure improvement in the GIWW, Texas. Requesting Member: Congressman Ron Paul Bill Number: H.R. 3183 Account: USACE, O&M Legal Name of Requesting Entity: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Address of Requesting Entity: 2000 Fort Point Road, Galveston, TX 77550 Description of Request: An earmark of $4,627,000 to fund infrastructure improvement in the Matagorda Ship Channel, Texas. Requesting Member: Congressman Ron Paul Bill Number: H.R. 3183 Account: USACE, O&M Legal Name of Requesting Entity: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Address of Requesting Entity: 2000 Fort Point Road, Galveston, TX 77550 Description of Request: An earmark of $4,000,000 to fund infrastructure improvement in the Texas City Ship Channel, Texas.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, at a time when the financial headlines are dominated by stories of financial institutions seeking taxpayer funds and other special privileges, I am pleased to call my colleagues' attention to a story from the Galveston Daily News about how four community banks came together to help their friends, neighbors and customers begin to recover and rebuild from Hurricane Ike. Last fall, as the people of Galveston were assessing the damage from Hurricane Ike and Congress was beginning debate on spending billions of taxpayer funds to bail out irresponsible financial institutions, representatives of Frost, HomeTown, Moody National and Texas First banks meet to discuss how these banks could help jumpstart hurricane recovery efforts. The four banks agreed to make unsecured bridge loans to Galveston businesses to ensure these businesses had access to capital while they waited for federal assistance and insurance payments. The four banks made more than $40 million in recovery loans. These loans provided lifelines to many businesses struggling with both the devastation of Hurricane Ike and the credit crisis. Without the efforts of these four banks, several Galveston businesses would have had to shut their doors. In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I extend my thanks to management and employees of Frost, HomeTown, Moody National, and Texas First banks for their efforts to help the businesses and people of Galveston recover from Hurricane Ike. [From the Galveston Daily News, May 24, 2009] Banks Stepped Up When Chips, Economy Were Down (By Laura Elder) Just days after Hurricane Ike, as failing Wall Street institutions roiled the U.S. financial system, civic leaders and representatives of four banks forged an agreement that would profoundly shape the island's economic recovery. After several meetings, some in storm-swamped buildings under generator-powered lights, representatives of Frost, HomeTown, Moody National and Texas First banks agreed to make unsecured bridge loans to island businesses for rebuilding until federal money and insurance payments materialized. The community banks made more than $40 million in recovery loans at a time when lending by industry giants had all but ground to a halt. The 180-day loans, at 5 percent interest, were a lifeline to local businesses hoping to recover quickly from a hurricane that inflicted $11.4 billion in damage along the upper Texas Coast. Some island business owners said their livelihoods would have been lost for good had it not been for the help of community bankers. Line Of Credit Charley DiBella, owner of DiBella's Italian Restaurant, which took in 4 feet of storm surge, was helped by HomeTown Bank not once but twice after Hurricane Ike, which struck Sept. 13. DiBella credits the bank and Gary Gilliland, chief commercial lending officer, for providing a line of credit to the restaurant. With the loan, DiBella's was able to make storm repairs and open in November. But in January, disaster struck again when a fire broke out on the second floor of the 20-year-old restaurant. HomeTown Bank helped again, DiBella said. DiBella's Italian Restaurant plans to reopen Tuesday. ``Without HomeTown Bank and Gary Gilliland, there wouldn't be a DiBella's Restaurant,'' DiBella said. ``I had insurance, but you know what that's like.'' Gilliland, who checked on properties for his clients who had evacuated and weren't allowed back on the island for days after the storm, was in May named Indie Banker of the Month by Independent Banker Magazine for his work during Hurricane Ike. Bridge Of Dollars HomeTown Bank, at last count, had made more than $6 million in bridge loans to area businesses after the storm, said Jimmy Rasmussen, president and chief executive officer. Two days after Ike struck, Wall Street institution Lehman Brothers filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, deepening a financial crisis and already painful credit crunch that had stalled lending. Fast-and-loose credit practices by the banking giants had come home to roost. No `Voodoo' Products But independent and community banks were never caught holding a bundle of bad loans. ``We're not sitting here selling voodoo products to peddle to people,'' said Matt Doyle, vice chairman of Texas First Bank. That local competing banks got together in one room after the hurricane wasn't so unusual, Doyle said. ``We may be competitors, but we're community bankers,'' Doyle said. ``When our community is suffering, all that goes out the window, and it's never really even in the house.'' Texas First Bank lent $8.5 million in recovery loans. Bankers are the first to say their efforts weren't