Ron Paul

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Balanced Budget Act (H.R. 2015), authorizing the expenditure of an additional $3 billion in taxpayer dollars on ``Welfare to Work'' programs as the Federal Government has no constitutional authority to spend taxpayer dollars on welfare-to-work programs. Congress is once again engaging in the tired ritual of the 5-year balanced budget plan. Repeatedly over the past 25 years there have been lofty proclamations that the budget would be balanced in 5 years because of government forecasts of continued growth. Each 5 year plan was announced with great fanfare and happy feelings of bipartisanship, yet, each plan fails to balance the budget because the economic forecasting upon which they were based never reflect actual economic circumstances. The Federal Government cannot predict exactly how the economy--the aggregate spending and saving habits of every individual in the nation--will behave over the course of the next 5 years. Because the economic situation in the future will be based upon the actions of individuals acting on their subjective preferences, these preferences are impossible to predict. The failure of every socialist government, whether totalitarian or democratic, to fulfill its leaders' promises of unlimited economic prosperity demonstrates the futility of government planning based upon the economic forecasts of government officials. It is, however, only a matter of time before the burden of taxes, spending, debt, and inflation catapult America's economy into yet another recession. When the optimistic projects of growth prove to be based more in hope than reality, the budget figures will be ``revised'' and a future Congress will once again confront the questions of balancing the budget. Even if the budget being considered by this Congress were guaranteed to balance the budget within 5 years, it should still be rejected because it fails to eliminate even one unconstitutional function of the Federal Government. Despite proclamations that ``the era of Big Government is over'', this budget actually increases taxpayer spending for many unconstitutional programs. The main problem with government policy today is not that the government cannot balance its books, but that the Federal Government is performing too many functions for which it lacks any constitutional authority. Mr. Speaker, the authorization of an additional three billion dollars for a welfare-to-work program, is a perfect example of how the budget proposal fails to address the basic question of how the welfare state exceeds the constitutional limitations on the power of the Federal Government. Under the tenth amendment to the United States Constitution, the Federal Government has no authority to take money from the people of Texas to spend on welfare programs for the people of New York. Welfare and job training programs are strictly the province of the individual States. The reconciliation proposal not only unconstitutionally spends Federal taxpayer funds on welfare programs, it dictates to the States how they must run their welfare-to-work programs. For example, States are required to spend 1 dollar of their own money for every 3 dollars of Federal money they receive, and they must distribute the funds according to a pre-determined Federal formula. Short of defunding all welfare programs and transferring responsibility for those programs back to the States and the people, Congress should provide maximum flexibility to the States to manage these programs as State officials see fit. For example, the amendment offered and later withdrawn by Mr. Johnson to allow State governments to use nongovernmental personnel in the determination of eligibility under the Medicaid, Food Stamp, and special supplemental nutrition programs for Women, Infants, and Children, is a step toward restoring federalism in welfare policy. It is not for Washington to determine the strengths and weaknesses of such a plan, these decisions are solely the responsibility of the States. In the name of transferring citizens from welfare to work, this bill provides millions of taxpayer dollars to move businesses onto the welfare rolls. Under this proposal, State governments may hand over taxpayer dollars to businesses for private sector job creation, employment, wage subsidies, on-the-job training, contacts with job placement companies, and job vouchers. By providing payments to private businesses who place and hire welfare recipients, Congress is creating a dangerous and powerful new constituency for welfare programs and, in effect, making it more difficult for future Congresses to reduce welfare expenditures. The welfare-to-work proposal also creates powerful disincentives for businesses to give welfare recipients a chance at a new life through an entry-level job. If this proposal becomes law, welfare recipients in entry-level jobs will be entitled to receive the minimum wage and be covered by certain health and safety regulations. Because mandating wages and benefits increases the costs to businesses of hiring new workers, any wage, safety, or health regulations discourage the hiring of new employees. This is especially true in the case of marginal employees who lack well-developed job skills. This bill restricts welfare recipients' ability to find gainful employment; the very population this bill is allegedly targeted to benefit. It is time to return to the most effective job creation machine in history--the free market. Any alternative necessarily results in suboptimal employment. Government is institutionally incapable of creating bonafide jobs. Private citizens acting freely are more than capable of caring for the needs of the less fortunate if the Federal Government stops appropriating so many of their resources for wasteful, bureaucratic, federal programs. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge Congress to reject the phony balanced budget plan before us today as that plan rests on two dubious notions: 1. Government can predict the economic future of the country; 2. The burden of taxes and spending placed on the economy by government will not cause America to experience an economic downturn. Furthermore, this proposal continues the Federal Government's unconstitutional micro-managing of State welfare programs. This bill extends corporate welfare in the form of subsidies to businesses which hire current welfare recipients thus creating a new client group for the welfare State. Mr. Speaker, the only way to permanently balance the budget and end welfare as we know it is to cease all federal expenditures for redistributionist programs not authorized under the United States Constitution. Therefore, all Members of the House of Representatives sincerely committed to limited government must oppose this proposal and instead work to defund all unconstitutional programs and return the authority for welfare programs to those best able to manage them.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I was recently asked who is right, the Southern Baptists or Disney, in their argument regarding homosexuality. The question was pointedly directed to me because it is known that my political positions do not exactly conform to Washington's conventional wisdom. As a Congressman, the answer for me was easy: both. Neither party is incorrect in stating their position. Both are permitted their viewpoint and neither has violated the other's rights. Disney has chosen to use its own property to express a view. Although not endorsed by everyone, Disney has every right to do so. The Government did not tell them they must nor did Disney ask for any Government pressure to be applied to those disinterested in Disney's message. Moreover, no Government money was involved. Disney's right of free expression is achieved in this case through its constitutional right to own and use its own property. This is an easy call when private property is involved and property rights are acknowledged. If this incident occurred using governmental funds or on Government property, as in a Government school, and only the concept of free speech was taken into consideration, it would have been virtually impossible to satisfy everyone's demands. One set of taxpayers claiming free speech on public property only opens the floodgates of controversy in an attempt to permit everyone to express any viewed desire. But it is this very fuzziness injected by government control of property that today is the source of so many hard feelings and difficult problems. Some argue that the freedom to express the views of secular humanism and even communism are perfectly acceptable in government schools, while at the same time, it is necessary to exclude voluntary prayer and all religious programs. Recognizing that atheistic humanism is a substitute for religious beliefs, this argument falls far short of satisfying any group desiring to use government property for religious reasons. Such conflicts do not occur on private property. No one argues the right of Protestants to invade Catholic-owned premises to preach the Protestant doctrine as a right under the first amendment. The access to a