Ron Paul

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to protect the integrity of the Social Security trust fund by introducing the Social Security Preservation Act. The Social Security Preservation Act is a rather simple bill which states that all monies raised by the Social Security trust fund will be spent in payments to beneficiaries, with excess receipts invested in interest-bearing certificates of deposit. This will help keep Social Security trust fund monies from being diverted to other programs, as well as allow the fund to grow by providing for investment in interest- bearing instruments. The Social Security Preservation Act ensures that the government will keep its promises to America's seniors that taxes collected for Social Security will be used for Social Security. 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. Everyone acknowledges that the federal deficits are unsustainable. Social Security reform is necessary to ensure the federal debt does not create a serious economic crisis that could devastate those, like Social Security recipients, living on fixed incomes. Preventing the use of Social Security trust fund monies for non-Social Security purposes is a necessary first step in reforming Social Security in a manner that does not hurt those currently relying on the system. I therefore call upon all my colleagues, to stand up for America's seniors and taxpayers by cosponsoring the Social Security Preservation Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Prescription Drug Affordability Act. This legislation ensures that millions of Americans, including seniors, have access to affordable pharmaceutical products. My act removes needless government barriers to importing pharmaceuticals and it protects Internet pharmacies, which are making affordable prescription drugs available to millions of Americans, from being strangled by federal regulation. The Prescription Drug Affordability Act brings competition to the market for pharmaceutical products by allowing anyone wishing to import a drug to simply submit an application to the FDA, which then must approve the drug unless the FDA finds the drug is either not approved for use in the U.S. or is adulterated or misbranded. This process will make safe and affordable imported medicines affordable to millions of Americans. Mr. Speaker, letting the free market work is the best means of lowering the cost of prescription drugs. I need not remind my colleagues that many Americans impacted by the high costs of prescription medicine have demanded Congress reduce the barriers which prevent American consumers from purchasing imported pharmaceuticals. Congress has responded to these demands by repeatedly passing legislation liberalizing the rules governing the importation of pharmaceuticals. However, implementation of this provision has been blocked by the federal bureaucracy. It is time Congress stood up for the American consumer and removed all unnecessary regulations on importing pharmaceuticals. The Prescription Drug Affordability Act also protects consumers' access to affordable medicine by forbidding the federal government from regulating any Internet sales of FDA-approved pharmaceuticals by State- licensed pharmacists. As I am sure my colleagues are aware, the Internet makes pharmaceuticals and other products more affordable and accessible for millions of Americans. However, the federal government has threatened to destroy this option by imposing unnecessary and unconstitutional regulations on Web sites that sell pharmaceuticals. Any federal regulations would inevitably drive up prices of pharmaceuticals, thus depriving many consumers of access to affordable prescription medications. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to make pharmaceuticals more affordable and accessible by removing barriers to the importation of pharmaceuticals and protecting legitimate Internet pharmacies from needless regulation by cosponsoring the Prescription Drug Affordability Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the Social Security for American Citizens Only Act. This act forbids the Federal Government from providing Social Security benefits to non- citizens. It also ends the practice of totalization. Totalization is where the Social Security Administration takes into account the number of years an individual worked abroad, and thus was not paying payroll taxes, in determining that individual's eligibility for Social Security benefits. Hard as it may be to believe, the United States Government already provides Social Security benefits to citizens of 17 other countries. Under current law, citizens of those countries covered by these agreements may have an easier time getting Social Security benefits than public school teachers or policemen. Obviously, this program provides a threat to the already fragile Social Security system, and the threat is looming larger. The prior administration actually proposed a totalization agreement that would have allowed thousands of foreigners to qualify for U.S. Social Security benefits even though they came to, and worked in, the United States illegally. Adding insult to injury, this proposal could have allowed the Federal Government to give Social Security benefits to non- citizens who worked here for as little as 18 months. Estimates of what this totalization proposal would cost top $1 billion per year. Despite a major public outcry against extending Social Security benefits to those who entered this country illegally, a version of this proposal actually passed the other body in the 109th Congress. That the executive branch would propose, and part of the legislative branch would endorse, using Social Security monies to reward those who have willingly and knowingly violated our own immigration laws is an insult to the millions of Americans who pay their entire working lives into the system and now face the possibility that there may be nothing left when it is their turn to retire. Even if the current Congress rejects all proposals to allow those who entered the country illegally to receive Social Security benefits, the only way to guarantee a future administration will not revive this scheme is for Congress to put an end to totalization once and for all. I therefore call upon my colleagues to stop the use of the Social Security Trust Fund as yet another vehicle for foreign aid by cosponsoring the Social Security for American Citizens Only Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chair, I recently voted again in favor of H.R. 4853, the Middle Class Tax Relief Act, legislation which ensures the continuation of the Bush-era tax cuts, fixes the AMT patch, and significantly reduces the burden of the estate tax in 2011. If no action had been taken by this Congress, all Americans would have had to pay higher income, dividend, estate, and capital gains taxes beginning on January 1, 2011. I will always vote to lower taxes at all levels, and I will never vote for tax increases. Many opponents of this bill labor under the mistaken impression that it contains huge amounts of pork, earmarks, and other spending. What they are referring to is hundreds of billions of dollars worth of tax credits. Tax credits are not spending, they are not earmarks, they are not pork: they merely allow people to keep more of their own money. While the Administration's desire in extending these particular