without self-interest. They certainly earned money from the loans. And they made loans based on credit history, long-standing relations and with the understanding they would be repaid. In It Together And if a lot of local businesses failed, the local banks were going to feel it, so they had an interest in the success of their neighbors. ``If Galveston business didn't recover, we're all going to be damaged, all going to take losses,'' said Vic Pierson, president of Moody National Bank, which made about $21 million in recovery loans after the storm. ``It was in our best interest to do whatever we could to assist as rapidly as we could for business recovery on the island.'' Strong Relationships Those who didn't have strong relationships with their bankers were left waiting for help from the Small Business Administration and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Pierson said. ``Those programs are very good, but to finally get some dollars can take 90 to 120 days or longer,'' Pierson said. ``A business couldn't wait three or four months to get started and I think that's where the local community banks came in.'' Watching a business rebuild can encourage others to follow, Pierson said. ``It was absolutely critical that people started putting their businesses back together and making a statement,'' Pierson said. Need Remains Albert Shannon, Frost Bank's group president in this region, and other bankers interviewed for this story credited Mayor Lyda Ann Thomas and Jeff Sjostrom, president of Galveston Economic Development Partnership, for the idea of recovery loans. Island businessman Gerald Sullivan, who early after the storm was appointed by Thomas to help with recovery, also played a role in encouraging recovery loans, bankers said. Frost Bank, headquartered in San Antonio, made $5 million in recovery loans, Shannon said. Sjostrom recently traveled to Manatee, Fla., to share ideas with officials there about recovery efforts. ``They were just amazed at the response of our local lenders,'' Sjostrom said. Still only about 75 percent of the island's 2,500 business have returned, Sjostrom said. Many were uninsured for flood damage when Ike struck. Businesses that aren't able to turn to the banks are doing what they can to recover, Sjostrom said, ``They're not sitting back waiting and crying,'' Sjostrom said. ``They're going forward doing what they have to make it work. We still have a lot of businesses that need financial help.''

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, at a time when the financial headlines are dominated by stories of financial institutions seeking taxpayer funds and other special privileges, I am pleased to call my colleagues' attention to a story from the Galveston Daily News about how four community banks came together to help their friends, neighbors and customers begin to recover and rebuild from Hurricane Ike. I ask for unanimous consent to insert this story into the Congressional Record. Last fall, as the people of Galveston were assessing the damage from Hurricane Ike and Congress was beginning debate on spending billions of taxpayer funds to bail out irresponsible financial institutions, representatives of Frost, HomeTown, Moody National and Texas First banks met to discuss how these banks could help jumpstart hurricane recovery efforts. The four banks agreed to make unsecured bridge loans to Galveston businesses to ensure these businesses had access to capital while they waited for federal assistance and insurance payments. The four banks made more than $40 million in recovery loans. These loans provided lifelines to many businesses struggling with both the devastation of Hurricane Ike and the credit crisis. Without the efforts of these four banks, several Galveston businesses would have had to shut their doors. In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I extend my thanks to management and employees of Frost, HomeTown, Moody National, and Texas First banks for their efforts to help the businesses and people of Galveston recover from Hurricane Ike.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the Complete and Permanent Property Tax Deduction Act of 2009. This bill makes the property tax deduction, which is scheduled to expire this year, permanent and removes all limitations on the deduction. The Complete and Permanent Property Tax Deduction Act will help millions of Americans who struggle with high property taxes. Making the property tax deduction permanent will especially benefit senior citizens, whose homes often are the major part of their wealth, and young families struggling to cope with the costs of owning new homes. I respectfully urge my colleagues to help ensure all homeowners can continue to take advantage of the property tax deduction by cosponsoring this legislation.