Ron Paul

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Family Education Freedom Act, a bill to empower millions of working and middle-class Americans to choose a non-public education for their children, as well as making it easier for parents to actively participate in improving public schools. The Family Education Freedom Act accomplishes it goals by allowing American parents a tax credit of up to $5,000 for the expenses incurred in sending their child to private, public, parochial, other religious school, or for home schooling their children. The Family Education Freedom Act returns the fundamental principal of a truly free economy to America's education system: what the great economist Ludwig von Mises called ``consumer sovereignty''. Consumer sovereignty simply means consumers decide who succeeds or fails in the market. Businesses that best satisfy consumer demand will be the most successful. Consumer sovereignty is the means by which the free market maximizes human happiness. Currently, consumers are less than sovereign in the education ``market.'' Funding decisions are increasingly controlled by the federal government. Because ``he who pays the piper calls the tune,'' public, and even private schools, are paying greater attention to the dictates of federal ``educrats'' while ignoring the wishes of the parents to an ever-greater degree. As such, the lack of consumer sovereignty in education is destroying parental control of education and replacing it with state control. Loss of control is a key reason why so many of America's parents express dissatisfaction with the educational system. According to a survey conducted by Education Next/Harvard PEPG, the majority of Americans support education tax credits. This poll also found strong support for education tax credits among liberals, moderates, conservatives, low-income individuals, African-Americans, and public-school employees. This is just one of numerous studies and public opinion polls showing that Americans want Congress to get the federal bureaucracy out of the schoolroom and give parents more control over their children's education. Today, Congress can fulfill the wishes of the American people for greater control over their children's education by simply allowing parents to keep more of their hard-earned money to spend on education rather than force them to send it to Washington to support education programs reflective only of the values and priorities of Congress and the federal bureaucracy. The $5,000 tax credit will make a better education affordable for millions of parents. Madame Speaker, many parents who would choose to send their children to private, religious, or parochial schools are unable to afford the tuition, in large part because of the enormous tax burden imposed on the American family by Washington. The Family Education Freedom Act also benefits parents who choose to send their children to public schools. Parents of children in public schools may use this credit to help improve their local schools by helping finance the purchase of educational tools such as computers or to ensure their local schools can offer enriching extracurricular activities such as music programs. Parents of public school students may also wish to use the credit to pay for special services, such as tutoring, for their children. Increasing parental control of education is superior to funneling more federal tax dollars, followed by greater federal control, into the schools. A recent review of the relevant research conducted by Andrew J. Coulson of the CATO Institute shows that increasing parental controls increases academic achievement, efficiency, the orderliness of the classrooms, and the quality of school facilities. Not surprisingly, graduates of education system controlled by parents tend to achieve higher levels of education and earn more than their counterparts in bureaucratically controlled education systems. Clearly, enactment of the Family Education Freedom Act is the best thing this Congress could do to improve public education. Furthermore, a greater reliance on parental expenditures rather than government tax dollars will help make the public schools into true community schools that reflect the wishes of parents and the interests of the students. The Family Education Freedom Act will also aid those parents who choose to educate their children at home. Home schooling has become an increasingly popular, and successful, method of educating children. Home schooled children out-perform their public school peers by 30 to 37 percentile points across all subjects on nationally standardized achievement exams. Home schooling parents spend thousands of dollars annually, in addition to the wages forgone by the spouse who forgoes outside employment, in order to educate their children in the loving environment of the home. Ultimately, Madam Speaker, this bill is about freedom. Parental control of child rearing, especially education, is one of the bulwarks of liberty. No Nation can remain free when the State has greater influence over the knowledge and values transmitted to children than the family. By moving to restore the primacy of parents to education, the Family Education Freedom Act will not only improve America's education, it will restore a parent's right to choose how best to educate one's own child, a fundamental freedom that has been eroded by the increase in federal education expenditures and the corresponding decrease in the ability of parents to provide for their children's education out of their own pockets. I call on all my colleagues to join me in allowing parents to devote more of their resources to their children's education and less to feed the wasteful Washington bureaucracy by supporting the Family Education Freedom Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the Industrial Hemp Farming Act. The Industrial Hemp Farming Act requires the Federal Government to respect State laws allowing the growing of industrial hemp. Eight States--Hawaii, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Montana, North Dakota, Vermont, and West Virginia--allow industrial hemp production or research in accord with State laws. However, Federal law is standing in the way of farmers in these States growing what may be a very profitable crop. Because of current Federal law, all hemp included in products sold in the United States must be imported instead of being grown by American farmers. Since 1970, the Federal Controlled Substances Act's inclusion of industrial hemp in the schedule one definition of marijuana has prohibited American farmers from growing industrial hemp despite the fact that industrial hemp has such a low content of THC (the psychoactive chemical in the related marijuana plant) that nobody can be psychologically affected by consuming hemp. Federal law concedes the safety of industrial hemp by allowing it to be legally imported for use as food. The United States is the only industrialized nation that prohibits industrial hemp cultivation. The Congressional Research Service has noted that hemp is grown as an established agricultural commodity in over 30 nations in Europe, Asia, North America, and South America. The Industrial Hemp Farming Act will relieve this unique restriction on American farmers and allow them to grow industrial hemp in accord with State law. Industrial hemp is a crop that was grown legally throughout the United States for most of our Nation's history. In fact, during World War II, the Federal Government actively encouraged American farmers to grow industrial hemp to help the war effort. The Department of Agriculture even produced a film ``Hemp for Victory'' encouraging the plant's cultivation. In recent years, the hemp plant has been put to many popular uses in foods and in industry. Grocery stores sell hemp seeds and oil as well as food products containing oil and seeds from the hemp plant. Industrial hemp is also included in consumer products such as paper, cloths, cosmetics, and carpet. One of the more innovative recent uses of industrial hemp is in the door frames of about 1.5 million cars. Hemp has even been used in alternative automobile fuel. It is unfortunate that the Federal Government has stood in the way of American farmers, including many who are struggling to make ends meet, competing in the global industrial hemp market. Indeed, the founders of our Nation, some of whom grew hemp, would surely find that Federal restrictions on farmers growing a safe and profitable crop on their own land are inconsistent with the constitutional guarantee of a limited, restrained Federal Government. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to stand up for American farmers and cosponsor the Industrial Hemp Farming Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I raise to introduce the Hope Plus Scholarship Act, which expands the Hope Education Scholarship credit to cover K-12 education expenses. Under this bill, parents could use the Hope Scholarship to pay for private or religious school tuition or to offset the cost of home schooling. In addition, under the bill, all Americans could use the Hope Scholarship to make cash or in-kind donations to public schools. Thus, the Hope Scholarship could help working parents send their child to a private school, while other patents could take advantage of the Hope credit to help purchase new computers for their children's local public school. Reducing taxes so that Americans can devote more of their own resources to education is the best way to improve America's schools, since individuals are more likely than federal bureaucrats to insist that schools be accountable for student performance. When the federal government controls the education dollar, schools will be held accountable for their compliance with bureaucratic paperwork requirements and mandates that have little to do with actual education. Federal rules and regulations also divert valuable resources away from classroom instruction. The only way to reform America's education system is through restoring control of the education dollar to the American people so they can ensure schools provide their children a quality education. I therefore ask all of my colleagues to help improve education by returning education resources to the American people by cosponsoring the Hope Plus Scholarship Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to help millions of Americans afford higher education by introducing the Make College Affordable Act of 2009, which makes college tuition tax deductible. Today the average cost of education at a state university is $12,796 per year, and the cost of education at a private university is $30,367 per year. These high costs have left many middle-class American families struggling to afford college for their children, who are often ineligible for financial aid. Therefore, middle-class students have no choice but to obtain student loans, and thus leave college saddled with massive debt. Even families who plan and save well in advance for their children's education may have a difficult time because their savings are eroded by taxation and inflation. The Make College Affordable Act will help these middle-class students by allowing them, or their parents or guardians who claim them as dependents, to deduct the cost of college tuition as well as the cost of student loan repayments. The Make College Affordable Act will also help older or nontraditional students looking to improve their job skills or prepare for a career change, by pursuing higher education. In today's economy, the average American worker can expect to change jobs, and even careers, several times during his or her working life, making it more important than ever that working Americans be able to devote their resources to continuing their educations. Helping the American people use their own money to ensure every qualified American can receive a college education is one of the best investments this Congress can make in the future. I therefore urge my colleagues to help strengthen America by ensuring more Americans can obtain college educations by cosponsoring the Make College Affordable Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the Agriculture Education Freedom Act. This bill addresses a great injustice being perpetrated by the Federal Government on those youngsters who participate in programs such as 4-H or the Future Farmers of America. Under current tax law, children are forced to pay federal income tax when they sell livestock they have raised as part of an agricultural education program. Think about this for a moment. These kids are trying to better themselves, earn some money, save some money and what does Congress do? We pick on these kids by taxing them. It is truly amazing that with all the hand-wringing in Congress over the alleged need to further restrict liberty and grow the size of government ``for the children'' we would continue to tax young people who are trying to lead responsible lives and prepare for the future. Even if the serious social problems today's youth face could be solved by new federal bureaucracies and programs, it is still unfair to pick on those kids who are trying to do the right thing. These children are not even old enough to vote, yet we are forcing them to pay taxes. What ever happened to no taxation without representation? No wonder young people are so cynical about government. It is time we stopped taxing youngsters who are trying to earn money to go to college by selling livestock they have raised through their participation in programs such as 4-H or Future Farmers of America. Therefore, I call on my colleagues to join me in supporting the Agriculture Education Freedom Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the Education Improvement Tax Cut Act. This act, a companion to my Family Education Freedom Act, takes a further step toward returning control over education resources to private citizens by providing a $5,000 tax credit for donations to scholarship funds to enable low-income children to attend private schools. It also encourages private citizens to devote more of their resources to helping public schools, by providing a $5,000 tax credit for cash or in-kind donations to public schools to support academic or extra curricular programs. I need not remind my colleagues that education is one of the top priorities of the American people. After all, many members of Congress have proposed education reforms and a great deal of time is spent debating these proposals. However, most of these proposals expand federal control over education. Many proposals that claim to increase local control over education actually extend federal power by holding schools ``accountable'' to federal bureaucrats and politicians. Of course, schools should be held accountable for their results, but they should be held accountable to parents and school boards not to federal officials. Therefore, I propose we move in a different direction and embrace true federalism by returning control over the education dollar to the American people. One of the major problems with centralized control over education funding is that spending priorities set by Washington-based Representatives, staffers, and bureaucrats do not necessarily match the needs of individual communities. In fact, it would be a miracle if spending priorities determined by the wishes of certain politically powerful representatives or the theories of Education Department functionaries match the priorities of every community in a country as large and diverse as America. Block grants do not solve this problem as they simply allow states and localities to choose the means to reach federally-determined ends. Returning control over the education dollar for tax credits for parents and for other concerned citizens returns control over both the means and ends of education policy to local communities. People in one community may use this credit to purchase computers, while children in another community may, at last, have access to a quality music program because of community leaders who took advantage of the tax credit contained in this bill. Children in some communities may benefit most from the opportunity to attend private, parochial, or other religious schools. One of the most encouraging trends in education has been the establishment of private scholarship programs. These scholarship funds use voluntary contributions to open the doors of quality private schools to low- income children. By providing a tax credit for donations to these programs, Congress can widen the educational opportunities and increase the quality of education for all children. Furthermore, privately-funded scholarships raise none of the concerns of state entanglement raised by publicly-funded vouchers. There is no doubt that Americans will always spend generously on education, the question is, ``who should control the education dollar-- politicians and bureaucrats or the American people?'' Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in placing control of education back in the hands of citizens and local communities by sponsoring the Education Improvement Tax Cut Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, Burton Samuel Blumert passed away on Monday March 30, following a long battle with cancer. Burt was a true hero of the freedom movement and my close friend, advisor, and business partner. As the founder and manager of Camino Coins in Burlingame, CA, Burt was one of the nation's leading dealers in gold and silver coins. A student of Ludwig von Mises and the Austrian school of economics, Burt understood the important role precious metals played in protecting ordinary citizens from the damage wrought by fiat money and inflation. Thus, he regarded his work as a coin dealer not just as a business, but as an opportunity to help people by providing with some protection from the Federal Reserve's inflation tax. After I stepped down from Congress in 1984, I partnered with Burt in the coin business, a partnership which lasted until I returned to Congress in 1996. Our partnership was based on nothing more than our words. As anyone who ever dealt with Burt could testify, that was all that was needed, because Burt's word was truly his bond. I am unaware of anyone who dealt with Burt who questioned his integrity or his commitment to his customers. As well-known and respected as he was for his leadership in the coin business, Burt was best known as a promoter of libertarian ideas. Burt was a long time friend and patron of Murray Rothbard, one of Mises' top American students and a pioneer in economics, political theory, history, and much else. Burt helped Murray establish the Center for Libertarian Studies, and served as its president from 1975 until his death. Burt also played a key role in the flourishing of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, which, as its name suggests, is the leading center for the promotion and development of Austrian economics and libertarian political theory in the nation. Burt served as a founding board member of the Institute and the chaired the Institute's board after the original chair, Mrs. Margit von Mises, passed away in 1993. He also published The Rothbard-Rockwell Report, a well-read libertarian newsletter written by Murray Rothbard and Mises Institute President Lew Rockwell. Burt played a major role in making the ideas of liberty a force on the internet by serving as the publisher of Lewrockwell.com, as well supporting the development of Mises.org. Burt also played an instrumental role in the development of Antiwar.com. Burt also served as chairman of my first run for the presidency, and important counselor in the second. In addition to his work with these organizations, Burt was a friend, mentor, and patron to numerous libertarian scholars and activists. He was incredibly generous with both his time and his resources. Talking to Burt was always a treat, because he had one of the best senses of humor I have ever known, and it seemed like he was always in a good mood. Events that would send his friends into fits of depression, rage, or both would be used by Burt as fodder for a series of jokes and wisecracks. Even in the last days of his battle with cancer he remained upbeat. One of Burt's friends called him shortly after learning about Burt's cancer, but instead of consoling Burt, this friend ending up having his sprits lifted by Burt's humor. It is somewhat of a comfort to myself, and I am sure to Burt's other friends, to know that he lived long enough to see so many of his efforts bear fruit. Today, the Mises Institute teaches sound economies and the principles of liberty to thousands of students every year while Mises.org is one of the leading economics websites in the world. Lewrockwell.com is one of the top providers of political, economic, and cultural commentary on the web, while Antiwar.com is the leading source of information for scholars, journalists, and activists looking for material to combat the propaganda of the war party. As I travel across the country, I am astounded at the number of young people I met who are interested in the cause of individual liberty, peace, and sound money. Many of them got their introduction to these ideas through one of the many organizations nurtured by Burt Blumert. Madam Speaker, perhaps the highest compliment one can pay to a departed friend is to say that they left the world better than they found it. That is certainly true in the case of Burt Blumert. While I am saddened that I will never again benefit from Burt's good humor and wise counsel, I am comforted by knowing that I was blessed by his friendship and the thought that the vibrant and growing freedom movement will serve as a living monument to Burt for years to come. I therefore join friends of liberty around the world in mourning Burt's passing, and saluting all he accomplished during his lifetime.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to this resolution. You know, they say so often that there is not enough bipartisanship around here. We hear that complaint a lot of time. But, you know, when I look at it, I see that there's been too much bipartisanship in creating the problem we have had. And it hasn't been the last--this crisis that we're in the midst of, this financial crisis, didn't pop up here in the last 60 days. It didn't pop up here in the last 8 years, but it's taken several decades to get to this point where we are today dealing with a budget that is just totally out of control and a monetary and economic system that is uncontrollable as well. It is said that this budget is going to be $3.6 trillion with a $1.1 trillion deficit. An amazing thing is that $1.1 trillion deficit is going to be $400 billion less than this year. I will wait and see if that really comes out because that probably won't work out that way. Matter of fact, characteristically, the statistics that we hear when we talk about the budget are never reliable, especially when you're in a recession. In a recession, nobody can protect the revenues. The revenues are going to be a lot lower than they said and the expenditures are going to be a lot higher. So I am making a prediction that the spending will be over $4 trillion this year and that the deficit is going to be over $2 trillion and that the picture that we are looking at today is much worse than we're willing to admit. Matter of fact, I think the problem we face today is not so much a budgetary problem. It's much different. I think we talk a lot about the budget. Just think about how many hours we talked about it today. But the budget and the deficit is a symptom of something much more serious. And that is, what have we allowed our government to become? I think it has been the loss of respect by us here in the Congress to understand and take seriously article I, section A. If we did that, we wouldn't be doing all of these things that we're doing. If we understood the tenth amendment, we wouldn't be doing all of this. We wouldn't have a deficit. If we understood monetary policy, we wouldn't have a monetary system that encourages all of this that gets us off the hook because conservatives like to spend a lot of money, and liberals like to spend a lot of money. And they don't have to worry. We raise taxes. We borrow it. And we do it, and we've been doing it for decades and getting away with it. But it's coming to an end because we've always been dependent on the Fed to come in and monetize the debt. Now, have they backed off in any way? No. They are expanding it. Not only do they buy in the market, they are buying it directly from the Treasury. They're only encouraging us to do even more of this. We have endorsed, as a Congress and as a people, a welfare/warfare State. And that is not part of what America is supposed to be. And it encourages the spending and the borrowing and the deficits and all of the inflation. And we take--for instance, we were supposed to get a lot of change with the new administration. One thing I was hopeful about is that they might look at this overseas wild expanding and expansion of the war going on in the Middle East, but the military budget, the war budget, is going up 9 percent. And as long as we have the expansion of the war, the dependency on the spending overseas, we're spending over $1 trillion over a year maintaining the world empire at the same time we have runaway spending here on welfare here at home. It is unsustainable. We have a debt that will not be paid. We know that when it reaches a certain level, it cannot be paid. But it is always liquidated. Now, if an individual or a company goes into debt, it can be liquidated in the old-fashioned way of bankruptcies. Countries don't go bankrupt. What they do is they default on a debt. That doesn't mean they won't pay it. They pay it off in bad money. And literally, that is the purpose of the Federal Reserve right now is to lower the real debt. So if you destroy 50 percent of the value of the dollar in the next year or two, the real debt has gone down 50 percent. Literally, the Federal Reserve board is praying for, encouraging inflation to lower the real debt because it can't be sustained. But who does that hurt? It hurts the people who save, the people who save get 1 percent on their earnings, and we tax the little bit they get, and the people who are doing the right thing are being punished the most. So the ones who live beyond their means get bailed out. And it's a very bad, bad system that we have. And we have to decide what the role of government ought to be. You know, we do blame the banks and we blame the business people and everybody. But you know, I have a lot of people that come to my office and say, Cut his, cut his, but don't cut my program. So we have to decide as a people what should the role of government be. And if we think the role of government is going to be, and should be, the policeman of the world and to run the welfare State, this budgetary problem will never be solved.

