Ron Paul

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rarely speak on the House floor, and almost never have I ever come to the floor two times in one day to speak on this one issue. But this is my fourth trip to the floor today on this issue because I consider it so important and so serious. If I could rename this bill, I would call it ``a bill to authorize the use of force in Libya.'' That is what we're doing. We should not kid ourselves--we are authorizing the use of force. We are endorsing the Obama war in Libya. Some see this as weakening our presence over there, but there is no doubt, if you read it carefully, we are expanding and giving authority because of the exceptions. The exceptions include search and re-search, intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, refueling, planning-- contract labor probably can still go in, the CIA is in there already, special forces. And paying for it: How can you do all that without paying for it? So we are there. This will be the first time the President will have received any information from the Congress that it's okay to pursue what we're doing. We're supposed to be sending the message that we're in charge of when we go to war and when we pay for this war. We're not just supposed to lie over and capitulate to what the President wants--as we have been for too many years. So there is no doubt that I think the proper vote here, the proper constitutional vote, the proper vote for the best of our national interests, the best vote for peace is to vote this resolution down just as we voted the previous resolution down. We should prohibit the use of funds. A lot of us complain on this House floor because of the way the President went to war--he didn't come here, he went to NATO. But this supports NATO. One of the arguments in favor of this bill is we have the exceptions, so we don't want to break ties and our allegiance to NATO. Well, that's what we're supposed to be doing, we're supposed to be reclaiming the sovereignty and the responsibilities here in the House. We are not supposed to roll over for NATO and the United Nations. We're supposed to stand up for this country. We are not supposed to go into war under these conditions. And under those circumstances, I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on this resolution.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, on July 2, the Girl Scouts of Fulshear, Texas, in my congressional district, will gather for the Fulshear Freedom Feast, where they will commemorate the upcoming centennial of the founding of the Girl Scouts of America. It is with great pleasure that I join the Fulshear Girl Scouts in celebrating the 100th anniversary of the Girl Scouts of America. The Girl Scouts of America were established in Savannah, Georgia on March 16, 1912 in order to provide young woman with an organization that would help them reach their full potential. From the very start, Girls Scouts' programs emphasized community service, personal and spiritual growth, positive values, leadership, and teamwork. Today, over 23 million American girls participate in Girl Scout programs such as field trips, sports clinics, community service projects, cultural exchanges, and environmental initiatives. Perhaps the Girl Scouts' best-known project is the annual cookie sale, which not only raises funds for the Girl Scout's many projects, it helps girls across the national get practical business experience. Participating in Girl Scouts helps young woman build confidence, develop new skills, learn about and explore career opportunities, help their communities, and make friendships that can last a lifetime. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I encourage all my collages to join me in celebrating the Girls Scouts of America's centennial and in sending best wishes to the Fulshear Girl Scouts as they prepare for the Fulshear Freedom Feast.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, June 11, 2011, the Brazoswood Buccaneers baseball team won the title of Texas 5-A State Champions at the Dell Diamond in Round Rock, TX. It is with great pleasure that I extend my congratulations to the players and coaches of the Brazoswood Buccaneers baseball team on their outstanding victory. The Brazoswood Buccaneers baseball team finished the playoffs with an undefeated 12-0 record, which put their season-ending winning streak at fourteen. Their hard work and dedication to the sport was rewarded with Brazoswood's third State Championship. Winning this title is not only a major accomplishment for the Buccaneers, but also for Houston 5A baseball. The Buccaneers' have brought the championship back to the Greater Houston area for the first time in three seasons. The 2011 Buccaneers are part of proud tradition in the Houston area as Houston 5A teams have won seventeen out of thirty State Championships. Mr. Speaker, my grandson Michael Pyeatt is a member of this team. I am extremely proud of my grandson and his teammates' accomplishments, and inspired by their steadfast efforts to achieve their goal. It is therefore my pleasure to once again extend my congratulations to the players and coaches of the Brazoswood Buccaneers baseball team on the occasion of being named the Texas State 5-A Champions.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing two pieces of legislation to help the increasing number of Americans who, because of the Government-created recession, have lost their jobs. The first piece of legislation, the Unemployed Tax Relief, makes a laid-off worker's last paycheck tax free. The second bill, the Unemployment Assistance Act, allows the unemployed to make penalty-free withdrawals from accounts such as Roth IRAs or 401(k)s, to cover routine living expenses, health care expenses, or to help pay for education and job training. Those who make these penalty-free withdrawals while unemployed will be able to replenish their accounts once they have started a new job. Mr. Speaker, while we may disagree on the best solutions to the economic crisis gripping the Nation, I hope my colleagues will at least agree on these common-sense measures and cosponsor the Unemployed Tax Relief Act and the Unemployment Assistance Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today I wish to recognize the achievements of Arthur J. Janecka. This month Arthur will retire after spending more than 45 years with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Arthur, or as his friends refer to him, ``Art'' serves as the Deputy District Engineer, Chief of Program and Project Management for the USACE's Galveston District. As the congressional representative of a large coastal district, I have had the privilege of working with Art on a wide range of coastal navigation issues. Like so many others, I have always been deeply impressed with his dedication to his job. His retirement, though richly deserved, will be a tremendous loss for both the Army Corps and the people of south Texas. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Galveston District was established in 1880 to create deep-water ports along the Texas Coast. Today, the Galveston District's boundaries extend through the entire coast of Texas and 150 miles inland. As a dedicated servant with the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Art has carried out its mission of protecting the environment, reducing flooding, and ensuring that the nearby waterways are easy to navigate. Art began his career with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as an intern in 1964, after graduating from Lamar University in Beaumont, TX. In 1966, he was assigned to the Texas Coast Hurricane Study in the Planning Branch of the Engineering Division. And in 1969 he became a member of the Society of American Military Engineers. Art joined the Programs Management Branch in 1973 and became Chief of the Branch in 1987. In 2000, he moved to the Project Management Branch of the Program and Project Management Division to serve as chief. In 2005, he was assigned to his current position. Throughout his career, Art has been involved with many Corps projects along the coast of Texas, including Brazos Island Harbor; Corpus Christi Ship Channel; Freeport Harbor; the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway; the Houston and Galveston Ship Channels; and the Sabine Neches Waterway. It is clear that Art Janecka has been a tremendous asset to not only the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, but the entire State of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to thank Arthur J. Janecka for more than 45 years of service to this country.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in strong support for H. Con. Res. 51. We need to pass this resolution to send a very strong message. We have been told by those who oppose this message that we should not have an abrupt withdrawal from the region, but I would strongly suggest that what we should be talking about is the abrupt and illegal entry into war. That's what we have to stop. Since we went in abruptly and illegally, we need to abruptly leave. It has also been said by those who oppose this resolution that they concede that Congress should assume its prerogatives over the war powers but to do it gradually. I would strongly suggest that when we took our oath of office we assumed that radically and suddenly. We took an oath of office to obey the Constitution, not to defer to the United Nations, and that we already have assumed that responsibility. I would also suggest, if we do nothing, if we do not pass this resolution, it is the sin of omission that we commit.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this extension of the three provisions of the misnamed PATRIOT Act. It is a travesty that the House and Senate leadership bring this measure to the floor at the 11th hour--just as the provisions are on the verge of sunsetting-- hide it as an amendment to an unrelated Senate bill, and issue all manner of alarmist warnings that if we do not pass it without delay a terrorist attack is imminent. No amendments were allowed, nor were substantive opportunities to engage in a broader debate on the three measures being extended. Let us be clear about one thing: the PATRIOT Act is unconstitutional. The three measures that were extended today were the most controversial sections of the original bill, which is why the sunset provisions for these were built into in the original bill in the first place. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is clear on these issues: ``The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'' Section 206 and Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, which the House is renewing today, remove that particularity requirement, allowing massive surveillance of American citizens' most private and personal effects. These sections, along with the never used ``Lone Wolf' provision are unnecessary, they do not protect us against terrorism, and they should be allowed to sunset. There is little evidence the PATRIOT Act has directly led to the conviction of anyone on serious terrorism charges, but there is plenty of evidence that federal agencies have repeatedly used its provisions to unnecessarily spy on American citizens. I remain most strongly opposed to the PATRIOT Act and any such attack on the civil liberties of American citizens. Such measures may be well- intentioned and put in place under the belief that the sacrifice of liberty is required for our safety, but nothing could be further from the truth.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Evacuees Tax Relief Act of 2011, legislation providing tax relief to those forced to abandon their homes because of a natural disaster. This legislation provides a tax credit or a tax deduction, depending on the wishes of the taxpayer, of up to $5,000 for costs incurred because of a government-ordered mandatory or voluntary evacuation. Evacuees could use the credit to cover travel and lodging expenses associated with the evacuation, lost wages, property damages not otherwise compensated, and any other evacuation-related expenses. The tax credit is refundable up to the amount of income and payroll taxes a person would otherwise pay, thus ensuring working people who pay more in payroll than in income taxes are able to benefit from this tax relief. The credit is available retroactive to December of 2010, so it is available to those who where evacuated because of this springs' wildfires, tornadoes, and floods. Having lived in the Gulf Coast of Texas for almost 50 years, I have firsthand experience with the burdens faced by those forced to uproot themselves and their families because of a natural disaster. Evacuees incur great costs in getting to safety, as well as loss from the storm damage. It can take many months, and even years, to fully recover from the devastation of a natural disaster. Given the unpredictable nature of natural disasters such as hurricanes and tornados, it is difficult for most families to adequately budget for these