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to cosponsor H. Res. 607, which commemorates the fortieth anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing. Apollo 11's successful mission was certainly a ``giant leap for mankind,'' that should be a source of pride for all Americans. One of my favorite quotes regarding the moon landing was penned by philosopher Ayn Rand in 1969: ``Think of what was required to achieve that mission: think of the unpitying effort; the merciless discipline; the courage; the responsibility of relying on one's judgment; the days, nights and years of unswerving dedication to a goal; the tension of the unbroken maintenance of a full, clear mental focus; and the honesty. It took the highest, sustained acts of virtue to create in reality what had only been dreamt of for millennia.'' Rand's words not only apply to the Apollo 11 mission but to all of the work of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). As a representative of the Gulf Coast of Texas, which is home to many of NASA's most significant triumphs, I have had the opportunity to meet many NASA employees. I have always been impressed by their professionalism and dedication to their mission. In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to join me in celebrating the fortieth anniversary of the Apollo 11 mission to the moon by supporting H. Res. 607.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the House Republican standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I obtained as part of HR 2996. Requesting Member: Congressman Ron Paul Bill Number: H.R. 2996 Account: Fish and Wildlife Service, Land Acquisition Legal Name of Requesting Entity: San Bernard Wildlife Refuge Address of Requesting Entity: 2547 CR 316, Brazoria, TX 77422 Description of Request: An earmark of $2,500,000 to fund Land Acquisition for the San Bernard Wildlife Refuge in Brazoria County, Texas. Requesting Member: Congressman Ron Paul Bill Number: H.R. 2996 Account: EPA, STAG Water and Wastewater infrastructure project Legal Name of Requesting Entity: City of Baytown Address of Requesting Entity: 2401 Market Street, Baytown, TX 77522 Description of Request: An earmark of $500,000 to fund Water and Wastewater infrastructure improvement in Baytown, Texas.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, public officials looking for ways to increase economic growth and attract new residents and businesses to their cities, counties, or states could learn a lot from the city of Stafford, Texas, and Mayor Leonard Scarcella. Stafford has flourished since 1995 when, under Mayor Scarcella's leadership, the city eliminated the property tax. Thanks to the absence of property taxes, Stafford residents enjoy cheaper mortgages and have more disposable income than similarly situated residents of towns with property taxes. The extra income as a result of the freedom from property taxes is particularly beneficial during today's tough economic times. The loss of property tax revenue has not deprived Stafford residents of quality city services; in fact, Stafford resident Alice Rolston told the Houston Chronicle that the police check on her home when she is on vacation, many homeowners living in towns with high property taxes can't count on that type of service. Entrepreneurs looking to start up businesses are attracted to Stafford because of the lack of property taxes, Fortune magazine ranks Stafford the 36th best American city to start and run a small business. While Stafford sales, franchise, and permit fees account for some of its ability to operate without a property tax, the major factor in the city's success is the city's fiscally prudent management. Stafford Councilman Cecil Willis says the mayor watches every penny in the city's budget. City employees often perform two or more functions and the city council even debates whether to authorize the purchase of light bulbs and pencils. Madam Speaker, Mayor Scarcella is also a good argument against term limits, as he is one of the few elected officials who remains as committed to low taxes today as when he led the fight to eliminate the property tax. Mayor Scarcella should serve as a role model to us all in how to effectively govern without burdening the people with excessive taxes.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to H. Res 560, which condemns the Iranian government for its recent actions during the unrest in that country. While I never condone violence, much less the violence that governments are only too willing to mete out to their own citizens, I am always very cautious about ``condemning'' the actions of governments overseas. As an elected member of the United States House of Representatives, I have always questioned our constitutional authority to sit in judgment of the actions of foreign governments of which we are not representatives. I have always hesitated when my colleagues rush to pronounce final judgment on events thousands of miles away about which we know very little. And we know very little beyond limited press reports about what is happening in Iran. Of course I do not support attempts by foreign governments to suppress the democratic aspirations of their people, but when is the last time we condemned Saudi Arabia or Egypt or the many other countries where unlike in Iran there is no opportunity to exercise any substantial vote on political leadership? It seems our criticism is selective and applied when there are political points to be made. I have admired President Obama's cautious approach to the situation in Iran and I would have preferred that we in the House had acted similarly. I adhere to the foreign policy of our Founders, who advised that we not interfere in the internal affairs of countries overseas. I believe that is the best policy for the United States, for our national security and for our prosperity. I urge my colleagues to reject this and all similar meddling resolutions. Madam Speaker, I urge you to support H.R. 560, expressing support for all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and rule of law and for other purposes. The