Ron Paul

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciated very much the remarks made by the previous speaker regarding Jackie Robinson. I think it would be interesting to note that the great achievement of Jackie Robinson all occurred prior to affirmative action, and I think that should be noted. Today, though, I would like to spend a few minutes talking about the courts. I have been a strong critic of the courts, especially the Federal courts, because so often the Federal courts seem to be unconcerned about the Constitution, and so often they do a lot more legislation than they should. Last week there was a court ruling that I was very pleased with, and I believe they deserve a compliment. There was a Federal court judge by the name of Thomas Jackson last week in the district court who ruled that the line-item veto was unconstitutional. Simply put, he said, it was unconstitutional because it delegated too much powers to the President. It was clear in the Constitution that the powers to legislate are given to the Congress. So I am very pleased to see this ruling and to compliment him on this. To me, it was an astounding event really to see so many a few years back pass the legislation that gave us the line-item veto, and so often the proponents of the line-item veto was made by individuals who claimed they were for limited government. But this item, the line-item veto really delegates way too much power to the President, is unconstitutional, and if we believe in limited government, we ought to believe in maintaining this power in the House of Representatives and in the Senate. The court ruled that it just is not constitutional for a President to be able to rescind an appropriation or specific tax or a specific tax benefit, or for even that matter, a regulation. This is far and beyond anything intended by the writers of the Constitution. I am convinced the founders of this country, the writers of our Constitution, would have been proud of this ruling. The line-item veto gives too much power to the President. It gives the President political power. It gives him the chance to lobby for his particular piece of legislation with the threat that if you do not vote for what I want, I can line-item veto that special thing that you like for your district. Having been in the Congress prior to this term for several years, I had been lobbied on a few occasions by conservative Presidents, and the only time they ever called was for me to vote for more spending, never less spending. So I see the line-item veto as something a President can use actually to enhance or increase spending, not to reduce spending, which is the intent. The line-item veto will still be ruled on again in the Supreme Court. I am sure it will be appealed. I will be anxiously awaiting to find out exactly what occurs there, but already in the corridors I hear a fair amount of grumbling among our fellow Members, Members who are saying, I wonder what the President is going to do. Is he going to take his veto pen out and line-item out a special project. I think that is a justifiable concern. I think it is important that we concern ourselves about these issues because the main goal that we ought to have is to follow our oath of office, which is to obey the Constitution, and we should not be passing legislation that disregards the Constitution. When the judge ruled, he had a statement that was somewhat out of the ordinary, but to me rather profound. He said that it is critical that we maintain the separations of powers in order to preserve liberty. That is the purpose of the separation of powers. It is to preserve liberties. It was designed deliberately, specifically, and we must cherish it. I have to compliment those individuals from the other side of the aisle who brought suit, took it to court, and insisted that this be ruled on with the sincere belief that it is unconstitutional to have a line-item veto. I appreciate that very much.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I would like to first compliment the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton] for having brought this to the House floor. I think it is a wonderful opportunity for us to discuss a very important issue and also to make a proposal to do some good around here. Limiting taxes happens to be an issue that is dear to my heart and something I want to talk about. I have a philosophy about taxes. One is that taxes really hurt us twice, once when we take the money from the people, then when we go and spend it. So rarely do we spend the money wisely, but the people always seem to be hurt. I have yet in my many years experience in political life had anybody come up to me and say, go to Washington and raise taxes. Everybody feels that they are overtaxed. Anything that we could do to limit taxes I think would be beneficial. Whether or not this amendment will solve all of our problems is another issue. Quite frankly, it is not going to solve all of our problems. We have seen a proposal floating around for several years about balancing the budget. I am not enthusiastic about the balanced budget amendment precisely because that amendment, in itself, does not preclude what this amendment does, and that is raising taxes in order to balance the budget. That would be very, very detrimental. The important issue that we have to deal with is the level of government expenditures. If we have a balanced budget at $2 trillion a year, that is very detrimental. If we have an unbalanced budget at $1 trillion a year, at least the American people would have more of their own money to spend. This is an effort to move in the direction of limiting taxes, and I think this is very, very important. There are a lot of things, though, that are out of our control. For instance, a small tax increase is not going to be included here. If we change the Tax Code and change indexing, taxes will go up, and this will not be included. Another tax that is not talked about much around here, but I consider it a very important tax, and that is the inflation tax. If we in the Congress spend too much, we do not have enough revenues, we can send the bill to the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve creates credit, and therefore diluting the value of our money, and the people suffer because their cost of living goes up. So that indeed is a tax. We do not have a whole lot of choices on how we accommodate our spending habits here. First, we can tax people; second, we can borrow; and the other is, we can inflate. All of these are detrimental. The important issue is to limit government spending. We will not solve any of our problems here until we address the serious subject of what should the role of government be. If we continue to believe that the role of government should be to perpetuate a bankrupt welfare state and to police the world and tell people how to live their personal lives, quite frankly, we are not going to get anywhere in solving our problems. We cannot patch this together. Collecting more revenues would be detrimental. Collecting less revenues would put more pressure on us to spend less money. But then again, it is not going to deal with the subject of interest rates. What happens if this year the interest rates go up 1 percent? Which they may, because interest rates are rising once again. And if interest rates go up 1 percent, it adds $50 billion to our interest payment on our national debt. That is out of our direct control here in the House or in the Senate. We cannot take care of that just by passing another law or raising taxes. Also, we do not have control of the business cycle. We should have much better control, because we understand and should understand the business cycle and we should prevent the downturns. But sure enough, there will be another recession, entitlement payments will automatically go up, put more pressure on us with the deficit, and also put more pressure on those who would like to say, well, if the spending is going up, we have to take care of the people, and what we need to do is raise taxes. The easier, the better. A very, very dangerous situation when it is easy to raise taxes. The Founders of this country in no way intended that taxes on income should ever occur, let alone be done easily. So this is a small effort in the right direction. I ask for a yea vote on this amendment.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the business cycle has not yet been repealed, but if we did the right thing in the Congress, I believe we could do a lot to alleviate the great harm done by the business cycle. Mr. Speaker, artificially low interest rates are the culprit in the Government created boom bust cycle. Federal regulated low rates cause bad business decisions, confuse consumers and encourage debt. These distortions prompt market corrections which bring on our slumps. In recent years the artificially low interest rates that banks pay on savings have served to reduce savings. In the 1970's savings were low because it was perceived that the money was rapidly losing its purchasing power. It was better to spend than to save. As money leaves savings accounts it frequently goes into stocks and bonds adding fuel to the financial bubble which has been developing now for over 15 years. Domestic and foreign central bank purchases of our treasury debt further serves to distort and drive interest rates below the market level. Our soaring trade deficit is something that cannot be ignored. In January there was a negative trade deficit in goods of more than $19 billion, the highest in our history. Our deficit has now been running over $100 billion for several years, and the artificially strong dollar has encouraged this imbalance. Temporarily a negative trade balance is a benefit to American consumers by holding down price inflation here at home and allowing foreigners to finance our extravagance. These trends will end once confidence is shattered and the dollar starts to lose value on the international exchange markets. The tragedy is that there are very few in Congress interested in this issue. Even on the Committee on Banking and Financial Services I hear very little concern expressed about the long term weakness of the dollar, yet economic law dictates that persistent negative trade imbalances eventually have to be corrected; it is only a matter of time. I suspect in the next several years Congress will be truly challenged. The high level of frustration in this body comes from the fact that the large majority are not yet willing to give up the principles upon which the welfare state exists. Eventually an economic crisis will force all Americans, including Congress, to face up to the serious problems that we have generated for ourselves over the past 50 years. I expect deficits to explode and not come down. I suspect the economy is much weaker than is currently claimed. In the not too distant future we will be in a serious recession. Under these circumstances the demand for spending will override all other concerns. In spite of current dollar euphoria, dollar weakness will become the economic event of the late 1990's. Consumers and entitlement recipients will face the problem of stagflation, probably worse than we saw in the 1970's. I expect very few in Congress to see the monetary side of this problem. The welfare state will be threatened, and yet the consensus will remain that what is needed is more revenues to help alleviate the suffering, more Federal Reserve monetary stimulus to the economy, more price controls, which we already have in medicine, higher taxes and protectionism. Soon it will be realized that NAFTA and GATT were not free trade treaties, but only an international effort at trade management for the benefit of special interests. Ask any home builder how protectionist sentiment adds several thousands of dollars to the cost of a home by keeping out cheaper Canadian lumber in spite of NAFTA's pretense at free trade. The solution to this mess is not complex. It is however politically difficult to overcome the status quo and the conventional wisdom of our intellectual leaders and the media. What we need is a limited government designed for the protection of liberty. We need minimal control over our Nation's wealth, not the more than 50-percent of government control that we currently have. Regulatory control in minutia, as we have today, must end. Voluntary contracts need to be honored once again. None of this will work unless we have a currency that cannot be debased and a tax system that does not tax income, savings, capital gains estates or success. Although it will be difficult to go from one form of government to another, there will be much less suffering if we go rapidly in the direction of more freedom rather than a protracted effort to save the welfare state. Perestroika and glasnost did not save communism. Block grants, a line item veto and a balanced budget amendment will not save the welfare state.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will vote on the very important issue of partial birth abortion. I would like to address that subject for a few minutes. I have practiced obstetrics and gynecology for more than 30 years and have delivered thousands of babies. I have never needed to, nor have I known of any circumstance where the partial birth abortion procedure was necessary for the health of the mother. Quite to the contrary, it is my most sincere conviction that the procedure itself is quite dangerous to the mother. When it was first said by the right-to-life advocates that this procedure was being done frequently, I was reluctant to believe this possible, considering its danger and its grotesque nature. It was only after the admission by the proponents of abortion that, indeed, it was done frequently, and on healthy babies, that I was willing to consider that we had slipped to the point where this operation is promoted as an acceptable medical procedure. The notion that this procedure should be available for the protection of the health of the mother is disingenuous to say the least. As a physician who encountered inter-uterine fetal death in the second and third trimester, I have never entertained the thought of performing this procedure because of the risk to the mother. Using the mother's health as an excuse for abortion reminds me of what I witnessed in the 1960's as an obstetrical resident. Physicians defying the law were using an illegal loophole, saying that if an individual threatened suicide it was a justification for abortion. It was a matter of course to make a phone call and get a commitment from a sympathetic psychiatrist to say yes, he would sign the papers, and that is all it took. It is one thing to defend abortion because one sincerely believes it should be legal, but it is another thing to distort the truth, fudge the statistics, and pretend that it is done for the health of the pregnant woman. This should be exposed for the falsehood that it is. I am convinced that abortion is the most important issue of the 20th century. Whether a civilized society treats human life with dignity or contempt will determine the outcome of that civilization. Supporters for legalization of abortion in the 1960's never dreamed it would come to the debate that we face today over this grotesque procedure, the partial birth abortion. In determining whether or not this country endorses this procedure, we make a moral statement of the utmost importance regarding the value of human life. The legislative approach for abortion is of lesser consequence than the issue itself. Abortion regulation, like all acts of violence, traditionally and under the Constitution were dealt with locally until 1973 when the courts chose to legalize nationally the procedure. Removing the issue from the jurisdiction of the Federal courts so States could deal with all of the problems surrounding abortion would be more in line with the traditional constitutional approach to government. Obviously, all funding by any government ought to be prohibited in a society that pretends to protect human life and defend individual liberty. It is now a worn-out cliche that abortion is defended in the name of women's rights and freedom of choice. But claiming to protect the freedom of one individual can never be an excuse to take the life of another. Life and liberty are never in conflict. Life and convenience may well be. The inconvenience and responsibility of caring for a hungry, crying baby at 3 a.m. never justifies baby killing, nor is an inconvenient baby in the womb a justification for its elimination. For those who cry out for choice, let me point out that someone must speak out for the small, the weak, and the disenfranchised so their choice for life is heard. No one in this body can challenge me on my defense of personal choice in all social, personal, and economic matters, but I do not accept the notion that choice means the right to take the life of a human being. That is a mockery of the English language and truth. Those so bold who today would argue that choice means not only the killing of the unborn but the partially born as well, I say to you, where are you when it comes to real choice in economic transactions, hiring practices, gun ownership, use of private property, confiscatory taxing policy, taking personal risks, picking schools for our children, medications and medical procedures not yet approved by the FDA? Let me hear no more about choice as the excuse to kill. Please, with due respect, pick another less offensive word. This great debate over life has lasted now for over 30 years, and it took the partial birth abortion procedure to crystallize vividly exactly what this debate is all about. The deliberate killing of a half-born infant, with heart beating, arms and legs flailing, and a chest struggling for a first breath by aspirating the infant's brain is, to many of us, an uncivilized, abhorrent and unacceptable procedure. Yet, we as a nation, now without a moral bearing, appear frozen as to what to do. The debate has boiled down to this: Should the police be called, or should the abortionist be paid a handsome fee? For now, the best we can do is make a statement that there is a limit, and we have reached it. Hopefully some day there will be enough respect for local governments to handle problems like this, but we must forcefully acknowledge that the defense of all liberty requires the respect for all life.