Ron Paul

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk a little bit more about our policy because, as I said before, I think it is the policy that gets us into these predicaments and that, if you deal with this as a strictly technical/tactical problem that we have to face in how to rectify our problems, I don't think it will occur. I think we have to deal in the overall policy. In many ways, we follow a schizophrenic type of foreign policy because, one time, they are our best friends, then later on they become our worst enemies. This was true with Saddam Hussein. In the 1980s, he was our friend. We took care of him. We encouraged him and supported his war. Then of course that changed. Even right before 9/11, the Taliban were still receiving money from us, and now they receive money from us indirectly. The Taliban gets money from the Pakistanis, or at least information as has been reported, but they literally get some of our money in the process because, in order for us to move equipment through Afghanistan, they literally end up getting American dollars from doing this. So here we are going into Pakistan. One of the arguments to go into Pakistan is that we have to go after the Taliban--that they are over there, that they are organizing and that they want to kill the American soldiers in Afghanistan. This means that now they are our archenemies. Yet the Taliban, especially in the 1980s, weren't called the Taliban; they were called the Mujahedeen. It was a precursor, but they were our best friends along with Osama bin Laden. We were allies with them because we supported the principle that it was wrong for the Soviets to be occupying Afghanistan. Now the tables have turned. Now we are the occupiers. Now the very people who used to help us are shooting and killing us. It has been revealed just recently with this release of information that they actually have some Stinger missiles, and as of the last month or so, three of our helicopters have been shot down. So where does this all end? One thing about the reports in the newspaper, I think if they changed the definition or the use of one term, I think it would change everybody's attitude, if people came around to believing that the Taliban are people who aren't dedicated toward coming over here to kill us, like some of the al Qaeda are, but the Taliban are only interested in getting rid of the occupiers of their country. So we call them militant. So we go in, and we raid and shoot and kill and bomb, and then we say, aha, we killed 37 militants today. What if we reported this always like we did in the eighties.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chair, the Flood Insurance Reform Priorities Act makes a number of changes to the National Flood Insurance Program. Some of these changes are in the interests of taxpayers, such as the new restrictions on subsidies for second houses and vacation homes, while others, particularly the coverage limits, are in the interest of those who own property in flood plains. However, taken in its entirety this bill is not really in the interest of taxpayers or property owners because it creates new federal programs that appear to serve no useful purpose and it continues to allow the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to impose unnecessary costs on local communities. At a time when the flood insurance program is running a deficit of 2 billion dollars this legislation wastes millions of taxpayer dollars on ``outreach'' and ``education'' programs designed to make sure people living in flood prone areas are aware of the need for flood insurance. Madame Speaker, as a homeowner in a flood plain, I can assure you that property ownership these areas are very aware of the need for flood insurance and do not need any outreach or reminders of the need for flood insurance. Many critics of flood insurance have pointed out that federally- subsidized insurance encourages people to develop land in areas where under a free market system flood insurance would be prohibitively expensive. This is a valid point; however, it is also true that the flood insurance program often imposes flood insurance mandates on property owners in areas where there is little actual risk of flooding. Much of the controversy over the redrawing of the flood plain maps revolves around concerns that FEMA may force local communities to spend millions of dollars refurbishing levees and dams even though these structures were constructed specifically to protect against the worst conceivable storms. In some cases, FEMA is even demanding that communities spend money to alter levies that were constructed after consultation with the Corp of Engineers! While I am pleased the bill at least provides a phase-in of the flood insurance mandate for property owners living in the newly- mapped flood plains, I am concerned that it does not do enough to ensure communities and individuals are not forced to incur needless expenses simply to satisfy FEMA bureaucrats. At the least, Congress should not give FEMA the ability to impose new flood maps without adequate oversight. Yet, under this bill, it would be five years before Congress seriously re-examines the flood program. The basic problem with the flood insurance program is that it assumes government officials are capable of knowing who should and who should not be required to purchase flood insurance, and also determine the premiums for every individual living in a flood-prone area. However, there is no way that government bureaucrats can determine correct amounts of coverage and premium prices for millions of individual homeowners. If flood insurance were allowed to be provided by the market, private insurance could do an accurate job of pricing risk so that those who wished to live in flood-prone areas could do so as long as they were willing to pay for the risk. Under this market system, property owners and insurance companies would have incentives that are lacking when the program is subsidized by the government; i.e., incentives to adopt innovative ways to mitigate the damage from floods. My district has experienced numerous storms and floods, including Hurricane Ike in 2008. After each incident, my office inevitably receives complaints from my constituents regarding FEMA's failure to provide them with timely assistance and compensation. My constituents' dissatisfaction with FEMA, along with the shameful way extension of the flood insurance program was held hostage last month in order to blackmail representatives into supporting adding billions more to the national debt, has strengthened my conviction that private markets, local communities, and states can more efficiently and humanely deal with the demand for flood insurance than the federal government. The Flood Insurance Reform Priorities Act does take some steps toward fixing some of the problems with the flood insurance system, but it also needlessly spends taxpayer money and does not adequately address concerns that FEMA may impose unnecessary costs on local communities-- communities which do have plenty of incentive to make sure they are adequately prepared for a flood. Therefore, I must oppose this bill.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed from H.R. 5621.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. It's been described rather vividly on this side of the aisle how messy this process is, so I strongly oppose this. Of course, I also strongly oppose the funding, especially for the funding for the war. This is a war that I've objected to for a very long time. This war is going badly. It's not a declared war. We don't have a precise enemy. The Taliban is the spoken enemy, and yet the Taliban are individuals who have never committed terrorism outside their homeland. The Taliban is an outgrowth of the mujahadin, who we were at one time allies with, along with Osama bin Laden. So it isn't a very neat little war. Here we are, we are the most powerful Nation in the world, the most powerful army ever organized in the history of the world. And yet we are fighting a war that essentially is not a war. We're fighting a war against individuals that have no tanks, no planes, no ships, no modern technology; and we're not doing well. There's something wrong. If it were truly a war, a declared war and we knew who the enemy was, the war would be over. The fact that the war is not over after 9 years, it's draining us, it's draining us of life and limb, it's draining us of funding. The wars in the Middle East have drained trillions of dollars, and we are suffering from a severe problem, a financial crisis here at home. So it's time that we start looking abroad and looking at what we're trying to maintain. We're in over 130 countries, 900 bases. It's unsustainable. It was brought to attention this past week that we were having problems. If we were doing well in Afghanistan, we wouldn't be firing our generals. We want to put the blame on the generals. If we change the generals, everything is going to be okay. But our generals are trained to fight wars. They're not trained to be nation builders and social workers and policemen. So this is a war that I see is going to be very difficult, if not impossible, to win until we change our policy.