costs. The Evacuees Tax Relief Act helps Americans manage the fiscal costs of a natural disaster. Mr. Speaker, with the 2011 hurricane season now upon us, it is hard to think of a more timely and more compassionate tax relief proposal than one aimed at helping families cope with the costs associated with being uprooted from their homes, jobs, and communities by a natural disaster. I hope all my colleagues will show compassion for those forced to flee their homes by cosponsoring the Evacuees Tax Relief Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce two pieces of legislation restoring the First Amendment rights of consumers to receive truthful information regarding the benefits of foods and dietary supplements. The first bill, the Health Freedom Restoration Act, codifies the First Amendment by ending the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s efforts to censor truthful health claims. The second bill, the Freedom of Health Speech Act, codifies the First and Fifth Amendment by requiring the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to prove that health claims are false before it takes action to stop manufacturers and marketers from making the claims. The American people have made it clear they do not want the federal government to interfere with their access to dietary supplements, yet the FDA and the FTC continue to engage in heavy-handed attempts to restrict such access. The FDA continues to frustrate consumers' efforts to learn how they can improve their health even after Congress, responding to a record number of constituents' comments, passed the Dietary Supplement and Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA). FDA bureaucrats are so determined to frustrate consumers' access to truthful information that they are even evading their duty to comply with four federal court decisions vindicating consumers' First Amendment rights to discover the health benefits of foods and dietary supplements. FDA bureaucrats have even refused to abide by the DSHEA section allowing the public to have access to scientific articles and publications regarding the role of nutrients in treating diseases by claiming that every article concerning this topic is evidence of intent to sell an unapproved and unlawful drug. Because of the FDA's censorship of truthful health claims, millions of Americans may suffer with diseases and other health care problems they may have avoided by using dietary supplements. For example, the FDA prohibited consumers from learning how folic acid reduces the risk of neural tube defects for four years after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended every woman of childbearing age take folic acid supplements to reduce neural tube defects. This FDA action contributed to an estimated 10,000 cases of preventable neural tube defects. The FDA also continues to prohibit consumers from learning about the scientific evidence that glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate are effective in the treatment of osteoarthritis; that omega-3 fatty acids may reduce the risk of sudden death heart attack; that calcium may reduce the risk of bone fractures; and that vitamin D may reduce the risk of osteoporosis, hypertension, and cancer. The Health Freedom Restoration Act will force the FDA to at last comply with the commands of Congress, the First Amendment, numerous federal courts, and the American people by codifying the First Amendment prohibition on prior restraint. Specifically, the Health Freedom Restoration Act stops the FDA from censoring truthful claims about the curative, mitigative, or preventative effects of dietary supplements. The Health Freedom Restoration Act also stops the FDA from prohibiting the distribution of scientific articles and publications regarding the role of nutrients in protecting against disease. The FDA has proven that it cannot be trusted to protect consumers' rights to make informed choices. It is time for Congress to stop the FDA from censoring truthful health information. The Freedom of Health Speech Act addresses the FTC's violations of the First Amendment. Under traditional constitutional standards, the federal government bears the burden of proving an advertising statement false before censoring that statement. However, the FTC shifted the burden of proof to industry. The FTC presumes health advertizing is false and compels private parties to prove the ads (and everything the regulators say the ads imply) to be true to a near conclusive degree. This violation of the First and Fifth Amendments is harming consumers by blocking innovation in the health foods and dietary supplement marketplace. The Freedom of Health Speech Act requires the government actually prove that speech is false before the FTC acts against the speaker. This is how it should be in a free society where information flows freely in order to foster the continuous improvement that benefits us all. The bill also requires that the FTC warn parties that their advertising is false and give them a chance to correct their mistakes before the FTC censors the claim and imposes other punishments. Mr. Speaker, if we are serious about putting people in charge of their health care, then shouldn't we stop federal bureaucrats from preventing Americans from learning about simple ways to improve their health. I therefore call on my colleagues to stand up for good health and the Constitution by cosponsoring the Health Freedom Restoration Act and the Freedom of Health Speech Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the last nail is being driven into the coffin of the American Republic. Yet Congress remains in total denial as our liberties are rapidly fading before our eyes. The process is propelled by unwarranted fear and ignorance as to the true meaning of liberty. It is driven by economic myths, fallacies, and irrational good intentions. The rule of law is constantly rejected and authoritarian answers are offered as panaceas for all our problems. Runaway welfarism is used to benefit the rich at the expense of the middle class. Who would have ever thought that the current generation and Congress would stand idly by and watch such a rapid disintegration of the American Republic? Characteristic of this epic event is the casual acceptance by the people and the political leaders of the unitary Presidency, which is equivalent to granting dictatorial powers to the President. Our Presidents can now, on their own: order assassinations, including American citizens; operate secret military