Ron Paul

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the Prescription Drug Affordability Act. This legislation ensures that millions of Americans, including seniors, have access to affordable pharmaceutical products. My bill makes pharmaceuticals more affordable to seniors by reducing their taxes. It also removes needless government barriers to importing pharmaceuticals and it protects Internet pharmacies, which are making affordable prescription drugs available to millions of Americans, from being strangled by federal regulation. The first provision of my legislation provides seniors a tax credit equal to 80 percent of their prescription drug costs. While Congress did add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare in 2003, many seniors still have difficulty affording the prescription drugs they need in order to maintain an active and healthy lifestyle. One reason is because the new program creates a ``doughnut hole,'' where seniors lose coverage once their prescription expenses reach a certain amount and must pay for their prescriptions above a certain amount out of their own pockets until their expenses reach a level where Medicare coverage resumes. This tax credit will help seniors cover the expenses provided by the doughnut hole. This bill will also help seniors obtain prescription medicines that may not be covered by the Medicare prescription drug program. In addition to making prescription medications more affordable for seniors, my bill lowers the price for prescription medicines by reducing barriers to the importation of FDA-approved pharmaceuticals. Under my bill, anyone wishing to import a drug simply submits an application to the FDA, which then must approve the drug unless the FDA finds the drug is either not approved for use in the U.S. or is adulterated or misbranded. This process will make safe and affordable imported medicines affordable to millions of Americans. Madam Speaker, letting the free market work is the best means of lowering the cost of prescription drugs. I need not remind my colleagues that many senior citizens and other Americans impacted by the high costs of prescription medicine have demanded Congress reduce the barriers which prevent American consumers from purchasing imported pharmaceuticals. Congress has responded to these demands by repeatedly passing legislation liberalizing the rules governing the importation of pharmaceuticals. However, implementation of this provision has been blocked by the federal bureaucracy. It is time Congress stood up for the American consumer and removed all unnecessary regulations on importing pharmaceuticals. The Prescription Drug Affordability Act also protects consumers' access to affordable medicine by forbidding the Federal Government from regulating any Internet sales of FDA-approved pharmaceuticals by state- licensed pharmacists. As I am sure my colleagues are aware, the Internet makes pharmaceuticals and other products more affordable and accessible for millions of Americans. However, the federal government has threatened to destroy this option by imposing unnecessary and unconstitutional regulations on web sites that sell pharmaceuticals. Any federal regulations would inevitably drive up prices of pharmaceuticals, thus depriving many consumers of access to affordable prescription medications. In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to make pharmaceuticals more affordable and accessible by lowering taxes on senior citizens, removing barriers to the importation of pharmaceuticals and protecting legitimate Internet pharmacies from needless regulation by cosponsoring the Prescription Drug Affordability 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 2007, 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 Seniors' Health Care Freedom Act. This act protects seniors' fundamental right to make their own health care decisions by repeal federal laws that interfere with seniors' ability to form private contracts for medical services. This bill also repeals laws which force seniors into the Medicare program against their will. When Medicare was first established, seniors were promised that the program would be voluntary. In fact, the original Medicare legislation explicitly protected a senior's right to seek out other forms of medical insurance. However, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 prohibits any physician who forms a private contract with a senior from filing any Medicare reimbursement claims for two years. As a practical matter, this means that seniors cannot form private contracts for health care services. Seniors may wish to use their own resources to pay for procedures or treatments not covered by Medicare, or to simply avoid the bureaucracy and uncertainly that comes when seniors must wait for the judgment of a Center from Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) bureaucrat before finding out if a desired treatment is covered. Seniors' right to control their own health care is also being denied due to the Social Security Administration's refusal to give seniors who object to enrolling Medicare Part A Social Security benefits. This not only distorts the intent of the creators of the Medicare system; it also violates the promise represented by Social Security. Americans pay taxes into the Social Security Trust Fund their whole working lives and are promised that Social Security will be there for them when they retire. Yet, today, seniors are told that they cannot receive these benefits unless they agree to join an additional government program! At a time when the fiscal solvency of Medicare is questionable, to say the least, it seems foolish to waste scarce Medicare funds on those who would prefer to do without Medicare. Allowing seniors who neither want nor need to participate in the program to refrain from doing so will also strengthen the Medicare program for those seniors who do wish to participate in it. Of course, my bill does not take away Medicare benefits from any senior. It simply allows each senior to choose voluntarily whether or not to accept Medicare benefits or to use his own resources to obtain health care. Forcing seniors into government programs and restricting their ability to seek medical care free from government interference infringes on the freedom of seniors to control their own resources and make their own health care decisions. A woman who was forced into Medicare against her wishes summed it up best in a letter to my office, ``. . . I should be able to choose the medical arrangements I prefer without suffering the penalty that is being imposed.'' I urge my colleagues to protect the right of seniors to make the medical arrangements that best suit their own needs by cosponsoring the Seniors' Health Care Freedom Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, Saddam Hussein is dead. So are 3,000 Americans. The regime in Iraq has been changed; yet victory will not be declared. Not only does the war go on; it is about to escalate. Obviously, the turmoil in Iraq is worse than ever and most Americans no longer are willing to tolerate the costs, both human and economic, associated with this war. We have been in Iraq for 45 months. Many more Americans have been killed in Iraq than were killed in the first 45 months in Vietnam. I was in the U.S. Air Force in 1965, and I remember well when President Johnson announced a troop surge in Vietnam to hasten victory. That war went on for another decade. And by the time we finally finished that war and got out, 60,000 Americans had died. We obviously should have gotten out 10 years sooner. Troop surge then meant serious escalation. The election is over and Americans have spoken: enough is enough. They want the war ended and our troops brought home. But the opposite is likely to occur. With bipartisan support, up to 50,000 troops may well be sent. The goal no longer is to win. Now it is simply to secure Baghdad. So much has been spent with so little to show for it. Who possibly benefits from escalating chaos in Iraq? Neoconservatives unabashedly have written about how chaos presents opportunities for promoting their goals. Certainly Osama bin Laden has benefited from the turmoil in Iraq, as have Iranian Shiites who are now in a better position to take control of southern Iraq. Yes, Saddam Hussein is dead, and only Sunnis mourn. The Shiites and Kurds celebrate his death, as do the Iranians and especially bin Laden, all enemies of Saddam Hussein. We have performed a tremendous service for both bin Laden and Ahmadinejad, and it will cost us plenty. The violent reaction to our complicity in the execution of Saddam Hussein is yet to come. Three thousand American military personnel are dead. More than 22,000 are wounded, and tens of thousands will be psychologically traumatized by their tours of duty in Iraq. Little concern is given to the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians killed in this war. We have spent $400 billion so far with no end in sight. This money we do not have. It is all borrowed from countries like China that increasingly succeed in the global economy while we drain wealth from our citizens through heavy taxation and insidious inflation. Our manufacturing base is now nearly extinct. Where the additional U.S. troops in Iraq will come from is anybody's guess, but surely they won't be redeployed from Japan, Korea, or Europe. We at least must pretend that our bankrupt empire is intact, but then again, the Soviet empire appeared intact in 1988. Some Members of Congress intent on equitably distributing the suffering among all Americans want to bring back the draft. Administration officials vehemently deny making any concrete plans for a draft. But why should we believe this? Look what happened when so many believed the reasons given for our preemptive invasion of Iraq. Selective Service officials admit running a check of their list of available young men. If the draft is reinstated, we probably will include young women as well to serve the God of equality. Conscription is slavery, plain and simple, and it was made illegal under the 13th amendment, which prohibits involuntary servitude. One may well be killed as a military draftee, which makes conscription a very dangerous kind of enslavement. Instead of testing the efficacy of the Selective Service System and sending more troops off to a war that we are losing, we ought to revive our love of liberty. We should repeal the Selective Service Act. A free society should never depend on compulsory conscription to defend itself. We get into trouble by not following the precepts of liberty or obeying the rule of law. Preemptive, undeclared wars fought under false pretenses are a road to disaster. If a full declaration of war by Congress had been demanded as the Constitution requires, this war never would have been fought. If we did not create credit out of thin air, as the Constitution prohibits, we never would have convinced taxpayers to support this war directly by increased taxation. How long this financial charade can go on is difficult to judge, but when the end comes, it will not go unnoticed by any American.