Ron Paul

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Health Information Independence Act. This act restores the right of consumers to purchase the dietary supplements of their choice and receive accurate information about the health benefits of foods and dietary supplements. The Health Information Independence Act restricts the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) power to impede consumers' access to truthful claims regarding the benefits of foods and dietary supplements to those cases where the FDA has evidence that a product poses a threat to safety and well-being or that a product does not have a disclaimer informing consumers that the claims are not FDA-approved. Claims that could threaten public safety, or that are marketed without a disclaimer, would have to be reviewed by an independent review board, comprised of independent scientific experts randomly chosen by the FDA. However, anyone who is, or has ever been, on the FDA's payroll is disqualified from serving on the board. The FDA is forbidden from exercising any influence over the review board. If the board recommends approval of a health claim, then the FDA must approve the claim. The board also must consider whether any claims can be rendered nonmisleading by adopting a disclaimer, before rejecting a claim out of hand. For example, if the board finds that the scientific evidence does not conclusively support a claim, but the claim could be rendered nonmisleading if accompanied with a disclaimer, then the board must approve the claim provided the claim is always accompanied by an appropriate disclaimer. The disclaimer would be a simple statement to the effect that ``scientific studies on these claims are inconclusive'' and/or ``these claims are not approved by the FDA.'' Thus, the bill tilts the balance of federal law in favor of allowing consumers access to information regarding the health benefits of foods and dietary supplements, which is proper in a free society. The procedures established by the Health Information Independence Act are a fair and balanced way to ensure consumers have access to truthful information about dietary supplements. Over the past decade, the American people have made it clear they do not want the Federal Government to interfere with their access to dietary supplements, yet the FDA continues to engage in heavy-handed attempts to restrict such access. In 1994, Congress responded to the American people's desire for greater access to information about the benefits of dietary supplements by passing the Dietary Supplements and Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA), that liberalized rules regarding the regulation of dietary supplements. Congressional offices received a record number of comments in favor of DSHEA. Despite DSHEA, FDA officials continued to attempt to enforce regulations aimed at keeping the American public in the dark about the benefits of dietary supplements. Finally, in the case of Pearson v. Shalala, 154 F.3d 650 (DC Cir. 1999), reh'g denied en banc, 172 F.3d 72 (DC Cir. 1999), the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit Court reaffirmed consumers' First Amendment right to learn about dietary supplements without unnecessary interference from the FDA. The Pearson decision anticipated my legislation by suggesting the FDA adopt disclaimers in order to render some health claims non-misleading. In the years since the Pearson decision, Members of Congress have had to continually intervene with the FDA to ensure it followed the court order. The FDA continues to deny consumers access to truthful health information. Clearly, the FDA is determined to continue to (as the Pearson court pointed out) act as though liberalizing regulations regarding health claims is the equivalent of ``asking consumers to buy something while hypnotized and therefore they are bound to be misled.'' The FDA's ``grocery store censorship'' not only violates consumers' first amendment rights, but, by preventing consumers from learning about the benefits of foods and dietary supplements, the FDA's policies are preventing consumers from taking easy steps to improve their own health! If Congress is serious about respecting first amendment rights, and the people's right to act to improve their own health, we must remove the FDA's authority to censor nonmisleading health claims, and claims that can be rendered nonmisleading by the simple device of adopting a disclaimer. In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to help establish an objective process that respects consumers' first amendment rights to nonmisleading information regarding the health benefits of foods and dietary supplements by cosponsoring the Health Information Independence Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 557. I do so obviously not because I oppose praising our armed forces, but because our policy in the Persian Gulf is seriously flawed and an effort to commend our forces should not be used to rubber-stamp a policy of folly. To do so is disingenuous. Though this resolution may yield political benefits to those who are offering it, it will prove to be historically inaccurate. Justifying pre-emption is not the answer to avoiding appeasement. Very few wars are necessary. Very few wars are good and just, including this one. In reality, most wars are costly beyond measure in life and limb and economic hardship, including this one. There have been 566 deaths, 10,000 casualties, and hundreds of billions of dollars for a ``victory'' that remains elusive. Rather than bragging of victory we should recognize that the war that rages on has intensified and spread, leaving our allies and our own people less safe. Denying that we are interested in oil and that occupying an Islamic country is not an affront to the sensitivities of most Arabs and Muslims is foolhardy. Reasserting U.N. Security Council resolutions as the justification for war further emphasizes our sacrifice of sovereignty and Congress's reneging on its Constitutional responsibility on war. This resolution seems to forget that for too long we were staunch military and economic allies of Saddam Hussein. This in itself only demonstrates the folly of our policy of foreign meddling over many decades from the days of the U.S. installing the Shah of Iran to the current world-wide spread of hostilities and hatred, our unnecessary intervention abroad shows so clearly how unintended consequences come back to haunt generation after generation. Someday our leaders ought to ask why Switzerland, Sweden, Canada, Mexico and many other nations are not potential targets of an attack by Islamic extremists. Falsely claiming that al-Qaeda was aligned with Saddam Hussein and using this as a rallying cry to war has now resulted in al-Qaeda actually having a strong presence and influence in Iraq. Falsely claiming that Iraq had a supply of weapons of mass destruction has resulted in a dramatic loss of U.S. credibility, as anti-Americanism spreads around the world. As a result of this, al-Qaeda recruitment sadly has been dramatically boosted. That Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator was never in question, so reaffirming it here is unnecessary. What we must keep in mind, however, is that Saddam Hussein was attacking his own people and making war on Iran when he was essentially an ally of the United States--to the point where the U.S. Government assisted him in his war on Iran. This support is made all the more clear when viewing recently-declassified State Department cables in the days after Donald Rumsfeld traveled to Iraq as a U.S. envoy in 1983. Here are two such examples: (1) United States Embassy in the United Kingdom Cable from Charles H. Price II to the Department of State. ``Rumsfeld One-on-One Meeting with Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister,'' December 21, 1983. Presidential envoy Donald Rumsfeld and Tariq Aziz meet for two and one-half hours and agree that ``the U.S. and Iraq shared many common interests,'' including peace in the Persian Gulf, the desire to diminish the influence of Iran and Syria, and support for reintegrating Egypt, isolated since its unilateral peace with Israel, into the Arab world. Rumsfeld comments on Iraq's oil exports, suggests alternative pipeline facilities, and discusses opposition to international terrorism and support for a fair Arab-Israeli peace. He and Aziz discuss the Iran-Iraq war ``in detail.'' Rumsfeld says that the administration wants an end to the war, and offers ``our willingness to do more.'' He mentions chemical weapons, possible escalation of fighting in the Gulf, and human rights as impediments to the U.S. government's desire to do more to help Iraq, then shifts the conversation to U.S. opposition to Syria's role in Lebanon. (2) Department of State, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs Action Memorandum from Richard W. Murphy to Lawrence S. Eagleburger. ``EXIM [Export-Import] Bank Financing for Iraq'' [Includes Letter From Lawrence S. Eagleburger to William Draper, Dated December 24, 1983], December 22, 1983. Pursuant to the Reagan administration's policy of increasing support for Iraq, the State Department advises Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Lawrence Eagleburger to urge the U.S. Export-Import Bank to provide Iraq with financial credits. Eagleburger signs a letter to Eximbank saying that since Saddam Hussein had complied with U.S. requests, and announced the end of all aid to the principal terrorist group of concern to the U.S., and expelled its leader (Abu Nidal), ``The terrorism issue, therefore, should no longer be an impediment to EXIM financing for U.S. sales to Iraq.'' The financing is to signal U.S. belief in Iraq's future economic viability, secure a foothold in the potentially large Iraqi market, and ``go far to show our support for Iraq in a practical, neutral context.'' This resolution praises the new constitution for Iraq, written by U.S. experts and appointees. No one stops to consider the folly of the U.S. and the West believing they can write a constitution for a country with a completely different political and social history than ours. The constitution that the occupying forces have come up with is unworkable and absurd. It also will saddle the Iraqi people with an enormous and socialist-oriented government. In this, we are doing the Iraqi people no favor. Article 14 of the new constitution grants the Iraqi people the ``right'' to ``security, education, health care, and social security,'' and affirms that `` the Iraqi state . . . shall strive to provide prosperity and employment opportunities to the people.'' This sounds more like the constitution of the old USSR than that of a free and market-oriented society. Further, this constitution declares that Iraqi citizens ``shall not be permitted to possess, bear, buy, or sell arms'' except by special license--denying the right of self defense to the Iraqi people just as their security situation continues to deteriorate. The Iraqi constitution also sets up a quota system for the Iraqi electoral system, stating that women should ``constitute no less than one-quarter of the members of the National Assembly.'' Is this kind of social engineering in Iraq on very left-liberal lines really appropriate? Are we doing the Iraqi people any favors with this approach? We all praise our troops and support them. Had this bill merely done that I would have been an enthusiastic supporter. But in politicizing the issue rather than simply praising the armed forces, I regret that I cannot support it. Challenging one's patriotism for not supporting this resolution and our policy in the Persian Gulf, however, is not appropriate. We should all be cautious in endorsing and financing a policy that unfortunately expands the war rather than ending it. That, sadly, is what this legislation does.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, Americans are right to be outraged at much of the content of broadcast television and radio today. Too many television and radio programs regularly mock the values of millions of Americans and feature lude, inappropriate conduct. It is totally legitimate and even praiseworthy for people to use market forces, such as boycotts of the sponsors of the offensive programs, to pressure networks to remove objectionable programming. However, it is not legitimate for Congress to censor broadcast programs. The First Amendment says, ``Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech. . . .'' It does not make an exception for broadcast television. Some argue that broadcast speech is different because broadcasters are using the ``people's airwaves.'' Of course, the ``people'' don't really control the airwaves anymore then the ``people'' control the government in the ``People's Republic'' of China! Instead, the ``people's airwaves'' is a euphemism for government control of the airwaves. Of course, government exceeded its Constitutional authority when it nationalized the broadcast industry. Furthermore, there was no economic justification for Congress determining who is, and is not, allowed to access the broadcast spectrum. Instead of nationalizing the spectrum, the Federal Government should have allowed private parties to homestead parts of the broadcast spectrum and settle disputes over ownership and use through market processes, contracts, and, if necessary, application of the common law of contracts and torts. Such a market-based solution would have provided a more efficient allocation of the broadcast spectrum than has government regulation. Congress used its unconstitutional and unjustified power-grab over the allocation of broadcast spectrum to justify imposing federal regulations on broadcasters. Thus, the Federal Government used one unconstitutional action to justify another seizing of regulatory control over the content of a means of communication in direct violation of the First Amendment. Congress should reject H.R. 3717, the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act, because, by increasing fines and making it easier for governments to revoke the licenses of broadcasters who violate federal standards, H.R. 3717 expands an unconstitutional exercise of federal power. H.R. 3717 also establishes new frontiers in censorship by levying fines on individual artists for violating FCC regulations. Congress should also reject H.R. 3717 because the new powers granted to the FCC may be abused by a future administration to crack down on political speech. The bill applies to speech the agency has determined is ``obscene'' or ``indecent.'' While this may not appear to include political speech, I would remind my colleagues that there is a serious political movement that believes that the expression of certain political opinions should be censored by the government because it is ``hate speech.'' Proponents of these views would not hesitate to redefine indecency to include ``hate speech.'' Ironically, many of the strongest proponents of H.R. 3717 also hold views that would likely be classified as ``indecent hate speech.'' The new FCC powers contained in H.R. 3717 could even be used to censor religious speech. Just this week, a group filed a petition with the United States Department of Justice asking the agency to use federal hate crimes laws against the directors, producers, and screenwriters of the popular movie, ``The Passion of the Christ.'' Can anyone doubt that, if H.R. 3717 passes, any broadcaster who dares show ``The Passion'' or similar material will risk facing indecency charges? Our founders recognized the interdependence of free speech and religious liberty; this is why they are protected together in the First Amendment. The more the Federal Government restricts free speech, the more our religious liberties are endangered. The reason we are considering H.R. 3717 is not unrelated to questions regarding state censorship of political speech. Many of this bill's most rabid supporters appear to be motivated by the attacks on a member of Congress, and other statements critical of the current administration and violating the standards of political correctness, by ``shock jock'' Howard Stern. I have heard descriptions of Stern's radio program that suggest this is a despicable program. However, I find even more troubling the idea that the Federal Government should censor anyone because of his comments about a member of Congress. Such behavior is more suited for members of a Soviet politburo than members of a representative body in a constitutional republic. The nation's leading conservative radio broadcaster, Rush Limbaugh, has expressed opposition to a federal crackdown on radio broadcast speech that offends politicians and bureaucrats: If the government is going to `censor' what they think is right and wrong . . . . what happens if a whole bunch of John Kerrys, or Terry McAliffes start running this country. And decide conservative views are