Ron Paul

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Affordable Gas Price Act. This legislation reduces gas prices by reforming government policies that artificially inflate the price of gas. Because of a number of factors, including the instability in the Middle East, the average price of gas has risen approximately 13% since the beginning of the year. In some areas, the price of gas is approaching $4.00 per gallon. There is thus a real possibility that the American people will soon be once again hard hit by skyrocketing gas prices. High gas prices threaten our fragile economy and diminishes the quality of life for all Americans. One industry that is particularly hard hit is the trucking industry. The effects of high gas prices on the trucking industry will be reflected in increased costs for numerous consumer goods, thus further harming American consumers. Unfortunately, many proposals to address the problem of higher energy prices involve increasing government interference in the market through policies such as price controls. These big government solutions will, at best, prove ineffective and, at worst, bring back the fuel shortages and gas lines of the seventies. Instead of expanding government, Congress should repeal federal laws and polices that raise the price of gas, either directly through taxes or indirectly though regulations that discourage the development of new fuel sources. This is why my legislation repeals the federal moratorium on offshore drilling and allows oil exploration in the ANWR reserve in Alaska. My bill also ensures that the National Environmental Policy Act's environmental impact statement requirement will no longer be used as a tool to force refiners to waste valuable time and capital on nuisance litigation. The Affordable Gas Price Act also provides tax incentives to encourage investment in new refineries. Federal fuel taxes are a major part of gasoline's cost. The Affordable Gas Price Act suspends the federal gasoline tax any time the average gas prices exceeds $3.00 per gallon. During the suspension, the federal government will have a legal responsibility to ensure the federal highway trust fund remains funded. My bill also raises the amount of mileage reimbursement not subject to taxes, and, during times of high oil prices, provides the same mileage reimbursement benefit to charity and medical organizations as provided to businesses. Misguided and outdated trade polices are also artificially raising the price of gas. For instance, even though Russia and Kazakhstan allow their citizens the right and opportunity to emigrate, they are still subject to Jackson-Vanik sanctions, even though Jackson-Vanik was a reaction to the Soviet Union's highly restrictive emigration policy. Eliminating Jackson-Vanik's threat of trade-restricting sanctions would increase the United States' access to oil supplies from non-Arab countries. Thus, my bill terminates the application of title IV of the Trade Act of 1974 to Russia and Khazaskin, allowing Americans to enjoy the benefits of free trade with these oil-producing nations. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the Affordable Gas Price Act and end government polices that increase the cost of gasoline.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the End the Mandate Act. This legislation repeals the sections of the health reform law that force all Americans to purchase federally-approved health insurance plans. As two federal courts have ruled, forcing every American to obtain health insurance is a blatant violation of the Constitution. Defenders of this provision claim the Congress's constitutional authority to regulate ``interstate commerce'' gives Congress the power to mandate every American obtain a federally-approved health insurance plan. However, even the broadest definition of ``regulating interstate commerce'' cannot reasonably encompass forcing Americans to engage in commerce by purchasing health insurance. Forcing every American to obtain a congressionally-approved health insurance plan is not just unconstitutional; it is a violation of the basic freedom to make our own decisions regarding how best to meet the health care needs of ourselves and our families. Mr. Speaker, the health care law does not just require Americans to buy health insurance--it forces them to obtain what the federal government decides is ``minimum essential coverage.'' Some people may claim that the requirement to have ``minimal essential coverage'' does not impose an unreasonable burden on Americans. There are two problems with this claim. First, the very imposition of a health insurance mandate, no matter how ``minimal,'' violates the principles of individual liberty upon which this country was founded. Second, the mandate is unlikely to remain ``minimal'' for long. The experience of states that allow their legislatures to mandate what benefits health insurance plans must cover has shown that politicizing health insurance inevitably makes health insurance more expensive. As the cost of government-mandated health insurance rises, Congress will likely respond by increasingly subsidizing health insurance for an ever increasing number of Americans. When the cost of government-mandated insurance proves to be an unsustainable burden on individuals, small employers, and the government, Congress will likely impose price controls on medical treatments, and even go so far as to limit what procedures and treatments mandatory insurance will reimburse. Mr. Speaker, Congress made a grave error by forcing all Americans to purchase health insurance. The mandate violates fundamental principles of individual liberty, and will lead to further government involvement in health care. I therefore ask all of my colleagues to join me in correcting this mistake by cosponsoring the End the Mandate Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Liberty Amendment, which repeals the 16th Amendment, thus paving the way for real change in the way government collects and spends the people's hard-earned money. The Liberty Amendment also explicitly forbids the Federal Government from performing any action not explicitly authorized by the U.S. Constitution. The 16th Amendment gives the Federal Government a direct claim on the lives of American citizens by enabling Congress to levy a direct income tax on individuals. Until the passage of the 16th Amendment, the Supreme Court had consistently held that Congress had no power to impose an income tax. Income taxes are responsible for the transformation of the Federal Government from one of limited powers into a vast leviathan whose tentacles reach into almost every aspect of American life. Thanks to the income tax, today the Federal Government routinely invades our privacy, and penalizes our every endeavor. The Founding Fathers realized that ``the power to tax is the power to destroy,'' which is why they did not give the Federal Government the power to impose an income tax. Needless to say, the Founders would be horrified to know that Americans