newspaper, television station, or radio station should only come with the permission of the owner. Who owns the property becomes the overriding issue and the right of free expression is incidental to that ownership. Essentially, all conflicts as to who could say what could easily be resolved with a greater respect for private property ownership. This is this principle that protects us in our homes from those that would lecture us in the name of free speech in public places. Thus, it is easy to argue for the Baptists' right to boycott. They are expressing their disgust by withholding their support and their property, that is, their money. And that is perfectly appropriate. As far as I am concerned, the more voluntary nonviolent boycotts, the better. The boycott is the free society's great weapon and was well understood by Martin Luther King. The evil comes when a boycott or any objection is made illegal by the State and the participants are jailed. When laws such as these exist, only jury nullification or even civil disobedience can erase them if the legislatures and the courts refuse to do so. Quite clearly, both sides of the Disney flap are correct in asserting their rights. The proper view on homosexuality and tolerance is a moral and theological question, not a political one. Problems like this can be voluntarily sorted out by the marketplace, but only when property rights are held in high esteem and there is an acknowledgment that government and individual force have no role to play. Imposing one's view upon another, through any type of force, should always be forbidden in a free society. Actually, the Disney-Baptist skirmish is a wonderful example of how freedom can work without Congress sticking its nose into each and every matter. Both sides have a right to stand up for their respective beliefs. By using the rules of private property ownership to guide our right of free expression and religion, it is not difficult to find an answer, for instance, to the conflict between unwelcomed speeches in privately- owned malls and mall owners. Because most of the difficult and emotional problems occur on Government-owned and Government-regulated property, we should, here in the Congress, do whatever we can to reinstate the original intent of the Constitution and honor and protect property ownership as an inalienable human right.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, as a physician, I know that what, at first, might seem to be a cure for a particular ailment is, in actuality, not a cure at all. In fact, going with a gut reaction to prescribe a treatment can do more harm than the original ailment may have. The same can be true for matters of government. The initial reaction to a problem in society, or the world will often lead us to make a conclusion about a course of action. Unfortunately, that first reaction can be wrong, even though guided by the best of intentions. We have such a case before us now. It is the dilemma of whether or not China should be granted the same trade relationship granted to almost every other nation of the world, a status misleadingly referred to as most favored nation, or MFN. We all know the charges: The Chinese Government violates basic human rights of its citizens, it is hostile towards Christianity, and its system of government runs contrary to our most fundamental beliefs, therefore MFN status should be denied. The initial reaction of our collective national psyche is to oppose MFN, to be tough, and say, ``No way, no special deals for China.'' But is this the proper solution? To clear up a misconception, MFN is not a special status at all. In fact, MFN status granted to a country simply means that U.S. citizens can trade with citizens of that nation without erection of extraordinary government barriers to entering our marketplace. Free trade is not something to be lightly dismissed. And MFN is nothing more than an attempt, albeit imperfect, to move towards free trade by lowering tariffs. Eliminating MFN status for China does not hurt the Chinese Government. But it does hurt Americans in two ways. First, by imposing what is essentially a tax on our people. It is a tax because it is the American consumer who will pay higher prices on goods coming from China. This means higher prices on many items and not just items which come directly from China. If the tariffs on Chinese goods increase, people will be forced to find replacement products. As the demand for those products increase, so will prices of those goods. The second means by which eliminating MFN status hurts Americans can be found in the reciprocal barriers China will likely erect. It will become much more difficult for farmers and businessmen in the United States to sell their products in China. Nearly every farmer and every agricultural group I have heard from supports MFN status for China. But the critics of MFN for China do not address the free-trade aspect of the debate, or the very real cost eliminating MFN would impose upon the American people. Instead, they focus on the real persecution of religious minorities' often practiced by the government in China. And for that I defer to those who are on the ground in China: the missionaries. According to Father Robert Sirico, a Paulist priest who recently discussed this topic on the Wall Street Journal's opinion page, Americans in China working to help the Chinese people are very frightened of what ending MFN might do to their efforts and the people to whom they minister. After all, ending MFN will not bring about the freedoms we hope China may confer upon its people, nor will ending MFN mean more religious freedom or fewer human rights violations. In fact, those working in China to bring about positive change fear only the worst if MFN is withdrawn. ``As commercial networks develop, Chinese business people are able to travel freely, and Chinese believers have more disposable income with which to support evangelistic endeavors,'' Sirico writes. Even worse, the missionaries have been reporting that ``such action would endanger their status there, and possibly lead China to revoke their visas. It would severely limit opportunities to bring in * * * religious materials. These missionaries understand that commercial relations are a wonderfully liberating force that allow not only mutually beneficial trade but also cultural and religious exchanges.'' And so the critical question remains: MFN, or no MFN? Idealogically, revoking MFN is a step in the wrong direction, a step away from free trade. It is equally clear that revoking MFN is harmful to our people, and likely to be harmful to the Chinese. The ones to suffer will be the very individuals we seek to help, not the powerful elite in Beijing. I have long held that governments do not solve problems. Rather, governmental action often creates more problems than existed previously. It is the individual people who are able to bring about positive change in this world; it is individuals who solve problems. China's government is indeed a concern: for us and its people. But it is a problem we can only resolve by changing the hearts of the Chinese leaders. And whether we like it or not, the way we can do that is through trade with China. By rushing quickly for the ``pills'' of government-enforced sanctions, we may have the best of intentions to cure the Chinese Government of its persecution of human rights. But unfortunately, those pills will only harm the patient. We must swallow our pride and admit that perhaps the best remedy is not the first solution. It is only through the open dialogue of individuals that the Chinese Government will ever be convinced it is wrong. By closing the door now, when we have the opportunity to allow to grow the seeds of change which have been so firmly planted in China, we will be damning that nation's people to a return to their darker days. We will lose the patient if we act hastily or imprudently and that cannot be the correct option. It is never an option when I have a patient on the operating table, and it cannot be an option when dealing with the situation in China.