credits may be to placate certain constituencies or to spur consumption or investment into certain sectors of the economy, the morally correct position is to allow people to keep their hard-earned money. That money belongs to the people and businesses who earned it, not to the government. If one wants to make it more equitable, then the amount of tax credits should be increased to include everyone. Characterizing the tax cuts as fiscally irresponsible, as other opponents of the bill have done, is equally misguided. Those who wish to see this deal defeated because it ``adds nearly $900 billion to the National Debt'' are punishing taxpayers for the profligacy of the government. The National Debt is nearly $14 trillion because of excessive spending, not because of tax cuts. Every dollar added to the National Debt is due to the government's inability to rein in spending, not because American taxpayers are paying too little of their salaries to the Federal Government. This is why I vote against all appropriations bills. Allowing taxes to rise and provide more money to the federal government would only serve to further feed the beast that is devouring this country. This bill also reduces the burden of the estate tax, which according to law is set to return in 2011. This unconscionable tax is an insidious form of double taxation and comes into effect in 2011 with a 55 percent tax rate. Americans should not be penalized for accumulating savings during their lifetimes. The estate tax especially harms small and family-owned businesses, which often must be sold to pay the tax bill. H.R. 4853 reduces this death tax rate from 55 percent to 35 percent, and raises the exemption from $1 million to $5 million. While I would prefer to see this tax eliminated completely, this significant tax cut will help thousands of families. Many people have urged that this tax bill be rejected and that Republicans come back in January to vote on a clean bill. Waiting until the next Congress would also mean that taxpayers would have much more of their salary withheld until any tax cuts could be made. While it is certainly possible to wait until January, we still have a Democratic Senate, and a Democratic president who would likely veto a clean tax bill. I too would prefer to see a completely clean bill, but that is not what we have been given. A vote against the bill before us today would be a vote to raise taxes on all Americans. Much of the debate about this bill only serves to distract people from discussing substantive change and lead to argument about picayune minutiae. I believe we should abolish the income tax and eliminate the IRS altogether. Congress funded the government using excise taxes for more than 120 years without an income tax, and the Federal Government not surprisingly adhered much more closely to the constitutionally- defined limits of its powers during that time. Real tax reform can only happen when we insist on reducing the size of the Federal Government and reducing the pork in its bloated budget.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, WikiLeaks' release of classified information has generated a lot of attention worldwide in the past few weeks. The hysterical reaction makes one wonder if this is not an example of killing the messenger for the bad news. Despite what is claimed, information so far released, though classified, has caused no known harm to any individual but it has caused plenty of embarrassment to our government. Losing a grip on our empire is not welcomed by the neoconservatives in charge. There is now more information confirming that Saudi Arabia is a principal supporter and financier of al Qaeda, and this should set off alarm bills since we guarantee its sharia-run government. This emphasizes even more the fact that no al Qaeda existed in Iraq before 9/11, and yet we went to war against Iraq based on the lie that it did. It has been discharged by self-proclaimed experts that Julian Assange, the Internet publisher of this information, has committed a heinous crime, deserving prosecution for treason, and execution or even assassination. But should we not at least ask how the U.S. Government can charge an Australian citizen with treason for publishing U.S. secret information that he did not steal? And if WikiLeaks is to be prosecuted for publishing classified documents, why shouldn't the Washington Post, the New York Times, and others that have also published these documents be prosecuted? Actually, some in Congress are threatening this as well. The New York Times, as a result of a Supreme Court ruling, was not found guilty in 1971 for the publication of the Pentagon Papers. Daniel Ellsberg never served a day in prison for his role in obtaining these secret documents. The Pentagon Papers were also inserted into the Congressional Record by Senator Mike Gravel with no charges being made of breaking any national security laws. Yet the release of this classified information was considered illegal by many, and those who lied us into the Vietnam War and argued for its prolongation were outraged. But the truth gained from the Pentagon Papers revealed that lies were told about the Gulf of Tonkin attack, which perpetuated a sad and tragic episode in our history. Just as with the Vietnam War, the Iraq war was based on lies. We were never threatened by weapons of mass destruction or al Qaeda in Iraq, though the attack on Iraq was based on this false information. Any information that challenges the official propaganda for the war in the Middle East is unwelcome by the administration and supporters of these unnecessary wars. Few are interested in understanding the relationship of our foreign policy and our presence in the Middle East to the threat of terrorism. Revealing the real nature and goal of our presence in so many Muslim countries is a threat to our empire, and any revelation of this truth is highly resented by those in charge. Questions to consider: No. 1, do the American people deserve to know the truth regarding the ongoing war in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen? No. 2, could a larger question be how could an Army private gain access to so much secret information? No. 3, why is the hostility mostly directed at Assange, the publisher, and not our government's failure to protect classified information? No. 4, are we getting our money's worth from the $80 billion per year we spend on intelligence gathering? No. 5, which has resulted in the greatest number of deaths: Lying us into war or WikiLeaks' revelations or the release of the Pentagon Papers? If Assange can be convicted of a crime for publishing information that he did not steal, what does this say about the future of the First Amendment and the independence of the Internet? No. 7, could it be that the real reason for the near universal attacks on WikiLeaks is more about secretly maintaining a seriously flawed foreign policy of empire than it is about national security? No. 8, is there not a huge difference between releasing secret information to help the enemy in a time of declared war, which is treason, and the releasing of information to expose our government lies that promote secret wars, death, and corruption. No. 9, was it not once considered patriotic to stand up to our government when it's wrong? Thomas Jefferson had it right when he advised, ``Let the eye of vigilance never be closed.''

