Ron Paul

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, on April 29, 2012, the Sweeny Civic Club, the oldest female civic service organization in Brazoria County, Texas, will celebrate the 100th anniversary of its founding by six Texas women whose goal was to form an organization ``to do good works and charitable deeds.'' I am pleased to congratulate the members of the club on their century of service to the community of Sweeny, Texas. The Sweeny Civic Club led the effort to create the Sweeney public school system and the Sweeney Public library. Supporting education remains a passion of the Sweeny Civic Club to this day. The club's work to ensure the children of Sweeney obtain a first-class education alone makes them worthy of commendation. However, the Sweeney Civic Club's contributions are hardly limited to education. The Sweeny Civic Club has played a vital role in making sure the people of Sweeny have access to quality health care by working to build and support the Sweeny Community Hospital. They also played a key role in building the Sweeny Cemetery. These are just some of the many ways the members of the club have worked to fulfill their objective ``to promote civic and social improvement through organized efforts and to promote the interests and improvement of the City of Sweeney.'' The highlight of the 100th anniversary celebration will be the unveiling and dedication of ``Lady Civic,'' a life-sized statue of a women dress in 19th century fashion. ``Lady Civics'' symbolizes the Sweeny Civic Club's founders, and is the club's latest gift to the city of Sweeney. This statue is a fitting tribute to all the women who have worked with the Sweeny Civics Club, freely dedicating their time and talents to improving the lives of their fellow residents of Sweeny. The Sweeny Civic Club's 1900 years of service to their community stands as a shining example of how citizens acting together can better their communities. The Sweeny Civic Club's many accomplishes should serve as model and inspiration to us all. It is therefore my pleasure to offer my congratulations to the Sweeney Civic Club on their centennial and extend my best wishes for many more years of service to the people of Sweeney.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chair, listening to the claims of the opponents of this budget, one would think it represented a full-frontal assault on the welfare state and the entitlements system. However, in fact--with all respect to Shakespeare--the sound and fury over this budget ultimately signifies nothing. Under this budget, the federal government will spend $3.5 trillion next year, while under President Obama's budget the federal government will spend $3.8 trillion. The small difference between the congressional budget and the President's hardly seem to justify the overheated rhetoric we hear emanating from both sides of the aisle. Even under the most optimistic scenario, this supposedly radical plan does not balance the federal budget until my one-year old great- granddaughter will be in college. Under less optimistic assumption, my great granddaughter will be almost 30 before she sees a balanced federal budget. This assumes that Congress will adhere to this year's budget in future years, a dubious assumption since we cannot bind future Congresses to abide by our spending plans. The only budget this Congress cannot legally bind any future Congress to follow a budget we passed today. The only budget this Congress controls is this year's budget. So why aren't we making substantial spending cuts this year, instead of putting off the hard choices? Critics of this budget do have a point when they criticize this budget for misplaced priorities, since this plan calls for the federal government to continue to waste trillions of dollars in a future attempt to police the world. Mr. Speaker, through my years in public life I have explained the folly of our hyper-interventionist foreign policy; I will not rehash those arguments here. Instead, I will simply point out to my colleagues that we can no longer afford to spend trillions overseas. Also, many of those who share my goal of unwinding the federal welfare and entitlement system understand the need to do without harming Americans currently reliant on the system. That task will be much easier if we began by eliminating overseas militarism, foreign aid, and corporate welfare. Yet this so called radical budget treats the Pentagon as a sacred cow, as if closing one overseas base or canceling one contract for Lockheed-Martin will render America defenselessness. This budget bill not only fails to reduce spending by changing our foreign policy, it also fails to make any meaningful changes in domestic spending. While the bill does repel the President's misguided national health care plan, and repeal a few other federal programs, it leaves the vast majority of the federal welfare-regulatory leviathan intact. Despite the claims of both proponents and opponents that this budget dramatically downsizes the federal government, it does not repeal one unconstitutional cabinet department, not even the Department of Education, which has no constitutional authority and if anything has diminished the quality of American education. Mr. Chair, the problem facing the federal government is at root not a fiscal problem but a philosophical problem. Too many people in both parties have bought into the idea that the federal government should run the economy, run our lives, and run the world. Until that idea is repudiated and we once again embrace the principles of liberty and constitutional government we will not be able to address our fiscal problems. This budget does little to advance the goal of moving us toward a free society; therefore I urge my colleagues to reject it.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, one of the great economic fallacies of our time is that if government doesn't do something, no one will. This disastrous fallacy underlies much of our national debate concerning heath care, education, poverty, housing, and disaster relief, to name just a few issues. But today I rise to applaud an organization that stands in stark refutation of that fallacy. Convoy of Hope, a private charity in Springfield, Missouri, does so much to help so many communities that the term ``charity'' doesn't begin to describe it. In fact, Convoy of Hope is equal parts grocer, clothier, heath care provider, first responder, educator, and logistics expert. It works with communities in America and around the world bringing together local charities, businesses, churches, and government agencies to alleviate poverty and help people in the wake of disasters. In other words, it is a real community organizer! The tremendous scope of its activities serves as a reminder that government is neither the sole nor the best provider of goods and services to people in need. Mr. Speaker, I recently had the privilege of touring Convoy of Hope's headquarters and distribution center. It was a humbling but deeply encouraging experience, as I learned the full extent of its charitable outreach. Frankly I've never seen an organization so focused, efficient, and poised to do tremendous good for so many people. First, some background: Convoy of Hope was founded by Hal and David Donaldson in 1994, who as young