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, in January 1991, we went to war in the Middle East against Saddam Hussein, Iraq's dictator who was our ally during the Iran-Iraq war. A border dispute between Kuwait and Iraq broke out after our State Department gave a green light to Hussein's invasion. After Iraq's successful invasion of Kuwait, we reacted with gusto and have been militarily involved in the entire region 6,000 miles from our shores ever since. This has included Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia. After 20 years of killing and a couple trillion dollars wasted, not only does the fighting continue with no end in sight, but our leaders threaten to spread our bombs of benevolence on Iran. For most Americans, we are at war, at war against a tactic called terrorism, not a country. This allows our military to go anyplace in the world without limits as to time or place. But how can we be at war? Congress has not declared war, as required by the Constitution, that is true. But our Presidents have, and Congress and the people have not objected. Congress obediently provides all the money requested for the war. People are dying. Bombs are dropped. Our soldiers are shot at and killed. Our soldiers wear a uniform; our enemies do not. They are not part of any government. They have no planes, no tanks, no ships, no missiles, and no modern technology. What kind of a war is this anyway, if it really is one? If it was a real war, we would have won it by now. Our stated goal since 9/11 has been to destroy al Qaeda. Was al Qaeda in Iraq? Not under Saddam Hussein. Our leaders lied us into invading Iraq and deceived us into occupying Afghanistan. There is still really no al Qaeda in Iraq and only 100 or so in Afghanistan, and yet there is no end in sight to the war. Could there have been other reasons for this war that is not a war? A military victory in Afghanistan is illusive. Does anyone really know who we are fighting and why? Why has the war not ended? Nine years, and it continues to spread. Some claim it is to keep America safe, that our soldiers are fighting and dying for our freedom, defending our Constitution. Are we being lied to in order to keep us in this spreading war, just as we were lied to in the 1960s to keep us in Vietnam? We own the Iraq Government, as we do Afghanistan. In Afghanistan, we are fighting the Taliban, those dangerous people with guns defending their homeland. Once they were called the Mujahideen, our old allies, along with bin Laden, in the fight to oust the Soviets from Afghanistan in the 1980s. In that effort, our CIA funded radical jihad against that nasty foreign occupier, the Russians. What gratitude. Those same people now resent our benevolent occupation, with a little violence thrown in. The resistance to our presence grows as our perseverance wanes. Our people are waking up, but our officials refuse to recognize the longer we stay, the greater is the support for those dedicated to the principle that Afghanistan is for Afghans who resent all foreign occupation. The harder we fight a war that is not a war, the weaker we get and the stronger becomes our enemy. When an enemy without weapons can respect an army of great strength, the most powerful of all history, one should ask, who has the moral high ground? Military failure in Afghanistan is to be our destiny. Changing generals without changing our policies or our policymakers perpetuates our agony and delays the inevitable. This is not a war that our generals have been trained for. Nation building, police work, social engineering is never a job for foreign occupiers and never an appropriate job for soldiers trained to win wars. A military victory is no longer even a stated goal of our military leaders or our politicians, as they know that type of victory is impossible. The sad story is, this war is against ourselves, our values, our Constitution, our financial well-being and common sense. And at the rate we're going, it's going to end badly. What we need are honest leaders with character and a new foreign policy.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, the Advocates for Self-Government, one of the freedom movement's leading organizations, is celebrating their 25th anniversary this year. I am pleased to take this opportunity to congratulate the Advocates on this anniversary and wish them continued success in promoting liberty. The Advocates where founded by my friend, the late Marshall Fritz. Marshall saw that the growth of the freedom movement was handicapped by the lack of an organization to help activists better communicate the freedom philosophy to the general public. In order to remedy this situation, Marshall rallied a group of activists and donors and founded the Advocates in order to teach libertarians how to effectively communicate their principles. Under the leadership of Marshal from 1985 until 1991; Carole Ann Rand from 1991 until 1995; and Sharon Harris since 1995; the Advocates has helped countless libertarians by providing them with the intellectual resources necessary to effectively battle for a free society. Without a doubt, the Advocates are best known for the ``World's Smallest Political Quiz.'' Created by Marshall and based on an original idea by David Nolan, this quiz graphs an individual's political philosophy based on responses to a series of ten questions that measure one's commitment to economic and personal liberty. Under Marshall's leadership, the Advocates undertook an aggressive program of promoting the quiz, distributing millions of copies of the quiz to libertarian activists. They also generously provide free copies of the quiz, as well as libertarian literature and other outreach materials, free of charge to liberty-minded groups such as the Republican Liberty Caucus and Young Americans for Liberty. The quiz has been taken over 15 million times online, has been reprinted in dozens of newspapers and magazine, is referenced by major high school and college textbooks, and is used by educators in classrooms across America. The quiz is responsible for many people's first contact with libertarian ideas. While traveling around the country, I have often heard people say, ``I never knew I was a libertarian until I took the quiz.'' The Advocates also recently revamped their Libertarianism.com web site, featuring commentary on the libertarian position on a variety of issues from notables in the freedom movement. I was honored when the Advocates asked me to participate in this project. As they prepare to celebrate their 25th anniversary, it is a pleasure to thank the founder, the staff and the donors of the Advocates for Self-Government for all they have done for the cause of liberty. I wish them continued success.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentleman from Alabama for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this piece of legislation. I'm afraid it is not going to do much to solve our problems. I know it's very well intended, and it's believed that more regulations will solve the problems; but, quite frankly, the problems that we're facing come from a deeply flawed monetary system. I had made an attempt to emphasize this point by talking about a full audit of the Federal Reserve, and fortunately this House was strongly in support of this piece of legislation. There are 320 cosponsors of this bill. It passed rather easily on the Financial Services Committee, and then it was put into the House version of this reform package. But it was removed in conference. Although there is some attention given to getting more information from the Fed, it truly doesn't serve as a full audit. If we don't eventually address the Federal Reserve in depth, we will never fully understand how financial bubbles are formed and why more regulations tend to fail. If the financial markets were pleased with what we're doing here today and the discussion of the last several weeks, they wouldn't be reeling as they are at this very moment. So I would say that we should be very cautious in expanding the role of the regulatory agencies, which does not solve the problem. At the same time, giving more power to the Federal Reserve doesn't make much sense if the theory is right that the Federal Reserve is the source of much of our problems. Now, some objected to the transparency bill of the Federal Reserve and said that that was too much information, that the Federal Reserve had to be totally independent. The Federal Reserve Transparency Act doesn't do anything about removing transparency. It doesn't change monetary policy. It just says that the American people and the Congress have a right to know what they do. After the crisis hit, the Federal Reserve injected $1.7 trillion and guaranteed many more trillions of dollars, and it was very hard to get any information whatsoever. So an ongoing audit to find out exactly what they do and why they do it, I think, would be a first step to finding out the relationship of the Federal Reserve system to the banking system and the financial community. Transparency is something the American people have been asking for and they want. They didn't like the lack of transparency with the TARP funds; and once the American people found out about what goes on at the Fed, they want transparency of the Fed. So fortunately today we will have a chance to vote on this because it will be in the recommittal motion, and it will give us a chance to put the language back in, the H.R. 1207, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act, a chance to audit the Fed. So this will be a perfect opportunity to emphasize the importance of the Fed and to say that we do need a full audit.