tribunals; engage in torture; enforce indefinite imprisonment without due process; order searches and seizures without proper warrants, gutting the Fourth Amendment; ignore the 60-day rule for reporting to the Congress the nature of any military operations as required by the War Powers Resolution; continue the Patriot Act abuses without oversight; wage war at will; treat all Americans as suspected terrorists at airports with TSA groping and nude x-raying. And the Federal Reserve accommodates by counterfeiting the funds needed and not paid for by taxation and borrowing, permitting runaway spending, endless debt, and special interest bailouts. And all of this is not enough. The abuses and usurpations of the war power are soon to be codified in the National Defense Authorization Act now rapidly moving its way through Congress. Instead of repealing the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force, as we should now that bin Laden is dead and gone, Congress is planning to massively increase the war power of the President. Though an opportunity presents itself to end the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, Congress, with bipartisan support, obsesses on how to expand the unconstitutional war power the President already holds. The current proposal would allow a President to pursue war any time, any place, for any reason, without congressional approval. Many believe this would even permit military activity against American suspects here at home. The proposed authority does not reference the 9/11 attacks. It would be expanded to include the Taliban and ``associated'' forces, a dangerously vague and expansive definition of our potential enemies. There is no denial that the changes in section 1034 totally eliminate the hard-fought-for restraint on Presidential authority to go to war without congressional approval achieved at the Constitutional Convention. Congress' war authority has been severely undermined since World War II, beginning with the advent of the Korean War, which was fought solely under a U.N. resolution. Even today we're waging war in Libya without even consulting with the Congress, similar to how we went to war in Bosnia in the 1990s under President Clinton. The three major reasons for our Constitutional Convention were to: guarantee free trade and travel among the States; make gold and silver legal tender and abolish paper money; and strictly limit the executive branch's authority to pursue war without congressional approval. But today: Federal Reserve notes are legal tender, gold and silver are illegal; the Interstate Commerce Clause is used to regulate all commerce at the expense of free trade among the States; and now the final nail is placed in the coffin of congressional responsibility for the war power, delivering this power completely to the President--a sharp and huge blow to the concept of our Republic. In my view, it appears that the fate of the American Republic is now sealed, unless these recent trends are quickly reversed. The saddest part of this tragedy is that all these horrible changes are being done in the name of patriotism and protecting freedom. They are justified by good intentions while believing the sacrifice of liberty is required for our safety. Nothing could be further from the truth. More sad is the conviction that our enemies are driven to attack us for our freedoms and prosperity, and not because of our deeply flawed foreign policy that has generated justifiable grievances and has inspired the radical violence against us. Without this understanding, our endless, unnamed, and undeclared wars will continue and our wonderful experiment with liberty will end.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, this month towns across Texas will commemorate Motorcycle Safety and Awareness Month, which is designed to increase awareness of the unique safety issues facing motorcyclists. Starting in 2003, the Texas Confederation of Clubs began obtaining Proclamations from Texas towns recognizing Motorcycle Safety and Awareness Month and encouraging all drivers to educate themselves about motorcycle safety issues. In 2010, Proclamations were issued in 178 cities and 11 counties all over the State of Texas and Governor Rick Perry read a Motorcycle Safety Awareness Proclamation at the state capital. The 2011 Texas Motorcycle Safety and Awareness Month kicked off with the Texas Department of Transportation placing Share the Road and Watch for Motorcycles on all of their billboards all over Texas during the last week of April and the first week of May. Mr. Speaker, since the Texas Confederation of Clubs began promoting Texas Motorcycle Safety and Awareness Month, Motorcycle fatalities have decreased by 18 percent. It is therefore my pleasure to recognize Texas Motorcycle Safety and Awareness Month and to extend my appreciation to the members of the Texas Confederation of Clubs for all their work to promote motorcycle safety.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation that allows the shipment and distribution of unpasteurized milk and milk products for human consumption across state lines. This legislation removes an unconstitutional restraint on farmers who wish to sell or otherwise distribute, and people who wish to consume, unpasteurized milk and milk products. Hard as it is to believe, the federal government is actually spending time and money prosecuting small businesses for the ``crime'' of meeting their customers' demand for unpasteurized milk! Recently the Food and Drug Administration conducted a year-long sting operation targeting Rainbow Acres Farms in Pennsylvania. As a result of this action, Rainbow Acres' customers will no longer be able to purchase unpasteurized milk from this small Amish farm. Mr. Speaker, many Americans who the government wishes to deny the ability to purchase unpasteurized milk have done their own research and come to the conclusion that unpasteurized milk is healthier than pasteurized milk. These Americans have the right to consume these products without having the federal government second-guess their judgment about what products best promote health. If there are legitimate concerns about the safety of unpasteurized milk, those concerns should be addressed at the state and local level. I urge my colleagues to join me in promoting individual rights, the original intent of the Constitution, and federalism by cosponsoring my legislation to allow the interstate shipment of unpasteurized milk and milk products for human consumption.

