Ron Paul

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, on February 21 the Texas Delta Xi Chapter of the Alpha Delta Kappa International Sorority for Women Legislators will honor some distinguished alumni of the H.O. Tanner School in Brazoria, TX, who attended H.O. Tanner when it was a segregated school. Among those honored will be Julia Mack, who taught at H.O. Tanner after segregation was ended. H.O. Tanner was constructed in 1900 in order to ensure that Texas' segregation laws did not prevent African-American children from obtaining a quality education. Laws dictating what schools a child can and cannot attend, based solely on that child's race, are a shameful aspect of America's history. It is hard to think of a better way to celebrate Black History Month than by honoring those who did not allow the burden of the ``Jim Crow'' laws to stop them from obtaining an education, and returning to their community to devote their lives to teaching all students. It is therefore with the greatest pleasure that I join Texas Delta Xi Chapter of Alpha Delta Kappa in honoring Geneva Barrett, Cora Mack, Berniece Smith, Julia Mack (who taught kindergarten at the desegregated Henry O. Tanner); Mary Crecy, Geneva Barrett (both of whom are being honored posthumously) and Mary Dickson who taught at the original Henry O. Tanner School, and sisters Julia and Cora Mack who attended classes on the desegregated H.O. Tanner Campus.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, on February 27, the Galveston Chamber of Commerce will present its business of the year award to Gulf Copper & Manufacturing Corporation, Gulf Copper, in recognition of the many contributions that it has made to the Galveston community. I am pleased to join my friends from the Galveston Chamber of Commerce in paying tribute to Gulf Copper. Gulf Copper is an employee-owned company that has been in existence for over 50 years. Originally specializing in the installation of copper tubing on marine vessels, Gulf Copper has since expanded into the offshore, military marine, petrochemical, and industrial markets with base services including full topside marine repair, steel fabrication, steel and mechanical repair, machining, painting, and blasting. These expansions of service are helping Gulf Cooper achieve their objective of being the preferred provider of marine and industrial fabrication and repair services in the Texas gulf coast. Gulf Copper's customer list includes most major U.S. commercial ship operators as well as the U.S. Government Maritime Administration, Coast Guard, U.S. Navy, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Military Sealift Command. Gulf Copper's success has brought many benefits to Galveston. For example, Gulf Cooper is responsible for pumping a seven-digit revenue stream into the Port of Galveston. Gulf Cooper is also a source of employment for many residents of Galveston County. In June 2007, Gulf Copper Dry Dock and Rig Repair added an additional 683 employees to its already large staff. Gulf Copper has also helped attract London-based Rolls Royce Commercial Marine to the Galveston area. Gulf Copper also benefits the people of Galveston by serving as a model of corporate civic involvement. The company has helped promote Galveston's Oceans of Opportunities Job Fair and works with Galveston College to promote Workforce Investment Act-funded welding and pipe fitting classes. Gina Spagnola, president of the Galveston Chamber of Commerce, said that Gulf Copper deserves this award because: ``They are actively involved in the Galveston community and have made a positive impact on both employers and workers. This chamber and the City of Galveston are grateful for Gulf Copper's commitment to our community.'' Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join the Galveston Chamber of Commerce in honoring the management and staff of Gulf Copper for all of their contributions to the economy and community of Galveston, Texas.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, on February 21 the Texas Delta Xi Chapter of the Honorary Educators Organization Alpha Delta Kappa will honor those Texas Delta Xi teachers who attended the H.O. Tanner School in Texas, and then returned to teach at H.O. Tanner after completing their education. H.O. Tanner was constructed in 1900 in order to ensure that Texas' segregation laws did not prevent African-American children from obtaining a quality education. Laws dictating what schools a child can and cannot attend, based solely on that child's race, are a shameful aspect of America's history. It is hard to think of a better way to celebrate Black History Month than by honoring those who did not allow the burden of the ``Jim Crow'' laws stop them from obtaining an education, and then used their education to serve the children of their community by devoting their lives to teaching. It is therefore with the greatest pleasure that I join Texas Delta Chapter of Alpha Delta Kappa in honoring Geneva Barrett, Cora Mack, Berniece Smith, and Sister Julia Mack, who taught kindergarten at the ``new'' Henry O. Tanner; Sister Mary Crecy, Geneva Barrett (both of whom will be honored posthumously), and Mary Dixon who taught at the original Henry O. Tanner School; and Sisters Julia and Cora Mack who attended classes on the ``new'' H.O. Tanner campus.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to speak on the concept of competing currencies. Currency, or money, is what allows civilization to flourish. In the absence of money, barter is the name of the game; if the farmer needs shoes, he must trade his eggs and milk to the cobbler and hope that the cobbler needs eggs and milk. Money makes the transaction process far easier. Rather than having to search for someone with reciprocal wants, the farmer can exchange his milk and eggs for an agreed-upon medium of exchange with which he can then purchase shoes. This medium of exchange should satisfy certain properties: It should be durable, that is to say, it does not wear out easily; it should be portable, that is, easily carried; it should be divisible into units usable for everyday transactions: it should be recognizable and uniform, so that one unit of money has the same properties as every other unit; it should be scarce, in the economic sense, so that the extant supply does not satisfy the wants of everyone demanding it; it should be stable, so that the value of its purchasing power does not fluctuate wildly; and it should be reproducible, so that enough units of money can be created to satisfy the needs of exchange. Over millennia of human history, gold and silver have been the two metals that have most often satisfied these conditions, survived the market process, and gained the trust of billions of people. Gold and silver are difficult to counterfeit, a property which ensures they will always be accepted in commerce. It is precisely for this reason that gold and silver are anathema to governments. A supply of gold and silver that is limited in supply by nature cannot be inflated, and thus serves as a check on the growth of government. Without the ability to inflate the currency, governments find themselves constrained in their actions, unable to carry on wars of aggression or to appease their overtaxed citizens with bread and circuses. At this country's founding, there was no government controlled national currency. While the Constitution established the Congressional power of minting coins, it was not until 1792 that the U.S. Mint was formally established. In the meantime. Americans made do with foreign silver and gold coins. Even after the Mint's operations got underway, foreign coins continued to circulate within the United States, and did so for several decades. On the desk in my office I have a sign that says: ``Don't steal--the government hates competition.'' Indeed, any power a government arrogates to itself, it is loathe to give back to the people. Just as we have gone