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, today I introduce the Identity Theft Prevention Act. This act protects the American people from government- mandated uniform identifiers that facilitate private crime as well as the abuse of liberty. The major provision of the Identity Theft Prevention Act halts the practice of using the Social Security number as an identifier by requiring the Social Security Administration to issue all Americans new Social Security numbers within 5 years after the enactment of the bill. These new numbers will be the sole legal property of the recipient, and the Social Security Administration shall be forbidden to divulge the numbers for any purposes not related to Social Security administration. Social Security numbers issued before implementation of this bill shall no longer be considered valid federal identifiers. Of course, the Social Security Administration shall be able to use an individual's original Social Security number to ensure efficient administration of the Social Security system. Madame Speaker, Congress has a moral responsibility to address this problem because it was Congress that transformed the Social Security number into a national identifier. Thanks to Congress, today no American can get a job, open a bank account, get a professional license, or even get a driver's license without presenting his Social Security number. So widespread has the use of the Social Security number become that a member of my staff had to produce a Social Security number in order to get a fishing license! One of the most disturbing abuses of the Social Security number is the congressionally-authorized rule forcing parents to get a Social Security number for their newborn children in order to claim the children as dependents. Forcing parents to register their children with the State is more like something out of the nightmares of George Orwell than the dreams of a free republic that inspired this nation's founders. Congressionally-mandated use of the Social Security number as an identifier facilitates the horrendous crime of identity theft. Thanks to Congress, an unscrupulous person may simply obtain someone's Social Security number in order to access that person's bank accounts, credit cards, and other financial assets. Many Americans have lost their life savings and had their credit destroyed as a result of identity theft. Yet the Federal Government continues to encourage such crimes by mandating use of the Social Security number as a uniform ID! This act also forbids the Federal Government from creating national ID cards or establishing any identifiers for the purpose of investigating, monitoring, overseeing, or regulating private transactions among American citizens. In 2005, this body established a de facto national ID card with provisions buried in the ``intelligence'' reform bill mandating Federal standards for drivers'' licenses, and mandating that Federal agents only accept a license that conforms to these standards as a valid ID. Nationalizing standards for drivers' licenses and birth certificates creates a national ID system pure and simple. Proponents of this scheme claim they are merely creating new standards for existing State IDs. However, imposing Federal standards in a Federal bill creates a federalized ID regardless of whether the ID itself is still stamped with the name of your State. The national ID will be used to track the movements of American citizens, not just terrorists. Subjecting every citizen to surveillance diverts resources away from tracking and apprehending terrorists in favor of needless snooping on innocent Americans. This is what happened with ``suspicious activity reports'' required by the Bank Secrecy Act. Thanks to BSA mandates, Federal officials are forced to waste countless hours snooping through the private financial transactions of innocent Americans merely because those transactions exceeded $10,000. Turning State-issued drivers licenses into federally controlled national ID cards is yet another Federal usurpation of State authority and another costly unfunded mandate imposed on the States. According to a report issued by the National Conference of State Legislators, turning drivers licenses into national ID cards will cost the States more than $11 billion. Madam Speaker, no wonder there is a groundswell of opposition to this mandate. There is even a movement in several State legislatures to refuse to comply with this mandate! The Identity Theft Prevention Act not only repeals those sections of the Federal law creating a national UD, it forbids the Federal Government from using Federal funds to blackmail States into adopting uniform Federal identifiers. Passing the Identity Theft Prevention Act is thus an excellent way for this Congress to show renewed commitment to federalism and opposition to imposing unfunded mandates on the States. This legislation not only repeals those sections of Federal law creating the national ID, it also repeals those sections of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 that require the Department of Health and Human Services to establish a uniform standard health identifier--an identifier which could be used to create a national database containing the medical history of all Americans. As an OB/GYN with more than 30 years in private practice, I know the importance of preserving the sanctity of the physician-patient relationship. Oftentimes, effective treatment depends on a patient's ability to place absolute trust in his or her doctor. What will happen to that trust when patients know that any and all information given to their doctors will be placed in a government accessible database? By putting an end to government-mandated uniform IDs, the Identity Theft Prevention Act will prevent millions of Americans from having their liberty, property, and privacy violated by private and public sector criminals. Some members of Congress will claim that the Federal Government needs the power to monitor Americans in order to allow the government to operate more efficiently. I would remind my colleagues that, in a constitutional republic, the people are never asked to sacrifice their liberties to make the jobs of government officials easier. We are here to protect the freedom of the American people, not to make privacy invasion more efficient. Madam Speaker, while I do not question the sincerity of those members who suggest that Congress can ensure that citizens' rights are protected through legislation restricting access to personal information, the only effective privacy protection is to forbid the Federal Government from mandating national identifiers. Legislative ``privacy protections'' are inadequate to protect the liberty of Americans for a couple of reasons. First, it is simply common sense that repealing those Federal laws that promote identity theft is more effective in protecting the public than expanding the power of the Federal police force. Federal punishment of identity thieves provides cold comfort to those who have suffered financial losses and the destruction of their good reputations as a result of identity theft. Federal laws are not only ineffective in stopping private criminals, but these laws have not even stopped unscrupulous government officials from accessing personal information. After all, laws purporting to restrict the use of personal information did not stop the well-publicized violations of privacy by IRS officials or the FBI abuses of the Clinton and Nixon administrations. In one of the most infamous cases of identity theft, thousands of active-duty soldiers and veterans had their personal information stolen, putting them at risk of identity theft. Imagine the dangers if thieves are able to obtain the universal identifier, and other personal information, of millions of Americans simply by breaking, or hacking, into one government facility or one government database? Second, the Federal Government has been creating proprietary interests in private information for certain State-favored special interests. Perhaps the most outrageous example of phony privacy protection is the ``medical privacy' '' regulation, that allows medical researchers, certain business interests, and law enforcement officials access to health care information, in complete disregard of the Fifth Amendment and the wishes of individual patients! Obviously, ``privacy protection'' laws have proven greatly inadequate to protect personal information when the government is the one seeking the information. Any action short of repealing laws authorizing privacy violations is insufficient primarily because the Federal Government lacks constitutional authority to force citizens to adopt a universal identifier for health care, employment, or any other reason. Any Federal action that oversteps constitutional limitations violates liberty because it ratifies the principle that the Federal Government, not the Constitution, is the ultimate judge of its own jurisdiction over the people. The only effective protection of the rights of citizens is for Congress to follow Thomas Jefferson's advice and ``bind (the Federal Government) down with the chains of the Constitution.'' Madam Speaker, those members who are not persuaded by the moral and constitutional reasons for embracing the Identity Theft Prevention Act should consider the American people's opposition to national identifiers. The numerous complaints over the evergrowing uses of the Social Security number show that Americans want Congress to stop invading their privacy. Furthermore, according to a survey by the Gallup company, 91 percent of the American people oppose forcing Americans to obtain a universal health ID. In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I once again call on my colleagues to join me in putting an end to the Federal Government's unconstitutional use of national identifiers to monitor the actions of private citizens. National identifiers threaten all Americans by exposing them to the threat of identity theft by private criminals and abuse of their liberties by public criminals, while diverting valuable law enforcement resources away from addressing real threats to public safety. In addition, national identifiers are incompatible with a limited, constitutional government. I, therefore, hope my colleagues will join my efforts to protect the freedom of their constituents by supporting the Identity Theft Prevention Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the We the People Act. The We the People Act forbids federal courts, including the Supreme Court, from adjudicating cases concerning state laws and polices relating to religious liberties or ``privacy,'' including cases involving sexual practices, sexual orientation or reproduction. The We the People Act also protects the traditional definition of marriage from judicial activism by ensuring the Supreme Court cannot abuse the equal protection clause to redefine marriage. In order