Ron Paul

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3015, the National All Schedules Prescription Electronic Reporting Act. This bill is yet another unjustifiable attempt by the Federal government to use the war on drugs as an excuse for invading the privacy and liberties of the American people and for expanding the Federal government's disastrous micromanagement of medical care. As a physician with over 30 years experience in private practice, I must oppose this bill due to the danger it poses to our health as well as our liberty. By creating a national database of prescriptions for controlled substances, the Federal government would take another step forward in the war on pain patients and their doctors. This war has already resulted in the harassment and prosecution of many doctors, and their staff members, whose only ``crime'' is prescribing legal medication, including opioids, to relieve their patients' pain. These prosecutions, in turn, have scared other doctors so that they are unwilling to prescribe an adequate amount of pain medication, or even any pain medication, for their suffering patients. Doctors and their staffs may even be prosecuted because of a patient's actions that no doctor approved or even knew about. A doctor has no way of controlling if a patient gives some of the prescribed medication away or consumes a prescribed drug in a dangerous combination with illegal drugs or other prescription drugs obtained from another source. Nonetheless, doctors can be subjected to prosecution when a patient takes such actions. Applying to doctors laws intended to deal with drug kingpins, the government has created the illusion of some success in the war on drugs. Investigating drug dealers can be hard and dangerous work. In comparison, it is much easier to shut down medical practices and prosecute doctors who prescribe pain medication. A doctor who is willing to treat chronic pain patients with medically justified amounts of controlled substances may appear at first look to be excessively prescribing. Because so few doctors are willing to take the drug war prosecution risks associated with treating chronic pain patients, and because chronic pain patients must often consume significant doses of pain medication to obtain relief, the prosecution of one pain doctor can be heralded as a large success. All the government needs to do is point to the large amount of patients and drugs associated with a medical practice. Once doctors know that there is a national database of controlled substances prescriptions that overzealous law enforcement will be scrutinizing to harass doctors, there may be no doctors left who are willing to treat chronic pain. Instead of creating a national database, we should be returning medical regulation to local control, where it historically and constitutionally belongs. Instead of drug warriors regulating medicine with an eye to maximizing prosecutions, we should return to State medical boards and State civil courts review that looks to science-based standards of medical care and patients' best interests. H.R. 3015 also threatens patients' privacy. A patient's medical records should be treated according to the mutual agreement of the patient and doctor. In contrast, H.R. 3015 will put a patient's prescriptions on a government-mandated database that can be accessed without the patient's permission. Instead of further eroding our medical privacy, Congress should take steps to protect it. Why should someone not be able to deny the government and third parties access to his medical records without his permission or a warrant? One way the House can act to protect patients' privacy is by enacting my Patient Privacy Act (H.R. 1699) that repeals the provision of Federal law establishing a medical ID for every American. Under the guise of ``protecting privacy,'' the Health and Human Services' so- called ``medical privacy'' regulations allow medical researchers, insurance agents, and government officials access to your personal medical records--without your consent. Congress should act now to reverse this government-imposed invasion of our medical privacy. Please join me in opposing H.R. 3015--legislation that, if enacted, will make us less free and less healthy.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, while I oppose federal efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman, I do not believe a constitutional amendment is either a necessary or proper way to defend marriage. While marriage is licensed and otherwise regulated by the states, government did not create the institution of marriage. In fact, the institution of marriage most likely pre-dates the institution of government! Government regulation of marriage is based on state recognition of the practices and customs formulated by private individuals interacting in civil society. Many people associate their wedding day with completing the rituals and other requirements of their faith, thus being joined in the eyes of their church and their creator, not with receiving their marriage license, thus being joined in the eyes of the state. If I were in Congress in 1996, I would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congress's constitutional authority to define what official state documents other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a ``same sex'' marriage license issued in another state. This Congress, I was an original cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act. H.R. 3313, that removes challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from federal courts' jurisdiction. If I were a member of the Texas legislature, I would do all I could to oppose any attempt by rogue judges to impose a new definition of marriage on the people of my state. Having studied this issue and consulted with leading legal scholars, including an attorney who helped defend the Boy Scouts against attempts to force the organization to allow gay men to serve as scoutmasters, I am convinced that both the Defense or Marriage Act and the Marriage Protection Act can survive legal challenges and ensure that no state is forced by a federal court's or another state's actions to recognize same sex marriage. Therefore, while I am sympathetic to those who feel only a constitutional amendment will sufficiently address this issue, I respectfully disagree. I am also concerned that the proposed amendment, by telling the people of the individual states how their state constitutions are to be interpreted, is a major usurpation of the states' power. The division of power between the federal government and the states is one of the virtues of the American political system. Altering that balance endangers self-government and individual liberty. However, if federal judges wrongly interfere and attempt to compel a state to recognize the marriage licenses of another state, that would be proper time for me to consider new legislative or constitutional approaches. Conservatives, in particular, should be leery of anything that increases federal power, since centralized government power is traditionally the enemy of conservative values. I agree with the assessment of former Congressman Bob Barr, who authored the Defense of Marriage Act: ``The very fact that the FMA [Federal Marriage Amendment] was introduced said that conservatives believed it was okay to amend the Constitution to take power from the states and give it to Washington. That is hardly a basic principle of conservatism as we used to know it. It is entirely likely the left will boomerang that assertion into a future proposed amendment that would weaken gun rights or mandate income redistribution.'' Passing a constitutional amendment is a long, drawn-out process. The fact that the marriage amendment already failed to gather the necessary two-thirds support in the Senate means that, even if two-thirds of House members support the amendment, it will not be sent to states for ratification this year. Even if the amendment gathers the necessary two-thirds support in both Houses of Congress, it still must go through the time-consuming process of state ratification. This process requires three-quarters of the states' legislatures to approve the amendment before it can become effective. Those who believe that immediate action to protect the traditional definition of marriage is necessary should consider that the Equal Rights Amendment easily passed both Houses of Congress and was quickly ratified by a number of states. Yet, that amendment remains unratified today. Proponents of this marriage amendment should also consider that efforts to amend the Constitution to address flag burning and require the federal government to balance the budget have been ongoing for years, without any success. Ironically, social engineers who wish to use federal government power to redefine marriage will be able to point to the defense of traditional marriage through a constitutional amendment as proof that they have the legitimate authority to redefine marriage. I am unwilling either to cede to the federal courts the authority to redefine marriage or to deny a state's ability to preserve the traditional definition of marriage. Instead, I believe it is time for Congress and state legislatures to reassert their authority as a co-equal branch of government by refusing to enforce judicial usurpations of power. In contrast to a constitutional amendment, the Marriage Protection Act requires only a majority vote of both Houses of Congress and the President's signature to become law. The bill has already passed the House of Representatives; at least 51 Senators would vote for it; and the President would sign this legislation given his commitment to protecting the traditional definition of marriage. Therefore, those who believe Congress needs to take immediate action to protect marriage this year should be focusing on passing the Marriage Protection Act. Because of the dangers to liberty and traditional values posed by the unexpected consequences of amending the Constitution to strip power from the states and the people and further empower Washington, I cannot in good conscience support the marriage amendment to the United States Constitution. Instead, I plan to continue to work to enact the Marriage Protection Act and protect each state's right not to be forced to recognize a same sex marriage.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 3193, the District of Columbia Personal Protection Act. I am a cosponsor of this legislation that ensures greater respect for the right to bear arms in Washington, DC. H.R. 3193 repeals several of the more draconian citywide Washington, DC, gun restrictions enacted in 1976. Restrictions H.R. 3193 will repeal include the requirement that all firearms be registered. Gun registration in other countries has created government lists of who owns what guns. Such lists facilitate the harassment of gun owners and the confiscation of their guns. Also repealed are blanket bans on the possession of handguns and handgun ammunition as well as any semi- automatic guns. These bans exist despite the fact that handguns and semi-automatic guns are regularly used outside Washington, DC, for self-defense. Also repealed is the prohibition on carrying a gun on one's own property. It is hard to say a person is free if he is prohibited from using the means of protecting himself and his family even in his own home. It is unfortunate that people in the federal capital city have for nearly 30 years faced some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the country. This fact is particularly unfortunate given Washington, DC's recent history as the murder capital of the United States. Ironically, the place where people most need to bear arms to defend themselves from violent crimes has been one of the places where the exercise of that right has been most restricted. A strong case can be made that the high rate of violent crimes, including murders, in Washington, DC, is due in part to restrictions on the exercise of the right to bear arms. When potential victims are likely armed, criminals think twice about committing violent crimes; a gun in the hands of a law-abiding citizen is an excellent deterrent to crime. Across the Potomac River from Washington, DC, Virginia does not have this horrific crime and murder rate. Yet, people in Virginia can buy, own, and even carry guns in public. I am hopeful that the House's consideration of H.R. 3193 indicates a new openness to legislation that will roll back other unconstitutional and dangerous restrictions on Americans' right to bear arms. For years, federal lawmakers have been passing gun control laws, even though they have no authority to do so. Crime control, the stated reason for passing gun control laws in the first place, is a function belonging to the states. Enacting H.R. 3193 would be a good first step in adopting legislation to restore the Federal Government's respect for the right to bear arms throughout the United States. The Federal Government has trampled on gun rights nationwide--not just in Washington, DC. I have introduced several pieces of legislation this Congress that would help restore respect for the right to bear arms, including the Second Amendment Protection Act, H.R. 153, that would repeal the now-sunset semi-auto ban, repeal the 5-day waiting period and ``instant'' background check imposed on gun purchases, and delete the ``sporting purposes'' test that allows the Treasury Secretary to classify a firearm as a destructive device simply because the Secretary deems the gun to be ``non-sporting.'' Additionally, Congress should consider my Right to Keep and Bear Arms Act, H.R. 3125, that prohibits U.S. taxpayers' dollars from being used to support or promote any United Nations actions that could infringe on the second amendment. In 1976, I spoke on the floor of the House against the adoption of restrictions on the right to bear arms in Washington, DC, that H.R. 3193 seeks to repeal. Unfortunately, my argument then was ruled out of order, and the restrictions went into effect. While it has been too long in coming, I am glad that the House is finally considering this important issue. The District of Columbia Personal Protection Act would restore some much needed respect for the fundamental rights of people in Washington, DC.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Constitution is the most unique and best contract ever drawn up between a people and their government throughout history. Though flawed from the beginning, because all men are flawed, it nevertheless has served us well and set an example for the entire world. Yet no matter how hard the authors tried, the inevitable corrupting influence of power was not thwarted by the Constitution. The notion of separate States and local governments championed by the followers of Jefferson was challenged by the Hamiltonians almost immediately following ratification of the Constitution. Early on the supporters of strong centralized government promoted central banking, easy credit, protectionism, mercantilism and subsidies for corporate interests. Although the 19th century generally was kind to the intent of the constitution, namely limiting government power, a major setback occurred with the Civil War and the severe undermining of the principle of sovereign States. The Civil War will finally change the balance of power in our federalist system, paving the way for centralized big government. Although the basic principle underlying the constitutional republic we were given was compromised in the post Civil War period, it was not until the 20th century that steady and significant erosion of the Constitution restraints placed on the central government occurred. This erosion adversely affected not only economic and civil liberties but foreign affairs as well. We now have persistent abuse of the Constitution by the executive, legislative and the judicial branches. Our legislative leaders in Washington demonstrate little concern for the rule of law, liberty and our republican form of government. Today, the pragmatism of the politicians, as they spend more than $2 trillion annually, create legislative chaos. The vultures consume the carcass of liberty without remorse. On the contrary, we hear politicians brag incessantly about their ability to deliver benefits to their district, thus qualifying themselves for automatic reelection. The real purpose of the Constitution was the preservation of liberty, but our government ignores this while spending endlessly, taxing and regulating. The complacent electorate who are led to believe their interests and needs are best served by a huge bureaucratic welfare state convince themselves that enormous Federal deficits and destructive inflation can be dealt with on another day. The answer to the dilemma of unconstitutional government and runaway spending is simple: restore a burning conviction in the hearts and minds of the people that freedom works and government largesse is a fraud. When the people once again regain their confidence in the benefits of liberty and demand it from their elected leaders, Congress will act appropriately. The response of honorable men and women who represent us should be simply to take their oaths of office seriously, vote accordingly and return our Nation to its proper republican origins. The result would be economic prosperity, greater personal liberty, honest money, abolition of the Internal Revenue Service and a world made more peaceful when we abandon the futile policy of building and policing an American empire. No longer would we yield our sovereignty to international organizations that act outside of the restraints placed on the government by the Constitution. The Constitution and those who have sworn to uphold it are not perfect, and it is understandable that abuse occurs, but it should not be acceptable. Without meticulous adherence to the principle of the rule of law, minor infractions become commonplace, and the Constitution loses all meaning. Unfortunately, that is where we are today. The nonsense that the Constitution is a living, flexible document taught as gospel in most public schools must be challenged. The Founders were astute enough to recognize the Constitution was not perfect and wisely permitted amendments to the document, but they correctly made the process tedious and difficult. Without a renewed love for liberty and confidence in its results, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to restore once again the rule of law under the Constitution. I have heard throughout my life how each upcoming election is the most important election ever and how the very future of our country is at stake. Those fears have always been grossly overstated. The real question is not who will achieve the next partisan victory; the real question is whether or not we will once again accept the clear restraints placed in the power of the national government by the Constitution. Obviously, the jury is still out on this issue. However, what we choose to do about this constitutional crisis is the most important ``election'' of our times, and the results will determine the kind of society our children will inherit. I believe it is worthwhile for all of us to tirelessly pursue the preservation of the elegant constitution with which we have been so blessed.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to support, and cosponsor, the Pledge Protection Act (H.R. 2028), which restricts federal court jurisdiction over the question of whether the phrase ``under God'' should be included in the pledge of allegiance. Local schools should determine for themselves whether or not students should say ``under God'' in the pledge. The case finding it is a violation of the First Amendment to include the words ``under God'' in the pledge is yet another example of federal judges abusing their power by usurping state and local governments' authority over matters such as education. Congress has the constitutional authority to rein in the federal court's jurisdiction and the duty to preserve the states' republican forms of governments. Since government by the federal judiciary undermines the states' republican governments, Congress has a duty to rein in rogue federal judges. I am pleased to see Congress exercise its authority to protect the states from an out-of-control judiciary. Many of my colleagues base their votes on issues regarding federalism on whether or not they agree with the particular state policy at issue. However, under the federalist system as protected by the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, states have the authority to legislate in ways that most members of Congress, and even the majority of he citizens of other states, disapprove. Consistently upholding state autonomy does not mean approving of all actions taken by state governments; it simply means acknowledging that the constitutional limits on federal power require Congress to respect the wishes of the states even when the states act unwisely. I would remind my colleagues that an unwise state law, by definition, only affects the people of one state. Therefore, it does far less damage than a national law that affects all Americans. While I will support this bill even if the language removing the United States Supreme Court's jurisdiction over cases regarding the pledge is eliminated, I am troubled that some of my colleagues question whether Congress has the authority to limit Supreme Court jurisdiction in this case. Both the clear language of the United States Constitution and a long line of legal precedents make it clear that Congress has the authority to limit the Supreme Court's jurisdiction. The Framers intended Congress to use the power to limit jurisdiction as a check on all federal judges, including Supreme Court judges, who, after all, have lifetime tenure and are thus unaccountable to the people. Ironically, the author of the pledge of allegiance might disagree with our commitment to preserving the prerogatives of state and local governments. Francis Bellamy, the author of the pledge, was a self- described socialist who wished to replace the Founders' constitutional republic with a strong, centralized welfare state. Bellamy wrote the pledge as part of his efforts to ensure that children put their allegiance to the central government before their allegiance to their families, local communities, state governments, and even their creator! In fact, the atheist Bellamy did not include the words ``under God'' in his original version of the pledge. That phrase was added to the pledge in the 1950s. Today, most Americans who support the pledge reject Bellamy's vision and view the pledge as a reaffirmation of their loyalty to the Framers' vision of a limited, federal republic that recognizes that rights come from the creator, not from the state. In order to help preserve the Framers' system of a limited federal government and checks and balances, I am pleased to support H.R. 2028, the Pledge Protection Act. I urge my colleague to do the same.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, that is correct, there is no money specified for this. But on previous legislation, the authority exists for us to be involved in mental health. The particular bill's mental health services, it is on the books. The legislative authority is there. It could be done by regulation. I am just saying you are correct, it is not on there, so there should be no objection, is my interpretation. It is just a protection, a statement by the House that we do not like this idea because this is a recommendation from a commission set up by the administration, and I would like to cut it off before it gets very far.

Mr. PAUL. I hope the gentleman will join me in this effort for preventive medicine.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes. (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, my amendment says that no funds in this bill will be permitted to be used to institute system of universal mental health screening. The New Freedoms Commission on Mental Health, a commission established in 2002, has recommended universal mental health screening for all our children in our public schools as well as adults who work in these schools. As a medical doctor, as a civil libertarian, and a strict constitutionist, I strongly reject this notion, this plan, as dangerous and nonproductive. This type of screening would surely lead to a lot more treatment of hyperactive kids. We already have an epidemic in our schools today that are overtreated. Too often under these conditions, children are coerced into taking medicine. It has been known that parents who have denied medication for their children have been accused of child abuse. There is already tremendous pressure on parents to allow public school officials to put children on medication like Ritalin. This amendment would not deny, in the routine course of events, medical treatment for those who are suffering from mental disease. What my concern is for a universal screening test of all children for mental illness. Diagnosis in psychiatry is mostly subjective. It is very difficult to come up with objective criteria. If we wanted psychiatrists to perform the test to make it more objective, it would be impossible. We are talking about an unbelievable number of psychiatrists that are not available, so nonpsychiatrists would be doing this testing. One of the worst downsides from a program like this would be for a child to be put on a list as having some type of mental disorder. An unruly child is going to be the first one to be determined as mentally disturbed. It is happening all the time. Those are the individuals that are hyperactive even in a normal sense and end up on Ritalin. But can you imagine a list of this sort? They claim it will be private, but can you imagine if there is a list that has identified an individual as a possible candidate for violence? And what if he were to be hired by an important industry? What if the post office was to hire this individual and he was on this list and we did not make this information available to the hiring authorities? That means there would be tremendous pressure to make public officials use this list for reasons that I think would be very, very negative. The whole notion of testing children to me represents a principle even more intrusive than a mandatory blood test. It would make more sense medically to have a blood test for, say, AIDS, if you thought it was the responsibility of the Federal Government to take this job upon themselves. But, no, if we tried to do this in the area of mental diseases, believe me, the criteria would be way too arbitrary. A diagnosis will be too difficult to determine with a set of objective standards. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I think the amendment was misconstrued by the previous speaker, because it would not deny medical care. What it does is it denies the authority to the administration to have universal screening of all children in public school. It does not deny care to any individual that may qualify. Already the SAT tests have now been changed to incorporate having the students write a paragraph about personal beliefs and their world view. Can you not see the connection? If one has a strange world view or a strange personal belief, if you have a prejudice or whatever one may be deemed mentally ill. This is a dangerous idea and a notion that has been used by totalitarian societies throughout the ages. Just think of the extreme of this if this is not nipped in the bud, as happened in the Soviet system. People were not always convicted of crimes; but they were put in psychiatric hospitals to be retrained, to be conditioned to think differently and politically correct. When we see a monopoly school system, a universal school system, talking about standardizing what they think is sound mental health, believe me, we are treading on dangerous ground. I would like to restate once again, this amendment does not deny treatment to any individual that is pointed out to have medical needs. This goes along with the principles of reasonable cause. They cannot go in and search our houses, or at least they are not supposed to, without a reasonable cause. We should not go into these kids' minds without reasonable cause and sort out this kind of information.

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

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am forced to rise in opposition to this legislation, I do so despite my desire to commemorate the horrific attacks on September 11, 2001 and again express my sympathy to the families of the victims. But don't be fooled by the label. This legislation is no mere commemoration of the events of September 11, 2001. Rather, it is page after page of Congressional self- congratulation. It is page after page of praise for policies that have made us no safer from terrorist attack, but that have certainly made us much less free at home. Does it not strike anyone else as a bit unseemly for Congress to be congratulating itself on this solemn occasion? This legislation is an endorsement of the policy of restricting freedoms at home that I have consistently opposed, including praise for the creation of the bloated and impotent Department of Homeland Security, the liberty-killing PATRIOT Act, and many other futile measures. It praises the notoriously ineffective air marshal program while avoiding altogether one of the most important lessons of the September 11, 2001 tragedy; The entire disaster could have been avoided with just one gun in the hands of each of the pilots. Four guns could have prevented September 11, 2001, but we are no closer to arming pilots than we were on September 10, 2001. Shortly after the attacks, I introduced a bill to allow pilots to be armed. Eventually, a version of that bill was passed, but pilots are still not armed. I also introduced several other bills to deal with the attacks of 9/11, protect us against future attacks, and do so without sacrificing our liberty. What this legislation does not do is address some of the real causes of the hatred that lead others to wish to harm us. Why should we bother to understand the motivations of madmen and murderers? It is not to sympathize with them or their cause. It is to ensure our self- preservation. Those who oppose us and who have attacked us have made it very clear: They oppose our foreign policy of interventionism and meddling, and they oppose our one-sided approach to the Middle East. Therefore, mitigating the anger against us could be as simple as returning to the foreign policy recommended by our forefathers. We should not be stationing hundreds of thousands of our troops in more than 100 foreign countries, guarding their borders while our own remain open to terrorist infiltration. We should not be meddling in the internal affairs of foreign countries, nor should we be involving ourselves in foreign conflicts that have nothing to do with the United States. We should not be sending hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars overseas to ``build nations'' and ``export democracy'' at the barrel of a gun. Many of my colleagues like to repeat the mantra that ``freedom is under attack'' in the United States. Well, they are right. Freedom is under attack in the United States, but not only from foreign terrorists. Freedom is under attack from a government that rushes to pass legislation like the PATRIOT Act, that guts civil liberties in the United States. Freedom is under attack from those who are rushing to create a national biometric identification card and internal check- points, which will force innocent Americans to prove to government authorities that they are not terrorists. Freedom is under attack from a government that is spending itself into bankruptcy at an unprecedented pace. Freedom is under attack from a foreign policy that generates millions of enemies across the globe. This legislation praises the number of Coast Guard boardings as one example of success, but we should not take a false sense of security from boardings. Rather, we should claim victories only if we have stopped another planned attack. Both shippers and recreational users of the gulf ports I represent have expressed concern about our new Federal policies and practices. If we fail to heed the real lessons of September 11, 2001, we may well be condemned to see such tragedies repeated again in our land. It unfortunately seems that this is exactly what we are doing.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act (H.R. 3313), I urge all my colleagues to support this bill. H.R. 3313 ensures federal courts will not undermine any state's laws regulating marriage by forcing a state to recognize same-sex marriage licenses issued in another state. The Marriage Protection Act thus ensures that the authority to regulate marriage remains with individual states and communities, which is what the drafters of the Constitution intended. The practice of judicial activism--legislating from the bench--is now standard procedure for many federal judges. They dismiss the doctrine of strict construction as outdated and, instead, treat the Constitution as fluid and malleable to create a desired outcome in any given case. For judges who see themselves as social activists, their vision of justice is more important than the letter of the law they are sworn to interpret and uphold. With the federal judiciary focused more on promoting a social agenda than on upholding the rule of law, Americans find themselves increasingly governed by judges they did not elect and cannot remove from office. Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court last June. The Court determined that Texas has no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because these laws violated the court's interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Regardless of the advisability of such laws, the Constitution does not give the federal government the authority to overturn these laws. Under the Tenth Amendment, the State of Texas has the authority to pass laws concerning social matters, using its own local standards, without federal interference. But, rather than adhering to the Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a state matter, the Court decided to stretch the ``right to privacy'' to justify imposing the justices' vision on the people of Texas. Since the Lawrence decision, many Americans have expressed their concern that the Court may next ``discover'' that state laws defining marriage violate the Court's wrongheaded interpretation of the Constitution. After all, some judges may simply view this result as taking the Lawrence decision to its logical conclusion. One way federal courts may impose a redefinition of marriage on the states is by interpreting the full faith and credit clause to require all states, even those which do not grant legal standing to same-sex marriages, to treat as valid a same-sex marriage licenses from the few states which give legal status to such unions as valid. This would have the practical effect of nullifying state laws defining marriage as solely between a man and a woman, thus allowing a few states and a handful of federal judges to create marriage policy for the entire nation. In 1996, Congress, exercised its authority under the full faith and credit clause of Article IV of the United States Constitution by passing the Defense of Marriage Act that ensured each state could set its own policy regarding marriage and not be forced to adopt the marriage policies of another state. Since the full faith and credit clause grants Congress the clear authority to ``prescribe the effects'' that state documents such as marriage licenses have on other states, the Defense of Marriage Act is unquestionably constitutional. However, the lack of respect federal judges show for the plain language of the Constitution necessitates congressional action to ensure state officials are not forced to recognize another state's same-sex marriage licenses because of a flawed judicial interpretation of the full faith and credit clause. The drafters of the Constitution gave Congress the power to limit federal jurisdiction to provide a check on out-of- control federal judges. It is long past time we begin using our legitimate authority to protect the states and the people from ``judicial tyranny.'' Since the Marriage Protection Act only requires a majority vote in both houses of Congress and the President's signature to become law, it is a more practical way to deal with this issue than the time-consuming process of passing a constitutional amendment. In fact, since the Defense of Marriage Act overwhelmingly passed both houses, and the President supports protecting state marriage laws from judicial tyranny, there is no reason why the Marriage Protection Act cannot become law this year. Some may argue that allowing federal judges to rewrite the definition of marriage can result in a victory for individual liberty. This claim is flawed. The best guarantor of true liberty is decentralized political institutions, while the greatest threat to liberty is concentrated power. This is why the Constitution carefully limits the power of the federal government over the states. Allowing federal judges unfettered discretion to strike down state laws, or force a state to conform to the laws of another state, in the name of liberty, leads to centralization and loss of liberty. While marriage is licensed and otherwise regulated by the states, government did not create the institution of marriage. In fact, the institution of marriage most likely pre-dates the institution of government! Government regulation of marriage is based on state recognition of the practices and customs formulated by private individuals interacting in civil society. Many people associate their wedding day with completing the rituals and other requirements of their faith, thus being joined in the eyes of their church, not the day they received their marriage license, thus being joined in the eyes of the state. Having federal officials, whether judges, bureaucrats, or congressmen, impose a new definition of marriage on the people is an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty. Mr. Speaker, Congress has a constitutional responsibility to stop rogue federal judges from using a flawed interpretation of the Constitution to rewrite the laws and traditions governing marriage. I urge my colleagues to stand against destructive judicial activism and for marriage by voting for the Marriage Protection Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this incredibly dangerous legislation. I hope my colleagues are not fooled by the title of this bill, ``Declaring genocide in Darfur, Sudan.'' This resolution is no statement of humanitarian concern for what may be happening in a country thousands of miles from the United States. Rather, it could well lead to war against the African country of Sudan. The resolution ``urges the Bush Administration to seriously consider multilateral or even unilateral intervention to prevent genocide should the United Nations Security Council fail to act.'' We must realize the implications of urging the President to commit the United States to intervene in an ongoing civil war in a foreign land thousands of miles away? Mr. Speaker, this resolution was never marked up in the House International Relations Committee, on which I serve. Therefore, Members of that committee had no opportunity to amend it or express their views before it was sent to the Floor for a vote. Like too many highly controversial bills, it was rushed onto the suspension calendar (by House rules reserved for ``non-controversial'' legislation) at the last minute. Perhaps there was a concern that if Members had more time to consider the bill they would cringe at the resolution's call for U.S. military action in Sudan--particularly at a time when our military is stretched to the breaking point. The men and women of the United States Armed Forces risk their lives to protect and defend the United States. Can anyone tell me how sending thousands of American soldiers into harm's way in Sudan is by any stretch of the imagination in the U.S. national interest or in keeping with the Constitutional function of this country's military forces? I urge my colleagues in the strongest terms to reject this dangerous resolution.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me follow up on the point I made earlier about the good intentions of a program like this to promote free market changes in certain countries, but, unfortunately, this backfires because once the money gets in the hands of the government we then require them to develop partnerships or alliances with businesses, which is exactly the opposite of free markets. This is closer to crony capitalism or fascism when we combine government money with business interests. At the same time, we know that our corporations will also participate in these programs. So the money once again leaves the people of this country, many times the poor, and goes to these foreign aid programs which subsidize certain governments, solidifying powers of certain politicians, which then allows fungibility of their other funds to do other things and then encourage business partnerships between government and business which is not free markets, which literally is undermining the move that I think is intended and that is to improve the conditions of other countries. If the conditions of a country are amenable to capitalism and investment, there is never a problem of a lack of investors. The fact that we have to do this, that means there are flaws in the system. This will not improve it. It actually makes it worse. Just because you have partnership with businesses does not mean you are moving toward free enterprise. That means you are moving toward a system of interventionism, or crony capitalism. It is not true reform. So a program like this actually does the reverse. It has unintended consequences. It makes our problems worse. And, besides, we do not have the right to do it. We do not have the constitutional authority to do it, and we certainly do not have a moral authority to undermine the poor people of this country by making the conditions worse here. For this reason, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller).

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

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, my amendment strikes the Millennium Challenge Account. When this program was put in place a year ago, it was originally thought to be a program that would replace old-fashioned foreign aid, but because the votes were not there, instead of a transition from one form of foreign aid to another, it was just added on. That is the way we do things here. We keep adding on in order to satisfy everybody. So the foreign aid bill now is up to nearly $20 billion, and that represents $1.25 billion for the Millennium Challenge Account, and it is a $266 million increase from 1 year ago. So we are making ``progress'', if one is a strong supporter of such programs. The strongest argument of those who endorse foreign aid is a humanitarian argument: We are rich, they are poor, we have empathy, we must help, it is our moral obligation. For the most part, people go along with that. But I have a humanitarian argument, also. Mine is that it does not work and that, if we indeed care about people, we ought to be encouraging free markets and individual liberty, and that is when countries become more prosperous. But the idea that we can promote humanitarian programs by taking literally money from poor people in this country and giving it to rich, influential leaders in other countries and we are going to have this miraculous success I think is a myth. It does not work that way, and there are people who are not benefitted. Now, it may be said by those who have promoted the Millennium Challenge Account, that is exactly what we are trying to address. We want to reward countries that are moving in the direction of free markets. Now, that is a nice notion, but it cannot work. It is impossible because when we give money to a government, it is politicized. It becomes bureaucratic, and it has to be handed out to special interests. When Paul Applegarth, the chairman of the corporation for the Millennium Challenge Account was before our committee, I asked him a question. I said, are there any American companies that will benefit by this type of program? I actually was pretty shocked with his answer, because he was very blunt. He said, I certainly hope so. In other words, even our American corporations benefit from programs like this. So it would be nice to think that the poor people of these other countries are going to benefit, but I think it is a greater injury to the poor people of this country. My colleagues say the poor people of this country do not pay taxes. Well, that is incorrect, because the inflation tax is borne by the poor and the middle class, and that occurs when we spend too much money. And this is too much money spent the wrong way, and we do not have the authority to do it. Besides, how many of us ever get calls from our constituents saying please vote for more foreign aid? No, they are asking for more help here, and this distracts from it. When we do not have the money, we run up the debt. Then we go and we literally print the money to pay the bills. We create the inflation and the higher cost of living, and it injures the low and middle income people the most, and they are the ones who are losing jobs. So this is literally money coming out of our pockets for programs that could help us in this country. My suggestion is, since I am a moderate here in the Congress, my moderate approach would be when we have a program like this, whether it is 1.25 or the whole $20 billion, my suggestion is cut it, cut the whole thing. Let us say we cut the $20 billion of foreign aid. I would take $10 billion and put it toward the deficit, and I would join my colleagues on the left and say, look, let us fund some of these programs that are needed or are coming up short. Why are we cutting veterans benefits at the same time? Why do we cut the Corps of Engineers? Why do we not fully fund our infrastructure? This type of spending does not make any economic sense, and it does not make any moral sense. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, political operatives across the country are using state ballot access laws to deny voters the opportunity to support independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader. For example, one New York election lawyer has publicly stated that partisan election lawyers should take advantage of New York's complex and costly ballot access procedures to keep Mr. Nader off the New York ballot. Meanwhile, a state party chairman in Arizona has hired a team of lawyers for the sole purpose of keeping Mr. Nader off the Arizona ballot. The effort to keep Mr. Nader off the ballot shows how ballot access laws preserve the two party monopoly over the political system by effectively disenfranchising supporters of third parties and independent candidates. While the campaign against Mr. Nader is an extreme case, supporters of the two party monopoly regularly use ballot access laws to keep third party and independent candidates off ballots. Even candidates able to comply with onerous ballot access rules must devote so many resources to simply getting on the ballot that their ability to communicate their ideas to the general public is severely limited. Perhaps the ballot access laws are one reason why voter turnout has been declining over the past few decades. After all, almost 42% of eligible voters have either not registered to vote or have registered as something other than Democrat or Republican. The United States Constitution gives Congress the authority to regulate the time, place, and manner of federal elections. Thus, ballot access is one of the few areas where Congress has explicit Constitutional authority to establish national standards. In order to open up the political process, I have introduced the Voter Freedom Act (HR 1941). HR 1941 established uniform standards for ballot access so third party and independent candidates can at last compete on a level playing field. The blatant attempt by a major party to keep Ralph Nader off state ballots demonstrates how restrictive ballot access laws are used to preserve a political monopoly, limit voters' choices, and deny the rights of millions of Americans who support third parties and independent candidates an opportunity to effectively participate in the political process. I call upon my colleagues to remedy this situation by supporting my Voter Freedom Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, the author of the amendment, and I am a coauthor of it, mentioned that it has a broad spectrum of individuals supporting it. He mentioned progressives and liberals and conservatives and moderates, but he forgot the libertarians. Libertarians support this as well and for a precise reason. A free market libertarian does not believe in welfare for anybody, let alone the rich, and it is particularly gnawing to see the subsidies go to the very wealthy. I am in strong support of this amendment, but, like the gentleman from California, I do not support this for the purpose of collecting more taxes, but I do think it is a message to us here that if we do not revise our tax system and our regulatory system we will prompt more and more business to leave this country. So there are two issues here, but corporate welfare and subsidies should have no part in this. There is no room for it. It is wrong. Also, the beneficiaries outside the corporations we should not forget either, because the biggest country that benefits from this is China. Why do we subsidize China? People who receive the goods get a benefit as well as the people who get to sell the goods get a benefit? China is on the books right now currently with $5.9 billion in outstanding loans. They receive more than anybody else. So there is something wrong with a system like that. There are two economic points that I want to make on this. When we do this and we allow tax credit and special deals for some corporations, we assume, and we will hear this in the defense of the Ex-Im Bank, and say look at the good that we do. But what they fail to ask is, where did it come from, who was denied the credit? The fact that we do not finance it does not mean it would not happen. It would happen. What it does is it distorts the market and causes people to do the wrong thing, and some individuals do not get the credit is obviously the case, but what we need to do is to have a much more oriented free market. When we direct it this way, even those companies may do more than they ordinarily would, and that participates in the economic bubble that occurs, of course, for other reasons as well. Then there has to be corrections. But if one is in a powerful position in a place where they can qualify, and 80 percent of this goes to the very, very large companies, although there are a lot of companies that receive the big bucks, and big countries like China. This is corporate welfare. It should be defeated; and, ultimately, if we believe in liberty and freedom, we ought to get rid of the Export- Import Bank.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I appreciate the opportunity to spend 5 minutes on an issue that I wanted to bring up in the form of an amendment, and that deals with the $300 million that will be going to Pakistan. And I call this to attention because I think it is a very unwise expenditure. But I want to make my case for this in the context of overall foreign policy. Essentially for 100 years, we have accepted the foreign policy of Woodrow Wilson. It is a flawed idealism that we should, and it is our responsibility to, make the world safe for democracy. That did not just exist for World War I, which led to a peace treaty which caused a lot of problems leading up to World War II; but those notions are well engrained in the current neoconservative approach to foreign policy and the policy that this administration follows. But I do not think it is in the best interests of our country to follow this. The advice of the Founders was that we should be more balanced in our approach and not favoring special nations, not giving money or weapons or getting involved in any alliances with the different nations of the world and we would all be better off for it. I believe that this policy is a failure and has been very costly. If we think about the last 100 years how many lives were lost, how much blood has been spilled, how many dollars have been spent in this effort to make the world safe for democracy, the world is probably as unsafe now as it has ever been. And here we are. We are proposing that we send $300 million under this policy to Pakistan. We are in Iraq to promote democracy, but here we send money to a military dictator who overthrew an elected government. And there just seems to be a tremendous inconsistency here. There was a military coup in 1999. There is the strong possibility that Osama bin Laden may well be in Pakistan. And to actually send money there, we are prohibited from really going in there and looking for Osama bin Laden; so we give the government of Pakistan money in the hopes that they will be helpful to us. There is quite a bit of difference between the foreign policy of neutrality and friendship with everyone versus giving money and support to everyone. And if we look at our history, it has not worked very well. We have in the past given money to both sides of a lot of wars, and right now we try to be friends and we give money in support to both India and Pakistan. I do not bring this amendment up here to be pro either one or anti either one. I want to have a pro-American foreign policy and not say, well, I want to punish Pakistan and help India or vice versa. We have helped people who have been arch enemies for years. Take Greece and Turkey. We helped both sides. But not only do we help both sides of a lot of these fights that have been going on for a long time, we literally help our enemies. Just think of the support we gave Osama bin Laden when he was fighting the Russians in Afghanistan and just think of our alliance with Saddam Hussein in the 1980s when we did provide him with a lot of destructive weapons. That type of policy does not add up. It does not make a lot of sense. It is not in our best interests, and my suggestion here is hopefully somewhere along the way, we will take a serious look at this and redirect our foreign policy. But, specifically, is it a wise expenditure to put $300 million into the government of Pakistan with the pretense that we are promoting democracy by supporting a military dictator at the same time our young men are dying in Iraq promoting democracy? It does not add up, and it suggests that there are other motives for some of these expenditures and some of our motivations around the world. In the past we have been arch enemies of Libya, but now we have decided they will be our friends. And I am not against that in particular, but I am against giving them subsidies and helping them out. There is such a difference between neutrality and friendship and that of giving weapons and arms and promoting antagonisms. Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Nethercutt