from a constitutionally-instituted national defense consisting of a limited army and navy bolstered by militias and letters of marque and reprisal, we have moved from a system of competing currencies to a government-instituted banking cartel that monopolizes the issuance of currency. In order to introduce a system of competing currencies, there are three steps that must be taken to produce a legal climate favorable to competition. The first step consists of eliminating legal tender laws. Article I Section 10 of the Constitution forbids the States from making anything but gold and silver a legal tender in payment of debts. States are not required to enact legal tender laws, but should they choose to, the only acceptable legal tender is gold and silver, the two precious metals that individuals throughout history and across cultures have used as currency. However, there is nothing in the Constitution that grants the Congress the power to enact legal tender laws. We, the Congress, have the power to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, but not to declare a legal tender. Yet, there is a section of U.S. Code, 31 U.S.C. 5103, that purports to establish U.S. coins and currency, including Federal Reserve notes, as legal tender. Historically, legal tender laws have been used by governments to force their citizens to accept debased and devalued currency. Gresham's Law describes this phenomenon. which can be summed up in one phrase: Bad money drives out good money. An emperor, a king, or a dictator might mint coins with half an ounce of gold and force merchants, under pain of death, to accept them as though they contained one ounce of gold. Each ounce of the king's gold could now be minted into two coins instead of one, so the king now had twice as much ``money'' to spend on building castles and raising armies. As these legally overvalued coins circulated, the coins containing the full ounce of gold would be pulled out of circulation and hoarded. We saw this same phenomenon happen in the mid-1960s when the U.S. government began to mint subsidiary coinage out of copper and nickel rather than silver. The copper and nickel coins were legally overvalued, the silver coins undervalued in relation, and silver coins vanished from circulation. These actions also give rise to the most pernicious effects of inflation. Most of the merchants and peasants who received this devalued currency felt the full effects of inflation, the rise in prices and the lowered standard of living, before they received any of the new currency. By the time they received the new currency, prices had long since doubled, and the new currency they received would give them no benefit. In the absence of legal tender laws, Gresham's Law no longer holds. If people are free to reject debased currency, and instead demand sound money, sound money will gradually return to use in society. Merchants would have been free to reject the king's coin and accept only coins containing full metal weight. The second step to reestablishing competing currencies is to eliminate laws that prohibit the operation of private mints. One private enterprise which attempted to popularize the use of precious metal coins was Liberty Services, the creators of the Liberty Dollar. Evidently the government felt threatened, as Liberty Dollars had all their precious metal coins seized by the FBI and Secret Service this past November. Of course, not all of these coins were owned by Liberty Services, as many were held in trust as backing for silver and gold certificates which Liberty Services issued. None of this matters, of course, to the government, who hates to see any competition. The sections of U.S. Code which Liberty Services is accused of violating are erroneously considered to be anti-counterfeiting statutes, when in fact their purpose was to shut down private mints that had been operating in California. California was awash in gold in the aftermath of the 1849 gold rush, yet had no U.S. Mint to mint coinage. There was not enough foreign coinage circulating in California either, so private mints stepped into the breech to provide their own coins. As was to become the case in other industries during the Progressive era, the private mints were eventually accused of circulating debased (substandard) coinage, and in the interest of providing government-sanctioned regulation and a government guarantee of purity, the 1864 Coinage Act was passed, which banned private mints from producing their own coins for circulation as currency. The final step to ensuring competing currencies is to eliminate capital gains and sales taxes on gold and silver coins. Under current Federal law, coins are considered collectibles, and are liable for capital gains taxes. Short-term capital gains rates are at income tax levels, up to 35 percent, while long-term capital gains taxes are assessed at the collectibles rate of 28 percent. Furthermore, these taxes actually tax monetary debasement. As the dollar weakens, the nominal dollar value of gold increases. The purchasing power of gold may remain relatively constant, but as the nominal dollar value increases, the Federal government considers this an increase in wealth, and taxes accordingly. Thus, the more the dollar is debased, the more capital gains taxes must be paid on holdings of gold and other precious metals. Just as pernicious are the sales and use taxes which are assessed on gold and silver at the State level in many States. Imagine having to pay sales tax at the bank every time you change a $10 bill for a roll of quarters to do laundry. Inflation is a pernicious tax on the value of money. but even the official numbers, which are massaged downwards, are only on the order of 4 percent per year. Sales taxes in many states can take away 8 percent or more on every single transaction in which consumers wish to convert their Federal Reserve Notes into gold or silver. In conclusion, Madam Speaker, allowing for competing currencies will allow market participants to choose a currency that suits their needs, rather than the needs of the government. The prospect of American citizens turning away from the dollar towards alternate currencies will provide the necessary impetus to the U.S. government to regain control of the dollar and halt its downward spiral. Restoring soundness to the dollar will remove the government's ability and incentive to inflate the currency, and keep us from launching unconstitutional wars that burden our economy to excess. With a sound currency, everyone is better off, not just those who control the monetary system. I urge my colleagues to consider the redevelopment of a system of competing currencies.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the extension of the Protect America Act of 2007 because the underlying legislation violates the U.S. Constitution. The mis-named Protect America Act allows the U.S. government to monitor telephone calls and other electronic communications of American citizens without a warrant. This clearly violates the Fourth Amendment, which states: ``The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'' The Protect America Act sidelines the FISA Court system and places authority over foreign surveillance in the director of national intelligence and the attorney general with little if any oversight. While proponents of this legislation have argued that the monitoring of American citizens would still require a court-issued warrant, the bill only requires that subjects be ``reasonably believed to be outside the United States.'' Further, it does not provide for the Fourth Amendment protection of American citizens if they happen to be on the other end of the electronic communication where the subject of surveillance is a non-citizen overseas. We must remember that the original Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was passed in 1978 as a result of the U.S. Senate investigations into the Federal government's illegal spying