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, David Nolan, founder of the Libertarian Party and creator of the ``Nolan Chart'' that inspired the ``World's Smallest Political Quiz'' passed away on November 21. I join freedom activists around the country in mourning his loss and celebrating his life. Like many libertarians of his generation, David's initial interest in the freedom philosophy was inspired by the novels of Ayn Rand and Robert Heinlein. During the sixties, David was involved in Students for Goldwater and Young Americans for Freedom (YAF). David was also involved with the Liberty Amendment Committee, which worked to pass an amendment to the Constitution repealing the Sixteenth Amendment and restricting the powers of the federal government to those explicitly granted it in the Constitution. David was drawn to the Republican Party because of the limited government, pro-individual liberty themes of the Goldwater campaign-- and like many others he was disappointed when the supposedly free- market administration of Richard Nixon embraced a policy of conservative Keynesianism. When Richard Nixon imposed wage-and-price controls and took the U.S. off the gold standard on August 11, 1971, David decided he could no longer support the Republican Party and, along with a group of other disillusioned ex-Goldwaterities, created the Libertarian Party. David remained active in the Libertarian Party for the rest of his life. He even ran for office several times on the Libertarian ticket, most recently just this year when he ran for Senate in Arizona. Despite the best efforts of David and others, the Libertarian Party has never been able to achieve major party status. I believe the main reason for this is the restrictive ballot access laws that force new and third parties to spend the majority of their time and resources getting on the ballot, thus leaving them with comparatively few resources to devote to actually campaigning and spreading their message. I continue to believe the American politics would benefit from reforming these ballot laws so third and independent parties and candidates could have greater ability to communicate their ideas to the American public. Despite the obstacles of ballot access, the Libertarian Party has been successful in introducing millions of Americans to the ideas of liberty. It has also pushed the two major parties in a more libertarian direction. Thus, even those advocates of liberty who have chosen to work through the major parties to advance the freedom philosophy benefited from the David Nolan's work to advance liberty through the Libertarian Party. David's work with the Libertarian Party was far from the sum total of his activism as he was involved in a variety of other pro-freedom organizations and projects. One of David's ideas was the genesis of the freedom movement's most successful outreach tool. In the early seventies, David reworked the traditional two-dimensional left-right political spectrum into a graph running from that favoring government involvement in both economic and personal affairs to those favoring complete liberty. In between were those favoring social freedom but not economy liberty (modern liberals) and those favoring economic freedom but favoring government intervention in personal matters (conservatives). In the 1980s, David's friend Marshall Fritz, the founder and President of the Advocates for Self Government, converted the Nolan Chart into the World's Smallest Political Quiz. The quiz uses the Nolan Chart to graph an individual's political philosophy based on responses to a series of ten questions that measure one's commitment to economic and personal liberty. The quiz has been taken over 15 million times online, has been reprinted in dozens of newspapers and magazines, is referenced by major high school and college textbooks, and is used by educators in classrooms across America. The quiz is responsible for many people's first contact with libertarian ideas. As a board member of the Advocates for Self Government, David helped the organization popularize the quiz. He also assisted in numerous other projects by the Advocates designed to help activists in the freedom movement more effectively advocate the freedom philosophy. Madam Speaker, David Nolan devoted his life to the cause of liberty, and helped build the freedom movement through his work with the Libertarian Party, the Advocates for Self Government, and many other organizations. I therefore join freedom lovers across the country in extending my sincere condolences to David Nolan's family and his many friends.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution as I do not believe it is our place, as Members of the U.S. Congress, to dictate internal policy to the Chinese government. Obviously, as an advocate of minimal government and personal liberty, I do not support imprisoning individuals for their political views and believe that anyone held anywhere for merely holding unpopular views--including anyone held in the United States--should be released. I do object to the meddling in this bill which falsely advertises itself as a non- controversial expression of congratulations to a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. As one who believes strongly in national sovereignty and is opposed to the idea of a world governmental authority, I particularly object to the sentiment expressed in this bill that ``violations of human rights in general . . . are matters of legitimate concern to other governments.'' This idea is the recipe for abominations such as the ``humanitarian'' bombing of Serbia in 1999 and is used by those who wish to maintain the current disastrous occupation of Afghanistan. As we can see from interventions such as the U.S. attack on Iraq, which was at least partly sold as a humanitarian-inspired overthrow of a dictator, sometimes the ``cure'' is worse than the disease particularly when one calculates the number dead from the intervention and the number actually killed by the regime being replaced. I find it ironic that, at a time when the U.S. government is desperately attempting to censor the publication of sensitive leaked information that it considers embarrassing and is demonizing and calling for the prosecution or worse of the publisher of that information, Julian Assange, this resolution ``calls on the Government of China to cease censoring media and Internet reporting of the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo and to cease its campaign of defamation against Liu Xiaobo.'' In the interest of a non-interventionist U.S. foreign policy I must therefore oppose this resolution and will continue to oppose any meddling in the domestic affairs of foreign countries.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today I voted for H.R. 4853, legislation which ensures file continuation of many of the Bush tax cuts. If no action had been taken by this Congress, all Americans would have had to pay higher income, dividend, and capital gains taxes beginning on January 1, 2011. While I would have preferred that the current lower tax rates remain in place for all Americans, the fact is that a tax cut for most people is better than a tax increase on everyone. I will always vote to lower taxes at all levels, and I will never vote for tax increases. The passage of this bill will result in the overwhelming majority of Americans paying lower taxes next year than they otherwise would have. It is unfortunate that this bill was so highly politicized and that so much debate focused on whether or not those making over $250,000 per year would receive tax cuts. Arguments that tax cuts for the rich are unfair, or that those making more money should pay higher taxes, are based largely on envy. Whether one group or another thinks it is ``fair'' or not does not change the fact that the money should stay with the person who earned it. This is true for people at all levels of income. But rather than getting bogged down in the minutiae of what the ideal tax rate should be, I believe we should abolish the income tax and eliminate the IRS altogether. Congress funded the government using excise taxes for more than 120 years without an income tax, and the federal government not surprisingly adhered much more closely to the constitutionally-defined limits of its powers during that time. Real tax reform can only happen when we insist on reducing the size of the federal government and reducing the pork in its bloated budget.