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1 and in opposition to the Miller amendment. The Miller amendment obviously would negate everything we are trying to do in H.R. 1. One of my favorite bumper stickers simply says ``Legalize freedom.'' I would like to think that is what we are doing here today, is legalizing freedom to some small degree. The workers in the public sector already have this right to use comp time. There is no reason why the workers in the private sector cannot have this same right as well. The bedrock of a free society is that of voluntary contracts and it is easy for many of those who oppose this bill to understand that voluntary contracts and voluntary associations in personal and social affairs is something that we have to respect. But there is no reason why we cannot apply this to economic affairs as well. A true free society would permit voluntary contracts and voluntary associations in all areas, and it has not always been this way, as it is today, where social liberty and economic liberty are separate. It has only been in the 20th century that we have divided these two, and there is no reason why we cannot look at liberty in an unified manner. Those individuals who want freedom of choice in personal and social affairs should certainly recognize that those of us that believe in economic freedom ought to have those same choices. This great division has occurred and has led to a great deal of confusion in this country. Today, we are making this token effort to relegalize in a very small manner this voluntary contract to allow workers to make a freedom of choice on how they would like to use their overtime, taking the money or using it as comptime. There is no reason why we should prohibit this. It is legal in the public sector. There is no reason why we cannot legalize a little bit of freedom for the worker in the private sector as well. Mr. Chairman, this act partially restores the right of employees to contract with their employers to earn additional paid time off from work in lieu of overtime pay when the employees works longer than 40 hours in a week. I am pleased to support this bill, as it represents a modest step toward restoring the freedom of contract. Freedom to form employment contracts is simply a branch of the freedom of association, one of the bedrocks of a free society. In fact, another good name for freedom of contract is freedom of economic association. When persons have the right to associate with whom they choose, they will make the type of agreements that best suit their own unique needs. Any type of Government interference in the freedom of association means people will be forced to adjust their arrangements to satisfy the dictates of Government bureaucrats, For example, even though workers might rather earn compensatory time so they may have more time to spend with their children and spouses then accept paid overtime, the current law forbids them from making such an arrangement. But Congress has decided all Americans are better off receiving overtime pay rather than compensatory time, even if the worker would prefer compensatory time. After all, Congress knows best. The Founders of the country were champions of the rights of freedom of association. Under the U.S. Constitution, the Federal Government is forbidden from interfering in the economic or social contracts made by the people. As we all know, the first amendment prohibits Congress from interfering with the freedom of association. There is nothing in the history or thought of the Framers to indicate economic association was not given the exact same level of protection as other forms of association. In fact, the emphasis placed by this country's Founders on property and contract rights indicates the Founders wanted to protect economic associations from Government interference as much as any other type of associations. Unfortunately, since the early years of the 20th century, Congress has disregarded the constitutional prohibition on Federal regulation of freedom of economic association, burdening the American people with a wide range of laws controlling every aspect of the employer-employee relationship. Today, Government presumes to tell employers whom they may hire, fire, how much they must pay, and, most relevant to our debate today, what types of benefits they must offer. Behind these laws is a view of the function of Government quite different from that of the Founders. The Founders believed Government's powers were limited to protecting the liberties of the individual. By contrast, too many in Congress believe Government must function as parent, making sure citizens don't enter into any contracts of which the national nanny in Washington disapproves. I note with some irony that many of the same Members who believe the Federal Government must restrict certain economic association claim to champion the right of free association in other instances. For example, many of the same Members who would zealously defend the right of consenting adults to engage in voluntary sexual behavior free from State interference. Yet they are denying those some individuals the right to negotiate an employment contract that satisfies these unique needs. Yet the principle in both cases is the same, people should have the right to contract and associate freely with whomever, on whatever terms they choose, they choose without interference from the Central State. As has been often mentioned in this debate, 75 percent of employees surveyed by the polling firm of Penn & Schoen favored allowing employees to take compensatory time in lieu of overtime. Yet Members of Congress, who not only claim to favor freedom of association but claim to care for the workers, will not allow them the freedom to contract with their employees for compensatory time. What arrogance and hypocrisy. If employees feel that compensatory time would benefit them, and employers, eager to attract the best employees, are willing to offer compensatory time, what right does Congress have to say ``No, you must do it our way?'' Congress has no right to interfere with private, voluntary contracts whether between a husband and wife, a doctor and patient, or an employer or an employee. Mr. Chairman, it is time to lift the federally imposed burdens on the freedom of association between an employer and employee. As a step in that direction, I will vote for the unamended Working Family Flexibility Act and I call on all my colleagues who support individual liberty and freedom of association to join me in supporting this pro- freedom, pro-worker bill.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I think it is interesting to note that the workers in the public sector have already had this right. I think it was only fair that we give this to the individual workers throughout the country.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I am delighted the gentleman has called this special order tonight, and I am pleased I can participate in it. Earlier today we had a vote on the Working Families Flexibility Act. This came out of the committee I had been working on, and I was a strong supporter of this. We did promote this as a family-oriented piece of legislation. As we all know, this piece of legislation allows more choices for the family in the way they can spend their overtime or their time off. Obviously, this is a benefit to the families. In one way I was a little disappointed that we had to go through it, because if we live in a free society it is assumed that you can make these agreements with your employer, but under the circumstances it was not available to many of our families unless we passed this piece of legislation, so I was delighted we were able to do that. During that debate I mentioned that one of my favorite bumper stickers says simply ``Legalize Freedom.'' Any time we do that in this Congress, I am very pleased. The other thing I would like to suggest, along with our nice title there, ``Strong Families for a Better America,'' I would like to put a subtitle there and say, ``Freedom is Family-Friendly.'' I think the more freedom we have, the stronger our families are. We have seen a tremendous effort, sincere efforts, over the past 30 or 40 years with the promotion of the welfare state. It is always done in the name of helping people and families, but quite frankly, there is very little evidence to show that the $5 trillion spent on the welfare system has strengthened our families. As a matter of fact, I think it has done quite the opposite. In the same sense, these many funds were spent to strengthen education, and if we look at our educational system, it has not helped. If we have an educational system that is not working hardly, are we doing much benefit to our families? So, I think the opposite of the statement, freedom is family friendly, I think big government is not. I do not believe that if power and responsibility and authority and responsibility gravitates here to Washington that it is beneficial to the family. The more freedom we have, the more local options we have, the more choice we have for our families, I think the better off we are. Obviously, families would have a lot more choices if they had a lot less taxes, so we have emphasized that as well. I think our reducing taxes on families and giving tax credits for children would certainly be a great benefit. I would like to bring up very briefly one subject that is dear to my heart, because it involves families. It is generally believed by many in this country that the women's movement was the main reason why women went out to work. Quite frankly, I think there are a lot of women who were forced to work in order to take care of their families in the best way they can see fit. This to me was so often a reflection of inflation because of the cost of living. I believe that eventually we have to address this subject and deal with it to make sure our families have the greatest opportunity possible that we can provide for them.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today, we are potentially faced with a vote to decertify Mexico for not cooperating with the United States to adequately fight the war on drugs. This is yet another of the truly frustrating votes in which a Member of Congress is forced to choose between two alternatives, both of which mandate not only an unconstitutional use of American taxpayer's dollars but pursue an ineffective policy action. President Clinton recently certified Mexico as a good drug warrior. However, absent some procedural maneuvering to remove a waiver that allows the President to release Mexican foreign assistance notwithstanding decertification, the only choice we as Members of Congress will be left with is: First, certify Mexico and further encourage an obviously corrupt political regime to continue its corruption-based, prohibition-era-style activities with a check from the United States taxpayers in the amount of $25 million; or, second, decertify Mexico and pressure that same regime to increase its corruption-based, prohibition-era-style activities with a check from the United States taxpayers in the amount of $25 million. Voting against certification does little more than pressure Mexico to pretend it's cracking down on drug producers. Voting for certification condones the President's position that Mexico is doing everything possible and the corruption remains both ignored and subsidized. This vote has become meaningless; the process of Mexican certification has become a kind of political dog and pony show. Unfortunately for the American taxpayer, foreign aid will continue to flow to Mexico regardless of the vote and regardless of whether this money accomplishes anything positive or productive. Today's war on drugs consists of inherently defective tactics and, as such, a new approach to the drug problem is desperately warranted. If we are going to be honest with ourselves, we would have to decertify our border guards, prison wardens, and school principals; after all, we cannot even keep drugs out of our own country, prisons, or schools. We never seem to learn anything from our failures. Two years ago Texas banned smoking in all prisons. The price of a 99-cent pack of cigarettes suddenly soared to $25 within the prison system, yet smoking continues while corruption thrives. Just last year, 40 prison employees faced felony charges for dealing in cigarettes. I cannot possibly vote to certify Mexico as a drug warrior obediently taking orders from the United States Government. How can I in good conscience vote for a resolution to decertify Mexico whether it has teeth in it or not since our whole approach to the drug problem is flawed and doomed to fail. Most Members recognize this and thus, the frustration with this resolution. This resolution, whether it passes or fails, embraces and subsidizes the same flaws prohibition-era approach and does little more than increase potential corruption and crime. The sooner we realize and acknowledge this, the better. I urge a no vote on the rule.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I was encouraged to come across this recent review in the Austin American-Statesman of a new movie which did well at the recent Sundance Film Festival. The film, ``Waco: The Rules of Engagement,'' deals with the horrible events which occurred in Waco, TX, in 1993. This review correctly describes the hideous event--as shown in the nonfiction ``Waco'' documentary--which left so many innocent children dead, and so many questions left unanswered. The film apparently answers some of the questions, revealing never-before- released recordings of the conversations between Federal police and the Davidians, as well as never-before-seen footage of the final minutes of the siege. I am pleased to share this review with my colleagues. [From the Austin American-Statesman, Jan. 20, 1997] Celebrating Independence--From Austin to Waco, Texas Is Well Covered as Sundance Film Festival Kicks Off (By Ann Hornaday) ``Waco'' had crowds riveted. As usual, many of the stand-outs of the festival have been in the non-fiction categories. Friday morning was brightened considerably with the world premier of ``Riding the Rails,'' a film about the generation of teen-agers who took to riding boxcars during the Depression. And the envelope wasn't just pushed, it was exploded by the most powerful film to be shown yet at Sundance. Director William Gazecki presented ``Waco: The Rules of Engagement'' to a packed screening room on Saturday when it made its world premiere as part of the noncompetitive American Spectrum sidebar. This harrowing tale of the siege at the Branch Davidian compound and its tragic end unearths shattering evidence of hidden agenda, dishonesty, religious persecution and fatal culpability on the part of the U.S. government. With tapes of never-before-heard negotiations between David Koresh and agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and the FBI, video shot by the FBI at the compound and infrared photography, as well as interviews and congressional testimony, Gazecki leads the audience to the chilling conclusion that, as one former FBI special agent puts it, the Davidians who died in the fire on April 19, 1993 ``were victims of a homicide'' at the hands of their own government. The audience, most of whom stayed for the three- hour entirety of ``Waco,'' remained riveted up until its disturbing final shot--an almost unheard-of phenomenon at a Sundance screening, let alone one where everyone knows the ending.