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the Congress will vote today on a ``Flag Burning Amendment'' to the Constitution. This issue arouses great emotions even without any evidence flag burning is a problem. When was the last time we heard of a significant incident involving flag burning? It's a nonissue but Congress has managed to make it one while avoiding the serious matters of life, liberty, and property. There just is no flag ``desecration'' crisis. Where are the demonstrators, where are the letters? Will this only lead to more discredit on Congress? Only 6 percent of the American people trust anything they hear from the Federal Government so why should they believe there is a flag crisis requiring an adjustment to the Bill of Rights for the first time in our history. Since most of what Congress does, leads to unintended consequences, why do we feel compelled to solve imaginary problems? The American people are way ahead of the U.S. Congress and their distrust is a healthy sign the Republic will survive in spite of all our good deeds and noble gestures. And that's good. What sense of insecurity requires such a public display to reassure ourselves we are patriots of the highest caliber, confident enough to take on the flag burning movement--a movement yet to raise it's ugly head. Our political saviors will have us believe that our loyalty to America hinges on this lone amendment to the Constitution. As Congress makes plans to attack the flag enemies, it stubbornly refuses to consider seriously: the Doctrine of Enumerated Powers, property rights, political propaganda from a government run educational system, taxpayer's paid-for NEA sacrilege, licensing of all broadcast networks, or taxpayer's financing of monopolistic political parties, let alone the budget, the debt, the deficit, honest money, policing the world, and the entire welfare state. Pervasive bureaucratic government is all around us and now we're spending time on developing the next addition to the Federal police force--the flag police. Diverting attention away from real problems toward a pseudo-problem is not a few technique of politicians.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I am in support of this rule. I can think of a better rule. I would have liked the rule to be more open. I had a substitute for the particular amendment that we are proposing to the Constitution, but that will not be permissible. However, I will vote for the rule. I have to compliment the authors of this legislation, recognizing that this cannot be done with legislation, that we have to alter the Constitution, because if one writes legislation, obviously it would not be constitutional. So therefore, I think the authors of the proposal should be complimented. Also, they deserve some credit for courage, because it is my understanding that this will be the first time that we will alter the Bill of Rights, and in doing so, I think we should do this with a great deal of thoughtfulness. The courts, as we know, have quite frequently limited our freedom of speech. This is why we have the Istook amendment. The courts have ruled out voluntary prayer in schools, so we are trying to compensate for that with the Istook amendment, and I am a supporter of that, but this amendment is quite different. Instead of expanding the right of free expression, this is curtailing the right of free expression and for that reason I will be opposing the legislation. We have no flag crisis, and I am quite concerned that once this has passed into the Constitution, it might incite more flag burnings and more flag desecration. Actually, under the Constitution, a more permissible way and more proper way of dealing with the problems that the courts have presented us, is for we as a Congress to withhold the jurisdiction from the courts, and then allow the States to write the legislation that was ruled unconstitutional. As a matter of fact, even this amendment, as proposed, we could change two words and make it an acceptable amendment to those of us who interpret the Constitution in a strict manner. All we would have to do is the States could write the laws instead of Congress. The first amendment starts out and says the Congress will write no laws, the Congress will make no laws restricting freedom of expression. But here, the last time this amendment came up, they included the States, it said the Congress and the States could write the regulations and the rules, but now it says only the Congress. I thought we were for less government. I thought we were for less centralization, less police forces up here. I am quite sure that this will become the job of the BATF. I guess we will have a BATFF next, because they will have to police the flag abuse. There are a lot of reasons why we should oppose this. One is that it is not only a freedom of speech issue, it is also a property rights issue. Withholding and restricting flag burning of other people's flags and Government-owned flags and on Government property, that certainly is legitimate. But freedom of speech and freedom of expression depends on property. We do not have freedom of expression of our religion in other people's churches; it is honored and respected because we respect the ownership of the property. The property conveys the right of free expression, as a newspaper would or a radio station. But once we deal with the property, no matter how noble the gesture, I think that we have to be very, very cautious in this manner. The original intent of the Founding Fathers in writing the Constitution was never that we would be so involved in writing regulations and legislation of free expression in an attack on private property ownership, and then again, it really defies the ninth and tenth Amendments. We would be much better off taking the part of the Constitution that allows us to remove the jurisdiction from the courts and, thus, then permitting the States to write the laws as they see fit.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I want to point out that the word ``desecrate'' is a very important word. We have talked about it all day but have not yet defined it. It means to deconsecrate. What I want to know is when we have consecrated the flag. We are holding the flag in the highest of esteem, and yet liberty is really what should be on the pinnacle. Liberty and the Constitution. When we undermine the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, we undermine liberty and then we diminish the value of the flag. But to deconsecrate something means that the flag was consecrated. I want to read what that means. It means ``To make, declare or set apart as sacred,'' or, such as a church, ``To set apart for the worship of a deity. To change the elements of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ.'' Who and when did we raise this flag to this level? Have we deified the state to this extent? We very often complain about the state taking over parental rights, and here we are now saying that to do anything to the flag is a desecration, which means that we have consecrated the flag. To desecrate means to abuse the sacredness of the subject of sacrilege; that we cannot commit blasphemy.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, much has been said about this issue being a freedom of expression issue, and it certainly is. Obviously, the American Legion that burns the flag does it differently than the hoodlum on the street, so it does involve an expression of some ideas; that we are limiting that ability for any individual to make this expression. I am convinced that this is historic. This is the first time that we have worked hard in undermining the Bill of Rights. Some have said that the first amendment cannot be absolute, but in some ways it can be. What we say and do in our homes and churches should be absolute, and we should be able to say and do things. The restrictions on speech is when we get involved in lying and slandering and doing harm that way. Yes, then there is a limitation. But that is different. When we are in our churches, we should have absolute right of freedom of speech. But there is more to this than freedom of expression. This is a property rights issue. That is why I am so disappointed with some of my colleagues that have pushed this as an amendment, because this is an attack on property rights. The question seems to be asked very rarely but should be asked: Who owns the flag? If somebody burned the flag, who owns the flag? They are saying everybody owns it? How does that happen? Can we not buy a flag anymore? Do we believe in collectivism now; that everybody owns the flag and everybody is responsible for it, and we will all do exactly as we are told? That is not part of our system. We guarantee the right of free speech through property rights, through the reverence that we give to our churches or our radio stations or our newspapers. Nobody has the right to march into our church and preach any religion to us or march into a newspaper or march into a radio station. So in this case we are dealing with a piece of property that should be respected as property. And I think we are attacking that just as much as anything else. Also, it is disappointing to see that this amendment is actually worse than the last amendment that came to this House floor, because at least the last amendment recognized that maybe the States could write regulations. Under the original Constitution, in the original intent of the Constitution, it would have been permissible for States to write regulations of this sort. It was our courts that have come in and started to overregulate freedom of speech and freedom of expression. For instance, I am quite comfortable in agreeing with the Istook amendment. Because of the courts, again, we have lost the concept of property in our public schools. In a private school we know what we are allowed to do. But in a public school everything becomes fuzzy. So the courts come in and say, all of a sudden, we cannot even have a voluntary prayer. So the Istook amendment approaches completely opposite of what we are doing here, because this is restriction of expression, it is a restriction on the private property ownership, and it really