Mr. PAUL

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

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, Osama bin Laden applauded the 9/11 attacks. Such an act of deliberate killing of innocent lives deserves retribution. It is good that bin Laden is dead and justice is served. Targeted retribution is far superior to wars of aggression and nation- building. In 2001, I supported giving the President authority to punish those responsible for the vicious 9/11 attacks. Using this authority and opportunity to pursue nation-building and remaking the Middle East was cynical and dangerous, as the past 10 years have proven. The sad tragedy is that it took 10 years, trillions of dollars, tens of thousands of American casualties and many thousands of innocent lives to achieve our mission of killing one evil person. A narrow, targeted mission under these circumstances is far superior to initiating wars against countries not involved in the 9/11 attacks. This was the reason I emphasized at the time the principles of marque and reprisal, provided to us by the Constitution for difficult missions such as we faced. I am convinced that this approach would have achieved our goal much sooner and much cheaper. The elimination of Osama bin Laden should now prompt us to bring our troops home from Afghanistan and Iraq. Al Qaeda was never in Iraq, and we were supposedly in Afghanistan to get Osama bin Laden. With bin Laden gone, there is no reason for our presence in this region, unless indeed it was all about oil, nation-building and remaking the Middle East and Central Asia. Hopefully, bin Laden does not get the last laugh. He claimed the 9/11 attacks were designed to, number one, get America to spread its military dangerously and excessively throughout the Middle East; two, to cause political dissension within the United States. Seventy percent of the American people now believe we should leave Afghanistan, yet both parties seem destined to stay; and number three, to bankrupt America through excessive military spending, as he did to the Soviets. The best thing we can do is prove bin Laden to be a false prophet. We must learn from this recent history. Tragically, one result may be the acceptance of torture as a legitimate tool for pursuing our foreign policy. A free society calling itself a republic should never succumb to such evil. With regard to foreign aid to Pakistan, the fact that bin Laden was safely protected for 10 years in Pakistan should make us question the wisdom of robbing American citizens to support any government around the world with foreign aid. Our failed foreign policy is reflected in our bizarre relationship with Pakistan. We bomb them with our drones, causing civilian casualties, we give them billions of dollars in foreign aid, and she protects America's enemy number one, bin Laden, for a decade. It is time to consider a sensible, non-interventionist foreign policy as advised by our founders and authorized by our Constitution. We would all be better off for it.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak about Hemp History Week. To celebrate the American heritage of growing industrial hemp, the Hemp Industries Association, Vote Hemp, American manufacturers, and allied companies and organizations have declared May 2 to May 8, 2011 to be Hemp History Week. Throughout the week, people will recognize America's legacy of industrial hemp farming and call for reinstating respect for farmers' basic right to grow industrial hemp. Industrial hemp was legally grown throughout our country for many years. In fact, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson grew industrial hemp and used it to make cloth. During World War II, the federal government encouraged American farmers to grow hemp to help the war effort. Despite industrial hemp farming being an important part of American history, the federal government has banned cultivation of this crop. In every other industrialized country, industrial hemp, defined to contain less than 0.3 percent THC--the psychoactive chemical found in marijuana, may be legally grown. Nobody can be psychologically affected by consuming industrial hemp. Unfortunately, because of a federal policy that does not distinguish between growing industrial hemp and growing marijuana, all industrial hemp must be imported. The result is high prices, outsourced jobs, and lost opportunities for American manufacturing. Reintroducing industrial hemp farming in the United States would bring jobs to communities struggling in today's economy, provide American farmers with another crop alternative, and encourage the development of hemp processing factories near American hemp farming. Industrial hemp is used in many products. For example, industrial hemp is used in protein supplements, non-dairy milk, and frozen desserts. Hemp flour is in breads, crackers, chips, dips, and dressings. Hemp seeds may be eaten plain or added to prepared foods. Additionally, hemp oil is used in a number of cosmetic and body care products, and hemp fiber is used in cloths. Industrial hemp is also present in bio-composite materials used in buildings and automobiles. I first introduced the Industrial Hemp Farming Act six years ago to end the federal government's ban on American farmers growing industrial hemp. Since then, the industrial hemp industry has grown much larger. Despite its American history, industrial hemp is the only crop that we can buy and sell but not farm in the United States. The federal government should change the law to allow American farmers to grow this profitable crop as American farmers have through most of our nation's history. I plan to reintroduce the Industrial Hemp Farming Act next week. Please cosponsor the Industrial Hemp Farming Act and join me in celebrating Hemp History Week.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to congratulate the parishioners of Newman Chapel United Methodist Church of Kendleton, Texas, on the opening of their new multipurpose worship center. The Center opened this past Sunday, March 27th. Established in approximately 1872, Newman Chapel was the first Methodist Church organized in the Kendleton. Originally, parishioners meet by the San Bernard River under the old oak trees. Services were held at the river until 1874 when the parishioners constructed a log cabin that served as both a place for worship and a school. Newman Chapel may have come a long way from its roots in a gathering of believers by the San Bernard River, but what has never changed is the parishioners' and staff's commitment to the mission of building a spirit-filled community church of believers. The new worship center will enhance the Church's ability to carry out this mission by providing a more spacious and comfortable location for worship and other traditional church activities. The new multipurpose center will also be used for new ministries and needed services to all the people of Kendleton. Some of the new programs planned include a Sunday morning breakfast and bible study, a senior daycare center, after school tutorials and programs to provide nutritious food to Kendleton's low- income population. In conclusion, I once again extend my congratulations to the parishioners and staff of Newman Chapel United Methodist Church on the opening of their new multi-purpose worship center. I am certain all of Newman Chapel's parishioners as well as the community of Kendleton will benefit from the worship center.