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Yes, I find your conversation very interesting, and it reminds me of a incident that occurred not too many years ago. I am a physician. I graduated from medical school in 1961, and at that particular time they decided that saying the Hippocratic oath was no longer necessary, and I did not recite the Hippocratic oath at my graduation. But when my son graduated there in 1988, they allowed us to come back to say the Hippocratic oath. We were given that chance to come back because they were saying it once again, and I was very interested in this, so I went to his graduation, and at the ceremony they were reciting the Hippocratic oath. And lo and behold, when I looked carefully at it, it was not the same oath. They had changed the clause on abortion. It did not say that you should not use an instrument to do an abortion. They merely said you should follow the law, whatever the law is. So I thought that was a interesting little story to support your case that truth seems to be easily revised in this day and age.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I have asked for this special order today to continue a discussion that I started 2 weeks ago with another special order on the subject of civil liberties, where the country is going, and what some of our problems are and how we can solve them. I am a freshman Congressman right now serving in the 105th Congress, but I served here in the Congress a few years back. I had four terms which were ended in 1984. I now return to the U.S. Congress, and probably the most common question asked of me since I have been back is how are things different. In many ways they are very similar and in some ways that is very disappointing, but in other ways they are different and hopefully we are making some progress in solving some of our problems. The big difference, though, that I have noticed, both here on the House floor as well as watching television over the past 2 years, is that the House floor has been used in a different manner. I think the atmosphere is somewhat less relaxed. I think Members frequently are more on edge, and there may be a little less friendship, which to me is a bit sad. But also we have noticed that the House floor can be used for personal and political attacks, which I find not to be the best way to use the House floor. As a matter of fact, I have more or less pledged to myself and to my constituents that is not the reason I have come to the Congress, to use the House floor for anything political or personal. Even if those attacks may occur against me on the House floor, I will choose not to answer them on the House floor because I do not think that is proper. If attacks occur, I will answer those attacks or charges in another way but not here on the House floor. Mr. Speaker, in the recent special order that I did, I talked basically about the coming welfare bankruptcy of the welfare state. And I think that is one of the reasons that there are so many conflicts here on the House floor, because we are not yet seeing this in economic terms. There is still a sentiment, both in the country and in the Congress, to continue to spend a lot of money. We have heard discussions about Social Security, and the difficulty in solving this problem and whether Social Security or any other benefits, there is a tremendous demand to continue these programs, but it is getting very, very difficult to raise the revenues. Certainly there is not an environment here today to introduce new programs and new welfare entitlements. So this difficulty in finding the funds has led to some of the problems on the House floor. It is easy for a very wealthy country to continue to get involved in redistribution of wealth, but once the country is getting smaller and the economic conditions are such, it is a much more difficult, much more difficult problem to solve. I think that we should do everything conceivable here on the House floor to show respect to each other. I think it is important that we show friendship. And over and above all that, I think if we are serious about the ideas, there is no reason why we cannot have some enjoyment in doing this, in trying to solve our problems. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this moment to just quote one sentence from my previous special order dealing with the rising police state and the attack on our personal civil liberties. In that order, I say, centralizing powers and consistently expanding the role of government require an army of bureaucrats and a taxing authority upon which a police state thrives. And I am suggesting here, as I did before, that this is not the right direction to go and that many Americans are sincerely concerned about the power and the authority of the Federal Government. This has not been our tradition. This is not part of our Constitution. But certainly in the last several decades, we have had an accumulation of power here in Washington. Also, my solution or my suggestion to solve these comes in thinking about the philosophy of government. If we do it just in a technical fashion and think that all we have to do is have a line item veto or have revenue scoring or have a balanced budget amendment, I think we are missing the whole point because I think it is a much bigger issue. I think it is a philosophic issue, not a technical or budgetary issue, and all of this is related to how we look at the important role for government. The decision that we as Members of Congress have to make is whether or not government should have the power and the authority to do what they do. And in order to answer that question, we really have to ask it first. Does the Government really, does the Federal Government really have the power and the authority under our constitutional system of law to do as much as they are doing? I challenge that because I quiet frankly believe that we here in the Congress do not have the authority that we have exerted here over the last several decades. Mr. Speaker, my personal philosophy is this. It conforms with what I believe the Founders believed, that is that government should be precise. Government should be there for the protection of liberty. We should not concede to the Government the right and the power and the authority to use it in order to bring about social and economic changes. Most individuals recognize that you cannot force other individuals to do things that you want them to do. But so often we allow the Government to do the same thing. We grant them this power and authority to try to mold the country, mold people's personal behavior and of course mold the world as we intervene in so many places around the world. In many ways, I use a political golden rule to address this subject. That is that we must reject the use of force, personally and politically, to try to bring about these changes. Some would say, well, that sounds like pacifism because you do not want to confront, you do not want to use the authority of the state. I do not want to use the police. You do not want to use a gun to force people to do the things that you think are necessary and to obey the law. But it is not pacifism. It is far from that. It is a system of government that is designed to encourage tolerance and volunteerism to solve our problems. The role of the state is limited to that of protecting liberty, providing for the national defense, and to make sure that individuals do not violate these rights as well, that individuals, when individuals exert force and violate another individual's rights, that certainly invites the role of government to come in and solve that problem. In recent years, we have seen some, a better discussion about what we have to do. In the last Congress we have seen a step in the direction of at least trying to take some of these powers and some of the authority away from Washington and delivering it back to the States. Quite frankly though, I am not convinced that block grants is the whole answer, leaving the money in the States would be a much better way. Mr. Speaker, at least the discussion is much better. We have now talked about returning the management and the financing of welfare back to the States. I find that encouraging. There are a lot of us in Congress now talking about the same thing about education. Nationalizing our educational system really has not done that much more for education. You can draw a graph and show that, as the funding went up for national control of education, the quality of the education went down directly. The same thing could be said about medicine. It is easy to accept the argument by many of us here in Congress that welfare should be a State function, education should be a State or local function. But so often there is a resistance and no consensus on what we should do with the police powers, whether we are fighting the war on drugs or the war on the environment or whatever. But under the Constitution, it was never intended that police powers would gravitate as they have here in Washington. So my suggestion here is that we should seriously think about that in the area of police activity, because now we have a national war on drugs which is a total failure, has not done any good, has done great harm. Not only has it not solved the serious problem that we face with the massive use of drugs, this very dangerous precedent, but it also has cost a lot of money, and it has been a cost to our civil liberties. So in the name of the drug war, we have sacrificed much, both in terms of money and our liberties, while failing to solve our problem. The same could be said about the war on guns. The war on guns only started recently. It is interesting to note that the war on guns and the war on drugs really got a tremendous boost in 1934. Prior to that, it was assumed by everybody in this country, under the Constitution, that deregulation of guns would be handled by the States. Yet endlessly we are writing laws and pursuing the gun rather than the criminal. In the same way, we are making very, very strong attempts to all the educational problems and medical problems, social problems and the environmental problems, all through regulations coming from Washington. Now, you might say, well, that really is not a police function. We, all we do here in Congress is we write regulations. We are not authorizing guns to go and perform certain acts. But regulations have the force of law, and when you have the force of law, it is at least a threat of a government agent coming with a gun and threatening an individual either with a hefty fine or with imprisonment. So the rejection of the use of force also rejects the notion that you threaten to use force because the threat of force, if you have the power to do it, is just as sinister and just as dangerous as the force itself. Mr. Speaker, many people in this country already concede that the concept of private property rights has just about been extinguished. And some would argue and say, how could that be. We all own our homes. We own our property. We own our farms and we own our ranches. But when they stop to think about it, they look at the tax burden we have. Now total taxes are about 50 percent, but when we pay our property taxes, we are merely paying rent to the Government. But the Federal Government is very much involved in this because they are writing regulations. And they have to go through numerous bureaus and agencies just to be able to use their own land, and frequently they are not allowed to use their own land. So the concept of private property ownership has been seriously undermined in this country, and it continues to be further threatened by the radicals who believe that individuals should not have the right to use their land as they see fit. The concept of liberty is indeed threatened. I believe there is less liberty in this country than there was 20, 30, 50 years ago. Certainly there is less liberty than was intended by the founders of this country. And as our liberties are diminished, we see the expanding role of the Federal Government, we see the expanding role of the bureaucrats who are now quite capable of carrying guns themselves. But one of the symbols I think that comes from the Federal Government in their policing activities that dramatizes so well a serious problem that we face, that is that frequently on TV we see that we have these attacks or these confrontations with the citizens where the TV company is called out, the news media is called out there to witness this wonderful event on how our government is enforcing the law. But very frequently, as I am sure so many of us here in the Congress have witnessed, is that our police force, whether it be the FBI or the BATF, they will wear a ski mask. Is it not interesting. Mr. Speaker, why would they wear a ski mask in a free society to protect the people? I do not know the exact answer for that, but I would think that in a free society our policemen would be much more ready to show their badge, show their warrants and not wear ski masks. Our police are supposed to be our friends to protect us, not the kind that will break down and break into our houses with a mask on. A lot of good intention goes into so much of our legislation here in the Congress, and yet I do not believe the good intentions themselves will be much good if we are using the wrong ideas. If we do not accept another notion about the role for government, if we do not accept the fact that economically we are facing bad times ahead because we literally cannot afford the welfare warfare state anymore, I think that conditions are going to get much worse because, as the people become frightened and concerned about their future, unfortunately there will still be a large number that will come here and lobby for more government rather than less, failing to realize that it was the size of government and the scope of government and the way we ran our monetary system that was the problem rather than the fact that we need more liberty, not more Congress, more congressional activity. Today we have a bunch of laws on the books that permits and encourages the search and seizure and confiscation of property. We have 100 laws on the books today that allow confiscation of property without due process of law. Once the property is seized, it is up to the American citizen to prove that the property was seized incorrectly. Instead of honoring the constitutional commitment to innocent until proven guilty, it has been reversed as it is with the IRS. We are guilty until we prove ourselves innocent to the agencies who threaten our liberties. Another trend that has occurred here in the last several years is disturbing to me. That is the willingness of our police agencies in the Federal Government to find the suspect rather quickly and then demonize the suspect in public. The best recent example of course would be Richard Jewell, with the accusation that he ignited that bomb at the Olympics. Here is a man, hopefully he will get his redress in court, but it was still a perfect example of how our police officers took it to the media. That is no way for an American citizen to have their rights protected. Our goal and our obligation is to protect the rights, not to abuse and undermine the rights of our citizens. What has all this done to us? Well, I think what it has done and has led to is that many Americans now are fearful, fearful of the Government. The Government is supposed to be our friend. We in the Government are supposed to be befriending the citizens and reaching out to them and taking care of their freedoms to make sure they are secure, secure that if they know they have a conflict, that we can settle the conflict in court, that we should be secure from outside threat. Yet today many, many Americans feel very insecure. They feel insecure economically, they are not certain about what will happen in their economic future, but that is an economic issue. But what I am talking about here today, many of them feel insecure in their personal life. It is very intimidating to the average American if they receive a registered letter from the IRS, very, very intimidating, and it causes a great deal of anxiety. So obviously our tax system is a serious problem to all of us. But the people are not happy and they are not satisfied and they are very, very fearful of what is happening. Now, some may write this off and say that the Congressman is just making this up because the American people are not fearful, everybody is very content and they are satisfied with the success of the welfare state and they are satisfied with the policing activities of all the agencies of government. But not too long ago, there was a poll done. The poll was very interesting. They wanted to find out how the American people felt about this very issue. They asked a rather strong question. They asked, do you feel like there is an