leading to violence? I am in the free speech business. It's one thing for a company to determine if they are going to be party to it. It's another thing for the government to do it. Mr. Chairman, I am also concerned that the new powers H.R. 3717 creates will be applied in a manner that gives an unfair advantage to large media conglomerates. While the FCC will occasionally go after one of the major media conglomerates when it does something especially outrageous, the agency will likely spend most of its energies going after smaller outlets such as college and independent radio stations. Because college and independent stations lack the political clout of the large media companies, the FCC can prosecute them without incurring the wrath of powerful politicians. In addition, because these stations often cater to a small, niche audience, FCC actions against them would not incur the public opposition it would if the agency tried to kick ``Survivor'' off the air. Most significantly, college and independent stations lack the financial and technical resources to absolutely guarantee that no violations of ambiguous FCC regulations occur and to defend themselves adequately if the FCC attempts to revoke their licenses. Thus, college and independent radio stations make tempting targets for the FCC. My colleagues who are concerned about media concentration should consider how giving the FCC extended power to revoke licenses might increase media concentration. H.R. 3717 should also be rejected because it is unnecessary. Major broadcasters' profits depend on their ability to please their audiences and thus attract advertisers. Advertisers are oftentimes ``risk adverse,'' that is, afraid to sponsor anything that might offend a substantial portion of the viewing audience, who they hope to turn into customers. Therefore, networks have a market incentive to avoid offending the audience. It was fear of alienating the audience, and thus losing advertising revenue, that led to CBS's quick attempt at ``damage control'' after the Super Bowl. Last year, we witnessed a remarkable demonstration of the power of private citizens when public pressure convinced CBS to change plans to air the movie ``The Reagans,'' which outraged conservatives concerned about its distortion of the life of Ronald Reagan. Clearly, the American people do not need the government to protect them from ``indecent'' broadcasts. In fact, the unacknowledged root of the problem is that a large segment of the American people has chosen to watch material that fellow citizens find indecent. Once again, I sympathize with those who are offended by the choices of their fellow citizens. I do not watch or listen to the lewd material that predominates on the airwaves today, and I am puzzled that anyone could find that sort of thing entertaining. However, my colleagues should remember that government action cannot improve the people's morals; it can only reduce liberty. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3717 is the latest in an increasing number of attacks on free speech. For years, those who wanted to regulate and restrict speech in the commercial marketplace relied on the commercial speech doctrine that provides a lower level of protection to speech designed to provide a profit to the speaker. However, this doctrine has no Constitutional authority because the plain language of the First Amendment does not make any exceptions for commercial speech! Even the proponents of the commercial speech doctrine agreed that the Federal Government should never restrict political speech. Yet, this Congress, this administration, and this Supreme Court have restricted political speech with the recently enacted campaign finance reform law. Meanwhile, the Department of Justice has indicated it will use the war against terrorism to monitor critics of the administration's foreign policy, thus chilling anti-war political speech. Of course, on many college campuses students have to watch what they say lest they run afoul of the rules of ``political correctness.'' Even telling a ``politically incorrect'' joke can bring a student up on charges before the thought police! Now, self-proclaimed opponents of political correctness want to use federal power to punish colleges that allows the expression of views they consider ``unpatriotic'' and/or punish colleges when the composition of the facility does not meet their definition of diversity. Just this week, there was a full-page ad in Roll Call, the daily paper distributed to House members, from people who want Congress to impose new regulations on movies featuring smoking. No doubt the sponsors of this ads are drooling over the prospect of fining stations that show Humphrey Bogart movies for indecent broadcasts. These assaults on speech show a trend away from allowing the free and open expression of all ideas and points of view toward censoring those ideas that may offend some politically powerful group or upset those currently holding government power. Since censorship of speech invariably leads to censorship of ideas, this trend does not bode well for the future of personal liberty in America. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, because H.R. 3717 is the latest assault in a disturbing pattern of attacks on the First Amendment, I must vote against it and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, we will soon debate the ``Broadcast Indecency Act of 2004'' on the House floor. This atrocious piece of legislation should be defeated. It cannot improve the moral behavior of U.S. citizens, but it can do irreparable harm to our cherished right to freedom of speech. This attempt at regulating and punishing indecent and sexually provocative language suggests a comparison to the Wahhabi religious police of Saudi Arabia, who control the ``Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice.'' Though both may be motivated by the good intentions of improving moral behavior, using government force to do so is fraught with great danger and has no chance of success. Regulating speech is a dangerous notion, and not compatible with the principles of a free society. The Founders recognized this, and thus explicitly prohibited Congress from making any laws that might abridge freedom of speech or of the press. But we have in recent decades seen a steady erosion of this protection of free speech. This process started years ago when an arbitrary distinction was made by the political left between commercial and non-commercial speech, thus permitting government to regulate and censor commercial speech. Since only a few participated in commercial speech, few cared--and besides, the government was there to protect us from unethical advertisements. Supports of this policy failed to understand that anti-fraud laws and state laws could adequately deal with this common problem found in all societies. Disheartening as it may be, the political left, which was supposed to care more about the first amendment than the right, has ventured in recent years to curtail so-called ``hate speech'' by championing political correctness. In the last few decades we've seen the political-correctness crowd, in the name of improving personal behavior and language, cause individuals to lose their jobs, cause careers to be ruined, cause athletes to be trashed, and cause public speeches on liberal campuses to be disrupted and even banned. These tragedies have been caused by the so-called champions of free speech. Over the years, tolerance for the views of those with whom campus liberals disagree has nearly evaporated. The systematic and steady erosion of freedom of speech continues. Just one year ago we saw a coalition of both left and right push through the radical Campaign Finance Reform Act, which strictly curtails the rights of all Americans to speak out against particular candidates at the time of elections. Amazingly, this usurpation by Congress was upheld by the Supreme Court, which showed no concern for the restrictions on political speech during political campaigns. Instead of admitting that money and corruption in government is not a consequence of too much freedom of expression, but rather a result of government acting outside the bounds of the Constitution, this new law addressed a symptom rather than the cause of special interest control of our legislative process. And now comes the right's attack on the first amendment, with its effort to stamp out ``indecent'' language on the airways. And it will be assumed that if one is not with them in this effort, then one must support the trash seen and heard in the movie theaters and on our televisions and radios. For social rather than constitutional reasons, some on the left express opposition to this proposal. But this current proposal is dangerous. Since most Americans--I hope--are still for freedom of expression of political ideas and religious beliefs, no one claims that anyone who endorses freedom of speech therefore endorses the nutty philosophy and religious views that are expressed. We should all know that the first amendment was not written to protect non-controversial mainstream speech, but rather the ideas and beliefs of what the majority see as controversial or fringe. The temptation has always been great to legislatively restrict rudeness, prejudice, and minority views, and it's easiest to start by attacking the clearly obnoxious expressions that most deem offensive. The real harm comes later. But ``later'' is now approaching. The failure to understand that radio, TV, and movies more often than not reflect the peoples' attitudes prompts this effort. It was never law that prohibited moral degradation in earlier times. It was the moral standards of the people who rejected the smut that is now routine entertainment. Merely writing laws and threatening huge fines will not improve the moral standards of the people. Laws like the proposed ``Broadcast Indecency Act of 2004'' merely address the symptom of a decaying society, while posing a greater threat to freedom of expression. Laws may attempt to silence the bigoted and the profane, but the hearts and minds of those individuals will not be changed. Societal standards will not be improved. Government has no control over these standards, and can only undermine liberty in its efforts to make individuals more moral or the economy fairer. Proponents of using government authority to censor certain undesirable images and comments on the airwaves resort to the claim that the airways belong to all the people, and therefore it's the government's responsibility to protect them. The mistake of never having privatized the radio and TV airwaves does not justify ignoring the first amendment mandate that ``Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech.'' When everyone owns something, in reality nobody owns it. Control then occurs merely by the whims of the politicians in power. From the very start, licensing of radio and TV frequencies invited government censorship that is no less threatening than that found in totalitarian societies. We should not ignore the smut and trash that has invaded our society, but laws like this will not achieve the goals that many seek. If a moral society could be created by law, we would have had one a long time ago. The religious fundamentalists in control of other countries would have led the way. Instead, authoritarian violence reigns in those countries. If it is not recognized that this is the wrong approach to improve the quality of the airways, a heavy price will be paid. The solution to decaying moral standards has to be voluntary, through setting examples in our families, churches, and communities--never by government coercion. It just doesn't work. But the argument is always that the people are in great danger if government does not act by: (a) Restricting free expression in advertising; (b) claiming insensitive language hurts people, and political correctness guidelines are needed to protect the weak; (c) arguing that campaign finance reform is needed to hold down government corruption by the special interests; (d) banning indecency on the airways that some believe encourages immoral behavior. If we accept the principle that these dangers must be prevented through coercive government restrictions on expression, it must logically follow that all dangers must be stamped out, especially those that are even more dangerous than those already dealt with. This principle is adhered to in all totalitarian societies. That means total control of freedom of expression of all political and religious views. This certainly was the case with the Soviets, the Nazis, the Cambodians, and the Chinese communists. And yet these governments literally caused the deaths of hundreds of millions of people throughout the 20th Century. This is the real danger, and if we're in the business of protecting the people from all danger, this will be the logical next step. It could easily be argued that this must be done, since political ideas and fanatical religious beliefs are by far the most dangerous ideas known to man. Sadly, we're moving in that direction, and no matter how well intended the promoters of these limits on the first amendment are, both on the left and the right, they nevertheless endorse the principle of suppressing any expressions of dissent if one chooses to criticize the government. When the direct attack on political and religious views comes, initially it will be on targets that most will ignore, since they will be seen as outside the mainstream and therefore unworthy of defending-- like the Branch Davidians or Lyndon LaRouche. Rush Limbaugh has it right (at least on this one), and correctly fears the speech police. He states: ``I'm in the free speech business,'' as he defends Howard Stern and criticizes any government effort to curtail speech on the airways, while recognizing the media companies' authority and responsibility to self regulate. Congress has been a poor steward of the first amendment. This newest attack should alert us all to the dangers of government regulating freedom of speech--of any kind.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution, but I would like to express a few views on why I will oppose the legislation. I am convinced that the Congress has been a very poor steward of the first amendment, and we are moving in the direction of further undermining the first amendment with this legislation. First, many years ago, it was an attack on commercial speech by dividing commercial and noncommercial speech, which the Constitution does not permit. Then there was a systematic attack from the left, writing rules against hate speech which introduced the notion of political correctness. Recently, there was a petition to the Department of Justice that has asked the Department to evaluate ``The Passion of Christ'' as an example of hate speech. Unintended consequences do occur. Next came along a coalition between right and left, and there was an attack on campaign speech with the campaign finance reform with a suspension of freedom of speech during an election period. Now, once again, we are attacking indecency, which we all should, but how we do it is critical; because ``indecency'' is a subjective term, and it has yet to be defined by the courts. We should remember that the Congress very clearly by the Constitution is instructed to: ``make no laws abridging the freedom of speech.'' It cannot be any clearer. If we have problems with indecency they are to be solved in different manners. The excuse, because the government is responsible and owns the airwaves, that we can suspend the first amendment is incorrect. That is a good argument for privatizing the airwaves rather than an excuse for suspension of the first amendment. I would like to close by quoting someone who is obviously not a libertarian and obviously not a liberal who has great concern about what we are doing, and he comes from the conservative right, Rush Limbaugh. He said: ``If the government is going to `censor' what they think is right and wrong, what happens if a whole bunch John Kerrys or Terry McAuliffes start running this country and decide conservative views are leading to violence? I am in the free speech business. It is one thing for a company to determine if they are going to be a party to it. It is another thing for the government to do it.'' Mr. Speaker, we all should be in the free speech business.