today give more than a third of their income to the Federal Government. Income taxes not only diminish liberty, they retard economic growth by discouraging work and production. Our current tax system also forces Americans to waste valuable time and money on complacence with an ever- more complex tax code. The increased interest in flat-tax and national sales tax proposals, as well as the increasing number of small businesses that questioning the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) ``withholding'' system provides further proof that America is tired of the labyrinthine tax code. Americans are also increasingly fed up with an IRS that continues to ride roughshod over their civil liberties, despite recent ``pro-taxpayer'' reforms. Mr. Speaker, America survived and prospered for 140 years without an income tax, and with a Federal Government that generally adhered to strictly constitutional functions, operating with modest excise revenues. The income tax opened the door to the era (and errors) of Big Government. I hope my colleagues will help close that door by cosponsoring the Liberty Amendment.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today the Sanctity of Life Act. This legislation provides that the federal courts of the United States, up to and including the Supreme Court, do not have jurisdiction to hear abortion-related cases. Since the Supreme Court invented a ``right'' to abortion in Roe v. Wade, federal judges have repeatedly thwarted efforts by democratically elected officials at the state and local level to protect the unborn. However, the federal courts have no legitimate authority to tell states and local communities what restrictions can and cannot be placed on abortion. Even some intellectually honest supporters of legalized abortion acknowledge that Roe v. Wade was incorrectly decided. Congress must use the authority granted to it in Article 3, Section 1 of the Constitution to rein in rogue federal judges from interfering with a state's ability to protect unborn life. Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that my colleagues will join me in support of using the power granted to the Congress by the Constitution to protect the ability of individual states and the people to restore respect for the sanctity of human life.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Taxpayers' Freedom of Conscience Act, which forbids federal funds from being used for population control or ``family planning.'' President Obama's executive order allowing those who perform and/or promote abortion overseas to receive taxpayer money, as well as the health care law's failure to prevent taxpayer money from being used for abortions, bring new urgency to the need to protect pro-life Americans from being forced to subsidize abortion. It is not enough to say that ``family planning'' groups may not use federal funds to perform or promote abortion. After all, since money is fungible, federal funding of any activities of these organizations forces taxpayers to underwrite the organizations abortion activities. Thus, the Taxpayers' Freedom of Conscience Act is the only way to protect taxpayers from having to support what they ``disbelieve and abhor.'' Thomas Jefferson eloquently made the case for Taxpayer's Freedom of Conscience Act when he said that: ``To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.'' I hope all my colleagues will join me in helping end the ``sinful and tyrannical'' policy of forcing pro-life Americans to subsidize, either directly or indirectly, abortion by cosponsoring the Taxpayer Freedom of Conscience Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce a resolution expressing the sense of the Congress that the President is required to obtain in advance specific statutory authorization for the use of United States Armed Forces in response to civil unrest in Libya. As many in the administration, Congress, and elsewhere clamor for the President to initiate military action to support those seeking to overthrow the Libyan regime, Congress sits by, as usual, pretending that Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution does not exist. According to this long-ignored section, ``The Congress shall have Power To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.'' This is black letter law, not some aspirational statement by our Founders. Their intent was indisputably clear: Congress alone, not the Executive Branch, has the authority and the obligation to declare war if hostilities are to be initiated against a foreign state that has not attacked the United States. Let us be clear about one thing: for the U.S. to take action to establish a ``no fly'' zone over all or part of Libya would constitute an act of war against Libya. For the U.S. to establish any kind of military presence on the sovereign territory, waters, or over the airspace of Libya is to engage in a hostile action that requires Congressional authorization. Whatever we may think about the Gaddafi regime, we must recognize that this is a coup d'etat in a foreign country. What moral right do we have to initiate military action against Libya? Libya has not attacked the United States. Neither the coup leaders nor the regime pose an imminent threat to the United States and therefore, as much as we abhor violence and loss of life, this is simply none of our business. I would remind my colleagues that we have been here before. In the 1990s we established ``no fly'' zones and all manner of sanctions against Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq in an attempt to force him from power. When that did not work--at a high cost in Iraqi lives--the U.S. ultimately went to war to achieve these ends. The costs of this war, I do not need to remind my colleague; was much higher even, in U.S. military lives, in Iraqi civilian lives, in our diminished moral standing in the world, in our economy. Yet none of us seem able to learn from an enormous mistake made only a few years ago. Once again a bad man is doing bad things thousands of miles away and once again irresponsible voices are demanding that the U.S. ``do something'' about it. Will we ever learn? We continue to act as the policemen of the world at our own peril, and as we continue we only accelerate our economic collapse. Let the supporters of yet another war in the Middle East come forth to make their case for a U.S. attack against Libya. I will strongly oppose such a move, but it should be very clear that if a war against Libya is to be initiated it must be declared by the proper Constitutional authority: the U.S. Congress.