to hold federal judges accountable for abusing their powers, the act also provides that a judge who violates the act's limitations on judicial power shall either be impeached by Congress or removed by the president, according to rules established by the Congress. The United States Constitution gives Congress the authority to establish and limit the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts and limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Founders intended Congress to use this authority to correct abuses of power by the federal judiciary. Some may claim that an activist judiciary that strikes down state laws at will expands individual liberty. Proponents of this claim overlook the fact that the best guarantor of true liberty is decentralized political institutions, while the greatest threat to liberty is concentrated power. This is why the Constitution carefully limits the power of the federal government over the states. In recent years, we have seen numerous abuses of power by Federal courts. Federal judges regularly strike down state and local laws on subjects such as religious liberty, sexual orientation, family relations, education, and abortion. This government by Federal judiciary causes a virtual nullification of the Tenth Amendment's limitations on federal power. Furthermore, when federal judges impose their preferred polices on state and local governments, instead of respecting the polices adopted by those elected by, and thus accountable to, the people, republican government is threatened. Article IV, section 4 of the Untied States Constitution guarantees each state a republican form of government. Thus, Congress must act when the executive or judicial branch threatens the republican governments of the individual states. Therefore, Congress has a responsibility to stop Federal judges from running roughshod over state and local laws. The Founders would certainly have supported congressional action to reign in Federal judges who tell citizens where they can and can't place manger scenes at Christmas. Madam Speaker, even some supporters of liberalized abortion laws have admitted that the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision, which overturned the abortion laws of all fifty states, is flawed. The Supreme Court's Establishment Clause jurisdiction has also drawn criticism from across the political spectrum. Perhaps more importantly, attempts to resolve, by judicial fiat, important issues like abortion and the expression of religious belief in the public square increase social strife and conflict. The only way to resolve controversial social issues like abortion and school prayer is to restore respect for the right of state and local governments to adopt policies that reflect the beliefs of the citizens of those jurisdictions. I would remind my colleagues and the federal judiciary that, under our Constitutional system, there is no reason why the people of New York and the people of Texas should have the same policies regarding issues such as marriage and school prayer. Unless Congress acts, a state's authority to define and regulate marriage may be the next victim of activist judges. After all, such a decision would simply take the Supreme Court's decision in the Lawrence case, which overturned all state sodomy laws, to its logical conclusion. Congress must launch a preemptive strike against any further federal usurpation of the states' authority to regulate marriage by removing issues concerning the definition of marriage from the jurisdiction of federal courts. Although marriage is licensed and otherwise regulated by the states, government did not create the institution of marriage. Government regulation of marriage is based on state recognition of the practices and customs formulated by private individuals interacting in civil institutions, such as churches and synagogues. Having federal officials, whether judges, bureaucrats, or congressmen, impose a new definition of marriage on the people is an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty. It is long past time that Congress exercises its authority to protect the republican government of the states from out-of-control federal judges. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the We the People Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce two pieces of legislation to reduce taxes on senior citizens. The first bill, the Social Security Beneficiary Tax Reduction Act, repeals the 1993 tax increase on Social Security benefits. Repealing this increase on Social Security benefits is a good first step toward reducing the burden imposed by the federal government on senior citizens. However, imposing any tax on Social Security benefits is unfair and illogical. This is why I am also introducing the Senior Citizens' Tax Elimination Act, which repeals all taxes on Social Security benefits. Since Social Security benefits are financed with tax dollars, taxing these benefits is yet another example of double taxation. Furthermore, ``taxing'' benefits paid by the government is merely an accounting trick, a shell game which allows Members of Congress to reduce benefits by subterfuge. This allows Congress to continue using the Social Security trust fund as a means of financing other government programs, and masks the true size of the federal deficit. Instead of imposing ridiculous taxes on senior citizens, Congress should ensure the integrity of the Social Security trust fund by ending the practice of using trust fund monies for other programs. This is why I am also introducing the Social Security Preservation Act, which ensures that all money in the Social Security trust fund is spent solely on Social Security. At a time when Congress' inability to control spending is once again threatening the Social Security trust fund, the need for this legislation has never been greater. When the government taxes Americans to fund Social Security, it promises the American people that the money will be there for them when they retire. Congress has a moral obligation to keep that promise. In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to help free senior citizens from oppressive taxation by supporting my Senior Citizens' Tax Elimination Act and my Social Security Beneficiary Tax Reduction Act. I also urge my colleagues to ensure that moneys from the Social Security trust fund are used solely for Social Security benefits and not wasted on frivolous government programs.

Mr. PAUL

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

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support H. Res. 1089, a resolution honoring Milton Friedman. Milton Friedman was one of America's greatest champions of liberty. Launching a career as a public intellectual at a time when dissenters from the reigning Keynesian paradigm where viewed as the equivalent of members of the Flat Earth Society, Milton Friedman waged an oftentimes lonely intellectual battle on behalf of free markets and individual liberty in the fifties and sixties. As the economic crisis of the seventies caused by high taxes, high spending, and inflation vindicated Friedman's critiques of interventionism, his influence grew--not because he moved to the mainstream but because the mainstream moved toward him. Friedman served as an advisor to Presidents Nixon and Ford and as a member of President Reagan's Council of Economic Advisors. In 1976, Friedman was awarded the Nobel Prize in economics. Milton Friedman's most notable contributions to economic theory where in the area of monetary policy. His 1963 work A Monetary History of the United States 1857-1960, coauthored with Anna Schwartz, was among the first works to emphasize the role Federal Reserve policy played in causing the Great Depression. As Friedman said, ``The Great Depression, like most other periods of severe unemployment, was produced by government mismanagement rather than by any inherent instability of the private economy.'' Friedman's work showed that inflation is not a result of markets but is, as he memorably put it, ``always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon.'' Friedman was the major originator and theoretician of monetarism. Friedman recommended restricting the Federal Reserve's authority to increasing the quantity of money by a fixed yearly amount. While monetarism is far from the ideal free-market monetary system, Milton Friedman deserves credit for focusing the attention of economists on the Federal Reserve's responsibility for inflation. While he is mainly known for his contributions to economic theory and his advocacy of free markets, Milton Friedman considered his advocacy against the draft, cumulating in his work as a member of President Nixon's Commission on an All-Volunteer Force, his major policy achievement. Milton Friedman's opposition to the draft was in part based on economic principles, but was mainly motivated by his moral commitment to freedom. I ask unanimous consent to insert the attached article, ``Milton Friedman: A Tribute,'' by David R. Henderson, which details Milton Friedman's efforts against the draft, into the record. Unlike many free market economists who downplay their opposition to government of encroachments on personal liberty in order to appear ``respectable,'' Friedman never hesitated to take controversial stands in favor of liberty. Thus Friedman was one of the most outspoken critics of the federal war on drugs and an early critic of government licensing of professionals. Friedman also never allowed fear of losing access to power stop him from criticizing politicians who betrayed economic liberty. For example, his status as an advisor to President Richard Nixon did not stop him from criticizing Nixon's imposition of wage and price controls. Milton Friedman's greatest contribution to liberty may have been his work to educate the public about free market economics. Milton Friedman's 1962 work Capitalism and Freedom, introduced millions of people to the freedom philosophy, and it remains one of the most popular, and influential, pro-freedom books in the world. In 1980, Milton Friedman collaborated with his wife Rose on a television series, Free to Choose. The series, and the accompanying best-selling book, remain among the best introductions to the benefits of economic liberty, and rivals Capitalism and Freedom in popularity. One of my favorite moments of the show is when Milton Friedman compares the robust free market economy of Hong Kong with the then stagnant economy of communist China. On a personal note, I was honored to receive Milton Friedman's endorsement of my congressional campaign in 1996. One particular quote from his endorsement exemplifies how Milton Friedman's commitment to the free market was rooted in a recognition that a society that respects the dignity and worth of every individual is impossible without limited government, private property, and sound money: ``We very badly need to have more Representatives in the House who understand in a principled way the importance of property rights and religious freedom for the preservation and extension of human freedom in general . . .'' Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to pay tribute to Milton Friedman's tireless efforts on behalf of human liberty, and I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting H. Res. 1089. [From ANTIWAR.COM, Nov. 20, 2006] Milton Friedman: A Tribute ``In the course of his [General Westmoreland's] testimony, he made the statement that he did not want to command an army of mercenaries. I [Milton Friedman] stopped him and said, `General, would you rather command an army of slaves?' He drew himself up and said, `I don't like to hear our patriotic volunteers referred to as mercenaries.' But I went on to say, `If they are mercenaries, then I, sir, am a mercenary professor, and you, sir, are a mercenary general; we are served by mercenary physicians, we use a mercenary lawyer, and we get our meat from a mercenary butcher.' That was the last that we heard from the general about mercenaries.''-- Milton and Rose Friedman, Two Lucky People, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998, p. 380. In May 1970, a few days after graduating from the University of Winnipeg with a major in mathematics, I flew to Chicago to look into getting a Ph.D. in economics at the University of Chicago. While there, I went to visit Milton Friedman and he invited me into his office. I had a sense that he had been through this routine before--talking to an idealistic young person showing up and wanting an autograph on his copy of Capitalism and Freedom and, beyond that, simply wanting to meet and talk to him. But he didn't treat our meeting as routine; we had a real talk for about 10 minutes. When I told him that I'd initially been attracted to libertarianism by reading Ayn Rand, he told me that while Rand was well worth reading, there were many other people worth reading too, and I shouldn't get stuck on her. He also stated, ``Make politics an avocation, not a vocation.'' Both were good pieces of advice. The advice didn't stop there. I ended up getting my Ph.D. at UCLA and going to my first academic job as an assistant professor at the University of Rochester's Graduate School of Management. From then on, I wrote Milton a couple of times a year and he always wrote back, sometimes writing in the margins of my letter to comment on my questions and thoughts. When I contemplated my first major career change--leaving academia to work at a think tank--he advised me strongly against it (I didn't take this advice), referring to himself as my ``Dutch uncle.'' I had never heard the term before and didn't bother to look it up until writing this piece, but I understood what he meant from the context: a Dutch uncle is someone who gives you tough love, holding you to high standards because of a benevolent regard for your well-being. But here's the bigger point: with his steady and passionate work to end the military draft, Milton Friedman was the Dutch uncle of every young man in the United States. Or even better, he was like a favorite uncle that they'd never even met. He cared more for them than any president, any general, or any defense secretary has ever cared. How so? Because he wanted every young man to be free to choose whether to join the military or not. Milton Friedman's work against the draft began in December 1966, when he gave a presentation at a four-day conference at the University of Chicago. Various prominent and less- prominent academics, politicians, and activists had been invited. Papers had been commissioned, and the authors gave summaries, after which the discussion was open to all. Fortunately, the discussion was transcribed. The papers and discussions appear in a book edited by sociologist Sol Tax and titled The Draft: A Handbook of Facts and Alternatives. The invitees included two young anti-draft congressmen, Robert Kastenmeier (D-Wisc.) and Donald Rumsfeld (R-Ill.), and one pro-draft senator, Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.). Also attending were pro-draft anthropologist Margaret Mead and anti-draft economists Milton Friedman and Walter Oi. Friedman gave the general economic and philosophical case for a voluntary military in his presentation, ``Why Not a Voluntary Army?'' Friedman pointed out that the draft is a tax on young men. He stated: ``When a young man is forced to serve at $45 a week, including the cost of his keep, of his uniforms, and his dependency allowances, and there are many civilian opportunities available to him at something like $100 a week, he is paying $55 a week in an implicit tax. . . . And if you were to add to those taxes in kind, the costs imposed on universities and colleges; of seating, housing, and entertaining young men who would otherwise be doing productive work; if you were to add to that the costs imposed on industry by the fact that they can only offer young men who are in danger of being drafted stopgap jobs, and cannot effectively invest money in training them; if you were to add to that the costs imposed on individuals of a financial kind by their marrying earlier or having children at an earlier stage, and so on; if you were to add all these up, there is no doubt at all in my mind that the cost of a volunteer force, correctly calculated, would be very much smaller than the amount we are now spending in manning our Armed Forces.'' Reading through the whole Sol Tax volume, with all the papers and transcripts of the discussion, I had the sense that there was a coalescing of views over the four days, as people from various parts of the ideological spectrum found that they had in common a strong antipathy to the draft and found also that the economists made a surprisingly strong economic case. Both Friedman's speech and his various comments at the conference still make compelling reading. One of his best rhetorical flourishes was his criticism of the charge that those who advocate ending the draft are advocating a ``mercenary'' army. You'll recognize the same kind of argument he used against Westmoreland in the lead quote of this article. Friedman said: ``Now, when anybody starts talking about this [an all- volunteer force] he immediately shifts language. My army is `volunteer,' your army is `professional,' and the enemy's army is `mercenary.' All these three words mean exactly the same thing. I am a volunteer professor, I am a mercenary professor, and I am a professional professor. And all you people around here are mercenary professional people. And I trust you realize that. It's always a puzzle to me why people should think that the term `mercenary' somehow has a negative connotation. I remind you of that wonderful quotation of Adam Smith when he said, `You do not owe your daily bread to the benevolence of the baker, but to his proper regard for his own interest.' And this is much more broadly based. In fact, I think mercenary motives are among the least unattractive that we have.'' (p. 366) In the margin of my 35-year-old, dog-eared copy of the Sol Tax book containing this passage, I wrote one word: ``Wow!'' This is rhetoric at its best, a tight argument passionately stated. When I read this at about age 18, just a year before meeting Friedman in his office, I felt cared-for. Fortunately, being Canadian, I wasn't vulnerable to the draft. But I had the thought that if I had grown up in United States, I would be so thankful that here was this man, himself well beyond draft age and who could probably figure out how to get his son out of the draft, and yet who cared enough to be out in front on this issue. Two of Friedman's comments about this conference are worth noting. Writing some 30 years later, Friedman noted that the 74 invited participants ``included essentially everyone who had written or spoken at all extensively on either side of the controversy about the draft, as well as a number of students.'' (Two Lucky People, p. 377.) Friedman's other comment is also worth citing: ``I have attended many conferences. I have never attended any other that had so dramatic an effect on the participants. A straw poll taken at the outset of the conference recorded two-thirds of the participants in favor of the draft; a similar poll at the end, two-thirds opposed. I believe that this conference was the key event that started the ball rolling decisively toward ending the draft.'' (p. 378.) Friedman didn't stop there. He wrote a number of articles in his tri-weekly column in Newsweek making the case against the draft. Friedman was one of 15 people chosen for Nixon's Commission on the All-Volunteer Force. By his estimate, five started off being against the draft, five in favor, and five on the fence. By the end, the Commission was able to come out with a 14-0 consensus in favor of ending the draft. Black leader Roy Wilkins, in a Feb. 6, 1970 letter to Nixon, stated he had been unable to attend many of the meetings due to a major illness and, therefore, could not support its specific recommendations; Wilkins did state, however, that he endorsed the idea of moving toward an all-volunteer armed force. (The Report of the President's Commission on an All-Volunteer Armed Force, New York: Collier Books, 1970; letter from Roy Wilkins.) It was at one of these meetings that Friedman put Westmoreland on the spot with his comeback about slaves. Knowing that Friedman was persuasive and focused and also a warm human being, I credit him with having swung at least a few of the Commission members in his direction. And although Nixon took his sweet time acting on the recommendations, finally, at the start of his second term, he let the draft expire. Friedman kibitzed in his Newsweek column, never letting up. He once wrote that the draft ``is almost the only issue on which I have engaged in any extensive personal lobbying with members of the House and Senate.'' (Milton Friedman, An Economist's Protest, 2nd ed., Glen Ridge, N.J.: Thomas Horton and Daughters, 1975, p. 188.) And Friedman stuck around as an opponent of the draft when the going got tough. In the late 1970s, high inflation caused a serious drop in real military pay and a consequent increase in difficulty meeting recruiting quotas. Of all the threats to bring back the draft in the last 32 years, the threat in 1979 to 1980 was the most serious. Sen. Sam Nunn (D-Ga.) held hearings with the goal of building support for the draft and, at least, registration for a future draft. Hoover economist Martin Anderson organized an important conference on the draft at the Hoover Institution in November 1979 and invited the top proponents and opponents of the draft. (For the papers and transcript of the discussion, see Martin Anderson, ed., Registration and the Draft: Proceedings of the Hoover- Rochester Conference on the All-Volunteer Force, Stanford, California: Hoover Institution Press, 1982.) Friedman was one of the attendees and, at the end, debated Congressman Pete McCloskey on the draft. It was actually the weakest performance I've ever seen by Friedman, but Friedman's ``weak'' is still pretty good. In 1980, in response to the