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, Congress is once again using abusive litigation at the state level as a justification nationalizing tort law. In this case, the Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act (H.R. 339) usurps state jurisdiction over lawsuits related to obesity against food manufactures. Of course, I share the outrage at the obesity lawsuits. The idea that a fast food restaurant should be held legally liable because some of its customers over indulged in the restaurants products, and thus are suffering from obesity-related health problems, is the latest blow to the ethos of personal responsibility that is fundamental in a free society. After all, McDonalds does not force anyone to eat at its restaurants. Whether to make Big Macs or salads the staple of one's diet is totally up to the individual. Furthermore, it is common knowledge that a diet centering on super-sized cheeseburgers, french fires, and sugar-filled colas is not healthy. Therefore, there is no rational basis for these suits. Some proponents of lawsuits claim that the fast food industry is ``preying'' on children. But isn't making sure that children limit their consumption of fast foods the responsibility of parents, not trial lawyers? Will trial lawyers next try to blame the manufactures of cars that go above 65 miles per hour for speeding tickets? Congress bears some responsibility for the decline of personal responsibility that led to the obesity lawsuits. After all, Congress created the welfare state that popularized the notion that people should not bear the costs of their mistakes. Thanks to the welfare state, too many Americans believe they are entitled to pass the costs of their mistakes on to a third party--such as the taxpayers or a corporation with ``deep pockets.'' While I oppose the idea of holding food manufactures responsible for their customers' misuse of their products, I cannot support addressing this problem by nationalizing tort law. It is long past time for Congress to recognize that not every problem requires a federal solution. This country's founders recognized the genius of separating power among federal, state, and local governments as a means to maximize individual liberty and make government most responsive to those persons who might most responsibly influence it. This separation of powers strictly limits the role of the federal government in dealing with civil liability matters; and reserves jurisdiction over matters of civil tort, such as food related negligence suits, to the state legislatures. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would remind the food industry that using unconstitutional federal powers to restrict state lawsuits makes it more likely those same powers will be used to impose additional federal control over the food industry. Despite these lawsuits, the number one threat to business remains a federal government freed of its Constitutional restraints. After all, the federal government imposes numerous taxes and regulations on the food industry, often using the same phony ``pro-consumer'' justifications used by the trial lawyers. Furthermore, while small businesses, such as fast-food franchises, can move to another state to escape flawed state tax, regulatory, or legal policies, they cannot as easily escape destructive federal regulations. Unconstitutional expansions of federal power, no matter how just the cause may seem, are not in the interests of the food industry or of lovers of liberty. In conclusion, while I share the concern over the lawsuits against the food industry that inspired H.R. 339, this bill continues the disturbing trend of federalizing tort law. Enhancing the power of the federal government is in no way in the long-term interests of defenders of the free market and Constitutional liberties. Therefore, I must oppose this bill.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the We the People Act. The We the People Act forbids federal courts, including the Supreme Court, from adjudicating cases concerning state laws and policies relating to religious liberties or ``privacy,'' including cases involving sexual practices, sexual orientation or reproduction. The We the People Act also protects the traditional definition of marriage from judicial activism by ensuring the Supreme Court cannot abuse the equal protection clause to redefine marriage. In order to hold federal judges accountable for abusing their powers, the act also provides that a judge who violates the act's limitations on judicial power shall either be impeached by Congress or removed by the president, according to rules established by the Congress. The United States Constitution gives Congress the authority to establish and limit the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts and limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Founders intended Congress to use this authority to correct abuses of power by the federal judiciary. Some may claim that an activist judiciary that strikes down state laws at will expands individual liberty. Proponents of this claim overlook the fact that 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. In recent years, we have seen numerous abuses of power by federal courts. Federal judges regularly strike down state and local laws on subjects such as religious liberty, sexual orientation, family relations, education, and abortion. This government by federal judiciary causes a virtual nullification of the Tenth Amendment's limitations on federal power. Furthermore, when federal judges impose their preferred policies on state and local governments, instead of respecting the policies adopted by those elected by, and thus accountable to, the people, republican government is threatened. Article IV, section 4 of the United States Constitution guarantees each state a republican form of government. Thus, Congress must act when the executive or judicial branch threatens the republican governments of the individual states. Therefore, Congress has a responsibility to stop federal judges from running roughshod over state and local laws. The Founders would certainly have supported congressional action to reign in federal judges who tell citizens where they can and can't place manger scenes at Christmas. Mr. Speaker, even some supporters of liberalized abortion laws have admitted that the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision, which overturned the abortion laws of all fifty states, is flawed. The Supreme Court's Establishment Clause jurisdiction has also drawn criticism from across the political spectrum. Perhaps more importantly, attempts to resolve, by judicial fiat, important issues like abortion and the expression of religious belief in the public square increase social strife and conflict. The only way to resolve controversial social issues like abortion and school prayer is to restore respect for the right of state and local governments to adopt policies that reflect the beliefs of the citizens of those jurisdictions. I would remind my colleagues and the federal judiciary that, under our Constitutional system, there is no reason why the people of New York and the people of Texas should have the same policies regarding issues such as marriage and school prayer. Unless Congress acts, a state's authority to define and regulate marriage may be the next victim of activist judges. After all, such a decision would simply take the Supreme Court's decision in the Lawrence case, which overturned all state sodomy laws, to its logical conclusion. Congress must launch a preemptive strike against any further federal usurpation of the states' authority to regulate marriage by removing issues concerning the definition of marriage from the jurisdiction of federal courts. Although marriage is licensed and otherwise regulated by the states, government did not create the institution of marriage. Government regulation of marriage is based on state recognition of the practices and customs formulated by private individuals interacting in civil institutions, such as churches and synagogues. 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. It is long past time that Congress exercises its authority to protect the republican government of the states from out-of-control federal judges. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the We the People Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution but obviously not because we should not honor the men who were asked to do their duty and lost their lives. It is for another reason. I would like to call attention to my colleagues and to the Congress the lack of success on the war on drugs. The war has been going on for 30 years. The success is not there, and I think we are deceiving ourselves if we think that everything is going well and that we have achieved something, because there is really no evidence for that. Not only that, there have been many unintended consequences that we fail to look at, and I want to take this time to make that the point and try to get some of us to think that there may be another way to fight the war on drugs. I do not know of anybody who likes drugs and advocates the use of drugs. I as a physician am strongly opposed to the use of drugs. It is just that the techniques make a big difference. We are talking about bad habits, and yet we are resorting to the use of force, literally an army of agents and hundreds of billions of dollars over a 30-year period, in an effort to bring about changes in people's habits. Someday we are going to have to decide how successful we have been. Was it a good investment? Have we really accomplished anything? Another reason why I am taking this time to express an opposition is that the process has been flawed. After World War I, there was a movement in this country that believed that too many Americans had bad habits of drinking too much alcohol, and of course, if we really want to deal with a bad drug, alcohol is it. Many, many more die from alcoholism and drunken driving and all kinds of related illnesses, but the country knew it and they recognized how one dealt with those problems. The one thing that this country recognized was that the Congress had no authority to march around the country and tell people not to drink beer, and what did they do? They resorted to amending the Constitution, a proper procedure, and of course, it turned out to be a failed experiment. After 12 years, they woke up and the American people changed it. We have gone 30 years and we have not even reconsidered a new approach to the use of drugs and the problems that we face. Another thing that is rather astounding to me, is that not only have we lost the respect for the Constitution to say that the Federal Government can be involved in teaching habits, but we literally did this not even through congressional legislation. The DEA was created by an executive order. Imagine the size of this program created merely by a President signing an executive order. Of course, the ultimate responsibility falls on the Congress because we acquiesce and we vote for all the funding. The DEA has received over $24 billion in the past 30 years, but the real cost of law enforcement is well over $240 billion when we add up all the costs. And then if we look at the prison system, we have created a monstrosity. Eighty-four percent, according to one study, 84 percent of all Federal prisoners are nonviolent drug prisoners. They go in and they come out violent. We are still talking about a medical problem. We treat alcoholism as a medical problem, but anybody who smokes a marijuana cigarette or sells something, we want to put them in prison. I think it is time to stop and reevaluate this. One other point is that as a physician I have come to the firm conclusion that the war on drugs has been very detrimental to the practice of medicine and the care of patients. The drug culture has literally handicapped physicians in caring for the ill and the pain that people suffer with terminal illnesses. I have seen doctors in tears coming to me and saying that all his wife had asked me for was to die not in pain; and even he, as a physician, could not get enough pain medication because they did not want to make her an addict. So we do have a lot of unintended consequences. We have civil liberty consequences as well. We set the stage for gangsters and terrorists raising money by making weeds and wild plants and flowers illegal. If someone could say and show me all of a sudden that the American people use a lot less drugs and kids are never tempted, it would be a better case; but we do not have the evidence. We have no evidence to show that 30 years of this drug war has done very much good. Matter of fact, all studies of the DARE program show that the DARE program has not encouraged kids to use less illegal drugs. So there is quite a few reasons why we ought not to just glibly say to the DEA it's been a wonderful 30 years and encourage more of it. The second part of the resolution talks about the sacrifice of these men. To me, it is a tragedy. Why should we ever have a policy where men have to sacrifice themselves? I do not believe it is necessary. We gave up on the prohibition of alcohol. I believe the drug war ought to be fought, but in a much different manner. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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. In that case, Mr. Speaker, I request the time in opposition.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I want to inquire on whether or not the gentleman on the other side is in opposition to the bill.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Regarding the loss of lives, whether it is 3,000 that some report, or 20,000, many of those would be preventable if we did not have the drug wars going on. The drug wars go on because people are fighting for turf and then the police have to go in and try to stop them because prices are artificially high. We have created the incentive for drug violence. We take something worthless and make it worth billions of dollars. We set the stage for terrorists. Right now, because of the policies in Afghanistan, 80 percent of Afghanistan now has been returned to the drug lords. If the drugs were worthless, there would be no incentive to promote them. But they are worth a lot of money, so inadvertently our drug war pushes the prices up, and we create the incentive for the Taliban and others to raise the poppies and send the drugs over here. Then they finance the terrorists. So it is an unintended consequence that does not make any sense. It does not have to happen. The big challenge is will anybody ever be willing to raise the questions and suggest another way. Could we have made a mistake, such as we did with the prohibition of alcohol? This does not mean that everybody has everything they want. Alcohol is legal, but kids get marijuana and other drugs easier on the street than they get their alcohol, because there is such a tremendous incentive. During prohibition it was very well known that because alcohol was illegal, the more concentrated it is and the higher price it is because you can move it about and because it is contraband. So there is a tremendous incentive to do that. And then, when it is illegal, it becomes more dangerous. That is exactly what happens on drugs. One hundred years ago, you could buy cocaine in a drugstore. Most Americans would be tremendously surprised to realize that for most of our history drugs were not illegal. The first marijuana law was in 1938. And they got around that on the constitutional aspect by just putting a tax on it. So there is a lack of respect for how we solve our problems, a lack of wisdom on what we ought to do, and a lack of concern; and this is my deep concern as a physician, a lack of concern for seeing people dying and suffering. Just think of the people who claim and are believable that they get some relief from marijuana, the paraplegics and those who have cancer and receiving chemotherapy. And in our arrogance, we, at the national level, write laws that send the DEA in to cancel out the States that have tried to change the law and show a little bit of compassion for people that are dying. We are constitutionally wrong, we are medically wrong, we are economically wrong, and we are not achieving anything. We have no faith and confidence in our constitutional system. We have no faith and confidence that we change moral and personal habits through persuasion, not through armed might. This is a choice. Nobody is for the use of drugs that I know of. But there is a big difference if you casually and carelessly resort to saying, oh, it is good that you do not do drugs, to let us create a drug army to prance around the country, and then lo and behold houses are invaded, mistakes are made, innocent people are killed, and it does not add up. It is still astounding to me to find out that the DEA was not even created by congressional legislation. It was created by an executive order. We have gone a long way, colleagues, from where the respect for the Constitution existed and that at least the Congress should legislate. Even in the 1920s, when we attacked alcohol, we had enough respect for the Constitution to amend the Constitution. Mr. Speaker, I think we are deceiving ourselves if we think the war on drugs is being won, and the failure to look at the unintended consequences, the real cost. As a matter of fact, this resolution brings up the real cost, this long list, this long tragic list of individuals who have been killed over this war. So I am asking once again not so much to be in opposition to this resolution, but this resolution is to praise 30 years of the DEA and to praise an agency that really has no authority because it comes only from the executive branch, but for us to someday seriously think about the problems that have come from the war on drugs. Let me tell Members, there is a politically popular position in this country that many are not aware of: The tragedy of so many families seeing their loved ones die and suffer without adequate care, 90-year- old people dying of cancer and nurses and doctors intimidated and saying we cannot make them a drug addict. This drug war culture that we live with has done a lot of harm in the practice of medicine. Attacking the physicians who prescribe pain medicine and taking their licenses from them is reprehensible. I ask Members to please reconsider, not so much what we do today, but in the future, maybe we will wake up and decide there is a better way to teach good habits to American citizens.