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I oppose H.R. 5481, which gives subpoena power to the National Commission on the British Petroleum Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling. This is an overly broad grant of power to a presidential commission. This commission was created by Executive Order without any input from Congress and appears designed to perform oversight and policy functions that should be performed by Congress. Furthermore, this commission may be used to promote the anti- freedom and economically destructive ``cap-and-trade'' legislation, as well as provide justification for the administration's policies of restricting offshore drilling. Instead of ratifying the Executive Branch's continued use of the deepwater disaster as an excuse to usurp more power, Congress should ensure that the Executive Branch actions do not allow British Petroleum to escape accountability for the damages caused by the spill and that any necessary policy changes are made by Congress.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, this year marks the centennial of the Boy Scouts of America. Like most Americans, I am a long-time admirer of the Boy Scouts of America organization. The Boy Scouts have taught generations of young men the values of teamwork and the importance of continuingly striving for excellence, as well as providing its members the opportunity to develop leadership skills at a young age. It is therefore my pleasure to congratulate the Boy Scouts of America on the occasion of their one-hundredth anniversary. I would also like to extend a special thanks to all those who have made the great work of the Boy Scouts possible by volunteering to serve as Troop Leaders, Den Mothers, and in other positions with their local Boy Scouts Troops. Finally, Madam Speaker, I would like to extend special congratulations to the following Boy Scout Troops in my district who will be honored at the City of Fulsher's annual Fulsher Friday Night on July 2: Boy Scouts of America Troop 941; Boy Scouts of America, Cub Scout Pack 941; Boy Scouts of America Troop 1103; Boy Scouts of America Troop 1103, Cub Scout Pack 1103; Boy Scouts of America Troop 941, and Cub Scout Pack 941.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the House of Representatives recently considered H. Res. 1422, honoring the 140th anniversary of the Department of Justice. I voted against this resolution because of the Justice Department's history of violating individual rights. It is the Justice Department that leads the ongoing violations of the fourth, fifth, ninth, and tenth amendments in the name of the ``war on drugs.'' It is Justice Department agents who perform warrantless wiretap, and ``sneak-and-peak'' searches under the misnamed PATRIOT Act. It is the Justice Department that prosecutes American citizens for violating unconstitutional federal regulations even in cases where no reasonable person could have known their actions violated federal law. Some like to pretend that the Justice Department's assault on liberties is a modern phenomenon, or that abuses of liberties are only carried out by one political party. However, history shows that the unconstitutional usurpations of power and abuse of rights goes back at least almost a hundred years to the ``Progressive'' era and that Justice Departments of both parties have disregarded the Constitution and violated individual liberties. During World War I, President Woodrow Wilson's Justice Department imprisoned people who dared to speak out against the war. Following the war, the progressive assault on the first amendment continued with the infamous ``Palmer raids,'' named for Wilson's Attorney General, A. Mitchell Palmer. Just as President Wilson's policies of foreign interventionism and domestic welfare served as a model for future presidents, Attorney General Palmer's assaults on civil liberties served as a model for future attorneys general of both parties. Think of Robert Kennedy authorizing the wiretapping of Martin Luther King, Jr., John Mitchell's role in the abuses of civil liberties by the Nixon administration, Ed Meese's assault on the first amendment with his ``pornography commission,'' Janet Reno's role in the murder of innocent men, women and children at Waco, and the steady erosion of our rights over the past decade. In addition, it is the attorney general and the Justice Department that defend and justify violations of constitutional liberties by the President and the other federal bureaucracies. Many civil libertarians were hopeful the new administration would be more sympathetic to civil liberties than was the prior administration. But the current administration has disregarded campaign promises to restore respect for civil liberties and has continued, and in many cases expanded, the anti-freedom policies of its predecessors. For instance, the current administration is supporting renewal of the policies of warrantless wiretapping and other PATRIOT Act provisions. The administration, despite promising to be more open and transparent, is also continuing to use the claim of ``state secrets'' to shield potentially embarrassing information from Americans. According to the New York Times, the current administration is even outdoing its predecessors in the prosecution of government whistleblowers. It is little wonder that the head of the American Civil Liberties Union recently said he is disgusted with the administration's record on civil liberties. Of course, Mr. Speaker, Congress bears ultimate responsibility for the Justice Department's actions, as it is Congress that passes the unconstitutional laws the Justice Department enforces. Congress also fails to perform effective oversight of the Justice Department. Instead of honoring the Justice Department, Congress should begin to repeal unconstitutional laws and start exercising congressional oversight of executive branch agencies that menace our freedoms.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support H. Con. Res. 546, legislation commemorating a monumental day in the history of liberty, Juneteenth Independence Day. Juneteenth marks the events of June 19, 1865, when slaves in Galveston, Texas learned that they were at last free men and women. The slaves of Galveston were the last group of slaves to learn of the end of slavery. Thus, Juneteenth represents the end of slavery in America. I hope all Americans will take the time to commemorate Juneteenth. Friends of human liberty should celebrate the end of slavery in any country. The end of American slavery is particularly worthy of recognition since there are few more blatant violations of America's founding principles, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence, than slavery. I am particularly pleased to join the recognition of Juneteenth because I have the privilege of representing Galveston. I thank the gentleman from Illinois for introducing this resolution, which I am proud to cosponsor. I thank the House leadership for bringing this resolution to the floor, and I urge all of my colleagues to honor the end of slavery by voting for H. Con. Res. 546.