on American citizens. Its purpose was to prevent the abuse of power from occurring in the future by establishing guidelines and prescribing oversight to the process. It was designed to protect citizens, not the government. The effect seems to have been opposite of what was intended. These recent attempts to ``upgrade'' FISA do not appear to be designed to enhance protection of our civil liberties, but to make it easier for the government to spy on us! The only legitimate ``upgrade'' to the original FISA legislation would be to allow surveillance of conversations that begin and end outside the United States between non-U.S. citizens where the telephone call is routed through the United States. Technology and the global communications market have led to more foreign to foreign calls being routed through the United States. This adjustment would solve the problems outlined by the administration without violating the rights of U.S. citizens. While I would not oppose technical changes in FISA that the intelligence community has indicated are necessary, Congress should not use this opportunity to chip away at even more of our constitutional protections and civil liberties. I urge my colleagues to oppose this and any legislation that violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madame Speaker, I find it odd that H.R. 5140, a bill allegedly designed to provide a stimulus for the anemic American economy, contains provisions that could damage the economy and hurt American taxpayers. Specifically, the provisions increasing the loan limitations of the Federal Housing Administration and the Government Sponsored Enterprises (e.g. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), will exacerbate the long-term problems in the housing market, and may even lead to a future taxpayer bailout of the housing industry. The recent bursting of the housing bubble should have taught my colleagues the dangers of government polices that distort the market by diverting resources to housing, when those resources would be more efficiently used in other sectors of the economy. Ironically, many of the same members who insisted that upper income taxpayers be denied the tax rebates are enthusiastic champions of the provisions in H.R. 5140 increasing the FHA loan limit to $633,500 and the GSE loan limit to $729,750. This increase in the loan limits represents a generous taxpayer subsidy to high-income homeowners. A one-time ``rebate'' check, while it may provide a temporary boost to many working American families struggling with the current downturn, is not going to provide the type of sustained income growth necessary to restore consumer confidence. In fact, history shows that when the Government forgoes serious tax cuts in favor of one-time ``rebates'' most people either save the money for a ``rainy day'' or use it to pay down some of their debt. In addition, I am concerned that the 50 percent bonus depreciation and the increase in the amount of qualifying purchases that small businesses can expense in the year they bought their equipment will be of limited effectiveness because they are limited to 1 year. A more effective way to stimulate the economy would be to make the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent. I also hope Congress considers the long-term tax cuts contained in H.R. 5109, the Economic Growth Act. Congress should also pass my Tax Free Tips Act (H.R. 3664), which makes tips exempt from Federal income and payroll taxes. Making tips tax-free will strengthen American families and the American economy by allowing millions of hard-working Americans to devote more resources to their children's, or their own, education, or to save for a home, retirement, or to start their own businesses. Another disturbing feature of H.R. 5140 is that, instead of taking the fiscally responsible course and pairing the tax cuts with spending cuts, this bill simply adds to the national deficit. Madam Speaker, unless Congress acts soon to reign in its excessive spending the American people will face confiscatory tax rates or skyrocketing inflation. Tax cuts by themselves will not restore long-term economic health unless and until this body finally addresses the fundamental cause of our economic instability, which is monetary policy. The inflationary policies of the Federal Reserve are the root of the boom-and-bust cycle that has plagued the American economy for almost 75 years. The Federal Reserve's inflationary policies are also at the root of the steady decline in the American people's standard of living. A good step toward monetary reform would be for Congress to pass my H.R. 2576, which repeals the Federal legal tender laws. This would allow people to use alternatives to Government-issued fiat money and thus protect themselves from Federal Reserve-created inflation. One of the best things Congress could do for the American economy is to repeal, or at least reform, the misguided Sarbanes-Oxley law, particularly Section 404. Rushed through Congress in the wake of the Enron and WorldCom scandals in order to show that Congress was ``getting tough'' on corporate crime, Sarbanes-Oxley imposes unreasonable costs on small businesses and entrepreneurs. A survey by Financial Executives International, an organization of chief financial officers, put the average cost of compliance with Sarbanes-Oxley at $4.4 million, while the American Economics Association estimates Sarbanes-Oxley could cost American companies as much as $35 billion. Because of these costs, many small businesses are delisting from United States stock exchanges. According to a study by the prestigious Wharton Business School, the number of American companies delisting from public stock exchanges nearly tripled the year after Sarbanes-Oxley became law, thus these companies are finding it more costly to attract the necessary capital to grow their business and create jobs. In conclusion, Madam Speaker, H.R. 5140 does not provide the kind of permanent, deep tax relief that will protect long-term economic growth, and will actually compound the damage Congress has already done to the housing market. Instead of pretending that we are addressing America's economic problems via temporary tax cuts, Congress should address the fundamental problems of the American economy by pursuing serious monetary reform, spending cuts, and regulatory reform. Congress should also provide real long-term tax relief to the American people by passing legislation such as H.R. 5109 and H.R. 3664.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, Jesse Ann Lewis of Bay City, Texas will celebrate her 100th birthday on January 30. A lifetime resident of Bay City, Mrs. Lewis faithfully served several Bay City families as a domestic servant. However, Mrs. Lewis's greatest contribution to her community has been her over six decades of service as a missionary for the Enterprise Church. Mrs. Lewis's service to Enterprise Church's congregation enabled her to positively impact the lives of several generations of Bay City residents. The love and dedication Mrs. Lewis has shown for the people of Bay City is reciprocated in the love and respect the people of Bay City have for Mrs. Lewis. It is therefore a pleasure to wish Mrs. Jesse Ann Lewis a happy 100th birthday as she prepares to celebrate her centennial with a gathering in her beloved Enterprise Church, surrounded by people whose lives were improved by Mrs. Lewis's devotion to her church, her community, and her fellow human beings.