boys suffered the death of their father and subsequent poverty. But both men were struck by the outpouring of support their family received during that time; local churches and the community provided food and shelter. As a result, the two brothers both developed a deep sense of responsibility to help others in need. In the years since, Convoy of Hope has helped more than 50 million individuals in more than 100 countries--giving away nearly $300 million worth of food and supplies in the process. Today, Convoy of Hope describes its mission as a global movement focused on four keys: Children's feeding initiatives: the organization's overriding goal is to alleviate child hunger worldwide, providing food and clean water while also teaching agricultural techniques. Community outreach: Convoy of Hope coordinates dozens of community events annually with thousands of volunteers and guests. These events involve free groceries; job and health fairs; and activities for children. As always, this outreach is available to all, without regard to age, race, physical appearance, or religion. Disaster response: from an earthquake in Haiti to a tsunami in Indonesia to tornadoes in the American south, Convoy of Hope is a proven first responder. With its fleet of tractor trailers, 300,000 square foot warehouse, and high-tech mobile command center, it efficiently leverages relationships with private industry to help victims of worldwide disasters. Partner resourcing: Convoy of Hope supports hundreds of like-minded organizations throughout the world, providing them with the food and supplies needed to help their communities. In this way Convoy of Hope consistently promotes local control, results, and accountability--while demonstrating humility and a willingness to let others shine and take credit in local communities. Unlike government bureaucracies and many top-heavy private charities, Convoy of Hope applies a uniquely results-oriented approach to serving people. You won't find bloated salaries or patronage jobs at Convoy of Hope, nor will you find tony offices in New York or Los Angeles like so many nonprofits. In fact, the organization regularly spends only about 10 percent of its budget on overhead (a very low ratio in the nonprofit world), while employing a small staff of approximately 85. Watchdog group Charity Navigator consistently gives Convoy of Hope high marks for both its financial acumen and transparency. Convoy of Hope also stretches its resources by developing strategic partnerships with private sector corporations, many of which provide in-kind donations of goods or services. This allows Convoy of Hope to offer a win-win proposition to prospective corporate donors: companies benefit from donating needed goods or services already in their inventory or area of expertise, while Convoy of Hope benefits from receiving the supplies and services it needs without paying retail prices. Its corporate donors--including Coca Cola; Nestle; Proctor & Gamble; Nestle; Georgia Pacific; Cargill; Del Monte; and FedEx--donate everything from building supplies to bottled water to toiletries. These partnerships with successful private companies demonstrate an entrepreneurial mindset that enables Convoy of Hope to help more people with less overhead. Its massive distribution center and headquarters are located strategically in Missouri, where its fleet of trucks can dispatch quickly anywhere in America. It also operates six international distribution centers for logistical efficiency. By contrast, many government agencies purposely locate offices and facilities in different states at the clear expense of efficiency, solely to curry funding support from as many members of Congress and Senators as possible. The next step for Convoy of Hope is an audacious one: a 50 state tour beginning in May designed to address poverty across the United States. The ``Convoy of Hope Tour'' will provide an average of $1 million in goods and services to a community in a single day. Convoy of Hope's fleet of 18 wheel trucks will roll through every state, providing a wide variety of goods and practical services to those in need, including: groceries, job counseling, clothing, dental care, breast cancer screenings, haircuts, family portraits, children's activities, prayer and connections with local churches. Finally, while Convoy of Hope is a Christian-based organization, it is nondenominational and strongly non-political in its approach, helping those in need without imposing their faith. Convoy of Hope employees simply believe their faith compels them to help their fellow man. This commonsense dictum guides infuses everything that Convoy of Hope does. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion let me state unequivocally that Convoy of Hope is doing tremendous work on behalf of mankind. I wish everyone at Convoy of Hope (and their donors) best wishes for great success with their upcoming Tour. It's hard to imagine a government agency operating as efficiently, as nimbly, or even as cheerfully as Convoy of Hope. I truly believe it should serve as a model for private, nongovernmental solutions to poverty and its attendant ills.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a very simple piece of legislation: to repeal the infamous section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act, which was quietly signed into law by the President on New Year's Day. What a way to usher in the new year. Section 1021 essentially codifies into law the very dubious claim of Presidential authority under the 2001 authorization for the use of military force to indefinitely detain American citizens without access to legal representation or due process of law. Section 1021 provides for the possibility of the U.S. military acting as a kind of police force on U.S. soil, apprehending terror suspects, including Americans, and whisking them off to an undisclosed location indefinitely. No right to attorney. No right to trial. No day in court. This is precisely the kind of egregious distortion of justice that Americans have always ridiculed in so many dictatorships overseas. A great man named Solzhenitsyn became the hero of so many of us when he exposed the Soviet Union's extensive gulag system. Is this really the kind of a United States we want to create in the name of fighting terrorism? Some have argued that nothing in section 1021 explicitly mandates holding Americans without trial, but it employs vague language, radically expanding the detention authority to include anyone who has ``substantially supported'' certain terrorist groups or ``associated forces.'' No one has defined what those terms mean. What is an ``associated force''? Sadly, too many of my colleagues are too willing to undermine our Constitution to support such outrageous legislation. One Senator even said about American citizens being picked up under this section of the NDAA, ``When they say, `I want my lawyer,' you tell them, `Shut up. You don't get a lawyer.' '' Is this acceptable in someone who has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution? Mr. Speaker, of course I recognize how critical it is that we identify and apprehend those who are suspected of plotting attacks against Americans; but why do we have so little faith in our judicial system? Have we not tried in civilian court and won convictions of hundreds of individuals for terrorist or related activities? I fully support continuing to do so, but let us not abandon what is so unique and special about our system of government in the process. I hope my colleagues will join my effort to overturn this shameful section, 1021, of the National Defense Authorization Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. But the crisis that we face, as I said, is not just domestic because it is a worldwide crisis. And if we don't do something, we will be forced, under very dire circumstances, because we cannot bail out the world. We are prepared now through our Federal Reserve to bail out all of Europe. We've been downgraded, France is downgraded, Greece is downgraded, and we believe that all we have to do is spend more money and inflate the currency. Believe me, we ought to face up to reality and live within our limits.

Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, we are here today to try to prevent the national debt from going up another $1.2 trillion, but in a way, it's a formality because most everybody knows the national debt is going up $1.2 trillion. This is sad because this process is a very mixed effort to try to curtail spending. And this power of the President to ask for a debt increase, and then we have to get two-thirds of the Congress to prevent this from going up, this is a creature of Congress. It's also a creature of a mental status here in the Congress of overspending on just everything. It would be nice if we could blame everything on the current administration or even the previous administration. But the crisis that we're in has been building over a long period of time, and it's very bipartisan. There's been way too much cooperation in this Congress because those who like spending cooperate, and they keep spending. And for a long time, we were able to get away with this because we were a very wealthy country. Now we're nonproductive. The good jobs are overseas, and yet the spending is escalating exponentially. We're really not facing up to the reality that the problem is spending. Yes, we have to deal with the debt. But the debt is a consequence of too much spending. Where do we spend too much money? In two places: overseas and domestically. And we need to stop the spending. Really, in my mind, it started about 40 years ago when there was a guarantee that you don't have to worry about debt because we always had somebody there to buy the debt. If we would have had a market rate of interest where you didn't have the Federal Reserve buying the debt, interest rates would go up and would force us to live within our means. As long as you have a Federal Reserve there with no linkage to anything of soundness--since 1971, the Congress has been reckless, and the deficits have continued to grow, and the crisis that we're facing today is an inevitable consequence. I believe we're in denial here in the Congress. If we had the vaguest idea of how serious this crisis is financially, not only for us, but for the world, we'd cut spending because you can't solve the problem of debt by accumulating more debt. It's just impossible to do this. And one other thing that I think we fail to do on both sides of the aisle is really cut spending overseas. It is considered that if you spend more money overseas you have more defense, and there's no truth to that. Just spending over $1 trillion a year overseas doesn't necessarily give you more defense. And yet nobody's willing to cut. Some of these automatic cuts that are just supposed to be in line that come out of the supercommittee, everybody's squirming already. How are we going to prevent these cuts? And this pretense that we might cut $1 trillion over the next 10 years is total pretense. We're in total denial that it's cutting something. There's a proposed increased baseline budgeting of $10 trillion. We're going to cut $1 trillion over 10 years? That's $100 billion a year. Our national debt is going up $100 billion a month. So it's really a charade. But the American people know it's a charade. They're tired of it, and they've heard about this for so long, and we need to make up our minds. Are we going to live within the confines of the Constitution? Cut the spending and balance the budget and get out of this mess.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, on December 31, 2011, US Army Corps of Engineers, Galveston District employee, Ronny L. Beesley will retire after 40 years of service to his country. It is my pleasure to pay tribute to Mr. Beesley for all he has done for the people of Texas and the United States. Mr. Beesley's long and distinguished career with the Federal Government begin in October 1968 when he joined the US Army. Mr. Beesley served in Vietnam as part of the in the 1st Infantry Division, 101st Airborne Division until June 1971. After leaving the Army, Mr. Beesley earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Civil Engineering at Texas A&M University, in Kingsville, Texas. Mr. Beesley started working with the Galveston District, Army Corps of Engineers in July 1975. He has held numerous positions with the Corps over the past forty years including; Civil Engineer in the Fort Point Area Office, Civil Engineer and Project Engineer in the Houston Area Office, he worked in the Construction Branch of the Construction Operations Division, General Engineer in the Plant Branch of the Construction Operations Division, and he was promoted to Chief of the Plant Branch in 1990 until he became the Chief of Management Support Branch in 1995. In July 1998, Mr. Beesley was again promoted to Senior Operations Project Manager, Project Operations Branch, and Operations Division. Mr. Beesley's outstanding work was recognized by the Galveston District in 2004 when he was selected as Employee of the Year. In July 2010, Mr. Beesley was promoted to Chief of Project Operations Branch in the Operations Division of the Galveston District. His duties include managing and supervising Operations and Maintenance of the District's projects including Addicks/Barker Dams and Reservoirs, Brazos River Floodgates, Wallisville Lake Project and the Colorado River Locks. He is also responsible for overseeing expenses for Operations and Maintenance at the Neches Saltwater Barrier, as well as for inspection of projects built by the Government and operated by local sponsors. Mr. Beesley provides support/assistance to the Chief, Operations Division in areas of land and water resource management and is responsible for maintenance of the district's floating plant. Under Mr. Beasley's leadership, the Operations Division acquired a new floating plant for the Galveston district. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ronny Beesley provided outstanding services to his country and his town as both a soldier and an employee with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Galveston District. It is therefore my pleasure to once again extend my congratulations and thanks to him as he prepares for retirement.