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, on June 26, 2010, the Galveston Historical Foundation will celebrate its acquisition of the historic 1861 U.S. Custom House. I was pleased to help make this possible by sponsoring legislation, H.R. 2121, which directed the General Services Administration (GSA) to sell the Custom House to the Galveston Historical Foundation. H.R. 2121 passed the House by voice vote on September 9, 2009. It is therefore a great pleasure to extend my congratulations to the Galveston Historical Foundation for acquiring the U.S. Custom House. The U.S. Custom House is the oldest non-military federal building in Galveston. The two-story structure was built in 1861 and has served many important historical functions, including housing the ceremony that officially ended the Civil War in Galveston. In 1917, construction began on a federal courtroom located on the second floor of the U.S. Custom House. In 1970, the house was listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and in 1974 it was commemorated as a Historic Custom House by the U.S. Customs Service. In 1998, the Galveston Historical Foundation entered into a public- private partnership with the Federal Government that allowed the Galveston Historical Foundation to lease the building from the GSA. Under this agreement, the Galveston Historical Foundation took responsibility for performing renovations on the U.S. Custom House. In 2008, the house was inundated with six feet of flood waters from Hurricane Ike. Fortunately, the Galveston Historical Foundation has been able to complete restoration of the first floor of the Custom House earlier this year. Madam Speaker, by owning as opposed to leasing, the Galveston Historical Foundation will be able to improve this historical structure for future generations of Texans. It is difficult to think of a more appropriate owner for the U.S. Custom House than the Galveston Historical Foundation. Founded in 1954, the Galveston Historical Foundation is one of the Nation's largest local preservation organizations. Over the last 56 years, this foundation has expanded its mission to encompass community redevelopment, public education, historic preservation advocacy, maritime preservation and stewardship of historic properties. Today, the Galveston Historical Foundation has over 2,000 members representing individuals, families, and businesses across Texas, the U.S., and around the world. The Galveston Historical Foundation's accomplishments include the redevelopment of The Strand; the rescue and restoration of the 1877 iron barque the ELISSA; the revitalization of historic residential neighborhoods and creation of historic districts; and the conception of signature events including Dickens on The Strand and the Galveston Historic Homes Tour. The Galveston Historical Foundation has received numerous awards and honors. For example, they have twice received the National Trust for Historic Preservation's prestigious Honor Award. In 1991, the Galveston Historical Foundation was the first recipient of the Governor's Award for Excellence in Historic Preservation, and in 1995, received the National Trust's first ever award for organizational excellence. The American Institute of Architects has presented the foundation a Citation of Honor for its ongoing contribution to urban design and the quality of life in Galveston. In addition, the Association for Preservation Technology International honored the Galveston Historical Foundation with a Presidential Citation in 2004. In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I once again congratulate the Galveston Historical Foundation for acquiring the U.S. Custom House, and I extend my thanks to the Galveston Historical Foundation for all they do to preserve Galveston's rich heritage.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this motion to instruct. I think it is a good idea that we don't have the taxpayers bailing out eternally institutions that are bankrupt. But there is an important thing to remember, that when an economy gets out of kilter, the marketplace demands a correction of that. And that's usually called the recession. Of course, we are not discussing here today exactly how we get into the excesses, but we do. And, unfortunately, debt gets too high and mal-investment gets too excessive, and the market wants to correct this. Now, it's essential that this excessive debt be liquidated. It can be liquidated in two different ways. It can be written off by inflationary currency and paid off with bad money, or it can be liquidated actually through the bankruptcy process. So I am in strong support of this, but I also want to make a point here and a suggestion to the conferees that they pay attention to the provision in the House version of our bill dealing with the Federal Reserve. And that provision is called H.R. 1207, which deals with the auditing. And there is a difference between the Senate version and the House version. So, although we are not talking about that specifically, to me it's important, not only for the issue of oversight and transparency, but there is also an opportunity for the Federal Reserve to provide bailout provisions for certain organizations, as well. We are talking about taxpayers' funds, the appropriated funds, TARP funds and others. But when we come to extending loans, in a way this very much is a bailout. So I would like to suggest that we look at that and stand by the House provision. We do have 319 cosponsors of this provision.

Mr. PAUL. I thank the chairman. And I would just like to reemphasize that it is the responsibility of the Congress to commit to oversight of the Federal Reserve, something that we have been derelict in doing. I think the mood of this House and the mood of the Senate and the mood of the country is more transparency and more oversight. The provision in the Senate version is not adequate for an audit of the Fed. So I am encouraged that we are getting more attention because, ultimately, it is necessary that we understand exactly how the business cycle comes about and how the Federal Reserve participates in this. Because, under the circumstances of today, on what we are doing, we are prolonging our agony. And someday I would hope to see that our recessions--and now we are talking about depressions--are minimized and shortened. And I am concerned that the programs that we are working with today are prolonging those changes. So the most important thing that we can do is make sure that we exert our responsibilities, have oversight of the Federal Reserve, commit to these audits of the Federal Reserve, and not to endorse the idea that the Federal Reserve is totally secret, can do what they want, can bail out other companies and banks and foreign governments and foreign central banks without fully knowing exactly what they are doing. Once again, I thank the chairman of the committee for his support for auditing the Fed.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, on June 12, 2010 the Greater Mount Zion Church in Brazoria, Texas will observe the Grand Opening and Church Dedication of their new worship facility. Greater Mount Zion Church is one of the fastest growing churches in Southern Brazoria County, having quadrupled their active membership and attendance since 2005. Greater Mount Zion services Southern Brazoria County with over 40 ministries, including several ministries aimed at serving children, teenagers, and young adults. In 2005, in order to better serve the people of Brazoria County, the Greater Mount Zion (GMZ) Education and Development Center was created. The GMZ Education and Development Center has implemented a number of programs focusing on areas such as academics, employment, financial management, family stability, and civic involvement. Greater Mount Zion's newly finished facility will facilitate in continuing partnerships, as well as creating opportunities for new partnerships, with other churches, faith-based groups, schools, community organizations and businesses, thus allowing Greater Mount Zion and GMZ Education and Development Center to better serve their community. While Greater Mount Zion's prior facility consisted of a sanctuary that seated 130 individuals, three classrooms, and a multi- purpose building with a half-gym, the new campus includes a sanctuary which seats approximately 500 individuals, 10 classrooms, and a multi- purpose building with a full gym. The new campus will allow more individuals and organizations to use the facility for academic and other programs that help the residents of Brazoria find employment, achieve financial success, and attain their other personal and professional goals. Madam Speaker, I once again congratulate the staff and congregation of Greater Mount Zion Baptist Church on the opening of their new facility and I thank them for all they have done for the people of Brazoria County.