attacks the 9th and 10th amendments. Because before, even where the States had been permitted to write laws, they are not permitted under this legislation. Only the Congress shall make the laws. I thought we were supposed to make the Federal Government smaller as conservatives, not bigger. Here we are adding a new role for the BATF. We have the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms; and we are going to have a BATFF in order for those individuals to go out and regulate the flag use. And this is Federal. Just think of how the RICO laws may apply to this. One individual in one group may do something wrong; everybody in that group can be held guilty for that. What if there happens to be someone in there that has done it deliberately in order to get at the group? Could this be entrapment? Has our FBI ever been known to do this? I think it is a dangerous thing that we are doing. Why are we so fearful? It is implied at times that if we do not endorse this amendment we are less patriotic than the others. I think that is wrong to imply that we might be less patriotic. From my vantage point, from having been involved in politics for a few years, the real attack is not on our liberties. The real attack in this institution is the attack on the Constitution, and this does nothing to address it. It is almost like window dressing. We are upset and feel guilty and in a mess and cannot do anything. All we need to do is pass a flag amendment and it is going to solve the problem of the attack on the Constitution, which is continuous and endless. We do not need more legislation like this. We do not need an amendment to the Constitution that will, for the first time, alter the Bill of Rights. I really think those individuals who are pushing this have courage to get out front and say yes, for the first time, we will curtail the authority or the expressions and the rights of the Bill of Rights.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, it has recently come to my attention that Dr. Albert Schweitzer, well known for his selfless dedication to bringing medical care to thousands of poor Africans, would currently be unlikely to gain admittance to an American medical school due to his status as a Lutheran minister. A recent study of medical school admissions practices identified a pervasive bias against medical school candidates with strong religious views. This aberration in American education was carefully researched and detailed in an article jointly authored by Albert E. Gunn, Esq., M.D., associate dean of admissions at the University of Texas--Houston Medical School and George O. Zenner, Jr., M.D., associate professor at the University of Texas--Houston Medical School. The research of these two highly qualified professionals warrant careful consideration and, as such, I commend the research done by Drs. Gunn and Zenner and am pleased to enter Joseph Sobran's commentary on this significant work into the Congressional Record. Qualified Applicants Only (By Joseph Sobran) Do medical schools screen Christians out? The question is rarely asked in public, but it has recently received a public answer anyway, though it's not likely you've heard about it. An article by Albert E. Gunn and George O. Zenner (both doctors) in the spring issue of Issues in Law & Medicine, published in Terre Haute, Ind., offers some appalling findings, taken from interviews and evaluations of applicants to an unnamed school of medicine. The article deserves wider circulation, so permit me to quote extensively from it. It confirms suspicions that hadn't even occurred to me yet, though they should have--proving once again that contemporary life outdoes not only satire, but the most beady-eyed conspiracy theories. Excerpts from the interviewers' comments on various applicants speak for themselves: ``In discussing various issues related to medicine-- especially ethical and moral issues--I felt that her viewpoint was rather narrow or rigid and that she has not thought the issues through very well. She is strongly religious and calls herself a `Christian'.'' ``* * * I found Mr. ---- to be immature and quite rigid in his thinking. * * * His interests seemed to be exclusively in outdoor sports and in church activities. * * * I was somewhat concerned by Mr. ----'s attitude toward religion and medicine. He is a strict Christian who believes in the literal truth of the Bible. He does not believe in the Darwinian theory of evolution, and does not feel that it should be taught in schools and colleges in the way it is presently taught. In hypothetical situations in which he as a doctor might advise a patient about contraception or abortion, Mr. ---- insisted upon taking a highly moralistic stance. For example, he said that when advising a 25-year-old woman about contraception, he would first want her to convince him that her activities were `moral.' I found this attitude very disturbing.'' ``Mr. ---- is very enthusiastic. * * * God and religion very much influence his life. * * * Mr. ---- shows potential for a medical career provided he controls his own preconceived attitudes on what will help a patient.'' ``What makes this interview difficult is that the student is certainly different from most applicants and is heavy on religion, as expressed numerous times in his essay. Knowing how concerned the committee is about such matters, I questioned him in some detail but not in any way, I believe, to influence his answers. * * * He prays frequently and has fasted on one occasion for three days waiting for a message from God to help him make a difficult decision. He does not hear voices. God answers him by giving him a feeling of what is the right decision. A lot of these matters are reminiscent of other applicants that the committee has turned down, fearing either a psychiatric disorder or a situation where the individual as a medical student or physician will `moralize' or force religion on a patient when not indicated.'' And a few brief comments about various applicants, from viewers and the admissions committee: ``Vague discussing abortion.'' ``He has found God but does not hear voices.'' ``Negative view of candidate who said she was Catholic and this influenced her view on abortion.'' ``Applicant would counsel against abortion and would not refer patient for abortion.'' ``Do not recommend acceptance due to indecisiveness on abortion and pulling the plug.'' ``Displayed rigidity in comparing future of fetus to future of pregnant 16-year-old girl.'' ``Rigid, born-again Christian. Has not resolved how abortion will affect medical practice.'' The authors of the article note that ``several of the applicants appeared reluctant to discuss their views, possibly fearing that their opposition to abortion might jeopardize their selection.'' No wonder, when the views of those who expressed disapproval of abortion were so often frowningly judged ``rigid,'' ``narrow,'' and even ``indecisive.'' The authors observe: ``No extant records contain a case in which an applicant who favored abortion was described in negative terms.'' Not that all Christian applicants were rejected, of course--that would be either demographically difficult or at least suspicious-looking. But even the positive comments of the interviewers and committee display a telling bias: ``. . . I am personally satisfied that he is not a born- again Christian. . . .'' ``Very religious and moralistic but not evangelistic.'' ``Mexican-American Catholic, observant, not fanatical.'' ``He would not hesitate to recommend an abortion or birth control devices to young ladies for whom this would be appropriate. . . . While superficially he resembles other applicants who have been objectionable to the committee, on looking more closely, I am sure he should not be regarded as such.'' In the interviews and evaluations, the authors point out, only Christian views and anti-abortion views were discussed negatively. No nonreligious or pro-abortion applicant seems to have been found too ``rigid'' or, for that matter, too lax or cavalier about abortion. All the interviews and evaluations assume a consensus among the doctors that abortion and the willingness to perform it are desirable, and that any reservations about them are cause for suspicion and alarm. Here is one place where liberals don't seem to seek ``diversity'' and ``pluralism.'' Or rather, they equate ``diversity'' and ``pluralism'' with agreement with their own attitude. Only religious applicants were grilled about their views-- in spite of a state law governing the school that forbids denying admission because of opposition to abortion, and in spite of other laws prohibiting religious discrimination. Presumably the school's own formal code proscribes these admissions policies too, but that doesn't seem to stop anyone. So while pro-lifers are writing their congressmen or pounding the pavement to change the bogus constitutional law of Roe v. Wade, this is what's going on behind the closed doors of the medical profession. If you've had trouble finding a Christian doctor, or if you've wondered why the American Medical Association is so fervently pro-abortion, here is your answer. Christian students are getting the message that they're unwelcome in the medical schools. If they want to try to get in anyway, they usually sense that it's a good idea to keep their views under wraps. This is a sampling from only one school, but it may be worth noting that the school apparently isn't in New York or Los Angeles, but in a conservative and heavily Christian region. We can only guess what things are like in the pagan precincts.