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to help working Americans stricken with cancer or other terminal illnesses, and their families, by introducing the Cancer and Terminal Illness Patient Health Care Act. This act exempts people with terminal illnesses from the employee portion of payroll taxes while they are suffering from such illnesses or are incurring significant medical costs associated with their conditions. The Cancer and Terminal Illness Patient Health Care Act also provides a payroll deduction to any worker who is the primary caregiver for a spouse, parent, or child with a terminal illness. When stricken with cancer or another terminal disease, many Americans struggle to pay for the treatment necessary to save, or extend, their lives. Even employees with health insurance incur costs such as for transportation to and from care centers, prescription drugs not covered by their insurance, or for child care while they are receiving treatment. Yet, the Federal Government continues to force these employees to pay for retirement benefits they may never live to see! Many Americans struggle to pay the costs of treating children, a spouse, or a parent with a terminal illness. My bill also provides much needed tax relief for those who are providing care to a loved one with a terminal disease. As a physician who has specialized in women's health issues for decades, I know how critical it is that cancer patients and others suffering from terminal illnesses have the resources they need to combat these illnesses. The Cancer and Terminal Illness Patient Health Care Act provides a realistic way to help people suffering from cancer or other terminal illnesses receive quality health care. It is hard to think of a more compassionate tax policy this Congress could enact than to stop taking the resources away from working Americans that could help them treat cancer, AIDS, or other terrible health problems. I hope all my colleagues will help people suffering from terminal illnesses, and their caregivers, by cosponsoring the Cancer and Terminal Illness Patent Health Care Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the Free Competition in Currency Act. This act would eliminate two sections of U.S. Code that, although ostensibly intended to punish counterfeiters, have instead been used by the Government to shut down private mints. As anticounterfeiting measures, these sections are superfluous, as 18 U.S.C. 485, 490, and 491 already grant sufficient authority to punish counterfeiters. The two sections this bill repeals, 18 U.S.C. 486 and 489, are so broadly written as to effectively restrict any form of private coinage from competing with the products of the United States Mint. Allowing such statutes to remain in force as a catch-all provision merely encourages prosecutorial abuse. One particular egregious recent example is that of the Liberty Dollar, in which Federal agents seized millions of dollars worth of private currency held by a private mint on behalf of thousands of people across the country. Due to nearly a century of inflationary monetary policy on the part of the Federal Reserve, the U.S. dollar stands at historically low levels. Investors around the world are shunning the dollar, and millions of Americans see their salaries, savings accounts, and pensions eroded away by rising inflation. We stand on the precipice of an unprecedented monetary collapse, and as a result many people have begun to look for alternatives to the dollar. As a proponent of competition in currencies, I believe that the American people should be free to choose the type of currency they prefer to use. The ability of consumers to adopt alternative currencies can help to keep the Government and the Federal Reserve honest, as the threat that further inflation will cause more and more people to opt out of using the dollar may restrain the government from debasing the currency. As monopolists, however, the Federal Reserve and the Mint fear competition, and would rather force competitors out using the federal court system and the threat of asset forfeiture than compete in the market. A free society should shun this type of strong-arm action, and the Free Competition in Currency Act would take the necessary first steps to freeing the market for competing currencies. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, the residents of Bay City, Texas lost a true friend when Dr. Russell Arthur Matthes passed away on November 27. A native of Bay City, Russell Matthes volunteered for the Naval Air Corps in 1942. Dr. Matthes served as a turret gunner on a flying gunship, participating in the Saipan, Tinian, Okinawa, and Philippines campaigns. These where among the most decisive battles in the closing chapters of World War II. When Japan surrendered, Dr. Matthes's squadron was transferred to the USS Cumberland Sound and sent to Japan. His plane's crew flew across Japan, taking aerial photographs for intelligence purposes and also looking for prison camps. A camp at Kobe was found and the crew dropped all the canned food from the plane's galley. Following the war, Russell Matthes completed his education at Baylor University and Baylor Dental School, where he trained as an orthodontist. He then returned to Bay City to practice orthodontics. Dr. Matthes and his wife, Juniata LeTulle Matthes, raised two daughters and a son. In addition to serving the people of his community with his medical practice, Dr. Matthes was active in numerous civic and community groups. In order to maintain his links with his fellow veterans, Dr. Matthes was a lifetime member of Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 2438. He was also a member of the Masonic Lodge, the Eastern Star Jesters, the Shiners, and the Medical Benevolence Foundation. Dr. Matthes was particularly interested in helping the youth of his community. Thus, in addition to all his other civic activities and his full-time medical practice, Dr. Matthes was very active with the Boy Scouts. Through his activities with the scouts, as well as his other civic work, he helped improve the lives of thousands of young Texans. Residents of Bay City were not the only ones who benefited from Dr. Matthes commitment to service. As a member of the Episcopal Church, Dr. Matthes preformed church missionary work in around the world. Madam Speaker, Dr. Matthes devotion to his community and his fellow human beings set an example we all should follow. I extend my deepest condolences to Dr. Matthes' family and friends.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, researchers at the University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB) have been responsible for two significant medical breakthroughs that have the potential to dramatically improve American health care. Earlier this year, Dr. Lisa Elferink, an associate professor at UTMB's Cancer Center, led a national research team that discovered how use of the bacterial pathogen, Listeria monocytogenes could help medical researchers and practitioners understand the mechanisms by which cancer cells develop. This discovery is a major step in developing successful treatments for a variety of cancers. Another team of UTMB researchers, lead by Dr. Angela Shepherd, have helped American men at risk of osteoporosis by developing the Male Osteoporosis Risk Estimation Score (MORES). While osteoporosis screening is common for women, many men who are at risk for this bone disease are not regularly checked. MORES provides a quick and easy way to identify men who may need further screening and possibly treatment for osteoporosis. The development of MORES and the new use of Listeria monocytogenes are just two of the advances in medical research to come out of UTMB. UTMB is one of America's leading centers of medical research, as well as a source of quality health care for the people of the Gulf Coast of Texas. Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to extend my congratulations to the researchers involved in these recent breakthroughs and to everyone associated with UTMB for their tireless work to improve health care.