VARIOUS FOREIGN POLICY SUSPENSION BILLS AT THE END OF THE 109TH CONGRESS -- (Extensions of Remarks - December 08, 2006)
* Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my concern about the House of Representatives at the last minute rushing to the floor dozens of bills spending tens of millions of dollars and interfering in the affairs of foreign countries. Mr. Speaker, we woke up this morning with the surprise announcement that we would face at least 35 of these suspension bills. Suspension bills are customarily noncontroversial--naming post offices and the like. I can hardly think of anything more controversial than sending tens of millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars overseas to interfere in the affairs of foreign countries.
* The suspension calendar is being used to pass the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank, which funnels millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to foreign governments. For example, through the Export-Import Bank, Americans are forced to subsidize China's economic growth with some $4 billion dollars per year. Is this not controversial?
* Additionally, today's suspension bills will turn an additional 52 million dollars in foreign aid over to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Is this not controversial?
* Possibly more damaging in today's ``noncontroversial'' suspension bills are the several bills that seek to meddle in the affairs of foreign countries. Today's suspension bills, whether they regard Lebanon, Iran, Congo, or Nepal, make it clear that we still have not learned the lessons we should have learned from Iraq and all of our previous interventions that have gone awry. Mr. Speaker, it is bad enough that Congress acts as if its jurisdiction extends across the entire globe, must we add insult to injury by treating this as simply run of the mill, noncontroversial legislation?