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this saber-rattling resolution that unnecessarily escalates tensions between North and South Korea and may in fact put U.S. troops stationed in the area at risk. This resolution portrays the recent hostilities between the two Koreas as ``an unprovoked military attack'' by North Korea, which is untrue. We know that South Korea was conducting live fire military exercises in the vicinity of disputed territory and that this action, taken with U.S. military support and participation, likely led to the exchange of gunfire between the two sides. As the resolution states, the ``USS George Washington Carrier Strike Group is conducting exercises with Republic of Korea naval forces in the waters west of the Korean Peninsula.'' Let us for a moment imagine the Chinese military holding joint exercises with Venezuela off the Texas coast. Might that be viewed as provocative by the United States? This is not to excuse or endorse the actions of the North Korean military, which are certainly regrettable, but it is important to accurately portray the events. This resolution is long on inaccuracies and hyperbole but it avoids the real issue, which is why, more than fifty years after the end of the Korean war, the American taxpayer is still forced to pay for the U.S. military to defend a modern and wealthy South Korea. The continued presence of the U.S. military as a ``tripwire'' to deter North Korea is ineffective and dangerous. It is designed to deter renewed hostilities by placing American lives between the two factions. As we have seen recently, South Korean leaders, emboldened by the U.S. protection, seek to provoke North Korean reaction rather than to work for a way to finally end the conflict. The U.S. presence only serves to prolong the conflict, further drain our empty treasury, and place our military at risk. I encourage my colleagues to reject this jingoistic resolution and instead use our Constitutionally-granted authority to finally end the U.S. military presence in and defense of South Korea.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, this month Del Papa Distributing Company is celebrating its 100th anniversary. I am pleased to extend my congratulations to the owners and employees of the Del Papa Distributing Company. The Del Papa Distributing Company originated in 1910 as a wholesaler grocery and wine business called Celli and Del Papa in Galveston, Texas. The grocery store was founded by two Italian immigrants, Frank Celli and Omro Del Papa, Sr. Misters Celli and Del Papa ran the business until Mr. Del Papa returned to Italy in 1920. Mr. Del Papa retained his business and real estate interests in Galveston and he returned to Texas in 1930. Upon his return, Mr. Del Papa established the 0. Del Papa Commission Company, and became a distributor for the Anheuser-Busch company. Since the United States was still under Prohibition at that time, the Del Papa Commission Company distributed baker's yeast, olive oil, and ginger ale. When prohibition ended, the Del Papa Distributing Company began distributing beer. In the early 1960s the company's name was changed to The Del Papa Distributing Company. The Del Papa Distributing Company has always been a family business. Over the years, all of Mr. Del Papa's sons have worked in the business, including the current chairman of the board, Lawrence J. Del Papa, Sr., who first worked for the company in 1939 as a delivery man. Today, Omero Del Papa's grandson, Larry Del Papa, Jr., serves as President of the company, a position he has held since 1988. The Del Papa Disturbing Company has come a long way since Frank Celli and Omro Del Papa opened their small grocery store in Galveston. Today, the company has major distribution centers in Galveston, Beaumont, and Victoria, over 2,700 retail accounts covering 17 counties, and 350 employees distributing over 350 beer brands. There is even a street named for the company at the intersection of Business 59 and Del Papa Street in Galveston. The Del Papa Distributing Company has survived major hurricanes, two world wars, and the 1947 explosion in Texas City, which is the worst man-made disaster in American history. Every time their community has faced a challenge, the owners and employees of Del Papa Distributing Company stepped up to help their fellow citizens. Everyone at the Del Papa Distributing Company takes great pride in their tradition of civic and charitable involvement. The Del Papa Distributing Company has initiated and assisted with many community service activities from blood drives to military programs to disaster relief. The Del Papa Distributing Company also donates to CASA, Children's Advocacy Center, and The Arts of Victoria, created a GI Joe/GI Jane holiday care package project to support the troops who must spend the holidays overseas away from their families. The Del Papa Distributing Company has also been a major contributor to the fundraising efforts of numerous wildlife organizations such as Ducks Unlimited, Coastal Conservation Association and the Rocky Mountain Elks organization. The Del Papa Distributing Company has also participated in the Keep Texas Beautiful Campaigns. The Del Papa Distributing Company is also a co-founder of the Galveston Black Heritage foundation and a supporter of the League of United Latin American Citizens, LULAC. The Del Papa Distributing Company also partners with Anheuser-Busch to promote responsible consumption of alcoholic beverages through the ``Responsibility Matters'' program. Madam Speaker, anyone familiar with Del Papa Distributing Company's history of civic involvement should hardly be surprised that the company kicked off its 100th anniversary celebrations with the announcement that it would endow scholarships to 13 community and four- year colleges located through the 17 counties they service. The Del Papa Distributing Company is truly a great Texan and American success story and the company's long history of civic and charitable involvement should serve as inspiration to all. It is therefore my pleasure to once again extend my congratulations and best wishes to the owners and employees of the Del Papa Distributing Company on the occasion of their 100th anniversary.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, today I introduce legislation to protect Americans from physical and emotional abuse by Federal Transportation Security Administration employees conducting screenings at the Nation's airports. We have seen the videos of terrified children being grabbed and probed by airport screeners. We have read the stories of Americans being subjected to humiliating body imaging machines and/or forced to have the most intimate parts of their bodies poked and fondled. We do not know the potentially harmful effects of the radiation emitted by the new millimeter wave machines. In one recent well-publicized case, a TSA official is recorded during an attempted body search saying, ``By buying your ticket you gave up a lot of rights.'' I strongly disagree and am sure I am not alone in believing that we Americans should never give up our rights in order to travel. As our Declaration of Independence states, our rights are inalienable. This TSA version of our rights looks more like the ``rights'' granted in the old Soviet Constitutions, where freedoms were granted to Soviet citizens--right up to the moment the state decided to remove those freedoms. The incident of the so-called ``underwear bomber'' last Christmas is given as justification for the billions of dollars the federal government