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me just close with a comment about the prison system and what has happened. As I mentioned before, 84 percent of Federal prisoners are nonviolent drug offenders. Many go into prison, and they come out hardened criminals, and the problem is made much worse. Because of overcrowding, we have the release of violent prisoners because the prisons are too full. Also, the rules on mandatory sentencing of non-violent offenders have not been a good idea and have contributed to the problems that we face. Another thing which I have not mentioned before but is worth thinking about is the inequity in the enforcement of laws. If one happens to be a wealthy, white-collar worker caught using cocaine, the odds of that individual serving time in prison is very reduced, compared to if you are caught in the inner city. It seems there is less justice for the inner city youth. This, of course, intensifies the problems of the inner city. Once again, all I ask is that in the future we look at our drug policy because current policy is working so poorly, and also to reconsider the fact that we have gone 30 years with a program where there is no evidence of success, and astoundingly it was all done under an executive order. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, while it is the independent duty of each branch of the Federal Government to act constitutionally, Congress will likely continue to ignore not only its constitutional limits but earlier criticisms from Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2001, H.R. 1997, would amend title 18, United States Code, for the laudable goal of protecting unborn children from assault and murder. However, by expanding the class of victims to which unconstitutional, but already-existing, Federal murder and assault statutes apply, the Federal Government moves yet another step closer to a national police state. Of course, it is much easier to ride the current wave of federalizing every human misdeed in the name of saving the world from some evil than to uphold a constitutional oath which prescribes a procedural structure by which the Nation is protected from what is perhaps the worst evil, totalitarianism. Who, after all, wants to be amongst those Members of Congress who are portrayed as soft on violent crimes initiated against the unborn? Nevertheless, our Federal Government is constitutionally, a government of limited powers. Article one, section eight, enumerates the legislative areas for which the U.S. Congress is allowed to act or enact legislation. For every other issue, the Federal Government lacks any authority or consent of the governed and only the State governments, their designees, or the people in their private market actions enjoy such rights to governance. The 10th amendment is brutally clear in stating ``The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.'' Our Nation's history makes clear that the U.S. Constitution is a document intended to limit the power of central government. No serious reading of historical events surrounding the creation of the Constitution could reasonably portray it differently. However, Congress does more damage than just expanding the class to whom Federal murder and assault statutes apply--it further entrenches and seemingly concurs with the Roe v. Wade decision--the Court's intrusion into rights of States and their previous attempts to protect by criminal statute the unborn's right not to be aggressed against. By specifically exempting from prosecution both abortionists and the mothers of the unborn--as is the case with this legislation--Congress appears to say that protection of the unborn child is not only a Federal matter but conditioned upon motive. In fact, the Judiciary Committee in marking up the bill, took an odd legal turn by making the assault on the unborn a strict liability offense insofar as the bill does not even require knowledge on the part of the aggressor that the unborn child exists. Murder statutes and common law murder require intent to kill--which implies knowledge--on the part of the aggressor. Here, however, we have the odd legal philosophy that an abortionist with full knowledge of his terminal act is not subject to prosecution while an aggressor acting without knowledge of the child's existence is subject to nearly the full penalty of the law. With respect to only the fetus, the bill exempts the murderer from the death sentence--yet another diminution of the unborn's personhood status and clearly a violation of the equal protection clause. It is becoming more and more difficult for Congress and the courts to pass the smell test as government simultaneously treats the unborn as a person in some instances and as a nonperson in others. In his first formal complaint to Congress on behalf of the Federal Judiciary, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said ``the trend to federalize crimes that have traditionally been handled in state courts . . . threatens to change entirely the nature of Federal system.'' Rehnquist further criticized Congress for yielding to the political pressure to ``appear responsive to every highly publicized societal ill or sensational crime.'' Perhaps, equally dangerous is the loss of another constitutional protection which comes with the passage of more and more Federal criminal legislation. Constitutionally, there are only three Federal crimes. These are treason against the United States, piracy on the high seas, and counterfeiting--and, because the constitution was amended to allow it, for a short period of history, the manufacture, sale, or transport of alcohol was concurrently a Federal and State crime. ``Concurrent'' jurisdiction crimes, such as alcohol prohibition in the past and federalization of murder today, erode the right of citizens to be free of double jeopardy. The fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifies that no ``person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . .'' In other words, no person shall be tried twice for the same offense. However, in United States v. Lanza, the high court in 1922 sustained a ruling that being tried by both the Federal Government and a State government for the same offense did not offend the doctrine of double jeopardy. One danger of unconstitutionally expanding the Federal criminal justice code is that it seriously increases the danger that one will be subject to being tried twice for the same offense. Despite the various pleas for federal correction of societal wrongs, a national police force is neither prudent nor constitutional. Occasionaly the argument is put forth that States may be less effective than a centralized Federal Government in dealing with those who leave one State jurisdiction for another. Fortunately, the Constitution provides for the procedural means for preserving the integrity of State sovereignty over those issues delegated to it via the tenth amendment. The privilege and immunities clause as well as full faith and credit clause allow States to exact judgments from those who violate their State laws. The Constitution even allows the Federal Government to legislatively preserve the procedural mechanisms which allow States to enforce their substantive laws without the Federal Government imposing its substantive edicts on the States. Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2 makes provision for the rendition of fugitives from one State to another. While not self-enacting, in 1783 Congress passed an act which did exactly this. There is, of course, a cost imposed upon States in working with one another rather than relying on a national, unified police force. At the same time, there is a greater cost to centralization of police power. It is important to be reminded of the benefits of federalism as well as the cost. There are sound reasons to maintain a system of smaller, independent jurisdictions--it is called competition and, yes, governments must, for the sake of the citizenry, be allowed to compete. We have obsessed so much over the notion of ``competition'' in this country we harangue someone like Bill Gates when, by offering superior products to every other similarly-situated entity, he becomes the dominant provider of certain computer products. Rather than allow someone who serves to provide value as made obvious by their voluntary exchanges in the free market, we lambaste efficiency and economies of scale in the private marketplace. Curiously, at the same time, we further centralize government, the ultimate monopoly and one empowered by force rather than voluntary exchange. When small governments becomes too oppressive with their criminal laws, citizens can vote with their feet to a ``competing'' jurisdiction. If, for example, one does not want to be forced to pay taxes to prevent a cancer patient from using medicinal marijuana to provide relief from pain and nausea, that person can move to Arizona. If one wants to bet on a football game without the threat of government intervention, that person can live in Nevada. As government becomes more and more centralized, it becomes much more difficult to vote with one's feet to escape the relatively more oppressive governments. Governmental units must remain small with ample opportunity for citizen mobility both to efficient governments and away from those which tend to be oppressive. Centralization of criminal law makes such mobility less and less practical. Protection of life--born or unborn--against initiations of violence is of vital importance. So vitally important, in fact, it must be left to the States' criminal justice systems. We have seen what a legal, constitutional, and philosophical mess results from attempts to federalize such an issue. Numerous States have adequately protected the unborn against assault and murder and done so prior to the Federal Government's unconstitutional sanctioning of violence in the Roe v. Wade decision. Unfortunately, H.R. 1997 ignores the danger of further federalizing that which is properly reserved to State governments and, in so doing, throws legal philosophy, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the insights of Chief Justice Rehnquist out with the baby and the bathwater.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Belarus Freedom Act of 2004. This bill will graduate Belarus from the requirements of the Jackson-Vanik statute and thereby establish permanent normal trade relations with that country. The Jackson-Vanik amendment was adopted in 1974, during a time when the U.S.S.R. was imposing enormous ``education repayment fees'' on anyone seeking to emigrate from that country. The statute was designed to prevent temporary restoration of an already suspended ``most favored nation'' treatment unless its freedom of emigration requirement is complied with. After the break-up of the U.S.S.R., the successor countries found themselves subject to Jackson-Vanik--meaning that they had to prove yearly that they allowed free emigration in order to enjoy normal trade relations with the United States. Several former Soviet republics have already been permanently graduated from Jackson-Vanik, and several others are in the process of being graduated. Belarus has gained a presidential waiver for every year since 1992, indicating its ongoing compliance with the requirements. Therefore it is time to recognize the passing of the Soviet era and move on toward better trade relations with Belarus. Though some have tried to read additional requirements into the original amendment, Jackson-Vanik is in reality solely about freedom of emigration. And, as I have stated, Belarus has attained a Presidential waiver every year since 1992. Time and time again we see that peaceful trade and good relations with other countries does much more to foster democratization and liberalization than sanctions, diplomatic expulsions, and accusations. Our Founding Fathers recognized this when they cautioned against foreign entanglements and counseled instead free trade and friendly relations with all countries who seek the same. I hope my colleagues will join with me as cosponsors of this bill and support further constructive relations with the Republic of Belarus.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the publicity surrounding popular radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh's legal troubles relating to his use of the pain killer OxyContin will hopefully focus public attention on how the federal War on Drugs threatens the effective treatment of chronic pain. Prosecutors have seized Mr. Limbaugh's medical records in connection with an investigation into charges that Mr. Limbaugh violated federal drug laws. The fact that Mr. Limbaugh is a high profile, and often controversial, conservative media personality has given rise to speculation that the prosecution is politically motivated. Adding to this suspicion is the fact that individual pain patients are rarely prosecuted in this type of case. In cases where patients are not high profile celebrities like Mr. Limbaugh, it is a pain management physician who bears the brunt of overzealous prosecutors. Faced with the failure of the War on Drugs to eliminate drug cartels and kingpins, prosecutors and police have turned their attention to pain management doctors, using federal statutes designed for the prosecution of drug kingpins to prosecute physicians for prescribing pain medicine. Many of the cases brought against physicians are rooted in the federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)'s failure to consider current medical standards regarding the use of opioids, including OxyContin, in formulating policy. Opioids are the pharmaceuticals considered most effective in relieving chronic pain. Federal law classifies most opioids as Schedule II drugs, the same classification given to cocaine and heroin, despite a growing body of opinion among the medical community that opioids should not be classified with these substances. Furthering the problem is that patients often must consume very large amounts of opioids to obtain long-term relief. Some prescriptions may be for hundreds of pills and last only a month. A prescription this large may appear suspicious. But, according to many pain management specialists, it is medically necessary, in many cases, to prescribe such a large number of pills to effectively treat chronic pain. However, zealous prosecutors show no interest in learning the basic facts of pain management. This harassment by law enforcement has forced some doctors to close their practices, while others have stopped prescribing opioids--even though opioids are the only way some of their patients can obtain pain relief. The current attitude toward pain physicians is exemplified by Assistant U.S. Attorney Gene Rossi's statement that ``our office will try our best to root out [certain doctors] like the Taliban.'' Prosecutors show no concern for how their actions will affect patients who need large amounts of opioids to control their chronic pain. For example, the prosecutor in the case of Dr. Cecil Knox of Roanoke, Virginia told all of Dr. Knox's patients to seek help in federal clinics even though none of the federal clinics would prescribe effective pain medicine. Doctors are even being punished for the misdeeds of their patients. For example, Dr. James Graves was sentenced to more than 60 years for manslaughter because several of his patients overdosed on various combinations of pain medications and other drugs, including illegal street drugs. As a physician with over thirty years experience in private practice, I find it outrageous that a physician would be held criminally liable for a patient's misuse of medicine. The American Association of Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), one of the nation's leading defenders of private medical practice and medical liberty, has recently advised doctors to avoid prescribing opioids because, according to AAPS, ``drug agents set medical standards.'' I would hope that my colleagues would agree that doctors, not federal agents, should determine medical standards. By waging this war on pain physicians, the government is condemning patients to either live with excruciating chronic pain or seek opioids from other, less reliable, sources--such as street drug dealers. Of course, opioids bought on the street will likely pose a greater risk of damaging a patient's health than will opioids obtained from a physician. Finally, as the Limbaugh case reveals, the prosecution of pain management physicians destroys the medical privacy of all chronic pain patients. Under the guise of prosecuting the drug war, law enforcement officials can rummage through patients' personal medical records and, as may be the case with Mr. Limbaugh, use information uncovered to settle personal or political scores. I am pleased that AAPS, along with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), has joined the effort to protect Mr. Limbaugh's medical records. Mr. Speaker, Congress should take action to rein in overzealous prosecutors and law enforcement officials and stop the harassment of legitimate pain management physicians, who are acting in good faith in prescribing opioids for relief from chronic pain. Doctors should not be prosecuted for doing what, in their best medical judgment, is in their patients' best interest. Doctors should also not be prosecuted for the misdeeds of their patients. Finally, I wish to express my hope that Mr. Limbaugh's case will encourage his many fans and supporters to consider how their support for the federal War on Drugs is inconsistent with their support of individual liberty and Constitutional government.