threat from Sam Nunn, I wrote and circulated the following ``Economists' Statement in Opposition to the Draft'': ``We, the undersigned, oppose moves toward the reimposition of the draft. The draft would be a more costly way of maintaining the military than an all-volunteer force. Those who claim that a draft costs less than a volunteer military cite as a savings the lower wages that the government can get away with paying draftees. But they leave out the burden imposed on the draftees themselves. Since a draft would force many young people to delay or forego entirely other activities valuable to them and to the rest of society, the real cost of military manpower would be substantially more than the wages draftees would be paid. Saying that a draft would reduce the cost of the military is like saying that the pyramids were cheap because they were built with slave labor.'' Friedman's speed at signing made it much easier, I'm sure, to get the signatures of almost 300 other prominent and not- so-prominent economists, including Kenneth Boulding, Harold Demsetz, David Friedman, Alan Greenspan, Donald McCloskey, William Meckling, Allen H. Meltzer, James C. Miller III, William A. Niskanen, Mancur Olson, Sam Peltzman, Murray Rothbard, Jeremy J. Siegel, Vernon Smith, Beryl W. Sprinkel, Jerome Stein, and James L. Sweeney. The statement, with about 150 signatures, was published as a full-page ad in Libertarian Review, Inquiry, and The Progressive. Milton Friedman and I had our differences about foreign policy. I tried, in vain, to persuade him to be against the first Gulf war. Even there, though, he publicly supported, in an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, my economic argument against the war. He stated, ``Henderson's analysis is correct. There is no justification for intervention on grounds of oil'' (Jonathan Marshall, ``Economists Say Iraq's Threat to U.S. Oil Supply Is Exaggerated,'' San Francisco Chronicle, Oct. 29, 1990.) Friedman did oppose the second Gulf war, as evidenced in an interview in the Wall Street Journal, in which he called it, correctly, ``aggression.'' (Tunku Varadarajan, ``The Romance of Economics,'' Wall Street Journal, July 22, 2006; page

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to honor Dr. Victor Rodriguez, a native of Edna, Texas in my congressional district. Dr. Rodriguez's achievements in, and dedication to, education are an inspiration to us all. As detailed in his autobiography, The Bell Ringer, Dr. Rodriguez developed endurance and perseverance at an early age when his third grade teacher assigned him the task of ringing the bell for the St. Agnes Catholic Church. For nine years, Victor Rodriguez woke up at 4 a.m. and jogged two miles to the church to ring the bell before the 5 a.m. mass. While this was obviously a difficult responsibility for a child, Dr. Rodriguez later said that he ``came to accept ringing that bell as an honor . . . whenever I was tired and didn't feel like getting out of bed, I remembered my mom's encouragement. She used to say that if you do something, do it to the very best of your ability.'' The importance of hard work, endurance, and dedication that Victor Rodriguez learned as a bell ringer stayed with him throughout his life. Dr. Rodriguez was a star athlete who set many records and won numerous trophies at Edna High School, Victoria College, and North Texas State University. After earning his Ph.d, Dr. Rodriguez began a successful career as a teacher and as a coach of several championship track teams. In his work as a teacher and coach, Dr. Rodriguez inspired his students to strive to achieve their goals and dreams. During Dr. Rodriguez's 12 years as superintendent of the San Antonio School District, the dropout rate was reduced from 50 percent to less than 10 percent. Applying the lessons in perseverance he learned as a young bell ringer, then superintendent-elect Dr. Rodriguez promised San Antonio School District's kindergarten class that he would stay as superintendent as long as they were in school. Of course, Dr. Rodriguez kept that promise, not retiring until 1994 when the kindergartners of 1981 were seniors in high school. During his tenure as superintendent, Dr. Rodriguez won numerous awards and honors, including an achiever award from the Alamo Area Council of the Boy Scouts of America, representative from Texas in the 1989 National Superintendent of the Year Award Program sponsored by the American Association of School Administrators and the Service-Master Company, induction into the National Hispanic Sports Hall of Fame; and honoree in Ford Motor Company's Hispanic Salute recognizing San Antonio Hispanics for outstanding contributions to education and literacy. Executive Educator magazine twice named Dr. Rodriguez one of the Hundred Top School Executives in the nation. Just last month, Dr. Rodriguez was honored by his alma mater by being named a 2006 inductee into the University of North Texas's Athletic Hall of Fame. Dr. Rodriguez's application of the lessons he learned, as a young church bell ringer should serve an example to all of us. It is a pleasure to offer my congratulations and thanks to Dr. Victor Rodriguez for all of his efforts to help Texas schoolchildren.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, with the passing last month of Helen Chenoweth-Hage, America has lost one of its true champions of liberty and constitutional government, and I have lost a valued friend and colleague. When Helen served in the House of Representatives, she gained a national following for her principled and uncompromising defense of private property, the Second Amendment, American sovereignty, and limited federal government. Unlike all too many people who come to Washington, Helen never forgot the principles that inspired her to seek office. I was honored when Helen became the first member of Congress to join my Liberty Caucus. She understood the importance of creating a support system to help members of Congress resist the constant pressures to ``go along to get along. `` I will always cherish my memories of the time Helen and I served together in the House, and I thank the Lord for enriching my life and the lives of so many others by granting us the opportunity to know Helen. I hope that knowledge of how many freedom-lovers across the country join Helen's family in mourning her loss provides some measure of comfort to Helen's family.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, Brazosport Independent School District, located in my home county of Brazoria, has received a $458,369 Smaller Learning Communities Program grant from the Department of Education. The Smaller Learning Communities Program promotes academic achievement through the creation or expansion of small, safe, and successful learning environments in large public high schools to help ensure that all students graduate with the knowledge and skills necessary to make successful transitions to colleges and careers. Brazosport High School will use the Smaller Learning Communities Program grant to build on past efforts by implementing and expanding successful strategies and activities. Among the projects the grant will help Brayosport High School implement are extensive development activities for the faculty and staff, advisory periods, accelerated curriculum, after-school classes, ninth grade transition activities, and task force committees. Brazosport High School's project goals include: (1) increasing the academic performance of all students and reducing the gap in achievement among students of different racial and economic backgrounds; (2) ensuring that the Smaller Learning Communities are environments where students feel safe, known, supported and motivated to succeed; (3) and ensuring that students attain the strong academic knowledge and skills necessary for a successful college career. Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt that the same commitment to education excellence that enabled Brazosport Independent School District to obtain this grant will enable the school to achieve all of its goals. I am therefore pleased to extend my congratulations to Brazosport Independent School District for obtaining a Smaller Learning Communities Program grant.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, Katy Elementary School, of the Katy Independent School District, is among the 26 Texas schools that have recently received the Department of Education's prestigious Blue Ribbon Schools award. The No Child Left Behind-Blue Ribbon Schools Program recognizes outstanding public and private schools that are either academically superior or have demonstrated dramatic and consistent gains in student achievement. The Department of Education selects Blue Ribbon Schools based on nominations submitted by the states. My colleagues may be interested to know that every school nominated by Texas received a Blue Ribbon Schools award. Schools can be nominated for a Blue Ribbon Schools Award if at least forty percent of their disadvantaged students show dramatic improvement over three years on state tests in reading or English language arts and mathematics. Schools whose student bodies rank in the top ten percent on state tests in reading or English language arts and mathematics may also be nominated for a Blue Ribbon Schools Award. In addition to these two criteria, Blue Ribbon Schools must meet Adequate Yearly Progress requirements in reading or English language arts and mathematics, must not have been identified as a ``Persistently Dangerous'' school within the last two years, and must comply with other Department of Education requirements. Katy Elementary's designation as Blue Ribbon Schools is a tribute to the schools' teachers, administrators, and other employees' dedication to providing students with a quality education. It also is a reflection of the students and parents' commitment to the pursuit of educational excellence. I am therefore pleased to offer my congratulations to Katy Elementary School for being one of the 26 Texas schools designated as Blue Ribbon Schools by the Department of Education.