is spending on the new full-body imaging machines, but a Government Accountability Office study earlier this year concluded that had these scanners been in use they may not have detected the explosive material that was allegedly brought onto the airplane. Additionally, there have been recent press reports calling into question the accuracy and adequacy of these potentially dangerous machines. My legislation is simple. It establishes that airport security screeners are not immune from any U.S. law regarding physical contact with another person, making images of another person, or causing physical harm through the use of radiation-emitting machinery on another person. It means they are subject to the same laws as the rest of us. Imagine if the political elites in our country were forced to endure the same conditions at the airport as business travelers, families, senior citizens, and the rest of us. Perhaps this problem could be quickly resolved if every cabinet secretary, every Member of Congress, and every department head in the Obama administration were forced to submit to the same degrading screening process as the people who pay their salaries. I warned at the time of the creation of the TSA that an unaccountable government entity in control of airport security would provide neither security nor defend our basic freedom to travel. Yet the vast majority of both Republicans and Democrats then in Congress willingly voted to create another unaccountable, bullying agency--in a simple-minded and unprincipled attempt to appease public passion in the wake of 9-11. Sadly, as we see with the steady TSA encroachment on our freedom and dignity, my fears in 2001 were justified. The solution to the need for security at U.S. airports is not a government bureaucracy. The solution is to allow the private sector, preferably the airlines themselves, to provide for the security of their property. As a recent article in Forbes magazine eloquently stated, ``The airlines have enormous sums of money riding on passenger safety, and the notion that a government bureaucracy has better incentives to provide safe travels than airlines with billions of dollars worth of capital and goodwill on the line strains credibility.'' In the meantime, I hope we can pass this legislation and protect Americans from harm and humiliation when they choose to travel.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to announce that I introduced some legislation today dealing with the calamity that we have found at our airports with TSA. Something has to be done. Everybody is fed up. The people are fed up, the pilots are fed up, I am fed up. I have come to this floor many times over the past many years and complained about the terrible foreign policy we have had, the terrible monetary policy we have had, the excessive spending and the debt, and also the tax policy. But what we are doing and what we are accepting and putting up with at the airports is so symbolic of us just not standing up and saying enough is enough. I know the American people are starting to wake up, but our government, those in charge, Congress, as well as the executive branch, are doing nothing. Yes, they are talking about maybe backing off and allowing the pilots to go through. But can you think how silly the whole thing is? The pilot has a gun in the cockpit and he is managing this aircraft, which is a missile, and we make him go through this groping X-ray exercise, having people feeling their underwear. It is absurd, and it is time we wake up. The bill I have introduced will take care of this. But we have to realize that the real problem is that the American people have been too submissive. We have been too submissive. It has been going on for a long time. This was to be expected even from the beginning of the TSA. And it is deeply flawed. Private property should be protected by private individuals, not bureaucrats. But the bill that I have introduced will take care of it. It is very simple. It is one paragraph long. It removes the immunity from anybody in the Federal government that does anything that you or I can't do. If you can't grope another person and if you can't X-ray people and endanger them with possible X-rays, you can't take nude photographs of individuals, why do we allow the government to do it? We would go to jail. He would be immediately arrested, if an individual citizen went up and did these things, and yet we just sit there and calmly say, oh, they are making us safe. And besides, the argument from the executive branch is that when you buy a ticket, you have sacrificed your rights and it is the duty of the government to make us safe. That isn't the case. You never have to sacrifice your rights. The duty of the government is to protect our rights, not to use them and do what they have been doing to us. The pilots, hopefully, will be exempted from this. Another suggestion I have that might help us: let's make sure that every Member of Congress goes through this. Get the x-ray and make them look at the pictures and then go through one of those groping pat- downs, and then I think there would be a difference. Have everybody in the executive branch, anybody--a Cabinet member--make them go through it and look at it. Maybe they would pay more attention. But this doesn't work. This is not what makes us safer. This is preposterous to think that the TSA has made us safer. When you think about it, if you look at what's happened over the past 10 years, during this last decade, we lost 3,000 on a terrible, terrible day for America. But since that time in this last decade we have also lost 6,000 of our military personnel going over there and trying to rectify this problem. We have lost 400,000 people on our government-run highways. We have lost 150,000 individuals from homicides. So I think there's reason to be concerned, reason to deal with this problem. We're not dealing with it the right way. We're doing the wrong thing. And groping people at the airport doesn't solve our problems. What has solved our problems, basically, has been that they put a good lock on the door, and they put a gun inside the cockpit. That's been the greatest boon to our safety. Safety should be the responsibility of the individual and the private property owner. But right now we assume the government's always going to take care of us, and we are supposed to sacrifice our liberties. I say that is wrong. We are not safer. And we also know there are individuals who are making money off this. Michael Chertoff, here's a guy that was the head of the TSA, selling the equipment. And the equipment is questionable. We don't even know if it works, and it may well be dangerous to our health. The way I see this, if this doesn't change, I see what has happened to the American people is we have accepted the notion that we should be treated like cattle. Make us safe, make us secure, put us in barbed wire, feed us, fatten us up, and then they'll eat us. And we're a bunch of cattle, and we have to wake up and say, We've had it. I think this whole idea of an opt-out day is just great. We ought to opt out and make the point. Get somebody to watch. And take a camera. It's time for the American people to stand up and shrug off the shackles of our government at TSA at the airports.