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, a wise consistency is the foundation of a free society, yet everyone knows or thinks they know that consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. How many times has Ralph Waldo Emerson been quoted to belittle a consistent philosophy defending freedom? Even on this floor I have been rebuked by a colleague with this quote for pointing out the shortcomings of Congress in not consistently and precisely following the oath to uphold the Constitution. The need to discredit consistency is endemic. It is considered beneficial to be flexible and pragmatic while rejecting consistency. Otherwise, the self-criticism would be more than most Members could take. The comfort level of most politicians in D.C. requires an attitude that consistency not only is unnecessary, but detrimental. For this reason, Emerson's views are conveniently cited to justify pragmatism and arbitrary intervention in all our legislative endeavors. Communism was dependent on firm, consistent, and evil beliefs. Authoritarian rule was required to enforce these rules, however. Allowing alternative views to exist, as they always do, guarantees philosophic competition. For instance, the views in Hong Kong eventually won out over the old communism of the Chinese mainland, but it can work in the other direction. If the ideas of socialism within the context of our free society are permitted to raise their ugly head, it may well replace what we have if we do not consistently and forcefully defend the free market and personal liberty. It is quite a distortion of Emerson's views to use them as justification for the incoherent and nonsensical policies coming out of Washington today. But the political benefits of not needing to be consistent are so overwhelming that there is no interest in being philosophically consistent in one's votes. It is a welcome convenience to be able to support whatever seems best for the moment, the congressional district or one's political party. Therefore, it is quite advantageous to cling to the notion that consistency is a hobgoblin. For this reason, statesmanship in D.C. has come to mean one's willingness to give up one's own personal beliefs in order to serve ``the greater good,'' whatever that is. But it is not possible to preserve the rule of law or individual liberty if our convictions are no stronger than this. Otherwise, something will replace our Republic that was so carefully designed by the founders. That something is not known, but we can be certain it will be less desirable than what we have. As for Emerson, he was not even talking about consistency in defending political views that were deemed worthy and correct. Emerson clearly explained the consistency he was criticizing. He was most annoyed by a foolish consistency. He attacked bull-headedness, believing that intellectuals should be more open-minded and tolerant of new ideas and discoveries. His attack targeted the Flat Earth Society types in the world of ideas. New information, he claimed, should always lead to reassessment of our previous conclusions. To Emerson, being unwilling to admit an error and consistently defending a mistaken idea, regardless of facts, was indeed a foolish consistency. His reference was to a character trait, not sound, logical thinking. Since it is proven that centralized control over education and medicine has done nothing to improve them, and instead of reassessing these programs, more money is thrown into the same centralized planning, this is much closer to Emerson's foolish consistency than defending liberty and private property in a consistent and forceful manner while strictly obeying the Constitution. Emerson's greatest concern was the consistency of conformity. Nonconformity and tolerance of others obviously are much more respected in a free society than in a rigidly planned authoritarian society. The truth is that Emerson must be misquoted in order to use him against those who rigidly and consistently defend a free society, cherish and promote diverse opinions, and encourage nonconformity. A wise and consistent defense of liberty is more desperately needed today than at any time in our history. Our foolish and inconsistent policies of the last 100 years have brought us to a critical juncture, with the American way of life at stake. It is the foolish inconsistencies that we must condemn and abandon. Let me mention a few. One: conservatives who spend. Conservatives for years have preached fiscal restraint and balanced budgets. Once in charge, they have rationalized huge spending increases and gigantic growth in the size of government, while supporting a new-found religion that preaches deficits do not matter. According to Paul O'Neill, the Vice President lectured him that Reagan proved deficits do not matter. Conservatives who no longer support balanced budgets and less government should not be called conservatives. Some now are called neo- conservatives. The conservative label merely deceives the many Americans who continuously hope the day of fiscal restraint will come. Yet if this deception is not pointed out, success in curtailing government growth is impossible. Is it any wonder the national debt is $7 trillion and growing by over $600 billion per year? Even today, the only expression of concern for the deficit seems to come from liberals. That ought to tell us something about how far astray we have gone. Number two: free trade fraud, neomercantilism. Virtually all economists are for free trade. Even politicians express such support. However, many quickly add, yes, but it should be fair. That is, free trade is fine unless it appears to hurt someone. Then a little protectionism is warranted, for fairness' sake. Others who claim allegiance to free trade are only too eager to devalue their own currencies, which harms a different group of citizens, like importers and savers in competitive devaluations in hopes of gaining a competitive edge. Many so-called free trade proponents are champions of international agreements that undermine national sovereignty and do little more than create an international bureaucracy to manage tariffs and sanctions. Organizations like NAFTA and WTO and the coming FTAA are more likely to benefit the powerful special interests than to enhance true free trade. Nothing is said, however, about how a universal commodity monetary standard would facilitate trade, nor is it mentioned how unilaterally lowering tariffs can benefit a nation. Even bilateral agreements are ignored when our trade problems are used as an excuse to promote dangerous internationalism. Trade as an issue of personal liberty is totally ignored; but simply put, one ought to have the right to spend one's own money any way one wants. Buying cheap foreign products can have a great economic benefit for our citizens and serve as an incentive to improve production here at home. It also puts pressure on us to reassess the onerous regulations and tax burdens placed on our business community. Monopoly wages that force wage rates above the market also are challenged when true free trade is permitted; and this, of course, is the reason free trade is rejected. Labor likes higher-than-market wages, and business likes less competition. In the end, consumers, all of us, suffer. Ironically, the free traders in Congress were the most outspoken opponents of drug reimportation, with the convoluted argument claiming that the free trade position should prohibit the reimportation of pharmaceuticals. So much for a wise consistency. Number three: following the Constitution, arbitrarily, of course. Following the Constitution is a convenience shared by both liberals and conservatives, at times. Everyone takes the same oath of office, and most Members of Congress invoke the Constitution at one time or another to make some legislative point. The fact that the Constitution is used periodically to embarrass one's opponents when convenient requires that no one feel embarrassed by an inconsistent voting record. Believing that any consistency, not just a foolish one, is a philosophic hobgoblin, gives many Members welcome reassurance. This allows limited-government conservatives to massively increase the size and scope of government while ignoring the deficit. Liberals who also preach their own form of limited government in the areas of civil liberties and militarism have no problems with a flexible, pragmatic approach to all government expenditures and intrusions. The net result is that the oath of office to abide by all constitutional restraints on government power is rarely followed. Number four: paper money, inflation and economic pain. Paper money and inflation have never provided long-term economic growth, nor have they enhanced freedom. Yet the world, led by the United States, lives with a financial system awash with fiat currencies and historic debt as a consequence. No matter how serious the problems that come from central bank monetary inflations, the depressions and inflations, unemployment, social chaos and war, the only answer has been to inflate even more. Except for the Austrians, free market economists, the consensus is that the Great Depression was prolonged and exacerbated by the lack of monetary inflation. This view is held by Alan Greenspan and is reflected in his January 2001 response to the stock market slump and slower economy, namely, a record monetary stimulus and historically low interest rates. The unwillingness to blame the slumps on the Federal Reserve's previous errors, though the evidence is clear, guarantees that greater problems for the United States and the world economy lie ahead. Though there is adequate information to understand the real cause of the business cycle, the truth and proper policy are not available. Closing down the engine of inflation at any point does cause short- term problems that are politically unacceptable, but the alternative is worse in the long run. It is not unlike a drug addict demanding and getting a fix in order to avoid the withdrawal symptoms. Not getting rid of the addiction is a deadly mistake. While resorting to continued monetary stimulus through credit creation delays the pain and suffering, it inevitably makes the problems much worse. Debt continues to build in all areas, personal, business and government; inflated stock prices are propped up, waiting for another collapse; malinvestment and overcapacity fail to correct; insolvency proliferates without liquidation. These same errors have been prolonging the correction in Japan for 14 years, with billions of dollars of non-performing loans still on the books. Failure to admit and recognize that fiat money, paper money, mismanaged by central banks gives us most of our economic problems, along with a greater likelihood for war, means we never learn from our mistakes. Our consistent response is to inflate faster and borrow more, which each downturn requires to keep the economy afloat. Talk about a foolish consistency. It is time for our leaders to admit the error of their ways, consider the wise consistency of following the advice of our founders, and reject paper money and central bank inflationary policies. Number five: Alcohol prohibition. For Our Own Protection. Alcohol prohibition was a foolish consistency engaged in for over a decade, but we finally woke up to the harm done. In spite of prohibition, drinking continued. The alcohol being produced in the underground was much more deadly, and related crimes ran rampant. The facts stared us in the face and, with time, we had the intelligence to repeal the whole experiment. No matter how logical this reversal of policy was, it did not prevent us from moving into the area of drug prohibition, now in the more radical stages for the past 30 years. No matter the amount of harm and cost involved, very few in public life are willing to advise a new approach to drug addiction. Alcoholism is viewed as a medical problem, but illicit drug addiction is seen as a heinous crime. Our prisons overflow with the cost of enforcement, now into the hundreds of billions of dollars, yet drug use is not reduced. Nevertheless, the politicians are consistent. They are convinced that a tough stand against usage, with very strict laws and mandatory sentences, sometimes life sentences for nonviolent offenses, is a popular political stand. Facts do not count, and we cannot bend on consistently throwing the book at any drug offender. Our prisons are flooded with nonviolent drug users. Mr. Speaker, 84 percent of all Federal prisoners are now nonviolent drug users, but no serious reassessment is considered. Sadly, the current war on drugs has done tremendous harm to many patients' needs for legitimate prescribed pain control. Doctors are very often compromised in their ability to care for the seriously and terminally ill by overzealous law enforcement. Throughout most of our history, drugs were legal and, at times, were abused but, during that time, there was no history of the social and legal chaos associated with drug use that we suffer today. One hundred years ago a pharmacist openly advertised, ``Heroin clears the complexion, gives buoyancy to the mind, regulates the stomach and the bowels and is, in fact, a perfect guardian of health.'' Obviously, this is overstated as a medical panacea, but it describes what it was like not to have hysterical busybodies undermine our Constitution and waste billions of dollars on a drug war serving no useful purpose. This country needs to wake up. We should have more confidence in citizens making their own decisions and decide, once again, to repeal Federal prohibition, while permitting regulations by the States alone. Six: The FDA and legal drugs. For Our Own Protection. Our laws and attitudes regarding legal drugs are almost as harmful. The FDA supposedly exists to protect the consumer and patients. This conclusion is based on the assumption that consumers are idiots and all physicians and drug manufacturers are unethical or criminals. It also assumes that bureaucrats and politicians, motivated by good intentions, can efficiently bring drugs onto the market in a timely manner and at a reasonable cost. These same naive dreamers are the ones who say that in order to protect the people from themselves we must prohibit them from being allowed to reimport drugs from Canada or Mexico at great savings. The FDA virtually guarantees that new drugs come on line slower and cost more money. Small companies are unable to pay the legal expenses and do not get the friendly treatment that politically connected big drug companies receive. If a drug seems to offer promise, especially for a life-threatening disease, why is it not available with full disclosure to anyone who wants to try it? No, our protectors say that no one gets to use it or make their own decisions until the FDA guarantees that each drug has been proven safe and effective. And, believe me, the FDA is quite capable of making mistakes, even after years of testing. It seems criminal when cancer patients come to our congressional