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. The important question being asked today with regards to foreign policy is should the United States impose a no-fly zone over Libya? There are leaders on both sides of the Capitol and leaders in both parties who are now advising this as well as individuals in the administration. It is my opinion that we should not. It would be foolish, it would have a downside, and we should think very, very carefully before we go expanding the wars that we're already involved in. We're in two major wars with Iraq and Afghanistan, and that involves Pakistan and Yemen already. So to go into Libya now and impose a no-fly zone--we have to remember, a no-fly zone is an act of war. What moral right do we have to participate in war activity against Libya? Libya hasn't done anything to the United States. They're not a threat to our national security. There's been no aggression. There's no constitutional authority for a President to willy-nilly go and start placing no-fly zones over countries around the world. We tried this in the 1990s and did it for 8 or 9 years. We had a no- fly zone, along with sanctions and blockades, around Iraq. Finally, it ended up with war. And the wars were based on lies. And then when that happened they said, yes, but it was well worth it because we got rid of a bad guy. But we also lost close to 4,500 American military people, 30-some thousand suffered severe injuries and hundreds of thousands are applying now for disability because we went to war when we shouldn't have gone to war. To expand this war now makes no sense whatsoever. It's against international law. It challenges the War Powers Resolution. For that reason, we should stop and think. Congress should act. I'm preparing to introduce a resolution next week that it is the sense of Congress that the executive branch can't do this without approval from the Congress. Why should we do this? Do you think it will cost some money? Yes, it is going to cost a ton of money. Innocent people will be killed. You can't just all of a sudden turn a switch and say don't fly over Libya; you have to bomb a lot of anti-aircraft sites and a lot of military establishments, so the war is on. From my viewpoint, this is the kind of thing that has been going on too long. It contributes significantly to our bankruptcy, and we are now spending approximately $1 trillion a year maintaining our empire around the world. We are in the process of remaking all the borders and leadership in the Middle East and Central Asia, and now in North Africa we're getting involved. We have invested $70 billion trying to prop up a dictator in Egypt, and look at how that ended up. Now we are hustling around to find out who the next dictator is. So if we get involved, I'm not sure they even know who to bomb and which one and who is going to come out on top. That is an internal matter. It is a civil war that is going on. We can cheer for one side or the other, but that is not a justification to place the burden on the American people, both militarily and individually, as well as monetarily. Some would say yes, that sounds good, I agree, and as long as we get approval from the U.N. and NATO, it will be okay. But, you know, that is just really a cop-out. What army and air force and technology does the U.N. have, and what does NATO have? You get a resolution at the U.N. that says let's take out this bad guy and do these things, or NATO does it. They are all of our airplanes and all our money. And no matter what, anything and everything that goes wrong, the United States will be blamed for it. There is enough resentment against us already for pretending that we can tell every other country how to live. The best way to look at this, I believe, is how would we as a people and how would we as a Congress respond if we were a weaker nation and there was a stronger nation, if they came and imposed a no-fly zone over us or had sanctions against us or had a blockade. We wouldn't accept that. That would unify us. So I don't buy into this thing that this is the only humanitarian thing we can do, expand the war. If we want to do something for humanity, we need a new foreign policy. We need a foreign policy that isn't built on militarism; it's built on more cooperation and more trade and not picking our dictators. Look at what happened after we picked a dictator for Iran. Sure, it lasted for 25 years or so. But eventually it radicalized the Islamists and they had a revolution, and we came out on the short end of that. So I think it is time that we reassess this and think about a policy that makes a lot more sense. Economically, we need to do it.

Mr. PAUL

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

Mr. PAUL

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

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to help millions of Americans afford higher education by introducing the Make College Affordable Act of 2011, which makes college tuition tax deductible. Today the average cost of a college education is over 30 thousand dollars 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. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce two pieces of legislation that raise the pay of teachers and other educators by cutting their taxes. I am sure that all my colleagues agree that it is long past time to begin treating those who have dedicated their lives to educating America's children with the respect they deserve. Compared to other professionals, educators are under-appreciated and under-paid. This must change if America is to have the finest education system in the world! Quality education is impossible without quality teaching. If we continue to undervalue educators, it will become harder to attract, and keep, good people in the education profession. While educators' pay is primarily a local issue, Congress can, and should, help raise educators' take home pay by reducing educators' taxes. This is why I am introducing the Teachers Tax Cut Act. This legislation provides every teacher in America with a $3,000 tax credit. I am also introducing the Professional Educators Tax Relief Act, which extends the $3,000 tax credit to counselors, librarians, and all school personnel involved in any aspect of the K-12 academic program. The Teacher Tax Cut Act and the Professional Educators Tax Relief Act increase the salaries of teachers and other education professionals without raising federal expenditures. By raising the take-home pay of professional educators, these bills encourage highly qualified people to enter, and remain in, education. These bills also let America's professional educators know that the American people and the Congress respect their work. I hope all my colleagues join me in supporting our nation's teachers and other professional educators by cosponsoring the Teacher Tax Cut Act and the Professional Educators Tax Relief Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chair, both supporters and opponents of H.R. 1 claim that is a serious attempt to reduce federal spending, however, an examination of the details of the bill call that claim into question. For one thing, the often-cited assertion that H.R. 1 reduces spending by $99 billion is misleading as the $99 billion figure represents the amount that H.R. 1 reduces spending from the President's proposed Fiscal Year 2011 budget, not reductions in actual spending. Trying to claim credit for a reduction in spending based on cuts in proposed spending