Mr. PAUL. I thank you for yielding. And let me just close by saying the greatest danger I see right now is the placing of the blame for the crisis that we're in is that we had too much freedom, too much capitalism, not enough regulation. And they did this in the 1930s. They are doing it even more now. Instead of saying that we overspent, overtaxed, overregulated, we have lost our confidence. And if we don't change that attitude and if we accept this notion, accept international regulation, believe me, we're in big trouble. We will lose our freedom, and we will lose our sovereignty as well.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to this resolution. I do so not because I oppose our recognizing peace as preferable to, and more productive than, war. On the contrary, too seldom do we celebrate and encourage the end of violence and warfare on this Floor so I welcome any such endorsement of peace in international relations. However, I cannot agree with the final ``resolved'' clause of this resolution, which states that: . . . the House of Representatives calls for recognition of the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel as a model mechanism upon which partner nations may build to overcome longstanding barriers to peace and effective mutual cooperation. What the resolution fails to mention, and the reason we should not endorse the treaty as a model, is that at the time the peace was being negotiated at Camp David the United States committed itself to an enormous financial aid package to both Egypt and Israel in exchange for their accession to the treaty. Over the past thirty years, the United States taxpayer has transferred to--some might say ``bribed''--Israel and Egypt more well over $100 billion as a payoff for their leaders' signature on the treaty. Particularly in this time of economic hardship, where so many Americans are out of work and facing great financial challenges, I hardly believe we should be celebrating that which increases the strain on taxpayers. I believe we should cease all foreign aid to all countries, as it is a counterproductive and unconstitutional transfer of wealth from U.S. taxpayers to governments overseas. I do believe we should, where possible and without meddling, encourage nations and regions at war or in conflict to work toward peace. But I also believe we should lead by example: that we should demonstrate by our actions the benefits of friendly relations and trade with all nations which seek the same. I strongly oppose the idea that we should bribe the rest of the world to do what we demand. Therefore, while I celebrate the achievement of peace between Egypt and Israel, I do not believe this ``model'' to be productive or in the best interests of the United States. I urge my colleagues to reject this resolution.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Energy Efficient and Environmentally Friendly Automobile Tax Credit Act, legislation that will help Americans reduce pollution and the amount they pay for gas. My legislation accomplishes these important goals by providing Americans a tax credit of up to $2,000 when they sell or trade in a car and obtain a vehicle that has at least a 20% higher average fuel economy than the sold or traded-in car. The bill also creates a federal tax deduction for any state or local taxes paid on the purchase of the more fuel-efficient automobile and makes interest on loans to purchase the more fuel-efficient automobile tax deductible. This legislation will help Americans reduce the amount they pay to fill up their cars by making it easier for them to obtain more fuel- efficient cars. I hope my colleagues would agree that Congress should provide free market incentives to make it easier for Americans to exchange their current cars for cars that create less pollution. Providing tax deductions and tax credits to make it easier for Americans to purchase fuel-efficient automobiles is a win for American consumers, a win for the environment, and a win for those of us who favor free market solutions to pollution and high gas prices. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chair, I rise to oppose H.R. 1388. The idea that it is legitimate for the federal government to take money from one group of citizens and use that money to bribe other citizens into performing ``national service'' violates the basic moral principles of individual liberty that this country was founded upon. I would make three points to those of my colleagues who try to justify this bill by saying that participation in the programs are voluntary. First, participation in the program is not voluntary for the taxpayers. Second, nothing in the bill prevents federal taxpayer dollars from being used to support state and local programs that force children to perform ``community service'' as a condition of graduating from high school. Because an increasing number of schools across the nation are forcing children to provide ``service'' as a condition of graduating, it is quite likely that the funds authorized by this bill will be used to support mandatory service. Third, and most importantly, by legitimizing the idea that it is an appropriate role for the government to promote ``service,'' legislation such as H.R. 1388 opens the door for mandatory national service. Today, influential voices in both major parties are calling for a national program of mandatory service as well as a resumption of the military draft. With the increased need for more troops for the administration's expanded military adventurism in Afghanistan, as well as the continuing movement to conscript young people not eligible for military service to serve the government at home, can anyone doubt that this bill is only the down payment on a much larger program of mandatory national service? The moral case against national service was eloquently expressed by former President Ronald Reagan in the publication Human Events in 1979: ``. . . it [national service and conscription] rests on the assumption that your kids belong to the state. If we buy that assumption then it is for the state--not for parents, the community, the religious institutions or teachers--to decide who shall have what values and who shall do what work, when, where and how in our society. That assumption isn't a new one. The Nazis thought it was a great idea.'' Mr. Chair, millions of Americans including many young people, are already volunteering their time and talents to help their fellow citizens and better their communities without being bribed by the government. In fact, to suggest that the young Americans need a federal check as an incentive to volunteer is an insult to the American people. I hope all my colleagues to join me in standing up for individual liberty, the great American tradition of true volunteerism, and the Constitution by opposing H.R. 1388.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the Cures Can Be Found Act. This legislation promotes medical research by providing a tax credit for investments and donations to promote adult and umbilical cord blood stem cell research, and provides a $2,000 tax credit to new parents for the donation of umbilical cord blood that can be used to extract stem cells. Mr. Speaker, stem cell research has the potential to revolutionize medicine. Stem cells could hold the keys to curing many diseases afflicting millions of Americans, such as diabetes and Alzheimer's. Umbilical cord blood stem cells have already been used to treat over 70 diseases, including sickle cell disease, leukemia, and osteoporosis. Umbilical cord blood stem cells have also proven useful in treating spinal cord injuries and certain neurological disorders. Adult stem cells have shown promise in treating a wide variety of diseases ranging from brain, breast, testicular, and other types of cancers to multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's, heart damage, and rheumatoid arthritis. By providing tax incentives for adult and umbilical cord blood stem cell research, the Cures Can Be Found Act will ensure greater resources are devoted to this valuable research. The tax credit for donations of umbilical cord blood will ensure that medical science has a continuous supply of stem cells. Thus, this bill will help scientists discover new cures using stem cells and, hopefully, make routine the use of stem cells to treat formerly incurable diseases. By encouraging private medical research, the Cures Can Be Found Act enhances a tradition of private medical research that is responsible for many medical breakthroughs. For example, Jonas Salk, discoverer of the polio vaccine, did not receive one dollar from the federal government for his efforts. I urge my colleagues to help the American people support the efforts of future Jonas Salks by cosponsoring the Cures Can Be Found Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule as well as the bill because of the lack of need for this and the disgrace that this has brought upon us. Yesterday, for instance, the Federal Reserve met and they came out and announced that they would create new money to the tune of $1.25 trillion. The dollar promptly went down 3 percent, and today it went down another 1.5 percent. And today on emergency legislation, we're going to deal with $165 million worth of bonuses, which obviously should have never been given. But who's responsible for this? It's the Congress and the President, who signed this. So this is a distraction. This is an outrage so everybody can go home that voted for this bill and say, look, I am clamping down on this $165 million but I don't care about the previous $5 trillion the Fed created and the $1.25 trillion they created yesterday. Think of the loss in purchasing power in less than 24 hours. And we think that we can solve this problem. We first appropriate, unconstitutionally, $350 billion. We give it to the Treasury. We have no strings attached. And then you have an unintended consequence; so we express this outrage. And at the same time, what do we do? We come along and we now propose that we pass a bill of attainder. So we do things that are unconstitutional. They have an unintended consequence. So what is our solution? To further undermine the Constitution. A line should be drawn in the sand. Let's quit appropriating funds in an unconstitutional manner. Let's quit bankrupting this country. Let's quit destroying our dollar. If you really want to do something, you ought to consider H.R. 1207, which would monitor and make the Fed answer questions. I understand the Fed and the Treasury were involved in a lot of these antics, and yet the Fed is not even required to answer any questions. So it's about time we have an open book about the Federal Reserve and solve some of these problems.