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the Private Option Health Care Act. This bill places individuals back in control of health care by replacing the tax-spend-and-regulate health care law Congress passed last month with reforms designed to restore a free market health care system. The major problems with American health care are rooted in government policies that encourage excessive reliance on third-party payers. The excessive reliance on third-party payers removes incentives for individual patients to concern themselves with health care costs. Laws and policies promoting Health Maintenance Organizations, HMOs, resulted from a desperate attempt to control spiraling costs. However, instead of promoting an efficient health care system, HMOs further took control over health care away from patients and physicians. Furthermore, the third-party payer system creates a two-tier health care system where people whose employers can afford to offer ``Cadillac'' plans have access to top quality health care, while people unable to obtain health insurance from their employers face obstacles in obtaining quality health care. The Private Option Health Care Act gives control of health care back into the hands of individuals through tax credits and tax deductions, improving Health Savings Accounts and Flexible Savings Accounts. Specifically, the bill: A. Provides all Americans with a tax credit for 100 percent of health care expenses. The tax credit is fully refundable against both income and payroll taxes; B. Allows individuals to roll over unused amounts in cafeteria plans and Flexible Savings Accounts (FSA); C. Provides a tax credit for premiums for high-deductible insurance policies connected with a Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) and allows seniors to use funds in HSAs to pay for medigap policies; D. Repeals the 7.5 percent threshold for the deduction of medical expenses, thus making all medical expenses tax deductible. This bill also creates a competitive market in heath insurance. It achieves this goal by exercising Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause to allow individuals to purchase health insurance across state lines. The near-monopoly position many health insurers have in many states and the high prices and inefficiencies that result, is a direct result of state laws limiting people's ability to buy health insurance that meets their needs, instead of a health insurance plan that meets what state legislators, special interests, and health insurance lobbyists think they should have. Ending this ban will create a truly competitive marketplace in health insurance and give insurance companies more incentive to offer quality insurance at affordable prices. The Private Option Health Care Act also provides an effective means of ensuring that people harmed during medical treatment receive fair compensation while reducing the burden of costly malpractice litigation on the health care system. The bill achieves this goal by providing a tax credit for negative outcomes insurance purchased before medical treatment. The insurance will provide compensation for any negative outcomes of the medical treatment. Patients can receive this insurance without having to go through lengthy litigation and without having to give away a large portion of their awards to trial lawyers. Finally, the Private Option Health Care Act also lowers the prices of prescription drugs by reducing barriers to the importation of Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved pharmaceuticals. Under my bill, anyone wishing to import a drug simply submits an application to the FDA, which then must approve the drug unless the FDA finds the drug is either not approved for use in the United States or is adulterated or misbranded. This process will make safe and available imported medicines affordable to millions of Americans. Letting the free market work is the best means of lowering the cost of prescription drugs. Madam Speaker, the Private Option Health Care Act allows Congress to correct the mistake it made last month by replacing the new health care law with health care measures that give control to health care to individuals, instead of the federal government and politically- influential corporations. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker I rise in opposition to this legislation not because I do not wish to express sympathy to those killed in the recent sinking of a South Korean naval vessel near the border with North Korea, but rather because I object strongly to the threatening and militaristic language in this resolution. I do not believe Congressional expressions of sympathy for those who have lost their lives should include language that further escalates an already volatile situation on the Korean peninsula. At a time when the United States maintains nearly 30,000 troops in South Korea, serving as a tripwire for an American response should hostilities break out between North and South, this resolution should, if anything, counsel caution and diplomacy rather than urge the U.S. government ``to take other appropriate actions in response to the sinking of the ROKS Cheonan and other hostile acts of North Korea.'' Further, in reaffirming the United States' ``enduring commitment to the . . . security of the Republic of Korea,'' this resolution signals a U.S. willingness to commit military force should the current escalation in tensions continue between North and South. It is difficult to imagine a more dangerous or inappropriate time for such statements. I believe this unfortunate incident should instead serve as a wake-up call for the United States to re-assess its military presence in South Korea in particular and Asia in general. Maintaining the U.S. global empire is costing us one trillion dollars per year and is undermining rather than contributing to peace and stability. The North and South Koreans have all the incentive to reach a peaceful solution to their long-standing conflict and have made strides recently in that direction. The U.S. military presence in South Korea some 50 years after the Korean War is an impediment to that progress and should be ended immediately.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, today I introduce legislation to permanently extend the first-time homebuyer tax credit and to make the credit available to people whose homes have been destroyed by a natural disaster, such as a hurricane. The legislation also makes a number of changes to existing tax credits in order to enhance their usefulness to victims of natural disasters. Specifically, this bill makes the casualty loss deductions available to taxpayers who do not itemize and it makes the casualty loss provision available for five years after the disaster. This legislation also helps people who have lost their jobs because of a natural disaster by making unemployment payments provided under the Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act tax free. Renewing the first-time home buyer's credit will help Americans purchase a first home with their own money, instead of having to rely on government-funded or backed programs. The other sections of this legislation were inspired by conversations my staff and I had with constituents who had to purchase new homes because Hurricane Ike destroyed their prior homes. The first-time homebuyer's tax credit could be of tremendous value to these people, yet the law denies them the credit because they are replacing destroyed homes. My bill not only reinstates that first-time homebuyer's credit, it also corrects that oversight. It is hard to think of a more beneficial or compassionate expansion of the first-time homebuyer tax credit than to make the credit available to those whose homes have been destroyed or damaged by natural disasters. In addition, the changes to the casualty loss provision will help more taxpayers affected by natural disasters. Repealing the taxes on unemployment benefits provided to people affected by natural disasters will ensure those forced onto the unemployment rolls because of a natural disaster are not further burdened by having to pay taxes on their unemployment benefits. Providing tax relief to first-time homebuyers and to those affected by natural disasters should be one of Congress' top priorities. I therefore urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I voted against H. Res. 1258 designating the month of May as National Mental Health Month to draw attention to the threat to liberty posed by proposals to perform mandatory mental evaluations of all schoolchildren 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 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 co-sponsor H.R. 2218.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I would like to enter into the record an article from the New York Sun dealing with a court case that could have a dramatic impact on current federal legal tender laws. A number of federal judges are appealing the elimination of their cost of living increase, claiming that this is an unconstitutional diminution of pay. In fact, Madam Speaker, even if they had received a cost of living increase they may still have received a pay cut, because the government's CPI figure is purposely manipulated to underestimate the true inflation rate. Perhaps the most interesting facet of this case is the potential implication for federal legal tender laws. Some experts speculate that if the current case is unsuccessful the judges' only recourse would be to challenge legal tender laws that artificially prop up the value of paper money. Against gold, the paper dollar has lost 80 percent of its value over the past decade. No amount of cost of living increases could overcome devaluation this severe. I am waiting with anticipation for the ultimate resolution of this case, and encourage my colleagues to read this thought-provoking article.