is like claiming someone is following a diet because he had 5 pieces of pizza when he intended to have 10 pieces. In fact, H.R. 1 reduces federal spending by $66 billion. This may seem like a lot to the average American but in the context of an overwhelming trillion-dollar budget and a national debt that could exceed 100 percent of GNP in September, this cut is barely even a drop in the bucket. One reason that H.R. 1 does not cut spending enough is that too many fiscal conservatives continue to embrace the fallacy that we can balance the budget without reducing spending on militarism. Until Congress realizes the folly of spending trillions in a futile attempt to impose democracy on the world we will never be able to seriously reduce spending. Congress must not only reject the warfare state, it must also reject the welfare state. H.R. 1 is more aggressive in ending domestic spending than foreign spending, and does zero out some objectionable federal programs such as AmeriCorps. However, H.R. 1 leaves most of the current functions of the federal government undisturbed. This bill thus continues the delusion that we can have a fiscally responsible and efficient welfare state. Mr. Chair, the failure to even attempt to address the serious threat the welfare-warfare state poses to American liberty and prosperity is the main reason why supporters of limited government and individual liberty should ultimately find H.R. 1 unsatisfactory. Only a rejection of the view that Congress can run the economy, run our lives, and run the world will allow us to make the spending reductions necessary to avert a serious financial crisis. This does not mean we should not prioritize and discuss how to gradually transition away from the welfare state in a manner that does not harm those currently relying on these programs. However, we must go beyond balancing the budget to transitioning back to a free society, and that means eventually placing responsibility for social welfare back in the hands of individuals and private institutions. Despite the overheated rhetoric heard during the debate, H.R. 1 is a diversion from the difficult task of restoring constitutional government and a free economy and society.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. I was opposed to the Patriot Act in 2001, and do not believe now that it is a good idea to extend it. The Fourth Amendment is rather clear. It says that we should be secure in our papers, our persons, our homes, and our effects; and, that if warrants are to be issued, we have to do it with probable cause, and describe in particular the places, the people, and the things that we are going to look at. I think what has happened, though, over the years has been that we have diluted the Fourth Amendment. It was greatly diluted in 2001, but it started a lot earlier than that. When the FISA law was originally written in 1978, that really introduced the notion that the Fourth Amendment was relative and not absolute. Later on, it was further weakened in 1998, and then of course in 2001. I think our reaction to the horrors of 9/11--we can understand the concern and the fear that was developed, but I think the reaction took us in the wrong direction, because the assumption was made of course that we weren't spending enough money on surveillance. Even though then our intelligence agencies received $40 billion, that didn't give us the right information. So now we are spending $80 billion. But it also looks like the conclusion was that the American people had too much privacy, and if we undermine the American people's privacy, somehow or another we are going to be safer. I think another thing that has come up lately has been that the purpose of government is to make us perfectly safe. Now, it is good to be safe, but governments can't make us safe. I question whether or not we have been made safer by the Patriot Act. But let's say a law makes us somewhat safer. Is that a justification for the government to do anything they want? For instance, if you want to be perfectly safe from child abuse and wife beating, the government could put a camera in every one of our houses and our bedrooms, and maybe there would be somebody made safer this way. But what would you be giving up? So perfect safety is not the purpose of government. What we want from government is to enforce the law and to protect our liberties. This, to me, has been, especially since 9/11, a classical example of sacrificing liberty for safety and security. Now, I didn't invent those terms. They have been around a long time. And it is easily justified, and I can understand it, because I was here in 2001 when this came up, and people become frightened, and the American people want something done. But I think this is misdirected, and it doesn't serve our benefits. I think at this time we should really question why we are extending this. We are extending the three worst parts. Why were these sunsetted? Because people had concern about them. They weren't sure they were good pieces and maybe they were overkill, and, therefore, they were saying we had better reassess it. So what have we done? We have already extended it twice, and here we are going to do it again, with the intent, I think, in a year to reassess this. But this bill doesn't make things worse, it doesn't make anything better, but it does extend what I consider and others consider bad legislation. I ask for a ``no'' vote on this legislation.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, how did the 20-year war get started? It had been long assumed that the United States Government, shortly before Iraq invaded Kuwait in August of 1990, gave Saddam Hussein a green light to attack. A State Department cable recently published by WikiLeaks confirmed that U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie did indeed have a conversation with Saddam Hussein one week prior to Iraq's August 1, 1990, invasion of Kuwait. Amazingly, the released cable was entitled, ``Saddam's Message of Friendship to President Bush.'' In it, Ambassador Glaspie affirmed to Saddam that ``the President had instructed her to broaden and deepen our relations with Iraq.'' As Saddam Hussein outlined Iraq's ongoing border dispute with Kuwait, Ambassador Glaspie was quite clear that, ``we took no position on these Arab affairs.'' There would have been no reason for Saddam Hussein not to take this assurance at face value. The U.S. was quite supportive of his invasion and war of aggression against Iran in the 1980s. With this approval from the U.S. Government, it wasn't surprising that the invasion occurred. The shock and surprise was how quickly the tables were turned and our friend, Saddam Hussein, all of a sudden became Hitler personified. The document was classified, supposedly to protect national security, yet this information in no way jeopardized our security. Instead, it served to keep the truth from the American people about an event leading up to our initial military involvement in Iraq and the region that continues to today. The