Mr. PAUL

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

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to congratulate the parishioners of Newman Chapel United Methodist Church of Kendleton, Texas, on the opening of their new multipurpose worship center. The Center opened this past Sunday, March 27th. Established in approximately 1872, Newman Chapel was the first Methodist Church organized in the Kendleton. Originally, parishioners met by the San Bernard River under the old oak trees. Services were held at the river until 1874 when the parishioners constructed a log cabin that severed as both as a place for worship and a school. Newman Chapel may have come a long way from its roots in a gathering of believers by the San Bernard River, but what has never changed is the parishioners and staff's commitment to the mission of building a spirit-filled community church of believers. The new worship center will enhance the Church's ability to carry out this mission by providing a more spacious and comfortable location for worship and other traditional church activities. The new multipurpose center will also be used for new ministries and needed services to the all the people of Kendleton. Some of the new programs planed include a Sunday morning breakfast and bible study, a senior daycare center, after school tutorials and programs to provide nutritious food to Kendleton's low-income population. In conclusion, I once again extend my congratulations to the parishioners and staff of Newman Chapel United Methodist Church on the opening of their new multi-purpose worship center. I am certain all of Newman Chapel's parishioners as well as the community of Kendelton will benefit from the worship center.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Thrift Savings Fund Improvement Act. This legislation expands the investment options available to congressional and other federal employees by creating a precious metals investment fund in the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP). Adding a precious metals fund to the TSP will enhance the plan's ability to offer congressional employees a wide range of investment options that can provide financial security even during difficult economic conditions. The Thrift Savings Plan is one of the most important benefits offered to Congressional employees. A strong TSP can obviously play a key role in attracting and retaining talented individuals to serve in the legislative branch. Adding a precious metals option will strengthen the TSP. In the last year, the price of gold rose by over 23 percent and silver by over 94 percent, while the Dow Jones and S&P 500 each only rose by around 8.5 percent. Recent gains aside, precious metals have a number of features that make them a sound part of a prudent investment strategy. In particular, inflation does not erode the value of precious metals is not eroded over time. Thus, precious metals can serve as a valuable ``inflation hedge.'' Precious metals also maintain, or even increase, their value during times of stock market instability, such as what the country is currently experiencing. Thus, investments in precious metals can help ensure that an investment portfolio maintains its value during times of economic instability. Federal employees could greatly benefit from the protection against inflation and economic downturns provided by prudent investments in precious metals. I therefore once again urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Thrift Savings Fund Improvement Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentleman. The question we are facing today is, should we leave Afghanistan? I think the answer is very clear, and it's not complicated. Of course we should, as soon as we can. This suggests that we can leave by the end of the year. If we don't, we'll be there for another decade, would be my prediction. The American people are now with us. A group of us here in the Congress, a bipartisan group, for nearly a decade have been talking about this, arguing not to expand the war, not to be over there, not to be in nation building. And the American people didn't pay much attention. Now they are. The large majority of the American people now say it's time to get out of Afghanistan. It's a fruitless venture. Too much has been lost. The chance of winning, since we don't even know what we are going to win, doesn't exist. So they are tired of it. Financially, there's a good reason to come home as well. Some argue we have to be there because if we leave under these circumstances we'll lose face; it will look embarrassing to leave. So how many more men and women have to die, how many more dollars have to be spent to save face? That is one of the worst arguments possible. We are not there under legal conditions. This is a war. Who says it isn't a war? Everybody talks about the Afghan war. Was the war declared? Of course not. It wasn't declared. There was a resolution passed that said that the President at that time, under the emergency of 9/11, could go and deal with al Qaeda, those who brought upon the 9/ 11 bombings. But al Qaeda is not there anymore. So we are fighting the Taliban. The Taliban used to be our allies at one time when the Soviets were there. The Taliban's main goal is to keep the foreign occupation out. They want foreigners out of their country. They are not al Qaeda. Yet most Americans--maybe less so now. But the argument here on the floor is we have got to go after al Qaeda. This is not a war against al Qaeda. If anything, it gives the incentive for al Qaeda to grow in numbers rather than dealing with them. The money issue, we are talking about a lot of money. How much do we spend a year? Probably about $130 billion, up to $1 trillion now in this past decade. Later on in the day, we are going to have two votes. We are going to have a vote on doing something sensible, making sense out of our foreign policy, bringing our troops home and saving hundreds of billions of dollars. Then we also will have a vote against NPR, to cut the funding of NPR. There is a serious question about whether that will even cut one penny. But at least the fiscal conservatives are going to be overwhelmingly in support of slashing NPR, and then go home and brag about how they are such great fiscal conservatives. And the very most they might save is $10 million, and that's their claim to fame for slashing the budget. At the same time, they won't consider for a minute cutting a real significant amount of money. All empires end for fiscal reasons because they spread themselves too far around the world, and that's what we are facing. We are in the midst of a military conflict that is contributing to this inevitable crisis and it's financial. And you would think there would be a message there. How did the Soviets come down? By doing the very same thing that we're doing: perpetual occupation of a country. We don't need to be occupying Afghanistan or any other country. We don't even need to be considering going into Libya or anywhere else. Fortunately, I guess for those of us who would like to see less of this killing, we will have to quit because we won't be able to afford it. The process that we are going through is following the War Powers Resolution. This is a proper procedure. It calls attention to how we slip into these wars. I have always claimed that it's the way we get into the wars that is the problem. If we would be precise and only go to war with a declaration of war, with the people behind us, knowing who the enemy is, and fight, win, and get it over with, that would be more legitimate. They don't do it now because the American people wouldn't support it. Nobody is going to declare war against Afghanistan or Iraq or Libya. We now have been so careless for the past 50 or 60 years that, as a Congress and especially as a House, we have reneged on our responsibilities. We have avoided our prerogatives of saying that we have the control. We have control of the purse. We have control of when we are supposed to go to war. Yet the wars continue. They never stop. And we are going to be completely brought down to our knees. We can't change Afghanistan. The people who are bragging about these changes, even if you could, you are not supposed to. You don't have the moral authority. You don't have the constitutional authority.