- [From the New York Sun, May 11, 2010] Kagan's First Case Could Involve a Question of Her Own--And Her Colleagues'--Pay (By Staff Reporter of the Sun) New York--If Solicitor General Kagan is confirmed before the start of the Supreme Court's coming term, one of her first big cases on the high bench could touch on one of the most sensitive questions the court has ever handled--the pay of federal judges themselves. The case was launched quietly some years ago by a rainbow coalition of some of the most distinguished judges on the federal bench. They are seeking to overturn an act of Congress rescinding an automatic pay increase designed to protect federal judges from the ravages of inflation, and are likely this month to ask the Supreme Court to take the case. What makes the case so sensitive--potentially explosive, even--is that it could prove to be a stepping stone, whether intended or not, toward re-opening the question of legal tender. For the question of judges' pay confronts the courts with the question of whether a one-dollar note of legal tender that trades today at less than 1,000th of an ounce of gold is compensation equal to a one-dollar note of currency that was worth, say, a decade ago four times as much. What makes federal judges so special is that it is unconstitutional to diminish the pay of any federal judge while he is in office. Were the judges eventually forced to confront that question, says one legal scholar of the monetary system, Edwin Vieira Jr., ``it would have profound economic and political effects, and it would cause a re-evaluation of the entire monetary system. Congress would be forced to undergo a complete re-evaluation of the monetary system.'' The federal judges asking the Supreme Court to review the rescission of their cost-of-living adjustments aren't raising the legal tender question, at least not yet. They are not asking to be paid in constant--or inflation-adjusted-- dollars, and they appear to believe that the Supreme Court doesn't have to address that issue to satisfy their claim that Congress violated the anti-diminishment clause of the Constitution when it removed a previously promised cost-of- living raise. But they also have to be well aware of the enormity of the issue that lies just beyond the claim they are making. The plaintiffs themselves comprise an array of senior judges and some of the most distinguished figures on the federal bench. They include two appointees of President Carter--a district judge of the Eastern District of Louisiana, Peter Beer, and a judge on the district court in central California, Terry Hatter, Jr.; two appointees of President Reagan--Thomas F. Hogan, of the District Court for the District of Columbia, and Laurence H. Silberman, who rides the District of Columbia Circuit of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Also among the plaintiffs are three appointees of President Clinton--Richard Paez, who rides the Ninth Circuit for the United States Court of Appeals, and Jas. Robertson, of the District Court for the District of Columbia, and A. Wallace Tashima, who was elevated to ride the 9th Circuit by Mr. Clinton after having first served as a district judge on the nomination of Mr. Carter. The pay of judges is one of the most sensitive issues in American history. The Declaration of Independence enumerates judges pay as one of the ``injuries and usurpations'' committed by George III against the Americans. The Declaration stated that the British tyrant ``has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.'' It was that claim that led the Founders to establish, in Article III of the Constitution, that ``[j]udges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour''--meaning for life--and that they ``shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.'' The complaint in the latest case, which is known as Beer v. U.S., would not be the first time federal judges have gone to court with claims in respect of their pay. As recently as 2008 at New York State, judges launched a legal case to gain a raise. New York's constitution, like the federal constitution, also prohibits the lowering of a judge's pay. But the argument the New York judges have made, and they have made it in their own courts, is that the way the legislature in Albany has handled the issue violates the principle of separation of powers. Beer v. U.S. involves federal judges, who are seeking a hearing by the Supreme Court with a different argument--that when Congress scinded a legislated cost-of-living adjustment, as it did for a number of recent years, the judges' pay was diminished. The judges lost in their early rounds on a complicated set of issues, partly of precedent established in an earlier case when judges fought for a cost of living increase. In some recent legal fracases involving judges pay, there have been statements from several Supreme Court justices, including one by Justice Scalia, that seem to have emboldened the judges filing a claim in the latest case. They are expected to file in the next few days a petition for the Supreme Court to hear their claim that earlier precedents were wrongly decided and that rescinding a legislated cost- of-living adjustment is a diminishment. The Supreme Court has ruled that in cases where a judge has an interest in the outcome of a case but is by necessity the party who must hear it, it is the judge's duty to rule, despite the conflict of interest. It may be that were Ms. Kagan to be elevated to the Supreme Court she would decide to recuse herself from Beer v. U.S. because of her either direct or tangential involvement in the case as solicitor general. One difference between the current case and earlier ones is that the country is now in a historic monetary crisis, in which the value of United States fiat money has collapsed to such a degree that the Supreme Court would have to go through contortions to avoid considering it. In the past decade, the value of a dollar has plummeted to less than a 1,200th of an ounce of gold from, say, the 265th of an ounce of gold that it was worth at the start of the president of George W. Bush. This means that the legal tender with which a judge is paid today is worth less than a quarter of what it was worth a decade ago. The Supreme Court ruled after the Civil War that the federal government's paper money had to be accepted as legal tender. The centerpiece of the court's rulings was called Knox v. Lee and involved payment for a flock of sheep. But there is a legion of scholars and activists who believe--as did the Chief Justice of the United States at the time of Knox, Salmon Chase--that Knox v. Lee was wrongly decided. Such scholars argue that the majority in Knox v. Lee would never have sustained the monetary system we have today. These critics point out that the Founders of America, who used the word ``dollars'' twice in the Constitution, all knew what the word meant--namely, 416 grains of standard silver or 371 \1/4\ grains of pure silver, the same as was in a then- ubiquitous coin known as a Spanish milled dollar, which was also known as a piece of eight. That standard was codified in one of the most famous laws passed in the early years of the republic, the Coinage Act of 1792. Critics of the legal tender law believe that 416 grains of standard silver--or the free market equivalent in gold--is the only form of constitutional money. ``If the judges bringing the case of Beer v. United States fail to convince the Supreme Court to restore their cost of living adjustment, federal judges will then have no option left but to reformulate their case so as to challenge the legal tender concept as presently applied,'' says Mr. Vieira.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to call attention to my colleagues of a vote that occurred in the other body today. Senator Vitter from Louisiana offered an amendment to the financial reform package in the Senate that was essentially--it was exactly the same as H.R. 1207, which is Audit the Fed bill. There was a vote on this, and unfortunately there were only 37 Senators that voted in favor of this Audit the Fed bill. This is rather sad because it is already in the House version of the financial reform bill, and in the House we have 319 cosponsors of this bill. So it is a very well-accepted bill by a broad spectrum of both Republicans and Democrats. But the reason why this is so disturbing is because of the current events going on in the financial markets. Right now we are involved with bailing out Europe and especially bailing out Greece, and we are doing this through the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve does this with currency swaps. They do this by literally giving loans and guarantees to other central banks, and they can even give loans to governments. So this is placing the burden on the American taxpayers, not direct taxation, but by expanding the money supply, this is a tax on the American people because this will bring economic hardship to this country. And because we have been doing this for so many years, the economic hardship is already here. We have been suffering from it. But the problem comes that once you have a system of money where you can create it out of thin air, there is no restraint on the spending in the Congress. And