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the imbalances in international trade, and in particular trade between China and the United States, have prompted many to demand a realignment of the Chinese yuan and the American dollar. Since we are running a huge trade deficit with China the call now is for a stronger yuan and a weaker dollar. This trade imbalance problem will not be solved so easily. I would urge my colleagues to consider the benefits we receive from our relationship with China, one of which is that American consumers benefit from lower-priced goods. Adopting the policy urged by supporters of this bill would cause consumer prices to increase, thus reducing consumers' wealth. Other producers would suffer as a result of the consumers' decreased purchasing power. I doubt that many of our constituents want us to increase the prices they pay for goods and services. Congress should also consider how the Chinese benefit the United States government by holding our debt. The dollars the Chinese acquire by selling us goods and services must be returned to the United States. Since the Chinese are not buying an equivalent amount of American goods and services, they are using the dollars to finance Congress' extravagant spending. This deep and legitimate concern for the trade imbalance between China and the U.S. will fall short if the issue of fluctuating, world- wide fiat currencies is not addressed. The fact that the U.S. dollar is the principal reserve currency of the world gives us a benefit that others do not enjoy. It allows us to export paper dollars and import goods manufactured in countries with cheap labor. It also allows us to finance the welfare/warfare state with cheap loans from China and Japan. It's a good deal for the government but according to economic law must come to an end, and the end will be messy for the U.S. consumer and for world trade. Our current account deficit and huge foreign indebtedness is a reflection of the world monetary system of fiat money. The longer the trade imbalances last, the more difficult the adjustment will be. The market will eventually force these adjustments on us. Instead of having fluctuating currency exchange rates and the inevitable instability that accompanies them, we should be working to establish a commodity-backed currency whose value is determined by the market. This would provide an objective measurement of the value of economic goods and services and thus strengthen the economy by freeing it from the negative effects of our unstable monetary policy. Instead of promoting global economic government, the United States Congress should reform those policies that reduce our manufacturers' competitiveness. The taxes and regulations imposed on American businesses are damaging economic growth and killing jobs. If we were serious about creating jobs, we would be working on an aggressive agenda of cutting taxes and repealing needless regulations. Congress can also improve America's competitive position by ending the practice of forcing American workers to subsidize their foreign competitors through organizations such as the Export-Import Bank and the International Monetary Fund. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleagues that stability in currencies is something we should seek, not something we should condemn. The bill before us today will not solve our problems. In fact, by refusing to address the economic stability created by fiat currency and instead embracing protectionism, it will further weaken the American economy.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I am introducing today a resolution honoring 75 Texas World War II veterans who are being flown by Dow Chemical Company to Washington, DC on September 27, 2010. These veterans have spent their post-WWII careers working at Dow's Freeport, Texas Operations, which is in the district I represent. Now they are finally getting the chance to see the WWII monument, which was built to honor their service to our country in the war. Madam Speaker, I would like to express my deepest appreciation to these veterans and all the veterans of WWII and I am pleased that Dow Chemical Company is making it possible for them to come to Washington, DC.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, the liberty movement lost one of its' true champions on September 7, 2010 when Ralph Smeed passed away from pancreatic cancer. ``Making Statism Unpopular,'' was not just the title of Ralph's website but the focus of all his efforts as a political activist, columnist, think tank leader, and supporter of numerous pro- liberty organizations and causes. Without Ralph's efforts, the movement to make statism unpopular would not be nearly as strong as it is today. I am honored that I was among the hundreds of freedom-lovers who were able to call Ralph a friend. Ralph was born in Caldwell, Idaho in 1921. His family was in the ranching and meatpacking business. His first experience with what he referred to as the ``mindless government bureaucracy'' occurred when he attempted to register for military service after Pearl Harbor and was informed that he could not volunteer, he had to wait till he was drafted! Following his military service, Ralph entered into the family business, becoming the manager in 1949. As a small businessman, Ralph had even more experiences with ``mindless government bureaucracy,'' and useless government rules and regulations. Ralph's first hand experiences and his study of the freedom philosophy lead him to become active in efforts to try to change the direction of the country. Ralph's interest in, and knowledge of, the freedom philosophy was enhanced by his association with the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), the nation's first free-market educational institution. Ralph attended a FEE seminar in 1965, where he met Leonard Read, the founder and President of FEE. Ralph was an enthusiastic supporter of FEE's mission to popularize the ideas of liberty and he worked closely with FEE, eventually serving as a member of FEE's Board of Trustees. Just recently, Ralph was involved in a special reprinting of Leonard Read's classic essay ``I, Pencil.'' One of the traits that made Ralph a great leader was that whenever he saw a task that needed to be done, or any opportunity to advance liberty that no one else in the freedom movement was taking advantage of; he would simply roll up his sleeves and do it himself. For example, in the early 1970s, there were not that many opinion writers providing an analysis of the events of the day from a pro-liberty perspective. Seeing this void, Ralph launched a successful career as a columnist in 1974. Years before it become commonplace to find free-market think tanks operating at the state and local level, Ralph started a public policy and education foundation, the Center for the Study of Market Alternatives. When the growth of the Internet opened up new opportunities to promote the freedom message, Ralph not only supported the efforts of free-market institutions to establish a web presence, he established his own site. Ralph served as a friend and mentor to many in the freedom movement. For example, he copublished a newsletter with Steve Symms, who went on to serve in Congress and the Senate. Ralph remained a close friend and adviser to Steve through his political career. The late Congresswoman Helen Chenoweth-Hague and former U.S. Representative and current Idaho Governor Butch Otter also benefited from Ralph's friendship and counsel. In recent years, Ralph has been recognized as the philosophical godfather of the Idaho Tea Party movement. Fortunately, Ralph's influence over the freedom movement will continue thanks to the Internet and a collection of his essays that soon will be published. As a writer, scholar, and activist for liberty, Ralph fought many ideological and political battles. Yet even Ralph's fiercest ideological opponents never had a bad word to say about him. This is because Ralph was something one rarely comes across in politics: a genuinely nice guy. Ralph had perhaps one of the best senses of humor of anyone I have ever known, and while he was quick to criticize anyone, regardless of position, power, or long-standing friendship, who was taking a course Ralph saw as detrimental to liberty, he never resorted to personal attacks. Madam Speaker, as I reflect on the impact Ralph Smeed had on the freedom movement, I cannot help but feel sorry for those freedom lovers who will never have the benefit of Ralph's friendship, wise counsel, and wickedly delightful sense of humor. I can only hope that all of us who knew Ralph as a friend will honor his memory by taking advantage of every available opportunity to continue Ralph's work of ``Making Statism Unpopular.''