secrecy of the memo was designed to hide the truth from the American people and keep our government from being embarrassed. This was the initial event that had led to so much death and destruction--not to mention the financial costs--these past 20 years. Our response and persistent militarism toward Iraq was directly related to 9/11, as our presence on the Arabian Peninsula--and in particular Saudi Arabia--was listed by al Qaeda as a major grievance that outraged the radicals who carried out the heinous attacks against New York and Washington on that fateful day. Today, the conflict has spread through the Middle East and Central Asia with no end in sight. The reason this information is so important is that if Congress and the American people had known about this green light incident 20 years ago, they would have been a lot more reluctant to give a green light to our government to pursue the current war--a war that is ongoing and expanding to this very day. The tough question that remains is was this done deliberately to create the justification to redesign the Middle East, as many neo- conservatives desired, and to secure oil supplies for the West; or was it just a diplomatic blunder followed up by many more strategic military blunders? Regardless, we have blundered into a war that no one seems willing to end. Julian Assange, the publisher of the WikiLeaks memo, is now considered an enemy of the state. Politicians are calling for drastic punishment and even assassination; and, sadly, the majority of the American people seem to support such moves. But why should we so fear the truth? Why should our government's lies and mistakes be hidden from the American people in the name of patriotism? Once it becomes acceptable to equate truth with treason, we can no longer call ourselves a free society.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Federal Reserve Transparency Act. Throughout its nearly 100-year history, the Federal Reserve has presided over the near-complete destruction of the United States dollar. Since 1913 the dollar has lost over 98% of its purchasing power, aided and abetted by the Federal Reserve's loose monetary policy. How long will we as a Congress stand idly by while hard-working Americans see their savings eaten away by inflation? Only big-spending politicians and politically favored bankers benefit from inflation. Serious discussion of proposals to oversee the Federal Reserve is long overdue. I have been a longtime proponent of more effective oversight and auditing of the Fed, but I was far from the first Congressman to advocate these types of proposals. Esteemed former members of the Banking Committee such as Chairmen Wright Patman and Henry B. Gonzales were outspoken critics of the Fed and its lack of transparency. Since its inception, the Federal Reserve has always operated in the shadows, without sufficient scrutiny or oversight of its operations. While the conventional excuse is that this is intended to reduce the Fed's susceptibility to political pressures, the reality is that the Fed acts as a foil for the government. Whenever you question the Fed about the strength of the dollar, they will refer you to the Treasury, and vice versa. The Federal Reserve has, on the one hand, many of the privileges of government agencies, while retaining benefits of private organizations, such as being largely insulated from Freedom of Information Act requests. The Federal Reserve can enter into agreements with foreign central banks and foreign governments, and the GAO is prohibited from auditing these agreements. Why should a government-established agency, whose police force has federal law enforcement powers, and whose notes have legal tender status in this country, be allowed to enter into agreements with foreign powers and foreign banking institutions with no oversight? Particularly because the Fed has operated swap lines with foreign central banks and provided hundreds of billions of dollars of bailouts to foreign commercial banks, the Fed's negotiations with the European Central Bank, the Bank of International Settlements, and other foreign institutions should face increased scrutiny, most especially because of their significant effect on foreign policy. Given the currency crisis in Europe and the prospect of the Fed propping up foreign governments or bailing out American banks invested in European debt, this issue is of especially pressing concern. The Fed's funding facilities and its agreements with the Treasury should be reviewed. The Treasury's supplementary financing accounts that fund Fed facilities allow the Treasury to funnel money to Wall Street without GAO or Congressional oversight. Additional funding facilities that have allowed the Fed to keep financial asset prices artificially inflated and subsidize poorly performing financial firms should be scrutinized, as well as the Mortgage-Backed Securities Purchase Program, which has subsidized banks by transferring trillions of dollars of worthless debt off their books. The Federal Reserve Transparency Act would eliminate restrictions on GAO audits of the Federal Reserve and open Fed operations to enhanced scrutiny. We hear officials constantly lauding the benefits of transparency and especially bemoaning the opacity of the Fed, its monetary policy, and its funding facilities. By opening all Fed operations to a GAO audit and calling for such an audit to be completed by the end of 2012, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act would achieve much-needed transparency of the Federal Reserve. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, in the last several weeks, there have been several articles published by officials from the Federal Reserve system. This is a little bit unusual because they are critical of anybody who criticizes them and are critical of me in particular. In these articles, they are trying to discredit anybody who disagrees with their policies, and they are very defensive of this. They have argued the case that they should have total secrecy. In this total secrecy, I claim they have tremendous power to do the things that they want to do, and it has only been recently that the American people and this Congress have awakened to this. Although we did not get a full audit of the Fed last year, we did get a partial audit of the emergency funding, but still the Fed's argument is they have to have total independency while the American people believe there should be transparency. The Fed's argument is that they literally are the saviors of the economy, that they came in as an emergency when the markets were crashing, and that they were able to rescue the entire world economy by their injection of hundreds of billions, if not trillions, of dollars. The fallacy of all this is that they may have rescued some banks and that they may have rescued some big businesses, but they didn't rescue the American people. The consequence of all this has been high unemployment, people losing their houses, and people who can't pay their mortgages. So, in