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to vote for the SAFE Ports Act when it was considered by Congress in May and I intend to do so tonight. However, I am disturbed that The Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act was added to this bill during conference. My understanding is that this provision was slipped into the bill at the conclusion of the conference even though internet gambling has nothing to do with port security. I have long opposed The Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act since the federal government has no constitutional authority to ban or even discourage any form of internet gambling. In addition to being unconstitutional, this provision is likely to prove ineffective at ending internet gambling. Instead, by passing law proportion to ban internet gambling Congress will ensure that gambling is controlled by organized crime. History, from the failed experiment of prohibition to today's futile ``war on drugs,'' shows that the government cannot eliminate demand for something like internet gambling simply by passing a law. Instead, this provision will force those who wish to gamble over the internet to patronize suppliers willing to flaunt the ban. In many cases, providers of services banned by the government will be members of criminal organizations. Even if organized crime does not operate internet gambling enterprises their competitors are likely to be controlled by organized crime. After all, since the owners and patrons of internet gambling cannot rely on the police and courts to enforce contracts and resolve other disputes, they will be forced to rely on members of organized crime to perform those functions. Thus, the profits of internet gambling will flow into organized crime. Furthermore, outlawing an activity will raise the price vendors are able to charge consumers, thus increasing the profits flowing to organized crime from internet gambling. It is bitterly ironic that a bill masquerading as an attack on crime will actually increase organized crime's ability to control and profit from internet gambling! In conclusion, the ban on internet gambling violates the constitutional limits on federal power. Furthermore, laws such as this are ineffective in eliminating the demand for vices such as internet gambling; instead, they ensure that these enterprises will be controlled by organized crime. It is a shame to clutter an important and good piece of legislation like the Safe Ports Act with a blatantly unconstitutional power grab over the internet like the Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce legislation repealing 2 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 this legislation.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, Point Comfort Elementary School, of the Calhoun County Independent School District, is among the 26 Texas schools that have recently received the Department of Education's prestigious Blue Ribbon Schools award. The No Child Left Behind-Blue Ribbon Schools Program recognizes outstanding public and private schools that are either academically superior or have demonstrated dramatic and consistent gains in student achievement. The Department of Education selects Blue Ribbon Schools based on nominations submitted by the states. My colleagues may be interested to know that every school nominated by Texas received a Blue Ribbon Schools award. Schools can be nominated for a Blue Ribbon Schools Award if at least forty percent of their disadvantaged students show dramatic improvement over three years on state tests in reading or English language arts and mathematics. Schools whose student bodies rank in the top ten percent on state tests in reading or English language arts and mathematics may also be nominated for a Blue Ribbon Schools Award. In addition to these two criteria, Blue Ribbon Schools must meet Adequate Yearly Progress requirements in reading or English language arts and mathematics, must not have been identified as a ``Persistently Dangerous'' school within the last two years, and must comply with other Department of Education requirements. Point Comfort's designation as a Blue Ribbon School is a tribute to the schools' teachers, administrators, and other employees' dedication to providing students with a quality education. It also is a reflection of the students and parents' commitment to the pursuit of educational excellence. I am therefore pleased to offer my congratulations to Point Comfort Elementary School for being one of the 26 Texas schools designated as Blue Ribbon Schools by the Department of Education.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Physicians and Taxpayers' Protection from Frivolous Litigation Act. This bill provides protection from frivolous lawsuits for physicians in cases involving Medicare and Medicaid, and in cases where physicians are obligated to provide treatment under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). Among the legal reforms contained in this act are a loser pays rule providing for physicians to be reimbursed for costs incurred in defending against frivolous lawsuits; a tightening of statutes of limitations to ensure lawsuits are not just attempts to extort money for conditions that arose years after treatment was delivered; reforms of how putative damages are calculated in order to ensure the damages bear a relationship to the harm suffered, limitations on contingent fee contracts which encourage the filing of frivolous lawsuits, reforms to calculations of joint and several liability so a defendant is only liable for the harm he actually caused, and limitation of damages in cases where the plaintiff has already received compensation. Frivolous lawsuits and the accompanying increase in malpractice insurance payments have driven many physicians out of medical practice. The malpractice crisis has further increased the cost of health care by forcing physicians to practice defensive medicine. While most malpractice reform issues are properly addressed at the state level, Congress does have a duty to act to protect physicians from frivolous lawsuits stemming from cases involving federally funded programs or federal mandates. After all, these programs already impose tremendous costs on physicians. For example, Medicare imposes so many rules and regulations on health care providers that the Medicare code is actually larger than the infamous tax code! EMTALA imposes additional burdens on physicians. EMTALA forces physicians and hospitals to bear l00% of the costs of providing care to anyone who enters an emergency room, regardless of the person's ability to pay. According to the June 29, 2003 edition of AM News, emergency physicians lose an average of $138,000 in revenue per year because of EMTALA. EMTALA also forces physicians and hospitals to follow costly rules and regulations. A physician can be fined $50,000 for a technical EMTALA violation. The combined effect of excessive regulations, inadequate reimbursements, and the risk of being subjected to unreasonable malpractice awards is endangering the most vulnerable people's access to health care. I am aware of several physicians who have counseled young people not to enter the health care profession because of lawsuits, federal regulations, and low federal reimbursement rates. Other physicians are withdrawing from the Medicare and Medicaid programs and cutting their ties with emergency rooms in order to avoid the EMTALA mandates. Protecting physicians from frivolous lawsuits who are participating in federal programs or acting to fulfill federal mandates is an important step in removing federally created disincentives to providing care to elderly and low income people. I therefore call upon my colleagues to stand up for heath care providers, low income people, senior citizens, and taxpayers by cosponsoring the Physicians and Taxpayers' Protection from Frivolous Litigation Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support H. Con. Res. 222, a resolution commending the goals and ideals of National Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day. As a practicing OB/GYN for almost 40 years, I know there are few things more devastating than losing a child to medical complications such as a miscarriage or a stillbirth. Americans should take every opportunity to provide comfort and support to people who have suffered such a grievous loss. I also wish to pay tribute to the efforts of Mrs. Robyn Bear, who played an instrumental role in bringing this issue before Congress. Mrs. Bear's story is an inspirational example of how a dedicated individual can make something good come from even the most tragic circumstances. After suffering six first trimester miscarriages between 1997 and 1999, Mrs. Bear began working to create a support system for parents who lost their children because of medical complications during or shortly after pregnancy. Largely due to her efforts, Governors of all 50 States have signed proclamations recognizing National Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day. Mrs. Bear has also been instrumental in founding several online support groups for families that have suffered the loss of an unborn or newborn child. Mrs. Bear's efforts were also the inspiration for this legislation. I am pleased to let my colleagues know that today Mrs. Bear is the proud mother of a 6-year old girl and 3-year old twins. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I once again urge my colleagues to support this bill. I also extend my thanks to Mrs. Robyn Bear for all her efforts to help parents who have lost a child due to a miscarriage, stillbirth, or other medical complications.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill, and let me give you a few reasons why. In the introduction to the bill, it says that its purpose is to hold the current regime in Iran accountable for its threatening behavior and to support a transition of its government; and I would just ask one question: Could it be possible that others around the world and those in Iran see us as participating in ``threatening behavior?'' We should make an attempt to see things from other people's view as well. I want to give you three quick reasons why I think we should not be going at it this way: First, this is a confrontational manner of dealing with a problem. A country that is powerful and self-confident should never need to resort to confrontation. If one is confident, one should be willing to use diplomacy whether dealing with our friends or our enemies; I think the lack of confidence motivates resolutions of this type. The second reason that I will give you for opposing this is that this is clearly seeking regime change in Iran. We are taking it upon ourselves that we do not like the current regime. I don't like Almadinyad, but do we have the responsibility and the authority to orchestrate regime change? We approach this by doing two things: Sanctions to penalize, at the same time giving aid to those groups that we expect to undermine the government. Do you know if somebody came into this country and paid groups to undermine our government, that is illegal? Yet here we are casually paying money, millions of dollars, unlimited sums of money to undermine that government. This is illegal. The third point. This bill rejects the notion of the nonproliferation treaty. The Iranians have never been proven to be in violation of the nonproliferation treaty; and this explicitly says that they cannot enrich, uranium even for private and commercial purposes. For these three reasons we obviously should reconsider and not use this confrontational approach. Why not try diplomacy? Oppose this resolution.