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Today, there is a lot of expression of outrage--and indeed, there should be. I don't believe that this resolution really addresses the real problem that we have. It looks like it's giving the administration an excuse by saying that he is only doing what we have asked him to do, and the administration. And in many ways this is true. The real fault, I think, falls within the Congress ever giving this money and allowing this to happen. But to excuse the administration and then complain about these bonuses and think that that can solve our problems, it just won't do that. The real outrage, I think, is the lack of monitoring of what we do; we give out money, we have no strings attached, we give out hundreds of billions of dollars, and we totally ignore what the Federal Reserve does by issuing literally trillions of dollars. And yet, this is the emergency legislation. This is politically driven, I happen to believe. I think people would like to express their outrage, and they do. And it's an easy target, picking on AIG, but we create these problems; we create them by doing things that are unconstitutional. We come up with these schemes and these expressions and excuses, and at the same time, we don't address the subject of why do we spend money, and why do we allow a monetary system to operate without any supervision by the Congress? That's where our real problem is. And someday we will address that and deal with this rather than doing it in the political way of saying, well, it's not our fault, it's their fault.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chair, I rise to oppose HR 1388. The idea that it is legitimate for the federal government to take money from one group of citizens and use that money to bribe other citizens into performing ``national service'' violates the basic moral principles of individual liberty that this country was founded upon. I would make three points to those of my colleagues who try to justify this bill by saying that participation in the programs are voluntary. First, participation in the program is not voluntary for the taxpayers. Second, nothing in the bill prevents federal taxpayer dollars from being used to support state and local programs that force children to perform ``community service'' as a condition of graduating from high school. Because an increasing number of schools across the nation are forcing children to provide ``service'' as a condition of graduating, it is quite likely that the funds authorized by this bill will be used to support mandatory service. Third, and most importantly, by legitimizing the idea that it is an appropriate role for the government to promote ``service,'' legislation such as H.R. 1388 opens the door for mandatory national service. Today, influential voices in both major parties are calling for a national program of mandatory service as well as a resumption of the military draft. With the increased need for more troops for the administration's expanded military adventurism in Afghanistan, as well as the continuing movement to conscript young people not eligible for military service to serve the government at home, can anyone doubt that this bill is only the down payment on a much larger program of mandatory national service? The moral case against national service was eloquently expressed by former President Ronald Reagan in the publication Human Events in 1979: ``. . . it [national service and conscription] rests on the assumption that your kids belong to the state. If we buy that assumption then it is for the state--not for parents, the community, the religious institutions or teachers--to decide who shall have what values and who shall do what work, when, where and how in our society. That assumption isn't a new one. The Nazis thought it was a great idea.'' Mr. Chair, millions of Americans including many young people, are already volunteering their time and talents to help their fellow citizens and better their communities without being bribed by the government. In fact, to suggest that the young Americans need a federal check as an incentive to volunteer is an insult to the American people. I hope all my colleagues to join me in standing up for individual liberty, the great American tradition of true volunteerism, and the Constitution by opposing H.R. 1388.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to help working Americans provide for their children's health care needs by introducing the Child Health Care Affordability Act. The Child Health Care Affordability Act provides parents with a tax credit of up to $500 for health care expenses of dependent children. Parents caring for a child with a disability, terminal disease, cancer, or any other health condition requiring specialized care would receive a tax credit of up to $3,000 to help cover their child's health care expenses. The tax credit would be available to all citizens, regardless of whether or not they itemize their deductions. The credit applies against both income and payroll tax liability. The tax credits provided in this bill will be especially helpful to those Americans whose employers cannot afford to provide health insurance for their employees. These workers must struggle to meet the medical bills of themselves and their families. This burden is especially heavy on parents whose children have a medical condition, such as cancer or a physical disability, that requires long-term or specialized health care. As an OB-GYN who has had the privilege of delivering more than four thousand babies, I know how important it is that parents have the resources to provide adequate health care for their children. The inability of many working Americans to provide health care for their children is rooted in one of the great inequities of the tax code-- Congress's failure to allow individuals the same ability to deduct health care costs that it grants to businesses. As a direct result of Congress's refusal to provide individuals with health care related tax credits, parents whose employers do not provide health insurance have to struggle to provide health care for their children. Many of these parents work in low-income jobs; oftentimes, their only recourse for health care is the local emergency room. Sometimes parents are forced to delay seeking care for their children until minor health concerns that could have been easily treated become serious problems requiring expensive treatment. If these parents had access to the type of tax credits provided in the Child Health Care Affordability Act, they would be better able to provide care for their children, and our nation's already overcrowded emergency rooms would be relieved of the burden of having to provide routine care for people who otherwise cannot afford it. According to research on the effects of this bill done by my staff and legislative counsel, the benefit of these tax credits would begin to be felt by joint filers with incomes slightly above $18,000 dollars per year, or single income filers with incomes slightly above $15,000 dollars per year. Clearly, this bill will be of the most benefit to low-income Americans balancing the demands of taxation with the needs of their children. Under the Child Health Care Affordability Act, a struggling single mother with an asthmatic child would at last be able to provide for her child's needs, while a working-class family will not have to worry about how they will pay the bills if one of their children requires lengthy hospitalization or some other form of specialized care. Madam Speaker, this Congress has a moral responsibility to provide tax relief so that low-income parents struggling to care for a sick child can better meet their child's medical expenses. Some may say that we cannot enact the Child Health Care Affordability Act because it would cause the government to lose revenue. But, who is more deserving of this money, Congress or the working parents of a sick child? The Child Health Care Affordability Act takes a major step toward helping working Americans meet their health care needs by providing them with generous health care related tax cuts and tax credits. I urge my colleagues to support the pro-family, pro-health care tax cuts contained in the Child Health Care Affordability Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Quality Health Care Coalition Act which takes a first step towards restoring a true free market in health care by restoring the rights of freedom of contract and association to health care professionals. For over a decade, we have had much debate in Congress about the difficulties medical professionals and patients are having with Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs). HMOs are devices used by insurance industries to ration health care. While it is politically popular for members of Congress to bash the HMOs and the insurance industry, the growth of the HMOs are rooted in past government interventions in the health care market though the tax code, the Employment Retirement Security Act (ERSIA), and the federal anti-trust laws. These interventions took control of the health care dollar away from individual patients and providers, thus making it inevitable that something like the HMOs would emerge as a means to control costs. Many of my well-meaning colleagues would deal with the problems created by the HMOs by expanding the federal government's control over the health care market. These interventions will inevitably drive up the cost of health care and further erode the ability of patents and providers to determine the best health treatments free of government and third-party interference. In contrast, the Quality Health Care Coalition Act addresses the