only effective way to achieve lasting peace and prosperity in the region, along with bringing about reforms in Iran's polity, is to assist the Iranian people in their quest to achieve political, social, and religious liberty. Every government can be judged with the way in which it treats its ethnic and religious minorities, and the current Iranian government gets a failing grade for its treatment of its many and diverse minorities. It is not our position as the United States to determine the outcome of the recent Iranian elections, but as a leader in the international community, we have a responsibility to ensure that the people of Iran have the opportunity to have fair and free elections. Yet with the results of the recent election, there was no chance for Iranian citizens to participate in democracy. On June 12, 2009 Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was ostensibly re-elected to his second term as President, as a result of the tenth Presidential elections in Iran, held and calculated on June 13, 2009. Subject to official results released by Iran's election headquarters, out of a total of 39,165,191 ballots cast in the presidential election, Ahmadinejad allegedly won 24,527,516 votes, which accounts for approximately 62.6 percent of the votes, while his opponent and former Prime Minister of Iran Mir-Hossein Mousavi purportedly secured only 13,216,411 (37.4 percent) of the votes. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei announced that he envisions Ahmadinejad as president in the next five years, a comment interpreted as indicating support for Ahmadinejad's reelection. Just 48 hours after Iranian officials announced incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's landslide 62.6% victory, the situation in Tehran and in regions throughout the country broke out in a wave of violent protests in response to what the people of Iran knew to be a rigged poll. Yet despite the large-scale civil unrest in response to the rigged elections, the outstretched arm of the Ayatollah extends beyond Tehran. Whereas the size of the crowds protesting reached to more than 1 million people united in outrage at the absence of a fair and free electoral process. Despite the government ban that has been placed on all public gatherings with the purpose of voicing opposition to the outcome of the Iranian presidential elections, the people of Iran have publicly expressed their dissent. Iranians throughout the country have defied Interior Ministry warnings broadcast. Violence has spilled on to the streets of Tehran. To date, 7 Iranians have been killed in violent political unrest. Beyond Tehran, Iranians living in the rural regions are feeling the Ayatollah's pressures to cease all public expression of their discontent with the outcome of the elections. The Iranian people living in the region of Mashad are currently confined to their homes in order to prevent them protesting in the streets. All foreign journalists have now been quarantined and/or made to leave the country. Following the results of the June l2th Iranian election, President Obama released a statement in reaction to then elections in Iran, stating ``I am deeply troubled by the violence that I've been seeing on television,'' Obama said in Washington. ``I can't state definitively one way or another what happened with respect to the election. But what I can say is that there appears to be a sense on the part of people who were so hopeful and so engaged and so committed to democracy who now feel betrayed.'' Given the absence of fair and free elections, coupled with the government's poor record for transparency and accountability, we have deep cause for concern about the opportunity for free choices and democratic participation for the people of Iran. Despite intensified inspections since 2002, the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) inability, to verify that Iran's nuclear program is not designed to develop a nuclear weapon is cause for great concern. While Iran states that the intention of its nuclear program is for electricity generation which it feels is vital to its energy security, U.S. officials challenge this justification by stating that ``Iran's vast gas resources make a nuclear energy program unnecessary.'' Establishing a diplomatic dialogue with the Government of Iran and deepening relationships with the Iranian people will only help foster greater understanding between the people of Iran and the people of the United States and would enhance the stability the security of the Persian Gulf region. Furthering President Obama's approach toward continued engagement will reduce the increased threat of the proliferation or use of nuclear weapons in the region, while advancing other U.S. foreign policy objectives in the region. The significance of establishing and sustaining diplomatic relations with Iran cannot be over-emphasized. Avoidance and military intervention cannot be the means through which we resolve this looming crisis. In conclusion, we must condemn Iran for the absence of fair and free Presidential elections and urge Iran to provide its people with the opportunity to engage in a Democratic election process, by demanding new elections, and ensure that all votes are fairly counted. I look forward to further meaningful discussion and a new foreign policy strategy with regard to Iran when the people of Iran are able to participate in a fair and democratic electoral process.