then the debt piles up, and then they get into debt problems as they are in Greece and other countries in Europe. And how do they want to bail them out? With more debt. But what is so outrageous is that the Federal Reserve can literally deal in trillions of dollars. They don't get the money authorized. They don't get the money appropriated. They just create it, and they get involved in bailing out their friends, like they have been doing for the last 2 years, and now they are doing it in Europe. So my contention is that they deserve oversight. Actually, they deserve to be reined in where they cannot do what they are doing. But initially, we need oversight, and that is why this vote of only 37 Senators willing to audit the Federal Reserve in a thorough manner and hold them in check, which means that there were 62 Senators that support the idea of maintaining a status quo with the Fed and that they will still be able to make these loans to these foreign central banks. Now, what has this led to? It has led to tremendous pressure on the dollar. The dollar is the reserve currency of the world. We bail out all of the banks and all of the corporations. We have been doing this for the last couple of years to the tune of trillions of dollars, and even today it looks like the dollar is strong on the international exchange market. People are frightened about what is happening throughout the world, and they are buying Treasury bills and they are buying dollars and holding dollars. But the real truth is the dollar is very, very weak, because the only true measurement of the value of currency is its relationship to gold. For 6,000 years, gold has been the best measurement of the value of a country's currency. In the 1970s, we were very much aware of what was happening. Our dollar was depreciated to gold at 18 percent, and it ushered in a whole decade of inflation: prices going up 15 percent; interest rates up to 21 percent. In the last 10 years, our dollar has been devalued 80 percent in terms of gold. That means, literally, we have printed way too much money. Right now, we are just hanging on. The world is hanging on the fact that the dollar still is usable. But the whole problem is our financial situation is no better in this country than around the world. There is just a greater trust in our dollar because we have a military machine and we have economic growth in this country which is greater than others; but, quite frankly, it is quite weak. So we face a very serious crisis. To me, it is very unfortunate that we are not going to have this Audit the Fed bill passed in the Senate. It has been passed in the House. Possibly we can salvage this in conference and make sure that this occurs. But since the Federal Reserve is responsible for the business cycle, for the inflation, and for all of the problems that we have, it is so vital that we stand up and say it is time for us to assume the responsibility, because it is the Congress, under the Constitution, which has been authorized to be responsible for the value of the currency. As a matter of fact, the Constitution still says, it has not been amended or changed, but only gold and silver are supposed to be used as legal tender, not pieces of paper, not computer entries. This can't work. It is not working very well. The world is starting to recognize this, and I am really concerned about what is going to happen, because a currency crisis is much worse than a financial crisis. We have just been through the financial crisis. We are in the midst of it. But a currency crisis, which is on our doorstep, means that our dollar will be devalued.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, on May 16, 2010, Galveston, Texas will celebrate Reverend David Everson Day in honor of Reverend Everson's eleven years of service as the pastor of the First Union Baptist Church. I am pleased to join the First Union Baptist congregation, and all the people of Galveston, in celebrating Reverend Everson's 11 years of service. First Union Baptist has had numerous achievements under Reverend Everson's leadership. For example, First Union Baptist's Hall Chapel was repaired and adapted to serve as a computer school and resource center for youth and adult literacy. Reverend Everson also led efforts to repair the church parsonage. In the aftermath of Hurricane Ike; Reverend Everson worked tirelessly to meet the immediate spiritual needs of the First Union Baptist congregation while ensuring that First Union Baptist could resume its schedule of regular weekly services and ancillary activities as soon as possible. Reverend Everson continued to demonstrate exceptional commitment to his parish while leading the efforts to repair the damage the church suffered during Hurricane Ike. Reverend Everson has contributed greatly to both the church, and the entire Galveston community, by being there for all who need a friend, comforter, and spiritual counselor. Reverend Everson not only cares for those in his congregation, he is always seeking to bring new people into the First Union Baptist congregation. The people of First Union Baptist, and all of Galveston, are certainly lucky to have such a dedicated man as Reverend Everson in their community. I, therefore, join the congregation of First Union Baptist Church and all of the people of Galveston in celebrating Reverend David Everson Day.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. I rise today to talk a bit about our economy and the marketplace which, if anybody has observed, is in shambles. A couple of years ago, we had a financial crisis; basically, a bit of problems in debt with the financial institutions, the banks, and a lot of corporations. That was a rather hectic period of time. But I think what we're moving into now is much, much more serious, and what I see happening is that this is not a financial problem as much as a currency problem. Everybody knows there are major problems in Greece right now because of the debt load that they have and they cannot finance, and nobody is there at the moment to bail them out. A lot has been happening. I have been interested in this subject for a long time. As a matter of fact, in 1971, with the breakdown of the Bretton Woods agreement, I became fascinated with economics and politics. At that time, there was a devaluation of the dollar of 3.8 percent, and it was very, very big news. And that's when the dollar was connected to gold and there was a devaluation against gold. This was a major event and ushered in a major amount of inflation in the 1970s. Yet, this process continues. As a matter of fact, the breakdown in 1971 opened up the doors to massive inflation. And that's what we have been doing for 35, 40 years of inflating the currency, creating many and multiple financial bubbles which have burst and have given us a great deal of trouble. But a currency crisis is much worse because people lose confidence in the dollar. Now, I have talked a lot about the value of the dollar. And somebody might wonder exactly why I would come today and talk about the concern I have for the value of the dollar, because if you look at the dollar, the dollar is a haven. The dollar has been going up sharply in terms of other international currencies. They would say that this is a haven. It's still strong. People are buying our Treasury bills. But I still argue the case that there is a currency crisis going on. Because if you look at the one true money, the one money that has existed for 6,000 years that outlasts all the paper money and all the fiat currency, that is gold. It doesn't look very good and is sending a signal that a lot of inflation lurks in the future. In the past several years, maybe even 10 or 15 years, the dollar and the gold relationship depended on gold acting as a commodity. It moved with the stock market. It moved with commodity prices. But no longer. Instead of the gold going down when the stocks went down, instead of the gold going down when the commodities go down, instead of the gold going down when the dollar goes up, all of a sudden people are resorting to putting dollars and other currencies in gold. This is sending a signal that the confidence is being lost in the entire fiat monetary system. And the dollar, of course, is the reserve currency of the world and, therefore, a very significant event. But there are even other statistics to suggest that we're in for a lot more inflation. If we look at what has happened to producer prices in the past 12 months, we find out that producer prices have already moved up significantly. For instance, finished consumer goods are up 8.2 percent in the last 12 months. Finished consumers goods, excluding food, are up 8.3. Finished energy goods are up 20 percent. Now, that has not yet affected the Consumer Price Index, but, in the months to come, the producer prices will move into the consumer products, so we can expect a lot more inflation. Now, the way we get in this trouble is due to accepting some notions about money that are false. We have believed since 1971 that there should be no linkage of our money to anything sound as the Constitution mandates. There should be no linkage of the dollar to gold or silver, which then gives the Congress leeway of spending endlessly; deficits don't matter. We can tax and we can borrow; but if we still don't have enough money, we can depend on the Federal Reserve just to print the money. Now, that has lasted for a long time, and we've been getting away with it; but the market is more powerful than the central bank and the politicians. The market usually rules and they come and say the money isn't worth what it used to be. There's too much mal-investment, there's too much debt, and therefore a correction must occur. This happened with the financial situation: there had to be a correction, the bubble burst, and there are some adjustments. But everything that we have done over these past several years and even over the last several decades has always been to resort to more inflation, print more money, spend more money, which only produces a problem that delays the inevitable. What I am afraid of is the inevitable is here, and we must do something about it.