immediate threat to your rights and freedoms from the Federal Government? The answers coming back to the Gallup Poll were slanted in one direction to such a degree that they could not even believe the results, so they went back and redid it, because they thought the people they were polling did not really understand what they were saying. So they were trying to get another answer. But the same answers came up again: 39 percent of our people feel immediate threat to their rights and to their freedoms by the Government. Maybe it is not true, but it is very important that they think that. I have seen other polls that were actually even worse than that, where people were fearful of the Government and are not satisfied with the way the Government operates. The pollsters then decided they wanted to know, well, these must be all the right-wing extremists that are fearful of the Government and, therefore, we will just put them in a category and write them off, so they checked to find out whether these were liberals or conservatives that expressed this fear of the Government. It turned out that more liberals were fearful of the Government than the conservatives. This probably should not surprise us too much when you think of some of the law enforcement that occurs and the abuse of civil liberties in our inner cities. It was just the other day I saw something in the New York Times that said that some teenagers were shot rather quickly, unarmed teenagers and then the questions were asked afterward. I realize how difficult a situation the police get into, but it still is well known that the abuse of police powers in the inner cities is there and something has to be done about it. Senator Wallop when he left the Senate expressed some sincere interest in this particular subject and I believe is continuing to do some work in that area. He was shocked because so many of his constituents would come up and express their fear of the Government, whether they were the environmental people or whatever, but then they would quickly add after they told him about the problems they were facing, and the constituent would say to him, ``Don't do anything. I don't want you to even rock the boat, because I'm fearful that they will come and get me.'' That is a serious charge, and that comes from a respectable Senator who continues to work on this problem. A couple of years ago, there was a group of individuals who banded together because they too were concerned about the growing police powers of the Federal Government, and they wrote to the President and they were expressing to him that he should do something about this, that the police powers of the Federal Government were indeed violating the civil liberties that we were acting in a perverse manner, we were not protecting liberty, we were destroying liberty. I want to read from that particular letter that went to the President. He said he was urging the President to review the policies and practices of all Federal law enforcement agencies and to make recommendations and steps that must be taken to ensure that such agencies comply with the law. This review is necessitated by widespread abuses of civil liberties and human rights committed by these agencies and their failure to undertake meaningful and ameliorative reforms. Federal police officers now comprise close to 10 percent of the Nation's total law enforcement force. Today some 53 separate Federal agencies have the authority to carry guns and make arrests. This represents an enormous expansion in recent years in terms of both personnel and jurisdiction. What is lacking, however, is a systematic oversight and review of Federal police practices. Certainly we need oversight, but we also have to raise the question of whether this is the proper place to put the police. In the Constitution there are three Federal crimes listed. Today we have literally thousands. Nobody would know because we here in the Congress write the laws and the agencies write regulations that have the force of law. They go on in this letter to point out some of the problems that they see. Improper use of deadly force, physical and verbal abuse, use of paramilitary. That implies military law. Use of paramilitary and strike force units or tactics without justification. Use of no-knock entrances without justification. Inadequate investigation of allegations of misconduct; use of unreliable informants without sufficient verification of their allegations; use of contingency payments to informants, giving them an incentive to fabricate the information since payment is usually contingent on conviction; entrapment, unnecessary inducement of criminal activities as an investigative technique; inappropriate and disproportionate use of forfeiture proceedings to obtain financing for law enforcement equipment and activities; use of military units and equipment in the course of domestic law enforcement; pretential use of immigration laws and Immigration and Naturalization Service personnel for nonimmigration law enforcement. Again, who is complaining to the President about this? Are these the rightwing extremists which is implied by so many in the media, a rightwing extremist attitude and idea that we have to curtail the Federal Government in their police powers? No; there are others who are interested in civil liberties as well. Let me just read a couple of names of the individuals who signed this letter to the President asking him to look into the matter. Ira Glasser, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union; Eric Sterling, president, the Criminal Justice Policy Foundation, Arnold Trebach, president, Drug Policy Foundation; James Grew, president, International Association for Civilian Oversight and Law Enforcement; John Hingson, president, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, not exactly a conservative group; Mary Broderick, director and defender, Division of the National Legal Aid and Defender Association. So these are the people who are concerned about civil liberties. I think we all should be concerned about civil liberties. We certainly should, because we have the responsibility as we write law and as we perform oversight that our goal is to protect liberty, not write laws that end up undermining and demeaning the whole concept of liberty. Just to use something more recent, the associate director of the American Civil Liberties Union has just written recently an editorial for Scripps-Howard, just a few months ago. In this letter, in this editorial, he says: A powerful nation orders its telephone companies provided with foolproof wiretap access to the national communications infrastructure. The national police agency, which in recent years has been dramatically increasing the number of wiretaps, then demands the resources to tap one of every 100 telephone lines in the country's most populous area. The government claims it needs these new powers to combat domestic terrorism, but its own records show that only a microscopic portion of its wiretaps could have anything to do with what might be called terrorist activity. If it is not for terrorist activity, why do they need so many wiretaps? What is the purpose? He goes on to say, and in a way lectures us, he says: This is precisely the sort of invasion of our privacy that during colonial times caused American patriots who had experienced general searches by the British to rebel and to adopt the protection of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. I think it would do us all well if we did look and read the Constitution and specifically in regards to this subject, the Fourth Amendment. Again, this comes from not a right-winger, but somebody from the American Civil Liberties Union, and we should not ignore that. I would like to mention a few of the more startling cases that have occurred over the last 4 or 5 years. Some are well-known, some are less well-known, making the point that we do have specific examples of how our Government has overstepped its bounds. One of the cases, and this first case I am going to talk about is fairly well-known. I think a lot of people and a lot of Members will have heard of it, but I just want to bring it up once again so that we do not forget because the problem has not been solved. The first case occurred in 1992, and it involved a gentleman by the name of Don Carlson from San Diego. The DEA and the U.S. Custom agents raided his home. The claim was, the suspicion was, that it was a vacant drug storehouse. He arrived at home at 10:30 p.m. and the house was under surveillance at that time, and he walked in. If they were to issue a warrant, he was available. But he went to bed and after midnight the agents broke through the door, and he immediately thought he was being robbed. He reached for a legal firearm to defend himself, he did not fire a shot, he was shot three times, including once in the back, after he had been disarmed. Now he did not die. He survived. He is disabled, but he has a lifetime of medical expenses as well as being disabled. No drugs or illegal weapons were found. The paid informant that gave this information had never specified which house to break into. So that is a shortcoming on the police activities of those individuals that went in. Another case, 1991, Sina Brush, from New Mexico: 60 agents from the ATF, DEA, National Guard and the Forest Service charged that this Sina Brush possessed illegal drugs. They broke in, tore the place up, no drugs were ever found, but Mrs. Brush and her daughter who were not dressed, only partially dressed, were forced to kneel in the middle of the room during this whole episode while being handcuffed, and this all came about because of unreliable sources accusing them of being involved in the drug trade. Another case, and this case is pretty well-known and that has to do with Donald Scott from the ranch in the Santa Monica Mountains. This was in 1992 as well. This occurred in the middle of the night. Why do they have to go in the middle of the night? This is a terrible thing for a free country to have police agents going in the middle of the night. You never hear of the same individuals going in the middle of the night into the inner city, but outside the city they are more likely to go in the middle of the night. This involved the DEA and some local police activity, and they were of course looking for drugs. The wife started screaming, and Scott grabbed a weapon because he did not even know who was coming into his house. He was quickly shot and killed. No drugs were found, no illegal weapons were found in this house, and yet a man lost his life not at the expense of a burglar, but at the expense of his careless attitude about our policing activities that we have allowed to occur here in the U.S. Congress. Another case: Louis Katona from Bucyrus, OH, a part-time police officer, had a run-in with the Federal police. He was a gun collector, and the BATF raided his house because it was said that he might have an illegal weapon. As a matter of fact, the charge that was--that he was alleged to have committed was that he counterfeited, that he actually forged a document and signed it for the police chief. But after the dust settled they found out that he done everything properly, took the forms to the police chief and the police chief's AA, the administrative assistant, signed the bill, signed the document, and yet they went in and tore up his place with the idea of trying to find this illegal weapon. Finally--at least finally all charges were dropped, but that is at a tremendous cost. And there was an additional problem there too because Mrs. Katona was pregnant at the time, and she was roughed up in the episode, that very night started to bleed and then subsequently had a miscarriage, and it very well could have been related, and most likely was. I recall a personal case that occurred while I was practicing ob/gyn back in my home district, and my patient and my patient's husband appeared on the scene at a dock. They were getting off their boat. The husband went down first. He walked accidentally into a drug bust. He was quickly apprehended, thrown down on the deck, handcuffs put behind him, and he was merely standing by. He just happened to be a passerby. When his wife spotted this, she rapidly ran down, and she was approximately 6 months pregnant, and she said, ``What are you doing to my husband?'' And they quickly did the same thing to her, slapped her down, put handcuffs on her back, her hands on her back, and put her on her stomach. Now fortunately she did not miscarry, but it could very well have caused a miscarriage, and yet it was all done in the name of solving this drug problem which continuously gets much worse. Harry Lamplaugh, a gun collector from Wellsboro, PA, had a run-in as well with our national police. There were 15 to 20 ATF agents that went into his house, and these agents all wore masks in the middle of the night. Lamplaugh, his wife and his attorney, who at one time was an ATF Assistant Director, verified the story that was told afterward. And the agents came in, and they were looking for a particular gun. But in the meantime they took all his business records, they took all his mailing lists, they took his personal records, his birth certificate, his marriage certificate, baptismal records, mortgage records, and medical records. Lamplaugh was a cancer patient. They took his medication and strewed it on the floor, spread it all over the house and was a great deal of problems to him. And then, to add insult to injury, one of the agents stepped on their cat. But that was not enough. He picked it up and threw it at a tree and killed the cat. During the whole time it was verified that very, very abusive language was used. Mrs. Lamplaugh was threatened that if she did not inform on her husband, that she would be thrown in prison under the worst of circumstances. These things should not happen in America, we should not permit them to happen, and hopefully they are not happening as often, but I am not totally convinced of that. Another case, Paul and Patty Mueller of St. Louis, in 1996, a more recent case. The ATF came in, a dozen men, kicked the door down. They never knock on the door and ask. They kick the doors down. Even if they have a key, they kick the door down. They threatened to kill the dog. Mr. Mueller had his hands bound, he was pushed to the floor at gun point, and they kept yelling and screaming ``ATF, ATF.'' These people were very innocent, and they had no idea who they were or what was happening, and they were fearful for their lives. They thought they were being wrong. It was an hour later that the ATF officers presented a search warrant. No weapons were found, no drugs were found, but a paid informant gave the information which turned out to be wrong. There were no apologies and no payment for the damages. There was a case up in--another case in Pennsylvania. James Corcoran, a police officer, had been arrested on a gun charge, and when it finally got to court, it came out in testimony and it was admitted by the BATF that they tampered with the weapon and made it into an automatic weapon in order to convict him of a crime. Fortunately, that case was cleared up because they were able to get the BATF to admit this. Another case, Gilberto and Josefine Gomez, a couple years ago, Mexican citizens. They came to the United States. They were legal immigrants. They had--Gilberto had a accident, and he won in a suit, compensation suit, he won $19,000, and he was taking it back to Mexico in cash because he was not sophisticated enough to have a checking account nor do wire services or do any of that, and he had proof of it. He carried proof of where the money came from. But when he got to the border he was arrested, the money was taken from him, and then when it was realized that this looked like legitimate honest money, they made an offer to him. They wanted him to settle out of court, and they say, we will give you back $13,000 if we can keep $6,000. That was the bargain they offered him. He refused that. I do not know for sure if that was totally settled and he got all his money back, but for the most part once the property is confiscated, once the money or property is taken by the Government, which is not by due process of the law, it is very, very difficult to get these funds back. Just recently this past week there was an article in the Wall Street Journal that dramatizes a case that adds to this sentiment of the people, why they are not happy with the Federal Government, they are not happy with us here in the Congress because they see stories like this. But not only do they read about these stories, they know about these stories. You hear them endlessly if we just will listen to our constituents. In March of--well, this was a story about James J. Wilson. He was a developer in Maryland, nearby here, and he is actually an American success story. He started a construction company in 1957 with nothing. He had $760, and now he has been charged with a very, very vicious crime, and he was charged with filling a wetlands with water. I mean that is serious, and unfortunately for him, he has a long way to go to win, but he is a fighter and let us hope he does win. In his trial, which occurred just recently, he had some environmental experts testify in favor of him and say there has been absolutely no negative environmental impact on what he was doing in his development. When he started his development in Maryland, he went to the Corps of Engineers, and he got approval, and they said that there were no hazards, and he was given the approval to proceed. But in the middle of his development they came by and they reassessed it. I guess they came by right after it rained, and they saw a damp spot, and they said ``Ah, ha, you have wetlands on your land. You will stop, stop the development.'' He did. He never once violated a cease and desist order. But he was not very happy. He was losing a lot of money. It was something that he had been given original approval for, they changed the rules, and now they were accusing him of this vicious crime, and he was upset, so he filed suit. He had not talked to the Senator who was told by his constituents: Do not do anything, it is dangerous if you do anything. But he did not have that advice, so he went, he filed suit against the Federal Government. And what happened? His noncriminal charges turned into criminal charges for what he had done. Now this is interesting. It is said that he has violated the Clean Water Act of 1972. If you go back and read the Clean Water Act of 1972, it talks very clearly about not discharging any pollutant into a navigable water. That is basically what the Clean Water Act was about in 1972. But with regulations and with court rulings this has evolved into a monstrous piece of legislation which has encouraged the Wall Street Journal in their article to talk about the wetlands gestapo. And this is not just from some fringe newspaper. They are talking about a Federal Government agent running a gestapo-type agency. And the case has pursued; he has lost one case, but it is still, hopefully, something he can win. But the Government is saying that they have the right and the authority to regulate this. Their constitutional argument is that at one time somebody knows of some beavers on that land, have not been caught and transferred over the State line. Now if that is not the most gross distortion of the interstate commerce clause I have heard, I do not know what it could be. The interstate commerce clause by our Founders was written for the purpose not to regulate interstate commerce, which was done throughout the 20th century, but it was written precisely to break down the barriers between the States, and it is doing exactly the opposite right now. Now where Mr. Wilson deserves a lot of credit is the fact that he is not arguing this on a technicality. He is arguing this on a constitutional issue, that they do not have the right, the Federal Government does not have the right, to come in and regulate and harass as they have done. The tragedy, of course, is that he has gone through his first trial, he is fighting on principle, he spent $5.7 million on legal fees, he lost, he got fined personally $1 million, his company was fined $3 million, and he is sentenced to 21 years in jail for being an American dream story, going from nothing, building, being a developer, doing his very best to follow the rules, providing jobs. We are going to put him in prison; that is what we are doing today. No wonder people who are really ambitious are so often encouraged to take their businesses elsewhere. Whether it is labor law regulations, environmental regulations, or health regulations, they are just too burdensome for so many of our business people that it is so much easier to just take the business overseas, and this is a good example of why we encourage so many of our jobs to leave our country. Big question here is: Do we in the Congress think Government is too big? I think the American people think our Government is too big and it is too abusive. And in a personal way it is too intrusive in our personal lives, whether we are wiretapping too many telephones or whether we are stopping too many people and taking their money and assuming they are convicts and criminals even without any due process of law and without probable cause. The big question is: Is this out of control? Is it reversible? That is the question we have to ask. I hope it is reversible; that is one of the reasons why I came here to Washington, because I would like to reverse some of this. It needs to be reversed because if we continue in this same direction, we are all going to suffer. We must do something about this. This country is a great country, but we have to know what it was that made it great. We have to understand the principles of liberty. We have to understand why individual liberty precludes redistribution of wealth, protecting our rights, protecting our civil liberties, providing for a national defense, and not to micromanage every piece of property and threaten people with jail and have our doors broken down with a police, Federal police that wear masks. We have to really think seriously about this and do our very best to change it. I understand there are some moves in the Congress to bring about a more sensible approach on the seizure of property and the forfeiture, and, hopefully, that will do some good. I do not think a lot will be accomplished unless we address the overriding subject of what the role of Government ought to be. Unless we decide we want a government that protects liberty, and that we have respect for our Constitution and the rule of law, I do not believe that we will get rid of the Federal police force very easily. The agents that we see performing these acts that I am complaining about, Mr. Speaker, in some way I am critical of it, and every one of us has personal responsibility in obeying orders. Wartime is never an excuse. But in many ways, I have a lot of sympathy for the agents. I do not place a lot of blame on the individual agents, because for the most part, I will bet if we looked at all the BATF officers and all the FBI officers, I believe they are very honest, decent American citizens, believing in their hearts that they are doing the right thing, that they are following and enforcing the law. We all know that in a civil society we have to have law and we have to have law enforcement. They probably feel very good about what they do. I do think there has to be a limit. Certainly if we are using war gases and participating in raging fires that burn up little children, I think we should question it. I think if we are--as individuals, if the policeman is asked to shoot somebody in the back or he ends up shooting somebody in the back, or shooting an unarmed mother holding a baby, yes, there is some personal responsibility there. But I am also convinced that the overwhelming number of individuals that work for all our agencies in Government are probably very decent American citizens trying to do their very best to obey the law and do a good job. The agencies of Government bear some responsibility; not the agents, but the agencies. Policy is very important. The agencies we create, the administration in power, has a lot to do with policy, but policy is very, very important. So the administrator that we have of that policy, the current President, has a great deal of responsibility in how these laws and the enforcement of the laws are carried out. They bear some responsibility. Then again, there is another group. There is another group that has a lot of responsibility, and now that is hitting closer to home. Ultimately these agents, these agencies, and this policy comes from here. It comes from the U.S. Congress. The BATF officers and the FBI are not vigilantes. They get their authority and they get their funds from us. So if we do not like what they are doing, and I do not, I do not go and complain bitterly about the agent himself because he has an infraction, or something did not work as well as he thought. That is not the problem. The problem here is that policy being carried out by the administration has originated here in the House and in the Senate, and we provide the funding. So if we create these agencies and allow them to happen, then the responsibility falls on us. Ultimately, the responsibility falls on the people, because we should be a reflection of the people. So when the people object enough, maybe the Members of Congress will do something about it. But I just want to make that point one more time; it is not the individual agent who creates the problem, it is the policy. It is the philosophy of Government. It is we here in the Congress who pursue and permit these things to occur. What will the solution be if we decide that we have overstepped our bounds? Of course, we can start repealing, we can start doing more oversight, we can start putting more rules and regulations to restrain; but overall, the real solution comes from us upholding here in the Congress our oath of office, which should be the rule of law; that is to obey the Constitution. The Constitution does not authorize so much of what is going on. It just is not there. If we take our oath of office seriously, we will not continue to finance these agencies of Government. We here in the Congress create the agencies. The agencies are permitted then to write the regulations. The regulations themselves have the power of law. Then we permit the agencies to become the Justice Department as well. They can be judge and jury. They do not go into civil court, they go into the administrative courts. This is part of our problem. Not only do we give them the power of the administration, we give them the power of the judiciary. We give these agencies the police powers as well. So we have created a dictatorship within our system when we create these agencies of Government. All rules, all agency regulations, should be approved by the U.S. Congress, and we should do something to curtail the power and the authority of these agencies through limiting of their funds. It is not difficult, Mr. Speaker, on what to do. The answers are written very clearly in the document we have sworn to uphold. If we read and obey the Constitution, the solutions will come to us. We must work for a moral and just society. We must reject the notion of violence. We should never condone the idea that the Government is there to force people to act in certain manners. And if we do this, I am totally convinced that we will have a much freer and more prosperous society.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to proudly announce the recovery of a momentous treasure formerly believed to be lost to humankind in the noble cause of individual liberty. When German tanks rolled through Vienna in 1938, Hitler's national police force made a stop at the apartment of one of history's greatest intellectual defenders of liberty, an intellectual hero who had recently vacated his apartment to escape the fascist tirade of the corporate statists. Upon ransacking the vacant apartment, the national police removed 38 boxes of intellectual manuscripts containing a detailed analysis of why fascism, democratic-socialism, communism, and various other forms of collectivism necessarily contains the seeds of its own respective destruction. It is a pinnacle of irony that for nearly 60 years these treasures, believed to have been confiscated and destroyed by a system totally devoid of individual liberty and due process, were located in the Soviet Union. The genuine irony is that these manuscripts were rediscovered only as a consequence of the Soviet experiment's ultimate failure, a failure deduced within those same manuscripts as the logically necessary outcome of collectivism. The great hero of liberty and author of these manuscripts is the Austrian economist Ludwig Von Mises. I proudly and respectfully request entry in the Congressional Record of this compelling story as told by Llewellyn Rockwell, President of the institute that currently bears Dr. Mises' name. [From the Washington Times, Mar. 2, 1997] Mises Rediscovered in Unlikley Setting (By Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.) The American conservative tradition was once rooted in serious thought and great scholarship--as hard as that may be to believe today. In constitutional law, it stood for strict construction; in philosophy, it stood with the scholastics; and in economics, it stood with the Austrian School and Ludwig von Mises. Now comes remarkable news. A massive collection of Mises's personal papers have been recovered in an archive in, of all places, Moscow, where they rested for the duration of the Cold War. They were discovered by two Austrian scholars--a Soveitologist from the University of Graz and a historian from the University of Vienna--and what they've found may change the way we look at modern times. Mises came to New York in 1940, one of a generation of Austrian intellectuals forced to flee the Nazi onslaught. He had not come here to retire. This man of 60 would work for more than three decades to revivify the passion for liberty in this country, through passionate teaching and writing for scholarly and popular audiences. His central message was contrary to all the fashions of the day. Mises taught that the free market is the key to civilization, and that socialism of all sorts, including the democratic and Keynesian varieties, must be fiercely resisted. In those days, immigrants saw acculturation as their first responsibility, so it didn't take long for Americans to think of Mises as their own. In 1949, his great work, Human Action, appeared--a thousand-page treatise that surpasses any previous work in free-market theory. Though German was his first language, Mises wrote his book, still in print, in beautiful English. It's easy to forget Mises' extraordinary life before he emigrated here. In 1912, he wrote a book on money and banking that set the European academic world on fire. At the dawn of the central banking age, he claimed money management actually destabilizes the economy by fueling inflation and business cycles. In 1919, he forecast a European political explosion. He said it would stem from two sources: the failure of Versailles to settle the nationalities issue, and the rise of statism all over the Continent. In 1923, he tore the hide off socialist doctrine with a treatise--still unsurpassed--exposing the social, political and economic consequences of collectivism. He followed up in 1927 with a full-blown defense of the classical liberal society, in which the economy is free of government involvement, private property is sacrosanct, the only role of the military is defending the country's borders, and citizens enjoy full freedom of speech and association. All the while, he led a famous seminar attended by the best minds in Europe. He taught at the University of Vienna. He was chief economist for the Austrian Chamber of Commerce, where he defended capitalism against socialists national and international. He founded and administered a think tank devoted to solving the supposed mystery of the business cycle. Yet a few years later, the entire Continent would be darkened by the specter of totalitarianism. Even in America, the 19th-century ideal of free trade and decentralized government was widely seen as outmoded and unworkable. Mises began to see himself as the last of classical liberals. More devastating for him was the loss of all his files in Vienna, both personal and academic. He had been keeping them from his early schooling until just before he left to teach in Geneva, a safe harbor for dissident and Jewish intellectuals of the day. When German tanks rolled into Vienna in 1938, the police made a stop of Mises' apartment, and looted 38 boxes filled with his precious papers, notes and manuscripts, and carted them away. Until recently, everyone assumed they were destroyed, and with them a good part of Austrian intellectual history. Fast forward 53 years, as the Soviet Union unraveled and the veil of secrecy began to rise. Moscow's massive archival holdings were opened for the first time, partly because of a desperate search for something to sell in exchange for hard currency. Stefan Karner and Gerhard Jagschitz found in them what they had long sought, and the irony is bracing. The voluminous papers of Mises, the century's leading opponent of statism, reappear only after the world sees that he had been absolutely right. In this man's life is the story of modern times; in his work are the keys to understanding its bloody errors. Now, his papers rediscovered, it's time to rediscover his wisdom.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, if I could be convinced that this piece of legislation was truly the honoring of a user fee, I believe I could give it some support. I believe user fees and trust funds may be a way to go in many of the areas of our system that overtaxes and overspends. But I have come to the conclusion that this so-called reinstatement is a tax increase. Not only would I not be satisfied with even maintaining a tax, I would like to see taxes go down. The fact that there will be $2.7 billion more extracted from the American taxpayers, I feel compelled to oppose this piece of legislation. But at the same time, I would like to put in a good word for the trust funds. Truly, if we would follow our commitment to the trust funds and not use these trust funds for spending in the general revenues, I think we would all be better off. Whether it is the Social Security trust fund or whether it is the highway trust fund or the airport trust fund or the port trust fund, I think it would be much better if they were true user fees, and since I conclude that this is not a true user fee and it is an actual increase of taxes going into the general revenues, I feel compelled to oppose this piece of legislation. I urge my colleagues to vote no on H.R. 668.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, many Americans are not happy with the direction in which this country is going nor with the efforts that Congress has made to solve our problems. By superficial analysis and as measured by Government statistics, our leaders would have us believe that the state of the union is strong. Yet with casual observation, one detects smoldering discontent among the people. In looking for solutions, Congress engages in political grandstanding that produces few answers for that growing number of Americans not confident about their future. Even many of those who are who are well off worry that their own futures, and certainly their children's futures, are not secure. Mr. Speaker, it is estimated that throughout the world, 1.5 billion people live in deep poverty. These are not just people in developing countries, but some even live here in the United States. They do not go unnoticed and contribute to the anxiety of the times. Approximately 3 million children in this country are abused each year, and this does not count abortion. Violent crime in the United States is a serious problem, with killers getting younger every year. From 1965 to 1992 the number of murders doubled while the percentage of murders solved has fallen. For many Americans, the standard of living has dropped over the past 25 years. Nominal wages have soared but real income has fallen for low- and middle-income families due to dollar appreciation. Even with two family members working, keeping up has been difficult. Less parental supervision has contributed to the juvenile crime problem. Generational conflicts are real. The demands of the elderly seem endless. Knowing that they have a greater tax burden to bear and expecting no returns at retirement frustrates the under-40 taxpayer. This resentment is not likely to fade any time soon, and will likely get worse. Confidence in the future is far from robust. The balanced budget amendment, the line-item veto, term limits; they will not solve our economic and social problems. Cynicism flourishes throughout the land and especially here in the Congress. Frustration over how to solve our problems has led to rude behavior that once was rare in the House. Civility classes only address the symptoms and will not solve the philosophic conflicts nor address the economic limitations that are the source of the impasse the welfare state now encounters. The radical political correctness movement undermines the first amendment and contributes to the anger expressed by various groups. Intimidation and ridicule of unpopular ideas are hardly a way to bring different social groups together. The same individuals that demand censures of those who do not use politically correct language condemn voluntary prayer as a violation of the first amendment. A consistent position on free speech will go a long way toward softening the growing resentment that strains our relationships with each other. Our welfare state is now broke. We cannot meet our future obligations, now estimated to be over $17 trillion. We must one day admit this fact. There are just not enough young victims left to tax to continue the process. We can and are limping along by continuing to rob Peter to pay Paul. This can last for a while longer but eventually we will have to admit that borrowing, taxing and inflating will not suffice. These techniques pursued over the past 60 years cannot replace working, producing, saving, investing as the real source of wealth and prosperity. Government is incapable of producing wealth. Productivity growth, according to the Wall Street Journal, is now .3 percent per year. This is similar to pre-industrial revolution days. If this continues, it will take 10 generations for a person to double one's income. Inflation has eaten away at the seemingly huge welfare payments that we no longer can afford. The average welfare check in 1970 was worth twice that of 1996. More of the same, though, cannot address the problem of productivity and savings. Only good economic policy and sound political theory can do that. We must realize we are not yet facing what other western developed nations are. Japan is in the doldrums, and even interest rates of less than 1 percent have not revitalized their economy. Where will they be when the United States quits buying Japanese products in our next recession? France and Germany are further ahead than we are in confronting the failure of the welfare state. Germany admits to an unemployment rate of more than 12 percent, the highest since the Depression. French unemployment is over 10 percent. The U.S. will not be able to meet its welfare needs while continuing to keep Europe and Japan afloat by our extravagant purchases from them. That will come to an end in one way or another. A new European currency will not address the basic flaws of the welfare state. The central banks of Europe are selling off gold to raise cash to appear financially strong enough to enter the European currency union. This schizophrenic attitude prevails in all the world's central banks. The whole plan for a universal European fiat currency is a nonstarter, and its failure will eventually put more pressure on us to address the entire issue of our welfare system. Corporate downsizing has compensated remarkably for the ills of malinvestment inherent in a fiat monetary system. It has eliminated many good jobs while temporarily improving corporate earnings. Not only have good jobs been lost, downsizing has created an atmosphere of distrust and fear of the economic future unlike anything we have ever experienced. Stockholders have benefitted by inflated stock prices, but those individuals interested in dividends are now receiving an historic low return of less than 2 percent. Today's stock and bond market valuations are not a reflection of a healthy capitalist society, but reflect the excesses inherent in a welfare state financed by Government borrowing and the Federal Reserve credit creation system. Evidence is readily available that the inevitable decline of the middle class that comes from depreciating a currency to finance welfare is already here. There is no reason to expect reversal of this trend without major policy changes. Block grants to the States hardly offer the solution to a failed welfare state. The principle that underpins the welfare state must be challenged. Anything short of that will cause the demise of welfare to smolder for decades, with the offer of more poverty to many more Americans. Under those circumstances, the role and the size of the Government will continue to grow, despite the current favorable rhetoric. In recessions, expanding welfare is irresistible, and the next one will be no different. There is a growing consensus that something is seriously wrong with our economy and political system, and that is a start. Too often, though, answers are given before the right questions are asked. Fixing the current system occupies the attention of those sincerely worried about the future welfare of the country. Budget, tax, education, regulatory reforms are promoted as solutions to our mess. Rarely do we hear that the system itself is flawed and the unintended consequences were not at all unexpected. The collapse of the Soviet-styled socialism would have hardly surprised the late great Austrian economist Mises, since he predicted its failure. The line-item veto, heralded by many as a tool needed to rein in spending, will prove the opposite, while, unfortunately, delivering more power to the executive branch of Government. Technical gimmicks outside a philosophic approach to Government will not solve problems, even if well-intended. Deceptively recalculating the CPI to cut spending and raise taxes will only fuel the conflict already present between the generations. It is true that the standard of living must go down as we confront our bankruptcy. Straightforward tax increases and benefit cuts will never be acceptable for political reasons. Even this back-door attempt to raise taxes and lower benefits through an arbitrary recalculation of the CPI will probably not fly once the entitlement recipients realize what is happening. Real benefits however will go down through dollar depreciation. The checks will continue but inflation, that evil declared dead by our money managers, will eat up purchasing power faster than even the COLA's can keep pace. If the CPI is not recalculated soon, it will not happen later since the people will rebel against the Government's rhetoric claiming inflation is essentially nonexistent. It is a losing battle. The cost of Government is growing 3 times faster than the CPI and now takes more than 40 percent of our income, and of course it is not even counted in the CPI. No wonder the people are more upset than the Government thinks they should be considering a subdued CPI, high employment and a soaring stock market. No sales tax, flat tax, value-added tax, lower capital gains tax, or even dynamic scoring will bring about the miracle that will allow the immoral redistribution of wealth inherent in a welfare system to persist without a serious attack on our standard of living and our personal freedoms. A tremendous amount of energy has been put into the balanced budget amendment movement. The whole balanced budget amendment debate has served perversely to distract from the important and key issue of the level of Government expenditures. A balanced budget achieved at $1.7 trillion offers no benefit whatsoever and a great deal of harm compared to a trillion dollar budget out of balance. This whole debate over the balanced budget amendment has co-opted the important issue of the proper size of Government. The deficits have exploded ever since welfare benefits became equivalent to an entitlement and a right. Removing any restraint on the Federal Reserve to monetize the debt, by severing the last link of the dollar to gold, was not a coincidence and conveniently accommodated congressional deficit spending. It was necessary to delay the inherently failed financing that must always accompany a welfare state. Dwelling on changing the Constitution to make Congress act responsibly begs the question: If Congress ignores the Constitution in so many other ways, why would one expect Congress to become obedient to this one new amendment? The escape clauses will permit the deficits to continue if the amendment passes. With or without the amendment, we are still forced eventually to ask the serious question as to what the Government is permitted to do if we return to the rule of law. That is the Constitution. Without respect for the doctrine of enumerated powers, for which there is currently little concern in the Congress, another constitutional restraint placed on Congress will do little more than pacify a few vocal groups. If we use Social Security funds to balance the budget, the support for this project will quickly fade. The deficit problem is a lot more than an accounting problem. Balancing the books, or pretending to do so, will not solve the problems inherent in a welfare state manipulated by a majority vote to the benefit of the special interests. Tax changes, budget compromises, borrowing and inflating all help in buying time for a withering welfare state. A wealthy country like the United States can survive for a long period of time with adjustments of this sort. Freedom creates great prosperity and trust. Our credit is still good, the dollar is trusted and there is still plenty of wealth to redistribute. Many Americans are still willing to sacrifice even more of their freedoms for the promise of Government benevolence, but even wealthy countries go bankrupt if they continue to hinder their productive capacity. Our Tax Code encourages exporting of capital, our regulatory system sends businesses overseas, and our corporate welfare state subsidizes overseas investments over domestic ones. At the same time, we welcome millions of illegal immigrants with free health care, education and housing. None of this makes sense. It only drives us more quickly to the day of reckoning. My guess is that that day is not far off and that we have in real terms consumed a lot of our capital and sacrificed many of our freedoms. The concept of complete self-reliance and personal responsibility absent of Government programs is foreign to most Americans. Individual bankruptcy is preceded by a call from a banker refusing the next loan to pay for the last one. Suddenly, conditions change and that individual accustomed to a high standard of living paid for with borrowed money has a sharp setback to his standard of living. A nation never gets that call from a banker, since it serves as its own banker. The crisis comes when confidence is lost in the money. Confidence may erode gradually, but dramatic changes will also occur. We saw signs of things to come with the breakdown of the Bretton Woods agreement when gold was still $35 an ounce. Again, confidence was shaken in the dollar in 1979 when gold shot up to $800 an ounce. The Mexican devaluation demonstrated how chronic currency debasement leads to sudden and painful adjustments, always hurting the innocent poor while the politicians and the bankers escape unscathed. For good reasons, the Mexican people did not celebrate the so-called early payback to the United States of the loans made 2 years ago. The peasants suffer while the bankers and their political allies brag of great deeds never performed. Much of the time, gold for the U.S. economy was bought at the expense of the U.S. dollar. Our $17 trillion obligations to the welfare recipients of the future and the dollars sent overseas for the past decade or so have allowed us to become the largest foreign debtor in the history of the world. Our foreign debt is now more than $1 trillion. Foreign central banks, at the urging of our own Treasury Department, are willing to accept our Treasury debt at a rate of over $100 billion per year. It may help the dollar on the short run, but eventually those dollars will return in spite of central bank collusion to keep the system afloat. Foreign central banks are willing, for now, to soak up our inflated dollars, allowing us to export our inflation and live beyond our means. They do it since they need us to buy their products, because their own economies are internally weak. They cannot, however, become wealthy by selling us goods in return for our paper. Our temporarily strong dollar makes foreign purchases extremely attractive and produces our negative trade and current account balance. With the dollar holding its own, foreigners are willing to hold them as they gladly ring up paper profits with their sales to the United States. The fact that the dollar serves as the reserve currency of the world contributes to the confidence that otherwise would not be there if we were on an international gold standard. Our interest payments to foreigners is a major contributing item in our current account deficit. The amount is rising steadily as it compounds, just as our interest on our own $5.2 trillion national debt. The wonderful illusion of trust bestowed on the U.S. dollar allows us a standard of living far beyond anything we currently earn. It is such a good deal, we can be certain that our central bank money managers will do nothing to change it; economic law will. When is the only question. Our political party leaders are not even talking about it, but we in the Congress surely should. The 20th century has not been good for honoring standards. The Constitution has certainly suffered as a standard for our law. Respect for the doctrine of enumerated powers has been undermined by grotesque interstate commerce laws and general welfare clause interpretation that mocks the Founders' attempt to strictly limit Government power. Probably the most important standard lost in the 20th century has been that for life. Our laws permit men to become wealthy through killing the unborn any time prior to birth and yet we imprison and threaten youngsters who throw away their minute-old newborns with death sentences. The only debate is whether we should pay the abortionist or call the police if someone performs a partial birth abortion. If we are not able to set a standard for life any better than this, we cannot be optimistic about our future. Those who expressed concerns about this 20 years ago received ridicule when they suggested it would lead to euthanasia. Medical care is now an economic function of the state, and the current standards for life have deteriorated. I fear the trend for economic justification for killing the elderly and the infirm will continue. Without a strict adherence to a standard for life, we cannot expect much respect for liberty and property. Privacy seems to be a thing of the past, and confiscation of property without due process of law is a common, everyday occurrence. Since 1971, we have had no standard for our money, and in spite of the dollar's serving as the world reserve currency, it does so at great peril to all Americans. A monetary unit without definition, endlessly created by a secret central bank, will play havoc someday with the world financial system. Time will tell. The age of relative ethics and central planning of our entire educational system has produced a generation of youngsters unable to read or spell. More Goals 2000 will do nothing to help our children. Centralized control over education always enhances the power of the state and undermines liberty. One of the most important standards lost in this century has been that for liberty. The acceptance that liberty is composed of two separate elements, economic and personal, has done untold harm to our system. The fact that commercial speech receives no first amendment protection is baffling. Some of the best defenders of the first amendment are the greatest enemies of economic liberty and voluntary contracts. It is now strange to propose that voluntary economic transactions deserve the same protection under the law as personal, social, and religious associations. The divorce between economic and personal liberty must be reconciled if we ever expect to make a strong stand for a free society. The welfare ethic has replaced the work ethic. This applies to corporate America, middle-class America, and the poor. Respect for work, savings, and investments and no government hindrance is required to have once again strong economic growth and a rising standard of living for all Americans. Centralizing power and consistently expanding the role of the Government require an army of bureaucrats and a taxing authority upon which a police state thrives. There are over 100 laws on the books permitting private property seizure without due process of law. We have made it easy to seize any property by absurdly claiming the property itself committed the crime. The RICO mentality relating to law enforcement permits even the casual bystander to suffer severely from the police state mentality. The drug war hysteria and the war on gun ownership started by Roosevelt in 1934 have expanded Federal police power to the point that more than 10 percent of all of our police are Federal. The Constitution names but three Federal crimes, so where is the justification? Talk about swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance. We have hovering over us daily the Federal police from the EPA, OSHA, FBI, CIA, DEA, EEOC, ADA, F&WL, INS, BATF, and worst of all, the IRS. Even criticizing the IRS makes me cringe that it might precipitate an audit. It seems that all administrations, to some degree, used the power of the agencies to reward or punish financial backers or political enemies. So much that had its origin in the 1930's, it was then that the FBI's role changed from friendly investigator helping local authorities to that of national police force. We live in an age where the fear of an IRS registered letter bearing news of an audit surpasses the fear of a street mugging. The police are supposed to be our friend and the Federal Government the guarantor of our liberties. Ask the blacks in the inner city of Los Angeles if they trust the police and revere the FBI and the CIA. We should not have to cringe when a Federal agent appears at the door of our business. We should not even see them there. A Congress sworn to uphold the Constitution ought to be protecting our right to our property, not confiscating it. Congress ought to protect our right to own a weapon of self-defense, not systematically and viciously attacking that right. Congress ought to guarantee all voluntary association, not regulate and dictate every economic transaction. We should not allow Congress to give credence to inane politically correct rules generated by egalitarian misfits. Setting quotas ought to insult each of us. We need no more centralized police efforts. We need no more wiretaps that have become epidemic in this last decade. We have had enough Wacos and Ruby Ridges. The foreign policy resulting from the philosophy that promotes welfarism is one of militarism and foreign interventionism. The Constitution does not permit the use of force to mold the internal affairs of other nations and involve ourselves in all worldwide conflicts. Creating a weapons industry and subsidizing international sales are not only forms of welfare, they distort the entire notion of providing for the national defense. It should surprise no one that our foreign policy is up for sale at election time. Our 20th century intervention in foreign policy supported by blind bipartisanship and based on the principle of using force in dealing with other nations threatens our security and challenges U.S. sovereignty. The march toward internationalism endorses both unilateral and multilateral use of foreign aid. Now we find bipartisan agreement on the three legs upon which the New World Order stand: the World Bank, the IMF, and the newly created World Trade Organization. Many believe we are rushing toward the dream of the 20th century internationalists who earnestly seek a single-world government. The demise of the Soviet Union system has permitted astounding advances for the promoters of internationalism. But the smooth sailing they all had hoped for is not yet evident. The expansion of NATO into Eastern Europe is being met with strong Russian objections. This will prove to be less significant due to Russia's military and economic decline than what it does to the current rapidly expanding Islamic fundamentalist movement. Islamic nations are gaining access to Soviet conventional and nuclear weapons, a fact frequently ignored by the media and our political leaders. A huge void occurred with the demise of the Soviet system and is being rapidly filled by NATO moving east, and Islamic fundamentalism moving north. Although our pro-Israel policy is designed to thwart any Arab challenge in the Middle East, Islamic fundamentalism is a far different animal than secular Arab nations friendly to the West. Our policy has actually worked perversely, fueling the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, undermining moderate secularism, and in the long term, may possibly even jeopardize Israel's security. The rise of Islamic fundamentalism in Turkey, Algeria, and Saudi Arabia as well as many other nations in the Middle East cannot be ignored. A recent major revelation should alert us to grave danger in the region. Iran, acting as an economic ally to Iraq, defied United States and U.N. sanctions by selling Iraq's oil. This signals the possibility of a reconciliation between the two countries, and in the next Persian Gulf conflict it will make United States intervention much more costly. Some would argue that as the chance of major military conflict grows over Mideast oil, it justifies even more U.S. involvement. It should be clear to those who study the issue, though, that the United States' policies have incited the anti-Western sentiment of the radicals. The sooner we establish a policy of neutrality, advocated by the founders of this country as well as the political parties and Presidents prior to the 20th century, the better. It would be a lot wiser policy than the one we are following today. The Islamic people have long memories, and it is not only the U.S. they resent. Virtually thousands of years of European interference is clearly on their minds. The sooner we mind our own business, the better. The last Persian Gulf conflict now turns out to be much more costly than first believed, considering evidence of thousands suffering from the Persian Gulf war syndrome. It will look cheap, though, compared to the costs of the next conflict. Our interventionist foreign policy, like our domestic welfare policy, rests on a flawed philosophy of government. It will contribute significantly to our financial bankruptcy and, tragically, at the same time, expose us to war we do not need nor can we afford. If there is no fundamental philosophic change in the role of government, we will continue on a course not favorable for liberty and detrimental to our prosperity. Domestic and foreign deficits will continue to increase. Trade wars will ensue as GATT and WTO expand their role as the special agents in trade warfare. Inflation will accelerate, and the standard of living of all Americans will decline. The moderate friction we all feel now will spread and political frustration will not go away. Dividing a shrinking economic pie will not occur with grace and tolerance. The vultures will become more aggressive, and the efficient lobbyists will become a hot commodity as the carcass of free-market capitalism gives way to the uncontrolled demands of welfarism and militarism. The conventional ethics problems that engage the Congress will worsen while we ignore the real ethics problem of welfare redistribution through force. A lot of good intentions have brought us to our bankruptcy, but more good intentions cannot hide deceitful and immoral principles of government. The aggressive nature of welfarism must be exposed for what it is, if we expect to answer the question of what to do when the welfare state crumbles. Claiming theft is benevolent if done through the tax code has brought us to today's impending crisis. A clearer moral understanding of the nature of welfare must surface. Bad ideas cannot become worthwhile by good intentions. The pragmatism of interventionism cannot replace the rule of law that the Constitution gives us. Respect, once again, must be given to the limitation of government power that permeates this document. Good intentions do a great deal of harm because they soften the opposition and make the proposals appear humanitarian. With man's imperfection, mistakes inevitably happen, making bureaucratic and political decisions dangerous to the many instead of the few. Planners cannot know the personal desires of the people. Governments cannot protect citizens from themselves without enslaving the whole Nation. Planning requires government force, backed by government guns, and by its very nature is inefficient, wasteful, breeds fraud, and precipitates anger. Lobbying and campaign reform will not solve the conflict-of-interest problem. It will only drive the evildoers underground. The real problem with political corruption is that government has so much power and influence in every aspect of our economic lives, and it does pay to influence government officials. If we do have problems, how serious are they and what should we do about them? Few will agree we have no problems at all. For those who do, they can just ignore the entire situation. Most of us who find ourselves in the Congress get here talking about conditions that are unsatisfactory and need changing. No correct answers can be given if the pertinent questions are not asked. First, are our problems due to mismanagement, waste and fraud, or do they stem from a flawed notion about what the role for government ought to be? I believe our problems are a result of a flawed notion regarding government. The waste and fraud argument only distracts from the serious consideration about what the proper role for government ought to be. Our founders profoundly believed government's role was to protect liberty, and the Constitution explains precisely the powers the people granted to the Government. The counter-revolution to this noble experiment, unlike most counter-revolutions, did not immediately follow our establishing independence from Britain. It occurred this century, gradually and without military conflict. The evolution of the welfare state subtly and steadily undermined the principle of private property, free markets, and sound money, and has brought us to the brink of bankruptcy. Most Americans, if asked, would agree they would prefer to live in a free society over a socialist or a planned society, yet most continue to endorse the principle of government intervention in personal and economic affairs, a principle that has become acceptable this century, while replacing the principle of a free society the Constitution was designed to protect. Many Americans want to have it both ways, forgetting intervention requires sacrifice of liberty, breeds waste and fraud, invites debt, diminishes productivity, encourages unfulfilled commitments, and ultimately precipitates bankruptcy. We will be forced to recommit ourselves to a different philosophy of government if we want to live in a free society. Perpetuating a bankrupt welfare state requires more and more authoritarianism with no chance of paying the bills and with a continuing erosion of our standard of living. The looming financial crisis will not quietly go away. Soviet socialism disintegrated after years of poor economic conditions and a tyrannical government. We need not put ourselves through that. The duration of a diminishing standard of living and a growing police state could go on for a long time if we do not recommit ourselves to the fundamental principles upon which freedom depends. If the prevailing principle that now is generally accepted by the majority in the U.S. Congress is not challenged, reversal of today's trend is impossible. The prevailing moral principle of the 20th century that stole the revolution is simply: The government has been granted the arbitrary use of force to bring about social and economic changes. Knowing the full meaning of this reveals a monstrous notion. It is this idea that permits today's programs of taxing, spending, regulating, confiscating, militarizing, harassing, policing, instructing, controlling, borrowing, inflating, moralizing, and meddling, while integrating government into every aspect of our lives; all done, of course, in the name of doing good. If the founders of this country are watching, they are surely embarrassed. What they fought for we have frittered away. I am optimistic, though, enough to believe that most Americans truly want to live in a free society. The numbers are rapidly growing, especially since the handwriting is on the wall and the government largesse is coming to an end. The message of liberty appeals especially to the younger generations, since they increasingly see themselves as the victims of a bankrupt welfare state that may smoulder for a long time. What principle must we accept if the welfare principle is to be replaced? The same one the founders followed in writing the Constitution: The Government does not have the moral authority to use force to mold society or the economy, nor does any person have this authority. Government's role is to restrain force when individuals violate the rights of others, which means no robbing or killing and breaking of one's contract. Molding behavior and regulating the economy, even if well-motivated, are not permissible in a free society. The problem with the idea that a little socialism or a little welfare is needed is that once the moral principle upon which welfare depends is conceded to any degree, there is no moral argument for limitations. Politicians trading votes and lobbyists earning a top-notch living will then determine the limits. Limitations will only come when the funds disappear, precipitating anger, frustration, and sacrifice of personal liberty. It has been said that the art of politics is compromise, and on the important issues, bipartisanship is crucial. If one group wants $30 billion for a welfare program and the other wants $20 billion, both will settle for $25 billion. That is no compromise, that is a total victory for those who endorse force and taxation to redistribute wealth. Those arguing for less achieve nothing because they concede the authority to the State to rob Peter to pay Paul. Yes, a little less, but so what. If we come up short before the fiscal year end, a supplemental appropriation will pass to make up the difference. That is compromise? Compromise has a good name, but there are and must be political absolutes regarding the role for government. Otherwise there are no limits to spending and deficits. Some argue there are only gray areas in politics, and only compromise will permit workable solutions. Surely there should be no compromise on murder, theft, and fraud. These should be either illegal or not. The promoters of welfare endlessly use the compromise argument to soften the opposition. Compromise sounds so gentlemanly and compassionate. In reality, those arguing for slightly less have conceded the entire argument to the welfarists that government has the authority in the first place to promote forced redistribution. Right and wrong should be argued, just as right and wrong are argued on murder and theft. The record is clear that the compromise approach has been very successful for the welfare state. The spending is endless and deficits persist, while demands continue to grow. Simply put, government, even through congressional legislation, has no moral right to steal. It is wrong and the Constitution prohibits it. Compromise with welfare proposals will be no more successful than the Missouri Compromise was in solving the slavery question. A society that condones government violence and forced redistribution of wealth while attacking the right of its citizens to defend themselves against violence must by its very nature accept authoritarianism as a way of life. This will lead to severe unwanted violence on a grand scale, since the use of violence has been accepted as a proper government function. Tragically, the only defense eventually will be for the people to counter it with their own force. The purpose of politics is simple but profound: It is to achieve liberty, unless one wants authoritarianism. Why should we have liberty? A society honoring individual liberty permits the best hope for mankind to achieve progress in all that we do. Achieving excellence, virtue, happiness, spiritual well-being, economic security, and mental satisfaction can best be accomplished through voluntary means, available only in a free society. We must agree on the ground rules that the people have established with the Government. The Constitution, although now generally dismissed, provides that contract between the people and the Government. Although imperfect without the agreement, and that is essentially what we have today, we see the anarchy of special interest government in a desperate effort to satisfy their demand as bankruptcy draws near. Street muggings to transfer wealth are morally comparable to an IRS mugging used to separate a citizen from his hard-earned cash. Splitting the difference on an appropriations bill will do nothing to solve our problems. It will only make them worse by perpetuating an immoral system. The key to the Constitution working is our acceptance of the premise laid down by Jefferson: ``All men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.'' Rights, being natural or God-given, are the only moral alternative to the secular humanists who finds violence a proper tool to promote the authoritarian agenda through government monopoly education. As our national bankruptcy unravels and we lose confidence in the dollar, more and more Americans want real answers to our problems. We will not find these answers in tinkering with the present system. That will only delay the inevitable and further inflate the financial bubble. As this becomes more evident, expect more Americans to look toward liberty and away from tyranny. A growing army of Americans is once again being introduced to the principles of liberty, and they like what they see. America can remain the bastion of liberty and peace, and it need not be a painful decision. Freedom requires no sacrifice. If any suffering comes, it must be laid at the doorstep of those who have excessively spent, regulated, and taxed. Restoring liberty, eliminating taxes, releasing our creative energy from the chains of big government bureaucrats, and permitting people to keep their earnings guarantee a prosperity and security not yet known to man. Self-respect and natural pride would follow. The liberty bridge to the 20th century is the bridge I hope we use, not the one offered to us and built by the status quo. I plan, with many others, to work to build the liberty bridge.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 36. It is very clear to me that we should be doing nothing in the way of funding international birth control and family planning. If one were to look for the authority for this, it would be very difficult to find it written in the Constitution that that would be a proper function for U.S. taxpayers to be obligated to participate in such a program. So, very clearly, a ``no'' vote on H.R. 36 would be a correct and proper vote. I have more problems with the second vote on H.R. 581 because if one is concerned about being a fiscal conservative and following the rules of the Constitution, one might ask how many more dollars of taxpayers' money will be used if H.R. 581 passes? The best answer I can come up with is that instead of the $215 million that the President would get if he has his way, we would add that and have $385 million. In contrast, if we did nothing, if we voted down both of these proposals, it is my opinion that then the spending would be limited to $92 million. The question arises here, well, what is a couple of dollars doing in some program that is unconstitutional if we can get some language in there that might do some good? Being a strong right-to-life Member, member of the right-to-life caucus, I am very much aware of that and very concerned about it. Quite frankly, if we did not spend the money we would not be arguing over whether or not the prohibition will do any good. Quite frankly, I do not believe the prohibition language accomplishes what it really intends to accomplish. For instance, in the wording of this message it is in there that if those who receive the funds do not spend it until the next fiscal year, they would not have the restraints on it. Besides, these organizations so often are international, they are huge in scope, and if they do not use the funds for abortion these funds get shifted around. Basically, it is very clear to me that the program should not exist. We should vote down the appropriation or keep the appropriation as low as possible. And quadrupling it, from where we are today, if we do nothing, we spend $92 million; if we pass H.R. 581, with the attempt to try to curtail the abortions, we actually quadruple it. Quite frankly, I do not believe the language is strong enough to really prevent any of this money getting into the hands of the abortionists.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, a tremendous amount of energy has been put into the balanced budget amendment movement. The whole debate has perversely served to distract from the important key issue of the level of government expenditures. A balanced budget achieved at $1.7 trillion offers no benefit whatsoever and a great deal of harm compared to a $1 trillion budget out of balance. This whole debate over the balanced budget amendment has coopted the important issue of the proper size of government. If Social Security funds are used to balance the budget, the support for this project will quickly fade. What is generally forgotten in this debate is that the national debt last year rose $261 billion, a far cry from the much talked about $107 billion deficit. The math is less clear than alleged. The deficit problem is a lot more than an accounting problem. Balancing the books or pretending to do so will not solve the problem inherent in a welfare state manipulated by a majority vote for the benefit of the special interests.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, President Clinton, in his State of the Union Address, proudly announced that ``We should all be proud that America led the effort to rescue our neighbor, Mexico, from its economic crisis. And we should all be proud that Mexico repaid the United States--3 full years ahead of schedule--with half a billion dollar profit to us.'' The reporting of this payback and the State of the Union Address was all favorable, highly praising the administration. The bailout was bipartisan so leaders of both parties were pleased with the announcement. International finance, just as it is with international military operations, is rarely hindered by inter-party fights that get so much attention. But there are several reasons why we should not be too quick to congratulate the money manipulators. First, they merely celebrate the postponement of the day of reckoning of their financial Ponzi scheme. It took $50 billion in United States dollars to save creditors who had unwisely invested in Mexico prior to the crisis of 2 years ago. Much of this $50 billion also included U.S. credit extended through the IMF, the World Bank, and the Bank of International Settlements, much of which is yet to be repaid. Second, foreign government welfare, and there is no better name for it, takes money out of the productive sectors of the economy--the paychecks of middle-class Americans--to reward economic mismanagement and political corruption. Such welfare exacerbates Mexico's suffering: social disruption, economic stagnation, debt crises, and declines in real incomes. Third, a new fund set up under the IMF will serve to bail out the next Mexico in trouble. The plan calls for the establishment of a $25 billion credit fund with the United States ponying up $3.5 billion. This fund is in addition to the IMF funds already available for such crises. Mexico has also received help from the Inter-American Development Fund; again, indirectly supported by United States taxpayers. These funds indirectly guarantee the newly-issued Mexican Government bonds and undermine the normal incentive for investors to police governments. As such, more confidence is now being placed in new Mexican bonds enabling Mexico to refinance its old loans. Of course, it is at slightly lower interest rates, but they are more than doubling the time of repayment. All investments involve some risks. The rewards of such risk-taking are appropriately realized by investors as loans are repaid. American taxpayers should not, however, be forced to subsidize the Wall Street financier any time such entrepreneurial ventures are unprofitable. The true test of the professed confidence in Mexico will come from the level of private investment into the productive sectors of the economy. Fourth, the Fed is allowed to hold Mexican bonds and use them as collateral for our own Federal Reserve Notes. It does so, even though it will not admit it, and refuses to reveal just how much it holds. It is quite possible that the newly issued Mexican bonds will find their way into the Fed's holdings. How far down the road we have traveled from constitutional money when we are backing the dollar not with gold but with Mexican bonds! Fifth, a likely motivation for this fanfare regarding the repayment of the loans, and the so-called profits engendered, is to get the United States Congress to go along with using this money to pay our back dues to the United Nations. How about paying our so-called U.N. back dues with our Mexican bond holdings? The use of the Exchange Stabilization Fund to bail out the peso was illegal and unconstitutional, and yet now we have a precedent not only established but praised for its great success. This precedent encourages political currency manipulation over sound fiscal and monetary policies as well as establishes the United States as lender of last resort for all governments with bad policies. President Clinton claims that ``We stand at another moment of change and choice--and another time to be farsighted, to bring America 50 more years of security and prosperity.'' He earlier told us the ``era of big government is over,'' but calls for full burden sharing through the IMF in a multilateral way with the Mexico agreement. We need to end this shell game of masking economic mismanagement by circumventing both the Constitution and Congress. We must stand firm in our opposition to the establishment of new extra-governmental agreements that will reward governments with irresponsible policies which, at the same time, punish their own people and erode U.S. sovereignty. Such policies take us one step further from a constitutional rule of law, and institutionalize the United States as the world's lender of last resort--all at the expense of the American taxpayer. Political and economic factors can override, only in the short run, the subtle reality that the fiat nature of the dollar guarantees its inherent weakness and steady depreciation. This new easy credit scheme that the Government creates by fiat only expands the World Dollar Base leading to U.S. dollar depreciation and reduced buying power. In essence, the bailout of Mexico and the financing of the payback with interest, to the sheer delight of the politicians and their Wall Street constituents, were done on the back of the United States dollar and the United States taxpayer. The real consequence, however, will not be felt until dollar confidence is lost which will surely come and be accompanied by rapid inflation and high interest rates.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my concern about some of the rule changes. Drug Testing We are now being asked to support rule changes that will require random drug testing of all members and staff. Drug usage in this country, both legal and illegal, is a major problem and deserves serious attention. However, the proposal to test randomly individuals as a method to cut down on drug usage is ill-advised and should not be done without serious thought. The real issue here is not drugs, but rather the issues of privacy, due process, probable cause, and the fourth amendment. We are dealing with a constitutional issue of the utmost importance. It raises the question of whether or not we understand the overriding principle of the 4th amendment. A broader, but related question is whether or not it's the Government's role to mold behavior any more than it's the Government's role to mold, regulate, tax, impede the voluntarism of economic contractoral arrangements. No one advocates prior restraint to regulate journalistic expression even though great harm has come over the centuries from the promotion of authoritian ideas. Likewise, we do not advocate the regulation of political expression and religious beliefs however bizarre and potentially harmful they may seem. And yet we casually assume that it's the role of government to regulate personal behavior to make one act more responsibly. A large number of us do not call for the regulation or banning of guns because someone might use a gun in an illegal fashion. We argue that it's the criminal that needs regulated and refuse to call for diminishing the freedom of law-abiding citizens because some individual might commit a crime with a gun. Random drug testing is based on the same assumption made by anti-gun proponents. Unreasonable effort at identifying the occasional and improbable drug user should not replace respect to our privacy. Its not worth it. While some are more interested in regulating economic transactions in order to make a ``fairer'' society, others are more anxious to regulate personal behavior to make a ``good'' society. But both cling to the failed notion that governments, politicians, and bureaucrats know that is best for everyone. If we casually allow our persons to be searched, why is it less important that our conversations, our papers and our telephones not be monitored as well. Vital information regarding drugs might be obtained in this manner. We who champion the cause of limited government ought not be promoters of the revolving eye of big brother. If we embark on this course to check randomly all Congressional personnel for possible drug usage, it must be noted that the two most dangerous and destructive drugs in this country are alcohol and nicotine. To not include these in the efforts to do good, is inconsistent--to say the least. I have one question. If we have so little respect for our own privacy, our own liberty, and our own innocence, how can we be expected to protect the liberties, the privacy and the innocence of our constituents for which we have just sworn an oath to do? This legislation is well motivated, as is all economic welfare legislation. The good intentions in solving social problems--when violence is absent--perversely uses government power, which inevitably hurts innocent people while rarely doing anything to prevent the anticipated destructive behavior of a few. The only answer to solving problems like this is to encourage purely voluntary testing programs whereby each individual and member makes the information available to those who are worried about issues like this.