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, Congress is once again rushing to abandon its constitutional duty to protect the constitution balance between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government by expanding the executive's authority to conduct warrantless wiretaps without approval from either a regular federal court or the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court. Congress's refusal to provide any effective checks on the warrantless wiretapping program is a blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment and is not necessary to protect the safety of the American people. In fact, this broad grant of power to conduct unchecked surveillance may undermine the government's ability to identify threats to American security. Instead of creating standards for warrantless wiretapping, H.R. 5825 leaves it to the President to determine when ``imminent'' threat requiring warrantless wiretapping exists. The legislation does not even define what constitutes an imminent threat; it requires the executive branch to determine when a threat is ``imminent.'' By passing this bill, Congress is thus abdicating its constitutional role while making it impossible for the judiciary to perform its constitutional function. According to former Congressman Bob Barr, thanks to Congress' failure to establish clear standards for wiretapping, under H.R. 5825 ``. . .simply making an international call or sending an e-mail to another country, even to a relative (or a constituent) who is an American citizen, will be fair game for the government to listen in on or read. Moreover, this legislation allows the government to conduct secret, warrantless searches of American citizens' homes in a broad range of circumstances that are essentially undefined in the legislation.'' Mr. Speaker, I do not deny that there may be certain circumstances justifying warrantless wiretapping. However, my colleagues should consider that current law allows for warrantless wiretapping in emergency situations as long as a ``retroactive'' warrant is sought within 72 hours of commencing the surveillance or the warrantless surveillance commences within 15 days after Congress declares war. If there are legitimate reasons why the current authorization for warrantless wiretapping is inadequate, then perhaps Congress should extend the time allowed to wiretap before applying to the FISA court for a ``retroactive'' warrant. This step could enhance security without posing the dangers to liberty and republican government contained in H.R. 5825. The requirement that, except in extraordinary circumstances, a warrant be obtained from the FISA court does not obstruct legitimate surveillance efforts. It is my understanding that FISA judges act very quickly to consider applications for search warrants, even if the applications are faxed to their houses at three in the morning. Applications for FISA warrants are rarely rejected. In 2005, the administration applied for 2,074 warrants from the FISA court. Of those 2 where voluntarily withdrawn and 63 where approved with modifications; the rest were approved. The FISA court only rejected four applications for warrants in the past four years; and one of those rejected warrants was subsequently partially approved. Warrantless wiretapping may hinder the ability to identify true threats to safety. This is because experience has shown that, when Congress makes it easier for the federal government to monitor the activities of Americans, there is a tendency to collect so much information that it becomes impossible to weed out the true threats. My colleagues should consider how the over-filing of ``suspicious transaction reports'' regarding financial transactions hampers effective anti-terrorism efforts. According to investigative journalist James Bovard, writing in the Baltimore Sun on June 28, ``[a] U.N. report on terrorist financing released in May 2002 noted that a `suspicious transaction report' had been filed with the U.S. government over a $69,985 wire transfer that Mohamed Atta, leader of the hijackers, received from the United Arab Emirates. The report noted that `this particular transaction was not noticed quickly enough because the report was just one of a very large number and was not distinguishable from those related to other financial crimes.' '' Congress should be skeptical, to say the least, regarding the assertion that allowing federal bureaucrats to accumulate even more data without having to demonstrate a link between the data sought and national security will make the American people safer. In conclusion Mr. Speaker, because H.R. 5825 sacrifices liberty for the illusion of security, I must oppose this bill. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I recently become a cosponsor of H.R. 6042, offered by my colleague Mrs. Emerson. This bill prohibits the federal government from implementing the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). It also provides some privacy protections for framers and ranchers who choose to participate in a voluntary identification system. I hope all of my colleagues join me in supporting this bill. NAIS is a proposal to force all farmers and ranchers to ``tag'' their livestock with a radio frequency identification device tag (RFID) or a similar item so information on the animals' locations can be stored in a federal database. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is currently implementing the program through state premise registration plans. Participation in the NAIS is currently voluntary, but my office has been informed that the USDA will likely make NAIS mandatory by 2009. Small, family farmers and ranchers will be forced to spend thousands of dollars, as well as comply with new paperwork and monitoring regulations, to implement and operate NAIS. These farmers and ranchers will be paying for a massive assault on their property and privacy rights as NAIS forces farmers and ranchers to provide detailed information about their private property to the government. In addition, the NAIS system empowers the Federal government to enter and seize property from farmers and ranchers without a warrant. Mr. Speaker, this is a blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment-protected right to be free of arbitrary searches and seizures. NAIS is unnecessary since most states already have identification systems to identify and track animals and virtually all stockyards issue a health certification for each animal that is sold. Furthermore, the NAIS ``trace back'' procedures only begin after an incident has been reported, which could be days, weeks, or even months after the harm has occurred. Since most contamination happens after the animal has left the farm or ranch and entered the food chain, tracing animals back to the farm will not help identify the source of the problem-- although farmers and ranchers could be held legally liable if any of their animals becomes diseased after leaving their possession. According to a 1998 Harvard study, preventive measures already in place can protect the American people from dangers such as mad cow disease. Bell Bellinger, vice-chairman of the Australian Beef Association, said of Australia's National Livestock Identification System that ``Financial costs like the NLIS . . . are seriously eroding our competitive advantage supplying an increasing contested world beef market.'' Dairy Farmer and Rancher Bob Parker best stated the case against NAIS: ``We currently have the systems in place to track animals, as has just happened with the recent `mad cow' in Alabama. Sacrificing our freedoms for security is not a good trade off, in my opinion. Our Founding Fathers knew the dangers of Government becoming too big. This plan is too intrusive, to costly, and will be devastating to small farmers and ranchers.'' I urge my colleagues to listen to Mr. Parker and protect America's small farmers and ranchers from being burdened with a costly, intrusive and unnecessary NAIS program by cosponsoring H.R. 6042.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strongest opposition to this ill- conceived legislation. Once again, the House of Representatives is abrogating its Constitutional obligations and relinquishing its authority to the executive branch of government. Mr. Speaker, this legislation will fundamentally change our country. It will establish a system whereby the President of the United States can determine unilaterally that an individual is an ``unlawful enemy combatant'' and subject to detention without access to court appeal. What is most troubling is that nothing in the bill would prevent a United States citizen from being named an ``enemy combatant'' by the President and thus possibly subject to indefinite detention. Congress is making an enormous mistake in allowing such power to be concentrated in one person. Additionally, the bill gives the President the exclusive authority to interpret parts of the Geneva Convention relating to treatment of detainees, to determine what does and does not constitute a violation of that Convention. The President's decision on this matter would not be reviewable by either the legislative or judicial branch of government. This provision has implications not only for the current administration, but especially for any administration, Republican or Democrat, that may come to power in the future. This legislation eliminates habeas corpus for alien unlawful enemy combatants detained under this act. Those thus named by the President will have no access to the courts to dispute the determination and detention. We have already seen numerous examples of individuals detained by mistake, who were not involved in terrorism or anti- American activities. This legislation will deny such individuals the right to challenge their detention in the court. Certainly we need to prosecute those who have committed crimes against the United States, but we also need to be sure that those we detain are legitimately suspect. I am also concerned that sections in this bill dealing with protection of U.S. personnel from prosecution for war crimes and detainee abuse offenses are retroactively applied to as far back as 1997. Mr. Speaker, this bill will leave the men and women of our military and intelligence services much more vulnerable overseas, which is one reason many career military and intelligence personnel oppose it. We have agreed to recognize the Geneva Convention because it is a very good guarantee that our enemy will do likewise when U.S. soldiers are captured. It is in our own interest to adhere to these provisions. Unilaterally changing the terms of how we treat those captured in battle will signal to our enemies that they may do the same. Additionally, scores of Americans working overseas as aid workers or missionaries who may provide humanitarian assistance may well be vulnerable to being named ``unlawful combatants'' by foreign governments should those countries adopt the criteria we are adopting here. Should aid workers assist groups out of favor or struggling against repressive regimes overseas, those regimes could well deem our own citizens ``unlawful combatants.'' It is a dangerous precedent we are setting. Mr. Speaker, we must seek out, detain, try, and punish if found guilty anyone who seeks to attack the United States. We in Congress have an obligation to pass legislation that ensures that process will go forward. What Congress has done in this bill, though, is to tell the President ``you take charge of this, we reject our Constitutional duties.'' I urge my colleagues to reject this ill-conceived piece of legislation.