Mr. PAUL. So I would say, the sooner, the better, we can come home. This process says come home. Under the law, it says you should start bringing troops home within 30 days. This allows up to the end of the year after this would be passed. But this needs to be done. A message needs to be sent. And some day we have to wake up and say, if you are a fiscal conservative, you ought to look at the waste. This is military Keynesianism to believe that we should do this forever. So I would say this is the day to be on record and vote for this resolution.

Mr. PAUL

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

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Free Competition in Currency Act. Currency, or money, is what allows civilization to flourish. In the absence of money, barter is the name of the game; if the farmer needs shoes, he must trade his eggs and milk to the cobbler and hope that the cobbler needs eggs and milk. Money makes the transaction process far easier. Rather than having to search for someone with reciprocal wants, the farmer can exchange his milk and eggs for an agreed-upon medium of exchange with which he can then purchase shoes. This medium of exchange should satisfy certain properties: it should be durable, that is to say, it does not wear out easily; it should be portable, that is, easily carried; it should be divisible into units usable for everyday transactions; it should be recognizable and uniform, so that one unit of money has the same properties as every other unit; it should be scarce, in the economic sense, so that the extant supply does not satisfy the wants of everyone demanding it; it should be stable, so that the value of its purchasing power does not fluctuate wildly; and it should be reproducible, so that enough units of money can be created to satisfy the needs of exchange. Over millennia of human history, gold and silver have been the two metals that have most often satisfied these conditions, survived the market process, and gained the trust of billions of people. Gold and silver are difficult to counterfeit, a property which ensures they will always be accepted in commerce. It is precisely for this reason that gold and silver are anathema to governments. A supply of gold and silver that is limited in supply by nature cannot be inflated, and thus serves as a check on the growth of government. Without the ability to inflate the currency, governments find themselves constrained in their actions, unable to carry on wars of aggression or to appease their overtaxed citizens with bread and circuses. At this country's founding, there was no government controlled national currency. While the Constitution established the congressional power of minting coins, it was not until 1792 that the U.S. Mint was formally established. In the meantime, Americans made do with foreign silver and gold coins. Even after the Mint's operations got underway, foreign coins continued to circulate within the United States, and did so for several decades. On the desk in my office I have a sign that says: ``Don't steal--the government hates competition.'' Indeed, any power a government arrogates to itself, it is loathe to give back to the people. Just as we have gone from a constitutionally-instituted national defense consisting of a limited army and navy bolstered by militias and letters of marque and reprisal, we have moved from a system of competing currencies to a government-instituted banking cartel that monopolizes the issuance of currency. In order to introduce a system of competing currencies, there are three steps that must be taken to produce a legal climate favorable to competition. The first step consists of eliminating legal tender laws. Article I Section 10 of the Constitution forbids the States from making anything but gold and silver a legal tender in payment of debts. States are not required to enact legal tender laws, but should they choose to, the only acceptable legal tender is gold and silver, the two precious metals that individuals throughout history and across cultures have used as currency. However, there is nothing in the Constitution that grants the Congress the power to enact legal tender laws. We, the Congress, have the power to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, but not to declare a legal tender. Yet, there is a section of U.S. Code, 31 U.S.C. 5103, that purports to establish U.S. coins and currency, including Federal Reserve notes, as legal tender. Historically, legal tender laws have been used by governments to force their citizens to accept debased and devalued currency. Gresham's Law describes this phenomenon, which can be summed up in one phrase: bad money drives out good money. An emperor, a king, or a dictator might mint coins with half an ounce of gold and force merchants, under pain of death, to accept them as though they contained one ounce of gold. Each ounce of the king's gold could now be minted into two coins instead of one, so the king now had twice as much ``money'' to spend on building castles and raising armies. As these legally overvalued coins circulated, the coins containing the full ounce of gold would be pulled out of circulation and hoarded. We saw this same phenomenon happen in the mid-1960s when the U.S. government began to mint subsidiary coinage out of copper and nickel rather than silver. The copper and nickel coins were legally overvalued, the silver coins undervalued in relation, and silver coins vanished from circulation. These actions also give rise to the most pernicious effects of inflation. Most of the merchants and peasants who received this devalued currency felt the full effects of inflation, the rise in prices and the lowered standard of living, before they received any of the new currency. By the time they received the new currency, prices had long since doubled, and the new currency they received would give them no benefit. In the absence of legal tender laws, Gresham's Law no longer holds. If people are free to reject debased currency, and instead demand sound money, sound money will gradually return to use in society. Merchants would have been free to reject the king's coin and accept only coins containing full metal weight. The second step to reestablishing competing currencies is to eliminate laws that prohibit the operation of private mints. One private enterprise which attempted to popularize the use of precious metal coins was Liberty Services, the creators of the Liberty Dollar. Evidently the government felt threatened, as Liberty Dollars had all their precious metal coins seized by the FBI and Secret Service in November of 2007. Of course, not all of