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend the insight added to the policy debate on most-favored-nation [MFN] status for China by Rev. Robert A. Sirico in an article he authored in yesterday's Wall Street Journal. Reverend Sirico succinctly highlights the danger which occurs when ``labor unions and other left-liberal protectionists'' align themselves with those factions of the religious right who, at times, are ``insensitive to the difference between urging certain moral ends and using government coercion to bring them about.'' Reverend Sirico, a Paulist priest, explains that pleas from evangelical missionaries currently working in China have passionately urged United States policymakers not to cut off trade with China as this would endanger Christian's status in China as well as possibly lead to the Chinese Government revoking Christian's visas. ``Economic prosperity through free trade is the most effective distributor of wealth and power, and trade with China is the surest way to break the grip of centralized political power'' according to Reverend Sirico who also finds the Chinese Government's treatment of Christians morally objectionable. It is important, in evaluating United States policy toward the government of China, or any other sovereign foreign government, to differentiate between lowering trade barriers, as MFN status simply does, and United States taxpayer financing of foreign governments through various forms of foreign aid as well as engaging in corporate welfare through such agencies as the World Bank, OPIC, and the IMF. While lowering trade barriers necessarily results in greater economic well-being, foreign aid, and international corporate welfare programs are neither economically prudent nor constitutional. Additionally, misnamed multilateral agreements like NAFTA, or more honestly, government-regulated international trade does not constitute free trade and should be opposed on the same grounds of unconstitutionality and economical ineptness. I commend the research of Reverend Sirico and thank him for his important contribution to the policy debate regarding most-favored- nation status and recommend a careful reading of his article by everyone genuinely interested in both the proper moral and economic resolution of this issue. [From the Wall Street Journal, June 11, 1997] China and the Trade Warriors (By Robert A. Sirico) Despite occasional tensions between social conservatives and economic conservatives, most social and cultural goals have an economic dimension about which the two camps are generally in agreement. But now a leader of the socially conservative camp has proposed that there is an issue that pits morality and prosperity irreconcilably against one another--U.S. trade with China, a nation known for human-rights violations, and particularly for religious persecution. Gary Bauer of the Family Research Council is demanding that the U.S. government wage economic war against China with sanctions, boycotts and embargoes. In his campaign for trade restrictions with China, Mr. Bauer and a few other conservative leaders are working hand in glove with labor unions and other left-liberal protectionists, normally diehard opponents of the religious right. Barricades Have Collapsed The usual political barricades have collapsed as Mr. Bauer's comrades join forces to oppose congressional attempts to continue normal trading relations with China. In a recent letter, Mr. Bauer compares the urgency of imposing sanctions to issues such as ending slavery and defeating Hitler. How restricting trade with China will help strengthen American families, faith and morality is unclear. What is clear is that Mr. Bauer finds China's treatment of Christians morally objectionable. I do, too. And he is to be commended for his efforts at raising the public's awareness of Chinese persecution. Christians are threatened, jailed, expelled and even killed in China. Whether this occurs more or less today than in decades past is in dispute. But one human-rights violation is one too many. That's why I, along with many others, signed an open letter from the Family Research Council to Vice President Al Gore that appeared in major newspapers. It objected to Mr. Gore's failure to emphasize China's poor human-rights record during his March visit. The letter particularly highlighted China's vicious suppression of the rights of Roman Catholics to worship in freedom. The letter said nothing about a broader trade agenda. I would have signed a similar letter about the appalling treatment of Christians in Egypt (which receives U.S. aid), Saudi Arabia (which the U.S. has defended militarily) and Iraq (where a Kurdish convert to Christianity, Mansour Hussein Sifer, was recently martyred). Friends of freedom should oppose restrictions on worship and religious speech anywhere they may appear, including the U.S. When I signed the letter on China, however, I did not know that it was a prologue to a full-blown political campaign that would seek to curtail commercial ties between China and the rest of the world. Mr. Bauer's position has evolved from a strong moral stand in favor of religious freedom to waging total trade war. A charge often leveled against the Christian right is that it is not sensitive to the difference between urging certain moral ends and using government coercion to bring them about. It's usually a canard: In the case of the arts, for example, the religious right seeks not censorship but an end to taxpayer subsidies for blasphemy and obscenity. I regret having to say that this time, however, the Family Research Council has lived up to the stereotype. It is attempting to enlist government power, at the expense of everyone who benefits from U.S.-Chinese commercial relations, thus choosing an inappropriate means to achieve a moral end. What's more, trade sanctions would be counterproductive. Sanctions won't bring freedom for religious expression in China. They won't end China's cruel policies limiting family size. They won't stop the horrific policy of forced abortions. They won't bring democracy. They can only further isolate China and close off avenues for greater Western influence. The growth of Western businesses in China, however, would dilute the power of China's communist rulers. As commercial networks develop, Chinese businesspeople are able to travel more freely, and Chinese believers have more disposable income with which to support evangelistic endeavors. No one understands this better than evangelical missionaries currently working in China. Mr. Bauer's passionate campaign has elicited pleas from many of them for Congress not to cut off trade. Such an action would endanger their status there, and possibly lead China to revoke their visas. It would severely limit opportunities to bring in Bibles and other religious materials. These missionaries understand that commercial relations are a wonderfully liberating force that allow not only mutually beneficial trade but also cultural and religious changes. Why doesn't Mr. Bauer listen to those who know far more about China than Washington think tanks and labor unions do? ``They may be too close to the situation,'' he answers, somewhat flippantly. Until recently, trade warriors have cited the case of the U.S. Catholic bishops, who have opposed renewing normal trade status with China. At the same time, however, Hong Kong's official Catholic newspaper, the Sunday Examiner, reports new contacts between Beijing and Hong Kong's Catholic hierarchy. These contacts are a major step toward an official recognition of the Catholic Church on the mainland. To the Good This would all be to the good. Diplomacy and international trade strengthen people's loyalties to each other and weaken government power. Beijing has shown itself to be supremely interested in fostering prosperity at home. Christians must take advantage of this impulse, rather than recklessly treating China as a monster that must be slain. This need not be an issue that divides social conservatives from economic conservatives. Economic prosperity through free trade is the most effective distributor of wealth and power, and trade with China is the surest way to break the grip of centralized political power. Religious conservatives should broaden their focus beyond purely social and cultural issues. Mr. Bauer and his supporters are right to decry the immoral treatment of believers in China. But allowing themselves to be used by protectionist and labor lobbies is an imprudent approach. Just as religious freedom offers the best hope for Christian social influence, economic freedom is the best hope for spreading that influence around the world.