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I regret that I was unavoidably out of town on October 23, 2007, when a vote was taken on H.R. 1955, the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act. Had I been able to vote, I would have voted against this misguided and dangerous piece of legislation. This legislation focuses the weight of the U.S. government inward toward its own citizens under the guise of protecting us against ``violent radicalization.'' I would like to note that this legislation was brought to the floor for a vote under suspension of regular order. These so-called ``suspension'' bills are meant to be non-controversial, thereby negating the need for the more complete and open debate allowed under regular order. It is difficult for me to believe that none of my colleagues in Congress view H.R. 1955, with its troubling civil liberties implications, as ``non-controversial.'' There are many causes for concern in H.R. 1955. The legislation specifically singles out the Internet for ``facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process'' in the United States. Such language may well be the first step toward U.S. government regulation of what we are allowed to access on the Internet. Are we, for our own good, to be subjected to the kind of governmental control of the Internet that we see in unfree societies? This bill certainly sets us on that course. This seems to be an unwise and dangerous solution in search of a real problem. Previous acts of ideologically-motivated violence, though rare, have been resolved successfully using law enforcement techniques, existing laws against violence and our court system. Even if there were a surge of ``violent radicalization''--a claim for which there is no evidence--there is no reason to believe that our criminal justice system is so flawed and weak as to be incapable of trying and punishing those who perpetrate violent acts. This legislation will set up a new government bureaucracy to monitor and further study the as-yet undemonstrated pressing problem of homegrown terrorism and radicalization. It will no doubt prove to be another bureaucracy that artificially inflates problems so as to guarantee its future existence and funding. But it may do so at great further expense to our civil liberties. What disturbs me most about this legislation is that it leaves the door wide open for the broadest definition of what constitutes ``radicalization.'' Could otherwise non- violent anti-tax, antiwar, or anti-abortion groups fall under the watchful eye of this new government commission? Assurances otherwise in this legislation are unconvincing. In addition, this legislation will create a Department of Homeland Security-established university-based body to further study radicalization and to ``contribute to the establishment of training, written materials, information, analytical assistance and professional resources to aid in combating violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism.'' I wonder whether this is really a legitimate role for institutes of higher learning in a free society. Legislation such as this demands heavy-handed governmental action against American citizens where no crime has been committed. It is yet another attack on our Constitutionally-protected civil liberties. It is my sincere hope that we will reject such approaches to security, which will fail at their stated goal at a great cost to our way of life.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the Property Tax Deduction for All Act, legislation making the property tax deduction an ``above-the-line'' deduction. This simple change makes the property tax deduction available to homeowners who do not file an itemized tax return. The Property Tax Deduction for All Act will help millions of Americans who struggle with high property taxes, but because they do not itemize, are unable to take advantage of the Federal deduction for property taxes. Extending the property tax deduction to all homeowners will especially benefit senior citizens, whose homes often are the major part of their wealth, and young families struggling to cope with the costs of owning a new home. I respectfully urge my colleagues to help ensure all homeowners can take advantage of the tax deduction for property taxes by cosponsoring this legislation.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I am introducing this bill in response to H.R. 3956, which would unconstitutionally delegate the authority to determine the metal content of coins to the Secretary of the Treasury. While I am concerned at the high cost of minting pennies, I am not entirely convinced that the Mint needs to mint as many pennies as it does. Over the past 30 years, over 300 billion pennies have been minted, more than twice as many coins as all other denominations combined. This is over 1,000 pennies for each man, woman, and child in this country. I find it hard to believe that with this many pennies having been minted, we still have a shortage of pennies. My bill would prohibit the minting of pennies until the Treasury and Federal Reserve certify that there is no surplus of pennies. If there is a surplus of pennies, it makes no sense for the Mint to continue to coin them if each penny costs more than one cent to produce. If there really were a shortage, the onus would be on the Treasury and Federal Reserve to conduct their survey in a timely fashion in order to facilitate further penny production. In the event of a shortage I would urge my colleagues to consider Mr. Roskam's H.R. 4036, which addresses the cost issue by changing the composition of pennies while maintaining the Congressional control and oversight mandated by the Constitution.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise, reluctantly, in favor of the motion to table House Resolution 799, Impeaching Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors, and in favor of referring that resolution to the House Judiciary Committee for full consideration. I voted to table this resolution not because I do not share the gentleman from Ohio's desire to hold those responsible for the Iraqi debacle accountable; but rather, because I strongly believe that we must follow established protocol in matters of such importance. During my entire time in Congress, I have been outspoken in my opposition to war with Iraq and Iran. I have warned my colleagues and the administration against marching toward war in numerous speeches over the years, and I have voted against every appropriation to continue the war on Iraq. I have always been strongly in favor of vigorous congressional oversight of the executive branch, and I have lamented our abrogation of these Constitutional obligations in recent times. I do believe, however, that this legislation should proceed through the House of Representatives following regular order, which would require investigation and hearings in the House Judiciary Committee before the resolution proceeds to the floor for a vote. This time-tested manner of moving impeachment legislation may slow the process, but in the long run it preserves liberty by ensuring that the House thoroughly deliberates on such weighty matters. In past impeachments of high officials, including those of Presidents Nixon and Clinton, the legislation had always gone through the proper committee with full investigation and accompanying committee report. I noted with some dismay that many of my colleagues who have long supported the war changed their vote to oppose tabling the motion for purely political reasons. That move was a disrespectful to the Constitutional function of this body and I could not support such actions with my vote. I was pleased that the House did vote in favor of sending this legislation to the Judiciary Committee, which essentially directs the committee to examine the issue more closely than it has done to this point.