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, on August 13 a birthday dinner will be held for Reverend Earline McGregor of Kendleton, Texas, to celebrate his eighty-fifth birthday and thank him for his years of community service. It is my pleasure to join the people of Kendleton in wishing Reverend McGregor a happy birthday and thanking him for all he has done for his community, his state, and his country. Earline McGregor was born on August 26, 1926 in Brenham, Texas. He spent over a year in the army in World War II. After receiving an honorable discharge from the Army, Earline McGregor decided to continue to serve his country by joining the Air Force. After twenty years of distinguished service in the Air Force, he retired with an honorable discharge in 1971. Since leaving the military, Reverend McGregor has worked as a Metro Bus Driver in Austin and also owned his own landscaping business. Today, Reverend McGregor serves his community by working as an associate minister and Sunday school teacher at Oak Hill Missionary Baptist Church in Kendleton, Fort Bend County, Texas under the leadership of Pastor Pleas Mayfield Sr. Madam Speaker the parishioners of Oak Hill Missionary Baptist Church, and the entire Kendledon community, are fortunate to have the services of someone as dedicated to public service as Reverend McGregor. It is therefore a pleasure to once again join the people of Kendleton in wishing a very happy birthday to Reverend Earline McGregor.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. It's called the Fair Sentencing Act. I'd like to rename it, though. I'd like to call it the Slightly Fairer Resentencing Act, because it really makes an attempt to correct a very, very serious problem in equal justice in our systems, and that effort I think we should all applaud. I would have much preferred H.R. 3245. I was an original cosponsor of that along with Congressman Scott, but I think this is a typical example of trying to fix a problem that we invite upon ourselves. In economics, I adhere to the position that once you want to do some good in the economy, with all the best motivations, we do things and we create new problems and we have to go back. If you get two new problems for every intervention, then you're constantly writing laws. Well, in social policy, I believe the same thing. It was trying to improve social policy with crack cocaine. There was no evidence on this. It was designed to help people, especially the minorities that were using crack cocaine, and they thought this was terrible, and it turned out that its law backfired. It actually hurt minorities, didn't help them. Here we are trying to correct this disparity, and it just, to me, confirms the fact that government management, whether it is the economy or social policy, doesn't make a whole lot of sense. When this country decided it was very dangerous to drink alcohol and we had to stop it, back in those days, in the teens of the last century, they decided in order for the government to do this they had to amend the Constitution. Can you imagine anybody being concerned today by what we do here and say we have to amend the Constitution? Oh, no. We amended the Constitution. It was a bomb. It made alcohol much more dangerous. All the drug dealers sold the alcohol, and the alcohol was more concentrated and less pure. People died. People woke up and they repealed it. This is what's going to have to happen someday. We need to repeal the war on drugs.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant support for S. 1789, the Fair Sentencing Act. My support is reluctant because S. 1789 is an uncomfortable mix of some provisions that reduce the harms of the federal war on drugs and other provisions that increase the harms of that disastrous and unconstitutional war. I am supporting this legislation because I am optimistic the legislation's overall effect will be positive. Congress should be looking critically at how we can extricate America from the four decades of destruction that has ensued since President Richard Nixon announced the federal war on drugs in 1972. As a medical doctor with over 30 years' experience, I certainly recognize the dangers that can arise from drug abuse. However, experience shows that the federal drug war creates many additional dangers, while failing to reduce the problems associated with drug abuse. Like 14 years of federal alcohol prohibition in the 1920s and '30s, America's federal drug war has failed to ameliorate the problems associated with drug use, while fostering violence and disrespect for individual rights. While imperfect, I am optimistic that the Senate bill being considered today will reduce the harms of the federal drug war. I also hope consideration of this legislation will enliven interest in ending the federal war on drugs. It is unfortunate that the House of Representatives is today considering this compromise legislation from the Senate instead of Representative Bobby Scott's H.R. 3245, the Fairness in Cocaine Sentencing Act. I am an original cosponsor of Representative Scott's bill, which passed the House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary on July 29, 2009--one year ago tomorrow. Representative Scott's legislation is a short and simple bill that repeals a handful of clauses, sentences, and subparagraphs of federal drug laws to eliminate the 100 to one drug weight basis for sentencing disparity for crack cocaine violations in comparison to powder cocaine violations. I will vote for the Senate legislation today because it rolls back some of the enhanced mandatory minimum sentences for crack cocaine that the federal government created in 1986. These enhanced mandatory minimum sentences have caused people convicted for small amounts of crack cocaine to serve much longer sentences in prison than people convicted for the same amount of powder cocaine. While the Senate legislation reduces the drug weight basis for mandatory minimum sentencing disparity between crack cocaine and powder cocaine convictions for many individuals to only 18 to one compared to the total elimination of the disparity in Representative Scott's bill, the Senate bill does make a step in the right direction. The Senate bill eliminates entirely the mandatory minimum sentence for simple possession of crack cocaine and reduces significantly the mandatory minimum sentence for many people convicted of crack offenses by raising the number of grams of crack cocaine a person must possess for each mandatory minimum sentence level to apply. In addition, the Senate bill allows courts to show compassion for individuals with compelling cases for leniency by reducing sentences for some people convicted of controlled substances violations who a court determines meet requirements including having minimum knowledge of the illegal enterprise, receiving no monetary compensation from the illegal transaction, and being motivated by threats, fear, or an intimate or family relationship. Unfortunately, while the Senate bill reduces some of the most extreme and unjust mandatory minimum sentences in the federal drug war, it also contains expansions of the federal drug war that I fear may yield results destructive to individual liberty and public safety. In particular, the Senate bill significantly increases maximum allowed monetary penalties for violations of federal restrictions on controlled substances and increases sentences for people convicted of controlled substances violations whose circumstances include certain aggravating factors. Some people will argue that the increased penalties in the Senate legislation are desirable because they target people who are high up in the illegal drug trade or who took particularly disturbing actions, such as involving a minor in drug trafficking. But, the history of the federal drug war has shown that ramping up penalties always results in increasing rather than decreasing the harms arising from the federal drug war. Such enhanced penalties increase the risks of the drug trade thus causing illegal drug operations to be more ruthless and violent in their tactics. Enhanced penalties also can result in even more inflated prices for illegal drugs, leading to more thefts by individuals seeking funds to support their drug use. High monetary fines for drug trafficking also tend to provide police and prosecutors with a perverse incentive to focus on nonviolent drug crimes instead of violent crimes. Each successive ramping up of the federal war on drugs has made it more evident that this war is incompatible with constitutional government, individual liberty, and prosperity. It is time for Congress to reverse course. I am optimistic that S. 1789--even with its faults-- may signal that Congress is ready to begin reversing course. It is imperative that the House of Representatives pursue a dialogue on how we can end the federal war on drugs--a war that has increasingly become a war on the American people and our Constitution.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding, and I thank you both for bringing this rule to the floor. Even though it is a privileged resolution, a privileged resolution has to qualify under the law, and under the War Powers Resolution, this does qualify. The question is, why are we doing it at this time? It seems like Pakistan is a minor problem compared to what's going on in Afghanistan as well as Iraq, but I think people have to realize that we go into war differently these days. We don't make declarations of war and the people get behind it. We slip into war. We fall into war. We get into these messes, and it seems to me like it's so much easier to get into these problems than getting out. We debate endlessly about getting out of Afghanistan. We've debated for years about how and when it's ever going to end in Iraq, and we bring this up now because this is an appropriate time. It is escalating. The war is spreading, and we're trying to stop this. We're trying to let the people know and let the Congress know that this war is getting bigger. It is not getting smaller. A lot of people thought with this administration war would get smaller and we would end some of this. It has been said that we need to be in Pakistan for national security reasons. I disagree with that. I think the fact that we're in there makes me feel more threatened because Pakistan is not about to attack us. We talk about the few troops there and that they're insignificant and we shouldn't worry about it, it's not significant, but that's the way we started in Vietnam. People were training soldiers, and before you knew it, we lost 60,000 people. But you know, in this day and age, with the type of wars that we fight, occupation with combat troops is not exactly how we get involved, and I believe the way I read the War Powers Resolution, it does involve attacks on countries with bombs. This is what we're doing. We're attacking this country. The people of Pakistan don't like it. The number of drone attacks in Pakistan now has doubled the number that it was under the Bush administration. So it is escalating. There have been 14 al Qaeda leaders killed by these drone attacks, but there were also 687 civilians killed. So, therefore, the efficiency of this isn't all that good, and now there's reports coming out that these drones don't always come back, and a lot of times they crash, and a lot of times we have to go out and find them. So there's a lot of activity going on. There is another reason we bring this up at this time. It is financial. We can't afford to expand the war. We can't afford the wars we have already. We can't afford to take care of our people at home. This costs money, and since we see this as an escalation and more provocation and a greater danger to us, because people are going to get upset. The people don't like this. There has actually already been a court ruling in Pakistan.