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, in the name of a truly laudable cause (preventing abortion and protecting parental rights), today the Congress could potentially move our Nation one step closer to a national police state by further expanding the list of Federal crimes and usurping power from the States to adequately address the issue of parental rights and family law. Of course, it is much easier to ride the current wave of criminally federalizing all human malfeasance in the name of saving the world from some evil than to uphold a Constitutional oath which prescribes a procedural structure by which the nation is protected from what is perhaps the worst evil, totalitarianism carried out by a centralized government. Who, after all, wants to be amongst those Members of Congress who are portrayed as trampling parental rights or supporting the transportation of minor females across state lines for ignoble purposes. As an obstetrician of almost 40 years, I have personally delivered more than 4,000 children. During such time, I have not performed a single abortion. On the contrary, I have spoken and written extensively and publicly condemning this ``medical'' procedure. At the same time, I have remained committed to upholding the constitutional procedural protections which leave the police power decentralized and in control of the States. In the name of protecting parental rights, this bill usurps States' rights by creating yet another Federal crime. Our Federal Government is, constitutionally, a government of limited powers, Article one, Section eight, enumerates the legislative area for which the U.S. Congress is allowed to act or enact legislation. For every other issue, the Federal Government lacks any authority or consent of the governed and only the State governments, their designees, or the people in their private market actions enjoy such rights to governance. The tenth amendment is brutally clear in stating ``The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.'' Our Nation's history makes clear that the U.S. Constitution is a document intended to limit the power of central government. No serious reading of historical events surrounding the creation of the Constitution could reasonably portray it differently. Nevertheless, rather than abide by our constitutional limits, Congress today will likely pass S. 403. S. 403 amends title 18, United States Code, to prohibit taking minors across State lines to avoid laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions. Should parents be involved in decisions regarding the health of their children? Absolutely. Should the law respect parents' rights to not have their children taken across State lines for contemptible purposes? Absolutely. Can a State pass an enforceable statute to prohibit taking minors across State lines to avoid laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions? Absolutely. But when asked if there exists constitutional authority for the Federal criminalizing of just such an action the answer is absolutely not. This federalizing may have the effect of nationalizing a law with criminal penalties which may be less than those desired by some States. To the extent the Federal and State laws could co-exist, the necessity for a Federal law is undermined and an important bill of rights protection is virtually obliterated. Concurrent jurisdiction crimes erode the right of citizens to be free of double jeopardy. The fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifies that no ``person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . .'' In other words, no person shall be tried twice for the same offense. However, in United States v. Lanza, the high court in 1922 sustained a ruling that being tried by both the Federal Government and a State government for the same offense did not offend the doctrine of double jeopardy. One danger of unconstitutionally expanding the Federal criminal justice code is that it seriously increases the danger that one will be subject to being tried twice for the same offense. Despite the various pleas for Federal correction of societal wrongs, a national police force is neither prudent nor constitutional. We have been reminded by both Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and former U.S. Attorney General Ed Meese that more Federal crimes, while they make politicians feel good, are neither constitutionally sound nor prudent. Rehnquist has stated that ``The trend to federalize crimes that traditionally have been handled in State courts . . . threatens to change entirely the nature of our Federal system.'' Meese stated that Congress' tendency in recent decades to make Federal crimes out of offenses that have historically been State matters has dangerous implications both for the fair administration of justice and for the principle that States are something more than mere administrative districts of a nation governed mainly from Washington. The argument which springs from the criticism of a federalized criminal code and a Federal police force is that States may be less effective than a centralized Federal Government in dealing with those who leave one State jurisdiction for another. Fortunately, the Constitution provides for the procedural means for preserving the integrity of State sovereignty over those issues delegated to it via the tenth amendment. The privilege and immunities clause as well as full faith and credit clause allow States to exact judgments from those who violate their State laws. The Constitution even allows the Federal Government to legislatively preserve the procedural mechanisms which allow States to enforce their substantive laws without the Federal Government imposing its substantive edicts on the States. Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2 makes provision for the rendition of fugitives from one State to another. While not self- enacting, in 1783 Congress passed an act which did exactly this. There is, of course, a cost imposed upon States in working with one another rather than relying on a national, unified police force. At the same time, there is a greater cost to State autonomy and individual liberty from centralization of police power. It is important to be reminded of the benefits of federalism as well as the costs. There are sound reasons to maintain a system of smaller, independent jurisdictions. An inadequate Federal law, or an ``adequate'' Federal law improperly interpreted by the Supreme Court, preempts States' rights to adequately address public health concerns. Roe v. Wade should serve as a sad reminder of the danger of making matters worse in all States by federalizing an issue. It is my erstwhile hope that parents will become more involved in vigilantly monitoring the activities of their own children rather than shifting parental responsibility further upon the Federal Government. There was a time when a popular bumper sticker read'' It's ten o'clock; do you know where your children are?'' I suppose we have devolved to the point where it reads'' It's ten o'clock; does the Federal Government know where your children are.'' Further socializing and burden shifting of the responsibilities of parenthood upon the Federal Government is simply not creating the proper incentive for parents to be more involved. For each of these reasons, among others, I must oppose the further and unconstitutional centralization of police powers in the national government and, accordingly, S. 403.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, September 21, I introduced the Enhanced Options for Health Care Act (H.R. 6154). This legislation allows critical access hospitals to use beds designated for critical access use, but currently not being used for that purpose, for assisted living services financed by private payments. This bill will help improve the financial status of small rural hospitals and extend the health care options available to people living in rural areas without increasing federal expenditures. Currently, fear that rural hospitals will lose critical access status if beds designated for critical access are used for another purpose is causing rural hospitals to allow beds not needed for a critical access purpose to remain unused. This deprives rural hospitals of a much- needed revenue stream and deprives residents of rural areas of access to needed health care services. My colleagues may be interested to know that the idea for this bill comes from Marcella Henke, an administrator of Jackson County Hospital, a critical access hospital in my congressional district. Ms. Henke conceived of this idea as a way to meet the increasing demand for assisted living services in rural areas and provide hospitals with a profitable way use beds not being used for critical access purposes. I urge my colleagues to embrace this practical way of strengthening rural health care without increasing federal expenditures by cosponsoring the Enhanced Options for Rural Health Care Act (H.R. 6154).

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, residents of Chambers County and Baytown, in my Congressional district, who currently lack high-speed internet access, will soon be able to obtain an extremely reliable high-speed internet service comparably priced to DSL. This is due to the efforts of a consortium consisting of Lee College, Chambers County, Chambers Liberty Counties Navigation District, East Chambers Independent School District, and Trinity Bay Conservation District. The consortium began working on the project in 2000, after the Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund board authorized Community Network Grants in order to fund internet access for undersevered areas. Lee College applied for a $500,000 grant on behalf of the consortium. The consortium was one of the few groups that were awarded the full grant of $550,000--the amount applied for plus a 10% match by the consortium. Among the technical challenges fadng the consortium was constructing four 150-foot towers, wiring ten buildings, and coordinating with the governmental agencies involved. Once those challenges where resolved, the consortium faced the challenge of finding a company to maintain the system. Fortunately, the consortium was able to contract with TeleShare Communications Services. TeleShare was looking for opportunities to expand, and, according to Mark Ocker, TeleShare's president,'' . . . the opportunity to use an existing network by partnering with Chambers County and Lee College came up, and it proved to be a great match for both TeleShare and the consortium.'' I am pleased to take this opportunity to extend my congratulations and thanks to Lee College and all the members of the consortium for their efforts to improve the lives of the residents of Chambers County and Baytown.