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to congratulate LaVace Stewart Elementary School in Kemah, Texas, in my congressional district, for being awarded a No Child Left Behind-Blue Ribbon award. LaVace Stewart Elementary School earned this award by going from acceptable to exemplary in State accountability ratings in less than 4 years. LaVace Stewart Elementary School is one of only 23 Texas schools selected for the Blue Ribbon award, which honors public and private elementary, middle, and high schools that demonstrate superior academic performance or high gains in student achievement. LaVace Stewart is certainly worthy of this award. As Dr. Sandra Mossman, superintendent of schools for Clear Creek Independent School District said, ``[W]hen you walk into [LaVace Stewart] you can immediately feel the enthusiasm for learning and witness the compassion for children.'' Madam Speaker, I agree with Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings that ``It takes a lot of hard work by teachers and students to become a Blue Ribbon school, and it's a privilege to celebrate their great effort.'' I am pleased to extend my congratulations to the teachers, administrators, parents, and the students of LaVace Stewart Elementary School for the school's is named a Blue Ribbon School.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation that allows the transportation and sale in interstate commerce of unpasteurized milk and milk products, as long as the milk both originates from and is shipped to States that allow the sale of unpasteurized milk and milk products. This legislation removes an unconstitutional restraint on farmers who wish to sell unpasteurized milk and milk products, and people who wish to consume unpasteurized milk and milk products. My office has heard from numerous people who would like to purchase unpasteurized milk. Many of these people have done their own research and come to the conclusion that unpasteurized milk is healthier than pasteurized milk. These Americans have the right to consume these products without having the Federal Government second-guess their judgment about what products best promote health. If there are legitimate concerns about the safety of unpasteurized milk, those concerns should be addressed at the State and local level. I urge my colleagues to join me in promoting consumers' rights, the original intent of the Constitution, and federalism by cosponsoring my legislation to allow the interstate sale of unpasteurized milk and milk products.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, today I am introducing a comprehensive piece of legislation to restore the American Constitution and to restore the liberties that have been sadly eroded over the past several years. This legislation seeks to restore the checks and balances enshrined in the Constitution by our Founding Fathers to prevent abuse of Americans by their government. This proposed legislation would repeal the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and re-establish the traditional practice that military commissions may be used to try war crimes in places of active hostility where a rapid trial is necessary to preserve evidence or prevent chaos. The legislation clarifies that no information shall be admitted as evidence if it is obtained from the defendant through the use of torture or coercion. It codifies the FISA process as the means by which foreign intelligence may be obtained and it gives members of the Senate and the House of Representatives standing in court to challenge presidential signing statements that declares the president's intent to disregard certain aspects of a law passed in the U.S. Congress. It prohibits kidnapping and extraordinary rendition of prisoners to foreign countries on the president's unilateral determination that the suspect is an enemy combatant. It defends the first amendment by clarifying that journalists are not to be prevented from publishing information received from the legislative or executive branch unless such publication would cause immediate, direct, and irreparable harm to the United States. Finally, the legislation would prohibit the use of secret evidence to designate an individual or organization with a United States presence to be a foreign terrorist or foreign terrorist organization. I invite my colleagues to join my efforts to restore the U.S. Constitution by enacting the American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation not because I do not sympathize with the plight of the oppressed people of Burma, particularly as demonstrated by the continued confinement of Aung San Suu Kyi. Any time a government represses its citizenry it is reprehensible. My objection to this legislation is twofold. First, the legislation calls on the United Nations Security Council to ``take appropriate action'' with regard to Burma and its internal conditions. This sounds like an open door for an outside military intervention under the auspices of the United Nations, which is something I do not support. More importantly, perhaps, I am concerned that while going around the world criticizing admittedly abhorrent governmental actions abroad we are ignoring the very dangerous erosions of our own civil liberties and way of life at home. Certainly it is objectionable that the Burmese government holds its own citizens in jails without trial. But what about the secret prisons that our own CIA operates around the globe that hold thousands of individuals indefinitely and without trial? Certainly it is objectionable that the government of Burma can declare Aung San Suu Kyi a political prisoner to be held in confinement. But what about the power that Congress has given the president to declare anyone around the world, including American citizens, ``enemy combatants'' subject to indefinite detention without trial? What about the ``military commissions act'' that may well subject Americans to military trial with secret evidence permitted and habeas corpus suspended? So while I am by no means unsympathetic to the current situation in Burma, as an elected Member of the United States House of Representatives I strongly believe that we would do better to promote freedom around the world by paying better attention to our rapidly eroding freedom here at home. I urge my colleagues to consider their priorities more closely and to consider the much more effective approach of leading by example.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, Madam Speaker, I am pleased to lend my support to two amendments to H.R. 3121, the Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act, that will help those Americans, including many in my congressional district, at risk of increased flood insurance premiums because of actions of the Federal Emergency Management Association (FEMA). FEMA is demanding that many towns and communities spend thousands of dollars in taxpayer money to certify levies and other mitigation devices. If the levies are not certified to FEMA's satisfaction, the residents of those communities will face higher flood insurance premiums. Many local governments are struggling to raise the funds to complete the certification in time to meet the FEMA-imposed certification deadlines. Several communities in my own district have been impacted by these requirements. My office is working with these jurisdictions and FEMA to establish a more reasonable schedule for completing the certifications. My office is also doing every thing it can to help these local jurisdictions fund these projects. Unfortunately, even though there is never a shortage of available funds for overseas programs, there are no funds available to help countries comply with this new federal demand. While FEMA has thus far been willing to cooperate with my office and the local officials in providing extensions of deadlines for certification, there remains a serious possibility that many Americans will see their flood insurance premiums skyrocket because their local governments where unable to comply with these unreasonable federal demands. In some cases, people may even loose their flood insurance completely. The amendments offered by Mr. Cardoza of California will help alleviate this problem by providing a five-year grace period for homeowners whose flood insurance coverage is affected by decertification of a levy. During this five-year, these homeowners would receive a 50 percent reduction in flood insurance premiums. Another amendment, offered by Mr. Green provides a five-year phasing in of any changes for flood insurance premiums for low-income homeowners impacted by the updating of the flood maps. These amendments will benefit my constituents, and all Americans, whose flood insurance is endangered by FEMA's certifying requirements, and I hope my colleagues will support them. I also hope my colleagues will continue to work to help those communities impacted by the new mitigation requirements.