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to speak about Hemp History Week. To celebrate the American heritage of growing industrial hemp, the Hemp Industries Association, Vote Hemp, several American manufacturers, and allied companies and organizations have declared May 17 to May 23 to be Hemp History Week. Throughout the week, people will recognize America's legacy of industrial hemp farming and call for reinstating respect for farmers' basic right to grow industrial hemp. Industrial hemp was legally grown throughout our country for many years. In fact, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson grew industrial hemp and used it to make cloth. During World War II, the federal government encouraged American farmers to grow hemp to help the war effort. Despite industrial hemp farming being an important part of American history, the federal government has banned cultivation of this crop. In every other industrialized country, industrial hemp, defined to contain less than 0.3 percent THC--the psychoactive chemical found in marijuana--may be legally grown. Nobody can be psychologically affected by consuming industrial hemp. Unfortunately, because of a federal policy that does not distinguish between growing industrial hemp and growing marijuana, all hemp products and materials must be imported. The result is high prices, outsourced jobs, and lost opportunities for American manufacturing. Reintroducing industrial hemp farming in the United States would bring jobs to communities struggling in today's economy, provide. American farmers with another crop alternative, and encourage the development of hemp processing factories near American hemp farming. Industrial hemp is used in many products. For example, industrial hemp is used in protein supplements, non-dairy milk, and frozen desserts. Hemp flour is in breads, crackers, chips, dips, and dressings. Hemp seeds may be eaten plain or added to prepared foods. Additionally, hemp oil is used in a number of cosmetic and body care products, and hemp fiber is used in cloths. Industrial hemp is also present in bio-composite materials used in buildings and automobiles. I first introduced the Industrial Hemp Farming Act, H.R. 1866, five years ago to end the federal government's ban on American farmers growing industrial hemp. In this time, the industrial hemp industry has grown much larger. Despite its American history, industrial hemp is the only crop that we can buy and sell but not farm in the United States. The federal government should change the law to allow American farmers grow this profitable crop as American farmers have through most of our nation's history. Please cosponsor the Industrial Hemp Farming Act and join me in celebrating Hemp History Week.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentleman from California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, and I want to compliment Mr. Mitchell from Arizona for getting this bill to the floor. We have worked on this for several years. I am pleased that this is going to be passed today. Much has been said about the unemployment rate in this country. And I saw one other take on unemployment today, where it said that for low- income people below $20,000, the unemployment rate is actually 31 percent, which shows how devastating this recession is, and for some it is an actual depression. I would like this bill to be passed, but not just as symbolism. It is good symbolism and important symbolism. As was mentioned by the gentleman from California, it is not a tremendous amount of money, but it is important for us to recognize that we have a serious problem in this country and that we shouldn't be careless about the way we think about this problem. It shouldn't make us feel necessarily good because we passed this. This is just necessary. It does remind me of a piece of legislation I introduced many years ago, in the 1970s, when we had rampant inflation, which I anticipate will probably come back to this country. Back then we had a 15 percent inflation rate. My suggestion then in the form of legislation, to get the Members' attention to understand what inflation was all about, I said we should take a pay cut at the rate of inflation. Even today we might suggest that. There is a lot more inflation out there than we admit to. So maybe not only should we freeze our salaries, maybe we should be taking a pay cut so that we can do a better job, because we really can't brag about the job that we have done for the country because of the condition the country is in. But I would like to extend this motivation to freeze the pay of Congressmen to freezing a few other things. I would like to see our budget at least frozen where it is. That would go a long way to solving some of our budgetary problems. And how about freezing the debt level. Let's not raise the debt level. Instead, this next year our national debt is going to go up about $2 trillion when you add up all that we borrow from our trust funds. Also, I would like to see a freeze on regulations because regulations usually backfire. There are unintended consequences, they cost a lot of money, they act as a tax, and they don't improve the economy overall. I would be in support of freezing the wealth transfer system, the system that most people think is going to help all the poor people. The trouble is the wealth transfer system helps the rich people, and they are the ones who get the bailouts and the poor people don't. So a freeze on wealth transfer would go a long way toward restoring a free society and a constitutional government. Also, I think the consensus of the American people today is we ought to freeze the bailouts. Let's not bail out anybody anymore. But it looks like it will be a long time before that happens because we have a monetary system where we have somebody over there called the Federal Reserve that says we can print money at will, and our job is to be the lender of last resort. That means to bail anybody and everybody out that needs money. And it looks like that will be domestic as well as international. I would like to freeze the ability of the Federal Reserve to print money out of thin air. That in moral terms is counterfeit, and yet that is the encouragement for us to run up our deficits because the Fed can come in and increase the money supply. A sound monetary system would have frozen anybody's ability to just create money out of thin air. I would also like to freeze the income tax at the 1912 level. And that indeed would be a real boost to the people of this country. All of a sudden there would be great wealth in the hands of the consumer. Just think if all the money that we spent on the bailouts that just tided things over, if just a portion of that had been used to get rid of the income tax, I think the money would have been better spent because the people would have been spending the money instead of the bureaucrats and the politicians and the regulators that bailed out the people who were making all the money in the first place. But I would also extend this freeze onto some other things, too. I would like to freeze some of our militarism. I think we have enough fighting going on. I don't think we should expand the war. I don't think we should be looking for another enemy. I would like to freeze the sanctions on countries. I would like to see a lot more free trade. I would like to see that the bombing is not extended, that we quit allowing our CIA to extend the bombing of countries that have not attacked us. I would also like to put a freeze on this concept of preventive war. This whole idea of the concept of preventive war means that we can literally start the war. So, yes, it's good that we are freezing the salaries of us here in the Congress. But if we really want to restore the Republic, we will freeze a lot of these other issues as well.