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, Judge E.J. ``Joe'' King of Brazoria County has recently been honored with a distinguished alumni award from the University of Houston--Clear Lake. It is my pleasure to congratulate Judge King on this well-deserved award. For the past 42 years, Judge King has served the people of Brazoria County in a variety of ways, including as a Department of Public Safety state trooper, a lieutenant in the Brazoria County Sheriff's Department, and as a Brazoria County Judge. Judge King has also served as President of the Brazoria County Peace Officers Association and the Southeast Texas Association for Identification and Investigation Officers. Judge King's commitment to protecting and serving the people of Brazoria County was recognized by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which selected him to attend the FBI National Academy, one of the highest honors non-federal law enforcement can receive. Judge King also served his community through involvement in numerous civic associations and volunteer efforts. He is currently a director of the Brazoria County Cattleman's Association and is a past director of the Brazoria County Fair and the Brazoria Association for Citizens with Handicaps. Mr. Speaker, Judge Joe King is truly devoted to helping others in his community and serves as an example of which one person can make a difference in the lives of those around them. It is therefore my pleasure to once again congratulate Judge Joe King on receiving the distinguished alumni award from University of Houston--Clear Lake and thank him for all he has done for the people of Brazoria County.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chair, I rise reluctantly to oppose this legislation that authorizes a land exchange between the federal government and a private company to benefit that company's commercial interests. The bill conveys 2,400 acres of federal lands to Resolution Copper, an Australian mining company, in exchange for 5,300 acres of Resolution Copper's land to the federal government. In principle, I am strongly in favor of the privatization of federal government land and I only wish we would do more of it. This is not the way to privatize federal land, however. Rather than determine the real market value of the land, such as through a public auction process, the legislation names the company to receive the land with the stipulation that a yearly assessment of the land may result in a value adjustment payment to the federal government by that company. This additional fee would be paid to a special fund controlled by the Department of the Interior. Absent any free market mechanism to determine the real value of the land being conveyed, this looks like a special deal for one company. Even with the best intentions and intelligence on the part of the government, only free market mechanisms can accurately determine value. Also, doing the math on this bill it will result in the federal government controlling more land than before the bill! So rather than a privatization program it is an anti-privatization program. I am all for privatization of federal lands, and I am all for private industry profiting from this country's labor and natural resources. However, setting up these public/private partnerships and special deals is not the way to go about it. I sincerely hope that we will re-think this approach in favor of an open and public auction where as many companies may compete as might have an interest, even if we must change existing laws to do so.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to introduce the Protect Small Business Jobs Act. This bill gives small businesses six months to correct any noncompliance with federal regulations. If a business is in compliance at the end of the six months, then the federal government cannot fine, or pursue any other legal action against the business. Small businesses that demonstrate good faith efforts to come into compliance can receive an additional three-months grace period. Any small business may challenge a finding that it is in noncompliance with regulations without forgoing the six-month grace period. As I am sure my colleagues are aware, American businesses face a tangled web of ever-changing rules and regulations. These businesses, which cannot afford a team of lawyers to monitor the Federal Register, can be forced to spend thousands of dollars in legal fees and fines related to regulations they did not even know existed. The legal fees imposed on small businesses for inadvertent violation of federal regulations divert funds away from growing businesses and creating new jobs. Mr. Speaker, at a time of continuing high unemployment and stagnant growth, doesn't it make sense to give small businesses a reasonable time to comply with federal regulations rather than just hitting them with job-destroying fines and legal bills? I hope all my colleagues will stand up for small businesses and their current and potential employees by cosponsoring the Protect Small Business Jobs Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the Testimonial Free Speech Act. This legislation prohibits the federal government from censoring an individual's account of his experience with foods and dietary supplements. Hard as it may be to believe, the government is prohibiting individuals from sharing their stories of how they improved their health by using foods and dietary supplements. Just this year, armed federal agents raided the headquarters of Maxam Nutraceutics, a company that produces and sells nutritional supplements for people with autism spectrum disorder and Alzheimer's disease. The raid was based on Maxam's alleged failure (a failure Maxam CEO James Cole disputes) to comply with a warning letter from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ordering Maxam to remove several ``improper labels'' from Maxam products. The labels in question were simply accounts from Maxam customers describing their experiences with Maxam products. That's right, the federal government sent armed agents into a private business because the business posted customers' testimonials. Mr. Speaker, restricting communication of individuals' accounts of their experiences with foods and dietary supplements is a blatant violation of the First Amendment. The necessity for this bill shows how little respect the federal bureaucracy has for the Bill of Rights and the principles of a free society. I therefore urge my colleagues to join me in taking a small step toward restoring free speech by cosponsoring the Testimonial Free Speech Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Parental Consent Act. 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. 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. Already, too many children are suffering from being prescribed psychotropic drugs for nothing more than children's typical rambunctious behavior. According to the article ``Better but Not Best: Recent Trends in the Well-Bering of The Mentally Ill'' (Health Affairs, May/June 2009) in 2006 more than one in 20 children were prescribed medications for mental-health conditions! 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.'' Mr. Speaker, universal or mandatory mental-health screening threatens to undermine parents' right to raise their children as the parents see fit. Forced mental-health screening could also endanger the health of children by leading to more children being improperly placed on psychotropic drugs, such as Ritalin, or stigmatized as ``mentally ill'' or a risk of causing violence because they adhere to traditional values. Congress has a responsibility to the nation's parents and children to stop this from happening. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Parental Consent Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose yet another of our misguided foreign policy initiatives. Of course none of us favors religious persecution, here or abroad, but how would we feel if Iran, Israel, Afghanistan, or Iraq--all targeted by this bill--sent a government representative here to dictate what our government policies toward religious minorities should be? In many parts of the world certain religious institutions are financed by the state. How would we feel if foreign governments demanded that we abide by such practices? In short, it is arrogant and counterproductive to attempt to impose our values-- which we sadly do not always live up to--onto nations overseas. I certainly believe that people should have the right to worship as they wish without government interference, but it would be far better for us to lead the rest of the world by example than by the implied force of a ``special envoy.'' Finally, I find it disturbing but sadly telling that on the day we are debating our dire fiscal condition and contemplating the implications of reaching the debt ceiling we nevertheless do not hesitate to obligate taxpayer dollars to fund yet another new boondoggle overseas. This bill will spend another million dollars per year for the special envoy and his staff to travel throughout the Middle East and South Central Asia lecturing foreign governments on religious policy. What a waste.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Entrepreneurship Tax Cut Act of 2011. This bill allows Americans to make penalty-free withdrawals from accounts such as Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) or 401(k)s in order to start, or invest in, new businesses. People who make these penalty-free withdrawals will be able to replenish their accounts. One reason unemployment rates remain so high is that entrepreneurs are unable to obtain the capital they need to create new businesses and new jobs. Clearly, the policy of throwing billions of taxpayer dollars at big banks and allowing the Federal Reserve to shovel billions more into bank coffers has not succeeded. Congress must come up with innovative ways to ensure entrepreneurs and investors can raise the funds to start new businesses and put Americans back to work. Letting Americans use more of their money to start new businesses is a common sense solution to the unemployment problem. Therefore, I urge all my colleagues to help budding entrepreneurs and venture capitalists build new businesses and create the jobs of tomorrow by cosponsoring the Entrepreneurship Tax Cut Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against H.R. 2560, the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act. This bill only serves to sanction the status quo by putting forth a $1 trillion budget deficit and authorizing a $2.4 trillion increase in the debt limit. When I say this bill sanctions the status quo, I mean it quite literally. First, it purports to eventually balance the budget without cutting military spending, Social Security, or Medicare. This is impossible. These three budget items already cost nearly $1 trillion apiece annually. This means we can cut every other area of Federal spending to zero and still have a $3 trillion budget. Since annual Federal tax revenues almost certainly will not exceed $2.5 trillion for several years, this Act cannot balance the budget under any plausible scenario. Second, it further entrenches the ludicrous beltway concept of discretionary vs. nondiscretionary spending. America faces a fiscal crisis, and we must seize the opportunity once and for all to slay Washington's sacred cows--including defense contractors and entitlements. All spending must be deemed discretionary and reexamined by Congress each year. To allow otherwise is pure cowardice. Third, the Act applies the nonsensical narrative about a ``Global War on Terror'' to justify exceptions to its spending caps. Since this war is undeclared, has no definite enemies, no clear objectives, and no metric to determine victory, it is by definition endless. Congress will never balance the budget until we reject the concept of endless wars. Finally, and most egregiously, this Act ignores the real issue: total spending by government. As Milton Friedman famously argued, what we really need is a constitutional amendment to limit taxes and spending, not simply to balance the budget. What we need is a dramatically smaller Federal Government; if we achieve this a balanced budget will take care of itself. We do need to cut spending, and by a significant amount. Going back to 2008 levels of spending is not enough. We need to cut back at least to where spending was a decade ago. A recent news article stated that we pay 35 percent more for our military today than we did 10 years ago, for the exact same capabilities. The same could be said for the rest of the government. Why has our budget doubled in 10 years? This country doesn't have double the population, or double the land area, or double anything that would require the Federal Government to grow by such an obscene amount. We need to cap spending, and then continue decreasing that cap so that the Federal Government grows smaller and smaller. Allowing government to spend up to a certain percentage of GDP is insufficient. It doesn't matter that the recent historical average of government outlays is 18 percent of GDP, because in recent history the government has way overstepped its constitutional mandates. All we need to know about spending caps is that they need to decrease year after year. We need to balance the budget, but a balanced budget amendment by itself will not do the trick. A $4 trillion balanced budget is most certainly worse than a $2 trillion unbalanced budget. Again, we should focus on the total size of the budget more than outlays vs. revenues. What we have been asked to do here is support a budget that only cuts relative to the President's proposed budget. It still maintains a $1 trillion budget deficit for FY 2012, and spends even more money over the next 10 years than the Paul Ryan budget which already passed the House. By capping spending at a certain constant percentage of GDP, it allows for Federal spending to continue to grow. Tying spending to GDP creates an incentive to manipulate the GDP figure, especially since the bill delegates the calculation of this figure to the Office of Management and Budget, an agency which is responsible to the President and not to Congress. In the worst case, it would even reward further inflation of the money supply, as increases in nominal GDP through pure inflation would allow for larger Federal budgets. Finally, this bill authorizes a $2.4 trillion rise in the debt limit. I have never voted for a debt ceiling increase and I never will. Increasing the debt ceiling is an endorsement of business as usual in Washington. It delays the inevitable, the day that one day will come when we cannot continue to run up enormous deficits and will be forced to pay our bills. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I sympathize with the aims of this bill's sponsors, I must vote against H.R. 2560. It is my hope, however, that the looming debt ceiling deadline and the discussion surrounding the budget will further motivate us to consider legislation in the near future that will make meaningful cuts and long-lasting reforms.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the Congress is concerned about the debt. The people are concerned about the debt. The markets are concerned about the debt. The world is concerned about the debt and what we're doing here today because we live with a world fiat dollar standard, and so the whole world is engulfed in this very serious problem. I do not understand, though, that if the debt is the problem, and I agree, the debt is the problem, that for us to come here and raise the debt by $2.4 trillion is the solution. That just baffles me. I think it's a distraction, because when a country gets indebted to the degree that we're indebted, the country always defaults. This is historic, especially if the country is a significant country. On occasion a small country will quit sending the checks and they'll go bankrupt. We're not going to do that, but we will default because the debt is unsustainable. This year it is said that we have a debt increase of $1.6 trillion, but that's not true. If you count what we borrow from the pension funds, the Social Security and highway funds, it's $2 trillion. But if you include the increase in the entitlement obligation, it's $5 trillion. So this is a huge, huge problem. But the argument here is how do you default. And it is said that if we don't raise the debt limit, we're going to default and not send out the checks. I don't believe that for a minute. Somehow or another the checks are going to go out. But if you really wanted to live within the technicalities of law, there's a very simple thing you could do. We owe the Federal Reserve $1.6 trillion. Well, that's not a real debt. They bought those Treasury bills with money out of thin air. We could just write that off or quit paying the interest, tide ourselves over and get down to serious business and cut back and live within our means, and that would be a solution. But to increase the national debt will only encourage another type of default, and that's what we're going through. We're engaged in the most difficult and a very bad way of defaulting, and that is through the destruction of the currency. Today we have an inflation rate of 9 percent, and that is defaulting. So if a government can default and print money, and if they can get a 50 percent inflation rate over a period of time, they've cut that debt in half. That is the goal; that is what's happening. And that is very, very serious. Just in these last 3 years in dealing with this crisis, the dollar has been devalued 50 percent against gold. And gold, of course, is the best measurement of the value of a currency. It's been that way for thousands of years, and it cannot be denied because it's economic law. So we are defaulting. And when the American people go out and start buying goods and services, like they are now, they are recognizing they cost a lot of money. So right now we are in the early stages of rampant inflation, which means we're going to be hit with higher prices and higher interest rates. That is going to be a tax. So I see the only solution is to cut spending. Now, the reason we don't cut spending is one side loves entitlements and the other side loves war. And even this token attempt, $100 billion of cuts when we have this huge, huge deficit will accomplish very little. But there's no mention of cutting military spending. I don't want to cut defense spending. This military spending doesn't defend us; it makes things worse. Our problem in this country doesn't come only from the Congress; it comes from the people. The people still have a strong appetite for Big Government programs. They're not willing to cut. They think government can take care of us from cradle to grave and that we can be the policeman of the world. So some day we, as a country, we, as a people, and we, as a Congress, will have to ask, what should the role of government be? The Founders had a pretty strong suggestion. They wrote a Constitution and said the government should be very limited and the government should be protecting our liberties and providing national defense and a sound currency. We don't do any of that. We've embarked on a course that was destined to end badly, and this is where we are today. So if we don't understand this, this default will not be because we don't send out the checks. We will send out the checks. It will be defaulted on because people will get their money back, or they will get their Social Security checks, and it won't buy anything. That is much, much worse than facing the fact that we not raise the debt limit and work our way out of this. That is devastating economically, and it's devastating politically, because we just saw a taste of what happens, how the anger is built when you see other countries in Europe now defaulting and can't pay their bills. So this is more significant than ever because we provide the reserve currency of the world.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce legislation to protect Americans from physical and emotional abuse by Federal Transportation Security Administration employees conducting screenings at the nation's airports. Year after year the TSA seems more belligerent toward Americans simply seeking to travel within their own country--a most basic of our fundamental rights--and sadly Americans are just expected to shut up and take it. We should not have to shut up and take it. Many Americans continue to fool themselves into accepting TSA abuses by saying ``I don't mind giving up my freedoms for security.'' In fact, they are giving up their liberties and not receiving security in return. Time and time again we see the revolting pictures of Federal screeners with their hands down the pants of children while parents watch helplessly in agony. We see elderly or disabled Americans being forced to endure all manner of indignity. At the same time, we repeatedly hear of passengers who seem to check all the boxes marked ``suspicious activity'' slipping through unencumbered. Just recently we read of a Nigerian immigrant breezing through TSA security checks to board a flight from New York to LA--with a stolen, expired boarding pass and an out-of-date student ID as his sole identification. We should not be surprised to find government ineptitude and indifference at the TSA, however. What we ultimately need is real privatization of security, but not phony privatization with the same TSA screeners in private security firm uniforms still operating under the ``guidance'' of the Federal Government. Real security will be achieved when the airlines are once again in charge of protecting their property and their passengers. To move us in that direction, I am today introducing the American Traveler Dignity Act, which establishes that any Federal employee or agency or any individual or entity that receives Federal funds is not immune from any U.S. law regarding physical contact with another person, making images of another person, or causing physical harm through the use of radiation-emitting machinery on another person. It means they are not above laws the rest of us must obey. As we continue to see more and more outrageous stories of TSA abuses and failures, I hope that my colleagues in the House will listen to their constituents and join with me to support this legislation.