these coins were owned by Liberty Services, as many were held in trust as backing for silver and gold certificates which Liberty Services issued. None of this matters, of course, to the government, who hates to see any competition. The sections of U.S. Code which Liberty Services is accused of violating are erroneously considered to be anti-counterfeiting statutes, when in fact their purpose was to shut down private mints that had been operating in California. California was awash in gold in the aftermath of the 1849 gold rush, yet had no U.S. Mint to mint coinage. There was not enough foreign coinage circulating in California either, so private mints stepped into the breech to provide their own coins. As was to become the case in other industries during the Progressive era, the private mints were eventually accused of circulating debased (substandard) coinage, and with the supposed aim of providing government-sanctioned regulation and a government guarantee of purity, the 1864 Coinage Act was passed, which banned private mints from producing their own coins for circulation as currency. The final step to ensuring competing currencies is to eliminate capital gains and sales taxes on gold and silver coins. Under current federal law, coins are considered collectibles, and are liable for capital gains taxes. Short-term capital gains rates are at income tax levels, up to 35 percent, while long-term capital gains taxes are assessed at the collectibles rate of 28 percent. Furthermore, these taxes actually tax monetary debasement. As the dollar weakens, the nominal dollar value of gold increases. The purchasing power of gold may remain relatively constant, but as the nominal dollar value increases, the federal government considers this an increase in wealth, and taxes accordingly. Thus, the more the dollar is debased, the more capital gains taxes must be paid on holdings of gold and other precious metals. Just as pernicious are the sales and use taxes which are assessed on gold and silver at the state level in many states. Imagine having to pay sales tax at the bank every time you change a $10 bill for a roll of quarters to do laundry. Inflation is a pernicious tax on the value of money, but even the official numbers, which are massaged downwards, are only on the order of 4 percent per year. Sales taxes in many states can take away 8 percent or more on every single transaction in which consumers wish to convert their Federal Reserve Notes into gold or silver. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, allowing for competing currencies will allow market participants to choose a currency that suits their needs, rather than the needs of the government. The prospect of American citizens turning away from the dollar towards alternate currencies will provide the necessary impetus to the U.S. government to regain control of the dollar and halt its downward spiral. Restoring soundness to the dollar will remove the government's ability and incentive to inflate the currency, and keep us from launching unconstitutional wars that burden our economy to excess. With a sound currency, everyone is better off, not just those who control the monetary system. I urge my colleagues to consider the redevelopment of a system of competing currencies and cosponsor the Free Competition in Currency Act.

Mr. PAUL

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

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation to restore financial stability to America's economy by abolishing the Federal Reserve. Since the creation of the Federal Reserve, middle- and working-class Americans have been victimized by a boom-and-bust monetary policy. In addition, most Americans have suffered a steadily eroding purchasing power because of the Federal Reserve's inflationary policies. This represents a real, if hidden, tax imposed on the American people. From the Great Depression, to the stagflation of the seventies, to the current economic crisis caused by the housing bubble, every economic downturn suffered by this country over the past century can be traced to Federal Reserve policy. The Fed has followed a consistent policy of flooding the economy with easy money, leading to a misallocation of resources and an artificial ``boom'' followed by a recession or depression when the Fed-created bubble bursts. With a stable currency, American exporters will no longer be held hostage to an erratic monetary policy. Stabilizing the currency will also give Americans new incentives to save as they will no longer have to fear inflation eroding their savings. Those members concerned about increasing America's exports or the low rate of savings should be enthusiastic supporters of this legislation. Though the Federal Reserve policy harms the average American, it benefits those in a position to take advantage of the cycles in monetary policy. The main beneficiaries are those who receive access to artificially inflated money and/or credit before the inflationary effects of the policy impact the entire economy. Federal Reserve policies also benefit big spending politicians who use the inflated currency created by the Fed to hide the true costs of the welfare- warfare state. It is time for Congress to put the interests of the American people ahead of special interests and their own appetite for big government. Abolishing the Federal Reserve will allow Congress to reassert its constitutional authority over monetary policy. The United States Constitution grants to Congress the authority to coin money and regulate the value of the currency. The Constitution does not give Congress the authority to delegate control over monetary policy to a central bank. Furthermore, the Constitution certainly does not empower the federal government to erode the American standard of living via an inflationary monetary policy. In fact, Congress' constitutional mandate regarding monetary policy should only permit currency backed by stable commodities such as silver and gold to be used as legal tender. Therefore, abolishing the Federal Reserve and returning to a constitutional system will enable America to return to the type of monetary system envisioned by our nation's founders: one where the value of money is consistent because it is tied to a commodity such as gold. Such a monetary system is the basis of a true free-market economy. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stand up for working Americans by putting an end to the manipulation of the money supply which erodes Americans' standard of living, enlarges big government, and enriches well-connected elites, by cosponsoring my legislation to abolish the Federal Reserve.