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strongest opposition to this curiously-timed legislation which continues to beat the drums for war against Iran. It is interesting that this legislation was not scheduled for a vote this week, but appeared on the schedule at the last minute after a controversial speech by Iran's President at Columbia University. The House has obviously learned nothing at all from the Iraq debacle. In 2002, Congress voted to abrogate its Constitutional obligation to declare war and instead transfer that authority to the President. Many of my colleagues have expressed regrets over their decision to transfer this authority to the President, yet this legislation is Iraq all over again. Some have plausibly claimed that the move in this legislation to designate the Iranian military as a foreign terrorist organization is an attempt to signal to the President that he already has authority under previous resolutions to initiate force against Iran. We should recall that language specifically requiring the President to return to Congress before initiating any strike on Iran was removed from legislation by House leadership this year. In expanding sanctions against Iran and against foreign businesses and countries that do business with Iran, we are hurting the American economy and moving the country closer to war. After all, sanctions are a form of warfare against a nation; and, if anyone has forgotten Cuba, sanctions never achieve the stated goals. This legislation authorizes millions more dollars to identify and support young Iranians to come to the United States. Does anyone believe that we are assisting political opposition to the current Iranian regime by singling Iranians out for U.S. support? How would Americans react if the Chinese government were funding U.S. students to come to China to learn how to overthrow the U.S. government? This move is a counterproductive waste of U.S. taxpayer dollars. The march to war with Iraq was preceded with numerous bills similar to H.R. 1400. No one should be fooled: supporters of this legislation are aiming the same outcome for Iran. I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to help millions of working Americans by introducing the Tax Free Tips Act. As the title suggests, this legislation makes tips exempt from federal income and payroll taxes. Tips often compose a substantial portion of the earnings of waiters, waitresses, and other service-sector employees. However, unlike regular wages, a service-sector employee usually has no guarantee of, or legal right to, a tip. Instead, the amount of a tip usually depends on how well an employee satisfies a client. Since the amount of taxes one pays increases along with the size of tip, taxing tips punishes workers for doing a superior job! Many service-sector employers are young people trying to make money to pay for their education, or single parents struggling to provide for their children. Oftentimes, these workers work two jobs in hopes of making a better life for themselves and their families. The Tax Free Tips Act gives these hard-working Americans an immediate pay raise. People may use this pay raise to devote more resources to their children's, or their own, education, or to save for a home, retirement, or to start their own businesses. Helping Americans improve themselves by reducing their taxes will make our country stronger. I, therefore, hope all my colleagues will join me in cosponsoring the Tax Free Tips Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Voter Protection Act. Unlike most so-called ``campaign reform'' proposals, the Voter Protection Act enhances fundamental liberties and expands the exchange of political ideas. The Voter Protection Act accomplishes this goal by lowering and standardizing the requirements for, and the time required to get, signatures to qualify a Federal candidate for the ballot. Many states have unfair rules and regulations that make it virtually impossible for minor party and independent candidates to get on the ballot. I want to make 4 points about this bill. First, it is constitutional. Article I, section 4, explicitly authorizes the U.S. Congress to, ``At any time by law make or alter such regulations regarding the manner of holding elections.'' This is the authority that was used for the Voter Rights Act of 1965. The second point I would like to make is an issue of fairness. Because so many states require independent candidates to collect an excessive amount of signatures in a short period of time, many individuals are excluded from the ballot. For instance, there has not been one minor party candidate in a regularly scheduled election for the U.S. House of Representatives on the Georgia ballot since 1943, because of Georgia's overly strict ballot access requirements. This is unfair. The Voter Protection Act corrects this. My third point addresses those who worry about overcrowding on the ballot. In fact, there have been statistical studies made of states that have minimal signature requirements and generous grants of time to collect the signatures. Instead of overcrowding, these states have an average of 3.3 candidates per ballot. The fourth point that I would like to make is that complying with ballot access rules drains resources from even those minor party candidates able to comply with these onerous rules. This obviously limits the ability of minor party candidates to communicate their message and ideas to the general public. Perhaps the ballot access laws are one reason why voter turnout has been declining over the past few decades. After all, almost 42 percent of eligible voters have either not registered to vote or registered as something other than Democrat or Republican. The Voter Protection Act is a constitutional way to reform campaign laws to increase voter participation by making the election process fairer and open to new candidates and ideas. I hope all my colleagues will join me in supporting this true campaign reform bill.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, six years ago, when the Congress considered the bill creating the terrorism insurance program, I urged my colleagues to reject it. One of the reasons I opposed the bill was my concern that, contrary to the claims of the bill's supporters, terrorism insurance would not be allowed to sunset. As I said then: ``The drafters of H.R. 3210 claim that this creates a `temporary' government program. However, Mr. Speaker, what happens in three years if industry lobbyists come to Capitol Hill to explain that there is still a need for this program because of the continuing threat of terrorist attacks. Does anyone seriously believe that Congress will refuse to reauthorize this `temporary' insurance program or provide some other form of taxpayer help to the insurance industry? I would like to remind my colleagues that the federal budget is full of expenditures for long-lasting programs that were originally intended to be `temporary.' '' I am disappointed to be proven correct. I am also skeptical that, having renewed the program twice, this time for fifteen years, Congress will ever allow it to expire. As Congress considers extending this program, I renew my opposition to it for substantially the same reasons I stated six years ago. However, I do have a suggestion on how to improve the program. Since one claimed problem with