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the Congress will soon vote on a flag burning amendment to the Constitution. This issue arouses great emotions, even without any evidence flag burning is a problem. When was the last time we heard of a significant incident involving flag burning? It is a nonissue, but Congress has managed to make it one while avoiding the serious matters of life, liberty, and property. As Congress makes plans to attack the flag enemies, it stubbornly refuses to consider seriously the Doctrine of Enumerated Powers, property rights, political propaganda from a government-run educational system, taxpayers' paid-for NEA sacrilege, licensing of all broadcast networks, or taxpayers' financing of monopolistic political parties, let alone the budget, the debt, the deficit, honest money, policing the world and the entire welfare state. Will the country actually be improved with this amendment? Will true patriotism thus thrive as the malcontents are legislated into submission? Do we improve the character of angry people because we threaten them with a prison cell better occupied by a rapist? This whole process fails to address the anger that prompts such misguided behavior as flag burning. We have a government growing by leaps and bounds, our citizens are fearful of the future and we respond by creating the underwear police. Surely flag underwear will be deemed a desecration. Why is dealing with a symptom of anger and frustration by suppressing free expression a moral good? The best I can tell is legislative proposals like this come from Congress' basic assumption that it can legislate economic equality and mold personal behavior. The reasoning goes; if Congress thinks it can achieve these goals, why not legislate respect and patriotism, even if it does undermine freedom of expression and property ownership. Desecration is defined as: ``To divest of a sacred character or office, commit sacrilege or blasphemy or to deconsecrate.'' If consecrate is ``to make sacred; such as a church or bread or wine'', how can we deconsecrate something not first consecrated? Who then consecrated the flag? When was it done? ``Sacred'' beliefs are those reserved for a religious or Godly nature, ``To set apart for the worship of a deity. To make holy.'' Does this amendment mean we now concede the flag is a religious symbol? Will this amendment, if passed, essentially deify the State? There are some, I am sure, who would like to equate the State with God. The State's assumption of parental rights is already a deep concern to many Americans. Will this encourage more people to accept the State as our God? We imply by this amendment that the State is elevated to a religion, a dangerous notion and one the founders feared. Calling flag burning blasphemous is something we should do with great caution. Will it not be ironic if the flag is made sacred and we write laws against its desecration at the same time we continue to steal taxpayers' money to fund the National Endowment for the Arts, which truly desecrates Christ and all of Christianity in the name of free speech? The flag, indeed, is a loved patriotic symbol of American pride and freedom. Many of us, I for 5 years, served our country in the military fighting for the principles of liberty, but not for the physical cloth of which the flag is woven. There is confusion between the popular symbol and the real stuff, and in the process of protecting our symbols we are about to undermine the real stuff: liberty. The whole notion of legislating against desecration is vague and undefinable. Burning can be easily identified, but should it not matter who paid for the flag? And are there no owners of the particular flag involved? Are all flags to be communal property? If we pretend flags are universally owned, that means we can use them randomly. If there is no individual ownership, how can one buy or sell a flag? Should it not be a concern as to where the flag is burned and on whose property? With this legislation, the flag will lose its identity as property and become a holy government symbol not to be desecrated. These are difficult questions but they must be answered. Whatever happened to the notion that freedom to express unpopular, even obnoxious views, including Marxist views, was the purpose of guaranteeing freedom of expression? Of what value is protection of only popular and majority-approved opinions? That is a mockery of liberty. Soviet citizens had that much freedom. Remember, dissidents who burned the Soviet flag were shot. A national flag police can only exist in a totalitarian state. We should have none of it. Why not police the burning of the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Emancipation Proclamation? These acts, expressing a radical fringe view, would be as equally repugnant. Introduction The Congress will soon vote on a flag burning amendment to the Constitution. This issue arouses great emotions even without any evidence flag burning is a problem. When was the last time we heard of a significant incident involving flag burning? It's a nonissue but Congress has managed to make it one while avoiding the serious matters of life, liberty, and property. There just is no flag desecration crisis. Where are the demonstrators, where are the letters? Will this only lead to more discredit on Congress? Only 6 percent of the American people trust anything they hear from the Federal Government so why should they believe there is a flag crisis requiring an adjustment to the Bill of Rights for the first time in our history. Since most of what Congress does, leads to unintended consequences, why do we feel compelled to solve imaginary problems? The American people are way ahead of the U.S. Congress and their distrust is a healthy sign the Republic will survive in spite of all our good deeds and noble gestures. And that's good. What sense of insecurity requires such a public display to reassure ourselves we are patriots of the highest caliber, confident enough to take on the flag burning movement--a movement yet to raise its ugly head. Our political saviors will have us believe that our loyalty to America hinges on this lone amendment to the Constitution. As Congress makes plans to attack the flag enemies, it stubbornly refuses to consider seriously: the Doctrine of Enumerated Powers, property rights, political propaganda from a government run educational system, taxpayer's paid-for NEA sacrilege, licensing of all broadcast networks, or taxpayer's financing of monopolistic political parties, let alone the budget, the debt, the deficit, honest money, policing the world, and the entire welfare state. Pervasive bureaucratic government is all around us and now we're spending time on developing the next addition to the Federal police force--the flag police. Diverting attention away from real problems toward a pseudoproblem is not a new technique of politicians. Motivation Political grandstanding is probably the greatest motivation behind this movement to change the Constitution. It's thought to be easy to embarrass those who, on principle, believe and interpret the first amendment differently. Those who vote eagerly for this amendment do it with good intentions as they laugh at the difficult position in which opponents find themselves. Will the country actually be improved with this amendment? Will true patriotism thus thrive as the malcontents are legislated into submission? Do we improve the character of angry people because we threaten them with a prison cell, better occupied by a rapist? This whole process fails to address the anger that prompts such misguided behavior as flag burning. We have a government growing by leaps and bounds, our citizens are fearful of the future, and we respond by creating the underwear police--surely, flag underwear will be deemed a desecration. Why is dealing with a symptom of anger and frustration by suppressing free expression a moral good? The best I can tell is legislative proposals like this come from Congress' basic assumption that it can legislate economic equality and mold personal behavior. The reasoning goes; if Congress thinks it can achieve these goals, why not legislate respect and patriotism even if it does undermine freedom of expression and property ownership? desecration Desecration is defined as: ``To divest of a sacred character or office, commit sacrilege or blasphemy or de-(con)secrate.'' If consecrate is ``to make sacred; such as a church or bread and wine,'' how can we ``de-consecrate'' something not first ``consecrated?'' Who then consecrated the flag? When was it done? ``Sacred beliefs are those reserved for a religious or Godly nature, i.e., to set apart for the worship of a deity. To make holy.'' Does this amendment mean we now concede the flag is a religious symbol? Will this amendment if passed essentially deify the state? There are some, I'm sure, who would like to equate the state with God. The state's assumption of parental rights is already a deep concern to many Americans. Will this encourage more people to accept the state as our God? We imply by this amendment that the state is elevated to a religion--a dangerous notion and one the Founders feared. Calling