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. While I certainly share the hope for peace in the Middle East and a solution to the ongoing conflict, I do not believe that peace will result if we continue to do the same things while hoping for different results. The U.S. has been involved in this process for decades, spending billions of dollars we do not have, yet we never seem to get much closer to a solution. I believe the best solution is to embrace non-interventionism, which allows those most directly involved to solve their own problems. This resolution not only further entangles the U.S. in the Israeli/ Palestinian dispute, but it sets out the kind of outcome the United States would accept in advance. While I prefer our disengagement from that conflict, I must wonder how the U.S. expects to be seen as an ``honest broker'' when it dictates the term of a solution in such a transparently one-sided manner. In the resolution before us, all demands are made of only one side in the conflict. Do supporters of this resolution really believe the actors in the Middle East and the rest of the world do not notice? We do no favors to the Israelis or to the Palestinians when we involve ourselves in such a manner and block any negotiations that may take place without U.S. participation. They have the incentives to find a way to live in peace and we must allow them to find that solution on their own. As always, congressional attitudes toward the peace process in the Middle East reveal hubris and self-importance. Only those who must live together in the Middle East can craft a lasting peace between Israel and Palestine.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the ``Belarus Democracy Act'' reauthorization. This title of this bill would have amused George Orwell, as it is in fact a U.S. regime-change bill. Where does the United States Congress derive the moral or legal authority to determine which political parties or organizations in Belarus--or anywhere else--are to be U.S.-funded and which are to be destabilized? How can anyone argue that U.S. support for regime-change in Belarus is somehow ``promoting democracy''? We pick the parties who are to be supported and funded and somehow this is supposed to reflect the will of the Belarusian people? How would Americans feel if the tables were turned and a powerful foreign country demanded that only a political party it selected and funded could legitimately reflect the will of the American people? I would like to know how many millions of taxpayer dollars the U.S. government has wasted trying to overthrow the government in Belarus. I would like to know how much money has been squandered by U.S. government-funded front-organizations like the National Endowment for Democracy, the International Republic Institute, Freedom House, and others meddling like the old Soviet Union in the internal politics of a country that has neither threatened nor attacked the United States. It is the arrogance of our foreign policy and we call it ``democracy.'' We wonder why we are no longer loved and admired overseas. Finally, I strongly object to the sanctions that this legislation imposes on Belarus. We must keep in mind that sanctions and blockades of foreign countries are considered acts of war. Do we need to continue war-like actions yet another country? Can we afford it. I wish to emphasize that I take this position not because I am in support of the regime in Belarus, or anywhere else. I take this position because it is dangerous folly to be the Nation that arrogates to itself the right to determine the leadership of the rest of the world. As we teeter closer to bankruptcy, it should be more obvious that we need to change our foreign policy to one of constructive engagement rather than hostile interventionism. And though it scarcely should need to be said, I must remind my colleagues today that we are the U.S. House of Representatives, and not some sort of world congress. We have no constitutional authority to intervene in the wholly domestic affairs of Belarus or any other sovereign nation.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this legislation, which masquerades as a limitation of funds for the President's illegal war on Libya, but is in fact an authorization for that very war. According to H.R. 2278, the U.S. military cannot be involved in NATO's actions in Libya, with four important exceptions. If this passes, for the first time the President would be authorized to use U.S. armed forces to engage in search and rescue; intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance; aerial refueling; and operational planning against Libya. Currently, absent an authorization or declaration of war, these activities are illegal. So instead of ending the war against Libya, this bill would legalize nearly everything the President is currently doing there. That the war in Libya can be ended by expanding it and providing the President a legal excuse to continue makes no sense. If this bill fails, the entirety of what the President is doing in Libya would remain illegal. Additionally, it should not really be necessary to prohibit the use of funds for U.S. military attacks on Libya because those funds are already prohibited by the Constitution. Absent Congressional action to allow U.S. force against Libya, any such force is illegal, meaning the expenditure of funds for such activities is prohibited. I will, however, support any straight and clean prohibition of funds such as the anticipated amendments to the upcoming Defense Appropriations bill. I urge my colleagues to reject this stealth attempt to authorize the Libya war and sincerely hope that the House will soon get serious about our Constitutional obligations and authority.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, for the past 15 years, the Leadership Training Institute of America, LTIA, has helped teach young people about free markets, limited government, and traditional values. LTIA has trained hundreds of young people through their national conference in leadership excellence, critical thinking skills, worldview apologetics, network development and community involvement in a unique format that integrates a Biblical perspective. The Leadership Training Institute of America's National Conference, held each summer in Washington, is available to a select number of students who have demonstrated a passion for leadership. I am pleased that 10 students from my congressional district have been selected to participate in these conferences. LTIA alumni take active roles in local government and civic groups in their communities. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to commend the Leadership Training Institute of America for producing conservative leadership that is actively involved in local, state and federal arenas, and for casting this vision to future generations. It has been said that ``Today's youth are tomorrow's leaders.'' LTIA has embraced this philosophy and is investing its resources to secure a bright future for America through conservative leadership. I hope my colleagues will join me in honoring the Leadership Training Institute of America for their outstanding training of America's youth for the past 15 years.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, later this morning we will be debating and voting on two resolutions dealing with Libya. The first one, H.J. Res. 68, has been said to be one that literally endorses exactly what the President has been doing, and I agree with that: Even though it excludes ground troops, it doesn't talk about Special Forces, CIA, contractors, and unlimited bombing, which is really what we have to restrict. But the second one, H.R. 2278, has been said to be more strongly worded in restraint on the President, and this is where I disagree. I believe the wording is different. It says no funds for ground troops. But then it has exceptions, and the exceptions are for all the things that we're already doing. So I believe if we vote and pass the second one, it will be the first time this Congress has given authority to the President for what he is doing right now. So I urge my colleagues to look at both of these carefully. I have concluded that not only should the first one be voted down, but it's very important that the second one be voted down as well.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in support of this rule, although I have a lot of complaints about how we deal with the issue of war. This is a debate that should have gone on 4 months ago, before the war was started. And if we had done this properly, we wouldn't be bringing this up quickly today. No committee work, no discussion, no chance for amendment. But, nevertheless, I will support the rule because at least we get a chance to talk a little bit about what's going on in Libya. We have two resolutions that will come up under this rule. The first resolution, generally, I understand most individuals aren't too keen on this, because it's a literal endorsement--a rather explicit endorsement--of the war, so obviously I oppose H.J. Res. 68. But my greatest concern is about H.R. 2278. The way I read this resolution is that it essentially grants the same authority that we grant in the first Resolution because we say that no funds can be used--it denies the use of funds. But how can you deny the use of appropriated funds when they're using funds that weren't appropriated? It's so redundant. The funds were never appropriated. So, yes, it's a good statement. You don't continue to be illegal, is what we're saying. What I'm concerned about are the exceptions. All the exceptions are for the things that they're already doing, like search and rescue, intelligence gathering, reconnaissance, surveillance, refueling, operations planning, and doing everything except pulling the trigger. So we're legalizing the current war. I believe that H.R. 2278 is the first time that we in the Congress are making a statement of granting authority to the President to pursue this particular war. I am in strong opposition to that resolution as well, although I understand the other side of the argument because it says ``denial of funds.'' The author of the resolution said the reason why we have the exception is to protect the integrity of our contract or agreement with NATO. Well, in the resolution it says we have to stop the funding because we don't want to support NATO's war. So it's totally inconsistent. Makes no sense whatsoever. But it reminds me of the War Powers resolution. After the Vietnam War, we didn't want to get into that kind of war any more, so Congress, in its infinite wisdom, with good intentions, it designs the War Powers resolution, which legalized war for 90 days. That's part of the reason why we're here. We're worried about 90 days. But here we're going into the fourth month dealing with the War Powers resolution. There is a simple solution to all of this, and that is to obey the Constitution. Don't allow our Presidents to go to war without a declaration of war, and we wouldn't be facing this problem of this debate that actually gets a little bit silly on restraining the President. Yes, we should. We should exert ourselves. We have the prerogatives, and we have the obligations. We have avoided it. It's time to stand up for the rule of law.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, this is a resolution that endorses the policies that have been going on for 4 months. Not only has the Congress basically been strong in opposition to what has been going on, the American people are even more so. So what this resolution does is endorses exactly what has been going on--another unconstitutional war, involvement and justification under NATO and the United Nations, doing it secretly. There's an attempt to restrain the funding of this effort over in Libya. How can we restrain it, because we've never authorized it. Restrain unauthorized funds? The funds weren't authorized. The President just goes and does it. What we're talking about here is the challenge for the Congress on looking at the unitary President. The unitary President has been around for quite a few years. That means that Presidents do what they want, and the Congress just acknowledges it. So that is what we're doing. This is what this resolution does. It acknowledges and gives authority to the President to pursue this war, which is actually what he has been doing. Obviously, H.J. Res. 68, for me, is a very, very strong ``no'' because the last thing we need to do is to be giving explicit support and explicit authorization for the very policies that so many people now think are ill-advised. This resolution also says you don't send in ground troops. Well, that's fine, no ground troops. But in this day and age, war can go on for a long time without the ground troops. It happened to a degree in Bosnia. But it didn't exempt such things as special forces, the CIA. The CIA has been in Libya, and I'm sure they will be, as they are in many, many other hundreds of countries. Contractors. When we can't send in troops, we send in contractors. We have as many contractors in Afghanistan as we do the military. So a couple thousand troops come out of Afghanistan and nothing changes as we add more contractors. Nothing ever changes. But this whole idea of this effort to legalize the bombing, at least give the authority to the President to continue this, is foolhardy. How many more wars can we withstand? What number is this? This is I think number five. Today, in the papers, number six is coming. How long before we're in Syria? Go into Syria tomorrow and in 90 days we'll start talking about Syria and proper authority. Instead, we in Congress have given up our responsibility for war. Because the responsibility of going to war should have been and still remains constitutionally mandated that the Congress makes these decisions. The President is not supposed to get us engaged in war without Congress' authority. Too often we say, Whatever you need, we'll endorse it. We have another resolution coming up shortly.

Mr. PAUL. Unfortunately, I think the next resolution, H.R. 2278, isn't much different because it has too many exceptions. It says: Deny funding. But there are too many exceptions, and the exceptions are to allow the very things the President is currently doing. So both resolutions have serious shortcomings. Both resolutions should be defeated if you're opposed to this war in Libya.