their claim that they prevented a deep depression, they prevented a depression for some very wealthy, well-connected people on Wall Street, who were making a lot of money anyway in the bubble period of time. Now the people who are suffering the most are the average people, who have had to suffer the consequence of the Federal Reserve policies. This is a policy that punishes the innocent people and that actually rewards the guilty people and the people who were the beneficiaries. You know, the very people who are claiming that they have solved all of our problems are the very ones who created the problems, and they never once predicted the trouble that was coming. There were numerous economists from around the country, especially the free-market Austrian economists, who predicted and explained the housing bubble--that it was coming and that there would be a collapse; but the people at the Federal Reserve, who now are claiming they solved all our problems, never once said that we could be in trouble. When asked, they said, No, there's no housing bubble. Where do you get all this? So now we are supposed to believe everything they tell us. They created it. They didn't tell us there was trouble coming, and now they've solved all of the problems, and we are not supposed to question this. If we do, then we're going to be on the receiving end of severe criticism. The conclusion of many of these articles has been that they want to deflect the concentration on the Federal Reserve. They will say that, yes, there still are problems, but they're all on the Congress, that it has nothing to do with them. They save us from ourselves, and they take care of us. They create good times and take care of us when we are in bad times. The whole thing is they claim that our deficits are a problem--and I agree with them on that. The deficits are a problem. But, if you think about it, why do the deficits get run up? We as Members of Congress-- this whole Congress for decades on decades--have run up deficits to pay for welfare programs and warfare. Endless spending. We tax the people until we can't tax anymore. We borrow, and there is a limit on borrowing or your interest will rates go up. Guess who monetizes the debt and enables the Congress to continue this spending. It's the Federal Reserve. They are the ones who literally facilitate the deficit financing. So, for them to turn around and say it's all the blame of the Congress, they are absolutely being disingenuous. It is the Federal Reserve and a monetary system that encourages runaway deficits, runaway spending, runaway militarism, and runaway welfarism. The Fed, over the years, has had two mandates: to have price stability and full employment. Well, think about the price stability. Did they have price stability with the NASDAQ stocks back in the year 2000 that collapsed when that bubble developed? Have they had steady prices, price stability with medical care costs or housing costs or education costs? No, absolutely none. Today, bond prices are sky high. We have a bond bubble going on right now, and it's the result of Federal Reserve policy, but they don't want you to think and talk about that. And the full employment mandate, I mean, just think of it; the government, our government, Labor and Statistics admits there is 9.5 percent unemployment. And then they say, well, if you count more people who are partially unemployed, it's 17 percent. But if you have a free market approach and count everybody who's unemployed, our unemployment rate is 23 percent. That's why the American people are feeling lousy about what's going on, even though Wall Street once again is making money. The banks are making money, they're repaying their bills, but it's all because of a collusion between the Federal Reserve System, the banks, and the large corporations while the people are still unemployed. Congress has a proper responsibility, and it is oversight. It was never meant for the Federal Reserve to have free rein and not have any oversight whatsoever. And we have to realize this whole issue of central banking is not a new issue; it was here from the very beginning. Hamilton and Jefferson argued about it; Jefferson and Jackson and many others were absolutely opposed to central banking. So it's not a new issue, but there is no authority in the Constitution that grants this right to have a central bank and to create money out of thin air just to accommodate the politicians. We have a right and an obligation and a responsibility for oversight of the Federal Reserve, and our responsibility is to look at bad policy. The Federal Reserve is responsible for the inflation in the business cycle, the unemployment. It is up to us to do something about it and look into it, first to look into it and understand it because then it will be realized that we need to have more oversight. Right now there is tremendous support; in the last Congress we had 320 Members of this House who supported an audit of the Fed. So we're making progress here. It annoys the Federal Reserve. For the first time in their history, they've hired a PR agency and lobbyists to lobby for their position. So they know they are under the gun as far as people are waking up and realizing that the Federal Reserve has been responsible for so much havoc that we've had in this country. I think it is our responsibility to continue to look at the Fed and find out how they have caused so much trouble.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, perpetual war is expensive. We have been militarily involved in the Persian Gulf region now for 20 years. Experts have predicted that the cost of this continuous and expanding war will reach $6 trillion. The hostilities and our overt involvement in Iraq can be dated back to January 16, 1991, when the defensive Operation Desert Shield became the offensive Operation Desert Storm. Though the end of the Persian Gulf war was declared on April 6, 1991, with a U.S. military victory, the 20-year war was just beginning. The U.S. and Britain have had an intense interest in controlling the oil of the Middle East dating back to the overthrow of the Ottoman Empire during World War I. This interest expanded during World War II with FDR's promise to protect the puppet governments in the Persian Gulf region, especially Saudi Arabia. Though this arrangement never sat well with the citizens in the region, a fairly decent relationship remained between the Arab people and the American public. But animosity continued to build with our ever-present military involvement in Iraq. Our military assistance to the Mujahedeen in the 1980s, now the Taliban, helped the Muslim defenders, one of whom was Osama bin Laden, oust the Soviets from Afghanistan. At that time we were still not seen as occupiers, and the radical Muslims, encouraged by the U.S., were expected to direct all their efforts toward the Communist threat. That all changed with the breakup of the Soviet system and the end of the Cold War when, as the lone superpower left standing, we named ourselves the world's policeman. It was then that the resentment by Arabs and Muslims became directed toward the United States, now seen as an invader and occupier. Continuous bombing and crippling sanctions against Iraq during the 1990s, the appearance that the U.S. did not care about the plight of the Palestinians, and our military bases in Saudi Arabia led to attention-getting attacks against the United States. The 1998 embassy attacks in Kenya and Tanzania and the attack on the USS Cole in the year 2000 were warnings that the war was far from over. The horrible tragedy of 9/11 shouldn't have been a surprise, and many believe it was preventable. Currently, the war has morphed into a huge battle for control of the Persian Gulf region and central Asia. This involves Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Iran. Foolish policies lead to foolhardy conflicts. Foolhardy conflicts lead to unsustainable costs and a multitude of unintended consequences. To name a few, we have spent trillions of dollars based on the false pretense of defending freedom and our Constitution. The notion has been further solidified that war no longer needs to be declared by Congress and can be pursued as a prerogative of the President. We are now seen by the world not as a peacemaker, but rather a troublemaker and aggressor. Thousands of American servicemembers have been killed and tens of thousands wounded, with a sharp increase in service-connected suicides. Over 500,000 veterans are seeking medical treatment and disability benefits. Millions of citizens have been killed, wounded, and displaced in the countries on the receiving end of our bombs, drones, sanctions, and occupation. The region has suffered huge environmental damage as a consequence of our military occupation. Christians from Iraq have suffered the worst rout in the history of Christendom. Iran and Iraq are now better allies than ever, with strong anti-American sentiment. Iraqi political stability is a joke. Ending hostilities in Afghanistan is a dream. China and Iran have been drawn into a closer alliance against the United States. America's uncontrolled deficits are senselessly fueled by needless militarism. We are now much poorer and less safe. There was no al Qaeda in Iraq before we invaded in 2003. Today there is. No weapons of mass destruction were ever found in Iraq. War always leads to government growth and the sacrifice of civil liberties. In the past 10 years, this has been particularly costly to us, with the acceptance of military tribunals, torture, assassinations, abuse of habeas corpus, and PATRIOT Act-type legislation. Senseless war and senseless destruction and death should not be rationalized as providing a great service in protecting our freedoms, our Constitution, or maintaining peace. The only value that can come of this is to recognize that our policies are flawed and they need to be changed. Without this, history will record that the sacrifices were all in vain. A policy of peace, friendship, and trade is far superior to one of occupation, entangling alliances, and sanctions which guarantee war. We should pursue such a policy for moral reasons. But if we don't, we will nevertheless be forced to change our ways for economic reasons. It's time to bring our troops home.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Constitution has received a lot of attention in recent weeks, thanks to the tea party movement. It goes without saying that Members of Congress should have read the Constitution many times, and we should continue to study it. Citing the particular clause of the Constitution that authorizes newly introduced legislation is a reasonable suggestion, yet in reality it will do little to restrain unconstitutional growth of Federal Government. We have had such rules in the past and no benefit came of it. The laws that are passed reflect the preferences of those in charge, who promote their personal agenda. For too long that agenda has expanded government at the expense of personal liberty, regardless of which political party was in charge. Generally this trend was supported by voters, who rewarded most Members of Congress with reelection. For many of us, this expansion of government clearly violated the Constitution, yet it was always argued that the program somehow conformed to that ``living'' document. By misinterpreting the general welfare clause, the interstate commerce clause, and the ``necessary and proper'' clause, Congress has justified every conceivable expansion of the Federal Government. Congress also has misinterpreted the 14th Amendment and legislated as though it had repealed the 10th Amendment. Sadly, Congress has also systematically abdicated its prerogatives and responsibilities to the executive branch over many decades. Too many people, in and out of Congress, grew up being taught that the Constitution was malleable. This has allowed judicial, legislative, and executive flexibility to make the Constitution ``a modern living document.'' Though the authors allowed for ``flexibility'' through the amendment process, this process has been ignored for the sake of speed and convenience. As a result, the Constitution now has little meaning since most Members pay only lip service when taking their oath to obey it. But I am encouraged by our growing grassroots interest in the Constitution, especially among the younger generation. I am glad Congress is becoming aware of it. Our Constitution should be viewed as law, and Members of Congress should be expected to follow the rule of law. But a document is just that, and it is only as good as the character of those who represent us and promise to obey it. Distorted interpretations come easily when the goal is opposite of what the original authors intended and what the plain text provides. If true liberty is not our goal, persistent efforts to rationalize misinterpretations and circumvent the Constitution will continue. Without men and women of character in Congress, respect for the rule of law and a love of liberty, the Constitution becomes but a worthless piece of paper. Celebrating the Constitution without this understanding will do nothing to restore the greatness of America. Simply praising the document distracts from the need for Members to gain the courage to resist special interests; political self-interests; emergency needs in times of crisis; fear-based economic myths; and the persistent temptation to seek security over liberty while ignoring personal responsibility and self-reliance. Providing instruction in the Constitution for staff and/or Members begs the question: Who will be the teacher? I wonder, will this welcomed renewed interest in the Constitution lead to a healthy reassessment of all of our policies? Will there be no more wars without an actual congressional declaration? Will the Federal Reserve Act be repealed? Will only gold and silver be called legal tender? Will we end all of the unconstitutional Federal departments, including the Department of Energy, Education, Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, and Labor? Will the Patriot Act be repealed and all of the warrantless searches stopped? Will TSA be restrained or abolished? Will the IRS's unconstitutional collection powers end? Will executive and judicial quasi-legislative powers be ended? Will we end the Federal war on drugs? Will we end the Federal Government's involvement in medical care? Will we end all of the Federal Government's illusionary insurance programs? Will we ban secret prisons, trials without due process, and assassinations? Will we end our foreign policy of invasion and occupation? For America to once again become the standard for a free society, our love of liberty and desire for peace must far surpass any public display of fidelity to the Constitution. We must first look to strong moral character, respect for the rule of law, and an understanding of the proper role of government in a free society.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, on February 3, the Galveston Chamber of Commerce will hold its 165th annual meeting. Established by the Ninth Congress of the Republic of Texas in 1845, making it the oldest chamber of commerce in Texas, the Galveston Chamber of Commerce works to promote and advocate for the business community of Galveston. At the February 3rd meeting, the Galveston Chamber of Commerce will honor several dedicated volunteers for their years of service to the Galveston community. Among their other accomplishments, all of this year's honorees' are past Chairs of the Galveston Chamber of Commerce. These honorees all remain involved with the Galveston Chamber of Commerce by, among other activities, serving on a new committee of Past Chairs. Galveston Chamber of Commerce President Gina Spagnola, said the Past Chairs Committee was created because ``The Past Chairs are such an integral part of the Chamber's history. The purpose in forming this committee was to sustain a strong partnership with the Past Chairs by engaging in dialog about the Chamber's history and its future.'' Mr. Speaker, it is a tremendous pleasure to join my friends at the Galveston Chamber of Commerce in saluting these past chairs for their years of service to the people of Galveston. I am truly honored to serve as their representative and hope all my colleagues all join me in congratulating these outstanding leaders. Those being honored on February 3 include: Vandy Anderson, Armin Cantini, Carolyn Clyburn, Gene Curry, Henry Freudenburg, Don Gartman, Greg Harrington, Garry Kaufman, Betty Massey, Jerry Mohn, Richard Moore, Roger ``Bo'' Quiroga, Dr. Ben Raimer, Bix Rathburn, Betty Schocke, Johnny Smecca, Marshall Stein, John Tindel, Lee Otis ``Otie'' Zapp, Jr.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, on January 7, 2011 the First Friday Group (FFG) of Matagorda County celebrated its 20th anniversary. I am pleased to extend my congratulations to the organizers of the FFG for 20 years of service to the people of Matagorda County. FFG provides a monthly forum for the citizens of Matagorda County to discuss their activities and issues affecting their community. As the name suggests, FFG's meetings take place on the first Friday of the month at 6:30 a.m. The meetings are currently held at the Thyme & Again restaurant in Bay City, Texas. The meetings are open to the public, and anyone is free to participate. Attendance typically runs from 25 to 40 people. FFG is in many ways a modern town hall meeting. Attendees typically include national, state and local elected officials, representatives from the Matagorda County Chamber of Commerce, local business owners, developers, industrial plant managers, agriculture and agri-businesses, educators, religious leaders and state agencies. The FFG meetings have two unique features that ensure everyone with something of interest to the community has a chance to participate. First, there is never a ``program'' or a set list of speakers chosen by the FFG. Instead, each meeting is conducted in a ``Round the Room Format,'' that gives each attendee a chance to talk about their activities. Secondly, speakers are asked to limit their remarks to two or three minutes in order to make sure that everyone who wants to speak has the chance. While the time limits may appear to make it difficult to convey all relevant information about an activity, regular attendees say that most speakers can convey a remarkable amount of information in a very short period of time. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I once again extend congratulations to the founders and organizers of the First Friday Group for providing a forum for the citizens of Matagorda County to exchange information about their various projects which are aimed at improving life in Matagorda County.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. 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. Mr. 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! The Identity Theft Prevention Act also prevents the Federal Government from establishing any form of national ID. In 2005, Congress attempted to turn state driver's licensing into a national ID; however, resistance to this unconstitutional and costly mandate on the states has been so intense that today, for all intents and purposes, the Real ID mandate has been nullified. The Identity Theft Prevention Act simply puts the nail in the coffin of the Real ID and similar schemes, thus protecting 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. Mr. 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.'' Mr. 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 ever-growing 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, Mr. 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. Mr. 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 repealing 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 for 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, 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 five 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. Mr. 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! The Identity Theft Prevention Act also prevents the federal government from establishing any form of national ID. In 2005, Congress attempted to turn state driver's licensing into a national ID, however, resistance to this unconstitutional and costly mandate on the states has been so intense that today, for all intents and purposes, the Real ID mandate has been nullified. The Identity Theft Prevention Act simply puts the nail in the coffin of the Real ID and similar schemes, thus protecting 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. Mr. 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.'' Mr. 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 ever-growing 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, Mr. 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. Mr. 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 continues to threaten 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, Mr. 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.