offices begging and pleading for a waiver to try some new drug. We call this a free society. For those who cannot get a potentially helpful drug, but might receive a little comfort from some marijuana raised in their own backyard legally in their home State, the heavy hand of the DEA comes down hard, actually arresting and imprisoning ill patients. Federal drug laws blatantly preempt State laws, adding insult to injury. Few remember that the first Federal laws regulating marijuana were written as recently as 1938, which means just a few decades ago our country had much greater respect for individual choices and State regulations in all health manners. The nanny state is relatively new but well entrenched. Sadly, we foolishly and consistently follow the dictates of prohibition and government control of new medications, never questioning the wisdom of these laws. The silliness regarding illegal drugs and prescription drugs was recently demonstrated. It was determined that a drug used to cause an abortion can be made available over the counter. However, Ephedra, used by millions for various reasons and found in nature, was made illegal as a result of one death after being misused. Individuals no longer can make their own decisions at an affordable price to use Ephedra. Now it will probably require a prescription and cost many times more. It can never be known, but weight loss by thousands using Ephedra may well have saved many lives, but the real issue is personal choice and responsibility, not the medicinal effects of these drugs. This reflects our moral standards, not an example of individual freedom and responsibility. Number seven: Foreign Policy of Interventionism. Our foreign policy of interventionism offers the best example of Emerson's foolish inconsistency. No matter how unsuccessful our entanglements become, our leaders rarely question the wisdom of trying to police the world. Most of the time, our failures prompt even greater intervention, rather than less. Never yielding to the hard, cold facts of our failures, our drive to meddle in nation-building around the world continues. Complete denial of the recurrent blow-back from our meddling, a term used by our own CIA, prompts us to spend endlessly, while jeopardizing the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. Refusing to even consider the failure of our own policies is outrageous. Only in the context of commercial benefits to the special interests and the military industrial complex, molded with patriotic jingoism, can one understand why we pursue such a foolish policy. Some of these ulterior motives are understandable, but the fact that average Americans rarely question our commitment to these dangerous and expensive military operations is disturbing. The whipped-up war propaganda too often overrules the logic that should prevail. Certainly, the wise consistency of following the Constitution has little appeal. One would think the painful consequences of our militarism over the last 100 years would have made us more reluctant to assume the role of world policeman in a world that hates us more each day. A strong case can be made that all the conflicts, starting with the Spanish-American war up to our current conflict in the Middle East, could have been avoided. For instance, the foolish entrance into World War I to satisfy Wilson's ego led to disastrous peace at Versailles, practically guaranteeing World War II. Likewise, our ill-advised role in the Persian Gulf War I placed us in an ongoing guerilla war in Iraq and Afghanistan, which may become a worldwide conflict before it ends. Our foolish antics over the years have prompted our support for many thugs throughout the 20th century, Stalin, Somoza, Batista, the Shah of Iran, Noriega, Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and many others, only to regret it once the unintended consequences became known. Many of those we supported turned on us or our interference generated a much worse replacement, such as the Ayatollah in Iran. If we had consistently followed the wise advice of our early presidents, we could have avoided the foreign policy problems we face today and, if we had, we literally would have prevented hundreds of thousands of needless deaths over the last century. The odds are slim to none that our current failure in Afghanistan and Iraq will prompt our administration to change its policies of intervention. Ignoring the facts and rigidly sticking to a failed policy, a foolish consistency as our leaders have repeatedly done over the past 100 years unfortunately will prevail, despite its failure and huge costs. This hostility toward principled consistency and common sense allows for gross errors in policymaking. Most Americans believed, and still do, that we went to war against Saddam Hussein because he threatened us with weapons of mass destruction and his regime was connected to the al Qaeda. The fact that Saddam Hussein not only did not have weapons of mass destruction but essentially had no military force at all seems to be of little concern to those who took us to war. It was argued, after our allies refused to join in our efforts, that a unilateral approach without the United Nations was proper under our notion of national sovereignty. Yet resolutions giving the President authority to go to war cited the United Nations 21 times, forgetting the U.S. Constitution that allows only Congress to declare war. A correct declaration of war was rejected out of hand. Now, with events going badly, the administration is practically begging the U.N. to take over the transition, except, of course, for the Iraqi Development Fund that controls the oil and all of the seized financial assets. The contradictions and distortions surrounding the Iraqi conflict are too numerous to count. Those who wanted to institutionalize the doctrine of preemptive war were not concerned about the Constitution or consistency in our foreign policy and, for this, the American people and world peace will suffer. Number eight: Promoting Democracy. An Obsession Whose Time Has Passed. Promoting democracy is now our Nation's highest ideal. Wilson started it with his ill-advised drive to foolishly involve us in World War I. His Utopian dream was to make the world safe for democracy. Instead, his naivete and arrogance promoted our involvement in the back-to-back tragedies of World War I and World War II. It is hard to imagine the rise of Hitler in World War II without the Treaty of Versailles, but this has not prevented every President since Wilson from promoting U.S.-style democracy to the rest of the world. Since no weapons of mass destruction or al Qaeda have been found in Iraq, the explanation given now for having gone there was to bring democracy to the Iraqi people. Yet we hear now that the Iraqis are demanding immediate free elections not controlled by the United States, but our administration says the Iraqi people are not yet ready for free elections. The truth is that a national election in Iraq would bring individuals to power that the administration does not want. Democratic elections will have to wait. This makes the point that our persistence in imposing our will on others through military force ignores sound thinking, but we never hear serious discussions about changing our policy of meddling and empire- building, no matter how bad the results. Regardless of the human and financial costs for all of the wars fought over the past 100 years, few question the principle and legitimacy of interventionism. Bad results, while only sowing the seeds of our next conflict, concern few here in Congress. Jingoism, the dream of empire, and the interests of the military industrial complex generates the false patriotism that energizes supporters of our foreign entanglements. Direct media coverage of the more than 500 body bags coming back from Iraq is now prohibited by the administration. Seeing the mangled lives and damaged health of thousands of our other casualties of this war would help the American people to put this war in proper perspective. Almost all war is unnecessary and rarely worth the cost. Seldom does a good peace result. Since World War II, we have intervened 35 times in developing countries, according to the L.A. Times, without a single successful example of a stable democracy. Their conclusion, ``American engagement abroad has not led to more freedom or more democracy in countries where we have become involved.'' So far the peace in Iraq, that is, the period following the declared end of hostilities, has set the stage for a civil war in this forlorn, Western-created, artificial state. A U.S.-imposed national government unifying the Kurds, the Sunnis, and the Shiites will never work. Our allies deserted us in this misadventure, dumping the responsibility on the U.N., while retaining control of the spoils of war as a policy of folly that can result only in more Americans being killed. This will only fuel the festering wounds of Middle East hatred toward all Western occupiers. The Halliburton scandals and other military industrial connections to the occupation of Iraq will continue to annoy our allies and, hopefully, a growing number of American taxpayers. I have a few suggestions on how to alter our consistently foolish policy in Iraq. Instead of hiding behind Wilson's utopianism of making the world safe for democracy, let us try a new approach. First, the internal affairs and the needs for nation-building in Iraq are none of our business. Our goal in international affairs ought to be to promote liberty and private property, free market order through persuasion and example and never by force of arms, clandestine changes or preemptive war. We should give up our obsession with democracy, both for ourselves and others, since the dictatorship of the majority is just as destructive to a minority, especially individual liberty, as a single Saddam Hussein-like tyrant. Does anyone really believe that the Shiite majority can possibly rule fairly over the Sunnis and the Kurds? A representative republic loosely held together with autonomy for each state or province is the only hope in a situation like this. But since we have systematically destroyed that form of government here in the United States, we cannot possibly be the ones who will impose the system on a foreign and very different land 6,000 miles away, no matter how many bombs we drop or people we kill. This type of change can only come with a change in philosophy and an understanding of the true nature of liberty. It must be an intellectual adventure, not a military crusade. If for no other reason, Congress must soon realize that we can no longer can afford to maintain an empire circling the globe. It is a Sisyphean task to rebuild the Iraq we helped to destroy while our financial problems mount here at home. The American people eventually will rebel and demand that all job and social programs begin here at home before we waste billions more in Iraq and Afghanistan and many other forlorn lands around the world. The Constitution places restraints on Congress and the executive branch so as not to wage war casually and without proper declaration. It provides no authority to spend money or lives to spread our political message around the world. A strict adherence to the rule of law and the Constitution would bring an immediate halt to our ill- advised experiment in assuming the role of world policeman. We have been told that our efforts in Iraq has been worth the 500- plus lives lost and the thousands wounded. I disagree. With great sadness for the families who have lost so much and with so little hope for a good peace, I can only say I disagree and I hope I am wrong. Number nine: Fighting terrorism with big government, a convenience or necessity? Fighting terrorism is a top concern for most Americans. It is understandable, knowing how vulnerable we now are to an attack by our enemies, but striking out against the liberties of all Americans with the Patriot Act, the FBI, or the Guantanamo-type justice will hardly address the problem. Liberty cannot be enhanced by undermining liberty. It is never necessary to sacrifice liberty to preserve it. It is tempting to sacrifice liberty for safety, and that is the argument used all too often by the politicians seeking more power. But even that is not true. History shows that a strong desire for safety over liberty usually results in less of both. But that does not mean that we should ignore the past attacks or the threat of future attacks that our enemies might unleash. First, fighting terrorism is a cliche. Terrorism is a technique or process, and if not properly defined the solutions will be hard to find. Terrorism is more properly defined as an attack by a guerilla warrior who picks the time and place of the attack because he cannot match the enemy with conventional weapons. With too broad a definition of terrorism, the temptation will be to relinquish too much liberty, being fearful that behind every door and in every suitcase lurks a terrorist-planted bomb. Narrowing the definition of terrorism and recognizing why some become enemies is crucial. Understanding how maximum security is achieved in a free society is vital. We have been told that the terrorists hate us for our wealth, our freedom and our goodness. This war cannot be won if that belief prevails. When the definition of terrorism is vague and the enemy pervasive throughout the world, the neo-conservatives who want to bring about various regime changes for other reasons conveniently latch onto these threats and use them as the excuse and justification for our expanding military presence throughout the Middle East and the Caspian Sea region. This is something they have been anxious to do all along. Already plans are being laid by neo-conservative leaders to further expand our occupations to many other countries, from Central America and Africa to Korea. Whether it is invading Iraq, threatening North Korea or bullying Venezuela or even Russia, it is now popular to play the terrorist card. Just mention terrorism and the American people are expected to grovel and allow the war hawks to do whatever they want. This is a very dangerous attitude. One would think that with the shortcomings of the Iraqi occupation becoming more obvious every day more Americans would question our flagrant and aggressive policy of empire building. The American people were frightened into supporting this war because they were told that Iraq had 25,000 liters of anthrax; 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin; 500 tons of sarin, mustard, and VX nerve gas; significant quantities of refined uranium and special aluminum tubes used in developing nuclear weapons. The fact that none of this huge amount of material was found and the fact that David Kay resigned from heading up the inspection team saying none will be found does not pacify the instigators of this policy of folly. They merely look forward to the next regime change as they eye their list of potential targets, and they argue with conviction that the 500-plus lives lost were worth it. Attacking a perceived enemy who had few weapons, who did not aggress against it and who never posed a threat to us does nothing to help eliminate the threat of terrorist attacks. If anything, deposing an Arab Muslim leader, even a bad one, incites more hatred towards us, certainly not less. This is made worse if our justification for the invasion was in error. It is safe to say that in time we will come to realize that our invasion has made us less safe and has served as a grand recruiting tool for the many militant Muslim groups that want us out of their countries, including the majority of those Muslims in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan and the entire Middle East. Because of the nature of the war in which we find ourselves, catching Saddam Hussein or even killing Osama bin Laden are almost irrelevant. They may well simply become martyrs to their cause and incite even greater hatred toward us. There are a few things we must understand if we ever expect this war to end. The large majority, especially all the militant Muslims see us as invaders, occupiers, and crusaders. We have gone a long way from home and killed a lot of people, and none of them believe it is to spread our goodness. Whether or not some supporters of this policy of intervention are sincere in bringing democracy and justice to the region, it just does not matter. No one over there believes us. This war started a long time before 9/11. That attack was just the most dramatic event of the war so far. The Arabs have fought Western crusaders for centuries, and they have not yet forgotten the European Crusades centuries ago. Our involvement has been going on to some degree since World War II but was dramatically accelerated in 1991 with the Persian Gulf War invasion and with the collapse of the Soviet system. Placing U.S. troops