allowing the private market to provide terrorism insurance is the difficulty of quantifying the risk of an attack, the taxpayers' liability under the terrorism reinsurance program should be reduced for an attack occurring when the country is under orange or red alert. After all, because the point of the alert system is to let Americans know when there is an increased likelihood of an attack it is reasonable to expect insurance companies to demand that their clients take extra precautionary measures during periods of high alert. Reducing taxpayer subsidies will provide an incentive to ensure private parties take every possible precaution to minimize the potential damage from possible terrorists attack. Since my fundamental objections to the program remain the same as six years ago, I am attaching my statement regarding H.R. 3210, which created the terrorist insurance program in the 107th Congress: Mr. Chairman, no one doubts that the government has a role to play in compensating American citizens who are victimized by terrorist attacks. However, Congress should not lose sight of fundamental economic and constitutional principles when considering how best to provide the victims of terrorist attacks just compensation. I am afraid that H.R. 3210, the Terrorism Risk Protection Act, violates several of those principles and therefore passage of this bill is not in the best interests of the American people. Under H.R. 3210, taxpayers are responsible for paying 90 percent of the costs of a terrorist incident when the total cost of that incident exceeds a certain threshold. While insurance companies technically are responsible under the bill for paying back monies received from the Treasury, the administrator of this program may defer repayment of the majority of the subsidy in order to ``avoid the likely insolvency of the commercial insurer,'' or avoid ``unreasonable economic disruption and market instability.'' This language may cause administrators to defer indefinitely the repayment of the loans, thus causing taxpayers to permanently bear the loss. This scenario is especially likely when one considers that ``avoid . . . likely insolvency, unreasonable economic disruption, and market instability'' are highly subjective standards, and that any administrator who attempts to enforce a strict repayment schedule likely will come under heavy political pressure to be more ``flexible'' in collecting debts owed to the taxpayers. The drafters of H.R. 3210 claim that this creates a ``temporary'' government program. However, Mr. Speaker, what happens in three years if industry lobbyists come to Capitol Hill to explain that there is still a need for this program because of the continuing threat of terrorist attacks. Does anyone seriously believe that Congress will refuse to reauthorize this ``temporary'' insurance program or provide some other form of taxpayer help to the insurance industry? I would like to remind my colleagues that the federal budget is full of expenditures for long-lasting programs that were originally intended to be ``temporary.'' H.R. 3210 compounds the danger to taxpayers because of what economists call the ``moral hazard'' problem. A moral hazard is created when individuals have the costs incurred from a risky action subsidized by a third party. In such a case individuals may engage in unnecessary risks or fail to take steps to minimize their risks. After all, if a third party will bear the costs of negative consequences of risky behavior, why should individuals invest their resources in avoiding or minimizing risk? While no one can plan for terrorist attacks, individuals and businesses can take steps to enhance security. For example, I think we would all agree that industrial plants in the United States enjoy reasonably good security. They are protected not by the local police, but by owners putting up barbed wire fences, hiring guards with guns, and requiring identification cards to enter. One reason private firms put these security measures in place is because insurance companies provide them with incentives, in the form of lower premiums, to adopt security measures. H.R. 3210 contains no incentives for this private activity. The bill does not even recognize the important role insurance plays in providing incentives to minimize risks. By removing an incentive for private parties to avoid or at least mitigate the damage from a future terrorist attack, the government inadvertently increases the damage that will be inflicted by future attacks! Instead of forcing taxpayers to subsidize the costs of terrorism insurance, Congress should consider creating a tax credit or deduction for premiums paid for terrorism insurance, as well as a deduction for claims and other costs borne by the insurance industry connected with offering terrorism insurance. A tax credit approach reduces government's control over the insurance market. Furthermore, since a tax credit approach encourages people to devote more of their own resources to terrorism insurance, the moral hazard problems associated with federally funded insurance is avoided. The version of H.R. 3210 passed by the Financial Services committee took a good first step in this direction by repealing the tax penalty which prevents insurance companies from properly reserving funds for human-created catastrophes. I am disappointed that this sensible provision was removed from the final bill. Instead, H.R. 3210 instructs the Treasury Department to study the benefits of allowing insurers to establish tax-free reserves to cover losses from terrorist events. The perceived need to study the wisdom of cutting taxes while expanding the federal government without hesitation demonstrates much that is wrong with Washington. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3210 may reduce the risk to insurance companies from future losses, but it increases the costs incurred by the American taxpayer. More significantly, by ignoring the moral hazard problem this bill may have the unintended consequence of increasing the losses suffered in any future terrorist attacks. Therefore, passage of this bill is not in the long-term interests of the American people.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the Cost of Government Awareness Act, which repeals one of the most deceptive practices of the federal government--income tax withholding. Withholding keeps many Americans ignorant about the true size of the federal tax burden. Withholding is also the reason millions of Americans overpay their income taxes, granting the United States Government interest-free loans. Many of these taxpayers are further misled into thinking the U.S. Government is acting benevolently when they receive ``refunds'' of money improperly taken from them through withholding! Collecting taxes via withholding damages the economy because it forces every business in America to waste valuable resources complying with the withholding tax requirements. The Internal Revenue Service is so fanatical about forcing employers to act as de facto federal agents that it once confiscated the assets of a church because the church refused to violate the church's religious beliefs by acting as a tax collector. The IRS sent armed federal agents in this house of worship, even though the church's employees regularly paid taxes. When the United States Government implemented withholding in 1943, it promised the American people that this would be a ``temporary'' measure. I am sure my colleagues agree that 64 years is a sufficient lifespan for any ``temporary'' measure. It is time to end the deceptive practice of withholding and empower taxpayers to reflect upon their tax bill each month and ask, ``What are they getting for their money.'' An honest answer to that question may lead to a groundswell for true tax reform. In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to let the American people know their tax burden by cosponsoring the Cost of Government Awareness Act.