problems associated with HMOs by restoring medical professionals' freedom to form voluntary organizations for the purpose of negotiating contracts with an HMO or an insurance company. As an OB-GYN who spent over 30 years practicing medicine, I am well aware of how young physicians coming out of medical school feel compelled to sign contracts with HMOs that may contain clauses that compromise their professional integrity. For example, many physicians are contractually forbidden from discussing all available treatment options with their patients because the HMO gatekeeper has deemed certain treatment options too expensive. In my own practice, I tried hard not to sign contracts with any health insurance company that infringed on my ability to practice medicine in the best interests of my patients and I always counseled my professional colleagues to do the same. Unfortunately, because of the dominance of the HMO in today's health care market, many health care professionals cannot sustain a medical practice unless they agree to conform their practice to the dictates of some HMO. One way health care professionals could counter the power of the HMOs would be to form a voluntary association for the purpose of negotiating with an HMO or an insurance company. However, health care professionals who attempt to form such a group run the risk of persecution under federal anti-trust laws. This not only reduces the ability of health care professionals to negotiate with HMOs on a level playing field, but also constitutes an unconstitutional violation of medical professionals' freedom of contract and association. Under the United States Constitution, the federal government has no authority to interfere with the private contracts of American citizens. Furthermore, the prohibitions on contracting contained in the Sherman antitrust laws are based on a flawed economic theory which holds that federal regulators can improve upon market outcomes by restricting the rights of certain market participants deemed too powerful by the government. In fact, anti- trust laws harm consumers by preventing the operation of the free- market, causing prices to rise, quality to suffer, and, as is certainly the case with the relationship between the HMOs and medical professionals, favoring certain industries over others. By restoring the freedom of medical professionals to voluntarily come together to negotiate as a group with HMOs and insurance companies, this bill removes a government-imposed barrier to a true free market in health care. Of course, this bill does not infringe on the rights of health care professionals by forcing them to join a bargaining organization against their will. While Congress should protect the rights of all Americans to join organizations for the purpose of bargaining collectively, Congress also has a moral responsibility to ensure that no worker is forced by law to join or financially support such an organization. Madam Speaker, it is my hope that Congress will not only remove the restraints on medical professionals' freedom of contract, but will also empower patients to control their health care by passing my Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act. The Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act puts individuals back in charge of their own health care by providing Americans with large tax credits and tax deductions for their health care expenses, including a deduction for premiums for a high- deductible insurance policy purchased in combination with a Health Savings Account. Putting individuals back in charge of their own health care decisions will enable patients to work with providers to ensure they receive the best possible health care at the lowest possible price. If providers and patients have the ability to form the contractual arrangements that they find most beneficial to them, the HMO monster will wither on the vine without the imposition of new federal regulations on the insurance industry. In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to support the Quality Health Care Coalition Act and restore the freedom of contract and association to America's health care professionals. I also urge my colleagues to join me in working to promote a true free market in health care by putting patients back in charge of the health care dollar by supporting my Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, America faces a crisis in health care. Health care costs continue to rise while physicians and patients struggle under the control of managed-care ``gatekeepers.'' Obviously, fundamental health care reform should be one of Congress' top priorities. Unfortunately, most health care ``reform'' proposals either make marginal changes or exacerbate the problem. This is because they fail to address the root of the problem with health care, which is that government polices encourage excessive reliance on third-party payers. The excessive reliance on third-party payers removes all incentive from 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 the individual patient and physician. Returning control over health care to the individual is the key to true health care reform. The Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act puts control of health care back into the hands of the individual through tax credits, tax deductions, improving Health Savings Accounts, and Flexible Savings Accounts. Specifically, the Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act: 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 a high-deductible insurance policy connected with a Health Savings Account (HSA) and allows seniors to use funds in an HSA to pay for a medigap policy; D. Repeals the 7.5 percent threshold for the deduction of medical expenses, thus making all medical expenses tax deductible. By providing a wide range of options, this bill allows individual Americans to choose the method of financing health care that best suits their individual needs. Increasing frustration with the current health care system is leading more and more Americans to embrace this approach to health care reform. I hope all my colleagues will join this effort to put individuals back in control of health care by cosponsoring the Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Treat Physicians Fairly Act, legislation providing tax credits to physicians to compensate for the costs of providing uncompensated care. This legislation helps compensate medical professionals for the costs imposed on them by federal laws forcing doctors to provide uncompensated medical care. The legislation also provides a tax deduction for hospitals who incur costs related to providing uncompensated care. Under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) physicians who work in emergency rooms, as well as the hospitals, are required to provide care without seeking compensation to anyone who comes into an emergency room. Thus, EMTALA forces medical professionals and hospitals to bear the entire cost of caring for the indigent. According to the June 2/9, 2003 edition of AM News, emergency physicians lose an average of $138,000 per year because of EMTALA. EMTALA also forces physicians and hospitals to follow costly rules and regulations, and can be fined $50,000 for failure to be in technical compliance with EMTALA! Forcing physicians to offer their services without providing any form of compensation is a blatant violation of the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment. After all, the professional skills with which one earns a living are a form of property. Therefore, legislation, such as EMTALA, which forces individuals to use their professional skills without compensation is a taking of private property. Regardless of whether the federal government has the constitutional authority to establish programs providing free-or-reduced health care for the indignant, the clear language of the takings clause prevents Congress from placing the entire burden of these programs on the medical profession. Ironically, the perceived need to force doctors to provide medical care is itself the result of prior government interventions into the health care market. When I began practicing, it was common for doctors to provide uncompensated care as a matter of charity. However, government laws and regulations inflating the cost of medical services and imposing unreasonable liability standards on medical professionals even when they where acting in a volunteer capacity made offering free care cost prohibitive. At the same time, the increased health care costs associated with the government-facilitated over-reliance in third party payments priced more and more people out of the health care market. Thus, the government responded to problems created by their interventions by imposing EMTALA mandate on physicians, in effect making the health care profession scapegoats for the unintended consequences of failed government health care policies. EMTALA itself is having unintended consequences that could result in less care availability for low-income Americans at emergency rooms. This is because EMTALA provides a disincentive for physicians from offering any emergency care. Many physicians have told me in my district that they are considering curtailing their practices, in part because of the costs associated with the EMTALA mandates. Many other physicians are even counseling younger people against entering the medical profession because of the way the federal government treats medical professionals! The tax credit of the Treat Physicians Fairly Act will help mitigate some of these unintended consequences. The Treat Physicians Fairly Act does not remove any of EMTALA's mandates; it simply provides that physicians can receive a tax credit for the costs of providing uncompensated care. This is a small step toward restoring fairness to the physicians. Furthermore, by providing some compensation in the form of tax credits, the Treat Physicians Fairly Act helps remove the disincentives to remaining active in the medical profession built into the current EMTALA law. I hope my colleagues will take the first step toward removing the unconstitutional burden of providing uncompensated care by cosponsoring the Treat Physicians Fairly Act.