on what is considered Muslim holy land in Saudi Arabia was pouring salt in the wounds of this already existing hatred. We belatedly realized this and have removed these troops. If these facts are ignored, there is no chance that the United States-led Western occupation of the oil-rich Middle East can succeed. Seventy percent of the world's oil is in the Persian Gulf and Caspian Sea regions. Without a better understanding of the history of the region, it is not even possible to define the enemy, know why they fight or understand the difference between guerilla warrior attacks and vague sinister forces of terrorism. The pain of recognizing that the ongoing war is an example of what the CIA calls blowback and an unintended consequence of our foreign policy is a great roadblock to ever ending the war. Number ten: Judicial review. Respect for the original intent of the Constitution is low in Washington. It is so low it is virtually non-existent. This causes much foolish inconsistency in our Federal courts. The Constitution, we have been told, is a living, evolving document; and it is no longer necessary to change it in the proper manner. That method is too slow and cumbersome, it is claimed. While we amended it to institute alcohol prohibition, the Federal drug prohibition is accomplished by majority vote by the U.S. Congress. Wars are not declared by Congress but pursued by executive orders to enforce U.N. resolution. The debate of the pros and cons of the war come afterwards, usually following the war's failure, in the political arena rather than before with the proper debate on a declaration of war resolution. Laws are routinely written by unelected bureaucrats with themselves becoming the judicial enforcement authority. Little desire is expressed in Congress to alter this monster that creates thousands of pages each year in the Federal Register. Even the nearly 100,000 bureaucrats who now carry guns stir little controversy. For decades executive orders have been arrogantly used to write laws to circumvent a plodding or disagreeable Congress. This attitude was best described by a Clinton presidential aide who bragged, ``Stroke of the pen, law of the land, kinda cool.'' This is quite a testimonial to the rule of law and constitutional restraint on government power. The courts are no better than the executive or legislative branches in limiting the unconstitutional expansion of the Federal monolith. Members of Congress, including committee chairmen, downplay my concern that proposed legislation is unconstitutional by insisting that the courts are the ones to make such weighty decisions, not mere Members of Congress. This was an informal argument made by House leadership on the floor during the debate on campaign finance reform. In essence, they said, we know it is bad, but we will let the courts clean it up. And look what happened. The courts did not save us from ourselves. Something must be done, however, if we expect to rein in our ever- growing and intrusive government. Instead of depending on the courts to rule favorably when Congress and the executive branch go astray, we must curtail the courts when they overstep their authority by writing laws rubber-stamping bad legislation or overruling State laws. Hopefully, in the future we will have a Congress more cognizant of its responsibility to legislate within the confines of the Constitution. There is something Congress by majority vote can do to empower the States to deal with their first amendment issues. It is clear that Congress has been instructed to write no laws regarding freedom of speech, religion or assembly. This obviously means that Federal courts have no authority to do so either. Therefore, the remaining option is for Congress to specifically remove jurisdiction of all first amendment controversies from all Federal courts, including the Supreme Court. Issues dealing with prayer, the Ten Commandments, religious symbols or clothing or songs, even the issue of abortion are properly left as a prerogative of the States. A giant step in this direction could be achieved with the passage of my proposed legislation, We The People Act. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, Emerson's real attack was on intellectual conformity without a willingness to entertain new ideas based on newly acquired facts. This is what he referred to as a ``foolish inconsistency.'' The greatest open-minded idea I am aware of is to know that one does not know what is best for others, whether it is in the economic, social or moral policy or in the affairs of other nations. Believing one knows what is best for others represents the greatest example of a closed mind. Friedrich Hayek referred to this as a pretense of knowledge. Governments are no more capable of running the economy made fair for everyone than they are of telling the individual what is best for their spiritual salvation. There are a thousand things in between that the busybody politicians, bureaucrats, and judges believe they know and yet do not. Sadly, our citizens have become dependent on government for nearly everything from cradle to grave and look to government for all guidance and security. Continuously ignoring Emerson's advice on self-reliance is indeed a foolish consistency which most of the politicians now in charge of the militant nanny state follow, and it is an armed state, domestic as well as foreign. Our armies tell the Arab world what is best for them, while the armed bureaucrats at home harass our own people into submission and obedience to every law and regulation, most of which are incomprehensible to the average citizen. Ask three IRS agents for an interpretation of the Tax Code and you will get three different answers. Ask three experts in the Justice Department to interpret the anti-trust laws and you will get three different answers. First, they will tell you it is illegal to sell too low. Then they will tell you it is illegal to sell too high, and it is certainly illegal if everybody sold products at the same price. All three positions can get you into plenty of trouble and blamed for, first, undermining competition; second, for having too much control and gouging the public; and, third, for engaging in collusion. The people cannot win. Real knowledge is to know what one does not know. The only society that recognizes this fact and understands how productive enterprise is generated is a free society, unencumbered with false notions of grandeur. It is this society that generates true tolerance and respect for others. Self-reliance and creativity blossom in a free society. This does not mean anarchy, chaos or libertine behavior. Truly, only a moral society can adapt to personal liberty. Some basic rules must be followed and can be enforced by government, most suitably by local and small government entities. Honoring all voluntary contractual arrangements, social and economic, protection of all life, and established standards for private property ownership are the three principles required for a free society to remain civilized. Depending on the culture, the government could be the family, the tribe, or some regional or State entity. The freedom philosophy is based on the humility that we are not omnipotent but also the confidence that true liberty generates the most practical solution to all our problems, whether they are economic, domestic security, or national defense. Short of this, any other system generates authoritarianism that grows with each policy failure and eventually leads to a national bankruptcy. It was this end, not our military budget, which brought the Soviets to their knees. A system of liberty allows for the individual to be creative, productive, or spiritual on one's own terms, and encourages excellence and virtue. All forms of authoritarianism only exist at the expense of liberty. Yet the humanitarian do-gooders claim to strive for these very same goals. To understand the difference is crucial to the survival of a free society.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I intend to vote for H.R. 743, the Social Security Protection Act, because it contains an important provision that was not included in previous versions of this bill. This provision takes a first step toward ensuring that non-citizens who are unauthorized to work in the United States do not receive Social Security benefits. Giving Social Security benefits to illegal immigrants is a slap in the faces of Americans who pay their entire working lives into the Social Security system and now face the possibility that there will be nothing left when it is their turn to retire. This is why, at the beginning of the 108th Congress, I introduced legislation, the Social Security for American Citizens Only Act (H.R. 489), which ensures no non-citizen can receive Social Security benefits. Therefore, I am pleased to see Congress beginning at last to address this issue. However, I wish to make clear my continued opposition to a provision in the bill that removes the only means by which many widowed Texas public school teachers can receive the same personal Social Security benefits, as does every other American. As I am sure my colleagues are aware, widowed public school employees in Texas, like public employees throughout the nation, have their spousal Social Security benefits reduced if they receive a government pension. The Government Pension Offset even applies if the public employee in question worked all the quarters necessary to qualify for full Social Security benefits either before or after working in the public school system. The Government Pension Offset punishes people for teaching in public schools. However, current law provides widowed Texas public school teachers a means of collecting a full Social Security spousal benefits. Unfortunately, this bill takes that option away from Texas teachers. I have twice voted against H.R. 743 because of my strong opposition to the provision removing the only way Texas teachers can avoid the Government Pension Offset. Instead of repealing the only means Texas teachers have of avoiding the Government Pension Offset, Congress should pass H.R. 594, the Social Security Fairness Act that repeals both the Government Pension Offset and the Windfall Elimination Provision, another provision that denies public employees full Social Security benefits. Congress should also be encouraging good people to enter the education profession by passing my Teacher Tax Cut Act (H.R. 613) that provides every teacher with a $1,000 tax credit, as well as my Professional Educators Tax Credit Act (H.R. 614), which provides a $1,000 tax credit to counselors, librarians, and all school personnel. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I will support H.R. 743 because it restricts the ability of illegal immigrants to raid the Social Security Trust Fund. However, I remain opposed to the provision that punishes teachers by denying them Social Security benefits for which they would be eligible if they were not teachers. Instead of punishing teachers, Congress should be enacting pro-teacher legislation, such as the Social Security Fairness Act and the Teacher Tax Cut Act.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, there is plenty of blame to go around for the mistakes made in going to war in Iraq, especially now that it is common knowledge that Saddam Hussein told the truth about not having weapons of mass destruction and that al Qaeda and 9/11 were in no way related to the Iraqi Government. The intelligence agencies failed, for whatever reason this time, but their frequent failures should raise the question of whether or not this secret spending of $40 billion annually of the taxpayers' money is a good investment. The administration failed in making the decision to sacrifice so much life and limb by plunging us into this Persian Gulf quagmire that will surely last for years to come. But before the Congress gets too carried away with condemning the administration or the intelligence gathering agencies. It ought to look to itself. A proper investigation and debate by this Congress, as we are now scrambling to accomplish, was warranted prior to any decision to go to war. An open and detailed debate on a declaration of war resolution would certainly have revealed that the U.S. national security was not threatened and the whole war could have been avoided. Because Congress did not do that, it deserves the greatest criticism for its dereliction of duty. There was a precise reason that the most serious decision made by a country, the decision to go to war, was left by our Constitution, to the body closest to the people. If we followed this admonition, I am certain that fewer wars would be fought, wide support would be achieved for the sacrifices, there would be less political finger-pointing when events go badly, and blame could not be placed on one individual or agency. This process would more likely achieve victory, which has eluded us in recent decades. The President has reluctantly agreed to support an independent commission to review our intelligence gathering failures and that is good. Cynics said nothing much would be achieved by the commission studying the pre-9/11 failures but it looks like some objective criticisms will emerge from that inquiry. We hope for the best in this newly named commission. But we already hear that the inquiry will be deliberately delayed, limited to the failure of the agencies, and may divert into studying intelligence gathering related to North Korea and elsewhere. If the inquiry avoids the controversy of whether or not there was selective use of the information or undue pressure put on the CIA to support a foregone conclusion to go to war by the administration, the inquiry will appear a sham. Regardless of the results, the process of the inquiry is missing the most important point, the failure of Congress to meet its responsibility on the decision to go or not go to war. The current mess was predictable from the beginning. Unfortunately, Congress voluntarily gave up its prerogative over war and illegally transferred this power to the President in October of 2002. The debate we are now having should have occurred here in the halls of Congress on a declaration of war resolution. Indeed, the Congress chose to transfer this decisionmaking power to the President in order to avoid the responsibility of making the hard choice of sending our young people into harm's way against a weak Third World country. This the President did on his own, with Congress' acquiescence. The blame game has only emerged now that we are in a political season. Sadly, the call for and the appointment of the commission is all part of this political process. It is truly disturbing to see many who reneged on their responsibility for declaring or rejecting war in Congress by voting to give the President the power he wanted are now his harshest critics.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, much has been written lately about several attempts to craft an alternative peace plan in the decades-old Israeli- Palestinian dispute. The best-known of these recent plans, the Geneva Initiative, was conceived and written by representatives of both sides of the conflict but without the involvement of governments or politicians. As such, it is a fresh approach that should provide a lesson to those who continue to believe that peace is something that can only be crafted by government officials or bribed or bullied by the international community. We do know this: After decades of conflict and tens of billions of U.S. tax dollars spent, U.S. Government involvement in the Israeli- Palestinian peace process has led nowhere. The latest U.S. Government- initiated plan for peace, the road map, appears to be a map to nowhere. This does not surprise me much. With a seemingly endless amount of money to bribe the two leaders of the two opposing sides to remain engaged in the process, is it any wonder why the two parties never arrive at peace? But people on both sides are becoming more and more frustrated at the endless impasse and endless government and bureaucrat-written peace agreements that go nowhere. That is why plans like this should be of such interest. Initially conceived by an obscure Swiss professor, the project was joined by former Israeli Justice Minister, Yossi Beilin, former Palestinian Authority Information Minister, Yasser Abed Rabbo, and by other prominent officials like former President Jimmy Carter. The negotiations led to the creation of a 50-page detailed accord. I do not know whether the product is perfect. I have not studied the minute details of the proposal. But what I do know is that politicians, governments, and special interests promote war at the expense of those who have to fight them. Wars end when the victims finally demand peace, and that is what we are beginning to see. According to one recent survey, a majority among both the Israeli and Palestinian populations support this new initiative. That is encouraging. To his credit, President Bush has demonstrated an open mind toward this alternative approach. He declared the Geneva Initiative ``productive'' and added that the United States ``appreciates people discussing peace.'' Secretary of State Colin Powell echoed the President when he resisted hard-line pressure to ignore the proposed accord stating, ``I have an obligation to listen to individuals who have interesting ideas.'' This is also encouraging. Predictably, though, this new approach is not as welcomed by those governments, politicians, and special interests who have a stake in dragging out the process indefinitely. Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat has been lukewarm at best. Extremist Arab organizations who have a special interest in continuing the violence have also rejected the Geneva Initiative. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has rejected the initiative out of hand. Said Mr. Sharon, ``Geneva is an attempt to do something only a government can do.'' But the point is that governments have little incentive to finally end conflicts such as these. The United States is in places like Kosovo and Bosnia indefinitely in the name of peacekeeping and peace processes. The same will be true of our involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is not until foreign involvement ceases, that means our continued meddling in the Middle East, and the people directly involved demand peace, do real working solutions begin to emerge. The Geneva Initiative is therefore a positive step toward peace in the Middle East. Let us step back and get out of the way.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise with great concerns over the Intelligence Authorization Conference Report. I do not agree that Members of Congress should vote in favor of an authorization that most know almost nothing about--including the most basic issue of the level of funding. What most concerns me about this conference report, though, is something that should outrage every single American citizen. I am referring to the stealth addition of language drastically expanding FBI powers to secretly and without court order snoop into the business and financial transactions of American citizens. These expanded internal police powers will enable the FBI to demand transaction records from businesses, including auto dealers, travel agents, pawnbrokers and more, without the approval or knowledge of a judge or grand jury. This was written into the bill at the 11th hour over the objections of members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which would normally have jurisdiction over the FBI. The Judiciary Committee was frozen out of the process. It appears we are witnessing a stealth enactment of the enormously unpopular ``Patriot II'' legislation that was first leaked several months ago. Perhaps the national outcry when a draft of the Patriot II act was leaked has led its supporters to enact it one piece at a time in secret. Whatever the case, this is outrageous and unacceptable. I urge each of my colleagues to join me in rejecting this bill and its incredibly dangerous expansion of Federal police powers. I also have concerns about the rest of the bill. One of the few things we do know about this final version is that we are authorizing even more than the president has requested for the intelligence community. The intelligence budget seems to grow every year, but we must ask what we are getting for our money. It is notoriously difficult to assess the successes of our intelligence apparatus, and perhaps it is unfair that we only hear about its failures and shortcomings. However, we cannot help but be concerned over several such failures in recent years. Despite the tens of billions we spend on these myriad intelligence agencies, it is impossible to ignore the failure of our federal intelligence community to detect and prevent the September 11 attacks. Additionally, it is becoming increasingly obvious that our intelligence community failed completely to accurately assess the nature of the Iraqi threat. These are by any measure grave failures, costing us incalculably in human lives and treasure. Yet from what little we can know about this bill, the solution is to fund more of the same. I would hope that we might begin coming up with new approaches to our intelligence needs, perhaps returning to an emphasis on the proven value of human intelligence and expanded linguistic capabilities for our intelligence personnel. I am also concerned that our scarce resources are again being squandered pursuing a failed drug war in Colombia, as this bill continues to fund our disastrous Colombia policy. Billions of dollars have been spent in Colombia to fight this drug war, yet more drugs than ever are being produced abroad and shipped into the United States-- including a bumper crop of opium sent by our new allies in Afghanistan. Evidence in South America suggests that any decrease in Colombian production of drugs for the US market has only resulted in increased production in neighboring countries. As I have stated repeatedly, the solution to the drug problem lies not in attacking the producers abroad or in creating a militarized police state to go after the consumers at home, but rather in taking a close look at our seemingly insatiable desire for these substances. Until that issue is addressed we will continue wasting billions of dollars in a losing battle. In conclusion, I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting this dangerous and expensive bill.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the ultimate cost of war is almost always the loss of liberty. True defensive wars and revolutionary wars against tyrants may preserve or establish a free society, as did our war against the British. But these wars are rare. Most wars are unnecessary, dangerous and cause senseless suffering with little being gained. Loss of liberty and life on both sides has been the result of most of the conflicts throughout the ages. The current war, in which we find ourselves, clearly qualifies as one of those unnecessary and dangerous wars. To get the people to support ill-conceived wars the nation's leaders employ grand schemes of deception. Woodrow Wilson orchestrated our entry into World War I by first promising in the election of 1916 to keep us out of the European conflict, then a few months later pressured and maneuvered the Congress into declaring war against Germany. Whether it was the Spanish-American War before that or all the wars since, U.S. presidents have deceived the people to gain popular support for ill-conceived military ventures. Wilson wanted the war and immediately demanded conscription to fight it. He didn't have the guts to even name the program a military draft and instead in a speech before Congress calling for war advised the army should be ``chosen upon the principle of universal liability to service.'' Most Americans at the time of the declaration didn't believe actual combat troops would be sent. What a dramatic change from this early perception when the people endorsed the war to the carnage that followed and the later disillusionment with Wilson and his grand scheme for world government under the League of Nations. The American people rejected this gross new entanglement reflecting a somewhat healthier age than the one in which we find ourselves today. But when it comes to war, the principle of deception lives on and the plan for ``universal liability to serve'' once again is raising its ugly head. The dollar cost of the current war is already staggering yet plans are being made to drastically expand the human cost by forcing conscription on the young men (and maybe women) who have no ax to grind with the Iraqi people and want no part of this fight. Hundreds of Americans have already been killed and thousands more wounded and crippled while thousands of others will suffer from new and deadly war-related illnesses not yet identified. We were told we had to support this pre-emptive war against Iraq because Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and to confront the al Qaeda. It was said our national security depended on it. But all these dangers were found not to exist in Iraq. It was implied that those who did not support this Iraqi invasion were un-American and unpatriotic. Since the original reasons for the war never existed, it is now claimed that we're there to make Iraq a western-style democracy and to spread western values. And besides, it's argued, that it's nice that Saddam Hussein has been removed from power. But does the mere existence of evil somewhere in the world justify preemptive war at the expense of the American people? Utopian dreams, fulfilled by autocratic means, hardly qualifies as being morally justifiable. These after-the-fact excuses for invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation directs attention away from the charge that this war was encouraged by the military industrial complex, war profiteering, control of natural resources (oil) and a neo-con agenda of American hegemony with a desire to redraw the borders of the countries of Middle East. The inevitable failure of such a seriously flawed foreign policy cannot be contemplated by those who have put so much energy into this occupation. The current quagmire prompts calls from many for escalation with more troops being sent to Iraq. Many of our reservists and National Guardsmen cannot wait to get out and have no plans to re- enlist. The odds of our policy of foreign intervention, which has been with us for many decades, are not likely to soon change. The dilemma of how to win an unwinnable war is the issue begging for an answer. To get more troops, the draft will likely be re-instituted. The implicit prohibition of ``involuntary servitude'' by the 13th Amendment to the Constitution has already been ignored many times so few will challenge the constitutionality of the coming draft. Unpopular wars invite conscription. Volunteers disappear, as well they should. A truly defensive just war prompts popular support. A conscripted, unhappy soldier is better off on the long run than the slaves of old since the ``enslavement'' is only temporary. But on the short run, the draft may well turn out to be more deadly and degrading as one is forced to commit life and limb to a less than worthy cause-- like teaching democracy to unwilling and angry Arabs. Slaves were safer in that their owners had an economic interest in protecting their lives. Life endangerment for a soldier is acceptable policy and that's why they are needed. Too often though, our men and women who are exposed to the hostilities of war and welcomed initially are easily forgotten after the fighting ends. It is said we go about the world waging war to promote peace and yet the price paid is rarely weighed against the failed efforts to make the world a better place. But justifying conscription to promote the cause of liberty is one of the most bizarre notions ever conceived by man. Forced servitude with risk of death and serious injury as a price to live free makes no sense. By what right does anyone have to sacrifice the lives of others for some cause of questionable value? Even if well motivated it cannot justify using force on uninterested persons. It's said that the 18-year-old owes it to his country. Hogwash. It could just as easily be argued that a 50-year-old chicken-hawk who promotes war and places the danger on the innocent young, owe a heck of a lot more to the country than the 18-year-old being denied his liberty for a cause that has no justification. All drafts are unfair. All 18- and 19-year-olds are never needed. By its very nature, a draft must be discriminatory. All drafts hit the most vulnerable as the elitists learn quickly how to avoid the risks of combat. The dollar cost of war and the economic hardship is great in all wars and cannot be minimized. War is never economically beneficial except for those in position to profit from war expenditures. But the great tragedy of war is the careless disregard for civil liberties of our own people. Abuse of German and Japanese Americans in World War I and World War II is well known. But the real sacrifice comes with conscription--forcing a small number of young vulnerable citizens to fight the wars that old men and women, who seek glory in military victory without themselves being exposed to danger, promote. These are wars with neither purpose nor moral justification and too often are not even declared by the Congress. Without conscription, unpopular wars are much more difficult to fight. Once the draft was undermined in the 1960s and early 1970s, the Vietnam War came to an end. But most importantly--liberty cannot be preserved by tyranny. A free society must always resort to volunteers. Tyrants think nothing of forcing men to fight and die in wrongheaded wars; a true fight for survival and defense of one's homeland I'm sure would elicit, the assistance of every able-bodied man and woman. This is not the case for wars of mischief far away from home in which we so often have found ourselves in the past century. One of the worst votes that an elected official could ever cast would be to institute a military draft to fight an illegal war, if that individual himself maneuvered to avoid military service. But avoiding the draft on principle qualifies oneself to work hard to avoid all unnecessary war and oppose the draft for all others. A government that's willing to enslave a portion of its people to fight an unjust war can never be trusted to protect the liberties of its own citizens. The end can never justify the means no matter what the Neo-cons say.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this ill-conceived and ill- timed bill. I would like to remind my colleagues that according to our own Constitution, Congress is prohibited from making any law ``respecting the establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof.'' Yet are we not doing that today--albeit in a country some 10,000 miles away? Why on earth are we commending one particular church in Vietnam in the name of ``religious freedom''? At the risk of being blunt, what business is the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam of the United States Congress? The answer, of course, is that this legislation is of a much more political than a religious nature: this bill tells the Vietnamese government how it should enforce its own constitution, commits the United States government to promoting religious freedom in Vietnam, and tells the U.S. embassy staff in Vietnam to ``closely monitor'' religious issues in Vietnam. It is an attempt to meddle in the affairs of Vietnam and force them to adopt the kinds of laws we think they should have. Mr. Speaker, as much as we value our own religious liberty, we must realize that setting the example of the benefits of a society that values such liberty is much more effective than demanding that other countries pass the kinds of laws we want them to pass. The unintended consequences of this otherwise well-meaning legislation is that relations with the Vietnamese government will likely suffer, making it less likely that Vietnam's leaders look favorably upon our own history of religious liberty.

Mr. PAUL

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this legislation but want to make it clear that I am not doing so because I oppose religious freedom, as one might falsely conclude from the way this bill is crafted. My concerns with this bill are the same concerns I raise whenever Congress attempts to act in areas in which it has no constitutional authority: under the guise of promoting a laudable cause--religious freedom--this legislation seeks to impose our views of this topic on other sovereign nations. In short, it is yet another example of the U.S. meddling in the affairs of other countries. Mr. Speaker, as Americans we have a special attachment to the idea of religious freedom. That is the reason many of our ancestors came to this land and fought for independence. But I don't think the way to advance religious freedom around the world is to demand that every country adopt our approach. I believe that so demanding will only engender ill-will toward the United States and, ironically, increased resistance to this idea. People generally to not like being told by foreign countries what to do or how they can worship. I believe the best way we can promote the idea of religious liberty abroad is to serve as a working, living example of the benefits of liberty. The United States has been admired historically in other countries because our system of government demonstrates the economic and other benefits of liberty. That is why other nations seek to emulate the United States, not because we demand that their religious laws conform to our notions of what is acceptable.