flag burning blasphemous is something we should do with great caution. Won't it be ironic if the flag is made sacred--consecrated--and we write laws against its desecration at the same time we continue to steal taxpayer's money to fund the National Endowment for the Arts which truly desecrates Christ and all of Christianity in the name of free speech? I must repeat this question: Won't it be ironic if the flag is made sacred and we write laws against its desecration at the same time we continue to steal taxpayer's money to fund the National Endowment for the Arts which desecrates Christ and all of Christianity in the name of free speech? The flag indeed is a loved patriotic symbol of American pride and freedom. Many of us, I for 5 years, have served our country in the military fighting for the principles of liberty, but not for the physical cloth of which the flag is woven. There is confusion between the popular symbol and the real stuff, and in the process of protecting our symbols we are about to undermine the real stuff--liberty. The whole notion of legislating against desecration is vague and undefinable. Burning can be easily identified but shouldn't it matter who paid for the flag? Are there no owners of the particular flag involved? Are all flags to be communal property? If we pretend flags are universally owned, that means we can use them randomly. If there is no individual ownership how can one sell or buy a flag? Should it not be a concern as to where the flag is burned and on whose property? With this legislation the flag will lose its identity as property and become a holy government symbol not to be desecrated? These are difficult questions but they must be answered. Will using a flag as underwear or as a beach towel or a handkerchief or flying it upside down become a Federal crime? The American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars burn flags to dispose of them. This respectful ritual is distinguished from a hoodlum doing it only by the intent. Are we wise enough to define and legislate intent under all circumstances? Intent obviously implies an expression of a view. So Congress now feels compelled to police intentions, especially if seen as unpopular. Whatever happened to the notion that freedom to express unpopular, even obnoxious views, including Marxist ideas was the purpose of guaranteeing freedom of expression. Of what value is protection of only popular and majority-approved opinions? that's a mockery of liberty. Soviet citizens had that much freedom. Remember, dissidents who burned the Soviet flag were shot. A national flag police can only exist in a totalitarian state. We should have none of it. Why not police the burning of the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Emancipation Proclamation? These acts, expressing a radical fringe view, would be as equally repugnant, and a case could be made they might be even more threatening because their attack would be precise and aimed at the heart of American liberty. The answer is the political mileage is with the flag and tough luck to those who have principled opposition. But no one should ever squirm or weasel out of the right vote, even if threatened with possible negative political fallout.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, in 2 days we are going to be debating an amendment to the Constitution dealing with the flag. The proposed flag amendment to the Constitution deals with more than just the issue of freedom of speech. It involves the right of free expression and the right to own property. These two are inseparable. A free society cannot have one without the other; and when one is compromised, so is the other. When property rights are correctly honored, free expression is guaranteed through that right. The independence of a newspaper, radio station or a church guarantees the use of that property in any free expression desired. No one has the right to use any newspaper, radio or church to exert his or her own opinion as an example of free speech. Catholics have no right to say Mass in a Jewish temple. Certainly in our homes we are protected from others imposing their free speech on us. It is the church property that guarantees freedom of religion. The networks or papers need not submit to demands to be heard by religious believers as an example of free speech. Use of the radio or newspaper by those with strong opinions or religious views is only done voluntarily with the permission of the owner. Yes, it is very important who owns the flag and where it was desecrated. What if it is in a home or in a church for some weird reason? Do the police invade the premises? Who gets sent in? The BATF, the DEA, the FBI, the U.S. Army or the U.S. flag police? If it is on government property or a government flag or someone else's flag, that is an attack on property that can and should be prosecuted. By legislating against how someone else's flag is being used, the right of free expression and property ownership is infringed just as if it were church property or a newspaper. We work diligently to protect controversial expression in books, television and movies and even bizarre religious activities through the concept of private property ownership as long as violence is not used. Is this matter any different? We live in an age where it is becoming more common to attack free expression, and that is a danger we should not ignore. We find one political group attacking expression that violates the subjective rules of politically correctness while working to prohibit voluntary prayer. Now another wants to curtail expression through flag anti-desecration laws in the name of patriotism. But there is a better way to handle demonstrations and malcontents. The danger here is that flag burners frequently express a disdain for big government. Curtailing any expression of criticism of the government is fraught with great danger. Will anyone who opposed big government someday be identified as a friend of the flag burners and treated like one since he is expressing an idea similar to the flag burners? Just because some people are not smart enough to express themselves in any other way than flag burning, it does not justify the careless attack on free expression. Once it is routinely accepted expressing these ideas as dangerous to the status quo, all our freedoms are threatened. We need to direct our patriotic zeal toward defending the Constitution and to the protection of liberty. Lack of this effort has led to the impending bankruptcy of the warfare state. Now, there is a problem worth directing our attention. The flag police are no substitute for our policing our own activities and responsibilities here in the Congress. We are endlessly delivering more power in the name of political emergencies, budgetary crises and government efficiency to the Executive, a process not permitted under the Constitution. We permit socialists to attack property rights and the fundamentals of economic liberty as a right under our Constitution. But those who profess respect for private property should not be trapped into attacking flag property when it is used to express unpopular antigovernment views and even change the Bill of Rights to do so. The socialists know what they are doing, but the anti-desecrators act out of confused emotions while responding to political pressures. We should not further sacrifice freedom of expression with a flag amendment. Especially when compared to the harm done with taxpayers' funding of school programs and NEA desecration, it is negligible. True patriots can surely match the wits of the jerks who burn flags without undermining the first and the fifth amendments. Mr. Speaker, we can do better than rush to alter constitutionally protected free expression for a nonproblem. We could easily organize bigger and grander demonstrations to celebrate our constitutional liberties for which the flag is our symbol in answer to the flag burners. I promise to appear any time, any place to celebrate our liberties and countermand the flag burners who work so hard to offend us. We do not need an amendment to the Constitution which for the first time in our history would undermine and curtail the protections of the first amendment.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Family Education Freedom Act of 1997, a bill to empower millions of working- and-middle class Americans to choose a nonpublic 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 it's goals by allowing American parents a tax credit of up to $3,000 for the expenses incurred in sending their children 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 study by the well-respected public opinion firm Fibrazio, McLaughlin and Associates, Americans want Congress to get the Federal bureaucracy out of the schoolroom and give them 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, not the parents. The $3,000 tax credit will make a better education affordable for millions of parents. Mr. 