Mr. PAUL. So it will be a total of 1 hour?

Mr. PAUL. Thank you.

Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentleman for yielding. But the finances are certainly important. In the Congress, because we're slipping into this war, we have just recently granted $7.5 billion of aid to Pakistan. And what did they do with this money? Well, it's supposed to not be military. It's supposed to help rebuild their country, help their infrastructure. Well, we need a couple of dollars here for our infrastructure. But they can take that money; it's fungible. It goes into their intelligence. Their intelligence observations are being used for the Taliban, and we are fighting the Taliban. So it's totally inconsistent that we are on both sides of so many wars and what's going on. The mujahedin, they were our allies and we were fighting the occupation of the Soviets. It's the occupation that is the issue, and we were on their side and the Soviets were run out. But now that same group, who are called the Taliban now, the Taliban, we have to remember, had nothing to do with 9/11. It was the al Qaeda, not the Taliban. The Taliban are people who are unified with one issue, one concern they have, foreign occupation or foreign bombings of those countries. We need to make sure the American people know what's going on and that there are sometimes revelations that we don't hear about. Too often our government is involved in secret wars. There was secret bombing of Cambodia back in the 1960s, and here we are slipping and sliding once more into the escalation of this war which, unfortunately, is going to cost us a lot of money; it's going to cost us a lot of lives, a lot of innocent lives. Unfortunately, I wish I could believe that we are going to be more secure for this. I think we are going to be less secure because of this activity, and we will finally someday have to meet up to the question of why do they want to come here to kill us? Do they want to do it because of their religion? Do they want to do it because we are rich and because we are free? No. They want to come here because we occupy their territory.

Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I have one question about the rule: How will the time be divided?

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. What if it was always reported that freedom fighters were killed, as it was when they were our friends and our allies? The whole thing would change. But, no, we call them militants and we call them insurgents. But they were formerly our allies and our so-called friends. So this is just a reflection on the ridiculousness of our analyst policy of intervention and how so often our allies and our friends turn against us, and how our money, taxpayers' money, so often is used against us. I think this is a perfect example. We would like to stop it. That's why we brought this resolution up. We don't want to see this war spread, and we want the American people to know about it, and we want this Congress to know about it, because foreign policy isn't even written in the Constitution. The responsibility of how we run our foreign affairs is with the U.S. Congress; and when we go to war, it should be a congressional function, not an executive function; and some day we may get there, but right now, today, we have to do our very best to let people know the shortcomings of the policy we're following in Pakistan.

Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentleman for yielding. First off, I would like to address the subject about hostilities. It is true that there are no armies facing each other and shooting and killing each other, no tanks, no conventional type of hostilities. We don't live in a conventional era and we don't fight conventional wars, but there is a lot of hostile action going on. In looking and checking to find out if anybody has been killed, in the reports that I found, anywhere from 1,000 to 2,500 Pakistanis have been killed. Now, that sounds like it's rather hostile. And that comes not from our invasion in troop, but we've invaded them with our predators, with our drone missiles, and we drop bombs and we aim at targets, always at the bad people. But to the best of my knowledge from the information I get is that 14 al Qaeda leaders have been killed, and the rest have been civilians. And who knows exactly what their sentiments would be. Maybe a lot of them were defending their own country. Maybe they don't like foreign occupiers. But there is a lot of hostile action going on and a lot of people are dying. The gentleman from Ohio is quite correct. If you check with the people of Pakistan, they don't want us there. They don't want bombs dropped on them. How would we react in this country if all of a sudden there was a drone missile that landed on one of our cities and even one or two or three Americans were killed? We would be outraged and we would want to know about it. And here we do it constantly. I complain that we don't know enough about it and we give up our prerogatives. We allow the Presidents to do what they want and then we just capitulate and give them the money and do whatever. But I argue we don't know enough. We don't assume our responsibility. The American people don't know about it until we get deep into these quagmires and into these messes. But what about in Pakistan? There is a lot of conniving going on there because I am sure their leaders are quite satisfied with us going in there because we bribe them. The Congress just recently passed a bill that promises them $7.5 billion. That's how they stay in power, and it's also how they can help the Taliban who's fighting us. The whole thing is such a mess, but the people, if you ask the people of Pakistan, they're not going to support this. And the argument is that we have to support this because our generals want us to, because this is our mission. Well, what is our mission? Our mission ought to be to defend this country, preserve liberty, and show people what a free society looks like. We shouldn't be trying to tell other people how to live with bombs and threats. We give them two options: We tell them do it our way, and if they do, we give them a lot of money. If they don't do it our way, we start bombing them. But we don't achieve anything. That's my contention. We just go on and on. My big beef is with the overall policy. I know we're talking about the technicalities and we're talking about Afghanistan and Pakistan, but we don't solve any of these technical problems until we deal with the subject of what kind of a foreign policy we endorse. Are we supposed to be the policemen of the world? Are we supposed to be in nation building? Are we supposed to bankrupt our people? Are we supposed to support the infrastructure of others, building all around the world and neglect all of ours? It's coming to an end because this country is bankrupt, and we're going to have to change our policy whether we like it or not.