Mr. PAUL

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

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, ``Pursuant to the House Republican standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of HR 1105.'' 1) Requesting Member: Congressman Ron Paul Bill Number: H.R. 1105 Account: Army Corps of Engineers, General Investigations Legal Name of Requesting Entity: US Army Corps of Engineers Address of Requesting Entity: 200 Fort Point Road, Galveston, Texas Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $382,000 to complete investigations at Freeport Harbor, Texas in furtherance of maintaining a federally authorized waterway. 2) Requesting Member: Congressman Ron Paul Bill Number: H.R. 1105 Account: Army Corps of Engineers, General Investigations Legal Name of Requesting Entity: US Army Corps of Engineers Address of Requesting Entity: 200 Fort Point Road, Galveston, Texas Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $406,000 to complete investigations in the Lower Colorado River Basin, Texas in furtherance of a federally authorized flood study. 3) Requesting Member: Congressman Ron Paul Bill Number: H.R. 1105 Account: Army Corps of Engineers, General Investigations Legal Name of Requesting Entity: US Army Corps of Engineers Address of Requesting Entity: 200 Fort Point Road, Galveston, Texas Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $1,264,000 to complete investigations in the Lower Colorado River Basin and Wharton and Onion Creeks, Texas in furtherance of a federally authorized flood study. 4) Requesting Member: Congressman Ron Paul Bill Number: H.R. 1105 Account: Army Corps of Engineers, General Investigations Legal Name of Requesting Entity: US Army Corps of Engineers Address of Requesting Entity: 200 Fort Point Road, Galveston, Texas Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $382,000 to complete investigations at GIWW Sabine Pass to Galveston Bay, Texas in furtherance of maintaining a federally authorized waterway. 5) Requesting Member: Congressman Ron Paul Bill Number: H.R. 1105 Account: Army Corps of Engineers, Construction Legal Name of Requesting Entity: US Army Corps of Engineers Address of Requesting Entity: 200 Fort Point Road, Galveston, Texas Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $1,914,000 to complete construction work at Texas City Ship Channel, Texas in furtherance of maintaining a federally authorized waterway. 6) Requesting Member: Congressman Ron Paul Bill Number: H.R. 1105 Account: Army Corps of Engineers, Construction Legal Name of Requesting Entity: US Army Corps of Engineers Address of Requesting Entity: 200 Fort Point Road, Galveston, Texas Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $20,766,000 to complete construction work at Houston-Galveston Navigation Channel, Texas in furtherance of maintaining a federally authorized waterway. 7) Requesting Member: Congressman Ron Paul Bill Number: H.R. 1105 Account: Army Corps of Engineers, Construction Legal Name of Requesting Entity: US Army Corps of Engineers Address of Requesting Entity: 200 Fort Point Road, Galveston, Texas Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $478,000 to complete construction work at Houston Ship Channel, Texas in furtherance of maintaining a federally authorized waterway. 8) Requesting Member: Congressman Ron Paul Bill Number: H.R. 1105 Account: Army Corps of Engineers, Construction Legal Name of Requesting Entity: US Army Corps of Engineers Address of Requesting Entity: 200 Fort Point Road, Galveston, Texas Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $478,000 to complete construction work at Clear Creek, Texas in furtherance of a federally authorized flood control. 9) Requesting Member: Congressman Ron Paul Bill Number: H.R. 1105 Account: Army Corps of Engineers, O&M Legal Name of Requesting Entity: US Army Corps of Engineers Address of Requesting Entity: 200 Fort Point Road, Galveston, Texas Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $323,000 to maintain the Channel to Port Bolivar, Texas in furtherance of a federally authorized water project. 10) Requesting Member: Congressman Ron Paul Bill Number: H.R. 1105 Account: Army Corps of Engineers, O&M Legal Name of Requesting Entity: US Army Corps of Engineers Address of Requesting Entity: 200 Fort Point Road, Galveston, Texas Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $6,516,000 to maintain Freeport Harbor, Texas in furtherance of a federally authorized water project. 11) Requesting Member: Congressman Ron Paul Bill Number: H.R. 1105 Account: Army Corps of Engineers, O&M Legal Name of Requesting Entity: US Army Corps of Engineers Address of Requesting Entity: 200 Fort Point Road, Galveston, Texas Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $5,590,000 to maintain Galveston Harbor Channel, Texas in furtherance of a federally authorized water project. 12) Requesting Member: Congressman Ron Paul Bill Number: H.R. 1105 Account: Army Corps of Engineers, O&M Legal Name of Requesting Entity: US Army Corps of Engineers Address of Requesting Entity: 200 Fort Point Road, Galveston, Texas Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $2,512,000 to maintain the GIWW Channel to Victoria, Texas in furtherance of a federally authorized water project. 13) Requesting Member: Congressman Ron Paul Bill Number: H.R. 1105 Account: Army Corps of Engineers, O&M Legal Name of Requesting Entity: US Army Corps of Engineers Address of Requesting Entity: 200 Fort Point Road, Galveston, Texas Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $2,716,000 to maintain the GIWW Chocolate Bayou, Texas in furtherance of a federally authorized water project. 14) Requesting Member: Congressman Ron Paul Bill Number: H.R. 1105 Account: Army Corps of Engineers, O&M Legal Name of Requesting Entity: US Army Corps of Engineers Address of Requesting Entity: 200 Fort Point Road, Galveston, Texas Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $5,730,000 to maintain the Matagorda Ship Channel, Texas in furtherance of a federally authorized water project. 15) Requesting Member: Congressman Ron Paul Bill Number: H.R. 1105 Account: Army Corps of Engineers, O&M Legal Name of Requesting Entity: US Army Corps of Engineers Address of Requesting Entity: 200 Fort Point Road, Galveston, Texas Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $1,376,000 to maintain the Texas City Ship Channel, Texas in furtherance of a federally authorized water project. 16) Requesting Member: Congressman Ron Paul Bill Number: H.R. 1105 Account: Army Corps of Engineers, O&M Legal Name of Requesting Entity: US Army Corps of Engineers Address of Requesting Entity: 200 Fort Point Road, Galveston, Texas Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $1,622,000 to maintain the Wallisville Lake, Texas in furtherance of a federally authorized water project. 17) Requesting Member: Congressman Ron Paul Bill Number: H.R. 1105 Account: Army Corps of Engineers, O&M Legal Name of Requesting Entity: US Army Corps of Engineers Address of Requesting Entity: 200 Fort Point Road, Galveston, Texas Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $29,586,000 to maintain the GIWW, Texas in furtherance of a federally authorized water project. 18) Requesting Member: Congressman Ron Paul Bill Number: H.R. 1105 Account: Army Corps of Engineers, O&M Legal Name of Requesting Entity: US Army Corps of Engineers Address of Requesting Entity: 200 Fort Point Road, Galveston, Texas Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $13,788,000 to maintain the Houston Ship Channel, Texas in furtherance of a federally authorized water project. 19) Requesting Member: Congressman Ron Paul Bill Number: H.R. 1105 Account: Department of Transportation, Buses and Facilities Legal Name of Requesting Entity: City of Galveston Address of Requesting Entity: 823 Rosenberg, Galveston, Texas 77553 Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $237,500 for transit facility renovation in Galveston, Texas in furtherance of hurricane recovery. 20) Requesting Member: Congressman Ron Paul Bill Number: H.R. 1105 Account: Department of Transportation, CTPS Legal Name of Requesting Entity: City of Galveston Address of Requesting Entity: 823 Rosenberg, Galveston, Texas 77553 Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $95,000 for work on the Seawall in Galveston, Texas in furtherance of hurricane recovery. 21) Requesting Member: Congressman Ron Paul Bill Number: H.R. 1105 Account: Department of Transportation, Buses and Facilities Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Golden Crescent Regional Planning Commission Address of Requesting Entity: 568 Big Bend Drive, Victoria, TX 77904 Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $237,500 for bus replacement in Victoria, Texas in furtherance of transportation system improvement to enhance job retention and creation in and around Victoria, Texas 22) Requesting Member: Congressman Ron Paul Bill Number: H.R. 1105 Account: HHS, HRSA, Health Facilities and Services Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Memorial Hermann Health Care Systems Address of Requesting Entity: 7737 Southwest Freeway, Houston, Texas 77074 Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $190,000 for healthcare facilities and equipment in and around Houston, Texas 23) Requesting Member: Congressman Ron Paul Bill Number: H.R. 1105 Account: Department of Education, Innovation and Improvements Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Reach out and Read Address of Requesting Entity: 56 Roland Street, Suite 100D; Boston, MA 02129 Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $4,965,000 for reading based federally-funded national educational program. 24) Requesting Member: Congressman Ron Paul Bill Number: H.R. 1105 Account: Department of Education, Innovation and Improvements Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Reading is Fundamental (RIF) Address of Requesting Entity: 1825 Connecticut Avenue, NW--Suite 400; Washington, DC 20009 Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $24,803,000 for reading based federally-funded national educational program. 25) Requesting Member: Congressman Ron Paul Bill Number: H.R. 1105 Account: Department of Education, Innovation and Improvements Legal Name of Requesting Entity: SURE BET Address of Requesting Entity: 5606 N. Navarro, Suite 200 R; Victoria, TX 77904 Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $95,000 for program to reduce school drop-out rates in and around Victoria, Texas 26) Requesting Member: Congressman Ron Paul Bill Number: H.R. 1105 Account: Economic Development Initiatives Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Housing and Community Services, Inc Address of Requesting Entity: 8610 N. New Braunfels, Suite 500; San Antonio, TX 78217 Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $23,750 for equipment at Fox Run Apartments in Victoria, Texas 27) Requesting Member: Congressman Ron Paul Bill Number: H.R. 1105 Account: OJP, Juvenile Justice Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Texana Center, inc. Address of Requesting Entity: 4910 Airport Avenue, Rosenberg, TX 77471 Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $500,000 for Nublac drug rehabilitation program targeted to serve minority residents in and around Bay City, Texas

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Freedom from Unnecessary Litagation Act. As its title suggests, this bill provides an effective means of ensuring that those harmed during medical treatment receive fair compensation while reducing the burden of costly malpractice litigation on the health care system. This bill achieves its 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 award to a trial lawyer. Relying on negative outcomes insurance instead of litigation will also reduce the costs imposed on physicians, other health care providers, and hospitals by malpractice litigation. The Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act also promotes effective solutions to the malpractice crisis by making malpractice awards obtained through binding, voluntary arbitration tax-free. The malpractice crisis has contributed to the closing of a maternity ward in Philadelphia and a trauma center in Nevada. Several years ago, surgeons in West Virginia actually walked away from their jobs to protest increasing liability rates. These are a few of the examples of how access to quality health care is jeopardized by the epidemic of large, and medically questionable, malpractice awards, and the resulting increase in insurance rates. As is typical of Washington, most of the proposed solutions to the malpractice problem involve unconstitutional usurpations of areas best left to the states. These solutions also ignore the root cause of the litigation crisis: the shift away from treating the doctor-patient relationship as a contractual one to viewing it as one governed by regulations imposed by insurance company functionaries, politicians, government bureaucrats, and trial lawyers. There is no reason why questions of the assessment of liability and compensation cannot be determined by a private contractual agreement between physicians and patients. The Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act is designed to take a step toward resolving these problems through private contracts. Using insurance, private contracts, and binding arbitration to resolve medical disputes benefits patients, who receive full compensation in a timelier manner than under the current system. It also benefits physicians and hospitals, which are relieved of the costs associated with litigation. Since it will not cost as much to provide full compensation to an injured patient, these bills should result in a reduction of malpractice premiums. The Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act benefits everybody except those trial lawyers who profit from the current system. I hope all my colleagues will help end the malpractice crises while ensuring those harmed by medical injuries receive just compensation by cosponsoring my Freedom from Unnecessary Litigation Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the Thrift Savings Fund Improvement Act. This legislation expands the investment options available to congressional and other federal employees by creating a precious metals investment fund in the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP). Adding a precious metals fund to the TSP will enhance the plan's ability to offer congressional employees a wide range of investment options that can provide financial security even during difficult economic conditions. The Thrift Savings Plan is one of the most important benefits offered to congressional employees. A strong TSP can obviously play a key role in attracting and retaining talented individuals to serve in the legislative branch. Adding a precious metals option will strengthen the TSP. In the last year, the price of gold rose by 5.5 percent while the Dow Jones experienced one of its worst years ever, falling by 33.8 percent, while the NASDQ declined by 40.5 percent! Recent gains aside, precious metals have a number of features that make them a sound part of a prudent investment strategy. In particular, inflation does not erode the value of precious metals is not eroded over time. Thus, precious metals can serve as a valuable ``inflation hedge.'' Precious metals also maintain, or even increase, their value during times of stock market instability, such as what the country is currently experiencing. Thus, investments in precious metals can help ensure that an investment portfolio maintains its value during times of economic instability. Federal employees could greatly benefit from the protection against inflation and economic downturns provided by prudent investments in precious metals. I, therefore, once again urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Thrift Savings Fund Improvement Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce legislation repealing two unconstitutional and paternalistic federal financial regulations. First, this legislation repeals a federal regulation that limits the number of withdrawals someone can make from a savings account in a month's time without being assessed financial penalties. As hard as it is to believe, the federal government actually forces banks to punish people for accessing their own savings too many times in a month. This bill also repeals a regulation that requires bank customers to receive a written monthly financial statement from their banks, regardless of whether the customer wants such a communication. These regulations exceed Congress's constitutional powers and violate individual property and contract rights. Furthermore, these regulations insult Americans by treating them as children who are unable to manage their own affairs without federal control. I urge my colleagues to show their respect for the Constitution and the American people by cosponsoring the Freedom to Bank Act.