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. Although public schools are traditionally financed through local taxes, increasingly, parents who wish their children to receive a quality education may wish to use their credit to improve their schools by helping financing the purchase of educational tools such as computers or extracurricular activities such as music programs. Parents of public school students may also wish to use the credit to pay for special services for their children. Greater parental support and involvement is surely a better way to improve public schools than funneling more Federal tax dollars, followed by greater Federal control, into the public schools. 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 aide those parents who choose to educate their children at home. Home schooling has become an increasingly popular, and successful method, of educating children. According to recent studies, home schooled children outperform their public school peers by 30 to 37 percentile points across all subjects on nationally normed, standardized achievement exams. Home schooling parents spend thousands of dollars annually, in addition to the wages foregone by the spouse who foregoes 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. Chairman, I have no false illusions about the amendment, but I think it is very important to talk about these issues, because I do believe that I am on the right track when it comes to what is authorized in the Constitution and, also, what is very popular with a lot of Americans. I think that is important. People have a hard time when they see money going to programs like this, they have a great deal of trouble accepting it. The end of this will come, not because I say so or not because my amendment will pass, but all great nations finally fall when they get too stretched out financially and in their foreign policy and in their military, and we are vulnerable to that. We have great deficits, bigger than are admitted, and we are on a course. We have not really attacked the budget, we are not cutting back. It was suggested earlier that this was just a small amount. Well, every bill is just a small amount when we look at a $1.7 trillion budget; so it is a small amount, but it continues to add up. Eventually great nations fall when they overextend. I fear for that, I fear for America, because I believe we are on the wrong track. I do not believe we should be the policeman of the world. I do not believe the programs have been all that successful, and we should do our very best to debate this. If nothing else, maybe some of the reforms will do some good if we do not have my way now. But someday we will, because we are going to run out of money.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I certainly will support some of these reforms, especially in curtailing some of these funds going to abortion. Certainly that would be repugnant to me. But still, I go back to the issue of the cost. Yes, we want to do good, but can we do this by harming poor people in this country, because when we tax and take money from this country, we really do contribute to problems in this country, unemployment, inflation, deficits; and this is all part of the picture. So can we morally justify injuring our people here at home with the pretense that we are doing good overseas?

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman mentioned the UNICEF program, $100 million. It is well motivated and I think the intentions are very good, and my colleague does admit that sometimes the consequences are not exactly what we want. But the question is, do we have this authority to take money from poor people in this country and make these attempts to do these social programs overseas. I do not see the authority, and I do not think the programs work that well. The gentleman mentioned fighting the Persian Gulf war. We were serving oil interests there. I mean we went in there for that, oil interests. They said it was our oil, it was not our oil. But now, who is paying the cost? Thousands, 34,000, 40,000, 50,000 Americans now suffer from gulf war syndrome. So I would say there is a much higher cost than anybody realizes and we cannot ignore that.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman points out that every President since the inception of the UN has supported the UN, but I might suggest that every President prior to that supported a foreign policy which was considered non-interventionist, pro-American, and that should be taken into consideration as well.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not complex; it is very simple. If it is passed, we would get out of the United Nations, and there is a lot of people in this country who do not believe the United Nations has served us well and believe we should not be in the United Nations, and I think that we should consider this very seriously today. The American people, many now are concerned that our sovereignty is being attacked in many ways; one by the United Nations membership in the United Nations. Today we have, of course, the IMF and the World Bank that we have been involved in a long time, and just recently we had joined the World Trade Organization, which is another international government agency and government body that usurps our rights and our privileges and interferes with our legislative process, especially in the area of environmentalism and labor law. Our Constitution does not give us the authority to sell our sovereignty to an international government body, and even under the treaty provisions of the Constitution it is not permissible. The treaty provision does not allow us, for instance, to undermine the Bill of Rights. Therefore, giving up our national sovereignty through a treaty, an agreement to serve or participate in the United Nations, is not legitimate. The movement we have seen here in the last several years has been toward managed trade. It has been managed trade in the name of free trade. But instead of free trade we get more government organizations and more international controls over our lives. We have seen in the last several decades loss of American lives serving under the UN banner. The American people are now sick and tired of seeing U.S. troops serving under foreign commanders under the UN banner. We were humiliated in Somalia as dead American troops were dragged through the street, and it is time we question this, whether this is to our benefit. Our national sovereignty is not served. Just recently the President gave a speech at the graduation ceremony at West Point. He says in the years ahead it means that one could be asked to put their life on the line for a new NATO member just as today one can be called upon to defend the freedom of our allies in Western Europe. That is not part of the American system. Yes, we are obligated to provide a strong national defense, but there is no way that the American taxpayer is obligated to make an attempt to provide freedom throughout the world and defend everybody that has a problem. The whole notion that we can be the peacemaker where there have been wars going on for thousands of years is preposterous. This is one way for us to get very much involved in battles that we do not need to be involved. I see our involvement in the United Nations and placing of troops around the world as a threat to our national security. We are low on funds, and we are spending way too much money. Since 1945, we have spent over a hundred or nearly $100 billion in UN efforts. Some would say is that not wonderful? Look at what we have done. We have the Soviet Union has disintegrated over this type of policy and working through the UN, but that is not the reason the UN disintegrated, or the Soviet Union disintegrated. It is because they had bad economic policy and it was destined that they would disintegrate. We cannot be the peacemaker. And there is another reason why we get so much involved with these UN organizations and UN functions, and that has to do with the many corporations that have influence with policy here. So when we go into Bosnia and we send troops there or send troops into Haiti, sure enough there are some very wealthy American corporations who are bound to get their contracts to go in, and they can very frequently be the strongest lobbyists for our intervention in these countries around the world. Some argue that we are the only superpower left and therefore we must fill the gap. I think that is a very good argument for starting to bring our legions home. How long do we have to police the world? Will we ever come to our senses? Are we going to drive ourselves into a bankruptcy before we come to our senses and decide that maybe we have extended ourselves too far? We have recently seen that under treaties by international treaties and UN treaties that even our parks are marked by UN functionaries; that is, there is an influence in the management and supervision coming from the United Nations. This is not permissible under our Constitution.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I continue to yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. PAUL. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. PAUL. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I yield to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss].