Ron Paul

Mr. PAUL

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

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I seek time in opposition.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, 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. Speaker, is either gentleman opposed to the bill?

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to start off by saying that I really do not have a lot of disagreement with what the chairman has to say, because I certainly think we should be friends with Taiwan. I believe our goals are very similar. It is just that the approach I have would be quite different. I happen to believe that we have ignored for too long in this country and in this body the foreign policy that was designed by our Founders, a foreign policy of nonintervention. I think it is better for us. I think it is healthy in all ways, both financially and in that it keeps us out of wars, and we are allowed to build friendships with all the nations of the world. The politics of nonintervention should be given some serious consideration. Usually, the argument given me for that is that 200 years ago or 250 years ago things were different. Today we have had to go through the Cold War and communism; and, therefore, we are a powerful Nation and we have an empire to protect; and we have this moral obligation to police the world and take care of everybody. But, Mr. Speaker, my answer to that is somewhat like the notion that we no longer have to pay attention to the Ten Commandments or the Bill of Rights. If principles were correct 200 years ago or 250 years ago, they should be correct today. So if a policy of friendship and trade with other nations and nonintervention were good 250 years ago, it should be good today. I certainly think the Taiwan Relations Act qualifies as an entangling alliance, and that is what we have been warned about: ``Do not get involved in entangling alliances.'' It gets us so involved, we get in too deep, and then we end up with a military answer to too many of our problems. I think that is what has happened certainly in the last 50 years. I essentially have four objections to what we are doing. One is a moral objection. I will not dwell on the first three and I will not dwell on this one. But I do not believe one generation of Americans has a moral right to obligate another generation, because, in many ways, when we make this commitment, this is not just a friendly commitment; this is weapons and this is defense. Most people interpret the Taiwan Relations Act as a commitment for our troops to go in and protect the Taiwanese if the Chinese would ever attack. Although it is not explicit in the act, many people interpret it that way. But I do not believe that we or a generation 25 years ago has the moral right to obligate another generation to such an overwhelming commitment, especially if it does not involve an attack on our national security. Some say that if Taiwan would be attacked, it would be. But, quite frankly, it is a stretch to say that settling that dispute over there has something to do with an attack on our national security. Economics is another issue. We are running out of money; and these endless commitments, military commitments and commitments overseas, cannot go on forever. Our national debt is going up between $600 billion and $700 billion a year, so eventually my arguments will win out, because we are going to run out of money and this country is going to go broke. So there is an economic argument against that. Also, looking for guidance in the Constitution. It is very clear that the Constitution does not give us this authority to assume responsibility for everybody, and to assume the entire responsibility for Taiwan is more than I can read into the Constitution. But the issue I want to talk about more than those first three is really the practical approach to what we are doing. I happen to believe that the policy of the One-China Policy does not make a whole lot of sense. We want Taiwan to be protected, so we say we have a One-China Policy, which occurred in 1982. But in order to say we have a One-China Policy, then we immediately give weapons to Taiwan to defend against China. So this, to me, just does not quite add up. If we put arms in Taiwan, why would we not expect the Chinese to put arms in opposition, because they are only answering what we are doing? What happened when the Soviets went to Cuba? They put arms there. We did not like that. What would happen if the Chinese went into Cuba or Mexico? We are not going to like that. So I think this part is in conflict with what the National Relations Act says, because we are seeking a peaceful resolution of this. So I would urge my colleagues to be cautious about this. I know this will be overwhelmingly passed; but, nevertheless, it is these types of commitments, these types of alliances that we make that commit us to positions that are hard to back away from. This is why we get into these hot wars, these shooting wars, when really I do not think it is necessary. There is no reason in the world why we cannot have friendship with China and with Taiwan. But there is something awfully inconsistent with our One-China Policy, when at the same time we are arming part of China in order to defend itself. The two just do not coexist. Self-determination, I truly believe, is worth looking at. Self- determination is something that we should champion. Therefore, I am on the strong side of Taiwan in determining what they want by self- determination. But what do we do? Our administration tells them they should not have a referendum on whether or not they want to be independent and have self-determination. So in one sense we try to help them; and, in the other sense, we say do not do it. I am just arguing that we do not have to desert Taiwan. We can be very supportive of their efforts, and we can do it in a much more peaceful way and at least be a lot more consistent.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, that is correct. I did not say that, so the gentleman has implied that; and that is incorrect that I said it. I do know that it is a potential military base for us, because when I was in the Air Force, on more than one occasion I landed on Taiwan. So they are certainly a close military ally. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Very briefly, let me mention that this last election was marred by news revealing that there was an assassination attempt. It has been very much in the news in question about the authenticity of this assassination. And, actually, the election itself is believed to be under a cloud with many people in Taiwan. So to paint too rosy a picture on that, I am pleased that they are making progress, but it is not quite as rosy as it has been portrayed here. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me just restate my general position, because my defense is that of a foreign policy of nonintervention, sincerely believing it is in the best interests of our people and the world that we get less involved militaristically. Once again, I would like to make the point that if it is a true and correct principle because of its age, it is not negated. If it is a true principle and worked 200 years ago or 400 years ago, it is still a principle today; and it should not be discarded. I would like to just close with quoting from the Founders. First, very simply, from Jefferson. His advice was, ``Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.'' John Quincy Adams: ``Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions, and her prayers be. But she goes,'' and ``she'' is referring to us, the United States, ``but she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.'' And our first President. He is well-known for his farewell address, and in that address he says, ``Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand: neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing.'' Force gets us nowhere. Persuasion is the answer. Peace and commerce is what we should pursue. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I will answer that.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Once again, I want to make the point about the inconsistency of our policy. In 1979, the Taiwan Relations Act was put in place mainly because we orchestrated getting them kicked out of the U.N., so we had to do something, so we passed this act, and we ended official relations. We do not have ambassadors to Taiwan. That is part of this absurdity of the one China policy. Yet, at the same time, we feel this obligation and this commitment to make sure they have these weapons for defense. I mean, it just does not add up. All we need is a consistent pattern saying that people have a right to self-determination and encourage it and get out of the way. Those people over there in Taiwan right now, they are investing in China. The natural courses of events will take care of it. We have the South Koreans wanting to deal with the North Koreans, and we tend to get in the way; and here we have the Taiwanese who are investing, and they would like to work some of this out, and too often we get in the way. Now, the chairman mentioned a phrase in the resolution in defense of his position, but it is one that I am concerned about. It says, in section 3, requires the United States Government to make available defense articles. We do not have any choice. We make an absolute commitment that we are going to put those weapons there, and we are looking for trouble. I mean, this is how you start wars, putting weapons in there. Once again, what if they did that in Cuba? What did we do when Russia did it in Cuba? Can we not have any understanding or empathy of what happens? And what if they did it in Mexico? We would have no part of it. So this, to me, just does not make any sense. And then in the next phrase, I am also concerned about this, and it restates the position in the Taiwan Relations Act, whereas the Taiwan Relations Act requires the United States to maintain the capacity to resist any resort to force. Now, we have to think about that. Most people interpret that as, we are on our way, the boys are ready to go. No matter how thinly we are spread around the world, the capacity is now currently interpreted that, yes, we would come to their aid, and it sounds like people in support of this resolution would support that. But that is not the way this country is supposed to go to war. And this, to me, is a preamble, if there is a skirmish or a fight over there and it is going to be bigger because we are there and providing the weapons. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I think it would be proper to rename this amendment and call it the ``partial restoration of the fourth amendment,'' and that is our attempt here. We are doing exactly what the gentleman early on suggested: this is oversight; this is our responsibility. This is the proper place to have the debate. It was the Congress that created the PATRIOT Act; it is the responsibility of the Congress to do something about it if it was a mistake. And it, indeed, was a mistake. I would like to think that the American people are with us entirely, and I know a large number already are with us on trying to straighten up some of the mess caused by the Patriot Act, but I would like to say that there is one basic principle that we should approach this with, something I approach all legislation with, and that is the principle of a free society is that we never have to sacrifice liberty in order to preserve it. The whole notion that the purpose of providing freedom and liberty to this country is that we have to give up some, I do not believe is necessary. It is never necessary to give up freedom to preserve freedom. I do think we made some serious mistakes. We made a mistake in passing the PATRIOT Act under conditions of an emergency and under the conditions of post-9/11. We did not do a very good job at Tora Bora. We failed to find the individuals responsible for 9/11 and we have not concentrated on the people who committed this crime. Instead, we have decided to invade and occupy a foreign country rather than protecting and providing security here, at home providing freedom for our people and more security for this country.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, all government spending represents a tax. The inflation tax, while largely ignored, hurts middle-class and low- income Americans the most. The never-ending political squabbling in Congress over taxing the rich, helping the poor, PAYGO, deficits, and special interests ignores the most insidious of all taxes, the inflation tax. Simply put, printing money to pay for Federal spending dilutes the value of the dollar, which causes higher prices for goods and services. Inflation may be an indirect tax, but it is a very real tax, and the individuals who suffer most from the cost-of-living increases certainly pay a tax. Unfortunately, no one in Washington, especially those who defend the poor and the middle class, cares about this subject. Instead, all we hear is that tax cuts for the rich are the source of every economic ill in the country. Anyone truly concerned about the middle class suffering from falling real wages, underemployment, a rising cost of living and a decreasing standard of living should pay a lot more attention to monetary policy. Federal spending, deficits and Federal Reserve mischief hurts the poor while transferring wealth to the already rich. This is a real problem, and raising taxes on those who produce wealth only make conditions worse. This neglect of monetary policy may be out of ignorance, but it may well be deliberate. Fully recognizing the harm caused by printing money to cover budget deficits might create public pressure to restrain spending, something the two parties do not want. Expanding entitlements is now an accepted prerogative of both parties. Foreign wars and nation building are accepted as the foreign policy of both parties. The left hardly deserves credit when complaining about Republican deficits. Likewise, we have been told by our Vice President that Ronald Reagan proved that deficits do not matter, a tenet of supply-side economics. With this the prevailing wisdom in Washington, no one should be surprised that spending and deficits are skyrocketing. The vocal concerns expressed about high deficits coming from the big spenders on both sides are nothing more than political grandstanding. If Members feel so strongly about spending and deficits, Congress simply can do what it ought to do: cut spending. That, however, is never seriously considered by either side. If those who say they want to increase taxes to reduce the deficit got their way, who would benefit? No one. There is no historic evidence to show that taxing productive Americans to support both the rich and poor welfare beneficiaries help the middle class, produces jobs, or stimulates the economy. Borrowing money to cut the deficit is only marginally better than raising taxes. It may delay the pain for a while, but the cost of government eventually must be paid. Federal borrowing means the cost of interest is added, shifting the burden to a different group than those who benefited, and possibly even to another generation. Eventually borrowing is always paid for through taxation. All spending ultimately must be a tax, even when direct taxes and direct borrowing are avoided. The third option is for the Federal Reserve to create credit to pay the bills Congress runs up. Nobody objects, and most Members hope that deficits do not really matter if the Fed accommodates Congress by creating more money. Besides, interest payments to the Fed are lower than they would be if funds were borrowed from the public, and payments can be delayed indefinitely merely by creating more credit out of thin air to buy U.S. treasuries. No need to soak the rich; a good deal it seems for everyone. But is it? Paying for government spending with Federal Reserve credit instead of taxing or borrowing from the public is anything but a good deal for everyone. In fact, it is the most sinister, seductive ``tax'' of them all. Initially it is unfair to some, but dangerous to everyone in the end. It is especially harmful to the middle class, including lower- income working people who are thought not to be paying taxes. The ``tax'' is paid when prices rise as a result of a depreciating dollar. Savers and those living on fixed income are hardest hit as the cost of living rises. Low-and middle-income families suffer the most as they struggle to make ends meet while wealth is literally transferred from the middle class to the wealthy. Government officials stick to their claim that no significant inflation exists, even as certain necessary costs are skyrocketing and incomes are stagnating. The transfer of wealth comes as savers and fixed income families lose purchasing power, large banks benefit, and corporations receive plush contracts from the government, as in the case of military contractors. These companies use the newly printed money before it circulates while the middle class and the poor are forced to accept it at face value later on. This becomes a huge hidden tax on the middle class, many of whom never object to government spending in hopes that the political promises will be fulfilled and they will receive some of the goodies. But surprise, it does not happen. The result instead is higher prices for prescription drugs, energy and other necessities. The freebies never come. The Fed is responsible for inflation by creating money out of thin air. It does so either to monetize Federal debt or in the process of economic planning through interest rate manipulation. This Fed intervention in our country, although rarely even acknowledged by Congress, is more destructive than Members can imagine. Not only is the Fed directly responsible for inflation and economic downturns, it causes artificially low interest rates that serve the interests of big borrowers, speculators and banks. This unfairly steals income from frugal retirees who chose to save and place their funds in interest bearing instruments like CDs. The Fed's great power over the money supply, interest rates, the business cycle, unemployment, and inflation is wielded with essentially no Congressional oversight or understanding. The process of inflating our currency to pay for government debt indeed imposes a tax without legislative authority. This is no small matter. In just the first 24 weeks of this year the M3 money supply increased $428 billion, and $700 billion in the past year. M3 currently is rising at a rate of 10.5 percent. In the last 7 years the money supply has increased 80 percent as M3 has soared $4.1 trillion. This bizarre system of paper money worldwide has allowed serious international imbalances to develop. We own just four Asian countries $1.5 trillion as a consequence of a chronic and staggering current account deficit now exceeding 5 percent of our GDP. This current account deficit means Americans must borrow $1.6 billion per day from overseas just to finance this deficit. This imbalance, which until now has permitted us to live beyond our means, eventually will give us higher consumer prices, a lower standard of living, higher interest rates, and renewed inflation. Rest assured the middle class will suffer disproportionately from this process. The moral of the story is that spending is always a tax. The inflation tax, though hidden, only makes things worse. Taxing, borrowing and inflating to satisfy wealth transfers from the middle class to the rich in an effort to pay for profligate government spending, can never make a nation wealthier. But it certainly can make it poorer.

Mr. PAUL

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

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This is an amendment that I have offered several times in the past, and it is very simple. It says none of the funds made available in this act may be used to pay any United States contribution to the United Nations or any affiliated agency of the United Nations. So very simply, it would defund the United Nations. The United Nations and the international organizations are now receiving more than $3 billion; so there would be some savings there. But that is not the whole reason why I bring this up. My concern, of course, is for national sovereignty, and I think that we have drifted a long way from the time when this Congress and the President decided on foreign policy to the point now where we are more or less driven by the United Nations. The United Nations has not too long ago set up an international criminal court that we are trying to avoid jurisdiction on our people but nevertheless it hangs out there as a threat to our military. We now pay a larger sum to the United Nations than anybody else. For the administrative part, it is 22 percent, and for the peacekeeping part, it is 27 percent. So essentially we are paying a quarter of the U.N. dues; and, of course, we do not get 25 percent of the vote. In recent months, we have all become aware of the scandal involving the United Nations, the Food for Oil program, and there is $10 billion missing. And if there was ever a time that we ought to send a message that we do not condone this type of activity, it is now. There is an investigation going on led by Paul Volcker, but he has no subpoena power. The United Nations and the personnel have no intention so far of cooperating. The odds of our really finding out where this $10 billion went are really quite slim. But the whole process is wrong. So over the years I would say not only the $10 billion that was taken but the many tens of billions, if not hundreds of billions, of dollars that we have pumped into these international organizations have essentially been money down a hole. But the bigger issue, of course, is the United Nations making decisions for us. We do now capitulate to the WTO. I am a free trader. I have talked this evening about free trade, true free trade. But the WTO is an organization that, because we are a member, we obediently come and change our tax law to conform with what the WTO tells us to do. We should not be very pleased with that type of an organization that does not really even defend free trade. And we have the IMF and the World Bank, and all it is is a big payment and a big burden for the American taxpayer. Shortly after the United Nations was established, one of the worst acts occurred early on, and that was that our President took us to war in Korea. And it is ongoing. There is a U.N. war that has been going on, and we have had troops in the United Nations there for over 50 years, and that is quite a bit different than if war would be declared by the Congress and we would fight and win wars. Even the current war that we are having today, it is not a war, but it is a war when it is necessary to call it a war; but we did not declare a war against the Iraqis, and yet in 1991 we went to war under a U.N. resolution. It was said at that time we did not even need a congressional resolution. We could just go because it was under U.N. orders. Even this current time it confuses us quite a bit because when we voted on going again into battle in Iraq, the United Nation was mentioned 21 times to give this authority, but still it was not a declaration of war. But at the same time that we use the United Nations to do something to enforce U.N. resolutions, then we turn around and we defy the United Nations. They might ask for a resolution of support. We do not get it, but we do it anyway, which does not do a whole lot to build friendship around the world. So I see this as totally chaotic, not in our interests. It exposes our men and our women to battle in undeclared wars that are generally not won. Ever since World War II, since wars have not been declared and they have been fought essentially under United Nations, wars have not been won, a lot of men and women are killed, and the resolution is never complete. So my argument is it is time to send a message to those who are questioning whether or not we are too unfriendly to the United Nations, but at least we ought to assume that there should be a responsibility here for us to have the prerogatives of making these decisions ourselves and not by an international body.

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

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support for this amendment. This, to me, is a freedom issue, as the gentleman from Florida has indicated. I think everyone in this body is concerned about freedom in Cuba, and we should be, and we should do whatever we can to encourage it, but obviously some believe you can encourage freedom by sanctions, which has not worked very well, but it seems to boggle my mind that if we restrain freedom here, that we help freedom there. This is what we are doing. We are restraining the freedom of our people to send a package, and of course not dealt with in the amendment, but travel as well. The founders of this country gave strong advice to us, and for 100 years or so we followed it. They said friendship and trade with everyone who is willing, alliances with none; and that is pretty good advice. But what have we done in recent years? We have a hodgepodge when we deal with other countries. Just think of what has happened recently. We took the gentleman from Libya, the so-called gentleman Omar Qadhafi, who is now scheduled to shoot four nurses and a doctor, and we have given him normal trade sanctions, and we are going to subsidize trade with him. And here he admits to having shot down one of our airplanes or blown up one of our airplanes. He is a terrorist, but here we are dealing with him in that way. We have trade with China. Things have gone better with China, not worse. Where are the free traders? It really bothers me when I hear the free traders who promote free trade in every other area except the freedom of an American citizen to send a package to Cuba. I do not believe you can enhance freedom in Cuba by limiting the freedom of American citizens. We must be more open and more confident that freedom of choice by American citizens is worth something to defend; and I stand strongly for this amendment and I compliment the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) for bringing it to us.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I, too, am a physician from Texas, but I have a little different opinion about Marinol. No doctor that I know of ever prescribes Marinol. I think marijuana is a helpful medical treatment for the people who have intractable nausea. I would like to point out this is not something strange that we are suggesting here. For the first 163 years of our history in this country, the Federal Government had total hands off, they never interfered with what the States were doing. They interfered only after 1938 through tax law. So this is something new. The States' rights issue is almost a dead issue in the Congress, but we ought to continue to talk about it, and I am delighted somebody has brought this up. But if you do have compassion and care for patients, they ought to have a freedom of choice. I think that is what this is all about, freedom of choice. I would like to point out one statistic. One year prior to 9/11 there were 750,000 arrests of people who used marijuana; there was one arrest for a suspect that was committing terrorism. Now, that, to me, is a misdirected law enforcement program that we could help address here by at least allowing the States to follow the laws that they already have on the books.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time and conclude with another statement from a director of UNESCO, who further explains exactly what they are up to. He said in June that ``the program remains committed to changing children's values so they think globally rather than in parochial national terms from their own country's viewpoint''. So if we talk about an attack on national sovereignty starting at the lowest level through an educational system, it is right here. The chairman, obviously, is not very enthusiastic about this. But my job as a representative is not to follow what other people tell me. My job is to read these bills and to know what they say and to represent my district. Because somebody asks us to finance this and our instincts tell us there is something very sinister about this, I would say that that is not a very strong reason to oppose this amendment.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have?

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment denies funds to UNESCO, and it is an amendment that is identical to what I brought up last year and got a recorded vote on and had a debate on last year. Last year, I brought it up because we were just getting back into UNESCO. President Ronald Reagan, in 1984, had the wisdom of getting us out of UNESCO because of its corrupt nature, not only because it had a weird, false ideology, contrary to what most Americans believed, but it was also corrupt. He had the wisdom to get us out of it, yet last year we were put back in UNESCO, and I was hoping that we would not fund it. Last year, the Congress approved $60 million for this purpose, which was 25 percent of UNESCO's budget. Does that mean we have 25 percent of the vote in UNESCO? Do the American people get represented by 25 percent? How much do we get out of it? What is the American taxpayer going to get? The American taxpayer gets a bill, that is all. They do not get any benefits from it. And there is one part of UNESCO that is particularly irritating to me, and it is called the Cultural Diversity Convention. This is an organization that actually is very destructive and will play havoc with our educational system. It also attempts to control our education through the International Baccalaureate Program, and that, too, introduces programs and offers them to our schools. It is not forced, but there are already quite a few schools that have accepted these programs. Now, let me just give my colleagues an idea of the type of philosophy they are promoting, but what we as the Congress promote with what the American taxpayers are paying for. Here it is: ``The international education offers people a state of mind, international mindedness. We are living on a planet that is becoming exhausted. And now listen to this, this is what the U.N. UNESCO people are saying about education in the various countries, including ours. Most national educational systems at the moment encourage students to seek the truth, memorize it and reproduce it accurately.'' Now, one would think that is not too bad of an idea. ``The real world is not this simple,'' so says UNESCO. ``International education has to reconcile this diversity with the unity of the human condition.'' I mean, if those are not threatening terms about what they want to do, and yet here we are funding this program and the American taxpayers are forced to pay for it. Now, there are a few of us left in the Congress, I see a couple on the floor tonight, that might even object to the Federal Government telling our States what to do with education, and of course there is no constitutional authority for that. We have the Leave No Child Behind, but it looks like everyone is going to be left behind before we know it. But here it is not the Federal Government taking over our Federal education system; this is the UNESCO, United Nations, taking over our educational system. It does have an influence. Sure, it is minimal now, but it will grow if we allow this to continue. So I ask my colleagues to please vote for my amendment, and I sure hope they allow a vote on this amendment. It was permitted last year, so it surely would be permitted this year. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 9.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, what this amendment does is it denies funding to the Department of Justice to prosecute doctors for prescribing legal drugs. The reason I bring this up is to call attention to the Members of a growing and difficult problem developing in this country, and that is, that more and more doctors now are being prosecuted by the Justice Department under the laws that were designated for going after drug kingpins, for illegal drug dealers; but they are using the same laws to go after doctors. It is not one or two or three or four. There are approximately 400 doctors who have been prosecuted, and I know some of them, and I know they are good physicians; and we are creating a monster of a problem. It does not mean that I believe that none of these doctors have a problem. As a physician, I know what they are up against and what they face, and that is, that we have now created a system where a Federal bureaucrat makes the medical decision about whether or not a doctor has prescribed too many pain pills. I mean, that is how bureaucratic we have become even in medicine; but under these same laws that should be used going after kingpins, they are now being used to go after the doctors. As I say, some of them may well be involved in something illegal and unethical; and because I still want to stop this, this does not mean I endorse it, because all the problems that do exist with some doctors can be taken care of in many different ways. Doctors are regulated by their reputation, by medical boards, State and local laws, as well as malpractice suits. So this is not to give license and say the doctors can do anything they want and cause abuse because there are ways of monitoring physicians; but what has happened is we have, as a Congress, developed a great atmosphere of fear among the doctors. The American Association of Physicians and Surgeons, a large group of physicians in this country, has now advised their members not to use any opiates for pain, not to give adequate pain pills because the danger of facing prosecution is so great. So the very people in the medical profession who face the toughest cases, those individuals with cancer who do not need a couple of Tylenol, they might need literally dozens, if not hundreds, of tablets to control their pain, these doctors are being prosecuted. Now, that is a travesty in itself; but the real travesty is what it does to the other physicians, and what it is doing is making everybody fearful. The other doctors are frightened. Nurses are too frightened to give adequate pain medications even in the hospitals because of this atmosphere. My suggestion here is to deny the funding to the Justice Department to prosecute these modest numbers, 3 or 400 doctors, leave that monitoring to the States where it should be in the first place, and let us get rid of this idea that some bureaucrat in Washington can determine how many pain pills I, as a physician, can give a patient that may be suffering from cancer. I mean, this is something anyone who has any compassion, any concern, any humanitarian instincts would say we have gone astray; we have done too much harm; we have to do something to allow doctors to practice medicine. It was never intended that the Federal Government, let alone bureaucrats, interfere in the practice of medicine. So my suggestion is let us take it away, take away the funding of the Justice Department to prosecute these cases, and I think it would go a long way to improving the care of medicine. At the same time, it would be a much fairer approach to the physicians that are now being prosecuted unfairly. And let me tell you, there are plenty, because all they have to do is to be reported that they prescribed an unusual number of tablets for a certain patient, and before you know it, they are intimidated, their license is threatened, their lives are ruined, they spend millions of dollars in defense of their case, and they cannot ever recover. And it is all because we here in the Congress write these regulations, all with good intentions that we are going to make sure there is no abuse. Well, there is always going to be some abuse. But I tell you there is a lot better way to find abusive doctors from issuing pain medication than up here destroying the practice of medicine and making sure thousands of patients suffering from the pain of cancer do not get adequate pain medication.

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, I offer an amendment.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that denies all funding for the American Community Survey. And if anyone has been listening to the debate early on, the Census has come up numerous times already, and much of what I have to propose here has in many ways has been debated. But I do want to bring it up one more time dealing specifically with the American Community Survey. One of the reasons why it came to my attention is just recently I received this survey in the mail here in my temporary residence in Virginia. It is rather intimidating and it is rather threatening when you receive this in the mail. And I have the envelope here and right up on the front they have warned me. They said ``The American Community Survey form enclosed. Your response is required by law.'' This was the second time. Evidently, I missed it the first time, so the second time around I have been threatened by the census police that I better jolly well fill it out or the police will be knocking on the door. And that does happen because I have known other individuals who have not filled out the long form, and they come to the door, the police are there deciding they want this information. It was stated earlier in the discussion about the census that this was certainly the law of the land. The law of the land is very clear that the Congress gave the authority; the Census Bureau certainly does not do this on its own. We, the Congress, gave it the authority to do this. But it just happens to be an authority that we had no right to give. We have no right to give this authority to meddle into the privacy of American citizens. Article 1, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution mandates a national census every 10 years. I am in support of that, and I vote for funding for a national census every 10 years for the sole purpose of congressional redistricting. But, boy, this is out of hand now. We are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars and it is perpetual. The argument earlier was, we have to have to survey continuously because we save money by spending more money. Ask people a lot of questions, personal questions about bathrooms and incomes and who knows what. This survey I have got here, here is a copy of it. It is called the American Community Survey. And it says the Census Bureau survey collects information about education, employment, income, housing for the purposes of community uses so that they can do community economic planning. How did we ever get involved in all of this? It is almost sacred now that we fund these programs and they are going to be perpetual, perpetual meddling in the personal lives of all American citizens, 24 pages here. I got to wondering, I did not fill it out the first one. I got the second one, and they are threatening me. I know I did not vote for it, but you who did means, you are ready to send the census police out to get me. I am getting worried about this. I mean, what is the penalty? So I looked it up, and it is not insignificant. Do you know what my colleagues have done and threatened me with? A $1,000 penalty for every question I do not answer. Wow, that is scary stuff. I had a friend that he did not answer the long form, after a couple of requests, the census police came and knocked on his door and said you better, you better answer all these questions or you are going to be penalized. So that is the kind of thing that we do and everybody talks about all these wonderful advantages, but it is stuff we do not need. I mean, if we want this information, if people need this information in the communities, they ought to get it themselves. This whole idea that we have to collect all this information for the benefit of our communities to do all this economic planning, I mean, it is just so much more than we need, and we are not talking about 10 or $15 million. We are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars, and it is not just every 10 years. It is continuous with this perpetual threat, you tell us what we want to know and we are going to put it into the record, and if not, for every question you do not answer, we can fine you $1,000 if you do not tell us your age and where you work and how far you have to go to work and how long it takes you to go to work. I mean, this is way too much of Big Brother. Let me tell my colleagues, I think the American people cannot be very happy with all this meddling. So my proposal is let us at least get rid of the American Community Survey, which is the ongoing nuisance that we put up with, and limit what we do here to what the Constitution has told us we can do and what we should do, and that is, count the people every 10 years for the purpose of redistricting. But big deal, who cares. For all we do around here, how often do we really pay attention to the details of the Constitution? So I ask my colleagues to support this amendment and cut this funding.